HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19761005The County Attorney stated that he would investigate the matter
of contributing monies to educate the public regarding the School
Bond Referendum.
The meeting was then adjourned.
\~
Flora R. Garrett, Chairman
Agatha Johnson, Acting Clerk
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OCTOBER 5, 1976
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session
on Tuesday, October 5, 1976, at 7:30 p.m., in the Commissioners'
Room of the Courthouse in Hillsborough.
Commissioners present were Chairman Flora Garrett, Commissioners
Norman Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, Richard Whitted, and Norman Walkex'.
Others present were S. M. Gattis, County Manager, Neal Evans,
Finance Director, Jeffrey Gledhill, County Attorney, and Agatha
Johnson, Acting Clerk.
Chairman Garrett opened the meeting by stating that the meeting
had been called to discuss water resources in Orange County and the
County's role and involvement in developing water resources.
She stated that the Board had, prior to this meeting, asked the
County Attorney to give the Board a legal opinion regarding funding
of educational data regarding the upcoming School Bond Election and
the Board would hear from him at this time.
Mr. Gledhill stated that from research he had discovered that
there is no State or Case Law in North Carolina governing this ques-
tion of whether or not the County could contribute funds to a group
appointed by the County to publicize or educate the public concerning
the bond issue.
Mx. Gledhill sited a case in New Jersey in which the Court stated
that it is a valid expenditure of funds to educate the voters so that
they might cast an intelligent ballot. Based on this New Jersey case,
it is his opinion that the County could donate funds for this purpose.
He stated that there were no restrictions on the means used to publi-
cize this information as long as this information is not promoting a
viewpoint. He recommended that line by line or item by item of the
data published be reviewed to make sure no promoting is involved.
Discussion ensued concerning describing the :need. The County
Attorney stated that you could point out the need within the system
and how that need could be ratified.
Commissioner Pinney stated that as soon as a copy of the forms
were put together, they could be reviewed by the County Attorney to
be sure they were educational and not promotional.
The Board agreed to discuss a proposed Animal Ordinance for
Orange County. Commissioner Pinney stated that he would like the
Board to talk about a dog ordinance which would allow the Dog Warden
to pick up stray dogs. He stated the Ordinance should be researched
with the County Attorney, the Dog Warden and the Gounty Manager.
Discussion ensued regarding the proper method of formulating an
Ordinance.
Commissioner Gustaveson stated that he felt Mr. Boggs should
outline the major points of concern. He stated that part of the
problem was that we do not have all the State Statutes collated
into a simplified two or three page brochure which will dictate
what the Dog Warden can and can not do.
... The Board agreed that Mr. Boggs should meet with Mr. Gattis and
list his concerns.
By consensus, a Committee of Mr. Gledhill, the Ceunty Attorney,
Mr. Gattis, the_County Manager, the Dog Warden, Cashe Boggs, and
Commissioner Pinney was appointed to meet, and using the State
Statutes and the Durham County Animal Ordinance as a model, work out
a proposed Animal Ordinance for the County. The Committee was re-
_. quested to report to the Board on the third Tuesday in November.
The Chairman stated that the County had been interested in water
resources for many years and had taken steps to accomplish certain
objectives. The County had built Lake Orange, and had acquired cer-
tain properties in the Seven Mile Creek area. This meeting is to
bring to front the question of the County developing Seven Mile Creek
and Cane Creek as a total water resource proposal for the entire
County, that would insure adequate water supply for years to come.
Mrs. Garrett recognized John Pridgen from Rose, Pridgen and
Freemen, Tnc. of Chapel Hill.
Mr. Pridgen stated that Seven Mile Creek was the largest possible
impoundment of water in northern Orange County. He presented a map
of the proposed lake and dam site, and stated that all the property
had been surveyed except the Lloyd property. He stated that whatever
point the Commissioners wish to move ahead, they are in a position to
do so with the continued purchase of land. He informed the Board that
this particular lake had been thought of as a secondary water supply.
That there would be no direct connection with a filter plant, although
a plant could be added. The lake would contain two billion gallons of
water. One draft, based on statistics proposed for Seven Mile Creek,
showed a yield of seven and one-half million gallons per day.
Discussion ensued. Chairman Garrett inquired as to whether or
not any document had been prepared regarding the cost of developing
Seven Mile Creek.
Mr. Pridgen replied that some initial calculation had been done
and could be put into a report without a great deal of work. He stated
that sediment pools are proposed for the upper tributories which would
be included in the project. He informed the Board that the land and
the area around Seven Mile Creek was relatively undeveloped. The
water quality is good and that runoff from 2-85 was no problem because
the area is above 2-85.
Discussion ensued regarding the cost of construction and land pur-
chase. Commissioner Gustaveson inquired about the feeder streams of
Seven Mile Creek. Mr. Pridgen replied that there was a 13.7 square
mile drainage area.
Chairman Garrett stated that compared to Seven Mile Creek, Cane
Creek weuld have a thirty mile drainage area. It would hold three
billion gallons of water and the cost roughly would be nine million
dollars, which included land, construction, pumping station, trans-
mission main and engineering. This is based on a 1975 preliminary
report and these are rough estimates.
It was pointed out that while Seven Mile Creek would be considered
a secondary water source now, it may eventually be a primary water
source depending on the growth of the County.
Further discussion ensued concerning the recreational possibilities
around the lake area.
The County Manager stated that the County's attention was called
to Seven Mile Creek through a report done by Triangle J in 1967 which
was to identify the most attractive water impoundment in the County.
Mr. Quentin Patterson spoke of possible funding of Seven Mile
Creek for sediment structures and flood plains through RC&D.
Gene Owens, Soil Conservationist spoke of the funding through
RC&D for recreation in the Seven Mile Creek area.
Chairman Garrett, a member of the Orange Water-Sewer Authority
stated that there were engineers presently working on the proposed
Cane Creek Reservoir. She stated again that Cane Creek would have a
300 billion gallon reservoir which would be 16 miles west of Chapel
Hill. The water would be pumped from Cane Creek along Hwy. 54 to
Phil's Creek where i.t would flow by gravity into University Lake.
At the outset, this will be. a secondary water supply, however, there
could be a treatment plant built at Cane Creek. Cane Creek will
have a potential yield of ten million gallons per day. _
Mrs. Garrett stated that if the Board was interested in develop-
ing Cane Creek as a water source, the Board needed to meet with the
Authority as soon as possible. She stated that she felt the same
should be done at Seven Mile Creek as at Cane Creek which is to build
the impoundment and what else is needed would be built by those using
the water. She stated that the Board needed to decide if it wants to
go into water resources.
Commissioner Gustaveson stated that he felt the Board should
think ahead, but he would like to have figures to justify development
of Seven Mile Creek.
Chairman Garrett agreed, stating that the Board needed to know
the yield, the use now by Hillsborough and Alamance-Orange, the antici-
pated growth, the industrial growth and the population projection. She
emphasized protecting the County's resources now. To identify them and
plan for them before they are needed..
Commissioner Gustaveson stated that he felt a first step would be
to commission an updated study of Seven Mile Creek including answering
the questions presented tonight i.n the document. He suggested that the
Planning and Recreation Departments be involved in the study.
Commissioner Pinney stated that he felt if the Board got involved
in water resources, they should develop both Cane Creek and Seven Mile
Creek at the same time.
Commissioner Walker stated that the Board needed to take a look at
the total inequities of municipalities using the water and the people
outside the municipalities paying for the service.
Commissioner Gustaveson recommended that the Board update the data
of Seven Mile Creek and that the document include cost.
Mr. Pridgen suggested that his firm prepare a proposal within the
next two weeks and incorporate the ideas as stated here tonight into
the proposal.
The County Manager was requested to obtain comments from the
Recreation Aepartment regarding the Recreation Study conducted several
years ago and that these comments be included in the proposal.
Commissioner Whitted pointed out that if the Board addressed the
whole question of total development of County-wide water resources,
the benefits of looking at it, planning and construction at an early
date are set against what it would cost at some future year and would
have to be taken into consideration. He stated that he felt the
Board should meet with the Water-Sewer Authority as soon as possible.
The Board agreed to meet with the Authority on October 28th in
the Commissioners' Room at the Courthouse.
Chairman Garrett stated that for the record it was a consensus of
the Board that the County should begin moving on water resources in the
County.
The meeting was adjourned.
~\~sW
Flora Garrett, Chairman
Agatha Johnson, Acting Clerk