Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-24-1979 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEPTEMBER 24, 1979 BOARD ROOM, CARRBORO TOWN HALL CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 7:30 P.M. 1. Does any Board member desire to modify this agenda? 2. Does an� member of the audience desire to speak about: A. Items on this agenda? B. Items not on this agenda? 3. The County's CETA Director will review the current public service employment situation. Does the Board wish to take action on this matter? 4. Report of bid results: A. Dental Equipment: (1� Thompson $60,232.91 (2) Healthco $55,777.14 5. The Ma ager recommends: A. The Board authorize execution of a contract with Healthco for acquisition of dental equipment. B. X- ay equipment be rebid. C. Th Board authorize filing of a Section 8 application requesting 1 0 units of Moderately Rehabilitated Housing. 6. The C airman will name two members of the County Planning Board to a commi tee that will develop a joint planning proposal for the Chapel Hill area. 7. The Panning Director will review a proposed letter to the Department of Transportation dealing with the widening of I-85. 8. The Board will meet jointly with the Orange County Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control Financing Authority. I ORANGE-DURHAM CNIPLOYMENT&T RAiN3NG O DURHAM CO.OFFI CE RANGE CO.OFFICE CENTRAL OFFICE - 300 E.MAIN N.C. 115 N.CH U RTON 5T. MUL 01CA DWE CENTER DURHAM,N.G. 610 CALDWELL EXT. 682-1553 OR HILL5BOROUGH,N.C. CHAPEL HILL,N.C. 688-7331;EXT.287 732-8925 942-8788 s MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Lou Bouley FROM: Stewart L. RogersTA Director SUBJECT: CETA Position Terminating Due to 18 month Limitation DATE: September 26, 1979 The following positions will be terminated on September 30, 1979 due to the 18 month limit. They are :listed below: Chapel Hill Housing Authority 2 Carpenter Town of Hillsborough 2 Pi.pelayers 1 Carpenter Orange County 1 Maintenance Worker 1 Plumber 1 Coordinator, Commission Ori Women JOCCA 1 Carpenter, Crew Supervisor 1 Mason Durham County General Services 1 Maintenance Mechanic an equal opportunity/full potential employer ORANGE COUNTY CO, Room NO. 12 106 EAST MARGASIT LANE IIILLSBOP.OUGH,N. C. 27278 RICHARD WEITtED,CF,:i,maro NO?I•IAN CCIALKER NMMAN Gv STAVESW; DONALD WILL.LIOIT ANNE BARNES September 13; 1.979 Mr. T. L. Waters, Manager Planning and Research Branch Division of Highways Department of Transportation Raleigh, MC 27611 Dear Mr. Waters: Thank you for your letter of August 2, 1979 wherein you requested that Orange County advise your department of any environ- mentally sensitive areas which might be affected by the proposed six-laning of I-85 from Greensboro to Efland. Subsequent to that letter, it was learned that the scope of the project had been expanded to include six-laning of I-85 in all of Orange County. 41e understand that this project will require no new acquisition of land in Orange County except in the immediate vicinity of interchanges which are to be redesigned. Any highway project of this magnitude always has positive and negative impacts on the social , economic and natural environment of an area. The categories of impacts that need to be addressed for such projects are well known by this time and we feel that they need to be analyzed in an environmental impact statement for this particular project. Aside from the general categories of impacts that need consideration, we have two specific areas of concern regarding the impact of the proposed project on Orange County. (1) Lake Ben Johnson - Seven Mile Creek Watershed: A substantial section of the project from Orange-Alamance County line to Efland is in the watershed of Lake Ben Johnson, the water supply reservoir for Hillsborough. This section of the project also drains into Seven Mile Creek, one of the two prime potential reservoir sites in water-short Orange County. Lake Ben Johnson currently supplies water to some 6,000 regular customers and is projected to have 7,400 customers by the year 1985. Mr. T. L. Waters, Manager September 18,1979 Page 2 This reservoir also serves as a back-up supply for Carrboro-Chapel Hill via a pipeline that was constructed in 1978. This past summer, Lake Ben Johnson supplied a million gallons of water a day to Carrboro-Chapel Hill to supplement their system. We are concerned that the quality of water flowing to this important Crater resource during the construction phase of this project: will be decreased. Construction of the road will result in increased activity in the watershed. Of particular concernis the potential for increased erosion due to the absence of vegetative cover. An increase in erosion and the movement of sediment to the stream system and ultimate- ly to the reservoir could have a number of impacts. These include (a) a negative impact on the plant and animal life in the affected streams; (b) increased sediment loads delivered to Lake Ben Johnson which could reduce its volume and therefore its effective life time as a reservoir for Hillsborough; (c) increased sediment reaching the water treatment plant intake which might result in greater treatment costs to meet State turbidity standards for water delivered by public water suppliers; (d) a decrease in other water quality parameters since sediment is the agent by which many toxic materials are carried into the surface water system. These toxic substances can affect the well being of water consumers. Due to the potential negative impacts of increased erosion and sedimenta- tion on Hillsborough's water supply, we hope that there will be careful planning by DOT so that these impacts can be kept to a minimum during the construction phase of this proposed project. Our second concern regarding the watershed has to do with the potential for accidential spills of hazardous materials that increasing traffic on I-85 will bring. Release of these materials into Lake Ben Johnson and Seven Mile Creek reservior when it is constructed could have disasterous results. The proposed changes to I-85 provide an oppor- tunity to incorporate design features into the drainage system in the vicinity of the highway which could serve to contain any spills of hazardous materials long enough to allow them to be cleaned up before they could reach the stream system in significant amounts. For example, provision of retention areas along sections of highway which are in close proximity to streams flowing to these existing and potential reservoirs is one obvious design measure which might be used. We are sure that the engineers responsible for this project can devise and incorporate many other more sophisticated design features which would greatly reduce the threat to the Hillsborough water supply. (2) Miles Community: A. preliminary sketch,of the proposed redesign of the Buckhorn Road interchange sent to us by Mr. Tom Hepler of your depart- ment shows a new alignment of SR 1374 (GE Service Road) at its intersec- tion with Buckhorn Road. Unfortunately this proposed realignment places the new section of SR 1374 squarely through the Miles community, the long time home of a number of Orange County residents. The presence of such a road will serve to divide the neighborhood physically and in more Y Mr. T. L. Waters, Manager September 18,1979 Page 3 subtle ways, and may threaten its viability as a corrunity. Aerial photographs of the area reveal that alternative alignments may be possible for SR 1374 either paralleling the new west bound on ramp or on the northwestern periphery ,of this neighborhood. We feel these alternative routes should be given careful consideration since they would avoid a, "direct hit" and lessen the impact of the proposed project on the Miles Community. It was your request that Grange County advise you of any environ- mentally sensitive areas affected by 1-85aprore:ct. Having done this we would like to take this opportunity to about the need for construction and improvement of the Interstate highway system. Policy early 0s construction interstate was made in the early and resources as they were perceived at that time. In the subsequent thirty years, a number of the factors which underlay this policy decision have changed so drastically that we feel a re-evaluation of transportation problems and solutions is needed. The realities of the 180s include a realization that a number of resources are in short supply and should be expended carefully and wisely. The energy position of the United States today, for example, calls into solutions problems that eie de earlier J abund ant" t am The contructionofhghspeeInterstatehighwaysserving the individual automobile is one problem-solution set which needs re-evalua- tion. Certainly there are other alternatives which can provide safe, effi- cient transportation for Americans. Federal and State transportation policy makers do seem to be responding— somewhat slowly in our opinion-to these new realities. The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973 provides that if Federal , State and local officials agree, pror approval for an urban portion of an Interstate highway may be withdrawn and a local area may substitute instead a non-highway mass transit project which will be funded at the same level as the Interstate highway p j like to know if innovative alternatives such as this were investigated when it was realized that the capacity of the I-85 transportation corridor would need to be increased in the future. Certainly, consideration should be given to such alternatives before the point is reached where we are locked into a particular alternative. Another energy-related concern v:e have is the 70 mile-per-hour (MPH) design speed of the project. As we understand it this means that the sweep of curves, sight distances over the crest of hills, lengths of off-ramps for deceleration, etc. will be designed so that automobiles can travel safety on the highway at 70 MPH. In light of the energy savings that can be realized tha by automobiles traveling at slwer speds and Presi the speed on Interstate highways be posted Mr. T. L. Waters, Manager September 18, 1979 Page 4 for a design that provides for much higher speed travel. Designing the highway so that people can travel safely at 55 MPH may negate the need for redesign of many of the interchanges which are being proposed. !Designing the highway for this lower speed may reduce considerably the estimated 130 million dollar cost of this project. Thank you, Richard E. Whitted, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners REW/mb cc Secretary Neal Goldschmidt 400 7th Street Washington, DC 20590 4