HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-17-1996 - 10a c
t
_ 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 17, 1996
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Orange-Alamance County Line
DEPARTMENT: Manager/Land Records PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)
BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/1S)
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
11/18/96 Staff Memo Rod Visser, Assistant County Manager
ext. 2300
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive a report on staff discussions between Orange and Alamance Counties on
resolving the location of the Orange-Alamance County line.
BACKGROUND: In June 1996,the Orange County Board of Commissioners met jointly with
the Alamance County Board of Commissioners to discuss a process that could lead to resolution of
a long-standing disagreement between the two counties as to the location of the boundary line
dividing the two counties. At that meeting,the two boards directed staff to review the differing
representations of the county line used by each county's tax office, as well as another line depicted
on United States Geological Survey(USGS)maps that shows a different boundary than that used by
either tax office.
Staff from Orange and Alamance Counties have met a number of times during the Summer and Fall
of 1996 to review the information available about the location of the County line, and to discuss the
possible ramifications of any changes in the traditional lines used to mark the boundary between the
Counties. As noted in the staffs report, it appears that the USGS line may be the most accurate of
the lines reviewed, compared to the description of the boundary line laid out in an 1849 survey.
Staff will present a summary of the discussions held to date with Alamance staff. Staff recognizes
that these discussions do not reflect any commitment on the part of either the Manager or the Board
to pursue a particular approach to resolving the location of the county boundary. However,the
Board's review and comments about the discussion to date will provide direction to the staff on how
to proceed with this matter.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report as
information, and provide direction to staff on next steps in the process.
e
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
John Link, County Manager
FROM: ;114)d Visser,Assistant County Manager
DATE: November 18, 1996
RE: Orange-Alamance Line
County staff have held a number of meetings since August with Alamance County staff to discuss how we
might resolve the discrepancies that exist between property tax maps of the two counties as to the location of the
County line. Roscoe Reeve, John Smith, Geof Gledhill,Gene Bell, and Mary Willis have joined me in one or
more of these meetings. We have been working with at least two objectives in mind: having the county line
question resolved so that any changes required could be implemented with the start of fiscal year 1997-98; and
trying to minimize the negative impacts that residents would experience as a result of any change in the location
of the county line.
In our most recent meeting with Alamance staff in October,we focused on whether the United States
Geological Survey(USGS) line (depicted in blue on the attached set of 3 maps) is the best representation of the
County line for the two counties to work from. After reviewing research prepared by the Alamance staff, and
plotting points using our GIS system, we have come to the conclusion that the USGS line is the best line to
work with.
As you know,the county line described in the 1849 survey refers to many geographical reference points which
no longer exist. The level of precision in references like"close east of Widow Birds old place" and "East of
John Morrow over his Spring"is certainly far from what one would rely on now, but in the time of the survey,
was no doubt useful enough. Despite the imprecision in the county line description, however, it is fair to say
that Orange County staff can offer no compelling evidence that the county line we have traditionally shown on
Orange County tax maps accurately reflects the line surveyed in 1849. Moreover,there are several landmarks
referenced in the 1849 survey which are still in existence today, and the plot of the USGS line is relatively
consistent with at least three of those: "east of Hebron Church"; "1/2 mile west of Bethlehem Church"; and
"Crossing Cane Creek three times". There seemed to be general agreement between the two boards of
commissioners at the joint meeting in late June that it is important to be able to tell citizens definitively which
county their property is in. Under the circumstances, if we are interested primarily in reaching agreement with
Alamance County on some line as accurately reflecting the County boundary, staff are persuaded that the USGS
line is a logical basis for pursuing that agreement.
3
Even if the two Boards of Commissioners were to agree that the USGS line is a logical basis for trying to
resolve the location of the County line, much work would remain to be done with citizens whose residency
would be affected by recognition of the USGS line as the official county boundary. Land Records/GIS staff
have identified 242 parcels of land north to south between the Caswell and Chatham County lines that would be
affected by recognizing the USGS line as the boundary instead of the traditional line shown on County property
tax maps (where part or all of a parcel falls between the green and blue lines on the accompanying set of 3
maps). Some citizens who have always been considered Orange County residents, who have paid taxes to and
received services from Orange County, would find themselves on the Alamance County side of the newly
recognized County boundary.
We encountered a similar issue, although on a much smaller scale, when Orange County resolved the location of
the Orange-Chatham line in the late 1980s. We dealt with that by creating an agreement between the Orange
and Chatham Boards of Commissioners that allowed citizens, "where permitted by law", to continue to receive
services from and pay taxes to one county or the other if their residency was affected by the official relocation
of the county line. We could pursue similar arrangements with residents affected by a"relocated" Orange-
Alamance County line. However, the Orange and Alamance County Boards of Education would need to be
involved in any decisions relating to which school system students from the other county would attend. Also,
any agreement that Orange County might enter into with Alamance would deal with traditional services like
police, fire, EMS, planning, code enforcement, and the like - it would not address the question of residency for
the purposes of voting or standing for elected office.
This memo is an attempt to provide you with a concise update on a complex matter, so I expect that there are a
number of questions you may have which I have not addressed. Accordingly, I suggest that staff plan to present
a report on this subject at an upcoming regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners. In that way, staff and
the attorney can respond to your questions and receive your direction as to how to proceed on this matter
MAP 1
i<
i
v E
s
Y 9
sit
f
BOUNDARIES BETWEEN ORANGE AND ALAMANCE COUNTY
COUNTY BOUNDARIES FROM ALAMANCE COUNTY PROPERTY MAP
COUNTY BOUNDARIES FROM ORANGE COUNTY PROPERTY MAP
COUNTY BOUNDARIES FROM USCS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
PARCELS NOT TAXED IN ORANGE COUNTY
Mao ooeo+•ed by On oge Ca tv Lod Re wd.14G IS.Novwi ber 19W
5
w�
a ;�
�_, '�� 1 '��.,,�'�
�`
1 � �� ' � �
� ` � �{
� � �
.,
• iY u "- � �• ��9 �
z
',,��
.. _.. '
_. ,
� �
i�
. `
� a
e
4
P �
�"�°
3.
s
o i
� `
0
Q
P
��
i
a �
e
i
M�,,..
' �a:
�� '
a
�b
"mow. '^�1
r _�
� � -"
•.....w
i� _ �
� i
MAP 3 '
3�
p
w.w
9
i�
t
�a
occ�°�
O
b �
i
e aP
00
w
�h 4
Cl
r
r if