The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 06-23-1980 I I I I I i I AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ' JUNE 23, 1980 COMMISSIONERS ROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 7:30 P.M. 1. Does any Board member desire to modify this agenda? 2. An Executive Session to discuss: A. ' Northern Fairview Community development Proposal (Water and Sewer Projects) . , B. 1 CETA. �! 3. The! Manager submits a Community Development Grant application for Board consideration. 3 I 4. Request for permits for fireworks displays have been filed by: i A. ! pick Moste - Family Supermarket Food Store - for July 4th, at Auman Stadium. I B. 1 Joe Denson and Jerry Jester - for July 5th at TRI-CO Motor Speedway. 5. The Finance Director submits a budget amendment rdlating to F Social Services donations. b. Wi�l the Board establish fees for: A. Septic Tank permits. B.1 Well permits. , C. Dental Clinic. D. Planning Activities. E. Erosion Control Activities. 7. Rich Miller will present a transportation plan for Board consideration. 8. Will the Board designate a style of road sign for use in the Road Naming Program? i _2_ 9. Will the Board continue its current contract for IV-D services with the firm of Coleman and Bernholz? 10. NOTICE: The regularly scheduled meetings of the Orange County Board } of Commissioners for the month of July (July 7; July 15, and July 28) have been cancelled 11. Continued discussion and adoption of the County's budget for the 198081 fiscal year. �f� J ORANGE COUNTY � 106 Fur MARG&=I.WZ XM.T.SHOROUGIL M Q. 27278 s Resolution for Community Development Full-Application The Orange County Commissioners hereby resolves that the County Manager is authorized to file a full-application for a comprehensive grant to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for funds made available under the Small. Cities Program, and any additional information as may be required. The Board, of Commissioners further resolves that Orange County will conform to all the assurances enumerated in HUD Form 7488 which is -included as a part of the full-application. Resolved: Chairman, Orange County Commissioners Date Clerk,- Orange County Commis6ners Date E MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. S.M. Gattis County Manag _� FROM: h �ick Monte, Proprietor Family Supermarket Food Store DATE: dune 18, 1980 RE: Fireworks Permit; request for in accordance with contractural arrangements with the Orange County Department of Recreation and Parks and Family Supermarkets' donation of $6,500.00 ($4000.00 remitted - $2,500.00 outstanding) for the 1980 Fourth of truly Fireworks Display;. it is hereby requested that required local permit for said pyrotechnical activity be granted. As in 1979 all such activity will occur at Glen Auman Stadium on the campus of orange High School. A pyrotechnical engineer and a $1,000,000 combined single limit liability insurance policy, ##GLh 47-19-37 will he provided by the 7ambelli International, Fireworks Company. These protective measures in accompaniment with the Town of Hillsborough Fire Department will be- present throughout the duration of the activities. Your earliest action on this request will be greatly appreciated.. TAM/nsw Copy to: R. Wayne Weston, Director of Recreation and Parks / a'- - - � TO: ORANOZ COUM CONIaSSIMMS FROM: DJ pILOWION3 AND THE HTTI=ROUGH JAYCEES i SUBJECT t FIRS WORKS PEMM DJ pHMWIONS AND TU HILLSBOROUGH JAYCEES REQUEST THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY C�SSTON� GRANT A FIREWORKS PERMIT IN THEIR NAM.FOH THE yl�i CP' JtiLY 1�D. THE LOGATICN WILL SE AT THE TRI-CO MOTOR SPEEDWAYS VACATED CN HIGIMY #579 APPROXnW= I 13 MILES NORTH OP HILIsH0ft0UGR IN ORANGE COMM' ?4R. JOHNSON CF THE ICALDW LLB CaWAZTnT FIE DEP,ARD04T HAS ALRMY GIVEN ACKUMMGEMENT MT MS FIRE DUARThLr.NT Will HE MSENT DURING M ENTIRE DAYS ACTIVI`L'IPS. M- 1 JOHNSON IS 'DIE FIRE CHI` OP THAT PIRE DEPAPM4Wo 1 MIS REQUEST IS MADE IN THE NM CAF' JOB DII3'30Nt JURY JESTER .AND HILLSBOROUGH JAYCF . THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND CONSIDMATION IN THIS RECUMT. PECTR=`YOURS DWSONj i I I r r E i fri'! /j5 June 20, 1980 Memo to: Orange County Board of Commissioners From: Neal. Evans, Finance Director Subject: Budget Amendment for Social Service Donations Yesterday evening,. I met with the Social Services Board concerning the appropriation of donations. Dtxritag the coshing fiscal year, they would like to have donations appropriated as they are received. However, for the current year, they have requested that the donations be appropri-a6ed at year end as has been the past practice. Consequently, I am requesting that you appropriate $3,000 to the General Assistance account in Social Services with the revenue item for donations being increased by the same amount, This will have no effect on the net amount available for fund balance in the new budget. 1 I I 0 s� w. RECEIVE❑ JUL 3 tip `6/30/80 maternal-& Chili Health B!:aM:11 6 3- 0 1 9 6 6 — C"olitract NCO. 1'�z�ainscioai (site CU-11TPACT BUDGET For Fiscal Year 179-'80 TtCV-'Si(1% r.'0. 0 Oran a Co School Health __��th Department get: $4,300 Director: Jerry Robinson 11azal 1,lud 1 0 —-7F- F-,,M�-- C�Ass- MLEiR. LOCAL ITSM DIZSCRIPTIME N07, U0- FT 4,30010 E/11 SUPL 2300 0 E/M Supplies . 00 I t "ZI. At 04J It 4 ;jq 198D T BUDGET 05 ICE USE ONLY object Project:.: rural I.: Fund 2: Fund 3-. 4 �tr- rived of cial ecti C 3 Director o?MIS -7/-,Z—,-da rill 144 E M,)rgarel Lang Hillsborough N C 21278 732.B181,ExtenVan 215 ChapO Hill line 957-9251 Mebane line 227-20� HEALTHDEPARTMEN Durham line 688.-73::) t Carr Mill Mail Suite 225 100 N Greensboro Street Carrboro,N.C.27510 $42,4188 jerry Robinson, M A P A M E M 0 Director TO, orange County Commissioners FROM. Jerry Robinson, Secretary Orange County Board of Health DATE' June 11, 1980 HE: Fees A. The Board of Health recommends the attached fee schedule for the Dental Pro7am for implementation as of July 1, 1980. B. The Board of Health recommends the attached fee schedule below for environmental health. WELL PROGRAM Service County Coinmissioner App i oved Fee Recogn — .'fell Site Placement $ 10.25 $ 9.00 $ 10.2: I•Iell Installation Inspection 31.62 28.00 31-r` Sampling and Final 11.81 10.00 12.E T— 53. T �7.00— —537f SEPTIC PROGRAM $ 11.87 .1st acre $ 10.00 12.0 Preliminary Evaluation 3.96 ea. addt'l acre 3.GO 4.0r.i Soil Analysis $ 31.64 $ 15.00 $ 31-55 Improvement Permit Inspection 22-60 10.OD 22.50 Certificate of Completion Insp, 22.60 10.00 22.50 Maximum/Lot if lot = T-0771 max. 8.50 in subdivision and is 1st acre of subdivision =Is ist acre + soil analysis + improvement + completion 1 4 Direct Costs Only from 180,81 Budget DENTAL. PROCEDURES/FEE SCHEDULE FULL COST CODES DIAGNOSTIC 0110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 15.00 Initial oral Exam » 1,5.00 0120 Periodic Oral Exam. . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . : . . . 15.00 0130 Emergency Oral Exam ., . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 23.00 0330 Panoramic X-ray . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . » . . . . . _ . 8.00 0240 Intraoral Occlusal Film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 3. 70 0230 Intraoral--Additional Film D.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,00 0210 Full Mouth X-ray w/x h.w. film. . . » . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 0272 Bitewing X-ray (4 films). . . . . . . . . . . . . . » . . 8.00 0271 Bitewing X-ray (2 films). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 4.00 0270 Bitewing X-ray (9 film) . . . . . . . . . . . • ^ • ^ ' . 10.00 0430 Biopsy Oral Tissue (Hard) . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . '10.00 0440 Biopsy Oral Tissue (Soft) _ . . . . . . . . . • . 20.00 PREVENTIVE 0470 Diagnostic Model. . . . . . . . » . . . . . . • . . . . PREVENTIVE TREATMENT 15.00 1110 Dental Prophylaxis. . . . . . . » • • . - - 8.00 1200 Topical Application of•sodium Fluozide. . _ . » » . SURGERY 710D Uncomplicated Removal of Tooth. . . . . . . . . • . . . - „ » 93.00. . 20.00 7200 Surgical Removal of Erupted Tooth » . . . . . . . * . : _ „ 55.00 7230 Removal of Impacted Toroth . - » » 13.00 7250 Surgical Removal of Residual Root . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 7425 Periocaronitis. . . . . . . . . . . . . » . . . . . . _ 10.00 0717 I & D Minor Surgery • « - ENDODONTICS 3200 Pulpotomy. - » » - - . . . • . . . 45.00 3310 Root Canal Fill.. (1 root) » » • » » • . . . . 90.00 3320 float Canal Fill. (2 roots). . . . . . . . . . . . . _ • - • 125.00 3330 Root Canal Fill. (3 roots). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150.00 3210 Therapeutic Apical Closure. » . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 40.00 OPERATIVE 2140 Amalgam Restoration 1 surface . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 13.00 2150 Amalgam Restoration 2 surfaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00 2160 Amalgam Restoration 3 surfaces. . . - . . . . . 27.00 36,00 2161 Amalgam Restoration 4 surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.00 2170 Amalgam Pin Retained (pin charge only)» . . r w . 15^60 2940 Treatment Filling . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '15.00 2330 Composite or Plastic Filling 1 surface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.00 2331 Composite or Plastic Filling 2 surfaces . . - - - - ' , _ w . . 30.00 2332 Composite or Plastic Filling 3 surfaces . . . . . • . • . . . . 45.00 . 2333 Composite or Plastic Filling 4 surfaces . . . . . . . » . . 2.00 2334 Pin Retention - Exclusive of Composite Resin. . . . . . . . . Attachment No. 2 ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT DENTAL HEALTH SECTION a 7��SS7 5[a 1 ] a 3 ¢ T 5 9 10 11 t1 f 134 -voter i b53-undrr f hI3-uhdrr S Sat -,ader 5 S'nr.A-ur Orr 317.3'+]-under }{5,912-under LI+.ILO-vnler. SL 0.030-under ;15,746-vndn 1,1101;unJ er SU.+FE-Vndrr ' { R,S St-•rndrr 7+,015-vndn 5 7,900-v+ter S1S,F64 •-unJrr i}7. r h6t-' tnl - 576-i 190 96) - i 5.176 Mon-' 7,757 ; 1,797. i 3,553 }3,177 511- - 657 } 5 313.91}-314.tl71 ;14.763-.17.5 L2 3LE,6A-517x4+4 SL5,7t9-316 r75i 7:7,]37-i70.F45 S17.W7- 571,71b L,S S]-i 3,116 3 D,OIi-S !,6}1 ! 7,901-SSi, 60 311 r 7D3 -}1+,175 ;1],564-515,Rni 315,557-53 D,660 3 1,551-i 1,656 S 1.417-7 E,697 ; 1,563-7 S,7J4 i 3,696-' 1,960 3 1,175-3 1,677 J 3.117 3 473 3 79€ - i.S 35 f LI19 -S 1,)73 1 5,7h6••5 1,573 F 1,S SL-S irD14 519,073-472,}33 519,577-372,11x4 519,747^32],!66 ;70.]65-517.160 Sf4,I9T-SI1,IL4 'A S" 111,703 19€,001-S1on F7I M - 536,+56 fly N-M AN SI✓t,6T=t-331,165 + S 053-S 1,37[ 7 !, 7k-] 2,156 3 2,430-7 7,116 }1,76! -7 7.157 S 1,073-i 7,411 Slrri 1,775 hot S E,bJJ-5 7,073 6 +,157 -SI2,374 _ 1 7St-l 611 734- Lou 3 1,136-' 1,710 S IM -} 1,47E S 1.N6 SI3.It]-375,+51 371,785-576,035 523,}57-315,552 SIJ,FS1-;27=153 574,305-3!7.173 S1 ��+„�,. S h,SSI-S l,tM1• 511,167- SSS,E61 -}15,5:6 515,+D7 -•310,030 114,33€ -773.53[• }25,759-Sii,DI6 3 1.3)7 3 2.}23- i L SDE S 3,1£7-;7,+J9 3 2,117-d],t 91 ;I,75+ -3 7,345 7 7,)71-3 1,180 3 '.,SS7-i 1,hS] 9,x05 - s71,6_k f4I,dE7 Slt,+04 513,643-517,020 }76,D4L -3I1,191 Sll,h l7-}2+,613 773,671-571,70E 515,4}7-516,672 515,017-327.256 516,397-317 x915 577,155-510,552 ;77,17]-U1,160 530,1SF-33},L75 ;i,761-over I,1t0••aver 3 S,L73 -ern S 1,547-over 1,bOL-aver S 2,133-aver 7 St0- ,ere S S,IOI -arrr 5 i,+x3-arrr 3 1,767-over I,05t-aarr 3 1,33]-arrr ;]D,4])-over }29,769-aver SI7 m+ovsr S]O,SSJ-over }73,201-Srvar }11,317-aver ill,i9J-over 524,53}-aysr 527,407 - r (lc.rrx trrrrfr,t-Ehlr xn1 anauii Erv13 I-O.r. c l r.tn-S}oJr.�4^rrfr.7u7f?PI,Lf,Q�3Z..0.4.di.r1.71dt^-i-P1._Lh.:_S,..S^4P'r """ s 172 w 102 +41 56E = kOS •F\ f•� trea;menh will be assessed COS. l� SAMPLE DENTAL FEES CHARGED PROCEDURE Exam X--Ray Fluorite Extraction Fi11in, 100 $15,00 2300 8.00 13-00 13.00 80 12.00 18.4o 6.40 10,40 10.40 60 9.00 13.80 4�8o 7.80 7.80 40 6.o0 9.20 3,20 5.20 5.20 20 3.00 4,60 1.60 2.60 2.6o 15 2.25 3,.45 1.20 1.95 1.95 Under Medicaid, patients pay a t1.00 fee no :ratter what service is rendered_ 34 0 RECEIVED .RUIN a 3 1990 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JAMP.3 13. HUNT JR DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES Huai4?#.,TiLzOH,m,D. Division of Health S6TVI6es; SARAH T MORADW,M•Z) 0, Box 2091 Raleigh 27692 May 23, 1980 AEMORANDUM TO : Local Providers of Family Planning Services Receiving Federal Grant Fund's FROM : Margie Rose, Head Family Planning Branch SUBJECT: Revised Patient Fees Regulations and Guidelines for Health Services Funding state that projects must develop fee schedules reasonably related to costs. The Statewide Family Planning Program bases its patient fee charges on the results of the Division of Health Sexvices' time/cost study. Fees charged to those receiving family planning services are the same as reimbursements from Medicaid and Title XX. Negotiated third party reimbursement rates will change effective July 1, 1980 based on results of the 1979 time/cost study. In keeping with the zequire- ment that fees be reasonably related to costs, the attached revised patient fees also take effect July 1, 1980. Please assist with the necessary publicity and patient education as soon as Possible to ensure that all affected parties are aware of this change, JLB/dws Attachment cc: Central and Regional Family Planning Staff State Family Planning Advisory Council Art Danielson Howard Surface Etra Wood Janice Maddox 4 ik fw. 4 114 NORTH CAROLINA STATEWIDE FMfILY PLANNING PROGRMi PATIENT FEES (REVISED AS OF JULY 1, 1980)* Discount Level Initial or Annual Visit Medical with Pelvic Visit Medical without Pelvic Visit 150 $ 9.00 $ 3.00 $ 1.00 z0 $12.00 $ 4.00 $ 2.00 40% $25,00 $ 9.00 $ 5.00 i 605a $37.00 $13.00 $ 7.00 80% $50.00 $18".00 $10.00 100.1 $62.00 $23,00 $12.00 i 1 *Revised fees are based- on recent Division of Health Services time/cost study- Negotiated third party reimbursement rates are established at $68.74, $25.30 and $14.55. ; Patient fee charges are rounded down to the nearest dollar. Visit reimbursement rates reflect local provider cost and do not include state level costs for processing of claims and laboratory services. rEf.9 91.10 1 Lem 1,10111 er A.n i 9[efr flrd]1.1-M re1W<Vfar Ikdk.1 u(e hra[ H1,1r 91 5. kSl #E,OD #1.00 3 1.90 re-S e nJ 30x 5[1.00 4 5.90 i 5.99 JL€l/dws +9x 4x5.99 419.09 3 ;.aa L0i f14.00 ; 4.09 003 MAO 119.99 11k.00 10.1E #75.39 #34.00 517.70 r O.RA,NGp, COUNTy PL.AIVIVING DEPARTAERNT EaLL5130ROR'G8 NORM GAROMNd. 7°:'78 add,10 of� f7* 3 4 e MEMORANDUM TO 11r. S. m. Gattis, county Manager FROM: Planning Department DATE: December 13, 1979 SUBJECT: Fee Schedules for Planning Department Permits, Reviews, and Service We have studied the costs for review of subdivision requests, rezoning applications, zoning permits, and appeals and variances that go to the Board of Adjustment. We currently charge the total cost for each copy of sub-- division regulations and zoning ordinances. Services and fees of the"` Sedimentation and Erosion Control Division are covered, in Ray Freeman's separate memo to you. Fees could be cbarged for the following activities: preliminary subdivision plat review, final subdivision plat review, rezoning applications (text or map changes), minor subdivision approval, appeals and variances to the Board of Adjustment, and special lase permits. Recommendation Number 1: Only a-,small part of Current Planning Division services and activities can be recovered through fees. We must be guided by the assumption that all policy making activities and other such activities that relate to the public at Large are legitimate public costs. Only on costs that benefit individuals and are not "public costs" should fees be considered. Recommendation Number 2: Of the seven activities mentioned above as legitimate objects for fees, we have omitted provision of information.to citizens (growth trends, population, economic, and land use data, etc.). This information should be available to the publiq. Our survey of other local governments indicates some charge no fees, others charge a flat fee, others charge per lot for subdivisions, and some use a combination of these for their various fees. The fee schedules contained in the attached Tables (4, S, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 15) are from the Planning Advisory Service+s Zonina and Subdivision Fees: Current Practice (by Judith N. Getzels - March 1979) provide a survey of local government's activities across the United States. The following fees are charged in selected jurisdictions in North Carolina: I �a i p« 6 HEMRANOUM Page 2 December 13, 1979 `J J r FEES HX DEVELOPER. Appeals and Special. Final Preliminary Zoning Variances Minor 'Use Plats Plats Rezonin s Permits (Ed, of Ad".) Subdavislons Permits Chapel Hill 0 251 100 -- 5 251 100 Carrboro 0 0 75 -- 25 -- 75 Winston Salem 0 0 1002 — 10 0 0 Eorysth County 0 0 1002 — 10 0 0 Guilford County -- 403 504 — 253 4 100 — Vake County - 755 0 -- 0 0 0 Notes: 1. Plus $5.00 per lot " 2. $35.00 is charge for rezonings of two acres or less or from commercial and industrial to residential 3,. Plus $2.00 per lot on all majors and in all subdivisions with road dedication 4. $50.00 to residential $100.00 to commercial or Industrial 5. Plus $4.00 per lot A zoning permit costs Orange County about $5.00, each appeal or variance to the Hoard of Adjustment costs about $107.00, and special use permits under our present zoning ordinance cost about the same as an appeal, or variance. Special use permits offer special problem since we did not issue one this year. One set of special use permits that would cost much more are those mentioned above. Each minor subdivision plat review costs about $63.00 plus how much the attorney would charge for each 'ROW and Road Maintenance Agreement and Security Instrument. Final plat review costs about $52.00 and preliminary plat review about $172.00 plus the costs of any attorney reviews mentioned above. Rezonings cost about $137.00. The following figures in Table 1 show the total costs in staff time. Equipment costs have not been included since we have followed the assumption that these are valid public costs, Fr plfix€ORANDUM !� Page 3 i December 137 IM TOTAL COSTS AND POSSIBLE REVENUE (with 1979 as basis) Appeals and Special Zoning Variances Final Preliminary Minor Use Permits (Bd« o£ Ad'.) Rezonin s Plats Plats Subdivisions Permits. ._. Attorneys Review — - — 7 ? ? of ROW and Road Maintenance Agreement Attorneys Review ? of Security Instrument Legal Ads _ 20 20 — — Planning Staff 5 87 117 52 172 63 per case or subdivision Possible. 5 107 137 52 + ? 172 + ? 63 + ? Revenue per source Number Cases +600 2 3 7 6 107 0 or Subdivisions (69 lots) (fit lots) (182 lots) in 1979 Recommendation Number 3: if fees are to be charged, a flat fee should be charged each type of subdivisioA plat reviewed in addition to a charge per number of lots. The larger the number of lots per subdivision, the greater the length of review. Recommendation Number 4: If fees are to be charged, there should be a substantially lower flat fee for minor subdivisions as opposed to major subdivisions. In summation, if fees are to be charged, the equitable treatment of citizens per size and complexity of development proposals should be a primary- consideration. However, if imposed, fees can be equitably applied- Iss 1 . "�+W � w.�. s?.,.�.aL �;, � 'I.;r F� �. �"Y ?.d`n t�..�. ;„,��;t c,,,'7.r•��.,�'rty.'r�1�fsrf;�.�, . r: 71,12 SEDIMENTATION AND EROSIOIR CONTROL PER,,iTTTING PROGRAM FOR ORANGE 'COIRM Staff Report Erosion Control Division Planning Department !� December 12, 1979 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pale GRADING PERMIT FEES AND PROCESSES IN SELECTED LOCAL JURISDECTTONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L POSSIBLE PROVISIONS FOR INCOILFORATION INTO THE PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 DATA ANALYSIS: PAST PRO.3ECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 COST ANALYSIS: PROGRAM SELF-SUFFICIENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 t COST .r1NALYSIS: LEE FROM TOWNS FOR EROSION CONTROLSERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . FISCAL ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 RECgeR4ENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 7 .1 r 543 GRADING PERMIT TEES AND PROCESSES IN SETECTED LOCAL JURISDIMO'LiS The following data was compiled through a spot check of the grading permit fees charged by some of the governmental units in North Carolina. Asheboro - No Fee per square foot) Charlotte -- $43.56 per disturbed acre (1/10¢ p Forsyth County/Winston-Salem - $20 for Ist disturbed acre $2.00 for each additional disturbed acre Double regular fee if grading eg w ins without 60permit- Permit good for 1 year. May be days at a time @ 1/2 original rate per renewal. Gaston County - No Fee Greensboro - No Fee Guilford County -- 40,000 sa. ft. to 3 acres disturbed 0 each acre 3 to 10 acres disturbed -- $20 + $5 p er ace for over 3 10 acres or more disturbed -- $55 + $2 per acre for each acre over 1.0 High Point - No Fee Mecklenberg County -- No Fee. Developer required to post Performance Bond for permanent stabilization work. New Hanover County -- $25 per disturbed acre. Maximum fee for permit is $250. Pitt County - $50 flat fee. - Raleigh -- $50 per disturbed acre. Permit 1•]ake County - $135 per disturbed developer mustgrenewofar 9omonths at project not finished, original cost of permit. Z•Take County enforces ordinances in several towns within the County. These ordinances are identical to the County's except that the areal minimum is 12,000 Sq. ft. (vs: 40,000 in the O.). For this service the County assesses each municipality 26r, p er p The Wake County pro ,ram (3 inspectors & an officer ) was redesigned this past summer to be 100% self-sustaining. 12/7/79 Page i A 544 Page 2 POSSIBLE PROVISIONS FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE ORANGE COUNTY SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PRGCkk-lf It should be noted that there are a number of interesting features designed into the permitting and fee schedules of several different jurisdictions. These features affect fiscal concerns and questions of compliance with the ordinance, as well as environmental impact_ A discussion of what I consider to be key issues follows. GR.aTING PERMIT Development of a cardboard grading permit, to be posted at a conspicuous location on the construction site, is recommended. FINED PE&MIT FEE FOR EACH UNIT DISTURBED AREA , Adoption of this type of fee schedule is recommended. In general, the number of required sediment control points (and, therefore, inspection-administration time) is directly proportional to the extent of land disturbance. VARIABLE PERMIT FEES FOR PROJECTS OF DIFFERING SIZES AND TYPE OF LA;\D USE _. All land disturbing activities generate similar amounts of sediment per unit uncovered area. Environmental factors and site planning considerations have a far greater impact on damage potential and ease of control than does land use type. This provision is not recommended. PERMIT TItIE LIMIT AND RE--APPLICATION FEE This idea has numerous implications. First, the developer is encouraged to complete his project quickly. Obvious environmental benefits accrue from this as no sedimentation control device is 100% effective. There is no substitute for permanent erosion control_ It should be noted that this provision results in increased pressures an the developer, an undesirable side effect. Another possible effect of this provision would be to encourage projects that could be completed in one year or less. Projects which require several years to complete have to be inspected and administrative procedures followed just the same as for shorter term projects. As the County's budget operates on a yearly cycle, revenue generation through a permitting program should operate on a similar cycle. A permit time limit of one (1) year from the date of issuance is recommended. In order to reduce the negative impact on projects lasting, for example, 15 months, it is suggested that renewal of a permit be valid for six (6) months, at one--half the original, application fee. y � 1 Page 3 CrITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A DOUBLE REGULAR PERMIT FEE IF GRADING IS BEGCIN PEM111 problems when first This is obviously a deterrent device. It may cause p "word gets around." I suspect that to legal'Y apply implemented until ermit. this provision, it would be neccessary t of to obtaining afper der i had 20,000 square feet P e County Ordinance is graded in excess of . incorporation Of this provision into the Orange recommended. DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO POST PERFO&MANCE BOND FOR. PE1L1ANENT STABILIZATION WORK, aped to ensure that funds wall be developer bank- This provision is desire provide a ground cover over the site in the ere-developmentpcosts. ruptcy. This provision increases develop P considerably provided in advance of here iuctrecedenceafor posting of can Estimates p water and from contractor to contractor. There as Precedence bonds to ensure the completion of nCounty Subdivision ge0rovide sewer systems provided i.n the Orange ordinance p Sections Bb, sc, 13, 11 , and 20 in the existing situations involving administrative and legal procedures for resolving tion of disturbed areas. the permanent stabiliza After considering all asp ect$ Of this provision, I do not feel. that its inclusion in the ordinance is necessary. CHARGE FOR COPIES OF THE ORDINANCE a charge of $2 O0 per COPY I recommend Ordinance length is 17 pages, therefore, should be sufficient to recover reproduction costs. adoption of this rate- BASIS TO pIUNICIPALITIES ON A PER CAPITA BASIS FOR. INSPECTION AND ENFQRCE-- 14ENT SERVICES Purposes' but opposition from the governing bodies °f the three This provision has obvious value for revenue generation f titer is likely to meet Opp towns. A provision such as this should be Coupled n a tag to this approach. As control {by reduction of the minimum area recTuirements) in order o Of water and sewer allow form ore provide an incentive to the Towns for agreeing general municipal zoning and availability intensive land uses, and property line buffers are g in negligible in urban areas, a smaller minimum areal requirement would be appropriate within ng bodies governing gates trill be explored z recommended that the g possibility- least be approached about this P ram Self-Sufficiency. later in the section entitled Pros Pape 4 DATA ANALYSIS PAST PROJECTS The figures in this section provide estimates of the cost of the Erosion Control Program to the County. This cost was then compared to project disturbed area and project duration. The intent herein is to develop a permit fee schedule which will generate enough capital to defray either 50% or 100% of the Erosion Control Program costs. Two periods were analysed. Ltay 1, 1976 to December 1, 1979, or the program since its inception, and fiscal year 1978-79, the most recent complete fiscal. year. _ Area disturbed is listed in 10,000 square foot increments as acres are no longer used in ordinance related areal criteria. Time incre- ments of six (6) months were selected. Area-time increments (used in cost analysis) were generated by multiplying the area disturbed by the project duration. May 1, 1976 to December 1, :1979 61 - plans submitted and grading permits issued 144 - plan exemption forms issued 36 - sites where no permit obtained 432 - acres disturbed on these sites for a total o€: 6,004 area-time increments (definition) (an area-time increment is 10,000 square feet disturbed over a _ 6 month period) $83,000 Estimated budget, Soil and Erasion Pro-ram $15,000 Fines assessed $68,000 Net cost of soil and Erosion Program Fiscal. Year 1978--79 51 Sites with plans that were active during the year 64 Sites without plans 354 Acres disturbed on these sites for a total of: 2,361 area--time increments $32,105 Budget for Soil and Erosion Program COST ANALYSIS pRoGg_&A SELF-SUFFICIENCY ment are estimated utilizing the foliowing permit fees per area-time incre alternatives: 1 I. 6,004 area-time increments with debt of $68,000 11. 2,361 area-time increments with debt of $32,105 III. 2,361 area-time increments with debt of $45,000* Iv. 2,361 area--time increments with debt of $16,050 V. 2,361 area-time increments with debb of $22,500 (IV. and V. represent 50% of program costs for cases II & III) ::Estimated cost Of program assuming one additional inspector and vehicle. R ,Fa Page 5 ' initial Permit Cost to Disturb 40,000 sq. ft_ Permit Fees ()Illy (Good for nne ear) I, $11»33 per area-tiune increment $1 90. 5 96.665 II.. $33.611 per area-dime increment 152.48 III. $19.06 per area-time increment 54.40 IV, $6.50 per area-time increment 76.24- V. $9.53 per area-time increment Wake County currently charges $164.88 t iscurb 40,000 sq. ft, for one year. Crake no longer bills the towns within the County for drosian control services.. COST ANALYSIS FEE FR5�1 TOWNS EO, EROSION CONTROL SERVICE It was assumed that the three Towns could be billed on a per capita basis. 1977 population estimated (N.C. Department of Administration) Chapel Hill 33,750 Carrboro Hillsborough 2, Total within Town limits 45,550 it was considered that a charge of l0 par capita taould not generate sufficient funds (about $4;500) to be worthwhile. Charges of 25c. and 20c, per capita were examined. revenue generated A. @ 25q, per capita $11,390 B. @ 20r, per capita $ 9,110 percentage of program costs defrayed II. A. 35% B. 28% III. A. 25% B. 20% Total historical data was not examined. Also, it was felt that should this option be pursued, that 100% of the program costs should be covered rvice charges to the Towns_ by permit fees and Se ly 409 of the active sites during fiscal, year 1978-79 Comment: Approximate were Chapel within r limits. 20 beonly $6,750, much lessthaue the acost.� of one-man--year salary_ R t 3� $ Page 6 initial. Permit Costs to Disturb 40,000 sq. ft. Permit Fees assumning �� char�� to 1oi^��s (Good for one ,ear) Ila. $8.77 per area-time increment $ 70.16 IIb. $9.74 per area-time increment 77.92 iila. $ 4.24 per area-time increment 113.92 121,60 IIIb. $15.20 per area-time increment FISCAL ALTERNATIVES if the intent of the County is to recover at least 50Z of the program costs, provision for additional staff should be considered as it is not possible to satisfactorily process the current load with the present manpower. it should be noted that approximatley 30% of Erosion Control Division time is devoted to planning related activities for Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. Assuming no financial aid from the municipalities, I do not believe that 100% of the program costs can be recovered without unreasonably high permit fees. Assuming such financial aid is available, the balance of the program costs should be made up through permit fees. Kiternatives follow: (note. an a sanded vrogram would include one additional inspector and one additional vehicle.) A. County maintains program at current level_ 50% of costs recovered, permit fees only. B. County maintains program at current level. 100% of costs recovered, permit fees only. fees only_ C. County expands program. 501 of costs recovered, permit D. County expands program, 100% of costs recovered, permit fees and 20�: per capita from towns. A suggested cost for a permit per area-time increment is given belour in the left column, original permit fee (one year) for 40,000 square feet disturbed in the right column. A. $7.00 $56.00 E. $14.00 $112.00 C. $10.00 $80.00 D. $15.00 $120.00 4 i i R Page 7 p,ECO`DiENDA IONS 1. That a cardboard gra'din; permit be developed, to be posted. in a conspicuous location an the construction site. 2„ That a permit time limit of one (1) year from the date of issuance be instituted. if the project has not been completed by the expiration date, the developer may obtain six (6) month extensions at a cost of one-half of the original permit fee. 3. That provision be made through amendment of the ordinance to charge double the original permit fee should more titan 20,000 square feet be disturbed prior to obtaining a permit. 4. That $2.00 per copy be charged for the Sedimentation and ErOSi.Oa Control Ordinance. 5. That the County adopt one of the follotAag alternatives to defray costs of the Erosion Control Program. A. Expand existing program by adding one inspector and one vehicle. Adopt permit fee schedule to defray 50% of Program costs. - Permit fee schedule would be $20.00 per 10,000 square feet disturbed per year. B. Expand existing program by adding one inspector and one vehicle. Adopt permit fee schedule to defray 1007. of program costs. Permit fee schedule would be $40.00 per 10,000 square f.eet disturbed per year. c. Expand existing program by adding one inspector and one vehicle. Sill municipalities 204; per capita per year service charge in return for requiring permits whenever more than 10,000 square feet is disturbed on a tract within a corporate limit. Adopt permit fee schedule which would defray the balance of program costs_ Permit fee schedule would be $30.00 per 10,000 square feet disturbed per year. Under this alternative, costs topthe Towns would be as follows: Chapel Hill $ Carrboro $1,790.00 Hillsborough $ 565.00 Total $9,110.00 ORANGE COUNTY YIAN VENG DEPARTIMPM T )MLLSBOROUGIX XORTIC OAROLINA. 27278 �or7to er M, lT r 13 �tlrrb Cat^��• N)P TO: Mr. San Gattis, County Manager FFM: Jim Polatty, Planning Director BT : May 30, 1960 SUBJECT: Fees for subdivision Review Within the Torrm of Hi.11sbor�ough and. its Extra-territorial. Jurisdiction In response to your request to develop cost figures for the enf'or'cement of County's subdivision regulations within the Taam of Hillsborough and its extra-territorial jurisdiction, the analysis offered in the r*,cer 13, 1970 �x� (attached) still holds. Tvn alternatives are as follows. ri.rst, approx- iriately 70 per cent of the present aclTamstrative costs can be xecoupad by charging $25.00 per subdivision and $1.0.00 per lot. The second alternative is that $25.00 per subdivision and $15,00 per lot wild recoup almost 95 per cent of our present administrative costs. Please note these costs follow one, two, and three of the Deer 13, 1979 recommendations. By charging the sari fee for both. major and minor sub- I divisions, -then neither is given preference. Care should be taken in using either of the alternatives as a mxtl for j a county--wide fee schedule- for subdivision approval. Also, note that no fees for attorney review are included. /ss AttaClMEnt i< : -._. 531 ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. 1980 - 81 BUDGET ORDINANCE Section I: The following amounts are hereby appropriated for the operation of County government,and its activities for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1980 and ending June 30, 1981, according to the following summary and attached schedules. Fund Estimated Interfund Fund Appropriations Revenue Transfers Balance Appropriated GENERAL 14,339,847 410,000 870,350 15,620,197 DEBT SERVICE 0 888,000 0 888,000 REVALUATION 10,000 100,615 121,871 232,486 REVENUE SHARING 410,000 0 0 410,000 HOUSING AUTHORITY 960,000 0 0 960,000 SPECIAL DISTRICTS CEDAR GROVE TIRE 31,000 962 31.962 EFLAND FIRE 29,100 10,708 39,808 ENO.FIRE 29,500 3,200 32,700 LITTLE RIVER FIRE 19,300 12,500 31,800 NEW HOPE FIRE 28,900 6'950 26,000 6RAN E FIRE 26,000 0 24,400 ORANGE GROVE FIRE 24,400 0 34,900 SOUTH ORANGE FIRE 34,900 DOGWOOD SANITARY 6,030 410 6,440 CHAPEL HI L SCHOOL 1,544,126 0 1,544,126 Section II: That for said fiscal year there 3s hereby appropriated out of the Funds below the following line items: SEE ATTACHMENT #1 Section III:It is estimated that the fallowing 'Fund Revenues will be available during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1980 and ending .Tune 30, 1981 to meet the foregoing Fund Appropriations; i SEE ATTACHMENT #2 I Section IV: There is hereby levied for the fiscal year ending June 30,1981, the k following rate of taxes on each { $100.} assessed valuation of taxable f property as listed as of January 1, 1980, for the purpose of raising the revenues from current year's property tax County wide and within special districts as set forth in the foregoing estimates of revenues, and in order to finance the foregoing appropriation: E3i . 32 GENERAL FUNDS GENERAL LEVY $ .995 TOTAL COUNTY WIDE RATE .995 DISTRICT 'FUNDS - - CEDAR GROVE FIRE DISTRICT $ .12 EFLAND FIRE DISTRICT .04 ENO FIRE DISTRICT ,Oa LITTLE RIVER FIRE DISTRICT .10 NEW HOPE FIRE DISTRICT .08 ORANGE FIRE DISTRICT .04 ORANGE GROVE FIRE DISTRICT .08 SOUTH ORANGE FIRE DISTRICT .10 SOUTHERN TRIANGLE FTRE DISTRICT .04 DOGWOOD ACRES SANITARY DISTRICT .16 CHAPEL HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT .29 Section V: A license costing $4.00 shall be required for all dogs. Section VI: In accordance with Section B of the Revenue Act (Article 2, Chapter 5, of the North Carolina General Statutes) and any other section of the General Statutes so permitting, there are hereby levied privilege license taxes in the maximum amount permitted on all businesses, trades, occupations, or professions which the County is entitled to tax. Adopted this Twenty—third day of dune, 1980. I 1 i i 4 t i 1 }