Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 11-17-1987
n• r .r� / • ORANGE COUNTY' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1987 7:30 P.M. OLD POST OFFICE CHAPEL HILL, N.C. A. BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda (We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked. ) 2 . Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. MINUTES PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous mmanneer, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. Ay time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that indivi- dual regains personal control. should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. D. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS PAS E. REPORTS 002 1. Airport Issues Task Force Report 003 2. 1986-87 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report F. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) 004 1. Dumpster Site Leases--Walnut Grove Church Road and High Rock Road 005 2. Appointments--open Space Technical Advisory Committee Offer 007 *3 . Authorization of an Above Entry Employment 008 4. Expanded Public Assistance Programs G. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA 009 1. Health Promotion Allocation 010 2 . proposed Water/Sewer Policy partridge Run, 012 3 . Addition of Summerwind, Coachway, Jeffersvns Choice, Outrider Trace, Wheelwright Common, and Greenbrier Station in the Trails Subdivision to the State-Maintained Road System 017 * 4. JTPA Service Delivery Designation 018 5. Space Allocation H. APPOINTMENTS I. ADJOURNMENT (*) Indicates items that need immediate attention. MOMEMMEMMEMMMMMMIL ! . ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. (1 ACTION AGENDA ITEK ABSTRACT NMMTING DATE November 17, 1987 Subject: MINUTES [ Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS i Public Hearing: Yes X no Attachments: Information Contact: Bever4A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 4 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: August 3, 1987 - Regular Meeting September 22, 1987 - Regular Meeting October 14, 1987 - Joint Planning Public Hearing October 20, 1987 - Regular Meeting November 2, 1987 - Regular Meeting BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the governing Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. 1 APPROVED DECEMBER 1, 1987 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1987 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met on November 17, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, NC. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell and Don Willhoit. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Commissioner Moses Carey, Jr. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Albert Kittrell, Assistant County Manager William T. Laws, Interim Assistant County Manager/Personnel Director Beverly M. Whitehead, Interim Management Analyst Pamela Jones, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Social Services Director Marti Cook, and Commission for Women Coordinator Andi Reynolds. A. BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS Chair Marshall made the following changes to the agenda: 1. Delete item G2 - Water and Sewer Policy. This item will be placed on the December 1 agenda. 2. Delete minutes for August 3, October 14, and October 20. Commissioner Halkiotis asked that Roscoe Reeve give a presentation at a future Board meeting to explain the importance and relevance of the house numbering system for the benefit of those persons who live in Hideaway Estates. He asked that a one-day program be held with the different agencies that deal with teen pregnancy to determine if there is duplication in the delivery of these services. He acknowledged receipt of a letter from Farris Womack of the University which stated a willingness to work with the County on the issue of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) . B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None. 2. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Clayton Bjorklund of Buttonwood Drive presented a petition which asked that the County revise the County's Noise Ordinance. He stated that music from Roman's Roller Rink is loud and interferes with the privacy of area residents. He explained the difficulty he was having in getting this problem resolved. The Dispute Settlement Center met with the owners of Roman's Roller Rink and some of the people who live in the neighborhood and there was agreement to work together to the satisfaction of everyone. Roman Hines, co-owner of the skating rink, indicated he talked with Mr. Bjorklund and told him he would work with him to resolve this problem. He stressed the importance of having a place for the young people in the community. He admitted playing the music loud but stated that he has played the music lower since receiving complaints from the neighborhood. They couldnot get any security from the Sheriff's Department Deputies for the rink which causes a problem with control of the kids. AM 2 County Manager Albert Kittrell stated that the County will continue to work with the Dispute Settlement Center, the Sheriff's Depart- ment and with both parties involved to resolve the issue. Commissioner Willhoit suggested that sound panels may help buffer the noise from the skating rink. He noted that the low frequency noise is not addressed in the Ordinance and should be reviewed for inclusion. C. MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the minutes for September 22 as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for November 2 as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Shirley E. Marshall read the public charge. D. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS None. E. REPORTS 1. AIRPORT ISSUES TASK FORCE R PORT (A copy of this report is on file in the Clerk's Office) . Pearson Stewart, Chair of the task force, gave a brief overview of the findings of the task force which are outlined in the report. The report addressed the issue of whether there should be a general aviation airport in the County and whether one would be financially feasible. John Hunter, member of the task force, explained the revenue projections that would be generated by a general aviation airport and explained that these revenues depend largely on the services that will be available. Stewart stated that the task force recommends that an airport engineering firm be contracted to conduct a feasibility study for a new general aviation airport and that the County Planning Staff be directed to update previous studies on potential airport sites. There is state aid available which will help pay for this engineering study. The next deadline for submitting an application for State aid is February 17. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to request that County Administration proceed with the development of criteria by which to select an airport engineering firm and to present at the next meeting this criteria along with a list of engineering firms who would be able to make application by February 17. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. The Administration was requested to develop the criteria for site selection and asked to involve other County departments as appropriate. 2. 1986-87 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (A copy of this report is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office) . Rex Price from Touche Ross and Company presented the report. He praised the County for the quality of the report and stated that the recommendations in the letter were nothing of a material nature. He noted that the undesignated general fund equity increased from $992,000 last year to $1,475, 000 or from 3.76% to 5.25% which is a significant increase. F. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissione3 r Halkiotis to approve the consent agenda as listed below: 1. DUMPSTER SITE LEASES - WALNUT GROVE CHURCH ROAD AND HIGH ROCK ROAD Approve two agreements for the lease of two dumpster sites located on Walnut Grove Church Road and High Rock Road and authorize the Chair to sign. The cost for each dumpster site is $50.00 per month for a five year period. 2• APPOINTMENTS - OPEN SPACE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE To approve the appointments to the Open Space Technical Advisory Committee as presented by Planning Director Marvin Collins. 3 UTHORIZATION OF AN ABOVE ENTRY EMPLOYMENT 0 FER Salary Grade a78, Stepp 10A. employment offer for the Health Director at 4. EXPANDED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS To authorize the creation of two Eligibility Specialist I positions in the Department of Social Services effective January 1, 1988 at a cost to the County of $1, 036.48. G. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA 1. HEALTH PROMOTION ALLOCATION (A letter explaining the health promotion program is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office) . Meg Malloy, a nutritionist in the Health Department, stated that an allocation of $17,462.23 is available from the N.C. Division of Health Services for use in FY 87-88 to develop and implement a health promotion program. This program will be offered to County employees in the beginning phase and hopefully will be expanded other organizations. The $17,462.23 wilbeallocatedlasefollowshools and $11,500.00 - 1/2 year funding for Health Program Coordinator $ 1,302.23 - Operating costs $ 4, 660.00 - Medical equipment - Reflotron 2. PROPOSED WATER/SEWER POLICY Deleted. 3 . ADDITION OF SUMMERWIND, COACHWAY PARTRIDGE RUN, JEFFERSONS CHOICE, OUTRIDER TRACE, WHEELWRIGHT COMMON AND GREENBRIER STATION IN TH TRAILS SUBDIVISION TO THE STATE-MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM. - E Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded Marshall to approve the petition from DOT for the addition of Summerwind, Coachway, Partridge Run, Jefferson Choice, Outrider Trace, Wheelwright Common, and Greenbrier Station in the Trails Subdivision to the State Maintained Road System. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4. JTPA SERVICE DELIVERY DESIGNATION Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, sec aydad by Chair to redesignate Orange County's JTPA service delivery area to the State Rural JTPA program and become members of the balance of State and administered by the State with regional trainers working with JTPA recipients. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. SPACE ALLOCATION Albert Kittrell presented a plan for reallocation of space in the New Courthouse and the Court Street Annex. 4 Several concerns were expressed by the Board: (1) The cost of the rented facilities. (2) The hardship imposed on the Juvenile Court Counselors by having to move twice within such a short period of time. (3) Assurance that adequate input had been provided b y all departments and agencies and that the plan addresses the needs of all agencies scheduled for reallocation of space. These concerns will be addressed by the Administration at the next meeting. H. APPOINTMENTS The following appointments were made by the Board: MENTAL HEALTH BOARD - Dr. Eugene Meyer ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - William Bunch COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD ON AGING - Mary Grosso EXECLEIVE SESSION Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chair Marshall to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn into regular session. I. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for the Board to consider, Chair Marshall adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on December 1, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, clerk 0 0 1 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda 411 • BOARD OF CONNISSIONERS Item ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE November 17, 7987 • Subject: MINUTES Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Rearing: Yes X no Attachments: Information Contact: Beve4y .A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone Nudbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: August 3, 1987 — Regular Meeting 411 September 22, 1987 - Regular Meeting October 14, 1987 - Joint Planning Public Hearing October 20, 1987 - Regular Meeting November 2, 1987 - Regular Meeting BACKGROUND: In accordance with 193A-42 of the General Statutes, the governing 1767i7-71-TEE-ihe legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. RECOMERUATION: As the Ord decides - 111 0 0 1 ORANGE COUNTX Action Agenda 410 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. (1_ ACTION AGENDA 17T24 ABSTRACT MEETING DATE November 17, 1987 Subject: MINUTES Department: BOARD OF commissroms Palle Bearing: Yes X no Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone Limbers: 732-8181, 968-4901, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: August 3, 1987 - Regular Meeting 410 September 22, 1987 - Regular Meeting October 11 , 1987 - Joint Planning Public Hearing October 20, 1987 - Regular Meeting November 2, 1987 - Regular Meeting BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the governing 1;7731-7a7The legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. BECORVIREDATION: I ■■•■■1 As the Board decides- ", ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 002 Action Agenda Item No.jEdm ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT- Meeting Date: NOVEMBER 17, 1987 SUBJECT: AIRPORT ISSUES TASK FORCE REPORT DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTACmNT(S) ; INFORMATION F51511TTaFT--------------- DON WILLHOIT, EXT 505 TELEPHONE NUMBER: - UNDER SEPARATE COVER Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To receive the report of the Airport Issues Task Force and take action on their recommendations. • BACKGROUND: The Airport Issues Task Force was charged in January to investigate, among other issues, positive and negative features of Horace Williams Airport and determine if an alternate airport location would be feasible. The Task Force held a public hearing in May and received input from the NC Department of Transportation and the Director of the Raleigh-Durham Airport. The group concluded that the County should proceed with the development of a new airport facility, but deferred to a future task force the issue of site selection. The Task Force could not agree on recommendations for facility maintenance and/or improvements at Horace Williams Airport until such time as a new general aviation airfield is built. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Request that County Administration proceed with the development of criteria by which to select an airport engineering firm to conduct a feasibility study for a new general aviation airport and request the County Planning Staff to update previous studies on potential airport Sites. .my . . . . 003 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.lElk ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: NOlaavIBER 17, 1987 SUBJECT: 1986-87 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report DEPARTMENT: . PUBLIC HEARINGT --TgE-77-1713-- Finance —"TACH2 - INFORMATION CONTACT: --------- Ken Chavious Ext 491 • TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 . Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To present the June 30, 1987 Audit Report . . . . • . . BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report covers all financial activity of the county during the Fiscal Year 1986-87. ' Presentation of this report is necessary in order to fulfill the requirements set forth in G. S. 159-34. Representatives of Touche Ross and Comoany will be present - c, answer any questions. .., .:... . . • . RECOMMENDATION(S) : Receive as information. 004 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agen a Item Na. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT . Meeting Date: NOVEMBER 17, 1987 'SUBJECT: Dumpster Site Leases Walnut Grove Church Road and High Rock Road DEPARTIMNT: Public'Works ' PUBLIC HEARING:: _Ira_ Yes Na ATTACHMENT(S) : ThTION CONTACT: • Wilbert McAdoo-Ext. 48.1 Lease Agreements: TELEPHONE NUMBER: • Carl Walters Hillsborough - 732-8181 John T. Walker Chapel Hill - 968-4501 (URDER SEPARATE COVER) Mebane - 227-2031 • Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: The lease agreements are a part of the overall scheme to consolidate green • box sites throughout Orange County. These actions are being undertaken in an effort to improve efficiency and reduce operating cost. The leasing . of these 'two sites will replace six sites. The sites will be approximately one acre in size and bordered on all sides. The sites will accommodate twentyfive (25) dumpsters with some room for, growth. • • BACKEROUTD): Sanitation Division collects and transports solid waste materials for rural Orange County. Currently, there are fifty-three (53) sites scattered throughout Orange County. The leasing of the two sites will cut that number to fortynine (49) . RECOMMENDATION(S) : To approve lease and authorize Chair to sign. • O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 005 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date November 17, 12$7 Action enda Item SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS - OPEN SPACE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins List of Proposed Appointees TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider appointments to the Open Space Technical Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND: At its November 2, 1987 meeting, the Board of Commissioners approved a draft Request for Proposals for the preparation of an Open Space Plan for Orange County. As part of the work plan, the formulation of an Open Space Technical Advisory Committee was proposed to assist the consultant and the Planning Department in preparing the Plan. The Administration indicated that a recommendation would be presented at this meeting regarding appointments to the Committee. The recommended members and their area of interest are shown on the attached list. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the appointments to the Open Space Technical Advisory Committee. oos OPEN SPACE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Narne, &ea of J nterest Dr. Carol Crumley Environmental Affairs Board (Geology and Anthropology) Judson Edeburn Duke Forest Resource Manager (Forestry) Patrick Davis Orange Water/Sewer Authority Jim Monroe Agricultural Extension Agent Lester Ray Southern Orange Farmer Carl Walters Northern Orange Farmer Livy Ludington Triangle Land Conservancy Lorraine Parker Recreation Advisory Council Richard Ward Recreation Advisory Council Barry Jacobs Planning Board Steve Cruise Duke Power Company Lisa Packenham Development Community Elizabeth Dwyer Citizen/Eno TAC Susan Tillotson Eno River State Park Eno River Association Kirk Pellan UNC Forest Resource Manager Dawson Sather Environmental Inventory Consultant/Biologist Michael Washington Soil Conservation Service ORANGE COUNTY 007 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. F7 Meeting Date: NOVEMBER 17, 1987 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION OF AN ABOVE ENTRY EMPLOYMENT OFFER DEPARTMENT COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING; Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S NONE OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider authorization of an employment offer at Salar Grade 78, Step 10A. Y BACKGROUND: The Board of Health has completed the selection process for the position of Health Director. In accordance with Article IV Section 5.2 of the Personnel Ordinance, Board of Commissioners authorization is needed to offer a salary above step 5D. The candidate brings over 14 years of Public Health management experience and a Master's Degree in Public Health Administration. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Authorize the employment P yment offer at Salary Grade 78, Step 10A. molinmEN=11 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 008 Action Agenda Item ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 17, 1987 SUBJECT: Expanded Public Assistance Programs DEPARTMENT: Social Services PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No 711 7AICIMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Pryor-Cook TELEPHONE NUMBER: NONE Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To authorize creation of two Eligibility Specialist I positions that are needed. to implement a mandated expansion in the Medicaid and AFDC public assistance programs. BACKGROUND: New legislation enacted by the 1987 session of the North Carolina General Assembly extends Medicaid and AFDC coverage to additional groups. Effective October 1, 1987, Medicaid covers pregnant women and children under age two, whose family income is equal to or less than 100% of the federal poverty guidelines. Effective January 1, 1988, coverage is extended to person who are 19, 20, and 21 years old, in accordance with federal rules and regulations; and to certain intact families when the head of household is unemployed. These intact families will also be eligible to receive AFDC-Unemployed Parent benefits. By March 1 , 1988, qualified health care providers may make initial eligibility determination for poor pregnant women prior to referring them to the department of social services for the application process. Two additional eligibility workers will be needed to implement these program expansions. In recognition of this need for administrative support, the General Assembly appropriated 1.5 million for each year in the 1987 - 89 Biennium for public assistance administration. Orange County's share of these funds is $9,004.00 to match an equal amount of federal funds for a total of $18,008.00. Two eligibility workers can be employed by the department, effective January 1, 1988, at a cost of $20,080.95. The cost to the county will be $1,036.48 which is available within the agency's existing budget. RECOMMENIDATION: Authorize the creation of two Eligibility Specialift I positions effective January 1, 1988. , s ORANGE COUNTY 009 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A nd ts ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: NOVEMBER 17, 1987 SUBJECT: HEALTH PROMOTION ALLOCATION DEPARTMENT: HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(5) : INFORMATION CONTACT: CHARLES NONE HARPER,X311 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider acceptance of an allocation of $17,462.23 from the N.C. Division of Health Services for use in FY 87-88 to develop and implement a health promotion program. Support resources for this program include: creation of a Program Coordinator position; purchase of medical equipment and supplies; and use of agency clerical services. BACKGROUND: This allocation is part of a statewide effort to enable health departments to initiate health The Health department intends to offeromtheonprogram1ttos�County employees in the beginning phase. The program's intent is to identify major health risks for cancer, heart disease and accidents and to assist the individual in developing and following a personal risk reduction plan. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Health Board Recommendations: Approve the State allocation of $17,462.23 and the budget for use of funds as follows: proposed Personnel 11,500.00 (1/2 yr, funding Health Operating Costs Program Coordinator) 1,302 .23 Capital Expenditures 4, 660. 00 (Medical equipment- Refetron) $17,462.23 '" Y7■ 4 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON HEALTH YOURSELF" ORANGE COUNTY'S EMPLOYEE SHALTH PROMOTION PROGRAM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. What is a health promotion program? A program to help identify personal health risks that might lead to injury, illness or chronic disease. It can improve employees' energy level and morale by helping them to stop smoking, develop , better eating and exercise habits, lose weight, manage stress, and increase safety practices at work and home. 2. How can it help my department? By improving the way a person feels, this program can help job performance and attitude of employees. It may also decrease the number of job-related injuries and sick days taken by employees. 3. How much work time will be involved? Program participants will have an initial screening session (blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, iron, diet analysis, % body fat and exercise testing) which will take 11/2. hours. A follow- up session for interpretation of test results, counseling/ and planning activities will take 30 minutes. Six months after en- rollment, employees will be rescreened for targeted health areas in a 30 minute session. 4. What can I do to help? The manager for each department may best support this program by: 1) Being a role model and personally participating in the program. 2) Encouraging all part and full time employees to enroll. 3) Designating at least one person in the department to serve on a provider action committee (PAC) that meets monthly. Duties will include being a link to the department to distribute news- letters, put up fliers, inform staff of upcoming seminars and special activities. They will also bring back your depart ment's ideas and reactions to the providers of the program. This person will be involved in a meeting scheduled for Thurs- day, November 19th at 2:00 to plan for a "Health YourseW kickoff meeting for the program. 5. Who are the providers of the health promotion program? The Orange County Health Department, the Agricultural Extension Service, the Recreation and Parks Department, OPC Mental Health, the County Manager, and one representative from each county de- partment. -2- 6. When will the program start? January 1988 is the target date to begin. 7. What sorts of activities can I expect and when will they take place? The health promotion activities will be scheduled before and after work, over lunch and during breaks. If an employee needs an indi- vidual counseling session, they may request petty leave or sick leave from their supervisor. Examples of 'Health Yourself" activities are: *Discounts from community-affiliated exercise/fitness business. *A walking/jogging trail through historic Hillsborough Districts. *"Hands-on" workshops on buying, cooking and eating heart-healthy foods. *Area restaurants featuring special healthful meals for program participants. *Noon time exercise classes and open recreation time. *Stop smoking talks and counseling for individuals. *Weight loss programs. *Stress reduction seminars and individual counseling. *Quarterly newsletter on wellness issues. *Wellness hotline. *Directory of Health Resources available in orange County. *Other ideas that you and your employees come up with! ! 10/87 MM/as O N BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSY ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date noyemberr 1ZJ__1987 Action &Benda Item .# SUBJECT: PROPOSED WATER/SEWER POLICY (;10; DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes --_ No ATTACHMENT(S) ; INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins Proposed Water/Sewer Policy (UNDER SEPARATE co )VER TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of a Orange County. Proposed water and sewer policy for This item was continued from the October 20, 1987 meet i BACKGROUND: The Board of Ong' prepare recommendationslconcerningea waterP ndniew Board policy to for Orange County. On May 13, 1987, the Planning Director presented background information regarding a policy draft to the Natural Resources Subcommittee of the Plannin PoiicY considerations 9 Board. headings, including the followings©aped under six topical 1 . Water Supply 2. Delineation/Protection of Watersheds 3. Sewage Disposal/Alternative Systems 4. Delineation of Water/Sewer Service Districts 5. Evidence of Service Capability/Capacity 6. Financial Participation Financial participation the Planning Board, since the etCounty m Manager, atFina Director and County Attorney were to prepare by for the Commissioners review and a nce P a policy draft approval . Additions and amendments to the Planning Director were prepared by the Natural Resources Subcommittee drand presented to the Planning Board on June 9, 1987 . The Planning Board approved only minor pproped the proposed water/sewer subsequently hearing Board Chair the proposed policy to receive utility be held en Y Provid comment. Another purpoSe was to er and citizen policy into the Land Use Plan. incorporate the proposed oil The proposed Water/Sewer Policy has been discussed by the Board of Commissioners at its August 18, September 8 and October 20 meetings . At the October 20 meeting, the Board provided direction to the Administration in regard to the County 's financial participation in water and/or sewer projects. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Board receive the proposal as information and schedule a public hearing on the proposed water/sewer policy for December 15, 1987. /, e . w ,e__ _ ,,,F. '; ev _ '• 67- 2 � . ey SUBJECT: ADD IT ` ) ON r P / �` SONS STATI IER ROAD ED DEPARTMENT: PLA " -___ No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk (a) Letter from J.M. Mills to Manager dated October 27, 1987; (b ) Secondary Road Addition Investigation Report TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham Mebane - 688-7331 Chapel Hill - 227-2031 968-4501 PURPOSE: Petition from Summerwind, NCDOT for approval of Coachway, Partridge Run, the addition of Outrider Trace, Wheelwright Common, and Greenbrier Station in The Trails Subdivision to the Road System. State--maintained Secondary r BACKGROUND: Addition of System. Paved roads to State-maintained Secondary Road The Board 's decision will be forwarded to th Transportation for their the N.C. '` road to the State-.maintained eSecondarynRo daSysteanceoofdthe System. RECOMMENDATION: Approval . i. i • , _ . .. -.... av4..51,- . Jfc: A • 013 A A.?:,A,gra, .• . , STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . . , • • Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G.MARTIN • October 27, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E.HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS,P.E. SECRETARY . STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County • • Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson, County Manager Orange County . . 106 East Margaret Lane y , • Hillsborough, NC 27278 . . . . . , Subject: Petition for Addition - Summerwind, Coachway, Partridge Run, Jeffersons Choice, Outrider Trace, Wheel4right Common, and Greenbrier Station in The Trails Subdivision Dear Mr. Thompson: Attached is Form SR-40 Secondary Road Addition In- vestigation Report, for Summerwind, Coachway, Partridge Run, Jeffersons Choice, Outrider Trace, Wheelwright Common, and Greenbrier Station in The Trails Subdivision. This is being forwarded to you for review by your Board of Commissioners. - Yours very truly, • . /,-- ...e..:ZA . , • . M. Mills, P. E. sISTRICT ENGINEER , • , /jbh Atta. . • cc: Mr., J. W. Watkins . . . , 411 , . . . • . . . . . A n CFI,tni nnneIrtt/nil" /A 44i•niltioP A ri;rn F•-nnlnIfor , •IMMOMMill - NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 01 4 OF HIGHWAYS SECONDARY ROAD VADDIITION INVESTIGATION REPORT County Co. File e No. _ Date Township Div. File No. Summerwind 0.24; Coanli ra, 0.50; Partridge Run 0. 13; Local Name3efffIrrypes caioiz 0.O7r O,rtride Trace Subdivision Name The 0.07; Wheelwright Comaon 0.02; Czeenbrier Station 0.06 Length 1 f\Q Tn.,-;11 ..r,y,-„; Width , iR Type Y-1 Condition Fair Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for such streets? Yea Recorded 06--0S--7? Book 30 Is this a subdivi is n street subject to participation paving? �o Number of homes having entrances into road Forty-four (44) Total Other uses having entrances into road None Does right-of-way obtained meet present Division of Highways requirement? Dedicated If not, why? Is petition (SR-1 attached? 7e s Is the County Commissioners' Approval SR-2) attached? If not, why? Does the road meet present m Division of Highways construction requirements? nts. If not, state what is needed to- place the condition under Remarks and Recommendations. ad �n an acceptable maintenance Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locatin road b Planning Department? Yes 9 y the Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $ Grade, drain, stabilize $ , Drainage $ Other 3 Remarks and Recommendations Meets minimum reeui. emits; thence recommend addition. Reviewed and approved Board of Transportation Member • Reviewed and approved J. W. Watkins ' ,-x-t7 DIVISION ENGINEER 3 rr' Ni2.ls ■fiISTRICT ENGINEER (Do not write in this space - For use of Secondary Roads Dept.) 'Petition No -� 4111 (Do not write in this ,space For use of Planning Dept, ) Form SR-4 (7-77) .aa, •+ ( 1..5 ' T ../..-- r-� ' • CL�u1 ' 1�7 r• /►2 ` ,0,7 w.Q l +'y ,p i •a 4j‘,�R fir\cap. � 1 7a. \,17.71. �� • �7 • •---., .,....., 1211 I • ^,� ` I1 l 57• 1 \ +'�•M 1 1, �. �„ •i/i f • ,115 +�. Simms. �Z '117) • •'•;, a'_ • +s+ ?i° •„ 1 907 r ..y y w 117•�-'-1 , "yam, M' .a, •p�?-! �i ' J N.� • ;e• •�ars \ • °: ,. •' • ,Jt��• w I 4. 11 1 .+▪ • + I1 h •�Y'tT3' T r I ,aa. Isaa T 5OROU F7 './L . 1 7 77 ll 110 X97 I .pR>i t 1 �i s. • !mod •►� / •'1 ' •'•s71� ••.s 1 ,, �r �• 1 n i ��� r '+J 1 -_ .yr ,,,C,I. 7,!1•0 ^-.02_•013'/ J , _ r1 . " 111 L3 r�a+_ � ��r+. J_i!! 1•'tIL :;ow, .�'\ +!t_ ' i`- �~ti. � w 1 oulE �C. .. •`�^' �` ��ya...rrw+ '7 .•�7, f - - r I � TO W r1�+ ° •,1 D.�+ 1•a 117, ` ^.Tr '. 1_� • • Off/ I� 771 • ...:U•11 - 1>L • • + ppR57 r0 ,-Ills // • A. , , /♦ .• r .41 1 6• 1 / 1.... IT •1 <M) • `SA•?1 ii at .• I,, v �• 111• !/ , w l .. z 4w 7,7• w.+G°. •• .� 1777 .� . 1.�tr. J .� ,fp I. • • 9q 'a '.m 17,• - I NOV • ++i- • ,`l , --1 ~-7'1• �_ 1 I !J ..../-‘,...---\.+' p. , . ` y 1. r� ` '�"• • DIRE , . - 1 V / '=Q7 . Z wo•-•••f \ y.,� • - '°+l 11 ~•1. rm, 1 ,7 1} y_ 111' ^34,77 .0. i :N° �\ ice '1'' obi •~) 1xi 1 r '��• .1 LDS- - i�yy •%, r., tee~ taw 7 Cam/ •• 7 F S+ • 1 ',riei i ter'• I :� w •' 1�fT ryy 111 1�^T ' • i•7 Wr.I- �^ tii r SOT + bans.. ; 1.• v� N. a ` 1 ` ••••••■. io Lla (J.•••••�• •� S O J '' 701•1 1! w ,,7�j � 1+ ' Jj \ = 7 (\\ I !T -,4 Imo•�. .J!1 tr'`" r� 77 w Iry •ee� �y\ 1" �.. " ..•.el I r`/ ti' (er•wGi Cp s70,. t riw0•• 1,• i I! o- v r ' V[AnbOR0 ` wy� o - 1 1• • ._ / pop 71i/� 11 Atr•••" 4 i 1 y( '.1 LI'N'N,,,..:e.,'...t.______x:St.-1110 ' LOR e ° 7. ! t_rIAPELI G i J ,b+' 4 ' VI /+" • ••I yL � HILL I f I 1 r� \ • • �-� � i i... •• a" . 1 •q.7 19.,71 �. moo..77 7� l : 'v'J 1 p►7 :L..\____,.... - , ^ 1.77 •9°! ~ L ,•:7; N...�.Y .. _- WO , . . . gs --i , 016 .• tz, . _ ii _____ . ____ --7--_ . • .( ' L-7— ep. a-,5z """7"-----•••---- 1 1 _ I - -_____I• c3 . --- -*.,,, • . ?). a . -Ili _ -..• UJ • -7J1--.0-- //J b Pi • IllirliniWIMMRIIkAll 'qIW-----:0' ----- _ ) f: . .1,0, ----- 23 • \ t . ; i • r) lik • -- 111111111111 . I F N I I I III I I I I I II 111 IIIIIIINML''-----Crl•, 00# fil 0 - '141111111111"41 ........ _,.....- V . C r % d i 9 ' 0 . . .A . . .■ . 9 ill .. .. . . 0. . . • - ' • • i:: 01111 . *. . . t• 1! [' ' - -• • ' ' - • •' : • . • '. - ORANGE COUNTY 17 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A a kj ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: NOVEMBER 17, 1987 SUBJECT: JTPA: SERVICE DELIVERY AREA DESIGNATION DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 PETITION FOR SERVICE DELIVERY AREA DESIGNATION WILL BE SUBMITTED AT THE MEETING TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider approval of petition to the State of North Carolina for re-designation of our service delivery area for the Job Training Partnership Act Program (JTPA) . BACKGROUND: On November 2 the Board authorized the Manager's Office to contact Person and Chatham counties to determine their interest in joint participation of a JTPA program. These counties were selected on the basis of (1) contiguous units of local government to Orange County, 2 areas, and (3) either County would provide the population abase to meet the threshold requirement. Person County was contacted, however, they will join the coun- ties of Granville and Vance for the next Chatham County is scheduled to consider joint program atio. with Orange County at their November 16 meeting. participation Based on Chatham County's decision, staff will bring forth recommendation at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Staff will present a recommendation at the meeting. ORANGE COUNTY I BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ACTION AG D MEETING DATE NOVEMBER 17, 1987 IT AG SUBJECT: Space Allocation ** *******, ************************************************************ DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SERVICES PUBLIC************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS) YES X NO INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES Supplemental Data Sheet EXT 497 PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE 227-2031 DRH********•*******************************************,k ******************** 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider reallocation of space in the New Courthouse a the Court Street Annex (Old Ag. Building) : r g) ' and to considr e leasing additional space in Hillsborough. BACKGROUND; As the result of an an oin shortages in office and more g space evaluation, extreme particularly, to light in the Clerk of Court offices. It isle p space apparent that at the Clerk will deplete all available file spaceinetheNew Courthouse within weeks. In an effort to alleviate the problem it is proposed that: 1. ) The County Administration offices be relocated from the New Courthouse to the Court Street Annex; 2. ) The area vacated by Administration be reallocated to the Clerk of Court and the Court associated offices of the District Attorney, the Juvenile Services Division and Probation and Parole. In addition, it is proposed that the Support Enforcement, the Economic offices Development of Commission, Commission for Women, Employment Security Commission,issio , th, G.E.D. Classroom and the Job Training Programo isrilo the to the Sawyer Building and the Collins Building. relocated Cost factors are presented on the attached Supplemental Data Sheet. A financial analysis has been done and it has been determined the increased cost can be absorbed in the existing Public Works budget, where rent costs are appropriated. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. __--. .■m•moMM=MMIMMEMMIIMMOIMMIPM C H a c4 n M 0 [77 0 rr o • 0 0 0 0 0' 1.-.• rt 01 or g Iv 0 I- 1—■ (1.1 0-'. 6 I--, 1-3 ,-. 0 ,-.. 0 0, 1— rr . r (A s 0 B E § 1-.• c 0 0 ,c, 0 0 1.... m 0, ... . 5' 8' 84 ° r0 H. i_hm 0 I-, SI V 0 11 I-a 0 1 tC1 VOW CD C 11 C 0 CO Or 0 co M OM I-, S a g 1- 1 P n ul 07 CD 0 I'D C,, 4 M W y P 11 t rr 0 0 ' rig]) W (D ID 0. (13 CT (D gr U' 11 0• 0 '••••• CT LO 1-, B H. I-- I- •-■ Iv tu 4 I-•• i-•• , 0 CO 0 0 kg = ED 0 0 0 lb 0 0 Lo I'D C,) to ID w '11 m p. o o • H M fD ED 1-• •-J 1...) to •,-1 0 11 W ID CD ....) M M M c ? I 1-' 0 ... 0 ,C 1--. co 0 ro 1-4, CD rl 1- 1-•• 0- f.0 • Co .4 0 M .-- .. C ... .-. i--, 4-I w Po g I-,. H • Lo'-- t... .. ra o 0- (D H n _ H N. I-1 g fD 1-4 * 0 rr •-+, • rr M 2 m m 8 I Pig q 0, 0 0 0 1 i 5 0 P 2' ID 11 , .... Co 0 M F.5 . W i---+ W t.0 CO rt • ED N 0 M 1 0 1p IV G II 0 1 1 i.-. C •-.1 0 ../ 0 a m OD 0 OD 0 0- fa) I'D to a.) o Po 0 to i o (D x 11 ■-■- g 5 0 . rr (D ro K 0 M 4 11 0 0 II 0 0 4 W .4 . -.) 0 7.1-• Cr Cr 0 • = 1 0 0 0 ri Zn (1) fD a) ,o 0 ,x,.._ ri 1 ....... (7) , HI g =J1-'4 g El6g 0 IN..) LT........ • • 020 ORANGE COUNTY Action Ag BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITD ABSTRACT MEETING DATE November 17, 1987 Subject: APPOINTMISTS Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I f Public Hearing: Yes X no J Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Under Separate Cover �Y A Blythe Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. The following vacancies are announced for the first time for Information only: B-9 - MENTAL HEALTH BOARD - 1 vacancy created by the expiration of term for Dr. David Clemmons. C-7 - ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - 2 vacancies created by the expiration of terms for Harry Harkins and William Bunch. The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the status of securing candidates for consideration of appointment. A-9 - ORANGE COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES - 1 vacancy. No recommendation has been received. A-12 PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL - 1 vacancy for a rehabilitation representative. B-4 - COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD ON AGING - 2 vacancies - 1 Carrboro and 1 AT LARGE. B-6 - HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY BOARD - 1 vacancy. 1 new resume has been received B-10 - NURSING HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 1 vacancy. No recommendation has been received. • EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE - a proposed membership list was presented and approved by the Board on August 18, 1987. Two recommendations have since been received: J. G. Morand, Labor Department representative Jim Murray, company representative RECOMMENDATION As the Board decides. STArt, • 0 • 4464. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • -Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN October 27, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E.HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS,P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson, County Manager Orange County 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Petition for Addition Summerwind, Conaway, Partridge Run, Jeffersons Choice, Outrider Trace, Wheelwright- Common, and Greenbrier Station in The Trails Subdivision Dear Mr. Thompson: • Attached is Form SR-4, Secondary Road Addition In- vestigation Report, for Summerwind, Coachway, Partridge Run, Jeffersons Choice, Outrider Trace, Wheelwright. Common, and Greenbrier Station in The Trails Subdivision. This is being forwarded to you for review by your Board of Commissioners. Yours very truly, /7--7,.ejeZ M. Mills, P. E. IISTRICT ENGINEER. /jbh. Alta. cc-: Mr. 3. W. Watkins - • NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT County orange Co. File No. Date Townshippingham Div. File No. Summerwind 0.24; Coachwa; 0.50; Partridge Run 0.13; Local NaMeJeffersons Choice 0.07z Outride* Trace Subdivision Name The Trail 0.07; Wheelwright Common 0.02; Greenbrier Station 0.06 Length 409 Tnno Nriincl Width IR. Type /7.1 Condition Fair Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for such streets? Yes Recorded 06-08-79 Book 30 Page 70 Is this a subdivision street subject to participation paving? No Number of homes having entrances into roadForty-four (44) Total Other uses having entrances into road Does right-of-way obtained meet present Division of Highways requirement? Dedicated If not, why? Is petition (SR-1 attached? Yes Is the County Commissioners' Approval (SR-2) attached? If not, why? Does the road meet present minimum Division of Highways construction requirements? Ye: If not, state what is needed to place the roa. in an acceptable maintenance condition under Remarks and Recommendations. Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locating road by the Planning Department? Yes Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $ Grade, drain, stabilize $ , Drainage $ , Other $ Remarks and Recomendationstients minimum recuiraments; thence recommend addition. Reviewed and approved Board of Transportation Member Reviewed and approved J. W. Watkins (--1.3 M. Mills DIVISION ENGINEER ,. /, ISTRICT ENGINEER• (Do not write in this space - • For use of Secondary Roads Dept. ) Petition No. • (Do not write in this space - For use of Planning Dept.) Form SR-4 (7-77) • a ' •3•0•••• GC4 ....;_•% , _ i s 3a• 5°. - . LAKE "7", AA • I No 1 LIM tgi uNDI..1' ...\ , ;.•" ., , ,......„,,,. or--_-■ ..,. •.4 ..-^ '0 3 '"Na„.2/41,1fa,Z K••••.Sly ---- •t _an • '''s. ,L221 •tan.- • (4 ..--./7 .- ll,,,,i NI, ../ !M. ..."."-'4 „...„---. , 1 ‘■ ,04? . • i,. ,no _ . ..••••••.../ / •,•• -------- --- -.(' j ..• a‘.....,.„,....,/ ..,:‘.1 A / I • ,;•"''..., wi-. up_ I. '11 ..---. •,"1 an ,.. _____ ,,,,,., .,- . - l •-- . '0031 , 3 ma . •An. - <37 3 .t ,,... ,... i .ff " .....1.4,3* i 1 $...' .. 4;34 s Is%'. , - .31.11 ...) 4 40- / . I 2.3t awn.Shama l -..,..,_ , , -aa ; ;''i „..... 1' s .„ Ch. MI ...-• ..,,,i/4: -... ! , t•ss 1 ls / A') , -- ..., 17.1 s 1,-EM- --,•■ , on.7. , '‘..°\ '7! .7,7auttr2 at.", .,, SA•60*A010 , • -. f A4• tw, • ' Lill N. . . .....c -- • .... -..--,4(. , .:\ !I..: ...7....7 -, Ch. , LPN A i'.,... 1 1...... ill ■ "3." : s. ---..,...2,-. -- I ..;4Lat Tut AIIPP:-.-72-71 Pilo Ea IA • "' .„.. ill+In "--":;-1'1°,0•Nts.lia 5 4221.1 -" 110S..A*-2;4• •...'". -'' "3. --. ' - * •L'.94k ) V. Laqt Como 1 "-..-' HittH • Zili1E2T I 71111111kj ir' t... SCR° ,... III 000..4.. • 1 s..... .o.'''.•t • .0. 3,a••,...„,„ it h 1 i hil r•V-I.. ?*4:4$4 71 I Illt •14 a tat,,,;., f .-- 1 tam .. , ■ ! ■,+,17,A .i........4............ # L293 15,.g. I . , IS , ''; • ., 4111111161 ------" , iffiaNSIIIIIIII St ,,,,,s. "-----.."."'-'-'-•-••••--Z.,:LL......Wu. 3/41 / 4' MINIMInollo• ----- . I - I 34■7 1 00 • •.A,.4` ...••161 1 • -,,..s....er,.. ..r. . , 1 4 t.sks, ....• 4.,,,1 AT „.,..---- s...., , s 11 ' •::. ,.. 7 c sA 7 i■ ■ ..- ,,,,„, ‘ a. I' , I .. 7. I *le ' IC' i 1 vs.,,7„.„0, 4. i i N%•//".' _1 , i -...„,,,, - If .... .,- , ,.A ......".. Lizt • 1 ''Ial 11101111111 11. O '. i 4.7; ■ wn, ifi...1116.. il -,, ?P li`i .9 •■.•• 0. 1''.•' '$.? ..<19 '-2°` 1 ."' ) 3; 31 '"9., ;r":'" 4::..47.s r s I T '21 To c• • ...., u i ,.... _ sagi I OWE t•- 1* • ...„ I 110 •42.:\ %.: ' .7 / 1,742 ti,......„"..- -.... --,.1_.:Ihr 1 dosmom '` 4,141nm'1... r.-7 . TO nix i 710 . I! ,--, 0.4.. ..... 9 jaL 0,.„ az -- •1 • • 1 ' 1 ' ''' 7 A, 1/12. VI) '"* .4 u•Ts _...-4- ,111,7A, I '0, • I 110. 7 , .-.• Ira 7--- •is - oust 11 _.> IIIA / A-Ao, .Et* ...-A• •of * * MIMI'I '...." . ::4: '.\ ie> I 710 ail. ''..a Me \ 4. ...., .72± •..., .1 a st I lit a, ••• 1/21, ..-: .l • 4 71 a ',AA* AA 191Of 1431 : -'----• iv si 4- Fis . * Lug' ...„/""•,,,j,.--'''.4* \i .-1. ‘ „a„ -. y__.It& - ,,,, int - - i un, I -.! ',- -....----L'_.--- \ ' ...--* .), a ' 7 34-210 Al AAA/ 0.'....,.,all ..,, I Ala 4` \11 a 4 , _ ,....... ., \ , 0 .... / . 3 Lula 0 . -,4,........„, 2 7.1 7 zil, .?.e._,...--\\ torsowsoi Sosou - A. 9 40111 • • Ova a ly> i=Z. .r,vk .: 1101a, ,lay -,..(\,.i. i \th ,..'"•Alit . 10,. N. / ...' ...... 1Y Q.114101P I ... . .".... t- i T Lit s. .•" :1 -.0 • ,-,..--- l'91- r].UM-. „Adli 1 WEL t'IWO 4. 0.... ,..,•10;>411../ ... .- s. i .41 saw tkrava..4 \,...,:r , MA .".W s• ..ye. , -. .. , -.... .T.: ....`" .1 ALL. **0.4 a. 15:..1„,,:tN,,,.•'‘., • l csOriP ' ju,e1 " () -le !. 1 IN ) 0 i- % %1 'a . 2' 5i:1 °\ ••• "t 1111 A ••‘, I ,. orT. ,- X.?.1-. '. --• .....<1" 7 2 . - ■OM .3.....„4... . • --1, t I ..7 97 \ ,'.• 1'I ar -'41 d it - .. IA* ., i• .., •1.....„! .T. r. ,; ,_: . .....„:„.:. „...,) ... ,, , .....s‘ / - 1 \ . . ..--"" Si •••,;--.F fotodr4 ce■ 37.031; - , Louc"*""I' "3: ,,,_•--la Al ikt t. I ; i''5?':V.• ::?• tel._ V..... ... a - . , , 2,...(p : , • cimeolto ••• ' I i 4,.., • Avow, ..„.'' . .:l _-o ,41,e.10 . '- 1 4;4 „ / I 4 Amt.., .. ffil. ,-• i;:i•-''''":1 s c ' , ...t •0 • ' InlYos ' I I 0 . , I. . , StiAgoo Cows \ql.f.0140, . 'A, ? 3r33' , ... ••$, . , .‘ ;,,,,• 00.* CHAPEL! . s IV 9 . 7 C. .'1'i- Hill I ? I • Lvz s-1.,1 I AST 4 I '0 \ . .. .4.4°) .0 ..... ,„..,.... .--..).0 N IT rim ■HD \1 ;* 414 .44./ . 32.42If ... N., * •:" .1 . kr. 0310, {Pr) _?Ii., '' ./ .• 1' . •1 , .....,„ I 1 1:4 '. -714' .' • - ..,, a'-: .:-.-......- air. ..---,,"'" t 77:Relel.Z.. ......,.. .■rti ,'''....r■'''""'-' '';;..11'-- t '• ' • r) , CY LA • "- ;1)1 : ! 42- Ecz 11111111111111111116L 'P': • _. ft C ______________1 inimillillEall , _ sr Winni ?CI . • 4 r ...LIM : , 1,0'1 'Ill '• b . 1111111111MumW ii , 11111111 h I IIV rall"1111W 1.- 0 . 6 /13 0, I, A k b. \ 111111111111111 I : i) MEM • I I N 1101111.11111rit .. .!1\:: 111111111 • f . -; 11111.111111.61fth6.-11.1111111111bIL. 4- '111111111113M11 . 11.1.11 Z iii °47° NEM • `- . -'• 1 Ill i g 'rnimi....mmimmomimmem ..11111111111111111111111111111.11111.11.11111111111111111 , - . '>s c kA 1 - . '- '11111111111 :Mill . --. .. • . ::, • , .,- ?. • . ii.• • . ..'_', -: : ,: _ •::,-!1 ... . . .,‘. -- . . 1111.11411.11 iMMIIIIIImmor -___ • TvAZ, t I) , -mL ILO 6 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G.MARTIN October 27, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. SECRE1ARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson, County Manager Orange County 106 East. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278. Subject.: Petition for Addition - Summerwind, CoachwaY Partridge Run, Jeffersons Choice, Outrider Trace, Wheelwright Common, and Greenbrier Station in The Trails Subdivision Dear Mr. Thompson: Attached is Form SR-4, Secondary Road Addition In- vestigation Report, for Summerwind, Coachway Partridge Run, Jeffersons Choice, Outrider Trace Wheelwright Common, and Greenbrier Station in The Trails Subdivision, Board of Commissioners This is being forwarded to you for review by your Yours very-truly, • M. Mills, P. E. 'STRICT ENGINEER- /ibh Atta. cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins AnEqualOpimauniWAffirmativeolaionEmploimr ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAsr MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY.JR- STEPHEN W HALKIOT1S JOHN HARTWELL SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL DON WILLHOIT November 19, 1987 Mr. J. M. Mills District Engineer Department of Transportation Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766 Dear Mr. Mills: In official action on November 17, 1987 the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the petition from the North Carolina Department of Transportation for approval of Summerwind, Coachway, Partridge Run, Jeffersons Choice, Outrider Trace, Wheelwright Common, and Greenbrier Station in the Trails Subdivision to the...state-maintained,road system. If any additional information is needed please do not hesitate to contact -this-,offi&e:=7:= ------lt, '------- Thank you. -• '2, - " _S ncerely s - • • - ••:'• "" (Mrs;--)- Beverly Blythe, Clerk Board- of Commissioners bab/stc cc: Marvin Collins Attachment .• . . . .• ...9.4. .. \to . .7 .. / . . . , Sate. of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development - Division of Employment & Training - . . . •.- 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 James G. Martin, Governor Joel C. New Thomas omas Rhodm, Secretary Director FORMAL PETITION FOR DESIGNATION AS A SERVICE DELIVERY AREA UNDER THE JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT (JTTA,) P. L. 97-300, AS AMENDED ATTENTION: Joel C. New • Governor Martin: I/We the undersigned chief elected official(s) request that ORANGE COUNTY BE DESIGNATED AS RURAL SDA --------- BY THE GOVERNOR ...t.1...cAA:afic..tA*4,t.sizetttricz.r... . ..tot.. , 4.4•C1141:4'..S, ,. ... ,.C,St.tAt".„ • ,:',Ve..1■0 Ac , ...C.- •Cr. AILVAVP ) . under the Job Training Partnership Act: This Formal Petition for SDA status is submitted this date: NOV ' 18, 1987 This jur=1..sEiction meets the folloing criteria: (check one and only one) I. single utit of general local government with a population of 200,000 or more; or 2. a consortium of contiguous units of general local government with an aggregate population of 200,000 or more which serves a substantial part of a labor market area; or 3. two (2) or more contiguous units of general local government . (county) that: a. have 100,000 or more population; and b. represent a substantial portion of a labor market area or an area in which State or Federal services are provided. - . . P.O. box V687, Raleigh, North Carolina 77611-7687 Teicphone 919-733-6383 Ar. Ewa, Opoon-uniry Affirmative Action "employer • , , • • Tormal Petition Page 2 It is my/our understanding that the following conditions apply to this request: 1. Those signing to this petition (no identical counterparts are • ' .- acceptable) are not requesting SDA designation for any jurisdiction other than the jurisdiction in this request. 2. It is the intent of the Governor, in accordance with provisions • of P. L. 97-300, as amended, to approve all requests for SDA • designation which meet criteria 1 and 2. Rowever, the Governor retains the prerogative, if necessary, to designate SDA jurisdictions which will assure that services are provided • equitably across the entire state. 3. Requests for SDA designation which meet criterion 3 will be given serious consideration by the Governor. 4. Decisions of the Governor are final unless appealed to the . Secretary of the United States Department of Labor. 5. Appeals to the Secretary of Labor regarding the Governor's denial of a petition for. SDA designation are limited to denials of requests under criteria 1 and 2 Only and the appeal can only be based on a decision by the Governor which is considered in violation of procedures prescribed in Section 101 of the Job Training Partnership Act, P. L. 97-300. as amended. 6. Any appeal must be made to the Secretary, U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, D. C., 20210, ATTENTION: ASET (with a copy simultaneously provided to the Governor) within two weeks of the date on which proposed SDAs are published by the Governor. In such cases, the decision of the Secretary is final. • Typed Name Jurisdiction Elected Office Simnature / 14/104 OF mu= CT m -B07 • • . F ~ f+ Formal Petition Page 3 This petition must be signed, dated and returned by the close of business November 24, 1987 to the following address: • Mr. Joel C. New, Director Division of Employment and Training . • P. 0. Box 276B7 Raleigh," North Carolina 27611 In accordance with Section 628.1(b) of the U. S. Department of Labor regulations for programs under the Job Training Partnership Act, this Formal Petition form must be used for requests for_sesvice delivery area designation. To assist in the timely completion of tasks associated with the implementation of the local JTPA program, we request that you provide the following information. The implementing agency(ies) indicated below may or may not be the same agency(ies) selected by the PIC and CE0 to administer the JTPA program once the SDA is established. The use of an implementing agency allows DET to address information to a single point. . 1. Administrative Entity: Agency Name TO BE DETERMINED BY TNF, SmjTF Address Contact Person (Typed Name) (Title) Telephone Number ( ) 2. Grant Recipient: Agency Name ORAN • j. 106 EAST MARGARET LANE Address EILLSBOB0fCP. N.C. . 2727P Contact Person pL3 m -T Fr,T;_ INTERIM MANAGER mo (^ d v.Name) aelephone Number ( 919 ) 732-8181 3. Agency Responsible for Private Industry Council development and appointments: Agency Name TO BE DETERMINED BY THE STATE • Address Contact Person (Typed Dame) (Title) Telephone Number ( ) . 11/17/87 TO: Don Willhoit (7) FROM: Pearson Stewart\-- — SUBJECT: NCDOT Grant for Airport Planning - Situation SOURCE; Phone conversation with Bruce Matthews, DOT Division of Aviation 11/17/87 (1) The November, 1987, DOT Transportation Improvement Program contains aviation projects for the years: 1987 - 88 1988 - 89 1989 - 90 Of these years only the initial year exhausts available funds. The latter two years budget only those projects of known high prioritY or commitment. Funds are reserved for further projects on a merit competitive basis. (z) The next Aviation Council meeting at which further projects will be considered and which is reasonable for the receipt of applications is the March, 1988 meeting. November 20 is the deadline for appli- cations for the December, 1987, meeting and the February meeting is reserved for a state airports conference. The application deadline for the March meeting is mid-February. (3) Bruce Matthews recommends strongly that Orange County meet the mid-February date if it is really interested. Funds for the next year may and very probably will be committed expeditiously. Air .. :. A Report to IATrON ArRpo • • • • the range cT R °RANG . btY °ard °f c E C• 'Y Ai Y the ° leSiOrIers • • . � - �o issues Task R November, ory e eery 2987 Task Force Members charies c.Pearson John Z. test a Chazrm atln W. 81©am fi _ an Ann as aanest Ted untar aacks0 Bob�ZY1e n �OUnt `lames R Roberts, ��,. u kas Wz111am z't staff SY1v �mik�'aws °f Emily Crud p nts essi4nal Re Joh ohn &r Qnd esentatives AtaCGr antxe Converse r in R fs Bae Matthew tsslb er Don Willholt esentatxve #• _ -. "" TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Summary 1 Detail Demand, Revenues, Costs, County Financial Requirements2 Conclusions From Demand, Revenue, Costs Section 6 Horace Williams Airport 7 AHEC 8 sponsorship 9 A New Airport Should Not Repeat The Horace Williams Dilemma 9 Site Criteria 9 Economic Impact 10 Reliever Airport 10 Next Steps 11 Conclusions 21 Appendices A - Projected Orange County Airport Revenue Data, Memorandum from John Hunter B - John Brantley's August 27 Letter Concerning Airport Financing And Operations C - Horace Williams Airport Orange County Planning Department, April, 1987 D - Economic Impact Study of the DeKalb-Peachtree Airport ...r - 1 SUMMARY A new general aviation airport in Orange County with a runway of about 5000 feet in length located within an attactive driving time of North Carolina Memorial Hospital: -- could generate annual income, after operation , maintenance and improvement costs, of $50-55, 000 in initial years and $130, 000 - $135, 000 after about 15 years of operation -- would have available with these amounts enough funds to cover the annual bond payments for the county's share of construction costs -- would make possible the relocation of all aircraft operations from Horace Williams. -- should be a county public airport -- would require sound and thorough land use controls for the surrounding area in order to maintain the airport as an asset and to prevent reenactment of the Horace Williams situation in a different portion of the county -- would provide an excellent base for economic development. 2 DETAIL Demand, Revenues, Costs, County Financial Requirements (The Task Force takes the liberty of describing Orange County airport demand, revenues, costs and county financial requirements by figures, with text only as necessary. ) Demand Number of aircraft owned by people or companies with Orange County addresses. Some of these are probably based at Horace Williams; the others are at Raleigh Durham (RDU) Airport or may be anywhere in the country. FAA Records Straight Line Projections of 1981-87 Trends 1981. 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 69 83 92 107 124 144 1979 projections using same method 1980 1985 59 78 We assume that 50% of these aircraft would shift based location to a good and convenient Orange County airport. 46 54 62 72 Number of aircraft owned by people or companies with Durham County addresses. 86 124 151 205 277 372 We assume that 25% of these aircraft would shift based location to a good and convenient Orange County airport. 38 51 69 93 Projected numbers of Orange and Durham County registered aircraft that would be based at a good and convenient Orange County airport. 84 105 129 165 r 3 An Orange County airport would have several types of based aircraft: AHEC planes rental and training single engine other single engine (SE) private light twin engine (PLT) company light twin engine (CLT) company turbine engine (CT) To be conservative we assume that the number of AHEC and rental or training planes currently at Horace Wiliam will increase only slightly, even though operating from a more suitable airport. 1990 1995 2000 2005 Projected based aircraft 84 105 129 165 less projected AHEC -5 -6 -6 less projected rental -6 and training -10 -12 -13 -13 Projected private and company aircraft 69 87 112 146 Knowledge of actual numbers and percents of general aviation based piston and turbine aircraft currently (1987) at other North Carolina airports is necessary at this point. These data have been supplied by the NC DOT Division of Aviation. SE PLT CLT CT TOTAL # % # % # t # % # % Monroe 54 72 2 3 14 19 5 6 75 100 Gastonia 46 84 1 2 7 12 1 2 55 100 Burlington 59 77 3 4 13 17 2 2 77 100 Smithfield 58 91 4 6 2 3 64 100 RDU 135 67 9 5 37 19 17 9 198 100 Greensboro 88 55 10 6 41 26 20 13 159 100 Charlotte 83 58 9 6 37 26 15 10 144 100 (Note that Charlotte has substantially fewer general aviation craft than RDU. It is �.ation air- commercial operations shasob"chased"t more rl of t the smaller taircraft hub to other airports. ) Orange County percent assumption, based on judgment 75 6 16 3 inspection of 100 above data - 4 Projected numbers of based aircraft by type at Orange County, using the above AHEC and rental/training assumptions and applying the above percents to the projected numbers of private and company aircraft. 1990 1995 2000 2005 AHEC 5 6 6 6 Rental, training 10 12 13 13 Other single engine 53 65 84 110 Private light twin 4 5 7 9 Company light twin 10 14 18 23 Company turbine 2 3 3 4 Total 84 105 131 165 Revenue Annual revenue per aircraft generated by each type of aircraft. The components of and assumptions for these revenue estimates are con- tained in John Hunter's June 3, 1987 - August 19, 1987 memo to the Task Force, Appendix A. AHEC $1750. 00 Rental, training 967.50 Other single engine 661.25 Private light twin 1173. 00 Company light twin 2118.00 Company turbine 5360. 00 Projected revenues for each type of aircraft - multiplying the pro- jected numbers of based aircraft by the revenue per aircraft. (We have not tried to estimate inflation increases. ) 1990 1995 200Q 2005 AHEC $8,750 $10,500 $10,500 $10,500 Rental, training 9,675 11,610 12,578 12,578 Other single engine 35,046 42,981 55,545 72,738 Private light twin 4,692 5,865 8,211 10,557 Company light twin 21, 180 29,652 38,124 48,714 Company turbine 10,720 16, 080 16,080 21,440 Total 90, 063 116, 680 141, 038 176,527 Other airport revenues. These are explained in John Hunter's memo. Transient fuel sales $2,400 $2, 900 $3,400 $3,900 Direct revenue from fixed base operator (FBO) 12,000 17, 000 22, 000 27,000 County override on FB0 gross sales 500 1, 000 1,500 2,000 5 1990 1995 2000 • 2005 Grand total of projected gross revenues. Figures are rounded. $104,900 $137,600 $167,900 $185,100 Less an amount for airport maintenance, operations and improvements as suggested by NC DOT, Division of Aviation. $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50, 000 . Net amount projected to be available to county for airport con- struction bond amortization. $54,900 $87,600 $117,900 $135,100 (The Task Force is not recommending any one method of financing the county's portion of an airport construction program. A bond issue may not be the most appropriate method; several North Carolina counties have used capital reserve accounts, built up by annual appropriations during the years before construction. However, stating the county's portion in bond amortization terms is a convenient way of indicating an airport's financial feasibility. ) Costs and Count Financial Re. irements Airport construction cost assumed $5,000, 000 (Person County's 5000 foot runway, 1987 completion, has a cost of $4,500, 000) State share - 80% $4,000, 000 County share - 20% $1,000,000 It may be that federal funds will be available. North Carolina requires a local government to put up 20% of the non-federal share. If federal funds are available, the percent allocations would be: Federal 90 State 8 County 2 and the Orange County portion of a $5, 000, 000 project would be $100,000. However, to be conservative, the Task Force assumes that the construction would be financed as a state-county project. Bond amount that can be supported by $54,900, assuming a 15-year payout period and a 6% interest rate. $533,160 1.. w Y 6 Bond amount that can be supported by $95,000, halfwa fi $54,900 and $135.100 , assuming a 15 year payout Y dutn between interest rate. period and a 6% $922,600 Conclusions From Demand Revenue Costs Section The Task Force has not attempted to prepare a detailed and specific analysis of Orange County's airport demand and revenue prospects. Rather, it has demonstrated that the potential demand for an airport in Orange County is large and can be capitalized upon for airport construction and operation purposes. There are 83 general aviation aircraft today registered to Orange County owners. There are 124 general aviation aircraft registered to Durham County owners. Some portion of these can be the base for a new general aviation airport in Orange County. Given the assumptions in this section, there would be revenues initially for construction, after funds for operation, maintenance and improvements have been set aside, of about $55,000. This amount is not enough to cover the 15 year bond requirements for a county $1,000, 000 share of a $5, 000,000 construction project. The $55;000 is not a fixed and final figure, however, around which all decisions must revolve. There are several modifying consid- erations. For example: 1. Should the assumption that only 50% of the Orange County registered aircraft would use a good and convenient Orange County airport be increased, perhaps to 75%. What about the Durham County use assumptions? 2. Is it necessary to rule out federal aid? The federal airport aid program exists and does help some North Carolina airports. 3. Is it necessary to base bond financing projections on only the revenues from the initial years' operations? 4. Should the bond issue term be increased to 20 years? 5. Does a new airport need to be built to ultimate capacity initially? Certainly all the land required for ultimate capacity should be acquired initially, but is the ultimate required in the beginning for the actual facilities? Could the $5, 000, 000 assumed in this report be staged? The Task Force notes that the County in developing an airport should make a firm financial commitment and operate the airport as a productive business operation. (See John Brantley's August 27, 1987 letter, Appendix B. ) 7 For general interest: Projections used by Person County in deciding to construct an airport Numbers of based aircraft 1991 1996 2001 Single engine piston 1 - 4 seats 9 Single engine piston 11 13 over 4 seats 15 Multi-engine piston 16 23 6 6 8 1991 1996 2001 Multi-engine turbine 1 Jet 0 2 3 0 0 Total 31 38 47 Ear_Agg_KilliAMR_Airn= The location and function of the Horace Williams Airport are cer- tainly matters of disagreement in the Chapel Hill community. There are those who hold very strongly that the airport is not a good neighbor and that, consequently, its use should be curtailed or ended. There are those who hold equally strongly that the airport is in a superb location in relation to Chapel Hill, that it is not a bother to nearby areas and that, consequently, its use should be expanded. The Task Force has not tried to be a referee or judge concerning these disagreements. Rather, the Task force recv 1z Wiliams Airport is a University facility and thatthe University Horace would like to be able to plan and use the airport area for non- airport uses. With Horace Williams requiring considerable expansion if it were to satisfy the aviation needs of rangecount improvement considerable) and with the University having non-airport uses(which s n are for the airport area, the Task,Force's recommendation is that Orange range County should not try to meet its aviation needs at Horace ams but rather meet them at some alternate site. An alternate site Williams be both well planned for aviation purposes and in relation to sur- rounding area and can be well located by virtue of 1-40 in relation to the University. ion Horace Williams has a 3500 foot _ Its facilities and use are described in morendetaila inletheaOrange County Planning Department's April, 1987 description of the airport, Appendix C. The inadequacy of the airport at , demands of the future can be documented. There present to handle the report notes only a 5000-5500 Task Force i 00 foot runway is necessary in this appreciable portion of the numbers of general aviation aircraftethat are currently registered in Orange County. . 8 The Task Force notes that some actions concerning the facilities at Horace Williams Airport may become necessary and desirable to main- tain current airport capability and improve safety during the five plus year period necessary for construction of an alternative air- port. These include runway resurfacing and marking, installation of a non-directional beacon for instrument approaches and construction of some portions of a parallel taxiway. The Task Force su the University and Orange County review such needs with Town that Chapel Hill and take any necessary actions, while pursuing the pri- mary goal of establishing a new airport to serve the community and the University. Two Task Force members objected to any facility maintenance actions or improvements at Horace Williams Airport which might lead to in- creases in airport operations and could delay development of the new airport. These members inserted the following marks as their minority substitute for the preceding in quotation g paragraph. paragraph. "The Task Force acknowledges that there are some ways in which the present Horace Williams Airport could be better maintained during the time period required for completion of a new airport facing and marking of the runway) . Force (e is that County Commissioners should approach Task Force suggests that the and the University in order to jointly review maintenance needs and to determine appropriate actions. " AHEC UNC's Area Health Education Centers are one of the principal users of Horace Williams Airport. The Task Force acknowledges with thanks the letters it has received from several AHEC's in the state, urging strongly that Horace Williams airport be retained for AHEC use or that a similarly conveniently located airport be made available. The Task Force agrees, of course, that Horace Williams Airport pro- vides a very valuable service to the AHEC program. The Task Force considers that with the forthcoming opening of I-40, a similarly convenient site for a new airport can _ Th Task Force can't help but note, in addition though, thatlthe cone venience of Horace Williams is steadily being diminished as UNC and Chapel Hill vehicular traffic continues to increase. It may well be that a "further out" site will be only slightly less convenient than a future Horace Williams in a much more congested Chapel Hill area. S�onsorshib The Task Force considers strongly that an Orange County airport would be a paying proposition would be an economic development plus for the county must be operated always with very high standards should be an integral part of a county plan for land use controls. INIMEMmommEmelmilmw The Task Force, consequently, recommends that a for Orange County be a public county airport. A countyiai airport could be operated as a county department, or as a county airport Y rP or operation, or perhaps with some other form of organizion. authority Whateve the form of county operation, the Task Force sees no reason why the county should give over the responsibility and benefits of an airport to a private operator. The Task Force notes, in addition, that state and federal grants are made to public agencies, not to private operations. a�rport A New Ai •ort Should Not Re.eat The Horace Williams Dilemma A new general aviation airport for Orange County can and should be planned and developed so that its usefulness and integrity will be self-perpetuating. A new airport should be large enough both in land area and runwa length to provide for the future. for turbine plane operation, would provide w 5000 wool r length, ample ell for the future. An airport of whatever size and use need not be a detriment to its surrounding area--if the surrounding area is developed Residential uses within the appropriate noise area should b properly. pro- hibited and compatible uses like commerce and indust a ou encouraged near the airport. rY should ld be For an existing airport such a prescription can be very for a new airport feasible. The rn difficult; shows what is RDU example, while not perfect, significantly, Wake County established zoning distric the 1960 s, be_�� RDU expanded of the runway which is at the ends prohibited new residential construction and permitted business and industrial development. this manner were thought to be so large that Wake County at the P The areas zoned in received considerable public criticism and ridicule, No one is critizing now is Sound land use controls are necessary,sound nd use actively true, but in addition, the county my vicinity y promote commercial and industrial development Y of the airport. The county should see the airport for what it can be, a prime tool for healthy economic especially in the near neighboring areas, those moreunsu unsuitable residential development, for site Criteria Airport location criteria are discussed well in the Orange Co Planning Department 1982 report, Sites Survey, , Gtedrhl Aviation Airport Needs nand Y► and will not be repeated here. The principal criterion for a site itself that should be noted from the beginning is that of size. the beginning permit The site obtained should be large future. p rust expansion of runway and facilities as desired in the An airport site consists of two general types - the runway and associated facilities and the olandefs the land fa for end---of-runway k . s 10 approach zones. These approach zones must be kept clear of height obstructions according to specified FAA criteria. It is difficult to specify an exact size for an airport generally, since dimensions and size depend so much on topography and on de- cisions concerning ownership, easements and zoning. A site of about 1500 ft. x 6000 ft. , about 206 acres, is very desirable for the runway and facilities portion of an airport. ft. x 13,800 ft. , almost 800 acres, for rnwa , facilities aanduheight restrictions area, with about half of the 800 acres controlled by height easements and/or land use controls, rather than by fee simple ownership, has been suggested as a "worst case" scenario. Other site criteria are contained in FAA material and are not re- peted here. Economic Impact A general aviation airport can have considerable benefit to an area. The Task Force has not attempted economic such benefits for Orange County. However, for illustration, the Task Force includes as Appendix D a copy of an economic impact study of the DeKalb-Peachtree Airport in the Atlanta area. Orange County is not Atlanta and the DeKalb-Peachtree Airport is a long-established large general aviation airport, not an airport not yet in existence. The study should be read with those qualifications in mind; it is indicative of the potential benefits of a general aviation airport. Reliever Airport " • . . selected airports in metropolitian areas may also be desig- nated as "reliever" airports. Such airports are intended to provide for the general aviation aircraft which might otherwise have to use the major airport in the area. Since the larger airports are de- signed for commercial airline aircraft, and thus overbuilt for the general aviation aircraft, the reliever airport allows a more approp- riate matching of airport to aircraft. The term "reliever" is one which is authorized by FAA after a review of both the general aviation airport and the airline airport relieved. It is my opinion that the Orange County Airport ou to be reliever airport if it is so desired. Reliever tusou usually carries with it a higher priority for federal fundin and aditional impetus for FAA's providing communications and air navigational facilities for the airport. The decision on whether to seek reliever status is one which does not need to be made until well into the planning study. " This quotation is from an April 2, 1987 letter to the Task Force Chairman from Bruce Matthews Manager of Airport Development, NC DOT, Division of Aviatiom. John Brantley, RDU Aiort supported reliever designation for a well locat d generaloaviation airport in Orange County in an April 17, 1987 letter to the Task Force Chairman. 11 Next Steps The Task Force is convinced that a new general aviation airport in Orange County is both necessary and desirable. However, in this report the Task Force is not recommending to the Orange County Board of Commissioners that it make a formal decision at the present time to construct and operate an airport. Rather, the Task Force does recommend to the Board that it proceed with steps leading to such a decision, expecting that the actual decision, in due course, may well be "construct and operate." Basically the next steps are to conduct a feasibility study, followed by a master plan-site selection-environmental analysis. These studies should be conducted by a qualified engineer, one thoroughly familiar with the entire airport development process. Estimates for the cost of these studies are in the $75, 000 - $100, 000 range and the studies do qualify for 50% state aid. The Task Force recommends, consequently, that the county proceed with the selection of an airport engineering firm and request the firm to prepare the necessary applications for state aid for the initial feasibility study. CONCLUSIONS on January 20, 1987, the orange County Board of Commissioners gave a charge to the Airport Issues Task Force. The Task Force summarized the charge to be: Orange County should or should not seek to build a new general aviation airport and seek to relocate or not relocate Horace Williams Airport for such and such reasons. The Task Force considers that Orange County should seek to build a new general aviation airport. In some respects the charge from the Commissioners was phrased in very specific terms. The charge could be read as a request for a very specific and detailed feasibility plan. Such a plan the Task Force has not attempted to prepare. Rather, the Task Force has con- centrated on obtaining the data necessary to respond to the basic charge, and has not sought to prepare the appropriate next step, a detailed feasibility study. The Task Force thanks the Board of Commissioners for its willingness on its own motion to consider the airport needs of Orange County. The needs are large and they can be met to the lasting benefit of the county. ` +,, APPENDIX A MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Airport Issues Task Force FROM: John E. Hunter DATE: June 3, 1987; August 19, 1987 RE: Revenue Data I Volunteered to Obtain I have contacted several national aviation organizations but have been unable to come up with the specific revenue data which I had hoped to obtain. The most concrete data did come from the AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) . The AOPA sent a whole packet of materials, one of which i have reproduced and appended to this memo to give us an idea of what kinds of factors are generally examined. The item reproduced is an "Economic Impact Study" prepared by a professional consulting firm for the Dekalk--Peachtree Airport in 1980. It is a carefully worded study documenting the positive economic influence that the airport has on the community. I enclosed this document as an example of what an Orange County airport could aspire to if properly managed. become the hub that ATL g • While RDT7 may not parallels are clear. (Atlanta-.Hartsfjeld) presently is, the airport with a number of smaller hreliever lais orts is the major ty. Atlanta has two major reliever airports Forts in the vicinity. Peachtree) and six additional small. airports within and20ekmile radius. Orange County would be a prime contender for the reliever airport in this area (with the Holly Springs location the prime competitor) and there would be 4 additional small airports within 20 miles of this area. I have also telephoned and spoken to officials of the Airport O erators Council international, Inc. Association of Airport Executives . j and the American specific information which they could Ns d with gregard 1to airport revenues. Each stressed how different each individual airport situation was with regard to revenues. However, I was able to get a good feel for some common practices to generate revenue. 1. The fundamental and essential key to generating revenues is to develop businesses at the airport . repair shop, Attracting an aggressive re hop p , or an overhaul industrial facility, shop, or a light base operator) is essential. an aggressive FBO (fixed 2. Location and accessibilit y will based aircraft and greatly help to attract peripheral businesses. 3. If possible, facilities on the airport owned by the County. Rentals frmowned should property i. generate far more revenue than tax income from privately owned property. 4. The fuel farm, should be owned by the County. Revenues can then be generated by a fuel flowage fee. (This fee ranges from 2 cents per gallon to 12 cents per gallon. ) 5. Contractual arrangements with the FBO should be carefully considered. Management of the airport may be included, as well as routine maintenance. A single FBO is suggested (exclusive franchise) but with a policy clearly spelled out which would mandate a second (or third) FBO. For what ever use we may wish to make of it, I have prepared some preliminary revenue projections which follow. These may prove to be reasonably accurate if the national economy continues on about its present course. The national economic health is the largest single driver of general aviation activity. ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT REVENUE PROJECTIONS John B. Hunter June, 1987 ; August, 1987 Assumptions 1. For the foreseeable future, revenues will be generated by the following: a. Based Aircraft b. Transient fuel sales c. Fixed Base Operator ' 1. Direct Facility Rental 2 . Franchise Fee 3 . Override on Gross Sales d. County Share of airport Sales Taxes e. County Personal Property Taxes (assumed to be allocated by the county to airport account) 2. Most of the items listed in (1) above may be subsumed in a formula which is defined by six (6) identifiable types of based aircraft. These types are: a. Privately-owned single engine land aircraft (SEL) b. Single engine land (SEL) aircraft used for rental or training c. Privately-owned light twin aircraft d. Light twin aircraft used for business by corporations e. UNC light twin aircraft used by AHEC f. Turbine powered twin engine aircraft used for business by corporations (turbo-props or light twin business jets) The formula for calculating the revenue to orange County for each type of aircraft takes into account all revenue sources listed in (1) above except transient fuel sales and FB0 facility rental and franchise fee. 3 . Transient fuel sales revenue will essentially be offset by base aircraft purchasing fuel away from orange county on trips. For every category of aircraft based, the same use category based else where will offset fuel purchases on a reciprocal basis. This will not only be true to the extent that we have a smart FB0 and county fuel pricing policy which encourages transients to purchase fuel here. A small increment of fuel sales is therefore assumed. 3 (Initially 2, 000 gallons per month or 60 gallons would yield $2,400 in county revenues annually. I assumeaa small annual increase, ) 4. The county override on FBO gross on-field maintenance sales is assumed to be 2.5%. 5. The fuel flowage fee is assumed to be 10 cents per gallon. 6. The FBO payment to the county is assumed to be $1 000 month, increasing gradually (rentals and franchise fee) . ' per 7. I have assumed $500 per year increasing annually as the county override on ?BO non-maintenance sales, for example, pilot supplies. 8• The formula for Private SEL is: 50 hours per year X 8 gph. X 10 cents fee 2% sales tax 50 X 8 X $1.50 $ . 00 12 50 X $5. 00 on-field maintenance X . 025 16 , 5* 6. 025 50 X $3 . 00 X 2% sales tax on-field $25 per month tie-down fee (County share) 300. 00** Personal property tax on aircraft 300. 00 Annual county revenue per aircraft $661.25 9. The formula for Rental SEL is:* 300 hours per year X 8 8 gph X 10 cents fee X $240. 00 gph X $1. 50 X 2% 72. 00 X $5. 00 X .025 37,50 X $3 . 00 X 2% 18. 00 $25. 00 per month tie-down (County share) 300. 00 Personal property tax on aircraft 300. 00 Annual county revenue per aircraft $967.50 10. The formula for Private Light Twin is: * 50 hours per year X 20 gph X 10 cents fee $100. 00 X 20 gph X $1.50 X 2% 30. 00 X $12. 00 X . 025 15. 00 X $8. 00 X 2% 8. 00 $35. 00 per month tie-down (County share) 420. 00 Personal property tax on aircraft 600. 00 Annual county revenue per aircraft $1,173. 00 11. The formula for Corporate Light Twin is:* 300 hours per year X 20 gph X 10 cents fee $600. 00 X 20 gph X $1. 50 X 2% 180. 00 X $12. 00 X . 025 90. 00 X $8. 00 X 2% $50. 00 per month hanger rent (County share) 600. 00 Personal property tax on aircraft 600. 00 Annual county revenue per aircraft $2, 118. 00 • 4 12. The formula for t7NC AHEC Light Twin is:* 400 hours per year X 25 gph X 10 cents fee $1, 000. 00 X $15. 00 X . 025 Mx fee 150.00 $50.00 per month hanger (or equiv. ) 600. 00 Annual revenue to county per aircraft $1,750. 00 13. The formula for Corporate Turbine Twin is: * 400 hours per year X 50 gph X 10 cents fee $1,400. 00 X 50 gph X $1.50 X 2% 600. 00 X 30.00 X .025 300.00 X 20. 00 X 2% 160. 00 $75.00 per month hanger rent or equivalent 900.00 Personal property tax 2.000. 00 Annual revenue to county per aircraft $5,360. 00 * Indicates that the order and the meaning of the line items is the same as in assumption number 8. ** Note that sales tax returns to county go to the county, not to an agency of the county. Aviation generated sales tax would need to be identified locally and allocated to the airport account locally. • APPENDIX B RDURALEIGH•DURHAM AIRPORT AUTHORI Route 1, Box 500, Morrisville, N.C. 27560 /919-840-2100 JOHN C. BRANTLEY WAKE COUNTY DURHAM COUNTY AIRPORT DIRECTOR DURHAM RALEIGH EUGENE B. HARDIN, JR, BERT COLLINS WILLIAM A.CLEMENT CHAIRMAN VICE CHAIRMAN SECRETARY LUCY H. BODE G. SMEDES YORK TREASURER A.C. ELKINS PAUL LUEBKE THOMAS C.WORTH, JR. August 27, 1987 Mr. Pearson E. Stewart, Chairman Airport Issues Task Force c/o Orange County Commissioners 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Pearson: Thank you for providing me a copy of the draft Orange County General Aviation Airport report for review. I know that you and the other Task Force members have put in much time and effort debating the issues, and I believe that you have drawn sensible conclusions and commend you doing so. I don't propose any changes to the report but would like to offeorrsever- al observations which I believe are very pertinent to further consideration of the matter by the Orange County Commissioners. First, I would strongly recommend that no governmental unit chart a course toward development of an airport (or any other public facility for that matter) absent a strong commitment to carry out the program and provide the necessary financial resources regardless of whether or not income from the airport's operation will repay the appropriations. To proceed in that direction based on a belief that those appropriations constitute a loan as opposed to an investment in a necessary public facility is both unwise and unsound judgement. Realistically, it is most probable that revenues from operation of the airport will not fully cover both operation and maintenance expenses and amortization of capital investment for some years after the airport is completed (RDU didn't do so until less than 20 years ago), so the commissioners must avoid misunderstanding in this area. Operation and main- tenance expenses should be able to be fully covered by operating revenues, but I would not count on capital improvements costs being fully covered. If the commissioners believe an airport is needed and want one, then they need to invest in it and make sure it is developed and thereafter operated and maintained the right way. Along this same line, if a new airport is developed, it should be oper- ated on a completely businesslike basis with user fees and charges that are fair to the public which provided the facility. Airport operation is a busi- ness, not a charitable function. The public certainly is nt.Jt the sweetheart when so-called "sweetheart" deals are made with tenants and users. This leads me to the very strong recommendation that an airport authority/commis- , Mr, Pearson F. Stewart s ' August 27, 1987 '^- Page 2 ^ sion responsible to and appointed by the commissioners be legislatively char- tered to serve as the public agent in developing, operating and maintaining airport if one is to be developed, The airport should that body' s . sole charge and responsibility, and it should include strong members with of leadership and accomplishment and the ability to grasp and under- stand a dynamic enterprise. ' Finally, the commissioners certainly should not forsake but should do possible to procure both federal and state grant-in-aid assistance they elect to proceed with development of an airport. Neither the nor the county can reasonably fund that development alone, nor can a combination do so without great strain and adverse impact on n othor needed airport development throughout the state. We will certainly any efforts by Orange County in that regard on both the federal and state levels and believe that there is a ve.ry real. prospect of consider- able federal funding being obtainable over the -.)ext spqeral years. With the state grant-in-aid program now being funded t o he extent of state aviation tax receipts, there would appear to be Very gobd prospects of state availability as well . Again, my commendations on the work of the Task Force, and certainly y hope and trust that your efforts will lead to a good and proper resolution the airport issues confronting Orange County' Please let us know at any we can be of assistance in that regard. Sincerely, �_. John C. Brantley Airport Director cc: Willard G. PloDtl , Jr. • APPENDIX C HORACE WILLIAMS AIRPORT 1 . Consists of approx. 227 acres situated on a 970 acre site 2. One paved runway 3500' long 75' wide 500' overrun at each end, no parallel taxiway 3. Runway is lighted at night and during periods of low visi- bility, lights remain on at low intensity all night, lumi- nation can be increased with a radio microphone signal. 4. Tie downs - 70-75 total (Policy Limit _- 50 plane base) 9 paved 9. Hangers - Main hanger (801x1001 approx.) - 6 plane capacity - T-hangers - 5 - 1 plane each 6. Other facilities - Airport managers office: offices, waiting area, rest rooms - ) - Fuel pumps - Remote transmitter: gives instrument flight rules clearance from REM tower - AHEC: office in double-wide trailer adjacent to airport Managers office, hanger for aircraft repair (also does repair for Air Carolina - NCMH air ambulance) - Chapel Hill Flying Club: open hanger, 9 planes based at H.W. • - Carolina Flying Service: (Dan Boone) - Aircraft rental and repairs operating from a small hanger 7. No. of employees - 2 full time - 7 part time • . .. . -• . . . . ,., — Vi ti.! . • . . i . . Z I— li . 1 1 < 1 z ...i... 4cC lo Li (...0 " a Z Z •Cr L j_ t-9 Z i 1 . N. —I AtC • lel (..) N -.„.„, . t 41 LI. , ,... 1 Ns. CL ti j -..... NI 1<• ;<‘ ,F-71 ,° • I ilk, . ‘.. I • a /4 q° ' ' . ,..,.., ' . ■ N. . N. ■. t-\„/C/4.*%**N.-. 0 N.,■5\,,,). • . ,. k?cy 0....I • ) \ .." i I 1. <,,e‘: 1 \ . . t cf); \ . 6 . ".......... . \\ . \* 1. )- `.. LS-r N. < . N N. / . .......- - \ --....i. ...., ....... ... , i / ....... --- ..., I / ....- 's. ///// //// . " .....• . . • is 1 - I \------'-----."--— ----------s....—,.„... ,......./ --- -------.....„. . 1 . / / ) / /1 / / 1 1 \ I 1 1 1 \ . ... CD 0 r it / i 1 / /, • // Lt-I ,--J 1 (..) ct) / .‹. \ \ / 1 6 . 1 i, CURRENT AND POTENTIAL USERS OF HORACE WILLIAMS AIRPORT Current Use The inventory of current users of Horace Williams airport contained in "General Aviation Airport Need and Sites Survey" remains accurate. The only significant change in users is that Williams Aviation is no longer in service. Conversations with current users indicate minor variations between user data representing 1980 and user data repre- senting 1986. This seems to reflect the cap on the number of aircraft that the University will allow to be based at the airport . The current users of Horace Williams Airport are much the same as those in 1980. They are: North Carolina Medical Foundation (AHEC) , the Chapel Hill Flying Club, Carolina Flying Services , North Carolina Forest Service, and general transient aircraft that are not based at Horace Williams . Based on comments from airport xsers , the number of flight operations in 1986 were approximately the same as in 1980. Carolina Flying Services , NC Forest Service, and transient flight activity were all reported to be approximately 1400 , or 12% higher. The number of aircraft based at the airport is also unchanged at the 50 aircraft maximum set by the University'. Potential Users No specific information was available regarding poten- tial users of the airport . No current user indicated an intent to increase the number of aircraft they had based at the airport. Of course, any such increase would require a corresponding decrease in the number of aircraft based at Horace Williams airport by others since the maximum number of • aircraft based there cannot exceed the current number. If the cap of 50 aircraft were removed, the Airport Manager indicated that there was an immediate demand to base 60 . aircraft at the airport, Location Requirement One current user, AMC, indicated very significant • locational requirements. The airport used as a base for AHEC, it was indicated, should be no more than 15 minutes drive from North Carolina Memorial Hospital . Locational preferences were indicated by others. Carolina Air Services indicated that the airport should have convenient ground transportation access to population centers. The aircraft owned by the N.C. Forest Service is part of the emergency preparedness plan for Shearon Harris power plant . . It must be based at a location convenient to too nnwn. , 1 ,-4 • • • • • . " •.• ; APPENDIX D • • • • • • • ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY • OF THE DEKALB-PEACHTREE AIRPORT • • Prepared for DeKaib Chamber of Commerce and Atlanta Chamber of co...erne • August, 1980 • HAMMER , SILERT, GEORGE ASSOCIATES Washington-Atlanta-Denver-Orlando 230 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 • Section I. INTRODUCTION i _.. ,.'.. $Adp6p_fJ Ep.stonst AesoCIAYEt AO TABLE OF CONTENTS • Page Number • Section I. INTRODUCTION 1 background and Purpose 1 • Section II, EXPERIENCES IN OTHER LOCALITIES Section III. ECONOMIC IMPACTS 9 Primary Impact 10 Direct Factors 10 Indirect Factors IS trcitcoVicaritpTa:IaLImDpeZ; 18 Impact 18 County 20 • Direct Impact - DeKaib County 20 Indirect Impact - DeKalb County 21 Induced and Total Impact • 21 • Section rv. ADDED FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO DEKALB COUNTY .23 • Section V. SUMMARY 27 APPENDICES NAMO/IM.SILIER.$10ADE A3E0E1167E8 vw■mmemome _ - , • Section I. INTRODUCTION This report represents a snapshot .of economic impact at DeKalb- Peachtree Airport. It is not comprehensive, since resources were not avail- able for in-depth analysis. However;tit may represent the first time a careful look has been taken at the economic importance of the airport -- to DeKalb County and to metropolitan Atlanta. Today it is fashionable to speak of "leverage." Leverage often is used to describe the impact of governmental expenditure to trigger other investment. DeKalb-Peachtree Airport (PDK) is a clear example of leverage. County expenditures in the last four years have been almost insignificant -- $226,500. Even if county use of federal revenue sharing funds are added (another $466,000), the average annual capital cost to the county is $173,000. • These investments have '‘een complemented by $5,494,100 from other governmental agencies and private investors -- most by the latter. Indeed, the confidence in the airport shown by the private sector is greater than that displayed by its owner, DeKalb County. . On top of these facts, DeKalb County realizes a net operating sur- plus. While any facility can find ways to improve effectiveness, PDK is an asset of substantial proportions, notwithstanding its economic impact. Background and Purpose DeKalb-Peachtree Airport is a publicly-owned general aviation MAIIIS1111.111LER. 311EINSI ASSOCIATES MMMIIMMIL . • ..________.._ . , . , . facility serving the needs of metropolitan Atlanta and DeKalb County. The airport is one of the busiest in the nation with respect to itinerant traffic -- a measure of its importance and use as a key element in the • local economy. . While the greater portion of the airport's 600 acres is used for avia- tion and associated safety . —sea, a %Umber of tenants on airport property • . have no direct association with aviation. At present, developed portions of the airport are fully utilized and work is underway to expand space • available for aviation purposes. With approximately 448 aircraft based at the airport, PDK is a major center_ for-training, service, sales and related aviation activity. In • 1979, more than 246,000 landings and take-offs were recorded. But flying is only one facet of the airport's importance. Just as downtown offices or suburban plants may be impressive by measures of size, their importance is more accurately gauged by the activity within -- jobs and the economic functions which they represent. In recent years, the growing importance of PDK has been reflected by increased 1?vels of public and private investment. Deregulation of scheduled airlines and increased demands for corporate efficiency have stimulated growth of general aviation. Today, general aviation has far ,.re aircraft in use than all airplanes c.-biped A . c=ries a subs--antial share of all air travel. Recent figures indicate 180,000 general aviation aircraft, compared to 2,100 air carrier aircraft, presently operate through- out the country. Against this backdrop, business leadership in DeKalb County has posed several questions. The underlying theme is: just how important is PDK to the local economy? • This study, then, has been commissioned to seek answers to questions which address that theme. Questions include: -2_ . NAMMIR.SILIRAPIONS1 ASSOEIATI4 I • • . How many business enterprises are located at the airport? • . What is the aggregate payroll and. total volume of business represented by airport firms? • How many jobs depend directly upon airport opera- tions? . . . What tax benefits accrue to DeKalb County from airport activities? . Is the airport an essential element in the larger county economic development picture? Research, analyses and interviews were undertaken to document answers for these and other questions. Of particular importance, the relevance of PDK to DeKalb County economic development prospects was probed with a cross- ) section of business leaders. These executives -- many with corporate air- , craft, many with offices or plants in the county -- unanimously reinforced the airport's significance. Some expressed concern regarding the pace of improvements. Others hope for expansion to permit basing aircraft closer to DeKalb businesses and industries. All were convinced of the need for a continuing commitment by the county to maintain the highest levels of operational Safety. • The purpose of this report is to provide some dimension to the economic impact of PDK on the community. To accomplish this purpose, some assump- tions have been made to overcome gaps in available data. The net effect of these assumptions is to present a conservative estimate of the economic impact. No effort has been made to assess environmental impact. Similarly, no effort has been made to attach a value to the convenience and safety • offered by operation of the airport. Therefore, the report's findings must be interpreted as one element in a larger context of the DeKalb County and Atlanta economic, political and environmental setting. • -3- • IOAISIOIN.S11.111.1111011•1 ASSOCIATES ■.• Section II. EXPERIENCES IN OTHER LOCALITIES TIA-ISSEES.SILES.SIONIOE ASSOCIATES ■■■111M • • - , Section II. EXPERIENCES IN OMR LOCALITIES . • Other communities have recognized the economic value of general avia- tion airports. An important case study of the benefits of general aviation airports was conducted in Ohio. In the early-1960's, the State of Ohio decided to establish an airport in every county. A bond issue and some local participation funded 64 airport projects, at a cost of $12.4 million. A later evaluation, contrasting participating and non-participating counties, showed the following: • At 20 of the new airports, almost half the activity was by corporate aircraft and commercial cargo planes. • More than half of 150 manufacturing firms selected at random in the state use the air transportation facilities frequently. • Counties -.1ith new airports had a three percent higher payroll rate increase than did the counties without. • Over a four-year period after the airports were • established, the airport counties netted $250 million in additional personal income, and had 60,000 more new jobs than the non-airport counties. A study was undertaken in Odessa, Texas by the airport board. Based upon a randomly selected group of 135 area businesses, the research found that 46 percent of the companies had customers, business associates, or company personnel who traveled to and from Odessa by business aircraft. • • -5- , 2.2•221211.211.22-1110/121112$021•111 - 1 A . • ■,.■••■ . - , ■1■111■111..1•111•MIN Five years ago, the Minnesota Department of Aeronautics examined the role of general aviation airports in the local economy and found that Austin Airport,ind its related businesses contributed 0.1'percent.to the region's gross annual output, or about $517,000. Thief River Falls Airport contributed about $800,000, or 0.4 percent of the region's gross output, and Duluth Airport $7.2 million. • A 1962 Michigan study showed expenditures of $15,275 in the community for every 1,000 itinerant operations. Surveys by the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport Commission concluded that for every $1,000 invested in the airport system, local industry gained $2 million in business. • The Federal Aviation Administration, which assessed the economic im- pacts of five general aviation airports on their communities, found that: • Local opinion considered.thg airport a contribu- tion to the economy. • There were increases in the rate of growth follow- ing airport development. • New industries stated the presence of the airport • had been an important factor in locational choice. • Old industries were retained partly because of the airport. • Economic growth including airports compensated for the trend toward loss of rural ..loyment. _ . • Rapid air access improves industrial equipment maintenance capability for manufacturing companies. • Connections' to the national airport system are • importan*. • • The airport can be a nucleus for industrial concen- tration and promote cohesive land use in the airport area. • -6- NAsso••• ■ Lin:1110141111 A02001 AT la • . • . , . • . ' • .. •• • .M41.6 • . - In 1979, the Port of Portland (Oregon) conducted a study of the economic . _impact of the various air facilities under its jurisdiction, including three • .ygeneral aviation airports. There- were- an estimated 557 locally. • . based, general aviation aircraft-at the three facilities. The study found _ that total impact (direct and induced) of the general aviation facilities • ' during 1978 was $58 million (value added by individuals and firms in the "area) , 1,343 jobs and $19 million in payroll. • It would be virtually impossible for any particular enterprise to specify what percentage of the company's profits, growth, stock apprecia- tion, etc. could be attributed to that use of aviation. Many factors help influence success. Since there is such diversity between aviation users, it also seems likely that the success story for one would be hard to repli- cate for another.. However, there is revealing information about the rela- tionship of corporate aircraft ownership and other components of business - success among. the leading 1,000 manufacturing firms in the nation. . . From 1969 to 1977, the number of Fortune 1000 companies owning aircraft has risen from 420 to 502 and grows each year, reaching 514 in late-1978. Moreover, those companies owning an airplane have a much higher percentage of sales and profit that those who do not: The National Business Aircraft Association found that the 502 Fortune businesses owned 1,648 aircraft in 1977 and represented: . 79 percent of the Fortune 1000 employees • . 83 percent of the Fortune 1000 net sales . 84 percent of the Fortune 1000 assets . 84 percent of the Fortune 1000 stockholders equity . 86 percent of the Fortune 1000 net income Net income as a percentage of sales averages 5.2 percent for those companies owning their own aircraft as against 4.1 percent for non-owners. ' 1 Net income as a percentage of stockholder equity is 13.7 percent for the -7- AsioeuATE: - . - . . . , . . . . - , .". . ' '.• , . • . . . _ . . , . . , - . • . ..... ., .......„ ,_______,. . __ . . .. ... .. , . .._ . .. . . , ,.... . . .. .,.. . . _ .... ._ .. ., . • . . . . . . • . . , . . • . . • . . . — . . . aircraft-owning businesses, as compared to 11.5 percent for the non-oners w . . . . , -- an advantage of 19.1 percent. Nei income per employee is $3,472 for . . . -. . rcraft-owning companies and $2,131 for non-owning companies -- a difference • of 63 percent. . . . . . - ,. . . • • i . Interestingly also, the aircraft ownership rate rises within the 1 Fortune 1000: • . . Entire 1000 ' 50.2 percent companies with planes Top 500 . 65.9 percent companies with planes • , Top 100 94.0 percent companies with planes . , . . indicating perhaps that it is not only an ingredient, but a key ingredient for success with major corporations. . All these examples support the finding of a U.S. Department of Commerce survey.which polled 3,000 manufacturing firms to determine factors • , influencing industry location decisions. The availability of air service for 11 percent was considered critical, and for 17 percent, significant. An aggregate of 28 percent concluded that air service was a key to location. With corporate aircraft ownership and Atlanta's positicn in the southeast . , economf juxtaposed against these facts, the importance of maintaining and improving PAK is underscored. , . . . . . . . . • . • • . . • . • . , , . . , . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . , , . . . . . . • . . , . . . • . . . . . , . . . . -8- ...-01.•1411411l.1111.4.111 call LIZOCIATE$ arrr■ • ■ - •401, Section III. ECONOMIC IMPACTS — watsmiR.RILEA.GEORGE ASSOCIATES • - - • , • , . • •,, ,•■••• • • • '7 :* • %' • • . Section 'III. .ECONOMIC IMPACTS '7 The primary objective of this analysis is documentation of the economic value -- or impact --'of DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, Documentation of a complex mix of private and public activity is difficult at best. However, the following discussion provides an insight to the importance of the air- port which is considered to be a reasonable, if conservative, estimate. Economic impact may be described by two major components, employment and income. Employment impacts reflect jobs attributable to an economic activity. Income impacts reflect additional dollars flowing into the local ) • economy because of purchases of other goods and services. To systematically account for the components of economic impact, we have used several terms. Primary impact is divided into direct and indirect factors. Direct factors consist of the actual airport-related employment, payroll and purchases by airport-related activities. Indirect factors in- clude those expenditures which occur in the process of using aviation facilities. Examples of indirect factors include expenditures by visitors . to the local area and the attractiveness of the airport to local businesses. • The sum of direct and indirect factors is termed primary impact. ' • Induced impact describes the concept of the "multiplier effect" -- . any dollar added to the economy in wages or other expenditures will be spent and respent several times over. Each time the money is spent, it becomes income for someone else. Multipliers are used by economists to determine . . the induced impact of money injected into an economy. • -9- . wAssoita.viiiit.sEmE AssociatEs • The sum of primary impact and induced impact equals total economic impact. The following exhibit indicates the components of total economic impact and their relationships as used to document the value of DeKalb- Peachtree Airport. DeKalb-Peachtree Airport Components of Economic Impact, Primary Direct Impact - Indirect Impact Impact Total Economic Primary Impact + , Induced Impact Impact The approach used in determining impacts is based upon information from several sources including mail questionnaires, telephone interviews and personal visits as well as a review of secondary information including similar studies of other general aviation airports throughout the country. The following discussion presents the employment and income components for DeKalb-Peachtree Airport as a basis for determination of an estimate of total economic impact. Primary Impact Direct Factors Direct economic impact is generated by the businesses which provide • goods and services to the users of the airport and is measured in terms of the employment and payroll, gross revenues and taxes associated with each of these firms. Firms included in this analysis are either lessees or sublessees of the DeKalb-Peaehtree Airport. A questionnaire was mailed to each of the 63 businesses at PDK to solicit necessary employment, payroll revenue and expenditure information. -10- ,ammmmmWil • • - • , "\. Also, follow-up telephone calls were conducted, as necessary. Cooperation was excellent with over 71 percent of the firms responding with sufficient information to the extent that basic industry relationships could be developed and used to derive estimates where information was not available. In addition, personnel of two majors government agencies the DeKalb- - Peachtree Airport and the Federal Aviation Administration -- have an impact on the local economy and are included in the following discussion. • Employment and Payroll. The most significant generator of jobs and income at PDK are the fixed-base operators (FB0) . The three FBO's employed a full-time equivalent of 214 persons at an average annual salary of nearly $12,000 per employee during 1979. The largest single category of employers is comprised of 63 business tenants with an estimated 500 full-time persons at an average annual salary of nearly $15,000. . ) The following table presents the employment and payroll by major employer category at PDK for 1979. • Table 1. DIRECT EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLL, DEKALB-PEACHTREE AIRPORT, 1979 Total Annual • Employer Employment 1/ Payroll Fixed-Base Operazo.es 214 $ 2,510,000 Airport Administration 33 ' 274,000 FAA 25 ' 665,000 Tenants 2/ 500 7,480,000 Total 772 . $10,929,000 1/ Part-time employment is converted to full-time • equivalent. 2/ Estimates based upon a 71.4 percent response to questionnaires. Source: . Survey by Hammer, Siler, George Associates. -11- 14•ogrEi.tieLem.stanat ASSOCIATES . . ' . . , _ ___ ...,... . ......— - Direct employment and payroll impacts reflect a total of 772 jobs at _ PDK with an annual payroll of more than $10.9 million in 1979. Of those working at the airport, 357 employees, or 46.2 percent, live in. DeKalb - County. Thus, the 357.. DeKalb,County residents working at PDKin 1979 re- . ceived an estimated total payroll of $5.05 million. The impact of the DeKalb County residents working at PDK on the county's economy is best understood by looking at consumer expenditure patterns of these employees in the county. The following table indicates the estimated 1979 expendi- ture patterns of DeKalb County residents working at PDK. Table 2. CONSUMER ExpENniTgnsalEall_couNTY, MPLOYEES AT AIRPORT, 1979 Income Exnenditures --- . Total Payroll $10,929,000 Total Payroll in DeKalb County $ 5,050,000 Benefits 1/ $ 616,000 Taxes $ 788,000 Disposable Personal Income $ 3,646,000 Savings $ 164,000 interest Paid to Business $ 88,000 Personal Consumption Expendi- $ 3,394,000 ria-es Food $ 716,000 bDusing S1,157,000 Clothing, Materials and Services $ 329,000 Transportation $ 730,000 Recreation, Personal Care and Education $ 462,000 • 1/ FICA, Workmen's Compensation, Pension, Group Insurance, AFCC. . Source: Survey of Consumer Expenditures, Atlanta SMSA, ' Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor; Hammer, Slier, George Associates. -12- wAiremem.soLin.stonol 14510CiATIS . . . • • • • • PDK were asked to estimate thus gross revenues for 1979. A summary of• the gross .revenues of these, businesses and agencies is presented in the • following table. - Table 3. , ESTIMATED GROSS REVENUES, BUSINESSES AND . AGENCIES, DEKALB-PEACHTREE AIRPORT, 1979 -- - • Gross Revenues • Fixed Base Operators $23,560,000 Administration 700,000 1/ . Other Businesses (Lessees) 38,300,000 2/ • Federal Aviation Administration 664,000 3/ Total $63,224,000 • 1/ Annual budget and appropriations from state . for capital projects. 2/ Estimate based upon a 71.4 percent response • . • to questionnaire. 3/ Capital outlays. Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates. • For 1979, the total gross revenues generated at PDK is estimated at - more than $63 million. Of this amount, $27.6 million is estimated to have been spent in the Atlanta area, as shown in the ,following table. • • • • • • • -14- .,....: .... • .,_.. ..... ..._.... M A s Y t i.a l L t A.a t o A a t A a a o o l A t t a Of the total PDK payroll for DeKalb County residents, almost $2.4 million represented total consumer expenditures. The largest single Cate- ion,' of expenditures was housing which received almost $1.2 million in ' 1979. This category includes: shelter ($714,000) , utilities ($138,000) , household operations ($203,000) , and furniture and equipment ($145,000) . Private transportation accounted for $648,000, or almost 89 percent of total transportation expenditures. Food purchased for home consumption repre- sented $420,000, or almost 59 percent of total food expenditures. Gross Revenues. The monies generated by the various firms and agencies located at PDK are termed gross revenues. In the case of private firms, it is called business income and in the case of government agencies, it is called the annual budget. The salient point is that the economic impact of PDK is derived, in part, from these gross revenues. In order to accurately measure economic benefits remaining in the local area, a distinction must be made between all gross revenues and that portion of gross revenues spent locally. For purposes of this study, gross revenues spent locally are termed residual expenditures -- rent, utilities, local goods and services purchased, and profit. Therefore, residual ex- penditures do not include the portion of gross revenues which leaves the local area (leakage) in the form of non-locally manufactured goods purchased for resale, federal taxes paid, etc. Based upon recent studies of general aviation airports, it is estimated that 31.8 percent of gross revenues from FBO operations, 100 percent of government revenues and 70 percent of the non-aviation revenues are spent locally.. The three FBO's at DeKalb-Peachtree Airport collect revenues from sales of aircraft and aircraft parts and accessories, and from providing a variety of services to the flying public. Non-aviation tenants represent a cross-section of business activities. The 68 businesses and agencies at -13- tiAmosii,s Li pagE Ass gic 'ATE', . - Table 4. ESTIMATED RESIDUAL EXPENDITURES, BUSINESSES • AND AGENCIES, DEKALB-PEACHTREE AIRPORT,1979 • Residual Firm or Agency. . Expenditures Fixed Base Operators . • $ 7,492,000 _ • Government Agencies 1,364,000 " Other Businesses- (Lessees) ' 18,767,000 _ _ Total $27,623,000 Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates. The three FBO's contributed an estimated $7.5 million, or 27.1 percent. The other bnesses located at PDK produced the majority of residual expenditures with almost $18.8 million, or 68 percent, of the total in 1979. Indirect Factors Indirect impact is defined as those economic benefits which accrue to the community as a result of the use of the airport. These economic bene- fits are primarily derived from business use of the facility. Business trips by air are often transient operations requiring expenditures for lodging, food ind-ground transportation. Also, such, trips usually involve several passengers including the pilot. Use of the airport for training is included in FBO revenues. Pleasure flying is a relatively small propor- tion of airport revenue-producing activity. Other impacts include many intangible aspects such as increased business efficiency, business promotion, and economic development. However, an effective means of quantifying these benefits is beyond the scope of this analysis -- substantial as those factors may be. -15- if El esta.StlERAIME ASSOCIATE& • For purposes of this study, the indirect impact o PDK will be based upon an estimation of expenditures by business trips in the local economy. Base figuies used for this analysis were derived from a survey of pilots at the three FBO's during the periods June, 18-20 and June 2S-27. Business trips by air which result in local expenditures are considered to be transient. The Federal Aviation Administration, which operates the control tower at PDK, records aircraft operations (a departure or arrival is counted as one operation) according to two major categories -- local and itinerant. Itinerant operations are further categorized into air carrier, air taxi, general aviation and military. The following table indicates the level of aircraft operations at PDK in 1979. Table S. LIIIS.RAFIS, DELB-Kix PEACHTREE AIRPORT, 1979 Itinerant, Air Carrier -0- Air Taxi 7,610 General Aviation 137,965 Military 649 Total 146,224 Local General Aviation 99,914 Military 124 Total 100,038 Total Operations 246,262 Source: Federal Aviation Administration. -16- • itolt*Ittri,EILIFII.Mlied ASSOCIATES mmm=mmMWMEM For purposes of estimating the importance of transient business trips, the general aviation itinerant operations were examined. The sur- vey of pilots found that 26 percent of itinerant operations during the survey periods required the services of: an FBO._ Also, 97.8 percent of those interviewed were on business trips. Thus, an estimated 18,000 business trips were made at PDK in 1979. Further, the survey found that 56.2 percent of those operations involving a business trip were transient -- that is, were not based at PDK. Therefore, there were 10,100 transient business trips using PDK in 1979. This estimate, of course, substantially underestimates the total importance of PDK since it refers only to transient business use. A large number of the approximately 448 based aircraft are used by local business pilots to meet their travel requirements. Each transient business trip included 2.53 passengers plus the pilot which resulted in approximately 35,700 transient business visitors through PDK in ./9-79, according to the pilot survey. Of the transient business Visitors, 23.9 percent, or 8,500 persons, required overnight accommodations, with the remainder of 27,200 being one-day visitors. The overnight busi- ness visitors stayed an average of 1.5 days, resulting in 12,750 room-nights of local hotel/motel -sales. Typical expenditures associated with transient business trips included: $50/night for hotel or motel rooms; 535/day for meals and incidentals; and $30/day for ground transportation. The following table presents the estimated expenditures of transient business visitors at PDK in 1979. -17- mAtiralE14.8ttElt.otameE its$0claktts . . , .. -• ''' . — .- , • . ,___. . . . - . . Table 6* T-.....T° .6.LIERIEPELITYILIERTIBIEL - . TRANSIENEL,.....DILA-1 . .... 1/E EUEL . NEEE - E -LP71, - . . Number !mend.5. -- .- • Total TranSient . . 4184mosailigates.r.... Business Visitors 35,700 .----------------- 11isit2Zs- 27,200 . Meals and Purchases $ 952,000 . Ground Transportation 816 000 --",- • Total . $1,768,000 DvernittLfieILLIEL 8,500 . . Meals and Purchases $ 446,300 Ground Transportation 382,500 Hotel/Motel 637 I SOO ----- - Total $1,466,300 . Total Indirect Impact $3,234,300 a - . -..,\ Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates. . . , • . 8 errota1lacrent As discussed previously, the total economic impact of the DeKalb- , Peachtree Airport reflects the sum of two elements -- primary and induced .act. Primary impact is the initial, or first round of expenditures • associated with facilities at POK. Induced impact is the second and sub , sequent rounds of spending as the initial expenditures "ripple.through the economy. To measure the induced impact, multipliers are used which indicate the number of times a single expenditure is respent in the economy. Also, the induced impact includes employment and the increase in jobs as a result of these expenditures. . . Multipliers vary and are not the same for all industries or metropolitan areas. The determination of an absolutely accurate multiplier for a . • -18- 4.4,e0414.011.114,SEOSSE ASSOCIATES . , particular industry or collection of industries, as with an airport, in a particular location requires the development of an extensive input/output analysis. While that type of effort is outside the scope of this study, multipliers have been developed for economic-impact studies of other air- ports in the country. . • - For example, the state of New Jersey used an overall multiplier factor of 3.0 for a statewide study of general aviation airports. Massachusetts developed an income multiplier of 2.8 for general aviation airports. In 1979, Sacramento County (California) Department of Airports used an income multiplier of 2.46 and an employment multiplier of 4.73 for commercial and general aviation airports. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association recommends an income multiplier of 4.0 for general aviation transient operations. The state of Washington used an income multiplier of 3.80 for a statewide study of general aviation airports. In 1979, the Port of Portland used a multiplier of 2.26 for income and employment. Based upon these related studies, an income multiplier of 2.40 for PDK was utilized. As discussed earlier, the primary benefit of PDK to the Atlanta area • is that portion of gross revenues which remain in the •lecal economy to create income and e..loyment for the resident population_ Application of the selected aultiplier to the previously calculated residual expenditures yields an estimate of induced impact of $43,200,000. The following table shows a total primary and induced economic impact of PDK to be $74.1 million. -19- . maliviit.11 Lia.st °met ASIOCIATEI _ . . ...m■mEMM Table 7: ,SUMMARY OF COMPONENTS OF ECONOMIC IMPACT, . DEKALB-PEACHTREE AIRPORT, 1979 Priniay Impact Induced Total. Direct Indirect Total Impact Impact Income $27,623,000 $3,234,000 $30,857,000 $43,2011000 $74,057,000 Source: Hammer, Slier, George Associates. Economic Impact on DeKalb County The purpose of this section is to determine that portion of total economic impact applicable to DeKalb County. The number of DeKalb residents working at PDK has been determined and cited earlier. Also, the impact of payroll expenditures has been estimated. Direct, indirect and induced economic impacts in DeKalb County are discussed in the following paragraphs. Direct React DeKalb County Direct economic impact of PDK on the Atlanta area has been calculated at $27.6 million, of which approximately $10.9 million was represented by payroll. Thus, payroll accounted for almost 40 percent of direct impact in the Atlanta area. As discussed earlier, the payroll portion of direct impact was appor- tioned to DeKalb County based upon employee residence. The non-payroll portion of direct impact is used for business overhead. Casrges, debt ser- vice and profit distribution. Since both employees and non-payroll dis- . bursements tend to be concentrated near the place of business, according to similar studies in other parts of the country, employee residence is used as the basis for allocating the non-payroll portion of direct impact. Consequently, 46.2 percent of the total direct economic impact of PDK, or $12.8 million, is estimated to occur in DeKalb County. -20- 4■= . m A to so a soLia.stanst Asiaci•Tts • , . - • „---_--- , . Dann County, The. pilot- survey found that 88.2 percent_of the total business trips to PDK in 1979 were made because PDK was conveniently located to local business offices._ This finding underscores two considerations. First, a businessperson flying to Atlanta has an option of at least five airports. It is likely that a person flying to PDK for business reasons will conduct his or her affairs in the vicinity of the destination airport. Second, because of the proximity of the heaviest concentration of suburban office and industrial development in the metropolitan area (i.e. , that located within the I-85/1-285 corridors) , the airport acts as a magnet for trips and as a magnet for further private investment. Though it would be unrealistic to expect all business trips to PDK would-be oriented to DeKalb business locations, it is estimated that 70 percent of the business trips to PDK conduct their activities in DeKalb County. Thus, it is estimated that the county received approximately 70 percent, or $2.3 million, of the total indirect impact stemming from PDK activity in 1979. Induced and Total Impact The induced impact of PDK for DeKalb County is estimated to be a multiplier of 2.25. It is not possible to allocate the secondary effects as initial expenditures (primary impact) flow through the economy since the individual- firms and employees who contribute to the induced impact are not known. It is reasonable to assume that as each round of spending occurs, the expenditures are made increasingly by persons outside DeKalb County. The following table summarizes the primary, induced and total economic impact of PDK on DeKalb County. -21- NAY 111111.SI LE 11.110 ROE ASSOCIATE& • • • . Table 8. TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF DEKALB-PEACHTREE AIRPORT ON DEKALB COUNTY 1979 Primary Impact Induced , Total Direct •, Indirect, Total Impact Impact • -. Income $12,800,000 $2,300,000 $15,100,000 $18,900,000 $34,000,000 Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates. The total economic, impact of PDK on DeKalb County is estimated to be $34.0 million in 1979, or 45.9 percent of the total economic impact of PDK in the Atlanta area. -22- NA111.111.1111tEM.S10.111W001•71• ... . . 1 ... . . . . . . . . . • ' . . Ar—n so* ) . . . . . . . . . . ) 11 . . . . . . . . . ) _ Section IV. ADDED FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO DEKALB COUNTY. I _ . . . , . , 1 . , 4 _ . . • . ...„, 0..- Haltialia.SIL111.010041f ASS0 CIA710. •- • - • • - • " • • • • - ••■ Section IV: ADDED FINANCIAL BENEFITS - _ : "- TO DEKALB COUNTY - _ . _ , In addition to the economic impact of jobs and income, the DeKalb- Peachtree Airport provides a direct source of revenues to the county government and the county school system, as well as the City of Chamblee. Taxes on real and personal property and business license fees are paid by businesses at PDK. Also, DeKalb residents who base their aircraft at PDK pay personal property taxes on the assessed value of the aircraft. .The following table indicates taxes and fees paid by businesses and individuals directly to DeKalb County and the City of Chamblee. Table 9. LOCAL TAXES AND FEES PAID TO DEKALB COUNTY . AND CITY OF CI-IAMBLEE, DEKALB-PEACHTREE AIRPORT, 1979 DeKalb County General School City of Grand Government 1.3-43FiTi- Total Chamblee Total Real Property $ 41,000 $ 57,280 $ 98,280 $ 823 $ 99,103 Personal Property 1/ 93,930 116,070 210,000 - 210,000 Business License 870 n/a 870 .455 1,325 Total $135,800 $173,350- $309,150 $1,278- $310,428 nia - not applicable. , _ 1/ Aircraft based at PDK and owned by DeKalb residents and businesses represent 48 percent of total property taxes paid on aircraft in DeKalb County. Source: DeKalb County Finance Department; Clerk, City of Chamblee; Hammer, Siler, George Associates. • -23- S . ilAulgign."$11.14.otoneemetelms . • • . •, • — ...mwm. dtmo■km.■ . 1 In 1979, a total of $310,428 in local taxes and fees was paid to the county. and Chamblee. Of this amount, DeKalb County received 5309,150, of which $173,350, or 56. 1 percent, went to the county school board. The county received over $374,000 in 1979 in personal property taxes "n air- craft. Of this amount, 48 percent, or $180,000, was paid by DeKalb residents who based their aircraft at PDK. These revenues to DeKalb County are in addition to the revenues generated by PDK. In 1979, the airport received $510,588 in revenues primarily from lease rental payments which totaled $478,871, or 93.8 per- cent of all revenues. Total expenditures in 1979 equalled $430,410; thus, the airport authority realized an operating surplus of $80,178. Based upon taxes and fees paid to DeKalb County and the operating surplus realized, PDK produced over $389,000 for the operation of county government and the county school system. Neither DeKalb-Peachtree Airport staff nor the airport authority has been given authorization to administer its funds as an independent agency. The county provides these services. All revenues are paid to the county, which handles all disbursements. Another indication of the importance of the DeKalb-Peachtree Airport is the amount and source of capita] investment at the facility. Capital investment, whether by public, or private sources, indicates a long-term confidence because of the large amounts of money involved and tl.t long life of facilities. This is particularly true for private capital investment since these funds are usually borrowed for terms of 10 to 30 years. -24- ASSOCIATIg . . _ . .. . . - . . . . . . . . ., . . 1,:'-'i't .-1' '.:';''',:f...TY"-`4.:'-:'; 1.1."-.''''7'. •:::--. *---•: . \ ' .' . . , - • . _. . ,., .. • • • . . . . . . . ---*-t - . . . . . . . The following table summarizes capital investments made by private and public groups during the four-year period, 1976-79. . . Table 10. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES, DEKALB- FEACiftREE AIRPORT, 1976-79 . . • . - Total . . . . • Public , . . Federal $ 867,600 • State 26,500 . County General Fund _ 226,500 Other 1/ 466,000 . _ . . . Total $1,586,600 . . . . Private . ' FBOs . $2,800,000 • . Other Businesses 1 ,800,000 - . Total $4,600,000 Grand Total $6,186,600 1/ Federal revenue sharing. -.. -. Source: Interviews and survey by Ilammer, Siler, George Associates. . . . During the period, 1976-79, almost $6.2 million was invested at PDK for capital projects. Of this amount, $4.6 million, or 74.4 percent, was provided by businesses (primarily the FBO's). According to interviews . - with the businesses which provided capital expenditures, most of their funds were paid to DeKalb County contractors and firms. Less than 15 percent of public capital investment was appropriated by DeKalb County. Of the total capital expenditures, DeKalb County provided less than-four percent. • If return on investment were a criterion by which to fudge the impor- tance of a public facility, PDK would represent a substantial succrss. By investing $226,500 in county funds, the commission has witnessed other public and private commitments of $5,960,100 during the last four years -- ) a leverage or multiplier of 26.3 to 1.0. - . -25 • ',Amy gm,61 Lt',gig ono/ i lig 0 c IATI i . . . . . • • • • • Section V. SUMMARY • • � E ' I WAYciEC.911>EW.CE4b0E A990CIA7E2 . _ m■■. • - -Section V. SUMMARY , , . Some people have recently argued that PDK is used primarily by pleasure - flyers on the weekend. Other equally erroneous critics suggest that the airport would be better converted to a shopping center since it is of so little value to the county. - This analysis demonstrates that such views have little, if any, sub- stance in fact. In 1979, almost 60 percent of the take-offs and landings were made by itinerant aircraft. Since 1975, itinerant aircraft operations at PDK have increased at a rate five times greater than local operations. The airport is a base for approximately 448 aircraft -- from single-engine machines in great variety and sophistication to jet aircraft capable of high-speed, long-distance travel. Owners reflect the DeNalb County and metropolitan Atlanta economic spectrum. Many of the planes are privately owned. Many are owned by corporations -- some outside the county. The current value of based aircraft at PDK is well over $26 million. To service these planes and the thousands of transient (visitor) planes which use the airport every day, the three fixed-base *raters with 214 employees generate an annual business volume of $23.6 million. In many ways, PDK is a shopping center. It provides an opportunity to buy and sell new and used airplanes, parts and services. Does this economic activity hold any significance for the county? It does, in a very substantial way. For 1979, taxes paid directly to the county totaled $309,150 for activities at PDK. Also, the airport produced an operating surplus of over $80,000. Thus, DeKalb County realized a direct • -27- . 14•ifileig.siLip.ogoost Ansoc,am • financial benefit of over $389,000 in 1979 as a result of the presence of the DeKalb-Peachtree Airport. Though PDK serves as a regional transportation facility, it is an a am- portant source of jobs, taxes and transportation to DeKalb County. Approxi- mately 46.2 percent, or 357 of those employed at PDK, are DeKalb residents with an annual payroll in excess of $5 million. Further, 48 percent of the airplanes based at PDK are owned by DeKalb residents and businesses who pay the county almost $180,000 a year in property taxes. Capital expenditures, construction, reflects in still another way 4 the importance of the airport. Federal, state and local governments in- vested $1.6 million at PDK between 1976 and 1979. Private enterprise in- vested another $4.6 million during the same period for a total of 56.2 million. DeKalb County's contribution of $226,500 was less than four per- cent of the total capital outlay. Is there a "bottom line?" Not really. The dollar impact of PDK is impressive. The airport means 534 million to DeKalb County each year; add • another $40 million in benefits to the Atlanta area, for a total annual economic impact of $74 million! . It a]so means convenience and safety in serving the needs of thousands of local, regional and national businesses. The airport should not be left alone. It is too important to be supported in a lukewarm fashion. If DeKalb County is to continue to grow, general aviation -- and DeKalb-Peachtree Airport -- must be able to continue to serve the role being served today -- a vital link in the economic c.J.ain of events in the county. -28- ipt•Milli.$11.1114,0110111611 4111001ATII ■•••■•■•, -- • . - , . • vostangs , vadialomammamatosmates... . . • • • APPENDICES “AllikillEN.SILER.OIONGE AgSOCIAYIE$ • Appendix A _ DeKalb-Peachtree Airport Economic Impact Study PUBLICATIONS • General Aviation Manufacturer Association, How To Land And Expand An Airport In Your Community 2.: Conference on General Aviation Airport Noise and Land-Use Planning, Preliminary Proceedings, November 21, 1979 3. New Jersey Division of Aeronautics, Aviation Economic Impact Assessment , May, 1979 4. Division of Aviation, Kansas Department of. Transportation, Airport Community Survey, Kansas, February, 1980 5. Kansas Department of Economic Development, Kansas' Economic Progress, . The Importance of Airports for Economic Growth, Research Memorandum Series #7, September, 1978 • 6. Massachusetts Aeronautics .Commission, General Aviation Means Jobs, Continuous Airport System Planning Process, Technical Memorandum #3, October, 1979 7. David 8raslau Associates, Inc. - Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff, A Study of the Socio-Economic Impact of Aviation on Selected Communities, Prepared for the Minnesota Department of Aeronautics, October, 1974 8. Department of Airports, County of Sacramento (CA), A $600 Million Asset To -The Local Community, 1979 9. Systems Planning 'Division, Airports Service, U.S. Federal Aviation Ad- ministration, The Airoort -- Its Influence on the Community Economy, 1967 10. New England Region, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, "Determining the Economic impact of Your Airport" 11. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, "General Aviation -- Plugged In For Progress" 1.2. Alfred F. Eaton, Jr. , "The Economic Benefit of the Airport to the Community" 13. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, The Value of Airports, (a col- lection of articles) • 14. Charles Spence, "The Secondary Effects," A paper presented at the annual conference of the California Association of Airport Executives, July 17, 1978 •1•1.711.00•• WAIMMIR,SILIR.111101,4011,1$10CIATIZ • 15. Port of Portland, 'The Ports Ai ort 5 stem: A $iilion Dollar Impact, 1978 mm 16. John L. Baker, "How To Tell The General Aviation Story," Prepared for the National Conference on Energy Conservation in General Aviation, October, 1977 17. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, "Ohio's Airport Building Program," December, 1974 18. General Aviation Manufacturer Association, "General Aviation Statis- tical Data," 1979 Edition 19. Dr. David Braslau,, "Airports-Their Role in Community Development," Presented to the 1976 MDA Airport Conference, March 20. William F. Shea, "Economic Impact of the Port of Portland General Aviation Facilities," 1978 21. Research Atlanta, Airport Ca.acit and Economic Crowth in Atlanta, 1979 • • pn Elias i LE fl.®l ypQE ,BSO'C DATE! ■•■••■.... -,•••••.c - Appendix B- DeKalb-Peachtree Airport Economic Impact Study PERSONS INTERVIEWED • 1. Ralph Thompson, Regional Office, Federal Aviation Administration' 2. Hal Little, Regional Office, Federal Aviation Administration 3. Stan Green, General Aviation Manufacturers Association 4. John Myer, General Aviation Manufacturers Association 5. Russell Hoyt, American Association of Airport Executives 6. Walter Farrain, Air Transport Association 7. Dwight Cochran, DeKalb County Finance Department • 8. David Joiner, DeKalb County Finance Department 9. Susan Nugent, Bureau of Aeronautics, Georgia Department of Transportation 10. States Finley, DeKalb County Planning Department 11. John Brooks, DeKalb County Planning Department 12. Dick Lampl, National Business Aircraft Association 13. Mike McCarty, National Business Aircraft Association 14. Bruce Lederer, Aviation Subcommittee, U. S. House of Representatives 15. Pat Neilson, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 16. Jim Daggett, Chief, Air Traffic Control Tower, PDK 17. Edward Toth, Field Office; Federal Aviation Administration 18. Gordon Saussy, Economic Research Director, University of New Orleans 19. Tom Thatcher, New Jersey Division of Aeronautics 20. Dick Brannon, Corporate Jet Aviation, PDK 21. Russ Hopper, Corporate Jet Aviation, PDK 22. Pat Epps, Epps Air Service, PDK 23. Jim Hodge, Peachtree Air Service 24. David Sjoquist, Economics Department, Georgia State University 25. Tom Bolger, National Association of Counties 26. Joanne Donaldson, Clerk, City of Chamblee 27. Charlie Dickinson, DeKalb County Tax Assessors Office 28. Bill Stephens, Tri-South Mortgage Company 29. Vern Chesbro, Vice-President, Continental Telephone 30. Dick Budd, President, Dooley, Ltd Si. Harvey Mathis, Taylor Mathis Corporation • 32. Emory Taylor, Vice-President; Goldkist 33. George Clements, Assistant to the President, IBM 34. Bill O'Connell, Oglethorpe Power Corporation 35. William Jayne, FAA, DeKalb-Peachtree Airport Tower WA 11 P1.1111fRAIEOPME ASIOCIATFI It • Appendix C DEKALB.PEACHTREE AtHPOpT ECONOMIC STUDY -' OUESTIONNAINE . p,� _.. etas 1. loaf area a u you di yWK�tt• N•.Autxw 1i ia,, . g mot its t t m ty? i Incas? "°., . If Y4.innet see ate tents of Itta escalation fir?. 1 On you a!te laata rorillovarinfn ? yos —«. 11 ves.,now much?«—.-,-.«..—«........«... , . lull Nth part N -.«,.. ...—.«..«....«. 4. Y Y� . $. Do you owe artwaft at OaKaltrFa +tt wtt t? no.«..«. facNaMfiModo If vet.Oases 141: , . �,„, ......e... ..«..rte., 6, Mould you one us ffn aco,rnatiowto arifise41 HaY tdI of Your III II? $ - ....., I . 7. Yet epee u0'tt� anit/sat+•watt fit your tilt, 5...®, .» « .. a Wasiak ymt kit Ifw ZIP ono.ul tr.fwd daiahwss uI each enntletese, INaitint net ea useasvi • T. tarn I t Mat 1 naafi fa tat Et Your a 1 ■ g• fie You estimate ' ul "a_ ■ t an tl+rw+ .natsdl fuse Armin aver tna atm lies vests? 11.No.twuCPI nao your firm 11, s tr*i.gttp to tratavi hens: 0 hat Mf .......—.... • t ? WI r IUD r« 13. Do you 1 If to.anal N nas OMAHA eau ill,Nat ? $ . • r aanrl8,811lw.e)toast A>QIIaCIA • rt 13. Average salary by euployee category: $ • 14, businesses influenced by PDK. • 15. Other tenants. tit A 141S.SILES.SIOSSE ASSOCIATES • --�«w�.-w�-+.�-+wo�_m.- .-. +r..m-.��+•-r w.-..m..+,.....�.�.... ..-e.. v -.s_..-o.w.....mwr-,._. .-.m ��. _... __, •�Y • ApToptl I R 1) . DEKALE,PEAC$TPEE AI iiKHIT ECONOMIC STUDY _ . ' QUESTIONNAIRE ' . • — 1. y 7 . • S you. ? full biro 4. be you biara aircraft at CbrKalb-Pa ? • ' needs list: • t rmr/ I you plus us tqq awesdirvwla 1 of your,firm? — S . in. . EL Would you girg us the rodroaimaar of your firm? 0 ... __ ,.._ ,- S- . 7. iN you list tria ZIP of tha of employee? - • I • i (?. ., -°.. .. ,,, _ RA6464E13.3I LER.OEOw6E Alfl®CI•ASES • . • . . . , . .. . • . . ,.... . .. _ . ,.. - ,, , • . . .. . . . . . . . • ■ .. ' • • e■ . , . .'•, . . . • . , . :-. . : ■ w.M.iimm■4 . e .. ] . . • ■ Ariten41 i Z I: . • . .. :,,.. '..„ - -• , IIINALA CHANIII'llt 01: 4:0,4411111:1i . . ' . 01:1.1A1.1:-PEACI am A 1111%Arr 1.11.:0140M 1 C:' INI'Arr NT%11 IV . ' . . . :•- Confidential :, ,-,-. .. . - . , • , . . , Illumines: Interview Guide . . •-' :,. : . . • . l'ersim Int vrviewed • . • • nate .- --.....MI ,Emp...r.....m0=7. ■••••■•■.. nMER■. ■■•■•mwanim■Mr= ■ ■ Company , . . --- . . Interviewer ____._ • :' • ---- . yon have planes based at rnKT .....____....... If so, how many? . . 2. Do yuu use PI)) fur: , business trips , . " cargo transport -... . "--- tours of siteS. facilities, etc. -other I ' ... •,-,--..-----' • . 3. How often do you use POK? once a week several times a week other _____ ----- ----- • 4. is P11K influenced any'corporate dcs:isluns regarding office/plant location or relocation? - • lias use of PDK facilitated business expansion? dollar value? S. What do you like about Pnrt_________..------- . --------,-- -------------- • 6. What do you dislike shout rt)r .__—___-- . ------------- , • 7. What improvements should he made? _ ____________—..---- . . E. Does your company's future growth depend to any degree on the , presence of MO _ nmplain • 9. If PDK did not cast. tow would this affect your colupany ___ . . , .------------- -------- 10. Is there any way to assign a monetary value to your company's ntilisstion act accessibility to Put? o.n.4 transportation savings, nlber . . . . . . , • . , . . . . . ■■■■■, ..... ... .. . • MAYS1.11.1111.111.11100111 ASSOCIATIS , - . . • ...... • . . •"*...:. )......'" . . .. _ . - • . • -. • . . . . . . . .. . . . • . . -„--- *CONFIDENTIAL_ _ , . . . , . . . . . . . . --. DEA:ALB-PEACHTREE AIRPORT ECONOMIC STUDY_ .... . . • Interview Guide for _ . . ' Tm-U-C---osc-115-'2,x4PFTiltorP . . . . • . Interviewee: _ Date: • . • . , . ......................-- . • . . . . • . BO: Iterviower: , - - ----------.---- ^. . . . . I. List of based aircraft by type and address (zip code).___ . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . _ __ . _ . ..... ._....._ • 2. Characteristics of business: . . % of Business Income . • . . 0 charter • • a training . . . • • a sales • . ..., .. • , . • ih .._ . o matemance .. ... _ : • • tie-down/storage-- .... _.__ , _._ ., . • _ _ 3. Prospects for growth, -. • . _ _. -. 4. Ammumt of building area owned ' - ranted square feet rent payments (1979) - escalation provisions ----- . . other payments (i.e. fuel flow charges) --.....- . 5. Leased ramp/parking space yes . _no amount 6. Number of employees full tine - part time ---. . . 7. Approximate annual payroll S - . . .- . . ..._. . 8, Approximate gross income S e Sources: . . - • . . * - , _ .............--- , ' . • . - . . . . ' . • atimmiss.sitsn.$E0*Of Assad/LIES • 9. 2TP codes of the how address of each employee: • 10. Capital i:pst+vomeant estimates for: last five years $ nest five years 11. Amount spent for the following areas: • construction projects S _ • fuel, supplies f, equipment $ a advertising S • s•svices • other: S • • S 12. Taus paid: • property 8_ • sales • corporate income S • other: S . d • • PAISISIP.01Lin.0i0001 A44011ATli . . — . . . . .. ••••—,.— , ,, . . . . • . - . . . . , • . . , ..:-.....- ',..•...... ."..*-•",,‘.'",-.-„••••...7.,.-: '.•,-,:-..-•. •.s.' •-.•- • _. .• , . . .„ : . .. . ..., _ . . . . .. . • . . . . .. , .:.• . .. . • . •• - .. '• . . . . . . • ..- —• • . ...,. . . ' • . • . ' — . • J • . * ---. , . , • • - . . • . ' ' • . :7.1'.',7.:,,,c......! ••'•:—.... f."....; . ... --.0."" ,'''.. .:.,-: . ••••-"....' - , 7.--'.,7-1,:. -:?' :: : -• " •. .. : 7....-... ....-.: -....:"..:„ t., .1 ,.: :..'• : -** ' •"`, -• • ••'-•' I, !..'.-: .:-- : •'-', : - ry,- :. 1 • - . - ... _ .. ,,... ... ,. . . .,... .,. - •. . : :.. • 7::-.....•::-..--: ....-•' . * . ...., „•_.., . ,_.„ ..;',:•• '-:.;: i'. • "2:`,1.-..1.••' ;*„..' f.-....--. - ' -' --"*' ' ' - •-•— ': . - -'•,,i•.7...:„.--.: ::."-'.. ...%--- • *Z .--.**-7.. s. 172,...:.;:.• -•`• -* '' - - _ . —...„. ,..., ti..,,.*- -.- . -'7,:,.• - -0-r.'-7,,,,...:- '.I:: --::4.7:: .. ;:" •,,,2.r, .:' . . • „ . • . . .7:'-V.-.'-'-f'•". -" , • ' — "-'' DETERITZNG : ' ECONOMIC a *ACT, . • •• - - , •• ,. . • OF TOUR AIRPORT. . ._%. ., • ., . . .......gamed)IISISIII.TIODONS. - .. .-. • — .• •• *• .i. •- . . . 1 - .. u ., • • . .. . *. . •• • . • , * , • .-. . .. .. . : • ■ .. .., • • • . - .. , . . . .- . • • - • , . . _ . • -• . • .. I. ' .. . . • - . . • ' . ' . .. . • •--. I.. - ■ • • - • - . .• ... -• • • •-.. . . - - , - .. .. .) . . - . _..._ • . - ..- ' .• .. .- ..• •-. . • - . 0 . • •- • • ' • - . . .... ■. . G .idelies for the Local Co=unity u . _ . . ,. , • • - - • . . . • . _ • ... . • - - . . . . . . , . "• - . . , - _ • _ . .. . . . - - -• - . _ . • . • . • , - .• . - . . .- . . , - . __ • . 4-: -.- - -,.... • . . . • • Prepared By . _ . . , • _ , • • . Planning and. Appraisal Staff Nev England Region . Federal Aviation AtimiTliqtraton Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 • . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . 1 . ,.f Sconomic I eact n C Aviation - .. transportation is basic to the economy of any region. In thF, terms cf the economist, it is one element in the in frastr pture,' that inter- related web of people and resources that enables an enterprise to begin. As one of the submerged elements as it were, transportation is often taken for granted. . We give little thought to the vital role it plays in linking suppliers, manufacturers, and consumers into a productive and efficient pattern of distribution. Aviation is a key clement in the overall transportation netvork. - Generally; our citizens , ere aware that 200 million: passengers moved on scheduled air carriers last year. Generally, they are aware that ,aviation contributes importantly to business and industrial applica- tions. Generally, .they are aware of the essential services aviation provides in individual and cctmcunity emergencies. 'let, this general awareness seldom is applied to the specific airport in or near their community. , . . Because aviation is a part of the transportation infrastructure, we . ' often satisfy ourselves with general statements concernine, its economic contribution. The following statement, taken from an aviation trade organization publication, is typical: "Because of aviation's vast , immeasurable impact on the U.S. economy, everyone benefits from the nation's air transportation system, even those who don't use it . directly". Hard data, particularly at 'the ctunity level, is available, but it takes work to compile it. The first essential step is to find an organization or a group of individuals willing to undertake the task. Consider the local Chamber of Commerce, Jaycees, college or university students - preferably some pup or individual with an interest in aviation, but not immediately identified with the airport. Vest, review the six suggested questionnaires and deter ine the extent to which such data will be available. The survey will provide basic data regarding the airport and the econemy: . 1. Data on direct emnlvvntent. Questionnaire 1 should be completed . . . by each employee of the organizations directly involved with the airport. Include airlines, concessioaairea, fixed based operators , freight forwarders, Federal agencies (such as FAA, Weather Bureau, Customs, etc.) - 2. Date on direct orrri.nizational expense. Questionnaire 2 should be completed by the local head of each organization directly involved . with the airport. • . •, - - - _ , . T 1:14PLO=IT • . - We, (sponsor or survey) are conducting a survey to develop information concerning aviation's economic impact upon the area. " We need help in order to draw an _ 7.;curate picture. All information will be kept confidential. ' You -y remain anonymous IS you choose - - - 1. What is the zip code of your residence? • 2. If you own'a home, circle the price that you estimate • it would bring on today's market: 1. under $20,000 4. $40,000 - 50,000 $20,000 - 30,000 . 5. over $50,000 3.. $30,000 - 40,000 3. If you are renting, circle the -.cunt of rent paid per month (if you share the rent, circle only the amount that you pay) : 1. under $100.00 4. $200.00 - 249.99 2. $100.00 - 149.99 5. $250.00 - 299.99 3. $150.00 - 199.99 6. over $300.00 4. Now many m-bers of your fami/y are living with you? 5. What is the annual income that you receive from your aviation employment (before tames and any deductions)? 1. under $5,000 . 5. $12,500 - 14,999 .2. $5,000 - 7,499 6. $15,000 - 19,999 3. $7 ,500 - 9,999 7: 420,000 - 24 ,999 14. 410,000 - 12,499 8. over $25,000 • . 6. How many automobiles do you own? Your name and wares= (if you wish) : Thank you ror your cooperntion and assistance. Please -rite any comment; on the reverue side or this form. • Plenue return thiu quectionnaire to • 4'• 2 3. Data on airport revenue and extense. Questionnaire 3 should be completed by the airport mana.ser. • 4. Data on other industries located at airport. Questionnaire 4 should be distributed to the head of each industrial/butineas orgaaization located at the airport or adjacent industrial park. 5. Data on tourism and convention business. Questionnaire 5 should be completed by the a.- opriate local government organization (if - in existence) or by the local Chamber of Commerce or similar organi- . zation. • 6. Data on economic expansion. Questionnaire 6 should be completed by the local Industrial Development Commission or similar public body. Alternatively, the data may be available through the Chamber of C--erce or similar organization. The Questionnaires can be modified to account for any unique local situation. We believe, however, that all the essential elements are covered in the survey. It will provide basic data on direct employment , local goods and services purchased, and tax revenues generated. It will also provide data from which you can determine the airport 's role as: (1) a stimulus to tourism, (2) en attraction to new business and industry, and (3) the indirect contribution to the total area economy. We have tried to limit the data collection because all data collected will have to be aggregated and analyzed. Local college and universities may be helpful if automatic data processing is required. Students might be interested in the statistical work at a reasonable price. Finally, publish the data and related analyses. In preparing the final copy, you may want to involve t free-lance writer or newsman. By all means, prepare a summary highlighting the dramatic contributions of aviation. And make sure that the information gets the widest possible circulation. The 1'411 study should be available to all who want a copy. Summary pamphlets should be widely distributed, throughout the oommunity. A press conference to release the data is a good idea. . If possible, do not let the study be just a one time effort. Some person or group could monitor developments at the airport and issue additional material as changes occur. A new industry, increased flight schedules, a new operator - all these reflect the continuing contributlon of aviation to the community. • • , r #2 DIRECT ORGANIZATIONAL EXPENSE Wc, -c)fL;urvezi(suonzot , are conductiug a survey to develop information concerning aviation's economic impact upon the area. We are asking all organizations directly involved with aviation and our airport to complete this questionnaire. The data you can furnish will - enable us to tell a better story about the value of aviation. All in- formation will be kept completely confidential; and only industry totals will bereleased.- We'would 1She' the data to be for (enter vear) :-. If your data is for a different period, please indicate here • ',. - • 3. How many employees do you have at the airport? - 2. What is your annual payroll at the airport? $ 3. Do you employ additional people away from the airport that support your airport operation? 4. ir no, what is the annual cost of that support? $ 5 How much did you pay to the airport last year for Landing fees p . Rentals Other fees - 6. How much did you pay in state and/or local taxes (exclude Federal)? Aviation fuel taxes $ Flight property taxes $ - Other property taxes Sales taxes Corporate income taxes $ 4,18%..abas Other (identify) 7. How much did you spend in the area far the following: Construction projects Fuel, supplies and equipment Advertizing Services (repair, utilities,etc)t Charitable contributions b i 4r . • d3 ALBPORT REVENUE AIiD EXPENSE We, (sponsor of survey) , are conducting a surrey to obtain information concerning aviation's impact om the economy of mares. PleASe provide the folloving information for (v�) so that we cam have as complete a picture as possible of aviation's contribution to our com- munity's economic well—being. 1. Annual operating arises including debt service $ 2. Anrrtal revenue 3. Net profit (loos) $ • k. Number of airport employees 5. Annual payroll for airport employees $ 6: Outstanding bonded debt $ a. Secured by airport revenues $ - b. General obligation $ _ 7• Total cost of airport construction projects under-taken by airport operator p $. Total cost of capital investments undertake= by airport operator last year $ 9. Estimated total cost of capital investments during next five years $ Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. Additional comments may be • =.e on the reverse. Please return the c pleted questionnaire to • • • P • " COMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH AIBPORT ' we, (sionsor of survey) , axe conductiog a survey to develop information concerning aviation's economic impact uPon the - -- ' area. We are asking several organizations located on or near our airport to c--plete this questionnaire. The data you can turnish will enable us to tell, a better story about the value of aviation.- Al]. information will be kept c--pletely, cunfidential, and only industry totals will be released. -- •-• - We would like the data to be for (enter year) . If your- data is for a: -- different- period, please indicate here. ' • 1. How many employees do you have at your airport:site? ' • 2. What is the annual payroll at your airport site? • 3. How much did you pay in state and/or local taxes (exclude Federal)? _ Property taxes Sales taxes Corporate income taxes t Other (identify) - , . 1.1%. How much did you spend in the area for the following: • Construction projects Fuel, supplies & equiPment Advertj.sjn I $ Services (repair,utilities, etc.) S Charitable contributions -5. How much do you estimate your fin= will spend over the next five years for capital improvements at your airport site? 6. Check the descriptor that best describes the airport 's relation- ship to your fi Essential - Helpful Very helpful No influence '7. Did you choose your present location because or the airport? Thank you for your cooperation and asSistance. Please return the completed questionnaire to: • 44 . . #5 TCUEISX A CONVIZITION . • _ _ We, ..Ssznscns-Il.--"7 , are conducting a survey to obtain information concerning aviation's economiC impact upon the As a part of the total picture, we vould like your input. We realize hotels, motels, restaurants, tourist attractians are not totally - dependent on aviation, but ye would like to know' how vital air service • is to the local tourist convention business. We would like the data to be for (rear). If the data is for a - ferent time period, please indicate the year here 1. Number of 4ourists c-- : to area • 2. Percentage arriving by air A • 3. Average expenditure par tourist t • 4. Number of conventions held in area 5. Number of convention registrants _ . 6. Average expenditure per conventioneer 7. Number of people =played in hotel, motel, restaurant, and tourist industry 8. An=ual payroll for this industry t 9- Total area work force 10. Total aninlal area payroll $ 11. Describe the role yon believe aviation has played in the economic devel- ent of the area. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Please return the c -pleted questionnaire to: . . . .....„ . - - . . #6 . . . • • . AREA ECONOMIC EXPANSION 7 We$ (sponsor of survey), are conducting a survey to develop information concerningtaviationis econ--ic impact upon the We need your help. The data you can fu;nish vill enable us to tell more complete story about the value of aviation. Al]. information will be kept completely confidential, and only*totals will be released. - 1. During the last five years, how many new plants or business employing 10 or more people have located in the area? ................= . 2. How many new jobs are now associated with these new firms? 3. What percentage of total area employment does this represent? 0 to . 14. What is the present annual payroll for these new firms? $ -,—........---.. 5. How much capital was invested by the new firms for buildings and equipment? . 6. What role did he airport play in the decision by these firms '-1 to locate here? . _ . Significant Marginal Insignificant memansmate........ ■III• eivamess.......... Z. Please provide a brief description of each case where the airport was a significant element in the location decision. _ , . . Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. Please return the comtleted questionnaire to: . „ . . . . • 2 6 Kov, much do you estinste you will spend over the neat five - years .for, capital is yet•the art? $ Thank you for your cooperation sis e® Please re this questionnaire to: A N -S • , • • - : Vc " _ Ira 71)40 0 • NORTH CAROLINA a) • LEASE 0 ORANGE COUNTY • 933&- en- )C177 111 2.19-44 0 fn This lease agreement entered into this 21st day of O• 0 December , 1987 by and between Victor Carl Walters , Jr. and >40 O m wife , Elizabeth T . Walters , of Cheeks Township , Orange H O ,1 U "-1 County, North Carolina , hereinafter referred to as Lessor and ty) g w Orange County , North Carolina , 106 Margaret Lane , M H M O 1-4 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 , hereinafter referred to •- -P A (4) as Lessee, 4J ( ›.10) P WITNESSET H: rd ›.1 Lessor hereby agrees to lease the property ei • PI k.c) described below to Lessee upon the following terms and c• conditions : 0 4-) 1, The Property. The property herein leased is a O• tract and parcel of land , together with all improvements 4-) • located thereon, located in Cheeks Township, Orange Counity, • North Carolina and more particularly described as follows: rd w p • Beginning at a spike placed S 84 deg. 00 ' 57" W 38 .05 feet • from an iron ( control corner ) , which spike is on the a centerline of N .C . State Road 1340 , thence along the centerline of said road N 49 deg . 44 ' 02" W 242 . 16 feet to a spike , thence from said spike along the centerline of said road N 46 deg. 14 ' 41" W 236 .64 feet to a spike . Thence from co CD said spike S 22 deg . 58 ' 22 " W 244 . 67 feet to an iron , a common corner of Church and Walters , thence from said iron S r) 10 deg. 32 ' 08" E 141 .88 feet to an iron on a North line of Leroy Bradshaw, thence from said iron along Bradshaw' s North line N 84 deg . 00 ' 57" E 427 .59 feet to the point and place of beginning , containing 1 .925 acres more or less, according to plat and survey of Alexander T. Davison, R.L.S. , dated January 16 , 1986 and entitled "Property of Victor Carl, Jr. and Elizabeth T. Walters , " which plat is recorded at Book 47 , Page 158 , Orange County Registry. 1 . Fr 702 PAR 585 This is the same property conveyed to Lessor from Dalton H. Loftin, Trustee for Hillsborough Savings and Loan Association by deed recorded at Book 220 , Page 195 of the Orange County Registry. 2 . The Lease . The lease will commence December 21st , 1987 and terminate December 21st 1992 . Lessor or Lessee , however, may terminate this lease upon giving ninety ( 90 ) days written notice to the other. Lessee shall pay Lessor rent in the amount of Fifty Dollars ( $50 .00 ) per month for each and every month of the term of this lease , payable on or before the 5th of each month of the lease term. 3 . Improvements and Maintenance . Lessee shall have the right to make any and all improvements , temporary or permanent , to the premises as deemed necessary and desirable by Lessee for its use of the premises . It is anticipated that Lessee will use the premises for solid waste "dumpsters . " It is further intended that the premises will accommodate and be used for at least twenty-five ( 25 ) "dumpsters . " Lessee agrees to fence the dumpster site and leave and provide a buffer strip of vegetation in its natural state of at least eight (8 ) feet in width along High Rock Road, also known as N.C. S.R. 1343 , and of at least forty (40 ) feet in width along the boundary of the leased premises with the property owned by Alton W. and Sammie Church as that boundary is shown on the plat of the leased premises recorded at Plat Book 47 , Page 158 of the Orange County Registry. All 2 „ 702 ME 586 improvements made to the premises shall be made at the expense of Lessee . All such improvements which are made to the premises which cannot be removed without damage to the premises shall become a part of the premises and upon the termination of this lease shall be the property of Lessor. Any additional ad valorem taxes resulting from any permanent improvements to the premises shall be the responsibility of the Lessee . From and after the time Lessee takes possession of the premises it shall be the responsibility of Lessee to maintain the premises in a neat, clean and orderly condition at all times . Roadways , parking areas , and other public access ways shall be maintained by Lessee . Fences installed on the premises by Lessee shall also be maintained by Lessee . 4 , Taxes . Lessor agrees to pay all taxes and assessments during the term of this lease, including but not limited to municipal , county and state taxes assessed against said premises which are incident to the ownership of said premises. 5 . Insurance and Indemnity . Lessee shall , at Lessee ' s expense, obtain and keep in full force during the term of this lease a Comprehensive Public Liability policy with limits of $300,000/$300 ,000 for personal injury or death and $100 ,000 for property damage . The Lessor shall be named as an additional insured in this policy. Lessee shall 3 ;,1C709 41, PAU., 587 deliver said policy or a certificate of insurance to Lessor together with evidence of full payment of premiums . To the extent permitted by law and to the extent provided for in insurance contracts owned by Lessee , Lessee shall indemnify and hold harmless Lessor from and against any and all claims arising from Lessee ' s use of the premises , or from the conduct of Lessee ' s business or from any activity, work or things done , permitted or suffered by Lessee in or about the premises or elsewhere . 6 . Notices . All notices to be given under this lease shall be made in writing and mailed by certified mail , return receipt requested , to the other party at its address set forth herein or at such address as the party may provide in writing from time to time . Any such notice shall be deemed to have been received five ( 5 ) days subsequent to mailing. 7 . Parties . This lease shall be binding and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their heirs , successors and assigns . 8 . Entire Agreement ; Waiver . This lease contains the entire agreement of the parties and there are not representations, inducements , or other provisions other than those expressed in writing . All changes , additions , or deletions hereto must be in writing and signed by the parties . Any provision of this lease found to be prohibited by law shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition 4 , .. . . , . „ .4n 5: 8 eOCKIU2 WE 8 without invalidating the remainder of this lease. The waiver by Lessor or Lessee of any breach by the other of any term, covenant , or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach thereof . / ..— e........... ... , . .._... - ./,',, VICTOR CARL WALTERS, JR. ' ' ie EL"ZABETH T. WALTERS NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I , a Notary Public of said State and County do hereby certify that Victor Carl Walters , Jr . and wife , Elizabeth T. Walters personally appeared before mhis, day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoi0d4 iqhf/i,,," ,0,1„,,,,,;-• .::::, to ,■11*.ti ' Witness my hand and official seal , th4.CAhe day of u --6-4,J, 1987 . Of ' - : :49:,,, „i —' -4,•: : , - -'— I ':.' ),',3::::,,,t,:. Notary Public My commission expires : ORANGE COUNTY BY: Chair, •i ge County Board of Commissioners Asi?)A10—,V:-W.,, ,,:::•./".„:::: ATTEST: (Officia4404,11X,y, 49' All , ..?.igir ., /: Jt '.::;4 i Clerk po the Board of Commissioners 5 .Prepared by: _ ..,"-. 'Return to: 702 PAU 589 NORTH CAROLINA - ORANGE COUNTY Notice is hereby given that the parcel of land hereinafter described is of restricted development potential because of the unsuitability of the subsurface soil for the installation of an on site soil absorption sewage disposal facility as determined by the Orange County Health Department pursuant to Section IV-B-2 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. The parcel of land is situated in Cheeks Township, Orange County, North Carolina and is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a spike placed S 84 deg. 00' 57" W 38.05 feet from an iron (control corner) , which spike is on the centerline of N. C. State Road 1340, thence along the centerline of said road N 49 deg. 44' 02" W 242.16 feet to a spike, thence from said spike along the centerline of said road N 46 deg. , 14' 41" W 236.64 feet to a spike. Thence from said spike S 22 deg. 58' 22" W 244.67 feet to an iron, a common corner of Church and Walters, thence from said iron S 10 deg. 32' 08" E 141.88 feet to an iron on a North line of Leroy Bradshaw, thence from said iron along Bradshaw's North line N 84 deg. 00' 57" B 427.59 feet to the point and place of beginning, containing 1.925 acres more or less, according to plat and survey of Alexander T. Davison, R.L.S., dated January 16, 1986 and entitled "Property of Victor Carl, Jr. and Elizabeth T. Walters," which plat is recorded at Book 47 J Page 158 , Orange County Registry. Witness my hand and seal this day of 1987. (SEAL) -- NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I, , , a Notary Public, Asst. Register of Deeds, for said County and State, do hereby certify that personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument. Witness my hand and official seal, this the day of , 1987. Notary Public Asst. Register of Deeds My Commission Expires: • - r 42;:o cm .=.70 tga 611 tX") .C.`„). -4°— 1--— an Li- ' at • 47, ZCC) - OCii,702 PAGE 51 NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY Sylvia T. Clements , Notary Public for said County and State , certify that Beverly Blythe personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of Orange County, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by Shirley E. Marshall , Chair, sealed with its official seal , and attested by herself as its Clerk . Witness my hand and official seal , this the 29th day of December , 1987 . „.. \\), A Md / C No ary Public , *-* 1 My commission expires; P LIBL\ ° December 10, 1990 '44ohanialo° This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act . Orange County Finance Director NORTH CAROLINA — ORANGE COUNTY The foregoing certificate(s) of Sylvia T. Clements and Sue W. Pope, Addotawkor Notaries) Public of the designated Governmental units.A.t(are) certified to be correct. Filed for registra- tion this the day of 13th January 19 88 , at 7 53 o'clock, P.N. in Record Book 702 Page 584 Bette Hay s, Re - .r of/p-ed/ By: AMA _A Return: IIIVA:ssistent/D-routd - Register of Deeds 6 Fl 11 1O2 " "- 501 NORTH CAROLINA LEASE ORANGE COUNTY eITCD1 -"-41 - 1031 • z This lease agreement entered into this 21st day of E .4 December , 1987 by and between John Thomas Walker and wife , O 0 e.) 0 )4 Martha Latta Walker , of Cedar Grove Township, Orange County, >10 g m North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as Lessor and Orange O -I U 'd County , North Carolina , 106 Margaret Lane , Hillsborough , g North Carolina 27278 , hereinafter referred to as Lessee , 2 2 WITNESSET H: w a) Lessor hereby agrees to lease the property A-) m >im e described below to Lessee upon the following terms and m 0 conditions : • )-irt4 1 . The Property. The property herein leased is a > Lc) tract and parcel of land , together with all improvements 0 located thereon , located in Cedar Grove Township , Orange 0 County, North Carolina and more particularly described as follows: rd Beginning at a "pipe found control corner" in the Southern right of way of N .C . State Road 1001 (Walnut Grove Church Road ) , thence from said pipe N 15 deg . 14 ' 18" W 32 .85 feet w to a nail in the centerline of said road , thence along the centerline of said road S 58 deg. 28 ' 40" W 80 .32 feet to a nail , thence from said nail continuing along the centerline of said road S 57 deg . 16 ' 20" W 52 .68 feet to a nail , thence from said nail continuing along said road S 54 deg . 56 ' 45" W 27 . 13 feet to a nail , thence from said nail continuing along said road S 54 deg . 39 ' 18" W 14 .55 feet to a nail , thence from said nail S 22 deg . 51 ' 04" E 441 .50 feet to an iron 1 CLI ' placed on the line between Walker and Kennedy, continuing 0 n : along the line of said properties S 80 deg. 23 ' 50" E 22 .01 feet to a pipe , a southwest corner of Lewis and Fae Crabtree, thence with the west line of Crabtree from said pipe N 15 deg UJ L'E-f 14 ' 18" W 474 .76 feet to the point and place of beginning, 1 • ■ 4 $' I • eoco:702 PAcF_ 592 containing 1 .000 acres more or less , according to the plat and survey of Alexander T. Davison, R.L.S. , dated January 16 , 1986 and entitled "Property of John Thomas and Martha Latta Walker, " which plat is recorded at Book 47 , Page 157 , Orange County Registry. This is the same property conveyed to Lessor from Mary Susan R. Gattis and husband , Samuel M. Gattis by deed recorded at Book 592 , Page 117 of the Orange County Registry. 2 . The Lease . The lease will commence December 21st , 1987 and terminate December 21st 1992 . Lessor or Lessee , however, may terminate this lease upon giving ninety (90 ) days written notice to the other . Lessee shall pay Lessor rent in the amount of Fifty Dollars ( $50 .00 ) per month for each and every month of the term of this lease , payable on or before the 5th of each month of the lease term. 3 . Improvements and Maintenance. Lessee shall have the right to make any and all improvements , temporary or permanent , to the premises as deemed necessary and desirable by Lessee for its use of the premises . It is anticipated that Lessee will use the premises for solid waste "dumpsters . " It is further intended that the premises will accommodate and be used for at least twenty-five ( 25 ) "dumpsters . " Lessee agrees to fence the dumpster site and leave and provide a buffer strip of vegetation in its natural state of at least eight ( 8 ) feet in width along Walnut Grove Church Road, also known as N .C.S.R. 1001 . All improvements made to the premises shall be made at the expense of Lessee. All such improvements which are made to the premises which 2 DOCK 702 F4E 53 cannot be removed without damage to the premises shall become a part of the premises and upon the termination of this lease shall be the property of Lessor. Any additional ad valorem taxes resulting from any permanent improvements to the premises shall be the responsibility of the Lessee . From and after the time Lessee takes possession of the premises it shall be the responsibility of Lessee to maintain the premises in a neat, clean and orderly condition at all times . Roadways , parking areas , and other public access ways shall be maintained by Lessee. Fences installed on the premises by Lessee shall also be maintained by Lessee . 4 . Taxes . Lessor agrees to pay all taxes and assessments during the term of this lease, including but not limited to municipal , county and state taxes assessed against said premises which are incident to the ownership of said premises . 5 . Insurance and Indemnity . Lessee shall , at Lessee ' s expense , obtain and keep in full force during the term of this lease a Comprehensive Public Liability policy with limits of $300 ,000/$300 ,000 for personal injury or death and $100 ,000 for property damage . The Lessor shall be named as an additional insured in this policy. Lessee shall deliver said policy or a certificate of insurance to Lessor together with evidence of full payment of premiums . To the extent permitted by law and to the extent provided for in insurance contracts owned by Lessee, Lessee 3 Di3C1102 594 shall indemnify and hold harmless Lessor from and against any and all claims arising from Lessee ' s use of the premises, or from the conduct of Lessee' s business or from any activity, work or things done , permitted or suffered by Lessee in or about the premises or elsewhere . 6 . Notices, All notices to be given under this lease shall be made in writing and mailed by certified mail , return receipt requested, to the other party at its address set forth herein or at such address as the party may provide in writing from time to time . Any such notice shall be deemed to have been received five ( 5 ) days subsequent to mailing . 7 . Parties . This lease shall be binding and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their heirs, successors and assigns . 8 . Entire Agreement; Waiver. This lease contains the entire agreement of the parties and there are not representations, inducements, or other provisions other than those expressed in writing . All changes , additions , or deletions hereto must be in writing and signed by the parties . Any provision of this lease found to be prohibited by law shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition without invalidating the remainder of this lease . The waiver by Lessor or Lessee of any breach by the other of any term, 4 BOCK, PA&E 595 covenant , or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach thereof . . 411HN THOMAS WALKER • 7na,ta, oecEitc, tiL MARTHA LATTA WALKER NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I , a Notary Public of said State and County do hereby certify that John Thomas Walker and wife, Martha Latta Walker personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing Lease. Witness my hand and official seal , this the a / day of 1987 . Letti ' • A Notary Public My commission expires : ••1 4/Vi ra4 ORANGE COUNTY BY= - - Chair, p':' y4e, gtounty Boardge. - . j te4;5t. :r ATTEST: =-^ , (Of ffeivpv),67,5\177 . " Clerk toOthe Boar' of • 4. • Commissioners A ki0 5 lismasesson A , , Prepared by • Return to NORTH CAROLINA B000102 Fig 506 ORANGE COUNTY Notice is hereby given that the parcel of land hereinafter described is of restricted development potential because of the unsuitability of the subsurface soil for the installation of an on site soil absorption sewage disposal facility as determined by the Orange County Health Department pursuant to Section IV-B-2 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. The parcel of land is situated in Cedar Grove Township, Orange County, North Carolina and is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a "pipe found control corner" in the Southern right of way of N. C. State Road 1001 (Walnut Grove Church Road) , thence from said pipe N 15 deg. 14' 18" W 32.85 feet to a nail in the centerline of said road, thence along the centerline of said road S 58 deg. 28' 40" W 80.32 feet to a nail, thence from said nail continuing along the centerline of said road S 57 deg. 16' 20" W 52.68 feet to a nail, thence from said nail continuing along said road S 54 deg. 56' 45" w 27.13 feet to a nail, thence from said nail continuing along said road S 54 deg. 39' 18" W 14.55 feet to a nail, thence from said nail S 22 deg. 51' 04" E 441.50 fee':, to an iron placed on the line between Walker and Kennedy, continuing along the line of said properties S 80 deg. 23' 50" E 22.01 feet to a pipe, a southwest corner of Lewis and Fa e Crabtree, thence with the west line of Crabtree from said pipe N 15 deg. 14' 18" W 474.76 feet to the point and place of beginning, containing 1.000 acres more or less, according to the plat and survey of Alexander T. Davison, R.L.S., dated January 16, 1986 and entitled "Property of John Thomas and Martha Latta Walker," which plat is recorded at Book 47 Page 157 , Orange County Registry, Witness my hand and seal this day of 1987. (SEAL) NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY 1„ A Notary Public, Asst. Register of Deeds, for said County and State, do hereby certify that personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument. Witness my hand and official seal, this the day of • , 1987. Notary Public Asst. Register of Deeds My Commission Expires: '" • , . ' NORTH CAROLINA eao-102 .,i3f._ 5917 ORANGE COUNTY I , Sylvia T. Clements , Notary Public for said County and State , certify that Beverly Blythe personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of Orange County, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by Shirley E . Marshall, Chair , sealed with its official seal , and attested by herself as its Clerk . Witness my hand and official seal , this the day of December, 1987 . /.7.:":" - . /, ..-:, 4"....:- 0 e..4-4.'-1.-r-4-sp.1■43';:'' '•,:.1,:11 Y \ No ary Public '4 ei , • ,. ')I i ci 1 jc. ii My commission expires: ,,, _, December 10, 199.0 4,#4 °id:meat-Ps This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. 2.r...11 7 .,.,----.---- • Orange County Finance Director • NORTH CAROLINA — ORANGE COUNTY The foregoing certificate(s) of Sue W. Pope and Sylvia ,T. Clements, .— Axitutgoptlax Notaries) Public of the designated Governmental units isx(are) certified to be correct. Filed for registra- tion this the 13th day of , January _ 19 88 , at 2:54 o'clock, P.N. in Record Book , 702 Page .—.99.1_. Bet jw.. e -yes, Riisterief Deeds By: ia.:. 110 1 4-51 41. AP,"14..1 I '11111. Return: , - :- - Rep y " Register of Deeds . , • .. . 6 ' .. • CX5) I COD ?-1) 4,• -4. c lL tr- C71 -V' Lr- I ti7i (-14 c).7-D 11.J 11J/ . . 1,Z rf") . . II IL i. ;77'4•AG gam ote