HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19830207 MINUTES
FEBRUARY 7, 1983
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday,
February 7, 1983, at 10:00 A.M. in the Commissioners' Room, Orange County Court-
house, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Commissioners present: Richard E. Whitted, Chair, and Commissioners Ben Lloyd,
Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit.
A. BOARD COMMENTS
Commissioner Whitted announced that agenda item 5 (Lease on Drivers` License
Space) was not ready for Board consideration; he added that due to a misunderstanding
regarding dates, the Board needed to change the date of the joint meeting with the
Boards of Education from February 14th to February 21st. Commissioner Walker moved,
seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to reschedule the joint meeting with the Chapel
Hill-Carrboro and Orange County Boards of Education to February 21st at 6:00 P.M.
, for the purpose of discussing capital projects. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
• Judge Stanley Peele thanked the Board for the new carpet in the Clerk of Court's
0
, Offices and thanked the Board and the Manager for including the judiciary in discussion
of the Court Facilities needs.
• C. MINUTES
• The Board asked that the minutes of January 18, 1983, be returned at the sub-
sequent meeting.
D. COURT FACILITIES REPORT
Mr. Robert E. Giles, Research and Planning Division of the Administrative Office
.of the Courts, summarized his written report, "Court Facilities in Orange County," (a
copy of that report is on file with the agenda file for this meeting). The Board thanked
,Mr. Giles and asked that he be provided a copy of the County's study of court needs
it
.done by Mr. Joseph Nassif in 1976. Judge Patricia Hunt, Mr. Andy Little, past President
,of the Orange County Bar Association, and Mr. John Stewart, current President of the
,Orange County Bar Association, concurred in the opinion that the present District
,Courtroom is inadequate. Judge Hunt and Mr. Stewart added that all court facilities
,including the Register of Deeds and Clerk of Courts' offices should be centralized.
,Judge Peele agree 41—h those concerns and a-'_' contiinue io war:
,with the Count., the spac.c issue satisfactorily.
o -
E. BOARD DECISIONS
1. Kerlin ton Subdivision: Mr. Eddie Kirk of the Planning Staff made the
presentation to the Board. He noted that part of this subdivision was within the
' city limits of Durham which already gave approval for the project. Commissioner
Lloyd moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to approve the Planning Board's
recommendation to approve this subdivision with the conditions imposed by the Planning
' Board. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
2. Zoninj Text Amendment%: Mr. Kirk reviewed each proposed amendment with
the Board. Following discussion of the individual amendments, Commissioner Lloyd
moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve the Planning Board recommendation
on each proposed amendment except for Section 6.16.612 (g) which was referred back
to the Planning Board for further discussion. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. (See pagesl4r-
,4,�5'lo of this book for specific amendments as adopted this date.)
3. PIN Resolution: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall
• to adopt the PIN Resolution effective February 1, 1983, as recommended by Mr. Roscoe
Reeve, Land Records Manager. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. (See page Z15 T of this book
• for the Resolution as adopted.)
4. Property Taxes/Tax Lien Sale: Mr. John Horner, Tax Collector, told the Board
• that unpaid taxes as of January 31, 1983, were as follow: County, $975,769.64;
• Chapel Hill, $278,006.05; Carrboro, $86,199.73; Hillsborough, $25,208.68 for a total
of $1,365,184.10.
• Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to set date of the tax
• lien sale for June 6, 1983, as recommended by the Tax Collector. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
• 6. III-B Application Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner
Willhoit, to approve the submission of an application to Triangle J COG for Title
III-B Older Americans Act Funds in the amount of $67,841.00. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
• 7. Indirect Cost Plan: Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd,
• to approve a contract between the County and David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd., for
• the preparation of the Indirect Cost Plan. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
• 8. Budget Amendments: Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall, to approve the budget amendments as recommended by the Manager. Vote:
• Ayes, 5; noes, 0. (See pages of this book for those amendments, attached to and
• 9. Appointments:
• Orange County Planning Board: Commissioner Walker nominated Frank Pearson and
0
Mike Woods to this Board. Commissioner Willhoit nominated George Allison
while Commissioner Marshall nominated Alice Gordon and Sharlene Pilkey for reappointment.
Commissioner Walker moved to close the nominations; Commissioner Marshall seconded.
Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
The Board voted by ballot and the results are as follow:
Pilkey--3 (Commissioners Marshall, Whitted and Willhoit)
Allison--3 (Commissioners Marshall, Whitted and Willhoit)
Gordon--3 (Commissioners Marshall , Whitted and Willhoit)
Woods--2 (Commissioners Lloyd and Walker)
Pearson--5
Therefore Sharlene Pilkey and Alice Gordon were reappointed for three year
terms to the Planning Board; George Allison and Frank Pearson were appointed for
three year terms. The Clerk was instructed to notify these individuals of their
appointment.
Nursing Home Advisory Council: Commissioner Marshall nominated Joan Rogers
, (for her second term) and Eugene Brandt to this Council . Commissioner Willhoit
,moved to appoint Ms. Rogers and Mr. Brandt; Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion.
,Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
Energy Commission: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall,
to appoint Daniel Read as the Chapel Hill representative to the Energy Commission, as
recommended by the Town of Chapel Hill . Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to appoint
DRichard Crume to the Energy Commission. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
Personnel Advisory Council: Commissioner Willhoit moved the reappointment of
Carol Cantrell and Johnnie Leon Peace to two year terms on this Council . Vote: Ayes,
,5; noes, 0.
Health Board: Commissioner Whitted announced that he had been notified of Mr.
0
James Boyd's resignation from the Board of Health. The Clerk was instructed to advertise
this position.
Mebane Board of Adjustment: The Board was informed that this position had been
,advertised at least twice and there were no applicants.
D Economic Development Commission: There was a consensus to delay the appointments
to this Commission until the other entities had made their recommendations. Additionall
D
there was a consensus to interview the top candidates for this Commission.
• The Town. of Mebane has declined to participate in the Economic Development Commis-
sion and the Manager was asked to investigate the consequences of this decision on
•t;,r :Hake up of the Commission.
T::,- uoard recessed for lunch and resumed deliberations with all members present
T
as indicated at the beginning of this meeting.
F. REPORTS-
3. Agricultural Task Force Implementation Committee--In order to accommodate
Ms. Elizabeth Walters, Chair of this Committee, the Board considered this item prior
to the other,reports. (See page 4" of this book for the abstract on this report.)
Following Ms. Smith's report the Board set March 26th as the date for the public
hearing on the Implementation Committee's recommendations.
E-1.0 BUDGET CALENDAR AND*GUIDELINES: Finance Director Wallace Harding presented
the Manager's proposed budget preparation calendar to the Board. The Board told Mr.
' Harding there were a number of "unknowns" this year, including State and Federal .
budgets, and asked that the Manager consider and incorporate as many of those "unknowns"
as possible into his proposed budget.
F. REPORTS-
' 1. Capital Im rovements Plan: Mr. Harding presented the County's five year
' CIP to the Board (See page q d of this book for that Capital Improvements Plan
' attached to and part of these Minutes). The Board asked that Mr. Harding include
' additional columns incorporating the CIP as budgeted this fiscal year and as
' as subsequently amended by Board action. The amended CIP is to be returned to the
' Board at the meeting on February 15th.
2. Community Development Block Grant: Community Development Director Albert
' Kittrell presented a report on the objectives of the CD program. He asked three
' questions: 1) Should the County apply for a CD grant; 2) if so, which communities
'should be targeted; and, 3) should there be an economic development component in
the grant? The Board asked that Mr. Kittrell , with the CD Task Force, identify specific
' needs and return to the Board with specific recommendations.
With no further business to come before the Board it adjourned by consensus.
Richard E. Whitted, Chair
'Paulette Pridgen, Clerk
e
BO.?RD O? CCx-LtSSIONERS Action Agars
AMON ;Z-r_-NTI]A II I t�5`IT4'�CT
NITLtiG Q�TE
2/7/83
Subj ; Kerlington Subdivision
Panning PVblic HearEq: yes X
Attachrte+lt(s) Checklist pg. 1 �nfox�tzcn G=t=ct" Marvin Collins
Tax Map pg. 2, Plan Ph=ie NA=b-_=: 732-8181 EXT. 349
PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Kerlington Subdivision
Property is located in Chapel Hill Township on SR 1717 (Kerley Road). There
are 10 lots proposed in Orange County, the remainder are located in Durham
County, with a total of 23 lots in the subdivision. The proposed roads
are to be constructed to NC Department of Transportation standards. The
average lot size in Orange County is 1.88 acres. This tract is located in
the Eno Rural Fire District.
IMPACT: The proposal meets the existing standards for lot size and is bordered by other
residential and wooded land. This tract is designated Rural Buffer in the
Land Use Plan and development with the lot sizes proposed would have minimal
impact.
e
3COMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval
MAJOR SUBDIVISION CHECItLIST
OWNER OR DEVELOPER Dr. Max Schebel
i NMJE OF.SUBDIVISION Kerli ',
ADDRESS
Durham, N. C. ;
T MAP g -BLOCK .
LOT 29 Fire District Eno Rural
Tol"NS111P Chapel Hill AX
NAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER Rufus G, Coulter Land Planner 4712 Seterra Bend ' Durham
N N. C.
Total number of lots io (orange Count be developed in
1 phase(s), Total number of acres 15.5
Typical dwelling units at present 1 Single Family or proposed Single Family X
Community Individual Oran e
wATER• SUPPLY: Public(name) Individual Septeic tank X SCH TRICT g
SEL4AGE TREATMENT:,Public Community
x or Private Class A B C -
t717 Road Standardl Public Historic Sites ( }, Other ( ), Explain:
Access onto State Road fi _ � X Blood rove areas ( )� •
Existing critical areas such as streams { ), F
Land uses in the general area:
Recommended Changes ( x )
SKETCId PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 12/31/82 Approved (REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date)
PRELIMINARY.PLAN RECEIVED (Date) i!?183 Erosion Control Officer_
:3 Preliminary Review by Health Department Department.of Transportation
Board of EducaCion 1f12�83 oWASA .(if possible) ,
-Mebane (if possible)
Other =Hillsborough (if possible)
-orangefAlamance (if possible)
Preliminary Action by'the Planning Board,
Preliminary Action by the- County Commissioners
FINAL FLAT RECEIVED (Date)- -
( ) All lots were approved by I e-IIealth Department'
( ) Lots failing Health• Departments approval are combined or listed properly on the plat
Approve'
{ ) Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where aFFlond,e
lett rof credit, cash. Date
( } Improvements have been provided'for,applicable) onealltplans & specifications. Data
( ) Final OWASA approval {where
Final DOT approval on plat
Final action by the Planning Board
231N H 1
3.25 AC: -
2.7 cos a4
o
r` x5319
83.4
AC. i t —' -
1 r` o k9c C. 25
9575 N
Si -
i
I 1
Cti, 3 14 11
20 0 l 261
u ;
W
r
5525 2B
55 2 AC O
�! v
= - ti
�
31 5616 o!
11 '^ 843 -_
JC. (JAS-'
3456 ,
E CC
828
9346
0 @C
v
32.55 AC. IZ92AC v
5943.
85o2 +5:
C��E Cou—N 6Y
BQ?RD CC CaOUSSIC 55 Action Aqar4a
AC=M P•-MMIIk T_=1 18.5'1 ACT
r
=-G rRTE -February 7 1983
Proposed text changes to the Zoning ordinance
Planning Pub] Haarz2ig: yes
AttaclM'1t(S) = Text Amendments Ixifc='� C=tOJ:r6-- Marvin Collins
Ph=2e NL'�5: 732-8181 - EXT. 349
PpRPQSE: To receive Planning Board recommendations on proposed changes to the Zoning
ordinance.
The following sections are proposed to be amended or modified:
2.1,4- Add the appeal process for Class A special use permits
2.3.3.4- Clarify the notice requirements for Board of Adjustment cases.
6.7- Add requirements for accessory structure setbacks in residential
districts.
6.16.62- Add requirements for accessory structures to be used in home
occupations on lots less than 200,000 square feet.
7.10- Clarify the restrictions on permitted uses in planned developments.
8.4-8.5 Clarify the application procedures for special uses.
Article 22 Add definitions for low, medium and high traffic counts.
Proposed amendments were taken to Public Hearing on November 22, 1983.
L ACI: The proposed changes will clarify the zoning text, make review of development
proposals simpler and the administration of the ordinance easier.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommendations are as follows:
Section 2.1..4 - approval
Section 2.3.3.4 - approval
Section 6.7 denial
Section 6.16.612.g) approval
Section 7.10 approval
Section 8.4.2, 8.4.3, 8.4.5 delay action on this section to allow
staff to rewrite section
Article 22 Definitions - add the words on average after the word
generate in each of the definitions.
The Planning Staff recommends approval.
rr 2.1.4 Appeal of Board of County Co -is'sioners Action
f Every decision concerning a Class A Special Use Perm-.it
shall be subject to review at•thie-instance of any aggrieved
barty by the Superior Court by proceedings in the nature of
cgrtiorati. The appeal to the Superior Court must be fl e
within 30 days of the filing'of the decision of the Hoard �.
by the• Zoning_Officer in his office or the deliverv_of the
notice of the decision to the applicant whichever is later.
Appeal of decisions by the Board since the adoption of the
Zoning Ordinance on Seote,aber2., 1981 shall be made within
.30 days_ of the adoption of this amendment �..
2.3.3.4 The Board shall give notice of matters coming before it by
causing public notation to be placed in a newspaper of
general circulation in the County. The notice shall appear
once a week for two consecutive weeks, the first insertion
to be not less than fifteen days nor more than twenty-five
days prior to the meeting date.
In the case of applications for a Class B Special Use
Pe+mit or variance zne on�ng �Li a spa . give wrl E n
notice by certified mail to adjacent property owners. This
notice shall be given not less than 15 days prior to the
f meeting date. Adjacent property owners are those whose
` _ _..;.Pxoperty Yz `s`=vix�hin 500 feet of the affected prope_+'ty and
whom are currently listed as property owners in the Orange
County tax records.
The Zoning Office; shall also post on the applicants affected
property a notice of the Board meeting at least 15 days prior
to the meeting date.
it
If a new accessory structure is to be used for a home
occupation, the following criteria must be met:
1. 7-ne Accessory building shall be set back at least
30' xarther from the road than the residence.
2. The accessory building shall not be closer than
40' to the side and rear property lines.
3- The accessory building shall be adequately screened
from view of the road and the adjacent property by
a da43e2v planted evergreen hedge of shrubs or trees.
4-- MY outside storage of materials for use in the
home occupation shall be totally screened from the
road en4 from adjacent property in the same manner
as the accessary structure. The outside storage area
shad not exceed 500 square feet. The minimum, setback
for 'the storage area shall be the same as for the
acce-story building.
6.7 Accessory Structures In Residential Districts
Accessory st+-uctures shall not be erected in any required
fxort setback or anv closer to the road ri ht of way than
.the residence, whichever is greater. This Provision shall
appl;r to lots with less than 200,000 square Peet'oL-'Frei.
do lots w;�� an area_ greater tha_*► 200,00_0 scniare $eet, any -
accessory structure shall meet all applicable dimensional
requiremants. .
7.10 Restrictions On Permitted Uses
The principal use or uses in a planned development shall be
as allowed for the correspondin zoning district. The
rincinal use and any proposed accessory uses for a part_c= -
ular manned development s'rall be stated in the application
and shcrwn. on the site plan. After the planned development
has been ap roved, changes in any principal use cir access
use shall constitute a change in the planned development an
require approval _by the Board of County Commissioners.
r'
ti3t`9�.1,.Zy;"tea»:`ti�♦':� -
'8.4.2 Contents of Application for Pm-aroval of A Special Use
The application for approval_ o._a Special, Use shall be
submitted on forms provided by the Zoning Officer. Such
forms shall be- prepared so that when completed a full and
accurate descrz tzon of the proposed use, including its
location anoearance and operational characteristics
shall be disclosed. Additionall- , the forms shall, when
completed by the applicant, disclose the name (s) and
address _Jes) of the owner (s) of the property involved,
and all relevanh information needed to show comnliancewith
the general.and specific standards govearning the Special
Use which is a subject of the application.
see Section
8.4.3 Recommendation Submitted,to Planning Board or Board of
-Adjustment
The Zonin Officer shall submit the analysis and reco=en-
dation to the first regular meeting of the Planning Board
in the case of Class A Special Uses or - e oara ox s anent.
in the case of Class B Special Uses, after expiration of the
30 day period s ecified in 8.4.2 or any extension thereof,
8.4_4 Public Bearing Required, Notice Soeciftied
Prior to consideration of the application-far-apgrov�?- of'a -
Special Use, a public hearing thereon shall be held by either
the Board of County Com*ai.ssioners or Board of Pdjustment, as
appropriate }or the classification of the Special Use involved,
The Zoning Officer shall give public notice of the date, time
and place of the public hearing to be held to -receive comments,
testimony and exhibits pertaining to the application for approval
of a Special Use.
Such notice shall be published in a newspaper of general cixcu-
lation in the County. The notice shall appear once a week for
two consecutive weeks; the 'first insertion to be not less than
15 days nor more than 25 days prior-to the public hearing date.
Written notice shall be sent by certified mail to all adjacent
property owners not less than 15 days before the public hearing
date. Adjacent property owners are those whose property lies
within 500 feet of the affected property and whom are currently
listed as property owners in Orange County tax records,
The Zoning Officer shall post on the applicants affected property
a notice of the public hearing at leas 10 days prior to'the date
of said meeting.
i
8.4.5 Presentation Of Evidence At Public Hearin5s
i
The Chairperson of the Board shall administer oaths to any.
witness wishing to present ,evidence, testimony or e:cnibits
concerning the Special Use Permit application.
8.4.6 Planning Board Action on Class A Special Uses
The Planning Board, within thirty (30) days of the public
hearing shall prepare and submit to the Board of Commissioners
a recommendation concerning the, disposition of the application_
failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within
the requi.xed time shall be considered a favorable recommendation,
without conditions.
8.4.7 Action On The •Aanlication
After completion of the public hearing, the Board of County
Commissioners or the Board of Adjustment, as appropriate, shall
take action upon the application. This action shall be one of
the following:
-.:a)=Approval;� _.�_.. ..
b). Approval with conditions attached;
c) Denial.
In every case, the action of the Board shall include a summary
of the evidence supporting the action taken by it on the appLcatio:
8.4:.8 Imposed Conditions
The Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Adjustment, as
appropriate, may impose such reasonable conditions upon approval
of a Special Use as will afford protection of the public health,
safety and general welfare, ensure that substantial justice is
done and equitable treatment provided_
Such conditions shall run with the land and use., and shall be
binding on the original applicant (s) as well as all successors,
assigns and heirs.
withdrawal of. Anplication
An applicant may withdraw their applications at any tiros by
written notice to the County tanager. However, any withdraw
Of an application after the printing of the first notice as
required in 8.4.4 shall have the same effect as a denial Of
the petition.
*8.4.10 Ef£ect of Denial on. Subsequent Petitions
When the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Adjustment
as appropriate,' shall have denied an application, the Board
of County Co=issioners or Board of Adjustment shall not
receive another application for the same or similar petition
affecting the same property or a portion thereof until the ex-
-*Amended piration of a one year period, extending from the date of denial_
10/4/S2
8.5 Action Subsecuent To The Board Action
The Zoning Officer shall notify the applicant of the disposition
which the Board made of the matter. This notice_ shall be made
by certified mail within 30 days of the Board's action. The
Zoning Officer shall simultaneously -keep
Board's action. — ----- ----- —a_ _. ."
*The Orange County Manager shall certify that the Special Use
Permit with any imposed conditions is as approved by the Board
Of County Commissioners or Board of Adjustment, as appropriate.
The Zoning Officer shall see to the faithful execution of all
portions of the Board's actions including the enforcement of
all conditions which may have been attached to the approval, of
a Special Use Permit.
*Amended
7/6/82
• ARTICLE 22
Traffic Generation; Low_ - Uses which generate less that 200 vehicle trips
per day.
Traffic- Generation; medium _ Uses which generate between 200-$00 vehicle _
trips per day,
Traffic Generation; Hi h - Uses which generate more than $00 vehicle trips
-per day.
Vehicle Trip- a vehirle• trip occurs when one vehicle .travels - from a point
of origin to a point of destination.
ORE CaJLN i�l�
P,M
SQM Cr CCX%-A4IWTCk\TMS A^tion Agenda.
i` Item Vo_ ,
Acr1QN XCIEI•aa IMM F$sT-"7cr
MEErVZG a-1TE_FFBRUARY
Subject= Resolution approving the land parcel .iden,tifier index as
the offcial real property index of Orange County.
� t. Re . of Deeds - Land Recor s � Yes X�xto
��rhmant(5): Ixiforn�taon Contact: Beettye Reeve
June Hayes
RESOLUTION pb=e Nmd=: Ext 374 & 369
Purpose: to adopt resolution,required by legislation passed on 1/28/83
by the General Assembly, that approves the computerized parcel
identifier number index as the official real property index of
Orange County.
Need: On January 18, '19 83, the Board requested its legislative delegation introduce
local legislation enabling Orange County to adopt the PIN as the official
real property -index of this 'County.
The requested local legislation passed on January 28,' 1983.
Adoption of attached Resolution will comply with H 23.
IrcpaCt: Creztes official PIN index,• as of February 1, '-983 ,
P.Cx>_n.I,!,io¢�(s) : adopt resolution, approving PIN index as of r ebruary
1, 1983.
OMDZE COUr+IY
MC RD OF CD-JISSIOOVMS Action Agercla
ItkM r o_
AC. 101,1 AGE'N' N IT-1,I A55M--
r3EEl= DAME_FEBRUARY
Subject: Resolution approving the land parcel identifier index as
the offcial real property index of Orange County.
Denartment: Re of Deeds - Land Recor publ�.c � yes `yam^rte
Attachment(s). p tjp Contact: Roscoe E Reeve
Betty June Hayes
• RESOLUTION Pbone rmber: Ext 374 & 369
Rtr-pose: to adopt resolution,required by leg15lation .passed on 1/28/83
by the General Assembly, that approves the computerized parcel
identifier number index as the official real property index of
Orange County.
Need: on January 18, 1983, the Board requested its legislative delegation introduce
local legislation enabling Orange County to adopt the PIN as the official
real property index of this 'County.
The requested local legislation passed on January 28, 1983.
Adoption of attached Resolution will comply with H 23.
IMpacb: Creates- official PIN index, as of February 1, ^_983
pcco(, ?nc?ntion(s) : adopt resolution, approving PIN index as of February
1, 1983.
r
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners,
pursuant to GS 161-22.2(e) (1) amended, designates the parcel
identifier number (PIN) index as the official index of Orange
. County as of February 1, 1983, for real property, and a family
name index for those recorded documents which do not identify
or describe real property.
This the 7th day of February, 1983.
M-URD CF ca-a'IISSlavEm 14Gtio-e ZgervIa,
ACP7I FLi'D�► �1ES'�R�Q �
ITF 1
MEETLw DARTS Febru
Subject: Unpaid Real Property Taxes and Tax Lien Sale
Deart �= Revenue
Pt�1La Hearing: Ye X '
�y
Attacbm=t(s)_ Iafo� Contact: John T. Horner'
L� es Phone M=b=.- 732-8181 Ex.t 'x:32 : .- ..
Pose:
1- To report_ the amount due on all current Real Property
taxes as of January 31, 1983.
2- To recommend June"6, 1983 as the date for the Tax Lien
'Sale
Deed: -
Mandatory per G.S. 105-369. _ .
NONE
i
F,ow-m.[13[Ldation(s)-
By the Orange County Tax Collector, John T. Horner
DATE: February 1, 1983
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
FROM: John T. Horner, Director of Reveune
SUBJECT: Unpaid Real Property and Tax Lien Sale
The Orange County Department of Revenue reports
the following unpaid taxes that are liens on all
real property for the year 1982.
COUNTY $ 975,769.64
CHAPEL HILL $ 278,006.05
CARRBORO $ 86,199.73
HILLSBOROUGH $ 25,208.68
TOTAL $1,365,184.10
The Revenue Office recommends the Tax Lien Sale
be held on the first Monday in June. If this is
agreeable the following date can be- set.
June 6, 1983
s
ORA= COIJYly
BaRO 0- COP•',1ISSr0`!&RS Action Agenda
Iten too.
ACL'ION' AGF_NW, II'E 1 ABS'rIVCT
yi=rmG D7TE FEBRUARY 7, 1983
subject: Title III-B Application
IePa -it: On Agin Public Hearing: yes XXX no
Attacbunent W: Informt.-Igm Contact:. Jerry Passmore
1--Appl i cati on-Pre a.d.,�.71�/xa� %'N�
2-�-Priority rankin from COG Phcn� �= 732-8181 ext. 280
FURPQSE: Board consideration of the submission of an application to Triangle J COG
for Title III-B Older Americans Act Funds, effective July 1, 1983 through
June 30, 1984, for Federal and State funds in the amount of $67,841.00.
NEM: This is a yearly continuation application covering the following services
which are part of the Department on Aging's budget:
Transportation Homemaker-Home Health Aide
Information and Referral Senior Center Operation
Outreach Chore-Handihelper.
The amount allocated to specific services is based on COG priority ranking
of Aging services in Orange County as well the Department on Aging's ranking.
of services. All services (see attachment) were ranked to be the highest or
high priority except chore-handihelper (moderate priority).
An additional $12,156 in Federal/State funds are included with $67,841
Orange County allocation. The additional funds will be used to purchase
equipment for the Northside Center (Carpet, $2,000; Cabinets, $700; I R
Counter $100; Chairs, $750) with the remainder to be used toward the
salary of a Southern Orange Center Director ($8,606).
FACT: If approved, County matching funds ($29,000 cash) would be less than
last year ($31,236). Maintenance of effort will be continued with
$2,000 of in kind space.
To simplify Department of Aging and Central Services record keeping for
five different accounts within DOA, the $2,000 telephone chargesin the grant will bF
transferred along with local cash in the Title III appropriation to
the Department on Aging Administration Account.
RECOMMENDATION: Department on Aging Staff recommends approval. (Sign three copies
of application, keep one and return two to COG.)
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONM;S Action Agenda
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. E-
=-VIM DATE
Subject: Indirect Cost Plan
Dep3rtmerlt: - -- F_in-nce ._ I Public HeaHn es X no
Attacrhriant s : on Contact:-
Yes Finance Director
Phone Number: 732-8181 ext. 496
PLIRPOSE: To consider continuing a contract between Orange County and David M. Griffith
and Associates, Ltd. for the preparation of the Indirect Cost Plan.
NEED: In order to receive reimbursement of County funds expended to administer .
federal programs, Orange County is required by U. S. Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-87 to have an indirect cost plan prepared and
annually updated. Receipts from charging indirect costs during 1981-82
amounted to $56,000. Such return would not have been possible without
the plan.
I
IPTACr; Payment to David M. Griffith and Associates for preparation of the plan
would be $8,000. Estimates secured by the Finance Director from other
firms were in excess of the $8,000 fee.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Approve renewal of contract.
. - - zy}l,y,y_aalw w:Fi'i.SS-n.:��w'X.r'.�.y'nY;Kr.*'!�'M :e+i'•_..r'.':?=.'^._,��.>,;�jja..,-i.�,.:" _Yy�:�.; .�.'ti��
BO.Am c^ CQea$SIQJI�S Action igerxl
item
PTSrMG DATE Februar 1 q3
Subject:: Budget Amendment
Departrrentz Finance Public Hearing- yes x .
Attacb=t(s). yes IAfo=at an Contact: Patricia Stutts
ph=-- fir: Ext. 495
P[TRP05E:
To 'consider budget amendments
NEED: GEPTEPaAL FUND
1) To set up appropriation for additional'HBA funds to be distributed to
Shaeffer House, Janus House, Tree House, and Phillips Project.
2) To set appropriation for Sheriff's vehicles.
3) To appropriate funds received from unscheduled trips sponsored by
the Recreation Department.
4) To receive additional grant and donation for Social Services Department.
CETA
To modify budget to close out 1981-32 Ceta grant.
DMACT: GmMAL FUND
1) No additional matching county funds required.
2) Increase funds available in Sheriff's budget for vehicles by transfer of
funds from contingency, as approved by Board of Conmissioners 12-14-32.
3) Increase Recreation budget to cover cost of unpla.•uned fund generating trips.
4) Increase Social Services budget for energy assistance and for donation to
be used for purchase of camera for Children's Services.
CETA
To adj�ist Ceta budget tm reflect actual spending.
REC01MM=iDATIOA': Approval
ORANGE COUNTY
PROPOSED
COMPREMSIVE EMPLOYI-MNT AND TRAINING ACT
19$1-82 PROJECT ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
The 1981-32 Project Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on October 20,
1931, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows:
Appropration:
Ceta - Administration - Personnel 8 (3,376•)
- Operations 3,876-
Ceta - IIB - I & R Service Staff -- Personnel 434.
- Operations (434.)
Ceta - IIB - YIWE. Participants - Personnel (185•)
Ceta - IIB - WE Service Staff - Personnel 583.
— Operations (398•)
Ceta - IV - ABE Service Staff - Personnel 1,421.
- Operations (1,421.)
To budget for modification to close 1981-82 Ceta grant.
t
Adopted this day of 1983.
F.
ORANGE COUNTY
PROPOSED
1982-33 BUDGE-T AMMIDi1ENT
The 1982-83 Budget. Ordinance of.Orange County as adopted on June 22,
1932, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows:
General Fund
1) Appropriation:
Shaeffer House 3 2,170.
Janus House , 1,282.
Tree House 1+777-
Phillips Project 553•
Source:
CBA Grant 5,732.
To budget for additional CBA funds as approved by Board of Commissioners
on December 14, 1982.
2) Appropriation:
Sheriff 11,500.
Source:
Contingencies $ 11,500.
To budget for purchase of four used vehicles to be used in Sheriff's department
as-approved by Board of Commissioners on December 14, 1982.
3) Appropriation:
Recreation 3 247•
Source:
Recreation Fees $ 247.
To budget for participant funded trip.
4) Appropriation
Social Services 5 x`00•
Source:
Social Services EnerZy Assistance 150.
Social Services Donations 250.
To budget for Carolina Power and Light energy assistance grant and donation
from Alpha Phi Omega Campus Chest, UNTO.
Adopted this day of 1983-
ORANZE CCURZY
BC12 M OF Ca-241SSI0!10RS
Action ?H arr .
AC=CN Aur--,?Q;. =1 EaTMCL' ZterE ivTD_�
N3=--,\G DATE February 7, 1983
Subject: AGRICULTURAL TASK FORCE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE REPORT
De .—t7rPont: PLANNING Pub is F.aariz,3;:.. yes.. g I
AttaCh'M'Wst(S) a) Proposed Farm Preserves Ir�fQZ=-ti^^ Cor&-ac'-: Susan Smith
tion Program Review; b) Recommendations
of the ATF Implementation Committee Phan-- NtV*,ar: 732-8181 EXT. 359
'PURPOSE.' To provide the Board with a report on the activities of the Agricultural
Task Force Implementation Committee and the status of the implementation
of the proposed program.
To request the Board to set a date in March for public hearing on the
Proposed program.
To inform the Board and to obtain a directive from the Board regarding future
Committee activities. The Program outlined in the Task Force Report and
revised as the proposed farm preservation program for Orange County contains
a number of provisions including: 1) less than use value assessment
Of farm property; 2) waiver of assessment or fee for water/sewer extensions;
3) mandatory public hearings on public projects and proposed use of eminent
domain powers; 4) assessment of ati-orney's fees to plaintiffs in frivolous
nuisance suits; 5) no loss Of eligibility status in farmer to :farmer land
transfers of participating bona fide farm units; 6) waiver of assessments'
on new farm structures; 7) ten and twenty year conservation agreements;
and 8) adherence to SCS defined erosion control practices, among other
provisions. Many of these proposed provisions of the program will require
amendment of the N.C.. General Statutes. The Board may wish to consider
drafting proposed legislation necessary to implement the proposed program
.for submittal to the General Assembly this year.
IMPACT: Directive from the Board will guide Committee activities during the spring
months.
Holding a public hearing on the proposed program will provide input from
Orange County citizens on the intent and provisions of the proposed program.
RECOMMENDATION. Schedule a public hearing on the proposed program in March, 1983.
•:Tr'' °�""4'• i "'-.'1 �`'r.""ti':- '=�'-.ter
o
DRAFT
PROPOSED 12/20/82
1/7/83
ORANGE COUNTY
FARM PRESERVATION PROGRAM
FINDINGS OF FACT
Prime farmland is an irreplaceable asset and resource of Orange County.
Orange County has experienced a substantial: yin population as
well as a large decrease in farmland since 1950. Such growth pressure
is likely to continue in future decades. As a consequence, land prices
and values have and will continue to escalate putting further economic
pressure on County agriculture and increasing the cost of continued
farm operations as well as acquisition of land for farm expansion. The
encroachment of the non-farm population into farming areas will also
increase the liklihood of nuisance complaints, vandalism, crop theft
and damage, crop and soil pollution, increased traffic and other impedi-
ments to farm operations.
Major public projects proposed for Orange County will probably, impact
farm operations in the County directly through acquisition of farm prop-
erty as well as indirectly by increasing the desireability, of and
accessibility to farming areas. These projects include the development
of Seven Mile and Cane Creek Reservoirs; development of the Eno River
State Park; construction of I-40 and the southern By-pass of NC 54;
and widening of I-85.
Orange County's leading agricultural revenue producer, dairy farming,
is concentrated in areas under increasing development pressure. Dairy-
ing involves a large capital investment and, as such, it is more expen-
sive to relocate such an operation in the face of development pressures.
Poultry and egg operations are both potentially the subject of nuisance
complaints from non-farm residents.
Inflation continues to place economic burdens on farmers in Orange County.
POLICY OBJECTIVES
1. The problem of increasing tax burdens on agriculture should be alleviated.
2. The occurence of complaints and nuisance suits against farm operations
should be minimized.
3. The negative impacts of proposed public projects on farming operations
and on prime and locally important farmland should be minimized.
4. Relocation of farming operations due to non-farm development pressures
should be minimized.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
It is the purpose of the program to protect irreplaceable prime farmland
from encroachment by and loss due to-the development of such lands for
residential and other uses and to minimize pressures for the conversion
of prime and locally important farmland to other use by provisions designed
to:
a) minimize land use conflicts between farms and
residences and the incidence of nuisance suits
b) preserve agricultural activity as a-viable
component of the local economy and an industry
as of right
c) defend the "right to farm"
d) alleviate tax burdens on agricultural land
e) minimize the conversion of prime farmland to
other uses
f) minimize the impact of the use of eminent domain
for public projects on prime and locally important
farmland and agricultural activity
g) provide for the formation of Voluntary Agricultural
Districts
h) provide for the establishment of an Agricultural
Advisory Board
PROPOSED PROGRAM FEATURES
A. MINIMIZE LAND USE CONFLICTS BETWEEN FARMS AND RESIDENCES AND REDUCE THE
INCIDENCE OF NUISANCE SUITS
APPROACHES:
1. Disclosure statement for all land transfers within 600 feet of all
bona fide farm tracts and within one—half mile of all poultry,
swine and dairy bona fide farm tracts informing purchasers of the
preferred and pre—existing nature of the agricultural use of the
adjoining tract. t
ADVANTAGES
formally written notification of prospective
of pre—existing farm uses
possible use as evidence of plaintiff's awareness of farming
opera4ion in nuisance suits
I
j
",ffiI 2 ,
ul�
DISADVANTAGES:
potentially dissuasive to purchasers of rural land
difficulty in achieving compliance with administrative
requirements prior to recordation of deeds and plats
2—Disclosure statement "flag" for all tracts within 600 feet of
all bona fide farm tracts and within one-half mile of poultry,
swine and dairy bona fide farm tracts to be shown on the Orange
County Land Records System.
ADVANTAGES:
formalmotification of prospective purchasers of pre-existing
farm uses in area
data source for analyzing agricultural areas and farming'activity
relative to non-farm areas
data source for program participation analysis
DISADVANTAGES:
potentially dissuasive to purchasers of rural land
L administrative difficulties in getting information on-line
and maintaining accuracy over time
3. Assessment of all reasonable attorney's fees of the defendant farm owner
by the Court against the plaintiff in a frivolous nuisance suit.
ADVANTAGES:
minimize incidences of forced reduction or sale. of farming
operation as a result of legal defense fees in nuisance cases
disincentive to frivolous nuisance suits
DISADVANTAGES:
difficulty in establishing standards for determination of
"frivolous" nuisance suits
possible inconsistency of court application of provision
-_ - - '.'fi;'! -�,'1 4-•.. - �„f� y"si4i..'+�.,�:ti�:"h.�S:�f�r_=;-.�"_'_i-:-+ _ _ .? -F .
4. Establishment of voluntary agricultural districts composed of 640
contiguous acres of farmland based on a signed agreement to sustain
agriculture in the district.
ADVANTAGES:
voluntary participation
formally established and delineated agricultural area
increased sense of community and cohesiveness of farm
operators within district
DISADVANTAGES:
administrative difficulties in establishing 640 contiguous
acres of farmland
greater psychological value than actual retention of farmland
does not prevent conversion of farmland adjacent to district
with associated development pressure on farming activities
5. Establishment of the Agricultural Advisory Board
ADVANTAGES:
formal farming body responsible for review and recoumieudation
of agricultural districts, program recommendation revisions,
eminent domain actions and major private developments
formal farming body responsible for holding public hearings
on public projects and the use of eminent domain on agricultural
lands
visible farm body, representative of participants in program,
acting in advisory capacity to Board on agricultural issues
DISADVANTAGES:
possible forum for farm factions rather than representative
of entire Orange County farming population
advisory body only
B. ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM.OF INCREASING TAX BURDENS ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY
1. Reduction in the use value assessment for taxation of 10% and 20%
respectively in exchange for 10 and 20 year conservation agreements
restricting non--farm development,
Ty.:�_ - - - 'a4k2' w.a;.�• -�:�ti: 'w .`d''..r`S`:',.e r'?':. $Y'r'/9.-.�y- i :ny'a�„ ._�.r-'_.,y .-......r— �q�
�x
'Fy1
'4:k'� A<:i ,H'.-r•
-yk„�'•' - -- - � rte•
ADVANTAGES:
allows farm operations to be taxed it less than use value
assessment and be afforded some tax relief
provides for a conservation agreement restricting non-farm
development for a_ specified period of time in exchange for
the additional tax relief
voluntary application means high acceptability and low cost
to non-participants
DISADVANTAGES:
administrative complications in creating new classifications
and eligibility procedures for less than use value taxation
limited penalties for early withdrawal from conservation
agreement
does not prevent speculative- "holding" of farm tracts for
future non-farm development
minimal relief from taxation
provision does not address direct problems of non-farm
development pressures
discriminatory benefit for the agricultural sector
lost tax revenue is likely to be retrieved through higher
taxation of non-farm properties
2. Waiver of assessment for water and sewer extensions so long as no
use is made of the extension by the bona fide farm tract owner
ADVANTAGES:
limits financial responsibility of non-beneficiary farmers in
public utilities extension until conversion of property to
non-farm use
may act as disincentive to non-farm development in farm areas
DISADVANTAGES:
exempts large tracts of land from assessment
c
Zi
' _ -yrb:•. ��,. - - __ :P x'4-',9:".. -
necessitates administrative procedures to recoup assessment
when farmland is converted to non-farm use
possible permanent loss of assessment if no conversion over
specified period of time
3. Immediate reapplication for present-use value taxation not subject to
the three year roll-back period if the farm is sold to another
individual for farm use.
ADVANTAGES:
no loss of tax benefits to individual purchasing property for farm
use as long as tract. meets eligibility criteria
possible incentive to sale of farm for continued farm use by another
owner .
DISADVANTAGES:
loss of tax revenue recovered through roll-back period
possible negative impact on family farm through extension of benefits
to commercial and, non-family farm operations
4. Exemption of new farm structures from property tax assessment
ADVANTAGES:
tax benefit for farmers desiring to upgrade or expand operations
possible incentive to upgrading or expansion of farm operations
DISADVANTAGES:
may result in benefits for farms most able to expand and upgrade
no benefits for farmers not planning to upgrade or expand
loss in tax revenues will likely be recovered through taxation of
non-farm property
5. Waiver of penalty for a bona fide farm tract which is voluntarily
withdrawn from the program in the case of a natural disaster
ADVANTAGES: t
minimizes additional financial pressures on farmer experiencing
financial pressures due to natural disaster
. � •.,k��x,>yt _..�.-•....�} -s�-•••:a.-:7.c:-�.�+x.rni^ :��':�'�i�*r�"�•,y y ..ap�-,,,�r...:..�mow. -
- - �;
DISADVANTAGES:
loss of tax revenue will
property taxation likely be recovered through non-farm
administrative difficulties in determining incidence of natural
disaster
C. MINIMIZE THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF PUBLIC PROJECTS ON
FARMLAND FARM OPERATIONS AND
.1. Waiver of assessment for water and sewer extensions so long as no use
is made of the extension by the bona fide farm tract owner.
ADVANTAGES:
no assessment of non-beneficiary farm tracts for public utilities
extension until conversion of property to non-farm use
possible disincentive to non-farm area
DISADVANTAGES:
loss of tax revenue recovered through assessment of non-farm
property
possible administrative difficulties in recovering assessment
following non-farm conversion of exempt property
2• Mandatory public hearings on the impact on agricultural activities of
public and proposed use of eminent domain to acquire farm land
ADVANTAGE:
forum for public imput on impact of public projects and proposed
use of eminent domain on agricultural activity
DISADVANTAGES.
lengthy process which may not have substantial impact on decision-
making process
final outcome of public hearings is advisory in nature only
3. Establishment of the Agricultural Advisory Board
is
ADVANTAGES:
formal body charges with reviewing and making recommendations to
the Board ,on public projects and proposed use of eminent domain
powers
formal body responsible for holding public hearings
DISADVANTAGES:
advisory capacity only
Possible factionalism within body
may actin a manner which would not facilitate the decision—making
process
D. MINIMIZE THE RELOCATION OF FARMING OPERATIONS DUE TO NON—FARM DEVELOPMENT
PRESSURES
1. Disclosure statement for all land transfers within 600 feet of all
bona fide farm tracts and within one—half mile of all poultry,
swine and dairy bona fide farm tracts informing purchasers of the
preferred and pre—existing nature of the agricultural use of the
adjoining tract.
ADVANTAGES:
disclosure statement provides public notification to all purchasers
of pre—existing farm use in area
possible use as evidence of plaintiff's awareness of farm use in
nuisance suits
DISADVANTAGES:
administrative difficulties in-obtaining compliance with requirement
prior to recordation of deeds and plats
may not carry substantial weight as evidence in nuisance suit
2. Assessment of all reasonable attorney's fees of the defendant farmowner
by the Court against the plaintiff in a frivolous nuisance suit.
ADVANTAGES: '
minimizes financial liability of defendant farmer in nuisance suits
and possible forced reduction or sale of farming operation to cover
defense fees
•
•yx... Vic,. .,dti_=� .-�.�r,�,,..ti..���;�,i:s<^t.,,,�.'.,. ,r;•h•
possible disincentive to frivolous nuisance suits
DISADVANTAGES:
difficulty in establishing criteria for defining a frivolous suit
a
possible lack of uniformity in court application of requirement
3. Mandatory public hearings on the impact on agricultural activities of
public projects and proposed use of eminent domain to acquire farmland
ADVANTAGES:
provides for formal public forum for input on public projects and the
use of eminent domain powers which may disrupt farming operations
DISADVANTAGES:
lengthy process may not have substantial weight in decision-making
process
final outcome of public hearing is advisory in nature only
4. Establishment of voluntary agricultural districts composed of 640 acres
of contiguous farmland based on a signed agreement to sustain agriculture
in the district.
ADVANTAGES:
formal body established demonstrating the preferred and pre-existing
agricultural use of area
stimulate sense of community and cohensiveness among participating
farmers
DISADVANTAGES:
does not prevent conversion of adjacent areas to non-farm uses nor
minimize non-farm development pressures
greater psychological value than actual retention of farmland
The proposed Orange County Farm Preservation Program is based on the voluntary
participation of farm tracts eligible for partial exclusion from the ad valorem
taxation provided under the N.C. Preferential, Taxation Law G.S. 105-277.2
through 105-277.7.
1 -
Many of the. proposed provisions can be established through local legislation;
others will require general enabling legislation authorized by the N. C. General
Assembly.
GENERAL ENABLING LEGISLATION
Those provisions requiring general enabling legislation include:
a) classification and taxation of farm property. for assessment
at less than present use value and/or waiver of assessment
b) assessment of attorney's fees to the plaintiffs in frivolous
nuisance suits
LOCAL LEGISLATION s
Those provisions requiring local legislation include: R`
a) waiver of assessment for water and sewer extensions
b) disclosure statements for all land transfers on tracts within -
600 feet of all bona fide farm tracts and within one—half mile
Of all poultry, swine or dairy bona fide farm tracts.
i
z.
r iV may;:?Z,':•z .tF�•�$yr���:_..,-.'..;r.�:".'.�:..'.w._+. 4r::-....N. l
ORANGE- COUI\= PLANNING- DEPARTMENT
T-rTT-TIBBOROUGH
NO RTS CAROLMA
87578
u
y
RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE
AGEaC[LTURAL TASK FORCE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
In 1979 the Board of County Commissioners formed the Agricultural Task Force with
the charge,to prepare a report to the Commissioners on the state of agriculture
in Orange County as supporting information for development of the County's Land
Use plan. The Task Force presented its report Preserving Our Farms: Final Re-
port-of the orange Co=tX IcEicultural Task Force in 1981. The Board of County
Commissioners approved the Report in principle and by official action in 1982
created the Implementation Committee of the Agricultural Task Force. The recom
mendations of.the implementation Committee to the Board of County Commissioners
follow;
That the Board of County Commissioners establish
a policy or policies directed at the protection
and preservation of agricultural lands and ac
tivi.ties in Orange County.
That the Board of County Commissioners consider
a farm preservation program for Orange County
to be.effective county-wide-
That the Board of County Commissioners hold a
public hearing on the provisions of the farm
preservation program to Orange County to obtain
citizen input on the proposed program.
That the Board of County Commissioners Contract
for professional legislative drafting services
to draft a local ordinance implementing the
program, as well as the legislative changes
required by the proposed program.
That the Board of County Commissioners pursue
this mattek in the General Assembly to generate
support and obtain approval of the legislative
changes necessary to implement the proposed
program.
That the Board of County Commissioners approve
the farm preservation program in concept and
adopt an ordinance to implement the program.
2 1?i ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF OVMISSIONERS potion Agenda
ACTION AGMA ITEM A STVACr Item No._Z-10
MEE!r1G DATE February 7, 1983
Subject: Guidelines for Compiling the 1983-84 Service Program and Budget
r .Partrnent: County Manager Hearing: es X no
Attachirent s Information Contact:
Yes County Manager's Office
Phone Number: 732-8181 ext. 501
PUTT SE: To consider the calendar, guidelines, and forms for the budget process and
direct the Manager in any policy positions the Board may wish to be reflected
in the recommended budget.
NEED: The Service Program and Budget Instruction Manual has been prepared in the
same manner as last year to assist county departments and agencies in the
preparation of their FY 1983-84 requests. As in the past, they will be
projecting expenditures and revenues. Again this year, department heads
will be asked to provide program performance data, which will be helpful
in evaluating the cost effectiveness of deoartmental programs. Departments
will be asked to justify all changes from current level budgeting.
The calendar, while following much the same time table as last year, has
been altered to allow another week for oreparation of the preliminary
budget. The budget work sessions for the Board are scheduled to span the
period from May l6 thru June 10.
Public hearings are scheduled as follows:
March 28 - First public hearing on proposed use of Revenue Sharing
June 7 - First public hearing on Budget
Second public hearing on Revenue Sharing
111TAGT: Board approval of the recommended calendar and forms, together with Board
guidelines will insure a Drompt start of the preparation of the 1983-84
budget, and thereby a timely completion of the budget process.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
As the Board decides.
- BUDGET CALENDAR `=
COMPLETION PERSON
TASK DATE RESPONSIBLE
1. Distribute Budget Manual and Calendar to Board 2/7/83 . County Manager
2. - Issue Budget Guidelines; distribute Budget 2/11/83 County Manager
Manual, Personnel printout, and 1/31/82 Revenue
and Expense reports to Department Heads
3. Distribute value base -information to;Chapel-Hill 2/15/83 County Manager
Carrboro Schools
4. Return to Personnel Office,, Personnel printout 2/18/83 Department Heads
with corrections noted.
Submit new position requests to Personnel Office
5. Joint meeting with School Boards on Capital 2/21/83 County Manager/
Budget Projection Board of Commissione
6. Corrected Personnel Detail printout returned .to 3/1/83 Personnel Director
Department Heads
7, Report to Manager on last year's objectives 3/1/83 Department Heads
8. Receive departmental revenue up-date for current 3/11/83 Department Heads/
Year and revenue estimate for upcoming year, Agency Heads
9. Advertise Public Hearing on Revenue Sharing 3/14/83 County Manager
10. Submit to Manager, Revenue Estimates using 3/14/83 Finance Officer
data .through 2/28/83.
11. Receive Departmental Operating and Capital 3/18/83 County Manager
Budget requests
12. Hold Public Hearing on proposed use of Revenue 3/28/83 County Manager/
Sharing Board of Commissione
13. Receive Superintendents' Preliminary School 4/15/83 County Manager
Budgets
14. Review Budget request with Department Heads, 4/1/83 thru County Manager
Agencies Heads, and Fire Chiefs 4/15/83
15. Notify Department Heads of Manager's Budget 4/27/83 County Manager
recommendations; compile Preliminary Budget
16. Submit Manager's Proposed Budget to Board 5/6/83 County Manager
17. ( Decide Dates for Board Work Sessions with 5/17/83 . ;aunty Manager/
Department.Heads and Agencies on Proposed Board of Commissione
Budget
18. Hold Budget Work Sessions ' 5/16/83 thru Board of Commissione
6/10/83
19. Hold Board Work Sessions with Schools
Orange County 5/16/83 County Manager
Chapel Hill-Carrboro 5/17/83
COMPLETION PERSON
TASK DATE RESPONSIBLE
20. Advertise Public Hearing on Budget 5/25/83 County Manager
21. Hold First Public Hearing on Budget and 6/7/83 Board of CommissionE
Second Public Hearing on Revenue Sharing
22. Complete revisions to Budget 6/10/83 County Manager
23. Hold Board Meeting to adopt Budget, Tax Levy 6/21183 Board of CommissionE
and Resolution
ORANGE COUNTY
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM .
FY FY FY FY FY T�
I983-84 1984-85 3985-86 1986-87 1987-88 TOTAL
c
Category I {Constr., Land & other structures]
Tax and records bldg. - attic enclosure -
Sanitation site acquisition & development
Water and sewer extension 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 275,600
Old courthouse, rooms & office 180,000 200000
Health bldg, , 380,000
Fencing - Public Works parking lot 260,000 260,000
Cedar Grove: 91000 0,600
Roof w/insulation 150,000
Gym flooring 13000 150,000
,
Tile flooring 13,000
Ball field 27,000 27,000
Exterior lighting 14,000 14,000
Fencing 23,000 23,000
Tennis court lighting 6,000 6,00.0
Reservoir development ($400,000) 41,000 41,000
Handicap accessibility (elevators) 80,000
Total Category I -- 80,000
398,000 3351000 -39-0-100-0 200,000 105,000 1,428,000
Category II (furnishings & equipment)
Cameras for jail-
8,000
Computer access to Chapel Hi]] 20,000 8,000
Burglar alarms - Recreation 20,000
Sanitation - container replacement 10,000 5+000 5,000
Garage equipment- 10,600 20,000
Recurring equip. & furniture replacements 15,600 8,004 23,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000
Computer terminals 9,600 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
Voter tabulating systems {5} 5,000 7,500 45,000
Total Category II ]2,500
87,400 36.t500 47,000 29,000 34,000 233,500
Category III (vehicles)
Law Enforcement (5/yr.) 50,000 50,00.0 50,000 50,000 50,060 256,600
Administrative (8/yr.) 68,000 68,000 68,000 68,000 68,000 340,000 4
Ambulances
Tractor replacement (plus) 30,000 30,000 60,000
9 000 9,000
Total Category IIi 118 000 14^ 8,000 127,000 148,000 118,606 659 000 y
' g
Grand Total
603�OQ0 519;500 664,000 -371,000 2511000 2,320,500
---- e