HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES-2005-016 Orange County's 2005 Legislative Agenda~} ~S - ~~ . ~~ A
3- ~ - ~oOS' ~ b
For reference purposes, the items in this resolution with one asterisk (*)
include updates to their content from the similar language that was part of
Orange County's 2004 Legislative Agenda. Items with two asterisks (**) are
new for the 2005 Legislative Agenda. All other items are duplicates from
2004.
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
positions on legislation regarding the following matters:
v~cr~*Trn.~ e
1) Support an increase in the cigarette tax, primarily for
the purposes of health programs and for reducing and
preventing tobacco use (See March 5, 2003 Board of
Commissioners' Resolution - Exhibit A), and with a
portion of the new revenues being dedicated as a funding
source for the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund and for
the creation of regional processing centers to create
value-added products and help promote .farm options;
2) Support an increase in the alcohol tax with a portion of
the new revenues being dedicated for mental health and
substance abuse rehabilitation treatment programs;
3) Support balancing the State of North Carolina budget by
1
closing tax loopholes, including ending the sales-tax cap
on boats, planes, and railway cars, doing away with a
sales-tax cap on business machinery, repealing a tax
credit for cigarettes manufactured in North Carolina but
sold overseas, and eliminating an interest expense
deduction for banks;
4) Support legislation to re-institute State funding of
local school system utility costs;
5) Support legislation to allow all counties to enact
various revenue options, with optional local referenda,
that have already been authorized for counties in other
parts of the State, including real estate transfer taxes,
impact taxes for school facilities and other
infrastructure, prepared meals taxes and occupancy taxes;
6) * Ensure that the Public School Capital Building Fund
disbursements (which for FY 2002-03 were estimated to
have been $794,000 for Orange County had they not been
withheld by the state, and for which allocations were
2
restored for FY 2003-04) continue to be made on behalf of
Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to address pressing
capital needs in the next and future fiscal years;
7) Support the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners (NCACC) and North Carolina League of
Municipalities (NCLM) positions regarding state
government reimbursements to local governments;
2
3
TRANSPORTATION
8) Support establishing a permanent prohibition on billboard
advertisements along Interstate 40;
9) Support increased dedicated funding for the establishment
and implementation of Rural Transportation Planning
Organizations throughout the State;
10) Support legislation providing the North Carolina
Department of Transportation with flexibility statewide
in addressing acceptance and maintenance of post-1975
recorded subdivisions with unpaved roads to address
unintended exclusion from the state-maintained road
system (Examples: 1) Developed subdivisions based on
unrecorded subdivision plats on pre-1975 unrecorded
subdivision plats which plats include publicly dedicated
roads and 2) Unexpected Death of Original Subdivision
Property Owner and Lack of Owner's Right-of-Way
Dedication Signature on recorded plat);
SOCIAL SAFETY NET
11) * Support legislation that, at a minimum, returns to the
Fiscal Year 2001-2002 level of funding for State Aid to
Counties in the Social Services Budget. These funds
have been available from the state for decades to
support the administration of state and federal public
assistance programs provided through county governments.
3
4
These funds are used to pay some of the costs of the
staff who determine eligibility for Food Stamps,
Medicaid and other financial assistance programs. These
programs are experiencing growth in the number of
persons needing assistance, which has increased the
workload for the staff at Social. Services. 'The state
should increase its funding to support the county
administration of these programs, especially since this
is one of the few sources of state funds in any of the
operational costs of the local Social Services programs.
Three years ago, the Orange County portion of this fund
was reduced from $69,603 to $58,851. Since these funds
can be used to match federal funds, loss of these funds
results in either additional county costs or loss in
revenue of $21,504 to support staff at Social Services;
12) Support legislation providing that the State is
responsible for providing services to children in need
of residential mental health treatment;
13) Support the reinstatement of Criminal Justice
Partnership Program (CJPP) funding and other
alternatives to incarceration lost due to budget cuts in
the Department of Correction with the understanding that
diverting these funds would lead to greater costs and
challenges for the correctional system as well as the
general public;
4
5
14) * Support legislation directing that the North Carolina
Department of Health and Human Services provide adequate
planning and funding for local governments to address
the costs which will be incurred with mental health
reform/de-institutionalization activities;
15) Support legislation involving programs and funding to
expand the in-home services available to seniors;
16) Support legislation for the funding of intensive home
visiting projects that target prevention of child abuse
and neglect;
17) Support legislation which promotes reform of the medical
prescription system that incorporates provisions
included in the State of Maine system;
18) Support legislation for reinstating and maintaining
adequate funding for Smart Start statewide that ensures
that children across the state can have the
opportunities for success in the same manner as those
with Orange County Partnership for Young Children;
19) ** Reinstatement of full State funding through NC State
University for positions (two in Orange County) cut to
50~ funding for 2004-05 for the Expanded Foods and
Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) that assists low-
income families and pregnant teens by providing basic
5
6
nutrition education, food preparation, food safety, food
selection, and infant feeding instruction;
20) ** Oppose legislation that would remove the option of
enforcement of child support orders by Clerks of Court
unless adequate state funding is provided to cover start
up and continuation costs to counties (such as Orange)
where the State does not directly administer the Child
Support Enforcement program;
21) ** Support sustained funding for problem-solving court
models within Judicial District 15B. These programs
diminish court costs and the strain on the limited,
already over-burdened judicial system and include the
Adult Drug Treatment Court, Family Dependency DTC,
Community Resource Court, Youth Planning Coordinator,
and Orange County Dispute Settlement Center. All court
problem-solving endeavors are based on collaborative
models usually involving two or more human service
agencies plus dedicated court representatives. Previous
funding sources have been a combination of Governor's
Crime Commission, Bureau of Justice Assistance, System
of Care, Jail Diversion Block Grant, the State
Legislature and other funding sources;
6
SOLID WASTE
The State of North Carolina has not demonstrated adequate
leadership on recycling efforts. It has failed to
implement strategies and incentives to encourage recycling
and also has not instituted penalties sufficient to ensure
that recycling opportunities are pursued. This deficiency
could begin to be reversed as follows:
22)Support bottle deposit legislation to be applied to any
liquids bottled for human beverage consumption including
soda, juice, beer, milk, wine, tea, water, and all
distilled alcoholic beverages;
23)Support legislation requiring an advance recycling fee
(ARF) and a subsequent ban on landfilling or
incineration of televisions, computer monitors and other
devices using a cathode ray tube (CRT) to display an
image on a screen;
24)Support legislation that promotes and supports the
recycling and disposal of white goods including
retaining earmarked State revenue sources to support
these programs;
EDUCATION
Orange County believes that political initiatives regarding
education that create unfunded mandates for local
7
8
governments should include sufficient funding to carry out
those initiatives. Examples of these include:
25)Legislation which seeks to reduce class size. If the
State does not include the necessary funding (capital
and otherwise), it thereby creates additional pressures
on local school systems for construction of new and
expanded school facilities and for additional support
staff (Also See #6 above);
26)Legislation that expands programs such as "More at
Four " that obligate local school systems' space. If the
State does not include the necessary funding (capital
and otherwise), it thereby creates additional pressures
on local school systems for construction of new and
expanded school facilities and for support staff;
OTHER EDUCATION
27)** Support adequate and reliable funding for local
public schools and reverse recent trends that cut or
displace school system funding as noted in the attached
letter and joint resolution signed by Orange County and
other area counties and school systems (Exhibit B);
28)** Support legislation which allows counties to provide
per pupil funding to school systems based on student
membership numbers as of a specific day-of-school in the
8
same manner as the State's per pupil funding to school
systems;
29)** As security and safety of students, teachers, and
staff are principal components of successful educational
efforts, support State funding for school resource
officers (SROs) on the basis of one position allotment
for each middle school and high school building for all
school systems across the State;
30)** Support a public referendum on the question of a
lottery to provide funding for education (House Bill
223);
L'~T L~P~T T/'11T G~
31)** Support the use of optical scanning voting machines
for all elections and provide State funding to cover the
capital and installation costs for this equipment for
all county boards of elections; or, in the alternative,
support a requirement that all forms of voting result in
a back-up paper record and provide State funding to
cover the capital and installation costs for
implementation by all county boards of elections (House
Bill 238);
9
9
10
32)** Support the opportunity for a "known group of voters"
whose ballots are lost to cast new votes within two
weeks of the respective election (House Bill 158);
33)** Support the opportunity for state election officials
and political party representatives to review the
computer source codes for electronic voting machines to
evaluate security issues (House Bill 238);
34)** Support allowing State employees the opportunity to
have twenty-four (24) hours of "community service leave"
each calendar year to work as precinct officials or in
early voting sites, and encouraging local governments to
provide the same opportunity (House Bill 127 with
Necessary Amendment);
35)** Support authorizing county boards of elections to
begin tabulating absentee ballots cast prior to election
day, provided that any results are not announced until
after all relevant voting locations within the county
close on election day (House Bill 128);
36)** Support state funding for all vote recounts;
37)** Support authorizing the State Board of Elections to
institute a pilot program in 10 counties to allow one-
stop voting to continue through election day rather than
ending several days before;
10
11
OTHER
38)** Recognize the benefits that public libraries across
North Carolina provide to residents as noted in the
attached North Carolina Public Library Directors'
Association resolution (Exhibit C), and support an
increase in funding to the State Aid to Libraries
Program as detailed in the resolution;
39)** Support a ban on video poker, or, in the alternative,
provide State funding to reimburse County Sheriffs'
Departments for expenses incurred by the Departments as
part of State-mandated Departmental monitoring of video
poker machines and operations;
40)** Seek legislation to increase flexibility in the use
of fees generated for the Emergency Telephone System
Fund (E911), both wireline and wireless, to expand the
ability of counties or other public safety answering
points (PSAPs) to use these funds for acquisition or
lease of any and all computer hardware and software or
communication equipment, and any related training, that
is associated with receiving, processing or dispatching
emergency calls (whether received from landline or
wireless sources) for, law enforcement, fire, medical,
11
12
rescue or other public safety services. Broadening the
uses of subscriber fees would lead to more effective
Emergency 911 Services for citizens;
41)** Support the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners' goals for 1) Medicaid Relief by seeking
legislation to implement a six-year phase out of county
participation in the costs of Medicaid; and, for the
first year, cap county costs at the fiscal year 2004-05
level and provide relief by targeting supplemental
financial assistance to any county in which more than X
percent of the population is eligible for Medicaid; and
2) Revenue Options by seeking legislation to allow all
counties to enact any or all of several revenue options
from among those that have already been authorized for
any other county;
42)* Oppose unfunded mandates for local governments such as
1) those associated with recent reform efforts at the
State level regarding mental health services, 2)
regulatory and performance standards concerning solid
waste and recycling programs, 3) standards and funding
requirements related to the implementation of reduced
class size, and 4) pollution management strategies
12
13
related to water quality for the Neuse River and Jordan
Lake watersheds;
43)* Oppose legislation which would provide for private
sector soil evaluations to become the basis for county
health department permitting of septic systems;
44)Oppose legislation involving changes to the Alcohol
Beverage Control (ABC) system unless local ABC Boards
and local governments are included in discussion and
formulation of proposed changes and that any changes
"hold harmless." the services and funds provided to local
governments under the current system;
45)Support legislation that continues the current level of
State funding for all existing positions in County Soil
and Water Conservation offices;
46)Support legislation requiring county commissioner
approval for any proposed exercise of eminent domain
power by any utility operating in a deregulated
environment;
47)* Support legislation enabling cities and counties to
transfer assets no longer used to another governmental
entity at no cost;
48)Support amending the annexation laws to require
consultation with counties, including joint city-county
13
14
.public hearings, on any proposed annexation, and to
provide planning and revenue option incentives to county
and municipal governments that enter into cooperative
planning agreements;
49)* Support legislation as recommended by the North
Carolina Association of Health Directors authorizing
counties to set and collect fees to offset the cost of
restaurant permitting and inspections since the State
mandates these inspections by local public health
department personnel, charges an inadequate fee to cover
all the costs of these inspections, disburses to
counties only a portion of the fees collected, and
maintains a framework under which the cost is borne
almost exclusively by the counties as an unfunded
mandate by the State;
50)Support legislation to allow counties to collect an
additional 50 on court costs to help fund capital,
operational, and other needs associated with ever-
increasing judicial activities;
51)* Express support for the adoption of the federal
Uniform Real Property Electronic Recordation Act (UPERA)
to streamline the recording and cancellation processes,
14
15
to address the Notary Certification issue, and to reduce
the liability of Registers of Deeds;
52)Support legislation that, in the event county
regulation/inspection of body piercing establishments is
state-mandated, adequate state funding is included to
address the additional county cost, or, as an
alternative, counties are allowed to collect fees to
offset the cost of the regulation/inspection activities;
53)* Support amending previous legislation regarding a
national criminal record check for long-term care
employees (all persons involved in direct patient care)
to address conflicts related to federal privacy rules
(Senate Bill 41 and House Bill 176);
54)Support statutory clarification on the definition of
special care locked units (units intended to meet
certain requirements in order to provide special care
for persons with Alzheimer's disease or related
disorders; not simply units with a door that locks).
Legislative requirements have been circumvented through
interpretation. Locked units must be considered special
care by definition or the rights of the residents in
those units are violated;
15
16
55)* Support legislation that, should a previously proposed
bill resurface pertaining to the prevention and
disposition of unwanted and abandoned animals, that
language be inserted that provides a definition of
"adequate shelter" for responsible animal ownership and
protection similar to that contained in the Orange
County Animal Control Ordinance, which references
criteria such.as: the need to be wind and water proof,
construction requirements (four walls, a solid floor and
a roof), appropriate sizing of house and entrance,
elevation off the ground, location from wind, direct
sun, healthful temperature, need to provide appropriate
bedding, containment area free of waste and debris, and
drainage;
56)** Support the adoption of a comprehensive hate crimes
law for North Carolina similar to those found in many
other states;
57)** Oppose Senate Bill 8, House Bill 55, or any
comparable bill purporting to effect marriages, civil
unions, domestic partnerships, or similar relationships
in North Carolina;
16
17
Upon motion of Commissioner ~ seconded by
Commissioner the foregoing resolution was adopted
this the ~ day. of _~~ 2005.
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 ~~~ Q!/ui~ ~ , 2005 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 /lam day
of /I ,~~ L~ 2005 .
17
EXHIBIT A 1 g
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN INCREASE IN NORTH
CAROLINA'S TAX ON CIGARETTES
March 2003
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners joins the Orange County Board of
Health in carrying out the responsibility of protecting and promoting the health of the people of
Orange County; and
WHEREAS, a goal of Healthy People 2010 is to "reduce illness, disability, and death related to
tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke"; and
WHEREAS, death rates from heart disease and cancer, the leading causes of death in North
Carolina and Orange County are partially attributable to smoking and tobacco use; and
WHEREAS, North Carolina's cigarette tax is currently $.05, the 3ra lowest in the nation; and
WHEREAS, the use of tobacco products costs the State $4.75 billion in medical costs and lost
productivity annually; and
WHEREAS, each year 24,090 children in North Carolina start smoking each year (66 a day); and
WHEREAS, the best way to prevent and reduce tobacco use by children is to substantially
increase the cost of cigarettes; and
WHEREAS, such a tax increase would result in a 16.1 % decrease in youth smoking rates,
preventing .105,750 North Carolina children from starting to smoke and saving 33,750 premature
smoking-related death; and
WHEREAS, North Carolina expects to suffer approximately a $2 billion deficit in fiscal year
2003, the third year of significant deficits; and
WHEREAS, these deficits have caused cuts to important programs affecting the health and
wellness of the citizens and more reductions are threatened; and
WHEREAS, North Carolina targets almost no state funds towards preventing tobacco use; and
WHEREAS, such an increase would generate new revenue;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners supports an increase in the cigarette tax in North Carolina to be used primarily
for health programs and for reducing and preventing tobacco use.
This the Sa' day of March 2003. ~~'~ ~~V ~' /--..._._.
!J
Margaret Brown, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
W o r l d
C l a s s
Region
Honorable Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
20301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-0301
Dear Governor Easley:
December 13, 2004
4307 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 710
Durham, NC 27703
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 72276
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
979.549.0551 Fnx:919.549.9390
19
In an unprecedented show of unity and concern, the Boards of County Commissioners of Orange,
Durham and Wake Counties have joined with the School Boards of their respective school systems to call
upon the North Carolina General Assembly to adequately fund local public schools. I am pleased today
to share this resolution with you and request that this important action by our counties and schools receive
the favorable attention of members of the General Assembly, the State School Board, and yourself.
Enclosed you will find a copy of the resolution that was unanimously adopted by the Triangle's three
counties and four school systems. While applauding the state's continuing emphasis on education as one
of the state's top public policy priorities, these local officials call upon lawmakers in Raleigh to do more
to help local government meet the challenge of educating the state's youth.
As the General Assembly readies for its 2005 Session in which school funding will again be a primary
focus of attention, Wake County, Durham County, and Orange County, along with the Wake County
Public School System, Durham Public Schools, Orange County Schools, and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro
City Schools, invite your support in bringing about the legislative actions necessary to meet the goals of
this resolution. The General Assembly is encouraged to reverse recent trends that cut or displace local
school system funding and commit to the adequate funding of public schools in the future.
Thank you as always for your service to the people of North Carolina and the good residents of our
region. I trust this resolution will be helpful and that the recommendations of our Triangle counties and
public school systems will assist the state in addressing this imperative. Feel free to call any of the
county commission chairs or school board chairs in this regard, or you may contact me at 919 558-9395 -
deefree(~Ltjcog.org, should you or any of your staff have any questions.
incerely yours,
p~ ~ ~ 1
~I~de A. reeman
Executive Director ~ j ~ ~~4
DAF/ ,~
Attachment
cc: Orange, Durham and Wake County Legislative Delegations
Howard Lee, Chair, N.C. Board of Education
Commission Chairs: Ellen Reckhow, Kenn Gardner/Joe Bryan & Barry Jacobs/Moses Carey
School Board Chairs: Gail Heath, Elizabeth Mason Carter, Libby Hough & Susan Perry
Frances Dancy, Triangle J Chair
Triangle J Council of Governments
Mission Statement
EXNTQST B
TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
To sense as an intergovernmental organization for local elected officials that work proactively on regional issues in
order to sustair: and improve the quality ojlije jor our citizens.
A RESOLUTION SEEKING SUPPORT FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA 2U
GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR ESTABLISHING ADEQUATE AND REELABLE
FUNDING OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE TRIANGLE AND THROUGHOUT
THE STATE
WHEREAS, Durham, Orange and Wake Counties, along with their respective school
districts, Durham Public Schools, Orange County Schools, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, and
Wake County Public School System, firmly believe that every child within the Triangle should have
equal access to a sound quality public education in a safe learning environment; and,
WHEREAS, the responsibility of providuig these educational opportunities is shared between
the State of North Carolina, our counties, and our local school districts under the guidance of North
Carolina's constitution; and,
WHEREAS, while overall state educational funding has increased lazgely to meet student
population growth, class-size reduction in elementary grades and personnel salary and benefit
increases, state budgeting of public schools as a percentage of the state general fund has however
trended downward, resulting in reduced resources for schools without similar reductions in mandated
program responsibilities; and,
WHEREAS, elementary class-size reductions result in an unfunded mandate that does not
allow for adequate capital planning and imposes a burden on counties to fund additional school
facilities; and,
WHEREAS, parallel budget cuts affecting public schools have resulted in required state
discretionary reductions, declining teacher assistant allotments, decreased school transportation
operating funds, inadequate instructional technology support, withheld capital needs resources; and,
WHEREAS, stagnant funding for public schools has resulted in too few teacher allotments,
inadequate staffing allotments, lagging non-uistructional support positions, insufficient textbook
allocations, deficient instructional supplies, limited funds for children with special needs, etc.; and,
WHEREAS, these funding deficiencies create a greater reliance on local funding, thereby
exacerbating inequities in educational opportunities across the state; and,
WHEREAS, in light of this trend the Triangle's county governments and school districts seek
support fi-om the North Carolina General Assembly to reverse this course and establish adequate and
reliable funding of public schools;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Durham, Orange and Wake Counties, along
with the Durham Public Schools, Orange County Schools, Chapel Hill-Cairboro City Schools, and
Wake County Public School' System, call upon the North Carolina General Assembly to reverse the
ongoing trend of insufficient operational and capital funding for public schools.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Assembly establish adequate and reliable
funding of public schools in North Carolina that matches needs, resources and mandates.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that this resolution be executed by the respective counties
and public school systems in the Triangle and that this document be presented to our legislative
delegations, along with appropriate state officials who have responsibilities for public schools -
including Governor Easley, the Chair of the State Board of Education, and the State Superintendent
of Public Instruction.
Adopted and Approved this the 30`h day of November 2004.
Chair, Durham County Board of Comnssioners Chair urham Public Schools
` , C.'~
air, Oran Bo d of Commissioners Ch ,Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
Chair, Orange Court Schools
Chair ake o Boazd of Commissioners Chair, Wake Co zty 'c School System
EXFIIBII C
North Carolina Public Library Director's Association
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, in FY2004 there were 4,210,081 registered public library users in North
Cazolina representing 50 percent of the state's population; and
WHEREAS, the 4.2 million public library patrons borrowed 45,030,258 items from
public libraries last budget year; and
WHEREAS, there were 32,798,695 visits to public libraries last yeaz which is equivalent
to filling the Dean Dome 1,508 times or filling Carter Finley stadium 613 times; and
WHEREAS, that the average daily number of library visits to North Carolina public
libraries (89,859) was more the average daily attendance at the 2004 State Fair (83,632);
and
WHEREAS, the number of reference and information questions answered by public
libraries last year totaled 10,368,959, which is equivalent to answering 28,408 questions
each day for the entire yeaz; and
WHEREAS, that many residents of North Cazolina depend on their public libraries to
gain access to computers, the Internet and specialized electronic databases, such as NC
LIVE and that these electronic information resources were used a total of 6,083,141 times
last year; and
WHEREAS, North Carolina public libraries presented 93,669 programs (an average of
528 programs per school day) to over 2,239,682 children from birth to teens, last year;
and
WHEREAS, the cost of operating and providing services from public libraries has
increased dramatically; and
WHEREAS, public libraries are a tremendous educational and life long learning value to
the citizens of North Carolina for only $19.39 per capita in FY2004; and
WHEREAS, public libraries are acknowledged as one of the most popular government
services and a great public relations benefit to any community; and
WHEREAS, the funding of State Aid to Public Libraries Fund has decreased since 1998
to $14.7 million in 2004; and
WHEREAS, an increase of $4.7 million in State Aid in 2005 is needed to keep public
libraries open and operating in this time of great public demand.
22
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners supports the State Aid to Public Libraries program, its rules, and an
increase from $14.7 million to $19.4 million, an increase of $4.7 million, to meet the
growing educational, literacy and quality of life needs for the citizens of North Carolina.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEMORAI~IDUM
To: County Commissioners
From: Historic Preservation Commission
Date: March 1, 2005
Subject: NC Rehab Code
Copies: Cathleen Turner, Executive Director, Alliance for Historic Hillsborough
Margaret Schucker, Staff, Hillsborough Historic District Commission
John Link, Orange County Manager
David Stancil, Environment & Resource Conservation Director
Craig Benedict, Planning & Inspections Director
Susan Mellott, Code Enforcement Supervisor
What is it?
On August 17, 2001, Governor Easley signed into law the North Carolina Rehabilitation Pilot
Code (Rehab Code). A distinct and separate building code from the standard 2002 North
Carolina State Building Code, the new Rehab Code was developed after the success of similar
codes in New Jersey and Maryland. It is designed to focus on the particular issues associated
with existing buildings to allow contractors to meet building code standards, without having to
modify the key elements that make historic buildings significant and give older buildings
character.
Why is it important?
One of the most frustrating aspects of historic preservation (restoring, preserving, and
renovating older buildings) is balancing code requirements with the need to retain a building's
historic and architectural integrity. Certain features in older buildings, such as doors and stair
components (tread depth, riser height, baluster spacing, handrail height) typically do not meet
current building code requirements. These are the same features that contribute to the
architectural significance of a building. If a property owner with a federal plantation house, for
example, wishes to renovate a room he or she may have to replace the door with astandard-
size unit. Even if the new door is a custom-made reproduction, the owner may have to enlarge
the opening, rebuild the doorjamb, and reproduce a line of molding to match the existing trim.
Not only will the modified door opening no longer contribute to the historic value of the house, it
may actually detract from it.
Another common difficulty with older buildings and the building code is the tendency for one
issue to lead to another. Property owners seeking approval to repair one minor area are often
required to bring other areas up to code as well. This situation can actually lead to more safety
issues, because property owners try to avoid getting a permit in the first place.
Opinions on the value of the Rehab Code vary. The can-ent North Carolina Building Code has
an Existing Buildings section designed to address the types of code problems associated with
historic buildings and many building professionals believe that it is sufficient for preservation
purposes. In addition, National Register property owners can currently submit a Certified
Historic Structure form or "green sheet" with their building permit applications. The purpose of
the green sheet is to provide local inspectors some flexibility when applying the code to specific
projects. The amount of flexibility tends to vary with the individual inspector. After discussing
the code with a wide range of building professionals, sentiments seem to boil down to two
opinions: those who have become well-versed with the NC Rehab Code or a similar code in
another state find that it has great utility for preservation projects, those who are still teaming
about the code wonder if it offers any real benefits over the Existing Buildings section of the
current Code.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Under the rules set by the legislature, the Rehab Code must be individually adopted by each
local government entity. The local code enforcement entity must meet certain qualifications
(found in Paragraph 502.2.3 of the NC Administration and Enforcement Requirements Code).
Once the code enforcement jurisdiction is qualified for local plan review approval, the local
government must pass an ordinance specifically adopting the Rehab Code.
The Rehab Code was established as a pilot program and is scheduled to sunset in January
2006 unless extended by a further act of the legislature. At its December meeting, the North
Carolina Building Code Council decided to conduct a public hearing on the Rehab Code in
March. In June the Council will vote on whether or not to include the Rehabilitation Pilot Code
as an official part of the NC Building Code. Should the Council vote to adopt the Rehab Code it
would likely become an alternative to the Existing Buildings section; applicants would chose to
have their project reviewed under the Existing Buildings Code or the Rehab Code. Local
Inspectors would have to complete additional training to learn the Rehab Code following the
standard practice for other updates or changes to the Building Code. It is unclear what will
happen if the Council votes against adopting the Rehab Code.
The value of historic preservation is well documented. We believe that this type of building code
has great potential to aid in the preservation of important local buildings, such as the Colonial
Inn and some of the existing the buildings on County park sites such as the Blackwood Farm or
the Cate Farm. Local preservation efforts, contribute to local pride, lead to tourism dollars, and
often provide more economic development monies than new construction. As Orange County
promotes preservation as a function of local government it should consider ways to facilitate
such efforts when possible. In addition to rural Orange, the Orange County Inspections Division
provides building code enforcement for the Town of Hillsborough. Much of downtown
Hillsborough is located in a historic district (designated locally and listed in the National Register
of Historic Places). Numerous properties are also individually listed in the National Register in
Hillsborough and throughout the county. Establishing the Rehab Code in Orange County,
therefore, would likely have a positive impact on a substantial number of local historic property
owners.
The Orange County Historic Preservation Commission supports the Rehab Code and
respectfully requests that the Board consider voicing its support for the continuation and
potential adoption of the Rehab Code as part of its annual legislative agenda. We recognize
that the foundation of any successful preservation program lies in the relationship between the
building community and the local inspections. department. Our discussions on this topic have
opened the door to a better relationship with our Inspections Division and we hope to continue
to build on that relationship in the future.
Thank you for your consideration.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Administration ~~` , ~ °'P 306E Revere Road
(919) 245-2575 ~r ~ ~ P O Box 8181
(919) 644-3002 (FAx) ~Q Hillsborough,
www.co.orange.nc.us ~'°<<~ Cac°~~~~ North Carolina, 27278
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Susan Mellott, Code Enforcement Supervisor
DATE: March 11, 2005
SUBJECT: North Carolina Rehabilitation Code
COPIES: John M. Link, Jr., County Manager
Dave Stancil, Environment and Resource Conservation Director
Craig N. Benedict, Planning and Inspections Director
Cathleen Turner, Executive Director, Alliance for Historic Hillsborough
Margaret Schucker, Hillsborough Historic District Commission
Tina Moon, Planner II
The North Carolina Code Council, the governing body that amends, prepares and
adopts the North Carolina Building Code, submitted for rulemaking the provision to
adopt the Rehabilitation Code on December 14, 2004. The motion to grant this
petition carried. The public hearing was conducted on March 7, 2005, with only one
comment to amend the adoption of the Code as written. There will be an addendum
to the Rehabilitation Code clarifying the references and applicability of the North
Carolina Accessibility Code.
The Rehabilitation Code will be considered for final adoption at the June 2005
Building Code Council meeting, which would make the Rehabilitation Code effective
statewide, on January 1, 2006. This adoption will make available to the
development/code enforcement community the option of three codes that will be
applicable to `existing buildings':
o The Rehabilitation Code,
o Chapter 24 of the 2006 North Carolina Building Code (Commercial only) and
o Volume IX Existing Building Code (Commercial only)
All three will be available for use on existing building projects. The project designer
would make a determination which code they would use for a specific project, the
codes would not be interchangeable.
The current 2002 North Carolina Building Code, Chapter 24 and Volume IX Existing
Building Codes do not require additional work beyond the scope of proposed work unless
the structure is deemed in some way `unsafe' or a `change of use' is proposed. When
working in existing buildings great consideration is given to the fact that the building has
functioned in a safe manner in the past and if the proposed use is consistent with the
historic use, the structure is still considered to be safe unless specific `unsafe conditions'
exist. Under any code `unsafe conditions' would be required to be corrected. Some
examples of `unsafe conditions' encountered are: termite infested beams, structural
failure of footings (settled or uprooted), exposed electrical wiring (providing opportunity of
electrical shock). In the above examples, the code would require repair of deteriorated
structural members and repair to the electrical wiring to provide a continued safe use of
the building for its occupants.
It is the objective of both the current codes, Chapter 24 of the 2002 North Carolina
Building Code and Volume IX Existing Building Code, and the proposed
Rehabilitation Code to promote the safe continued use and reuse of existing
buildings.