Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19821025 684 MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 1982 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, October 25, 1982, at 7:00 P.M., in the Lincoln Center Board Room, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and Commissioners Norm Gustaveson, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit. Chairman Whitted altered the agenda- in order to accommodate Mr. Joe Nassif, architect for the County Jail. E, ITEMS FOR BOARD DECISION 6. a Order # 31: Mr. Thompson, County Manager, told the Board this change order was to decide whether to amend the existing contract to include removal of plaster from the walls of the old jail and to sandblast the brick in two upper rooms. Commissioner Marshall moved to approve the Manager's recommendation; upon clarification (i.e., the Manager makes no recommendation in this case) she withdrew her motion. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the jail change order # 3 for $1,150, to remove the plaster from the walls and to sandblast the brick and paint the walls. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. A. BOARD COMMENTS: There were no Board comments. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: There were no audience comments. C. MINUTES: The Board chose to consider these at the end of the meeting. D. REPORTS 1. Pro erty Tax Appeals: Mr. Kermit:Lloyd, Tax Supervisor, told the Board there were no clear cut weaknesses in the County's Property Tax Revaluation conducted in 1982. He said all cases appealed to the NC Property Tax Commission had been adjudicated except one..and the one remaining only involved a $300 barn 'and therefore, would not significantly affect the total .evaluati.on. 2. Tax Appraisal on Lots With Unsuitable Soils or Lie Within the Flood lain. The Board received a written report on the .above topic (See pages f—/2 of this book). Commissioner Willhoit thanked Staff for compiling the information he had requested. 3. Lower Eno Reservoir Site: The Board received a written report on the Lower Eno River Reservoir site as a follow up to the meeting on August 23, 1582. Commis- sioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to delete the Lower Eno lRiver Reservoir site from the Water Resources Task Force Recommendation #' 4 as a i 68 1 potential reservoir.site for the County. Commissioner Gustaveson noted that this action, if passed, would place the Board's policies iii Tine with the Planning Board's recommendation regarding this site. Several Commissioners, during the discussion which followed, summarized the reasons why this site is considered unsuitable; 1) the majority of the site is actually in Durham County; 2) it's more expensive due to the long distance to Hillsborough and the water would have to be pumped up-hill; 3) the poor quality of water expected; 4) and there are several sites more suitable within Orange County. Commissioner Willhoit noted that the report prepared by Planning Staff in response to the Boards request of August 23, 1982, for research on the feasibility of this reservoir site summarized information that had been presented to the Water Resource Task Force; however, he continued, since the site was not included among those suitable for development, this . .information was not included in the Task Force Report. Commissioner Willhoit concluded that it was now appropriate for the reservoir site to be excluded.by the Commissioners based on the information (i.e. the report prepared by the staff; on file with this agenda). Ms. Josephine Barbour, a citizen., said there had not been sufficient public input regarding this question. Some Board members disagreed with her, saying it was information that had been "thoroughly discussed." Vote: Ayes, 4 (Commissioners Gustaveson, Marshall, Whitted and Willhoit); noes, I (Commissioner Walker). Commissioner Willhoit asked that Staff prepare an addendum to'the Water Resources Task Force Report citing the reasons the Eno River Reservoir site was. excluded.as.a potential reservoir site for the County. E. BOARD DECISIONS 1. Hud.Management Review: The Manager told the Board that the Chapel Hill Housing Authority, through its Chair, Mr. Tom Heffner, had asked for a two week delay before action on this matter; Mr. Thompson said that HUD was agreeable to a thirty day extension of the deadline. Commissioner Marshall suggested that the Board consider this issue at the meeting on November 22, 1982. 2. Water and Sewer Extension Policy: The Manager told the Board this policy h:` been rewritten under the County Attorney's direction and two alternative methods of financing were presented for the Board's. consideration. (A copy of this draft water and sewer extension policy is on file with the agenda attachments for this meeting.) Mr. Thompson continued, saying that the method of financing seemed to be the major - point of disagreement; the two options presented are: 1) the tax credit approach; 2) repayment of fund approach. Some Board members felt that more flexibility was needed so that the County could negotiate with various companies; others felt that the question was not so much competitivness with other counties as what Orange County could afford to do. Mr. Thompson said in his research among other counties and municipalities, most had a "fund" but it was subject to availability of money for projects-: Additional comments by the Board included a desire to see 1) the number of_ people to be employed; 2) if the industry were clean; 3)' higher than average wages; and, 4) the number of Orange County residents to be employed (i.e. those not to be brought in from outside). Commissioner Willhojt suggested that the "beginning point be that the money advanced"for water or sewer lines extension be repaid and the factors mentioned above could sway the County in that regard. The Board asked that.the Man.ager. c.heck into the ownership question of the lines once built and to investigate with the water/sewer providers in the County pro- visions they have for extension of lines and tap on fees. This item is to be returned to a later agenda. 7. Proclamation--November 15-21 Children's Book Week: Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, to proclaim November 15-21, 1982, Children's Book Week in Orange County. (That Proclamation is on page 7 If of this book.) Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. 3. Proposed Zoning Text Amendments: Commissioner Gustaveson, moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to place the proposed zoning text amendments dealing with Sections 6.16.6.1; 6.16.6.2 and 6.16.12 on the agenda for the .Public Hearing on November 22, 1982. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes,''O. 4. Dumont Drive Participatory Paving petition: Commissioner Gustaveson moved to accept the petition to add Dumont Drive to the Participatory Paving Program; Com- missioner Walker seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. (See pages 21-aL of this book for a copy of the petition.) 5. Tax Refund Requests:- Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to approve the tax refund requests (see page of this book for names and amount) as recommended by the Tax Supervisor. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. The Manager announced to the Board that County Tax Supervisor Lloyd had scored the highest of any person in the history of the Institute of Government on ' the exam for certification of Tax Supervisors. Mr. Lloyd received a round of applause and congratulations from the Board for his achievement. C1 q I I 8. Budget Amendments. Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner' Marshall, to approve the budget amendments (see pagedolft of this book). Vote. ' Ayes, 5; noes, 0. _ 9. Title III-B and In Home Aging Contract with Triangle J Council of Governments: Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, to approve the contract for services for the Title• III-B and In-Home Aging Services with Triangle J. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. C. MINUTES: Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson,, ta• approve the minutes of July 6, 1982, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5.; noes, 0. Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, to approve . the minutes.of'August 2,, 1982, ,as corrected. Vote: gyes,' S.; noes, 0. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted,.to approve the minutes of August 17, 1982, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, to approve the minutes of October 4, 1982, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to approve the minutes of October 7, 1982, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, to appr::­.;� , the minutes of October 11, 1982, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to correct. the approved minutes of September 7, 1982, as advised by the County Attorney. Vote: Ayes, 4;.(Commissioners Marshall, Walker, Whitted and Willhoit); noes, 1 (Commissioner Gustaveson). With no further business to come before the Board, Commissioner Gustaveson . moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to adjourn. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes,'O. Richard E. Whitted, Chair Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk