Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-04-1987 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MAY 4, 1987 7: 30 P.M. OLD COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, 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 manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member 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. PAGE # PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION 002 * 1. Community Development Application D. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS 006 * 1. Disability Awareness Day E. REPORTS 008 * 1. Eubanks Landfill Operation Report 012 2 . Solid Waste Task Force PAGE # F. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) 027 1. Fireworks Display Request 029 2. Bid Award; Skid Loader 031 3 . Budget Amendment 033 * 4. Above Entry Hiring Request G. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA 034 1. Public Private Partnership Conference--Follow Up Actions 036 * 2 . Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan 080 3 . Deer Crossing Preliminary Plan 088 * 4. Public Hearing Advertisement 092 5. Economic Development Preliminary Study 098 * 6. Job Training Partnership Act 122 7. Space Plan and Status of Renovation 153 * 8. N. C. Department of Transportation Improvement Program H. APPOINTMENTS I. ADJOURNMENT (*) Indicates items that need immediate attention. t 1 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 8 1987 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING MAY 4, 1987 The at Cp.m. Board e CouCommissioners he old session on May Hillsborough, 4, 1987 at 7 :30 p.m. in the North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Moses Carey, Jr. , Stephen Halk iotis, ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT:. County aaWilliamKTnnLawsR.Clerk ton,thesBoardtBeverly Managers Albert Kittrell and P Develo ment A. Blythe, Deputy Finance Officer Ken Chavious, Community Director Tara Fikes, and Planners Greg Szymik and Julie Davis. A. BOARD COMMENTS ed on the Chair Shirley Marshall pointed of Mr. ChiefwoJusticeitThomastRuffin and front wall of the courtr oom Governor William Alexander Graham and read a letter from Mr. Richard H. Jenrette officially presenting the portraits to the County. Control Chair Marshall added totRe thendUndereappointmentsl) ChairalMarshall Report and (2) Planning Boar d P o added an appointment to be made to the OWASA Watershed Committee. Ken Thompson announced that the Preliminary Plan for the Wolf Property had been withdrawn. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS. 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None 2 . MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Mr. Jerry Taylor, representing the Orange Chatham Cmphensive Health Service in the Prospect Hill Community, erCe to a letter$5, 0da ed April 23 which requested consideration of an appropriation help build a new center Hill. He to that an attempt is being made to raise $50, Center. He presented a copy of the plans to the Board. The Center will cost approximately one million dollars. The federal government has already programmed $250,000 and the state will give $250, 000 if the community can raise $50, 000. He requested that the County help with an allocation of $5,000. It was pointed out by Moses Carey that this is a community project 7 which will serve Orange County residents. It was the consensus of the Board to refer this request to the Manager asking that it be placed in the budget as a high priority for funds. Commissioner Hartwell explained a potential problem with the revaluation dated January 1 and the new tax law which uses a date of January 2 . After further discussion, it was decided that additional information is needed on the inequities which have been created by tax law and that a decision needs to be made on the year of the next 2 revaluation. C. MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Hartwell to approve the minutes for February 23 , 1987 as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the minutes for March 2, 1987 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair presented the Public Charge as contained in the Rules governing the Board meetings. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED CDBG APPLICATION FOR THE RENCHER STREET AREA Tara Fikes presented for public comment the proposed FY1987 Community Development Block Grant application. The proposed activities are Acquisition, Public Improvements, Street Improvements, Relocation, and Rehabilitation of private properties. She presented a cost estimate for each of the stated activities. The total project cost is estimated at $669,475. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Corbin reemphasized the needs in the Rencher Street area and pledged cooperation for this project. Mr. William Richards, asked if School Bus Garage Road will be included in the project. Tara Fikes explained that the initial project will not include this Road. Commissioners Hartwell and Halkiotis spoke in support of this project. WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the proposed project activities in the Rencher Street Community Development Program. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the local contribution of $69,475 and authorize the Chair to sign a letter of commitment to NRCD on behalf of the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. D. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS 1. DISABILITY AWARENESS DAY PROCLAMATION Motion was made by Chair Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the proclamation as stated below: ORANGE COUNTY DISABILITY AWARENESS DAY PROCLAMATION The past fifteen years have produced many improvements for people with disabilities. Our Nation, State, and County have all participated in pro- viding increased opportunities for disabled people. Success has come through the hard work of disabled and non-disabled people joining together h. 3 to break down barriers while building the chance to sliveawithvfreedompand independence. This day marks a time when we progress, and set new goals; for equality has yet to be attained. The Orange County Board of Commissioners do hereby proclaim May 4th, 1987 to be Disability Awareness Day in Orange County. Each Orange County citizen should accept the challenge: to examine clocal businesses, his or her place of employment, and community es risheled purpose od no of ensuring the same opportunities are enjoyed by disabled members of our County, and further, to advocate for greater accessibility until equal opportunity has been attained for every p having a disability. In witness thereof, i, Shirley E. Marshall, Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners do hereby set my hand and the seal of Orange County, State of North Carolina, this fourth day of May nineteen hundred and eighty seven. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. REPORTS 1. EUBANKS LANDFILL OPERATION REPORT (A copy of the complete narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . Mr. Bruce Heflin, Chapel Hill Public Works Director, summarized the report. The Landfill Owners Group agreed that a study needs to be done to consider the shortrange and the longrange issues associated with the use and life of the landfill. Discussion ensued on the use of ash and other ways to extend the life of the landfill including raising the tipping fee. Mr. Heflin stated that the feasibility report would encompass and answer these questions. 2 . SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE REPORT (A copy of the complete narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk' s Office) . Blair Pollock, Chair of the Solid Waste Task Force made the presentation. He stated that the amount of disposal of waste increased by 23% last year and is expected to again increase this year. He noted that the Greene Tract that was purchased for a possible landfill has not been thoroughly reviewed to ascertain if it meets all the environmental requirements. The disposal of toxic wastes has increased. Although there are eleven years left at the present landfill site, alternatives are being sought and issues are being addressed to meet the future demands. Pollock asked that the Solid Waste Task Force be placed on an inactive status until such time a citizens board is needed. Commissioner Willhoit made two corrections to the report which are so noted on the original copy in the permanent agenda file. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to receive the report as corrected and to place the Solid Waste Task Force on inactive status. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3 . ANIMAL CONTROL TASK FORCE REPORT Dr. Anne Gross, Chair of the Animal Control Task Force, referred to the final task force draft proposed Animal Control Ordinance. It is hoped that this revised Ordinance will effectively increase the animal control officer's effectiveness in the control of animals. The Task Force 4 recommends a differential licensing fee schedule for cats and dogs. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to receive the report and set the Public Hearing for May 26 at 7 :30 p.m. in the new Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4. RESOLUTIONS REGARDING OVERSIGHT OF SLUDGE APPLICATION BY OWASA AND CONCERNS OVER OWASA'S AGRICULTURAL NUTRIENT RECYCLING PROGRAM Barry Jacobs presented the two resolutions as adopted by the Planning Board on April 27, 1987. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the two resolutions as stated below and to request that OWASA respond to both requests. RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REGARDING OVERSIGHT OF SLUDGE APPLICATION BY OWASA Be it resolved by the Orange County Planning Board: 1. That the Board of County Commissioners be requested to examine the question of whether the county should assume responsibility for overseeing all application of sludge in Orange County. 2 . That the county be encouraged to enter into discussion with neighboring jurisdictions to develop a regional composting system. 3 . That the county attorney be requested to clarify whether OWASA's Agricultural Nutrients Recycling program constitutes a bona fide farm operation. RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REGARDING CONCERNS OVER OWASA'S AGRICULTURAL NUTRIENTS RECYCLING PROGRAM Be it resolved by the Orange County Planning board: That OWASA be requested to consider and provide specific responses to citizen concerns regarding sludge application at its next work session, particularly as it applies to properties known as "Headwaters A, " "Headwaters B, " and "Durham Heirs, " and That the concerns to be addressed include reestablishment of a vegetative buffer and a more comprehensive environmental impact assessment regarding OWASA's entire 170 acre sludge application tract. Be it further resolved that the Orange County Planning Board: that OWASA be asked to address how and by what mechanisms it will submit to local oversight and seek public input concerning sludge application, and That these responses be forwarded to the Board of County 5 Commissioners for its 1 June 1987 meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. F. CONSENT AGENDA The County Manager recommended the following action by the Board: 1. FIREWORKS DISPLAY REQUEST to approve a request from the Chapel Hill Kiwanis Club and authorize the County Manager to sign approval form. 2 . BID AWARD - SKID LOADER to award the bid for the skid loader and associated equipment to Case Power and Equipment for a sum of $18, 087.23 . The following bids were received: Case Power and Equipment $ 18, 087.23 Triangle Equipment $ 19,446.70 Wimmer & Wimmer $ 22, 386.78 3 . BUDGET AMENDMENT to approve the project amendment for Community Development Programs as stated below: Community Development Fund Appropriation - CD IV Northern Fairview Project $ 2,100 Source - Program Income $ 2, 100 Appropriation - CD V Councilville Project $ 1,203 Source - Program Income $ 1,203 4. ABOVE ENTRY HIRING REQUEST to offer a salary above the middle of the salary range for a candidate to fill a vacancy in the Social Services Department. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis that the foregoing action be taken by the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. G. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA 1. PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP CONFERENCE - FOLLOW UP ACTIONS Chair Marshall reported the conference was worthwhile. It was recommended that the locally appointed intergovernmental "13-point" watershed committee be continued and that it address a wider variety of questions. Commissioner Carey indicated his desire to have Chair Marshall serve on this committee in his place stating it was important that the Chair serve and be informed. Chair Marshall expressed concern over the "turfism" issue and the different perceptions the officers of the jurisdictions involved and others have of this issue. She referred to the joint planning process and the importance of planning areas for annexation into municipalities. She introduced for discussion three recommendations as listed on the agenda - abstract. .Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to authorize the Chair, as a member, ex officio , of the Public- Private Partnership Steering Committee, to work towards the goals adopted by the conference. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Commissioner Willhoit objected to the second recommendation stating that the entire Board should choose the representative of any 6 local intergovernmental working group instead of the Chair, on election, automatically becoming an ex officio member. Commissioner Carey stated the importance of the Chair serving as an ex officio member of any group involving the three governmental units stating that this is a responsibility that goes along with being Chair. It was decided that this recommendation would be reviewed at the first meeting in December. Commissioner Willhoit objected to the third recommendation stating no need for this because no one has expressed an interest in talking about extension of extra-territorial jurisdiction. Chair Marshall emphasized that the issue was raised when talking about the swap of extraterritorial jurisdiction and it became quite clear that there was one view of this intergovernmental cooperation and that it was a territorial issue. Disenfranchisment was brought forward several times at the public hearing. She feels it important that the citizens understand that the Board is against moving people that are not in the extra territorial jurisdiction into the extra-territorial jurisdiction and that joint planning is the solution. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to instruct County members of the working intergovernmental group to not consider, as a part of their deliberations, disenfranchisement of county citizens through placing them in extra-territorial jurisdiction but will emphasize and encourage intergovernmental cooperation to achieve planning goals. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Commissioner Willhoit suggested that a more formal mechanism be put in place to inform each other on the Board of the various happenings on the different groups that each represent and Commissioner Halkiotis suggested that this be reviewed after the budget process is finished. 2 . JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN (1) EXPANSION OF TRANSITION AREA 12) BOUNDARY DESIGNATION - TRANSITION AREA/RURAL BUFFER (3) ORANGE COUNTY-CARRBORO ZONING JURISDICTION BOUNDARY Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs presented the Planning Board recommendation as stated below in the motion for approval. Judith Wegner, member of the Carrboro Board, stated that there is a consensus on the Carrboro Board that the swap idea should not be pursued. The Board agrees with the representation suggestion and she stated that the legislation submitted provides for that representation. If the Planning Board recommendation is adopted, the Carrboro Board will review and provide additional comments if necessary. She emphasized that continued dialogue is very important. Commissioner Willhoit referred to the two designations to be established for Duke Forest. He questioned the rationale for indicating that those properties abutting Duke Forest will be kept out of the transition area and placed as part of the Rural Buffer. As part of the Land Use Plan this property would have a buffer as it was developed. Collins indicated that the buffer would be a condition placed upon any of the land developed along the Duke Forest line. Don Epling, Associate University Counselor at Duke, stated that they are in the process of studying the purposes and goals for the use of Duke Forest land. He indicated that Duke does not object to any particular land use plan presented to date. The study will take into account how development may impact and how that fits in. 7 Mr. Pope spoke on behalf of one of the landowners who owns 90 acres of land south of Duke Forest. He referred to a statement made in the Planning Board minutes which talked about the densities not being consistent with the Duke Forest recommendations. Commissioner Hartwell questioned the land use designation for the future landfill site and Collins indicated that it is property that is not zoned for a land use or a landfill but is a potential landfill site. Before the property could be used as a landfill a special use permit would have to be approved by the Commissioners. Commissioner Hartwell then requested that the status of the property be more clearly shown on County planning maps shown to the public. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approved the Planning Board recommendation as stated below: (1) Approval of the Transition Area extension into the full extent of the Bolin Creek basin except in Duke Forest and for those properties abutting Duke Forest, and that two designations of Transition Area be established - Transition I and II. Area I would include that area previously designated for urban expansion. Area II would include the extended area. Within Area I, densities from one to five units per acre would be permitted. Within Area II, densities would be limited to one unit per acre until such time as Area I was at least 75% developed. (The Planning Board clarified "75% developed" to mean "developed or subdivided for development at densities of one to five units per acre" . Development refers to land coverage and not 75% of the residential units possible. ) The Planning Board further recommends that Carrboro and Chapel Hill provide at least one seat on their Planning Boards for representatives from the Transition Area in the Towns' respective spheres of influence or areas of jurisdiction. All of the above would be contingent upon Carrboro supplying a binding agreement that it would not seek to extend water and sewer lines into University Lake Watershed prior to completion of the OWASA carrying capacity study. (2) That boundary designations delineating Transition and Rural Buffer boundaries be established. (3) That an exchange of Carrboro zoning jurisdiction in University Lake Watershed for Orange County zoning jurisdiction in the Bolin Creek Basin not be pursued further. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3. DEER CROSSING PRELIMINARY PLAN Planner Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for Deer Crossing which is located on the south side of Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) in Bingham Township. Six lots are proposed out of 12. 3 acres. The property is zoned Agricultural-Residential. The Land Use Plan designation is identical. The Planning Board recommended approval. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Planning Board recommendation. 8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4 . PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISEMENT Chair Marshall questioned the advertisement for the amendment to the Land Use Plan for Little River Township. Planning Board member Chris Best explained that the only two changes being requested for which infor- mation has not been received is the possible population impact of Treyburn and any watershed protection that Durham may want Orange County to be involved in. Information is expected to be received by the public hearing. It was decided that specific references to growth and watershed protection will be included in the advertisement. Discussion ensued on Chandler Concrete. The County Attorney stated that the court decision did not address the operation but only the plans. There is potentially an advantage to continuing to encourage Chandler Concrete to request a Special Use Permit so that the entire concrete plant operation is included in the Special Use Permit application because there are no screening requirements for their present operation. Chair Marshall suggested setting a special public hearing and if Chandler does not comply with providing the necessary application, that further action be taken. It was decided that a meeting notice for Chandler Concrete will be prepared and distributed to the Commissioners. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to establish June 1, 1987 for a public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the public hearing notice as amended for Little River with the addition of a public hearing on the proposed Animal Control Ordinance. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY STUDY Economic Development Director Sylvia Price indicated the study would be done during the period of late May to August. At the same time, the Land Use Plan and the enhanced Comprehensive Plan which will have an economic development impact will be reviewed by the Planning Department. The study is expected to outline several options for the operation of the Commission in Orange County. She asked that the Board approve the concept that a Comprehensive Study is needed and to approve the funding of the project. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve in concept the development of a comprehensive ED plan for Orange County; and approve the preliminary study with funding to be appropriated from the Contingency Account. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 6. JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT (See agenda abstract for modifications to the 1987/88 Job Training Plan Summary) . Assistant County Manager Albert Kittrell explained that the 1987/88 Job Training Plan Summary submitted by JTPA was reviewed by staff and several modifications suggested and included in a memo to the Board dated April 28, 1987. 9 Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the 1987/88 Job Training Plan with the modifications included in the memo dated April 28, 1987 from Albert Kittrell to the Board of Commissioners and formally notify County PIC members and Central Piedmont Employment and Training Office of the Board's modifications, to approve an amendment to the Private Industry Council/Chief Elected Officials Agreement (consortium agreement) to change the name of the Service Delivery Area and Private Industry Council from Central Piedmont to Research Triangle PIC and authorize the Chair to sign appropriate documents. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7. SPACE PLAN AND STATUS OF RENOVATION Assistant County Manager Bill Laws stated that all agencies scheduled to move into the new Carr Store Complex have moved with the exception of Environmental Health. He reviewed the list of change orders that were made with the contractors for the renovation of the building. and noted that moving the telephone switch equipment would cost $12, 000 with a $3 ,500 reconnection fee. He outlined the renovations of the jail as suggested by Mr. Atlas from Raleigh and suggested that the probation office and Child Support Office be relocated to the Agriculture Building. Chair Marshall pointed out that the comments about Northside in the report attached to this agenda abstract indicate that another study needs to be done and the County Manager agreed. He stated that with the growth in the departments at both the Grady Brown complex and the Northside Center that a new study needs to be done in greater detail. Toni Mason from CHR reported on her contacts with the telephone company and the fact that not all the information was given to her with relation to the cost of moving the telephone switch. Discussion ensued on the renovation plans for the third floor of the new Courthouse. The Board agreed to the renovation plans for the Probation Office and left the third floor plan as previously approved. 8. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (Proposals from Chapel Hill and Carrboro are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office) . Planner Greg Szymik presented the highway improvement requests as submitted by the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. On May 6, 1987 a public hearing will be held at the Technical College of Alamance where representatives from each of the municipalities will be presenting their requests for highway improvements to the Board of Transportation. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to authorize the Board Chair to attend the Transportation Improvement Program hearing and speak in support of highway improvement needs as identified by municipalities as well as the County. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to authorize the Chair to present at the public hearing those items that were previously submitted and ask that improvements be made to Highway 70 at St. Mary's Road and that 86 be widened from 1-85 to Smith Level Road. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. H. APPOINTMENTS 10 The following appointments were made: BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES Chris Nutter as County Commissioner Appointee HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION Linda E. Boldin Ina D. Whitted Michelle Cotton AIRPORT ISSUES TASK FORCE Joe Suggs OWASA WATERSHED COMMITTEE Commissioner Don Willhoit I. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, Chair Marshall adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on May 19, 1987 at 7:30 in the Courtroom of the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk ORANGE COUNTY 001 Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it Ho. Ci ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE May 4, 1987 Subject: MINUTES Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS f Public Hearing: Yes X no 1 I Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under separate cover. Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration. 2/23/87 - Joint Public Hearing 3/2/87 - 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. RECOMMENDATION: ORANGE COUNTY (1()2 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. P I 1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4, 1987 SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Proposed CDBG Application for the Rencher Street Area DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Development PUBLIC HEARING: x Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Pikes -Application Summary TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To receive comments Pram the public concerning the proper FY1985 Community Development Block Grant Application. BACKGROUND: The North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) requires applicants to conduct a public hearing prior to submission of the CDHG application to NRCD. The proposed activities are Acquisition, Public Improvements, Street Improvements, Reclocation, and Rehabilitation of Private Properties. A door to door survey was conducted by the Housing and Community Development Staff to determine the severity of need and to allow residents to express their housing needs and concerns. The attached summary details each activity and also provides cost estimates for these activities. The project boundary is also defined in this summary. Citizen input at the April 6, 1987 Commissioners meeting should be reviewed to determine, whether aemmemtm are consistent with the pro- posed project. The total project cost is estimated at $669,475. However, the state will only contribute $600,000 to Community Development projects therefore the program budget will be adjusted to reflect the $600,000 maximum grant award after the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION(S) : 1) Approve proposed project activities in the Rencher Street u ni Development Program. t1► 2) Approve the local contribution of $69,475 and authorize the chair to sign a letter of commitment to NRCD on behalf of the Board. 003 ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RENCHER STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA PROJECT SUMMARY The Rencher Street Area is located just outside the corporate limits of Hillsborough. The area is a blighted neighborhood and has the following conditions: HOUSING: 28 deteriorated houses WATER: Inadequate (2-inch) lines on Rencher Street and the area north of Rencher Street has no public water. SEWER: Areas is served by malfunctioning septic systems and 8 dwellings have privies. STREET: Rencher Street and the No Name Street north of Rencher are unpaved. In order to eliminate the above blighting conditions, the following project activities are proposed: ACTIVITY COST Acquisition Acquire 45,300 sq. ft. of $ 30,804 right-of-way and easements for sewer and street improvements Housing Rehabilitation Rehabilitate to HUD Minimum $219,100 Property Standards 28 houses @ $7,825.00 each Street Improvements Rencher Street: 1,350 1 .f. of $ 89,800 new 20' wide asphalt paved roadway --- No Name Street: 450 l .f. of new $ 27,000 20' wide asphalt paved roadway 004 Sewer System Improvements Construction of 3,250 l .f. of 8" $170,252 VC or PVC Sewer including construction of Grinder Pump Station Water System Improvements Construction of 1,750 l .f. of 6" $ 55,500 PVC Water Mains Subtotal $592,456 Adminstration $ 77,019 TOTAL PROJECT COST $669,475 ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RENCHER STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA PROJECT MAP LEGEND -- - - W - - - - EXISTING 6' WATER LINE 300 0 300 600 ,SCALE - - --i NEW GRINDER 27 28 PUMP STATION ,y 1 `�— 5 Q 29 4 it 1230 C Z 2G 1 EXISTING PUMP STAiiON aR1VE / tJ 1 1 31 Q-1 T a] Lo of ,)32 Q 5� 25 Q24 2322 21 �• L _�• C. 11 =! 8_ 17 Q Ib. 1 414 12 1133 � RE HER 1 - ST 70 80 1 �.� 15 SQ 09 04 032 , Q +L Q Q G RAG eROA Q Q. SR1558 L.E. WOOTEN AND COMPANY ENGINEERING - PLANNING- ARCHITECTURE RALEIGH- GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 'O 0 1987 f 0 MODERATE REHABILITATION 0 SEVERE REHABILITATION [.] STANDARD © COMMERCIAL -- �� AREA BOUNDARY ® PROPOSED STREET PAVING W PROPOSED 6' WATER LINE S PROPOSED B' SEWER LINE -- - - W - - - - EXISTING 6' WATER LINE 300 0 300 600 ,SCALE - - --i NEW GRINDER 27 28 PUMP STATION ,y 1 `�— 5 Q 29 4 it 1230 C Z 2G 1 EXISTING PUMP STAiiON aR1VE / tJ 1 1 31 Q-1 T a] Lo of ,)32 Q 5� 25 Q24 2322 21 �• L _�• C. 11 =! 8_ 17 Q Ib. 1 414 12 1133 � RE HER 1 - ST 70 80 1 �.� 15 SQ 09 04 032 , Q +L Q Q G RAG eROA Q Q. SR1558 L.E. WOOTEN AND COMPANY ENGINEERING - PLANNING- ARCHITECTURE RALEIGH- GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 'O 0 1987 f 0 ORANGE COUNTY ends BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A Item No. -- ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MAY SUBJECT: DISABILITY AWARENESS DAY PUBLIC HEARING: Yes No TION CONTACT: SHIRL DEPARTMENT: COMMISSIONERS OFFICE INFORMA MARSHALL, X505 ATTACHMENT(S) : BER: TION TELEPHONE NUM - 732-8181 PROCLAMATION Hillsborough ll - 958-4501 Chapel - 227-2031 Mebane - 588-7331 Durham May 4 , 1987 as Disability Awarness Day in Orange PURPOSE: Proclaim county. BACKGROUND: RECOMMENDATION isability Awareness Day and authori proocicl aim this date as D ze the Chair to sign. z - d 0 ORANGE COUNTY DISABILITY AWARENESS DAY PROCLAMATION The past fifteen years have produced many improvements for people with disabilities. Our Nation, State, and County have all participated in providing increased opportunities for disabled people. Success has come through the hard work of disabled and non-disabled people joining together to break down barriers while building the chance to live with freedom and independence. This day marks a time when we should stop and evaluate past progress, and set new goals; for equality has yet to be attained. The Orange County Board of Commissioners do hereby proclaim May 4th 1987 to be Disability Awareness Day in Orange County. Each Orange County citizen should accept the challenge: to examine local businesses, his or her place of employment, and community services for the purpose of ensuring the same opportunities are enjoyed by both disabled and non-disabled members of our County, and further, to advocate for greater accessibility until equal opportunity has been attained for every person having a disability. In witness, thereof, I Shirley E. Marshall, Chair of the Orange County Board of Commission do hereby set my hand and the seal of Orange County, State of North Carolina, this fourth day of May nineteen hundred and eighty seven. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Board of Commissioners Attest: Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk mmm tiv 008 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A erla Item No.p L. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4, 1987 SUBJECT: EUBANKS LANDFILL OPERATION REPORT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 REPORT TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill -- 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To inform the County, one of three owners of the landfill, of a new plan of operation which has as its objective the exten- sion of the landfill's useful life. BACKGROUND: Report is attached. Commissioner Don Willhoit, the County's representative on the Landfill Onwers Group, and Bruce Heflin, Chapel Hill Public Works Director, will answer any questions on the report and brief the Board on the status of the Regional Solid Waste Task Force. RECOMMENDATION(S) : For information purpose only. 1 Landfill, Orange Regional to xeView agent for the based in Charlotte, ,town staff and 009 as administrate ieering firm bas landfill. the f Chapel liell,Techserv, an eng of the existing the turret; seta on The Town ° phase of ��°Wners gxo P has contracted ux plans p for tans for optimizing(he eaf ter carp soon be lmp�emente e and upgrade rated p landfill owners which is rant press the lan plan, the consul Dented by agreed to the p task 9 ceT1Pe owners' group EACK� fists St wo p°r~ of 203 acres in to in Road consists and permitted the then unused Landfill site on was approved 198 later e Regional The site roved in This plan was The Orange the r°ad' and app Road• toots, bisected by plan was submitted south of Eubanks being pro- mulgated the area s of new requirements staff felt 1972. A construction including in terms The Town of the site' deficiencies Waste. portion °tDi is Solid and Hazardous for a se Tow noted to have some P that th by the State be upgraded, and funds were budgeted with staff that the plan could plan and has �� better use consultant, has revoew�hetconsensus of is t off the selected changes. that a more sophisticated plan review potential Road and The officials to site north of Eubanks planning to add additional fill to south. We are therefore po eration south of the can be made of the below. will o needed to the a lined landfilling p the north, before beginning this approach are discussed ' significant points concerning DISC f the are a number of points to consider in our current and prospective use o There landfill site. 1. Waste Stream The volume of wastes to be disposed in the County has increased dramatically in VOLUME OF LANDFILL a very short time. SPACE NEEDED PER YEAR TONS OF WASTE PER YEAR 125,000 cubic yards TIME ands 60,000 tons 125 ,000 cubic yards 5 Years Ago 100,000 tons 375,000 cubic yards Today 150,000 tons 375,000 cubic y 5 Yeats Future 200,000 tons employment Future and employ 10 Yeats ro ected population that we make from our records and p J of growth requires leaned staffs. This kind o g These data were g planning acity• figures from the local P available cap maximum use of our existing 2. Deso n rea north of Eubanks Road does not optimize its age. The 1981 design for the area could be raised. about 15 feet flat and thus The surface is relatively grade" is at elev. 530, which is only the dis- posal g Mature trees surrounding de oats - The existing original ground surface. and provide more than adequate th posy the are 80 feet in height, properties for are 6u to all surrounding p toper feet (to situ. posal area raised up not be vi one-half from Eubanks Road and be orations would mile. The fill area impact. Fill operations one-half resulting visual imp 565) without r ble. 010 Approximately yards needed for ofr35,feet. daily cover and ran This amount of soil avilable remainder portion ofthed current borrow areas on the excavation re- quired to prepare the area south of Eubanks Road in advance of construc- tion of an engineered floor liner. provide 4 years of - Raising the grade of the existing fill by 35 feet will p added disposal capacity. 3. Closure of the Site The present design of the lastormlwater not runoffadequate for slow closure. dischargeThe to adjacent sur- face was intended to retain on streams. More recent EPA and Staeandrtoemi.nimizeainfiltrationsofpwater% landfill caps to promote rapid runoff - The objective is to retardainfiltration and thus reduce the amount of leachate produced by the re- el - The State will uld rmedial to surface mains. The Town n wo wo top by raising the grade in the center by about 15 feet with soil to pro- vide the 4% slopes for drainage. We believe it is better to take action now by raising the grade with refuse than to take the more expensive route of using only soils. - The existing flat surface wilacrsubside inand heightlisalikelyetodoccurooverna compress. Up to a 20 or 30% de ease couple of decades. Settlement will Statesbecauser "birdbaths" on the flat g ade it will that ca leachate production. and still not that can tolerate grading. contin- ual and expensive post-closure site maintenance and g g• 4. Regulations It appears that new Federal regulations (Subtitle D of the Resource aConsersation- and Recovery Act) will require closure of all non-lined municipal in a specified time frame following enactment the al- lowed. We anticipate that no provide lowed. After 1988, a vertical for final approximately 4 more y closure consistent with the requirements of the RCRA Subtitle D regulations. 5. Southern Ex ansion The area for future disposal south of Federaliregulaengi- neered landfill with leachate collection and bons above referenced will reand we believe it is the it, the courseutoefollow. spite of our existing per mit Preparation of the site will require construction af10 to 15 foot deep excava- tion over an area of about 40 acres to achieve grades a liner. We anticipate that otstartnnow°itdwould installed about one yeareto clear the acres each. Were construction t area (about 25 acres) ,o complete earthwork and construct the landfill floor liner so that refuse could be placed. -2- 0 1 - The Town does not have the time or resources to complete this work before the capacity of the existing fill area north of Eubanks Road is exhausted. - Continued filling on a vertical expansion north of Eubanks Road will give the Town time to prepare the area south of the road, use borrowed material from the excavation for cover soil in the vertical expansion, and satisfy State and Federal requirements at both locations. 6. Current Operations The remaining disposal area north of Eubanks Road (about 6 to 9 months capacity with the current plan) requires trenching and filling operations under very dif- ficult operating conditions. The filling sequence has wound up at the low end (downslope) side of the site in the path of much of the surface water runoff from the 51 acre flat top. The working area is restricted in size and will re- quire progressive excavation of a long and narrow (50 ft.) trench about 15 feet deep along the entire length of the access road used by trucks dumping at the fill face. It would be best for operations if this entire area could be exca- vated at one time, followed by filling and completion of the long trench in one step. This can be achieved if disposal operations are shifted from the existing boxed-in corner to the start of the vertical expansion. This will allow the ex- cavation of the long trench to be made before resuming filling operations there. 7. Additional Considerations The vertical expansion will be designed to include: - a separate disposal area for UNC ash; and - a final cap about 3 ft. thick that would contain an impermeable layer about 6 inches thick containing a soil/Bentonite mix, and a landfill gas (methane) control system below the cap. Final grades on the landfill site will be suitable for open area recreation. We will incorporate soil mounds 5 to 6 feet thick at some locations for the planting of clusters of trees. CONCLUSION We believe that the revised plan represents the best course to follow for the Landfill with regard to environmental protection, operational efficiency and regulatory com- pliance. It will allow us to address our short term problems and provide us with about four years additional life on the site. Combined with a lined, mounded fill operation on the south side of Eubanks Road, we should have landfill capacity for 9-10 more years. There are many variables involved in such projections, and these reflect our best estimates with available information. In the longer term, there are many issues to address, such as future regulations, con- tinued growth and desired uses of available resources. Many of these issues will be joined with the study about to begin under the auspices of the Regional Solid Waste Task Force. One of our desires with the plan before you is to provide the decision makers of Orange County with the time with which to make the difficult decisions ahead. Our solid waste problems will not disappear, but should be under control for the near term. Prepared by: Bruce Heflin, Chapel Hill Public Works Director -3- 012 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. tA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4, 1987 SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE REPORT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 REPORT TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: The Chair of the Task Force will present a report on the state of solid waste management within the County. BACKGROUND: Among the subjects covered in the reports are: 1. Operations at the Current Eubanks Road Landfill 2 . Landfill Life Expectancy 3 . Citizen Concerns 4. Water Quality Protection 5. Truck Operations Connected with the Landfill 6. Alterntive Technologies 7. Recycling RECOMMENDATION(S) : Accept the report and refer it to the Landfill Owners Group and Regional Task Force to be used in their deliberations. 013 Public Works Dept. Town of Chapel Hill 306 N. Columbia Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Orange County Board of Commissioners 108 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Board of Commissioners: Enclosed is the final report of the Orange County Solid Waste Task Force (OCSWTF) which summarizes our work over the last two and one half years. It includes our observations and recommendations on the state of solid waste management and planning in the County. Over the past three years, this County and its municipalities have taken very positive, forward-looking steps to ensure that all the solid waste disposal options are thoroughly examined and that the future decisions we make about waste disposal are based on rational environmental and economic analysis rather than expediency and desperation. The current engineering study of the existing landfill, the bicounty study with Durham, and the newly established recycling office are all signs of the shift away from the "bury it and forget about it" mentality that has characterized solid waste policy for so long. The OCSWTF is proud to have been part of that effort. At our meeting on April 27, 1987 we concluded that the work of the OCSWTF was complete for the present. The two major unresolved solid waste issues that we identified are the search for alternative landfill sites and the development of a hazardous and toxic waste collection and disposal program for small generators. It is our understanding from Chapel Hill Public Works Director Bruce Heflin that development of a framework for reviewing alternative sites and an actual first cut at identifying these sites are included in the work to be conducted as part of the bicounty study. Development of a hazardous and toxic waste collection program will be investigated by the recycling coordinator over the next six months. 014 These two unresolved issues -- landfill siting and hazardous waste collection will be with us for the foreseeable future. Because of that, because of the need for a formal citizens' review of the bicounty study, and the additional issues that must develop -- as governments promulgate new waste disposal regula- tions, as disposal coats rise, as the present landfill fills up over the next ten years, the OCSWTF respectfully requests that the Board of Commissioners, rather than dissolve the OCSWTF, ,place it on .a status of "inactive reserve" . To us this means that, should the County determine that there is a need in the future for a citizens' task force to address solid waste issues, it will not have to recreate one but can request that present members address the issues as well as recruiting additional interested citizens to serve. We look forward to your review of our report. Thank you for your support over the past two and one half years. We would like to especially thank Mr. Bill Laws and Mrs. Beverly Blythe for their stalwart and consistent staff work for the task force. Sincerely, Blair L. Pollock (For the OCSWTF) 1 01 Established by the Orange Board of Commissioners, the Orange County Solid Waste Task Force first met in February, 1985, and at that time assumed the following three charges: 1) To examine the operations of this county's current landfill and their the environmental impacts; 2) To study state-of-the-art technologies in solid waste disposal, focusing on alternatives to landfilling; and 3) To review and promote recycling efforts in the county, in hopes of diverting part of the waste stream now filling the current landfill site. In late February, 1984, Orange County and the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro jointly purchased 169 acres of mid- county land for $608,400. This acreage, commonly known as the "Greene Tract", lies just southeast of the currently operating Orange County Regional Landfill, and local officials apparently intend it to become the County's next solid waste disposal site, once the current landfill reaches capacity. County residents living near the proposed site have vehemently protested these plans. Their protests played a significant role in prompting local officials to establish this task force, and subsequently, ensured that the task force adopted a fourth charge: 4) To invent a process that the County can use to determine whether a parcel of land is suitable for development as a landfill site, and to encourage the County to use this process in identifying alternatives to the Greene Tract. This report contains the findings and recommendations made by the task force in its meetings starting November, 1984, and ending November, 1986. Appendices at the end of this report contain most of the surveys, reports and minutes used as the bases for these recommendations. Landfill Operations at the Current Site The residents, businesses and municipal services of Orange County now dump the majority of their solid waste at the 201-acre Orange Regional Sanitary Landfill, a facility. owned jointly by Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County. By informal contract, Chapel Hill provides machinery, manpower and expertise required to monitor and bury incoming waste. The regional landfill is located just north of Chapel Hill town limits and just west of the Eubanks Road intersection with Route 86. Its 201 total acres straddle Eubanks Road, with 122 acres lying north of Eubanks and 79 acres lying south. The site's northern 122 acres have been under development since the landfill's opening. 2 01b The remaining 79 acres have not been developed, but Chapel Hill does possess a state permit for this parcel's use as a landfill and does plan to open it to landfilling once the northern portion's capacity is exhausted in the next several years. The town is now having an engineering site plan drawn up for the south 79. Landfill Life-Expectancy. In a letter dated March 14, 1986, Chapel Hill's Director of Public Works Bruce Heflin stated that the Eubanks site could. be expected to serve Orange County's landfilling needs for another 11 years. The land north of Eubanks, he said, should last four years, after which the town would operate on the south 79 for an additional seven years. Certain developments that have emerged since last March suggest that this estimate is too optimistic and must be revised. Figures provided by Chapel Hill Public Works show that the tonnage of solid waste being interred at the Eubanks site has taken alarming leaps upward in the past three years. The figures for just one year, fiscal 1986, illustrate how unexpected these upward surges have been: Fiscal Year '86 Predicted Tons Actual Tons Difference 67,000 82,427 23%4 Heflin's department has revised its projections for fiscal 1987 to approximately 100,000 tons. Citizens' Complaints The task force spent much of its first two years attempting to answer the complaints of residents living near the current landfill. The complaints have been numerous: unpleasant odors emanating from the landfill; loud noises made by heavy machinery used at the landfill; dangerously heavy traffic by refuse carriers travelling through communities in which many families with children resided; speeding by refuse carriers through those same neighborhoods; dumping in the landfill during supposedly unauthorized hours; spillage along roads used by inadequately covered trucks; the presence of vultures, rats and wild dogs near the site; declining property values; failure by the town to protect ground and surface water by monitoring incoming materials for the presence of hazardous wastes; and most seriously, fears of actual ground and surface water contamination. The task force has managed on one level or another to check the validity of most of these charges at least once, often having to rely on town and county investigations. Most of these investigations have been conducted only once, and such isolated observations do little to either confirm or refute the residents' claims. 0 3 Findings On March 25, 1985, the task force reviewed topographic maps of the Eubanks site. Harold Harris, who was at that time Chapel Hill's Director of Public Works presented general information as part of this review and explained that the engineering of landfill trenches at the site was controlled by several factors: the contour of the land; the location of rock formations; and the depth of local groundwater. Task force members noted that the original engineering site study included no information on subsurface geology or hydrology. Water Quality Protection City water and sewer have not been extended to the neighborhoods surrounding the landfill . Residents there rely on private wells for their water and on septic tanks for their sewage disposal . At that same March 25 meeting, Harris responded to questions regarding the protection of streams and groundwater by explaining testing at the site and reporting that water moving across the site was tested as it came onto the site and as it exited. According to evidence presented by Harris, the tests had not indicated any problems. Ground and surface waters at the Eubanks landfill are tested quarterly by Research and Analytical Laboratories, Inc. of Kernersville, NC. Samples taken from monitoring wells around the site and from surface water sources are tested for potential groundwater contamination due to landfill activites. The test data are then analyzed from three perspectives: (1) the levels of chemical constituents found are compared to the maximum concentrations allowed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ; (2) the levels of constituents found are compared to levels contained in the groundwater outside the zone of landfill activities; (3) the levels of constituents found are compared over time. A compilation of these reports (May 20, 1985, Appendix E) showed no increase since 1978 in the organic and inorganic parameters used to determine water quality. One report did indicate that effluent from an on-site disposal well had been leaking into local groundwater . This well was used in the servicing of landfill equipment and for other landfill related activities. It has since been filled and disposal wells are no longer used. After surveying the quality of water in 13 private wells neighboring the landfill area, the County Health Department reported that, "in light of similar chemical and bacteriological results from samples throughout the county, these findings are not at all unusual, nor should they be conditions considered unique to the landfill area." Spillage. Speeding and Uncovered Trucks Roads leading to the entrance of the regional landfill, especially Eubanks and Rogers Roads, are usually heavily littered. This problem may be due in part to poor 4 0Th enforcement of a state ordinance ( .0105, North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules, 7/1/85) , which requires the driver of any vehicle carrying refuse to prevent that refuse from either falling, blowing or leaking from his/her vehicle. An informal, but thorough study conducted by three task force members and several students from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the spring of 1986 found that far less than half of the trucks (excluding packer-type trucks used by commercial and municipal collectors) entering the landfill at that time carried loads secured by any obvious means. This study also showed that only in an extremely small percentage of cases did the gateman at the landfill entrance emerge from his house to visually inspect incoming loads for the presence of possibly hazardous wastes. According to Chapel Hill Public Works officials, landfill operating policy did requires two visual checks for hazardous wastes, one by the gateman and one by landfill equipment operators. Equipment operators have been instructed to look for large containers, especially 30 or 55-gallon drums, and remove them from the landfill . No study has been conducted to determine whether this second visual inspection is performed. County officials have told local residents that vehicles entering the landfill before posted hours are generally county garbage trucks emptying a previous day's last load before beginning new pick-up routes. Hazardous Wastes Orange County is home to little industry and manufacturing; therefore, the Eubanks landfill probably receives relatively small amounts of hazardous substances. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Orange County's largest generator of hazardous waste, pays to have its hazardous wastes shipped to a licensed disposal site. It is likely that most of the hazardous substances being buried in the landfill are generated by households, small businesses and builders. Initial queries into the possibility of holding a county-wide "hazardous waste collection day" found that the costs and legal aspects of collecting hazardous wastes-- even the common household varieties-- might be prohibitively expensive and complex. A task force subcommittee has been formed to pursue the possibility of a haz-waste collection day, and to draw up proposals for a haz-waste public awareness campaign. The Institute for Environmental Studies at UNC-CH has completed a feasibility study of such a collection day for Guilford County. Recommendations Regarding Operation of the Regional Landfill The task force makes the following general recommendations: (1) that the Landfill Owners Group (Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County) establish broader, more specific U19 5 and more enforceable guidelines for continued, routine monitoring of landfill operations in order to minimize environmental damage and threat to human health and safety; (2) that the LOG establish and enforce strict regulations governing the transport and disposal of solid waste in Orange County; (3) that the LOG establish a hazardous waste collections program in order to remove these substances from the volumes being interred in the landfill; (4) that the LOG establish a simple and accessible information system in order to more easily educate county residents about the local solid waste situation; (5) that the LOG establish an accessible, direct and accountable grievance system so that county residents may easily address their complaints to the appropriate department or individual, and expect a quick response. (6) that the LOG should institute a continual review of criteria used to set landfill tipping fees, and that changes in the tipping fees should in the future be based on other than cost-of-operation considerations. This recommendation is included with the understanding that appropriate attention is being paid to this point in the regional solid waste study now underway (page 6, "Incineration") . State-of-the-Art Technologies Landfilling Landfilling has four attractions that many public planners find irresistible. It is convenient; it is relatively simple, both technically and economically; in short-term analysis, it appears relatively inexpensive; and it represents the status quo, the path of least resistance. Local planners have traditionally cited short-term economy as a compelling reason for not considering alternatives to landfilling. Residents dumping household refuse are charged just three dollars per ton. Private parties dumping construction debris pay just five dollars per ton. These tipping fees are among the lowest in the nation. Even so, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County collect and dispose of their solid waste so efficiently that the Landfill Owners Group (LOG) has accrued approximately $1,000,000 in revenues since the regional landfill opened in 1972. With these revenues the LOG has established the ' Landfill Reserve Fund, which was originally intended to pay for landfill expenses -- new equipment, new land, etc. -- and nothing else. The Greene Tract was purchased with money from the Reserve Fund. . Operating the regional landfill costs the LOG less than three dollars per ton. Estimated costs for alternative methods of waste disposal are much higher, somewhere in the range of 20 to 50 dollars per ton. This one fact makes continued reliance on landfilling seem to be a financially 6 020 sound idea. But two ongoing events are already eroding the stability of these short-term economics. First, the EPA and the State are now considering stringent new landfill regulations and/or reinterpretations of standing regulations. Should these considerations come to be reality, and in all probability they will, many operators of new landfills will be required to employ relatively expensive engineering devices to prevent the contamination of local ground and surface waters. In certain cases, these new state and federal measures will require landfill operators to install expensive liners and treat any liquids that leach down through the buried refuse. The pending regulations might also place tighter restrictions on landfill siting. The end result is that Orange County can expect solid waste disposal costs to rise drastically, possibly doubling or tripling. Second, as Orange County's population continues to grow, large undeveloped areas that might be considered as possible landfill sites will become scarce, the cost of land will continue to escalate, and county officials can expect fiercer opposition from residents opposing a landfill siting in their neighborhood. These trends are not unique to Orange County and are emerging in many counties across the United States. After reviewing available data and witnessing the struggles of more populous North Carolina counties, namely Mecklenburg, Durham and New Hanover, this task force is convinced that landfilling is not a particularly desirable method of waste disposal, and that possibly in the next ten years increasingly strict environmental regulations and changing county demographics will further diminish landfilling's popularity. Orange County must commit itself to exploring alternatives to landfilling and must be ready employ feasible technologies as early as possible. Incineration Managers of the New Hanover mass-burn facility claim that incineration allows them to reduce refuse to ten percent of its original volume. New Hanover, home county of rapidly growing Wilmington, has mainly sandy soils and high water tables. These two factors made landfill siting in that county especially difficult and forced New Hanover County officials to find a waste disposal method that would quickly reduce their need for additional landfill space. No solid waste disposal method yet devised can completely eliminate the need for a place to put some amount of refuse. New Hanover places the ash resulting from incineration in a lined landfill, and treats the leachate from that site. Task force members present at the April 28, 1986 meeting agreed that Orange County should communicate with neighboring counties and municipalities on the question of using incineration to help remedy solid waste disposal problems on a regional basis. Alamance County will run out of space this year at its current landfill and has failed so 021 far to obtain a license for the site it had intended to use next. Durham County has no remaining landfill space, and an engineering study done for the City of Durham predicts that its current landfill site will last only five more years. Orange County is now participating in a Regional Solid Waste Task Force, which also includes representatives from the City of Durham, Durham County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough and UNC-CH. This group has commissioned a study of regional waste management problems and possible solutions, including the possible use of incineration and recycling to reduce waste stream volumes entering landfills. The university representatives are non-voting members. Orange County now faces an excellent opportunity to examine the feasibilty of burning locally produced solid waste to generate power. UNC-CH plans to convert its present pulverized coal burning power plant to a cleaner, more efficient fluidized combustion boiler system by 1991, which as currently designed, will also burn pulverized coal . While it is true that fluidized combustion boilers must be designed to burn specific fuels and should then burn only those fuels, it is also true that these boilers can be designed to produce usable energy by burning solid waste, in the form of refuse-derived fuels (RDF) . Task force members have urged university officials to seriously consider burning refuse-derived fuels. University officials have indicated that the engineering study done for UNC-CH does not view waste-to-energy power generation to be economically viable for the school at this time. In his letter to the task force (Appendix D) Claude Swecker, Associate Vice-Chancellor for Facilities Management at UNC-CH, outlined the school's three main reasons for rejecting the notion of redesigning the new boilers to accomodate RDF: (1) Since neither the University nor the County currently has a facility for producing RDF, and neither has any plans for such a facility, there would be no guaranteed fuel source for the new boilers. (2) Swecker claims that RDF may produce widely varying amounts of heat, due to the fuel's unknown composition. This is a point of debate. Some currently operating waste- to-energy facilities have reported acceptably consistent heat contents from carefully processed refuse-derived fuels. (3) University officials claim that the school's additional power needs are too urgent to allow for any significant change in the plant's engineering plans. In fiscal year 1985, the University produced nearly 20 percent (12,000 tons) of the solid waste buried at the Orange County Regional Landfill . Of that, about 6500 tons, one-tenth of the county's total, consisted of ash from the school's power plant. The power plant's new boilers will only increase this burden on the landfill . Fluidized bed combustion requires the injection of limestone during the combustion process in order to capture and neutralize gaseous pollutants produced 8 022 when fuels such as low-grade, high-sulfur coals are burned. This injected limestone and the substances it captures add significantly to the volume and tonnage of ash produced in combustion. University officials have predicted that when the plant's two new boilers go on line, the amount of ash leaving the plant will immediately jump by a factor of four. All other things remaining constant, this jump would increase the University's total solid waste output from 12,000 tons per year to 30,000. University engineers expect the amount of ash produced to further increase at a rate of four percent annually until the year 2009. The University has contracted with its own Institute of Environmental Studies to study ash disposal alternatives. Two major obstacles must be overcome before incineration can be considered as a major component in Orange County's solution to waste management problems: (1) Expense. Capitalizing, operating and maintaining an incineration program is costly. It makes short-term economic sense only when the costs of other alternatives are comparable. (2) Pollution. Incineration of many materials results in hazardous air pollutants and potentially hazardous ash, and controversy now surrounds the question of what materials are safe to burn and in what manner. Neither of these is likely to apply to the University's situation. The school is already planning to spend millions of dollars on state-of-the-art boilers that are, in essence, incineration units. We are asking that the designers substitute one fuel for another. Fluidized bed combustion boilers are specifically designed to reduce emissions. Materials that are known to produce hazardous emissions could be removed from the RDF stream. This "clean" RDF burned in fluidized bed combustion boilers would probably provide an inexpensive fuel that the University could burn without risking pollutive emissions. Orange County could produce a a dependable source of clean RDF but not in quantity sufficient to satisfy the power plant's energy needs. In fiscal 1986, the University's power plant burned 65,000 tons of coal at its current power plant to produce both electricity and steam. (This provided only part of electricity needed; the remainder was bought from Duke Power. ) The ability of a particular fuel to provide energy upon combustion is often discussed in terms of "heat content" and in units called "BTU's". RDF has a lower heat content than coal; nearly 1 .5 pounds of RDF must be burned to produce the same energy produced by burning a pound of coal . All other things being equal, the University would need to burn approximately 100,000 tons of clean RDF in order to match the energy- producing capabilities of the coal it burned last year. In fiscal 1986, Orange County buried approximately 85,000 tons of solid waste. Of this only a fraction, say 45,000 tons, could be used as clean RDF. From one U2d 9 standpoint, university officials could use this argument to reject out-of-hand the possiblity of adapting the planned boilers to burn Orange County RDF. From a more constructive standpoint, this argument should compel Orange County and its neighbors to explore immediately the possibility of building a regional facilty that could produce clean RDF on a scale sufficient to supply local power plants with a reliable fuel source. Tri summary, the task force encourages further discussion with the University on the possibilty of waste-to-energy conversion at the school's new plant. Whether or not this option becomes reality, incineration would still only reduce, not eliminate the need for landfilling. The task force further recommends that the County develop simple, non-burn technologies that are available right now and, by comparison, far less expensive: direct reuse through salvage, recycling, converting certain wastes into compost and mulch, and producing salable RDF. Recycling Glass, paper and aluminum are the only materials recycled on any scale in Orange County, and they are handled by two major recycling operations: ECOS, Inc. , run by Larry Kehrer; and. local Boy Scout Troop 39, led by Jim Mackorell . During the calendar year 1986, ECOS and Troop 39 recycled approximately 600 tons of paper, glass and aluminum. Each organization managed what it did despite being underfunded, underpublicized and underutilized. Neither has received substantial financial support from local government, and both have realized net losses. Sunshares, a local self-reliance group that has been recycling in Durham since 1983, has received considerable support from the City of Durham and hopes after the next few years to be recycling 20 percent of Durham's total solid waste stream. This figure is typical of what many established recycling programs set for their goals. The 600 tons recycled by ECOS and Troop 39 in 1986 represent just 0.71 percent of the 84,500 tons buried by Orange County in 1986. To match Sunahares ambitious goal of 20-percent recycling, the amount of solid waste recycled in Orange County would have to increase 28-fold over last years' total to 16,800 tons, or 42 pounds per county resident. The Orange County Solid Waste Task Force has found serious financial problems with the programs now operating in Orange County, chief among these problems being that recycling is grossly underfunded (Appendix E, April 9) . In the spring of 1986, the OCSWTF forwarded to the governments of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Orange County a proposal to fund a county-wide pilot program. The initial funding, set at $130,000, was calculated to provide a central recycling center, handling and transportation equipment, seven drop-off sites, publicity, and administrative costs. These facilities and equipment would provide the basis for an expanded, comprehensive recycling 10 024 program. The proposal also provided for the employment of a full-time program director. The proposal was reviewed by government staffs and referred to the Landfill Owners Group. Although the LOG has suspended its decision on that proposal pending the collection of more data, its members have adopted an interim plan which includes five new drop-off sites, a publicity campaign, and cooperation with ECOS and Troop 39. Meanwhile, local governments have formed the Regional Solid Waste Task Force, with representatives from the City of Durham, Durham County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, Orange County and UNC-CH. The representatives from the University are non-voting members. The regional task force has voted to commission a study of regional solid waste management problems and solutions, including a market survey for recyclables and an analysis of the in regional solid waste streams. A request-for-proposal was mailed out on January 22, 1987, and the Regional Task Force has tentatively selected a firm to perform the study, and the specifics of this contract are now under negotiation. The interim recycling program is intended to last at least until the completion of this study. The town of Chapel Hill has hired OCSWTF Chairman Blair Pollock to coordinate the interim program. In closing this review, the task force makes the following recommendations: (1) that the Landfill Owners Group establish a program for the conversion of yard wastes and other organic wastes, possibly including sludge, into salable compost and mulch; (2) that the LOG explore the possibility of converting approriate portions of Orange County's solid waste stream into salable refuse-derived fuel . (3) that the LOG explore the market for recyclable plastics, such as those used in soft drink containers; (4) that the LOG complement the recycling of aluminum with a program to recycle ferrous metals; and (5) that the LOG explore the possiblity of recycling automobile tires, either by securing the means of grinding them locally, or by giving or selling them to companies that process them elsewhere. (6) that the LOG continue testing local groundwater on a quarterly basis. Future Landfilling in Orange County Barring some unforeseen technological revolution, Orange County will continue indefinitely to bury some part of its solid waste stream. The current landfill site on Eubanks road should continue to meet the needs of this county until the mid-1990s. The Landfill Owners Group, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County purchased the Greene Tract hoping to provide a site that can serve the county's landfilling needs once the Eubanks site is exhausted. Despite the appearance that the county has enough landfill space for the next two decades, this task force 1 r +} � ( 2�. 11 believes that for the following reasons, county planners must be concerned about their ability to meet landfilling needs beyond the next eight years: (1) The amount of waste being buried at the Eubanks landfill has increased alarmingly over the last three years. The actual tonnage buried in fiscal 1986 exceeded previous estimates by 23 percent; (2) The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill plans power plant renovations that, unless an alternative disposal method is found, will probably add at least 10 percent (18,000 tons per year) to the total waste stream flowing into the Eubanks site at the time the first phase of those renovations are completed in 1991; (3) Trends are sometimes reversed, but these two points, coupled with the uncertainty involved in estimating a landfill's lifetime, give reason to doubt that the Eubanks site will last the 11 years predicted in March, 1986; (4) Nearly a year has elapsed since that estimate was made, leaving just ten years; (5) According to state sanitation official Jim Coffey, the preliminary geological engineering study made on the Greene Tract in 1984, in which borings were made only until augurs were rejected by rock, may be inadequate. The State now requires that test borings be deep enough to hit the water table, in order to determine groundwater migration patterns; (6) Any application to use the Greene Tract as a sanitary landfill is likely to meet stricter state and federal landfill siting regulations. The State of North Carolina granted just 20 landfill permits against the 40 requests made in fiscal 1986. Obtaining a state permit for landfilling generally takes at least six months. Mecklenburg County has waited over a year and fought stiff opppostion before finally receiving approval early this year; (7) There has been and will probably continue to be strong local opposition to any permit to use the Greene Tract as a landfill site; (8) Despite all of these potential impediments, the County has identified no specific alternative to the Greene Tract. Should the Greene Tract fail to satisfy state regulations, heightened local awareness and escalating land costs will make it even more difficult to acquire an alternative site. Given these considerations, local planners must begin as soon as possible to search for alternate landfill sites. Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County purchased the Greene tract without knowing whether it was a suitable site for a sanitary landfill . Although legally required to do so, by arranging the purchase behind closed doors, the county and two towns acted in a manner bound to engender public distrust. 12 U2b The teak force is now preparing the outline of a plan that it hopes will help local planners identify alternative landfill sites (Appendix F) . The plan suggests that local planners consider all pertinent data possible in identifying possible sites, and that the selection process allow as many county residents as possible to participate in determining which criteria are most important in landfill site selection. Closing Comments In reevaluating some of their basic assumptions about waste management, local officials have taken the first steps toward ensuring that Orange County will not face the crises in solid waste management now burdening other counties. Problems are being faced, creative solutions are being sought, and for the first time, it looks as if the idea of recycling will be backed with substantial material resources, a commitment to expansion in the future and the possibility of bi-county cooperation. The considerable number of years left in the Eubanks landfill should allow us' time to identify suitable future sites and to study alternative waste management technologies. All of this speaks to the future because our efforts thus far have been only small steps, and our grace period will quickly pass. • ti 012 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4 , 1987 SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE REPORT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 REPORT TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181' Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331; 7 6 PURPOSE: The Chair of the Task Force will present a report on the state— of solid waste management within the County. BACKGROUND: Among the subjects covered in the reports are: 1. Operations at the Current Eubanks Road Landfill 2 . Landfill Life Expectancy 3 . Citizen Concerns 4. Water Quality Protection 5. Truck Operations Connected with the Landfill 6. Alterntive Technologies 7. Recycling RECOMMENDATION(S) : Accept the report and refer it to the Landfill Owners Group and Regional Task Force to be used in their deliberations. O1 These two unresolved issues -- landfill siting and hazardous waste collection will be with us for the foreseeable future. Because of that, because of the need for a formal citizens' review of the bicounty study, and the additional issues that must develop -- as governments promulgate new waste disposal regula- tions, as disposal costa rise, as the present landfill fills up over the next ten years, the OCSWTF respectfully requests that the Board of Commissioners, rather than dissolve the OCSWTF, _place it on a status of "inactive reserve" . To us this means that, should the County determine that there is a need in the future for a citizens' task force to address solid waste issues, it will not have to recreate one but can request that present members address the issues as well as recruiting additional interested citizens to serve. We look forward to your review of our report. Thank you for your support over the past two and one half years. We would like to especially thank Mr. Bill Laws and Mrs. Beverly Blythe for their stalwart and consistent staff work for the task force. Sincerely, Blair L. Pollock (For the OCSWTF) • 2 U 1 b The remaining 79 acres have not been developed, but Chapel Hill does possess a state permit for this parcel's use as a landfill and does plan to open it to landfilling one the northern portion' s capacity is exhausted in the next several years. The town is now having an engineering site plan drawn up for the south 79. Landfill Life-Expectancy In a letter dated March 14, 1986, Chapel Hill ' s Director of Public Works Bruce Heflin stated that the Eubanks site could be expected to serve Orange County's landfilling needs for another 11 years. The land north of Eubanks, he said, should last four years, after which the town would operate on the south 79 for an additional seven years. Certain developments that have emerged since last March suggest that this estimate is too optimistic and must be revised. Figures provided by Chapel Hill Public Works show that the tonnage of solid waste being interred at the Eubanks site has taken alarming leaps upward in the past three years. The figures for just one year, fiscal 1986, illustrate how unexpected these upward surges have been: Fiscal Year '86 Predicted Tons Actual Tons Difference 67,000 82,427 23% Heflin's department has revised its projections for fiscal 1987 to approximately 100,000 tons. Citizens' Complaints The task force spent much of its first two years attempting to answer the complaints of residents living near the current landfill . The complaints have been numerous: unpleasant odors emanating from the landfill; loud noises made by heavy machinery used at the landfill; dangerously heavy traffic by refuse carriers travelling through communities in which many families with children resided; speeding by refuse carriers through those same neighborhoods; dumping in the landfill during supposedly unauthorized hours; spillage along roads used by inadequately covered trucks; the presence of vultures, rats and wild dogs near the site; declining property values; failure by the town to protect ground and surface water by monitoring incoming materials for the presence of hazardous wastes; and most seriously, fears of actual ground and surface water contamination. The task force has manacled on one level or another to check the validity of most of these charges at least once, often having to rely on town and county investigations. Most of these investigations have been conducted only once, and such isolated observations do little to either confirm or refute the residents' claims. 4 Ulc� enforcement of a state ordinance ( .0105, North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules, 7/1/85) , which requires the driver of any vehicle carrying refuse to prevent that refuse from either falling, blowing or leaking from his/her vehicle. An informal, but thorough study conducted by three task force members and several students from the University of North Carolina et Chapel Hill in the spring of 1986 found that far leas than half of the trucks (excluding packer-type trucks used by commercial end municipal collectors) entering the landfill at that time carried loads secured by any obvious means. This study also showed that only in an extremely small percentage of cases did the gateman at the landfill entrance emerge from his house to visually inspect incoming loads for the presence of possibly hazardous wastes. According to Chapel Hill Public Works officials, landfill operating policy did requires two visual checks for hazardous wastes, one by the gateman and one by landfill equipment operators. Equipment operators have been instructed to look for large containers, especially 30 or 55-gallon drums, and remove them from the landfill . No study has been conducted to determine whether this second visual inspection is ! - f)per ox'med. Municipal and county officials have told local residents that vehicles entering the landfill before posted hours are generally county garbage trucks emptying a previous day' s last load before beginning new pick-up routes. Hazardous Wastes Orange County Le home to little industry and manufacturing; therefore, the Eubanks landfill probably receives relatively small amounts of hazardous substances. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Orange County' s largest generator of hazardous waste, pays to have its hazardous wastes shipped to a licensed disposal site. It is likely that most of the hazardous substances being buried in the landfill are generated by households, small businesses and builders. Initial queries into the possibility of holding a county-wide "hazardous waste collection day" found that the costs and legal aspects of collecting hazardous wastes-- even the common household varieties-- might be prohibitively expensive and complex. A task force subcommittee has been formed to pursue the possibility of a haz-waste collection day, and to draw up proposals for a haz-waste public awareness campaign. The Institute for Environmental Studies at UNC-CH has completed a feasibility study of such a collection day for Guilford County . Recommendations Recardina Operation of the Regional Landfill The task force makes the following general recommendations: (1) that the Landfill Owners Group (Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Orange County) establish broader, more specific 6 0 2 sound idea. But two ongoing events are already eroding the stability of these short-term economics. First, the EPA and the State are now considering stringent new landfill regulations and/or reinterpretations of standing regulations. Should these considerations come to be reality, and in all probability they will, many operators of new landfills will be required to employ relatively expensive engineering devices to prevent the contamination of local ground and surface waters. In certain cases, these new state and federal measures will require landfill operators to install expensive liners and treat any liquids that leach down through the buried refuse. The pending regulations might also place tighter restrictions on landfill siting. The end result is that Orange County can expect solid waste disposal costs to rise drastically, possibly doubling or tripling. Second, as Orange County's population continues to grow, large undeveloped areas that might be considered as possible landfill sites will become scarce, the cost of land will continue to escalate, and county officials can expect fiercer opposition from residents opposing a landfill siting in their neighborhood. These trends are not unique to Orange County and are emerging in many counties across the United States. After reviewing available data and witnessing the struggles of more populous North Carolina counties, namely Mecklenburg, Durham and New Hanover, this task force is convinced that landfilling is not a particularly desirable method of waste disposal, and that possibly in the next ten years increasingly strict environmental regulations and changing county demographics will further diminish landfilling's popularity. Orange County must commit itself to exploring alternatives to landfilling and must be ready employ feasible technologies as early as possible. Incineration Managers of the New Hanover mass-burn facility claim that incineration allows them to reduce refuse to ten percent of its original volume. New Hanover, home county of rapidly growing Wilmington, has mainly sandy soils and high water tables. These two factors made landfill siting in that county especially difficult and forced New Hanover County officials to find a waste disposal method that would quickly reduce their need for additional landfill space. No solid waste disposal method yet devised can completely eliminate the need for a place to put some amount of refuse. New Hanover places the ash resulting from incineration in a lined landfill, and treats the leachate from that site. Task force members present at the April 28, 1986 meeting agreed that Orange County should communicate with neighboring counties and municipalities on the question of using incineration to help remedy solid waste disposal problems on a regional basis. Alamance County will run out of space this year at its current landfill and has failed so ° f a O,c when fuels such as low-grade, high-sulfur coals are burned. This injected limestone and the substances it captures add significantly to the volume and tonnage of ash produced in combustion. University officials have predicted that when the plant's two new boilers go on line, the amount mountroff ash shur. leaving the plant will immediately jump by a All other things remaining constant, this jump would increase the University's total solid waste output from 12,000 tons per year to 30,000. University engineers expect the amount of ash produced to further increase at a rate of four percent annually until the year 2009 . The University has contracted with its own Institute of Environmental Studies to study ash disposal alternatives. Two major obstacles must be overcome before incineration can be considered as a major component in Orange County' s solution to waste management problems: (1) Expense. Capitalizing, operating and maintaining an incineration program is costly . It makes short-term economic sense only when the costs of other alternatives are comparable. (2) Pollution. Incineration of many materials results in hazardous air pollutants and potentially hazardous ash, and controversy now surrounds the question of what materials are safe to burn and in what manner. Neither of these is likely to apply to the University' s situation. The school is already planning to spend millions of dollars on state-of-the-art boilers that are, in essence, incineration units. We are asking that the designers substitute one fuel for another . Fluidized bed combustion boilers are specifically designed to reduce emissions. Materials that are known to produce hazardous emissions could be removed from the RDF stream. This "clean" RDF burned in fluidized bed combustion boilers would probably provide an inexpensive fuel that the University could burn without risking pollutive emissions. Orange County could produce a a dependable source of clean RDF but not in quantity sufficient to satisfy the power plant's energy needs. In fiscal 1986, the University's power plant burned 65,000 tons of coal at its current power plant to produce both electricity and steam. (This provided only part of electricity needed; the remainder was bought from Duke Power. ) The ability of a particular fuel to provide energy upon combustion is often discussed in terms of "heat content" and in units called "BTU's" . RDF has a lower heat content than coal; nearly 1 .5 pounds of RDF must be burned to produce the same energy produced by burning a pound of coal . All other things being equal, the University would need to burn approximately 100,000 tons of clean RDF in order to match the energy- producing capabilities of the coal it burned last year. In fiscal 1986, Orange County buried approximately 85,000 tons of solid waste. Of this only a fraction, say 45,000 tons, could be used as clean RDF. From one 10 U4q program. The proposal also provided for the employment of a full-time program director. The proposal was reviewed by government staffs and referred to the Landfill Owners Group. Although the LOG has suspended its decision on that proposal pending the collection of more data, its members have adopted an interim plan which includes five new drop-off sites, a publicity campaign, and cooperation with ECOS and Troop 39. Meanwhile, local governments have formed the Regional Solid Waste Task Force, with representatives from the City of Durham, Durham County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, Orange County and UNC-CH. The representatives from the University are non-voting members . The regional task force has voted to commission a study of regional solid waste management problems and solutions, including a market survey for recyclables and an analysis of the in regional solid waste streams. A request-for-proposal was mailed out on January 22, 1987, and the Regional Task Force has tentatively selected a firm to perform the study, and the specifics of this contract are now under negotiation. The interim recycling program is intended to last at least until the completion of this study. The town of Chapel Hill has hired OCSWTF Chairman Blair Pollock to coordinate the interim program. In closing this review, the task force makes the following recommendations: (1) that the Landfill Owners Group establish a program for the conversion of yard wastes and other organic wastes, possibly including sludge, into salable compost and mulch; (2) that the LOG explore the possibility of converting approriate portions of Orange County's solid waste stream into salable refuse-derived fuel . (3) that the LOG explore the market for recyclable plastics, such as those used in soft drink containers; (4) that the LOG complement the recycling of aluminum with a program to recycle ferrous metals; and (5) that the LOG explore the possiblity of recycling automobile tires, either by securing the means of grinding them locally, or by giving or selling them to companies that process them elsewhere. (6) that the LOG continue testing local groundwater on a quarterly basis. Future Landfilling in Orange County Barring some unforeseen technological revolution, Orange County will continue indefinitely to bury some part of its solid waste stream. The current landfill site on Eubanks road should continue to meet the needs of this county until the mid-1990s. The Landfill Owners Group, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County purchased the Greene Tract hoping to provide a site that can serve the county's landfilling needs once the Eubanks site is exhausted. Despite the appearance that the county has enough landfill space for the next two decades, this task force • - . t 12 U..0 The task force is now preparing the outline of a plan that it hopes will help local planners identify alternative landfill sites (Appendix F) . The plan suggests that local planners consider all pertinent data possible in identifying possible sites, and that the selection process allow as many county residents as possible to participate in determining which criteria are most important in landfill site selection. Closing Comments In reevaluating some of their basic assumptions about waste management, local officials have taken the first steps toward ensuring that Orange County will not face the crises in solid waste management now burdening other counties. Problems are being faced, creative solutions are being sought, and for the first time, it looks as if the idea of recycling will be backed with substantial material resources, a commitment to expansion in the future and the possibility of bi-county cooperation. The considerable number of years left in the Eubanks landfill should allow us' time to identify suitable future sites and to study alternative waste management technologies. All of this speaks to the future because our efforts thus far have been only small steps, and our grace period will quickly pass. O2 ' ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A enda Item No. 1. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4, 1987 SUBJECT: Fireworks Display Request DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 LETTER OF REQUEST TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To authorize permitting a public exhibition of fireworks to take place on July 2, 1987. BACKGROUND: The Chapel Hill Kiwanis Club is requesting a permit for a firework display at Kenan Stadium. The attached correspondence addresses the permit requirement. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve request from Kiwanis Club and authorize County Manager to sign approval form. NCNB National Bank P.O.Box 570 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Telephone 919 1 942-5183 026 RICEB April 17, 19$7 Mr. Kenneth Thompson Orange County Manager Room 21, 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 2727$ re : Kiwanis Fireworks Dear Mr. Thompson, This is our annual request for the approval of the Board of County Commissioners for the fireworks display in Kenan Stadium, Chapel Hill , to be held this year on July 2 . The fireworks will be fired under the supervision of the Chapel Hill Fire Department, and the Chapel Hill Kiwanis Club will provide the customary policing of the area as you have previously instructed. In addition, the Kiwanis Club is arranging with Collier Cobb and Associates for one million dollars of liability insurance . If approval is granted, please sign and return the extra copy of this letter. With best regards, Donald A. Williams Chapel Hill Kiwanis Club Approved : Date : County Manager Approved : Date : Chapel Hill Manager An ECM Corporation company • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. MEETING DATE MAY 4, 1987 SUBJECT: BID AWARD; SKID LOADER *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING YES X NO ************************************************************* rW ******T*** ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES EXT 497 BID TABULATION PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE 227-2031 DURHAM 688-7331 ************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider awarding a bid for a skid loader and accessories. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to the appropriation in the 1986-87 budget, bids were solicited for a skid loader equipped with a backhoe, three- way lifting bucket, and snow blade for use by the Public Works Department. As evidenced by the attached bid tabulation, three vendors responded with the low bid of $18,087.23 being submitted by Case Power & Equipment Company, Raleigh, N.C. The skid-loader and bucket will be used by the Sanitation Dept. to load heavy appliances from the green box sites onto a dump truck and to unload them at the storage site at the Public Works facility. This daily ritual takes its toll on workers' fingers, toes and backs since the current process involves mostly manual labor. This equipment will allow for a less labor intensive and a much safer process to be initiated. The County continues to have many small repair jobs or installation jobs that require digging. The backhoe attachment would allow Public Works staff, who currently dig by hand on smaller jobs, to more productively use their time. After the winter of 1986-87 the purchase of a snow blade to reduce the contract labor required for cleaning parking lots or walk areas around county buildings seems in order. Following a table-top evaluation of the equipment being bid the low bid machine was found to be in conformance with the County's specifications. An on-site inspection of the equipment verified that the equipment qualifies as the lowest responsive bid. RECOMMENDATION: Award bid for skid loader and associated equipment to Case Power and Equipment for a sum of $18,087.23 . BID TABULATION BID FOIL: CLOSING DATE: ,3 - 31 8-4 CLOSING TIME: 10:00 FOR OFFICE USE: BID AWARDED TO: BID PRICE: BUDGETED AMOUNT: �acl�hw 3� SL�cc4 t � AP-9) 4 +�C.y " r 1 coq 1 loaq� 3901' a - 4o6"4 is 5,G 1301•80 1020 °° L2rq°`— r-3 ?° 4S awl n a �u e n.,K cA 1� 6b�? �5 �� �6 '? s� ? 4 •S�, ad f?b ag b b d t � ORANGE COUNTY U 3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agen Item No. F ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4, 1987 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes x No Housing' & CD ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Fikes TELEPHONE NUMBER: Budget Amendment Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 . Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Authorization of Project Amendment for Community Development Programs. • BACKGROUND: The Community Development programs for Councilville and Northern Fairview have generated $1 ,203 and $2 , 100 respectively in program income . NRCD requires all program income be expended for project activities prior to requesting additional CDBG funds . Therefore the county must amend the project in order for these funds to be expended. These funds will be expended for project activities outlined in the original grant application for each program. Approval of the Amendment will facilitate timely close out of the CDBG projects . RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve project Amendment. --� +' ORANGE COUNTY t)32 PROPOSED 1986-87 BUDGET AMENDMENT The Community Development Project is hereby amended as follows: Community Development Fund .Before After Amendment Amendment Amendment Appropriation : CD IV Northern Fairview Project $938,000 $2 , 100 $940 , 100 Source : Program Income 0 $2 , 100 $ 2 , 100 Appropriation : CD V Councilville Project $687 ,000 $1 , 203 $688 , 203 Source : Program Income 0 $1, 203 $ 1, 203 To appropriate program income for necessary close out expenditures Approved this. 4th day of May, 1987 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Ag Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4, 1987 SUBJECT: Above Entry Hiring RegneAt DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No Personnel ATTACHMENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT: (Under Sererate Cover) Ken Thompson Ext: 501 TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough -' 732-8181 . Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To secure authorization, in accordance with the Personnel Ordinance, to offer a salary above the middle of the salary range. • BACKGROUND: The basis for the request is that the candidate brings over twelve years of quality experience in Social Services. Ten of the years, the candidate functioned in a supervisory and management capacity. As outlined in the resume, sent under seperate cover, the candidate's experience clearly exceeds the minimum standards for the class. The position was funded effective January 1st, therefore salary savings will cover the requested salary in the current fiscal year. • RECOMMENDATION(S): Authorize the recommended salary. 034 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda v BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. 1 ACTION AGENDA ITI24 ABSTRACT METING DATE 5/'+/87 Subject: PUBLIC-PRIVATE CONFERENCE IDepartment: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ( Public Hearing: Yes I no Attachments: Information Contact: Shirley E. Marshal None Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To report on and develop recommendations for ongoing participation in Public-Private Conference. BACKGROUND: The conference, as before, was stimulating. It is worthwhile and educational to be in an informal setting with leaders from many facets of community life. Several brief conversations identified concerns of others with county policies, actions or directions that will be followed up by me with one-on-one meetings. Sponsored by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce it is not surprising that conference objectives and interests are centered in Chapel Hill-Carrboro and that the County is perceived as a prime actor only as it interacts with this sector. Mayor Sheffield, School Board Chair Lindsey Efland and I have agreed to meet, inviting Economic Development Commission Chair John McKee and Sylvia Price to discuss how we might build from this experience and initiate an intergovernmental economic/planning strategy effort between the County and the Town of Hillsborough. • Mayor Upchurch attended the entire conference and Mayor Gulley the last session. The larger developing Metro-region, with the I-40 corridor and Research Triangle Park at its core, has a need for intergovernmental dialogue and interaction -- a study of and recommendation for a plan for stategic planning on this larger metro area is to be referred to as the Institute for Private Enterprise at UNC-CH. On the local intergovernmental level it has been recommended that the "13-point" committee continue in existence though no clearly defined (nor even not-clearly defined) agenda has been identified for action. During the course of the meetings the. "turf" issue was raised again. In that context it is evident that there is still no understanding that the county's unwillingness to extend extra-territorial juris- diction is one of unwillingness to deprive county citizens of this franchise rather than to give up territory. Nor is it understood that within the joint planning context that it is the county only that gives up authority while the municipalities assume added responsibility while giving up nothing. ir 03" Public-Private Conference It seems to me now, the way the Board is organized, that it was a mistake for me hot to have become a representative to this committee when I became Chair. So long as such a group exists I believe the Chair should become a member ex officio. In addition, I am asking the Board to make a policy decision on whether or not we are willing to have the disenfranchisement of County citizens again be put upon the table in any form through the deliberations of this group. The resolution to create a task force among chamber representatives, Child Care Networks and the Department of Social Services to address community day care needs is perhaps the resolution of most immediate concern of the County and one we applaud. Peggy Pollitizer will gather together the valuable work done earlier and send it on to the Chamber -- I pledged Commissioner office support to her for copying and mailing. Marti Pryor-Cook, of course, pledged her full cooperation. Another resolution called for a study of added resources for local government that would work with the League of Municipalities and Association of County Commissioners. Don, with his tax and finance committees responsibilities should be an especially useful resource to this effort . The County is fortunate that attention has been brought to the need to work actively to preserve open space with special attention being paid to the preservation of Duke Forest. Several initiatives concern directly business concerns specific to the Chapel Hill- Carrboro community -- attitudinal concerns, barriers to the success of small businesses, and direct concerns on development of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Central Business districts. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Authorize the Chair as a member, ex officio, of the Public-Private Partnership Steering Committee, to work towards the goals adopted by the conference; 2. Establish that the Chair, on election, becomes an ex officio representative of any local intergovernmental working group; and 3. Instruct County members of the working intergovernmental group to not consider, as a part of their deliberations, disenfranchisement of county citizens through placing them in extra-territorial jurisdiction. O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS U" ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 4, 1987 Action J, enda Item #(, lk SUBJECT: JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN (1) EXPANSION OF TRANSITION AREA (2) BOUNDARY DESIGNATION - TRANSITION AREA/RURAL BUFFER (3) ORANGE COUNTY-CARRBORO ZONING JURISDICTION BOUNDARY ACTION BY: MAY 4, 1987 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X , No ATTACHMENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins Gene Bell 4-7-87 Planning Board Minutes Location Maps 3-23-87 Memo of Councilman Godschalk 3-23-87 Minutes of Chapel Hill Town Council 2-23-87 Public Hearing Minutes Staff Memo Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: (1) To approve Carrboro request for expansion of Transition Area into northern portion of Bolin Creek drainage basin; (2) To approve boundary designation - Transition Area/Rural Buffer; and (3) To deny zoning jurisdiction exchange with the Town of Carrboro. To receive Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County Planning Board recommendation. BACKGROUND: On February 2. 1987, the Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution approving in concept an "Outline of Agreement in Principle" prepared by the Joint Planning/Watershed Work Group. The outline contained 13 statements addressing mutual interests in land use and growth management. annexation matters. and watershed protection. In accordance with the agreement, a public hearing was con- ducted on moving the Transition Area boundary north of Carrboro back to the position proposed in the Joint Planning Area Land � Use Plan Draft of January 14. 1986 . Coupled with the Work U 3 ' Group proposal was a recommendation to clearly delineate Transition Area and Rural Buffer Boundaries. Also among the 13 statements was a recommendation regarding a change in extraterritorial jurisdiction lines. Carrboro would release to Orange County's jurisdiction approximately 1800 acres in University Lake watershed. In return. Orange County would release acreage north of Carrboro to the Town' s jurisdic- tion. Two alternatives were considered. The first was an acre-for-acre swap and the second was based upon density. In terms of residential density, one acre in the transition area was considered the equivalent of five acres in the watershed. The Chapel Hill Town Council met on March 23. 1987 and recommended: 1) Amend Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan map and text to change the land use classification on approximately 1.500 acres of land from Rural Residential to Transition. The property in question is located in the upper portion of the Bolin Creek drainage basin and is bounded generally by the Duke Forest on the north, Union Grove Church Road (SR 1179) and Dairyland Road (SR 1112) to the west. NC Highway 86 and Buckhorn Creek to the south. and Rogers Road to the east. The specific densities will be set by the Zoning categories. 2) Amend Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan map and text by providing boundary designations for Rural Buffer and Tran- sition areas consistent with the county-wide Land Use Plan. The Orange County Planning Board met on April 7. 1987 and recommended: 1) Approval of the Transition Area extension into the full extent of the Bolin Creek basin except in Duke Forest and for those properties abutting Duke Forest. and that two designations of Transition Area be established - Transition I and II . Area I would include that area previously designated for urban expansion. Area II would include the extended area. Within Area I. densities from one to five units per acre would be permitted. Within Area II. densities would be limited to one unit per acre until such time as Area I was at least 75% developed. (The Planning Board clarified "75% developed" to mean "developed or subdivided for development at densities of one to five units per acre" . Development refers to land coverage and not 75% of the residential units possible.) The Planning Board further recommends that Carrboro and Chapel Hill provide at least one seat on their Planning Boards for representatives from the Transition Area in the oai Towns' respective spheres of influence or areas of jurisdiction. All of the above would be contingent upon Carrboro supplying a binding agreement that it would not seek to extend water and sewer lines into University Lake watershed prior to completion of the OWASA carrying capacity study. 2) That boundary designations delineating Transition and Rural Buffer boundaries be established. 3) That an exchange of Carrboro zoning jurisdiction in University Lake Watershed for Orange County zoning jurisdiction in the Bolin Creek Basin not be pursued further. Carrboro' s recent action with regard to denying approval of the Amberly project, and thus to extension of water and sewer lines into the University Lake watershed, is indicative of its intent to await the results of the OWASA study. The Planning Board' s recommendation regarding designation of Transition I and II areas is considered a staging mechanism for development. If Carrboro enters into a joint planning agreement with Orange County, it may control development and water/sewer extensions through its approval procedures, provided densities are consistent with the above. The representation question can be addressed at the time that Carrboro enters into a joint planning agreement with Orange County. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board' s recommendation provides a solution to two critical isues raised with regard to expansion of the Transition Area. Citizens surrounding the Calvander community voiced concern about unbridled, higher density growth throughout the area. This would be prevented by staging and infill to a 75% level before higher density growth would be permitted further out. A second issue was raised by Carrboro. If staging of development occurred, low-density growth would pre-empt orderly development coming later at density levels sufficient to support water and sewer service. This concern need not occur. By joining the joint planning process and Carrboro' s establishing, through its Land Use Ordinance, water/sewer service requirements for development approval. Carrboro would be able to control growth throughout the entire Transition Area. The Manager recommends approval of the Planning Board' s recommendation and referral to the Town of Chapel Hill for concurrence. APRIL 7, 19'37 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES O3i 5 of Mrs. Williams and yet Mrs. Williams is not able to use that same road. She indicated she felt Mrs. Williams is a victim of unfair and unjust treatment. Collins gave additional background on the case indicating that Mary Burnette and Thelma Parrish received septic tank permits from the Orange County Health Department and installed septic tanks on the property; knowing from a previous meeting with the Planning Department that the property could not be legally subdivided due to access problems. When buiding permits were denied. the applicants raised the issue of substantial expenditures for the septic tanks and were granted a ninety-day temporary permit to try and resolve the subdivision problems. This was subsequently extended for another ninety-day period. Collins stated this controversy led to the current policy of the Health Department verifying with the Planning Department that a lot has been properly subdivided before issuing a septic tank permit. Collins indicated that efforts to resolve the problem had been ongoing for two years and that contacts had been made with all property owners including the church. He noted that until someone was willing to grant access. the entire process was at a stalemate. He also indicated that untold staff hours had been expended on this problem and he felt it was up to the applicants and their attorneys to find a solution. Jacobs suggested a possible solution to the problem might be to bring all the parties together simultaneously, be sure that everyone understands the problem. and see if some compromise could be reached. E> AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (2-23-87) a. Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan (1) Expansion of Transition Area (2) Boundary Designation-Transition Area/Rural Buffer This agenda item is to approve proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The amendments were presented at public hearing on February 23. 1987 . On February 2, 1987 . the Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution approving in concept an "Outline of Agreement in Principle" prepared by the Joint Planning/Watershed Work Group. The outline contained 13 statements addres- sing mutual interests in land use and growth management, annexation matters. and watershed protection. In accordance with the agreement. a public hearing was 040 6 conducted on moving the Transition Area boundary north of Carrboro back to the position proposed in the Joint Planning . Area Land Use Plan of January 14. 1986 . Coupled with the Work Group proposal was a recommendation to clearly delineate Transition Area and Rural Buffer boundaries. The proposal is consistent with Joint Planning growth ,strategies. provides for the economical extension of gravity sewer systems. removes existing and proposed developments from a nonconforming status. and is in keeping with Calvander area concerns about high density housing and commercial/industrial development. The proposal would not be consistent with Duke Forest recommendations that property adjacent to that facility be left in a rural state with densities lower than one dwelling unit per acre. Designation of Transition Areas and the Rural Buffer boundaries would clarify jurisdictional interests with respect to project review and approval procedures under the terms of existing or proposed Joint Planning Agreements. Collins stated that the Planning Staff recommends approval of extension of the Transition Area to the full extent of the Bolin Creek basin. The staff position agrees with the OWASA recommendation that sewer be extended to serve the whole Bolin Creek basin. He did emphasize. however, that Duke Forest and those properties bordering it would not be included. He also recommended that timing of development be a consideration in the designation of Transition Areas. Two designations of the Transition Area are recommended for consideration - Transition I and II. Transition Area I would include that area previously designated for urban expansion. Transition Area II would include the extended area. Within Transition Area I. densities ranging from one to five units per acre would be permitted. Within Transition Area II. densities would limited to one unit per acre until such time as Transition Area I was at least 75% developed. The latter standard is based on the infill development policy contained in the Land Use Plan. Walters inquired as to whether we may see a request later on from Chapel Hill for northward extension of the Transition Area. Collins said it was very doubtful. He stated that Chapel Hill had defined a fixed boundary. I- 40. to separate Transition and Rural Buffer Areas. He also referenced concerns expressed by Chapel Hill over several small properties east of Rogers Road that were recommended for Transition as part of the Carrboro request. These were included so as not to create a Rural 041 7 Buffer "island" in the northern part of the Transition Area. Pilkey asked what Carrboro considered its outer limits to growth. Jacobs responded that agenda materials and conversations with Carrboro officials led him to believe it was the upper reaches of the Bolin Creek basin. Jacobs then directed the Board's attention to page 67 of the agenda. the Chapel Hill Town Council resolution. He pointed out the condition not to agree to extension of Transition Areas unless Carrboro agrees not to extend water and sewer lines into University Lake watershed pending completion of the OWASA carrying capacity study. He said he didn't think the Planning Board should consider extension of the Transition Area without such a condition. He also added that he thought residents of the Transition Area should have respresentatives on the respective Town Planning Boards. Kramer inquired as to the status of Amberly. Jacobs responded that it had been approved by the Carrboro Planning Board but not the Board of Aldermen. He felt that the Planning Board should include Amberly in its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners if the Carrboro Board of Aldermen approve the Amberly development before the next Board of Commissioners meeting. He noted that the County should make the strongest statement possible for watershed protection and if Amberly is not included in the recommendation, this may not be possible. Lewis indicated he felt watershed protection was an important issue. He also said that he thought expansion of the Transition area would relieve pressure on the watershed. However, he felt the watershed and expansion of the Transition Area are two separate issues and should be treated as such. Taylor asked if Carrboro had ever signed the Joint Planning Agreement. Jacobs responded no but that the resolution of the Transition Area was part of the process of getting Carrboro to the point where they would "buy into" Joint Planning. Jacobs said he thought the Planning Board should state to the Commissioners that the first condition would be that Carrboro would supply a binding agreement that it would not seek to extend water and sewer into the watershed. Then with the staff recommendations about the Transition Area and respective densities and. also. item 412 on page 64, seats on Planning Boards being added as another condition, he would feel that a reasonable attempt had been made toward a workable compromise. U4e 8 Jacobs asked if there were any other questions. Taylor said he wanted to be sure he understood the different densities being discussed in Transition Areas I and II. Collins elaborated briefly on density in Transition Area II staying at one unit per acre until such time as development in Transition Area I reached 75% . At that time densities of up to five units per acre would be allowed in Transition Area II. Jacobs made recommendations to start off as follows: "If Carrboro will supply a binding agreement and not seek to extend water and sewer lines into University Lake Watershed prior to completion of the OWASA Carrying Capacity Study and will agree not to increase its current density in the watershed then: " The Orange County Planning Board recommends approval of Transition Area extension into the full extent of the Bolin Creek Basin except in Duke Forest and for those properties abutting Duke Forest; The Orange County Planning Board recommends that two designations of Transition Area be considered as outlined on page 52 of the agenda; and The Orange County Planning Board recommends that as on page 64 of the agenda that Carrboro and Chapel Hill provide at least one seat on their Planning Boards for representatives from the Transition Area in the Towns' respective spheres of influence or areas of jurisdiction. Jacobs asked if there were any other points to be in- cluded or if anyone desired to make a motion. Collins noted he wished to make a comment regarding his feeling on the second part of the recommendation. " . . .will agree not to increase its densities . . ." He stated that he disagreed with that part of the recommendation because if you look at the 13 points and discussion of the two swaps. it was not mentioned anywhere. He felt that when we try to interject ourselves into Carrboro's jurisdiction we' re not trying to reach solutions to problems. but simply compounding them. He continued that we put ourselves in the position of monitoring everything Carrboro does and if they violate any of the provisions. we have to go back and amend the plan again. This ties back to comments made by the County Attorney about how binding is such an agreement on future Town Boards. possibly creating problems down the road for future Planning Boards and governing bodies. Jacobs said that at a certain point everyone is going to 04d 9 have to take a "leap-of-faith" . Jacobs said there are two separate things here: One is the binding agreement about the OWASA study and the other is about Carrboro' s commitment to its own zoning. Jacobs suggested going back to the original condition that Chapel Hill authored and change the word "assurances" to "will supply a binding agreement" and then the same recommendations the staff has plus the recommendation about representation of the people in the Transition Areas on the Planning Boards. Perhaps we should include the Boards of Adjustment also. Jacobs asked if there was a motion at this point? MOTION: Eddleman moved that the Board make a recommendation as stated by Jacobs. Seconded by Taylor. General discussion followed about the possibility of annexation and development densities in the area. Collins clarified by saying that if citizens petition for annexation, density would not be that big a factor. If annexation was at the initiative of the town, density of development could have a real impact since state statutes specify population. density, and subdivided acreage thresholds. It is important to remember that the town would have to extend urban services to any area it annexed. Jacobs asked Collins his opinion about trying to preclude annexation in the Transition Area. Collins responded that this goes back to the County Attorney' s statement Unless you've got enabling legis- lation to give you the power to restrict that. all it is is a gentlemen' s agreement ' . If a lucrative project comes along the potential is there to forget about the gentlemen' s agreement and annex it. The whole issue that the County Attorney raised is how binding is a binding agreement in the absence of enabling legislation to give you the power to enforce. Jacobs stated there was a motion which had been seconded. VOTE: 4 in favor (Eddleman, Walters. Taylor, Jacobs) 6 opposed (Kramer, Pilkey. Lewis. Hubbard. Margison. Swann) Jacobs asked if there was another motion? Walters asked if the opposing votes would care to elaborate on why they voted no? 044 10 Pilkey stated that she felt that at some point you just didn't compromise anymore. Jacobs stated that he felt the Board was giving up the opportunity to make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. Walters indicated he felt this was a good point. The Board of Commissioners has relied on the Planning Board in such issues many times and supported their views. He continued noting that he was not sure we are sending them a clear message this time. Jacobs asked if there was another motion. Margison stated that the Board might consider having the Transition Area with Orange County zoning and Orange County responsible for the watershed area. Basically, the land swap. Jacobs asked "So your motion is to expand the Transition Area in the manner that Staff is recommending and that the County accept jurisdiction over that area in the watershed that is mentioned on page 109 of the agenda in the so called swap proposal. Walters asked that the motion be restated. Jacobs restated the motion as follows: That we expand the Transition Area as stated by staff and that we also accept Orange County jurisdiction over Carrboro' s portion of the watershed referred to in the territorial swap. The motion was seconded by Walters. VOTE: 2 in favor (Margison. Walters) 8 opposed (Kramer, Jacobs, Lewis, Hubbard. Swann. Taylor, Eddleman) . Jacobs presented the following as a summary up to this point: 1) The Board unanimously felt that protection of the watershed is the most important value; 2) General agreement that the watershed and Transition Area should not be linked; 3) Disagreement came over how to deal with the fact that they are linked. Kramer asked for clarification on the first vote inquir- 0410 ll ing if part of that motion was to limit water and sewer pending the study. Jacobs responded yes, on the completion of the study. Kramer stated that as a move to get off of "a stuck spot" he would consider changing his vote on the original motion. Lewis also indicated he would be willing to support the original motion. MOTION: Kramer moved to reconsider the original motion. He indicated concerns that it compromises the Rural Buffer, but he was swayed by what Walters said as well. Jacobs noted that there is an option for those concerned about the Rural Buffer. The whole Bolin Creek Basin does not have to be transition. Moving the transition back to the whole Bolin Creek basin is in recognition of engineering realities. The borders of Transition Area I are based on population projections. Hubbard expressed concern that if we cut back on transition in this area. we' re going to see growth pressures re-emerge in other areas. Lewis called the question. VOTE: 6 in favor (Jacobs. Lewis, Walters. Kramer. Taylor. Eddleman) . 4 opposed (Pilkey, Margison, Hubbard. Swann) . Margison stated that her reaon for opposing the motion was protection of the watershed. Pilkey stated her opposition was due to the fact that she did not see sufficient justification for Carrboro' s expansion plans. Hubbard stated he felt that we should have asked for more related to the watershed and felt they were separate issues also. Jacobs indicated the Board still had to vote on the swap issue. MOTION: Hubbard moved that the swap not be recommended. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous. EXHIBIT A • ."---(. ------ -k-,. ,„--7-,,z. 6—,,,---- -"1;---...--,.- --...---1--- T 1)( _)4.5, .. ) T . --:-.7.:.-- !::1 t.CI �WE . ,l2A A ^' � . . ti i _.; Vii,.` i I •�/ iiit.di 1. ` ..'. r_�� r ' -4%ii..-{ , ide ."-:!.•::-:.:;::::.%:,,ii., ..., .._ . , _ "Mir. email .....W... .4._/ : r.:.,,,,,ki,;..-'7.e_;is ‘Is . i _......_ ,.._.,..., , .. .- ix „�, i , f ' .jEL H I L • N.t.•;. r•" :I - : a - -- ---.:;• 1 ..,_—:41.. . ca!).■ :SA . 47.-r:!,i•-. ..-!..J ... /--e i ... th ARRPP pf42.ittet.:-,-...zny,:,:,- -; _,. vp '....6-.7' :.: 1:.'4., : '.'_:::' --s- , i '4'-..- :- crow:axis/ , i IP', -psi,c-4,, .4.,::,,,,,,, .4% ool,,,,);......1-. - „.ft..... .::::......... ..- " ,...,,-. _./ ; p d I ■, tf. et..,,-1 1*,,,„ ,iilrftio■P... -.-. ... __,, - ■Nik, .4..'; • etcolimos,,w,:.:.:11 ......:::: .::: : . ..., ;/_/--- ( .\,; .: t \ N-V- ■,?-,/,4e•o vigi r':-,...,\,;:-.1:::::::r.••;.::..;;-::....:, 0 I _a I is. A Aie...4 ,•."..:.:Ii .4:::1* .-I \ le-6•-■ ..\,! N. : I . 44;6 r - ,''' tY°°°•49‘°11114iVil rilr "III ' . % 1 _ .. - fir- /---�14• . - �,''A .I"; ale %� --_,--. �' : �::� :. � , i K G (� F l :j \ "'mss: -. -- '1"ialP411.11 --I'''- --"er''''''' kz: c.-&-.....:.,..4..., _4s .. .... Ir/Irw :::::: r 1 , v z' Ab -.ii:.: :• ` , .� p ......... :......S:::::... 1 :;r . ' ; >te i i •• -,9 (.....*.:..... *6..:X" .-.:::.::::' .....":1. . Jiii:::11.e••:.:-14.- 4: ____I -11 , ....‘`‘ Nrt- .,,. . ....;;:.1,;:".,;47:red.i......:-:-......i:-.::::::::;::-.1; .. -- '' jt' 't"-c:.--jj-11 -• j LEGEND: - Transition Area-Existing - ~---Transition Area Boundary =ALE: o Carrboro-Chapel Hill Bndry • Extraterritorial Jurisdiction \�� Transition Area-Proposed , op r i • G � .JOINT , •q # +U •r r • 4- • �u.`as.•/ ry • • ' rte.. S ■A1 RD- 4 ... 1p il "N ARTN1R RINKS RD. O ,t`, 'S;, 1 . rt: tt......:6,...1. ...„... ...k•- e 4 CD ft . ,I• •#,V. ,_4;. * . W:•"4- 6 • :..'t.7:::;.-1.1.4:::•'•":7-• ■ 1' V( P q U NK. _p _.�.j/� 'Q �K '.;M pi s j o f. w v.:4 / A/4r .. 1 Cal vander ;/)7' - ,: • •.�'■ � e, . ••••.. . ril)f • \1"$. ki � CHAPE HILL ▪ •. t e � .� s • /"' ��CAHRB- -O • I♦ w P - �1 d r � W ` ` Silt•GPO uNIVE •• •, i*.i - "..A,-- •-•• "•"-::.-42:''.• ... 4er.13;...- I OA _• z s �,••.... *Ct CHATHAM CO. LEGEND: rm� ` Uni versi ty Lake Watershed Boundary i Transition Area Un1 versa ty Lake Watershed in E.T.J. '— —Transition Area Boundary sus, Proposed Addi t1 on to Carrboro Corrboro-Chopel Hill Bndry Trans 1 t1 an Area Extraterritorial w�� Line Indicating Potentl al New Jurisdiction Carrboro E.T..I. Based on Capacit (Existing) Equivalency y - mss Line Indicating Acre/Acre Equivalency O4is AGENDA #8 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Council Member Godschalk SUBJECT: Post-Hearing Memorandum: Changes to Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan (from 2/23/87 Joint Public Hearing) DATE: March 23 , 1987 The attached resolution would recommend to the Orange County Board of Commissioners that the Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area be amended. Background On February 23 , the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners held a Joint Public Hearing. Two proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan were discussed: 1) Expand the Transition areas in the plan to the dividing line between Bolin Creek and New Hope Creek drainage basins according to the map attached to the hearing material; and 2) Designate Boundaries for transition areas and the Rural Buffer in a manner that is consistent with Orange County' s Land Use Plan. A third item was also discussed at the Public Hearing, and drew the majority of the comments. This was the proposal for an exchange of extraterritorial jurisdiction, whereby Carrboro would give up planning jurisdiction in the watershed in exchange for equivalent jurisdiction north of Town. The matters were referred to respective boards and staffs. The Chapel Hill Town Council needs to make a formal recommendation to the County on the two proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan. The proposal to exchange extraterritorial jurisdiction has already been endorsed by the Chapel Hill Town Council in the 13 point "Agreement in Principle" adopted in concept on January 28, and needs no further action. The present Joint Planning Agreement requires the County to adopt a land use plan and zoning map cooperatively developed with the Town. The new Joint Planning Agreement, executed on February 3 but not effective until the County adopts a zoning map prepared and recommended by the Town, provides for amendment to the Zoning 011 2 Map and Land Use Map by the County, after review and recommenda- tion by the Town. Discussion We believe that both of these amendments are appropriate. Expansion of Transition Areas: The proposed expansion of the Transition Area would occur almost totally in Carrboro' s area of primary interest. However, a small area south of Eubanks Road and east of Rogers Road is currently part of Chapel Hill' s Rural Buffer. Since this area would be surrounded by Transition Area to the east, south, west and part of the north, and since it is already divided into lots of about 1 acre, it has been included in this proposed revision. The Rural Buffer designation includes land adjacent to an Urban or Transition area and which is rural in character, should remain rural, contain very low-density residential uses and does not require urban services. Transition Areas include land that is in the process of changing from rural to urban, that is suitable for urban-type densities and should be provided with public utilities and services. we think that expansion of the transition area in the Rogers Road neighborhood north to Duke Forest is desirable for several reasons: 1) The southern edge of Duke Forest is a natural barrier for the "urban services district. " 2) This area can be easily served by municipal services in the future. 3) This amendment would allow area to accommodate future Carrboro growth, in an area that is less environ- mentally sensitive than the University Lake Watershed. 4) This amendment would "smooth out" Chapel Hill' s transition area, providing slightly more room for urban-type development, in a pattern that would be more appropriate than the present plan and which would recognize a pattern of smaller lot subdivisions already present south of Eubanks and east of Rogers Roads. 5) Adopting this amendment would implement part of the "13-point .Plan" agreed to in principle by Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County. Terminology: Changing the names of the designations of the areas in the plan will clarify terminology, and make the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan consistent in language with the Joint Planning Agreement and the Orange County Land Use Plan. The proposed change in terminology is as follows: 3 05o Current Term in Land Use Plan Proposed Term Rural Residential Rural Buffer Agricultural Rural Buffer Suburban Residential Transition Urban Residential Transition The change would eliminate the density distinction between Suburban Residential (1-5 units per acre) and Urban Residential (6-13 units per acre. ) Instead, the Land Use Plan designation of "Transition Area" would identify those areas in the process of becoming urban and to which urban services should be extended. The Zoning Map would distinguish among densities and uses within the Transition Areas. Attached are materials prepared by the Orange County Planning Staff and discussed at the 2/23 hearing. Public Hearing Comments Most of the comments at the Public Hearing were directed at the proposal to change Carrboro' s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdic- tion. Draft minutes will be distributed as soon as they are received from the County. Recommendation: That the Council adopt the attached resolution, recommending that the Orange County Board of Commissioners amend the Land Use Plan to expand the Chapel Hill and Carrboro Transi- tion areas, and to change the designation of areas as proposed in the resolution. • Obi RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CHANGES TO THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN (87-3-23/R-5 ) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners amend the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan in the following ways: 1) Amend JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN map and text to change the land use classification on approximately 1,500 acres of land from Rural Residential to Transition. The property in question is located in the upper portion of the Bolin Creek drainage basin and is bounded generally by the Duke Forest on the north, Union Grove Church Road (SR 1179 ) and Dairyland Road (SR 1112) to the west, NC Highway 86 and Buckhorn Creek to the south, and Rogers Road to the east. The specific densities will be set by the Zoning categories. 2) Amend JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN map and text by providing boundary designations for Rural Buffer and Transi- tion areas consistent with the county-wide Land Use Plan. This the 23rd day of March, 1987. • -17- US4 Council Member Godschalk said he disagreed with calling a public hearing to amend the Development Ordinance because once again the Council would be adding more red tape to the process. He com- mented that he agreed with a memorandum sent by the Mayor to the Council suggesting that the Council try to keep their meetings running more efficiently by asking the Manager and staff any questions on the proposals prior to the Council meeting at which it was deliberated. Council Member Werner stated that many of the questions which arise at the Council meetings with regard to subdivisions are posed by citizens in attendance. Council Member Howes suggested that this item be deferred to the next meeting of the Council on March 31. The Council agreed. Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan - Proposed Chances Council Member Godschalk stated that the proposal was to expand the transition areas for both Carrboro and Chapel Hill into areas currently designated as rural buffer. He said the purpose of the resolution was for Chapel Hill to go on record as to its stand on this issue. COUNCIL MEMBER GODSCHALK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HOWES TO ADOPT 87-3-23/R-5 AS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: "WHEREAS, the governments of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County have adopted a 13 point agreement in principle, designed to protect the water supply watershed and to facilitate joint planning and to maintain working intergovernmental relations; and WHEREAS, .the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan map and text would need to be amended to carry out one element of the 13 point agreement -- the expansion of Carrboro' s Transition Area north into the Bolin Creek drainage basin, with the understanding that this will forestall further water and sewer extensions into the University Lake watershed prior to completion of the proposed OWASA carrying capacity study and the adoption of its recommenda- tions by the governing bodies involved; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners amend the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan in the following ways: If Carrboro will supply assurances that it will not seek to extend water and sewer lines into University Lake watershed prior to completion of the OWASA carrying capacity study, then: 1) Amend JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN map (as shown on the attached map) and text to change the land use classification on approximately 1,500 acres of land from Rural Residential to Transition. . . " Mayor Wallace asked who would have control of the transition areas. Mr. Godschalk replied that the municipalities would provide the zoning map for the areas to Orange County who would adopt the zoning designations. -18- U54 Council Member Andresen asked what was the difference between the extraterritorial jurisdiction and the transition area. Manager Taylor replied that in the extraterritorial jurisdiction the municipality had complete control, but in the transition area there was a joint agreement on the Joint Land Use Plan; the municipality would provide the zoning maps in accordance with the Joint Land Use Plan; the County would adopt the zoning ordinances consistent with the Joint Land Use Plan; and the municipality would administer the ordinances for development in the areas. Council Member Smith expressed concern that Chapel Hill was getting involved in problems between Carrboro and Orange County especially since Chapel Hill and Orange County had already agreed to a Joint Land Use Plan. Council Member Andresen spoke in support of the motion saying that intergovernmental cooperation was necessary. She asked if once this was adopted, would Chapel Hill have any way to further protect the University Lake Watershed. Council Member Godschalk said that he had tried to address that question in the resolution by linking Chapel Hill's approval with the adoption of the water carrying capacity study's recommendations. THE MOTION CARRIED, (7-1) , WITH COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH VOTING AGAINST. The resolution, as adopted, reads as follows: RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CHANGES TO THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN (87-3-23/R-5) WHEREAS, the governments of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County have adopted a 13 point agreement in principle, designed to protect the water supply watershed and to facilitate joint planning and to maintain working intergovernmental relations; and WHEREAS, the Joint Planning -Area Land Use Plan map and text would need to be amended to carry out one element of the 13 point agreement -- the expansion of Carrboro' s Transition Area north into the Bolin Creek drainage basin, with the understanding that this will forestall further water and sewer extensions into the University Lake watershed prior to completion of the proposed OWASA carrying capacity study and the adoption of its recommenda- tions by the governing bodies involved; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners amend the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan in the following ways: If Carrboro will supply assurances that it will not seek to extend water and sewer lines into University Lake watershed prior to completion of the OWASA carrying capacity study, then: -19- 054 1) Amend JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN map (as shown on the attached map) and text to change the land use classification on approximately 1 , 500 acres of land from Rural Residential to Transition. The property in question is located in the upper portion of the Bolin Creek drainage basin and is bounded generally by Duke Forest on the north, Union Grove Church Road (SR 1179) and Dairyland Road (SR 1112) to the west, NC Highway 86 and Buckhorn Creek to the south, and extending to the east of Rogers Road. The specific densities will be set by the Zoning categories. 2) Amend JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN map and text by providing boundary descriptions for Rural Buffer and Transition areas consistent with the county- wide Land Use Plan. This the 23rd day of March, 1987. Merritt Mill Road - Bids COUNCIL MEMBER HOWES MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 87-3-23/R-11. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, (8-0) . The resolution, as adopted, reads as follows: A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE MERRITT MILL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (87-3-23/R-11) WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has solicited formal bids by legal notice in The Chapel Hill Newspaper on February 8 and 15, 1987 in accordance with G.S. 143-129 for the Merritt Mill Road Improvements Project; and WHEREAS, the following bids were received and opened on February 24, 1987: Base Bid Bid Alternate Base Bid Less Contractor Amount (Deduct Sidewalk) Bid Alternate Crowder Construction Co. $ 817, 000.65 $ 28,312.80 $ 788,687. 85 C. C. Mangum, Inc.. $ 887,435.35 $ 35,692.20 $ 851, 743. 15 Nello Teer Company $ 994,350. 00 $ 45, 180. 00 $ 949, 170. 00 Lee Paving Company $1, 024,469.47 $ 22,590.00 $1,001, 879.47 (Engineer's Estimate) - $ (852, 433. 00) $ (30, 120.00) $ (822, 313. 00) and; WHEREAS, the Town and the low bidder have agreed to a reduction in project scope to meet budget limitations; and WHEREAS, the proposed reduced project scope will consist of all base bid improvements for approximately 1800 feet from the vicinity of station 22+00 to the end of the project, as shown on the approved plans; and MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY JOINT MEETING FEBRUARY 23r 1987 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met jointly with the Orange County Planning Board for a Quarterly Joint Public Hearing on February 23, 1987, 7 :30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough. North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall. Commissioners Moses Carey. Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell and Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT; Chair Barry Jacobs and members Sharlene Pilkey, Carl Walters, Steve Yuhasz► Betty Margison, Prince Taylor. Dan Eddleman, Chris Best. Tim Hubbard. and Mike Lewis. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager, Kenneth R. Thompson. Clerk to the Board, Beverly Blythe. Administrative Secretary, Joanna Bradshaw, Planning Director. Marvin Collins. Planners Gene Bell. Greg Szymik, Brad Torgan. Emily Crudup and Don Powell. A. BOARD 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 PUBLIC CJRGE 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 manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 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. C. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS - COUNCILMAN DAVID GODSCHALK - ALDERPERSON JUDITH WEGNER Chair Marshall opened the public hearing and indicated that Councilman David Godschalk of Chapel Hill and Alderperson Judith Wegner of Carrboro would make introductory comments. Their presen- tations would be followed by comments by Marvin Collins. Orange O5t 2 County Planning Director. At the close of his presentation citizen comments would be heard. P_ - - I • • I • t . . . I - , • _ 1 u- 1 • 1 • g - . - . I am very pleased to be able to speak to you on behalf of the group that attempted to negotiate solutions to a number of conflicts that have come up. I am also very pleased that we have such a large crowd in attendance tonight because I believe this is one of the more important issues that governments of our three jurisdictions will work on. I believe that it is important not only because of the substance of what we are going to be talking about here tonight but also because of the process that we went though to try to come to this agreement. To my knowledge. this is the first time that the three governments have engaged in such a long negotiating process in which we attempted to recognize the interests of each community as well as our joint interests and put them together into a unified set of agreements. During the past four months. an eight member task force of elected officials from Carrboro. Chapel Hill and Orange County met six times and a three person subcommittee held another dozen meetings to work out an agreement dealing with a number of related issues concerning further watershed protection and joint planning. The group prepared a 13 point agreement in principal designed to deal with these issues in a coordinated manner. The agreement has been adopted by each of the three governments and will be discussed tonight at this public hearing. I think that it should be stressed that this was put forward by representatives of each of the three jurisdictions. but it is by no means an accomplishment of any one person. In order to put this public hearing in context for your I would like to speak briefly about the major issues that we worked on in that negotiation process. Only two of those issues are going to be discussed in detail here tonightr but they are related to the other issues. I think it is important to understand the whole package in order to understand the two matters that are being heard tonight. The first issue is that not enough is known about the capacity of our water supply watersheds to tolerate development without harming the water supply. Growth is occurring in the watershed. The proposal made by the group was to commission a study of the carrying capacity of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. The alternative to that proposal would be to continue to rely on existing local government development standards. that is the standards of Orange County and Carrboro in these watersheds. The second issue is that Carrboro desires additional space for growth. but the residents of Calvander and other rural areas want to maintain the status quo. This has brought a conflict. The proposal that the committee came forward with is to redirect Carrboro' s growth away from the University Lake watershed where it historically has held extraterritorial jurisdiction to the Bolin Creek drainage basin to the north where public gravity sewer can be provided and where future developers will not endanger the water supply watershed. 05'e 3 The Committee suggests three possible ways to do this. One of them is to exchange the extraterritorial jurisdiction from the University Lake watershed on either a per acre or dwelling unit equivalency basis, i.e. , to exchange it from University Lake watershed to the Bolin Creek drainage basin. A second possible proposal is to extend Carrboro' s transition area to a transition area under the joint planning agreement further north into the Bolin Creek drainage basin. The third proposal is to defer further requests from Carrboro for annexation and water and sewer extensions into the watersheds until the capacity study is complete. The alternative to this would be to maintain Carrboro' s present extraterritorial jurisdiction and transition areas which the committee feels would leave a great deal of pressure on the University Lake watershed. The third issue is maintenance of the rural buffer which could be threatened by the extension of urban densities into it either by annexation by Carrboro or Chapel Hill or by extension of public water and sewer lines. However, this area continues to be attractive to growth. The proposal is that both communities agree to protect the rural buffer and not to annex into it voluntarily or involuntarily, carry out a rural buffer study to look at the standards for maintenance such as a water and sewer extension policy and the acquisition of conservation easements. The alternative to that is to use present county zoning and planning standards to guide future use of the rural buffer and to allow urban annexations to occur. Before we can be concerned where the line should be drawn between Carrboro and Chapel Hill regarding review of future development, the proposal is that joint courtesy review be established in the northern rural buffer area west of Interstate 40 in a strip about 4000 feet wide to the line used on the joint agreement map. Carrboro and Chapel Hill would share this area in terms of joint courtesy review to the County. The alternative would be that Chapel Hill alone would review and comment to the County who holds final authority. Issue number five is: should the individual local governments or should the Orange Water and Sewer Authority decide future growth patterns or should this be done in the joint fashion. The proposal is to use a joint planning committee to work out future plans and review the role of OWASA in the process. The alternative would be continued use of individual approaches. Issue number six is: should the proposed cluster development called Amberly be approved and annexed by Carrboro even though it lies within the University Lake watershed. We did not come to an agreement on this. We agreed to disagree perhaps and felt that Carrboro should continue to review the project which is already in the application process. Orange County and Chapel Hill may not necessarily support this construction. The alternative to that would be that Carrboro and Orange County could defer action on Amberly and all other development proposals in the water supply watersheds until the capacity study is complete. Everyone has had the opportunity to pick up this one sheet flyer as well as an agenda for the meeting. The one sheet flyer has the 13 points of our agreement on the back. Item number seven includes the OSo 4 public hearing items which are printed in all capital letters and a map of the area of concern is printed on the back side. We realize that these are complicated issues. It is hard even for experts to keep track of all of these things. We have tried to bring them together on this one sheet so that you would have a copy of something you could refer to during the hearing. If you will look at the map on this sheet, you will see that west of Carrboro next to University Lake is the extraterritorial jurisdiction of Carrboro which extends out part way into the watershed. Orange County maintains the rest of that jurisdiction of the watershed. You will see north of Carrboro an area that is in diagonal stripes which are slanted from the upper right to the lower left. This is the transition area proposed now under the joint planning agreement and then a dotted line further north up toward Duke Forest which is where that is supposed to be extended further into the Bolin Creek basin in order to give Carrboro extra growth. There are also two straight dashed lines across that area. The lower one is just under Homestead Road and would be the extraterritorial jurisdiction line for Carrboro on an equivalency basis, i.e. , the same number of dwelling units that could be built under the present capacity of the University Lake watershed would be built in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. The next dotted line north would be the extension on an acre per acre basis. Those are the alternatives. I think we will get further into them tonight. I realize that this is a fairly complicated matter, but we have tried to work out a number of our problems through this one negotiating process. Presentation by ,ruditb Wegner, Llderpersgn. Town of Carrboro I am going to explain to you briefly what the focus of tonight' s discussion is. As you see on the flyer that Mr. Godschalk referred to. item number seven is in capital letters and that principally is what we are going to be talking about tonight. I want to try to clear up some fairly abstract concepts here so you all have basic information► and you will know what the terminology means that we are using. The first issue that we' re talking about tonight has to do with the boundary line between the transition area and the rural buffer area as indicated on the map on the other side of the flyer. You should first understand that the transition area is a concept being used in the joint planning process by the various jurisdictions. It means a designated land that is in the process of changing from its rural character to land that may also be served by utilities and be developed at a somewhat higher density during the planning period in question (approximately a twenty year period) . You should know that the plans for the area designated the transition area would be that these be used for residential purposes only and that they would be developed at a density of no more than five units per acre. A lower level of density would be possible. depending on the carrying capacity and character of the land. That would be determined at a later point when we finally get down to the specific development of the zoning ordinance. You should also know that the process for resolving the regulations O5 , 5 and the application of regulations within areas designated as transition areas. It specifies in the joint planning agreement that the County would adopt the Town development regulations in a transition area. The Town would then handle the permit applications that might come in for land in that area and would be responsible for enforcing regulations within that area. The County, however, would have what is called courtesy review which is a time period in which they could comment on and respond to any permit applications in that area. The transition area may be compared to what is called a rural buffer area. The rural buffer is adjacent to the transition area and is rural in character and is to be maintained in that character at a very low density. In this area, the process used for decision making would be that of the County, including the approval of applications in that area. Permit application and enforcement would be handled by the County but the Town would have an opportunity to comment on any permits that are sought in that area. One question for discussion tonight is where the line should be drawn between the transition area and the rural buffer area. The recommendation from the committee that has been working on this is to see that two basic principles should be observed. First, there should be sufficient area specified for transition areas to ensure that there is no undue pressure on the University Lake watershed and no undue pressure to the developments within the rural buffer area. Secondly, we hope that there could be a permanent line drawn between the transition area and the rural buffer area so that as time goes on we don't see a roll back of erosion of the rural buffer area. We hope that rural buffer could be established with permanent rural development protected for a long time. The committee has therefore recommended that the line be returned to where it had been earlier before the latest change by the County, back to the Bolin Creek watershed line. The reason for this in part is that where you have the Bolin Creek watershed line, there would be no extensions of water and sewer lines across the drainage divide, and OWASA would not provide water and sewer service to the rural buffer area beyond that line. We feel that could be a permanent line observed in the future. There are specific areas which may draw comment from you. One is the Duke Forest area just north of Eubanks Road. There has been some concern that there be adequate buffering around that area. I don't think that the committee has specifically addressed that but I don't see that there would be any objection to a lower density area around that Duke Forest area indicated on the map. I think there may be some questions as Duke has engaged in lumbering on that area now and what approach should be taken. That could be studied within the context of the decision we are talking about tonight. In addition, there has been some question raised about the area between Rogers Road and Eubanks Road and it is not marked in any dark color on your map. Within that area there is a subdivision called Fox Meadows with lots currently at a one unit per acre density. When the county considered going to a two acre minimum lot size within the rural buffer, a great deal of concern was expressed by the residents. It may be appropriate to comment on whether that area, which is developed at one unit per acre, should be included in the transition area. That is the first issue for discussion 6 tonight. The second question is one that has caused more comment from the community. It is the concept of where the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Town of Carrboro should lie. You should know that extraterritorial jurisdiction is a concept established by State statute. For all towns in the State► there can be an area, depend- ing on population size, between one and three miles out from their corporate limits which is the area in which urban services might ultimately be provided. There are also statutes specifying certain conditions for such areas to be designated extraterritorial jurisdiction. In an extraterritorial area the Town would have more autonomy in establishing regulations because the Town may ultimately serve that area and it would be important that the Town be assured that the roads and services conform to Town standards. A thought here would be more autonomy for the Town in establishing land use regulations in that area, that would also be the case under the transition area concept. In return, the Town would be obliged to provide an opportunity for residents in its extraterritorial jurisdiction to be represented on its planning board. There has also been some discussion whether the County could be heard during the review or permit applications within this area. That is something that seems to be warranted. You should also understand that the designation of extraterritorial jurisdiction now in effect within the watershed area is not something that was done in recent years. I don't have sufficient information on how this came about but at some time it was thought that this was an appropriate way to designate an area outside the Carrboro Town boundary for possible control in regard to land use regulations. Chapel Hill has an area designated for extraterritorial jurisdiction so again I would like for you to understand that this is not a new concept. The question tonight for your consideration and discussion is whether the County should trade extraterritorial jurisdiction in an area outside the watershed in order to control what is now Carrboro' s extraterritorial jurisdiction. Carrboro feels that it is acting responsibly and is prepared to continue to do so within the area previously designated as its extraterritorial jurisdiction. As some of you may know► there was a watershed task force that looked into this at length in 1982 and 1983, and there were ordinance provisions setting densities in the neighborhood of two acres per unit for 75% for the watershed► and one acre per unit for the area furthest from University Lake. The subcommittee and the committee representatives of all the jurisdictions thought that there could be something gained by having the extraterritorial exchange take place. First, there would be a simplified scheme in which only the County would have regulatory authority in the watershed area. I would like to clarify for anyone who is in doubt that simply because this area is in the University Lake watershed and designated as extraterritorial jurisdiction, that does not mean that there is a desire for expansive development and growth. This matter was discussed in principal as you see on the Util 7 thirteen points on the back of the map. It was agreed to have the planning staff establish some possibilities for us. Carrboro has indicated that it would willing to undertake an acreage swap as indicated by the bolder line to the north. There was also some consideration whether there should be a density swap. Carrboro had felt that since the density is already at a low level because of efforts to restrict development within the watershed, that is not something it wants to pursue at this point. The last thing I want to do is clarify some things that are not at issue. First, it is clear that designation as transition are or designation as extraterritorial jurisdiction does not set densities for development and that is something that would be done in the context of establishing land use regulations. Second, you should know that extraterritorial jurisdiction and the designation as transition area do not have the force of creating some sort of an annexation to occur in the future. Annexation in North Carolina is controlled by state statute and if there were to be involuntary annexation this is something that is specifically controlled by statute and require certain use characteristics and/or density of population and subdivision within the area to be annexed. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Land Use nap Amendments a. JPA Land Use Plan - Expansion of Suburban Residential Land Use Classification b. JPA Land Use Plan - Boundary Designations for Transition Area and Rural Buffer 2. grange County-Carrboro Zoning Jurisdiction Boundary Presentation by Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Dkrepto Item la has to do with the expansion of the transition area. On the maps behind me is shown the first Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan taken to public hearing in August of 1986 . The one on my far left is the joint planning area plan that was adopted by Chapel Hill and Orange County in October of last year. The proposal for the expansion of the transition area would extend the line for the transition area to include approximately 1500 additional acres. The area would extend north from NC 86 and Buckhorn Branch to Duke Forest with some existing properties left between Duke Forest and the northern boundaries of the transition line. The map that I just uncovered shows in an orange color the transition area that is being proposed and it is essentially that which was presented at public hearing back in August of last year, excluding certain high density areas and also a major industrial center. So comparing the two maps you can see the proposed expansion of the transition areas. Item lb has to do with an actual designation of the transition area and rural buffer boundaries. Since the plan was adopted, there has been continued reference to the transition area versus the rural buffer. The orange area on the map, including interspersed green areas or resource conservation districts would constitute the transition area. The outer boundary of the orange area would be the U6 8 transition area boundary line. Everything within it, as was pointed out by Alderperson Wegner, would be subject to the Town of Carrboro' s jurisdiction if the County adopts their land development ordinances and zoning map. The rural buffer would be everything beyond that line and would encompass all the area that you see in a cream color as well as the interspersed green areas which are Duke Forest and the Resource Conservation District. In terms of Item 2. the zoning exchange, the larger map to my right shows the bulk of the joint planning area between Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Orange County. The grey areas that you see show the existing corporate limits as well as the existing extraterritorial areas. North of Carrboro the cross hatched areas that you see represent two possible alternatives for jurisdictional exchange which Alderperson Wegner has already discussed. The map to my far left shows the same areas on the Carrboro zoning map. These were prepared by the Town of Carrboro for discussion purposes only and they show the range of possibilities. The elongated orange colored area at the top and oriented in a northwest-southeast direction in a is the existing Univeristy Lake watershed of approximately 1800 acres under Carrboro's jurisdiction. The lighter area just north of Carrboro's jurisdiction represents one end of the continuum. That is based on an exchange using a density capacity of five units per acre. If that approach were used, 228 acres would be needed to accommodate the number of dwelling units that can be built in the Town of Carrboro's zoning jurisdiction under the present zoning ordinances in the University Lake watershed. If you go to the other extreme, that is an acre- for-acre swap. the light area to the northwest of Carrboro as well as the dark area together would encompass 1800 acres, and it would extend almost up to Eubanks Road. That would accommodate again on an acre-for-acre basis the same number of units permitted in University Lake watershed plus a great more if the transition area is extended. The Planning Department of Orange County staff takes no position on either proposal at this time. The matters are for discussion on behalf of the citizens. • • _ + ,' - • _ , . - • •1- , . ' , • • , explained the process of land use planning in Orange County, noting no decisions are to be made at the hearing. The only purpose of the hearing is to present information and to allow the citizens an opportunity to digest it and to express their thoughts. After the hearing, the matter is referred back to the Planning Board which also confers with the Township Advisory Council, in this case from Chapel Hill Township. The Planning Board will then make a decision or recommendation and present it to the Commissioners. Bteve Yuhasz, Orange County Planning Hoard member asked what the effective difference in the transition area between having extra territorial jurisdiction and just being a party to the Joint Planning Agreement would mean to Carrboro. Collins responded that Alderperson Wegner alluded to this issue in her presentation. One difference would be that Carrboro would have Mitt 9 legal authority and thus more autonomy based on State Statutes if extraterritorial jurisdiction were granted. Councilman David Godschalk indicated he would like to make just a brief statement in support of these matters on behalf of the Chapel Hill Town Council. The Chapel Hill Town Council strongly supports watershed protection and joint planning which are the two main reasons for this hearing. Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill now have the opportunity to: (1) Cooperate to protect our watersheds and thereby the communities drinking water and public health and; (2) cooperate in the planning and managing future growth and thereby the quality of life and public welfare. The representatives of the county and towns put before us share a need for watershed protection. Stewardship of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds is a matter which transends jurisdictional lines. These representatives have discussed possible solutions in pursuit of good stewardship principles. We will best protect the water supplies if we minimize the amount of asphalt roads, the potential for erosion and sedimentation, and the amount of impervious surfaces such as buildings and pavement. It is very important to control carefully the location and site design of land disturbing activity. Retaining areas with natural vegetation and ground covers provide for naturally clean stormwater before it reaches streams feeding the reservoir. Two key aspects of the thirteen point statement of principles are before us for hearing. One is change of Carrboro' s extraterritorial jurisdiction; and two is the extension of Carrboro' s transition area further north into the Bolin Creek drainage basin. We believe that the exchange of extraterritorial jurisdiction and the extension of the transition area are in the best interest of the whole community. since they provide sufficient solutions for future utility service. an environmentally sound area for future growth, and they take development pressure off the University Lake watershed. Together with the study of the carrying capacity of the watersheds and the identification of appropriate land use controls and standards. these approaches can maximize watershed protection and wise growth as we plan together. To summarize, we believe this plan to be in the entire community' s interest, although the geographic area of extraterritorial jurisdiction and transition area is a small portion of southern Orange County. Many people who now and in the future use our public water system will benefit from this comprehensive watershed protection strategy. Commissioner Jan Hartwell indicated that he thought a clear difference between extraterritorial jurisdiction and the transition area under joint planning was that in the extraterritorial jurisdiction it would be possible for the municipality to decide to change the land use plan and make high density residential or commercial in the future if they saw fit. The whole purpose of joint planning, as he understood it, was that the municipalities would be charged with the administration of specific permits. but they would not be allowed to change the land use plan without a joint approval process such as was being conducted at this moment O6 10 and indeed the final adoption of zoning there would be by County ordinance. He asked if he were correct in that distinction. Collins responded yes. Hartwell continued. inquiring about the cross hatched area on the map in the agenda packet. Collins responded that the cross hatched area is the amount of land that would be subtracted out of the northernmost extension to account for land owned by the University of North Carolina. Chair Marshall placed into the record a letter from Sally Nussbaum who couldn't be here tonight. A copy of the letter is included as an attachment to these minutes. She then opened the public hearing for citizen comment. Virctinia Cunninahm . President of the League of Women Voters, read a prepared statement. A copy of the statement is included as an attachment to these minutes. Ms. Linda Roberts read a letter submitted by J.V. and Opal C. Brockwell, Calvander residents. A copy of the letter is included as an attachment to these minutes. Ms. Roberts then introduced herself and commented as follows: I am a 26 year resident of Calvander and a member of the Calvander Community Association. I am one of those so-called selfish Calvander residents. My roots go back in Calvander many years to my dad' s 60-year residence and my mom' s 47-year residence as well as my grandparents who lived in Calvander from 1925 until they passed away. During that 60-year period they purchased the Calvander homeplace. the Calvander School site and other surrounding property totaling approximately 70 acres. Carrboro is now trying to take control of us and destroy that. My husband and I have raised our three children here and they appear to love it just as much as we do. We have some very good neighbors and are very thankful for it. We all enjoy being rural residents. As a land owner and tax paying citizen of Orange County, I would like everyone here tonight to know that I am bitterly opposed to Carrboro having any control of Calvander whatsoever. much less total control. We have absolutely no representatives from Calvander in Carrboro. As it is now, we have you as County Commissioners, who are elected by us. county residents, to represent us. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for giving us this chance to speak. All residents whom I have talked with feel as I do about the swap. The very idea of Carrboro trying to swap the watershed area for total control of 1805 acres of land is ludicrous. They have the watershed now and if they can't handle that, let them give it back to the County. It is grossly unfair to try to use us as their bargaining chip. I think one of the most important questions we 06c 11 need to ask here tonight is has Carrboro really been a good steward. I think most would have to agree that the answer is no. If they had, they would not be trying to go into the watershed with their development. They planned to put a road across Morgan Creek which is less than a mile from University Lake just so they could connect Hwy. 54 with Airport Road. It took several meetings and speeches from environmental experts to make them understand how that would severely damage the drinking water of by polluting it with lead from the road runoff. If Carrboro gained total control. I wonder if the people of Calvander can expect our community to look as bad in a few years as Carrboro does now with buildings and apartments piled on top of each other in every direction you look, streets that are so crowded and torn up they are always impassable. Well, we all know what a mess it is for approximately two square miles which they now control and we don' t want that to happen to our community. These are only a few examples of why it is so important to us to remain in the County's jurisdiction. This is not a slap against the general population of Carrboro. It is placed toward government which the people there are stuck with. The Carrboro officials have enough to keep them busy for the next 25 years if they want to clean up their own back yard and stay out of ours. If we wanted to live in their kind of environment, we would all move to Carrboro. Maybe that would make Carrboro officials happy. for they would not have to take control of Calvander to enjoy the pleasure of our company. It would really be a shame for Carrboro to get control of us and destroy our countryside and farm land, or planning new land uses in order to annex it like they did Barrington Hills. That is exactly what they would do in order to increase their tax base and double our taxes. What would we get in return? Nothing. except the privilege of living inside the Carrboro city limits. I can remember when the Tripp property to Barrington Hills was rural residential but in Carrboro' s planning and zoning jurisdiction. I don' t blame people like Mrs. Tripp for selling her property, because the Carrboro government was worrying the poor lady half to death trying to take it from her for a park. Barrington Hills residents tried every way to keep Carrboro from involuntarily annexing them, but Carrboro took them anyway. Now they are working their way out to our Calvander. My parents and I have no fond memories of our dealings with Carrboro officials in years past. About 10 years ago Carrboro had planned. unknown to us. to condemn the service station building and surrounding land and take it for a place to build a proposed future fire station. A friend who happened to be in Carrboro or involved in one of the night meetings found out about it and told my parents who hired a lawyer to check it out. Once they found out that we were on to them. they tried to deny everything and dropped the whole idea. Last year. a neighbor found out. through the grapevine of course. that Carrboro had an industrial park planned for the middle of Calvander, plus all surrounding properties to be rezoned for high density housing which could be 12 to 15 units per acre. 06t 12 We started attending their meetings and finally asked the County Commissioners to call for a public hearing, and we got rid of the industrial park and the rezoning was cut down to five units per acre. So we've been keeping pretty close tabs on Carrboro ever since. I have heard the area referred to as North Carrboro by some Carrboro officials. I think this is putting the cart before the horse. Mayor Porto said a few weeks ago he was trying to look out for the best interests of Carrboro. Well, we are looking out for the best interests of Calvander and the needs of all Orange County residents. So be a good sport. Carrboro and give up the watershed to the County but don't try to bargain with something you don't have and that is the Calvander community. We are going to fight for what is ours and for many of us our heritage until all the cows come home. Calvander residents are not selfish people as they were referred to on the radio today. To our elected County officials we strongly urge you to vote against the swapping of the watershed for our right to be represented by our elected County officials. Please save us from the clutches of land hungry Carrboro. Janet Tulowiecki , a resident of the Fox Meadows Subdivision made the following comments: I am here to register the strong opposition of my community to the proposed land swap which could place our community in the extra- territorial planning jurisdiction of Carrboro. I would like to submit to the Orange County Commissioners the names of 48 opponents to this plan. These people have expressed their shock, anger, disbelief, and fear about the proposed swap and area splitting. It all boils down to one statement - we do not want to become a part of Carrboro today or tomorrow. We will oppose any plans or proposals that might lead to this outcome. Why do we feel this way? We find it irrational to allow a non-representative govern- ment plan for us. Because of their past performance, we are skeptical and uneasy about the quality and intent of Carrboro' s planning effort. We take issue with being asked to accept this proposal and all that goes with it on good faith or blind faith alone. We are confused about a proposed designation as Carrboro' s extraterritorial jurisdiction when we reside 3.3 miles from Carrboro city limits and only 0.7 miles from Chapel Hill. We are concerned about a proposal that could physically split our community and our subdivision so that one could literally cross the street into another planning area. We must say in closing, that we do appreciate the opportunity afforded to us by the County Commissioners to speak on this issue. This is the first time that we, the hostages in this swap, have been asked how we feel about it. We implore the County Commissioners, our elected representatives, to vote against the proposed swap and preserve the current quality of life in our community and in the County as a whole. Ms. Ruby Blackwood presented a statement. a copy of which is attached to these minutes. 06 13 Mr. Bandy Danziger presented a petition containing more than 100 names of citizens opposed to the land swap. He noted those names were all residents of the Calvander community. He continued that the Calvander residents do endorse a new water supply watershed study and certainly do endorse a rural buffer study. The residents also endorse a uniform zoning and sewer/water policy in the watershed. In particular. they wished to endorse the policy of no water and sewer going into the watershed if the zoning is to be kept at one dwelling unit per 40.000 square feet. He felt that a practical application would be one unit per five acres noting this would be a conservative and safe solution during the two years it will take for a water quality study to be completed. Mr. Danziger indicated he supports the joint planning process but felt it could only work if all participants were committed. He expressed concern with considering extraterritorial jurisdiction for a body whose concerns were in opposition to all others regarding the watershed. He expressed the thought that the only way to deal with the watershed was for everyone to deal with it responsibly. He felt it was unfair to take a public health issue and turn it into a political football. He continued that he felt Carrboro was not willing to take the conservative water protection measures that the County and Chapel Hill are willing to take. Mr. Danziger indicated that he did not see the plan as being wrong in its general ideas but was concerned with the comments he had heard that if all the points were not agreed to as Carrboro wished. that the entire plan would become "unraveled" . If this be so, he felt it was a very unreasonable position. Mr. Dave Rutter , a Calvander resident, expressed concerns that a growth directed city is being threatened by and is threatening its own borders. He continued. noting that Carrboro's growth is being directed to the west and north. He indicated the revised Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan densities were much more acceptable to the Calvander Homestead Road residents. He indicated he felt the prospect of gradual growth to the north and west was such a disappointment to the Carrboro administration that it could hold the water supply for much of southern Orange County hostage until their territorial demands are met. He stated that the Association For A Better Calvander supports joint planning in the transitional areas. They do not support Carrboro' s unilateral jurisdiction over the extensive Calvander neighborhood. He continued that Calvander residents do support and recognize planning for natural growth in the community for the future. They do not support Carrboro's efforts to extort from Chapel Hill and the County so-called acre- for-acre or density swaps because the challenge of this whole process is reaching terms for a joint future land use plan. The compromise leaves the Calvander residents completely out of the process. He expressed concern that the swap would simply meet Carrboro's fiscal needs and none of those of the Calvander residents. He indicated he felt that the more economical solution would be for the County to pick up the planning tab for Carrboro's future growth and let zoning in the transitional area remain subject to the County board. 14 Ms. Dee StewArt expressed her family's love for the Calvander area in which they live and noted concerns with the effects of development on those who wish to live in rural areas as well as its effect on property taxes. She indicated the desire to continue with representation to whom she could present her concerns and felt this would not be the case if annexation by Carrboro should take p place. She continued, expressing concern with current vacancies on the Carrboro Planning Board and the lack of citizen input into these questions. She also noted concerns with the overcrowding in schools and the lack of funding availability for a new elementary school. She indicated strong opposition to the 13 point plan presented. Mr. Jody Roberts stated his family had been Calvander residents for four generations. He expressed concern that his community was becoming a trade-off for politicians noting that the Calvander community had no desire to become a part of Carrboro. 11.s. Ellen Kepley presented remarks to the Board. A copy of her presentation is attached as a part of these minutes. Mr. Jan Pinney expressed concern with the number of apartment buildings, the quality of construction and the quality of inspections in Carrboro's jurisdiction. He indicated he felt Carrboro is intent on growth by whatever direction it must take. He noted that Calvander and Eubanks Road have the landfill, and he felt this was indeed enough without having more Carrboro planning for the area. He indicated surprise that Chapel Hill is in support of such a plan. He asked that it be practiced in Calvander what Chapel Hill preaches and not what is politically expedient. Mr. Pinney noted that much of the Calvander area is in large tracts and those property owners are not interested in development or selling for development. This being the case, he felt that Carrboro would very soon again need room in which to expand. Ms. Debr& KeenA-Levin stated she is a homeowner in the Fox Meadow Subdivision and is opposed to the land swap between Orange County and Carrboro. She expressed the feeling that every citizen in Orange County is morally responsible for the watershed and that it is unacceptable to use it for land bargaining purposes. As a resident of Fox Meadow she expressed opposition to the change of land use classification from rural residential to suburban residential. She felt that neither classification reflects the character of the neighborhood which is one unit per acre and the intent is to see that this is preserved. Mr. Neal Kaplan stated he is a homewoner in the Fox Meadow Subdivision and is opposed to the land swap with Carrboro. He noted opposition to Carrboro having jurisdiction over his neighborhood which would mean having no representation or input UJ.cf 15 into what is decided about the future use of the land. He continued that he felt annexation would be sure to follow such a land swap. He indicated agreement with protection of the watershed and joint planning but not at the expense of putting development pressure on the Homestead Road area. He could see no benefits to his community from a land swap with Carrboro and wished to go on record as utterly opposed to the swap. Ms. Suzanne Allen expressed opposition to the land swap with Carrboro but is supportive of watershed protection and joint planning. She noted that with Fox Meadow not having representation in Carrboro. she is uncomfortable with Carrboro having planning jurisdiction over the area. She indicated that she felt Carrboro desires the swap only because it cannot develop the land in the watershed. She continued that she felt this swap is the first step toward annexation by Carrboro and she does not wish to be annexed by Carrboro because of its pro-grwth. high tax rate and its reputation of poor service. In summary. she desired to go on record as being opposed to the land swap and wished to remain under the current planning jurisdiction of Orange County. Jef began by pointing out what he considered to be errors in the map as related to the boundaries between rural buffer and transition areas. He spoke in general opposition to the extra- territorial jurisdiction swap. He indicated he was not anti growth but felt protection of the watershed was of foremost importance. He suggested deferring action until results of the proposed study of University Lake Watershed were available - a period currently estimated to be two years. He felt the ultimate answer was a greater spirit of compromise among the various governing bodies in Orange County. Finally. he indicated that he didn't think the best interests of Calvander residents were being considered by Carrboro. Mr. Arlin Scott indicated he moved into the Rogers Road/Homestead Road area from Ohio within the last year. He felt that if annexation were to take place it should be by Chapel Hill and not Carrboro since he lives nearer to Chapel Hill than Carrboro. He expressed the feeling that services from Chapel Hill would be better than those that would come from Carrboro. He asked to go on record as having no desire to be annexed by Carrboro. Mr. John Hartley a resident of Calvander. expressed concern with protection of the watershed noting that "we all live downstream" . He indicated Carrboro had not been planning properly and sporadic planning for high density over the entire area seems to be the case. He felt that annexation is the ultimate goal and wished to go on record as being opposed to being annexed by or being a part of Carrboro. Mx. Vance El.derkin stated he is a resident of Fox Meadow Subdivision. He expressed concern that officials whom he could not U 7 L` 16 vote for would have planning jurisdiction for the future of his community if the land swap takes place. Mr. George Woodgates stated he is a resident of Barrington Hills. He indicated that he was very suspicious of a move where Carrboro is going to take over the responsibility for an area such as the Calvander area. He indicated he felt this was just another move on Carrboro' s part to take over and annex an area with or without its consent. He stated he felt watershed protection was priority, and no expansion should be considered until such time as the study is completed. He presented a petition which stated the residents of Barrington Hills were strongly opposed to any plan to include Calvander as a part of Carrboro. Mr. Richard Ellington expressed opposition to the land swap. He had several questions concerning the proposed 13 point agreement. His first question regarded the study of resolution of positions. There was no time period specified for completion of that study. With no time period specified• residents of the transition area would be left "in limbo" . His second question was whether the County or Chapel Hill opposed extraterritorial jurisdiction for Carrboro in the University Lake Watershed when it was established. ,Shirley Marshall, Chair of the Board of Commissioners , responded in answer to the first question that at the end of the public hearing the topics discussed would be referred to the Orange County Planning Board for their recommendation. The Orange County Board of Commissioners would receive that recommendation at the April 6 meeting. In response to the second question. she indicated that the extraterritorial jurisdiction for Chapel Hill and Carrboro was a remnant of times when the County did not have enabling legislation. At that time. only cities could plan. zone. and enforce building codes. Cities were granted extraterritorial jurisdiction for first up to one mile and then up to three miles from their city limits for these functions. After the County was given enabling legislation for comprehensive planning. subdivision regulation and building code enforcement. the County did not have to give extraterritorial jurisdiction. Some ten years ago. additional extraterritorial jurisdiction was requested and the citizens of the County said no. This was the time when joint planning was initiated. . added that the rectangular boundary around Chapel Hill and Carrboro except as distorted by annexation is the result of an act of the General Assembly. It was established before the County was in the business of planning. Don Willhoitj Commissioner , said that it was initially designated in the 1950 's and was set aside as Chapel Hill area. It was subsequently split into Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The issue of watershed protection initially arose in 1971. Mr._ Ellington continued by expressing his concern not only for the proposed Amberly Subdivision but also Laurel Springs and 071 17 development of the watershed in general. While in some areas restrictions on development at one unit per five acres are in effect. Carrboro' s plans would allow for densities much higher than that. Allowing higher densities in the transition area north of Carrboro can only increase development pressure on the watershed. He urged the County not to approve extension of the extra territorial jurisdiction north of Carrboro. Mrs. Margaret Holton presented a statement► a copy of which is attached to these minutes. Mr. JAy Zaragoza, expressed concern that the 13 point plan was not a land use plan but wasteful thinking. He urged the County to devise a plan for sewer lines. He stated he felt if the governing bodies could get a grip on where the sewer and water lines will go. you will have a grip on land use planning over the County. Mr. Everette Billingsley. Executive Director of OWASA presented a statement► a copy of which is attached to these minutes. I(r. Warren L. Ganona presented a statement. a copy of which is attached to these minutes. Ms, Kathy Harris presented a statement. a copy of which is attached to these minutes. Mr._ Pearson Stewart noted that he had conflicting ideas in his mind concerning the future of the Calvander/Homestead Road area east of the University Lake Watershed. He stated that he is very supportive of the residents goal to keep the Calvander/Homestead Road area as rural and very low density. Consequently► he strongly supports the concept of joint planning for the area south of Duke Forest. He noted that there was a big difference between the Bolin Creek Watershed and the University Lake Watershed. The University Lake Watershed is very inappropriate for development and the Bolin Creek Watershed is very appropriate for development. He expressed support for the extension of the extraterritorial jurisdiction and the placing of University Lake Watershed under County jurisdiction. He did note that these were two conflicting concepts concerning the future of the Calvander/Homestead Road but each is realistic and realizable. Mr. Michael Hartley . a Bingham Township resident. indicated there are two watersheds in Bingham Township-Cane Creek and Collins Creek . The treatment of these two watersheds is very different. The water supply from Bingham which goes to Chapel Hill is substantially protected. The Collins Creek drainage which lies between Cane Creek and University Lake watersheds is used by Chapel Hill and receives a substantial amount of sewage from the treatment plants of Chapel Hill in the form of treated sludges which are Ole 18 applied to the lands in the Collins Creek basin. He indicated he felt any statement of what was acceptable in one drainage basin but not another is premature. He felt that the Collins Creek basin should also be included in any study of watersheds. He strongly opposed the concept of trading off an unprotected watershed for the protection of another. We indicated the need to look beyond reservoirs to groundwater and to that body of the public who do not consume water which is piped in but draws it untreated through private wells. Ms. Jean Earnhardt , a resident of Calvander. stated that her family owns 400 acres of land north of Calvander on Union Grove Church Road. She agreed with Mr. Pinney that there is not a trend for selling and developing land in the Calvander community. She noted that about 100 of these acres would be in the acre-for-acre swap. while another 200 acres would be in the proposed transition area. She continued, noting that her family is very interested in protecting the watershed. She indicated two purposes would be served if the swap takes place-the watershed would be protected and Carrboro would be given the license to grow but there is no sense of equity for those residents of the Calvander area. She urged the Commissioners not to diminish the way of life of the Calvander residents forever . Mr. Henry Whitfield indicated he did not own property in the area being considered for the swap. He expressed a concern over public confusion and lack of knowledge in the general public about planning. He expressed concerns that County planners were not aware of the impact of their planning efforts on the property owners/taxpayers of the County. He indicated he felt there would be a two-acre checkerboard over the entire county. He noted concerns that he felt planning was being done without the property owners having benefit of input. He indicated he felt pressure would not be so great on planners if there were only one planning office for the whole of Orange County. Chair Marshall asked Mr. Whitfield to please speak only to the issues on the public hearing agenda. Mr. Whitfield indicated he felt he was speaking to the transition area on the agenda. He expressed concern that he was not able to present his problem, indicating he felt the meetings were not properly set so all property owners could participate before decisions were made. He suggested that the entire County be under one planning jurisdiction and the problem of jurisdiction would be solved. Mr. David Mpreau spoke in favor of the concept of the 13 point plan in so far as it offers development in the Bolin Creek Watershed as a alternative to development in the University Lake Watershed. He noted that growth is occurring at a very rapid rate and the consequence of this is the transition of lands from lower to higher densities. He indicated the proposal represents a U7 4 19 logical step to accommodate growth while minimizing the adverse effects of growth and minimize the cost of providing sewer service. He indicated that wherever growth occurs. the problem of what to do about areas that are undergoing transition from lower to higher densities is an ongoing question. He indicated he felt that in addressing those issues it is appropriate that one consider the welfare of the larger community in the County and minimize the impacts of growth on everyone. Mr. Jay Bryan stated he is a resident of Carrboro and noted he could sympathize with the current government's need to try to reach out for some more property. He did not feel it is appropriate to use the method of swap to do this. He felt that if the Amberly project is approved. it will set a precedent that the County will not be able to overcome. It will allow development to come in and affect adjoining property values and cause land value to be reduced as density is increased. He felt any project proposed for the watershed should be kept under a moratorium until the watershed study is completed. He expressed the desire that OWASA take a more protective stance in terms of being the real advocate for water and not a land swap. Mr. Dan Okup encouraged water management. He noted that develop- ment will be taking place but asked that it not be allowed to take place in the watershed. University Lake Watershed is not only supplying water for Chapel Hill but will be a water supply for the entire southeastern region of Orange County. The only way to protect the watershed is to prevent development in the watershed. He urged that a good example be set as a portion of Chatham County is also in the University Lake watershed. Mr . David Lange stated he is a Calvander resident and opposes the land swap. He noted that everyone who spoke has been in favor of protection of the watershed. He indicated also that he could understand that Carrboro has a legitimate interest in expanding. He expressed the feeling that there is a lack of a principal argument in favor of the swap itself. He noted that the linkage between these two propositions does not depend on any principled argument advanced thus far by anyone. He noted that the linkage seemed to be grounded in political expediency. and he submitted that this is insufficient to justify the swap which is proposed. He asked for a reasonable affirmative base for the swap rather than political expediency. Ms. Helene Ivey encouraged watershed protection and suggested a County-wide bond issue to buy property for development. Mr. Larry Reed expressed concern with the location of this public hearing in view of the fact that the majority of the citizens affected would be nearer Chapel Hill High School as a meeting place. He spoke in favor of joint planning but strongly opposed the proposed land swap. He inquired why the County could not maintain 074 20 extraterritorial jurisdiction over the area and give Carrboro the right of courtesy review. He noted that the swap would create "taxation without representation" . He indicated he felt the swap goes against the Joint Planning Agreement. Mr. Ski Mendler stated that the watershed needed to preserved at all costs. He expressed the concern that Carrboro has no direction in which to grow. He felt that Calvander. Carrboro and all the surrounding areas have interdependent relationships that must be preserved. Future focus-the need to plan far ahead-is a fact. Perhaps it is not true that large urban development will continue to occur. He encouraged communication and cooperation for joint planning affects everyone. not just Calvander and Carrboro. Mayor Janes pgrto of Carrboro , reminded those present that Carrboro residents are citizens of Orange County and that between Carrboro and Chapel Hill, they make up two-thirds of the citizens of Orange County which is near 45.000 people. This fact needs to be remembered when one speaks of representation. He stated that his Board endorses the 13 point plan presented. Mayor Porto continued. stating that Carrboro' s growth strategy over the years has not be one of unbridled growth. He noted that Carrboro recognizes they cannot develop very intensely in the watershed. but they can develop there at a price. He noted that Carrboro was the first jurisdiction in the State to have a watershed ordinance of such magnitude. He noted that Carrboro had downzoned the watershed area to about what the County is trying to achieve for the rural buffer area. He indicated Carrboro' s watershed ordinance is a model ordinance for many other jurisdictions. He stated that if Carrboro is to remain a viable community in the future (40 to 50 years from now) it must have a direction in which it can grow logically, orderly and not rapidly or rampantly; the only available area is to the north. He indicated that the only way to assure that one's land is not sold or developed in later years by decendants is public dedication. He felt this is a fact. In referring to the land swap and statements from the public regarding annexation, Mayor Porto stated that Carrboro could not annex for six years unless it is a voluntary annexation. He noted also that there are certain density requirements which must be met for annexation that cannot be met by Calvander. Thus. it does not mean annexation will take place anytime in the near future. What it does mean is that when the decendants of Calvander residents sell the land and petition the Board for rezoning. then Carrboro' s Board would hear the case instead of the County Commissioners. Another concern is that there is no place in southern Orange County for businessmen who wish to expand or offer more services to the County. Mayor Porto noted that statistics now show that Orange County residents are going to Durham County to shop and buy services since there are no places for expansion in Orange County. This means a lot of Orange County money is leaving the county. 07 21 Mayor Porto stated that he and Carrboro have tried very hard to balance out the individual rights of property owners with the interests of the whole community. He noted that a balance had to be found seven years ago when the area was downzoned to accommodate the watershed. A balance must be found which most meets the needs of all County residents. Mr. Bob Pew, expressed sympathy with the residents of Calvander. He also indicated he could understand and appreciate the position of Carrboro where they are practically landlocked unless some provision is made for them to grow. He noted that OWASA has two responsibilities--that of providing water and sewer to answer the needs for growth of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County, and the responsibility of protecting the watershed. He spoke in favor of the swap because it would take the pressure off development in the watershed and put that same pressure into the Bolin Creek Watershed which can better handle development. It is good planning for Orange County to encourage growth where it can best be handled. Mr. Herb Bosnek referred to an old story regarding the city coming out to the country, noting that there are now newer methods for moderating the effect of the communities. Perhaps some of these could be taken into effect to moderate and ease the transitional phase for the residents of Calvander. The pressure of growth is great and so is the need for water. He concluded that he felt the negotiations could be spread a little more and perhaps resolve the issues. Mr . David Earhnardt stated he lives on Union Grove Church Road approximately one-half mile from Calvander. He noted his family is four generations strong in the area. He commented on the natural beauty of the area and a desire to see it remain so. He noted that a certain amount of growth is inevitable but there are many things which can be done to affect growth. He asked that the Commissioners please remember that they represent all the people of the County and take note of the opposition of Calvander residents. He felt the wishes and desires of the residents are not selfish ones but "represent the pursuit of our happiness" . There being no further comments, Chair Marshall closed the hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Carey moved to refer to the Orange County Planning Board for recommendation on April 6. Seconded by Commissioner Hartwell . VOTE: Unanimous _ O7t. . .---- • MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County Planning Board County Manager _ FROM: Planning Director • SUBJECT: Expansion of Transition Area - Joint Planning Area Boundary Designation-Transition Area/Rural Buffer DATE: February. 20. 1987 This memorandum reviews proposed changes to the Joint Planning Area (JPA) Land Use Plan adopted October 13. 1987. One change involves the proposed expansion of the Suburban Residential land " use classification (Transition Area) to the dividing line between Bolin Creek and. New Hope Creek drainage basins. (See Exhibit A. ) Another change is the need to have consistent boundary descriptions of the Transition Area and Rural Buffer in both the JRA and Orange County Land Use Plans. R . On January 14. 1986. the first draft of the JPA Land Use Plan was presented at public hearing. (See Exhibits B and C.) The Plan recommended that Bolin Creek basin be developed primarily at densities of 2-5 units per acre (Suburban Residential classification) . Peripheral areas and developments with an average lot size of one acre were recommended for a Rural Residential classification. . Urban Residential or high density development of 6-13 units per acre was recommended near the Old N.C. 86/Homestead Road intersection and adjacent to Buckhorn Branch and Old N.C. 86. A major commercial/industrial node was recommended on Homestead Road. A second public hearing- was held on April 17. 1986. A revision was recommended to the Plan which affected the Bolin Creek basin - combination of a small Rural Neighborhood node at Calvander with the larger commercial/industrial node proposed in January. (See Exhibit.D.) . . . On August 5. 1986. the Orange County Planning Board recommended changes to the Plan based on evidence received at the April public hearing and subsequent neighborhood meetings. An important change was the deletion of the commercial/industrial node proposed at. Calvander. Coupled with this revision was the deletion of high density Urban Residential areas and a reduction .Suburban Residential designations. both reflecting the decreased demand for housing formerly associated with the large-scale commercial/industrial center. Two weeks later. the - Board of County Commissioners adopted the JPA Land Use Plan. including the proposed changes in Bolin Creek basin. subject to the resolution , .of, iPlan:• differences with Chapel Hill. (See Exhibit E.) 07( On October 13. 1986. the Board of Commissioners. in joint session - with the Chapel Hill Town Council. approved the final version of the JPA Land Use Plan - and text. : The Town of Carrboro subsequently voiced its objection to the reduction of areas designated for Suburban Residential development. A work group comprised of representatives of both Towns and Orange County was established and began meeting to resolve the matter as well as others affecting the Joint Planning Area. __ A list of 13 principles proposed by the group-was approved in ' concept by the three jurisdictions. Among the principles was a proposal to carry the expansion of the Transition Area (Suburban Residential area) back to public hearing in February. • During the JPA Plan approval process and afterward. several key issues emerged concerning the boundary of the Transition Area in Bolin Creek basin. They are summarized below. an Strategy Plai In initial drafts of the JPA Plan as well as the' final document. a series of strategy maps were presented which illustrated different development strategies. The maps designated areas as urban. ' transition and rural buffer and were intended to define the boundary of the urban services -district or transition area for Chapel Hill-Carrboro. All four maps indicated growth occurring throughout Bolin Creek basin. Utility Sy em Expanaian Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) has advocated designating the entire Bolin Creek drainage basin as Transition Area. Portions of the basin are already served with gravity sewer systems. and it would be desirable to steer expected urban and suburban development into areas which can be served by extensions of such systems rather than using more expensive and complicated alternatives (pump stations and force mains) . OWASA• has also suggested that establishment of the Bolin Creek basin as a Transition Area might indirectly reduce development pressure in University Lake watershed. - Calvan3er Community At the April public hearing and subsequent neighborhood meetings. residents of the Calvander community voiced many co,.cerns about the Plan proposals. including the following: 1. Opposition to the proposed commercial/industrial node and high density housing; 2. Concern about the proposed extension of Homestead Road and northern loop system. particularly with respect to increased traffic and the effects on University Lake watershed; 3. Desire to retain "rural" character of Calvander area; and 4. Concerns'.of-u'rban expansion and subsequent annexation ---- �- by Carrboro. Int � . duke EQr t - The northern boundary of Bolin Creek basin extends through the Blackwood Division of Duke Forest. At the 17 April 1987 public .,_ • hearing. Judson Edeburn. Duke Forest Resource Manager. offered the following comments: A 'The Duke +Forest is best able to operate as a- natural outdoor laboratory in a completely rural setting. Development of land surrounding the Forest is, however. inevitable. In that the Rural Residential. Agricultural .Residential and Rural Buffer categories seem the most compatible with Duke Forest uses. all..lands'surrounding the Duke Forest should receive one of - these designations. This would require a change in the-proposed plan south of Eubanks Road and west of Old N.C. 86 -Neat Bald Mountain. The R-1 zone, which permits one dwelling per acre may be too dense to allow for a true rural buffer. • - -A density of fewer than one dwelling per acre may be more appropriate 'for. the Rural Buffer.' • Day Standards Three categories of residential land use were proposed initially - in the JPA Land Use Plan: Urban (6-.13 units/acre) ; Suburban (2-5 - units/acre) ; and Rural (one unit/acre) . The standards ultimately adopted included a two-acre minimum lot size requirement in the Rural Residential category. resulting in the Suburban Residential density range expanding to 1-5 units/acre. The adopted standards did create another problem - some existing subdivisions and others under construction were initially in compliance with the proposed standards. With adoption . of the Plan, they became nonconforming in terms of the two-acre lot size requirement. As an example. Fox Meadow Subdivision was developed partially before adoption of the Plan. The average lot size was approximately one acre. After adoption of the Plan. Fox Meadow remained in the „Rural Residential land use category but subsequent phases were confronted with adherence to the two-acre lot size standard. '1 Approval of the proposed expansion of the Suburban Residential classification to the boundaries of the Bolin Creek basin would be consistent with the following: 1. The expansion allows for the logical extension of gravity sewer systems; • 2. The expansion is consistent with growth strategy maps for urban development; • 3. The expansion is consistent with Calvander concerns - O 7 u in that high density and commercial/industrial proposals are not involved: '-A range of low to moderate-density (1-5 units/acre) residential development - is planned. Application of specific densities to property could be controlled through the rezoning or planned development/special use permit process; and 4. The expansion would provide consistency between Plan density standards and existing developznts in the Bolin Creek basin. . - ' . If approval is contemplated. provision should be made to address those concerns related to Duke Forest. Specifically. properties adjacent to Duke Forest should be left in the Rural Residential land use classification. - This would provide a low-density land use buffer adjacent to Duke Forest. - V ' . . - ; , - 1 . ' * I The Orange County Land Use Plan contains two land use categories which' have been referenced often in the JPA Land Use Plan approval process. These categories include: (1) Transition Areas. or land in the process of changing from rural to urban. suitable for urban-type densities and which would be provided with public utilities and services within the planning period; and (2) Rural Buffer. or land adjacent._to a Transition Area which is rural in character and which should remain rural. contain very low-density residential uses and not require urban services during the planning period. While referred to frequently. Transition Area and Rural Buffer boundaries have not been delineated on the JPA Land Use Plan. Exhibit A illustrates existing boundaries for each category. Suburban and Urban Residential land use designations have been incorporated within the Transition Area boundaries where higher _ ' densities are permitted. Land Use designations for Rural Residential and Agricultural Uses predominate in the Rural. Buffer area. If the Suburban Residential classification is extended further into Bolin Creek basin. the Transition Area boundary would be shifted accordingly. KOAotijethia3- Marvin Collins Planning Director CSR A N G E COUNTY 080 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date 4 , 7 Act Actioneiggda Item * d SUBJECT: DEER CROSSING - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: No immediate action necessary DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment (s) Information Contact: Emily Crudup Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan Certification Agency Comments Draft 4(7/87 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To approve the Preliminary Plan for Deer Crossing Sub- division. BACKGROUND: The property is a 12.3 acre tract on the south side of Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) in Bingham Township. Six lots are proposed averaging 1.98 acres in size. The property is zoned Agricultural-Residential. The Land Use Plan designa- tion is identical. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. At its April 7 , 1987 meeting. the Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan subject to the acreage for each lot, including and excluding the rights-of-way, being shown on the Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Preliminary Plan as recommended by the Planning Board. There is no time limit with regard to Board of Commissioner action following receipt of the Planning Board recommen- dation. ■ PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ( INK ONLY) i/85 081 App TC ++ R V+e+ Pop VI ORANGE LIN r v DATE: ,December 10 , 1986 SUBDIVISION NAME: Deer Crossing _ LOCATION: , Bingham Township, South side of SR 1005 OWNER/DEVELOPER: Wilbur McLamb , ADDRESS: os •+.col ox TELEPHONE NO. : =rare-1 aver , • . AGENT/CONTACT: Robin Lackey TELEPHONE NO . : 929-0323 • 214 W._ Rosemary Street . '---Chapel Heil, 14 C. 27514 A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Nap if_ Black Lot Is] ale Township ,Bingham Zoning Oistrictlsh Total Number of Acres : 12 . 30 Phases : one Tote 1 Number of Lots: 6 Average Lot "'Si ze:" -.0 Minimum Lot Size .. Number/Typ• of Structrem: Lexisting] , none (proposed) single u i1y Lineal Feet in Streets: Acres in Open Specs _ resiaentia Indi vi dua l Pub Lictspeclfy) Cammunity X Ind iri due l Wastewater Di, Pub ll c lineal T ) Community ?: • aatswater t•r O1 :pose l:, 7 .,..... y ..-� School District: Fire D1etriet: , Benersl Land Use. in Area: res� ential subdivision and agricultural Critical Areas.: X stresm/drainagewaye flood prone areas watershed I'peel fy) ____historic cites stiller(sap lain], • S. ALL p late must be submitted on sheet no sea LLD? then one inch •qua Ls two- hundred feet I1*.200 ' ) ■nd_ no larger than one inch aqua la fifty test (101E50' 3 end must contain the following info Peet i on : sM/1e/slas ewe dose.M ■51 Ldla, esteem' Lime. • some of semmele1 '"? by estatlee •• sweet let heck items --- -.▪ ' :5 ogee Of egrespor, omeleagr or Wrest yest Lead plaemeP °f• •sl,sl., out prmpg•.e ..s.- :mnpleted) „� ltlelb) s5.11simlrt saw rants torsios's, utilities, • pgle, aorta errs. lasrsa at ..� :: room, att.)• tae of goo) .a/5stes, proposed awls Opts ltmtedlse rests/.. oases) .CJ•I.ts' rteste—et■ s, • •; tolmobles tea see∎blms.w■Let tmelpol55 etssensem. .se •� • referees.. -•-. street hiss* Ise stet, Mae w. A..; biomes," paper eed glib - '•'• - 5 .er, • n begrime* see etetewgss- s- Mel'ties Ne Prepense wr •.i peel mreeee •t tee treat ' •! ',a,,.. .t1 L11155. leelmles . .'•::::. w Mrsae. at Loss, 1mLe51•e •: typo, •1555, • a••..< sae .ss►aetee arse eltal. < beereaq. ,51555 sled v< rlpeatme Ohms . • . ,rf 1. geese Le. •" soots, Ise rem , . • • '., eel Otis, ere prspa.N MI inert _ • '° •rss...s Les Limes elle •• F Ise unitise 515re age 'Pees, N.Y., •1Sesetsae ,;,;,y�; teeleel t arose—sails.■ Les members see /5t.Pinside e,tel Is pages., Limes • - c 15.1NI.e emir, end .1555 spseer.pey et See foot 1103 of travelog, See 555.Leera Mg tater..La -, `. Pert Pea tot •It555.5% bee ..... ,...,, ester 10041101. asreeaa. fLooe■ :, r;: 'seersL Gems est. lags ate • .1, pee VL..SpWiles - v r.spe) �r strew Mid d todge ts_ personaat foster., mesa es {• . ts.1SIM1as rest ngtoe but Wises. seesta,les, saralmsrsat petestlel •:: 51.1ar1. lsemseres, "- ts.eeelp. germ Ps to and eatr.� .'''-'; .eJ.t.tm, Let Layout "•:::‘‘,.:::.• torrttorl•l g Lees ies seems at .disielee prsgrs7 .k.:.:::. J5Mmtast.m Limes melee gaolers ge5 ,eae1mimeos Mean tea pempert7 Q'+}=• ■••••tmn MO 5155 •f parse la p•elsssse for pee VI s•. •P P.a.r,es to gseeem .,,,r les•tlan sae sits •f Less of restricted s..,I.P.set p 1.1 sod u+s:i1:: 55555 1,. 5n plos regarding 'see .terswsar asm.gosoat •len tmCleatteg prevision for menu et of the flrat 1/2 Ines, of runoff fro. ionoreIaue ■urfa•s. O8 c, OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 1 . Twenty—six (25) copies of the preliminary plat 2. Two full size copies of an Orange County Tax map Ione copy with to parcels involved clearly marked) . S. Where municipal or DWASA sower is not . avai !Able , a Latter from the Orang County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system to each Lat. • I , the applicant, harcertify ats2'i0s00 'fese0leubdl vasionstofnl5s complete an accurate. I understand leas or a *370.00 fee (subdivisions of IS Lots or wore) is due at the time o app Lication . A $5.00 per Lot fee is this et the - •tiwa the final. plat 1 presented for recordation . - • ihiLeal44 fileJ.a APPLICANT 'S SIGNATURE OWNER 'S SIGNATURE DATE DAT • FEES• Arebont ` 7-7° Date Paid /- /2- t7 Receipt $3 y 2 • • • M M 2 - _ o. T PCL. 143 • OwIT P'"L '� - a 0 x 62 N 782.000 _ Pt-a.K III use w Gt2QS511 owl�lEg: W Itdue MMb . . zokmAict : At • J ocos BOG r r � J ��I6B II 10 ( .) CO CD C. 77 !$r ?Z / - �� ' 2609 24E4 . - 0 9 A AC .�22D � 01 0 • •21t9 46 `■ 176AG 8 -- 22 AC. a - j 119 .�St4D �� Tr .5130 La1G r 1 .1 I. = • j a 42 'N 780 000 1 :.: 4.615AC• • I - ��. Q -r - 3463AC. P 9616 `.-/ '-.o: L 0 6747 I « ti AL t.S9. di..... z L 14 O- L 'D64b e Ire `S. � �� r • • 96S. .y IR :� a 1 k . G 172�4� ,. •,33„. / Cs -- - 2 . ....... 4 .ek .R. . 4' .4. / v. . 7340 37 .7,...e .4e `,_ �� AC ` .9:•;•f a `� • i.- / 1 11.2e3A ,�• �� 167.6" • n rrr 1 I 1 \ h DEER CROSSING 084 11 /85 ORANGE COUNTY. CFR? IFIDATION AND APPROVALS_ - PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Emily Crudup SKETCH PLAN: Received 12-12-86 Reviewed 12-17-86 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 1-12"87 Reviewed 1-15-87 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 2`11-87 Reviewed 2-18-87 NCDOT: DATE, 3--87 CERTIFICATION Pat Ivey, Assistant District Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE 2-26-87 CERT I F i CAT I ON N/A UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE Cert i f 1 cat i on OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council (Date) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill (Date) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough _ (Date) Durham (Date) Other - S t E ,W Fa i rcl oth 3-6-87 (Date) Health Department ,Q_ Burns 3-4-87 _(Date) PLANNING BOARD Date 4-7-87 Approval Approval with Conditions Y Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial 75 I 4 g O8 JW, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G.MARTIN March 4, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E.HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS,P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Ms. Emily Crudup Orange County Planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane Eillsborough, NC 27278 - Subject: Deer Crossing Subdivision Off SR 1005 Dear Ms. Crudup: I have reviewed the subject preliminary plan and have found the sight distance adequate. Please note that a 15—inch pipe and a driveway permit accompanied by a fifty ($50.00) dollar inspection fee is required. Attached is a sample detail for a driveway connection onto a state maintained road. Please include such a detail on all future plans. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, (.. . M. Mills .. - ISTR.ICT ENGINEER .7MM/SPI:jbh Arta. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 08 '...M N. 0:144 MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Crudup, Planner II FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Stormwater Management for Deer Crossing DATE: March 6, 1987 This subdivision uses large lots, restricted additional impervious surfaces, the retention of existing vegetation, and grassed swells along the new road to control runoff . This subdivision meets the Ordinance requirements. V r DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4-7-87 subdivision Orange County would not receive that information without a specific request. Jacobs asked that Collins request such information . On the Gatemoore project, Szymik responded that he had received a revised preliminary plan and it is being sent to appropriate agencies for their review . Jacobs informed the Board that the capacity use study for the Eno is to be completed this summer. AGENDA ITEM 17 : SUBDIVISION APPLICATION a. Deer Crossing (Preliminary Plat - Bingham Township) Presentation by Greg Szymik. Action on this Plan was deferred from the March 16, 1987 meeting in order to resolve a question regarding the required drainage easement width. Since the March 16 meeting, the Preliminary Plan has been revised to address the concerns of the Planning Staff from that meeting. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan subject to the acreage for each lot, including and excluding the rights-of-way, being shown on the plat. MOTION: Kramer moved approval as recommended by Planning Staff. Seconded by Hubbard. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM 08: REPORT a. Hattie Mae Williams Property Board member Brenda Swann expressed concern and a desire to help settle a dispute over landlocked property for Mrs. Williams. Ms. Swann expressed concern and confusion that so many residents seem to have access to properties beyond that of Mrs. Williams and yet Mrs. Williams is not able to use that same road. She indicated she felt Mrs. Williams is a victim of unfair and unjust treatment. 0 R'''ANGE C O U N T Y PLANNING BOARD 088 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date Mav J , 1987 Action 1 genda Item 4 4. SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISEMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment (s) Information Contact: Marvin Collins Legal Notice Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To request board approval of the legal notice for the public hearing on May 26 , 1987 . BACKGROUND: The regularly scheduled quarterly public hearing will be held on May 26 , 1987 . The Board of Commissioners reviews notices for public hearing for form and content prior to advertisement. Approval of the notice will permit adver- tisement on May 13 and 20► 1987 as required by N.C. General Statutes. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Notice of Public Hearing for May 26 , 1987 . ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Q 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE PLAN. ZONING ATLAS. ZONING ORDINANCE, AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY. N.C. Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Section 323 and 343. Article 20- Sections 20 .5 and 20 .6 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, and Section VIII of the Orange County Subdivision Regula- tions, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Court- house (New) , 106 East Margaret Lane. Hillsborough. North Carolina, on Tuesday. May 26 , 1987, at 7 : 30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the adoption of proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan, Zoning Atlas, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations. MANCE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN Amend the ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN, SECTION 3 .7 - LITTLE RIVER TOWNSHIP, to address changing land use and population patterns in the township. This plan amendment is in response to a five (5) year update schedule specified at the time of plan adoption in 1981. MAME SQL ZONING ATLAS The proposed amendments to the Zoning Atlas under consideration are as follows: 1. Z-2-87 WILDWOOD SECTION IV The property in question is located on the west side of NC 86 west of the existing portions of Wildwood subdivision in Hillsborough Township. The property that would be rezoned is a portion of parcels 4 and 26 on Hillsborough Township tax map 45 . The property that would be rezoned consists of 28.80 acres. The current zoning of the property is Rural Residential (R-l) . The proposed zoning is Medium Intensity Residential (R-4) . Tyr PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES ()9 Li PAGE 2 2 . PD-1-87 FLOWERS MOBILE HOME PARK A Planned Development-Mobile Home Park (PD-MHP) has been proposed on property located on the west side of Mt. Hermon Church Road (SR 1812) just south of I-85 . The property that would be rezoned is a portion of parcel 33A on Eno Township tax map 26 . The property that would be rezoned would be a 25 .0 acre addition to the existing Flowers Mobile Home Park . The present zoning of the property is Rural Residential (R-1) with Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) zoning. The p ro- posed PD-MAP would be developed in accordance with the requirements of the R-1 and MTC zoning districts and according to the requirements of PD-MHP and the "Class A" Special Use Permit that would be required for the project. MIME COUNTY mum DANCE The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance under consideration are as follows: 1. Amend Article 2 .3 .3 .4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADMINIS- TRATION by changing public notification procedures for variances and "Class B" Special Use Permits. The current requirement that property being con- sidered for a variance or Special Use Permit be posted at least 15 days prior to the Board of Adjustment meeting would be changed to at least 10 days prior to the Board meeting. 2. Amend Article 5 .1.1 SCHEDULE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS by adding Planned Development-Mobile Home Parks as allowable uses in zoning districts R- 5. R-8. and R-13 (Medium and High Intensity Resi- dential) . Article 5 .1.1 would also be amended by adding Required Minimum Recreation Space Ratios for Planned Development-Mobile Home Parks in zoning districts RB. AR, R-1, R-2, R-3. and R-4 (Rural, Suburban, and Low Intensity Residential) . =ME S_UBD VIs pJ RECUATIQgs The proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations under consideration are as follows: 1. Amend Section III-B-3 STAFF REVIEW OF SKETCH PLANS by placing a one (1) year time limit on the vali- dity of Planning Staff Sketch Plan review comments and by clarifying language regarding the signifi- cance of the Staff comments. 091 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, PAGE 3 2 . Amend Section VIII-B AMENDMENT PROCEDURE by changing public notification procedures for amend- ments to the Subdivision Regulations. The current requirement that public notice should appear not less than 15 days prior to a public hearing would be changed to not less than 10 days and not more than 25 days before the public hearing. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment must be received during the public hearing. Those wishing to 0 provide competent material and substantial evidenceoasltomthe specific manner in which they are opposed to the amendments. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence presented at public hearing will be examined by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposal which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposal should be directed to the Orange County Planning Department. The Planning epartment is located in the Orange County Agricultural/Environmental Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, N.C. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: May 13, 1987 May 20, 1987 092 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A nda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: MAY 4, 1987 SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY STUDY DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes No ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: SYLVIA PRICE Proposed EDC Preliminary Study Outline 4 p p TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough — 732-8181 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 Mebane — 227-2031 Durham — 688-7331 PURPOSE: To request funding to carry out the proposed Study. BACKGROUND: In December of 1982, the EDC was given a charge of achieving the goal of increased economic development through clear and effective strategies and policies which stimulate development of an appropriate rate, type, location and balance to serve the public interest. Currently, the EDC believes there is misunderstanding as to what constitutes economic growth and development, and further, that there are factors within the infrastructure and operating procedures at both the County and municipal levels that inhibit proper growth and development. The EDC desires to continue its charge, and believes that it is progress in fulfilling its prudent(ED) plan on which to guide tand haregulate acthen expected growth and development in the County and its encompassed municipalities. A study is proposed to develop a more explicit, operational definition of "economic development", the structure of an eventual ED plan, and to identify models, policy guidelines/methods, and data required to make an ED plan realistic, effective and operational. The study will be carried out by a consultant during the period of late May to August 1987, and will thus be completed prior to commencement of the projected Planning Department work to prepare the ED element of the comprehensive plan. Mow the study will be used. The results of the Study will be available as an input into the on—going work of the Planning Board and staff to update the Land Use Plan, and to prepare an enhanced comprehensive plan, which would have economic development (ED) as one of its elements. For example, the EDC study will help to define • 09d standards for the type and location of ED, as well as recommending ratios for the amount of ED, Linked to population increase and residential acreage. Analogous projects are the Master Park Plan and the Natural Features Inventory. How much of the Comprehensive Plan preparation will be done in—house, and how much might require extra study by consultants will be assessed at a later date. Liars n i P n'n B rd Discussions have been held between members of the EDC and members of the Orange County Planning Board, and it has been agreed that a joint committee be established to oversee the study and the subsequent preparation of the ED element of the Comprehensive Plan. At its meeting on April 7, 1987, the Planning Board unanimously endorsed the EDC Preliminary Study, and encouraged its rapid completion. Funding required for the preliminary study is $5000. The only source available for funding is the County Contingency Account. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Approve in concept the development of a comprehensive ED plan for Orange County; and 2) Approve the preliminary study with funding to be appro- priated from the Contingency Account. For Submission to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, 4 May 1987 U S 4 • PROPOSED EDC PRELIMINARY STUDY It is believed that an overall and comprehensive plan for economic growth and development for Orange County is necessary if the Economic Development Commission is to fulfill its charge. This charge, which is part of the Resolution dated December 14, 1982, specifically states: "it is deemed desirable to achieve the goal of . increased economic development through clear and effective strategies and policies which stimulate development of an appropriate rate, type, location and balance to serve the public interest"; and that the Economic Development Commission shall "carry out an economic development program for all portions of the County and its encom- passed municipalities." • Currently, there is considerable misunderstanding in the Country as to what constitutes economic growth and development, and it is further believed that there are factors within the infrastructure and operating procedures at both the County and the municipal levels that are inhibitors to proper growth and development. Since it is generally acknowledged that development of some sort is going to occur, it is prudent to have in place a plan on which to guide and regulate this growth. As a result, and because the Economic Development Commission desires to continue its progress in fulfilling its charge, the EDC 09L-: EDC Preliminary Study — Page 2 requests that the County Commissioners: 1 ) accept and approve that an overall and comprehensive economic development plan for Orange County is needed; and 2) appropriate $5000.00 to the Economic Development Commission to conduct a preliminary study to develop a set of guidelines and recommendations to be used by the Commission in its initiation of a major comprehensive study. The expected outcome of this future major study would be a proposed economic development plan for Orange County which would be offered to the County Commis- sioners for acceptance. Specifically, the $5,000.00 would be used to provide answers to the following questions. • 1 . Specify explicit operational definitions of "economic development" which would be appropriate for Orange County. (The preliminary study should provide suggested definitions. The EDC will then consider these suggestions and agree on an acceptable operational definition for "economic development" in Orange County. ) 2. Is the vision of an overall and comprehensive economic development plan for the county and its encompassed municipalities feasible? If so, how can such an economic development plan be structured so as to make it not only consistent with the Orange County Land Use Plan and the relevant municipal plans, but also to have equal status with those existing and future plans? EDC Preliminary Study — Page 3 096 3. Do formulas or receipes or models exist that will assist in the formulation of the following types of policy guidelines: a. If population increases by X%, then the need for support services [public and private) must increase by Y%? The answers provided should relate to specific service and infrastructure, and should be in terms of capacity measures and costs. b. If X acres are developed for residential uses, then Y acres should be set aside for economic development? c. In a. and b. above, what effect will economic development have in offsetting the costs to the public sector (i .e. infrastructure, public safety, parks and recreation, other government services)? d. How far away from residential development should business and commerce be Located in order to protect the residential environment and yet provide convenient access which minimizes traffic strain and promotes less dependence on costly roadways? EDC Preliminary Study — Page 4 4. What data must be assembled by the major study to make the economic development plan realistic, effective and operational? 5. What is a suggested timetable for conducting the major study? S. What is the likely cost for the major study? 7. What firms or individuals should be included in the List of potential contractors for undertaking the major study? O9 , ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Ag a ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: May 4, 1987 SUBJECT: JTPA-JOB TRAINING PLAN/SDA NAME CHANGE DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S JTPA Memorandum OFFICE,X501 Job Training Plan Amendment to PIC/Chief Elected TELEPHONE NUMBER: Official Agreement Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To approve the 1987/88 Job Training Plan Summary and change the name of the SDA. BACKGROUND: On March 13, 1987 the Private Industry Council approved the 1987/88 Job Training Plan. In accordance with the consortium agreement, all units of government in the Central Piedmont Consortium are required to approve the plan before submission to the State Division of Employment and Training. The Board has three options (1) approve Job Training Plan, (2) disapprove plan, or (3) approve plan with modifications. In August, 1986 the Private Industry Council recommended its name change from Central Piedmont to Research Triangle Private Industry Council. To be consistent with the PIC's decision, it has been recommended that the Service Delivery Area change from Central Piedmont to Research Triangle Service Delivery Area. This requires approval by the governmental units participating in the consortium agreement. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the 1987/88 Job Training Plan with the modifications included in the attached memorandum and formally notify County PIC members and Central Piedmont Employment Office of the Board's modifications. Approve and amendment Training A r to th Private Industry Council/Chief Elected Officials (consortium agreement) to change the name of the Service Delivery Area and Private Industry Council from Central Piedmont to Research Triangle. Authorize Chair to sign appropriate documents. • V9u ORANGE COUNTY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Commissioner Shirley Marshall and Board of Commissioners FROM: Albert Kittrell, Assistant County Manager DATE: April 28, 1987 SUBJECT: JTPA-1987 Job Training Plan This memorandum reports to the Board a specific course of action for the fiscal year 1987-88 JTPA Program Year. The recommended modifications are in response to the issues and concerns expressed by the Chair and Board, County PIC members, human services agencies and staff. BACKGROUND Effective July 1, 1986 the County renewed its employment and training consortium agreement with Durham County and the City of Durham for the purpose of providing employment and training services within the Durham/orange Service Delivery Area (SDA) . The agreement redesignated the Central Piedmont Training and Employment Consortium as the SDA for the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) ; re-established the Central Piedmont Private Industry Council (PIC) , and continued relations with the Central Piedmont Employment and Training Office. The duration of the agreement is two years. JTPA is a federally funded program with the primary goal of training youth and unskilled adults to enter the labor force. The SDA is the primary unit for administration under JTPA. The PIC providesapolic and program oversight with respect to activities under the job training p and The employment and training office, housed under the City of Durham organization structure, administers JTPA program activities. The program activities are: (1) 21217211!=1211_TX4ininor programs are designed for those individuals whose skill levels are inadequate to gain employment without special consideration from an employer. Training contracts are developed on an individual basis with interested employers in the area. Employers are reimbursed up to 50% of the trainee's hourly wage to cover the extraordinary recruiting, training, and lower productivity coft the participants. The length of training is determined by the specific vocational preparation scale. training areas are not limited by the PIC. The 100 Training is provided on site and/or areas designated by the company. (2) The Individual Referral Pro ram allows who need specific occ na upatiol training to be referred to training on an individual basis in the college system. Training is allowed where opengsiin unsubsidized employment will exist when training is completed. This approach allows for training in more occupations by utilizing the entire range of training services available in the community college system. Participants may be individually referred for a single course, several courses, or an entire curriculum. This program is conducted by Durham Technical Institute (DTI) and Technical College of Alamance (TCA) . (3) Chamber of Commerce placement Pro ram is a direct placement project operated by the Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce. The project concentrates on providing JTPA eligible participants employability assessment, job search skills, referral and preparation for interviews. The project utilizes the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit as means for developing employment opportunities with employers that may be interested in employing the disadvantaged client but not interested in a formal contractural relationship. (4) Clerk-T ist Work Processin Pro ram is designed to help participants develop a variety of clerical skills for entry level employment in the business field. The program provides a proper balance between skill devejopmentceand professional qualifications required A participant may become a word processor, clerk- typist, clerk, file clerk, receptionist, office assistant or secretary upon successful completion of the program. (5) Dro out Prevention Job Placement Center projects are designed to provide training and program activities to in-school youth to prevent them from dropping out of school and enhance their transition from school into the Labor Market. Some of the activities and training to be provided youth in this project include: job development, job research education, skills training, assistance, remedial g� and job counseling activities promoting education to work transition, provision of labor market (job) information, training to youth to help obtain and retain employment, improved access to academic, vocational, and remedial in-school programs, and career information regarding employment and training. The Center Projects, coordinated by the Department of 101 Public Instruction, are located at Hillside High School and Southern High School in Durham and Orange High School in Orange County. (6) Institutional Offenders Pro'ect is operated under contract with the Employment Service and provides an Employment Service Specialist who will outreach, recruitment and assessment servicesovitoo offenders while they are in prison or on parole and utilize available community resources to provide jobs and training plans for their release and re-entry into the community. (7) Adult Basic Education General Education Develo meet is a comprehensive form of study to prepare individuals to pass the GED Test. Individuals lacking a high school diploma are enrolled, according to their reading and math level, in a GED class which lasts approximately eleven weeks or an ABE class which has an approximate duration of twenty-two weeks. This project is coordinated by DTI. The projects are located in Durham at DTI, in Chapel Hill at the Hargraves Recreation Center and in Hillsborough at 111 Churton Street. (8) The Claims-Clerk and Retail Sales Customer Relations Program is designed to prepare the participant to work in sales and other customer related services. The Retail Sales participant receives training in communications, math, personal development, sales, customer relations, the operation of electronic calculators and electronic cash registers. The Claims participant receives the above training and insurance terminology, and contract reading. Eighty percent the Retail Sales curriculum is applicable intraining claims clerks. The emphasis on Retail Sales or Claims training is predicated on labor market information concerning the availability of jobs. A Retail Sales participant would be able to obtain various positions in the Retail Sales field. Claims participants would be able to obtain retail sales positions as well as Insurance Claims Clerk, Insurance Adjudicator or Insurance Cashier positions upon successful completion of the program. This self-contained, 11 week program is held at the Chapel Hill Training Center. (9) Electronig__Manufacturinff is designed with a technical curriculum and hands on experience to provide the appropriate knowledge and manual skills needed for entry level placement in Electronic Manufacturing. This self-contained, 6 week program is held at the Lyon Park Training Center and coordinated by Durham 1O Technical Institute. (10) The Summer Youth Pro ram jobs for disadvanta e d (Title II-B) provides summer private non-profit organizations14~Priority is and those organizations capable of n given most meaningful work experience Providing the most supervision. Participants workoaimax mum with adequate hours per week for a period of seven n ((9) weeks. Teaching youth about the actual world ofnwork, good work habits and developing pride in the completion of an assigned task are programmatic goals of the Summer Youth Employment Program. All applicants are screened and assessed according to various program requirements. Clerk-Tyist Processing, Claims-Clerk and Retail Sales, and Electronic Manufacturing applicants must satisfactorily complete entrance examinations before admittance into training programs. ISSUES CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS On April 7, 1986 the Board approved Plan while acknowledging the PIC and Central lPiedmontoEmplo Employment and Training should address concerns unique P Unty. Participant transportation, improved fiscal and programmatic County. reporting, an additional county progrcrmated coordination with Human Services a encies�na center, increased outreach were the concerns expressed by and hM Office has reviewed the response of the Training Manager's (see attached) regarding the concern for g gram Director Year. In addition, we met with Orange County PICB�me7 Program other selected parties to broaden the sco a of our understanding ing of the issues and concerns such that a specific course yoftaction can be recommended for the have three options (1) 1987/88 Program Year. The Board does have the Plan, or) (3) the Job Training Plan, (2)I request tort ( ) approve the plan with modifications. recommended modifications stated ohereinProve the plan with the Federal budget cuts for the JTPA the establishment of an additional training site without county support. The recently discussed Agriculture Center inouthe northern part of the County would be an ideal facility training. However, Central Piedmont Trainin hassugges for er cost would be incurred in the count y providing a facility, n addition to suggested other Modification No. 1: Request Central Piedmont Training Office to submit to the County Manager the estimated cost of establishing a training facilit Orange County. The report should addressla northern space, personnel and equipment, pPropite Eh:U Coordination with human service agencies Social Services, Employment Security Commission Association of Retarded Citizens) y and the Services suggest a formalized relationship bwith mCentral Piedmont Training Office which would promote a regular Piedmont the Employment and Training Director and thelDSSdDirector. The Employment Security Commission has The coordinate efforts with Central Piedmont. he ARC has adequately training proposals to Central Piedmont TandCthes sPbCitfor consideration. The proposals have not been considered by Cent Piedmont Training PIC for Proposal (submiss%n�fevaluationthselectioncauro a y rat Proposal by Request not for developed contracts Central Pied Mont staff. process has not been skills training, Durham City Technical Instituteeforyclassroom Dropout Prevention Program a d Emdlorange County Schools for the the offenders Employment Security Commission for the program program. These contracts were executed when the pro ram began in 1984. The ARC believes their have not been given proper attention. Central Piedmont evaluate ARC's proposals after a RFP will process has been instituted. Modification No. 2: Request Central Piedmont Training Office to establish a formal coordination relationshi with the Department of social Services and the Orange County Employment Security g Central Piedmont to develop Commission' Encourage absence of a RFP process, P a RFP process. In the absence meet with , Central Piedmont should at a minimum mumablee to ` RC and other agencies representing county. insure maximum participation in the Training programs offered employment opportunities for thebdisadvantagedProviTh excellent would be more effective if outreach methods were Tdesigned target the unemployed and underemployed o programs The current recruitment techniques population more directly. should be supplemented goes (newspaper and radio spots) approaches. The Department of Social Services would wobe tfemmost logical place to begin this effort. the most Modification No. 3 : actions to enhance the county's suggests the following all training programs. yes Participation levels in OJT should be expanded not reduced as proposed in the 1987 Job Training Plan. More emphasis placed in Northern Orange that target individuals who do not desire classroom training. Trade jobs (carpenter, electrician, plumber)) should be Individual Referral emphasized in the Countyro ram should be de- n special o This program addresses a population of motivated individuals househclds�with strorciation. Singles and head of reliable transportation, support systems (finances, appropriate child care) 1q are likely to be successful. Chamber of Commerce Placement requires involvement of the Hillsborougand greater Hill/Carrboro Chambers of Commerce. Employment resource can be developed through the Chambers' membership. Word Processin is an excellent program lacking innovative recruitment techniques. Minimum typing skills is a prerequisite which eliminates an AFDC clients. Dro out Prevention has a high participation rate because of Orange High School active involvement. Institutional Offender Project's fiscal year 1986 participation level in the County has been extremely low. Participation level should be increased. ABE GED is the cornerstone of a successful JTPA program. Typically the hard core unemployed would receive a high school diploma through this program which should enable entrance into another training program. Recruitment and program expansion are essential. Program data indicate only five County residents have participated in the program this fiscal year. Claims-Clerk is comparatively the strongest training program in the county. AFDC clients are unable to meet the minimum Unfortun requirements necessary to enter this extremely successful program. Electronic Manufacturin needs to be reassessed by the PIC. The program does not offer training opportunities for County residents. Summer Youth Pro ram unsuccessful last summer. Title II-B was Piedmont Training Office must ThrestructureCeevery component of this program for the summer of 1987. Staff suggests two new program offerings: Remedial Skills Trainin have completed high school but individuals that courses to perform well on training emplo enr examinations. P Yment Office Skills Trainin individuals desirous of clerical courses Training for would concentrate on typing, Training general office skills. Tines receptionist and clients would complete this especially meet program to meet 1 entrance requirements for claim-clerk and word processing training courses. Correspondence from Thomas George Audry, President of MDC, White, Durham PIC member, to the Central Piedmont Training Officenregardinglshe disposition n of a Summer Youth/Olympic Festival proposal submitted al Piedmont Training and the PIC. Central Piedmont Training did not review the MDC Central youth employment proposal, which would have g summer youth premploy entheat the Olympic Festival, lack formal The lCek of a formal staff. Thomas White did not comment from Central Piedmont response. agree with Central Piedmont staff Modification No. 4: As stated in Modification No. Central Piedmont Training 2, g Office should develop p a RFP PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL The PIC has twenty-one members with eight members by the City of Durham, seven appointed appointees from Orange County. from Durham County and six community from as: y. Members represent segments of the agencies, community-based porganizations, rehabilitation development Employment Security ation agencies, Y Commission and educational agencies. County appointees represent the private sector, and rehabilitation agencies. � educational institutions program activities, the PIC develops and providing oversight for As representatives of the local p plans training appointed, PIC members may be the most important element in which The input of PIC members is valuable, since their comments reflect the element in JTPA. reflect the community te philosophies of their local governments and segments they represent. gments Meetings with County PIC members suggest among PIC members and members of ggest varied opinions directions of JTPA training the Board regarding ideas and approaches between County programs. members and the Board is a more specific course of action would be: Modification No. 5: (a) Outline to County PIC members Board goals and expectations utilizing recommendations for all JTPA programs meets quarterly, establish biannual (b) Since the from PIC County PIC members to the board on all JTPA pro from (c) Replace the vacant educational agency slotr(Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools Director of Social Services. the County PIC with the appointed as a The DSS Director could be appnntaion , representative of community-based orC Social Services representation on the would strengthen coordination between Central Piedmont Training Office and County human service ice FUTURE ISSUES 1 O t Fiscal year 1987-88 will be the County's final year under the current consortium agreement with the City of Durham County. As in 1986, am and Durham mppounty. all counties in the state will have their opportunity SDA. select a new SDA/consortium or remain with existing Although a notice of redesignation has not been received from the state, it is believed the desi natio new SDA will follow the 1986 criteria. g n of a 1. a single unit of general local population of 200, 000 or more; or government with a 2 . consortium of contiguous units of local government with an aggregate population of 200, 000 or more which serves a substantial part of a labor market area; or 8• a current SDA which has eerformed satisfactorily based on performance standard reports and response to end ofeyearsassessments; owing 4. contiguous units of general local government that: (county) a) have 100, 000 or more population; and b) have at least two counties; and c) represent a substantial portion market area or an area in which related fStatebor Federal services are provided; and d) are able to satisfactorily demonstrate to the State the capacity and resources to administer the funds and have adequate safe protection of funds received. guards for the SDA redesignation discussions should begin in October, 1987.this period During this with , specific concerns regarding 87' and Employment relationship the overall PIC and Central Piedmont Training County's P yment Office should be discussed at length. Tthe My 4th regular meeting, the Board will be asked to a e he job training plan for fiscal approve the training with year 1987-88 which should lob be the assessment of the overall PIC and Central al Piedmont Training and Employment Office earmarked for October. tober. • 10 °�� °••R°`� CITY OF DURHAM Q r i T&' NORTH CAROLINA a 18 ^ ., 69; dp p�.�..... v ��d0�©Q CENTRAL PIEDMONT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING OFFICE CITY OF MEDICINE March 30, 19$7 211 RIGSBEE AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 667 DURHAM, NC 27702 PHONE 919/683-4121 Mr. Albert Kittrell, Assistant County Manager Orange County 108 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Al: I am writing in response to the. concerns of the Board of Commissioners regarding JTPA services in Orange County during the last program year. The concerns expressed by the Board were as follows : 1 . ) PARTICIPANT TRANSPORTATION 2 .) IMPROVED FISCAL AND PROGRAMMATIC REPORTING 3 . ) ORANGE COUNTY TRAINING CENTER 4. ) INCREASED COORDINATION WITH HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES 5. ) EXPANDED PROGRAM OUTREACH PARTICIPANT TRANSPORTATION Transportation is available and provided to all training classes. .. Orange County participants interested in classes in Durham County are provided transportation by or are reimbursed for travel if they have their own trans- portation. Transportation needs are assessed during initial interviews with the clients and arrangements are made as needed. IMPROVED FISCAL AND PROGRAMMATIC REPORTING Fiscal and programmatic reports are being provided on a quarterly basis . The reports reflect the total participation AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 1VEi Letter to: Mr. Albert Kittrell March 30, 1987 Page two rates for all programs operated during the program We hope these reports are sufficient in i g year.informa- tion to judge the level of activity for Orange you ountyforma- residents . NORTHERN ORANGE COUNTY TRAINING CENTER As you know, budget restraints continue to make this difficult to achieve. Based upon the low unemployment rates in the two (2) counties, our funding allocation continues to diminish annually. Discussions are the federal level to create a new funding nformulaewhichatakes into account economically disadvantaged data rather than unemployment data. If this takes place, we may have more funds available to create a Northern Orange Center. INCREASED COORDINATION WITH HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES JTPA staff members work closely with the Department of Social Services, JOCCA, the Employment Security Commission and Vocational Rehabilitation in recruiting program partici- pants . The Department of Social Services and JOCCA are helping us distribute applications to the county ' s youth participation in the Summer Youth Employment Program. for EXPANDED PROGRAM OUTREACH The Orange County participation rate has increased during the past twelve months. There has been an increased rate of participation in the overall II-A program. On 12-31-85 the overall rate was 31 . 7 percent. As of 12-31-86 the overall rate was 38 . 2 percent . All individual program activities that had low rates as of 12-31-85 have significant increases over the twelve month period with the exception of Electronic Manufacturing. The problem with that activity may be the location of employment possibilities . Orange County residents have not shown a great deal of interest in this training which has most of its job possibilities in the Research Triangle Park. If the PIC continues this proram, I completion of the 1-40 corridor maystimulateomorehinterest the among our participants since travel time to the Park will be reduced considerably, • 1 11 ��(J'.J Letter to: Mr. Albert Kittrell March 30, 1987 Page three The PIC has also agreed to look at training possibilities in Orange County as we enter Program Year 1987. We will be conducting surveys of employers to see if additional program options are available to us in the county. I would also like to call your attention to a matter that is somewhat disturbing. It seems there is a rumor being passed around that the JTPA Program does not serve the handicapped. The handicapped is one of the groups and the rate of program' s target report to participation is noted in our program you. The rate of participation at the end of the last Quarter was 10. 2 percent. I hope this information is beneficial to you as you discuss the JTPA Program with your Board. If I can provide you additional information, please advise. With continued regards, I am Sincerely, Robert Ferguson Director - RF:h I __. .4• in N en IA r-1 Ce1 h • • Ili • N N. 01 1O ..1• 10 an .N••1 1 N N + A 6-1 C0 en 0 in;7i 13111 . A v W • y • Iy . co • 1 NI CO H • N 2 Vi +7 O W 1. al O h • In N n 1-1 N an H C7 '' z F1 10 • U' 11 N N ,..1 ,..1 ^O• 1 ii • O F�� CO ID -4r O N N 1 ca 14 • W ('W µ to .. . .. pp� rwpl 1~•1 a 1 10 � a1 •7 t•1 N .. .an MHO ea N M ul 1E1 CI a CO a1 N CO .7 P. I r•1 .7 r•1 Op M rH m r1 1D 1n N 114 Oa pa a.e 44 10 rt CO Ol N 10 ....?v1NH .-1 N v V N G q q M d 0 N.7 10 1► Pr U. v-I .-S 0 a1 N -0 _ O W p q q pq 1� X1 .-1 (--11 a C0 1100 d 1.. F 1 1 1 1 1 b P. 0/ H 0 V r)- 0 0 0 U pc H M CI .• 0 H (0 •r5 y 14 Y 01 Q 0 0 0. p - W 0 .0 W W 1.1 W P4 H y .r.1 � .b P. 0 4 .1�0 A u 0H O T-'1 N 0 41 pp10C1 W 0�'. a 0.-s o 0 0 Fti `F 0 M1 U 14 0 6 U W al H w°aAs CENTRAL, PIEDMONT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM PROGRAM YEAR 86-87 SDA JOB TRAINING PLAN SUMMARY I. Political Jurisdiction Counties of Durham and Orange II. Grant Reci Tent/Administrative Entit City of Durham III. Local Goals and Ob ectives The overall purpose of programs operated under the Job Training Partnership Act during program years 86-87 by the Central Piedmont Employment and Training Office is to provide educational enhancement, occupational training and private sector employment opportunities to residents of Durham and Orange Counties. In accordance with the federal law and regulations, the program will provide these opportunities to the eligible unemployed, economically disadvantaged and non-economical disadvantaged citizens within the service delivery area. All non-economically operated by the SDA are designed for an increase in employment programs g and earnings and a reduction in welfare dependency. The Service Delivery Area will provide training opportunities, with Title II-A funds, in occupations ranked among the highest annual job needs in the SDA. The SDA will strive towards its oal by skill instruction through classroom activity, g t arning, y remedial education, referral and job search direction. These effo is are aimed at helping individuals become more employable for permanent, unsubsidized jobs with adequate wages and good working conditions as mandated by the driving force of JTPA. Additionally, expend funds to provide much needed vocational career,tand pperso personal counseling for all JTPA participants. Approximately seventy-six percent (76Z) of adult terminees will enter employment, forty-nine percent (492) of adult welfare recipients who terminate will also enter employment. For youth terminees, r ' ' ' -' - it k' approximately sixty-six (66%) will enter employment and eighty-three (83%) are expected to have a positive termination from the program. Title II-B funds will be used to provide eligible youth with experience on a job, to develop occupational skills and good work habits, and to expose the participants to various occupational opportunities. The SDA will also address the problem of at-risk youth who need basic education skills necessary to compete in the local labor market. A special work experience/education component will operate during the Summer Youth Employment Program with the goal of improving the educa- tional standing of the at-risk population. The Central Piedmont Employment and Training Consortium proposes to meet the State's goals and objectives and the requirements of the Governor's Job Training Policy under Executive Order 93 by assertively pursuing and actively encouraging the cooperation of local employers, educational and training institutions, state agencies and social service deliverers in the planning and implementation of all program activities. This, we feel, will produce greater benefits to local employers who will be able to draw on a larger, more competent and productive labor force. Special efforts will focus on attracting and serving disadvantaged adults, youth 16-21, public assistance recipients, offenders, dropouts and the handicapped as target groups in dire need of program services. • 1:1(.1 JTPA PROGRAM BUDGET SUMMARY July 1, 1987 - June 30, 1988 Estimated New Res o urce Carr -over Fur-1.L.._111-1 g Available Budget II-A $161,272 $337,078 Incentive $498,350 37,262 _37,262 $161,272 $374,340 $535,5f 2�� $535,612 II-B $275,448 $275,448 $275,448 Cost Pool II-A 26,625 59,484 Incentive 86,109 II-B 15,970 15,970 48,608 48,608 $ 75,233 $ 75,454 $150,687 $180,082 Grand Total $236,505 $725,242 $961,747 $991,1.42 ($29,395) JTPA II-A TRAINING PROGRAM SUMMARY 1987-88 1 J Lj # Served Activity Type Budget_ Title II-A Institutional Skill Training 60 Claims Clerk & Retail Sales Staff Cost $2,711 Staff Travel 157 Rent Expense 225 Other Related Trng. 1,600 Tuition Fees 387 Leased Equip. 1,575 $6,655 X 4 Classes $26,620 Transportation 60 X 11 wks. X $10.00 6,600 30 Electronic Manufacturing Staff $4,233 Travel 50 Rent 2,220 Other Trng. 1,575 Tuition Fees 387 $8,465 X 4 Classes X 50% $16,930 Transportation 60 X 6 wks. X $10.00 X 50% 1,800 45 Clerk-Typist & Word Processing Staff Cost $ 4,967 Rent Expense 900 Related Trng. Cost 1,757 Other Trng. Cost 1,757 *Leased Equip. 4,150 $13,474 X 3 32,122 60 Individual Referrals 57,000 Transportation 7,500 Institutional Skill Training 30 ABE (Adult Basic Education) • 30 students X 60 each 1,800 Transportation 30 X 11 wks. X $10.00 3,300 *one time expense lic DTI Coordination Staff $41,542 Travel 1,794 Office Expense 500 Equip. Repairs 350 Telephone 1,800 Alarm System 700 $46,686 $46,686 Exemplary Youth Programs: $0 Dropout Prevention - 2 schools @ $16,353 each 32,705 17 On-the-Job Training @ approximately $1,497 per participant 25,887 Services Only Programs: 55 ESC Offenders Program @ $436 per participant 24,000 100 Durham Chamber of Commerce $454 per placement 45,400 2 TCA 1,000 Van Expenses 13,991 Total Served 479 Total Program Cost $3.43.,341 Training Staff - Salary & Fringe 149,699 Operational Cost 42,57.2 TOTAL II-A PROGRAM BUDGET :$535,612 1! JTPA - II-B 1987 Summer Program # Served Activity Type Budget Work Experience/Education 35 Durham County Wage & Fringe $ 34,460 15 Orange County Wage & Fringe 14,769 Basis: 40 hrs. X 3.35 = $134.00 10.5% Fringe 14.07 $148.07 $148.07 X 7 wks. _ $1,036.39 per participant Less 5% projected absenteeism rate Work Experience 175 Durham County Wage & Fringe 129,235 75 Orange County Wage & Fringe 55,386 Basis: 30 hrs. X 3.35 = $100.50 10.5% Fringe 10.55 $111.05 $111.05 X 7 wks. = $777.35 per participant Less 5% projected absenteeism rate Training Staff Salary & Fringe 30,000 (5 Counselors, 1 Driver, 3 Eligibility Counselors) Operational Cost 7,538 Services to Participants Van Rental 2,500 Vehicle Expense 500 Shoes 100 Other Operational Costs 1,000 300 $275,488 y, l P 1!'1 STPA COST POOL 1987 - 1988 Administrative Salaries & Fringe $124,814 Indirect Cost 27,283 Operational Cost 27,985 Total Administrative Cost $180,082 I 1►� COUNINY OF &RANGE ATTEST: BY Chairman of the" Board of Commissioners as Chief Elected Clerk Official CITY OF DURHAM ATTEST : By City Manager for Chief Elected Official City Clerk NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM COUNTY I , Notary Public in and for the above named County and State do hereby certify that the due execution of the foregoing instrument was duly acknowledged before me by as Chairman of Central Piedmont Employment and Training Private Industry Council for the purposes therein expressed. . Witness my hand and notarial seal, this the day of , 19 Notary Public My commission expires • NORTH CAROLINA • DURHAM COUNTY This is to certify that on this day personally came before me , with whoa I am personally . acquainted, who, being by me duly sworn, says that is the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Durham and that he, said is the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Durham, a body politic and corporate, described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the common seal of said County of Durham; that the seal affixed to said instrument is said common seal; that the name of the County of Durham was subscribed thereto by the said Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for f the County of Durham and that the said Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Durham and said Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Durham subscribed their names thereto and said common seal was affixed, all by order of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Durham, and that said instrument is the act and deed of said County of Durham. Witness my hand and notarial seal, this the day of , 19 • Notary Public My commission expires NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY • This is to certify that on this day personally came before me , with whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly sworn, says that is the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange and thatshe, said is the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange , a body politic and corporate, described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the common seal of said County of Orange; that the seal affixed to said instrument is said common seal; that the name of the County of Orange was subscribed thereto by the said Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange and that the said Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange and said Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange subscribed their names thereto and said common seal was -affixed, all by order of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange , and that said instrument is the act and deed of said County of Orange . Witness my hand and notarial seal, this the day of , 19 Notary Peiblic • My commission expires A s • NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM[ COUNTY This is to certify that on this day personally came before US , with whom I am personally V Ile acquainted, who being by me duly sworn, says that Orville W. Powell is the City Manager, and that she the said is the City Clerk of the City of Durham, the municipal corporation named within and which executed the foregoing instrument ; that she knows the common seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is said common seal; that the name of the corporation was subscribed thereto by the said City Manager and that the said City Manager and said City Clerk subscribed their names thereto and said common seal was affixed, all by order of the City Council of the City of Durham and that said instrument is the act and deed of said corporation. Witness my hand and notarial seal, this the day of , 19 . Notary Public My commission expires I NORTH CAROLINA AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL/CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIALS This is an Amendment to an Agreement between the Central Piedmont Employment and Training Private Industry Council (hereinafter "Council") and the Chief Elected Officials (or authorized signatory officials) as authorized representatives of the County of Durham, County of Orange and City of Durham (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Chief Elected Officials") . The date of this Amendment is March 23 , 1987. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on June 29, 1984, the Council and Chief Elected Officials entered into an Agreement pertaining to, among other things, the development and implementation of a job training plan pursuant to the Job Training Partnership Act (hereinafter "Agreement") ; the Agreement is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Council and Chief Elected Officials have each agreed to an Amendment to Agreement, as set forth in this instrument; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council and Chief Elected Officials agree as follows: 1. The name of the Central Piedmont Service Delivery Area and Private Industry Council is changed to the Research Triangle Service Delivery Area and Private Industry Council. 2. Except as herein amended, the Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect. CENTRAL PIEDMONT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL By Witness Chairm=en COUNTY OF DURHAM ATTEST: By Chairman of the Board of Commissioners as Clerk Chief Elected Official = 122 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AG DA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. MEETING DATE MAY 4, 1987 SUBJECT: SPACE PLAN AND STATUS OF RENOVATION *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING YES X NO ************************************************************************** ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: BILL LAWS EXT 503 REPORT PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE 227-2031 DURHAM 688-7331 ************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To review the status of the County Annex Renovation Project and to consider modifications to the space plan adopted in January, 1987. BACKGROUND: The renovation project was begun on September 1, 1986 and received final inspection on February 23 , 1987. A summary of the project and associated change orders are included in the attached report. There is need to modify two sections of the space report presented to the Board by CHR and Associates in January, 1987. The architect is requesting approval for changes in the floor plan on the third floor of the New Courthouse and also for approval of space allocated to Purchasing and Central Services in the original plan to be reassigned to the Child Support office. Information, as detailed in the attached report, makes it no longer economically feasible to move the Purchasing and Central Services function. RECOMMENDATION: To approve an amendment to the adopted plan to: 1. ) permit Child Support to occupy the Agriculture Building, and 2 . ) the third floor of the Courthouse to be constructed as recommended by CHR. 12i The purpose of this report is to: 1. ) summarize the Carr Store Renovation Project; 2. ) to review change orders associated with said Project; 3 . ) changes in assignments of space vacated as a result of the Carr Store Renovation Project. 4. ) and to discuss areas which require further study. The renovation of the Carr Store Building was officially begun on September 1, 1986. The project received final inspection from the Architect, Contractors and County officials on February 23, 1987 and was declared complete by the February 28 contract completion date. There were no major discrepencies noted during the final inspection and the few items that were noted on the "punch list" were addressed prior to the building being accepted by the Owner. Orange County was able to assume some of the work in an effort to keep costs within reason. Items such as installation of storage shelves and a new water line to service the facility have already been accomplished. Ongoing projects include landscaping and construction of a landing area at the rear fire exit. It is anticipated these projects will be completed during the month of May. Currently the Planning Department, the Department of Soil and Water Conservation and the Farmers Home Administration offices are fully operational at the new facility. Yet to be moved are the Agricultural Extension Service, targeted to take up residence during the week of April 27 and Environmental Health to be moved during the week of May 4. By staggering the dates in this manner the Public Works Department has been able to accomplish the move with no outside assistance and with minimal disruption of service to the public. As with any renovation project there will be unexpected problems requiring change orders to the original contract. requiring a total of seven change orders, re dhis project, whil e $5,121 in additional monies. This represents approximately et only the total $279,875 contract amount. The amountisinconsequential%when compared to another, fairly recent renovation project, the old Courthouse, whose six change orders required an additional $20,423. 39 on a $366, 044 contract total. AThe change orders and their monetary impact are detailed in Attachment . While the contractors labored to create the new space at the Agricultural/Planning and Environmental Center (Carr Store Building) , the architectural firm of CHR and Associates, Inc. tackled the dilemma of who should occupy the soon to be vacated offices of Planning, Agriculture Extension, FMHA and Soil and Water. The results of their efforts were presented to the Board in January, 1987. As a point of summarization and review, CHR recommended in that study that the Agriculture Building be renovated to house the department of Purchasing and Central Services and Commission for Women on the top floor and the ground floor to accommodate the Juvenile Court Counselors, and the divisions of Vital Statistics and Historical Records from the Register of Deeds office. The changes to take place in the Courthouse at 106 E. Margaret Lane included expanded off e4 area for the Clerk of Court and Personnel Department on the ground floor and expanded office area plus a more workable floor plan for the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, County Manager's office and the Finance Department on the third floor. Originally the plan set out by CHR appeared to be workable and to meet the immediate space needs of the targeted departments. However, since that time information has been brought to our attention that would cause us to seriously reconsider the feasibility of moving the telephone switch from the Human Service Building to the Agriculture Building. As explained in the correspondence from Larry Bell, Engineer for Centel (Attachment B) , the cost of relocating the switch would be approximately $12, 000 with an estimated $3500 additional funds required to re-terminate the FX numbers, OPX and local lines. In addition, the physical site would require the relocation of climate control equipment necessary to assure the proper operation of the ROLM switch. These figures were incorporated into the cost estimates in the space study prepared by CHR. However, increased operating costs were not considered. The operating costs come into play through a mileage charge, which is a standard component of the phone service cost. Essentially, what this means is that any County extension located off premises from the switch site is charged a monthly cost for the line that brings it into the telephone switch. The County currently has almost 400 extensions. Of those 400, approximately half are in the Human Services Building. At $2.43 (the minimum charge) per month extension, Orange County's operating expense ' per g xpense for telephone be increased by almost $6000 phone service per year. While the $12,000 and $3,500 relocation/re-termination costs are one shot deals, the $6,000 annual cost would go on forever. An additional complication of moving Purchasing and Central Services to the Agricultural Building is the delivery set up. We are currently disadvantaged at the Human Services Building because deliveries to the Central Stores facility requires that vendors bring goods into the building down three steps and through several doorways. There is normally additional cost incurred for this type of "difficult" delivery (often 5% of the total order amount) . In an attempt to rectify this situation, CHR was asked to incorporate a loading dock into the Agriculture Building plan. Two problems arise as a result of this: 1. ) the building is in the Historic District and the probability of a loading dock being well received is minimal; 2. ) the building is located in a high traffic area. Many orders for the storeroom are brought via large company trucks or common carrier semi-trailer trucks. The congestion and potential for accidents this scenario presents is yet another reason to reconsider the relocation of this office. In view of these factors it would seem wise to abandon the relocation of Purchasing and Central Services to the Agriculture Building. Since the Agriculture Building is located directly across the street from the old Courthouse, the next logical step was to explore the possibility of moving Court related offices into that facility. The options were somewhat limited though since the Court related offices in Chapel Hill need to remain in Chapel Hill and maintain a close proximity to their clients. The sole exception was the Public Defender who had requested office space in Hillsborough for use two days each week. Since the Planning Department has been moved, the temporary offices set up for them in the basement of the Old Courthouse can now —I 12c be reassigned for use by the Public Defender, thereby fulfilling his need. The I.C. Probation office appears to be the best potential resident for the Agriculture Building for a number of reasons. After consultation with CHR, it was determined that the departmental square footage needs are compatible with those recommended for the proposed move of the Purchasing Department and the alteration work required to make the space suitable for the function would likewise be in the same monetary range. (Not including the funds necessary to move the telephone switch. ) In addition, rental costs would be reduced by moving the department from its present rented office to a County-owned building while still allowing them to maintain a location convenient to the Courthouse. Since much of their work is carried out in Court this is an important factor. A less tangible benefit is that the N.C. Probation -. office would generate less outside traffic than the Department originally targeted to occupy this space. This is an important consideration in light of the congested, often hazardous traffic flow, and the limited parking facilities available in the area. County staff concurs with the alternate proposal from CHR that moves Child Support to the Agricultural Building. Another change being requested by the architect involves the proposed floor plan for administrative offices on the third floor of the New Courthouse. Originally the plan had included an area designated as a work area or a break room (Attachment C) . When the furniture lay had been completed however, it became apparent that additional space would be required for Finance Department staff. Due to that situation the work room/break area has been reassigned as office area for the Finance Director (Attachment D) . Efforts continue to find an area that would be suitable for a breakroom on the third floor. However, due to the limited space the outlook does not look favorable. The space proposal from CHR as presented to the Board in January now requires some fairly significant modifications. The "domino effect" has taken its toll. For example, the decision not to move Purchasing & Central Services alters plans the Department on Aging and the Health Department had for the soon to be vacated space; and the space crunch in Purchasing which prompted the proposed move in the first place continues to be a factor that should be addressed. It soon becomes clear that it is not advantageous to look at each need on an individual department basis, but rather to initiate a process that approaches the situation from a "whole picture" this reason it is proposed that the space study be perspective. For encompass other areas with space y expanded in 87-88 to Building and the Southern Human Services Center a(Northside)nine Chapel Hill. As evidenced by Attachment E specific needs have already been identified in these areas. Since projects involving the addition of space are generally costly and require lengthly lead time it may also be in the County's best interest to initiate a monitoring process, utilizing the architect or in-house staff, to identify actual space needs and fully investigate possible solutions on a continual basis. For example, in order to accommodate the overflow from broadening Human Services programs, it has been suggested the brick. portion of the old Orange Industries Building on 12t Tryon Street be renovated. The process mentioned could be used to address such questions as feasibility of utilization and cost- effectiveness of the specific project as well as anticipate and plan for longer term facility requirements. Space needs are a prime consideration in many organizations. Orange County is no different in that respect. While a strong effort has been put forth in 1986-87 to address some critical space requirements in the County, we fully realize that the County continues to grow by leaps and bounds and that the space needs associated with the service levels that will be required by the citizenry will increase proportionately. If we are to be prepared to meet those needs we must anticipate and take preparatory measures now. 1 ! Attachment A SUMMARY OF CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE CARR BUILDING RENOVATION There are four Change Orders for D.W. Ward Construction Company. Change Order Number One Item One Reduce thickness of metal roof on the front from 20 gage to 26 gage since the asphalt shingles were on a solid surface. A credit of $7,995. 00 to Orange County. Item Two Remove a section of Terrazzo floor topping which would have been in the corridor. This was necessary to make the corridor level for the floor tile installation. Cost of this item $334.00. Change Order Number Two Item One The drywall ceiling was attached to the partition walls of an office which was to be removed. The removal required some patching of the ceiling where the new accoustical ceiling would be installed. Cost - $183. 00. Item Two This new accoustical ceiling was to replace the ceiling in item one. Cost for this was $121.00. Item Three Due to termite damage in the furring strips and baseboard as well as the paneling all was removed and the owner paid to have the building treated. The damaged wood was found when the office demolition was done. The cost of this item $784.00. Item Four The decision to try to clean the old carpet in the plumbing store was made before the job went out for bids. The carpet could not be cleaned and there were holes in the floor which needed to be filled. There were stains and holes and excessive ware in the existing carpet. Cost for removal and patching floor $349.00. Item Five Install new carpet through out plumbing store where the old carpet was removed. Cost 2963.00. 126 Item Six The ceiling in the 'reception area was scheduled to be an eight foot sheetrock type. Due to the window height, this could not be done. This is a five rated ceiling as are the halls throughout the building. The added cost of $101.00 was for changing to ten foot studs. Item Seven This item called for in the contract was omitted since the floor would have new carpet. A credit of $280.00 was allowed for the elimination of this. Change Order Three Item One This item was omitted from the plans and specification for the 6800 square feet of space which had been used for storage. The other area of the building had insulators in the existing ceiling. Insulation is for 3 1/2" brupt faced fiberglass at a cost of $1989. 00. Item Two The brick above front entry was were cull and patched and were covered by a canopy which was removed leaving these exposed. Brick were patched and some removed and the front of the building was painted to match the remaining front. Cost of repairing and painting - $661.00. Item Three There was no ceiling above the marquee which was scheduled for removal. A 5/8" sheetrock ceiling was necessary. This could not be detected until the removal of the marquee. Cost of the new ceiling was $3371.00. Item Four Access door and post support omitted from plans and specifications. Access door need for plumbing pipes. Counter for inspections required a support post. Cost $167.00. Item Five Floor unlevel in what was the (Old Meat Department) and eight bags of levelastic. This material will level out in order for tile to be installed. The cost of this item was $293.00. 124 Change Order Number Four Item One Sidewalk was required at the laundry mat and this would be done when and if we remodel this building at a later date. Credit for sidewalk deletion is $581.00. Item Two Toilet partitions were designed to be mounted from the ceiling. A credit was offered if we would use the floor mounted partitions. Credit in the amount of $144.00 was issued for this. Item Three Install sheetrock on metal strips to replace paneling and plumbing store. There were holes in the block wall and also there was a 24" x 24" hole where an air conditioner was once installed. Cost of repairing this item - $980. 00 Item Four Once the 6800 square feet were converted to offices there was no access to the air conditioners and two platforms were needed to service the equipment. Part of the ceiling of the old meat market was used prior to the conversion of the office space. This was not accounted for in the original contract. Cost of installing access - $650. 00. D. W. WARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Change Order Number One Item One Credit $7995.Q0 Item Two Cost 334.00 Net Credit 7661. 00 Change Order Number Two Item One Cost 183.00 Item Two Cost 121.00 Item Three Cost 784.00 Item Four Cost 349.00 Item Five Cost 2963.00 Item Six Cost 101. 00 Item Seven Credit - 280. 00 Net Cost 4221.00 Change Order Number Three Item One Cost 1989.00 Item Two Cost 661. 00 Item Three Cost 3371.00 Item Four Cost 167.00 Item Five Cost 293.00 Net Cost 6481. 00 Change Order Number Four Item One Credit 581.00 Item Two Credit 144. 00 Item Three Cost 980.00 Item Four Cost 650.00 Net Cost 905.00 Total Net Cost 3946.00 131 Three Change Orders for Mebane Heating and Air Conditioning Change Order Number Three Item One Install three return air grilles where marquee was removed and a new ceiling was installed. Grilles were omitted from plans and specifications. cost of installing three grilles - $125.00. Change Order Number Two Item One During demolition the two existing units were suspended to the roof and causing damage to refridgent line and outside housing of the units. The units were sitting on the ceiling of the (meat department) . They had to be supported by metal beams. Cost of $300. 00. Change Order Number One Item One Move location of existing thermostats to control heating and cooling after fire corridor was added. They were located in open space prior to renovation and this was omitted from plans and specifications. Cost of $200.00. Item Two Extend duct across hallway to get return air back to air handler. There was no return in that office space. Extension of duct and grille omitted from plans and specifications. Cost of this work $550. 00. 13 MEBANE HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING Change Order Number One Item One Cost 200. 00 Item Two Cost - 550. 00 Net Cost 750.00 Change Order Number Two Item One Cost 300. 00 Net Cost 300.00 Change Order number Three Item One Cost 125. 00 Net Cost 125.00 Total Net Cost 1175. 00 13d Grand Total of all Change Orders $5121.00 l s CHANGE " " 1)istribulilln lu: ORDER OWNER ® • ARCI-If(CT D/ lr )( Ct/MENT C701 CONTRACTOR 13 FIELD 0 - OTHER CI • PROIECT: Carr Building Renovation CHANCE ORDER NUMBER: 1 (name.address Corbin Street Hillsborough, NC INITIATION DATE: November 7, 1986 To (Contrartar): , I Me Heating & it ii 7g1 PROJECT NO: 5568 P.O. Box 756 CONTRACT FOR:Mechanical Constructio I Mebane, NC 27302 L J CONTRACT DATE: August 13, 1986 . You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: . It Relocate two thermostats Extra $ 200.00 Item Two Extend duct for return air vent in Environment Health Department and connect to new grill. Extra 550.00 Resultant Change Order Amount Extra $ 750.00 \..1%Ad until•rl ruyl by Iw.lh Me finer roll An huNwl. %IM••.lure 1.1 11w.(..u.lrar h.!uMlit-gw. 1u.awes- em herewith. Wangling my.ldIw inM.nl in 11w Cuntru1 Sulu 1.1 1•IM11rau I bow. Ihl•original IConlrati Sumo aCIUXECOECOCCOGGia was $ 19,000 Nil change by pwwiuu%ly aulhnrixed Change Orders thl•1Cunlracl sum' $ -0- prior in this Change Order was $ 19,000 1 ht. 1(:unlr lcl Sum! will be (incrcaxdl laGDZUKUKKOMN by 11t• (;hangs Oulu: $ 750 11w new•Contract Sums ZDRODaggadenagatatinclurling ibis(lunge Order will be $ . $ 19,750 The Culllrall Time will he Kicamboaamoodc(uncluntted) by Tht•I)a1P of tuh•lanlial (•umplcii,ui as of the dale at Ibis Change Order therefore is I -0- 1 D CHR Associates, PA Mebane Heating & Air Cond. Counlrixct!• /Jd 1 arport Road 11)• l K 11) t7► of Orange •uu1i... P �- x�/S6 Margaret Lane • Chapel Hill. NC 27514 tlbane, NC 27302 f1"' i Hillsborough. NC 27278 Ny DATE DAN A1A aucw►uNt Gus • t IlAN1;r 1 lull R •' ANKH Pell 11111114.;► • ^"": 1111 .%MIK11 AN IMh1111)11 1/1 At 111111'15. I7Ii MW VINCI:'WI..N.W..W'\V11■11.111N 11.C. we . 11. • C7Q1-1' 1 � CHANGE Diwibulion tu: ORDER OWNER 13 • - - MA DOCUMENT C7A1 ARC1-II1 CCT ® . CONTRACTOR f FIELD ❑ OTI-IER ❑ PROJECT: Carr Building Renovation . Inamt,address) Corbin Street CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 2 Hillsborough, NC TO (Contractor): INITIATION DATE: November 21, 1986: 11 Mebane Heating & Air Conditioning ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 5568 • P.O. Box 756 CONTRACT FOR: Mechanical Constructioc Mebane, NC 27302 L J CONTRACT DATE: August 13, 1986 You art•directed to make the following changes in this Contract: Item One HVAC conditions requiring repair where exposed after demolition. Extra $300.00 Resultant Change Order Amount Extra $300.00 4 ,• %ul.du)until.110.11(1y hulls the(Miter(mul Mehik.'1. ...94a.a.1r.•..1 ilia.1...Mir.hot indicrh%he.agreement herewith. initialing any r/Ilu.luwnl in the(IMllracl Sulu or r aint.0 t lime. e. the original IContraci Sum) OLXAKI6X l 6131.ilq(tVWOOlinwas $ 19,000 Net (-lunge by previnu%ly authorized Orders Change $ 2,avc 750 The tC:ontract Stunt ICTOCCOIN.KAUMOMIXIDOEKII prior to this Change Order was $ 21,700 mu 1C11CIracl Sumo xcauturoucumiumxpraw, will be (increaseth iagarallaUPi 1 • by 1hi. Change Order 11W new 1Ceintrae-1 Sununtpt,K DZI Mint•Ituling this CJanKe.Ordcr will he $ 22,000 The Comm 1 Tinu.will he (unchanged) by ' f -0- ! D The I/ate id Sub.tantial Cumplelital as of the dale of Ihii Change Order therefore is • : PA Aullulrmmh CHR Associates > Mebane Heating & Air Cond. County of Orange �731d11tAlilrport Road rr'.u.`'nox 756 . (TireicE. Margaret Lane Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Mebane, NC 27302 Hill 11 sborough, NC 2727E u\1�'�.. 11A11 DATE . MA 111.1CIJ%ll'Ni G711 • t 11AN1;[ 1 MINK • • MVO 1•1711 11111111N • M. • • •• POP �� 1111 .\%111111 IN'NM I1,,11.III Aa IIllrl'rs. 1711 m%% vl111\.Wr..111.1\•.,%t sl11.W,1101.11.1'. '.I.n. C701—1S • CHANGE OWNER ❑ 1 C ARCHITECT ORDER CONTRACTOR S THE AM DOCUMENT C707 O ❑ OTHER PROJECT: Carr Building Renovation 'CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 3 (name,address) Corbin Street TO (Contractor)Hillsborough, North Carolina INITIATION DATE: March 2, 1986 I- —1 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 5568 Mebane Heating & Air Conditioning CONTRACT FOR: Mechanical Construction P.O. Box 756 Mebane, North Carolina 27302 L J CONTRACT DATE: August 13, 1986 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: Item One Supply & install 3 return air duct grilles Extra $125.00 Resultant Change Order Amount Extra $125.00 I The original Contract Sum was Net change by previous Change Orders $ 19,000. The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was $ �,ca 300. The Contract Sum will be (increased) ()4pNj $ 22,000. The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be by this Change Order. $ 125. The Contract Time will be OIfrNa Nt iifT (unchanged) by $ 22,125• The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is ( -0- ) Days. CHR Associates Mebane Heating & Air Cond. _ County of Orange ARCHITECT C OR p •730 Airport Road �ax 756 141. Margaret Lane Address Address Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mebane, North Carolina 27302 Hiillsborough, North Carolina 27' BY BY DATE ar ' --2, i9 BY `�'r DATE DATE • AIA DOCUMENT 0701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIAe • 0 1970 • THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW,WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 ONE PAGE CHANGE l)ialrillulion lu: 1 d'IORDER OWNER• . MA DOCUMENT G701 CCT �] CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑• OTHER ❑ l'ROIECT: Carr Building Renovation CHANCE ORDER NUMBER: 1 . (name. adclrc..) Corbin St. Hillsborough, NC INITIATION DATE: 929_86 TO (Contractor): 7. ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 5568 • D.W. .Ward Construction Co. P.O. Box 15157 • CONTRACT FOR: General constxuction Durham, NC 27704 . . • CONTRACT DATE:August 13, 1986 . You are directed to make the following;changes in this Contract: Item One • Reduce thickness of metal roof to 26 gauge Credit $7,995.00 Item 'too • Remove section of terrazzo floor topping • Extra 334.00 Resultant Change Order Amount Credit $7,661.00 . • • • • • • �•.1 tdlal until%%nt•II I)!•IM.1I►IIM•C)►uu•r and Alt hetet rp;ltaltus•1►1 Ilu•l'►utlrr►1m il►Ilit•410. I11•agrrI•1111■1 Iwvtlrilh. ill►11111in/(any.Idlu.InwrN In 11w Column Sum or runt/.r1 tulle. Ih1•Iuiginrl ICunIlacl Sums {44/ lit 4.4.11/111144iainfliihewas $ $221,856.00 Net change by prcvillurly authorized Change Orders $ _0"b The(Contract Sum) (ritatr liidiaiitiablth(1(prior to this Change Order was . S 221,856. the Ic:1/nlract Sum)1c Ifrr(1W1t4rikald (tiddrid4✓\>:ill be iniir•� idecn:asedllidat4 it(dt1'5 • by Ibis Change Order $ 7,661. - the nc•w 1Contrarl Sums jckkfliiifl4fSiiiiit1lyil(k'/V including;this Change Order will he S. • 214,195.- 11w Contract Time will be jiiitri/6glie fcJ(:�j1(yE� (unchanged) by ( -0- ) The I)ale of Substantial Completion as Of the dale of Ibis Change Order Iherc(lr.is February 27, 1987 " Authluiaed: CHR Associates, PA • D.W. Ward Constrpetign Co, 1 ll T t ROad (f6HAAPm r ni e+a ti nn Rri_ 411 ll A IK ' Mlar Far Tana •\11►hew. Arl►1r1'•� AIt1111M Chapel Hill, NC 27 14 Durham, NC 27704 Hill-n.1 • : NC 27: „Wig • RAIL 6120 r t)AIE 1M7E MA 1)0CUAttNI Grel • L IIANC L I MI/I K • AIM1II 14711 11/1111►4 • AI.\ ■ •• 1'1TN 1111 .\A►1 11111.1)1 AKC 111111'N. 1:17 NI\Y 111KIi.\\T..K.N..W\V IINC.$/RN_Ii.r. Aloft 6701 • • A1:1 DOCUMENT C:71)I ARCI.111 CCT CONTRACTOR (j1 1 FILLr 0 • OTI-IL'R ❑ I'RC)IECCT: Carr Building Renovation CHANCE ORDER NUMBER: 2 Manic..ultIre,..) Corbin St. Hillsborough, North Carolina INITIATION DATE: October 16 1986 TO (Contractor): , D ARCHITECT'S Ward Construction Co. RCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 5568 P.U. Box 15157 CONTRACT FOR: General Construction Durham, North Carolina 27704 L. J CONTRACT GATE:August 13, 1986 Yntl .11 l•direr It'd to make the following changes in this Conlraci: Item One • Removal of drywall ceiling and related patching in plulbing store Extra $ 183.00 Item Two New accoustical ceiling in plumbing store Extra $ 121.00 Item Three Removal of paneling, furring it base in plumbing store Extra $ 784.00 'Item Four - Remove carpet and patch floor in plumbing store ---....Extra ` •$ 3.49.00 Item Five Install new carpet in plumbing store Extra i 2,963'.00 Item Six New ceiling height in central reception Extra $ 101.00 Item Seven Need for steam cleaning carpet in plumbing store eliminated Credit $ 280.00 Resultant Change Order Amount Extra $ 4,221.00 \..1 ,..IIII until•lgn,•al by 114.111 IIu•Oun.r and An!salami. ,.I:n..Iuu•..1 111,. I.nIl1J11us nulls-ale%Ili.Jgn.•mill 11 wwilll, ilk lulling any.IdItN111NY11 in Ike(bllllarl Suns or(•unlydll Inns•. I hi'original (C•onlra&I Sum) (J! ,fyG/lltilhly(01I/11il(;/gylti1Vwas $ 221,856.00 N4•1 t h.inge by previously aulhurirecl Change Orders 1 ( 7,661.00) -1 ht. 1Cnnlrat 1 Suns PO/4N VOA hi[(,/l/g/iiir prior In this Glange Order was $ 214,195.00 1IIt• ICI all rat I Sun') fl/I/11•1110/A$41I1/1 /4As will be fit:cre:sell 1M6k'a/ itinikbi by this Change Order S 4,221.00 ' 1lnt•new IC'nnir.n I Suns/01/444)0449f141(ihfIFI!thill including;this Change Order will he ..•..S 218,416.00 Tilt' C:unlratI Time will he thigfidshnifilli bliyfl/ (unchanged) by ( -0- I I Th,• paw of Suh.l.lnli.11 Completion as of the date of Ihii Change Order therefore is February 27, 1987 • CHR Associates, PA D. W. Ward Construction Co Au�llll County of Orange ■hI111111 I tet).VJIAUIt1R - OWNLIC 730 Airport Road lufJ6 CCmgunciation Drive 106 E. '!1arearet t \nails••• :\nWrl % Atldrl•.% Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514' • Durham, N.C. 27704 Hillsborough, N.0 AIw UfJCUMCNI (.Ui • (IIAI■4fr. IIMIlIR • \1'1:11 1.1:11 1111111 IN • MX' • 1111 .%MI 1w AN IN11111111 111 MSS 111111'(% 171:M W Y1/Mk.W11..N.\1•..W-\\I IIN1.116N,D. .:Ms* C701- - . r.• •.. - ..•...... . , .r..........-. ..-1.M.• •.••w46 n4-•.I••...•• INA r - atr: -� •Iw OOC4a(•.� f'.n l 1. • r1At I(rt(; . wrap WO [O 'IC rJ ' ,•. ,, :�•J t 1r•D�. ALA* crr..c.lr s 1 s CHANGE . ��v� yy u4 ]9e6 Distribution lo: •ORDER ' OWNER LI • MA DOCUMENT G7fl 1 AOCI-111 ECT . CONTRACTOR FIELD 0 C.IMf.► MONI p1&T.C0.•INC. OTHER PROJECT: Carr Building Renovation CHANCE ORDER NUMBER: 3 (name, address' T() (Contractor): INITIATION DATE:November 12, 1986 17. W. Ward Construction Company ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 5568 P. 0. Box 15157 CONTRACTFQR:General Construction Durham, North Carolina 27704 L I CONTRACT DATE:August 13, 1986 1'ou arc•direr ted to make the following changes in ihis Contract: Item 1 3 1/2" )craft faced fiberglass insulation above all new lay–in ceilings. (6800 sq.ft. @ 290sq.ft.) - extra $ 1,989.00 Item 2 Grout and rub scarred brick above front entry and patch and paint cinder block walls of plumbing store. extra $ 661.00 Item 3 Patch and paint ceiling with 5/8" fire rated sheetrock where soffit was removed and paint existing 12" x 12" ceiling tiles. extra $ 3,371.00 Item 4 Frame out access door to water supply and add support post wrapped in sheetrock at end of low wall in Planning Department reception. • . extra $ 167.00 Item 5 8 units of levelastic applied to level floor where terrazzo was removed. 5 extra $ 2 Op/;4 1, Resultant Change Order Amount extra $ 6,481.00./ \..1 .al•l un111.i0.41 by IMI111 Ilu•(hoar anal Anhaves. %II:Im"r.•111 1116•111111N1 II hir i.ulic•14-% hi•a 4.4.nu•nl lu•r.-eil11. ill1 lulling any a11iustmeni in Ih.Comma Sulu..r(•.N11ra1I Iiau•. 1114•original IContrac-1 Sum) !{f4100100,1441,19 tl VO was Net (lunge by previously autllorized Change Orders $ 221,856.00 1-111.(cnntrati Sum; lf)Ly1A1!t$(I/to,f�(y iy¢y{y(yl�ricir to this Change Order was # 8,416.00 lhc� 1(:untract Sum' 1 . will be $ 218,416.00 by this Change Order 4ly�lnJfi/1�(ifl�/l,fyl{I • (increased' f�l �l,R�!r�l �1�►�r1 1� p • 11w new 1Coniracl Sun' $iilG/if(ACV 4 ,hif,yt4jsi/incluiling ibis Change Order will he ..• $ • 6,481.00 The Cunlracl Time will be (increased) (1l�i<rhoitiOlh/tl�AU/11 11'by ten (10) days $ 224,897 .00 The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of Ili; Change Order therefore is March 9, 1987. ( 10 1 Days. CHR Associates Aullulrized: D•W.Ward Construction Co. County of Oranee .\►.3IdI11 t Irport Rd. -- (()•V I l(A(-1()h K U1YN t \.aw.. 1'.O.Box 15157 106 E. Margaret Ln_ A.I.h.-.. Atldn•s • Chanel fill. N.C._ 27514 Durham, N_c_/�977A4 Hillsborough, N.C. - -----;---- .�..__-- 11Y .. aLL WC' i IIY. MIL 0 1)AIE ��/9' 8,6 :.. _ . DATE • AlA (UC)CUMLNI G7,I • (IHANLE 1414111le • .11•1111 N 1111111 IN • ���MI 1111 AxilM % IN.111I111 I11 :114(1111r1-fti• I:11 51W V11111■•w1..NAV..N'H111.1!.111 1,11.I�Jim C701-1978 CHANGE 1 4 L.'Distribution lo: ORDER OWNER ❑ • Alit DOCUMENT C;701 ARCI-IIII:CT 0 • CONTRACTOR ❑ • FIELD 0 OTHER ❑ PROJECT: Carr Building Renovation CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 4 In,lme. adtlressl T() (Contractor): INITIATION DATE: December 9, 1986 D.W. Ward Construction Co. ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 5568 P.O. Box 15157 CONTRACT FOR: General Const.rcution II Durham, North Carolina 27704 L_ J CONTRACT DATE: August 13, 1986 You are direc-IeO to make the following changes in this Contract: Item 1: Deduct for sidewalk at laundromat Credit $ 581.00 Item 2: Deduct for toilet partitions, change from ceiling hung to floor mounted Credit $ 144.00 Item 3: Add sheetrock and furring at front of 0 plumbing store to cover large holes in masonry walls Extra $ 980.00 Item 4: Build 2 catwalk platforms in ceilings to access HVAC units Extra $ 650.00 Resultant Change Order Amount $1,016.00 x•a ,.iINI mud..Kne(l by Nail the O ni•r.mut Anhilua-1. %Immure ui Ih.•('srnlrrs i..r ind►c414•• hi•4)001 9114411 I11 ri with. ins lading any aslju.h►wni in the Contract Suer u►t"uolras 1 t flw original (Contract Sum)assnixtxxstazipmg962 was Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ 221,856.00 11w(Contract Sums (1Cx7f i7i � f 6,481.00 �X :X) priori() this Change Order was $ 224,897.00 l he ICuniract Sum) eXXXXx,Yd 1Wi)i Y]C gaz will be (increased) Qtlifdfr) by this Change Order bK1 �l the new IC:onlracl Sums Q,XRK y�Ko including this Change Order will he ,•• $ 1,016.00 91 The Cunirat I Time will he (increased) OiN idt I)inkft)( $ 225,913.00 The Roe of Substantial Completion as of the dale of aI Change Order therefore is March 9, 1987 ( 10 I Days. CHR Associates, PA Aullu►rizecl: D•W. Ward Construction Co. County of Orange dll�lixport Road ('e)NIKA(:I()k OWNER \�lir" P.O. Box 15157 106 E. Margaret Lane Chapel Hill, NC 27514 _ \d.ln.` Acklro.s -�—�_ Durham, NC 27704 Hillsborough, NC 27278 1;Y.---- DAM 1 E O IE MA DOCUMENT G701 • l IIM C;f. (MIN It • :\1'R11 1•1T6 11)1111l • :\1.\' • ••• 1•►,"I 1111 .'tMI 1411 AN INA11I11II.11I r\K(III 11(.1S, li 1 i NI\\'\•1110;MI..N.\\•..\rANIINI•1(IV I).C. _sm. G701-1978 • Central Telephone Company A t t c3 C h ii1 @ t1 t B North Carolina 141 REC'El JAN 1 1987 0entel Company CENTEL 120 Fourth Street,S.W. 1 P.O.Box 2308 Hickory,NC 28603.2308 Telephone 704 325 0101 January 13, 1987 Ken Thompson Orange County Offices 105 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC Dear Mr. Thompson: In reference to Tony Mason of CHR Associates request the relocation of the Rolm CBX serving the Orange County Offices, thiscrelocation for would involve the following: 1. Relocate the Rolm CBX from the Graddy Brown complex. A budgetary price on this would be $12,000.00. 2. All local lines, FX numbers and OPX lines would have to be reterminated to the new location. There would be a retermination and service order charge for this. I do not have these rates, they would have to come from the Business Office after a complete inventory of the existing lines and OPX's was made. i would expect this would be about $3,500. 3. The County would have to provide a suitable Equipent This would be 120 Sq. Ft. minimum with air conditioning oc pacityetogcool112,000 BTU from the switch. This must be on a separate system which is not turned off nights and weekends. These are budgetary prices only. This would have to be done on a Time and Material basis. The labor rate would be $40.00 per hour regular and $60.00 I estimate about 25% of premimum time (after hours/wef the work would be p/weekeeks time. The switch would be down about 8 hours. nds) . Please give me a call if I can be of further assistance in this matter. Sincrely, 241 rY E. Bell Engineer I - Sales LB:tc cc: Bill Hall File 142 6 leP . COUNTY of ORANGE Department of Purchasing and Central Services Pamela K.Jones.Director PEMO 10: Bill Laws, Assistant County Manager PROM: Pam Jones, Purchasing & Central Services Director yai DATE: April 15, 1987 SUBJECT: Increased operating costs associated with proposed telephone switch move As we discussed some time ago Bill, the $12,000 cost quoted to moved the Rolm switch covers only a portion of the situation. A more far reaching. ramification is the increased expense for operating the telephone system. Larry Bell, an engineer at Centel and the man responsible for the $12,000 quote, advises me that all telephone extensions located off-site of the switch must pay a additional mileage cost of a minimum of $2.43 per month, per extension. I think you can understand the impact when you consider there are approximately 200 extensions in Human Services complex that would be charged $2.43 more each for their service. That is an increase of around $5800 - $6000 per year -- forever. By leaving the switch where it is, in the most concentrated user area, we can avoid those expenses. If you have questions or require further information along these lines, please do not hesitate to call. Human Services Building • 300 West Tryon Street • Hillsborough,, North Carolina 27278 Telephones: 919 732-8181 • 919 967-9251 • 919 688-7331 • 919 227-2031 ATTACHMENT C 144 _ / L . r 7 a oz v 7 L.,„ rcif% 110•1■.■ . C n 1 1 _ - d . ) Cho° niz au _ a i %ha • gX 3� . - J,V. J 7) , . „ . . W _ , Z v ---.....\ . 1. a. L.ow A'PAAIrTiori W/CourirERT°r ATTACHMENT D 144 i, PiP fp , V P I1 0 7 11 1 •1 t__. • n ; Tha.g., i Attachment E =-Y� 14 , ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTM ENT ON hake 1 l.►<? Southern Orange Senior Center ' Northern Orange Senior Center 410 Caldwell Street Extension e•°'� 'f v, Chapel Hill. N. C. 2751 �� •_ 300 West Trvon Creel �° Hillsborough,N.C. "2'(919)968-4478 732.9361 - Ffillsborouuh Jerry NI. Passmore %7-925 I Chapel Hill Director ., a•,.��•• 6S8-7333 Durham „7.2032 Mebane M E M O R A N D U M TO: Shirley Marshall, Chairperson and County Commissioners n FROM: Jean Wagner, Chairperson, Orange County Senior Citizens Board DATE: March 30, 1987 SUBJECT: Recommendations on DoA Senior Center Facility Space At the February 12 meeting of the Senior Citizens Board, one of the agenda items was consideration of the Orange County Facilities Study recently completed and submitted to you by a consultant. In addition, DoA staff had prepared recommendations based on space use for existing programs and for future growth. The Senior Citizens Board unanimously endorsed and supported the staff recommendations . I am enclosing a copy of those recommendations for your consideration in relation to future capital development plans and projections. The Board appreciates the Commissioners' support of services for senior citizens in our area. We recognize that the rapidly increasing senior citizen population will require careful planning for expansion and for effective use of existing resources . In this respect, the active participation of the County Manager' s office in senior citizen programs and Mr. Kittrell 's attendance at our meetings has also been very helpful to us. Your careful consideration of the recommendations attached to the Facilities Study will be greatly appreciated. cc: 'Kenneth Thompson, County Manager Albert Kittrell, Asst. County Manager Senior Citizen Board Members te6\Ag A Staff Recommendations. to the i4� Senior Citizens Board on the On the Orange County Facility Study Hills:icrough Department on Aging Offices • and Senior Center The recently issued Orange County Facility Study did note the over- crowding of the Hillsborough Department on Aging Administrative offices and Senior Center. The Department's staff supports the recommendation to leave both the Center and the Department's administrative offices at their current location at 300 West Tryon Street. This facility, known in the community as the "Old Grady Brown School" , was attended by many of the Senior Citizens and their children. That identification and the co-loca- tion with other services, especially the Public Library, make this an ex- cellant location. Our concern is with the failure of the study to identify specific space needs for this Department. While clearly stating that 250 sq. ft. of Department on Aging space should be given to the Health Department, it merely states that :'some' of the soon-to-be vacated Purchasing and Central Services space be turned over to DoA. Therefore, we would make the following recommendations (please consult the attached diagram) . The rapidly expanding CAT Transportation Service is resulting in an increase in the number of staff (drivers) and clients (of all ages) who are using the Center. There is no place for these people to wait between work shifts or for shuttle vans. Due to increased use of the Hillsborough facility by other DoA staff, there is no longer a Visiting Agency Office . Many times , the large DoA Conference Room is inappropriately used by very small groups because there is no other space available. And the increasing demand for use of the Conference Room results in no space available for Senior Center programming. Based on these points, we would recommend that the Department on Aging be allocated all of the space that will be vacated by Purchasing/Central Stores Department. The distribution of space on the ground floor of the Human Services Complex would be as follows: Health Department - One small conference room created by dividing the current Craft Room in half and adding a door from the hallway (300 sq. ft. ) . Adult Day Treatment - Maintain current space minus the storage room off the central hallway which will be converted to a room to house a small Xerox copier for building use Deptartment' on Aging - Take over Purchasing/Central Services space, including small switchboard room for net gain of 800 sq.ft. The specific Department use of the additional space is indicated on the immediate (attachment #2) and long term (attachment #3) floor diagrams . • • e. • • • • • •. • • 14 r GRADY BROWN FIRST FLOOR tr AisitNQ ":SpACP .;.( ,...=.e Wrt griKleallertr L:71 Asti.*t FIPI: - - P c06, (vo h) . -F--,:- 41' :_ 0..I fa.I 11 -n.7. r- 4-..1-';*. ..173'11 19!::1?1 =211Ttl"4.I ell ■.7. ...d. .. ‘--j-7e 4-I,'1. ..- T r ,._ . ø ?2 : _ , 0 v0p . r / a/W A4 1N4 "I - .. .- A 7 . A *PR - / l'., I—. 1 Ti a I Laosad: �/ aspic ATE, Y S PPAUCRE L Tone_ i r A Al. ■ nV 1A4 i s • • • r r - - . + 14t GRADY BROWN FIRST FLOOR Vrop o s Eck IMMEcLiA 4•t Ca kA ,3E5 C67I To A wra chRIrtr VI ggi F Do A NEAI+h .._- = --=- -=-- corin 19,,,,�l Rte,. . 1 - ..} -. ;` f . .....c 3 Y' 7311 :111;;T:rt. jillIA-. •t`L �'' , a r�7� - .rT ail fir.,•-1 • ' -�:sir&t r- •• . • I i IP DRPr .. • IN A Ell N tt�t1 RP2" R VV•• •rf A nelP134 • Li is 1 Le KT I T , r--. L.e.nd: ��/ VA yr P V,INQ 1 4 t f7 74t,476,-)7 3 GRADY BROWN FIRST FLOOR Pro Apo 5EDl- • rC CrIRleilleftr Fl Dc A Ce.d.Ro'. Vd '% Reich""Nu- Mist;Ns Ca,F. �'1 Tim; RP". ir 5 e.N D Q fie.Ft rro Do espf-i.d, Ate^ .beA Aril Lof-,"0E- i RA „q. • P4.+A d., FAO 1 , 1 T Loc."AC F Leaser: f MAZE, Yfar Figivstriuri B Staff Recommendations 5 e to the Senior Citizens Board on the Orange County Facility Study Chapel Hill Dept. on Aging Offices and Senior Center Based on the present conditions at the northside location in Chapel Hill, the Orange County Department on Aging Staff support the Facility Study Recommendation to relocate the Departments ' administrative personnel to an alternative site (preferably east Chapel Hill) . This staff deals with high volume, short term welkin services, such as information, discount cards, case management, volunteer inquiries or coordinating services at various community facilities. The present location lacks the basic criteria of (1) acceptabilitl (2) visibility and (3) accessibility necessary to serve all older persons in southern Orange County. However, the Dept. on Aging's senior center opera tions which involves daily group activities for a limited population such as nutrition, arts and crafts, classes and specilized individual services should remain and be expanded at the northside facility. property. the Dent. on Aoincz staff stronalv recommend its administrativq offices remain with the senior center opgratiQns as in Hillsborough. Some specific suggestions to correct the Northside property deficiencies are listed below. 1. Acceptability could be acheived if the County Commissioners committed to consolidating All County Services. on the property, thus creating Page 2 �. 5 I a high traffic flow of county residents. Agencies such at the Sheriff' s Dept, the Driver' s License Bureau, the Health Dept. that serve all/or most county residents should be located at northside to promote acceptability. Other specialized groups such as the court counselors, attorneys, etc proposed to be located in a downtown i facility should be housed on the property. This decision ;rould also be economically beneficial reducing the need to purchase additional downtown land or rental space. Thus, a county govern- ment complex would be a reality rather than a group of facilities providing some county services to selective populations. 2. Visibility could be addressed by grading down the Caldwell St. side of the property so it can be easily seen from the street. Additional lighting could be installed for greater visibility and security for promoting night use. Highly visible directional markers should be installed along the streets from Franklin and Rosemary pointing to the government complex. 3. Accessibility could be acheived by establishing a widened entrance into the property as well as a one-way circular drive that woild accomodate large city buses. The possibility of purchasing and zoning of adjacent residential lots on Church Street could increase space and allow for the main property entrance to be moved to Church Street. This would create an easier direct path from the main city streets. A central waiting shelter should be erected on the property so that persons could take advantage of all county services without having to walk to and from a distance bus stop in inclement weather. Another critical problem is the provision of more parking space as well as for the handicapped with ramps, Page 3 15 railings, special parking etc. Finally, the County Commissioners could reinforce its commitment of (Accr_ritanility, Visibility and Accessibility) by constructing a large multi- purpose room at Northside in which all County Commissioner meetings would be held rather than the courtroom on Franklin Street. A multi-purpose room is critically needed by the Senior Center operations and could be used for daily nutrition programs and special events. Chapel Hill Senior Center Operations The Facility Needs Study does not address at all the Dept. on Aging's critical need for additional group and iniividual services space for senior center operations at Northside. Dept. on Aging staff recommends the following additional center space: (1) a large multi-purpose Nutrition Room (3,000 sq.ft (2) Activity/Game Room (500 sq. ft. ) , (3) storage rooms (300 sq. ft. ) , (4) two visiting agency/examination offices (150 sq. ft. each) . The existing nutrition room could then be used for Arts/Crafts and a section of it for small meetings. Additional center space would also be needed if future service agree- ments with University departments are established to use the facility as a training/research gerentology center. " Discussions are already underway by the DoA Director with various UNC programs with focuses on aging. 15%4! ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 4. 1987 Action nda Item • SUBJECT: NCDOT TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ACTION BY: MAY 4. 1987 _ DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X_ No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins Chapel Hill Request Carrboro Request (Draft) Hillsborough Request TIP Hearing Schedule TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To endorse proposed highway improvement requests by the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and authorize the Chair of the Board to support the requests before the N.C. Board of Transportation. BACKGROUND: The N.C. Board of Transportation adopts annually a multi-year Transportation Improvement Program outlining needed highway improvements and the method and schedule for funding such projects. Prior to adoption of the Program, the Board of Transportation conducts a series of public hearings around the state to obtain advice from local officials and citizens on needed improvements. On May 6, 1987, a public hearing will be held at the Technical College of Alamance Auditorium in Haw River for officials and citizens from District 7, the district in which Orange County is located. Representatives from each of the municipalities will be presenting their requests for highway improvements to the Board of Transportation. Each year, the Chair of the Board of Commissioners has attended the hearing and spoken in support of each municipality' s request as well as other needs which the Commissioners have identified. A coordinated effort to support projects within Orange County increases the likelihood of specific projects being included in the Transportation Improvement Program, particularly when improvement needs are great and funding resources limited. RECOMMEND: Authorize Commission Chair to attend Transportation Improvement Program hearing and speak in support of improvement needs identified by municipalities as well as the County. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL HIGHWAY IMPRDVEfENT REQUESTS Priority listing of needs by eligible Federal funding source: FY B7-$B Manager's Recommendation FEDERAL AID FUNDS Priority Primary Secondar - �..""-`"`_--''_-`-`_---------- y Urban Transportation System Management l Wider and improve Widen and improve 11 US 15-501 from the Bb from Homestead Widen Sage Road, Purchase and install 2-lane segment north improved traffic US 15-501 Bypass Road to the 1-40 to the Chatham of US 15-501 signal system interchange County line 2 Improve the US Build the missing Widen and improve Improve the intersection 15-501 intersection section of the Weaver Dairy Road of Estes and Airport with Sage Rd. and Weaver Dairy Road Scarlette Drive realignment from Road Weaver Dairy Road to Erwin Road 3 Improve and extend Build Laurel Hill Widen NC 86 from Improve the intersection frontage roads along Parkway from US Estes Drive to of Estes and US 15-501 from 15-501 to NC 54 Homestead Road Franklin Franklin Street to along a new the 1-40 interchange alignment • 4 Widen and improve Widen and improve Complete Pittsboro US 15-501 from Mt. Carmel Church St. Extension from Franklin Street to Rd. from US 15-501 Cameron Ave. to the 1-40 interchange tc Chatham County Airport Road line 5 Widen Old Durham- Chapel Hill Road of Complete the from Scarlette Dr. from the US 15-501 to the Durham County Bypass via Willow line Drive to Ephesus Church Road 11 The 15-501 Bypass and South -Street projects have already been included in the State's TIP and will continue to be Town roadway improvement priorities. TOWN OF CARRBORO Not- aaoi,+-t_a 1, y 1987-1988 Boz,ra dr- Al a rr,cor. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PRIMARY 1 5 1. Widen NC 54 to a four lane boulevard facility from 15-501 to the intersection of NC 54 and Old Fayetteville Road. This item includes a request to extend the currently proposed project, U-2003, to include the improvements to the intersection of NC 54 and Old Fayetteville Road (SR 1107). URBAN 1. Widen the following streets to 36 feet with curb and gutter and bike lanes: Hillsborough Street from West Main Street to the Town limits West Main Street from Hillsborough Street to NC 54 North Greensboro Street from Estes Drive to Hillsborough Street 2. Widen Estes Drive to three lanes from the Carrboro Town Limits to North Greensboro Street, and include bike lanes. 3. Improvement of downtown circulation patterns_ Specifics will be included in Carrboro's long-range downtown circulation report. STATE SECONDARY 1. Widen the bridge on Smith Level Road over Morgan Creek to four lanes 2. Widen Smith Level to four lanes from NC 54 to US 15-501 3. Widen Jones Ferry Road to four lanes from Old Fayetteville Road to NC 54 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT 1. Implement the recommendations of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Signalization Study to purchase and install improved signal equipment in the two towns. BICYCLE PROGRAM 1. Include bike lanes on Estes Drive from the Carrboro Town Limits to North Greensboro Street, as an incidental project. 2. Creation and installation of a system map of the Carrboro bicycle network, and distribution to potential riders. 3. Construction of a bike path between Jones Ferry Road at Main Street to Carr Street to relieve potential safety problems in the Downtown area. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1St 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 �, fall MI fe O R A N G E C O U N T Y MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: Greg Szymik SUBJECT: Highway Project Request from Hillsborough DATE: April 29, 1987 According to Harding Hughes, Town Manager, Town of Hillsborough, the Town does not intend to submit a highway improvements request to N.G. Department of Transportation on May 6, 1987. ` a - c c i CAJ� hrr�.� s "wt o //7P/'6 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 RALEIGH 27611 JAMES G. MARTIN JAMES E. HARRINGTON GOVERNOR April 8, 1987 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: Council of Government FROM: James E. Harrington SUBJECT: Public Meetings to Update Transportation Improvement Program Governor Martin, the Board of Transportation and I invite you to participate in a public meeting to update our Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) . A series of 15 public meetings has been scheduled throughout the state to get your advise on highway improvements in your area. Your comments are carefully con- sidered by the Board of Transportation members when they update the TIP. We need you at these meetings to have an accurate transcript of all discussions and presentations. A copy of the statewide schedule is attached. The TIP is a positive approach to scheduling all types of transportation improvements. In addition to road improvements, we welcome your ideas concerning airport, public transportation, rail and bicycle projects in your area. Your assistance is vital -- especially this year because North Carolina was again shortchanged by the federal highway bill recently passed by the Congress, and because important proposals remain to be approved by the N. C. General Assembly. If it is inconvenient for you to attend the meeting in your area, you may want to coordinate with other officials of your area and present a combined priority listing of all projects that you would like the Board of Transportation to consider. Your recommendations, in priority, should be sent to Mr.' George Wells, State Highway Administrator, North Carolina Department of Transportation, P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, N. C. 27611. JEH/ala lv 1. 5e • TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE MEETINGS - 1987 DIVISION 1 Tuesday, April 28 - Roanoke-Chowan Technical College Auditorium, Ahoskie DIVISION 2 Wednesday, April 29 - Beaufort County Community College Auditorium, Washington. DIVISION 3 Thursday, April 30 - City Hall Council Chambers, Jacksonville DIVISION 4 Monday, April 27 - Kirkwood Adams Community Center, Hamilton Street, Roanoke Rapids DIVISION 5 Tuesday, May 5 - Vance-Granville Community College Auditorium, , DIVISION 6 Monday, May 11 - Main Library - Pate Room, 300 Maiden Lane, Fayetteville DIVISION 7 Wednesday, May 6 - Technical College of Alamance Auditorium, Haw River DIVISION 8 Wednesday, May 27 - Randolph Technical College Auditorium, Asheboro DIVISION 9 Wednesday, May 13 - Cecil Auditorium, Agriculture Center, 301 East Center Street, Lexington DIVISION 10 Tuesday, June 2 - Stanly Technical College Auditorium, Albemarle DIVISION 11 Monday, May 18 - Wilkes Community College, John A. Walker Center, Wilkesboro DIVISION 12 Tuesday, May 19 - Holiday Inn, I-40 and Lenoir-Rhyne Boulevard, Hickory • DIVISION 13 Wednesday, May 20 - Asheville-Buncombe Technical Institute, Simpson Administration Building Auditorium, Asheville DIVISION 14 Thursday, May 21 - Swain County Administration Building - Superior Courtroom, Bryson City Friday, May 22 - Union Hall , Morris Road, Brevard ALL MEETINGS TO BEGIN AT 2:Q0 P.M. REGISTRATION AT 1:00 P.M. ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ., 106 East MARGARET LANE 5., HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. „o 27278 OARMY 830*/ STATEMENT TO THE N. C. , E. � BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION HORMwN WALEM navy wa mmT MAY 6, 1987 There are numerous road improvement needs in Orange County. The County Is one of the fastest growing counties and the impacts of this growth are resulting in severe deficiencies in our road network. To address these deficiencies, Orange County requests that specific projects be included in the Transportation Improvement Program. The projects include those listed in each of the attached requests of the County ' s three municipal jurisdictions. The Orange County Board of Commissioners endorses those requests and respectfully asks that each of the projects be included in the 1988-1997 Transportation Improvement Program. • Submitted this 6th day of May, 1987 . ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS fiok4 174:3 By . g a . Y a: sha_] ,tr.. , � r _ _ -._. �-- ;ate - 4.-vY, :� F.. '.5,. ..:fer+7,1 ",_-- -:. ■ it±gE._ •_ :::‘,z, -,,, ..._t_,...A.z,,. +t-i's 7;-4-44%...-'-, '`^ Y1:.402t+ ,:7':=q"'Y. - 18U ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE May 4, 1987 Subject: APPOINTMENTS L Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I 1 Public Hearing: Yes X no 1 Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover 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: B-2 - BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES - 2 expiration of terms for Chris Nutter(state appointee) and Rev. Thomas M. Denton (Non-county Commissioner County appointee) . The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the status of securing candidates for possible appointment consideration. A-13 - RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL - 1 vacancy. No recommendation has been received. B-7 - HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION - 4 vacancies. 2 applications have been received. . B-15 - AIRPORT ISSUES TASK FORCE - a recommendation that Joe Suggs be appointed has been received. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. ORANGE COUNTY DISABILITY AWARENESS DAY PROCLAMATION ""- .,. 1- fifteen years have produced many improvements "" Nation, State, and County KEEP THESE NUMBERS increased opportunities EMERGENCY• HANDV le through the hard work SERGE EMS, fe, Police,Shea.•• I oining together t NELPUNE also at................... O break PPO N CDN •• ;. cr 9421TD� Lnce to it with freedom T1lOL' ' �$z-�g5 (TD time when we should stop MENTA�IISIS •... °f�9-047g MENTAL HEALTIH•.EMERGENCY/SUiCIDE.............732.2�3 new goals; for equality C �ABUSE/NEGLECT- Call Social Services.....; ' CHILD HIL ND CHILDREN NEG weekends •• ........... (see 2'2796 Ca11911A � ' br 1 522 ability Away do hereby FREQUENTLY CALLED COUNTY 0R the mein mm�her shown o DEPARTMENTS ability Awareness Day in ABIN6.s by Operator for the 0epi`6ne°front,E extension Number. :itizen should accept the ... asses, his or her AGRICULTURE .......:..................... place of 4-N el Hill EXTENSION.........•..','..............::'968' 280 Zs for the purpose of ANIMAL Eeonomlcs:::; :...:; 44p a enj oyed by both disabled ANIMAL ocO CONTROL ............................................................. .... :" " 442 County, and further, to CO cona SUPPORT CLERK OF COURTE ENT........ ....:: a o having equal opportunity COMMON FOR WaNEN.:; .: . 484 g a disability.•EMERGENCY pnPM NT.....::::::....... ......•.......'.'• E• Marshall, Chair of the ERlos10N Ncolll .... .;•...............:.: ..... 279 do hereby set my hand and FAMILY COONSELING.. "''•.••..•••...•, .•929 8i0g °f North Carolina, this FINANC ................ ..•................:: ....... 351 and eighty seven. Houma I,NCOMMUNITY.DEVELi •..... :........... :'...• 90S Ana.. MENT.. . 942-41 5 Building •................•' •........... 999.1197 r Plumbing l. ... ... .. ..;...... .... .................. 348 JAIL. LAND RECORDS COOURT COUNSEL R....................................................6, a Marshall, Chair LBRARYID"'. :: 566, 478 of Commissioners MANAGER GI TE....................... .. . . ................ .260, 281 208 menu ............. .............................. 50 PLANNING............................ .........................................•..• '''...................'..• 520 it: � PROPERTY MAPPINB.......:'.'............... 350 PUBLIC DEFENDER........... ...... 400 f_y' �_ /� RECREATION Evenings & ARKS. ..........▪ .. ..............•.•.•.• & 480 rly A. =lythe-�� Cie • REVENUE REGISTER 'Bookends..............................................792996q or 967-9255 8 AT ON...................•...... ••..... 79.:8570 OIK A wail C NSERVATNIN.. ...............•........; 351 VIT ER NS OFFFI ......ssesse4 ............ 9tiS-2000• W LLIE M....•.:.....::.•.•....•::•. .:• .•.........:•....•....•.•.• 967 ......... ........ 509 DRAFT A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY'S PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STUDY OF UNIVERSITY LAKE AND CANE CREEK RESERVOIR PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR I"AINTAINING DRINKING WATER QUALITY WHEREAS, development activities and pressures within the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir Public Water Supply Watersheds are increasing; and WHEREAS, increased development within these watersheds will result in increased pollution of the drinking water supply, thereby presenting increased threats to public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, there is a need for a comprehensive water quality asst _ of University Lake and Cane Creek Water Supply Watersheds and recommendations for mainlining the quality of local drinking water supplies; and WHEREAS, as the organization responsible for treating and providing a safe, reliable supply of drinking water withdrawn from University Lake, Orange Water and Sewer Authority is the governmental unit most appropriate to commission the study of the University Lake watershed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Board of Commissioners of Orange County hereby endorses Orange Water and Sewer Authority's proposed study of the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir Public Water Supply Watersheds. 2. That the study efforts should initially address the University Lake watershed as development pressures are more intense in that watershed. 3. That the findings and recommendations of said study should be carefully reviewed and considered in the development and further refinement ooff local water supply protection programs by all appropriate local governing having planning and zoning jurisdiction in se_watersheds. Adopted this the — day of , 1987. TOWN OF CARRBORO reams 4JZ� '��� Not ad01,4-e.c,\ 1987-1988 13,0„-,..\ 04” TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PRIMARY 1. Widen NC 54 to a four lane boulevard facility from 15-501 to the intersection of NC 54 and Old Fayetteville Road. This item includes a request to extend the currently proposed project, U-2003, to include the improvements to the intersection of NC 54 and Old Fayetteville Road (SR 1107). URBAN 1. Widen the following streets to 36 feet with curb and gutter and bike lanes: Hillsborough Street from West Main Street to the Town limits West Main Street from Hillsborough Street to NC 54 North Greensboro Street from Estes Drive to Hillsborough Street 2. Widen Estes Drive to three lanes from the Carrboro Town Limits to North Greensboro Street, and include bike lanes. 3. Improvement of downtown circulation patterns. Specifics will be included in Carrboro's long-range downtown circulation report. STATE SECONDARY 1. Widen the bridge on Smith Level Road over Morgan Creek to four lanes 2. Widen Smith Level to four lanes from NC 54 to US 15-501 3. Widen Jones Ferry Road to four lanes from Old Fayetteville Road to NC 54 • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT 1. Implement the recommendations of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Signalization Study to purchase and install improved signal equipment in the two towns. BICYCLE PROGRAM 1. Include bike lanes on Estes Drive from the Carrboro Town Limits to North Greensboro Street, as an incidental project. • 2. Creation and installation of a system map of the Carrboro bicycle network, and distribution to potential riders. 3. Construction of a bike path between Jones Ferry Road at Main Street to Carr Street to relieve potential safety problems in the Downtown area. RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD " REGARDING OVERSIGHT OF SLUDGE APPLICATION BY OWASA O Adopted by a vote of 6-1, 27 April 1987 + 449 } Be it resolved by the Orange County Planning Board: 1. That the Board of County Commissioners be requested to examine the question of whether the county should assume responsibility for overseeing all application of sludge in Orange County. 2. That the county be encouraged to enter into discussion with neighboring jurisdictions to develop a regional composting system. 3. That the county attorney be requested to clarify whether OWASA' s Agricultural Nutrients Recycling program constitutes a bona fide farm operation. RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD e ' REGARDING CONCERNS OVER OWASA'S AGRICULTURAL NUTRIEN RECYCLING PROGRAM Adopted by a vote of 7-1, 27 April 1987 .; Be it resolved by the Orange County Plannin g Board: That OWASA be requested to consider and provide specific responses to citizen concerns regarding sludge application at its next work session, particularly as it applies to properties known as "Headwaters A." "Headwaters B," and "Durham Heirs," and That the concerns to be addressed include reestablishment of a vegetative buffer and a more comprehensive environmental impact assessment regarding OWASA's entire 170 acre sludge application tract. Be it further resolved that the Orange County Planning Board: That OWASA be asked to address how and by what mechanisms it will submit to local oversight and seek public input concerning sludge application. and That these responses be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for its 1 June 1987 meeting. y w FINAL TASK FORCE DRAFT PROPOSED ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE Orange County Animal Control Task Force Orange County April 29 , 1987 April 29 , 1987 PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE CONTENTS Section Page I Authority 1 II Animal Shelter 1 III Animal Control Officers 1 IV Animal License Fees 2 V Licenses, Permits, Registrations, and Fees Required by this Ordinance 3 VI Ordinance 4 VII Definitions 4 VIII Animal Control Program 11 IX Relation to Hunting Laws 14 X Notice in Case of Injury 14 XI Mistreatment of Animals Unlawful 15 XII Restriction on Use of Steel Jaw Traps 17 XIII Control of Vicious Animals; Security Dogs 17 XIV Impoundment of Animals 18 XV Handling of Stray Animals 19 XVI Public Nuisance 20 XVII Rabies Control 21 XVIII Rabies Tag and Identification Tag 21 XIX Applicability to Veterinarians 21 XX • Kennel Standards 21 - 2 - XXI Permits and Standards for Animal Collection 28 XXII Penalties 34 XXIII Severability 36 XXIV Effective Date 36 - 3 - Animal Control Task Force - Final Draft PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND PROTECTION IN ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Section I - Authority. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the power granted Orange County in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-121 . Section II - Animal Shelter. Orange County shall operate and maintain a County Animal Shelter for the purpose of impounding or caring for animals held under the authority of state law, this ordinance or any other county or municipal ordinance. Orange County may contract for the operation of the Animal Shelter as it deems appropriate. Section III - Animal Control Officers . Orange County may appoint one or more Animal Control Officers . Any such officer or officers shall be County employees . County Animal Control Officers shall have only the following powers and duties within Orange County and within any municipality therein that has given prior approval therefor: A. The responsibility for the enforcement of all state and local laws including ordinances, resolutions and proclamations pertaining to the ownership and control of dogs and other animals . B. To cooperate with the County Health Director and all law enforcement officers in the county and the towns therein and assist in the enforcement of the laws of the state with regard to animals , the vaccination of dogs and cats against rabies, the confinement and leashing of vicious animals, and any other state law applicable to animals or animal control . C. To investigate reported or observed animal cruelty or animal abuse and make written reports of such investigations and, when requested, provide such reports to appropriate law enforcement officers or the District Attorney's Office. D. To investigate reports of observed harassment or attacks by dogs or other animals against domesticated livestock and to assist in locating those persons owning or harboring the attacking animals . E. County Animal Control Officers shall not have the power to arrest. Section IV - Animal License Fees . Orange County may set animal license fees as allowed by law and set the fee amounts annually as part of the Budget Ordinance. In order to further the goals of controlling animal population, the fees of unspayed or unneutered dogs and cats shall be higher than those of neutered animals . Within thirty days of acquisition of an animal for which a license is required, the owner or keeper shall purchase the appropriate county license. - 2 - Section V - Licenses, Permits, Registrations, and Fees Required By This Ordinance. A. The following licenses, permits, and registrations are required by this ordinance: 1 . Licenses for dogs, cats, or other animals designated by the Board of Commissioners in the Budget Ordinance (see Section IV) . 2 . Registration of patrol dogs or sentry dogs (see Section XIII(D) ) . 3 . Rabies and identification tags for dogs and cats (see Section XVIII ) . 4 . Permits for collecting of dogs and cats for sale (see Section XXI ) . 5 . Depredation permit for use of steel leg hold traps (see Section XII ) . 6 . Permits for commercial kennels, non-commercial kennels and pet shops (see Section XX) . B. The amount of license or permit fees shall be recommended by the Animal Control Director and approved by the Board of Commissioners in the Budget Ordinance. The Animal Control Director may propose for approval by the Board of Commissioners such policies or procedures as may be necessary or appropriate to allow for payment of fees over extended periods of time, at reduced rates, or a waiver of fees for individuals who are unable by reason of financial hardship to pay the required fees . Additionally, dog and cat owners or keepers who furnish to the Animal Control Director a statement from a - 3 - licensed veterinarian that the animal, due to age, physical reasons, or chronic health problems cannot withstand spay/neuter surgery, shall be allowed to pay the license fees provided for spayed or neutered animals . Section VI - Ordinance. The Ordinance to Provide for Animal Control and Protection in Orange County, adopted May 15, 1979, as amended October 3, 1983, is hereby repealed. All other Orange County ordinances in conflict with the ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict . Section VII - Definitions . As used in this ordinance, the following terms mean: 1 . Adequate Food: The provision at suitable intervals, not to exceed 24 hours, of a quantity of wholesome foodstuff suitable for the species and age, sufficient to maintain a reasonable level of nutrition in each animal . Such foodstuff shall be served in a receptacle, dish, or container that is physically clean and in which agents injurious to health have been removed or destroyed to a practical minimum. 2 . Adequate Shelter: That shelter which will keep a non-aquatic animal dry, out of the direct path of winds and out of the direct sun, at a temperature at a level that is healthful for the animal, which animal containment area shall be free of accumulated waste and debris so that the animal shall be free to walk or lie down without coming in contact with any such waste or debris, and a suitable method of draining shall be provided to eliminate rapidly excess water or moisture. Aquatic or - 4 - semi-aquatic animals shall have an adequate amount of clean water in which to move. 3 . Adequate Water: A constant access to a supply of clean, fresh water provided in a sanitary manner. 4 . Animal : Any live, vertebrate creature specifically including but not limited to dogs, cats, farm animals, birds, fish and reptiles . 5 . Animal Control Director: That person designated by appropriate authority in Orange County charged with the responsibility and authority to implement and enforce the Animal Control program in Orange County. 6 . Animal Shelter: A place provided and operated by Orange County directly or by contractual agreement, whether jointly with another governmental unit or independently, for the restraint, care, adoption, and disposition of animals . 7 . At Large: Any animal shall be deemed to be at large when it is off the property of its owner or its keeper and not under the restraint of a competent person. 8 . Commercial Kennels : Any person maintaining an establishment where animals of any species excluding domesticated livestock, kept for the purpose of breeding, buying, selling, or boarding such animals or engaged in the training of dogs for guard or sentry purposes, and which establishment is so constructed that the animals cannot stray therefrom; or any person owning or keeping 15 or more animals, each of which is four months of age or older. - 5 - 9 . Competent Person: A person of suitable age and discretion to keep an animal under sufficient restraint and control in order to prevent harm to the animal and to persons, other animals, including but not limited to domesticated livestock, or property. 10 . Cruel and Cruel Treatment: Every act, omission, or neglect whereby unjustifiable physical pain, suffering, or death is caused or permitted; such acts or omissions shall include, but not be limited to, beating, kicking, hanging, submerging under water, suffocating, poisoning, setting on fire, and depriving of food, water, and medical treatment, or otherwise subjecting the animal to conditions detrimental to its health or general welfare. Such terms, however, shall not be construed to include lawful taking of animals under the jurisdiction and regulation of the Wildlife Resources Commission, lawful activities sponsored by agencies conducting biomedical research or training, lawful activities for sport. 11 . Domesticated Livestock: Livestock raised for the production of meat, milk, eggs, fiber, or used for draft or equestrian purposes, including but not limited to cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses, mules, rabbits, and poultry. 12 . Exposed to Rabies : An animal has been exposed to rabies within the meaning of this ordinance if it has been bitten by, or otherwise come into contact with, any animal known or suspected to have been infected with rabies . - 6 - 13 . Harbor: An Animal shall be deemed to be harbored if it is fed or sheltered by the same person or household for seventy-two ( 72 ) consecutive hours or more. 14 . Health Department: Orange County Health Department . 15 . Health Director: Director of the Orange County Health Department. 16 . Keeper: A person having custody of an animal or who keeps or harbors an animal or who knowingly permits an animal to remain on or about any premises occupied or controlled by such person. 17 . Noncommercial Kennels : Any person maintaining an establishment where animals of any species, excluding domesti- cated livestock, are kept for the purpose of showing, competition, hunting or sport, and which establishment is so constructed that the animals cannot stray therefrom, and which maintains more than five but less than 15 animals . 18 . Owner: Any person owning, keeping, having charge of, sheltering, feeding, harboring or taking care of any animal . The owner of an animal is responsible for the care, actions, and behavior of the animal . 19 . Person: Any individual, family, group of individuals, corporation, partnership, organization, or institution recognized by law as a person. 20 . Pet Shop: A person that acquires for the purposes of resale animals, excluding domesticated livestock, bred by others whether as owner, agent, or on consignment, and that sells, trades or offers to sell or trade such animals at retail or - 7 - wholesale, or a person that holds or keeps animals, excluding domesticated livestock, for the purpose of cleaning or grooming. 21 . Public Nuisance: Actions deemed prima facie evidence of a public nuisance include the following activities of an animal, or conditions maintained or permitted by the animal 's owner or keeper: (a) The animal is found at large off the premises of its owner or keeper and not under the restraint of a competent person. (b) The animal damages the property of anyone other than its owner or keeper, including, but not limited to, turning over garbage containers or damaging gardens, flowers, shrubbery, vegetables or trees, fences or gates, or causes injury to domesticated livestock or pets . (c) The animal habitually and repeatedly barks, whines , or howls so as to interfere seriously with the reasonable use and enjoyment by neighboring residents of their property. (d) The animal repeatedly chases, snaps at, or barks at persons, domesticated livestock, pets, or vehicles when it is not in an enclosure, leashed, or on the owner's or keeper's property. (e) The owner or keeper fails to confine a female dog while in heat (estrus) in a building or secure enclosure in such a manner that she will not be in contact with another dog, provided, this section shall not be construed to prohibit the intentional breeding of animals within an enclosed area on the - 8 - premises of the owner or keeper of an animal involved in the breeding process . 22 . Restraint: An animal is under restraint if it is under sufficient physical restraint such as a leash, cage, bridle, or similar effective and humane device which restrains and controls the animal, or within a vehicle, or adequately contained by a fence on the premises or other secure enclosure. If a competent adult is physically outside on the land with the animal, on land where the owner or keeper of the animal resides, then the animal shall be deemed to be under restraint during the time the animal is in the company of and under the control of that competent person and the animal is on the premises . If any unattended animal is restrained by a chain, leash or similar restraint, it shall be designed and placed to prevent choking or strangulation. Such chain or restraint shall not be less than ten ( 10) feet in length and either on a swivel designed to prevent the animal from choking or strangling itself, or on a chain run. 23 . Security Dog: Any dog used, kept or maintained on the premises of its owner or keeper for the purpose of protecting any person or property. Any such dog shall be further classified as a patrol dog, sentry dog, or watchdog. (a) Patrol dog -- A dog that is trained or conditioned to attack or otherwise response aggressively, but only upon command from a handler either off or on lead . (b) Sentry dog - A dog that is trained or conditioned to attack or otherwise respond aggressively without command. - 9 - (c) Watch dog - A dog that barks and threatens to bite any intruder that has not been specially trained or conditioned for that purpose. 24 . Steel Jaw Trap - Spring-powered devices or traps which capture or hold an animal by exerting a lateral force with fix-mounted jaws on the leg, toe, paw, or any other part of the animal ' s body. 25 . Stray: Any domestic animal that is not under restraint or is not on the property of its owner and is wandering at large or is lost, or does not have an owner, or does not bear evidence of the identification of any owner. 26 . Suspected of Having Rabies: An animal which has bitten a person or another animal. 27 . Torture or Torment: Every act, omission, or neglect causing or permitting unjustifiable physical pain, suffering or death. 28 . Veterinary Hospital: Any establishment maintained and operated by a licensed veterinarian for surgery, diagnosis and treatment of diseases and injuries of animals . 29 . Vicious Animal : Any animal, security dog excluded, which is three months of age or older and without provocation has bitten, killed, or caused physical harm through bites to people or animals who are not trespassing, while on or off the premises of the owner or keeper; or any dog that is owned or harbored for the purpose of dog fighting or training for dog fighting. - 10 - Section VIII - Animal Control Program. The Orange County Animal Control Program, as herein described and as otherwise described in other County ordinances related to animals and as otherwise described in the laws of North Carolina, shall be administered by the Animal Control Director. Specifically: A. The Animal Control Director shall designate employees or agents enforcing this ordinance as Animal Control Officers and Rabies Control Officers . Animal Cruelty Investigators may be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners as provided by law. In the performance of their duties, officers and investigators shall have all the power, authority, and immunity granted under this ordinance and by the general laws of this State to enforce the provisions of this ordinance, and the laws of North Carolina as they relate to the care, treatment, control or impounding of animals . B. Except as may be otherwise provided by law, no officer, agent, or employee of the County charged with the duty of enforcing the provisions of this ordinance or other applicable laws, shall be personally liable for any damage that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any act required or permitted in the discharge of such duty unless he or she acts with actual malice. C. It shall be unlawful for any person to interfere with, hinder, or molest any Animal Control Officer, Rabies Control Officer, Animal Cruelty Investigator, police officer, or other appointed agent, including, but not limited to, Emergency Animal Rescue workers, while in the performance of any duty authorized - 11 - by this ordinance or the Animal Control Program, or to seek to release any animal in the custody of said agents, except in the manner as herein provided. D. Animal Control Officers, Rabies Control Officers and Animal Cruelty Investigators are not authorized to carry on their person firearms of any kind except as provided herein. The Orange County Animal Control Program may store at the Health Department and use firearms when necessary to enforce sections of this ordinance or under applicable law for the control of wild, vicious, or diseased animals . E . The Animal Control Program shall: 1. Have the responsibility along with law enforcement agencies to enforce all laws of North Carolina and all ordinances of Orange County pertaining to animals and shall cooperate with all law enforcement officers within Orange County in fulfilling this duty. 2 . Enforce and carry out all laws of North Carolina and all ordinances of Orange County pertaining to rabies control . 3 . Be responsible for the investigation of all reported animal bites, for the quarantine of any dog or cat exposed to or suspected of having rabies, for a period of not less than ten ( 10 ) days, and for reporting to the Health Director as soon as practicable the occurrence of any such animal bite •and the condition of any quarantined animal . - 12 - 4 . Be responsible for the investigation of reports or observations of incidents of harassment of or injuries to domesticated livestock caused by animals . 5 . Be responsible for the seizure and arranging for the impoundment, where deemed necessary, of any dog or other animal in Orange County involved in a violation of this or any other County ordinance or state law. 6 . Investigate cruelty or abuse with regard to animals independently or with a duly appointed Animal Cruelty Investigator, or other person assisting with the Animal Control Program. 7 . Make such investigations or inquiries as necessary for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with this ordinance or applicable state statute. 8 . Keep, or cause to be kept, accurate and detailed records of: ( i ) Seizure, impoundment, and disposition of all animals coming into the custody of the animal control program. ( ii) Bite cases, violations and complaints, and investigation of same, including names and addresses of persons bitten, date, circumstances, and breed. ( iii) Any other matters deemed necessary by the Animal Control Director. 9 . Be empowered to issue citations or notices of violation of this ordinance in such form as the Animal Control Director may prescribe. - 13 - a 10 . Have employees who are trained to standards to be established by the Animal Control Director, which training shall include, but not be limited to, training in animal first aid taught by a licensed veterinarian. F. The premises for all Animal Shelters operated by or for the County shall meet the standards prescribed for commercial kennels set out in Section XX(A) of this ordinance. G. The standards applicable to vehicles and care in transportation set out in Sections XXI (A) ( 2 ) (a) apply to Animal Control Officers collecting, transporting, or holding animals in this County. Section IX - Relation to Hunting Laws . Nothing in this ordinance is intended to be in conflict with the laws of the State of North Carolina regulating, restricting, authorizing or otherwise affecting dogs while used in hunting, but this exception applies only while the dogs are in the presence of the owner, keeper, or competent person, and are actually lawfully being used for hunting or training for hunting in compliance with applicable statutes, regulations, or ordinances . This ordinance should be read and enforced consistent with any such law. Section X - Notice in Case of Injury. It shall be unlawful for any person who causes injury to an animal , including but not limited to, running over or hitting the animal with any vehicle, to fail to notify immediately at least one of the following: ( 1) the owner( s) or keeper(s ) of the animal ( if known or ascertainable with reasonable efforts made to locate the owner - 14 - or keeper) , ( 2 ) an Animal Control Officer, ( 3) the Sheriff 's Department, or ( 4 ) the Animal Shelter. Section XI - Mistreatment of Animals Unlawful . The following acts or failure to act relating to the mistreatment of animals are unlawful and violations of this ordinance: A. It shall be unlawful for any person to subject or cause to be subjected any animal to cruel treatment, to torture any animal, or to deprive or cause to be deprived any animal of adequate food, and water. With respect to domesticated animals or wild animals in captivity or under restraint, it shall additionally be unlawful to deprive or cause to be deprived any such animal of adequate shelter or veterinary care. B. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale, barter or give away within the county baby chickens, baby ducklings or other fowl under six (6) weeks of age or rabbits under eight ( 8 ) weeks of age as pets , toys, premiums or novelties; provided, however, that this section shall not be construed to prohibit the sale or display of such baby chickens , ducklings or other fowl or such rabbits in proper facilities with adequate food, water, and shelter, by breeders or stores engaged in the business of selling the animals for purposes other than as pets or novelties . C . It shall be unlawful to color, dye, stain or otherwise change the natural color of baby chickens or other fowl or rabbits . D. It shall be unlawful for any person to tether any fowl . - 15 - E. It shall be unlawful to restrain any animal except in a humane fashion; minimum standards of restraint are set out in Section VII( 22 ) above. F. It shall be unlawful for any person to entice or lure any animal out of an enclosure or off the property of its owner or keeper, or to seize, molest or tease any animal while the animal is held or controlled by its owner or keeper or while the animal is on or off the property of its owner or keeper. G. It shall be unlawful to possess any paraphernalia related to dog, cock or other animal fighting, including, but not limited to, gaffs . H. It shall be unlawful for any person to transport an animal in the closed trunk of a vehicle, or transport it in the open bed of a pickup truck or trailer without proper restraint; further, it shall be unlawful to leave an animal unattended for a period of five minutes or more in a vehicle or closed compartment on a vehicle or trailer when the ambient temperature in the vicinity of the vehicle or trailer is greater than or equal to 70°F. I . It shall be unlawful for any person to commit any of the acts made unlawful under the provisions of North Carolina General Statute § 14-362 , as the same relate to a dog or dogs, or to commit any other act made unlawful by any other law of the State of North Carolina relating to animal fighting or animal baiting. The repeal of such law or laws of the State of North Carolina shall have no effect upon this Section, and the acts herein made unlawful shall, in the event of such repeal, be - 16 - those referred to in said law or laws immediately prior to such repeal . J. It shall be unlawful to tie or restrain an animal on public property for a period of thirty minutes or more unless the animal has access to adequate food and water and adequate shelter. K. It shall be unlawful for any person to abandon or forsake any animal within the county. Section XII - Restriction on Use of Steel Jaw Traps . No person shall use, set, place, maintain or tend, or cause to be used, set, placed, maintained or tended, steel jaw traps, except that a person may use such a trap in accordance with a depridation permit duly issued by appropriate authorities . Section XIII - Control of Vicious Animals; Security Dogs . A. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep any vicious animal within the county, unless under restraint and on the premises of the owner or keeper. Security dogs are subject to all other provisions of this ordinance while off the premises of their owner or keeper. B. Upon an Animal Control Officer's observation of a vicious animal at large or off the premises of its owner or keeper and not restrained by a competent person, such officer shall impound the animal . C . Upon an Animal Control Officer' s receipt of a complaint that an animal is behaving or has behaved viciously and is at large or off the premises of its owner and not restrained by a competent person, the officer shall investigate - 17 - the complaint and, upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe a violation of this ordinance or other applicable law or regulation has occurred, shall take any action allowed by this ordinance or State law as the circumstances may require. D. All persons owning security dogs that are classed as patrol dogs or sentry dogs as defined by this ordinance shall register such animals with the Animal Control Director; the owner or keeper of any dog that is classed as a patrol dog or sentry dog under this ordinance shall place a sign or placard on his premises noting "Beware of Dog" or other information noting the presence of security dog(s) . E. If an animal is impounded as vicious, authorization for reclamation after any required holding period shall be granted when the Animal Shelter Manager or his or her designee in consultation with the Animal Control Director or his or her designee is reasonably assured that the animal is not vicious or the vicious animal will be properly restrained on the premises of its owner or keeper. Section XIV - Impoundment of Animals . A. An animal impounded under this ordinance may be reclaimed by its owner or keeper according to the procedures of the Animal Shelter. The owner or keeper of an impounded animal shall be responsible for all expenses and boarding costs associated with such impoundment . Unless reclaimed, the impounded animal may be allowed to be adopted or humanely destroyed according to standard Animal Shelter procedures after five ( 5) days of impoundment. - 18 - B. In lieu of impoundment, the Animal Control Director is authorized to issue a confinement order to the animal owner or keeper that would require the owner or keeper to confine a vicious animal or an animal otherwise violating provisions of the ordinance. Failure to thus confine the animal would constitute a further violation of the ordinance, subjecting the owner to appropriate criminal or civil penalties . Section XV - Handling of Stray Animals . It shall be unlawful for any person, without the consent of the owner or keeper, knowingly and intentionally to harbor, feed, keep in possession by confinement or otherwise any animal that does not belong to him, unless he has, within seventy-two ( 72 ) hours from the time such animal came into his possession, notified an Animal Control Officer or the Animal Shelter. A. Any animal at large may in a humane manner be seized, impounded, and confined in the Animal Shelter and thereafter adopted out or disposed of pursuant to procedures of the Animal Shelter and applicable State law. B. Impoundment of such an animal shall not relieve the owner or keeper thereof from any penalty which may be imposed for violation of this ordinance. C . Any animal seized and impounded that is badly wounded or diseased and has no identification, may be destroyed pursuant to procedures of the Animal Shelter. If the animal has rabies or is suspected of having rabies , the body shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable state regulations . If the animal has identification, the Animal Shelter shall attempt to notify - 19 -- expeditiously the owner or keeper before euthanizing such animal; in any event the Animal Shelter and Animal Control Program shall have no liability for euthanizing wounded or diseased animals when such action is taken upon the advice or recommendation of a veterinarian who has been advised of the animal 's condition. Section XVI - Public Nuisance. It shall be unlawful for an owner or keeper to permit an animal or animals to create a public nuisance, or to maintain a public nuisance created by an animal or animals . Compliance shall be required as follows : A. When an Animal Control Officer or law enforcement officer observes a violation, the owner or keeper will be provided written notification of such violation and be given forty-eight ( 48) hours or such lesser amount of time which shall be designated on the abatement order or citation to abate the nuisance. B. Upon receipt of a written detailed and signed complaint alleging that any person is maintaining a public nuisance as defined in this ordinance, the Animal Control Director shall cause the owner or keeper of the animal or animals in question to be notified that a complaint has been received, and shall cause the situation complained of to be investigated and a written report thereon to be prepared. C . If the written findings indicate that the complaint is justified, the Animal Control Director or person duly authorized by the Animal Control Director shall cause the owner or keeper of the animal or animals in question to be notified in writing, - 20 - • ! and shall order abatement of such nuisance within forty-eight ( 48 ) hours or such lesser amount of time which shall be designated on the abatement order or citation. D. If, after forty-eight ( 48) hours or such lesser time as is designated in the abatement order or citation, the nuisance is not abated, the animal creating the nuisance shall be impounded. Section XVII - Rabies Control . It shall be unlawful and a violation of this ordinance for any animal owner, keeper or other person to fail to comply with the laws of North Carolina relating to the control of rabies . Section XVIII - Rabies Tag and Identification Tag. All dogs and cats shall wear a valid rabies tag. All dogs shall additionally wear an identification tag giving the owner or keeper's name, current address and telephone number. Section XIX - Applicability to Veterinarians . Hospitals, clinics and other premises operated by licensed veterinarians for the care and treatment of animals are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance except for the provisions relating to cruelty to animals and rabies control . Section XX - Kennel Standards . A. Standards for Commercial Kennels . All commercial kennels shall, in addition to the other requirements of this ordinance, comply with the minimum standards of this subsection. Owners or operators of commercial kennels must apply to the Animal Control Director, pay any designated fee, and receive a permit to own or operate a commercial kennel in Orange County. - 21 - Facilities shall be subject to inspection during reasonable hours by an Animal Control Officer or other appropriate representative of the Animal Control Program upon his or her request . Failure to meet the standards set out herein shall be grounds for the issuance of a citation subjecting the owner to the penalties described herein, and/or the issuance of an abatement order to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. The premises of commercial kennels shall meet the following standards : 1 . Buildings or enclosures must be provided which shall allow adequate protection against extreme weather conditions . Floors of buildings and runs, and walls shall be of an non-porous material or otherwise constructed so as to permit proper cleaning and disinfecting. Temperatures in animal containments shall be maintained at a level that is healthful for every species of animal in the containment. 2 . Cages, kennels, or runs shall have sufficient space for each animal to sit, stand up, lie down, turn around, and stretch out to its full length without touching the sides or tops of the cage, kennel, or run. Cages, kennels, and runs are to be of a material and construction that permits cleaning and disinfecting, and shall have an impervious surface. Cage, kennel, and run floors of concrete shall have a resting board or some type of bedding. Cages , kennels , and runs shall provide protection from the weather. All animal quarters are to be kept clean, dry, and in a sanitary condition. Cages, kennels and runs shall be structurally sound and maintained in good repair - 22 - to protect animals from potential injury, contain the animals, and restrict the entrance of other animals and people. 3 . Animals shall not be placed in cages, kennels, or runs unless such cages , kennels, or runs are so constructed to prevent animal excreta from entering other cages, kennels, or runs . 4 . Sufficient shade shall be provided to allow all animals kept outdoors to protect themselves from the direct rays of the sun. 5 . Each animal shall be given the opportunity for vigorous daily exercise as appropriate. 6 . Litter boxes shall be provided for cats and kittens . 7 . Food shall not be contaminated, and shall be wholesome, palatable, and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value and offered at appropriate intervals to meet the normal daily requirements for the condition, size, and age of the animal . Food for all animals shall be served in a clean container so mounted that the animals cannot readily tip it over or defecate or urinate in it. 8 . Supplies of food and bedding shall be stored in facilities which adequately protect such supplies against infestation or contamination by vermin. Refrigeration shall be provided for supplies of perishable food. 9 : All animals shall have fresh, drinkable water available at all times . Water containers shall be of removable - 23 - type and be mounted or secured so that the animals cannot readily tip it over or defecate or urinate in them. 10 . All food and water containers shall be cleaned and disinfected daily. 11 . All animals must be fed and watered, cages and kennels cleaned each day, including Sundays and holidays . 12 . Adequate veterinary care shall be provided as needed for each animal . 13 . Provisions shall be made for the removal and disposal of animal and food waste, bedding and debris, to assure the facility will be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. 14 . Facilities such as a washroom, sink, or basin shall be provided to maintain cleanliness among animal caretakers and animal food and water containers . 15 . Facilities for animals shall be adequately ventilated to provide for the health and comfort of the animals at all times . Such facilities shall be provided with fresh air, either by means of windows, doors, vents, or air conditioning and shall be ventilated so as to minimize drafts, odors, and moisture condensation. 16 . Facilities for animals shall have ample light by natural or artificial means or both, of good quality and well distributed and as appropriate for each animal 's health and well being. Such lighting shall provide uniformly distributed illumination of sufficient light intensity to permit routine inspection and cleaning during the entire working period. - 24 - Enclosures shall be so placed as to protect the animals from excessive illumination. 17 . Every person maintaining such a facility shall post a notice clearly visible from the ground level at the main entrance to the facility containing the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons responsible for the facility where they may be contacted during any hours of the day or night. B. Standards for Non-commercial Kennels . All non-commercial kennels shall, in addition to other requirements of this ordinance, comply with the minimum standards of this subsection. Owners or operators of non-commercial kennels must apply to the Animal Control Director, pay any designated fee, and receive a permit to own or operate a non-commercial kennel in Orange County. Facilities shall be subject to inspection during reasonable hours by the Animal Control Officer or other appropriate representative of the Animal Control Program upon his or her request. Failure to meet these standards set out herein shall be grounds for the issuance of a citation subjecting the owner to the penalties described herein, and/or the issuance of an abatement order to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. The premises at non-commercial kennels shall meet the following standards : 1 . All enclosures housing animals must provide adequate shelter. 2 : The food shall be free from contamination, wholesome, palatable and of sufficient quantity and nutritive - 25 - value to meet the normal daily requirements for the condition and size of the animal . 3 . All animals shall have fresh water available at all times . 4 . All areas housing animals shall be free of accumulated waste and debris and shall be maintained regularly so as to promote proper health. 5 . All areas housing animals shall be free of accumulated or standing water. 6 . All animals housed shall be provided with proper veterinary care to promote good health. C. Standards for Pet Shops . All pet shops, as defined herein, including pet shops run in conjunction with another animal facility, shall, in addition to the other requirements of this ordinance, comply with the minimum standards of this section. Failure to meet these standards shall be grounds for the issuance of a citation subjecting the owner to the penalties described herein, and/or the issuance of an abatement order to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. Owner or operators of pet shops must apply to the Animal Control Director, pay any designated fee, and receive a permit to own or operate a pet shop in Orange County. Facilities shall be subject to inspection during reasonable hours by the Animal Control Officer or other appropriate representative of the Animal Protection Program upon his or her request. The premises for pet shops shall meet the following standards : - 26 - 1 . There shall be available hot water at a minimum temperature of 140° Fahrenheit for washing cages and disinfecting, and cold water easily accessible to all parts of the shop. 2 . Fresh water shall be available to all species at all times . Containers are to be cleaned and disinfected each day. All water containers shall be removable for cleaning and be mounted so the animal cannot turn them over or defecate in them. 3 . The temperature of the area around the animal enclosures in the shop shall be maintained at a level that is healthful for every species of animals kept in the shop. 4 . All cages and enclosures are to be of a nonporous material for easy cleaning and disinfecting. Each cage must be of sufficient size that the animal will have room to stand, turn, lie down, and stretch out to its full length without touching the sides, or tops of the enclosure, and floors of sufficient strength and design to ensure the animal 's limbs or paws cannot pass through the floor material . 5 . All animals under three ( 3) months of age are to be fed at least two ( 2 ) times per twenty-four (24 ) hours . Food for all animals shall be free from contamination, wholesome, palatable and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to meet the normal daily requirements for the condition and size of the animal . Food for all animals shall be served in a clean dish so mounted that the animal cannot readily tip it over and be of the removable type. - 27 - 6 . Each bird must have a perch and sufficient room to sit on a perch. Perches shall be placed horizontal to each other in the same cage. Cages and perches must be cleaned every day and cages must be disinfected when birds are sold or as otherwise transferred. Parrots and other large birds shall have separate cages from smaller birds . 7 . There shall be sufficient clean, dry bedding to meet the needs of each individual animal. Provision shall be made for the removal and disposal of animal and food waste, bedding and debris, to assure the enclosure is maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. 8 . All animals must be fed, watered, and all cages cleaned every day, including Sundays and holidays . Section XXI - Permits and Standards for Animal Collection. A. A permit for the collecting of dogs and cats for sale shall be required before any individual may engage in any action in Orange County in furtherance of any action involving or relating to the collection or procurement of dogs and cats for sale or disposal . A permit allowing such actions will be issued only upon payment of a fee set by the County Commissioners and demonstration by the applicant that the following requirements shall be met: 1 . Permit Application: a. An application for a collection permit shall be made by each and every individual involved in the collecting of dogs and/or cats in Orange County for the purpose of sale or other disposal . Any such application for the above mentioned - 28 - purpose shall have to be made to the Animal Control Director on a form prescribed by the Animal Control Director. b. An investigation may then be conducted by the Animal Control Director or person duly authorized by the Animal Control Director which may include inspection of the premises where the animals are to be kept and any vehicles in which animals are to be transported. c . Upon the determination by the Animal Control Director or person duly authorized by the Animal Control Director that the requirements of these regulations have been met and are capable of continuing to be met during the duration of the permit, a permit for no more than one ( 1) year shall be issued, upon payment of applicable fees, to the individual applicant only for the specific individual applicant, premises, and vehicles listed on the application. d. Application for a permit renewal is the responsibility of the permit holder and shall be made no later than thirty ( 30) days prior to the expiration of the current permit. Failure to reapply prior to the 30-day limit may result in a penalty fee. e. No individual shall be issued a collection permit unless: 1 . the individual is properly licensed by the U.S . Department of Agriculture and/or N.C. Department of Agriculture and such license is unsuspended and unrevoked; 29 o- 2 . the individual complies with the Orange County Animal Control ordinance and all other applicable laws and regulations; 3 . all requirements of this section have been met. f. The following information shall be provided on or with the application for a collection permit: 1 . the name, address, and telephone number of the applicant; 2 . U.S . Department of Agriculture and/or N.C. Department of Agriculture license number under which the applicant operates; 3 . a basic description of the applicant's background, including but not limited to all licenses he may have had for handling or keeping of animals, and all arrests or convictions involving any matter or law in any way pertaining to animals; 4 . a complete description, including vehicle identification number and vehicle license number of each and every vehicle which will be used to collect and/or transport animals; 5 . the address and location where the animals will be kept or maintained for the five days after collection. 2 . Permit Requirements : a: No permit shall be issued or remain valid unless the Animal Control Director or person duly authorized by the Animal Control Director is satisfied that both the vehicles in - 30 -- which the animals will be collected and transported and/or the premises where the animals will be housed meet the following requirements : 1 . Premises All premises shall meet the same standards as set for commercial kennels in Section XVII of this Ordinance. 2 . Vehicles a. Vehicles used to transport animals must be mechanically sound and equipped to provide fresh air to all animals without harmful drafts . b. The sections of the vehicles where the animals are placed are to be constructed and maintained so that engine exhaust fumes cannot get to the animals . c . The sections of the vehicles where the animals are to be kept should be cleaned and disinfected after each use and as needed. 3 . Enclosures In or On Vehicles a. Enclosures (including compartments or cages, cartons, or crates) used to transport animals are to be well constructed, well ventilated, and designed in such a way to protect the health and insure the safety of the animals . b. These enclosures must be constructed or placed on the vehicles so that: i) every animal in the vehicle has sufficient fresh air for normal breathing, ii) the openings of these enclosures must be easily accessible for emergency removals at all times, - 31 -- iii) the animals must be adequately protected from the elements, including heat and cold. iv) the animals must be adequately protected from one another. c . Only animals of the same species shall be transported in the same enclosure. Puppies and kittens under six ( 6) months of age shall not be transported in the same enclosure with adult animals, other than their mother. d. Each enclosure used to transport animals shall be large enough for each animal to stand erect, sit, turn about freely and lie down in a normal position. e. Animals shall not be placed in enclosures over other animals while being transported unless each enclosure is so constructed to prevent animal excreta from entering the other enclosures . f. All enclosures used to transport animals shall be disinfected after each use and as needed. 4 . Care in Transit a . The attendant or driver shall be responsible for inspecting the animals frequently enough to assure the health and comfort of the animals and to determine if emergency care is needed and to obtain said emergency care if needed. b. If any animal is in a vehicle for more than three (3) hours, it shall be provided fresh, drinkable water, and food as appropriate. - 32 - a c . Each animal in transit shall have a tag affixed to its collar of a type approved by the United States Department of Agriculture. 3 . Records : a. Every person who sells, gives, exchanges, or otherwise delivers any animal to a collector must receive from the collector a written receipt, a copy of which is to be kept by the collector, signed by both the owner or keeper and the collector, stating the following: 1 . the number of animals received by the collector; 2 . the sex, breed, and a general description of each animal received and the U.S. Department of Agriculture number assigned to each animal; 3 . the name, address, location, and telephone number of the location to which the animal will be taken for the following five ( 5) days; 4 . the name, address, and telephone number of the collector. 5 . the name, address, and telephone number of the person surrendering the animal . b. A written report containing the above information shall be delivered by the person collecting the animals to the Animal Shelter within twenty-four ( 24 ) hours of the surrender of the animal . . c . A record shall be kept of the disposition of every animal which is collected. - 33 - d. Every collector shall maintain a copy of all receipts and disposition records for one ( 1) year. B. A Quality Assurance program to ensure adherence to these standards shall be carried out within the Animal Control Division. C. The Animal Control Director shall be responsible for the full and proper application of this policy. Questions concerning the applicability or interpretation of this policy shall be the responsibility of the Animal Control Director. Section XXII - Penalties . The following penalties shall pertain to violations of this ordinance. A. The violation of any provision of this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor and any person convicted of such violation shall be punishable as provided in North Carolina General Statute § 14-4, or other applicable law. Each day's violation of this ordinance is a separate offense. Payment of a fine imposed in criminal proceedings pursuant to this subsection does not relieve a person of his liability for taxes or fees imposed under this ordinance. B. Enforcement of this ordinance may include any appropriate equitable remedy, injunction or order of abatement issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to North Carolina General Statute § 153A-123(d) and (e) . C. In addition to and independent of any criminal penalties and other sanctions provided in this ordinance, a violation of this ordinance may also subject the offender to the civil penalties hereinafter set forth. - 34 - i R 1 . Any official authorized by the Animal Control Director may issue to the known owner or keeper of any animal, or to any other violator of the provisions of this ordinance, a ticket or citation giving notice of the alleged violation(s) . Tickets or citations so issued may be delivered in person or mailed by certified or registered mail to the person charged if that person cannot readily be found. The ticket or citation, except those issued for failure to license an animal, shall impose upon the violator a minimum civil penalty of Twenty-five Dollars ( $25 . 00) , or such greater amounts for subsequent offenses as may be set by the Commissioners . Tickets or citations issued for failure to license an animal as required by the ordinance shall impose upon the violator a penalty of Ten Dollars ($10 . 00) . This civil penalty may, in the discretion of the violator, be paid to the Animal Control Director or his or her designee within fourteen ( 14 ) days of receipt in full satisfaction of the assessed civil penalty. This civil penalty is in addition to any other fees or costs authorized by this ordinance. 2 . In the event that the owner or keeper of an animal or other alleged violator does not appear in response to the above described ticket or citation, or the applicable civil penalty is not paid within the time period prescribed, a civil action may be commenced to recover the penalty and costs associated with collection of the penalty, and/or a criminal summons may be issued against the owner or keeper or other - 35 - alleged violator of this ordinance, and upon conviction, the owner shall be punished as provided by State law. Sections XXIII - Severability. If any part of this ordinance shall be held invalid, such part shall be deemed severable and the invalidity thereof shall not affect the remaining parts . Section XXIV - Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective _ 1987 . Adopted this the day of , 1987 . Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner _, the foregoing Animal Control Ordinance was adopted this the day of , 1987 . - 36 -