Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 04-22-1986
1 (APPROVED 5/20/86) M I N U T E S ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING APRIL 22, 1986 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 22, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the old Post Office building, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Assistant County Managers Albert Kittrell and William Laws, Director of Finance Gordon Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Director of Planning Marvin Collins, Director of Aging Jerry Passmore, Director of Health Jerry Robinson, and Planner Susan Smith. A. BOARD COMMENTS Chair Willhoit moved the minutes and appointments to the end of the agenda and added the EnvironmentalAffairs Board and the appointment of the official Checker of the Weights and Measures for Orange County under appointments. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Chair Willhoit announced that all citizens who wished to make comments would be heard at the time the item appears on the agenda. 2. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Chair Willhoit announced that Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs would like to inform everyone that the Planning Board will host a public meeting on the Calvander Node on May 7. (7:30 in the cafeteria at Chapel Hill High School) C. MINUTES Moved to the end of the agenda. D. APPOINTMENTS Moved to the end of the agenda. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. IMPACT OF PROJECTED FEDERAL BUDGET CUTS Director of Finance Gordon Baker made comments on the budget cuts that were effective March 1, 1986 and the projected cuts that will be effective in October, 1986. Baker noted that the County could lose 7.7 million in funds if all the projected cuts are initiated. The cuts effective March will not affect the County this fiscal year. Most of the cuts in social services and health will be absorbed by the State. The projected cut in Revenue Sharing of $28,000 will be experienced by the County either in the July payment or the July and October payments. He briefly described the 1987 proposed cuts which will include $5,900 for Agricultural Extension, and $25,000 for Soil and Water. The Housing Authority budget will be cut only in the administrative area for 1986, and cut in both administrative and service delivery areas in 1987. It is expected that one position in the Title V Senior Employment Program will be cut. 2 Baker emphasized that the chart was prepared to show all cuts that may have an effect on the County. Willhoit indicated that some of the programs that are funded on a yearly basis would not be able to be continued with local funds. Soil and Water Conservation and Aging will be reviewed to determine to what extent these programs may be funded with local funds. Baker continued that in the Social Services Chore Program, a $13,000 cut is proposed for 1987 fiscal year. The County would need to fund this $13,000 to continue the program. The proposed cut in the WIN program of $5600 may be made up from another funding source. Day Care cuts total $37,000. The State may absorb this cut. In the low income energy assistance program, $2400 will be cut. In the Title XX, $78,000 would be cut which would mean a loss of four (4) positions in that department. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS. VIRGINIA GREGORY, Director of the Community School for People Under Six, stated she represented a population that is 85% funded by the Title XX Program. Her parents also are recipients of AFDC. She asked that the County continue their support so that the quality of daycare now offered for working parents or those attending school can be continued. Chair Willhoit pointed out that the State plans to pick up the funding for daycare. HENRY ATWATER of the Senior Citizens Board talked about the importance of transportation for the senior citizens. The increase in the senior citizen population places a high priority on services for the senior citizens. Another person in the Senior Citizens Program asked that the nutrition program not be cut. She enjoys all the programs that are offered for the senior citizens and asked that they not be cut. These programs are especially important for those who live alone. PEGGY POLLITZER presented the final analysis of the services assessment that was done by a committee of the Human Services Advisory Board. One hundred thirty eight services were surveyed. She indicated that the results of the survey will be publicized and distributed to the agencies and to the towns. KAY TAPP, President of the Volunteers for Youth, expressed concern that one third of their budget comes from the State which monies initially come from the Federal level. She asked that Orange County continue to support their organization. Commissioner Shirley Marshall suggested that the agencies, when they are preparing their budgets, show a breakdown of the number of volunteers and the number of volunteer hours the County gets per dollar of contribution. 2. SCHOOL CAPITAL BUDGETS-SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT County Manager Kenneth Thompson stated the purpose of the reports is to provide to the Board an update on the capital needs for each school system. Dr. Dan Lunsford, Superintendent of the Orange County Schools, 3 presented information on the capital needs for Orange County Schools over the next five years. They are listed below: 1. Annual recurring capital funds - a minimum of $750,000. 2. Roof replacement - FY 86/87 $400,000 to complete A. L. Stanback and C. W. Stanford. FY 87/88 $150,000 to complete the balance of the buildings listed as priority one by the Law Engineering Firm. 3. Orange High School Expansion/Renovation Project FY 86/87 with final payout in first half of FY 87/88. Bids were opened on April 17, 1986, with a total cost of $3,056,362. If the project is broken down into alternates, there will be an additional cost of approximately 30%. 4. New elementary school project to begin no later than 1987 with approximate cost of $4,000,000. 5. Cameron Park media center expansion to be started after new elementary school completion at a cost of approximately $100,000. The total cost for all the projects would be $11,456,362. He referred to a handout which is in the permanent agenda file and summarized the individual bids for the Orange High School expansion/renovation project. Lunsford noted that, it is his opinion and the opinion of the School Board, that now is the best time to do the project in terms of the full scope of the work. In answer to a question from Chair Willhoit, Lunsford explained that a construction schedule has been developed whereby all the work will not be completed until FY 87/88. He noted that the bids are good for 30 days and asked for some direction from the Commissioners at their May 5 meeting. Chair Willhoit referred to the Capital Needs Task Force Report and noted that the money for roof maintenance is included in the $750,000 annual recurring capital. Once that level is reached, there may be a revision in that amount. In answer to a question from Commissioner Marshall about the support from the Board of Education for a bond issue to pay for the elementary school, Lunsford explained the Board had not, in recent months, talked about the feasibility of a bond issue. Ms. Gerry House, Superintendent of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School System, talked about (1) current capital, (2) modifications in the original design of the multipurpose buildings and (3) capital needs over the next five to ten years. The current capital budget request for the next five years will total $3,750,000. The 86/87 budget is built on $750,000 to take care of current capital needs. This level of funding is needed for the next five years, after which the level of funding could possibly be reduced. Ms. House explained that the original multipurpose additions were to provide space for physical education, assemblies, etc. With a prediction of increased student growth, it is necessary to modify the additions to provide for extra classrooms for art, music, and storage. Altering the design of the building will cost an additional $200,000 making the total amount $1,000,000. In addition to the three mobile 4 classrooms on the agenda for approval, additional mobile classrooms will be needed within the next few years. The capital needs for the next five to ten years include increasing the size of the existing elementary school facilities to handle the increase in student population at a cost of $5,000,000, increasing the square foot space at the junior high schools at a cost of $900,000, and $850,000 for the high school renovations that would provide additional classrooms. The total cost for all the projects would be $11,750,000. The estimates do not include any new facilities but only renovation of existing buildings. She noted that the Board of Education last year endorsed a bond issue as an alternative for funding. THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. F. JAIL INSPECTION REPORT DATED MARCH 25, 1986 (A complete copy of the report is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office. ) Chief Cook presented the results of the report to the Board. Chair Willhoit commended the Sheriff and his department on the report noting a continued significant improvement in the reports. G. ITEMS FOR DECISION 1. MOBILE CLASSROOM UNITS FOR CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS Motion was made by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the resolution printed below assuring Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools that funds in an amount to purchase two mobile classroom units will be appropriated in the 1986-87 County budget for school current capital. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools are in need of three mobile classroom units, and WHEREAS, the purchase order for the mobile classroom units needs to be issued this spring to allow the necessary lead time for delivery of the units for the beginning of school next fall, and WHEREAS, the Board of Education approved a budget amendment to purchase one mobile classroom unit from the contingency account in the 1985-86 Capital Outlay Fund, and WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools have requested that the Orange County Board of Commissioners appropriate at least $66,000 for the purchase of the two remaining units in the 1986-87 County budget, and WHEREAS, The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools need the assurance from the Orange County Board of Commissioners that the funds will be appropriated before issuing the purchase order for three mobile classroom units. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners assures the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools that at least $66,000 will be appropriated for the purchase of two mobile classroom units in the 1986-87 County budget. Adopted this 22nd day of April, 1986. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5 2. 1985-86 ANNUAL AUDIT CONTRACT Motion was made by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Carey to renew the contract in the amount of $24,500 with the accounting firm of Touche Ross & Co. to da the annual audit. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3. NUCLEAR WAR STATEMENT Chair Willhoit recognized Dr. Allan Rosman who introduced Phyllis Dean. She read a statement on behalf of the Orange County Baha'i community. She explained the religion which is based on three fundamental spiritual principals - the oneness of God, the common foundation of all religion and the oneness of mankind. She explained the teachings of the Baha'i religion and Dr. Rosman read a statement for world unity and peace. 4. BURNSIDE PARK - PRELIMINARY PLAN Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval the preliminary plan for Burnside Park Subdivision which is located on Burnside Drive off Cameron Street in Hillsborough. The property contains 24.99 acres. The Planning Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plan with six conditions. The Hillsborough Planning Board recommended denial of the preliminary plan. The Hillsborough Town Board recommended approval of the plan. The Orange County planning board recommends denial of the preliminary plan on the basis of public safety concerns with the flooding of the Eno River and with possible discrepancies in the Federal Flood Insurance Maps in the identification of flood hazard areas. Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs indicated the reason for denial was based on the fact that the maps may not be accurate and that the Hillsborough Planning Board recommended denial. Motion was made by Chair Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to table action to allow time for a response on the accuracy of the maps, to request that the Town of Hillsborough consider administering their own subdivision ordinance starting July 1, 1986 or shortly thereafter, and to talk with the Mayor of Hillsborough. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. PROPOSED FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (A copy of the approved amendments are in the official ordinance book in the office of the Clerk to the Board. ) Planner Susan Smith indicated the amendments were submitted to public hearing on February 24, 1986. The Planning Board recommends approval of the proposed amendments. She noted this item was tabled at the April 17, 1986 Board meeting to allow extra time for review by the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance as submitted to public hearing on February 24, 1986. 6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (A copy of the approved amendments are in the official ordinance book in the office of the Clerk to the Board. ) Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval the Zoning Ordinance text amendments that were submitted to public hearing on February 24, 1986. The first set of amendments presented were to Article 4 Sections 4.2.8.b) 1, 4.2.11b) l, 4.2.2.21b) , 4.2.22b) 1 and 4.2.23b) l. These amendments relate specifically to the zoning district application criteria with regard to references to the joint planning area or to the specific townships and are listed on pages 83 and 84 of the agenda packet. The Planning Board recommends that these references be deleted and the proposed amendments to Article 4 approved. Susan Smith explained that in a number of zoning districts there is no mention made of Cheeks Township which was zoned in 1984. All the other townships were zoned in 1981. For example, the GC-4 district could not be applied to Cheeks Township under the current ordinance and, therefore, the full range of commercial uses was not permitted in that township. By deleting that restriction and incorporating Cheeks Township or by deleting all references to specific townships, it is clear that that district is applicable wherever the zoning ordinance is applicable or wherever the Land Use Plan establishes applicability by designating activity nodes. With regard to the Joint Planning Area, the approach to specify districts applicable to certain planned categories is being signifi cantly revised so that amendments will not be necessary in the Joint Planning process. Susan Smith clarified that these amendments would clearly allow the GC-4 district to be applied anywhere in a township where the Land Use Plan indicates that the full range of commercial uses are permitted. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Chair Willhoit to approve the Planning Board recommendation to amend Article 4, Sections 4.2.8.b) 1, 4.2.11b) l, 4.2.21b)l, 4.2.22b) l, and 4.2.23b) l. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Susan Smith presented further amendments to Article 4, Secti ons 4.2.8.4, 4.2.9.4 and 4.2.10.6, which specify that limitations on acreages in the NC2 district and the LC1 district would not apply in the cases of Special Use Permits or Existing Commercial-5 zoning districts. The Planning Board has recommended that these amendments not be approved. Barry Jacobs indicated the Planning Board recommended denial because they felt expansion of the activity nodes would be encouraged by discounting the acreages associated with uses permitted under special use permits and Existing Commercial-V zoning within the nodes. While it is important to recognize that these uses could occur in those areas, the Board felt there should be limitations on the scale of the nodes as previously defined in the Land Use Plan. After extensive discussion motion was made by Chair Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the amendments to Article 4, Section 4.2.8.4, 4.2.9.4 and 4.2.10.6 with the 7 retention of the reference to the Existing Commerical-V district and with the revision of the amendments to replace the wording "permitted uses subject to the issuance of a special use permit" with the wording "planned development". Motion was made by Commissioner Walker to table action on this item. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. VOTE ON THE MOTION: UNANIMOUS. 13. SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL ASSISTANCE FUNDS REQUEST Chair Willhoit recognized Reverend Richard Hildebrandt. He spoke on behalf of the OCIM, Inter Faith Council and JOCCA. He noted that since January 1, 1986, OCIM had spent $16,000, IFC had spent $18,000 and JOCCA had spent $3,200 for emergency assistance for Orange County citizens. He emphasized that the money is depleted for emergency relief. He requested that $10,000 in General Assistance funds be added as a supplemental appropriation for FY 85-86 and suggested it be administered by the Department of Social Services. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve an appropriation of $10,000 with $4,000 to be used in the Hillsborough office and $6,000 in the Chapel Hill office to help with general assistance and emergency aid for May and June. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (CONTINUED) Susan Smith presented the proposed amendments to Article 4 Section 4.3 and Article 22 relating to packaging and assembly operwith the Planning Board recommendations for revisions. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the Planning Board recommendation for amendment of Article 4, Section 4.3. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Planning Board recommendation for amendment of Article 22. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Susan Smith made reference to the proposed amendment to Article 8 Section 8.8.27 relating to provisions for the issuance of a special use permit for assembly and packaging operations in LC-1 and NC 2 zoning districts. She informed the Board that the Planning Board directed the Ordinance Review committee to reconsider the special use provision for such operations. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to table the proposed amendment for Article 4, Section 4.3. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. ORANGE COUNTY INVESTORS 5-2-86 Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Planning Board recommendation to den the 8 VOTE: AYES, 3; NOES, 2 (CommissionerseLloyd andoWalker) quest. 8. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING EXTENSION - CHANDLER'S GREEN Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Planning Board recommendation and grant a six (6) month extension of planned development rezoning beginning May 4, 1986. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 9. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS - RECREATION STANDARDS (PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION) Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chair Willhoit to continue the public hearing until May 27, 1986 to permit staff to readvertise the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 10. CLEAN WATER BOND FUNDS RESOLUTION Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to adopt the following resolution which will provide the State with assurances as to the County's intent to utilize the awarded grants per deadlines specified by the State: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the NRCD Environmental Management Commission has awarded two clean water bond grants (WC 498, accepted July 7, 1982 in the amount of $42,712 for the construction of 8 inch collection sewer and one pump station, and WT388-R, accepted February 6, 1984 in the amount of $122,375 for the construction of a pump station and force main interceptor system; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has filed a revised preliminary report with the EMC for the grants to be used to install a community wide sewer system to solve the problems of a failing package plant at the Efland Cheeks Elementary School and the failing septic systems within the Efland area; and WHEREAS, the proposed Efland Sewer Project is in the easement dedication phase and will be constructed according to the revised attached schedule and project budget; and WHEREAS, project financing is dependent upon the Clean Water Bond Grants remaining in effect, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County .Commissioners: 1. Assures the EMC of its intent to complete the project prior to the June 30, 1987 deadline established by the State, and 2. Submits the attached budget and schedule as indication of the remaining checklist steps remaining. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 11. SECTION 8 SURPLUS FUNDS USE Commissioner Marshall asked for an explanation of the rationale, since nothing will be left in Community Housing and Development except for Section 8 funds, for keeping the present size of the staff. 9 Assistant County Manager Albert Kittrell explained that the size of the staff had already been reduced and other reductions will be based on the amount of money available. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the Manager's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 12. BUDGET AMENDMENTS Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Carey to amend the 1985-86 Budget Ordinance by the following budget amendments: 1. To budget for additional funds awarded to the Orange County Health Department: Appropriation-Health-Family Planning Appropriation-Health-Management Services/Vital $ 15, 50 9 Records $ 950 Appropriation-Health Environmental Appropriation-Health-Adult Health $ 4,773 Appropriation-Health-Maternal 392 Appropriation_Child $ 3 2,144 $ 2,1444 4 Source-Health-Family Planning Source-Health-Adult Health $ 11,34 $ Source-Health-General Aid 4,772 2 Source-Health-Maternal $ 7,415 Source-Health-Child $ 37,415 $ 2,144 2. To budget for payment to Home Health Agency for reimbursement of portion of medical in-home services. Appropriation-Home Health Agency Source-Contingency $ 5,228 $ 5,228 3. To budget for additional OPC funding to cover deficit incurred by the Halfway House. Appropriation-O-P-C Mental Health Source-Contingency $ 6,000 $ 6,000 4. To reverse budget amendment approved on August 5, 1986 which increased funds available to the Economic Development Commission, Sourcer HillsboroughmChamber Development ($ 1,000) of Commerce ($ 1,000) 5. To budget for additional funds that have been awarded to the Orange County Department of Social Services. Source -Services-Block sGranteAdmin. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. $ 11,469 $ 11,469 C. MINUTES Tabled until next meeting. D• APPOINTMENTS Tabled until next meeting. I. ADJOURNMENT Chair Willhoit adjourned the meetin 10 t 7:30 meeting will be held on May 5 t• The next regular y Commissioners Room, Orange County86Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk 001 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. C ACTION AGENDA ITBM ABSTRACT lemaana DATE April 22, 1986 Subject: MINUTES r Department: BOARD OF CONAIISSIONERS I I Public Hearing: Yes X no Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: January 21, 1986 - Regular Meeting February 2t., 1986 - Joint Quarterly Meeting March 18, 1986 - Regular Meeting r, March 25, 1986 - Public Hearing on Water Resources April 1, 1986 - Public Hearing on- Scotswood April 7, 1986 - Regular Meeting April 14, 1986 - Special Meeting ND: Approval so the minutes may be entered into the official minute book in the Clerk's office. RECOMIl DATION: As the Board decides. 002 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No. a ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT METING DATE April 22, 1986 Subject: APPOINTMENTS I Department: BOARD OF COM IISSIONER$ Public Hearing: Yes I no I I Attachments: Information Contact: Under Separate Cover Beverly A. Blythe Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. The following vacancy is announced for the first time for information only. C-7 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUS NT-termination of Thomas Headen-works evenings and cannot attend scheduled meetings. The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the status of securing candidates for appointment consideration. These vacancies have all been advertised. A-13 - RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL - 5 vacancies; 5 resumes are submitted for consideration. B-5 DOMICIL] Jy HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMIIlutE 1 vacancy; 1 resume is submitted for consideration. B-11 - SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE - 2 new resumes are submitted for consideration. C-8 - ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - 3 resumes are submitted for consideration. RECOMMjNDATION: As the Board decides. OPA iC� 'COUNTY DOfix;U OF CO"COINFORMATION UN, ONERS ACTIOM AGEUDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO_E1 MEETING DATE ARril 22. 1.986 - • 00S SUBJECT: Impact of Projected Federal Budget Cuts - 1-DEPARTMENT: Finance • : 1 1 PUBLIC HEARING: X. YES HO ATTACHMENT(S) : CONTACT:. Finance Director, ~ ext. 496 .Report on Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and - PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSGOROUGH - 732-,8181 Projected Federal Budget Cuts HILLSBOROUGH -- 732--9361 - CHAPEL HILL - 967--925I ,�EBANE 227-2031 _ DURHAM -- 688-7331 PURPOSE: To hear-an update from the Finance Director on the 1986 and 1987 'Federal budget cuts and how this will affect County departments as well as to receive public- .- _ comment on the' importance of the programs which are anticipated to be • affected. MUD: On December 12, 1985 President Reagan signed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act- into public law. This legislation is aimed at reducing the current federal deficit of approximately $200 billion to zero by federal fiscal year 1991. For state and local governments, the Deficit Reduction Act could be the most fiscally disruptive law ever enacted by the federal government. At best, the new law promises ' increased uncertainty about just what programs 'the federal government will fund and at what level. At worst, it means the virtual elimination of all Federal aid to state and local governments over the next five - years. Orange County must recognize the new realities of federal funding, assess the potential damage, and determine alternative plans. IMPACT: While considerable uncertainty exists about the actual dollar amount of the G-R-H cuts and the immediate impact these will have on the county departments, it is anticipated at this time that the cuts for the various county departments for the 1986 and 1987 Federal fiscal year could be more than $1.2 million. RECOMMENDATIONS: No recommendation is appropriated at this time. The staff will keep the Board informed as the impact becomes more precise and alternatives can be explored. • 004 THE 1985 BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT CRAMM-RUDMAN-HOLLINGS I. WHAT IS GRAMM-RUDMAN-HOLLINGS (G-R-H) ? A. PUBLIC LAW (P.L. 99-177) 1. SIGNED BY PRESIDENT REAGAN ON DECEMBER 12, 1985 B. LEGISLATION AIMED AT REDUCING CURP.ENT FEDERAL DEFICIT FROM APPROXIMATELY $200 BILLION TO $ 0 BY FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1991 II. WHY WAS G-R-H ENACTED? A. RECENT SURGE IN FEDERAL DEFICIT 1. FROM $78.9 BILLION IN FISCAL YEAR 1981 TO $200 BILLION IN FISCAL YEAR 1986 2. SPENDING $4 FOR EVERY $3 TAKEN IN B. CONGRESSIONAL FRUSTRATION IN DEALING WITH DEFICIT III. HOW DOES G-R-H WORK? A. MANDATES SPECIFIC DEFICIT TARGETS FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 $171.9 BILLION $144 BILLION $108 BILLION FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 $72 BILLION $36 BILLION - $ 0 B. PROVIDES 2 ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO REACH MANDATED DEFICIT TARGETS 1. REVISED CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS 2. SEQUESTRATION 005 IV. REVISED CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS A. PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED BUDGET 1. MUST MEET DEFICIT LIMITS SET BY LAW FOR THAT YEAR 2. MUST BE SUBMITTED IN EARLY JANUARY RATHER THAN LATE JANUARY AS UNDER PREVIOUS LAW B. HOUSE AND SENATE CONCURRENT BUDGET RESOLUTION 1. MUST MEET DEFICIT LIMITS SET BY LAW FOR THAT YEAR 2. MUST BE COMPLETED BY APRIL 15 INSTEAD OF TRADITIONAL MAY I5 DEADLINE C. RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION 1. ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED BUDGET AND CONGRESS' CONCURRENT BUDGET RESOLUTION WITHIN MANDATED DEFICIT TARGET 2. MUST BE CONCLUDED BY JUNE 15 • . 006 V. SEQUESTRATION PROCESS: AUTOMATIC SPENDING REDUCTIONS A. TAKES EFFECT UPON FAILURE OF REVISED CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS . B. "SNAPSHOT" OF FEDERAL BUDGET SITUATION 1. TAKEN ON AUGUST 15 2. CB0 AND OMB ESTIMATE DEFICIT FOR UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR WITH A NOT-TO-EXCEED LIMIT OF $10 BILLION 3. VERIFIED BY GAO AND SENT TO PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS BY AUGUST 25 4, IF IT EXCEEDS $10 BILLION PRESIDENT MUST ISSUE EMERGENCY SEQUESTRATION ORDER a. ORDER ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 1 b. TAKES EFFECT ON OCTOBER 15 c. ORDER AUTOMATICALLY REDUCES SPENDING IN ALL FEDERAL PROGRAMS - WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS - 0 0 ' VI. 'HOW DO THE SPENDING CUTS WORK? A.. AFFECTED PROGRAMS CUT Atr'ROSS—THE—BOARD BY-A UNIFORM PERCENTAGE B. 1/2 OF CUTS FROM DEFENSE C. 1/2 OF CUTS FROM NON—DEFENSE D. EXCEPTIONS TO GRAMM—RUDMAN—HOLLINGS AUTOMATIC CUTS • Table 2 ..Fiscal 987 Sequestration Process: - - • "Where the Cuta Wovld Fall* • - - • Enid 1987** Fuca!19 Social Security - $210 21% Interest on the national debt 150 15 Bander sepriorlmaremaniiments 78 8 Lcweincome programs*** 61 6 . Unemployment compensation 20 2 Veterans'pensions and 15 2 Witting receipts. -42 —4 $492. - *0% Programs facing Iii nited mas . Prior-year defense contracts . $100 10% Health programs 86 9 Retirement programs with COLAs 48 5 Total facing limited cuts $234 - 24% Wir.at''s left? Domestic proms ma 2 90 9% Defense programs 174 17% Total what's left? $264 26% Total fiscal 1987 budget $990 - 100% *The figures for fiscal 1987 ere estimates-They do not represent the actual numb-em contained in the President's budget proposal. **Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. ***Medicaid; aid to families with dependent children;special supplemental feed- ing program for women, infants, and children; supplemental security income;food stamps.and child nutrition. E. NO PROGRAM CAN BE ELIMINATED F. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR BENEFITS CANNOT BE CHANGED (YET WHILE ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS REMAINS, THE SERVICE MAY NOT BE PROVIDED) • 00F VII. SUMMARY A. 1/3 OF FEDERAL EXPENDITURES "UNCONTROLLABLE" 1. CANNOT LEGALLY BE CUT a, INTEREST ON DEBT b. CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS FROM PREVIOUS YEARS, ETC. B. 1/3 OF FEDERAL EXPENDITURES MADE UP OF SOCIAL SECURITY ENTITLEMENTS AND DEFENSE SPENDING C. 1/3 OF FEDERAL EXPENDITURES MADE UP OF OTHER DOMESTIC PROGRAMS 1. INCLUDES VIRTUALLY ALL PROGRAMS THAT AID STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS - DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY D. BELIEVE WHAT IS PLANNED WILL TAKE PLACE E. ASSESS THE DAMAGE F. DETERMINE ALTERNATIVE PLANS OI{ANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TOTAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FY 86 FY 87 FY 87 FY 88-91 FY 86-91 G-R-H G-R-H PRESIDENTS G-R-H G-R-H COUNTY DEPARTMENTS CUTS CUTS CU'T'S CUTS CUTS SOCIAL SERVICES $32,969 $1373-182 $ 110,411 $ 5489728 $ 718,879 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 3,060 14,400 12,960 57,600 75,060 HEALTH 2,428 9,479 10,485 37,916 49,823 DOUSING AUTHORITY SECTION 8 55,770 228,801 775,062 915,204 1,199,775 SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION 7,305 25,407 101,628 134,340 ' AGRICULTURE EXTENSION DEPAR'IMEN'T 1,702 5,920 21,830 23,680 31,302•' AGING 4,446 17,351 69,404 -91,201 .' 107,680 438,540 ,930,748 " Ip75 ,160 2,30f0,38O . GENERAI. REVENUE SHARING 28,105 653,599 653,599 2,614,396 3,296,100 GRAND TOTAL $ 135,785 $1,092,139 $ 1,584,347 $4,368,556 $5,596,480 p O rr SCHOOLS & OUTSIDE AGENCIES TOTAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FY 86 FY 87 FY 87 FY 88-91 FY 86-91 G-R-H G-R-H PRESIDENTS G-R-H G-R-H O PROGRAM DESCRIPTION CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS ORAN+PE COUNTY SCHOOLS $23,702 $ 63,997 - $ 87,343 $ 255,988 $343,687 CHAPEL HILL-GARRBORO SCHOOLS 13,535 40,109 85,856 160,436 214,080 $37,237 $104,106 $173,199 $41.6,424 $557,767 O-P-C MENTAL HEALTH $17,646 $49,176 $22,200 $196,704 $263,526 JOCCA 16,009 80,082 203,212 320,328 416,419 x HCADSTART 39,173 83,812 10,021 335,248 458,233 I JTPA 5,967 26,106 9,100 104,424 136,497 $78,795 $239,176 $244,533 $956,704 $1.274,675 DIRECT PAYMENTS TO VENDORS & INDIVIDUALS TOTAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FY 86 FY 87 FY 87 FY 88--91 FY 86-91 G-R-H G-R-H PRESIDENTS G-R-H G-R-H PROGRAM DESCRIPTION CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS 1. MEDICAID $ $ $ 596,900 $ $ 2. AFDC 76,875 3. LIEAP 5,750 23,875 19,000 95,500 125,125 4. FOOD STAKPS 131,202 5. SPECIAL ASSISTANCE - ADULTS 8,625 35,813 28,688 143,252 187,690 $ 14,375 $59,688 $852,665 $238,752 $312,815 o TOTAL COUNTY TOTAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FY 86 FY 87 FY 87 FY 88-91 FY 86-91 } G-R-H G-R-H PRESIDENTS G-R-H G-R-H C PROGRAM DESCRIPTION CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS I . TOTAL COUNTY GOVERNMENT (INCLUDING R.S.) $ 135,785 $1,092,139 $1,584,347 $4,368,556 $5,596,480 2.. BOARD OF EDUCATION 37,237 104,106 173,199 416,424 557,767 3, VARIOUS OUTSIDE AGENCIES 78,795 239,176 244,533 956,704 1,274,675 4. DIRECT PAYMENTS TO VENDORS AND INDIVIDUALS 14,375 59,688 852,665 238,752 312,815 TOTAL ,COUNTY-WIDE $ 266,192 $1,495,109 $2,854,744 $5,980,436 $7,741,737 ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TOTAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FY 86 FY 87 FY 87 FY 88-91 FY 86-91 G-R,H G-R-H PRESIDENTS G-R-H G-R-H PROGRAM DESCRIPTION CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS 1. GENERAL REVENUE SHARING S 78, 05 $653,599 $653,599 2 614 396 $3,296,100 2. SOCIAL SERVICES A. WIN (WORK INCENTIVE 1,292 5,651 32,291 22,604 29,547 PROGRAM) B. LIEAP (LOW INCOME ENERGY ASSIS`PANCE PROGRAM) 585 2,429 1,9.33 9,716 12,730 C. AFDC (AID TO FAMILIES Wf i DEPENDENT CHILDREN) 0 0 13,732 0 0 D. CHORE 3,221 13,374 53,496 70,091 E. SPECIAL FOS'T'ER CARE 124 516 2,064 2,704 F. DAY CAKE 8,970 37,245 148,980 195,195 G. TITLE XX (STAFF REIMBURSEMENT) 18,777 77,967 62,455 311,868 408,612 32,969 137,182 110,411 548,728 718,879 3. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT A. FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION 1,360 6,400 5,760 25,600 33,360 B. AFDC - IV D REFUNDS 1,700 8,000 7,200 32,000 41,700 3,060 14,400 12,960 57,600 75,060 � ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TOTAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FY 86 FY 87 FY 87 FY 88-91 FY 86-91 G-R-H G-R-H PRESIDENTS G-R-H G-R-Id PROGRAM DESCRIPTION CUTS CUTS CUTS _ CUTS CUTS 4. KEALTH A. GENERAL AID $ 439 $ 1,714 $ 1,896 $ 6,856 $ 9,009 B. MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH 1,108 4,326 4,785 17,304 22,738 C: ADULT HEALTH 123 480 531 1,920 2,523 E. FAMILY PLANNING 758 2,959 3,273 11,836 15,553 2,428 9,479 10,485 37,916 49,823 5. HOUSING AUTHORITY - SECTION 8 55,770 228,801 775,062 915,204 1,199,775 • 6, SOIL AND 14ATER CONSERVATION 7,305 25,407 101,628 134,340 7. AGRICULTURE EXTENSION DEPARTMENT 1,702 5,920 21,830 23,680 31,302 � 8. AGING A. RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 1,016 3,964 15,856 . 20,836 B. TITLE III B - SENIOR CENTERS OPERATION 3,430 13,387 53,548 70,365 4,446 17,351 69,404 91,201 GRAND TOTALS $135,785 $1,092,139 $1,584,347 $4,368,556 $5,546,480 BOARDS OF EDUCATION TOTAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FY 86 FY 87 FY 87 FY 88-91 FY 86-91 ' G-R-H G-R-H PRESIDENTS G-R-H G-R-11 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS I. ORANGE COUNTY SCHOO1,S A. ECIA CHAPTER 2 COMPETITIVE GRANT MATH & SCIENCE $ 164 $ 759 $ $ 3,036 $ 3,959 B. JTPA GRANT 1,083 4,739 1,652 18,956 24,778 C. ECIA CHAPTER 1 - LO.W INCOME 12,243 14,747 58,988 85,978 D. ECIA CHAPTER 1 - HANDICAPPED 116 772 401 3,088 3,976 E. ECIA CHAPTER 2 - FORMULA GRANT 1,866 8,420 33,680 43,966 F. EHA 'TITLE VI B - HANDICAPPED 4,632 30,879 16,019 123,516 159,027 G. USDA CHILD NUTRITION GRANT 31,619 H. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION 3,598 3,681 37,652 14,724 22,003 23,702 63,997 87,343 255,988 343,687 C Fes+ BOARDS OF EDUCATION TOTAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FY 86 FY 87 FY 87 FY 88-91 FY 86-91 'C) G-R-H G-R-H PRESIDENTS G-R-H G-R-R m PROGRAM DESCRIPTION CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS 2. CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO SCHOOLS w A. ECIA CHAPTER 2 COMPETITIVE GRANT 1,900 8,789 35,156 45.,845 B. ECIA CHAPTER I - LOW INCOME 5,638 6,791 27,164 39,593 C. ECIA TITLE VI B - HANDICAPPED 3,259 21,727 11,271 86,908 111,894 D. USDA CHILD ' NUTRITION GRANT 45,929 E. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION 2,738 2,802 28,656 11,208 16,748 13,535 40,109 85,856 160,436 214,080 GRAND TOTAL $37,237 $104 106 $173,199 _ $416,424 $557,767 OUTSIDE AGENCIES. TOTAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL f FY 86 FY 87 FY 87 FY 88-91 FY 86-91 ' G-R-H G-R-H PRESIDENTS G-R-H G-R-H PROGRAM DESCRIPTION CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS 1.0-P-C.MENTAL HEALTH A. . TITLE XX {EFLAND CHEEKS LEARNING CENTER) [)RANGE INDURTRI1sS & EARLY.INTER- VCNTION) $ 4,172 $ 17,590 $13,966 $ 70,360 '$ '97,1"22 B. ALCOHOL, DRUG ABUSE & RENTAL HEALT11 13,474 31,586 8,234 126,344 171,404 ' 17,646 49,_ 176 22,200 196,704 263,526 2; JOCCA A. COMMUNITY SERVICE ' BLOCK GRANT 5,454 25,973 129,866 103,892 135,319 B. ' TITLE IIT NUTRITION 8,157 40,786 6,730 163,144 212,087 C. WEATHERZATION 2,398 13,323 66,616 53,292 69,013 16,009 80,082 203,212 320,328 416,419 D. HEADSTART (WAKE, ORANGE & CHATHAM COUNTIES I COMBINED) 39,173 83,812 _10,021 335,248 . 458,233 C? E. UTPA 5,967 26,106 91100 104,424 136,497 ~ �3 GRAND TOTAL $ 7$,795 $239 176 z, $244.533- $956,704 $1,274,675 ORANGE COUNTY - BOARD OF COMISSIORERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT rTEIi NO, MEETING DATE April 22 1986 _ _ 018 SUBJECT: Presentation By Orange County and - - Chapel Hill-Carrboro School system of their capital needs OEPAR T MEN;T-:Manager . - - I I PUBLIC HEARING: x YES NO .J ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Manager's Office 1. School Capital Reserve Fund Long Range ext. SOl _ - Plan and Budget . PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH •-- 737--8181 HILLSBOROUGH -- 732--9351 2. Funding Alternatives For Long Range - - CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 School Capital CMEB3ANE 227-2031 - 3. Letter from Superintendent of Chapel DURHAM -- 688-7331 Hill-Carrboro Schools .mow PURPOSE: To hear a report from each-school system on their capital needs and tb receive public comment regarding school 'capital needs.:For the Commissioners information, we have included the School Capital Reserve 'Fund Long Range Plan and Budget • as previously approved (including projections of future earnings) as well. as the report on •possible funding alternatives for school 'capital as presented -by the Finance Director at the public hearing on April 7th. NEED: Each school system is experiencing exceptional-capital needs which are being intensified•by the rapid growth in the County. Each system wial outline ' those needs during the presentations. - _IMPACT: The attached letter from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro .School System outlining the revised space needs and estimated costs of the Glenwood and Estes Hills multipurpose building should be noted. RECOMMENDATION(S) : - • • SCHOOL CAPITAL RESERVE FUND = i! LONG RANGE PLAN AND BUDGET - n i V 1 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate REVENUES Beginning Balance $ 755,805 $ 385,823 $ 144,275 $ 263,595 Transfer from General Fund (80% of 1/2t Sales Tax) 1,100,000 1,360,000 1,500,000 1,700,000 Property Tax (21/2c per $100) 550,000 0 0 0 Property Tax (3c per $100) 0 693,000 0 0 Transfer From Orange County Schools Current Capital 0 20,000 0 0 Investment Earnings 18,000 8,000 13,500 33,000 Total Revenues $2,423,805 $2,466,823 $1,657,775 $1,996,595 APPROPRIATIONS Orange County Schools: Roofs $ 432,400 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 H.S. Expansion 650,000 1,350,000 0 0 Subtotal $1,082,400 $1,350,000 $ 0 $ 0 Undesignated: Roofs $ 0 $ 126,000 $ 250,000 $ 0 Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools: Roofs $ 341,130 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 CHHS Science Lab (1) 80,000 0 0 0 Glenwood/Estes Hills Multipurpose Space 486,000 330,000 0 0 CHHS Cafeteria Expansion/ Renovation 0 250,000 0 0 CHHS Media Center Renovation 0 0 235,000 0 Carrboro/Estes Hills/ Glenwood Media Center Expansion 0 0 225,000 0 Kitchen Renovations 0 0 225,000 0 Phillips Air Conditioning 0 202,808 295,492 0 FPG Air Conditioning 0 112,192 163,688 0 CH Schematics (1) 48,452 (48,452) 0 0 Subtotal $ 955,582 $ 846,548 $1,144,180 $ 0 Total Appropriations $2,037,982 $2,322,548 $1,394,180 $ 0 BALANCE $ 385,823 $ 144,275 $ 263,595 $1,996,595 (1) : These items were originally scheduled for 1984-85. However, the school system did not request these funds during 1984-85. Therefore, they have been moved to 1985-86. SCHOOL CAPITAL RESERVE FUND , LONG RANGE PLAN AND BUDGET 02 C 1989-90 1990-91"- 1991-9,2 1992-93' Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate REVENUES Beginning Balance $1,996,595 $3,861,595 $5,841,595 $7,971,595 Transfer from General Fund (80% of 1/2C Sales Tax) 1,820,000 1,925,000 2,060,000 2,200,000 Investment Earnings 45,000 55,000 70,000 85,000 Total Revenues $3,861,595 $5,841,595 $7,971,595 $10,256,595 APPROPRIATIONS Orange County Schools $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools 0 0 0 0 Total Appropriations $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 BALANCE $3,861,595 $5,841,595 $7,971,595 $16,256,595 02 1. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES FOR LONG RANGE SCHOOL CAPITAL I. Pay-As-You-Go (See School Capital Reserve Fund Long Range Plan and Budget) II. Bond Referendum A. Uncertainty In Bond Market 1. Bill 3838 (Tax Reform Bill) a. General Purpose Bonds could lose tax-exempt status b. Effective date uncertain 1. Maybe January 1, 1986 or September 1, 1986 c. Has passed in the House and is now in the Senate B. Interest Rate Today - Approximately 7.0% C. Total Debt Service Approximately Twice the Amount Borrowed III. Advalorem Tax Increase A. Presently @ 2 'l/2G /$100 B. Scheduled @ 3 /$100 for 1986-87 C. Extend 3 /$100 Assuming 5% Growth In Base Each Year 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 $728,000 $765,000 $802,000 $842,000 $884,000 $929,000 IV. Additional 1/2C Sales Tax A. Senate Bill 431 1. Levy additional l/2G sales tax 2. Dedicated for school construction, renovation, retirement of school bonds previously issued, etc. 3. Funds held by state and grants made to counties 4. County matches grant with $1 for each $3.50 of grant funds 5. Allocated to each county based on ADM r IV. (Continued) 22 6. Allocated to each school system by County Commissioners based on need 7. Projected to generate $1.6 million annually for Orange County B. Some Form of Additional 1/2 Sales Tax Expected to Pass C. Earliest Effective Date Probably January 1, 1988 V. School Capital Impact Fee on New Development A. Under Study by Planning Department B. Developer Assessed a Fee to Offset Cost of School Construction Due to Impact of New Development 022 ;'. REC'D APR 16 '1986 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS LINCOLN CENTER,MERRITT MILL ROAD CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514 Telephone: (919) 967-8211 GERRY HOUSE,Superintendent MICHAEL RADZ,Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services April 14 1986 SHEILA BREITWEISER,Assistant Superintendent for Support Services Mr. Don Wilihoit Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners 203 Lexington Road - Chapel Hill , North Carolina 27514 Dear Mr. Wilihoit: During the course of this school year, our staff has spent con- siderable time reviewing data on projected enrollments and consider- ing the impact the growth will have on our school system. We have also had the Division of School Planning conduct a facilities utiliza- tion and school organization study. Information from all these sour- ces indicates we are in the initial stages of a period of significant enrollment increases in our schools. At the same time, the implemen- tation of the Basic Education Plan, with lower class ratios and new programs, will require additional space. Thus, the combination of an increasing student population and the implementation of the Basic Education Plan will have a tremendous impact on our immediate and long range program space needs. One means we see for addressing the immediate space needs, as I discussed with you earlier, is to design the two approved multipurpose buildings at Glenwood and Estes Hills to include classroom space for such special activities as art, music and computer labs. Presently, these programs are housed in classrooms. By designing the multipur- pose buildings to accommodate these programs, the net effect will be to free up a minimum of three classroom spaces in each school . At the time the original request for the multipurpose buildings was sub- mitted, we were anticipating a decreasing or stable enrollment instead of this unexpected and rapidly increasing student enrollment. Working with our architects we have preliminary drawings for the buildings. The size of the buildings has increased from 8,000 to 12,000 square feet and from an estimated cost of $816,000 to $1.8 million. Before we can proceed with the plans, we need approval from the Commissioners for the additional funding. Our desire is to have the buildings available for occupancy by the 1987-88 school year. In the absence of having this space avail- able, we will have to continue to purchase mobile classrooms for our schools. As you know, mobile classrooms are not a desirable way to house students. With the upcoming school year, we will be utilizing a Mr. Don Willhoit 024 April 14, 1986 Page 2 minimum of three mobile units. We did delay a decision to purchase additional units for Glenwood and Estes Hills, even though over- crowding is a problem at both schools, because we anticipated having the multipurpose buildings available for 1987-88. It is important that we can proceed with the construction of these multipurpose buildings if we are indeed to occupy them by the 1987-88 school year. As usual, I appreciate your interest in the school and your desire to help in any way you can. If you need further infor- mation, please let me know. Sin rely, -- - Gerry House Superintendent GH/vw cc: Ken Thompson • asa STAT[w r ry., - 44— • - A.� R. I-0 198 025 • •cam a,r,., North"Carolina Department of Human Resources . Division of Facility Services P. 0.Box 12200• Raleigh,N.C. 27605-2200 • James G. Martin,Governor 1.0. Wilkerson,Jr.,Director Phillip J.Kirk,Jr.,Secretary Telephone X 919)733-4560 April 7, 1986 Mr. Lindy Pendergrass, Sheriff Orange.County Sheriff's Department 125 Court Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Sheriff Pendergrass: On March 25, 1986, I, Donnie D. Byrd, Jail Consultant -from the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, inspected the Orange County Jail: Enclosed is a copy of the inspection report for your attention. Immediate action should be initiated as soon as possible to correct any deficiencies cited in the report. If I or any member of the Jail and Detention staff may be of assistance to you concerning this or any detention matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, CJc}u cz•�` I / .'1) Jt11 Donnie D. Byrd Area Consultant DDB:vbw Enclosure cc: Mr. Thomas A. Ritter, Head, Jail and Detention Branch Mr. Donald Whilhoit, Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners 1r. Kenneth Thompson, Orange County Manager K 'rtri -�� l i.f ,_` : A 'iw 5 S'"9":‘, y A.� i.�r t i. J ;,e� „� '�; w dole 4,.,�.3 +.. }C X 5G tt, .,g DFS-7023 . nr kr r rp (Rev- 6/81) �K. ' " w ate ' +�� v ^ h� � ft y "'lf de�' i `' �`'i f+"riR`' y rr ;-d .j �' *ct'` f. ' 9 ..026 LOCAL CONFMMOHMIT FACILITY SEMIANNUAL INSPECTION NORTH CAROLINA•,DEPARTMENT OF.HUMAN RESOURCES P y' • DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES ^"Tr JAIL AND DETENTION BRANCH . Post Office.Box 12200• Raleigh,. North Carolina 27605 Inspection Date March 25, 1986 Ti 10:0O''"ter Facility Orange County.Jail. :: - County 0ranga► . .. .�? Address 125 Court St., Hillsborough., NC Sheriff/Chief of Police zn Y e Chief Jailer Capacity 50 Date Built I90L aenoY■ : . No. of Confinement Levels 2 Total Jail Staff 10 Jailers: Staff on Duty: Male 1 F Male Fes�al - emale ' ''Y Inmates Confined: Male 25 Fema].e 1--.. Schedule. 8-hour-shifts 12-ho ux� shifts � - Other 'Facility let shift& 7:00 a 7`,00 app T male, I. female 2nd shift: 7200.pm - 7300 ass. 1 male, 1 -'female C STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES OR INADEQUATE PROGRAM SERVICES IN THIS BLOCK " 0 may jeopardize the safe custody, safety, health, or welfare of persons con "C` 21 in the facility and thus result in an immediate order for corrective om - I 1 action or closure as provided in G.S. 153A-223. The governing body shall I p T n i cgnsider the entire report at the first regular meeting after receipt of a the report and shall promptly initiate any action necessary to bring the n a c facility into conformity with the standards as provided by G. S. 153A-222. e e A. SUPERVISION . . . Continuous supervision is provided to the following types of inmates as required by G.S. 153A-224, Section .1500 of the North Carolina Minimum Standards for the Operation of Local Confinement Facilities: 1. Adult Males Y 2. Adult Females (must be supervised only by female jailers 3. Juvenile Males (must be supervised only by male jailers 4. Juvenile Females (must be supervised only by female jailers - B. MEDICAL CARE The unit has a written medical plan properly posted which functions effectively as required by G.S. 153A-225 and Section .1800 of the North Carolina Minimum Standards for the Operation of Local Confinement Facilities. C. SANITATION The sanitation of the unit is maintained in accordance with rules and regulations adopted under G.S. 153A-226 to effectively protect the health of inmates and Public. D. FOOD SERVICE The diet is adequate as required by Section .1700 of the North Carolina Minimum Standards for the Operation of Local Confinement Facilities. :t r' k '' A ' - ::-.;---,,, t',Y Y ' e C".: a t°}"" "d 'kf.. 1:' jA r' m y�t , / 2+}' - .h �,r "' t, r� Y+��:3�: 0. s d' t h..+ .r `(Rea3 V!el of{ cq +* N t' wKS k'a\ a s tb d) a� ,.- rs a P � *�aw.-.� {. :k ��. ��� I,' " :;,,Q...,ar�i�i`. •t° ..,:,;-';"1: �Pk i�x *`k' �n±•� ,141:, z < a 4 .c e Af In e 2 : �fssn t y k, i 7 J f i. '. ,,, r,q 4 - r.:. r ,, ,° -cam' "4 q '. ,`."- i a,, .s.1'1'.";"a'' STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES: OR INADEQUATE PROGRAM SERVICES IN:THIS BL C t 14 „'? - may'jeopardize the safe custody, safety, health,.:orwelfare.of persons con a. N _p . fined in the facility: and,thus result in an immediate order-for-corrective O -1 act-frul or closure ae provided.-in,G. S. 153A-223. The gov - ernirtg :.bGdy sha1.I„�'' n�k T -x consider-the . entire report at the first regular meeting after.:receipt the report and . shall promptly: initiate any actin necessary to:big ,�x ,rot c facility into conformity with the standards as provided by G S. 153A-222 E ray i 4 E: FIRE SAFETY '*' ' ;.: ' �y .gyp;t>,x‘• ,,,,,,p;'...,,,„. 1 There are at least two complete sets of facility and emergency exit key as required by Section .140/, Paragraph.a , of the Minimum Jail Standards., i x .T e ,(There are ? , sets of keys in the facility.) _ y , - E 5 . 2 One, comp lete set`.of..facility � r,4 , ' ,:- P ty and emergency exit keys not in use as stored in a safe place but accessible to supervisory personnel for use. in an ` ,' emergency as required by Section .1401, Paragraph b, of the Minimum Jai) r r?. - :.Standards. _ 3.. Approved, permanently identified mattresses in good condition are pro- °� °- o vided as required.by Section .14-12 of the Minimum Jail Standards z 4 Sufficient fire extinguishers are available as required by Section .1413 , p - y' ":: .1415 of .the Minimum' Jail Standard's. 5 Fire extinguishers bear a current inspection tag and are maintained in a .fully charged and operable condition as required by Sections .1416 and _ - .1417 of the Minimum Jail Standards. 6.., Means of egress in sufficient number comply with N.C. Building Code and .- G.S. 69-12 for each level_ i, '_: 7.. Emergency exit doors are approved type, keyed to both sides, are func- tional, and comply with N.C. Building,•Code. 8 The confinement facility is of fire-resistive construction materials and unattached to any structure of less than fire-resistive construction unless separated by an approved fire'wall as specified by-the.,N..G_ ,: Building Code.. _ 9. There is a plan for the emergency evacuation of inmates as required by Section ..1506, Paragraph a, of the Minimum Jail Standards. 10. The facility has a master fire plan posted as required by Section .1506,., Paragraph a, of the Minimum Jail Standards. i ' 11. Jailers have been trained in the use of fire fighting equipment as. re- ? quired by Section .1506, Paragraph b, of the Minimum Jail Standards. r. 12. . Fire drills are conducted at 'least quarterly and recorded as required by Section .1506, Paragraph b, of the Minimum Jail Standards. 13. Sufficient number of smoke detectors with automatic audible alarm and test capability, in operating condition, to monitor all inmate occupied areas, as required by Section .1419 of the Minimum Jail. Standards. ih �'., a M 7 4 7 « -'4''',= r' ',,i A` ix _- n y8r k .{" 4 1.••, ;44_.~.'$1 ,-; DFS-7023 � 4x �t a (R v.4 6/81} 'qr ,9 `Se '• ..'1 ,'.5 i;" P ,lr r �N � r .;r' .: ". Page �„ r iA - ' ' F F. 'rxd�i �'3-,. .1 .i„ 1 7' x Ql C 1 • W., r.� d �., C. •H m 'ik4i ; 1. Construction Materials as Required by Minimum Standards A Paint Ir B. Hunks x 'r: C. Floors 111111111111 Z...,.D..-...Nal, s_ , - E. Ceilings x S :`. *- F. Windows . G. Se . y Greens'. . ".,_ ^.. VI II1 _H. Doors and Integral l Locks .I. A Fri ipment El J. .Steel Grating g —.- K. Wir and Electrical Fixtures ©IMAM L. Safety Vestibules . M. Multiple Door Locking.Methnisms. with Mechanical Override 111111 N. Floor Drains AccessiSle to Inmates are Provided with Secure Fasteners X • 2. Grouping of Prisoners A. Segregation of Females (G.S. 153A-228, G.S. 14-261, Minimum B. Segregation of Juveniles (G.S. 153A-221.1, Minimum Standards) s� f 1. 3. Safety and Security Features A. Local Fire -Department Has Been Requested to Inspect Facility In Its Fire Prevention Ins ection Program B. Mirrors Comply With Standards . X C. Safety-Type Razors for Shaving are Provided D. Visiting Areas are in Compliance with Standard Requirements E. Conference Area is Provided for Attorneys and Clergymen F. Medical Clinic Area is Provided G II . Booking Area Provides Proper Security H. All Locks are Kept in Good Working Order I. Heat, Lights, Windows, or Controls are Not Accessible to Prisoners J. Security Section Doors are Kept Locked K. Facility is Hazard Free 4. Space Utilization A. Approved Holding Area is Provided and Properly Equipped III B. Plan is Provided to Handle Excess Population Should Overcrowded Conditions Exist in the Facility C. Overcrowding Does Not Occur - NNE //py { � ,('t. .+� 1 � 2,;',1.,,, 5 ,sue ,( Page 4, y 11 .-..;,,L1,,,,',. ..,,,...,,.• °'A -... ,.. _:. f ie''pF�,. -',-,1-',._ 4.7.,-11t:',4,q4 - f �' ''d 'H+m�'A''t,'n'1.1m E 4 ,�' . �a 4, -�/ a ..cj O 5..• Structural. Arrangements and Accommodations dire ry•,x >, w. . - � may, A. Single Cells Conform in Size to Minimum Standards B. Multiple Cells Conform "n Size to Minimum Standards 1111111111111111 ' - C. Cell Areas Utilizing a Common Dayroom Duo Vo Exceed ; Multi les of♦twenty-four (247 Persons *` ' D. If Facili y H s Dormitory.-Type-Confinement, Size Conforms-to Standards - . No More Than Sixteen (16) Persons are Held in Anx Dormito ^* E. Facility Has. Sufficient: - "' 7. Number of Commodes 2. Number of. Lavatories 3. Sanitary Drinking ter _..:— -�-----�- ---- w.,...,.r.. 4. Number of Showers X 5. Tempered Water X III 6. Dayroom Space X F. Sufficient Store Space is Provided 6. Heat, Light and Ventilation . A. Heat (Type: Gas ,_ : B. Ventilation (Type: ), is Adequate � R ype: A,/C , ) is Adequate x C. Lighting (Artificial yea Natural ye.9 ) is Adequate A t 7. Personal Hygiene and Comfort A. Clean and Adequate Beddin is Provided B. Necessary Towels and Soap for Bathing are Provided C. Juveniles are Provided Toothpaste, Toothbrush, Soap, Towels, .:.,:,�......M._.Bedding and Combs D. Adequate Laundry Services are Provided 8, Medical Care A. Supervisors Understand Responsibility and Requirements in Submitting Death Reports B. The Mentally I11 are Properly Observed and Expeditiously Transferred to a Medical Facility C. Inmates with Infectious or Contagious Diseases are Segregated 9. Food and Sanitation A. If Food is not Prepared at the Facility, Food Catering is Handled by Written Agreement as Prescribed B. prisoners are Provided Three (3) Adequate Meals Per Day C. Diet and Meal Schedule are in Compliance with Minimum Standards X D. kitchen Appears Clean and Sanitary IIIII x DDS-70?„3vaA P e6�)'...1'-'1h;:_:.7:;!,,,.-,,f'" '{��M yr u3�� ! ,,r 9 _ rr x� c n4--,, (� r +" s'7Z. ..rY _ r)'. Y M'i,4. ..t{;b -y�e rr ! ,M rr � M '.�, y" 4 7 'i :4, <vS R f R er' y ,: v.:...,-',...� F r _, : ::,,,,,„,,,,,,4_y y hf�q. r.. 7c t-' �{^.+ 4..-n+r* ,.W :,'! !fr F !• r .. o ar f.iii-. _'r ..n 1.4i.!.;:-'1;:%;••yM�i 4, L Rb y § �„�.,? ..f,,),„:,...., ,� y,RrJ,x i � k ,;,,,,,,,.4.-,..._.,::-:,f � • - .,: S },a?_,Y )' .y y. $ _ - ;.d:is a ns. "'rG-,!" --"K Air--,.......-l.. ,� "fit 'v.x a "" +. Yom} ,�? '•.4 9?k d : Jrr'i�f r ; r a r' r 4 -`Q) '" '�, .a:. rc .. ,Y.,p of 2G.- 9(h, 't-4 r T� ...:417-4.::::::,.., 4, -- $�• 4 '} # } A 1"! i:.� ._�„ u •4, „ r y T 9. Gontirued } > � y 3 - p t ,� :w rQ . S 7i4 1 3f4,', S^UL4' w pPr _ +^g 4n pmeert is Adequate "”" F. Cl- n—u. 'Stations and E•ui. ¢u" X ant are Provided °+� x fp«,. .Tail'': . . 8 to be:Clean and Sanitary - ta 's'ection_Recommended. . Yes - ®�®® T � I� Re its•are'Submitted as Prescribed C.S.:i i, No.'. .}�.�_. _. lane for.Are there an _ ,:-� ; '1 Ir any:plans new construction or major r ��� ms` ,,,< 4'_}` yea`,, descrfbFe `" 3 .7 ,,, , renovation No nn, cr # a'f+ a r '. j�. �Y .RMY.. Sk �. .t 5 L7. G ,��'1I. Nan*61Y of Person(e};Contacted: . '`` a `. ::,- - ^,� ]-f}� ' Chief Denut 'Paul Cook• '-railer':R. ':'Cceii yR " r 8nat�:kaki " Sherii` "Fender sass . gitroe :i': �`riy 2, ',W ,4 py 'a/G{iA r?y�.�r` .r , � - '4 d.' 12. Comments NO ENTRY INDICATES ITEM NOT APPLICABLE ,x. Shcrif€ Pander roes ;.:.. under the Federal Civil Rights Actsregardingtsegregationebyfrace,responsibilities Item.1,G: Applies-only- to security screen in C cell 'area. This sc keen ' 1 repairing or replacing.. _ air' - u. Jails Consultant / J< 7 Distribution: 7'!i DcnaldWhi holt_, Chairman., Orange C'']•;nty Bo u oIni.ssione - . • • t? Kcnnerh Th7:r sca : Orange County :tanag,r Oi lei E 'COU Y BOARD OF CO,�-1ISSIOi�ERS ACTIQ j AGEt;DA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM 110 MEETING DATE April 22 1986 SUB3ECI: Funding of Mobile Classroom Units 0 for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools -____I i ______ DE.PAR T i�1ENT: Manager. PUBLIC HEARING: YES UO _._ x I10 ltTIACHNENT(S) : 1. Resolution INFORMATION ION CONTACT": Manager's office 2. Letter from Ext. 501 PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH —73x_.8181 Superintendent HILLSBOROUGH —732-9351 . . - CHAPEL HILL -- 96?--9251 IIEBANE 227-2.031 . DURHAM — 688--7331 PURPOSE: To consider adopting the.attached Resolution assuring, the school system that funds in an amount at least..sufficient to purchase two mobile classroom units will -be appropriated in the 1986-87 County budget for school current capital. • NEED: The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City. Schools have expressed a need for three mobile classroom units for the beginning of school next fall. IMPACT: The cost of the units is estimated by the school system to be $33,000 each. The Board of Education has approved a budget amendment to purchase one unit from the contingency account in the 1985-86 Capital Outlay Fund. Therefore, the County will need to appropriate at least _$66,000 in the 1986-87 County budget for the remaining two units. RE CW-;,!EN DA IION(S) : Approve. • 032 • • • RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill--Carrboro City Schools are in need of three mobile classroom units, and WHEREAS, the purchase order for the mobile classroom units.needs to be issued this spring to allow the necessary lead time for delivery of the units' - for the beginning of school next fall, and ' WHEREAS, the Board of Education approved a budget amendment to purchase one mobile classroom unit from the contingency account in the 1985-86 Capital Outlay Fund, and WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools have requested that the Orange County Board of Commissioners appropriate at least $66,000 for the purchase of the two remaining units in the 1986-87 County budget, and WHEREAS, The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools need the assurance from the Orange County Board of Commissioners that the funds will be appropriated before issuing the,purchase order for three mobile classroom units.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners assures the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools that at least $66,000 will be appropriated for the purchase of two mobile classroom units in the 1986-87 County budget. • Adopted this 22nd day of April, 1986.' Don Willhoit, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: Beverly Blythe Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners REC'D APR 14 1986 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS Q 3 a LINCOLN CENTER,MERRITT MILL ROAD CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514 Telephone: (919) 967-8211 GERRY HOUSE,Superintendent MICHAEL RADZ,Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services SHEILA BREITWEISER,Assistant Superintendent for Support Services MEMORANDUM TO: Ken Thompson DATE: . April 10, 1986 County Manager FROM: Gerry House g• Superintend nt Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools RE: Capital Funds From 1986-87 Budget for Mobile Units This memo is to confirm my verbal request that the County Commissioners guarantee the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools at least $66,000 in the capital outlay budget for 1986-87 in order that the school system may proceed with the purchase of two additional mobile classroom units for use next year. The Board of Education is making this request because action to order these units is needed this spring to allow the necessary lead time for delivery of the units for the beginning of school next fall . The estimated cost of each additional unit will be $33,000, The Board of Education approved a budget amendment to purchase one such unit from the contingency fund of the 1985-86 capital outlay budget. We would like to submit the order for all three of these units at one time. Therefore, action by the County Commission at its next meeting is requested. Thank you for your attention to this matter. GH:hbh cc: Sheila Breitweiser Gary Koser Dick Drake ORANGE `COUNT\ GOAD p}- COMMISSIORERS ACTMA:ACTIO�# AP-NO;', ITEM ABSTRAC T ITE ME1�TIUG DATE April 22 1986 - 1 034 L 1985-86 Annual Audit Contract : Finance - PUBLIC HEARING; _ YES x NO(5) = Audit Contract IM FOP, ATION CONTACT: Finance Directo• t. 496 PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732.43181 HILLSBOROUGH -- 73Z-9361 . , . : CHAPEL HILL -- 967- 251 EANE 227-2031 DURHAM -- G88-7331 To consider renewing the. contract with the accountingfirm of Touche Ross & Co. -N.C. General Statute 159-34 rquires each local government to have its _ accounts audited annually by. an independent auditor. "The Single Audit Act of 1984" was recently passed by Congress. This Act -requires an - organization-- wide single audit of all federal grants.The audit fee for the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and certification of the tax levy is $24,500 an increase Of $1100 from 1984-85. The audit fee for the Single Audit is $11,000,an .increase of $200 from 1984-85. The fee fox the single audit will be recovered thru direct and indirect charge backs to the _ grants audited. 'ATIO;'(S) Approve contract. 03b • LGC-205(Rev.7/1985) CONTRACT TO AUDIT ACCOUNTS •- . • of Orange County, North Carolina (Coveramentai Unit) • This agreement,made this 2nd day of April 1956 by and between Tip ' 113SS & Cb• 700•N< Building, 123 West Main Street, Durham, NC 27701 hereinafter re ,hereinafter referred to as the Auditor,and Board of County Commissioners of Orange County ,hereinafter referred Governing Body Governmental Unit to as the Governmental Unit,as follows: 1. The Auditor shall examine all statements and disclosures required by generally accepted accounting principles and additionally required •legal disclosures of all funds and/or divisions of the Governmental Unit for the period beginning July 1 .,19 86 ,and ending `7th 30 19 86 .The combining,individual fund,and account group financial statements and schedules shall be subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the examination of the combined financial statements and an opinion will he rendered in relation to the combined financial statements taken as a whole.The Audit will have no scope limitations except: 2. The Auditor shall conduct his examination and render his report in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards The examina- tion shall include such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as are considered by the Auditor to be necessary in the circumstances,except as follows: (See Item 4 of Instructions) - 3. It is agreed that generally accepted auditing standards include a review of the Governmental Unit's system of internal control and account- ing as same relates to accountability of funds and adherence to budget and law requirements applicable thereto;that the Auditor will make a written report,which may or may not be a part of the written report of audit,to the Governing Body setting forth his findings,together with his recommendations for improvement.The Auditor shall file a copy of said report with the Secretary of the Local Government Com- mission. _ 4. The Auditor shall,after completing his examination,submit to the Governing Body a written report of audit.This report shall include.at least,the financial statements and notes thereto prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,combining and sup- plementary information requested by the client or required for full disclosure under the law and the auditor's opinion on the material presented.The Auditor shall furnish 30 copies of the report of audit to the Governing Body as soon as practical after the close of the accounting period.The Auditor shaU file a copy of said report of audit with the Secretary of the Local Government Commission. 5. It is agreed that time is of the essence in this contract. If all audits are not performed and the report of audit not submitted by ptemxier 30 19 85 ,then this contract shall be void and of no effect,but if said condition is complied with,this contract shall be in full force and effect, 6. Should circumstances disclosed by the audit call for a more detailed investigation by the Auditor than necessary under ordinary cir- cumstances,the Auditor shall inform the Governing Body in-writing of the need for such additional investigation and the additional com- pensation required therefor. Upon approval by the Secretary of the Local Government Commission, this agreement may be varied or changed to include the increased time and compensation as may be agreed upon by the Governing Body and the Auditor. 7. The Auditor shall perform a compliance examination for all Federal financial assistance programs in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984(Pub.L.No.98-502).The Internal Control report issued in paragraph 3 above must meet the requirements of the Single Audit Act of 1984.In addition to the reports required in paragraph 4,the Auditor will issue a Compliance Opinion and grant schedule on these funds in accordance with the Single Audit Act.The Auditor will file a copy of Internal Control report,Compliance Opinion and Grant Schedule with the Secretary of the Local Government Commission.(See Item 9 of Instructions) 8 The Auditor shall conduct a compliance examination on State and local funds in accordance with applicable laws,rules,regulations and generally accepted auditing standards.The Auditor's Internal Control report and Compliance Opinion in Paragraph 7 above will be ex- panded to include State and local funds.(See Item 9 of Instructions) 9. In consideration of the satisfactory performance of the provisions of this agre�+ the G-pvernmental unit shell pay to the Auditor,upon approval by the Secretary of the Local Government Commission,a fee of: �7cl� d certification{�onf tax levy $24,500 10. There are no other agreements between the parties hereto and no other ogre gegg ati3i� o t}rat stFi ertfareea"67'e unless entere g1,000 into in accordance with the procedure set out herein and approved h\'the Secretary of the Local Government Commission. 11. There are no special provisions,except: 12. All of the above paragraphs are understood and shall apply to this agreement,except the following numbered paragraphs shall be deleted: TOUChe Boss & Co• Orange County, North Carolina / Auditor Governing Bud) By It_ By _ Approved by the Secretary of the Local Government Commis- This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required b,. sion as provided in Article 3, Chapter 159 of the General the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act or by the Statutes or Article 31, Part 3, Chapter 115C of the General School Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Statutes. For the Secretary Finance Officer Date Date File in Triplicate(See Instructions on reverse side) ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. G5 Meeting Date: APRIL 22, 1986 SUBJECT: A BRIEF PRESENTATION BY THE SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS OF ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 NO TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: The following request has been received: The Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Orange County would like to make a brief presentation (less than 5 minutes) to the Orange County Commissioners of "The Promise of World Peace, " a comprehensive letter by the Universal House of Justice, the supreme administrative body for the Baha'i community of the world. "The Promise of World Peace" has recently been presented to President Reagan, as well as to over seventy other heads-of- state, United Nations secretary-general Perez de Cuellar, and numerous congressmen, mayors and leaders of thought in the United States and abroad. The letter goes well beyond the immediate military issues, such as nuclear disarmament, addresses a wide range of related questions and provides pro- found suggestions which are of great potential interest and benefit to the people of Orange County. "The Promise of World Peace" is a tremendous inspiration to those many people seeking to further the cause of global peace, beginning at the level of the individual in our community. NEED: IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION(S) : O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE APRIL 22,1986 ACTION GENDA ITEM #� SUBJECT: BURNSIDE PARK - PRELIMINARY PLAN ********************************- ************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO ****************************************- ****************************** ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: EDDIE KIRK APPLICATION VICINITY MAP HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION PRELIMINARY PLAN (SEE AGENDA PACKET FOR 4-7-86) AGENCY DRAFT LETTERS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT 3-17-86 PB MINUTES TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 *******************************+ *************************************** PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Burnside Park Subdivision. To receive the March 17, 1986 Planning Board recommendation. To receive the Hillsborough Town Board recommendation. The Board of Commissioners did not consider this item at the April 7, 1986 meeting at the request of the Town of Hillsborough in order to allow the Town Board an opportunity to review the request. NEED: James Rae Freeland has requested approval of a subdivision for 24.99 acres of land located on Burnside Drive off Cameron Street in the Town of Hillsborough . The property in question is known as Lot 7, Block C of Tax Map 37 for Hillsborough Township. The purpose of this request is to permit construction of a three (3) lot subdivision. The property is subject to the development standards of the Town of Hillsborough 's Zoning Ordinance. IMPACT: Approval of the request would allow development of a three (3) lot subdivision with one building site. This would generate approximately 10 additional trips per day. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plan with six conditions: Q3 BURNSIDE PARK - PRELIMINARY PLAN 2 1 . The stream buffer requirement, as required in the recently adopted Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance, must be calculated and indicated on the Final Plat. 2. Amend Note 15 to state the following: "Use of land within a floodway or a floodway fringe is restricted by the Hillsborough Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance." 3. Show a 25 foot building setback from the rear property line as required for AR zoning districts in the Towns planning Jurisdiction. 4. The sewer line size shall be indicated on the Final Plat. 5. The existing water line located in the street right-of-way shall be shown on the Final Plat with the size indicated. 6. The existing archaeological dig on lot 13 should be shown on the Final Plat. The Hillsborough Planning Board recommended denial of the preliminary plan (See attached letter dated 2-10-86) . The Hillsborough Town Board recommended approval of the preliminary plan (See attached letter dated 4-15-86) . The Orange County Planning Board recommends denial of the preliminary plan on the basis of public safety concerns with the flooding of the Eno River and with possible discrepancies in the Federal Flood Insurance Maps in the identification of flood hazard areas. 19 V qs ---,---- . . E NO" ------ -------- 03E4 , ,,, ,-..•-z•A , ,....,. ,,c•„...--- --- EXEMPT Q.. ' i , \ AC. ....-„...---. 0 ' ---, ' BURNSIDE PARK , APPLICANT : JAMES RAE FREELAND / Zone: A-R (Town of Hillsborough) V1 LUP Designation : 10 yr. Transition Scale: ln r. 400' t y ____yteL 1 N 4, 20 \ .... -- . M EX E MPT 67 T -- OF 1 E EtA 06- ■111 g 1 4 LEGOPOU 5H lt.- - --- 994 ! 70 7683 79 9A I C I , ,7763 I .7 (II ' 5 96 PC ,P. I\.......,.... 1 1 32.77AC k5458 1 ,i, .---, 0 \ le CC i 1 V 6062.2,440 <Or" :• Altillip .' 7 loor • --' e , ,, 30 A -, 5794 ES 5 94 AC --., -........„ :111°11.1111;:ri P/O 11 // 10 535E )569 .../ 6380 . ® .- ': ,,, C) - < 4' V ,/,--. . 17 es AC 1161 AC CAL I .4 I \' N.,..., \ 0 7733 N. I \ ' . , '\..„. 6516 I 6.97 ACCAL I •■• N ..... .."." \... X ..... ''..- 311t PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) 04G` 11/85 APP C D Ft] eO V SI N APP OVA OAANGE �aUNTY SUBDIVISION NAME: DATE:• LOCATION: . - -u ( y OWNER/DEVELOPER: ab4ri 4 _ ADDRESS: -- �.r� ar, 1'[' wIn ,w TELEPHONE NO. : AUW . AGENT/CONTACT: / TELEPHONE NO. :.Tiata.'2r . A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Ma Zoning Dtstrictfsl : p 9L°a Loafs) — Total Number of Acres: Township Tote! Number of Lots: Phases: Number/Type of Struotur_a_ Size: . Minimum Lot Size Linea! Feet in Streets: Acres i perm Spacepropose )� Water Supply: ,��. Publicfspeaify) �Oammunit -�- Wastewater Oispas= l: ,.: Waetel ter Dict: 4.. L Pubticfapecif ) y y Individual General Land Uses is Area: ,; + _: y �ommunit IndiYiduot jaiazwerzi#_. Fire District: Critical Areas: stream/drainageways flood waSershadfspeo_~) � prone areas otherfaxplain) ��•�; f ,.�historic sites S. ALL plats must be submitted on sheet no smelter than one inch feet f1 "=$00r1 and no Larger than one inch equals fifty feet f1 "=5011 and must contain the faLlowing information; ch equals two subdivision neme :heck items nee of a'nurl al building seebeas< tiny ompleted) nimr of anrveyer, eaglnlur or ';:j+t%t by notation er typical Las Land planner +�� laydnt - • (CTy1r1 Preliminary Plan • "?? existing end Proposed earl'• marsh arrow (North of aunts (drainage, d saes+ _ }`' reeds, etc,]proposed utfl/t1w#. . •- tap of sent ores (7wCladln re -* saintin •--�� sareshi 9 vision deteul�:`.:>_: ng ris-o ens P. tax wen•-oLack■leC adjoining rights-of-eel, raferencar '.•.},;ry including dimensions boundary described with wt, Street noses and and beuria r atria road 9 and di staaaaa / existing numbers total ge of the tram; shills and p r'_t.... tool11tTer, sT and acreage of Late, Including Including ..} and excluding area within g ` tydr, t . va rTghta7of—sry `4%4 hydransa, rglvu and cantrdt carnur ▪ asnhat's Agiik' prapdsed lot !leer pith g /inn pro dleanaione including alt., sand Cu graced ✓ `' ?•••�'` lot mashers j typical *trent cross-sactions C+- '• phasing Linea end capogreph -r..t including details y es tan Egos (1d] } g deal n intarrela of g and width 'star horizontal end shoulders bodies, streams, flood- alignment and way end floodelein# roads) cur•! scrap duffsrs ..•...•-.- readr Oat' (public *trees and notation V ?Si't iodinating restricted permanent features as development Potaatist buildings. centuries. dh as torashi �4 P. carporwt■ and axtrs- adjoining LSndwLos ;;:rye} territorial planning g Las Jurisdiction lines which nose of adjoining ayout �, toss the property owners end subdivg property location and size Of aioaa le common Peresls daglcitsd for public toes or r •� ` location ens reserved notation sits of loss of restricted development ' on plat regarding ..;;;;4.%,1. rtarasscar management plan Gale Po'tantlat end (tort aaa inch of ent runoff 1nAfcating provision for impervious surfaces ar control of the (GRAY AREAS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 041 1 . Twenty—six (28) copies of the preliminary plat 2. Two fuLL size copies of an Orange County Tax map (one copy with tax percale involved clearly marked) . • 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a Letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system for each Lot. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. , I understand that a $210.00 fee (subdivisions of 15 lots or lass) or a $370.00 fee (subdivisions of 16 lots or more) is due at the time of application. A $5.00 per Lot fee is due at the time the final plat is presented for recordation. AP�ICA ' SIGMA URE NER'S S GNATURE OATS — DATE / FEES: Amount 24t1 as Date Paid 7- '�� Zg--PS Receipt /44 y 2 042 BURNSIDE PARK �BT.LEI�T�.Q1Y_ALL_8XP8�2Y9La_z_ ���ggy�g STAFF ASS IUNMENT: EDDIE KIRK SKETCH PLAN: Received 12-3-85 Reviewed 12-4-85 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 121-86 Reviewed 2-5-86 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed NCDOT: DATE _ CERTIFICATION N/A SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill-Carrboro) : DATE ;$5„_Certification 2VA UTLITIES HILLSBOROUGH - EXISTING SERVICES OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council4,86L1_ ,6_ __(Date) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill __(Date) Carrboro __(Date) Hillsborough 2-1_0-86~4~��� (Date) Durham Other -- (Date) (Date) ---- (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date _ _ Approval _ __ Approval with Conditions __ Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date _ Approval __ Approval with Conditions _ Denial • :@_____:3787,r,--.7s„,��,�. c nw n tlloburau own Clerk Frank H. Sheffield, Jr. tha Johnson HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Water Works Commis.sioners Pander Myron L. Martin graph Horace H. Johnson reet Supt. Allen A. Lloyd . Wagoner Remus J. Smith y ef of Police Rachel H. Stevens d W. Hamlett ire Chief ��,♦� hn Forrest fir_ • April 15, 1986 Orange County Planning Department Orange. County Courthouse Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Sir: In official session on Monday, April 14, 1986, the Hillsborough Town Board adopted the following resolution: Upon motion of Commissioner Stevens, seconded by Commissioner Smith, it was moved and adopted to indicate to the Orange County Planning Board and Orange County Board of Commissioners that the Hillsborough Town Board supports the request of James Rae Freeland to subdivide the five (5) acre tract known as Burnside into two (2) lots. The Town Board asked that the County Board of Commissioners act upon the Town Board's recommendation. Sincerely, Agatha John , Town Clerk cc: Ken Thompson, County Manager 044 Mayor ( oust of EiLisbLI1 UU Frank H. Sheffield, Jr, HILLSBOROUGH, NOR Town Clerk Commissioners NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Agatha Johnson Myron L. Martin Supt. Water Works Horace H. Johnson James Street Supt. Allen A. Lloyd Remus J. Smith 4�►'�''I�; Street Supt. Rachel H. Stevens L.D.ie Wagoner 417;79111`f. Chief of Police Ft's=� Arnold W. Hamlett `�„ 'f`I Fire Chief sr. John Forrest TO: Orange County Planning a FROM: Laura Hill, Planning pt. and Orange County Plannin g Board RE: Courtesy Planning � ��� RATE; y Review of Burnside Park Subdivision February 10, 1986 On February 6, 1986 the Hillsborough Planning Burnside Park Subdivision. There-were Schanges d e proposed the by the Hillsborough Planning were two Ott/se of land g Dept.: I) Amend Note 5 to prepohed Hillsborough within or a floodway state the following; because the subdivision Prevention Y eringe This restricted by the ivision is within Town's ce .planning jurisdiction. uhisdi tis suggested Under the Hillsborough Flood iDama e� Tow Plannin Under Hillsborough g Prevention Ordinance,ce development e . peat the bait within the y�area, if it is a certified g is not be incr shor"'n by S t engineer for the rear eased. 2) Show $inter s the for property line, as required for A- a 25 foot building planning jurisdiction. R zoning districts The Board questioned the flood plain l validity of the location of the floodway shown on the site plan, since. the. dcoY and prior to the flooding of this area in raid-August. site the historical plan was completed and archaelogical significance of lot hn Board also discussed Town is located. Due to the concerns expressed above, 3 recommended denial of the 3, where Occaneechi proposed subdivision. ' the Planning Board • �rutrrf tllr�ru o Mayor ! Frank H. Sheffield, Jr. Town Clerk HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Agatha Johnson Commissioners Shpt, Winter Works Myron L. Martin James Pendergraph Horace H. Johnson Street Supt. Allen A. Lloyd 14* "It* L.D. Wagoner Remus J. Smith �;i,Z,� " Chief of Police Rachel H. Stevens L '4 Arnold W. Hamlett Fire Chief ' i��. John Forrest rte i� r.r--,April 7, 1986 R) ,.. -� ��J TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Burnside Subdivision has been placed on the Hillsborough Town Board's agenda for discussion for Monday, April 14, 1986. It is therefore respectfully requested that this item not be considered at your meeting. Frank Sheffield,s yor Q4 NEC'D APR 16 1986 a. 1ohnson MILLSBORO,Ut H, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Sup.. Water Works .:`mm�t r.�mrterS '-fyron L. Martin James Pendergraph Horace H. Johnson Street Supt. Allen A. Lloyd wi r•�r� L.D. Wagoner Remus J. Smith A.4114 ?y Rachel.H, Stevens :;I,r,�Nr. Chief of Police w w Arnold W. Hamlett • Fire Chief Y �M1 John Forrest u April 15, 1986 Orange County Planning Department .Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Sir: In official session on Monday, April 14, 1986, the Hillsborough Town Board adopted the following resolution: Upon motion of Commissioner Steens, seconded by Commissioner Smith, it was moved and adopted Or indicate to the Orange County Planning Board and Orange County Board of Commissioners that the Hillsborough Town Board supports the request of James Rae Freeland to subdivide the five (5) acre tract known as Burnside into tw+D' (2) lots. The Town Board asked that the County Board of Commissioners act upon th"e Town Boa,d's recommendation. Sincerely, • Agat.a John , Town Clerk cc: Ken Thompson, County. Manager es N, 04i .''A� if STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Greensboro, NC 27429-0278 JAMES G.MARTIN February 5, 1986 GOVERNOR JAMES E.HARRINGTON DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECRETARY Mr. Eddie Kirk Planner Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Kirk: This is in reference to Burnside Park. This development is not located on the State System. We do have any comment. If we can be of any further help please advise. Sincerely, C; -/J. W. Watkins DIVISION ENGINEER JWW/DBK/cb cc: Mr. D. B. Kelly An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer 04 4�i " C (Orange(Immtg Staunton anti Ilark Department 300 West Tryon #i*L. HILLSBOROUGH,N,C.27278 " I.ife.Beinit. MEMORANDUM T0: Eddie Kirk, Planner FROM: Mary Anne Black, Director DATE: March 7, 1986 RE: Courtesy Review -- Burnside park Thank you for meeting with me yesterday to answer my general questions about Burnside Park. Based on my review of the plan/ I offer no comments or recommendations as to this MAB/pbl Hillsborough, 732-9361 • Durham, 688-7333 • Chapel Hill, 968-4501 • Mebane, 227-2032 Area Code 919 �-,r 44, (gunge(�Inun#� creation n larks nrtn�ent ffl sk 300 West Tryon Street C / i► i+s HILLSBOROUGH,N.C.27278 Lif+e.Beinit. ANDTM TO: Eddie Kirk, Planner FROM: Mary Anne Black, Director f DATE: March 4, 1986 RE: Courtesy Review Comments Please pardon my tardiness in getting these comments back to ou r Burnside Park, Oak Rise, and Orange Grove Subdivision. y egarding BURNSIDE PARK Although i am unsure of the purpose for the subdivision of this tract, I am ite concerned about development of any type along the water resource of the Eno River. Please call me immediately to discuss this property. OAK RISE I am unfamiliar with the creek traversing this property but the 100' buffer denoted seems adequate. The denoted Phase V 15' pedestrian easement is too narrow, however. I recommend a minimum of 30 feet. ORANGE GROVE SUBDIVISION I find nothing noted on the preliminary plan map concerning the clearing and/or planting of trees. Are you aware of these plans? I recommend minimal clearing of trees. I appreciate the opportunity to offer these staff comments. I will present my recommendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council on Tuesday, March 4 and will forward to you any changes/ additional comments they may have. MAB/pbl CC: Lorraine Parker, Chair, Recreation & Parks Advisory Council Steven H. Law, Central District Supervisor Brian E. Cox, Southern District Supervisor Hillsborough, 732-9361 • Durham, 688-7333 • Chapel Hill, 968-4501 • Mebane, 227-2032 Area Code 919 05C SITE STUDY BURNSIDE PARK HILLBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 114,44re•x' AROel il: q SEAL. e 7256 Q $ Is'-\!10 l N �'• `� ' mob't�RY SIif'*"";10 • �+piiiiifVffiw Prepared : K. Gary Simmons, P.E. Thompson-Simmons. Inc. 109 East Harden Street Graham, North Carolina 27253 051 Site Study Burnside Park Hillborough, North Carolina The site under study is located at the end of Burnside Drive (a gravel road east of the Court House) and North and East of the Eno River. The property covers 24.99 acres +-. The proposed use of this site is to develop it into a 3 lot subdivision with a minimum lot size of 1.95 acres. One road is proposed to service this site, (Burnside Drive) which will be extended as a cul-de-sac. A site designed within a water supply watershed of regional importance must allow stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces to follow routes that provide as much natural cleansing as Possible before it is discharged into a stream. Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces often Carry significant amounts of oil, nutrients. metals and other pollutants. It is generally the first one-half (112) inch of runoff that'carries the greatest concentration of pollutants. These pollutants can generally be filtered out of the runoff by on-site infiltration through vegetated areas, retention ponds and detention structures. The natural terrain of the site combined with the natural vegetation and a stilling basin used as a detention structure will provide maximum natural cleansing of the stormwater runoff. A low ratio of impervious material to vegetation on a site should result in a lesser amount of pollutants associated with a site. The low density of this site results in a small amount of impervious surface. These surfaces are as follows: 0.28 +1- Acres Gravel Road 0.48 +1- Acres Driveways (1760' X 12") (Existing and Projected Driveway) 0.21 +1- Acres Dwellings (3,000 SF Avg.) 0.97 +1- Acres Impervious Surface This site contains 24.99 Acres, therefore 3.9% of the site will be impervious. This falls well below the allowable 30X. In addition to the low impervious material to vegetation ratio it should be noted that the land within the floodway of the Eno River is almost flat and Supports dense vegetation. This combination of near flat grade and dense vegetation cause the stormwater runoff to have a low velocity which aids the sedimentation of pollutants from the stormwater. This also allows substantial infiltration and filtering of the stormwater. 1 05e Existing stormwater runoff into proposed detention structure is as follows: Existing Impervious Surface Area = 0.25 Acres Runoff Coeff. = 0.95 Intensity of Rain = 7.5 in./hr. 0 = 1.8 cfs Existing Grass and Woodland = 5.15 Acres Runoff Coeff. = 0.5 Intensity of Rain = 7.5 in./hr. G = 19.5 cfs Total stormwater runoff into proposed detention structure after development is as follows: Additional Impervious Surface = 0.42 Acres Total Impervious Surface Runoff Coeff. 0.67 Acres. 0.95 Intensity of Rain 7.5 in./hr. Q = 4.8 cfs Remaining Grass and Woodland = 4.73 Acres Runoff Coeff. = 0.5 Intensity of Rain = 7.5 in./hr. U = 17.9 cfs The total quantity of stormwater runoff flowing into the proposed detention structure before development is 21.3 cfs. After development the stormwater runoff into this area is 22.7 cfs. The difference in runoff ( Q) is 1.4 cfs. The storage for the detention structure is computed by using the formula: Storage = ( 0) 2 (Tc) (60 sec/min) ( Q) = 1.4 cfm Tc = 3.7 minutes Storage = 621.6 cubic feet A small stilling basin will be used as the stormwater detention structure (see Exhibit 1 and 2). This basin will have a 22' controlled discharge of the stormwater. The stilling basin, located as it is in an area which has almost no grade held several times the minimum storage (621.6 cubic feet) . The stilling basin will slow down and detain runoff from this site. This will allow the pollutants to settle. The stormwater passing through rock dem section (see Exhibit 2) will provide further cleansing of pollutants by filtration. 2 05c, The natural terrain and vegetation will provide the Pri mary cleansing of pollutants on this site. The stilling basin with the rock dam section will provide secondary cleansing of pollutants. The low ratio of impervious material to vegetation (3.9%) is acceptable and should allow sufficient infiltration and settlement of pollutants to occur. iv { w N • / C 054 w m / // •e�o£r ft n J ' :%)4.41/.1 ••L ••0I•FP w� i .1%.08141". 4P4,10 84; ."Ni....,,, 9 — ' ."`� \4#i .4'•s 4• y PPS 4�I s O.-. / h\ l'r % F/ r 5 QR‘V S • ..� i i • I P 4 4 -~ N=. ti�0• 0o Ip -.1 i o pLb tI N. 1.1 �i p. f;OZ.r t(1 • N _ to z� 100 '� r N, t•- i 1 * ® I'4,a `-d ` y3M1r 4.11, ,0 ''I c 1*� +1v o 6 ri .4. w °-\;-.017;11 in 15%,. . •z w a N 7,, -... 4Z1\°0 .6. ....• 41� a ail 01 tel --. .. v, I "'g 4y r \ n eq.I: V •■ .1 1 A.........Z.00014,i Ail f e 0)� :1 q. � . F9. . I I a4 aF • ', 4A •f• � W - 'QC 4, • .. 1 a W ; Q � W .] U. n 0) .4 0 l n rn 4 4 EXIBIT 2 05IL- . ' STONE 1 WIOTN ,Sur 10 it Kamm L O. STILLING BASIN DETAIL RUCK DAM DETAIL F-4'-I 3 ,� /4f. -RIP RAP STONE il 1,:':,-411.0mItte.0.0 -,,.„ t, 6'OF 6 FZT£R --"--'11 4 i .. . STONE 11¼ ( �Y ',his to.72•,..,9 ,_„,-,,,,_,,,:a .. }:; w S • - 4.rC x13► f llultliRi.a4 2 2' 05€ DRAFT PB MINUTES 3-17 _86 PAGE 19 water. Smith responded the plat is in order and no other adjustment would need to be made. Gordon noted she felt consistency was important and making Wildwood wait and yet approving this subdivision would be hard to explain. P responded that Wildwood did not have the options of wells given the lot size. Pearson noted serving the site with public water was cheaper than serving the site with individual wells . Horton noted that it was to his economic and marketing advantage to be served by city water. Jacobs noted that staff had recommended an 8" water line . Smith responded that ultimately the line size is up to the Town of Hillsborough. She commented that adding such conditions is redundant and can be misleading given that the utility providers have the final say. VOTE: (Motion to table) 4 in favor. 7 opposed . Motion failed . AMENDED MOTION: Gordon moved approval of the request and in the (By Gordon) event that the developer does decide to with public water that the staff of eed water line be imposed . Kramer wished to add as a condition the reference by the Recreation Department to "appropriate restrictive covenants" . Seconded by Pilkey. Pilkey inquired about underground power lines . Smith responded that this requirement was not enforceable through the current Subdivision Regulations . VOTE: 8 in favor. 2 opposed (Best, Jacobs) —,)4E- f. BURNSIDE PARK - PRELIMINARY Presentation by Kirk . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Burnside Park Subdivision. DRAFT PB MINUTES 3-17 -85 t r PAGE 20 James Rae Freeland has requested approval of a subdivision for 24.99 acres of land located on Burnside Drive off Cameron Street in the Town of Hillsborough . The property in question is known as Lot 7 , Block che C of Tax Map 37 for Hillsborough Purpose of this request is to permit construction of a three (3) lot subdivision. The property is subject to the development standards of the Town of Hillsborough 's Zoning Ordinance. Approval of the request would allow development of a three (3) lot subdivision with one building site . This would generate approximately 10 additional trips per day. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan with six conditions. 1 . The stream buffer requirement, as required in the recently adopted Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance, must be calculated and indicated on the Final Plat . 2 . Amend Note #5 to state the following: "Use of land within a floodway or a floodway fringe is restricted by the Hillsborough Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance ." 3 . Show a 25 food building setback from the rear property line as required for AR zoning districts in the Town 's planning jurisdiction . 4. The sewer line size shall be indicated on the Final Plat . 5 . The existing water line located in the street right-of-way shall be shown on the Final Plat with the size indicated . 6 . The existing archaeological dig on lot #3 should be shown on the Final Plat. Kirk noted that the only building site is Lot #2. Kramer inquired about an option by UNC to purchase Lot 13. Kirk responded he thought that lot had already been sold . O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 058 Meeting Date -gP IL_22.2_19B6 SUBJECT: Z-2-86 ORANGE COUNTY INVESTORS Action A enda Item DEPARTMENT: PLANNING _ PUBLIC HEARING Yes -.Z_ No Attachment(s) SEE 2-24-86 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA PACKET ormation Contact SUSAN SMITH DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT 2-24-86 DRAFT 2-24-86 PB I PUMINU BLC HEATES RING MINUTES DRAFT 3-17-86 Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider the rezanin Investors for a rezoning request submitted by Orange County approval . To receive the March 17, 1986, Planning Board recommendation. This item was submitted to public hearing on February 24, 1986. NEED: Orange County Investors is requestin property located at the southeast corneraofg the rintersection of rezoning of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) and Interstate-85 In Cheeks Township. The property is known as Lot 20C and P!0 Lot 20 of Tax Map 28 for Cheeks Township. The parcel contains 19.5 acres or 849,420 square feet. The property is located within an area designated Twenty Year Transition and Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node in the West Orange Area Plan amendment to the Orange County Land Use Plan adopted in 1984. The present zoning of the property is Residential-1 (R-1 ) . The property is also subject to the Protected Watershed-Ii (PW-2) and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) overlay zoning districts► standards. The applicant is requesting a genera rezoning to General Commercial-IV (GC-4) . A general rezoning to General Commercial-IV (GC-4) for 75. 1 acres was denied on January 7, 1985, Q5 , Z-2-86 Orange County Investors Page 2 IMPACT: Rezoning of the property would increase the amount of area zoned for commercial purposes within the designated activity node and would allow for expansion of the existing commercial use or alternatively, the subdivision of the property into individual lots for commercial development. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommended denial of the general rezoning request. Staff further suggested that development of this site upon submittal and approval of a planned development rezoning request is preferable to a general rezoning request given recognized existing and potential traffic impacts resulting from the current and expanded use of the site, the location of the site within a designated protected water supply watershed and the desire to provide as much protection to the quality of local water supply in the site development process, and County policies (MTC district) directed at the establishment of and compliance with aesthetic standards along major entranceways into the County within the COunty's planning jurisdiction. The Planning Board recommends denial of the request. NOTE: Rezoning of the site to GC-4 may not be considered until the Board has acted on the. proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Article 4 Section 4.2.11b) 1 . which specifically provides for the application of the GC-4 district to Cheeks Township. This amendment was also submitted to public hearing on February 24, 1986. The Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed ordinance text amendment. 06, C 120 ,/ . ; Ill I il ilhii _2-c47„ 943: Af' 18°7 1)00 IC 3 AC,1 1 , h 1 1 ■ ._-_-., \ • ':---------'---- :-----=-_-• --- ____ -----_______L____ \ ^ \ • \ I• \ M \ SEE MAP 26 APPLOIRCAANNTGE: OCROANUGNETCYOUINNTVYEISNTOERSTSORS LUP\ 111.0 Commercial-Industrial Transition, -- PW-11 Zoning District: R-1 Requested Zoning District: GC-4 il • Scale: 1" . 400 N ' \Ilk, --------7"-----"5------""'"/-L\---- ---- —3/111111"1"-- -— N----1 _.— .--------=--__ 2 , --- ' --•:".. gA04 14 , 2 ,-. 427• 111111 . - --.7._•_- - _- I 1376 AC 6 itl'Sbilli';',1111111110—, 111— 61) li 1 ik , , LL); ... ,... . .... 1 -1 , 5 • • 2c. .... 1 - 7 i Quo 2......„) 3 d AC ,.-_.% •, .---- , \13) ilik----, imp *raorr. / .937--,-...313 AC 1 2 S.-3'5 V.,47,1 . 931 ._,5C'.1818 ,,-:‘, -'461,3- '4,:L-",:-. I / ! , r__------Tr- ' - 1_94 .-:', t---.482ms _= _, 79;3 r-- ,___. • ---—'''--.- 4C L I \ \ 7 4762 .„:.6';;r.., ._._2-----_---. ..,.._---7666 6 • „. , _ ;EI ,_ ,./:::-•.t., .- ---- 1 '3\,-.6j. 2631 457 6.'757757_5-...,....,650-19:" I ■!--i - • i ',-."A 1.58 AC O." 359 I -- c3 7, , ::A° , /7' -.:- reol, _ ,“C 2,414.., ----, . I ---___ -294A-.., M? DLSTVC.' WC, DieritiCr ll - , , . -7 -----""-'-----------. .-... 4.11".01■0•■■ ill i I■1 ra 3 ..----7----__. N.- --- ----------:L.-:----_-:-7-----________ ---, " •. ., '967 ' _ ------ - 1 , -____---.--.• -X.21-.--55se . . _ 3. ---.„.„ --__,,___84_,,,- ..____________,. ,-.--, :___I___, -_ _ •_ •---:-.-.,------- --:7:777. _, __ ---=---- ..,' '— •=2-,-- .......... \111 4..4.,tarriv;•-0-.;.-- ,e•. i\ Oi%`"' , ..;;,. '''''''..•• ---, ...,1-',- 5..? i \ \ en- E.,;Fci , 65' s„ Absh) fvf,‘ ,.., .... • .40- .; "-A.", Z ,, *"--f,= =--. a. to / ...-:%,4' 4‘..4.44 It).f ROVE i:'," RD. i a.4 ...‘. :-L, .,3 ,„,..--'`"; 0°'..''.4, .'\:.el 19,111V'4i." `.1‘,..1 -i`•z' g r. -...V.._;• ....S-. 1 -:-..„; i .,-, J '-..,•. Tv --- , OSA----4"--- --\.- \ <-7). , :2 1!...' --. 41 — , ''''''&1 '.4 "1 al, •4,4'0.12:-.; .....;5....01 .1.1,9,. ,.' 7.''' -4/ -,,, . .i.V c, 3°490 c• .-'Z .. ' caie .etse\ •_ _ RN Clat /147.,pe \ I _.> M 1,0 .Z•41.. 1 t/ V Ei 4 g 1'e—N, _ ,2 2 = _ ,., er7A7- _ — ts Ist a R,4.6-5,t.l. __,4,...i.-__---.? • ---, - .. •-• y S 2 i-. i .s. 41 0 . ,... Q# \AILL s - a -,. tz A/1r _1 CO . i --1 -■ Ij5 u■ .z.- -.9 4 \ E a 13 • le .•49,1%,0 w. , 0 ad o / • 0,4 _ ,.....,. . ,.....,„ 7....,..., ,., • ,..„ it ,-., oRA GE --.10r70' t $29 77111 dna 8" I — x A ..-1...A = . 4. CO7 0 0. 1 /I :54 el I t N. r? cf I- et. wt .■• %. 0 06..... .4011 i e.. ZI. 4...•' 1111111 al 4-‘"? I -40:- c34.' .... ooc*" ...w•= --.. 6 LIttvoi.:2 c5S" •-• • 442, 4.t., ;`,3 *----, — -.... or-q5. •.t.e _i t2 re• N. in "••■ 13 ,,t, 7iC'''''''' -J ,c1; / 'fre'. --- .3::-.;t.q4;Zp,Z,A _7..._ ..•.. a de .... = i'l .08 ......... _ N e. .• - —,,,,.... '. .....el .—....•,. 4'—......-.—...... ‘1W ., : .— . :-.-- 11,■,. ......... i..:...—-... ..-...................- ,=,......- -,,,- ....no- 5. i.t,': 4,. ''..•_.. ISIT.R.AL . , ...:„:-_,7.,2,,,,. / , . 27. :::: . .... , . - - , s, I a , I a 'Z' .... -.• al eg ,C■ 170 ultimo._ f''4,, ....,,, z .... / co to ,....n ...1-. .'''' 7: I rs-14 I v :.;\ 06 Z 1.1 0 ck, . N 46\ - - ...„ / ... . 1 / ...., _..... N. •til M S DODSON'S CROSS'.AD3 ..., NOR ■ C 04 cv 48 AlOrOk ..IOWA IL' 111 \ I 47N,/ Ilr: •■•:N 'CR I t.,) .0 CM ,..1 . 4e1 \ c3 ,..., 11. M- IC.,.....24 0. M ...,.0 C,4 tt, N it .1@ 21. 3 P.• %. g ,Cr -C? , . 1 I .... D .. 3/089 ..'.7 ' er a I a \ . cIP I de a de \ I 1L5 ....? 'hiP.'‘ 14. .',c,,,, ) ‘. \ .9. . 1 c, fte) ff .:). ....'e 0 =7., lill d 4. ".....' PI° I i-- ;:.701filey Suloolos -› •. is:, .00 $ • --.4 #to , .1 dr ad 0 St' tf."I I -...., p... It „WOOD! :-.' •,,,* 1E .4- 11. ,,....,..s. . ,,,...., . ...., .4, ,..7 ';.• Z".. \ VVI WM 11 lariaai In -;;Z".. = ....'l CI .= -Nd M8°144099 ..- ,„,, -DO .•.• N I d = - - -a I ea P Tie •= = Ne... ,1 Z2 Val . 0 OM , ■ Ca 4. ,.., c, -..- - er . = V. ,... ';',. 6.. .............. .......". ...,-- .. ■ i ,0 LoitAL_10.. RD. 12•14 . c...) ..... ■ g 4L '... -,.. .....--. N...1% ..... (). m P 1 de '.• ZY .1004 ‘'‘ "':*.: `,72 x SHAIABLEY 0, R D. ;;e1-1•7W110.-- - A AT __ 41J ,.,. d :.. d■ t‘...' 1:", tt-te' c• "N N... h•• cc cr• ,.. ,A) g z--- su.• ,,.• ..-- .1 vocf- ry—' uPoo., co G,.• ,..... .... s.,. ,.. ,e,.. .0 . ..., .1 X 4 ', • = 'Z.? 1\1 'QV .::...„...„ lliu g. . ■ ■?-; /IT .. ..,4.......!Pz 4,tocd0 -6 ,. ...... Z.,.C41., ........... 47 2--• , .... --., a.-- N ,:i. p . ' •" 42,211 LI—E-1".„ NAtxrctEss - l'' ''‘ a - o R D. 0-...."\s '..„ --- 0 ----- -ot+ Z i 1 ..,.... • I.. ',..i .... 'i ;a4KW000 Err '' 'al \.... ZIVO-...7,a,.7.7 .• i N :;■;A\ . ■ ;a..€)• : :=0-: 0, N./ '',7 A V 7 .7. . . . , Obi ?E ITION We, the undersigned residents and/or property owners in the Mebane/Buckho -ammunity, feel the Jockey Lot has been an asset to our community and has demonstrated a sincere desire to be a good neighbor . we feel it is unreasonable to classify the E3uckhorn Jockey Lot as a noncomforming use when it is located so close to Interstate 85 and other commercial establishments. We in the community do not object to this business and believe this area should be rezoned for commercial activity. Name ryJ,, 77,_ Address ✓ ee.,3- )51+4',F9 ,f&aec.✓r_� i✓e 77r Z Name ..'. . Address .?T 6 ,S,,,,, X36 /)2Esistis NC' /7.30"z- Name - i' .. r.77. _1��" Address -,re , a ,4 ere _ "4..i.., C Name - pC--62,(5-tI • Address -, - Name eiPPgrAnWN!ft-.__ Address iFT /7701A i5 /:i!'4..- ' . .754'.7-. Name ' . �. . .,,i[. i � Address :,.- Ax k: lrlc� . Name 1"x'1 are .4....,, Address T. ). Ea, il(=14 4,1 40_4.-4,,,„,,,... r•.« Name AMMOMPAMMARL. Address e, -7, rj o v 3,7 --yrt„,/,_„.,...t we. Name 11)j�l� �•_. ._ Address RT/ /56.54 37 r lzv4 1.f.(:' Name ' �. Address , 7.07L-e4-64.1......e.: ').i ce:-g 12 3, Name _�Q Address ,rr/,,p�.,.,,,,x,,_ ni f1, ,�t-r Name ,f1 e--1,.... Address 12170 1:7-.6 -flub CM.E+.P 14111baes9v5 Name • Address . S r-' .�A , _, e., - . 12,1% Name , -le /`!_ , •.s Address R/yt4Axr.a., /hz6.�,vP ,c�G Name/,, ►• .eL . -_ Address j,_ - • dF - Name -,' • ' , Address p_i_5, •6.0095 tl.'r..(.z , 7e,e, , Name k ,_J,IIPWR1a13WAR/_i Address Jo, :. ?.,2 ,e . Name 1:7 71j4l/i1J1,'" Address , ) ,' Aar7 M, e °_C. Name ;�!�t.�l�ll,l_ � � Address LAO.' F . ' ,.. ..i. . E Nam . �trrl, n�_' _ Address '! :, i - Name-` ( //'4,, Address /7 7i-/ - ,LI r P, �r� Name /r/,%• . .►R 1' Address '1- / s://.5,`-,., ,v6-- Name . iOW, _1 Address 4. / r .y 5' p i' _ ) AI-C. Name " "* ,,. Address ' . ��_ . -t, • w,„ - Name Address s 177' . go>. /. -47 lJ7e r1co_ Name 4/,11'4_ �' .5 ,//r,pr/ Address „e,7,1,, /.3°,r ilvb...,.r,¢ Ai G Name ,. - Address r a A 1l,c-.d . ..1 Name ,�1, x. (+_1EN '" Address 2ffirairs.•.. sittaL(]+ aa -uQ ith Name ~" 4 _ Address ' L . M f' ■ � -Name `yh s ,• - _ Address ;r; .�, i =_- ,i ✓ ,z,.. Name.,." _ Address , " << < 4.. Name ' . i 9_ ,/ J,.P Address.x7.,r,& o G0.S- Ail e-,r' Ale, �V e,.7-73'?-. Nam�ey.� ..r,• � Address s .�G�-- /di y�<? Q1 C�2,,l� Name •1L Address F. .. 1 . 4ao�.,.. k Name . .e,,t.C,z . . roc. Address •t. y• Sax •07&-A ,Meta.ae /kir a 7.3v a. Name-6,„,,, 1 • Address Ii i, -I / \ i 1 , 1 1 Name ',P Address eta?_ ,'3azt cc tr,da,,. ,,Iv, 2'(3d 2-- Address,:NNaam me /!rE7 •- .� . ru/ Address ,p �4 S cj°l2'� .t, c Name sl._Lr., a AL.1,..- , - Address ,2 bo // 7�f Name ' DA,ni a eQ,-�� Address a7- •■ - 4 - 5-. •t - Q . Name , :_• u . A__:,_ Address A Z ,A „ -G a 9 34 Z Name r 7 S I r Address I/3y z , 1.1'• ,z,ti,L, ,,,C. r'77 tr Name C ..Q . (,/cva-t-t.a Address, D 5a : 1'7-4-_. ://C. 1_1&z- Name: , -;_� i) Address -fi-�. / ,_�, �,c. 1.-) �,Q2_. Name ', . . /.,,/% .t r')...__ Address/po r?- 4c/IS'..76.ZD ,1.1C_ 7'727: Name' Address Name Address Name Address Name Address PETITION We, the undersigned customers of the Buckhorn Jockey Lot, have always found the flea market to be a safe, enjoyable and profitable place to visit. We feel the Jockey Lot is an asset to Orange County and asked that the Commissioners for Orange County approve the rezoning requested by the Jockey Lot to a commercial designation. We do not know of any reason why the zoning request should be denied. • Name f $ ,,�.� Address 1,i r Name --' ,_fit /_1' Address I �+ Name I�J,dl1 / Address G7�►' Name �+ .._ Address Name _'' Address pp./4.p_ Namd � AIr 1 Address ,�L.l d,...�s-rP� Na = ... i �. 7j Address , ,, i Name//��ff' n , Address / Nam-` R � Address �, . I 1 ,. Name J s� - F^-�- Address -'� - :,- �` t!-; Add r N_ :.- * Sf Address . L . Name _ — Address .. „ Name . 1?�' � �_ . �, Address al ��_� Name Address s Name ►�_ r Address ",/►�'� 4" " _ C. • Name M�3�7.' 9'��i��W!�4.Q Address Name '►s' '1 '!I Address !"'���-��f . C Name ' . - Address Name ( e ,, C,.,, 4. Address Name I �L_ _� __, Address Name 4,40/411111/t? - Address idled ' t Nam= r '.r. 1� !" —� Address 72.4-3--4o�. fF4- ,+Ar_f3#-,.4 ifetr Name 1Jtt,�!'�" �11�f�, Address lei c y_ �Lrd r��=l��,�� a4 C, Name ,1 _ 4r _ hl� Address .w. . . •r a Name J► • - �• i • Address �'r Yi �� -n 4 .•. Name v. �ia�l\ •Z� ► Address ".• m•. .. 1 . �_.� .�`'Y'�.C'-, Name •.,7". �s«Fia•/_ _� Address •-r a,c3 /p 7}vALIA/L1 /Y•C Name •%(/J � 1 Address . Name p� ca - Address 4 oZ , Name �. , , _ _ Address t _AV*** _ Name �gj►. J1.k Address .- 'vc ) ,-ec .. �fiu+�� ,Jc 2-7S,,( Nam- ._.._ -. Address • { ' .1 7.�12.S3 Nam- Ai0- . r __ Address .s, ri _ �,' _ .�. k- C-. -GA Name? Rc'alx; 4-,nom".�-, Address 1*. Y1a,^Yt uC Name d da dazibr e w Address Prw 0(7'2) d'441-1 (ti, Ur Name Ae.)Ai, 4,-p Yr�` Address 2 -� t� cx� Y1 , t-� !,� Name �'( ' , Address Z • - Name V d Address / r, Name Jr i Address ,¢ Name r ' ,�j��-V Address — - C Name J uL.,. �' Address • 4,0a x • Name ,,. �� J ; , Address 6tif w r f _4Jr j� Nam-.."i a.,.. r, _ .r .e .�1 Address d . lame ." ` t � � � Address 'r' c) -13 i b t j u t Name.,' Address "r , -�_, A_Zef Name ... ( , Address •. -' _ G Name Address Name ..1-0 A# ',v1F Address _ Name Address )11 0 ,} ` �r � _• , ! I DETITION 064 We, the undersigned dealers at the Duckhorn Jockey Lot, hereby petition the Commissioners for Orange County to approve the rezoning of the property upon which the Buckhorn Jockey Lot is situated. For over a year the Jockey Lot has operated without proper signage which is not allowed under a nonconforming use according to the Planning Department. This has prevented the Jockey Lot from reaching its potential and becoming a bigger asset for the County. We sincerely believe if the flea market is rezoned for commercial activity so certain improvements and signage can be installed , the flea market will become one of Orange County' s best assets. Name 4, f Address pAiyc,Li „PO Na _ -,_,KJ . _ '--- Address _ , ,_ ,, Name Jr 'Ir . , Address/'i -., 1 G' Z76- Name ,G,,VV, /�. Q Address! A,. .t - T 91 1 Name /a /, ( , ,z, Addressed Sr,,oro,Z /.- /ego/. . .ALA. 'c Name / „fJ i..V e..-- Address -re-J.-e . r<d. .� . .. 'L7 e' Name / +. ,-_ Address 1 _ , �1. 1A .r � �/.��J� ��� Name jf111111f��� f Address ,vim Name t/� U `� _ Address. 3o'S J"�=" .`,Ze Name d •res ` 6, 9� -, -�.-. 6 Nam=/ter ar i / i :r. % - Addres& t5 2 ' fAir/f/�, 4 0..73417- Name ✓/ �1IIN 1_'+ ' Address „ . .;momir .�_' - c- Nam=+0K JL'�3-° _ - Address /o/ -. / rI /1 �../e, 1,774'3 Name f�,,,",19, ,�j,. .- .7" Address S,,/; ._ .ar_ Name , , , _,,.,_ Address 43x1,,J yi C f , J.. /ex /ff44/44 x7,215 Name _4;,,,, Address 44 (esf�"�, „► .a-27.3<eiK- Name ., _'*'� 1r '- Address. /f � " . c' Name ,P4 Address 3G /-it,.4�, r, .rte`i.ae o Wit: .274,442 Name .1sfi,,1/.i�.4' '� Address ,`�d.? ,g�fcP51 •[7. Name ♦;, j j Address �� 0,.. . ,g,•, ,4, r to ,v.,. Nam ��,, r Address _ ap / rr yi fi' Na -:Er. lt'.3 i/ - Address 10 L• __ ,7j-e. Name t� ! .... = .51 `►'`� `��- Address ,C. 1. j .e ,f/G- Nam- �' `! Address•.: t45 '+E�3'r`.T.�"!�� . C/ 7 Name,, f .�'��/!1)l�►! Address _ ,,_.,.' � ,y/G Nam- 1, 3 ' „d �_ ( Address ' Name ' 0- .., �r'3....t.a Address fig. _� /, _. `.i c- Name "Address ! _ t. '. .. ' 4 . , 'df.G- Name -y,-, ..., _...17. 111115.�_�.,_ ..._ A_7!a#r Address , +' :+ll:' - . /+/ C' . Name �,i,. I � r'�"�iI Address . , - �C:9 (!_;', ' ,i :C.). Name ,.�. Address yo j-- ;..e,..4_,,,,,_,,,,0/3 /5 vrt,,4„..„...,,..0,,, ,el c fir Address /17,,,‘A 6 \2 g.. .�.et,..e.. ( , 4 Name r 1 &14--"kc,.N•c. Address Name , ep �,,,,,.- Address/,r4/ l7,v q�i r^ .¢e0 t /=dcz.1,v. - Name ... Address _ S-..7Z; [,1zc� . _ _ Nam %+jig_ Address T. , ,e,7)�/,! Name7.4% ., -t .1F./.--_-_,,,--� . Address ,, .14t.,. _•., Wit, _ - --77 r Name /r--aalliw Address - 7 .4,-,,, .5-v.� ter._ .-.. Name '. Address y.r _. r,4.f , ,. _ f Name ,afrAr�,I �.I�/_ Address ;* MIP' s x . - - yf ; 7 Name r -L- "-- -� Address o. n a .r,/ ,''.2-7J`~GS- Name , _ 2±-2,---\ �„ ,, C __Address Name /'ate `>tf ..4--ea Address .ryas/i4 .-,./=,A- '- Gl/- /'T ?; yr 7 r 'yam .- Address" ,, . -. I° -6 r} Name { h Address - J C. / L, s _ Name - `..�; - Address - -r Na.ne ,,,E.-, - Address--,, 2 -...4i, i"r'- � 41-c- Nau;e .rte . .i Address .aa ., ,. / ' - .- 06c Phone: 919/732-8105 P. 0. Box 907 Hillsborough, NC 27278 January 17, 1985 D-11 - FM -Project - Orange County Ellison, James T. Mr. James T. Ellison Route # 2, Box 53 Mebane, North Carolina 27302 Dear Mr. Ellison: Ray Nichols and I enjoyed meeting with you about your forestry project. Please keep this report on file as you may need it later for tax pur- poses. At this time all the land on your tract of approximately seventy-five acres has been cut using a full-tree chipper which not only full utilized all the trees but also effectively cleared the land of undesirable species such as Virginia pine and scrub hardwood. This area is now in excellent shape to plant faster growing Loblolly pines. In most cases, site- preparation after logging is necessary which can cost anywhere from $6.00 to $90.00 per acre depending on what is needed. You have avoided this cost with the chipper. Loblolly pines should be planted on a seven by ten foot spacing. I have contracted with F. L. Cobb of Caswell County, whom you have met, to plant this area for you. He will be using improved seedlings grown by the N. C. Forest Service. The cost of this project will be $55.00 per acre including labor and seedlings. We have applied for 40% cost-share funds under the Forest Development Pro- gram and will contact you as soon as we are notified if money is available or not. This tract will be eligible for the Orange County Forest Land Use Tax break. Should it be planted after you have owned the tract for three years, it would qualify. This must be applied for in January of that year at the Orange County Tax Office, and you may need to produce this plan for their inspection. The Forest Service will supervise the planting of your trees and take aerial slides for acreage determination after complete. You should expect your first pulpwood thinning operation in fifteen to twenty years. This is important as it releases the remaining pines for 06 t i'fi- T,:‘,,..TH ,:. State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development 512 North Salisbury Street•Raleigh,North Carolina 27611 James G.Martin, Governor S.Thomas Rhodes,Secretary Phone: 919/732-8105 P. 0. Box 907 Hillsborough, NC 27278 January 13, 1986 D-11 FM Project - Orange County Ellison,. James Mr. James Ellison Route # 2, Box 53 Mebane, North Carolina 27302 Dear Mr. Ellison: We have checked the survival of the pines which were planted on your property last spring. A satisfactory number of seedlings were found. There were four hundred and fifty seedlings per acre found. These pines should be checked in fifteen years for a possible pulpwood thinning. Should you have any questions or if we may be of further service, please contact Bradsher Bowling, Orange County Forest Technician. ineerely, ryh- ames T. Service Forester JTE:jjh cc : Bradsher E. Bowling, Orange County Forest Technician P.O.Box 27687.Raleigh,North Carolina 27611-7687 ;riephone 919.733-984 7ATF. cs, �u -' - State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development 512 North Salisbury Street•Raleigh,North Carolina 27611 James G.Martin,Governor S.Thomas Rhodes,Secretary January 29, 1985 y� i � 3n4c , 3 - .11 -8C James T. Ellison ' Rt 2 Sox 53 Mebane, NC 27502 Dear Mr. Ellison: Cost share funds in the amount of $ 1,680.00 , which you requested for tree planting only under the Forest Development Program, have been approved for this use. Your application number is 85-830 _ . The planting must be done and payment made by June 30, 1985. Actual payment to you will be made at the rate of 40% of actual cost or 40% of the prevailing rate as shown on your application, whichever is less. Payment will be made upon certification by our representative of satisfactory completion of the work and receipt of an invoice. If you have questions, please contact your Forest Service represen- I ' G tative or this office. -K- vv Sincerely, ti. �Q2 1 :7 / H. J. Green Director cc: D-11 Orange P.O.Box 27687.Raleigh,North Carolina 276IL7687 Telephone 919-733-4984 jCo/-?/:-5 7g gc FcnCS ?p'rGJL An equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 733- O6 l00 W,Tryon Street • ccimty 7328181 angy 732•9381 est.305 Chapel Hit line 967-9251 1 i (01314411 HEALTH DEPARTMENT Mebane fine 227.2032 Wham One 688.7333 688-7331 Carr t3l Mall,Suite 225 100 N.Greensboro Street Candor°,N.C.27510 9424168 Jerry Robinson, M.P.A. Director January 28, 1986 Orange County Planning Board Margaret Lane " Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Attn: Ms. Susan Smith Dear Ms. Smith: It has been brought to my attention that the Buckhorn Flea Market, ' Route 2 Mebane has applied for commercial rezoning. The food stand at Buckhorn Flea Market, "Hot Dog Heaven" has been in compliance with the "Rules Governing the Sanitation of Restaurants and Other Foodhandling Establishments Section .0400" since their permit was issued on November 21, - 1984 and has obtained a Sanitation Grade A Rating above 94.0%. In my work- ing relationship, the owners and management have been cooperative in meet- ing suggestions and guidelines recommended by the Orange County Health Department. Please be in contact with me if I may be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Kaye J. Snipes, R. S. Environmental Health Section KJS:bb cc: Mr.. C. A. Laws Mr. Tom Darnell 06 zr-4.-utzaul,121,L4 Trittunertz 228 South Churton Street • Phone 732-8156 Hillsborough NC 27278 Elton B. Casey Executive Vice President February 5, 1986 Barry Jacobs Chairman Orange County Planning Board Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Chairman and Board Members: One of the purposes of Chamber of Commerce organizations everywhere is to promote business growth, tourism, and increase the number of folks who visit the community in which the organization exists. The Buckhorn Jockey Lot and Farmer's Market, Route 2, Mebane, at the intersection of I-85 and Buckhorn Road has, in my opinion, done just that. The management there is a chamber member, the operation, as far as I know, has been clean and successful . It also has brought new faces to our community. I ask that you give them every consideration to their request for a zoning change, for I feel the presence of Jockey Lot has been a plus for the area. I thank you in advance for this consideration. Sincerely, L 6 0 Joe Crews, President Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce S(i^ii' -!1^*n rin i..l ilt r+,�.r•,..m. .,w.+...-,.1 2'�...,...n..n :�.....,-i...d ':k.. T1:.... 07C - Jlamonce - count chamber of commerce February 7, 1986 Mr. Barry Jacobs, Chairman Orange County Planning Board Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Jacobs: I have the utmost respect for what you and the Orange County Planning Board are doing to insure proper and orderly growth for your county. I also realize our organization has no legal right in suggesting ways for you to administer plans for your county, but it is necessary for me to make a plea on behalf of Buckhorn Jockey Lot that you please consider favorably their rezoning request. Having watched this business as both an Alamance County Chamber of Commerce member and as a business in your county, I feel they are an asset to the area. The area in which they are located seems to be destined for commercial and industrial growth, and with proper gui- dance from you we can all benefit. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 4 1 William C. Wilburn Executive Vice President 1GGRLOI-= 071 THE REVEREND 3.BRYAN GRISWOLD OFFICE ?RI EST 919/578-3623 (9191 489-9801 SAINT ANDREW'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH P.O.BOX 346.EAST MAIN STREET HAW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA 27258 February 16, 1986 MR. THOMAS DARNELL Buckhorn Jockey Lot Route 2, Box 53 Mebane, N. C. 27302 Dear Mr. Darnell: The congregation of Saint Andrew's Episcopal Church in Haw River would like to thank you for making available to us free facilities to accommodate the sale of our brunswick stew in February of 1985 and again in November of 1985. We also appreciate your help in putting us in touch with the right people to obtain the proper Health Department permission for the sale of food on the premises . By using your lot we were able to reach more of the public than we would have otherwise. Thank you again for your kind help and support of this project. Very truly yours, J. G. TATE Clerk of the Vestry Copy to: L. M. Cianci , Senior Warden Father Griswold 137( DURH-IAM-ORANGl~ COMPOSITE SQUADRON 32090 NORTH CAROLINA WING-CIVIL AIR PATROL f UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY Cg 39 FLINT RIDGE APT. HILLSBOROUGH.NORTH CAROUNA 27278 RPLY.ATTN. TO: CC 18 December 1985 SUBJECT: Fund Raising TO: Tom Darnell Buckhorn Jockey Lot and Flea Market 1. I wish to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to you and your staff in regard to the hospitality and support you have given to our squadron in an effort to raise much needed funding at your facility. 2. If we can ever be of service to you, please feel free to contact me or Captain Belch at your convenience. RESPECTFULLY, Hoyt Crabtree, Captain, CAP-USAF Commander Q7 -.Mount Zion n 2apiisi Gtssocia&ion Robin Davidson,Director of Christian Social Ministries 307 W.Harden Street Post Office Box 798 Residence (919)226-0249 GRAHAM,NORTH CAROLINA 27253-0798 (919)929-7624 December 30, 1985 Mr. Tom Darnell Manager, Buckhorn Jockey . Lot and Farmer's Market Route 2, Box 53 Mebane, N.C. 27302 Dear Mr. Darnell : Please accept this letter of appreciation for the space you have provided to the Mount Zion Baptist Association, free of charge, each Saturday since July 1985. Through the space you have provided, the Association has been able to make avail able free Bibles and other Christian literature and tracts to anyone at the flea market desiring such material. We are grateful for all you have done to assist the Association An its mtntstry. Thank you. Sincerely, n , . I 1 ;, Robin Davidson ;;r 1 ,, 074 PAGE 21 DRAFT PB MINUTES 3-17 -86 Yuhasz questioned condition #6 . Smith responded this was an existing feature which needed to be identified on the plat . Kizer questioned the Town Board 's denial . Smith responded it was denied on the basis of the concern with protecting the archaelogical dig on Lot #3 . Ownership of this lot will be transferred only if the subdivision is approved. Another reason for denial was the flooding that occurred in mid-August of 1985 which suggested discrepancies in the federal flood maps . MOTION: Pilkey moved denial in accordance with the Town of Hillsborough recommendation. Seconded by Gordon. VOTE: 7 in favor . 4 opposed (Kizer, Pearson , Shanklin, Yuhasz) Kizer noted that he felt there were no grounds for denial. Land can be subdivided; whether or not it is developed is another matter . He continued that the Hillsborough review is courtesy review and not a finding in our Subdivision Regulations . Smith noted that the issuance of a zoning permit for development of the lots and enforcement of the Hillsborough Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance was under the Town's control . AGENDA ITEM 9a1 ; Z-2-86 ORANGE INVESTORS - REZONING � r Presentation by Smith. The purpose of this agena item is to consider the rezoning request submitted by Orange Investors for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners . This item was submitted to public hearing on February 24, 1986 . Orange Investors is requesting a general rezoning of property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) and Interstate-85 in Cheeks Township. The property is known as Lot 20C and P/O Lot 20 of Tax Map 28 for Cheeks Township . The parcel contains 19.5 acres or 849 ,420 square feet . The property is located within an area designated Twenty Year Transition and Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node in the West Orange Area Plan amendment to the Orange County Land Use Plan adopted in 1984. 074 DRAFT PB MINUTES 3-17 -86 PAGE 22 The present zoning of the property is Residential-1 (R-1 ) . The property is also subject to the Protected Watershed-II (PW-2) and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) overlay zoning districts' standards. The applicant is requesting a general rezoning to General Commercial-IV (GC-4) . A general rezoning to General Commercial-IV (GC-4) for 75.1 acres was denied on January 7 , 1985. Rezoning of the property would increase the amount of area zoned for commercial purposes within the designated activity node and would allow for expansion of the existing commercial use or, alternatively, the subdivision of the property into individual lots for commercial development. The Planning Staff recommends denial of the general rezoning request. Staff further suggests that development of this site upon submittal and approval of a planned development rezoning request is preferable to a general rezoning request given recognized existing and potential traffic impacts resulting from the current and expanded use of the site, the location of the site within a designated protected water supply watershed and the desire to provide as much protection to the quality of local water supply in the site development process , and County policies (MTC district) directed at the establishment of and compliance with aesthetic standards along major entranceways into the County within the County's planning jurisdiction. MOTION: Kizer moved denial of the rezoning request . Seconded by Best. Pearson inquired how traffic could be better addressed through a planned development . Smith responded further road improvements could be required . Shanklin noted that at one time two entrances were to be recommended . Kizer responded that NCDOT recommended only one entrance and exit . Smith noted that staff had not recommended two driveways . Orange Investors has been refused approval of requests for an additional driveway in order not to allow expansion of a non-conforming use . VOTE: 6 in favor. 3 opposed (Pearson, Shanklin, Yuhasz) 2 abstained (Kramer & Margison - not in attendance at the public hearing) ORANGE COUNTY O7E BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE: APRIL 22, 1986 ACTION AGENDA ITEM n� SUBJECT: PROPOSED FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO *************************************C *** * ********** CONTACT: Marvin Collins ATTACHMENTS: SEE 2-24-86 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA PACKET DRAFT 2-24-86 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES 3-17-86 CONSENT AGENDA ITEM - NO PB MINUTES TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *********************************************************************** PURPOSE: T oc nsie Orpi se odr proposed ittext paamendments to the Flood Damage e To receive the Planning Board's recommendation of March 17, 1986. This item was submitted to public hearing on February 24, 1986. This item was tabled by the Board at the April 17, 1986 meeting. NEED: The Federal Emergency Management Agency has notified Orange County of rules changes In the National Flood Insurance Program floodplain management criteria. The rule revisions became effective January 1 , 1986. Certain provisions are not included in the existing ordinance. The proposed amendments must be made and submitted to the FEMA Regional Office by July 1 , 1986. IMPACT: The proposed text amendments, if approved would bring the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance into compliance with changes in Federal regulations. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the proposed amendments. 10 PRESENTATION BY STAFF Director of Planning Marvin Collins referred to agenda items So and 6a and 6b. Article $.1. 1 is the schedule for residential development anal refers to the required minimum recreation space ratio. The proposed amendment to the Subdivision regulations would require the dedication (or provision) of recreation facilities or a payment in lieu. The proposed amendment contains a formula for the computation of requ.i}_ed recreation and/or open space area. The reason for the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text is that in the AR, R-1, R-2, R-3,, anel' R-4 zoning districts there are no recreational space requirements. There are recreational space ratios for planned development. Recreational space ratios have also been added for non-residential uses in residential areas. These were based on the that already exist in the zoning ordinance. Marvin Collins summarized the proposed changes that would provide for recreation space and school sites in new subdivisions, and establish guidelines for the creation of homeowners' associations. The determination to accept payment-in-lieu would depend upon . the existing recreation area in the area in which the subdivision is be built. If there are already activities within an area, then t _ payment in lieu may be advisable. However, if the subdivision was of substantial size, then recreational improvements may be required within that development. If the development was not of substantial size, then the cation of payment-in-lieu would be available. COM. =' $ OR OU STIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOAR C.c.am=z.sior r Walker indicated he understood these amendments we d only apply to multifamily dwellings. Steve Kizer noted that basically the amendment is to levy a recreational tax as a way to equally distribute between all new dwellings and indicated there must be an easier formula to apply. He eased if it had been considered for the tax office to determine the value and set the rate accordingly. Marvin Collins indicated this as a possibility. Commissioner Marshall asked for clarification on when the Board would be requested to make the decision on whether it would he payment in lieu or dedication or if the developer would always have that choice. Marvin Collins indicated the decision would be made by the Board of Commissioners. Planning Board member Carl Walters asked about the relationship in property values and Collins indicated if there are any at all it woui.d be based on location. A person in Chapel Hill or Carrbcro may he maki.Ig a larger payment in lieu than someone in a rural area. Walters feels that mobile homes should be placed under the same regulations. Commissioner Marshall noted that the :eveloper should be able to decide on the payment in lieu or dedication choice. Director of Recreation and Parks Mary Anne Black ask for additional time for the Recreation and Parks Council to consider these proposed amendments and have an opportunity for further comments. 7. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE AMENDENTS a. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - FLOOR ELEVATIONS b. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD RE DUCTION - NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE CERTIFICATION c. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - ANCHORING AND ELE7A TCN REQUIREMENTS (A complete narrative of the proposed amendr cnrs is on file in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . a7 11 Planner Susan Smith noted these changes are in response to :ages in federal criteria from the Federal Emergency Management .__,ency. Certain provisions are not included in the existing ordinance. The proposed amendments must be made and submitted to the FENA Regional Office by July 1, 1986. The proposed text amendments, if approved, would bring the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in-eo compliance with changes in Federal regulations. Susan Smith summarized the proposed changes. NO COMMITS OR QUESTIONS Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to refer the Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments, the Flood Damage Prevention. Ordinance Amendments and the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments, with the exception of the requirements for recreation space to the Planning Board for their recommendation. The public hearing on the amendment for requirements for recreation and open space will be continued to March 5, 1986 at 7:30. VOTE: UNANIMOUS AD :L?RNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, Chair W.il boit . t:•;.-turned the me =ing. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, Mar 5, 1986, 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners' Room, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Don Willhoit, Chair early A. Blythe, Clerk • a © DRAFT PB MINUTES 3 -17 -86 PAGE 9 e . PROPOSED FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS This item was submitted to public hearing on February 214, 1986 . The Federal Emergency Management Agency has notified Orange County of rules changes in the National Flood Insurance Program floodplain management criteria . The rule revisions became effective January 1 , 1986 . Certain provisions are not included in the existing ordinance . The proposed amendments must be made and submitted to the FEMA Regional Office by July 1 , 1986 . The proposed text amendments , if approved would bring the Orange COunty Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance into compliance with changes in Federal regulations . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments . MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Kramer . Yuhasz abstained due to professional conflict f interest . He noted he was only involved with twcff the items . Jacobs suggested that in the future that Yuhasz withdraw from the mationohthe consent agenda those items with which there is a conflict of interest for separate Board action. VOTE: 10 in favor. 1 abstained . AGENDA ITEM #8: SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS a . APPEAL - MINOR SUBDIVISION OF CLAUDE CATES Presentation by Smith. This agenda item is to consider an appeal to the Planning Staff's decision to require that a 50 ' right-of-way be platted as part of the minor subdivision of the property of Claude Cates . The property is known as Lots 3 and 3A of Tax Map 15 for Cheeks Township . The lots being subdivided have partial frontage on an existing state maintained public road known as East Lebanon Road (SR 1306) . The platted right-of way and state maintained portion ends midway across O R A N G E C O U N T Y 08U PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE: APRIL 22, 1986 ACTION AGENDA ITEM # 09 SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO **********************-************************************************* ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: SUSAN SMITH SEE 2-24-86 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA PACKET DRAFT 2-24-86 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 4-8-86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *********************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for approval . To receive the Planning Board's recommendation. NEED: These items were submitted to public hearing on February 24, 1986. Concerns have been identified by the Board of Commissioners and Planning Staff concerning assembly/ packaging operations, and zoning district application criteria. The amendment proposals address these concerns. IMPACT: The proposed text amendments, if approved, would clarify and improve the administration of the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the following amendments related to the deletion of references to specific townships and the ,Joint planning area under the zoning district application criteria and 2) assembly and packaging operations: 1 ) Amendment of Article 4 Section 4.2.8.b) 1 Section 4.2.11b) 1 Section 4.2.21b) 1 Section 4.2.22b) 1 Section 4.2.23b)1 081 APRIL 22, 1986 2 PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 2) Amendment of Article 4 Section 4.3 to add "Assembly and packaging operations, including mail order houses, but excluding on-premises retail outlets" as a permitted use in GC-4, 1-1 , 1-2, 1-3 zoning districts. 3) Article 22 - Addition of definitions of "mail order house" and "assembly and packaging operations" with the following revision: "Mail Order House. Establishment primarily engaged in the retail sale of products by catalog and mail order,, but. exr.Luslia,g_on-,premises ordering. Picii=up or OI ivery. (Deleted "and including catalog and order taking offices") "Assembly and Packaging Operations - Including mail order houses, but excluding on-premises retail sales." The Planning Board recommends denial of the following proposed amendments related to 1 ) non-residential acreage calculations in activity nodes and 2) assembly and packaging operations: 1 ) Article 4 Section 4.2.8.4 Section 4.2.9.4 Section 4.2.10.6 2) Article 4 Section 4.3 - provisions for the issuance of a special use permit for "Assembly and packaging operations" in LC-1 and NC-2 zoning districts. The Planning Board directed the Ordinance Review sub- committee to further consider special use permit provisions for assembly and packaging operations and took no other action on the proposed amendments to Article 8 Section 8.8.27. 082 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ORDINANCE: Zd�T.LN���ARQE REFERENCE: 9BTLLLE_4 ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _STAFF PLANNING BD._.X__BOCC PUBLIC. OTHER__. -- —____ -- STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:_X_HIGH MIDDLE____._LOW COMMENT: DIRECTIYE__ERMI—EDARIL__BECEIYE12__81___Ila &MAU 21, 1Q86 MEETINg___m__9DQR as IMERQUEILZQUILEARCELI EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 2-24-86 ********************** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To delete reference to specific townships and joint planning areas in the application criteria. To delete ordinance provisions which place a number of lots in the County in an improper zoning designation ISSUES/IMPACTS: Amendment of the ordinance would clarify the intent that all zoning districts are applicable throughout the zoned townships in accordance with the policies of the Land Use Plan. If approved, a number of zoning lots would no longer have an "improper" zoning status. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION(S) : ARTICLE 4 Section 4.2.8 Local Commamais`l_LI.LC=ll_Di.sttict. b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1 . Located within the Carrboro Joint Planning area or areas, and designated as either a Commercial Transition Activity Node, a Rural Community node or a Rural Neighborhood node. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT(S) : Section 4.2.8 b) 1 . Site is located within areas designated by the adopted Land 084 Use Plan as either a Commercial Transition Activity Node, a Rural Commercial Activity Node or a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION(S) : ARTICLE 4 Section 4.2.11 Ge n e r al__.._G4mm€raiga=a_._.(.G D s ci b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. The site is within an designated designated as either Commercial or Industrial Transition Activity Nodes by the adopted Land Use Plan, in Eno or Hillsborough Townships. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT(S) : Section 4.2.11 b) 1. Delete "in Eno or Hillsborough EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION(S) : Article 4 Section 4.2.21 tight Indult.rial_-LLLc-1 ) District. b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. The site is located outside of the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area and within an Industrial Transition Activity Node or a Rural Industrial Activity Node. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT(S) : Section 4.2.21 b) 1. Site is located within areas designated in the adopted Land Use Plan as either an Industrial Transition Activity Node or a Rural Industrial Activity Node. 084 EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION(S) : Article 4 Section 4.2.22 11 adiu ]___Iadu LL.I u,1-I I Cali 2 Di riot b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. Located outside the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area, but within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Plan as Industrial Transition Activity Nodes. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT(S) : Section 4.2.22 b) 1. Site is located within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Plan as an Industrial Transition Activity Node. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION(S) : Article 4 Section 4.2. 23 b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. Site is located outside the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area, but within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Plan as Industrial Transition Activity Node. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT(S) : Section 4.2.23 b) 1. Site is located within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Plan as an Industrial Transition Activty Node. ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: DATE DATE __ PLANNING BOARD (PRELIMINARY REVIEW) DATE i4_ BOCC (ADVERTISEMENT) : DATE w.2,1—PA oat PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ORDINANCE: Z�N3 L�Sa_48�INANQE REFERENCE: ATICLE 4 EITABL.SS T-_QE..._EEEMITIED_USI_TABL E -AlalL2CHEDITLE_._S CT I QNS 4.2.1.1.2.1-A0 4.2.1 Q ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _STAFF. PLANNING BD..__X_ OCC PUBLIC _OTHER_... STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:_.__X-_H I GH MIDDLE LOW COMMENT: DIREST1VE_ FRO,m 8$D_ZEZYED__8I_ E JANUAA8Y___1j,--_-128 _ MEETING- TO ADDEE.SE___[QEE $ILITY_IN THE S ITI G OF LOW 1ME CT _LQN $ 1„lENTIBLEE,i EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 2-24-$E ********************** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To exempt uses permitted on a special use permit basis or zoned Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) from maximum acreage requirements specified for the LC-1 , NC-2 and CC-3 zoning districts. . ISSUES/IMPACTS: Clarification that the maximum acreage requirements specified for the LC-1 , NC-2 and CC-3 districts apply only to property so zoned. Commercial acreage at a given activity node at full build-out will include all existing uses zoned EC-5 at the time zoning was extended to a township, all commercial type uses permitted through the issuance of special use permits and the maximum acreage specified for each applicable zoning district. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION(S) : ARTICLE 4 Section 4.2. 8 Lagiti_CaMmataillza_aC=11_DiliZiZi Subsection 4. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned LC-1 at any node shall not exceed nine (9) acres, but five (5) acres shall apply in rural areas where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in Transition areas. 08E PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT(S) : Subsection 4. ADD Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) or permitted uses subject to the issuance of a special use permit. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION(S) : ARTICLE 4 Section 4.2.9 Neighborimad_Commessigaz.2,1 District, Subsection 4. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned NC-2 at any node shall not exceed nine (9) acres, but five (5) acres shall apply in rural areas where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in Transition areas. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT(S) : Subsection 4. ADD. Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) or permitted uses subject to the issuance of a special use permit . EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION(S) : ARTICLE 4 Section 4.2.10 Subsection 6. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned CC-3 at any node shall not exceed 29 acres, but 15 acres shall apply in rural areas where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in Transition Areas. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT(S) : Subsection 6. ADD. Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) or permitted uses subject to the issuance of a special use permit. ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: DATE O8rI PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ORDINANCE: ZaallIQ_ BDI NAi3QE REFERENCE: ART1QLEu 4 ESTABL SHMENT--- O_EEENUTIE_ TT AELE.,. s SPECIAI. EPINLTIONS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: STAFF PLANNING BD.__ BOCC PUBLIC OTHER__..._ STAFF PRIORITY RECOM ENDATION:__X_ iIQI_-__MIDDLE LOW COMMENT: DIRECTIVE FROM__BOARL,__BEGE II VED _AT__T iE 1/ ..._ MEETI.'LQ^--TO ADDREAI___MOSE _._QE_. LOW INTACT__._NQN BEEIDENTIAL-11$25. PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 2-24-$E ********************** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To provide specifically for assembly and packaging operations, including mail order houses, in GC-IV, I-1, I- 2 and I-3 zoning districts as permitted uses and as uses requiring the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit in LC-1 and NC-2 zoning districts. To establish requirements and standards for the issuance of a Class A special use permit for the referenced use. To add definitions of "mail order house" and "assembly/packaging operation". ISSUES/IMPACTS: Provides more flexibility in the establishment of the type of use referenced as a use by right in the more intensive zoning districts and as a use permitted upon issuance of a special use permit in the less intensive commercial zoning districts. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT(S) : ARTICLE 4 ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMITTED USE TABLE AND SCHEDULE Section 4.3 ADD. "Assembly and packaging operations, including mail order v8:8 houses , but excluding on-premises retail outlets" Permitted Use - GC-4, I-1, 1-2, I-3 Class A SUP - LC-1, NC-2 ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS ADD. Mail Order House. Establish- ment primarily engaged in the retail sale of products by catalog and mail order and including catalog and order-taking offices. ADD. Assembly and Packaging Operations , Including Mail Order Houses, But Excluding On-Premises Retail Outlets ARTICLE 8 SPECIAL USE PERMITS ADD 8.8.27 Assembly and Packaging Operations, Including Mail Order Houses , But Excluding On Premises Retail Outlets 8.8.27.1 In addition to the information requested in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8 the following shall be supplied as part of the application. a) The site plan shall also contain the following: 1 ) location, width and type of all internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation 2) location and dimensions of all on-site signage 3) boundaries of the site and distance to nearest residential structures b) Description of the proposed use(s) of the site and the buildings therein, including the following: 1) Detail description of the proposed use(s) 2) amount of area allocated to each use 3) number of full and part-time employees uu 4) number of clients expected to use the facility 5) proposed hours and days of operation c) Building plans for all existing or proposed structures to include floor plans, elevations and sections showing proposed use. d) Landscape plan, at the same scale as the site plan, showing existing or proposed trees, shrubs, groundcover and any other landscape materials. e) Statement from the appropriate public service agencies concerning the method and adequacy of water supply and wastewater treatment. f) Statement from the appropriate public service agencies concerning the provision of fire, police and rescue protection to the site and structures. 8.8.27.2 5tgusulas of Evaluaiion The following specific standards shall be used in deciding on an application for this use: a) The site plan submitted meets all requirements specified in subsections 8.8a) and 8.8.27.1a) . b) All applicable requirements of Articles 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12 have been satisfied. c) The development as proposed satisfies the following dimensional and land use intensity requirements and standards : Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) - .45 Minimum Open Space Ratio (OSR) - .55 Minimum Landscape/Pedestrian Ratio (LSR) - .20 Maximum Building Height - 45' Minimum Setbacks - Front - 50' Side - 20' Rear - 20' d) Fire, police and rescue services and water supply and wastewater treatment methods are adequate to 090 serve the proposed uses and facilities. e) The site is served by frontage on a paved state-maintained road. The developer must show that the existing facilities have the capacity to handle the additional traffic generated by the use or has an agreement with NCDOT to upgrade the facility to accommodate expanded needs. f) Internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation is designed to encourage smooth traffic flow and reduce hazards. g) All access roads and employee/ visitor parking areas shall be paved. h) A Class A screen as specified in Article 12 is required along the perimeter of the property, except where egress/ingress and utility improvements are to be provided, i) The number of employees per shift of maximum employment shall not exceed one-hundred (100) . j) Development of the site as proposed would have no adverse impact beyond the building, except for appropriate parking facilities. All buildings associated with the operation shall be designed to be harmonious with the character of the neighborhood in which the development is proposed to be located. k) The applicant must demonstrate compliance with the definition of"assembly/packaging operation" and/or "mail order house" as contained in Article 22 of the ordinance. 1) Within a designated activity node the amount of area developed for this type of use shall not exceed ten (10) acres . ******************* ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: DATE __ DATE PLANNING BOARD (PRELIMINARY REVIEW) DATE 091 Kra,: a f. ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS - DELETE "ADULT USE" DEFINITIONS AND ADD "MASSAGE BUSINESS" DEFINITIONS Planner Susan Smith indicated that the proposed amendments as identified in the agenda as 5b through 5f were developed in response to the adoption of the Massage Business Ordinance to assure consistency between the ordinances. NO COMMENTS g. ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES - MOBILE HOMES AS ACCESSORY USES h. ARTICLE 6 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS - MOBILE HOMES AS ACCESSORY USES i. ARTICLE 6 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS - STANDARDS FOR MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME PARRS j. ARTICLE 7 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS - MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT k. ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS - STANDARDS FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS 1. ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS - MOBILE HOMES/PARKS Planner Susan Smith summarized the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments as identified in the agenda as items 5g through 51. These amendments are in response to the concerns raised during the last year regarding mobile homes and mobile home parks. NO COMMENTS m. ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS - PEDESTRIAN AND LANDSCAPE AREA RATIOS n. ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS - PEDESTRIAN/LANDSCAPE RATIO With reference to items 5m and 5n, Ms. Smith indicated that the ordinance currently provides for pedestrian and landscape ratios to be applied to floor area. Application of all other ratios listed in the Land Use Intensity table is determined on the basis of gross land area. The proposed amendment would apply minimum pedestrian access and landscaped area requirements in non-residential developments to gross land area. Planning Board member Steve Yuhasz made reference to the table illustrating the application of the current and proposed landscape/- pedestrian ratios and asked how the figures were determined in column A and what the figures represented. Smith noted that Column A represents the resulting landscape/pedestrian area derived from applying the ratio specified in the current ordinance to the maximum floor area allowed in a district. The second column represents the resulting area derived from applying the proposed ratio to the gross land area. The proposed ratios were determined on the basis of specifying 25% of the total open space as landscaped area. p. ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES - ZONING DISTRICT APPLICATION CRITERIA q. ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES - ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS With reference to items 5p, and 5q of the agenda, Susan Smith noted the amendments would specifically delete from the zoning district application criteria the references to specific townships and joint planning areas. The amendments further exempt those uses permitted on a special use permit basis or zoned Existing Commercial-V from inclusion in the calculation of maximum acreage requirements specified for the LC- 1, NC-2 and CC-3 zoning districts within a given activity node. Planning Board member Steve Kizer commented that one of the reasons for not putting GC-4 in all the townships is that for example, in Bingham there are not appropriate areas for GC-4 districts and uses. 092 • • • 9 This amendment has some significant impacts on what will be set out for the other townships. He voiced opposition to the GC-4 exemption in calculating the amount of commercial land in a specific area. The design criteria describing a local: commercial node were intend uses equivalent to a "Mom and Pop" store or a local service station. The problem with EC-5 is that,. as was done in some areas, certain nodes were designated which include the GC-5 designation to try to take into account the fact that the existing businesses were already there. Some of these businesses can be quite large and, by the time you add those and if you raise the maximum again for LC-1, you have eighteen acres plus • whatever was already there and the node is no longer a small commercial node in a rural area. By doing this, the intent of the nodes is changed. To calculate all the commercial uses when assessing the character of the node and not allow to exemptions can result in quite a large commercial area. r. ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES - ASSEMBLY/PACKAGING OPERATIONS s. ARTICLE 8 - SPECIAL USES - ASSEMBLY/PACKAGING OPERATIONS t. ARTICLE T - ARTICLE 20 - DEFINITIONS - ASSEMBLY/PACKAGING OPERATIONS, Planner Susan Smith continued with items 5r through 5t as identified in the agenda. With reference to Article 4 - Establishment of Permitted Use Table, Article 8-Special Use Permits and'Article 22- - Definitions, Smith indicated these amendments would provide specifically for assembly and packaging operations, including mail order houses. Amendments to Article 4 would specify where those uses would be permitted, the amendment to Article 8 would specify the standards to evaluate those requests for a Special Use Permit, and Article 22 would define such uses. Steve Kizer indicated that some of the same comments he made above would apply to these proposed amendments. These amendments are in reaction to the fact that the Zoning Ordinance actually worked with respect to the request for P & S Sales. The problem is that a simple packaging plant has an awful lot of input that comes to it and is not a minor operation. The parking lot at P & S sales has about 100 cars and is a major operation. The whole point of these smaller nodes was to make sure that large enterprises that would be out of character with the surrounding community are not placed there. A commercial development in a rural node could be quite large and not in keeping with the idea that these are supposed to be small commercial operations. This adjustment should not be made until it is assured that the intent of the land use plan fits in very neatly with the development regulations. u. ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS - PLANNING BOARD TENUR'y Planner Susan Smith referred to agenda item 5u - Article 2 - Administrative Mechanisms for the Planning Board Tenure and indicated this amendments would clarify that new members appointed to fi'_1 unexpired terms will be eligible for two additional full terms and to specify that one-third of the Board membership will expire in February of. each year. Chair Willhoit asked that "calendar year" be changed to read twelve (12) months. o. ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS RECREATION SPACE RATIO 6. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS (A copy of the complete narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . a. SECTION IV-B-7 SITES FOR PUBLIC USE - RECREATION/SCHOOL SITES b. SECTION V - IMPROVEMENTS - HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IP- : -7 f-2a ?. -•1111/4' gt_M- 0 93 • 10 PRESENTATION BY STAFF Director of Planning Marvin Collins referred to agenda items 5o and 6a and 6b. Article 5.1.1 is the schedule 'for residential development and refers to the required minimum recreation space ratio. The proposed amendment to the Subdivision regulations would require the dedication (or provision) of recreation facilities or a payment in lieu. The proposed amendment contains a formula for the computation of required recreation and/or open space area. The reason for the proposed amendment to the Zoning ordinance text is that in the AR, R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts there are no recreational space requirements. There are recreational space ratios for planned development. Recreational space ratios have also been added for non-residential uses in residential areas. These were based on the that already exist in the zoning ordinance. Marvin Collins summarized the proposed changes that would provide for recreation space and school sites in new subdivisions, and establish guidelines for the creation of homeowners' associations. The determination to accept payment-in-lieu would depend upon the existing recreation area in the area in which the subdivision is to be built. If there are already activities within an area, then the payment in lieu may be advisable. However, if the subdivision was of substantial size, then recreational improvements may be required within that development. If the development was not of substantial size, then the option of payment-in-lieu would be available. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Walker indicated he understood these amendments would only apply to multifamily dwellings. Steve Kizer noted that basically the amendment is to levy a recreational tax as a way to . equally distribute between all new dwellings and indicated there must be an easier formula to apply. He asked if it had been considered for the tax office to determine the value and set the rate accordingly. Marvin Collins indicated this as a possibility. Commissioner Marshall asked for clarification on when the Board would be requested to make the decision on whether it would be payment in lieu or dedication or if the developer would always have that choice. Marvin Collins indicated the decision would be made by the Board of Commissioners. Planning Board member Carl Walters asked about the relationship in property values and Collins indicated if there are any at all it would be based on location. A person in Chapel Hill or Caxrboro may be making a larger payment in lieu than someone in a rural area. Walters feels that mobile homes should be placed under the same regulations. Commissioner Marshall noted that the developer should be able to decide on the payment in lieu or dedication choice. Director of Recreation and Parks Mary Anne Black ask for additional time for the Recreation and Parks Council to consider these proposed amendments and have an opportunity for further comments. 7. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS a. ARTICLE 4 -- FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - FLOOR ELEVATIONS b. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE CERTIFICATION c. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - ANCHORING AND ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS (A complete narrative of the proposed amendments is on file in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . O R A N G E C O U N T Y 094 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE: APRIL 22, 1986 ACTION AGE DA ITEM OH SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING EXTENSION - CHANDLER'S GREEN *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: _YES X NO *********************************************************************** CONTACT: SUSAN SMITH ATTACHMENTS: 3/13/86 LETTER FROM ALLENTON 4-8-86 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *********************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider the extension of time limits on a planned development amendment when approval has expired. To receive the Planning Board's recommendation. The applicant for the Chandler's Green planned development rezoning (PD-H-R2) submitted the request prior to the expiration of the approval . NEED: Sections 7.2.8 and 7.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance require that construction on property subject to planned development zoning amendments begins within six (6) months of Board action establishing a planned development district. Section 7 .2.8 provides that "construction must start and proceed at a reasonable rate within six months of the approval of the permit. If no construction has started the permit becomes null and of no effect. The owner can request a six month extension from the Board of County Commissioners if the request is received before the permit expires." Section 7 .9 provides that " if actions required in any amendment establishing a PD district are not taken within the time limit set, the Zoning Officer shall review the circumstances and recommend to the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners: a) that PD zoning for the entire area be continued with revised time limits; or 094 CHANDLER'S GREEN PAGE 2 APRIL 8, 1986 b) that PD zoning be continued for part of the area, with or without revised time limits, and the remainder rezoned to an appropriate category; or c) that the entire district be rezoned from PD to an appropriate category." All planned development rezonings require the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit. Prior to recordation of the Class A Special Use Permit the applicant is required to satisfy certain conditions of approval , including the revision of the site plants) (where necessary) and the issuance of appropriate development permits and approvals, including, but not limited to, landscape plans, drainage and stormwater control plans, utilities approvals and permits, etc. Following issuance of the Special Use Permit other approvals may be necessary before actual construction may begin, including construction permits, grading permits, NCDOT street construction plan approvals and driveway permits, etc. On November 4, 1985 the Board of County Commissioners approved the Planned Development-Housing (R-2)/Special Use Permit request for Chandler's Green. The applicant has indicated that negotiation with the Town of Chapel Hill , OWASA, NC DOT, Orange County and engineering firms have slowed progress on the project. The initial six obtain approval is Inadequate to allow the app necessary approvals and commence construction. The applicant is requesting a six month extension. IMPACT: Approval of the time extension would allow additional time for the satisfaction of conditions of approval imposed and additional development permits and approvals required for construction to begin. A decision not to approve the time extensions would require that a public hearing be held on the rezoning of the property in question to an appropriate zoning district. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the extension of planned development rezoning for Chandler's Green for a six (6) month period beginning May 4, 1986 to allow additional time to obtain appropriate permits and approvals and to initiate construction activity. 096 r rr' AUJETSITON March 13, 1986 Ms. Susan Smith, Planner Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Subject: Chandler's Green Planned Development Dear Susan: Allenton Realty and Insurance Company requests, on behalf of North Weaver Limited Partnership, a six-month extension of the re- zoning approved on November 4, 1985 by the Orange County Commissioners The reasons for this request are as follows: (1) Resolution of the proposed Sweeten Creek Road right-of-way width and roadway width by the Town of Chapel Hill. (November 29, 1985) (2) Awarding the engineering contract for services (December 20, 1985) . (3) Correspondence and design of engineering plans involving the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, the Town of Chapel Hill administration, and the Orange County administration. (In progress.) (4) Miscellaneous documentation and site plan revisions associated with development within the joint planning area and the special use permit process. (In progress.) If you need any additional information concerning this matter, please give me a call at 683-1414. 'ncerel 1 h-*S> Randy S ith . RS:aj Residential&-Commercial Real Estate.Development.Property Management&Insurance 119 Orange Street Mall,P.Q.Box 731,Durnam,NC 27702(919)683-1410 Offices in:Durham.Research Triangle,Chapel Hill,Hillsborough O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 09'i ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 22, 1986 ACTION AGENDA ITEM VII SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS 11 ***************************************-******************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING/RECREATION PUBLIC HEARING: X YES NO *********************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: MARVIN COLLINS PROPOSED RECREATION STANDARDS MARY ANN BLACK TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 ********************.*************************************************** PURPOSE: To receive further staff reports on administration of the payment- in- lieu provisions of the proposed Subdivision Regulation amendments pertaining to recreation standards. NEED: At the February 24, 1986 public hearing, specific concerns were identified involving the method and amount of payments- in-lieu, accumulation of disparate (widely separated) parcels, the applicability of the standards to multi-family and single-family projects, and the relationship of the recreation space requirements to the Land Use Plan . The Board continued the public hearing on the proposed recreation standards until April 7 to allow the Planning and Recreation Staffs to contact other jurisdictions regarding their experience in administration of similar provisions. At the April 7 meeting, staff recommended continuation of the public hearing until this meeting in order to meet with the Triangle J Land Conservancy Council . The purpose of the meeting was to determine if that organization would hold recreation/open space lands in trust until such time as the County is ready to develop/maintain recreation areas. IMPACT: Staff has met with the Triangle J Land Conservancy Council and with the Recreation Directors of Cary and Chapel Hill , both of which are administering similar ordinances. Staff has also reviewed the ordinances of nine other jurisdictions. Based on the meetings and staff research, a number of changes are being considered. While changes to individual sections are not significant, the overall number of changes is substantial in relation to the advertised proposal . For this reason, staff feels that the proposal , including recommended changes, should be readvertised to insure compliance with General Statute provisions regarding ordinance amendments. Oyu PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS APRIL 22, 1986 PAGE 2 RECOMMENDATION: Recommended continuation of the public hearing until May 20, 1986, the regular public hearing date, to permit staff to readvertise the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations. • F - (Mt- . ORIGINAL DRAFT: 10-8-85 . REVISED: . 1-9-86 1-22-86 1-30-86 liaa laii4n_ALaaa IV-B-7-b-1. AR>Zlia�iliix Every person, firm or corporation who subdivides land for residential purposes and/or non-residential purposes shall be required to provide or dedicate a portion of such land for the purpose of recreation and/or open space areas to serve the residents and/or occupants of the subdivision, and to preserve significant natural features and/or cultural resources. In all cases, the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council shall review and make recommendations to the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners on the provision or dedication of recreation and/or open space areas. Diman .ianal_BaAuiLnmanI The total land area provided or dedicated as part of a residential subdivision shall be equal to at least the number of acres derived by the following formula: S.P. = N X P. X R Where S.F. = Area, in acres, of the land required to be dedicated for recreation purposes in the subdivision; N = Number of lots or dwelling units proposed in the subdivision; P = Average family size according to the latest decennial census for the township in which the subdivision is located; - R = A ratio equivalent to 0. 01050 or 10 . 50 acres of developed open space per 1, 000 population recommended by the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) as the upper limit of the minimum standard for establishment of a "core" system of parklands . or by application of the provisions of Article 5. 1.1 (Required Minimum Recreation Space Ratio) and Article 6.12 (Land Use Intensity System) of the Orange County • 10 , • Zoning Ordinance , whichever results in the greater amount.'The total land area provided or dedicated as part of a non-residential subdivision shall be determined by an analysis of the, site , the uses(s) to be located thereon and the designation of recreation and/or open space sites as shown on the adopted Land Use Plan. The site analysis shall be prepared by the applicant and shall identify in written and graphic form those areas characterized by steep slopes (15% or greater) , flood plains and wetlands , rock outcroppings , mature woodlands (trees of 18 inches or greater in diameter) , existing structures and cemeteries, and lakes, -ponds, rivers and other water resources . A written graphic description shall also be submitted by the applicant which identifies the proposed use of each lot in the subdivision, the approximate amount of building and •parking coverage for each lot , and the approximate number of employees associated with each use. In no case, however , shall the total land area be less than that required by application of the provisions of Article 5.1.2 (Required Minimum Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio) and Article 6.12 (Land Use intensity system) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. IV--B-7-b-3 . ig_&atiYa.l2�liix Land provided or dedicated for active recreational purposes shall be of a character, slope and location suitable far use as for play areas, tennis courts , multi-purpose courts , picnic areas , ballfields and other similar recreation. uses. Active recreation areas shall be located on land that is relatively flat (0 to 7-1/2% slopes) , free of wetlands and/or flood plains , free of easements for public utility transmission lines , and is otherwise capable of aceomodat ' g active recreation uses . Land provided or dedicated for passive recreation and open space purposes shall be of a character , slope and location suitable for use for walking, jogging, reading and similar quite activities , and the preservation of natural features and cultural resources such as steep slopes , rock outcrops , native plant life and wildlife cover , mature woodlands and water resources. In all cases, active and passive recreation sites as well as open space areas designated on the adopted Land Use Plan shall be incorporated into the design of the subdivision. r 101 Criteria for evaluating suitability of. proposed recreation areas shall include but not be limited to the following: (a) La atiOl.. , Land provided or dedicated for recreation purposes shall be located so as to serve the needs of the immediate residents of the subdivision. Recreation areas shall be centrally. located so as to provide, insofar as possible, equal accessibility to all residents of the subdivision; provided, however, recreation areas may be approved in other locations where land more suited for recreational purposes due to shape, level slopes and/or dry soil conditions is present. (b) thily,, Land provided or dedicated for recreation purposes shall be a single parcel except where it is determined that two (2) or more parcels are suited to the needs of a particular subdivision. The Planning Board may recommend, and the Board of Commissioners may require, the provision or dedication of a connecting path in addition to the land required in Section IV-B-7-b-2 of this Ordinance. Where a connecting path is necessary, a path of up to fifty (50) feet in width may be required, but in no case shall the path be less than thirty (30) feet in width. (c) Acoasaibilii Land provided or dedicated for recreational purposes shall have at least fifty (50) feet of frontage on at least one (1) street within the subdivision. Where a recreation area is centrally located with respect to the residents of the subdivision but is not accessible due to lot arrangement , the Planning Board may recommend, and the Board of Commissioners may require, the provision or dedication of connecting paths which link the recreation area with other streets within the subdivision. (see figure below) Connecting paths so required shall be in addition to the land required in Section IV-B-7--b-2 of this Ordinance. Connecting paths of up to fifty (50) feet in width may be required but in no case shall the paths be less than thirty (30) feet in width. a6+net + -r onaecting ���M" ���� ® �"' wx "� , Paths ' * 411 Auslis IV-B-7-b-4. S1ia_Imiuslxsmania Improved active recreation areas are to be provided for the residents of the subdivision unless a determination is made by the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners that the active recreation needs of the residents can be met by other facilities in the same general area. In making . such determination, the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners shall consider the location and type of active recreation facilities existing within a one- half (1/2) mile radius of the boundaries of the proposed subdivision, whether the facilities are public or private in nature, and whether the facilities would be available for use by the residents of the proposed subdivision. When choosing improvements for a recreational area, the anticipated characteristics and needs of the . residents shall be considered in conjunction with the size of the development , any physical constraints posed by the site, and the availability of other improvements within the same general area as the subdivision. As an example, the existence of a multi- purpose court in an adjacent , existing subdivision and the availability of the facility for use by residents of the proposed subdivision may indicate to the applicant that another facility, such as a tennis court , would be more appropriate. Recreation facilities which are suitable for various age groups include, but are not limited to those shown on the following pages. Trash receptacles shall be provided florid tae orf thetr iomal r ovarmeens t s rgradtleed ss hof r etonhe. number you. RECREATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AGE GROUP FACILITY RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED RECOMMEND , SPACE SIZE AND ORIENTATION REQUIREMENTS DIMENSIONS Families Tot Lot 2,000-4,000 Enclosed play None specified 1. Enclosed play sq. ft . . area of 21 sq. ft . area with play per family. Turfed apparatus and sand box. area and shaded 2. Open, turfed area . area of at least . for active play. 40 sq. ft . each. 3. Shaded area for quiet activity. Families Basketball Court 4,400-8,000 46' x 74' to Long axis Adults sq. ft. 50' x 94' north-south. Court dimensions with 5' unobstruct- ed space on all sides. Far Is Badminton Court 1 ,500-2 ,600 Singles-17' x 44' Long axis sq. ft . Doubles-20' x 44' north-south. with 5' unobstruct- ed space on all sides. . Families Tennis Courts 6,200-8,400 36' x 78' with Long axis Adults sq. ft . 12' clearance north-south. Senior on both sides; Citizens 21' at both ends . Families Volleyball Court 2 , 800-4, 000 30'x60' with Long axis Adults sq, ft . 10' clearance north-south, on all sides. Families Soft Ballfield 1. 5-2 . 0 Baselines-65 ' Locate home Adults acres Pitching dis- plate so tance 40 '-46 ' pitcher throw- Field radius ing across sun from plate- and batter not 275 ' between facing it. foul lines . Line from home plate through pitchers mound runs east- north -east . • • 104 • Families Soccer Field 1.7-2.1 195' to 225' x Fall season- acres 300,' to 360". long axis with 10 ' minimum northwest clearance on all southeast ; for sides. longer periods , north to south. Families Handball Court 1,000 sq.ft. 20' x 40' - Long axis Adults (3-Wall ) Minimum of 10' to north south. rear. Minimum 20' Front wall at overhead clear- north end. ance. Families Swimming Pool 0. 5-2. 0 Minimum of 27 sq. None-although Adults acres ft . of water sur- care must be Senior face per swimmer. taken in Citizens Ratio of 2:1 deck siting of vs . water. . lifegard stands in relation to afternoon sun. Families Pedestrian paths None Well defined bead None Adults room with maximum Senior 10' width. Maximum Citizens average grade 5%, not to exceed 15%. Path width 6'-8' . Senior Shuffleboard 570 sq. ft. 10 ' x 52' with Long axis Citizens 2.5' clearance at north-south. both ends ; 2' clearance on both sides. Senior Horseshoes 240 sq. ft . 6 ' square pitchers Long axis Citizens box. Steel stakes north-south. 1" diameter, 14" above ground, spaced 40' apart . Senior Croquet Court 1 , 800 sq. ft . 25 ' x 55' playing Long axis Citizens area with 2.5' north-south. clearance on all sides. • soy Far 'es Park bench, � One (1) Minimum table, ! None other Ad picnic tables and picnic table dimensions - than provision Senior grills and trash per 50 36"Wx72"Lx30"H. of shading for Citizens receptacles residents Tables, benches picnic tables ` 50 sq. ft. of and other similar and benches. land per facilities securely table. anchored to ground. Families Picnic shelter One (1) open Minimum shelter None. Adults structure shelter per dimensions - Senior 60 residents 201x30 ' with Citizens minimum of ten (10) picnic tables and accompanying benches located therein and securely anchored to ground. Fireplace shall be installed at one end. 10E • In addition to land provided or dedicated. for active recreation purposes, sufficient area shall be provided to make available a minimum of five (5) off-street parking spaces for the first two (2) - acres of each recreation site and one (1) space for each additional • acre thereafter. Where any of the following facilities are also provided, off-streets parking as required shall be provided in addition to the general standard above. Swimming pool One (1) space for each five (5) patrons Soccer and ball fields Eight (8) spaces per acre Tennis/handball courts Two (2) spaces per court Picnic Shelter area One (1) space for each ten (10) patrons . Each off-street , parking space shall be a minimum of nine (9) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in length. A minimum back-up aisle of twenty four (24) feet in width shall be provided for access to and from each space. Bay parking is prohibited, and entrance to and exit from each parking area shall be by forward motion of the vehicle. One (1) of the parking spaces provided must be barrier-free and identified for use by individuals with physical disabilities . Handicapped spaces shall be at least twelve (12) feet in width and shall be designed as follows : (a) So that handicapped individuals are not compelled to wheel or walk behind parked cars : (b) So that handicapped individuals can get into and out of an automobile unto a level surface, suitable for wheeling and walking; and (c) In conjunction with sidewalk cut-aways and/or ramps , not exceeding five percent (5%) slope. IV-B-7-b-5. Maihad_Qi_PtQYiaiQn_Qz_DediQaiiQn Land provided or dedicated for recreation area as required by this Ordinance shall be designated on both lU' the preliminary and final plat(s) of the subdivision. All land that is designated must be provided or dedicated under one of the following methods. (a) The land must be dedicated to an appropriate ;public body , as publicly-owned and maintained. Where recreation areas are so dedicated, they ' shall be subject to acceptance by the public body. A determination as to the appropriate public body shall be made by the Board of Commissioners, upon recommendation from . the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council to the Planning Board. (b) The land must be conveyed to the trustees provided in an indenture establishing an association of homeowners. The recreation area must be conveyed to the trustees subject to covenants and easements to be approved by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners and which provide for the continued • maintenance and control of the recreation area in a manner which assures its continuing use for its intended purpose. If the recreation area is conveyed to a homeowner 's association, the subdivider shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions in accordance with the provisions of Section V of this ordinance. IV-B-7-b-6 . Pn mmuS.s._in_Linn_a _Dedig.aS.ion Any subdivider required to provide or dedicate recreation area pursuant to this Ordinance may , with the approval of the Board of Commissioners , make a payment in lieu of provision or dedication or make a combination of land provision or dedication and payment . Before approving a payment in lieu of dedication, the Board of Commissioners shall find that no recreation and/or open space sites have been designated on the Land Use Plan for the property in questioin and that the active recreation needs of the residents of the proposed subdivision can be served by existing facilities (see Section IV-8-7-b-4) or there are no areas within the proposed subdivision deemed suiable for active recreation purposes by reason of excessive slopes , flood plains and other environmental features. A payment in lieu of provision or dedication shall equal the number of acres required to be provided or dedicated multiplied by the expected fair market value of the land after development of the subdivision and 10e with required site improvements. Fair market value shall be determined by an appraisal , done at the expense of the subdivider , by a qualified individual , subject to the terms and conditions of the next paragraph in the event . the Board of County Commissioners notifies the subdivider that it does not agree with the .appraisal provided by the subdivider. All payments received by the County pursuant to this section shall be placed in a Park and Recreation Improvement Fund to be established by the Board of Commissioners. Such funds shall be used only for the acquisition or development of park, recreation or open space sites which will serve the residents of the proposed subdivision and for which the payments are made. All payments in lieu of provision or dedication shall be due prior to the approval of the final plat of the subdivision or any phase thereof. In the case of disagreement between the County and the subdivider as to fair market value, such determination shall be made by a special appraisal committee made up of one (1) professional appraiser appointed by the subdivider, one (1) professional appraiser appointed by the Board of Commissioners, and one (1) professional appraiser agreed upon by the two (2) appraisers appointed by the subdivider and the Board of Commissioners. The committee shall view the land and hear the contentions of both the County and the developer. The findings of the committee shall be by majority vote and shall be certified to the Board of Commissioners within thirty (30) days of the date of appointment of the third member of the committee. The costs of the • committee shall be borne by the subdivider. 10E! ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: APRIL 22, 1986 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION REGARDING CLEAN WATER BOND GRANTS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 RESOLUTION TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To provide the State with assurances as to the County's intent to utilize the awarded grants per deadlines specified by the State. NEED: The NRCD Division of Environmental Management has notified the recipients of clean water grants of its intent to withdraw such grants unless the respective governing bodies establish sche- dules and make assurances for proceeding with the projects. A deadline of 60 days is specified for the receipt of the sche- dules and assurance while the actual award of the grants must be done by June 30, 1987. Orange County has received two clean water bond grants, as follows: $42,712 (WC498) accepted July 7, 1982 for the construction of 8 inch collection sewer and one pump station. $127,375 (WT388-R) accepted February 6, 1984 for the construction of a pump station and force main interceptor system. An application for both amounts to be used in support of the Efland Sewer was filed with the State in 1985 by means of a revised preliminary report. In order for the grants to remain in effect authorization is needed to submit the attached resolu- tion which assures the State of the County's intent to proceed with the project, together with the revised budget and time- table. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Adopt resolution. Updated April 18, 1986 REVISED EFLAND SEWER SCHEDULE May 9, 1986 Complete engineering plans and specifications May 19, 1986 Secure plan approvals by regulatory agencies May 19 to 31, 1986 Complete easements and right-of-way dedications June 1, 1986 Advertise for bids July 1, 1986 Receive bids July 15, 1986 Award contracts August 1, 1986 Begin construction February 1, 1987 Connect Efland Cheeks Elementary School June 1, 1987 Complete construction LGC 10$E :LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION . 325 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 CAPITAL BUDGET AND RELATED INFORMATION • - Date October 11, 1985 Unit Orange County - Note: A separate Form LGC 108B is required for each bond purpose listed on application. - I. Bond designation E land Cheeks Sewer Project Amount $200,000 • , 2. Purpose: (Describe in general terms nature of capital outlay) For the construction of a sewer collection -system•-to serve portions of Cheeks Township in Orange -County. 3. Necessity: (Describe in general terms why improvements are needed; Include copy of preliminary engineering report or other documents upon which applicant is relying.) See Attachment !L • 4. Consulting Engineer or Architect Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. 5. If costs were not the result of consultant's study,give basis of estimates 6. Capital budget-based on estimates determined as of _ August 7, 1985 Estimated Cost Funding Sources Construction Cost . . . $ '920,100 Available Cash $ Eng.or Arch.Fees. . . . 95,000 Future Appropriations. . Land and Rt.-of-way. . . 9,300 Grants(indicate source). . - L,eg,.i and Fiscal 26,000 _FMFIA 598,300 Administrative 0 .NC. CLean.Water . . . 170,000 Capitalized Interest 12,000 .Orange County 50,000 Contingency 91,900 Bonds . . . _. . . . . . . . 200,000 Other Orange County. 136,000 "loan" Total . . . - 7:,154,300 - Total ____x,154.300 • lie RESOLUTION WHEREAS, . the NRCD Environmental Management Commission has awarded two clean water bond grants (WC 498, accepted July 7, 1982 in the amount of $42,712 for the construction of 8 inch collection sewer and one pump station, and WT388-R, accepted February -6, 1984 in the amount of $127,375 for the construction of a pump station and force main interceptor system) ; and WHEREAS, the .Orange County Board of Commissioners has filed a revised preliminary report with the EMC for the grants to be used to install a community wide sewer system to solve the problems of a failing package plant at the Efland Cheeks Elementary School and the failing septic systems within the Efland area; and WHEREAS, the proposed Efland Sewer Project is in the easement dedication phase and will be constructed according to the revised attached schedule and project budget; and - WHEREAS, project financing is dependent upon the Clean Water Bond Grants remaining in effect, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners: 1. Assures the EMC of its intent to complete the project prior to the June 30, 1987 deadline established by the State, and 2. Submits the attached budget and schedule as indication of the remaining checklist steps remaining. Don Willhoit, Chair Board. of County Commissioners Orange County ATTEST: Beverly Blythe, Clerk Board of county Commissioners 111 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ui ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. . Meeting Date: APRIL 22, 1986 SUBJECT: SECTION 8 SURPLUS FUNDS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider the utilization of Section 8 Surplus Funds. NEED: The Board requested staff to develop a housing rehabilitation program utilizing Section 8 Surplus Funds. After a thorough analysis of the Housing and Community Development Department budget, including previous and potential federal cuts, establishment of an additional program is not feasible. In fact, Housing and Community Development has reduced staff as a result of cuts with other staff working as funds are available. Before Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget reductions were proposed, Section 8 was a revenue producing program. In calendar year 1984, Housing and Community Development first year administering the program, the department generated a $43,414 surplus. Unfor- tunately, Councilville Community Development road construction engineering estimates were extremely low resulting in the Board allocating $33,000 of the surplus to supplement road construc- tion cost. In calendar year 1985 the surplus was $37,073. During the 1986 calendar year Housing and Community Development does not anticipate generating a surplus. By changing the formula used to calculate administrative fees for the Section 8 program, HUD has substantially reduced the revenue producing element of the program. However, HUD has not reduced the amount the County receives for rental assistance payments. All rental assistance payments to clients will remain at the same level through 1986. Due to the reduction of Section 8 administrative fees coupled with the close out of Councilville Community Development activities, the Housing and Community Development budget and personnel have been adversely impacted. As mentioned, Housing and Community Development current surplus amount is $47,487 ($10,414 remains from 1984 and $37,073 gener- ated in 1985) . Housing and Community Development would like to 11' reserve the existing surplus to avoid deficit spending and to serve as a precaution for expected federal cuts in October, 1986. Although the department would like to reserve the surplus to aid in the maintenance of existing staff, Housing and Community Development is expanding minimum housing code adminis- tration. The expansion will include pamphlets, workshops and outreach to landlord and tenants. The expansion can be implemented without exceeding existing budget limitations. A minimum housing code outreach report is forthcoming. IMPACT: Establishment of an additional housing program would impact Housing and Community Development budget negatively. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Reserve Section 8 Surplus Funds to supplement expected adminis- trative cuts in all county housing programs. . • ' : . tOARD, O CO :1.r-SS I O;'ERS • . ACTT O i,M,GE1'OP ACTION ADEN , ITEM /�SSTP Cj ITEM 1itl: . MEETING"DATE . 22;_].98.6• - ..1'4 • - : " ' ' nRA'c "C,Oli,,'ITY - -. . ,. _.. le.-::_ • r. ,. .',,-SUt,JECT: Proposed Budget Amendments - _r P1l31.IC HiA::I11u: YES X tits DEPART MT: Finance' --�- -- ATTACH E.T(S): Ih11 C�T�:EhTIC;: CO iTACT: Donna Wagner, PHONE P UMERS: HILLS�'ORO�UGli - 737--8181 Proposed Budget Amendment : HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9351 - - - CHAPEL HILL — 967-9251 MEBANE 227-2031 -� - DURHAM - 633-7331 PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed. buaget amendments. _ • GENERAL FUND .NEED: • -1. To budget for additional funds that have been awarded to the Orange County Health Department.. 2. To budget for payment to Home Health Agency for reimbursement of .e portion of medical, in-home services provided in fiscal year 1984-8-5. (expenditure authorized. March 5, 1986) .'. . - 3. To budget for additional funding for Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health for the deficit incurred by the Halfway House due to the ABC Board • discontinuing direct funding- (appropriation previously authorized _ on February 3, 1986). . _ 4. To reverse budget amendment approved on August 5, 1986 which increased funds available' to the Orange County Economic Development Commission by acceptance of a contribution from the Hillsborough Chamber. of Commerce. This contribution was for the 1984-85 fiscal year and not - for the 1985-86 fiscal year. - 5, To budget for additional funds that have been awarded to the Orange County Department of Social Services for employment of a Child Protective Services worker. GENERAL FUND - I. This amendment will increase funds available to the Family Planning, - Management/Vital' Records, Environmental, Adult Health Services, - IMPACT: Maternal and Child programs of the Orange County Health Department vith 100X State funds. 2. This amendment will allow the reimbursement to Home Health Agency by . increasing the Home Health Agency's budget and decreasing the Commissioners' Contingency. - • - ,1 i IMPACT: 3. This amendment will increase Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health's budget with a transfer from the Commissioners' Contingency. 4. This amendment will reverse the amendment previously approved by the . Board on August 5, 1985. . 5. This amendment will increase funds available to the Orange County Department of Social Services with 100% State funds. No County match is required. RECOMMENDATION: Approve this motion to amend the 1985-86 Budget Ordinance by proposed budget amendment. • - . 1L ORANGE COUNTY - PROPOSED . : . 19135-86 BUDGET AMENDMENT . The 1985-86 Budget Ordinance as adopted on July 3, 1985, and subsequently - amended, is hereby amended as follows: • _ BEFORE AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT '- AMENDMENT GENERAL FUND . 1. Appropriation; Health-Family Planning $242,428 $15,029 $257,457 Health_Management Services/ 950 103f950 Vital Records 103,000 Health-Environmental 254,713 4,773 259,486 Health-Adult Health 56,147 392 • 56,539 Health Maternal 55,381 37,415 92,796 Health-Child 52,761 2,144 . 54,905 Source: Health-Family Planning . 73,965 15,029 - 88,994 Health-Adult Health 12,000 1,342 13,342 Health-General.Aid 42,856 4,773 47,629 Health-Maternal 173,283 37,415 210,698 Health-Child, 221,266 2,144 223,410 To budget for additional funds awarded to the Orange County Health Department. 2. Appropriation: Home Health Agency $ 10,000 $ 5,228 $ 15,228 Source: Contingency 25,219 5,228 19,991 To budget for payment to Home Health Agency for reimbursement of portion of medical in-home services. • - BEFORE- AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT 3. Appropriation: O-P-C Mental Health $306,250 6,000 $312,250 Source: Contingency 19,991- 6,000 13,911 To budget for additional OPC funding to cover deficit incurred by the Halfway House. 4, Appropriation: Economic Development $ 63,635 $ (1,000) _ $ 62,635 Source: Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce 1,000 (1,000) - -0 To reverse budget amendment approved on August 5, 1986 which increased-funds available to the Economic Development Commission. 5. Appropriation: Social Services--Title XX $754,569 $ 11,469 $766,038 Source: Social Services-Block Grant Admin 37;907 11,469 49,376 To budget for additional funds that have been awarded to the Orange County Department of Social Services. Approved this 22 day of April, 1986. ORANGE COUNTY • - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA - ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO1141?S, MEETING DATE April 22, 1986 • SUBJECT: Supplemental request for General Assistance Funds DEPARTMENT: Social Services I .PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO ATTACHMENT(S): • INFORMATION .CONTACT: Thomas M. Ward 1) Chart listing Inter Faith Council's experience with Financial Assistance' PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 • HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 2) Letter dated April 14, 1986 from CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 JOCCA MEBANE - 227-2031 • DURHAM - 688-7331 . PURPOSE: - To request additional funds for emergency assistance for Orange County - Citizens. during 'FY 85-86. • • NEED: Representatives of Inter Faith Council, Joint Orange Chatham Community Action and Orange Congregations in Missions met with the DSS board on 4/17/86 to . ,discuss..the heavy demand. for emergency assistance during this fiscal year. i, - They reported their funds were all but depleted at this time with two and one- half months of the fiscal year remaining. Dr. Denton, Chair of the DSS board, -moved to request $10,000 in General Assistance funds, to be administered by the Department of Social Services, be added as a supplemental appropriation for FY 85-8g. The motion passed. Approximately $2,500 remains• in the DSS account. ' • • IMPACT: The above cited four agencies have spent approximately $13,000 per month for emergency meeds during the past three months.. Due to a depletion of funds an additional appropriation is needed to assist with emergency aid for the remainder of the fiscal year. • RECOMMENDATION(S): Requested°funds be granted. 11h -. GLORIA M.WILLIAMS JOINTExecutive Director ORANGE''. CHATHAM April 14, 1986 Ms. Peggy Pol]i tZer Camnurity services Chair.' • Interfaith Council l 207 Wilson Court Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Dear Peggy: JtX', along with other Huten Service Agencies who are.involvel with the provision of direct assistance have realized a dramatic increase in client intake experiencing erergency or crisis situations. The new influx of clients have bean in Southern Or-ange County, where requests to date are 50% above 1985 intakes at this tine. This is critical. becaise J XIA's Emergency Assistance lire item has been r&ixe3. this FY from $10,000. to $5,000. At this Late of service, funds may be ead lstad by the end of April. ,]COO serves clients based on a first care needs basis regardless qty Locale [Orange- Chathan]. Therefore, it is possible that 75% or mare of the 1986 allocation may be spelt in Southern Orange County. A carperison outline of 1985 and 1986 service levels is listed belaw: EMMGENCY ASSISTANCE (1st Quarter 2-1-85 - 4-30-85] Northern Orange Total Fanilies - 6 Total carts ICBM] - 578.56 Total. Grants [other] - 100.00 Total Parsons per Held - 27 P.O.BOX 27 PITTSBORO-NORTH CAROLINA 27312•(9191 642-47R1 • IORANGE COUNTY (91A1 929.04941 11 E. ASSISTANCE Southern Orange Total Families - 5 Total Grants [CSRG] - $500. Total Grants [Other] - -0- Total persons pe'Yousabald - 23 SOMMARY TOMES Families - 11 Expenditures - $1,178.56 Persons - 50 [1st Quarter 2-1-86 - 4-14-86] Northern n Crange Total Families - 3 Total Tents [CMG] - 294.99 'Dotal Grants [other] - -0- Total persons per household - 14 Southern Orange Total Families -- 26 Total Grants [CSBG] -- 2,338.04 Total grants [other] - 451.00 Total persons per.household - 120 SMEARY TOTALS Fan—eli s - 29 Exp n itUr - 3,084.03 Persa S - 134 Realizing increased service levels and diminishing farads, as well as the devastating pow effects of the Act, I fly suppart efforts to seek additional funds for direct services in Orange County. Sincerely, Gl Cot t4. WWi717 Exeaitive Dix ' G4 :ea c:c: Chris Moran Jahn Holmes, F D 1c �C E X f'L 6 , E,✓Ce. w,l H fm/4/'C/6z kS'iS Ii /✓CE ..17eC. ! refy 7-r /74,76Y 3 i .Dcc_ I /85 -rwia 1402cN 3/ 186 /NceegeBs' „ /,dDry/�uAG SrL/Er/-rs+ ! 70 idvol✓rzdl7c CL,,, -7 F? 6 7 /9y "/cr,�Are 14,24 /a-' CLitNiS /03 A✓Ew C4rEdYS /5(0 5 / /"/C. AS'E 4o&,v-r r✓E.✓ A51/-70u.✓T "Pc //, 6/? ,5v 0' /8, /&/ 570 # 6, .5-# 3, D6 irce,6AsE ! ci V E N l°''� 0270 64 vEi/ A0_3? 330 1/42 /Nca.6As e ?Y5 - /2 //oN;iis /9,f - ,a r 0,v7ws /9/i - -3 /7c, 26 670 cAS'Es 673 G ASKS S30 c.� c s y/i6/76 • • ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA ...11C1/212,341.s f ice &Lag d d 1152 April 30, 1986 Mr. Walter D. Taft, Jr. , Chief Construction Grants Section State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development 512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Dear Mr. Taft: As requested in your April 7 and April 10 letters, please find enclosed the resolution adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners restating the County's intent to utilize State Clean Water Grant Funds. Also, our most recent schedule and budget information is attached. If any further assistance is needed, please notify my office. Sincerely, Kenneth R. Thompson County Manager KRT/srs Enclosures RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the NRCD Environmental Management Commission has awarded two clean water bond grants (WC 498, accepted July 7, 1982 in the amount of $42,712 for the construction of 8 inch collection sewer and one pump station, and WT388-R, accepted February 6, 1984 in the amount of $122,375 for the construction of a pump station and force main interceptor system) ; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has filed a revised preliminary report with the EMC for the grants to be used to install a community wide sewer system to solve the problems of a failing package plant at the Efland Cheeks Elementary School and the failing septic systems within the Efland area; and WHEREAS, the proposed Efland Sewer Project is in the easement dedication phase and will be constructed according to the revised attached schedule and project budget; and WHEREAS, project financing is dependent upon the Clean Water Bond Grants remaining in effect, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners: 1. Assures the EMC of its intent to complete the project prior to the June 30, 1987 deadline established by the State, and 2. Submits the attached budget and schedule as indication of the remaining checklist steps remaining. ...._ Av._ ttitAL7t/e Don Willhoit, Chair Board of County Commissioners Orange County ATTEST: AZA 4, 7X Beverly B he, C rk Board of County Commissioners - Updated April 18, 1986 REVISED EFLAND SEWER SCHEDULE . May 9, 1986 Complete engineering plans and specifications May 19, 1986 Secure plan approvals by regulatory agencies . May 19 to.31, 1986-Complete easements and right-of-way dedications June 1, 1986 Advertise for bids July 1, 1986 Receive bids July 15, 1986 Award contracts . August 1, 1986 Begin construction February 1, 1987 Connect Efland Cheeks Elementary School June 1, 1987 Complete construction . (-. . • —LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION LGC 108B • • • • .• 325 North SalisburY.Street,Raleigh, North Carolina. 27611 • . . CAPITAL BUDGET AND RELATED INFORMATION- ' .1 • . . • • fhilt Orange County . Date October 11, 1985 . Note: A separate Form LGC 1088 is requireil for each bond purpose listed on.application_ L. Bond desigiationts Project $200,000 2. Purpose: (Describe in general terms nature of capital outlay) • For the constrUction of a sewergollection system-to serve portions of Cheeks - ' 'Township in Orange 'County. 3. Necessity: (Describe in general terms why improvements are needed*, Include copy of preliminary engineering report or other , . • documents upon which applicant is relying) See Attachment 2 4. Consulting Engineer or Architect Hazen and Sawyer-, P.C. ..• , . 5. If costs were not the result of consultant's study, give basis of estimates 6. Capital budget-based ort estimates determined as of August 7, 1985 Estimated Cost Funding Sources Construction Cost - . '920,100 Available Cash Eng.or Arch.Fees. . . . 95,000 Future Appropriations_ - Land and Rt.-of-way. . . 9,300 Grants(indicate source)- Legal and Fiscal 26,000 593,300 Administrative 0 CLean..1-10..tar . . 170,000- - Capitalized Interest . _1_2,000 .Orange County„ . so 000 Cont. ) 91 90n Bond- 200,000 Other Grange .County. 136,000 "loan" Total . . . Total RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools are in need of three mobile classroom units, and WHEREAS, the purchase order for the. mobile classroom units needs to be issued this spring to allow the necessary lead time for delivery of the units for the beginning of school next fall, and WHEREAS, the Board of Education approved a budget amendment to purchase one mobile classroom unit from the contingency account in the 1985-86 Capital Outlay Fund, and WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools have requested that the Orange County Board of Commissioners appropriate at least $66,000 for the purchase of the two remaining units in the 1986-87 County budget, and WHEREAS, The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools need the assurance from the Orange County Board of Commissioners that the funds will be appropriated before issuing the purchase order for three •mobile classroom units. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners assures the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools that at least $66,000 will be appropriated for the purchase of two mobile classroom units in the 1986-87 County budget. Adopted this 22nd day of April, 1986. _L_Vflau",;1 Don Wilihoit, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: //407_, LL.,.. Beverly Blyt►.- Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners • LGC-205(Rev.711985) CONTRACT TO AUDIT ACCOUNTS of, Orange County, North Carolina (Governmental Unit) This agreement,made this. 2nd day of April • 1986 ,by and between Touche Ross & Cb. Auditor i .t,Mi is ' .• .. 123 West Main Street Durham NC 27701 : hereinafter referred to as the Auditor,and Hoard of County ObIrilissionerS of Oralige County ,hereinafter referred Governing Body Governmental Unit to as the Governmental Unit,as follows: 1. The Auditor shall examine all statements and disclosures required by generally accepted accounting principles and additionally required legal disclosures of all funds and/or divisions of the Governmental Unit for the period beginning. July 1 ,19, 85.and . ending June 30 ,19 86.The combining,individual fund,and account group financial statements and schedules shall be subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the examination of the combined financial statements and an opinion will be rendered in relation to the combined financial statements taken as a whole.The Audit will have no scope limitations except: 2. The Auditor shall conduct his examination and render his report in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.The examina- tion shall include such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as are considered by the Auditor to be necessary in the circumstances,except as follows:(Sec Item 4 of Instructions) 3. It is agreed that generally accepted auditing standards include a review of the Governmental Unit's system of internal control and account- - ing as same relates to accountability of funds and adherence to budget and law requirements applicable thereto;that the Auditor will make a written report,which may or may not be a part of the written report of audit,to the Governing Body setting forth his findings,together with his recommendations for improvement.The Auditor shall file a copy of said report with the Secretary of the Local Government Com- mission. 4. The Auditor shall,after completing his examination,submit to the Governing Body a written report of audit.This report shall include.at least,the financial statements and notes thereto prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,combining and sup- plementary information requested by the client or required for full disclosure under-the law and the auditor's opinion on the material presented.The Auditor shall furnish 30 copies of the report of audit to the Governing Body as soon as practical after the close of the accounting period.The Auditor shall file a copy of said report of audit with the Secretary of the Local Government Commission. 5. It is agreed that time is of the essence in this contract. U all audits are not performed and the report of audit not submitted by Septeliber 30 ,lg 86 then this contract shall be void and of no effect,but if said condition is complied with,this contract shall be in full force and effect. 6. Should circumstances disclosed by the audit call for a more detailed investigation by the Auditor than necessary under ordinary cir- cumstances,the Auditor shall inform the Governing Body in writing of the need for such additional investigation and the additional'com- pensation required therefor. Upon approval by the Secretary of the Local Government Commission, this agreement may be varied or changed to include the increased time and compensation as may be agreed upon by the Governing Body and the Auditor. 7. The Auditor shall perform a compliance examination for all Federal financial assistance programs in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984(Pub.L.No.98-502).The Internal Control report issued in paragraph 3 above must meet the requirements of the Single Audit Act of 1984.In addition to the reports required in paragraph 4,the Auditor will issue a Compliance Opinion and grant schedule on these funds in accordance with the Single Audit Act.The Auditor will file a copy of Internal Control report,Compliance Opinion and Grant Schedule with the Secretary of the Local Government Commission.(See Item 9 of Instructions) 8 The Auditor shall conduct a compliance examination on State and local funds in accordance with applicable laws,rules,regulations and generally accepted auditing standards.The Auditor's Internal Control report and Compliance Opinion in Paragraph 7 above will be ex- panded to include State and local funds.(See Item 9 of Instructions) C�v rah 9. In consideration of the satisfactory performance of the provisions of this agremg thee q ef3~rtltlCr3t10Ipa to td]fth1or,upon n SOO approval by the Secretary of the Local Government Commission,a fee of: L���nr�)e�pS p funds r 10. There are no other agreements between the parties hereto and no other agre2 7Bta�o that s a�i enforceebi a unless entere 11,OOO into in accordance with the procedure set out herein and approved by the Secretary of the Local Government Commission. 11. There are no special provisions,except: 12. All of the above paragraphs are understood and shall apply to this agreement,except the following numbered paragraphs shall be deleted: Touche Ross & Co. Orange County, North Carolina Auditor 7/)0.474.120,........ L Goner in By I By Approved by the Secretary of the Local Government Commis- This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by lion as provided in Article 3, Chapter 159 of the General the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act or h.the Statutes or Article 31, Part 3, Chapter 115C of the General School Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Statutes. For the Secretary � .{ Finance Officer Date_ Date larVg File in Triplicate(See Instructions on reverse side) , k II7-'I 01414166I°14115 O N C o6 S�� N 27278 a ism awstri DON 'Orr June 2, 1955 Ms• Garr? Chapel ri M]l-Rou c ar, o e cig n Lincoln is MerY1tt R°a 2151 Chapel Hi] NC res olu t r om n e etthiaxit q 1I°1198; es ` a Coi n h atWheyx Dear Ills-tached for y o Board offs k z �noxma� °xY s pproVed b t 22, 19 6• anY; held Nprl can pxa * ►� • bel affiCe o Cone h this � t If not psi _ ' ' please do • CexelY► , Sin xw � yyg '+�. $evexlY ^tlV Mrs• _... Cleric fbab Attachment r RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools are in need of three mobile classroom units, and WHEREAS, the purchase order for the mobile classroom units needs to be issued this spring to allow the necessary lead time for delivery of the units for the beginning of school next fall, and WHEREAS, the Board of Education approved a budget amendment to purchase one mobile classroom unit from the contingency account in the 1985-86 Capital Outlay Fund, and WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools have requested that the Orange County Board of Commissioners appropriate at -least $66,000 for the purchase of the two remaining units in the 1986-87 County budget, and WHEREAS, The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools need the assurance from the Orange County Board of Commissioners that the funds will be appropriated before issuing the purchase order for three mobile classroom units. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners assures the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools that at least $66,000 will be appropriated for the purchase of two mobile classroom units in the 1986-87 County budget. Adopted this 22nd day of April, 1986. 0: //A . Don Willhoit, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: /74-L,‘" Beverly Blyt-.- Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners . ORANGE.COUNTY Aetian Agenda• •. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE April 22, .1986 . . • ' Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD . • I Dot: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Bearing: Yes g no no I ^ MINT' MANA( 1'J I Attachments: Information Contact: William T. Laws • Phone Nu b,7 rs: )1501, • Phone 8�bers: 732-•87.87-, 2270237. PUBP"WE' .To consider appointments to an Environmental Affairs Board of representatives from (1) The Orange County Planning Board, (2) Agricultural Extension,6 ( Soil and Water Conservation, (4) Solid Waste Task Force, (5) Towns, OWASA, (7) Board of Health and (8) Orange County Command Team. Orange County was selected to receive a grant to help establish a board to advise and assist county commissioners on local environmental issues. Orange Ham: County would serve as a role model for other counties. The Orange County Board of Commissioners approved acceptance of the grant on March 18, 1986. It is important that members be appointed to this Board so that goals can be addressed and a written report done by June 20, 1986. After the composition of the Board is revised and/or approved, each agency will be contacted and asked to submit names of persons who would be willing to serve on this board. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the composition of the Environmental Affairs Board. ,:�:,.,-. .L 6.y". aid k+:5�i..x4 _; OCS :rang! County , rllvvls 'r top EAST KING STREET `wNE1pI�`' HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 (919 732-91 26 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 22, 1986 MEMORANDUM ' ' d of Commissioners Board Orange County FROM: Dan G. Lansford,9.11 MM A L REFERENCE: School Capital Projects Orange County Schools' capital needs over the next few years include the following: 1. Annual recurring capital funds - A minimum of $750,000. 2. Roof replacement - FY 86/87 $400,000 to complete A. L. Stanback and C. W. Stanford. FY 87/88 $150,000 to complete the balance of the buildings listed as priority one by the Law Engineering Firm. 3. Orange High School Expansion/Renovation Project FY 86/87 with final payout in first half of FY 87/88. Bids were opened on April 17, 1986, with a total cost of $3,056,362 as noted on Attachment #1. Also included is a statement from the architect, which emphasizes the financial wisdom of awarding the full project, instead of having to rebid the alternates (Attach- ment #2) . 4. New elementary school project to begin no later than 1987 with approximate cost of $4,000,000 (Attachment #3) . 5. Cameron Park media center expansion to be started after new $00,000. elementary school completion at a cost of app I am providing a historical review of the sequence of events leading to the development of the School Organization/Facility Improvement Plan as Attachment #4. DGL:ha Attachments 4 cc: Orange County Board of Education Messrs. Watts, Trollinger & Rainey atr-0-AjLove Tr- d C S i s rttn Y dvun#v, gchov[s 200 EAST KING STREET HILLSBOROUGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27278 (919)792-8126 April 21, 1986 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT n, County Manager Mr. Ken TYbomFso Orange m Lane 106 E. 27278 Hillsborough, NC Dear Mr. T' Renovation Bids �, i. Re; Orange Hi-h School of bids received as the official notification sib of this Pis pr ject, a this a foilaa-up of our discussion of specified matter this project, and also 18. The base bid for this project requested Friday. April 18. 182,107, The first alternate re b th amity oCniss as is t and that amount is $381,360. was for the addition and that is $207,566, by the Commissioners e alternate is the should be a 3% contingency The second Also, r above-noted costs, there r is awarded. In addition to the Gov bid) of whatever base bid d. Also$30,000 (approximately alplan on the base 7% of the ban�idaorl6 $50, oral planning cost is either a cost of app the architectural t. Also, we will have of the total pro7� coordinator. for the construction project coo attendance at the Ccnmissicxzers Meeting we discussed. I will be asp review this matter and other major As on Tuesday evening, April 22, to rev capital project programming• pectfully, Dan G. , ford Superintendent t L:ha cc: Orange County Board of Education Mr. Don Willhoit APR 2 1 Re 419 North Elm Street / Greensboro, North Carolina 27401-2172 / (919)272-5115 Architects Engineers Planners April 18, 1986 ( ' C Dr. Dan G. Lunsford, Superintendent Orange County Schools 200 East King Street ( Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Re: Orange County High School Additions and Renovations Dear Dr. Lunsford, It is a genuine pleasure to advise you that low bids received for the above project are well within the estimated cost that we provided for you. This was one of the most difficult projects possible to adequately document. It also was extremely difficult for contractors to bid, so many of them have told me. Three general contractors obviously wanted the project since their bids are so close. In view of the long, hard task of your staff and our firm, hard work and patient cooperation have now paid off. It is our recommendation that you take advantage of this ( ' hard work and resulting good prices and award the entire project, including all alternates. If alternates are dropped they will be much more expensive when new bids are received. The alternates have now been considered as a part of start—up, management and bulk purchases and will never be as economical on a segmented re—bid in the future. Also the conflicts of operating the school during construction will be dealt with in one thrust if all work C is completed together. A number of separate construction projects will definitely strain the quality of education offered. J.Hyatt Hammond,FAIA/John G.PaPPaa,AIA/Raymond M.Haolar,P.E.,AIA/W.A.Hammond,P.E./Jeral T.Boone.AIA Walter C.Mu*,Jr.,Ala April 18, 1986 Dr. Dan G. Lunsford Page two It has been a distinct pleasure to work with you and your staff. If we can assist in any way to further evaluate the sound logic to proceed with the total completion of this project please let us know. When you are able to award, we will immediately set a pre- construction conference with the successful contractors at the site to establish a working relationship, an official award date and a construction starting date. Look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, J. HYATT HAMMOND ASSOCIATES, INC. By tt Hammond, FAIA, Architect HH:pp Enclosure ,� ,q� G #3 4I O C S n c a , d > ; 4 , Orange lIuuntg **hoofs 200 EAST KING STREET HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT (919) 732-8126 February 20, 1986 MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Board of Education FROM: Dan G. Lunsford 197/L' REFERENCE: School Organization/Facilities Improvement Plan - Phase II In a memorandum dated October 30, 1984, to the Board, we outlined our recommended plan for major facility improvement of the Orange County Schools. Following a discussion of the recommendation, the Board of Education submitted a recommendation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners as outlined in a memorandum dated November 26, 1984. As a result of that request, we received authorization to proceed on Phase I (Orange High School renovation/expansion), and in late 1985 we were cleared to proceed to bid on that work. Part of our recommendation in 1984 was that no later than January, 1987, the Board would make a final decision on Phase II, as to whether it will be a middle school or an elementary school. Earlier this school year the Board directed us to bring the topic up this year for a decision prior to the budget cycle this spring, instead of waiting until the 1986- 87 school year. This memorandum of recommendation is in response to that request. As we examine the data impacting on the Orange County Schools and its facility needs, the following facts are of particular importance: (1) As of January, 1986, the K-5 membership was 2,317. (2) The K-5 reasonable capacity of the current facilities is 2,200. (3) At our K-5 sites we currently have in use six (6) mobile classrooms with one being used fOr regular instruction and five (5) being used for resource/special instruction. (4) The school system is projected for steady growth in K-5 by SDPI, through the extent of their projections, with 1989-90 membership of 2,476. This projection is 199 more than the 1985-86 K-5 projected membership. Orange County Board of Education -2- February 20, 1986 (5) The 1985-86 SDPI K-5 projection was 2,277 with an actual membership of 2,317 (a positive difference of 40) . (6) The 1985-86 SDPI K-12 projection was 4,960, with an actual membership of 5,031 (a positive difference of 71) . (7) The 1985-86 membership in the sixth grade as of January, 1986, is 359, with a projected sixth grade membership in 1987-88 of 376 and in 1989-90 a sixth grade membership of 355. However, the sixth grade is projected to return to the 400+ level in the early 1990's. The net result of this and other data is that the Orange County Schools will need a new facility to house approximately 400 sixth graders in either one school or redistributed to elementary schools. Also, the system needs to plan facility improvements to house projected K-5 growth of 200 students. The system should return its current K-5 schools to their reasonable capacity to accommodate for additional growth, which should reduce their arnbined membership to 2,200 (a net reduction of approximately 100) . Therefore, I recommend that the Board of Education approve as Phase II of its major facility improvement plan the construction of an elementary school to house 700 students. At the point the new elementary school is ready for occupancy, the elementary schools should be converted to a K-6 grade structure. With the use of A. L. Stanback as a system-level education center, it would provide relief to the current facilities by housing system-level services; such as selected self-contained exceptional child classes, teacher/employee staff development center, adult education program and other programs to be developed and/or identified for syster-level emphasis. To construct a 700 student elementary school, the Board would need approximately $4,000,000. This figure is computed at a $50 per square foot cost, to include inflation and acquisition of 30 acres of land; provided the project is bid and begun no later than 1987. The adoption of this recommendation.mould be less expensive than the construction of a similarly sized middle school based on the square footage requirement alone. A middle school requires twenty (20) square feet more per student than an elementary school. Likewise, the construction of a middle school would require that either the two schools be of unequal size or Stanford Junior High would be underutilized to provide equal size schools. In summary, it is my recommendation that a new K-6 school is a sound educational and financial decision. DGL:ha g SCHOOL ORGANIZATION/FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PLAN: PHASE I - Expand Orange High School and Convert to a 9-12 grade pattern. PHASE II- Construct new elementary school to house 700 students. The following is a sequential presentation of the steps taken by Orange County Schools to develop our plan for school organization/facilities: GENERAL PLANNING 1. The Board of Education has adopted a five year long-range "Capital Needs Plan" for many years. This plan identified the need to replace the middle school, expand the high school and add a new elementary school. 2. In August of 1983, the County Commissioners established the Ad Hoc School Capital Task Force. Their final report dated February 1, 1984 was presented to the Orange County Commissioners at their February 21, 1984 meeting. 3. At our request, the N. C. Department of Public Instruction, Division of School Planning conducted a study titled "Up-dated Study of Possible Reorganization, Efficient Facility Utilization and Long-Range Facility Needs" for our school system and presented to us it's report dated October 15, 1984. 4. On November 19, 1984, the Board of Education adopted a two phase "School Organization/Facilities Improvement Plad'as outlined in superintendents' memo dated October 30, 1984. 5. On December 3, 1984, the County Commissioners and the Board of Education met in joint session to review the "School Organization/ Facilities Improvement Plan as outlined in the superintendents' memo to the County Commissioners dated November 26, 1984. PHASE I 1. On December 3, 1984, the Commissioners authorized architect and engineering monies to start the Orange High School project. 2. In June of 1985, the Commissioners approved $570,000 during regular budget adoption to continue engineering and possible initial con- struction costs during FY 85/86. 3. On December 2, 1985, the superintendent presented to the Board of Commissioners an updated project report as outlined in his November 26, 1985 memo. Preliminary cost reported to be $2,800,000 plus 5% for bid variance and 3% for project contingency. 4. On December 17, 1985, the Board of Commissioners authorized the school system to proceed to bid, specifying two alternates and that bid cost would be reviewed for project authorization upon receipt of bids. -1- 5. On January 13, 1986, the Board of Education authorized final specification development to include the alternates directed by the Board of Commissioners plus a third alternate for parking lot paving. This was based on a projected cost of $2,940,000 not including a contingency of 3%. 6. On March 10, 1986, the Board of Education completed a final review of plans and authorized a start bid date of March 17 with bid open- ing of April 17, 1986, at 3:00 P. M. in the County School Admini- strative Building. 7. On March 12, 1986 the superintendent transmitted a letter to the County Commissioner Chairman outlining the project bid dates and requesting action not later than May 5, 1986 to authorize signing of construction contracts. PHASE II 1. On February 24, 1986, the Board of Education approved the construc- tion of a new elementary school to house 700 students per a memo from the superintendent dated February 20, 1986. (copy attached) -2- i v ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1986 7:30 P.M. OLD POST OFFICE CHAPEL HILL, N.C. A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. MINUTES D. APPOINTMENTS PAGE # E. PUBLIC HEARINGS 003 1. Impact of Projected Federal Budget Cuts 018 2. School Capital Budgets--Superintendent's Report F. REPORTS 025 1. March 25, 1986 Jail Inspection Report G. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) 031 1. Capital Funds Resolution for Mobile Home Units-- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools 034 2. 1985-86 Annual Audit Contract 036 3. Nuclear War Statement H. ITEMS FOR DECISION 037 4. Burnside Park--Preliminary Plan 058 5. 5-2-86 Orange County Investors 070 6. Proposed Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Amendments 080 7. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 094 8. Planned Development Rezoning Extension--Chandler's Green 497 9. Proposed Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments-- Recreation Standards (Public Hearing Continuation) 109 10. Clean Water Bond Funds Resolution 111 11. Section 8 Surplus Funds Use 113 12. Budget Amendments .117 13. Supplemental General Assistance Funds Request I. ADJOURNMENT r' r