The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 03-31-1998 - 2ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 31, 1998 Action Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: 1998 Possible Legislative Issues DEPARTMENT: County Manager/County Attorney PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/1~ BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/l~ ATTACHMENT(S): List of Possible Legislative Issues Background Material 3/27/98 County Attorney Letter (Under separate cover) INFORMATION CONTACT: Rod Visser, ext 2300 Geof Gledhill, 732-2196 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 9b8-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 PURPOSE: To discuss issues that the Board may wish to consider as part of a legislative agenda for consideration in the 1998 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly. BACKGROUND: The North Carolina General Assembly is scheduled to convene for the 1998 Short Session on May 11, 1998. The attached letter from the County Attorney lays out the provisions, as we understand them at this time, under which the General Assembly and the Orange County legislative delegation will consider items during the Short Session. A number of possible legislative issues have been identified by Commissioners, County staff, advisory boards and commissions, and other entities in North Carolina. Attached background materials reflect some, although not necessarily all, of the patential legislative items that have been mentioned during recent months. Additional background material for several items listed on page 2 is provided at pages 3 -5. Background on legislative issues raised by entities external to Orange County government, and accordingly not listed on page 2, are included at pages b -16. The Board may wish to identify those issues it would like the Manager, Attorney, and staff to develop into a legislative packet for submission to the Orange County legislative delegation later this Spring. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss potential legislative matters and provide appropriate direction to staff and the County Attorney. MEMO TO: John Link 2 FROM: Rod Visser DATE: 1/21/98 RE: Possible 1998 Legislative Issues Below is a list of potential legislative topics for 1998. Many of these have been previously considered. Some of these would probably have Statewide applicability, others would be local legislation only: • In general, revenue diversification, i.e. new or expanded authority for BOC to levy new or expanded taxes -intended primarily to reduce reliance on property tax -could include, but not be limited to: • Impact tax authority - to replace school impact fees • Land transfer tax • Occupancy tax -clarification of applicability to Carolina Inn or other State owned properties • Additional local option sales tax authority (one half cent, perhaps one cent) • Entertainment tax • Prepared meals tax • Piggybacking on Johnston County legislation to allow direct negotiation with contractors on school construction • Authority to negotiate with LTNC for payments-in-lieu for properties removed from tax rolls when UNC acquires property (possibly also some consideration for County services consumed by UNC although County gets no tax revenue) • Exemption of farmers from paying back taxes on property sold to someone who will maintain it in use value program (perhaps limited to owners who sell at farm value prices per acre, as opposed to full development value prices?) • Increase reimbursements (growth frozen for years) to counties from property exempted in last ten years -inventories, intangibles, Homestead • Clarification of 5875 regarding responsibilities of County review officers for recording plats, etc. • Authority to grant property tax incentives to land owners to promote certain preservation activities • Technical amendment to GS136-102.6 regarding DOT approval of plats affecting "public streets" • Exemption of school systems from State and local sales taxes (would put them on equal footing with other local governments - H271 approved last year by House, but stalled in Senate) • Authority to pursue tax liens on delinquent ambulance bills (many counties have this authority, but.i don't think Statewide authority has been granted yet) 3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE ENACTMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL ONE PERCENT LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX ~ ~ WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners is charged with the responsibility to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the 107,000 residents of Orange County, as well as those who work or visit the County; and WHEREAS, the growth in the County's population and commerce is increasing and creating a huge demand for public services such as new schools., human services, and public safety; and WHEREAS, currently property tax payers are carrying a disproportionate share of 65% of the burden for providing funding for these necessary services and facilities; and WHEREAS, local government tax reform is urgently needed as this system of financing local needs is unfair to property owners and inadequate to meet these needs; and WHEREAS, a one percent local option sales tax returned to its point of origin in Orange County would provide an alternative to ever increasing property taxes, would more fairly distribute the tax burden among those who live and work in Orange County, and would provide revenue for the County to fund necessary services and facilities; and ~ a WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly has taken action to eliminate, over a period of years, the State sales tax on food; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby unanimously urge the Orange County legislative delegation and the North Carolina General Assembly to support and enact into law an additional one percent point of origin local option sales tax for Orange County, provided that sales tax is not applicable to the sale of food. - This, the 17`h day of February, 1998. Margaret W. Brown, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners 4 RESOLUTION ORANGE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS TASK FORCE WHEREAS, during its 1997 Session, the North Carolina General Assembly ratified House Bill 740 entitled "AN ACT TO ASSIST THE JOHNSTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION WITH THE EXPEDITING OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES", and WHEREAS, that legislation authorized Johnston County to enter into direct negotiations with separate prime contractors for the construction of new school facilities under the Unitary Systems Approach (USA) model school plan, and WHEREAS, that legislation was intended to allow Johnston County to provide for timely and cost-effective construction of necessary new school facilities, and WHEREAS, reports and site visits indicate that there are potential benefits to this approach that could be realized in Orange County and its two school systems if authorization to use this approach, or another appropriate model, were enacted in similar legislation applicable to Orange County, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE ORANGE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS TASK FORCE that it does recommend that the Orange County Board of Commissioners contact the members of the Orange County legislative delegation to request that they introduce and support legislation during the 1998 Session of the General Assembly that would permit, but not require, Orange County and its two school systems to pursue the approach to school construction contemplated in House Bill 740. This, the 26th day of January, 1998. 5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COI~IISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 17, 1998 Action Agenda Item No SUBJECT: Farmland Preservation Goals DEPARTMENT County Commissioners -------------------------------- ATTACHMENT (S) Memo dated February 10, 1998 Re: Goals for 1998-99 PUBLIC HEARING YES NO x BUDGET AMENDMENT : _YES NO INFORMATION CONTACT Commissioner Bill Crowther TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Mebane 227'-2031 Durham 688-7331 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PURPOSE: To consider the Farmland Preservation Program goals and to provide staff with direction on any of the five recommendations. BACKGROUND: Dolly Hunter, Chair of the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board gave a report to the Board of County Commissioners on February 10. She listed five recommendations which they feel will help to preserve Orange County farms. Recommendation #3 "Additional tax relief measures should be adopted that can help improve the financial position ~/ of farmers" would require a letter to~our Legislative Delegation asking 7~ them to consider legislation which would eliminate payment of deferred taxes when farmland is sold for continued agricultural use. RECOtMiEI3DATION: Review and discuss all five recommendations and give specific direction to staff. 80AAD IifEAfdEiiS LARRY NAYERLAND, CHAIq DElOgES SI1t-SON, YK;E C14A111 R06EAT -+. BATEdiAN KEiM COOK SUSAN OOYENAA110Eq 1UCHARO KENNEDY GAYS KOL8INSKY MEMORANDUM '!'(): Margaret Brown, Chair ()rrnge County~~Cpp~~omatissionert f"ROM: tZ:utdy Bridgesl"° RC: Joint Meeting of County Commissioners and Local Schoo! Boards UATL: March 4, I998 6 200 EAiT KMIp iTf1EE7 TELEPHONE: ft~T32-~/2~ FAX: flf~T?2-1120 '!'he Urangc County Board of Edneadon met on March 2, 1998 and would Bice to have the fullowing items plied on the agenda for discussion during the upcomin; joint meeting nn March (1, 1998: Alternative School During our last joint meeting ore discussed the need for an altcmativc school in both system.. Thcrc were some preliminary pLtuting sessions between both school .y,tcros about a joitn effort to eitaUe au alternative school. Duc to the lack of funding in our current budget aad sharod c~osvertts about the location of the school, the ce~mbincd effort was pot possible. The Hoed for an alternative school in our system still exits. We would like to have this school opcmble for the 1998-94 school year. We would like to discuss this issue sad solicit your support. Towing and Storage Fees • tinuse Bill 448 requires local school systems to impound vehicles confiscated from rc:ucat affendert of tht new DWI legislation that became effective December 1, t997. Uur ,y,tcm had to build its sees to house these cars. and we have also incurn:d .uhstantial costs for towing, We have jest recently contracted with a local cowing cc~mparay to provide this service. We are requesting your support in communicating tt~L burden the current statute is placi~ttp on our system. grange QLountp ~oa~r~ of Q~bucation RANDY BRIDdEB, 8UPEAINTENDENT ~iYl~cboroug~j, ,~QC 27278 7 ~~~~$~~ MAR 2 0 'i998 Rowan County Board of Commissioners 130 West Innes Street • Salisbury, NC 28144 Jim Neelv. Chairman J. Newton Cohen, Vice-Chairman Steve Blount Dave Rowland Frank T. Tadlock Tim Russell. ;Vianager John Holshouser, Jr., Attorney :~Ir. John Link Qrange County PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Link: March 18, 1998 ```~3~4I~~~3~~ ~~~: n:-~ Telephone (704) 636-0361 FAX (704) 638-3092 The Rowan County Board of Commissioners unanimously passed a Resolution to request its legislative delegation to introduce and support the passage of a revision to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 7A during the upcoming short session to increase the fees currently charged under the "Costs of Court" for "facilities fees" and "officer fees". A copy of the Resolution is attached. Counties throughout the State are experiencing an unqualified number of demands being made by judicial officials from the State Administrative Office of the Courts' and the Department of Corrections for more space within the County's judicial facilities. It is becoming a routine occurrence to receive a request for additional offices as the State creates more positions to handle the State judicial and correctional systems. Several months ago, Rowan County was notified by the State Probation and Parole District that it was receiving eight (81 new probation uf~ cars to serve Rowan Ccunty , and t"ey ~vc~al~? n~~d ^ffl~pc ~~~ithir_ the judicial facilities. Also, the District Attorne3- informed u5 that he was expecting a new position soon and would need a new office. In each case, the General Statutes provide counties the responsibility of creating new offices upon request and without consideration of whether adequate space even exists at the time of the request. In our case, we were required to lease private space. Currently, counties receive a portion of the '`Costs of Court" which is assessed in every criminal and civil case. The defendant pay s that cost as part of his/her fine. so no additional state funds are being requested. Counties receive the sum of $6.00 per district court case for facilities' fees and $5.00 per district court case for officer" fee. Equal Opportunity Employer recycled paper 8 In 1996-97, Rowan County received $135,144 from facilities' fees and interest while expending over $1,161, 314 in costs, resulting in a cost to revenue ratio of 8.6 to 1. Obviously, counties can't expect an event 1 to 1 ratio; however, counties can't continue to increase spending at this rate without consideration of increasing the fees that are paid by the defendants in the judicial system. The Board of Commissioners hopes that your County Board will concur with our effort by enacting a similar Resolution, and by seeking the assistance of your legislative delegation to actively support his proposed legislation to increase the "facilities fees" and "officer fees" under G.S. 7A to provide counties with additional funds to operate the judicial system. If we can provide additional information, please let us know. 'ncerely, es B. Neely, Chairman Attachment ~~ ~...., Rowan County Board of Commissioners 130 West Innes Street • Salisbury, NC 28144 9 Jim Neely, Chairman Telephone (704) 636-0361 J. Newton Cohen, Vice-Chairman ~ FAX (704) 638-3092 Steve Blount Dave Rowland Frank T. Tadlock ROWAN COUNTY Tim Russell, Manager John Holshouser, Jr., Attorney RESOLUTION "INCREASE IN FACILITIES AND OFFICER FEES L`NDER G.S. 7A-305 AND G.S. 15-209" WHEREAS, Boards of County Commissioners are required under North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 7A-302 to provide adequate courtrooms and judicial facilities within their boundaries; and WHEREAS, Boards of County Commissioners are required under North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 15-209 to provide suitable accommodations for probation officers in or near the courthouse; and WHEREAS, the North Carolina Legislature since 1965 has recognized the financial burden upon Counties, and as a result enacted N.C.G.S. 7A-304-305 which establishes fees which in 1994 were set at $6.00 per case for facilities and 55.00 per case for officers; and WHEREAS, the costs incurred by Counties have risen dramatically through the construction and renovation of courtrooms, judicial offices, clerk-of-superior court offices, through the employment of additional bailiffs for court proceedings and safety, and for the installation of security systems to reduce the occurrence of courthouse violence; and WHEREAS, as the result of these additional requirements, the County now incurs direct expenses at a ratio of 3.x:1 over revenues received from facilities' fees and incurs total expenses at a ratio of 6.8:1 over revenues received for the total judicial operations; and WHEREAS, the recent addition of eight probation officer positions in Rowan County as well as 180 statewide by the Legislature during the 1997 Session has resulted in many Counties having to secure privately leased space to house these new State probation officers; and WHEREAS, the "costs of court" represents those costs associated with providing a judicial system whereby only those chazged and convicted under the laws of the State of North Carolina bear the primary financial burden; Equal Opportunity Employer ~~ reCycfed paper 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Rowan County Board of Commissioners requests that its legislative delegation in the North Carolina General Assembly introduce and support statewide legislation to increase the facilities' fee from it present $6.00 per case to $12.00 per case and the officers' fee from its present $5.00 per case to $10.00 per case which will partially defray the costs of maintaining judicial facilities; and Z. This Resolution be forwarded to the North Cazolina Association of County Commissioners and all Counties to request their assistance in the 1998 Short Session. This Resolution was introduced and passed unanimously thi~e ~~day of March, 1998. o ,~,,.~ CLERK T E BOARD CHAIRMAN Mazch 11, 1998 Chapel Hill High School PTSA Kim Fahs, President Jim White, Cultural Enrichment Committee 1709 High School Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Commissioner Bill Crowther 372 St. Mary's Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Deaz Commissioner Crowther: On January 1, 1998 legislation went into effect requiring North Carolina income tax, in the amount of four percent, to be withheld from non-wage compensation paid to out-of -state contractors for services performed in North Cazolina. The requirement is specifically designed "for services in connection with a performance, an entertainment or athletic event, the creation of a film or TV program or the construction or repair of a building or highway." The requirement applies to payers who pay more than $600.00 in the course of a year to an out-of -state individual or entity. This ruling places public schools in a very difficult position. In many instances, schools aze ill prepared to handle the withholding tax beyond their internal requirements. Additionally, out-of--state entities are now reluctant to contract with our schools. Our goal is to provide the finest possible educational experience for our students and we feel the burden of this legislation on our school administration and the negative impact of the ruling on out-of--state entities unduly effects our students. We humbly request your assistance in considering an exemption for our schools or, at the very least, increasing the ceiling for the enactment of this withholding tax to $1500.00 in the course of a year instead of the current $600.00 amount. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. S(i/ncerely, Kim Fahs, President CHHS PTSA Ji White, Chair HHS CEC 11 12 MACON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF A PROPERTY TAX DISCOUNT FOR THE ELDERLY WHEREAS, Elderly homeowners throughout North Carolina are finding it harder and harder to pay theirproperty taxes because of rising market values; and WHEREAS, throughout the State some home values have jumped as much as 50 percent since 1991 and while this is considered a good return on an investment it can create a hardship for the elderly who could be paying as much in taxes as it originally cost to purchase their home; and WHEREAS, North Carolina is not among the 20 states that allow elderly homeowners to defer tax payments until they sell their homes or die allowing back taxes to be paid for home-sale profits or estates; and WHEREAS, Only seniors with an income of $15,000 or less qualify for North Carolina's homestead program which subtracts $20,000 offthe home's's tax value; and WHEREAS, this Board feels that if this problem is not addressed, it could force the elderly out of their homes and into nursing and retirement facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners for the county of Macon as follows: 1. That this Board requests the North Carolina Legislature to address this problem and consider statewide implementation of a property tax discount or deferment for senior citizens. 2. That this Board requests the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners to work with Macon and the other 99 Counties and the Legislature to formulate an acceptable solution to this growing problem. 3. That a copy of ties resolution be mailed to all 99 Counties and the Local Legislative Delegation. 4. That this resolution be effective upon its adoption. ADOPTED this 3rd day of March, 1998. ATTEST: (Seal) / Neon W. Bates, Board Chairman Greenwood!Clerk to the Board DRAFT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CONA~IISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: SUBJECT: Resolution Requesting Consideration of a Property Tax Discount for the Elderly -------------------------------- ------------------------------- DEPARTMENT County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING YES NO x -------------------------------- ------------------------------- ATTACHMENT (S) Resolution Tax Deferral Chart BUDGET AMENDMENT: _YES X NO INFORMATION CONTACT Margaret W. Brown TELEPHONE NCJI~ER Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PURPOSE: To present for Board consideration a resolution for property tax discounts for the elderly. BACKGROUND: Buncombe County considered and approved a resolution for property tax discounts for the elderly. They distributed this resolution to the other 99 counties and requested that they consider supporting this request. This resolution would ask the North Carolina Legislature to consider allowing .elderly homeowners to defer tax payments until they sell their homes or die allowing back taxes to be paid from home-sale profits or the estates. There are 20 states which allow this deferment for senior citizens. This resolution would also request the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners to work with Orange and the other 99 counties and the Legislature to formulate an acceptable solution to this growing problem. 13 RECOI~IENDATION: To approve the resolution and authorize the .Chair, County Attorney and the Clerk to sign. DRAFT RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF A PROPERTY TAX DIBCOUN'f FOR THE ELDERLY WHEREAS, elderly home owners throughout North Cazolina are finding it harder and hazder to pay their property taxes because of rising market values; and WHEREAS, throughout the state, some home values have jumped as much as 50 percent since 1991, and while this is considered a good return on an investment, it can create a hazdship for the elderly, who could be paying as much in taxes as it originally cost to purchase their home; and WF~REAS, North Cazolina is not among the 20 other states that allow elderly home owners to defer tax payments until they sell their homes or die, allowing back taxes to be paid from home sale profits or the estates; and WHEREAS, only seniors with an income of $15,000 or less qualify for North Carolina's homestead program, which subtracts $20,000 from a home's value; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners believes that if this problem is not addressed, it could force elderly citizens out of their homes and into nursing or retirement facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners: I . That the Boazd of County Commissioners requests that the North Cazolina Legislature address this problem and consider statewide implementation of a property tax discount or deferment for senior citizens. 2. That the Board requests the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners to work with Orange and the 99 other counties and the Legislature to formulate an acceptable solution to this growing problem. 3. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Boazds of the State's other 99 counties and the local legislative delegation. 4. That this resolution be effective upon its adoption. ADOPTED this the day of 1998. Mazgazet W. Brown, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Boazd '14' Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney 15 State Eli 'ble Home Owners Deferral Amount Income Ca s California Age 62 and over, blind All property taxes $24 000 or disabled Colorado* A e 65 and over All ro taxes None District of Columbia All ages Taxes above 110% of None rior tax liabili Florida* All ages Taxes exceeding 5% of None • income Age 65 and over Taxes exceeding 3% of None income Georgia Age 62 and over Taxes on the first $15,000 $50,000 AV Illinois* Age 65 and over All taxes up to 80% of $25,000 ui value Iowa SSI recipients All property taxes None A e 65 and over * None Maine* A e 65 and over All ro taxes $40,000 Maryland* Age 65 and over or All property taxes (L) disabled Massachusetts* A e 65 and over U to 50% of AV $40,000 Michigan* Age 65 and over or Speciat assessments $15,400 disabled over $300 Minnesota Age 65 and over or Special assessments (L) None disabled New Ham hire A e 65 and over U to 85% of tax None North Dakota* Age 65 and over or All special assessments $13,500 disabled Oregon* Age 62 and over All property taxes $24,500 S vial assessments $17,500 South Dakota* A e 70 and over All r taxes None Tennessee* All ages Taxes can be deferred $12,000 up to $60,000 of the property's market value Texas A e 65 and over All taxes None Utah Age 65 and over 50% of tax, up to $300 None Virginia Age 65 and ovcr or Taxes that exceed 105% $30,000 disabled (or more) of prior year's tax Washington Age 60 and over Taxes on 80% of equity $34,000 value Wisconsin Age 65 and over or lip to $2,500 of taxes $20,000 disabled W •omin A e 62 and over 50% of taxes ) 150% of vertu level (L) =Local option program (AV) =Assessed value (AGI) =Adjusted gross income (SSI) =Supplemental Security Income 15 *Notes: Colorado -Additional local option program if tax is 130 percent or greater than prior year's tax owed. Additional local option program to work to pay off liability. Florida -Home owners can receive a full tax deferral If income is below $10,000 (all ages) or $12,000 (age 70 and over). Illinois -Recipients must have lived in their homes for at least three yeazs. Iowa -Local option tax relief is available for home owners age 65 and over. Maine -only home owners that first applied to the deferral program in 1990 qualify. Maryland - A local option program available to home owners age 65 and over, who aze disabled, have lived in their homes at least five yeazs, and have met local income guidelines. Massachusetts -Recipients must have lived in their homes for at least five years and resided in Massachusetts for at least ten yeazs. Michigan -Recipients must have lived in their homes for at least five yeazs. North Dakota -Assets may not exceed $50,000, including the first $80,000 of the homestead's market value. Oregon -After entering the deferral program for all property taxes, recipients must have a federal AGI of $29,000 or less to continue qualifying for the program. Once recipients enter the deferral of special assignments program, they can continue qualifying for the program with any income. South Dakota -Home owners must have owned their homes for at least three years and have lived in the state for at least five years. Tennessee -For homesteads under $50,000 in market value, home owners can defer all taxes above 19791evels. Source: Telephone survey of state departments of revenue, state controllers offices and state treasury offices. LAW OFFICES COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 129 E. TRYON STREET P. O. DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 919-732.2196 FAX 919.732-1997 March 27, 1998 Margaret W. Brown, Chair Bill Crowther Moses Carey, Jr. Alice Gordon Stephen Halkiotis Orange County Board Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, North of Commissioners Carolina 27278 17 FROM THE DESK OF GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL RE: Legislative Issues 1997 Legislative Session - Short Session Dear Board Members: Enclosed is a copy of the 1997 Legislative Session adjournment resolution of the General Assembly establishing the commencement of the so-called Short Session on May 11, 1998. This resolution also establishes the ground rules for consideration of legislation during the Short Session. There will be a legislative briefing on April 22 sponsored by the North Carolina County Commissioners Association. That briefing is designed to provide insight as to what to expect in the form of budget and other Statewide initiatives during the Short Session that could impact Orange County. With respect to local legislative initiatives, Section 1(4') of the adjournment resolution provides the guidelines. In brief, local bills must be submitted to "Bill Drafting" on or berore Wednesday, MaY• 20, 1998 (Note that the resolution says 1996. This is a clerical error.). And, any bill sent to bill drafting must be accompanied by a certificate signed by the principal sponsor stating that no public hearing is required and that the bill is noncontroversial. The bill also must be approved for introduction by each member of r_he House of Representatives and Senate whose district includzs the area to which the bill applies. The public hearing referred to in that bill is one that would be conducted by committee of the legislature. As you know, the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives serving Orange County include Senators Orange County Board of Commissioners Page 2 March 27, 1998 18 Lee and Kinnaird and Representatives Allred, Cole, Hackney, Insko and Reynolds. Orange County will need approval of each of these Legislators for any local bill to be introduced during the Short Session. It is further the historical requirement of the members of the Orange County legislative delegation that Orange County conduct a public hearing on any local bill to be introduced in the General Assembly to insure that there's public awareness of the local bill and that the bill is not controversial at the local level. The local bill presented in the 1997 Orange Omnibus Act (House Bill 758 and Senate Bill 632) containing Orange County's local initiatives for 1997 is not eligible for consideration during the Short Session. We were able to get the entertainment tax portion through a House Committee but that's as far as it got. None of the other Orange County legislative initiatives for the regular 1997 Session moved at all. I have been working with Representative Insko and Allen Spault on one of those legislative initiatives, the one related to pesticide regulations. Our tact on that bill is to try to make headway on a Statewide basis and we will continue to work in that direction. There seems to be no opportunity to get a local bill related to regulating pesticides through the legislative process. I'll keep you up to date on progress, if any, on this front. As to all other initiatives in the 1997 Orange County Omnibus Act, I doubt they would pass the noncontroversial test. My recommendation would be that the County not pursue any of those initiatives during the Short Session but rather move forward with them again during the 1999 Session of the General Assembly. Many of the new legislative initiatives that have been presented for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners seem to me to be problematic in the Short Session. This is so either because they may be controversial or they may take too much time to move through the legislative process. My recommendation at this time is that most of these requests be taken up during the 1999 Session of the General Assembly along with last year's Orange County local initiatives. A list of potential Orange County legislative issues known now will be presented to you on March 31, 1998 for consideration. There are several legislative initiatives which may be successful during the Short Session. 1. N.C. Gen. Stat. ~ 153A-15 generally requires the consent of the board of county commissioners of County "A" before County "B" or a city located outside of County "A" can acquire land or condemn land in County "A". That law, although not a Orange County Board of Commissioners Page 3 March 27, 1998 19 local act, does not include all North Carolina counties. During the:1997 Session, Senate Bill 535 was ratified adding a number of counties, including Alamance, to the list of counties covered by G.S. § 153A-15(c) and amending the law to exclude property acquisitions by a city within the corporate limits of the city. Orange County is now almost surrounded by counties protected by G.S. § 153A-15. They include Alamance, Caswell, Durham and Person. I think that a request to include Orange among the counties covered by G.S. § 153A-15 would stand a reasonable chance of being approved during the Short Session. This initiative would not technically be a local one since it would involve an amendment to a Statewide law. I recommend that that initiative go forward. 2. It may. also be possible for consideration during the Short Session of a local bill which would allow Orange County to regulate "emission of pollutants or contaminates." Cities have this power and it enables them to expressly regulate open burning. If that is the only local initiative, the Board may prefer to wait until the 1999 Session to take it to the Legislature along with other local initiatives. 3. There are also several School Board initiatives which may become County initiatives. At the least they will require County Support. 4. Senate Bill 594 was passed by the Senate during the regular 1997 Session of the General Assembly and is eligible for consideration during the Short Session. It authorizes Cumberland, Cabarrus, Johnston and Franklin County to levy a 1~ sales tax with proceeds to be used for school capital outlay. It is an initiative of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners to make that bill "Statewide." If the Board is interested in having additional sales tax authority, it may be prudent to request that Orange County be added to Senate Bill 594 in the event consideration of that bill as a Statewide bill does not occur. Very truly yours, COLEMAN~~LEDHILL & HARGRAVE, P.C. dhill GEG/lsg Enclosures , xc: John M. Link, Jr. lsg-12\boardleg.ltr ~. 20 ` . GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA 1997 SESSION RATIFIED BILL ~" 'RESOLUTION 33 HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 306 A JOINT RESOLUTION SETTING THE TIME FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE 1997 GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO MEET IN 1998 AND LIMITING THE SUBJECTS THAT MAY BE' CONSIDERED IN THAT SESSION. Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring: Section 1. When they adjourn on Thursday, August 28, 1997, the House of Representatives and the Senate shall adjourn to reconvene at noon on Monday, May I1, 1998. During that session only the following matters may be considered: (1) Bills directly and primarily affecting the State budget for fiscal year 1998-99, provided that no such bill may be introduced in the House of Representatives or filed for introduction in the Senate after 4:00 p.m. Thursday, May 28, 1998, and any such measure must have been submitted to the BiI1 Drafting Division of the Legislative Services Office by 4:00 p.m. Thursday, May 21, 1998. (2) Bills and resolutions introduced in 1997 and having passed third reading is 1997 in the house in which introduced, received in the other house in accordance with Senate Rule 41 or House Rule 31.1(d) as appropriate, and not disposed of in the other house by tabling, unfavorable committee report, indefinite postponement, or failure to pass any reading, and which do not violate the rules of either body. (3) Bills and resolutions implementing the recommendations of: a. Study commissions authorized 'or directed to report to the 1998 Session; b. The House Ethics Committee; or c. The Joint Legislative Ethics Committee or its. Advisory Subcommittee. Any bills authorized by this subdivision must be filed for introduction in the Senate or introduced in the House of Representatives no later than 4:00 p.m. Thursday, .May 21, 1998, and any such measure must have been submitted to the Bill Drafting Division of the Legislative Services Office by 4:00 p.m. Thursday, May 14, 1998. (4) Any local bill introduced in the House of Representatives or filed for introduction in the Senate by 4:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 27, 1998, and any such measure must have been submitted to the Bill Drafting Division of the Legislative Services Office by 4:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 20, 1996, and accompanied by a certificate signed by the principal sponsor stating that no public hearing will be required or asked for by a member on the bill, the bill is ~= noncontroversial, and the bill is approved for introduction by each member of the House of Representatives and Senate whose 2~ district includes the area to which the bill applies. (5) Selection, appointment, or confirmation of members of State boards and commissions as required by Law, including the filling of vacancies of positions for which the appointees were elected by the General Assembly upon recommendation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, President of the Senate, or President Pro Tempore of the Senate. (6) Any matter authorized by joint resolution passed during the 1998 Session by two-thirds majority of the members of the House of Representatives present and voting and by two-thirds majority of the members of the Senate present and voting. A bill or resolution filed in either house under the provisions of .this subdivision shall have a copy of the ratified enabling resolution attached to the jacket before filing for introduction in the Senate or introduction in the House of Representatives. (7) Any bills primarily affecting any State or Local pension or retirement system, introduced in the House of Representatives or filed for introduction in the Senate by 4:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 27, .1998, and any such measure must have been submitted to the Bill Drafting Division of the Legislative Services Office by 4:00 p m. Wednesday, May 20, 1998. (8) Joint resolutions, House resolutions, and Senate resolutions pertaining to Section 5(10) of Article III of the Constitution of North Carolina. (9) A joint resolution adjourning the 1997 Regular Session, sine die on a date earlier than provided by Section 3 of this resolution. (10) Bills to disapprove rules under G.S. 150B-21.3. Section 2. The Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President Pro Tempore of the Senate may .authorize appropriate committees or subcommittees of their respective houses to meet during the interun between sessions to: (1) Review matters related to the State budget for the 1997-99 biennium, 2 Prepare reports, including revised budgets, or ~3~ Consider any other matters as the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President Pro Tempore of the Senate deems appropriate, except that no committee or subcommittee of a house may consider, after the date of adjournment provided irL Section 1 of this resolution and before the date of reconvening provided in Section 1 of this resolution, any bill, or proposed committee substitute for such bill, which originated in the other house. A conference committee may meet in the interim upon approval by the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Page 2 House Joint Resolution 306 Section 3. This resolution is effective upon ratification. 22 In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 28th day of August, 1997. MARL BASNIGHT Marc Basnight .,President Pro Tempore of the Senate HAROLD J. BRUBAKER Harold J. Brubaker Speaker of the House of Representatives House Joint Resolution 30b Page 3 :~.? .~ :,,; . ~.~ ~~~ , • ~ r ~ k ...f 23 § 153A-4 COL','TIES § 153A-15 ARTICLE Z. Definitions and Statutory Construction. § 1.53A-4. Broad construction. CASE NOTES Amendment to county zoning or- dinance constituted a valid legisla- tive prerogative to change the sanitary landfill use from a "special use permit" category to a "use by right under pre- scribed conditions" category and that section of the county zoning ordinance, which allowed county zoning adminis- trator to approve the county's permit application for the siting of a landfill, was constitutional and lawful on its face. County of Lancaster v. Mecklenburg County, 334 N.C. 496, 434 S.E.2d 604 (1993). Cited in i4laready v. City of Winston- Salem, 342 N.C. 708, 467 S.E.2d 615 (1996); Three Guys Real Estate v. Harnett County, 345 N.C. 468, 480 S.E.2d 681 (1997). ARTICLE 2. Corporate Powers. • § 153A-15. Consent of board of commissioners necessary in certain counties before - land may be condemned or acquired by a unit of local government outside • `#" the county. ;~~ . (a) Notwithstandinffthe provisions of G.S. 153A-159, Article 11 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes, G.S. 130-130, Chapter 40 of the General Statutes, .or any other general law or local act confer- ' ring the power of eminent domain, before final judgment may be entered in any action of condemnation initiated (or in the case of - Article 11 of Chapter 160A, before a final condemnation resolution is adopted) by a county, city or town, special district, or other unit of local government which is located wholly or primarily outside another county, whereby the condemnor seeks to acquire property located in the other county, the condemnor shall furnish proof that the county board of commissioners of the county where the land is located has consented to the taking. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 153A-158, Chapter 1&O.A of the General Statutes, Article 12 of Chapter 130 of the . General Statutes, or an;, other general law or local act conferring . the power to acquire real property, before any county, city or town, special district, or other unit of local government which is located • wholly or primarily outside another county acquires any real prop- erty located in the other county by exchange, purchase or lease, it must have the approral of the county board of commissioners of the county where the land is located. (c) This section applies to Alamance, r111eghany, Anson, Ashe, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Burke. Buncombe, Cabarrus, Caldwell, Camden. Caswell, Catawba, Cherokee. Clav, Cleveland, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Davidson, Davie. Duplin, Durham, Edgecombe, Forsyth, Franklin, Gaston, Graham, Granville, Greene, • ~ 95 i i i .Y~ . §153A-18 1997 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT §153A-18 Guilford, Halifax, Harnett, Haywood, Henderson, Hoke, Iredell, Jackson, Johnston, Lee, Lincoln, Macon, Madison, Martin, McDowell, Mecklenburg, Montggomery, Nash, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Polk, Rich- mond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rowan, Sampson, Scotland, Stanly, Stokes, Surry, Swain, Transylvania, Union, Vance, Wake, Warren, Watauga, Wilkes, and Yancey counties only. This section does not apply as to any: (1) Condemnation; or (2) Acquisition of real property or an interest in real property by a city where the property to be condemned or acquired is within the corporate limits of that city. (1981, c. 134, ss. 1, 2; c. 270, ss. 1, 2; c. 283, ss. 1-3; c. 459, s. 1; c. 941, s. 1; 1981 (Reg. Sess., 1982), c. 1150, s. 1; 1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 973, s. 1; c. 1061, s. 1; 1991, c. 615, s. 3; 1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 790, s. 1; 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 624, s. 1; c. 628, s. 1; 1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 681, s. 1; 1997-164,. s. 1; 1997-263, s. 1J Local Modification. - Kannapolis: 199?-295.. For additional local modifications to this section, see the main volume. Effect of Amendments. -The 1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996) amendment, effective June 21, 1996, inserted "Alleghany", "Burry", and WGatauga° into the list of counties in subsection (c). Session Laws 1997-164, s. 1, effective June 9, 1997, substituted "Wilkes, and Yancey" for "and Wilkes" in the list of counties in subsection (c). Session Laws 199?-263, s. 1, effective July 2, 1997, added Alamance, Cabarrus, Camden, Cherokee, Clay, Craven, Cumtuck, Edgecombe, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Macon, Nash, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Pitt, Polk, Richmond, and Stanly to the list of counties in subsection (c). ARTICLE 3. Boundaries. § 153A-18. Uncertain or. disputed boundary. (a) If two or more counties are uncertain as to the exact location of the boundary between them, they may cause the boundary to be surveyed, marked, and mapped. The counties may appoint special commissioners to supervise the surveying, marking, and mapping. A commissioner so appointed or a person surveying or mazking the boundary may enter upon private property to view and survey the boundary or to erect boundary mazkers. Upon ratification of the survey by the board of commissioners of each county, a map showing the surveyed boundary shall be recorded in the office of the register of deeds of each county in the manner provided by law for the recordation of maps or plats and in the Secretary of State's office. The map shall contain a reference to the date of each resolution of ratification and to the page in the minutes of each board of commissioners where the resolution may be found. Upon recorda- tion, the map is conclusive as to the location of the boundary. (b) If two or more counties dispute the exact location of the boundary between them, and the dispute cannot be resolved pursu- ant to subsection (a) of this section, any of the counties ma apply to a superior court judge who has jurisdiction pursuant to G.~ 7A-47.1 or 7A-48 in any of the districts or sets of districts as defined in G.S. 7A-41.1 in which any of the counties is located for appointment of a 96 24 0 r L~ C~ U