HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-02-2010 - 7cORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 2, 2010
Action Agenda
Item No. ~ - ~
SUBJECT: Orange County's Recommendations Regarding Goals for Inclusion in the North
Carolina Association of County Commissioners' (NCACC) 2011-2012
Legislative Goals Packa e
DEPARTMENT: County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
County Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) Draft Resolution -- Recommendations
Regarding Goals for Inclusion in the
North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners' (NCACC) 2011-2012
Legislative Goals Package
UNDER SEPARATE COVER
2) Orange County's 2010 Resolution
Regarding Legislative Matters With
Exhibits
3) 2010 Orange/Alamance County Line
and Hunting Deer With Dogs
Materials
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Commissioner Valerie Foushee, 245-2130
Frank Clifton, County Manager, 245-2300
PURPOSE: To consider and approve a Resolution Detailing Orange County's
Recommendations Regarding Goals for Inclusion in the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners' (NCACC) 2011-2012 Legislative Goals Package.
BACKGROUND: Every two years, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners
(NCACC) organizes a process to develop a legislative goals package. The purpose of the
package is to develop a consensus of broad support on legislative goals and issues for matters
affecting North Carolina counties that may be addressed during the upcoming North Carolina
General Assembly sessions during the next two calendar years. The goals and issues included
in the package, with their broad support, guide and strengthen NCACC representatives and
staff as they converse with individual legislators and committees on legislative matters.
As noted by Board members during the August 17, 2010 regular meeting, NCACC has begun
the process to develop its 2011-2012 Legislative Goals Package. North Carolina counties have
been asked to submit proposed legislative goals for consideration for inclusion in the package,
with the deadline for any submittals being September 15, 2010.
z
It is proposed that the Board of Commissioners adopt a resolution outlining 2-5 proposed
legislative goals for inclusion in NCACC's 2011-2012 package. Focusing on a few topics rather
than addressing multiple issues will likely enhance the possibility that the County's proposed
goals are addressed and ultimately included in NCACC's final package. County staff has
provided a draft resolution at Attachment 1 which addresses five topics as potential legislative
goals for submission to NCACC. The Board may want to add to, delete from, and/or revise the
language of the proposed goals included in the draft resolution.
In an effort to assist the Board in considering possible goals to forward to NCACC, provided for
reference purposes at Attachment 2 is a copy of the Orange County's 2010 Resolution
Regarding Legislative Matters. This Resolution was adopted by the Board on February 16,
2010 for the 2010 General Assembly Session and addresses 32 individual issues/topics as well
as expressing support for NCACC's 2009-2010 NCACC Legislative Goals Package (Exhibit D)
and the Triangle J Council of Governments 2009 Regional Legislative Agenda.
Exhibit D may specifically be worth reviewing as Board members consider potential goals to
recommend for the NCACC 2011-2012 Legislative Goals Package. Although the 2011-2012
Legislative Goals Package is certain to include other topics, it will likely address many issues
similar to those included in 2009-2010 NCACC Legislative Goals Package. Reviewing Exhibit D
may provide some insight to Board members on potential goals to forward to NCACC for 2011-
2012.
It is worth noting that the Board also took action in 2010 related to the Orange/Alamance county
line and hunting dogs with deer in Orange County. Although both these items specifically relate
to Orange County and are not "statewide" issues, information for them is included at Attachment
3 for reference purposes as the Board considers potential goals to submit to NCACC.
The draft resolution provided by staff includes references to several goals which were part of
the NCACC 2009-2010 Legislative Goals Package and are expected to be repeated in
NCACC's 2011-2012 Package. The resolution subsequently addresses five potential goals that
staff has proposed the County forward to NCACC for 2011-2012. This format allows the Board
to confirm support for those goals which are expected to be repeated as well as detail and
express support for other new potential goals.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact with considering and approving a resolution
detailing Orange County's Recommendations Regarding Goals for Inclusion in the North
Carolina Association of County Commissioners' (NCACC) 2011-2012 Legislative Goals
Package.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
1) Discuss potential goals for the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners' (NCACC) 2011-2012 Legislative Goals Package;
2) Consider the draft Resolution Detailing Orange County's Recommendations
Regarding Goals for Inclusion in the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners' (NCACC) 2011-2012 Legislative Goals Package;
3) Add to, delete from, and/or revise the language of the proposed goals
included in the draft resolution;
4) Approve the resolution as presented or amended; and
5) Direct the Clerk to the Board to forward the approved resolution and any other
materials requested to NCACC by the September 15, 2010 deadline.
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 1
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Resolution Detailing Orange County's Recommendations
Regarding Goals for Inclusion in the
North Carolina Association of County Commissioners' (NCACC)
2011-2012 Legislative Goals Package
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC)
organizes a process every two years to develop a legislative goals package; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the package is to develop a consensus of broad
support on legislative goals and issues for matters affecting North Carolina
counties that may be addressed during the upcoming North Carolina General
Assembly sessions during next two calendar years; and
WHEREAS, the goals and issues included in NCACC package, with their broad
support, guide and strengthen NCACC representatives and staff as they
converse with individual legislators and committees on legislative matters; and
WHEREAS, NCACC has begun the process to develop its 2011-2012 Legislative
Goals Package and Orange County and all other North Carolina counties have
been asked to submit proposed legislative goals for consideration for inclusion in
the 2011-2012 Legislative Goals Package by September 15, 2010; and
WHEREAS, Orange County continues to support legislative goals included in
past NCACC legislative goals packages such as:
1) Support for the expansion of revenue options and protection of
revenue sources available to county governments;
2) Opposition to legislation shifting the, state's existing responsibility for
funding transportation construction and maintenance projects to
county governments;
3) Support for legislation to provide state assistance to meet public
school and community college construction needs caused by
increased enrollment, mandated reduction in class size and other
factors;
4) Seeking legislation to ensure that state-funded mental health,
developmental disability, and substance abuse services are
available, accessible and affordable to all citizens and that sufficient
state resources fund service provision costs inclusive of sufficient
crisis beds; and
5) Support for legislation to allow public schools systems to regain
access to sales tax refunds (Orange County believes a more
comprehensive solution is supporting legislation to exempt counties,
cities, school boards, community colleges, and local utility authorities
from payment of state and local sales taxes on purchases within
North Carolina); and
WHEREAS, Orange County believes there are other issues of importance to all
North Carolina counties that should be included as goals in NCACC's 2011-2012
Legislative Goals Package;
NOW THEREFORE we the Orange County Board of Commissioners do hereby
recommend that NCACC include the following goals in the NCACC 2011-2012
Legislative Goals Package:
1) Bio-solids Disposal -Support legislation which provides county
governments some opportunity to regulate and/or have input into, but
not prohibit, bio-solids application activities, including the acceptable
"classes" of bio-solids for application and the prohibition of bio-solids
application in certain environmentally sensitive areas such as critical
watersheds. The appropriate application of bio-solids for agricultural
use should be allowed with counties playing a role in the process;
2) Energy Efficiency Standards in Local Building Codes -Support
changes in State law to allow local governments to include standards
for energy efficiency in local building codes that are higher than those
contained in the State Building Code;
3) Fire Protection -Additional State Funding for State-Owned
Buildings - Support legislation to provide additional State
compensation to municipalities and local fire districts providing fire
protection to state-owned buildings;
4) Entertainment and Sports Event Fee to Support Transportation
Needs -Support legislation to permit a fee to be charged on tickets
purchased for large entertainment and sports events, with the
revenue shared by the respective government jurisdictions and
dedicated to the support of public transit and transportation
programs; and
5) Wastewater System Classifications for Volunteer Fire
Departments -Support actions to change North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) wastewater system classification rules which
currently classify a spray irrigation system such as one utilized by
volunteer fire departments as "commercial". When the flow
generated by the system is domestic quality/non-industrial process
wastewater, the system should. be held to the same monitoring and
testing standards as a residential wastewater system under DWQ
jurisdiction. In the alternative, volunteer fire departments should be
excluded entirely from the "commercial" classification. The annual
inspections and testing costs associated with a "commercial"
designation for a spray irrigation system serving a volunteer fire
department can be several thousands of dollars. Accounting for the
type of flow actually treated by a system rather than assigning a
blanket "commercial" designation would significantly reduce volunteer
fire department's annual costs across the state.
4
This the 2"d day of September 2010.
Valerie Foushee, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
~~acht~l2~ ~ - - s
RES 2010 014
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
RESOLUTION REGARDING
LEGISLATIVE MATTERS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Orange County that the Board hereby requests the Senator and
Representatives representing Orange County take the following
position on legislation regarding the following matters:
1) Revenue Options for Local Government - Support
legislation that authorizes a variety of revenue
options for local governments to fund local government
services. An overarching principle is that any local
government revenue source that is presently available
to one or more local governments in the state should be
available to all local governments uniformly. throughout
the state. All local governments should, on a
reasonable basis, have the authority to levy local
option sales taxes, apply impact fees and/or taxes,
utilize real estate transfer fees and/or taxes, etc.;
7
2) Hold Harmless Funding for the County - Orange County is
experiencing a substantial decrease in sales tax
revenue. The County asks that the 2010 General
Assembly protect the "hold harmless" funding to the
County as designated in the 2007 Medicaid Relief
legislation. Any efforts to reduce or eliminate this
"hold harmless" funding will further exacerbate the
County's strained financial status. The County further
requests that the State's "hold harmless" funding
distribution schedule be aligned to more closely
resemble the State sales tax distribution schedule;
3) Sales Tax Exemption - Support legislation to exempt
counties, cities, school boards, community colleges,
and the Orange Water & Sewer Authority from payment of
state and- local sales taxes on purchases within North
Carolina. The legislation should contain a provision
permitting the state to repay the last refund over a
multi-year period to minimize state budget impacts.
Alternatively, Orange County supports legislation to
fully restore public schools' access to sales tax
refunds;
8
4) School Construction - Support legislation to provide
state assistance to local governments to meet school
construction needs caused by increased enrollment and
mandated reductions in class size through a statewide
referendum on a bond issue and/or through additional
authority for counties to raise revenues to meet school
facility needs;
5) North Carolina Housing Trust Fund - Support legislation
providing appropriations by the General Assembly
authorizing recurring funds for the North Carolina
Housing Trust Fund to provide new home ownership
opportunities and affordable rental homes for those
qualified under the North Carolina Housing Trust Fund,
while looking to enhance federal funding opportunities
where appropriate;
6) Land for Tomorrow/Land and Water Conservation Trust
Funds - Support legislative actions which seek to
enhance appropriations and/or safeguard existing trust
funds established for the protection of the state's
land, water, and special places, before they are
9
irreversibly lost, and which enjoin the Governor from
sequestering these funds;
7) Criminal Justice Partnership Program (CJPP)
Continuation Funding (from Current Non-Recurring
Status) - Support legislative actions to provide
reliable full funding for CJPP as it saves money in the
long term for both state and local governments. CJPP
provides grants to support. community-based programs
aimed at reducing recidivism, probation revocations,
alcoholism and other drug dependencies, and the costs
of incarceration to the state and counties, with the
Division of Community Corrections (DCC) administering
the program. The eligible offender population includes
adult sentenced offenders who receive an intermediate
sanction and post-release or parole offenders.
Orange County understands the Department of Juvenile
Justice/Delinquency Prevention, like all State
agencies, must grapple with reduced resources and the
threat of further cuts in a tough fiscal environment.
The County acknowledges the difficulty achieving these
adjustments and appreciates the Department's commitment
to sustaining the majority of direct services to North
10
Carolina's children and families. In this time of
economic shortfalls, CJPP remains one of the only
available resources in counties where offenders are
able to receive the treatment and services they need to
stay focused on leading productive lives. CJPP
represents a one-of-a-kind partnership between the
state, counties, and various providers of treatment,
education and vocational services working jointly to
effect positive behavioral change in the thinking,
motivation, and actions of criminal offenders. The
County encourages the State to avail itself of any
opportunities through the use of economic stimulus
dollars or other federal initiatives to maintain the
stability of programming, facilities, and staff vital
to the safety and security of troubled youth in their
local communities. (See Exhibit A - March 18, 2008
Board of County Commissioners Adopted Resolution
Regarding Continuation of Criminal Justice Partnership
Program Funding);
8) Fire Protection - Additional State Funding for State-
Owned Buildings - Support legislation to provide
additional State compensation to municipalities and
11
local fire districts providing fire protection to
state-owned buildings;
9) Funding for a Piedmont Regional Value-Added Shared Use
Food and Agricultural Processing Center - During 2008
and 2009, successful grant applications for a Regional
Value-Added Shared Use Food and Agricultural Processing
Center yielded $1,098,000 in state and federal funds
dedicated to the renovation of an existing Hillsborough
structure as well as equipment purchase and first year
operation of the facility. For the 2010 General
Assembly session and on behalf of its five partners,
Orange County requests $250,000, including any
financial support from any federal stimulus funds
available for this "shovel-ready" project, to support
the construction, start-up, and operation of a Piedmont
Regional Value-Added Shared Use Food and Agricultural
Processing Center.
Orange County previously forged a regional public-
private partnership for a potential Piedmont Regional
Shared Use Value-Added Processing Center including four
counties (Alamance, Chatham, Durham, and Orange) and
two private businesses (Weaver Street Market and Whole
12
Foods}. The partners secured the necessary funds for a
feasibility study conducted by the Mars Hill College,
Center for Assessment and Research Analyses. The study
report included information on potential site needs for
a Center, potential product lines, marketing
opportunities, and numerous other factors.. A Center
would enable farmers from the region to meet local
market demand for year-round locally-grown products and.
would also operate in a complementary fashion with the
regional meat processing center in Caswell County;
10) E-911 Funds - Orange County supports the legislative
study committee currently evaluating the expansion of
uses for- these .funds and any legislation which
ultimately supports expanded uses within the public
safety disciplines .related to emergency communications
and Emergency Medical Services;
11) Homestead Exemption Revision - Support Homestead
Exemption provisions of the Machinery Act to provide
greater opportunities for low-income seniors to remain.
in their homes and not be displaced due to property tax
13
burdens, eliminate the discriminatory features of the
exemption provisions relating to couples, and address
the ineffectiveness of the exemption provisions in
communities where property values increase at
substantial rates over short periods of time;
12) Court Facility Fees - Orange County recently completed
an $11 million justice facility expansion, a
substantial investment for the County. Like other
North Carolina counties, the County receives limited
financial support for the construction of judicial
facilities as well as the on-going annual facility
operation and maintenance. Orange County expresses
support for either a) counties receiving a higher
percentage of existing court fees, or b) counties being
granted authority to institute Court Facility Fees to
help fund capital, operational and other needs
associated with ever-increasing judicial activities;
13) Entertainment and Sports Event Fee to Support
Transportation Needs - Support legislation to permit a
fee to be charged on tickets purchased for large
entertainment and sports events, with the revenue
14
shared by the respective government jurisdictions and
dedicated to the support of public transit and
transportation programs (Also see Item #1 of this
Resolution);
14) Carolina North Transportation Funding - Support the
allocation of both State -and University of North
Carolina funding to address the regional transportation
impacts that the University's new Carolina 'North campus
will create. The University of North Carolina's new
proposed Carolina North campus will have tremendous
impacts on traffic in Chapel Hill, throughout Orange
County, and the region. A majority of the University's
staff already travel from outside Orange County,
impacting the County's limited transportation
infrastructure. The transportation demands and
increased traffic counts created by Carolina North will
be substantial and the State and University should
provide funding to address these impacts;
15) County Responsibility for Roads - Oppose legislation
and any other efforts to delegate secondary road
15
improvement, maintenance, and costs (or the sharing of
these secondary road improvement or maintenance
responsibilities) to county governments. Orange County
specifically emphasizes the undesirability of counties
bearing or sharing the costs of secondary road
improvements and/or maintenance. However, if the
responsibility or the sharing of responsibility for
secondary road improvements and/or the maintenance of
roads is foisted upon county governments, then Orange
County requests that counties also be given the
authority to levy fees, tolls, and other charges as may
be necessary to provide funding to address this new
responsibility. A new responsibility should include
new revenue opportunities to accomplish the identified
needs;
16) Mental Health - Support stable and secure funding for
mental illness, development disabilities, and substance
abuse treatment systems Statewide, and seek legislation
that assures local capacity to meet local needs. The
State must support local government, both financially
and statutorily, so that crisis intervention services
16
and housing options can be made appropriate and
available in community settings. Orange County also
expresses support for any increased allocations as a
result of Federal stimulus funding to strengthen
community-based mental health services; i.e., Club Nova
(Carrboro) and KidsCope (Hillsborough) that have
previously required supplemental financial assistance
from County government;
17) Wastewater System Classifications for Volunteer Fire
Departments - Support actions to change North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) wastewater system
classification rules which currently classify a spray
irrigation system such as one utilized by volunteer
fire departments as "commercial". This classification
is appropriate when floor drains or other sources of
non-domestic wastewater are present. However, when the
flow generated by the system is domestic quality/non-
industrial process wastewater, the system should be
held to the same monitoring and testing standards as a
residential wastewater system under DWQ jurisdiction.
In the alternative, volunteer fire departments should
be excluded entirely from the "commercial"
17
classification. The annual inspections and testing
costs associated with a "commercial" designation for a
spray irrigation system serving a volunteer fire
department can be several thousands of dollars.
. Accounting for the type of flow actually treated by a
system rather than assigning a blanket "commercial"
designation would significantly reduce a volunteer fire
department's annual cost;
18) B Everett Jordan Reservoir Nutrient Management Rules
As Stage 1 Adaptive Management begins in 2010, and the
stakeholders await the 2014 technical report on water
quality that may trigger additional nutrient reduction
steps, Orange County continues to note its longstanding
watershed protection efforts in this watershed prior to
the 200.1 baseline. The County requests that members of
the North Carolina General Assembly take leadership in
making funding available to local governments to
address the nutrient management reductions that may be
required, and in particular consider the creation of a
revolving fund (perhaps administered by the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund) to provide starter funds for
18
nutrient trading possibilities among the jurisdictions
and public-private entities;
19) Bio-solids Disposal - Support legislation which
provides county governments some opportunity to
regulate and/or have input into, but not prohibit,
sludge application activities, including the acceptable
"classes" of sludge for application and the prohibition
of sludge application in certain environmentally
sensitive areas such as critical watersheds. Orange
County is not seeking to eliminate the appropriate
application of bio-solids for agricultural use, but
believes counties .should play a role in the process.
(See Exhibit B for additional information);
20) Open Burning/Burning Permits - Support amending the
statutes (G.S. 113-60.31) related to open burning to
remove the open burning prohibition exemption that is
currently available during periods of hazardous forest
fire conditions, during drought periods, or during air
pollution episodes; or, in the alternative, granting
local governments the authority to prohibit open
burning without the State's declaration of a hazardous
19
condition since local fire authorities are best suited
to assess local conditions and determine the best
courses of action related to burning activities;
21) Herbicide Use Limitations for Right of Way Maintenance
- Support legislation that would further regulate or
prohibit the use of herbicides for the clearing and
maintenance of easements and rights of way by
utilities;
22) Outdoor Advertising Vegetation Removal - Oppose any
efforts to revise provisions governing vegetation
removal for outdoor advertising purposes that would
expand the opportunities for additional vegetation
removal along interstate and other road right-of-ways.
Orange County believes that the scenic beauty of the
state is significantly harmed by outdoor advertising
signs in general and further diminished with the
associated vegetation removal. The County opposes any
efforts to permit additional outdoor advertising signs
and any relaxation of the rules limiting. vegetation
removal for new or existing signs;
20
23) Monetary Exactions for Developments - Oppose any
legislation which would preclude local governments from
requiring a monetary contribution for the impact of
development that is not expressly authorized by law.
This bill could impact a local. government adequate
public facilities ordinance (APFO);
24) Development Moratoria Authority - Oppose Senate Bill
117 and any other legislation which would prohibit a
local government from imposing a time-limited building
moratorium while it develops or revises a development
ordinance;
25) Energy Efficiency Standards in Local Building Codes -
Support changes in State law to allow local governments
to include standards for energy efficiency in local
building codes that are higher than those contained in
the State Building Code;
26) Solid Waste Services - Oppose any legislation to
further weaken the authority and/or ability of local
governments to operate and administer Solid Waste
services, including opposition to legislation similar
21
to Senate Bill 951 (2006} and any other legislation
that would limit local governments' opportunities in
their solid waste service delivery to reduce costs,
improve the quality of service, and/or meet local waste
reduction goals;
27) Construction and Demolition Landfill - Change in
Operations - Support legislative assistance to change
the State rules/statutes regarding the origin of
materials and not the material use in connection with C
& D landfill disposal. Orange County continues to
challenge the change in State rules/statutes. The
effect is that considerable C & D materials are now
required to be placed in the County Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW) landfill using valuable space, raising
costs, and creating operational difficulties for field
supervisors. For many years the State did not apply a
rigid interpretation and related enforcement. Orange
County, while fully compliant, maintains this rule is
expensive, unnecessary, and detrimental to waste
reduction goals. The cost of losing 3 months of
capacity in the MSW landfill due to the shift of C&D
22
materials is estimated at $250,000 per year or a total
of $750,000 over three years. Moreover the increased
cost to the Solid Waste Sanitation Division for
delivering C & D like materials to the MSW landfill is
approximately $19,500 per year, with. $1,310 for each
additional month thereafter. The State can impose a
maximum administrative penalty of $15,000 per day for
non-compliance with the C & D definition. See_ Exhibit
C - April 18, 2008 Memorandum Regarding Change in
Landfill Operations;
28) Broadband - Orange County supports legislation,
funding, and other efforts made to expand broadband
capability to the un-served and under-served areas of
the State to enhance quality of life as well as expand
opportunities for jobs creation, small business
development, and growth in farm enterprises. Orange
County also supports legislation and regulations that
would preserve local option and authority where needed
to deploy community broadband systems and ensure
community access to critical broadband services;
23
29) Bicycle Safety Education - Support legislation to
increase the emphasis on bicycle safety issues in
drivers' education courses and on the State drivers'
license examination;
30) Employment Anti-Discrimination Legislation (Statewide)
- Support legislation creating a statewide employment
anti-discrimination law and providing for local
government enforcement through memoranda of
understanding or other appropriate mechanisms;
31) Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage - Oppose any
proposed Constitutional amendment which limits or
defines marriage as only the union of a man and a woman
or provides that marriage between a man and a woman is
the only domestic legal union recognized in North
Carolina;
32) Extend Ban on Hunting Deer with Doqs - Orange County
requests the delegation introduce and support
ratification of a local act to ban hunting deer with
dogs throughout the County in its entirety. Hunting
deer with dogs has been banned in that portion of
24
Orange County lying south of Interstate 85 since 1979
when the General Assembly adopted NC General Statute
113-291.5. The intent of the proposed legislation is
to extend the ban north of Interstate 85. During the
fall of 2009, County staff held listening sessions to
receive comments and suggestions from both deer hunters
and private property owners in response to questions,
concerns, and complaints arising from the community.
The Board of Commissioners received staff findings and
conclusions at its January 21, 2010 meeting, and in the
interest of public safety, private property rights, and
population change, voted to incorporate proposed
legislation within its package for presentation to the
local delegation. The practice was banned in adjacent
counties - Alamance (1979) and Durham (2001). Person
and Caswell have not addressed the issue formally. A
"Survey of Landowners Who Own Large Tracts of Land
Concerning Deer Management and Hunting" conducted by
Responsive Management on behalf of the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission and published in 2009 reported 61
percent of the respondents (owners of 5-acres minimum)
moderately or strongly disagreed with the statement,
"Hunting deer with dogs should be legal in North
25
Carolina". The Human Society of the United States
(HSUS) reports that while deer hunting is legal in
every state, hunting deer with packs of dogs is allowed
in only nine states - Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana and Arkansas;
33) North Carolina Association of County Commissioners
(NCACC) Legislative Goals - Orange County supports
NCACC's Legislative Goals, many elements of which were
and are initiatives of Orange County, noting the
additional Orange County explanatory language included
in Bold Italic where appropriate (See Exhibit D).
Orange County has specific comments related to two
NCACC goal statements:
a) Intergovernmental Relations - Modernize Annexation
Laws - Orange County believes many of the issues
that arise during the annexation process could be
reduced or eliminated if state law encouraged or
required the implementation of long-range planning
agreements between towns and counties; and
b) Agriculture - Support Conservation of Working
Lands and Farmland Preservation - Orange County
26
supports a conservation option under the Use Value
Program. Orange County also supports a revision
to the revenue and acreage requirements of the Use
Value Program. Many operations can easily meet
the revenue requirements but do not meet the
minimum ten acres .threshold, for agricultural
operations. It is suggested that a pilot grogram
be established for several counties including
Orange that reduces the acreage requirement and
raises the revenue requirement from $1,000 to
$5,000. The results from a pilot program could
then be evaluated for implementation statewide.
34) Triangle J Council of Governments 2009 Regional
Legislative Agenda - Support legislation that would
accomplish the Triangle J Council of Governments 2009
Regional Legislative Agenda, which is Exhibit E to this
Resolution, many elements of which were and are
initiatives of Orange County (Note: The Triangle J
Council of Governments is currently developing its 2010
Regional Legislative Agenda).
27
Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by
Commissioner the foregoing resolution was adopted
this the 16th day of February, 2010.
I, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the
County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on February 16, 2010 as relates in any
way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings
are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this ~ day
of ,
~'etti~S~' E' _eo
Fj~.
rk'-to the hoard of Commissioners
~~'
r~ ~ttg~~
EXHIBIT A
~8
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUATION OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FUNDING
WHEREAS, Criminal Justice Partnership Program (CJPP) funding has been
removed from the continuation budget and is now subject to continuation review;
and
WHEREAS, the non-reoccurring status of CJPP funding and subsequent
continuation review will delay the annual appropriation and may result in the foss of
qualified professionals to provide treatment services for adult offenders at the local
level; and
WHEREAS, since 1994, the State of North Carolina and county governments have
been partners in providing necessary community based substance abuse treatment
services to adult offenders, which .have been effective in reducing recidivism by
these offenders; and
WHEREAS, the local CJPP Boards diligently carry out their charge of assessing
community needs, planning for services to meet those needs and recommending
programs for funding to deliver the services, and evaluating the performance of
these programs; and
WHEREAS, the loss of CJPP program services will result in the adult offender being
without community based treatment services and could increase recidivism, as well
as,~ incarceration in the local jails and State prison system; and '
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of
Commissioners strongly endorses full reinstatement of funding for the Criminal
Justice Partnership Program to the continuation budget and the allocation of
additional funds to support legislative mandates to protect the community and
provide a criminal justice continuum at the local level.
This, the 18~' day of March 2008.
.. _ Barry Jacobs, Chair .., :. -: _ -
Orange County Board of Commissioners
29
EXHIBIT B
Bio-Solids Disposal
Orange County is among the top five North Carolina counties in terms of acreage
on which wastewater treatment bio-solids is applied. The County receives bio-
solids from wastewater treatment plants operated by Hillsborough and Orange
Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) in the County, from Mebane and Burlington
in Alamance County and from the City of Durham in Durham County. Some of
this application occurs in critical watersheds.
The process of land applying liquefied bio-solids is regulated by the NC Division
of Water Quality under US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
regulations, policies and guidelines under a primacy agreement with the USEPA.
Bio-solids are generally applied to agricultural land (primarily land used for active
livestock grazing or growing of forage crops) at "agronomic" rates. Agronomic
rates in this case indicate that the bio-solids are applied such that its
nitrogen/phosphorous content is consistent with the rate of application of
standard fertilizers. Unlike commercial fertilizers, however, bio-solids containing
industrial wastes typical of municipal wastewater treatment systems usually
contain a number of potentially harmful heavy metals (cadmium, chromium,
arsenic, lead, mercury), synthetic and volatile organic compounds (SOC's and
VOC's) as well as some level of active pathogenic organisms typical of human
waste residues.
The land application of bio-solids to agricultural lands is exempt - as both a
"discharge" wastewater treatment activity and an agricultural activity -from
approval, regulation, enforcement or effective oversight by County land,
environmental protection or health regulation. Yet potential effects to the health
of nearby residents that are associated with aerosol or surface and ground water
contamination are woefully un- or under-studied by the EPA or the Center for
Disease Control. Residents of Orange County that live nearby to bio-solids
application sites are fearful of risks to their health and have at least anecdotally
reported a higher incidence of health and nuisance problems to the Board of
County Commissioners.
30
EX~IIBIT C
Memorandum
To: Laura Blackmon, County Manager
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director
Subject: Change in Landfill Operations -Effective Immediately
By Order of NC Division of Waste Management, Strict Regulation
of Incoming Materials to Construction & Demolition
(C&D) Landfill To be Enforced
Impacts: Estimated Shift of 8,000 Tons from C&D Landfill to MSW Landfill;
Potential Reduction of Available MSW landfill Capacity by Five
Months; and Additional Disposal Costs for Customers
Date: Apri118, 2008
The NC Division of Waste Management (DWM) recently notified the Solid Waste
Management Department that strict regulatory adherence will be applied for incoming
materials to the Construction and Demolition (C&D) landfill beginning immediately.
According to state rules regulating C&D landfills, only C&D waste "generated solely
from the construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition operations on pavement and
buildings or structures" is authorized to be placed in a permitted C&D landfill. "C&D
waste does not include municipal and industrial waste that may be generated by the on-
going operations of buildings or structures". ~ This distinction thereby prohibits, for
example: 1) a piece of broken pipe scrap collected from the backyard during a home
clean up from being placed in C&D; 2) material generated at a cabinet shop operation,
even if it is plywood with laminate or other similar material, from burial in the C&D
landfill; 3) a piece of damaged hose generated from a home use is not allowed whereas
the same scrap piece of hose from a construction site would be allowed, and 4) a small
sawed end of a " 2 by 4" from Home Depot's shop is prohibited, but the same piece of
wood from a construction site is allowed.
During a March visit by our region's DWM Inspector, it was observed that as much as
half of the material currently being placed into the County's C&D landfill did not fall
under their definition of C&D above. It often originated from cleanups and other non-
construction activity. Due to this distinction, and under the threat of issuance of a notice
of violation of the County's landfill operating permit, our region's state inspector has
mandated that Orange County change our operations immediately to comply.
Accordingly, the staff estimates slightly more than 50% of current C&D wastes will need
to be diverted to the lined MSW landfill. This equates to an additional 8,000 tons of
material a year that now will need to be placed into the MSW landfill. It will impact the
County in loss of an estimated five months of available MSW landfill space and a cost
increase of 15% cost to our customers ($47 per ton in MSW compazed to $41 in C&D).
31
Previously, many C&D landfill operators used good judgment and best management
practices in allowing construction and demolition type materials and other non-
putrescible solid wastes such as some furniture, non-recyclable wood, rigid plastics, etc.
The purpose of this informal, landfill-operator-initiated expansion of accepted materials
was to preserve valuable lined landfill space, while at the same time maintaining
environmental integrity and rigorous oversight of the facility. While most metal, clean
wood and cardboard is recycled from our local C&D waste due to Orange County's
regulatory prohibition on landfilling these materials, other construction-like material is
frequently so heavily commingled with the remaining non-construction site wastes that it
will now no longer be technically classified as C&D. In staff's estimation, and that of
many solid waste professionals and scientists, a discarded board, water hose or a plastic
bucket from a construction site is no different than an identical discarded board, water
hose or plastic bucket from a Home Depot dumpster or a citizen's garage. To many solid
waste professionals, it seems that the environmental properties of the material itself
should determine the most effective and proper disposal rather than the origin of the
material, whereas it appears that the regulators have placed origin ahead of the nature of
the materials in importance of determining how materials are to be handled.
Operational difficulties created for Orange County by this change in enforcement are
substantive and adjustments will be required of customers accustomed to long-standing
landfill materials acceptance practices. The working face of the lined MSW landfill will
become larger, requiring additional daily cover material. Managing this increased traffic
from commingling of smaller vehicles like the casual home-hauler in a pickup truck with
larger vehicles will create operational and staffing challenges.
Orange County has worked diligently for twenty years to reduce waste landfilled,
conserve landfill air space and increase recycling in every sector through a combination
of programs, regulations, public education and technical innovation. The County's
environmental monitoring protocols include on-site inspection of each load dumped and
our groundwater monitoring far exceeds State regulatory or general industry standards.
Last year, Orange County achieved its highest waste reduction rate ever at 48% per
capita. This new enforcement protocol will burden the County and its landfill users
unnecessarily, take away daily operational judgments by our on-the-ground waste staff
and not necessarily achieve any greater environmental protection, while moving materials
out of our C&D waste stream, potentially escaping our C&D recovery efforts and
unnecessarily harming the County's waste reduction efforts.
While many communities do not have access to C&D landfills and dispose of all wastes
into Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills, others that do utilize C&D facilities may
wish to allocate wastes according to their specific properties and preserve landfill space
and minimise expenditures. The Solid Waste Management Act of 2007 now requires
liners in all new C&D landfills and makes them essentially equal to MSW landfills in
their level of protection. This makes the arbitrary distinction of using the source of
materials rather than the contamination potential of the waste materials even less
understandable. We suggest your consideration in recommending that our legislative
leaders consider inquiring about a potential change in the definition of C&D waste.
32
EXIT D
The Orange County Board of Commissioners expresses its general support for the North
Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) 2009-2010 Legislative Goals as
detailed below. In some instances, Orange County has included additional explanatory
language to further detail Orange County's position on a particular matter. Any
additional language included by Orange County is shown in Bold Italic
NCACC LEGISLATIVE GOALS 2009-2010
(With Comments by Orange County)
Priority Goal
1. Revenue Options and Protection -Seek legislation to allow all counties to enact by
resolution or, at the option of the Board of Commissioners, by voter referendum any or
all revenue options from among those that have been authorized for any other county,
including local option sales taxes, prepared food taxes, impact fees and real estate
transfer taxes; and to preserve the existing local revenue base.
(See also Item #1 of Orange County's Legislative Matters
Resolution)
Justice and Public Safety
2. E-911 Funds -Support legislation to preserve county revenue from E-911 charges and
allow counties greater flexibility in the use of the funds; and restructure the 911 Board
created by G.S. 62A-41 to add additional local government representation.
(See also Item #10 of Orange County Legislative Matters
Resolution)
3. Reimbursement, state inmates in county jails -Seek legislation to increase the daily
reimbursement rate for housing state inmates in county jails.
4. Gang Prevention -Support additional funds for gang prevention, intervention and
suppression activities.
5. Methamphetamine Labs -Support legislation and appropriations to mitigate the
prevalence of methamphetamine production and use through the state.
6. Court Facilities Fee -Support legislation to allow counties to collect additional facilities
fees to help fund capital, operational and other needs associated with ever-increasing
judicial activities.
(See also Item #12 of Orange County's Legislative Matters
Resolution)
7. Criminal Justice Information - Support legislation which requires sharing of
information by the juvenile justice system with the adult criminal system during the
conduct of any felony-level criminal investigation.
33
Taxation and Finance
1. Motor Vehicle Property Tazes -Support continued appropriations from the Combined
Motor Vehicle and Registration Account to ensure that the previously ratified motor
vehicle taxation legislation is implemented according to the existing timetable and
without any additional delay.
2. Impact Analysis -Support efforts to analyze the fiscal impacts of tax relief programs
and exemptions enacted by the General Assembly to provide transparency on a county_-
by-county basis with respect to the local effects of such tax breaks.
3. Definition of Charity -Support legislation to clarify the definition of "charity" for
hospitals, including facilities fmanced through bonds issued by the Medical Care
Commission, and continuing care facilities, and require that any property valuation
exclusion formula provide for a higher test of "charity," to include a calculation of the
cost ofnon-reimbursed care delivered.
4. Manufactured Home Tazes -Support legislation to require all taxes levied on a
manufactured home to be paid before the home may be moved, repossessed or sold on-
site.
5. Central Listing and Assessing of Cellular and Cable Companies -Support legislation
to centrally list and assess cellular companies and cable companies as public service
companies.
6. Reimbursement, In Rem Foreclosures - Support an increase in the reimbursement rate
for local government collection efforts related to in rem foreclosures.
Environment
1. Water and Sewer Infrastructure - (a) Support legislation providing the necessary
capital for the maintenance, upgrade, installation and expansion of public water, sewer
and stormwater infrastructure, with encouragement for water reclamation facilities; and
(b) seek legislation to create a study of the rules and procedures for evaluating the
available capacity of pump stations.
2. Funds for Regional Water Resource Management -Support funding for regional
councils to develop and implement multi-jurisdictional water resource management
planning and programs in every region through the cooperation of local governments,
water users, and other stakeholders.
3. Private Well Testing -Seek legislation limiting state mandated contaminant testing of
private wells to naturally occurring chemicals, and authorizing local control over well
testing for named petroleum-based pollutants.
4. Water Capacity/Reservoirs -Seek legislation to streamline the permitting of local
water supply reservoirs without sacrificing the scientific rigor of Environmental Impact
Assessment and the opportunity for public comment.
5. Yard Waste Facilities -Seek legislation clarifying that runoff from yard waste staging
areas at county landfills does not require wastewater treatment.
6. Watershed Pollution Rules -Seek legislation eliminating required retrofitting by
counties of existing development under rules impacting nutrient levels in existing
watersheds.
(See .also Item #18 of Orange County's Legislative Matters
Resolution) - As Stage 1 Adaptive Management begins in 2010,
and the stakeholders await the 2014 technical report on water
quality that may trigger additional nutrient reduction steps,
Orange County continues to note its longstanding watershed
protection efforts in this watershed prior to the 2001 baseline.
The County requests that members of the North Carolina
34
General Assembly take leadership in making funding available
to local governments to address the nutrient management
reductions that may be required, and in particular consider the
creation of a revolving fund (perhaps administered by the
Clean Water Management Trust Fund) to provide starter funds
for nutrient trading possibilities among the jurisdictions and
public private entities.
Human Services
1. Mental Health Funding -Seek legislation to ensure that state-funded mental health,
developmental disability, and substance abuse services are available, accessible and
affordable to all citizens and that sufficient state resources fund service provision costs
inclusive of sufficient crisis beds.
(See also Item #16 of Orange County's Legislative Matters
Resolution)
2. Health and Social Services Funding -Support state funding to provide adequate health
and social services, specifically:
• assist each school system in reaching the school health nurse student ratio of
1:750 and incorporate into the allocation formula a criterion that recognizes the
level of county effort in funding school nurses. The Legislature should
examine the appropriateness of the target ratio for small school districts and
consider whether a target of nurse hours per day per school is a better measure
of nurse availability;
• restore the financial incentives for counties that opt to be "Electing Counties";
• restore funding of the Division of Emergency Preparedness and Regulatory
Compliance within the county health departments to previous levels;
• support additional funding for child-care subsidies and increase the
administrative limit from 4 percent to 5 percent to enhance program integrity
and eligibility review;
• increase the "general aid to county" funding for local health departments to
build necessary infrastructure and support the capacity to provide essential
public health services; and,
• support funding for the NC FAST automation initiative in social services.
3. Local Discretion, Inspection Fees -Support legislation that would provide greater
discretion at the county level to establish fees for the inspection of food and lodging
facilities.
4. Records Sharing, Communicable Diseases -Support legislation which provides
immunity from civil or criminal liability to persons required to provide information and
records to health officials conducting communicable disease investigations when such
information is not otherwise covered by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act or other federal or state law.
5. Allocation Formulas, Health and Human Services - Support a study with
representative stakeholder participation to examine the county allocation formulas
applied by the Department of Health and Human Services to determine the sufficiency,
equity and efficiency of each formula, assuring that formulas fairly respond to the needs
of all counties.
35
6. Smoking Regulations -Support legislation to allow Boards of Public Health, upon
request of Boards of County Commissioners, to adopt a rule or regulation regulating
smoking in places of public accommodation.
Intergovernmental Relations
1. Transportation Funding -Oppose legislation shifting the state's existing responsibility
for funding transportation construction and maintenance projects to county governments.
(See also Item #1 S of Orange County's Legislative Matters
Resolution)
2. Modernize Annexation Laws -Support legislation modernizing the annexation laws as
follows:
• Requiring the development of joint utility service plans for urbanizing areas;
• Requiring cities to reimburse counties for the loss of sales tax due to an
annexation
+ Increasing the degree of urbanization required to annex property;
• Requiring a referendum on proposed involuntary annexations in areas where
public services -water and sewer and solid waste -are already in place; and
+ Requiring the direct provision of municipal water and sewer services to
customers within three years of an annexation.
• Providing that counties have the option of continuing to provide utilities to
annexed areas.
• Setting the effective date for involuntary annexations to be June 30 following the
date of adoption or final resolution of an appeal.
(See also Item #33 of Orange County's Legislative Matters
Resolution) Orange County believes many of the issues that arise
during the annexation process could be reduced or eliminated if
state law encouraged or required the implementation of long-
range planning agreements between towns and counties.
3. Collective Bargaining for Public Employees -Oppose legislation authorizing local
governments to enter into collective bargaining agreements with public employees, or
mandating dues check-off programs.
Orange County neither supports nor opposes this position.
4. Workers' Compensation Reform -Support legislation to reform North Carolina's
Workers' Compensation system to reduce disability findings and open-ended streams of
payment, to address the trend in favor of long-term disability findings, to diminish
control over these findings on the part of claimants and their legal representatives, and to
curtail adoption of rules that limit return-to-work efforts.
Orange County neither supports nor opposes this position.
5. Rural Transportation Planning Organizations - Support legislation providing
continued funding of rural transportation planning organizations (RPOs), enabling
increased participation in transportation planning for the state's non-urban areas by local
governments. Long-range transportation plans drafted by RPOs or MPOs should be
36
submitted to member boards of county commissioners for review and comment prior to
being submitted to the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
6. Second Primary -Seek legislation to eliminate second primary elections.
7. Transfer of Development Rights -Support legislation to allow a county to implement
TDRs as another tool to promote good land-use policy.
8. Retired County Commissioner Health Benefits -Support legislation to provide that
former county commissioners are eligible to participate in health care benefits provided
by county government.
Agriculture
1. Fund Agricultural Research and Extension Services -Support legislation to increase
funding for Agricultural research and Extension services offered through North Cazolina
State University and North Carolina A&T State University and to assure that existing
research stations aze maintained at the current level of service.
2. Support Conservation of Worlang Lands and Farmland Preservation -Support
efforts to promote and conserve working lands, including 1) legislation that includes
horticulture, forestry and farmland as part of the state recreation and tourism plan, with
emphasis on the protection and support of private working lands; 2) legislation that
retains the present use value tax break for working agricultural, horticultural and forestry
lands but does not further dilute its status by expanding the tax break to non-agricultural,
non-working lands including non-working conservation properties; and 3) legislation to
expand funding of the Agricultural Development and Farm Land Preservation Trust Fund
and to create a dedicated revenue source to assure continued and stable fund
maintenance.
(See also Item #33 of Orange County's Legislative Matters
Resolution)
Orange County supports a conservation option under the Use
Value Program.
Orange County also supports a revision to the revenue and
acreage requirements of -the Use Value Program. Many
operations can easily meet the revenue requirements but do not
meet the minimum ten acres threshold for agricultural
operations. _ It. is suggested that a pilot program be established for.
several counties including Orange that reduces the acreage
requirement and raises the revenue requirement from $1,000 to
$5,000. The results from a pilot program could. then be evaluated
for implementation statewide.
37
Public Education
1. Public School Construction and Community College Funding -Support legislation to
provide state assistance to meet public school and community college construction needs
caused by increased enrollment, mandated reduction in class size, and other factors
through a statewide referendum on a bond issue and/or through authority for counties to
raise additional revenues to meet facility needs, and to fund expansion budget requests of
the community college system to meet demands resulting from increased enrollment and
to train and retrain workers responding to a changing economy.
(See also Item #4 of Orange County's Legislative Matters
Resolution)
2. Education Current Expense Funding -Support legislation to assure that the state
define and support an adequate basic education in all local school systems and
appropriate adequate .operating funds to fully fund its education initiatives with revenue
that is earmarked to pay the costs of those initiatives. The state should fund programs
that continue to engage young people, provide individualized options that eliminate
azbitrary barriers and provide students a range of opportunities through which they can
gain the credentials, skills and education they need to function in the modern economy of
the 21st century. Specifically, the state should:
• continue to fully furid the Low Wealth School Fund; and
• appropriate funds for school resource officers on the basis of one position
allotment for each middle school and high school building for all school systems
across the state;
• appropriate funds for career technical (vocational) education in high schools.
3. Public School Capital Building Fund -Support legislation to assure that the Public
School Capital Building Fund remains intact and to direct the State Treasurer to report on
longterm commitments that are dependent on this fund. Counties and schools should not
be deprived of these resources as they were deprived of state support for school utility
costs in 1991-92.
4. Community College Governance -Support legislation to review the process through
which members of the various boards of trustees of the several community colleges are
appointed to determine whether the system provides for adequate representation from
counties responsible for supporting multi-county campuses.
5. Sales Tax Refunds -Support legislation to allow public schools systems to regain access
to sales tax refunds.
(See also Item #3 of Orange County's, Legislative Matters
Resolution)
EXHIBIT E
2009 Regional Legislative Agenda
Triangle J Council of Governments
In the North Carolina General Assembly
Priority Legislative Issues for the Triangle J Council of Governments
Each year the Triangle J Council of Governments revises and updates its Regional Legislative
Agenda setting forth the priority legislative issues of its member local governments from across the
seven-county area of Region J. This agenda has been compiled for the purpose of conveying vitally
important information to the General Assembly for its review, consideration, and use as the legislature
conducts its legislative session. After taking into consideration the various challenges that will be
confi-onting the State of North Carolina during its 2009 Session, it is the intent of Triangle J that this
Regional Legislative Agenda serve as an aid to the legislative delegations serving Lee, Chatham, Orange,
Durham, Wake, Johnston and Moore Counties in assisting our cities, towns and counties with their
legislative needs. The following information has been set forth in priority form for this purpose:
VERY HIGH PRIORITIES
Provide Revenue Options for Local Government: Triangle J seeks legislation that authorizes a variety of
revenue options by resolution for local governments to fund municipal and county services that confront
the significant growth issues of Region J. An overarching principle is that any local government revenue
source that is presently available to one or more local governments in the state should be available to all
local governments uniformly throughout the state. Triangle J seeks authority for local government, on a
reasonable basis, to levy local option sales taxes, use a prepared food tax, apply impact fees and/or taxes,
utilize land transfer fees, allow a tax exemption method to recover municipal and county sales tax
expenditures rather than a system of reimbursements, etc.
Transportation Planning and Funding: Triangle J seeks legislation and funding for the myriad of multi-
modal transportation needs within the region that are now in crisis. The region seeks the funding of
planning and infrastructure needs associated with the Transportation Improvements Plan (TIP),
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's), Rural Planning Organizations (RPO's), Powell Bill Funds,
local transit authorities, and the Triangle Transit Authority. The region also supports legislation to revisit
and update the state's Equity Formula to recognize growth, congestion and other factors bearing on the
distribution of transportation dollars. Triangle J also supports legislation to provide for the funding of
regional multi-modal planning of Region J's transportation needs, while further supporting adequate
appropriations for road and bridge maintenance to maintain existing infrastructure. The region opposes
the transfer of funds from the Highway Trust Fund to the General Fund and supports recovery of funds
that were previously transferred. Any grant of additional or expanded authority to fund or maintain
transportation programs by local governments must be accompanied by equivalent revenue authority
from the State.
Mental Health Crisis: Triangle J supports Mental Health Reform and seeks legislation that assures local
capacity to serve the needs of these citizens. The state must support local government, both fmancially
and statutorily, to equip itself with adequate tools for crisis intervention and appropriate housing for the
mentally ill to allow their integration into local communities.
Triangle J Council of Governments
Mission Statement
38
To serve as an intergovernmental organi2ation for local elected officials that works proactively on regional issues in
order to sustain and improve the quality of life for our citizens.
Regional Legislative Agenda
Page 2
Water Ouality/Sunnly and Infrastructure: Triangle J supports legislation for the following water
resource initiatives:
• Legislation directed at managing water resources should encompass a regional approach, provide
incentives for regional cooperation, and seek long-term solutions for water resource planning
• Provide incentives and/or tax relief for low income households and small businesses that install
water conservation devices and fixtures
• Provide dedicated funding and grants for long-term water quality/supply planning and wastewater
treatment needs for the region's cities, towns and counties to improve infrastructure and enable
local governments to meet increasingly stringent water quality and stormwater requirements
• Continued fiunding for the Clean Water Management Trust Fund
• Passage of the one billion dollar state water bond with a prerequisite that conservation be a
requirement of grant recipients
• Regional councils to develop and implement multi jurisdictional water resource management
planning and programs in every region of the state through the cooperation of local governments,
water users, and other stakeholders. (Regional Councils will seek an appropriation of $1.4
million in 2009 and will work with DENR and other agencies to secure this funding and will
support other legislation that fosters regional planning for water infrastructure.)
HIGH PRIORITIES
School Funding Needs: Triangle J supports legislation that establishes adequate and reliable funding of
public schools in North Carolina that matches needs, resources, and mandates, along with efforts to
restore the ability of school districts to receive state sales tax refunds or exemptions. The region will
support legislation that reverses the existing and continuing trend of insufficient operational and capital
funding for public schools, and will oppose the substitution of lottery funds for the School Capital
Construction Fund (ADM). Triangle J will further seek legislation to establish a Legislative Study
Commission on a phased increase in the mandatory school age limit from 16 to 18.
Growth Management Strategy: Triangle J supports legislation that expands local land use tools, protects
local land use authority and encourages state/regionaUlocal cooperation to achieve sound growth rather
than state mandates. The region will support the addition of local government appointees to the
Legislative Oversight Committee established as a follow up to the state's Legislative Study Commission
on Smart Growth, and will support the use of pilot projects as a means to demonstrate the effectiveness of
incentive based planning. The local land use tools supported under such legislation would include
inducements such as transfer of development rights, inclusionary zoning and housing programs, and
expanded local revenue sources for community and regional infrastructure. Triangle J supports state
funding for mixed income housing opportunities, environmental programs, open space/farm land, rural
economic development, downtown/main street development, and other economic development
incentives.
Air Oualitv: Triangle J supports legislation to promote fmancial strategies for efforts that will reduce
greenhouse gases, promotes clean air, and assist state and local government to meet attainment of EPA
standards. The region supports linkage of air quality to growth management, transportation, and public
health strategies to promote the use of alternative fuels and technology, avoid the adverse economic
effects of pollution, and secure energy independence. Triangle J supports legislation that implements the
"Air Quality Policy" recommended by the N.C. Joint Regional Forum, and the establishment of an Air
Quality Trust Fund.
39
Regional Legislative Agenda
Page 3
Homeland Security and Regional Emergency Preparedness: Triangle J supports legislation for the
following Homeland Security and Regional Emergency Preparedness initiatives:
• Provide planning services for homeland security on a regional basis, and the funding of city and
county needs for regional emergency preparedness
• Leadership and affirmative action from the Governor's Office, the N.C. Division of Emergency
Management, and the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety for the resources necessary
to assure adequate "threat assessment", sufficient communications capabilities, evacuation
planning, the necessary training associated with Homeland Security, and implementation of the
Criminal Justice Information Network (CJIN)
• Stronger regulatory control requiring disclosure of hazardous and toxic waste at all sites, both
temporary and permanent
Indigent and Uninsured Health Care Delivery Costs: Triangle J seeks legislation to establish a
legislative study commission to develop recommendations on the state's health care delivery system and
the needs of the uninsured population.
Immigration: Triangle J supports legislation to establish a legislative study commission to develop
recommendation on the effects of documented and undocumented immigration upon municipal and
county services and how to address the many challenges these demands on local government services
create.
OTHER PRIORITIES
AQfnu and Lonp Term Care Needs for the Older Population: Triangle J supports efforts to recognize
the right of every North Carolina resident to have access to health care, and the restoration of Area
Agency on Aging funding to the level available in 2001. Triangle J further supports legislation that:
Provides support to address workforce shortages of direct care workers trained and paid
to assist those in need of long term care
Allow consumers to make informed decisions about nursing home placement
Provides for improved access of older adults to dental care services, including support
for the special care dental delivery model using mobile care units to serve long-term
care facilities and senior centers
Mixed Income Housing: Mixed Income housing, as an element of land use planning and growth
management, is key to quality of life in the region. Triangle J supports legislation that appropriates
recurring funds for the North Carolina Housing Trust Fund to provide new home ownership
opportunities, along with affordable rental homes for the disadvantaged.
Economic Development: Triangle J supports legislation providing for state cooperation with the region's
Foreign Trade Zone activities as a link to the global trade market to assure continued economic vitality.
Triangle J also supports regional transit as an important part of the region's economic development
strategy. Triangle J supports legislation that creates a state policy for alternative energy job creation and
independence through business incentives, and the use of North Carolina's universities and their research
capabilities.
40
Open Space: Triangle J supports funding of the state's One North Carolina Naturally Initiative, along
with other open space and green space concerns, inclusive of increased funding for farm land
Regional Legislative Agenda
Page 4
preservation and other similar economic development activities. Triangle J supports the Land for
Tomorrow Initiative and its proposal for state conservation of land and water resources.
State LRO Funding: Triangle J supports legislation to increase annual funding for North Carolina's
seventeen regional councils from @ $50,000 per region to $100,000 per region to carry out regional
planning and economic development activities for local government.
Public Dutv Doctrine: Triangle J supports legislation to restore application of the "Public Duty
Doctrine" to local governments.
Defensive Goals and Priorities
Withholding of Local Funding: Triangle J strongly opposes the withholding of local government funds
to balance any shortfalls in the state budget.
FranchisingAuthority: Triangle J opposes legislation to further weaken or eliminate the ability of local
government to exercise franchise authority and/or interfere with the ability of local government to protect
its public rights-of--way and property.
Tax Assessment Authority: Triangle J supports current statutory authority allowing local governments to
assess properly for purposes of ad valorem taxation at full market value, therefore, negating any need for
legislation that would exempt builders "inventory".
Solid Waste: Triangle J opposes any legislation to further weaken the authority and/or ability of local
government to operate and administer Solid Waste services.
A in Triangle J opposes legislation to consolidate Area Agencies on Aging as proposed by the federal
government.
Transportation: Triangle J opposes the mandate of new Transportation Authority for local government
without the necessary revenue sources to support these new responsibilities.
41
Approved by Triangle J Legislative Committee -November 6, 2008
A1~"ach~en-~ 3
DRAFT RES - 2010 - 015
NORTH CAROLINA
RESOLUTION REGARDING
ORANGE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE MATTER
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Orange County that the Board hereby requests the Senator and
Representatives representing Orange County to introduce and
support the following legislative matter:
1. AN ACT TO ENABLE THE TRANSITION OF THE AREAS OF ORANGE
AND ALAMANCE COUNTY ALONG THEIR COMMON BOUNDARY LINE AND TO SET
A TIME BY WHICH ORANGE AND ALAMANCE COUNTY SHALL SUBMIT A FORMAL
REQUEST TO THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICIAL BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN THE COUNTIES
(Exhibit A) .
Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by
Commissioner the foregoing resolution was adopted
this the 16t'' day of February, 2010.
I, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the
County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on February 16, 2010 as relates in any
way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings
are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said
42
Board.
43
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this 16th day
of February, 20.10.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
44
DRAFT
Exhibit A
SESSION 2010
AN ACT TO ENABLE THE TRANSITION
ALAMANCE COUNTY ALONG THEIR COMMO
TIME BY WHICH ORANGE AND ALAMANCE
REQUEST TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICIAL
COUNTIES.
OF THE AREAS OF ORANGE AND
[~ BOUNDARY LINE AND TO SET A
COUNTY SHALL SUBMIT A FORMAL
GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE
BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN THE
Section 1.
The historic boundary line of Orange and Alamance County
was that line described in the 1849 survey and formally adopted
by the North Carolina General Assembly in approximately 1851.
Throughout the 170 years since that survey the exact location of
the surveyed line has become uncertain resulting in
unintentional modifications to the boundary line affecting
taxation, school attendance, zoning maps, etc., within and among
the two counties and the Town of Mebane, North Carolina.
Section 2.
(a) The 1849 survey line has, in 2008, been located by
survey of the North Carolina Geodetic Survey Division ("NCGSD")
of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
(b) Article VII Section I of the Constitution of the State
of North Carolina states "The General Assembly shall provide for
the organization and government and the fixing of boundaries of
counties.."
(c) Orange and Alamance Counties agree with and wish to
recommend the General Assembly fix and adopt approximately
sixty-one percent of the 2008 NCGSD survey line as the official
boundary line between the Counties.
(d) Orange and Alamance County and the Town of Mebane
desire to survey and modify approximately thirty-nine percent of
the 2008 NCGSD survey line, said thirty-nine percent to be
modified in accordance with local values and principles, and to
then formally submit to the 2011 Session of the General Assembly
an agreed upon boundary line for fixation and adoption.
(e) Any modification that may be made in the line submitted
to the General Assembly as set out in Section 2(d) shall only
impact properties adjacent to or split by the 2008 NCGSD survey
45
line and when possible existing surveyed boundary lines will be
used to determine the recommended final boundary line.
Section 3.
(a) Orange and Alamance County shall, with cooperation and
input from the Town of Mebane, agree to modifications to the
2008 NCGSD survey line that reflect local values and principles.
(b) The currently utilized boundary of Orange and Alamance
County shall remain in effect for all purposes including
taxation, school attendance, land use controls, voter
registration, and any other governmental function, until June
30, 2011 or until such time as the General Assembly shall act
upon the fixation and adoption of the boundary line of Orange
and Alamance County.
(c) The elected and appointed officials and employees of
Orange and Alamance County shall incur no liability under any
North Carolina Statute, Rule, or Regulation for any act or
failure to act relating to taxation, school attendance, land use
controls, voter registration, or any other governmental function
as it relates to the currently utilized boundary line of Orange
and Alamance County.
(d) Orange and Alamance County shall, no later than
February 1, 2011, submit to the General Assembly an agreed upon
boundary line that reflects local values and principles and that
each County and the Town of Mebane agree shall be the official
boundary line to be fixed and adopted by the General Assembly in
the 2011 Session.
46
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 21, 2010
Action Agen a
Item No. -
SUBJECT: Dogging Deer Issue in Northern Orange County
DEPARTMENT: County Manager's Office PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) Report from the Hunting Community
2) Report from Concerned Private
Property Owners
3) Population Density and Acreage
Maps
4) Report from Staff Attorney
5) Survey of Landowners Who Own
Large Tracts of Land Concerning
Management and Hunting -
Conducted for the NC ~Idlife
Resources Commission
Available for Review Under "Meeting
Agendas" -January 21, 2010 -Item
6-a - on County Website -
www. co.oranQe.nc. us
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager,
245-2307
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245-2575
Bob Marotto, Animal Services Director, 942-
7387
Annette. Moore, Staff Attorney, 245-2317
Lindy Pendergrass, Sheriff, 245-2900
PURPOSE: To present findings and conclusions to enable the BOCC to determine next steps
regarding the practice of using. dogs to hunt deer in northern Orange County.
BACKGROUND: "Dogging Deed' is the practice whereby deer hunters use dogs to chase the
quarry in order to facilitate the kill. Dogging deer has been prohibited in that portion of Orange
County lying south of I-85 since 1979 when the General Assembly adopted 'NC General Statute
113-291.5. No hard evidence exists as to why this occurred when it did, why the line was drawn
the way it was, or if it were preceded by any local debate or special request. Law enforcement
speculates the action emerged due to changes in the urban environment and community
culture. State approval is required for the BOCC to take similar action on the portion of the
County lying north of I-85; i.e., to ban dogging deer completely throughout Orange County. The
County already has a requirement for written permission by the owner to allow hunting to occur
on private property.
The BOCC expressed an interest last winter in taking action to ban the practice in northern
Orange. County as part of its package of legislative requests to the local delegation for the 2009
session of the General Assembly. The idea was tentatively raised when the BOCC met with
47
legislative leaders and in the discussion teamed several had already been contacted by private
property owners. The decision was made to withhold pursuing legislation then in order to
provide time and opportunity for dialog among the stakeholders. The BOCC is scheduled to
meet with the local delegation on Fekruary 22, 2010. As in the past several years, the BOCC
previews its legislative requests with the delegation, schedules a formal hearing to allow public
comment on its proposed legislative agenda, and authorizes the County Attorney to draft and
submit any proposed legislation to the local sponsors by the required due dates. The BOCC is
tentatively scheduled to receive public comment on its proposed legislative agenda on either
February 2 or February 16.
During fall 2009, Orange County staff held two "listening sessions" to receive input and
information from vocal and active representatives on both sides of the issue from northem
Orange County. These sessions were supported and assisted by officers from the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC). The resulting reports were submitted previously to the
BOCC as information items and are again attached here. Staff has also prepared and
attached four maps depicting the population density in northern Orange and locations of
contiguous acreage arguably considered "optimal" for hunting deer with the aid of dogs. The
County Staff Attomey has also provided the attached report on means within the County
control of addressing the issue locally.
A summary of findings and conclusions from the two listening sessions are provided
below:
Changing demographics .and differing community perspectives have produced
opportunities for deer hunters using dogs and private properly owners to clash more
frequently; heightened the importance of continuous public risk assessment; and
fostered a need to re-evaluate local deer hunting customs.
Representative deer hunters and private property owners are organized and. active in
stating opinions and objections. The Caldwell• Hunting Club, for example, asserts how
through a 30 year tradition it has adapted to ensure safe and responsible behavior
among its membership and to demonstrate respect for the community by giving back
through charitable service. Private property owners cite numerous illustrations and
incidents of trespass, rude and intimidating behavior, disturbing the peace, threats to
public safety, and general incompatibility with population and property patterns.
Dogging deer has been banned in adjacent Alamance and Durham counties. Dogging
deer proponents argue those bans brought unscrupulous hunters from the outside into
Orange County who disrespected law and etiquette, and caused crop damage for local
farmers due to deer overpopulation. Opponents argue. the .bans were a result of
increased urbanization and community adaptation for safety reasons.
^ Except in instances of large tracts under single ownership (estimated from 200-1200
acres) no practical way exists to prevent a deer dog on the hunt from physically
crossing property for which there is no permission by the property owner to allow hunting.
Neither is there technology available to the hunter to direct or deter the dog during the
chase.
^ Local laws currently available -the required written permission by the owner to hunt on
private property (Sheriff's Department) and the nuisance animal control citation (Animal
48
Services) for hunters whose dogs are caught or left behind on private property -are not
deemed to provide the "blanket" protection some seek. Note: Anson, Gate and Moore
counties have obtained State approval to compel additional requirements/restrictions
about hunting deer with dogs; i.e., requiring the dog to wear a collar identifying the name
and address of the owner.)
^ NC Wildlife Resources officials are short staffed and hard pressed to respond sufficiently
to counter or apprehend perceived or actual trespassers.
^ Law enforcement has found it difficult to precisely quantify the extent of the problem out
in the field since situations may arise and dissipate before they arrive on the scene,
incidents may simply go unreported, and individuals may be fearful of calling attention to
complaints or having to testify in court.
^ Criticism and objections were directed towards using dogs to hunt deer, not towards
using dogs to hunt other wildlife such as rabbits or game birds.
^ The central deer season with gun hunting allowed in Orange County for 2009 was
November 15, 2009 -January 1, 2010. Any regulatory action authorized by the General.
Assembly for Orange County in 2010 could be implemented and effective no sooner than
for the 2010 deer season.
Additionally, County staff has teamed of a "Survey of Landowners Who Own Large Tracts of
Land Concerning Deer Management and Hunting", conducted by Responsive.Management
in December 2008 for the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and published in
2009. The study entailed a telephone survey of owners of tracts of land of at least 5 acres in
the state. The majority of landowners responding used the land as a residence for their own
use or that of another person and identified locations as being rural, whether a farm or not. The
mean age of respondents was 60 and the mean amount of time in the community was 34 years.
The total number of survey respondents was 1619 with Orange County respondents
representing 3.6 percent (n=59). The top counties in which the tracts of land are located among
landowners in the sample were Union,. Randolph, Chatham, Orange, Wilkes, and Rockingham.
(Only those with 5 acres or more were kept in the survey.) (Note: The complete Survey is
included with this agenda item on the County website - www.co.orange.nc.us -under "Meeting
Agendas" -January 21, 2010 -Item 6-a.)
The NCWRC survey queried landowners on their opinions of deer and the deer
population, problems with deer, hunting of deer on land, management of deer on land,
other opinions on deer hunting regulations, and overall participation in outdoor
activities. Survey results most applicable to the dogging deer issue before the BOCC are
detailed below:
• Ninety-three percent approved of legal, regulated hunting.
• Ninety-two percent agreed that written permission from the landowner should be required
to hunt on private land.
• Top four reasons cited for not allowing others beyond the landowner or immediate
household to hunt on the land were -concern about a hunter injuring another person on
49
the property (66%), concern about trespassing on their property (64%), concem about
liability (59%), and thinking that the property was too small for deer hunting (55%).
• Landowners with tracts from 5-20 acres were more likely to -agree their property was too
small than those with more than 20 acres.
• Fifty-percent of the landowners strongly disagreed with the statement, Hunting deer with
dogs should be legal in North Carolina", and 61 percent moderately or strongly
disagreed. Only 15% strongly agreed with the statement.
County staff is not aware of any action the NCWRC has taken or contemplates as a result of
the Survey Report being issued.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the BOCC seeking
legislative regulation through the local delegation.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the BOCC receive the presentation and
background materials as submitted; receive any public comments per usual for a regular
agenda item; and take action as it may deem appropriate. Options include:
1) Approve seeking legislative authority to adopt a local ordinance that would ban "dogging
deer" in northern Orange County and include the request within its 2010 proposed
legislative agenda.
2) Defer seeking legislative authority to adopt a local ordinance in the 2010 session.
3) Create further opportunity for open discussion on this issue among interested members
of the public.
4) Other, as determined by the Board of Commissioners.
~~~~-~ 50
= n-Forrn4 +i o ~-~-e
n m
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Frank W. Clifton, County Manager
FROM: Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager
SUBJECT: Hunters "Dogging Deer"
DATE: November 5, 2009
This memorandum is an information update on staff efforts in response' to
complaints from two (2) cifizens during the falUwinter 2008-09 concerning hunters
who use dogs to hunt deer in the unincorporated areas of the County.
Complaints centered upon deer hunters who:
• Lived outside the County but leased hunting land in the County
• Allowed their dogs to run through adjacent private properties and follow
behind them, trespassing and disrespecting the property rights of others
• Used GPS collars on the dogs, further luring the hunter across private un-
leased property
In February 2009, the County Manager's Office convened a meeting that
included representatives from the NC Wildlife Resource Commission (1NRC), the
SherrFPs Department, Animal Services, Planning, Legal, and County
Management. Major points of discussion were: .
• History, custom and tradition -Orange County is roughly divided in half -
south of 1-40 hunting dogs with deer is prohibited. This (ine was drawn in
the late `40s through State legislative action. In 1979 Alamance County
received legislative permission to prohibit dogging deer, Durham County
received the same in 2001.
• Protecting personal ~ property and public safety -for property owners,
neighborhoods, hunters.and the dogs
• "Due Process° -hunters who dog deer and the landowners who lease or
allow their land to be used to hunt deer should be included in future dialog
• Legislative Approval would be required to further resfrict hunting in Orange
County -stakeholders would have to be informed and public meetings
organized as prologue to any request by the BOCC for state authority
When the BOCC Legislative Agenda Committee met in the spring 2009 to
consider its recommendations to the full BOCC and State delegation for
consideration in the summer of 2009, the issue of bringing forth a request to
51
prohibit dogging deer was tentatively raised. One Orange County citizen had
already contacted Representative Faison and Senator IGnnaird with this thought
in mind. The BOCC Legislative Agenda Committee asked Legal to review the
background behind the Alamance and Durham County actions and for County
Management to continue its outreach to the hunting community.
On November 4, 2009, County Management convened a meeting consisting of
members from the hunt clubs in Orange County that dog deer along with the
Sheriff, Animal Services Director, a WRC Officer, and the Staff Attorney. An
Orange Gounty resident who makes his land available for hunters from outside
the immediate area also participated.
There were only two (2) complaints made to the BOCC in 2008/2009 about
dogging deer. The Sheriff reported only one (1) complaint about hunting with
dogs to his Department over afive-year period. The WRC Officer indicated that
there were ten (10) tracked complaints involving deer throughout his district in
2008, but indicated no violations or citations issued during 2008. He explained
the challenges of enforcing certain hunting regulations and .indicated that he
received more informal complaints that clustered in a particular area of the
County known for deer hunting with dogs by non-residents.
A lively but respectful conversation ensued between the hunters and County
officials around the items of history, custom and tradition; property rights and
public safefy; and due process. Feedback from the hunting community is
summarized below;
The Caldwell Hunting Club is the oldest (since 1979) and largest
organized club in the County that -use dog to hunt deer. They abide by
State and local statutes that require written permission from the land
owner to hunt on private property. They have standards of conduct,
approved by-laws, and "police" their own members. They assert "a hunter
will not shoot on private land; but can't guarantee the dogs won't cross
over private Land" (i.e.; land for which there is no written permission.) They
also said their members would not pursue a dog onto properties adjacent
to the ones they have permission to hunt carrying a .firearm.
The Triad Club, it was alleged, is "the outlier" or offending club, comprised
of persons who live outside of Orange County but who lease prnrate land
from Orange County landowners. Triad Club members were said to be
the ones creating trouble for those who are responsible and do the right
thing. The Triad Club was reported to operate mostly along Wilkerson
Road, Hurdle Mills Road, Tapp Road, Hester Road, and Walnut Grove
Church Road.
• The hunters felt their club and service activities helped fuel the focal
economy and provide family-centric recreation: the land leased, the
supplies purchased, the meals eaten, and other charitable acts.
52
They felt that without their deer hunting or "harvesting°, the deer
population would be less controlled and there would be greater damage to
local farm crops and vehicle collisions. It was noted that othennrise
farmers would obtain more permits to thin the deer population, and that
during the summer months the meat would be left to rot rather than be
consumed as it is during the hunting season. (In more informal
conversation, the WRC Officer noted to staff that he issues only a handful
of depredation permits north of I-85 by comparison with the twenty-plus
permits he issues in the southern part of the County.)
• They also felt their use of GPS collars on the dogs helped manage and
direct their °chase° more effectively and safely than otherwise would be
the case; and the collars were not "shock" or control collars as members
of the non-hunting public might suspect.
• The hunters in attendance strongly urged the County not to take away
their ability to hunt deer with dogs; i.e., seek legislation similar to
Alamance and Durham County. They instead called upon citizens with
complaints to call upon Fish and Wildlife and law enforcement to respond
. and take appropriate action against offenders.
As a result the hunters, State and County representatives discussed ideas and
alternatives for addressing trouble spots (outside of outright prohibition) and
came to the following understanding and agreements.
• WRC would step up its monitoring efforts, particularly in the areas known
to be hunted by the Triad Club, and educational outreach to the extent
practical within resources.
• The .Sheriff would remain cognizant and aggressive in response to citizen
complaints and advising hunters on local law and protocol.
• The hunters would increase their own vigilance surrounding safety,
courtesy, respect, and peer pressure to hunt responsibly.
• County Management would provide a meeting report (this memorandum)
to the Board.
This memorandum is provided as "information only" to the BOCC. Should there
be the need for further action at this time the BOCC is asked to advise County .
Management.
Attachment
Sign-In Sheet from Meeting
53
November 4, 2009 Meeting Attendees
Dave Hughes
Steve Hamlin
Mac McDade
Tommy Hamlin.
Jimmy Wade
Forrest Orr .
Earl Brown
Lamar Chapman
Bob Marotto
Mike Rimmer
Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass
Amiette Moore
Gwen Harvey
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Frank llV. Clifton, County Manager
FROM: Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager
SUBJECT: Hunters "Dogging Deer"- Feedback from Concerned
Private Property Owners
DATE: December 9, 2009
This memorandum is the second information update on staff efforts pertaining to
hunters who use dogs to hunt deer in the unincorporated areas of the County.
The first information update was provided to the BOCC at its meeting on
November 17, 2009 and conveyed findings from a meeting convened by County
Management, Animal Services, County, the Sheriffs Department, and NG
Wildlife Resources on November 4t" with representatives of the hunting
community. A similar meeting was held on December 8t" involving concerned
property owners to receive their input and ideas on the practice of "dogging
deer".
Attachment ~ is a summary of the meeting for BOCC review and reference.
The "bottom line" for the private properly owners participating in the discussion
was the principles of property rights and public safety driven by increasing
population density in the northern part of the County. They strongly urged the
BOCC to consider seeking legis{alive authorization to prohibit "dogging deeru
north of t-40. Regardless of whether hunters acted responsibly, they asserted the
days of deer hunting with dogs were gone as a result of increased population
density and overall reduction in sizable acreage. They also felt that northern
Orange shouldn't stand out in the midst of its neighboring counties -Durham
(2001) and Alamance (1979) have already banned the practice and it was
indicated Person and Caswell are receiving complaints and having discussions
regarding dog hunting deer as well
The County Attorney's Office has . been asked to research existing and/or
proposed local legislation the BOCC might seek authorization to establish, and to
advise on whether anything might be done immediately while the BOCC
considers formal action and the legislature convenes in 2010 to consider any
local requests. Planning has also been asked as additional background to
provide maps detailing density and contiguous acreage as suggested at the
prnrate property owner meeting.
55
Attachment 2 provides a brief history of the Orange County Hunting
Ordinance. County Management will continue to work with the County Attorney,
Animal Services, Planning, the Sheriff's Department, and technical advice from
Wildlife Resources to develop further background and an action item for formal
BOCC consideration in public meeting in January or February 2010.
56
~` ~
Dogging Deer- Meeting Convened by 'Orange County Staff,
1218!09
Concerns/Challenges Expressed by Private Property Owners
1) Enforcing existing trespassing statutes: Hunters driving onto other
people's property w/o permission, using excuses: "trying to retrieve my
dogs°
2) Trespassing: Hunters being verbally abusive and rude, physically
threatening; creating confrontations .
3) Trespassing: Clubs misrepresenting themselves/making false claims of
permission
4) Animal control: Dogs left overnight -
5) Animal control: Abandoned dogs hanging out on private property
6) Public safety -Sheriff, Wildlife Resources: Hunters shooting from the
roadway
- 7) Trespassing: Hunters ignoring requests/pleas to leave private property
8) Animal control: Claims by hunters they can't control what the dogs do and
where they go
9) Private property owners afraid their own dogs will wander off
10}Not that many large tracts of land (ideally 1400-1200 and even 2000 acres
would be needed) in northern Orange where dogs can run wlo crossing
other private property
11)Family members frightened by the sound of gunshots
12)Complained to the Sheriff and Wildlife for years -Hard to enforce if not
caught in the act of trespassing
13}Interfering with more traditional hunters
14)Claims they can kill more deer with dogs untrue
15)Chasing deer through pasture and breaking fences the owner has to
replace
16)Flat out dangerous period - 6 weeks of hunting season (Central NC'gun
season}
17)GPS collars don't control the dogs -they just allow the hunters to more
effectively (shoat the deer) track and ultimately recover their dogs
18)Mode of operation is to drive down the road and shoot the deer in the
middle of the road - unsafe!
19)Fractures peace and quiet
20)"Gang mentality" among the hunters; they show up in large numbers
21)Neighbors are afraid of speaking up; Landowners are intimidated
22)Sooner or Later someone is going to get hurt
23)The day of dog hunting is over; shouldn't have to happen! (As is apparent
from it being outlawed in adjacent counties as well as south of 1-85}.
24)Women shouldn't have to be subjected to this; very uncomfortable
speaking up
25}Hunters disappear before game warden arrives on the scene
57
26)People live in the county now who didn't grow up here and don't feel
they're getting a fair shake on this subject
27}The "still" hunters (who use deer blinds, walking, etc.) don't like it either
28}Landowners don't want to be the ones pointing the finger, don't want to
make their neighbors mad
29)Not about hunting in general - it's a property rights issue, a safety issue
30)Dags may or may not have an ID collar
31}Don't want to interfere with ALL dog hunting in the county, e.g., rabbit,
raccoon and fowl.
32)Why did the BOCC prohibit it in just one sec#ion of the County and stop?
NOTE: The Sheriff shared his recollection that this took place in the late 40s
- a ban on dogging deer south of I-85 given population density and concerns
from the towns and university. The north side was left alone perhaps because
of tradition and out of neighborliness.
Options/OpporEunities Suggested by Private Property Owners
1) Stop hunting w/dogs {best option} or implement some other rules to
motivate hunters to stay on their own properly
2) if a dog is on another's property w/o permission-then the owner could
capture the dog and hold them for Animal Control where the owners will
be fined
3) Hefty fine outright to have a dog on someone else's property -Bard to
enforce
4} Stricter Trespassing fines for dogs caught trespassing -hard to enforce
5) Tougher penalties for hunters who allow their dogs to cross properties
without permission to hunt--hard to enforce.
NOTE: Animal Services advises to contact Animal Control and frle a
nuisance complaint under existing regulations, prompting action against the
dog owner. Dogs at large off property constitute a public nuisance.
6) Change regulations to stop deer hunting with dogs in northern Orange
County
7) Alamance and Durham Counties have already outlawed this practice -
Why isn't Orange County more progressive in this area?
8) Hunters need to take this issue more seriously and assist in policing
themselves -- as this may be true in different degrees wifh different clubs
9) NC Wildlife Resources Commissioners have been discussing alternatives
to deal w/issue statewide
10)Maybe things would be settled if the law were changed
11}May not be possible fo reach a compromise under northern Orange
County conditions
12)Hunting in general can continue in a civilized manner
13)The BOCC~should listen to both sides and make a decision
14)Walking deer drive - 30 hunters could cover 100 acres on a Saturday and
kilt more deer; you can't kill more deer with dogs
15) Is there a way to temporarily stop or suspend it while the BOCC studies it?
58
16)Videotape is acceptable evidence, but you must be prepared to testify in
court
17)The best immediate plan is to call law enforcement for a response; The
most effective enforcement is for the game warden to come out and write
a ticket
18)If property is properly posted, you must came to court to testify in a
Trespass allegation
19)Landowners would benefit from registering their land with Wildlife
authorities so that an officer could arrest a trespasser without checking
with the landowner if the trespasser does not have written permission to
be on the land in question. A proposed dog hunting ban for property above
1-85 would carry more weight if there were documents to substantiating:
• Population density and land ownership in the areas in question
have increased/changed such that trespassing and public safety
issues created by dog hunters have intensified and must be
addressed by law.
• Signed petition from landawners requesting a review ofi the law
governing dog deer hunting above I-85 in Orange and other
counties
• Number of documented legal disputes between dog deer hunting
groups and landowners
• Projection of when this form of hunting will be banned throughout
NC and other states where it is still legal
NOTE: The Sherjff advises to call 911 for dispatch prompting a "call for
service". The Wildlife Resources Commission is Limited in personnel; there is
currently only one officer per county. Planning has been asked to provide
maps depicting population density and contiguous land areas under single
ownership of 1200 and 2000 acres.
A draft of this summary was circulated among the meeting attendees as
well as all those on the a-mail distribution list compiled by County
Management for this purpose. Every effort has been made to
incorporate the sense and spirit of the meeting short of a verbatim
record. See also additional a-mails attached from Steve Graf amplifying
several of these ideas and providing further comments he wished
shared with the BOCC. An a-mail from Charlie Treis wha was unable to
attend the meeting is attached. too.
Persons in Attendance
1) Forrest Orr, Wildlife Resources
2) Robert Sharpe, Wildlife Resources
3) Steve Graf
4) Richard Lockamy
59
5) Bob Marotto, Animal Services
6) Zach Blevins
~ Peter Rourk
8) Andy Smith
9) Beth Banes
10}Ai Banes
11}Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass
12) Gwen Harvey, County Manager's Office
Note: The Central Deer Season with Gun hunting allowed in Orange County
is November 15 -January 1.
60
From:
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:19 PM .
To: Gwen Harvey
Subject: Dogging Deer Committee
Dear Ms. Harvey,
I was unable to attend the meeting held Tuesday, December Sth, by the Dogging Deer Committee to
provide concerned citizen input regarding this issue. I spoke at a County Commissioners meeting last
January about this matter. I would Iike my voice heard as a concerned citizen.
Deer dog hunting Northern Orange County has become problematic. Something needs to be done about
this issue. There are several problems that arise from this method of hunting.
Hunters from outside the county who are leasing land show no respect to adjacent property
owners. The majority of the hunting they do is during the week when many property owners are
at work. This makes it difficult to address the problems that arise from this type of trespassing.
This method of hunting prohibits the ability of local hunters without dogs to hunt and feed their
families. In my case, I had opened hunting on my land to a friend with a family of seven. He had
to give up tree stand hunting because these hunters allow their dogs to run through adjacent
properties and then follow behind them calling the dogs and using that as an excuse to go through
property that they are not leasing. This scares off the deer and puts the tree hunter at greater risk
of shooting a person who is not expected in the woods. Of course, the law does not allow them to
shoot a deer while looking for their dogs, but one can only imagine what really happens when
there are no consequences because of the limited capability of wardens to monitor every inch of
potential hunting in'the rural parts of northern Orange County. .
The third problem is the use of GPS collars on dogs. This enables a hunter to track the dog
tracking the deer and go to wherever the dog is to make the kill. Again, this lures hunters onto
unleased land.
Just recently, members of a dog hunting club leasing land near my home came onto private property and
rather than have a productive discussion they cursed and were confrontational. I was uncomfortable
after the encounter and made changes to my daily routine in order to ensure the safety of my family and
animals. We haveNo Trespassing signs as well as Beware of Dog signs and they are ignored by deer
dog hunters. Rural private property should not be treated as public lands. Dog hunters have made it
cleat that they believe they have the right to trespass on private property if they are looking for their
dogs. I would like this clarified.
I am hopeful that this can be resolved for the northern sector of this county as it was for the southern
sector. Deer dog hunting should not be allowed in Northern Orange County.
Thank yott for all you do to serve the citizens of Orange County, NC.
12/10/2009
61
I would like to receive a copy of your final report and recorrunendations.
Charlie Treis
12110/2009
62
Melissa Allison
From: Steve Graf .
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:19 PM
To; Gwen Harvey
Cc: 'Peter J Rourk
Subject: RE: DRAFT Memo & Attachment to 13000 -Dogging Deer
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Gwen,
Thanks fior writing this memo so quickly! i blink the memo looks fine. Here are my_ comments for
attachment A:
Under ConcemslChailenges:
• Item 11-The problem arises from multiple gunshots. People are ok with a single shot. But in
general, dog hunters shoat a minimum of 5 Times and sometimes you hear 10 or 15 shots in just
a few seconds[
• Item 14 -1 don't really think this is relevant to the discussion. I think this item should be
dropped. .
• Item 23'- I don't think this is realty a fact i experience based comment tt is too much of an
opinion. I think it should be dropped.
• Item 31- I would rewrite this to read "Request fo stop Deer dog hunting does not include
hunting for rabbits or birds with dogs"
+ Item 32 -Change the word "County" to the phrase "Soufhem Half of the County-below
interstate 85" My understanding of this is that the legislature made a statewide decision back in
the 1940's. It was not done at the county level. The county government had nothing to do with
the fact that the county was split in half.
Under OptionsfOpportunities:
• !.fern 12 - i don't think fhis is relevant to the discussion_ I think this item should be dropped.
I would like to see a couple of my comments about the last memorandum added to this memorandum.
If memory serves, there was unanimous support for these comments in the meeting from the land
owners when 1 made them. I think it is important that the commissioners see these points. Maybe
another section or attachment should be added tailed "Comments on Previous Meeting"?
• Page 2 Bullet 1- I disagree with the statement that "dog hunters can't guarantee the dogs
won't cross over private land". I believe that based on the fact that deer are creatures of -habit
and run away from the dogs in the same way every time they are chased, that the dog hunters
know full well that the dogs will run over private Land fhat they don't have permission to hunt. If
the dog hunters didn't know where the deer would run, then dog hunting wouldn't be effective.
This is a very important point.
• Page 2 Bullet 2 - I disagree that the Triad Club is to Marne far ail of the troubles. My
experience is that I have had just as much trouble with the Caldwell club and other focal dog
hunters as with the Triad Club. I would like the record to show this.
• Page 2 Bullet 3 - (disagree with the statement that dog hunting fuels the local economy and is
family-centric. My family shops at the local stores all year long, not just during rifle season. And
my family must stay close to the house when the dog hunters are around which diminishes our
quality of Life.
Thanks again for doing all this work!
>.z~~o~aoos
63
Steve Graf
From: Gwen Harvey [maiito:gharvey@co.orange,nc.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 200911:37 AM
To: AI Banes; Andy Smith ;Beth Banes; Born Blacksheep; Charlie Treis ; Christopher Cole; Gayte Dauver; ]eff
Peloquin; Jim ManwarIng; Mary Bennett Houston Lockamy; Peter J. Rourk; Steve Graf; Annette Moore; Bab
Marotto; Craig Benedict; Forrest Orr; Lindy Pendergrass; Robert Sharpe
Subject: DRAFT Memo & Attachment to BOCC -Dogging Deer '
Importance: High
Good Morning - Pls review and provide any feedback or comment. I'm trying to get Phis finalized so it can go out
to the BOCC in their package Thursday (Dec 10) for the. meeting on Tuesday (Dec 15}. Your quick reply would be
greats appreciated. Thx all for your candid participation and genuine conceml -Gwen
12/10/2009
64
~'Fr,~.w++v{' e`Z
Orange County Ordinance Regulating Certain Aspects of Hunting and
Fishing
Adopted December 2, 1991
Made it unlawful to enter upon the private Lands of another to hunt or fish
(or) with .the intent to hunt or fish without the wriften permission of the
owner or lessee of the (and
Orange County was authorized by the State Legislature under Chapter 248, 1991
Session Laws to adopt an ordinance regulating the hunting and fishing on private
lands. The ordinance was in response to problems that had developed within the
county ~ of individuals hunting and fishing on lands of others without the
permission of and against the wishes of the owners or lessees of the property.
An Orange County Task Force on Hunting was formed to assess the Hunting
Ordinance. in 1993. The Task Force noted "positive response" and a "conscious
effort" by hunt clubs to comply, citing fewer numbers of violations and voluntary
participation in a hunter safety courses co-sponsored by the Orange County
Recreation & Parks Department and NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
In late summer 1995, a Hunting & Fishing Ordinance Committee was formed and
held meetings to review 'and assess the Hunting Ordinance again. This
Committee presented a series of ideas for consideration by the BOCC and
conducted a public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed
.changes in October 1995. Although not discussed during ~~the committee
meetings, a citizen requested that there be a restriction placed on the use of
dogs while hunting deer. A public hearing was held at the BOCC meeting on
October 2, 1995 and comments received were referred back to the Committee to
review and bring . back a recommendation. A search of BOCC agenda and
minutes through the County Clerk's Ofiice revealed the matter never came back
to the BOCC for action.
A new Hunting Committee was convened in the spring 2001 in response to
concerns by the public to consider seeking local legislation in order to give law
enforcement maximum flexibility to deal with unsafe hunting practices,
specifically hunting with firearms under the influence of alcohol. The BOCC held
a public hearing on January 16, 2002 to consider amending the Orange County
ordinance regulating hunting. The BOCC sought and gained Legislative
au#horization under Session Law 2001-165 to amend its local ordinance.
Amended January 21.2x42
Made it unlawful for any person to hunt with a firearm while that person is
under the influence of alcohol or other impairing substance; far any person
to hunt with a firearm while That person has any blood concentration as
measured by an oleo-sensor; for any person to hunt with a firearm or with a
crossbow or bow and arrow wi#h!n 95x yards of any federal, State, or local
65
government building, including those owned or teased by boards of
education
Ai~ached is a copy of current focal laws in Orange County excerpted from the
NC Wildlife Resources Commission Regulations Digest, 2008-2009.
2
66
o Dischatgea rule of greater than .22-~alibet; except fmia as
elevatedpositionlnwhiclttherilleisaminiuiuinofelghtfeee Ne+vHanover . •. ,- • % _
. HuntafoxwithdogsinFedesalPoint.tavtCttshi~apttthvfth~• :,'~: ~ ~ -.:: ~ .
'-f='~•:
above tfiegtrntad. - - lnttacoastalWateJway. _ • : .::: - ~ : • i• ` .
TakedeerwiththeaidoEaboatorQoatlttgdevice3norwithin• • SeEasteeluapon'snothe's§land_•r ~a ' ••i„ ••~ ~ ~},'•:;•'
100yatdsofltoanokeR[verabovetheUS.l7bridge. o Intentionalfyremo4eor.destrojraneleatraieiocollarjorgth~i~• ~'--K . k~_~,'•,1.~
'
o Huntwittt & &eatm from, yr discharge a Btrarmon oravmss, a
i
- electronic devfte.placed;on a dogbyhisawneir tbmaitttsia ; ~ .' :
'
` ' ' -
w`~ ~••
~``~ •
'
publlc
oadnotthv;est of LI.S.
64, U.S. I7 orin anareaadJohting contml of the dog. ~ ~
: • + :
, • - _
. _
:
'
Beaufort Cottntyandlying between N.C.171 and US.17. - I•Iorthampton _ , • - - , • - • ' ••.
,. ~ .. • ~ . •+
o Huntvrithor'dlschargeafireannoaoracrossS.R1142between
' o TakedeerwiththeaidofabeatinbrwIt~iitilOUyards•v~thet•~+ • `~~+~•i•
t:
N.G903andS.R.I113.
• Buy orseU a dead fox, lox pelt ar other part thereof RoanokeRiverbelowU.S.301.
• •Bunt, faire orkill 2ayvn7d ordinal vrwlid birdwi@i~a 6ieaiinoit; ., '+.` -• . `;-'
Htuu from thetights-of-wayof S.R.1504andS.R 1505. firnnoracrass therlghC--of way ofanyppblicroad orl~ighway.; • ~ ,* r ,. j
McDowell Dischargearii[elargerthan.Z2:caiibg~'oAanorher's'Lwd•or:'•;•;'•• --'-.:`••;
•'DEscbargeafireatmtromthetigltt-of-wayofastetenumbered
~ fiointberlgbt-of-wayofajiublicroadacrosssttcltlandwitIiout•Y ~~ ''•:
•
madforthepurposeoftaldngbiggameanimals.Thisdoesnot writtenpenulsstonoftheownerdilesseeandurilessposttlotied~ ='" --
applytothosepordonsalongN.C.105borderedonbothsides atleasteightferxabovetheg]•oiutd, - .- ' ~'
~~ ~ I
• bygamelettds. - o Possessaflrearmonamotor~mpelledvessel(ezcxp[anout-:~:-; ~' • :,•Ji
o Intentionallyremoveordestmyanelectrantccollar,arojher : boardwlththemotoxremovedanlstored)onMeheuinltlvef•~'- ••- •~
•
elecil:oniedevice,placedonadogbgitsownertvmairuain ~ duttngtheopendeerseason. .,..•
control ofthe dog: OnsIovr • - • • • ' - :
~ - ~
- Mecklenburg ~ ' • - Hunc~npwAdauunalorbir+)fromtherigbt-of-wayatenypukltc'~
e' Huatdeerwithaaytifle,exceptthatatnuzzleloadingriIlemaybe • madwirhoutwritteapemiissionoftheotvnerorksseeofthe'' .'
usedduringtheprlmitive-weaponsseason.. • . ~
iandthatabutstheroad. ..
• .
•
o Hnntwit}taflrearmfmmapubllcroadorhighwayrlght of-way.'' Orange • . ~ • ;
s• ,.•.
• .': ' T; •~
Mitchell'. ~ • Htmtdeerfnwtapubllcmad.• 1 -
:=• .•- ' •• •~
o Hnntwildboarwkhanyweaponothertlianabowandarrow,a o Hugtv~thfireaunsfromtbeiight-otwayofapublieroad.' . '- t;
{
tiflelarger tltatt 22-caliber or a shotgtt}iloaded with bucCcsbot o; ' • NOTIs Entrance to ptivatelands'to hunt is te~itlated bylocat' • ;~
~ •
4
; i
iiMd~ugs. - - atdinattcG . - • r ... • :.: :;
. Hnttt,takeorkillanywIldbudorwildat~imalexceptltewrof . Intentionallyremoveorde's4royanelectiontacoUar;orothe'r.' - ': y~
boarwithaftreatmfmm,onoraemssapublicioadright-of-wax ~ . •electrott<cdevlce,placedon~dogbyhtsawnertomaldtaiir:! _•°
. intetulonaltyremoveordestroyatlelectmniccollar=orother _ cantmlofthedog. . • ..• . •.::•.:. ~ .. •. =
- '._ ~
"~
electroniedevlce,ptacedonadogbjrhisownertotnaintatn
~ • Huntonthelandofanotheiwithoutfiavlt~g8rrone§petson;
~ ._ =
•..
rnntrol9fthedag.
- wtitteapenaisslvn,Slgnedanddatedfvrt}lecntxenthnntii~g, .
~ .. ;•~
•
Montgomery season,bythelandownero;le'ssee:.
'~ ~.f
t
•. Sell a dead foxorparts theteoL
~ ~ Unlawful to hnntVvith firearms by persons under thetulltietice ~ ~••
..l
Moore •' ' ofakoholorotlteritnpairingsulistances.
'
•
`
•
~ •_
o htSandlilll andMUierslSptings tovmships: (1) hunt anygame amliw
•
• -
• • % '_
°
j
~ _ ' .~
animalonaiwtbet'shmdwithoutpossessiono[writtenper- ,
-e Takemigratorywaterfowiw[thin500yardsoiaaothet'sgeama; '
'
•
misslonoftlteowaeroriesste;(2)huntwlthariQeoFgreater nenthtmiinglocationwlthoutper~misstono~thelandholdeX.
: '
•
tlnut.22zimfsreca]Sberorcapableofftr7ng.L2centerfin: •
uponwhoseland.thewaterfawllstaken. '_
• _'~ `•'
•' : I
ammunition, excepttb~tatuuzzleloadhtgtlllemaybeused • HunGbearwithdags. '-: ..•.. -
• ::
~
~
whenposltlonedatleasteightteetabovethegrottnd. - • ~akeanywi)daNmala[wildblydhompracrosstliorightof~. :
,
• Shlnealightondeerbetween30mlt-utesaftersuosetand30
wayofN.C.55and-N.G'306. ' _
• :-.~
tninutesbeforesunrise. •- Pasggotattk ••.
.,~ ~ -' '
• -
~
e Huntdeeronthelandofanatherwlthoutwtittenpetmission _. Dischargeacenterfiteiifteonaflother>;1'and„orohoraaross '.:~; '~`.
datedwithinoneyear. suchlantifromapublicroad,~aithoutbavinginpo~e;sion;:l.:
~ .
,;: ~'1
o Hunt, takeorldlldeeron,komaracrossartg8t-af-wayoEany :
~ wdttenpermissionof{heownerorie~seer ••.r-. .. ,;••.;, - •
;. •
..
_
pnbllcmad.
. Tohavepossesslbnofaload~dsliotgunorcggterfirdtif(rwbtle=. •
~=
i}
::: '~
. o Huntdeer with do unless each do beats a collar, to or.other
&4 g g on the ri ht-o[wa Dian ufilic mad br ht hile oritside ~•
g Y YF t;h+~Y~. '` ' `
ldentlHcatian with the otvnerk full nameand address. 'the confines of the passen~eratia of avehicler without the •:' ; •.
Nash vnitten getmisston of the owner"or lesseb otthe')aiid that abuts
o Takemigtatorywaterfowlon,fromorovertheRockyMonnt theroadorhlghwaj. ".~•~' ~;' • '• -'"
-
Tar Riverlteseivoiroxwithirt500j~aidatherevf twith[n
,yep
" • • Tohunt,takebrkillaa birdor
• 'i
y gameanimalfromorontlie r =•
Zone S"wlthpeuriisston of the a~ectedlandowaerandsubjeet right-af-way of anypubllc road oi7tighway, ysrithdut lust • ~ ; ~. ~ i
to the rules andregulations o[the Ctty of Rdcky Mount. See ~ securing the written pettuisslon of the awrfer orless~e of the '. '• =
'
.
•
~
httpllwwWroekymountncgovlparkshtuntinghtmlformore ]andthatabtitstheroadar)ttghway.
'. •' • ::. '. ;
•
_ ~"• •
~f'
i
+
deta[L •: .
l
a lntendonally remove or destroyan e]ectmtdC collar, or o't~hex: '- . " ~' ~:• ~, •,;~~~r
. Discharge a firearm from, onto or acts a public road electronic detdce, placed on a dog bybis owner co maintain ; ,; .' ' ,; •~;~)
o HunMeerwitha rilie, except from astandatleast sixfeet above.
h
~ contralof fhe dog. .' '• • ~ • • ' ' _'
• '
• •'
t
egtound. Fender .
~~
.. :
•: •"
• HtmcordisettatgeaHlIevnoracrossthe'right-of-wayafanymad. •
.• Takedeerwitht}leaidofaboatocfloatirigdevfc~inojviltliirtl0o•..:•_•_• •.~;~,
~'
"
.~ Huntonthelandofanotherwithoutwritten onfromthe of the BlackRlver=Lon Cr Creekor k' '. "
=
'
owner or lesste. " . , Creekbetweea N.C. 21Q and the IJortheast Cape PearRiyer. a • . •-
T
Pjeasenote;•Fortheconventeaceofthereader,majorrcgutatfoat:hangesappeartnRED. • • • .6g;~• • ' - •t~',
~ ~
`~~w N 1 inch = 3 miles
` a 0 1 2 3
N51es
Orange Counq~ Planning and InspectJons Department
GIS Map Prepared by edan Carson Dumber 11, 2009
Orange. County Population Density North of I-85 (Census 2006)
..4,~ N
`"• i irrh = 3 miles
° a 0 1 2 3
•o uar'~ NSles
Orarge County Planning and InspeUions Departrnent
G6 Map Prepared try Brian Carson Deo'mber 11,, 2009
Alamance-Durham-Orange County Populafiion Density (Census 2000)
Census-2000 Blocks°~ C10 2501 0 5000 `5 001 -.10 00. _ - . ~' s N „n~,.5„~.
Population/Acre. ' s"~' 0 5001 - .1.00 10 01 50 00 , ' °~~,,.
`Q 0 0000000.00 - 0:2500 ~ 1 001 `- 5.000 > 50:01 ~rangemungMann~n-aMNSpatlonsUW~„ ~~r
:.. - ~ ~ ~
.-,. .:~ .. ~... .. .:. .: , .., :.: .:, ~~:~:: .. Map P~epard byB an on Oserrber 19.2009
Parcels 200 Acres or Larger North of I-85
1h~7
V
N ~ h,d~.au mnae
® Parcels 200 Acres or Larger . ~ ~ _ Z~as
Oratga Ooungr Plannlnp and Ospedbro OBpaAmeiR
GIS Map Repared try Odan Colson OeteMie 11, 2009
~~-~G~-t~++ewT ~' 71
Office of the County
Attorney
ORANGE COUNTY
P.O. BOX 8181
200 S. CAMERON STREET
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager
FROM: Annette M. Moore,. Staff Attorney
RE: Hunting Deer with Dogs
DATE: January 6, 2010
~f
In. an email message dated December, 23, 2009 you asked the following question in regard to
hunting deer with dogs in Orange County:
"What if anything [does] the BOCC has (sic) the power/authority to do immediately to
impact the. issue (as requested by the concerned property owners) and what they may
[the Board] wish to do as part of their legislative packet to the local delegation."
Under North Carolina law, a County may only undertake those activities for which it has been
given specific legislative authority. The Generally Assembly grants the powers to Counties
either expressly, necessarily or fairly implied or in incident to a power expressly granted, and
where the power is essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the
corporation... The General Assembly has charged the Wildlife Resources Commission with
administering the statutes governing hunting of wildlife.Z However, the County may ask the
General Assembly for local enabling legislation that has a minor and incidental impact on wildlife
resources.3
N.C. Gen. Stat. §113-291.5 Regulation of dogs used in hunting; limitation on authority of Wildlife
Resources Commission; control of dogs on game lands;. control of dogs chasing deer; other
restrictions provides:
(a) Except as provided in G.S. 113-291.4, in the area described below, the Wildlife
Resources Commission may regulate the use of dogs taking wildlife with respect to
seasons, times, and place of use. The area covered by this subsection is that part of the
' Reese v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd of Education, 676 S.E.2d 481, 490 N.C. App. May 2009 quoting Carter v. Stanly
County 125 N.C. App. 628, 632, 482 S.E.2d 9, 11 quoting White x Unian County, 93 N.C. App. 148, 377 E.E. 2d 93 (1989).
z N.C. Gen. Stat. §113-133.1(b).
s N.C. Gen. Sta § 113-133.1(c).
72
State in and west of the following counties or parts of counties: Rockingham; Guilford;
that part of Atamance and Orange lying south of Interstate Highway 85; Chatham;
that part of Wake lying south of N.C. Highway 98; Lee; Randolph; Montgomery; Stanley;
Union; and that part of Anson lying west of N.C. Highway 742. (emphasis added)
(b) In the areas of the State lying east of that described in subsection (a), the Wildlife
Resources Commission may not restrict or prohibit the use of dogs in hunting or the
training of dogs, in season or out, except during the breeding and raising seasons for
game during the period April 15 through June 15.
As you can see from the statute, .the General Assembly has granted the Wildlife Resource
Commission authority to regulate the use of hunting wildlife with dogs with respect to seasons,
times, and place of use in the part of Orange County lying south or Interstate Highway 85. The
statute also provides that the Wildlife Resource Commission may not restrict or prohibit the use
dogs in hunting in season or out for other areas of the state, excepted as provided above. The
statute does not provide authority to the Board of Commissioners to enact an ordinance
regulating this area. Absent legislative authority the Board does not have the power to create
an ordinance regulating or prohibiting hunting deer with dogs in the County
If the Board is interested in adopting an Ordinance regulating hunting dogs with deer, I
recommend that the Board ask.our local legislative delegation to put forward enabling legislation
to allow such an ordinance. A draft of appropriate language for the enabling legislation is
attached.
73
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY
AN ACT TO PREVENT HUNTING DEER WITH DOGS IN ORANGE COUNTY
The General Assembly enacts:
Section 1. It shall be unlawful to allow dogs to chase deer, or to hunt or attempt to take
deer with the aid of dogs at any time in Orange County. -
Section 2. Any person violating this provision of this act shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor, and shall be fined or imprisoned as provided by law.
Section 3. All lawful peace officers of the county and State, including wildlife
protectors, shall have authority to arrest for violation of Section 1 of this act.
Section 4. This Act shall apply to Orange County only.
Section 5. This Act is effective upon ratification.