HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19750819 40
Others present were: S. M. Gattis , County Administrator; Neal
Evans, Fiscal Officer; A. B. Coleman, Jr. , County Attorney; and Betty
June ,'.-ayes, Clerk.
Members of the Planning Staff present were Irvin Dobson, Director
and Chris Edwards, Assistant Planning Director.
Members of the Orange, County Planning .Board present were: Leon
Yates, Dr. Robert Bonar, Ms. Jean Anderson, Mr. Marilyn Riddle, and
John Scarlet-t.
'Chairman Garrett recognized Irvin Dobson and Mr. Dobson presented
graphs, slides and a verbal outline of the plans and goals that had
been established for the Planning Department.
Discussion ensued concerning the various phases of the proposed
plan. 114r. Dobson stated that he felt his Department would have imple-
mented each of the phases outlined by June 30 , 1976 .
There being no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned.
Flora R. Garrett, Chairman
Betty June Hayes, Clerk
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF' COMMIISSIONERS
August 19 , 1975
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on
Tuesday, August 19 , 1975, in the Cortin?issioners ° Room at the Courthouse
in Hillsborough, N. C.
Members present were: Chairman Flora Garrett, Commissioners
Norman Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, Norman '17alker, and Richard Whitted.
Members absent: None.
S. M. Gattis , County Manager; Neal Evans , Fiscal Officer; A. B.
Coleman, Jr. , County Attorney; and Betty June Hayes , Clerk were also
present.
Chairman Garrett referred to Item #1 on the Agenda: (Recognition
of persons not on the Agenda desiring to speak with the Board of Commis-
sioners) .
No one came forth.
The Chairman then referred the Board to Item #2 : (1113inutes of prior
meetings) .
The Minutes of June 18 , 1975, were reviewed. These Minutes had
previously been approved, however, Chairman Garrett stated that there
were some dissatisfaction about the context of certain statements that
had been made and that the Clerk had rewritten the portion that had been
unsatisfactorily.
Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Walker,
it was moved and adopted that the Board reapprove the Minutes of June 18 ,
1975, as rewritten by the Clerk.
Chairman Garrett -referred to Item D3 on the Agenda, (Appointments)
A. Carrboro Planning Board has two vacancies - Marion Phillips
and Patricia Evans .
411
Commissioner Pinney nominated Katherine Adams and Margaret Stumpf
as members of the Carrboro Planning Board. Commissioner Whitted moved
that the nominations be closed and that the Board unanimously adopt the
two nominees .
Chairman Garrett called for the vote.
All members voted aye.
B. The County Attorney has advised the Chairman that a non resident
of the Planning Area can be appointed to serve on the Planning
Board only if a qualified resident of the Planning Area willing
to serve cannot be found.
The County Attorney filed the following report on the matter of
the eligibility of an individual to serve. on a Planning Board if they
live outside of the Planning jurisdiction. The ruling declared that
persons who serve on Planning Boards must live within the designated
jurisdiction of the Planning Board.
The County Manager advised the Board that he had received official
notification from the Town of Chapel Hill that Alan Stiven, who is
currently serving on the Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment, is not eligible
because his residential area has been annexed into the Town of Chapel Hill.
The Board agreed to place this item on the Agenda for September 2 ,
1975 .
Chairman Garrett referred to Item #4 on the Agenda: (Execution of
agreement between Orange County and Calvin Mellott) .
Due to the fact that the County Attorney was not present this item
was deferred until later in the meeting.
Chairman Garrett referred to Item #5 on the Agenda: (C. D. Knight,
County Sheriff: ) (A) . To discuss current County Salary Plan relative
to Deputy Sheriffs.
Chairman Garrett recognized Sheriff Knight and he proceded to
review the starting salaries of Deputies and Dispatchers that he had
secured from adjoining Counties and Towns within the County. Sheriff
Knight stated that the current beginning salary levels were causing
him to lose a number of his younger Deputies . He then reviewed the
number of men he had lost and notices he had received from men who
planned to terminate their employment with his department.
Sheriff Knight requested that the starting pay for Deputies be
raised to $8 , 064 .00 and that Dispatchers ' beginning salary be raised
to $7, 200 . 00 .
Sheriff Knight stated that it was impossible for him to organize
his department into the needed division due to the fact he could not
retain a permanent staff. His budget allowed for twenty-nine deputies ,
however, he currently had employed twenty-six and some of these were
planning to leave.
Chairman Garrett stated that she personally did not know what
should be done in order to rectify the situation but that she would
like to do something for the Sheriff' s Department on a interim basis
and that perhaps the matter of a salary review or study could be imple-
mented for other departments .
Commissioner Whitted questioned the Sheriff about the life insur-
ance policy that Durham County carried on its law enforcement personnel.
(Sheriff Knight reported that some departments used life insurance
policies as a fringe benefit in order to attain and maintain qualified
personnel.
Commissioner Whitted stated that he would like for the Board to
study all the salaries of County employees and to keep the possiblity
of securing a life insurance policy fo rthe Deputies under consideration.
42
Commissioner Gustaveson stated that he was aware that -'_here were
some problems in other areas and departments . He stated that it seemed
if we are going to do something in one area we must consider the other
areas of need. He suggested that the Board take a look at some of the
major inequities and see what could. to done on an interim basis , then
look toward doing a complete salary study before next year' s budget.
Commissioner Pinney questioned Commissioner Gustaveson as to his
interpretation of an interim basis . Iie inquired, "do you want to do
something at a later date or do something now?"
Commissioner Gustaveson replied t.'.zat he felt that the Board needed
to have an opportunity to study the matter and use the same criteria
in establishing any salary increases. "I am concerned about doing
something more for the Sheriff ' s Department but Jiere are all these
other departments who also need consideration. I Neel we should per-
fect the criteria that we use. "
Commissioner Pinney replied that the problem as I see it is that
you can employ other people for the other departments easier than you
can employ a Deputy of Dispatcher because these men now have to become
certified law enforcement officers and all men that Sheriff Knight has
lost and will lose are now certified officers. It is my understanding
that it takes at least a year to train these men and this is now required
by State Statutes . We could lose these men before an interim study is
completed. I do not feel we cai effort to tare this risk.
Chairman Garrett inquired of the County Manager and the Fiscal
Officer if it was possible for them to make a quick check in the
various departments for salary inequities.
Commissioner Walker stated that if we take a look I am sure of
what we will find. We will find inequities throughout the system even
though we did a personnal survey about two years ago. It is evident
that this study has gotten out of line.
Sheriff Knight reported that two years ago when the study was
made the Personnel Director wrote a letter acknowledging that the
beginning salary was one step behind where itsmuld have been established.
Commissioner Walker stated that he agreed with Commissioner
Gustaveson' s statement in that, the Board should look at the entire
matter, but I also feel like this is an emergency situation. "I
think Commissioner Pinney is correct and we should procec� with the
request of the Sheriff and make this appropriation and then do the
study. Do a thorough study, not just a small check because we know
,�ahat .e ' re going to find. "
Con-missioner Whitted stated, "if we are going to do a study similar
to the one we did two _years ago, we need to start about now in order to
have it completed for next budget year. "
The County -Manager scat:d, "we are c_foing to run into serious
difficulties in obtain a State agency to do the study due to the
time factor as they have a substantial waiting list. "
Discussion ensued as to the procedure needed in obtaining a Salary
Study and Classification Program.
Commissioner Walker stated, "I can foresee problems arising from
the agreement we may make tonight: however, I feel that it would be
better for us to do something in this area and then if we get the
salary scale updated then in two more years we will find ourselves
back in the same situation. As I see it, we *rust get the matter of
salaries straighten out and. then they will have to be reviewed. on. a
periodic basis . All this means that eventually we must consider a
Personnel Officer for the County. It is novtT important to maintain
even balance due to the changing situation and demands of County
Government. "
Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, it was move? that $5, 521 .00
be taken from the Contingency Fund and appropriated to the Sheriff' s
43
Personnel Code in order to establish the beginning salary level
of a Deputy Sheriff at $8 , 064 .00 and a Radio Dispatcher in the Sheriff ' s
Department at $7, 200 . 00 , effective as of September 1, 1975.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Walker.
Discussion ensued.
Commissioner Gustaveson stated that he could vote for the motion
if the Board would procede to study the other departments in order to
correct some of the major inequities and see if something cannot be
done on a interim basis . I feel the same criteria should be applied to
all departments.
Commissioner Whitted stated, "along with Commissioner Gustaveson' s
suggestion, I would like the County Manager to find out what type of
commerical firms are available for personnel and classification studies .
If we are unsuccessful in obtaining the services of the State Personnel
Department prior to next year ' s budget appropriations I would be in
favor of securing the services of a commerical firm and procede with a
major study."
Chairman Garrett stated that there was a possibility that a
horizontal adjustment could be made. "If all of our salaries are basically
out of line then I would favor a complete review, however, if there exist
only one in each department then I feel a horizontal adjustment, plus
reclassification would solve the problem without doing a major study.
Sheriff Knight suggested that the Board might consider a longevity
allowance and this increase would depend upon the number of years of
service.
Commissioner Pinney called for the question.
All members of the Board voted aye.
Chairman Garrett declared the motion passed.
The County Administrator was requested to procede with an inquiry
to the State Personnel Department as to the matter of a Salary Study
and/or Review.
B. To discuss County participation in the Triangle J Council on
Criminal Justice.
Chairman Garrett stated that prior to any general discussion on
this item she would like to give the Board some background information
on the matter. She stated, "there is coming from the State Commission
on Criminal Justice a 'Memorandum of Understanding' with the Council of
Governments or either to merge with the Council . This matter is to be
brought before the Council of Governments and I am of the opinion that
the ideas from the Council will be sent to each County for their opinions .
Apparently there are some problems. We are now participating in the
Triangle J Commission on Criminal Justice. "
Sheriff Knight stated that he would be in favor of a proposed merger
as he felt that all project for his Department should come from his Depart-
ment to the County and that the County' s representive on the Triangle J
Council of Governments could then present the matter at the Council ' s
meeting. He stated that there were a lot of opposition from the smaller
and medium size counties and cities in the region because the larger
counties and municipalities were receiving the greater portion of all
Federal funds and that if some of these problems were not corrected
he would be in favor of withdrawing Orange County from the current Com-
mission on Criminal Justice, however, if the new proposal were accepted
then he was of the opinion that Orange County and other smaller units
of government would receive their proper amount of Federal funds.
It was pointed out that the dues for affiliation with the Triangle
J Commission on Criminal Justice had increased to over $1, 500 .00 and this
amount was not included in the Sheriff ' s budget.
44
Chairman Garrett stated that a copy of the "Memorandum of Under-
standing" that would be presented at the Triangle J Council of Governments
would be made for each Board member and the Sheriff and that if the
Board agreed they could defer this matter until after Triangle J' s
meeting.
Commissioner Pinney called attention to the fact that since Sheriff
Knight was present and Tom Ward was also present that the Board might
consider to defer to Item #8 : (Report concerning assigning of telephone
number 942-6300) .
Chairman Garrett recognized morn Turd, Director of the Social
Services Department. Mr. Ward stated that the recent flooding of the
Social Services Basement had cause damage to the telephone equipment
and that the telephone company had not been able to adequately correct
the damage and they were of the opinion that the equipment should be
replaced.
The County Administrator stated that due to the volume of calls
from the Chapel Hill area the citizens were unable to satisfactorily
reach the Sheriff ' s Department, and that the Social Services Depart-
ment was willing to relinquish one of its Chapel :-fill lines and that
this line could be assigned to the Sheriff ' s Department.
Discussion ensued concerning the cost of new telephone equipment
and the cost of transferring the Chapel Hill line to the Sheriff ' s
Department.
Upon motion of Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner
Pinney, it was moved and adopted that the Board approve the moving of
one Chapel Hill line from the Social Services Department to the Sheriff ' s
Department and that this line be assigned as an emergency number (942-6300)
to the Sheriff 's Department and that the Social Services Deparment be
authorized to procede to install new telephone equipment.
Chairman Garrett referred to Item 11M on the Agenda: (Execution of
Agreement between Orange County and Calvin Mellott)
Chairman Garrett stated that in reporting Item # 4 on the Agenda
she was not sure of the proper sequence of events , therefore, she re-
quested the County Attorney to speak to the matter.
The County Attorney stated that "the matter was incorrectly listed
on the Agenda as there had been no formal discussion of an agreement
between Orange County and Mr. Mellott. He stated that the concern of
the Attorney for Mr. Mellott and the concern that I have had as the
Attorney for the County has been to see to it that in the event the
property is not rezoned from Industrial_ to Residential that the pro-
perty owners around the property be protected as much as possible.
With the use of the property being that which is in keeping with the
neighborhood, for that reason the Attorney for the owner has trans-
mitted to me the matter that we have reviewed in Executive Session and
I have in hand a set of Restrictive Covenants that will be filed upon
the property not being zoned to Residential. I have an understanding
with the Attorney that should the property be zoned to Residential, he
has indicated to me that he then will seek relief in the Courts and I
am not to file the Restrictive Covenants. "
Mr. Coleman advised that he felt it was time a decision should
be made by the Board on the rezoning matter.
Commissioner T,iThitted inquired as to who would oversee the enforce-
ment of the provisions concerning the Restrictive Covenants .
The County Attorney stated. "the Covenants would be public record
and that the property owners have pledged that these covenants may be
enforced by any civil enity available and specifically by an injunctive
release of the County. "
Discussion ensued concerning the enforcement of the Restrictive
Covenants.
45
Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved that the
Board accept the recommendation of the Planning Board to continue the
Industrial zoning of the Mellott property. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Walker.
Chairman Garrett called for the vote.
Commissioners Gustaveson, Pinney, and Walker voted aye.
Commissioners Garrett and Whitted voted nay.
Chairman Garrett declared the motion passed.
Chairman Garrett referred to Item #6 on the Agenda: (Through tax
foreclosure actions the County has acquired several parcels of real
property. The Board should authorize the chairman to name a committee
to look at these properties and recommend a use or disposition of them. )
The County Manager advised the Board that the County had acquired
several parcels of real property through tax foreclosure and in one
instance the Town of Chapel Hill had vested interest. In order that the
County might procede to sell the property it is necessary that a committee
be appointed to decide what disposition should be made.
Discussion ensued. It was agreed that Commissioner Garrett, Pinney,
and the County Manager should be appointed as a committee for the disposal
of the property acquired under tax foreclosure.
Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner
Pinney, it was moved that Agenda Item #6 be adopted.
Chairman Garrett referred to Item #7 on the Agenda: (Report from
Social Services Director concerning a child support enforcement pro-
gram as required by Part B of Public Law 93-647 . )
Chairman Garrett recognized Tom Ward and he presented the following
letter:
"In order for our State to comply with Part B of Public Law 93-647
and North Carolina G. S . 110-A, we must establish and operate an
effective Child Support Enforcement Program as soon as possible.
A basic part of this program is the active involvement of County
Governments in locating responsible parents and collecting legally
constituted support payments from them. In order to discharge this
responsibility, an agency of each County Government must be design-
ated to work with the State Child Support Enforcement Section, which
is headed by Mr. Edwin C. Riley. Since we face a penalty of a 5% reduc-
tion in Federal participation in Public Assistance funding unless an
effective and active IV-D program exists in each of our counties, it
will be necessary in the very near future to execute a binding agree-
ment between the State and your designated agency. The agreement is
intended to assure that necessary staff and appropriate procedures
are used in implementation of the program.
As an aid to your decision making process, I am enclosing an informa-
tion sheet about the program which lists several alternative agencies,
any one of which could be designated. This is the same information
sheet which was provided to attendees at the County Commissioners '
Association Convention in Asheville on August 2nd.
While there is urgency for you to designate your IV-D agency, I
feel that sufficient time must be allowed for careful consideration
and discussion with persons you deem appropriate in arriving at your
decision in this matter. I am, therefore, requesting that you in-
form me by September 12, 1975 , of the agency in your county which
you have designated to administer your IV-D program. "
Mr. Ward stated that the Board of Social Services had reviewed the
matter.
The Board of Commissioners agreed to defer action until September
2, 1975.
Chairman Garrett referred to Item #9 on the Agenda: (A. Purchase
46
of "green boxes") .
Johnny Horner and Harold Maynor, Orange County employees were
present and presented the following "Report of Bid Results" .
"Sixty Refuse Containers :
Four vendors submitted five separate bids for these containers :
1. Roach Russell Company $325 . 00 per Unit
2 . Solid Waste System 349 .00 per Unit
3 . Sanco Corporation
A. Slant Top 341. 30 per Unit
B. Standard 364 . 13 per Unit
4 . Simpson Equipment Company 363 . 50 per Unit
We recommend elimination of bid number 1 (Roach Russell as the
Company cannot submit a sample of the container to be delivered and
because of the potential danger of falling inherent in the operation
of a ' latch' type top.
We recommend elimination of bids number 3-B (Sanco Corporation)
and number 4 (Simpson Equipment Company) both for the same reason,
they are six yard flat top side loading containers that can be filled
to the top only with great difficulty. In our opinion the using public
will only continue piling refuse on the ground when the container is
filled to the level of the loading port.
Two bids remain, Sanco Corporation bid A of $341. 30 , and Solid
Waste System of $349 . 00 . These containers are identical both being
manufactured by the Rally Company of Dalton, Georgia.
We recommend acceptance of the lowest remaining bid of $341. 30
per unit, or $21, 297. 12 for sixty units , which was submitted by the
Sanco Corporation.
Sanco Corporation estimates 30 days delivery for these units . "
Discussion ensued.
Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Walker,
it was moved and adopted that the County accept the bid from Sanco
Corporation (A. ) Slant Top, of $341. 30 per unit.
B. Purchase of refuse collection truck.
The CountyJanager filed the following report of "Refuse Collection
Truck and Compaction Body. ",
"REFUSE COLLECTION TRUCK AND COMPACTION BODY
1. Roach Russell Corporation: Crain Carrier Chassis $27 , 507 .00
2 . Cooper Kenworth Company : Kenworth Chassis 28 , 520 .00
3 . Sanco Corporation: 38 Yard dempster
Compaction Body 19 , 751. 40
4 . Simpson Equipment Company: 35 Yard EZ Pack
Compaction Body 18 ,182 .00
5 . Roach Russell: 34 Yard Lodall
Compaction Body 20 ,539 .00
6 . Sanco Corporation White Chassis with
38 Yard Dempster
Compaction Body 41, 485 . 20
7 . Cooper Kenworth Company: Kenworth Chassis
with 38 Yard Dempster
Compaction Body 46 ,914 .00
8. Simpson Equipment Company: Kenworth Chassis
with 35 Yard EZ Pack
Compaction Body 47, 132 .00
9 . Roach Russell Company: Crain Carrier Chassis
with 34 Yard Lodall
Compaction. Body 47 ,641.00
4'7
RECOMMENDATION
Eliminate proposals number 4,5, 8 and 9 as they involve compaction
bodies of 34 and 35 cubic yard capacity. In our present routing prac-
tice, which is working efficiently, the trucks are sent on a circular
route estimated to yield a full truck load by the time the truck returns
to the landfill. As each route is nearly fifty miles long it is not
economical to rerun a significant portion of it.
Eliminate proposals number 2 and 3 as they yield the same finished
product as proposal 7 yet cost over $1, 300 more.
Remaining to be considered are proposals number:
#6 $41, 485 . 20
#7 46 , 914 . 00
#1 47, 258 . 40
On the basis of our investigation into fuel use we have found that
our present truck averages 42 miles per gallon of fuel. Proposal number
7 is for a vehicle identical to our present truck. Proposal number six
is on vehicle identical to two now operated by Johnson County. They are
presently averaging 3 miles per gallon of fuel .
Driver visability is very limited during the actual picking up of
containers in the vehicle offered in proposal number 6 . This truck is
noticably higher off the ground causing considerable diddiculty of entry
for the occupants . Also there is not sufficient room for our present
driver to enter the back of the compaction body from behind the cab,
therefore certain cleaning operations must be assigned to other personnel.
We feel there is significant mechanical advantage in having two
almost identical tructs . Parts are interchangable, repair techniques
identical and parts inventory will be minimized if we acquire the
truck offered in proposal number 7 .
We recommend elimination of bid number 1 (a combination of the
Crain Carrier chassis and Dumpster body) because it is more costly than
bids number 7 and number 6 .
With these facts in view we recommend proposal number 7 of Cooper
Kenworth Corporation to provide a 38 cubic yard Dempster Compaction
Body mounted on a Kenworth Hustler Chassis for $46 ,914 .00 be accepted.
This vehicle can be delivered immediately. "
Discussion ensued between Johnny Horner, Harold Maynor, the County
Manager, and members of the Board concerning the recommendation that
Cooper Kenworth Company bid be accepted.
Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whitted,
it was moved and adopted that the Board approve the bid submitted by
Cooper Kenworth to provide a 38 cubic yard Dempster Compaction Body mount-
ed on a Kenworth Hustler Chassis for $46 , 914 . 00 be accepted.
There was discussion between members of the Board relative to a
Public Hearing for discussion of a proposed garage site. The Board
scheduled September 2, 1975, at 10 : 30 a.m. , as the date for this Public
Hearing.
C. Tax refund request of Mr. Richard Bateman.
Discussion ensued concerning the legal question of whether or not
the County could ma} e the requested refund for Richard Bateman. The
Fiscal Officer reviewed the Statutes and advised the Board that G.S .
105-382 stated that the Board had discretionary authority as a refund of
this nature was permissive but not mandatory.
Discussion ensued. It was determined that Mr. Bateman had overpaid
Orange County in the amount of $81. 28 for the tax year of 1973 and that
his tax value had been reduced from $30 ,600 . to $17, 900 . in 1974 and the
$30 , 600 . value had been applied in 1973.
Upon motion of Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Pinney,
it was moved and adopted that the County refund to Richard Bateman the
sum of $81. 28 due to the fact that a clerical error was made in his 1973
tax value.
48
Chairman Garrett referred to Item #10 on the Agenda: (Will the
County make application for Section Eight Housing Units?)
Discussion ensued concerning whether or not the need had been
established in the area of Housing.
Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner
Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the County make application for
Title VIII Funds in conjunction with the other Governmental Agencies
that are involved with Housing.
Chairman Garrett referred to Item #11 on the Agenda: (A review of
possible amendments to the County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances . )
Irvin Dobson, Planning Director, and Chris Edwards , Assistant
Planning Director, were present.
Mr. Dobson filed with the Board copies of the proposed revisions
of the County Subdivision regulations . The Board reviewed several of
these amendments . They were unable to complete the review due to the
10 : 30 p.m. deadline , however, Jan Pinney requested the Board to allow
him to make a few comments and suggestions . The Board agreed.
Mr. Dobson reminded the Board of the Public Hearing on the pro-
posed revisions that was scheduled for Monday, August 25 , 1975 .
The meeting was then adjourned.
Flora R. Garrett, Chairman
Betty June Hayes , Clerk
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
August 25 , 1975
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session on
Monday, August 25 , 1975, with the Orange County Planning Board and the
Orange .County Planning Staff.
County Commissioners present were: Chairman Flora Garrett,
Commissioners Norman Gustaveson, Jan Pinney and Richard E. Whitted.
Commissioner Norman Walker was absent.
Members of the Orange County Planning Board present were:
Chairman Charles Johnston, Dr. Robert Bonar, John Scarlette, Ms . Marilyn
Riddle and Ms . Jean Anderson.
Members absent were A. J. Altemueller and Leon Yates .
Members of the Orange County Planning Staff present were : Irvin
Dobson, Director and Chris Edwards , Assistant Planning Director.
Chairman Garrett called the meeting to order and recognized Charles
Johnston, Chairman of the Orange County Planning Board. The meeting was
then turned over to Mr. Johnston.
For minutes of that meeting see Planning Board Docket Book.
Flora R. Garrett, Chairman
S. M. Gattis , Acting Clerk