HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20091109 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR ALAMANCE COUNTY
HELD ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2009
The Alamance County Board of Commissioners met in Special Session on Monday,November 9, 2009,at
7:00 p.m. in the Alamance Community College Auditorium, 1247 Jimmie Kerr Road, Graham,North
Carolina. The following members of the Alamance County Board of Commissioners were present: Chair
Massey, Vice Chair Boswell,and Commissioners Lashley, Sutton,and Vaughan. The following members
of the Orange County Board of Commissioners were present: Chair Foushee and Commissioners Gordon,
Hemminger, Jacobs,Pelissier,and Yuhasz.
WELCOME—Craig Benedict,Orange County Planning Director,welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Chair Massey called the Alamance County Board of Commissioners to order. Chair Foushee called the
Orange County Board of Commissioners to order.
INTRODUCTIONS—Chair Massey introduced Alamance County Commissioners and she introduced
Alamance County staff who were present: Craig Honeycutt, County Manager;Tim Burgess, Assistant
County Manager; Clyde Albright, County Attorney;Marian Smith,Assistant County Attorney;Bruce
Walker, GIS Manager;Pat Jones, Clerk to the Board;Jason Martin,Planning Manager;and Jessica Hill,
Planner. Chair Foushee asked the Orange County Commissioners to introduce themselves, and she
introduced Orange County staff who were present:Frank Clifton, County Manager;Willie Best,Assistant
County Manager;Annette Moore, Staff Attorney; Steve Averett, GIS Director; Craig Benedict,Planning
Director;and Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board. Chair Massey introduced Mebane City Council members
Patty Phillips,Ed Hooks, Tim Bradley,Everett Green,Jill Auditori;and Robert Wilson,Mebane City
Manager.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS—County Managers Frank Clifton and Craig Honeycutt made opening
remarks.Mr. Honeycutt also expressed appreciation to Dr.Martin Nadelman, Alamance Community
College President,and his staff for the use of the auditorium.
Craig Benedict began the first part of the Boundary Line Report.He reviewed the history of the county
line from its creation in 1849,and noted that due to the mapping process, over the years residents have been
uncertain what county they were in. In the 1970s letters were sent out about the tax payment arrangement,
but not a line change(Map A, set forth hereafter). In the 1990s discussions were held about straightening
out the question of the line placement instead of having semi-informal agreements between tax assessors,
but there was no resolution to that. With new developments along the line,residents are asking which
county provides their service. Orange and Alamance Counties passed a joint resolution in 2008 to
determine where the line is,and the NC Geodetic Survey(NCGS)was hired to locate points along the line
from the 1849 description.He stated that what is functionally used as the county line is these tax
boundaries,but that is not the appropriate line to use,and showed the irregular taxing jurisdiction line. The
NCGS located thirteen points along the 1849 line,using new technology, old reference points,and old
deeds; and a formal survey was created.
Mr. Benedict presented Option 1 (Map B, set forth hereafter),the reconfirmation of the 1849 line, or the
NCGS line. He presented data showing how much acreage and how many structures would move from one
county to the other.He also provided information about changes in schools and other services and stated
that services would remain constant in the City of Mebane. Property owners were notified and public
meetings were held. Results from those meetings indicated that, of the thirty-four speakers,eighty percent
of property owners want to remain in Alamance County, seventeen percent want to remain in Orange
County, and three percent have no preference.Following these meetings,the Commissioners from both
counties asked about other options.He presented Option 2(Map C, set forth hereafter),which would
gerrymander to affect the taxing arrangement line and service experience. If this line is considered,it
would be a new line that would be agreed to by both Counties and be adopted by the Legislature. He
presented data showing how the line would affect acreage, structures, students,and services. He stated this
line would only affect about ten students,and the Counties would work with the school systems to prepare
an inter-local agreement to accommodate families for the length of time the children are in the school
system. He stated public meetings as well as meetings with staff from Alamance County, Orange County,
and the City of Mebane were held in 2009 relative to those areas where most of the change would occur
such as Ninth Street in Mebane and Mill Creek and Collington Farms Subdivisions. Option 2 Version 3
(Option 2v.3)(Map D, set forth hereafter)was developed after these meetings.This third option would
change the line in the southern part of the county to follow Cane Creek to Mebane Oaks Road and then to
the NCGS line;it would add some property to Alamance County in the Village of the Oaks Subdivision;it
would move in Collington Farms Subdivision so it does not go through the middle of houses; it would
follow the taxing arrangement line in the Ninth Street area of Mebane;and it would move all of the
developed area of Mill Creek Subdivision to Alamance County.
Mr. Benedict reviewed the positives and negatives of the three options.For Option 1,the survey work is
complete at no cost,but there would be many service changes, as more houses would move from one
service area to the other,and many lots would be split because the line would not follow lot lines.For
Option 2,most people would be satisfied with the gerrymandered line and houses are not split because the
line follows street lines,the back of properties,and natural features such as Cane Creek;but there is a cost
to the survey. In either Option 2 or Option 2v.3,in most cases 60 to 70 percent of the line is still Option 1.
In some cases,residents may be willing to pay the cost of the survey, some development owners may be
willing to pay, or the two counties may have some responsibility for payment.
Bruce Walker,Alamance County GIS Manager,reviewed the options in further detail.He stated the
current line with the tax payment arrangement causes a lot of problems for emergency services and other
services in the counties. It would cost between$400,000 to$600,000 to resurvey to formally use this line.
Option 1,the historical line, could be adopted with no cost to the taxpayer,it is the most legally defensible,
and does not deviate from the 1849 line. Alamance County would gain 150 acres and 100 homes,and 27
households with children would be affected. Option 2 follows the NCGS line 74%of the time,and
accommodates about 26%of the line in certain areas. A lot of people would be satisfied,but not everybody
would be accommodated. A resurvey would cost as much as$110,000 and the City of Mebane may be
willing to pay part of the survey that goes through the city limits. Acreage shift along this line would be
almost even between the counties. Option 2v.3 was developed after Mebane's suggestions to accommodate
more people within the city limits,and changes 39%of the NCGS line. Mebane has also discussed paying
for part of the survey of this line.Most of the changes are made in downtown Mebane,the acreage to
Alamance County increases, 88 houses would switch counties, and 25 households with children would be
affected. He noted that Wake and Franklin Counties,with a situation similar to Alamance and Orange
Counties,recently made a decision on their line to use the NCGS line and split the properties down the
middle and assess each property on both sides of the line.
Clyde Albright,Alamance County Attorney,reported that,in accordance with North Carolina General
Statute section 153A-17,only the State can change a county line. If both boards agree to have a new line
surveyed and change the line from the currently used line,then the General Assembly ratifies that. The
NCGS has located the existing line exactly as requested by both boards. He opined the location of the line
needs to be established before it can be moved or it cannot be moved with any degree of certainty. He
suggested following the steps as other counties have done by ratifying the line,thank the NCGS for
mapping it,and then if the counties want to change it,take each section at a time and logically pull off of
the existing line to create a new line. If Mebane wants to come up with a survey,they can do that if both
counties agree,but it must still pull off of an existing line. He stated the logical and defensible way to do it
is for the counties to adopt the survey, record it with both Register of Deeds' offices and the Secretary of
State's office, listen to Mebane and other citizens,and if both counties agree,then changes can be made
with resolutions to the Legislature.
CITY OF MEBANE COMMENTS—Patty Phillips,Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Mebane, stated the
City of Mebane requests that the Alamance and Orange County Commissioners select Option 2v.3,
adjusting the line to reflect past taxing and student attendance boundaries primarily in subdivision areas and
resurveying the line to create a new boundary in those specific areas. Option 2v.3 follows the NCGS 61%
of the time,and that establishes where the 1849 line is. The current line has been established,although not
recorded,and Option 2v.3,is a deviation or variance from that. Option 2v.3 would actually impact a
smaller number of parcels than Option 1 would impact,and something that has not been figured into the
cost of this is the cost of transferring the lots from one county to the other and the discovery that would
have to happen in the tax offices and changing the collection patterns there.Most importantly, Option 2v.3
would allow residents to continue to send their children to the same schools for the most part and receive
services from the county they have been paying their taxes to. She opined there is no reason at all that a
county line should be a straight line,and there are over 200 reasons, over 200 parcels,why the line should
be adjusted to reflect current practices. People have made important life decisions based on practices of
county government and they should be able to rely on their county government to make permanent and
official the line which reflects past taxing and student attendance. She asked the Commissioners to vote in
favor of Option 2v.3,and request that State House Representatives Alice Bordsen and Dan Ingle bring this
to the next Legislative Session and pass it.
PUBLIC COMMENTS—Comments from Mill Creek Subdivision were that the development owners
endorse Option 2v.3. The Board of Directors of the Homeowners' Association asked the Commissioners to
consider putting all of Mill Creek in Alamance County,the developed as well as the undeveloped portions.
One resident stated that some residents expressed a willingness to help pay for the resurvey of the line.
Another resident stated he specifically chose the section in Orange County because of excellent schools and
that the motivation of others for changing the county line serves a few and would negate his decision to
move into Orange County, as did others in that section. Comments from the Ninth Street area were that
some residents requested that the line be changed to conform to the map that shows the line down the back
of the properties and that they agree to participate in the cost of surveying and redrawing said county line
with a cost not to exceed$3.20 per linear foot of their property that is on the boundary line. Another
resident expressed disappointment that she was given incorrect information from a realtor when she made
an offer on her property. A resident of the Village of the Oaks stated he chose Orange County because of
schools and services. A resident in the Cane Creek area stated that the location of the legal line is no longer
uncertain,that the original location of the line is the only legal boundary between Orange and Alamance
Counties,and as such,both counties are breaking State law in the taxation of properties in the other county
and in the transfer of taxes to the other county. He stated the proposed line is unfair and unjust,paying for
an unnecessary additional survey is fiscally irresponsible,and that using the legal surveyed line is the best
and most economically responsible solution that cannot be challenged in court. He suggested the line issue
should be settled this year with the already located legal line,as it has been the failure of past county
commissioners that this issue was not resolved and subsequently created more justifiably angry residents as
time passed. A resident in the Mebane Oaks Road area stated that his property is isolated from the rest of
Alamance County by Mrs. Morrow's farm and the Alamance County landfill,that all of his services come
from Orange County, and he is used to the situation that exists and is excited about Option 2 and would like
to remain where he is.
COMMISSIONERS' DELIBERATION—Commissioner Yuhasz stated the Commissioners need to
recognize where the historic line is but don't necessarily have to ratify that. He further stated that the
Commissioners have the opportunity to decide where the line is going to be moving forward to meet the
expectations of people who have bought property along the line and have expected to be and were told that
they were going to be in one county or another. With information available now,with the historic line,and
where the line is located going forward,the Commissioners will have a much more precise definition of
where the county line is and will be in a much better position to maintain the position of the line. Option
2v.3 respects as much as possible the expectations of people, particularly those who have smaller,
welldeveloped
property. He stated he would lean toward encouraging the staffs to come up with a scenario that
uses Option 2v.3 as its basis. He asked for more information as to how many developed properties in Mill
Creek have been added to the initial Option 2.He expressed concern that if properties are moved from one
jurisdiction to another,that might change the value of the property and have a negative effect on a lender's
perspective and on the owner's perspective. He stated he would like to take a look at this before deciding
to change properties from one jurisdiction to another. Commissioner Jacobs noted that in the Mill Creek
section in Option 2v.3 there are 65 lots,about 35 developed and 30 undeveloped lots,and there are roughly
three or four households that have children on the Orange County side. He stated that 95%of the land area
in Mill Creek is in Alamance County. He also noted that indications from both school systems are that it is
feasible to have an inter-local school agreement to allow children to attend the school of their choice.
Commissioner Gordon stated she would have to weigh fairness and cost and who is going to pay before
making a decision. She also stated the Commissioners need to make sure there are a lot of criteria for
deviating from the surveyed line and she would like to know what the cost will be. Alamance County
Commissioners asked for and received clarification on several points.
DETERMINATION/RECAP—Chair Massey stated that it seems the majority of both boards,as well as
the City of Mebane,like Option 2v.3 and suggested the planners and boards get together individually.
Chair Foushee stated it would be helpful to be clear on what the next steps are. Frank Clifton suggested
that the issue be reasonably addressed to accommodate the most people. He also suggested the two
counties and the City of Mebane look at the cost of these individual areas to come up with an estimate and
some kind of agreement to submit something to the legislative delegations that for 60%to 70%leave the
line where the line is and for other areas to make these amendments as discussed. Craig Honeycutt stated
the big issues are dealing with the schools on inter-local agreements, getting details on the cost and the
number of students,and what portion Mebane is going to pay and what portion the private developers will
pay. He asked for a consensus from both boards on a preferred option,in order for staff to begin working
on those details to bring back to the Commissioners those figures and agreements so everyone has a clear
understanding and all of the questions have been answered. Commissioner Jacobs noted that Option 2v.3
may not have come to the attention of some of the residents who may be switched,and suggested that
letters be sent to make them aware before the Boards meet again so that if they have an objection,they will
have an opportunity to voice it.
CLOSING REMARKS—Chairs Massey and Foushee agreed that the majority of both boards want their
managers to work on the details and bring it back, starting with Option 2v.3.
ADJOURNMENT—There being no further business to be brought before the Boards, Chair Massey
adjourned the Alamance County Commissioners' meeting. Chair Foushee adjourned the Orange County
Commissioners' meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia H. Jones
Clerk to the Board