HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1976051141~c
The Board resolved a number of appeals, heard at earlier 1976 ses-
sions by appropriate orders reducing the 1976 valuations appealed by
J. Herbert Holland (Chapel Hill Township, Tax P4ap 95,Block A, Parcels
7-10,12,14,15-18) from $348,800 to $307,600; reducing the valuation
appealed by J. Herbert Holland (Chapel Hill Township, Tax Map 81,
Block B, Parcel 3A) from $7,900 to $1,700; reducing the valuation
appealed by Vincent E. Mason (Chapel Hill Township, Tax Map 41D, Block
C, Parcel 2) from $44,100 to $40,400; reducing the valuation appealed
for Alderman, Inc. (Chapel Hill Township, Tax Map 45, Block C, Parcel
3) from $1,869,900 to $1,792,000; reducing the valuation appealed by
William Hopewell (Hillsborough Township, Tax Map 12, Block C, Parcel
12) from $42,000 to $25,400; reducing the valuation appealed by Michael -.
W. Strayhorn (Eno Township, Tax Asap 27A, Block B. Lots 1,2) from $6,100
to $3,600 for Lot 1, from $6,900 to $4,700 for Lot 2; reducing the valu-
ation appealed by James R. Farlow (Chapel Hill Township, Tax Map 112A,
Parcel 15) from $1,000 to $800; confirming the 1976 valuation to $63,1D0
appeal by N. J. Covington (Chapel Hi11 Township, Tax Map 27, Block E,
Parcel 11); confirming the assessment appealed by Larry B. Colic (chapel
Hill Township, Tax Map 111C, Lots 1-25); reducing the valuation appealed
by the Heritage Hills Recreation Club, Inc. (Chapel Hill Township, Tax
Map 120C, Block C, Parcel ll) from $109,500 to $78,300.
The Board recessed to reconvene May l8, 1976.
Flora R. Garrett, Chairman
William T. Laws
Tax Supervisor
MINUTES OF THE ORANGE COUtdTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
May 11, 1976
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session
on Tuesday, May ll, 1976, in the Superior Courthoom to discuss with
residents and the Ena River Task Force a proposal for a Policy Statement
an the Eno River.
Commissioners present were Chairman Flora Garrett, Norman Gustave-
son, Jan Pinney, Richard Whitted, and Norman Walker.
Others present were S. M. Gattis, County Manager; Neal Evans, Fiscal
Officer; Jeff Gledhill, County Attorney; and Betty June Hayes, Clerk to
the Board.
Chairman Garrett was presented a Contract for housing rehabili-
tation with the Triangle J Council of Governments_ This proposal
was reviewed by the Board of Commissioners some two months ago.
Ricky Poole, Administrative Officer with the Social Services Depart-
ment informed the Board that the Contract had not been changed.
Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner
Whitted, the Chairman was authorized to sign the Contract for housing
rehabilitation with the Triangle J Council of Governments.
All members of the Board voted aye and the Ohairman declared the
motion passed.
Mrs. Garrett informed the Board that the EMS Council had requested
that the Beard have lunch with them on May 19th.
Chairman Garrett stated that now was the time for the schedule dis-
cussion concerning the Eno River and its environs.
The Board agreed that the best way to proceed was a session of dis-
cussion between the Commissioners and the Task Force.
The Chairman asked if there were any questions that the Commissioners
wished to ask the Task Force or anyone had questions to be answered.
Commissioner Walker moved that the Lang report be adopted. This
motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. B. B. Olive, Chairman of the Eno River Task Force asked whether
this Board does or does not wish to go on record as approving as a matter
of policy the preservation of the Eno and its environs, and once that
policy is settled by this Board another broader question should be addressed,
that of whether this Board does or does not with to adopt a question with
regard to public access to the Eno River and its environs. Another area
of thought is goals and whether this Board wishes to take a position as to
the possession of additional park land within the Compeunds of Orange
County by the State or the County.
Dr. Lang, a member of the Task Force stated that the primary issue is
the issue of condemnation as a means of acquiring land. This is the key
and had caused the conflict in the County. Dr. Lang stated .that
in answer to question that were raised earlier, he would like to make the
following statement.
One question raised was implementation or protection of the land. Dr.
Lang referred to Mr. Whi~ted's proposal which stated that a Planning Board
would be named to initiate temporary zoning provisions that would limit
certain kinds of destructive development within the Eno River basin for a
limited period of time which would allow time for a development of a plan.
Dr. Lang inquired how will you develop a large enough board; haw will
you get the money to finance this sort of planning.
Dr. Lang suggested that the money saved by limitation of growth will
eventually return many fold the investment of money in planning. He stated
that another means of acquiring money would be through the RC & D funds and
that the Planning Department might apply for these funds to develop a
stronger Planning Department within Orange County to address the problem of
preserving the Eno.
Chairman Garrett stated that she would like to see this started right
away and that RC & D funds take time to secure.
Dr. Lang said that in reply to Mr. Olive's comment concerning the need
for additional parklands in North Carolina, that Mr. Olive's figures were
based on late 1960 and early 1970 figures. Dr. Lang filed with the Board
a graph which he had prepared relative to parkland and population.
Chairman Garrett asked Commissioner Whitted if he would present to those
present his Proposal for Policy Statement on the Eno River. Commissioner
Whitted stated that the proposal was taken from both reports of the Eno
River Task Force and addressed the essential issues which had caused con-
. troversy. He stated further that he basically started out with the set
out guidelines for the Task Force and has addressed those issues and has
provided a policy statement for the Board to consider and possible adopt.
Commissioner Whitted referred to Section I of the Palicv Statement and
discussion ensued as the definition of environs of the Eno River.
The Board agreed that the Environs of the Eno would be define in the
master plan.
After a lengthy discussion, Dr. Lang suggested that the first portion
of Section T of the Policy Statement be changed to read "The Eno River
and the environs, necessary for conservation of the botanical, fish life,
wild life, and most important water supply characteristics is of sufficient
interest and importance to the enhancement of the .quality of life for the
citiaens of Orange County and this region to be preserved in perpetuity."
Mr. Whitted and the Board agreed to this change.
Mr. Whitted continued with Section II of the Policy Statement.
By what means (concrete, practical and effective) can the Eno River and
its environs in Orange County be preserved in perpetuity?
In Subsection A of Section II, Stewart Barber, a member of the Task
Force, requested that the word• perpetuity be omitted since further on in
the proposal the usage of words "given number of years" was used.
Commissioner Walker suggested that the change should read "whose use shall
be restricted for preservation of the river."
414
After further discussion, it was agreed to change Subsection A
under Section II to read as follows: "Private ownership of lands whose
land shall be restricted for the preservation of the river."
The third paragraph under subsection B, Section II, known as the
condemnation paragraph brought about considerable discussion.
Mr. Barber urged the Board to take a firm stand and address the
issue of condemnation of the Eno. He spoke against condemnation of
lands as a means of preserving the Eno River and its environs.
Mr. Whitted reminded the people that preservation of the Eno
was the theme, and that if a park, was developed on the Eno, it would
be from willing sellers and donors and his proposal would allow for
other means of protection of the River through restrictive convenants.
He stated further that condemnation would be used as a preservation tool
and for the expansion of the park.
Dr. Lang requested that a positive statement be used in this para-
graph such as "condemnation should not be used for the purpose of ex-
pansion of the Eno River Park. Landowners who wish to retain possession
of their land have the option of adopting preservation methods to be
outlined later in the report, and landowners who have adopted these
methods, that you specifically require the State not to threaten .the
landowners with condemnation who have adopted preservation means.
However, landowners had the right to reject any of these, if he does
so, he does not bring down any additional threats."
Commissioner Gustaveson stated that there were two parts to this
proposal as well as in the reports of the Eno River Task Force. (1)
The State and the development of the Eno River State Park; and (2) the
County and the development of a new set of supplementary regulatory
majors in view of the preservation in the area. The need is to put
the two documents together to emphasize a preservation plan. He
stated further that this proposal would have to go before the State
Planning people to see if they will cooperate and coordinate the plans.
The Policy formulated here tonight and assuming that the State goes
along with the method that landowners work out their own methods of
a preservation plan. In this sense, it would be a mutual agreement
with the State.
Commissioner Whitted and the Board agreed to re-work the
third paragraph of Subsection B to read "Adversary ( or unfriendly)
condemnation should not be used for the purpose of expanding the Eno
River Park. In cases where private owners do not wish to sell to the
State, then strict adherence to local zoning and land use regulations
become essential to maintain the preservation theme."
Jeff Gledhill, County Attorney stated that the policy statement
cowld not impair the State's power of condemnation which is granted
by the legislature.
Dr. Lang inserted that what the County adopted would be highly
considered by the people in Raleigh.
Commissioner Whined continued with the policy statement.
The only other change in the Policy Statement occurs in the fourth
paragraph of Subsection B. Section II, which states "every effort
should be made to work out solutions through local planning staffs
in cooperation with the Division of State Parks."
Don Cox, a member of the Eno River Task Force spoke in favor
of the Eno River State Park.
Commissioner Walker stated that there were many items in the
proposal that were confusing and Mr. Walker moved that the Board
officially adopt the Lang Report. This motion died for lack of a
second.
Commissioner Pinney stated that he agreed with much in the Lang
Report, however, he felt that the Board should attempt to get a 5 - 0
vote on the proposal if possible. He stated further that he would
like to reach an agreement that would be suitable to everyone.
Commissioner Whitted moved that the concept of this proposal
be adopted with the changes as so stated.
~a~s ~
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Pinney.
Commissioner Gustaveson stated that he was willing to accept
the concept of the policy statement, that it stated clearly two
essential issues (1) that it must be a joint effort between the
State and the County in developing planning fox the preservation
of the area. He stated that it also affirms that one mechanism is
the Eno State Park for preserving the area. Mr. Gustaveson stated
that he was not happy with some section of the proposal, but he
was willing to support the policy statement.
Chairman Garrett stated that there needed to be a clarification
between the upper Eno and the lower Eno, the Lower Eno in regard
to zo ning interim measures.
Mr. Barber asked what additional remarks might be brought up
later?
Commissioner Gustaveson replied matters that pertain to the
creating of a new position in our Planning Department and the
expansion of the Planning Board to develop a master plan of the
area.
The question was called.
The Chairman called for the vote.
All members of the Board voted aye.and the Chairman dedlared the
motion passed.
The Chairman referred to a letter received from P2r. Olive
regarding the official status of the Eno River Task Force. She then
declared the Task Force as desolved. The Chairman expressed the
appreciation of the Board of Commissioners for two fine reports and
many izours of hard work.
Mr. Barber requested permission to add to the exhibits from time
to time. This permission was granted.
For copy of-Eno River Proposal, see Eno River File in Commissioners
Office.
Mrs. Garrett informed the people that the Energy Task Force wou~.d
be presenting an energy report next and invited the people to stay
for that report.
Chairman Garrett recognized Joe Straley, Tom Dannelly, Chan
Barksdale, Robert Nutter, Karl Markuson, and Dan Koenigshafer of
the Energy Conservation Task Force.
The report was presented in a panel form with P2r. J'oe Straley
acting as moderator.
PSr. Straley asked Nir. Donnelly to present the larger view of
energy use problems. Mr. Donnelly pointed out that we have from
15 to 25 years supply of oil and natural gas. North Carolina is a
state that uses much energy in its economy, however, the State pro-
duces little or no energy. The best the State can do is to follow
an energy conservaticn course.
The next reporter, Chan Barksdale, spoke about residential energy
comsumption in Orange County. The biggest energy user is heating
which if followed by air conditioning. The average family spends
about $1,200. per year for heating, air conditioning and transpor-
- tation.
Robert Nutter dealt with agricultural energy. In Orange County,
agriculture endeavors consume about 2.6~ of our total energy dollar.
This compares favorable with the natural average which is also 2.6$.
Karl P4arkuson spoke of energy consumption in our schools. Our
schools have over 1,000,000 square feet of classroom space. Our
annual energy bill for this is over $300,000. Including transporta-
tion energy then the total bill is over $400,000. or about $40. per
student.
Dan Koenigshafer spoke of energy use in local government. He nre-
4~s
sented graphs that illustrated energy consumption of the various
government buildings in Orange County. Now that this information is
available, the next step is to identify the buildings that seem to
have energy problems and review the use o£ their problem structures
to see what improvements can be made.
In summary, Mr, Straley pointed out that the rapidly increasing
cast of energy will begin to regulate energy comsumption. He sug-
gested that any government should create an energy accounting system.
Should rethink its transportation policies, should plan the con-
struction of the new building carefully. Further, the County should
employ an energy conservation agent to review all county energy uses,
Commissioner Gustaveson suggested that the Board of Commissioners
consider the recommendation of the Task Force that suggests that the
County hire an energy conservation agent during its budget deliberation.
This concluded the report of the Energy Task Force.
The Chairman then called the Board of Commissioners into Executive
Session tp consider a bid far acquisition of the University's Water
System.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Board of Commissioners reconvened from Executive Session and
Commissioner Gustaveson moved that the Board submit a bid for the
University's Water System as reviewed in the Executive Session.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Pinney.
All members of the Board voted aye.
The Chairman declared the motion passed.
The meeting was then adjourned.
~d-e.Q• ~o~~
Flora R. Garrett, Chairman
Betty June Hayes, Clerk
~~;~
~ag~ ~
' Agenda Attachments Item Nwnber 7_~,
May 3, 1976
ORANGE COUNTY II
1975-76 PROPOSED BUDGET ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
The 1975-76 Budget Ordinance of Orange County as adapted on June 18, 1975,
and subsequently amended, is'hereby amended as follows: •
Change the appropriation for the following line items in the funds indicated:
.- INCREASE
FUND - ITEM (DECREASE TO TOTAL
School Current Expense: - - .
County Additions _ 201,178 • 697,982
Drivers Ed. 6,83D 23,283
School Capital Outlay:
County Additions 55,009 -374,274 •
Change the revenues and fund balances estimated to be available to meet-the .
foregoing appropriations in the funds indicated:
INCREASE
FUND - RE50URCE (DECREASE) TO ~l'OTAL •
School Current Expense:
Refunds 208,008 580,413
Schaal Capital Outlay: •
Refunds 55,009 73,35$ -
Adopted this the ~ day of l Cr c. ;-• 1976. •
~~~
Page 6
' Agenda Attachments Item Number 7-H
May 3,. 197b
ORANGE COUNTY
1975-76 PROPOSED BUDGET ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
The 1975-76 Budget Ordinance of Orange County as adop~ed an June 18, 7975,.
and subsequently amended,:is hereby amended as follows:
Change the appropriation for the following line items in the funds indicated:
- INCREASE
FUND - ITEM '(DECREASE _ ''f0 TOTAL
General Fund:
Community Development ~ 30,012 30,012
Social Services:
'.Administration- Personnel 5,000 395,000
Title XX- Geriatric Daycare 21,746 21,746
Title XX- FPG-Childcare 186,305 i$6,305
Ti tie XX- Daycare Health - 9,002 _ 9,OD2 .
Change the revenues and fund balances estimated, to be available to meet the
foregoing appropriations in the funds indicated:
INCREASE
FUND - RESOURCE (pECREASE) 70 TOTAL
General Fund:
Community Development
Social Services:
Title XX- Federal Share
Title XX- Lacal Share
State Aid to Administration
Adopted this the -~~ ~~~
30,012 30,012
214,803 231,35}
3,500 _ ~ 8,127
3,750 488,095
day of ~~-c-~ 7976.
/ ~•av
~J -
415
Page 7 I
Agenda Attachments Item Nutnoer 7-C -
Nfay 3, 1976
ORANGE COUNTY
. ..-. 1975-76 PROPOSE^ BUDGET ORDINANCE -
AMENDMENT
D
The 1975-76 Budget Ordin
ance of Orange County as adopted on
June 18, 1975,
and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows:
Change the appropriation for the following line items in the funds indicated:
INCREASE
FUND -ITEM • ''(DECREASE) TO TOTAL
General Fund:
• ,Sanitation-Equipment (6,933) 57
Sanitation-Bwildings 6,933 6,933
Revenue Sharing:
• Garage Building (10,070) 49,930
Garage & Pound Sites ~ 21,527 31,527
Green Boxes (4,351.) 20,649
Sanitation Truck (5,106) 46,894
Site Preparation .(Z,ODD) 0
Adapted thi s the - '- ;~ day of J~~ f~.~ 1976.
. ~. •
NORTH CAROLINA
AEPARTMr.NT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Aivision of Social. Services
CERTIFICATION. OF Pi1BI,xC FUNAS
Th a eu certifies that 2 250
s~gency amount
in dash or certified public expenditures is available for the period
.7anuary O1 , 19 75 through June 30 , 19 76
and that it will be used to provide „ Health Sugoort,_,_ ~, ,
services is bran a Count It is further certified that
geographic area
the fly],], amount of funds ind=sated here3.n i.s eligible to be used as mate$
far appropriate Federal funds.
1 , Authorized Representative
Dot
O~anoe County Board Af Conlmj„ggj,oners
Agency
i
DSS-1320 (9-75)
Contract S;rvices
• . -. . -.
y ..y F M
NORTH CAROLINA
IIEPARTMFSIT OF HUMAN RESOIIRCES-
Ilivisian of Social Services
,DONATION ACiREEI~NT
The Ora e.Coun ,agrees to donate to 'the
donor
Ora a Count $2 250 to
specify DSS amount
be matched to the fullest extent possible with appropriate Federal funds
and to be used far HealtlL ~ ~ -
service in Ora C n The donation is far the
geographic area
period Janua _1~17ri through June 30 ,~, X9~_,
and will be made earl beginning , 19 3~.
(H~Q, etc.
DSS Representative Donor Signature
Date Date
DSS_1319 (9-75)
Contract Services
X22 ~ - -
,~ ..,.,_. ..~...~ .._.,_~_.._...~~....v_..~.~_._~ - - `."~.". 11'urcha: a Program
I.D. t~ur~ber
. State of tdorth Carolina '
Department of Hunan Resources
Division of Sccial Services
COUPtTX BOARD APP801(AL
This is to certify that on A - 1 2 , 19 75~ , . _ , the
... [?ramie ____ _ County Board of Social Services, in official session,.
approved the Purch.;,se oY Services Agreement Da Care Health Su crvision
name of service program
with District Health De artment
(pravidcr
~ Aate ~ ~~a.,c. or Secretary
CL...'2TIF'ICATIpY OF N0:(-DIIPLICATIO:;
This is to certify that the above-referenced program dace not duplicate
existing service(s) and will be part of an integrated local human service
delivery system.
~~
~~ lC ~~ ~ ter ~~. --L._.._ ~~ ~ ` .
_._ ~t~~ - ._ . __, , .
County 1}irector of~$ocial Services
- Cha3xrran of the County Commissioners or
Their Designee, ar Agency Executive
Secuxirg the Contract
Date Rate -
AsS.-167.8 (9-75)
Contract Services
~ e
• ~ NORTH Ct-ROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESaUiCES
Division of Social Services
CII3TIF'YCATION. OF PUBLIC FUNDS
~ a certifies that 2 250
agency amount
in cash or certified pub]a.c expenditures is available. for the period
January O1 , 19 75 through. June 30 , 19 76
and that it wr3.11 be used to provide Health 5unnort „_, ,"_, „_,
services•an Aran a Count It 3s further certified that
geographic area
the f1~11 amount of funds indicated here3.n is eligible to be used as match
for apprapriate.Federal funds.
Dat Authorized nepxesentative
Oxanoe County Boa+sd of Commissien~rg
.Agency
DSS-132o (9-75)
Contract S~rvices
~~~
a..ro..e _.c.~.rtiyrr
teaY.en~
t:S 1 a,. ~ a ea t it~ i'a t`ai i ~A ¢,.. 63 ],., ~, :Z A
~ ~'•- r
-~ ~ ~ ~,
x . % .~ •• .yam ms`s. _` ~ +~~ ~~ ..~:ti'
.w..er.q . n•new -
s.rs.. rK :.--r~er
0~ Thy ~?'C'~KY
?~~i hc- E.~o-•Y, Ca
- --- ._o..-_.
~:~ ~xo..
1.
_~W _~ - -
p~ ry.py~i v~ _•-•
~.-
µ~
~1
~ :.3 r
- <' , ; t
j - _ ._
i ~H 1_
P
"1• ~_
p. _L ~
~e~~
r '~ ~
F~U1'alT'AIN ®4~ TF'l E ®i1lE HIJPaI~~I~C]
bear County Chairman:
~~ - .; ~~f
a t ~ ~ ~ r ~ _~~ -
.,
,~ -
s
~~
The North Carolina Bicentennial Plaza between the Capitol and the
Legislative Building will be dedicated on July 1, 1976. As our foxemost
Horizons project, the plaza is an addition to the quality of life for the
state and a lasting reminder of .our state's growth. The Plaza is a
per_nanent memorial to our nati.an's founding. The Plaza is a gift from the
General Assembly to the people of North Carolina, and is the largest
legislatively funded project in the United States.
The design of the Plaza reflects the heritage and the spirit of our
state. Each of the one hundred counties will be featured by a bronze plaque
on the FOUNTAIN OF THE ONE HUNDRED, the focal point of the Plaza,. The 9x12
plaques by the Graphicon Company are bronze pebble texture with a one-inch
smooth beveled border, They were recommended by the project architect, Dick
Bell, of Bell Design Group Landscape Architects, The design is simple and in
keeping with the style and quality of the Plaza. Each plaque will contain
xaised letters to indicate the name of the county and it's entry into the
federation of the state: YOUR COUNTY, CDUNDED ~~. /?7~/`~
At our last state meeting the response to this idea was indeed favorable.
The plaques will enable each county to contribute to the Plaza as a lasting
reminder of theiz participation in the Bicentennial. While we have arranged
for the largest portion of the costs of the Plaza, our budget situation does
not permit us to purchase the county plaques. I appreciate your cooperation
in contributing your county plaque at a cost of $75.00.
Please make your check payable to the N,C. Wept. of Cultural Resources.
I ?snow that you are proud of your county's history, and will be pleased to
see your plaque when you visit your Capitol. School children from your
county will be especially excited, We are looking forward to your participation.
Sinc ly,
~~
Dick E. Ellis
Director