HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-01-1982 •
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
. . BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Regular Meeting
10:00 A.M. , Monday, February 1, 1982
Commissioners' Room, Orange County Courthouse
Hillsborough, North Carolina
A. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD
B. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Matters on the agenda
2. Matters not on the agenda
C. MINUTES Special Meetings--January 22 and 25,1982
D. ITEMS FOR DECISION BY BOARD
1. The Timbers
2. Appointments
3. Tax Collector's RepOrt
4. Mr. Smith
5. Compensation for Right-of-way acquisition Community Development
6. Amended CDBG Agreement
7. Title XX Allocation
8. Hillsborough ESC Office
- 9. Vacant County Positions
10. Vehicle Replacement for Sheriff's Department
11. Ordinance for Carrboro
12. Discussion of work session for Water Resource Task Force
Report and related Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
43 iv roced u_y e 4"c, T 44) 4- e-Y ?c,7g
cc-io r C. e.),,t) 5 ; cl 'Er e7,4-'
4 •
00445
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 1, 1982
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday,
February 1, 1982, at 10:00 A.M., in the Commissioners' Roam, Orange County
Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and Conmissioners Norm
Gustaveson, Shirley E. MArshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit.
A. Camments from the Board:
Commissioner Marshall announced that the Mayor's Task Force on Human Services
in Chapel Hill had completed its report; she thanked the County for its partici-
pation and cooperation with the Town in this effort.
Chairman Whitted announced that both the Timbers and Dr. Pamela Mayer
would be heard after lunch. Commissioner Willhoit said he wished to add a
discussion of Reagancuics and how the proposed program swaps would affect certain
County departments. Crumissioner Gustaveson will give a brief discussion on HSAC
and added a road matter for Board discussion.
"B: Audience Cements:
One member of the audience asked Commission Marshall how he could get a cop.,-
of the Task Forces Report on Human Services; she responded that the 'Down of Chapel
Hill had that report. There were no other comments.
C. Minutes:
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by COmmissioner Marshall, to approve
the Minutes of January 22, 1982, as corrected. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, to approve
the Minutes of January 25, 1982, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
D. Items For Decision by the Board:
2. Appointments:
Chapel Hill Planning Board: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commis-
sioner Gustaveson, to appoint Mr. Roger Dalston. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
Commissioner Marshall moved to appoint George Meyer to the Chapel Hill
Planning Board; Commissioner Willhoit seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, 5;
noes, 0.
The Clerk was instructed to advertise vacancies on the Orange County Plan-
ning Board, the Commission for Women, the Energy Commission, the Orange County
001446
Board of Adjustment and the Southern Triangle Fire District.
3. Tax Collector's Report: The Tax Collector reported on the comparison
of uncollected taxes of this year as compared to last year's figure for the same.
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to have
the Tax Lien Sale on June 7, 1982. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
(CLERK'S NOTE: What follows is a verbatim transcription of agenda item
number 4, Mr. Charles Smith.)
Chairman Whitted--Item 04, Mr. Charles Smith. I believe Mr. Smith is here.
Mr. Smith: I have a matter that I would like to bring to the Board. I would
like my partner to discuss.
Mr. Mart Levi: Good Morning. I regret you don't have a lectern; it would be
a little more comfOrtable-if we did.
Commissioner Walker: You can have a seat right there.
Mr. Levi: Thank you.
Conrissioner Walker: Right here.
Mr. Levi: Oh good.
Chairman Whitted: Pull it around. .
Mr. Levi: I wanted to talk to you relative to an incident that had occurred
and hope that you might become informed relative to what it is and what
impact it might tend to have on a program under your direction, ah, here
in this cumnunity. Mr. Smith is a contractor who applied to participate
in your Community Development Program under the direction of Mr. Kittrell.
At the time he applied he was requested to go through the normal procedure
that everyone else goes through and he did that. After having completed
all the information and turned in the application, he was granted the
right to participate in the CD Program. It is my understanding and pre-
dicted on the letters I have here both fiuni BUD and fionithe references
that your Conmunity Program sent out, that there uh these references were
sufficient to justify participation. Mr. Smith proceeded to work in the
program; submit his request for a bid, he did that, and was rewarded a
bid for rehabilitating a home. That hone was completed; there was a 5
day over-run. There wasn't any cost over-run. But there was a 5 day
over-run which is normal. You and I know that the Federal Government
especially the Pentagon, has over-runs not only in terms of time, but
in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars. You, as Commissioners, no
00447
ou
doubt have had over-runs here in terms of building projects that con-
tractors undertook for you. I know they have Los Angelos, Durham, all
over the United States where you don't complete a project in the time
you anticipate completing it. So the project went over 5 days; of
course, there was a penalty for that. And I think most contracts there
is a penalty for going over. Anyway, the job was completed; it was
completed satisfactorily predicated on the on the admission of the
person for whom the job was being done- The property owner. And after
this job was completed, Mr. Smith received a letter from the Director
of this program, stating that he would not be eligible to participate
in the program anymore. In other words, he was banned. There were two
criteria he established for banning him from the program: 1) Pre-
dicated on a memo that was in a folder, not in his personnel folder,
but another folder that Mr. Smith was refused when he asked for this
information under the proper Act; the second criterion was a letter that
had been received fLom the City of Durham stating that Mr. Smith had
been banned from program participation in Durham. Now follow this area
very carefully. The letter that came to your director fiw Durham
arrived and was requested prior to certification of Mr. Smith to partic-
ipate in the Community Development Program. That letter was on file.
You note the date. The date indicates that it was received before Mr.
Smith certified to participate. If this was, if this had been one of
the criteria for denial then why was he ever granted the right to par-
ticipate initially? In as much as this data proceeded his participation.
If the memo was which was written by your Rehab Specialist. Was a
criterion that had objective intent of bettering the performance of
contractors it seems to me that Mr. Smith would have been made aware of
this and that some steps would have been made to let him know they were
dissatisfied with something and on the basis of that corrective measures
would have had to have been instituted or participation would have been
denied in the future. This was not done. This memo was hidden and the
assistant to your director had to go and find this memo and bring it out
at the time we were in the office and say 'This is why I believe he was
denied the right to participate. That memo You should have which became
a philosophy or an approach to prioritizing work at the time Mr. Smith
O0448
had to call sub-contractors and you know you have no contractors in this
country who undertake full responsibility for a job and perform everything
themselves all the time. You need electricians, plumbers, etcetera. So
you don't have that expertise but you get people under contract with you
and you subcontract. And because of that Mr. Smith's priorities differed
flumthe anticipation of the structured rehab. counsel, counselor. The
counselor's articulation in the form of a memo addressed Mr. Smith having
done something to the roof prior to doing something else. And for that
reason, he didn't have sufficient knowledge to justify continued partici-
pation in that program. I would raise great question with that. Let
me touch briefly on why Mr. Smith quote dated in the letter received from
the young lady who had just taken the position, the new position in Durham
was denying him the right to participate in that program. There had
initially been 66 2/3% of the contracts participating in the Durham
rehab pTuyiam who were black; 33% were white. As the program went on
the blacks were eliminated practically to one contractor. At that point,
I went to Washington and talked with Mrs. Harris who was then the Sec-
retary of HEW. I went to Atlanta, I talked with the Solicitors General
Office. I went to Greensboro, and we brought in the Solicitors General,
we brought in the Auditors, we brought in the FBI and we brought in HUD
ficui Atlanta. At that time, if you read the papers, it was documented,
they found there was discrimination. The Redevelopment Commission over
there was practically, it was, they discontinued they were banned. They
went out of business. They were audited; they found some discrepancies.
And on the basis of that, they cane up with a new program in Durham. And
I felt that it was extremely significant that you be informed as to what
has taken place in your program and what kind of data, what kind of good
clean raw data is being used to justify denying Mr. Smith participation
in this program. Especially after he completed the building that he under-
took on bid in the manner in which they wanted it completed. There was a
sign off by the property owner. The property owner was completely satisfied
with the building. Ah Your r91 rector would not provide us with a copy of
that sign off. Said he didn't Isnow where it was. He couldn't find it.
It wasn't in the file. We went over to the house where the daughter now
lives and she said as far as she knew the parents were satisfied. She's
00449
satisfied. We should have seen it before. We said we saw it before.
Your office over on the wall, rather proudly displayed, has a pictorial
presentation of the after but they don't have anything before and I
think there should be a comparative analysis. Before and after. We
were displeasedwith the satisfaction that we received from Mr. Kittrell
so we came down to talk to your County Manager. This County Manager
listened to us for about 45 minutes and asked that we wait, he would. get
in touch with us Shdrtly. This was on the day before New Year's....
New Year's Eve. We came back again. He was out. We came back a third
time, he was out and on the 4th time he was out. And I dictated a letter
to his secretary. I assume that his secretary presented him with this
letter. We also brought the application for a reparticipation. Not
knowing that we would get on the agenda here, I called back because we
didn't dictate this to the Secretary, and stated to the Secretary, add
to that memo that if we do not see the County Manager prior to the County
meeting, Commissioners Meeting on Monday, we will take this case before
the County Commissioners. On Saturday I received a letter here that I
-have in my possession fLom the County, your County Manager. I also
received a letter an Saturday from your Community Development Specialist.
Or your ah ah Program Director. One was dated the 22nd, one was dated
the 21st. You should have that in your folder, if you don't I'll I'll
get it to you. I have it in my folder. Ah it does seem rather odd to me
that I had waited from the day before New Year's until the 22nd to get a
response and the thing that seems even more odd was on the Friday prior.
to the 22nd on having received the letter we went to Mr. Kittrell's
office a fourth time. We met him approximately 50 ft. from his office
talking to a police officer. He stated at that thime that he had not sent
out the letters of reference because the snow had detained he and his
staff from doing so. They were closed before the snow and as a result of
that we would have to wait about a week or two for the references return.
Now if those references were the criteria on which he would predicate his
decision what became the basis of justification for the decision rendered
in a second denial? If those letters of reference which he sent out in
a form of this type asking please complete the questionaire and return
and his decision was predicated on this then he shouldn't have:had a
00 " 50
• ,
decision because this questionaire came back from Durham with no
information on it. This is the questionaire that was in Mr. Smith's
file when it was given to us and had no information on it at all. Now
what critieria or what criterion was used to justify taking that position?
Now since that time we've collected some other information that has gone
on in this program, And I'm going to have the opportunity to present
that to you. And it isn't the most favorable material. And I say to
you that Mr. Smith has been denied the right for program participation
predicated on some nebulous approach that is not justified in being taken
and we feel that he's being discriminated against, and we feel that all
measures must be exhausted to see that he is treated fairly in his
effort to carry out the discipline in which he has prepared himself to
earn a decent living. And I thought the most appropriate thing would be
to care before you and let you know what has happened, Now since that
tire, Mr. Smith received a letter from the City of Durham stating that we
would be eligible to participate in that program; he received that letter.
Since the tire he was banned, he completed a $13,000 job for the City of
Durham in the McDougall Terrace for a burned down apartment building. Be
had 60 days to complete the job and the job was completed in 42 days,
And, gentlemen, and young lady, it is customary for contractors to go
overtime at times. That is why there is a penalty stipulation in the
contract. $5.00 a day, $10.00 a day, $50.00 a day or whatever you see fit
to put in that contract. And I think there is something beyond this, when
your County Manager said the other night, "This is an administrative pro-
blem." I see this as being an administrative problem and if he is the
administrator that you've retained to function in a certain manner that's
what it's supposed to be. If it were not an administrative problem I
wouldn't have gone to him. But I also see something else when I see a
•
letter calling from him on the, dated the 21st, one coming from him on the
22nd after he said to we "I haven't sent the letters out yesterday." And
getting both on the same day. Something is rotten in Denmark and it isn't
Christine. And that's why I'm here to present this before you so we can
ascertain what direction can be taken. If you have some questions, Mr.
Smith and I will be delighted to respond.
Carmissioner Gustaveson: Just a couple of background questions, mainly that ah
06)451
ah are ah legal counsel for Mr. Smith or are you...?
Mr. Levi (interrupting): I'm legal in the sense that he has asked me to
represent him. But I'm not legal in the sense if you are asking if I
have been liscensed to practice law.
Commissioner Gustaveson: But ah, some point in here indicated that you are
part owner of this company; is that correct?
Mr. Levi: Ah that, that is a misnomer, and let me let me explain how that
came into being, And I'm glad you asked as you did, that I am a part- -
owner of that corporation. When we went to your worker's office he
asked what role do I play? and I said Mr. Smith and I are partners. We
are partners but it happens to be in another corporation. And whether
it's a corporation that I own, a corporatism which we are partners or
his corporation, we work together. And in matters where I can assist him
in his efforts to overcame difficulties I do that. Your worker proceeded
to say if you are a partner, are you, I forget the question but the crux,
the statement led me to recognize immediately he didn't know what partner-
ship was. He didn't didn't know the criteria for establishing a partner-
_
ship so I don't remember the rather doltish question the statement at this
time. But, but to respond to you, no we are not partners, I don't own any
of that construction or rehabilitation company. But we are partners in
another entity.
Chairman Whiffed: Other questions?
Commissioner Gustaveson: Ah I guess that ah one concern is looking at all the
material that's been presented to me and trying to ah ah weave my way
through, my way through some of the things that you have said.
Mr. Levi: Sure.
Commissioner Gustaveson: That certainly that ah one of my concerns and I think
that the concern of the ah ah development office and the County Manager is
that the ah we do have good work as far as the rehab of these homes.
Mr. Levi: Sure.
Commissioner Gustaveson: And ah, I gotta sense that you may like this but that
this may be a judgmental thing but I think that there are are ah corn-
patent specialists who have evaluated many rehab situations and ah and
there was some evidence that that this ah there were a lot of things that
went on that went on in regard to this rehabilitation that seem to be
poorly timed and poorly done. And ah I guess my concern is ah that at
least this is part of the heart of the matter that ah this is certainly
ah within their professional responsibility and administrative respon-
sibility to make these judgements. That when they see ah poorly timed
and ah poor workmanship in terms of the whole project that eh they want
to assure that the money that is being spent in this program is spent as
wisely as possible. And ah, ah I think that as I ah look through this
material that gets to the heart of the whole whole matter. And and I
gather that you kind of lightly went over this fact to bring in a lot of
other things that seem not to be really addressing the core issue and I
think that certainly there are many ah contracts they have to evaluate
many projects they have to evaluate and ah ah ah I think that this is
something that needs to be addressed...
Mr. Levi (interrupting): very well. Allow re to address two things you've
said. First of all the state that I've made light of . I don't under-
stand that--I made light of. The other you stated that it was the respon-
sibility of your staff to make judgments that this might have been a
judgmental thing on my behalf. There's some conflict here. Judgment is
is granted in one situation but judgment is denied in the other. I that's
that's confusing to me. The other is that the money must be spent wisely.
I doubt if you can find anyone, let me put it this way, I've been impressed
with your presentations, I watch you on this Commission. I'm extremely
ah pleased in fact I thought you were one of the profs at UNC. I'd like
to know what you do because I'm impressed with your mannerism as a Com-
missioner. Let re say this, and you will understand this I believe that
money should be spent wisely and I believe that each time a hand is dipped
into the Treasury of the U. S. a little democracy and accountability and
responsiveness must of necessity cling to whatever the fingers take out.
And I can't say it anymore, I can't say it any better when I say that I
believe money should be spent wisely also. So there's no conflict between
what you believe and think and what I believe and think. There's congruency.
Now, I'm going to try to address making light and you correct me if I
misunderstand what you have said. Making light I assume you mean that I
have not given the proper attention and explanation to the performance of
the contractor in lieu of his real performance and in lieu of the standards
L.;-!0.045 3
that have been established by your persons who have responsiblity for
overseeing. Is that what you mean?
Commissioner Gustaveson: That's essentially correct.
Mr. Levi: Fine. Now, ah I haven't made light. First of all, one of the
criteria for acceptance and this is written this is written in your HUD
specifications here. I'll give it to you and you can read it. This is
written in your HUD specifications. Is that the homeowner, the home-
owner has to sign off at the completion of the program and the homeowner -
has to be satisfied and if the homeowner isn't satisfied there are legal
remedies that the homeowner can undertake to express dissatisfaction and
at the same time deny the contractor the right to be paid. I can't think
of a better motivator. Deny the contractor the right to be paid. And if
there is dissatisfaction on the part of the homeowner she'll get in touch with
the Rehab Specialist; he'll get in touch with the check off list and let the
contractor know what he has to do thing. Many of these jobs contractors
have had to go back; I don't believe that Hillsborough or Orange County
has a monopoly on anything good or anything bad. You are no different than
any of the other hundred counties in terms of carrying out the mandate that
has been given to you by HUD relative to rehabilitating houses. I worked on
these all over the State. All over, So I'm not making light. I'm looking
at what the homeowner signed and we were denied the right to see that seeing-
that I'm satisfied. So we had to get articulation from the homeowner. The
person occupying the house. We were denied that. Now I'm also saying that if
the criteria of that were used for denial, was the real criteria then, partici-
pation would have been non-existent. So it isn't a question of what comes first,
the chicken or the egg, none comes because you had the data that you are now
using to deny participation before you granted acceptance.
Commissioner Rutted: Well, that's that's a point that's not quite clear, and
you've made reference to that information we have in the letter frown Durham came
to this office; the Orange County on the 15th of April was dated the 10th of
April. Now I believe that Mr. Smith already had a contract at that time. The
memo fium the Rehab Specialist that ah indicated the ah that the work that had
been performed by the Kidd Smith Company had been inadequate, was dated May 22nd
and then July of sometime the letter went to Mr. Smith denying him participation
in the program. So the the dates that I have tend to indicate that the letter
00 . 54
that came from the City Of Durham was after Mr. Smith had a contract and
was performing work ah in Orange County. Now
Mr. Levi (interrupting): That is not true by the data that I have. And that
is not true.
Chairman Whitted: Well it is by what we have. What was the date that Mr. Smith
was awarded the contract?
Mr. Levi: Let's go back and and date the chronology.
Chairman Whitted (interrupting) : What was the date?
Mr. Levi: The chronology is important.
Chairman Whitted: Okay, wall what was the date that Mr. Smith received a contract
franCrange County?
Mr. Tevi: Let's go back and and play the chronology.
Commissioner Willhoit: Well let's just go right with the
(Commissioner Willhoit continues to talk but I cannot decipher)
Mr. Levi (interrupting): Well the letter went out au!' your office on April the
2nd. The letter went out requesting reference on the 2nd of April; we're
gonna play the chronology. The letter went out on April the second
requesting reference. Alright,
Chairman Whitted: Okay.
Mr. Levi: The the an response was received or written and sent on April the
10th; April the 10th in response to your letter of April 2nd, 1982, regarding
Kidd Smith. I submit the following:
Chairman Whitted: Now, Mr. Mr. Levi let re just. Cause there's a date there's
dates before that; now our information is that a contract was signed on
March 17, 1981, that and work was authorized to receed proceed on March 24th
and the work was completed May 14th. Now that was the job on Mrs. MacNeil's
house that was done by the Kidd Smith Comp&ny. Is that correct? Is that
information correct?
Mr. Levi: I don't have that in my hand at this tire. I do not know...
Chairman Whitted: Okay unintelligble
Mr. Levi (interrupting): Let me respond this way: I don't know because there
were two files and we asked to see the personnel and I think that this was
the file that he didn't go into.
Chairman Whitted: The information that this Board has was that the contract was
signed on March 17th, 1981, and work was authorized to proceed on March 24th,
()04165.1"
the work was completed May 14th. And then in add, then..
Mr. Levi (interrupting): Work was completed on May 14th?
Chairman Whitted: That's the information we have.
Mr. Levi: So the work was completed after this letter was received?
Chairman Whitted: Yes, but the contract was signed March 24th.
Mr. Levi: You received a letter from the City of Durham on April the 15th.
Chairman Whitted: And then, using, he's using the ah the mean from our Rehab
Specialist as to how that work was performed on that one contract that was
signed March 17th in addition to the letter we received on April the 15th.
Then it was a decision of the CD Director
(Chairman Whitted continues but I can't understand, Mr. Levi is interrupting)
Mr. Levi: I'm confused; I don't understand your March 17th date at all.
Chairman Whitted: Well that's the date the contract was signed, six. That's
to rehab the house.
Mr. Levi: All right, fine. And work started immediately after that?
Chairman Whitted: It was authorized to proceed on the 24th of March. I'm not
sure exactly when it
Mr. Levi (interrupting): Sure. Sure.
Chairman Whitted: started. And in April we received a letter from the City of
Durham.
Mr. Levi: Yes. April the 10th.
Chairman Whitted: Then we had a memo fium our Rehab Specialist on May 22nd
saying..
Mr, Levi (interrupting); The job was completed on the 24th?
Chairman Whitted: of March?
Mr. Tevi: yes.
Chairman Whitted: No, it was completed on May 14th.
Mr. Levi: On May 14th?
Chairman Whitted: Right.
Mr. Levi: And the 22nd from the Rehab was what date?
Chairman Whitted: May 22nd.
Mr. Levi: May 22nd,
Chairman Whitted: Right.
Mr. Levi: Right.
Chairman Whitted: So those, that memo flow the rehab specialist in addition to
()I 4 5(3
the letter twin the City of Durham that indicated that Mr. Smith could no
longer participate in that program for the sane reasons that our Rehab
Specialist deems his work to be unappropriate was the reason why he was
banned fium any further participation in the Orange County program, Those
Mr. Levi (interrupting): Alright, flow.
Chairman Whitted: Those things are all clear and they are all sequential and
I don't see any conflict at all in those dates.
Mr. Levi: Well, I saw conflict and gave the information to your Manager in terms
of the letter coming and in terms of the ah date that Mr. Smith said that
he oampleted the work. You see, that I had no knowledge at all we did not
see anything we were told
Chairman Whiffed: (interrupting): Mr. Smith got a letter that was sent to him
in June, I believe, of 1981.
Mr. Levi: Yes.
Chairman Whitted: Pointing out the reason why he would no longer be eligible to
participate in the Orange County program.
Mr. Levi: That is correct. Yes.
Chairman Whitted: And he did not at that time protest that decision. It was
in December of 81 when he reapplied when he was referred back to the July
letter saying for those same reasons you will no longer be eligible to
participate in this program.
Mr. Levi: No, no that is not correct.
Chairman Whitted: Well, that's the information we have, sir.
Mr. Tpvi: Well, Sir, I'm telling you it's not correct. Now I understand you
have it sir, and that's the only basis you can say that I can say it's
incorrect because you have it. If you didn't have it I couldn't say that.
Let me let me proceed.
Chairman Whitted: Trying to say something unsuccessfully.
1 Mr. Levi: The reason Mr. Smith came here is because of the letter he received.
Not because he wanted to reapply, he received the letter and came to ask
for clarification and justification for having received the letter. Now
you don't have that but that's the basis for coming and the basis for coming
you've stated is not the basis.
Chairman Whitted: Well, okay. July 16th, 1981, Mr. Smith received a letter
from Mr. Kittrell indicating the dissatisfaction with the the contract
LYWV).1
;jat)
and the rehab work that was done. Then on the 22nd he refers again to that
July 16th letter as the reason
Mr. Levi (interrupting) : Correct.
Chairman Whitted: for denial of the request.
Mr. Levi: Correct, Yes;', we are aware of that.
Chairman Whitted: Okay.
Mr. Levi: Yes.
b
Commissioner Marshall: I'm:a little confused. Mr. Levi,. are you indicating
that Mr. Smith does not have a copy of his signed rehab contract nor a
copy of his notice to proceed? It seems to me these are two very important
dates and one would expect a contractor would have copies of both those
agreements.
Mr. Levi: I would not object to your asking Mr. Smith, that I don't know but
Commissioner Marshall: Well.
Mr. Levi: There's another issue ah that I'd like to raise before you ask him
that. How significant is reference? What is the basis of justification for
sending out this form? What value does it carry? How significant is it?
Could one of you answer this?
Commissioner Whitted: Well, of course it's part of the guidelines, I guess: to-:
Board is not familiar with the day to day operations, that's why we have a
CD Director, he handles that But what is significant hare is an evaluation
by our Rehab Specialist on work performed in the program. Now that to me is
more significant than references....
Mr. Levi: Mr. Chairman, I'm not asking for a value judgment in terms of other
significant criteria, I'll get to that. And I'm trying to prioritize 1, 2,
3, 4 and I'm at one and you're further down. My question is, can you make a
determination, or could you ascertain at this point, since we have author-
iative resources, how significant this sheet is and the information that comes
back? And let me proceed because I
Chairman Whitted: Well, it will have to be relative. In my estimation, it's rel-
ative to other information that one has available to judge a contractor by.
And one is a review by a experienced contractor who is on our payroll as a
Rehab Stecialist-as to the work performance, how the work was performed.
Mr. Levi: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Whitted: And in this this instance it was deemed to be inadequate and
D.F(14,58
that was the basis upon which Mr. Smith has been denied participation in
the program.
Mr. Levi: Sir.
Chairman Whitted: Now that has been, that was the decision of the CD Director,
Mr. Levi (interrupting) : We understand that sir, I know that. I'm aware
where the decisions emanate fium.
Chairman Whitted: Continuing to talk (Undecipherable)
Mr. Levi (continuing to talk—picking up when intelligible) : My My My statement
related to the significance of this and not the relevancy. Relevancy is
Chairman Whitted: Okay.
Mr. Levi: very broad I think Einstein proved that. Buy my point is this:
That if this was that significant and it seems to ma that you it I can go
to the Retail Merchant's Association and apply for credit and they aren't
going to a store, they aren't going to give crPAit until they get an
answer back form the Retail Merchant's Association. They pay them X
number of dollars per year for Membership, sir
Chairman Whitted: But
Mr. Levi: and that membership enables them to serve as a clearing house to
provide positive and negative data to justify extending credit.
Chairman Whitted: I
Mr. Levi: Now, this letter of reference was designed to secure from past
benefactors of services rendered by a contractor as to whether it was
satisfactory or non-satisfactory. And it seems to ire a good strong
administrator who sends (tape over) then I would raise some questions
here. And and you have been charged charged with the responsibility of
administrating public funds. And this is why I'm presenting this to you.
I'm not talking about how relevant three, four, five, six, seven, I know
that it's relevant for the Rehab Specialist to be competent enough to
make decisions. I know it's relevant that your County and City inspectors
be competent enough to make decisions. We aren't getting into that. I'm
talking about how significant was this form? It could deny or grant
participation. It was never used.
Commissioner Willhoit: Participation was granted. Participation was granted; the
contract was signed March 17th.
Mr. Levi: The form was never used. The data to be utilized as a result of
O459
inquiry fran this letter never came. It never came.
Commissioner Willhoit: So then it did not affect negatively the decision to
allow participation?
Mx. Levi: That's a value judgment.
Commissioner Willhoit: Well, it's a fact.
Mr. Levi (interrupting): It's obvious that you haven't read the letter that
he wrote, because the letter that he wrote contradicts what You are saying.
He said that the basis of denial is the information that we received from"
Durham. And you're saying that it didn't have a negative impact. And I'm
confused in terms of plus and minuses. What's plus and what's minus?
Commissioner Willhoit: I'm saying that the contract was signed.
Mr. Levi: That's the only way he could participate.
Chairman. Whitted: Yes, Ms. Marshall.
Commissioner Marshall: Mr. Levi, this is not the priority but what the iettpr
says. The letter that I have a copy of shows that careful review that
the company completed construction five days over your scheduled time limit
and your company's work performance was inefficient. And it just says
additionally we are concerned about the negative reference from the City
of Durham's Community Development Department.
Mr, Levi: Yes
Commissioner Marshall: It does not deny the application specifically and soley
or even as a criteria, it quite clearly says it is not the criterion, it
just mentions concern.
Mr. Levi: Ah is that your, the letter you received fram him.
Chairman Whitted: That's the letter that went to Mr. Smith on July 16th, 1981.
1 Mr. Levi: Yes, you're saying it does not deny participation?
Commissioner Marshall: No, I'm saying it does not deny participation as using
the negative reference from the City of Durham as a criterion, it just
mentions concern about that in addition to the two criteria that were given.
Mr. Levi: Sure, Ah. Thank you and I'd appreciate that. I would like to know at
this point since it was mentioned, ah there was some basis for so considering
it. Now, if it were not used for denial what was? And if what was used for
denial was used, ,then how did that impact on the completed product? You see,
in the final analysis you have a completed product. And that completed
product represents a person's satisfaction emanating fium the property owner
°0460
who was not only statisfied but motivated to the extent that she signed
off and said "Take your check; you've done what you agreed to do."
Commissioner Marshall: That is, that is very important. It is the end product
but as far as our staff is concerned and cost efficient use of their time
they could not have to be continually rechecking going back and seeing the
conditions...
Mr. Levi (Interrupting): Have you read the job description of the Rehab Counselor?
I, I. You're very intelligent lady. Don't! Withdraw that statement please!
Withdraw that statement. Please.
Commissioner Marshall: Perhaps the way I said it...
Mr. Levi (Interrupting): No, not the way you said it. I can repeat it because
I can repeat it because, I can repeat it. Let me stand so the acoustics might
tend to add to what I'm going to say. I can repeat it. You're saying thfc.
for because of cost efficiency, uh that's the way we talk in Washington, cost
efficiency. The point is that I'm proving there's not cost efficiency. My
My whole dialogue will refute that. There hasn't been cost efficiency and I
can go to your program and point out data where there has been not only
inefficiency but ineptness, and a number of other things. Now, let's go back
to this. Obviously, Mrs. Willhoit. Are you Mrs. Willhoit?
Cannissioner Willhoit: I'm Don Willhoit.
Mr. Levi: Excuse me, sir. Sir, I ah don't want to change anything about your
3ifestyle.
Commissioner Willhoit: I'm glad most of the press is absent right now.
Mr. Levi: I thought, Mrs.
clerk to the Board: Ms. Marshall.
Mr. Levi: Ms. Marshall, let Re say this and I'm happy we can smile. Ah the reason
I say withdraw your statement was not a demand or force, I'm simply saying it
has been my observation and experience that the responsibility and the job
description of the Rehab Specialist if he's effective is exactly what you sai
isn't and it's that way because of cost efficiency.
Commissiorer Marshall: Tha's what I said but if I said it to to withdraw...
Mr. Levi (Interrupting): I accept it...
Commissioner Marshall (Continuing): What I've said; not as far as the total
amount of work that a Rehab Counselor is responsible for. I happen, as I've
dU461
been appointed very recently to this Commission, and I have not yet gotten
out of some of my own, older responsibilities, I am Chairman of the Chapel
Hill Housing Authority and the Redevelopment Commission. And so, I am
flier with With the job of the Rehab Counselor, And with the job of:the Inspector
and the they do of course have to check and continually check...
Mr. Levi (Interrupting) : I accept your withdrawal and I don't think I need anymore
expertise for the position you hold because you made the Statement; I simply
call your attention to it. And I think the further we go into it the,more
problems we get into.
Commissioner Marshall: Well, perhaps.
Mr. Levi (Interrupting): I accept that completely.
Chairman Whitted: Well, I...
Commissioner Wilihoit: I'd like to move the Manager's recommendation on this
issue.
Chairman Whitted: The Manager recommends the Board decide. Okay, okay, on this
document.
Manager: Yes.
Chairman Whitted: Okay on this document,
Commissioner Gustaveson: Second.
Chairman Whitted: The recommendation from the Manager is that we continue to ban
the Kidd Smith Company from participating in the Community Development project
of Orange County.
Mr. Levi: Some support...what supports this decision?
Commissioner Wilihoit: Well, it's really, it's really to reaffirm the decision
of the Manager.
Chairman Whiffed: Okay.
Oartaissioner Wilihoit: It's not specific action on the Company. I guess maybe
I'll rephrase it that we confirm the Manager's recommendation in this
matter.
Chairman Whitted: Okay. And it's been seconded. Is there any further discussion?
anunissioner Walker: After hearing all this discussion I'm thoroughly confused.
I would hate to vote at this time. I really don't feel prepared to vote. Ah,
we have not hear from ah the coordinator, the Board (unintellible), Mr. Jones
6ic7 The Board has been trying to speak back and we have not had our people
004 Rp
directly involved.
Commissioner Gustaveson: Our information here is really very clear there what
the issue is and it's clear that the judgment was made ah in regard to this
issue and ah ah I fully support that judgment. I have confidence in our
Staff and ah it's very clear, I mean I think I understand these other questic 7
but ah ah the materials that have been presented here are very clear. I I
think that the element here is that there are many competing Rehab contractors
and ah decisions have to be made in regard to ah ah competing contractors and,
you mentioneththat there was a finished product. But I think that the real
issue is that you were lucky that it didn't pour down raining. And, you know,
I think that if we had a major rainstorm during that period ah and this this
is what ah concerns people who make these judgments.
Commissioner Walker: Well, I respect what you're saying but let me say this: Ah,
and I don't know reason they gave to flake a decision, the people did sign off
saying we're happy.
Chairman Whitted: Well, you didn't see the document; it's a standard document, that
has to be signed off by the honer that that...
CoMmissioner Walker (Interrupting): I didn't see it because...
Oommissioner Gustaveson (interrupting) : Well, I I think that the question is not
you know the questions is how one got to this point,end ah, you know, again
when you're responsible for many contractors many separate rehabs and where :,
have a situation that ah ah you know by the grace of God or what, you know
that it didn't pour down rain and totally make a mess of things ah I mean I
think this is a kind of judgment that ah ah competent people have to make.
I support ah...
Mr. Levi (Interrupting): Mr. Chairman, I realize that you...
Commissioner Gustaveson (Continuing) : the decision that was given by the Director
and the Rehab Specialist because ah they have many projects they have to keep
an eye on and many more that will be coming up and...
Mr. Levi: I'm not so sure that's ...
Chairman Whiffed (Interrupting) : Well, the motion is on the floor.
Mr. Levi: Mr. Chairman, I understand. May I say one thing? And I agree with you
that it's good the rain didn't come. I'm not here to try to push something
that's not fair. I agree with you and ah Mr. Smith just asked me could he
say something to that. No. But I say then there were some sub sub subcontractors
C.,1.
Ottiit3r
involved and what happened, he put the ceiling in and then worked on the roof;
but he had to in order not to go over because of the subcontractors were in fact
were there. I agree with you. Let's hope no snow came or no rains or he
would have possibly have been out of business with bankruptcy. I understand
that. He understands that too. What I'd likeio do when you complete your
,... ,
motion, sir; and I'm grateful to You for letting me speak now. Ah, is, I'd
like to know what the County Manager's decision is before I leave and I want
to congratulate you for letting me come to talk to you I'm here in the name
. .
of fairness, honesty, because I do want to see what goes on and if signOffs
don't mean anything, I'm going to go to HUD as soon as I leave here and tell
them to stop requiring them in the package.
Chairman Whiffed: The the Manager's reccrnmendatiOn is to continue to ban the Kidd
Smith Company from participating in the Cammunity Development project of Orange
County. That motion has been made and it's been seconded. All those in favor
of the motion say "Aye;"
Commissioners Gustaveson, Marshall, Whitted and Willhoit: Aye.
Chairman Whiffed: Those opposed say, "No."
ComMISSioner Walker: No.
Chairman Whitted: The motion carries four to one. Thank you.
Mr. Levi: Well, I'd like to know what the County Manager's recommendation is and
I'm sure I'm gonna be asked what ah criteria he used for doing this. What
is it? Did he just say, "I hereby reccmmend that it be denied," or,
Chairman Whitted (Interrupting) : The same basis, the Manager is here; but it's
on the same basis that the COmmUnity Development Director used
Mt. levi (Interrupting): Have they taken the Fifth Amendment? The Manager and
the ah gentleman here? Cr do we have some kind of vocal disturbance?
Commissioner Wilihoit: We have it better than that. We have it in writing.
Mr. Levi: May I get ah may I get a copy?
Commissioner Wilihoit: You may see the Manager.
Commissioner Gustaveson: Well, I think you've received a copy; it's addressed to
Mr. Charles Smith.
Chairman Whitted: We don't have anything additional to what was sent to Mr. Smith
on July 16th.
Mr. Levi: Oh, you mean you have acted on the basis of what Mr. Smith already has?
Chairman WI-Lifted: And reconfirmed on January 22nd.
0 4R'
Mr. Levi: So you've acted on what, everything you've acted on is what Mr. Smith
has.
Chairman Whitted: Yes.
Mr. Levi: Thank you, sir.
Manager: I was just gonna say I went through the same steps that you have
gone through here this morning. When Mr. Levi and Mr. Smith cane to me in
the latter part of December, made certain contingent, certain points ah; this
was my reason for getting into the matter with the Director with the County
Attorney to see if we had followed due process to see if we had in fact, checked
. out references and what the sequence of those references was in relation to the
contract being awarded. I found that, contrary to what Mr. Levi had told to ma
that the references did come in after the contract was awarded and it was
during that tine too, our cwn people had turned in negative ah reports on the
quality and timeliness of the work. Another contention that was made was that
the property Owner was satisfied. Now, Mrs. Smith has since become deceased
but her daughter did give us a statement as to recollection of the quality of
work; and that was that the work was not done satisfactorily. She signing
of the acceptance was not an indication that they were pleased with the quality
of the work or the timeliness of the work and that a letter that we have too;
I don't believe it's in the packet, signed by Mrs. Wanda Gattis.
Commissioner Walker: Saying that?
Manager: Saying that her mother, ah and herself were dissatisfied with nine items
connected with the work that was done by the Smith Company. So based...
Commissioner Walker (Interrupting): Now, that's a letter that we should have had
before we voted.
Manager: Yes, yes, ah this these things caused me to feel that the Director had
made a wise determination. There are about sixteen contractors in the program
and it is his responsibility to make some background checking as well as
monitor the quality of work that goes on. I felt that there was ample basis
to support him on this action.
1 Chairman Whitted: Okay, Item Five...
(Clerk's note: This concludes the verbatim transcription of that part of the
meeting pertaining to.Agenda Item Number Four.)
,00:465
5. Compensation for Right of Way Acquisition, Community Development:
The co Director, Mr. Kittrell, said this was the amount the Program would
offer in each case to the property owner (See pages for the amounts)
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by COmnissioner Gustaveson, to adopt the
Resolution Establishing Just Compensation in the amounts recomnended by the CD
Staff. Comni'ssioner Walker said he wished to speak with Mr. Kelly prior to voting
on this issue. commissioner Walker asked if Mr. Kelly had visited all the parcels.
The CD Director said that was not required by HUD; Chairman Whitted said Mr. Kelly
had certified all the parcels. Chairman Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner
Gustaveson to table the motion until the afternoon session when Mr. Kelly could be
contacted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
6. Amended CDBG Agreement: Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall, to approve the amended CDBG Agreement for the renovation of the Senior
Citizens Center in the Northside Multipurpose Center in Chapel Hill. Vote: Ayes,
5; noes, 0.
7. Title XX Allocation: Mr. TOM Ward, Social Services Director, told the Board that
the actual formula for Title XX allocations had not been made public yet; however,
he felt, looking at preliminary figures and projections, that the reduction for
Orange County would be 25%. Commissioner Willhoit Roved, seconded by Commissicner
Marshall, to advocate for a formula which Would assure each County receives its
fair share of the Title XX funds based on population and no change in the present
formula; and endorsed the letter from the Chair of the Board of Social Services
and authorized the Chair of the Board of Commissioners to co-sign the letter and
communicate with the State the Board of Commissioners feelings about this formula.
There was some discussion as to whether this new formula would be used to
calculate this year's allocation. Commissioner Gustaveson asked that Mr. Willhoit
aRend his motion to include a letter suggesting a meeting; Commissioner Willhoit
declined,saying he felt it was premature without the analysis from the North Carolina
Association of County COmmissioners.
Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. I
The Board discussed Item Number 8, the ESC Office and added Item Reaganomics
at the sane tine. The discussion centered around the closing of the Employnent
Security Office in Hillsborough and the effect this would have on the WINN clients.
Mr. Mangum, CETA. Director, said his program had picked up a large number of those
clients, looking for work, which in turn increased his office's workload. Mr.
Mangum added that those clients don't have the access to trans-
0466
portation to get to Durham.
Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the
Social Services Director and the CPT A Director send a letter to the Employment
Security Office in Durham to M . Rhett Chamberlain, outlining their individual
concerns and have the letters endorsed by the Board of Commissioners. Vote:
Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
The Board decided to copy the letters to JOCCA Director Gloria Williams.
Discussion continued on the proposed Reagan program swaps between Federal
and State Governments and the projected effects on County/local governmnt.
9. Vacant County Positions: Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by
Commissioner Marshall, to approve the Manager's recommendation (that is, to unfreeze
the following positions: programmer, District Supervisor, Real Property Appraiser,
Business Property Appraiser, Administrative Officer 1, Soil and Erosion Control
Officer, Truck Driver; and to continue the freeze on the folloWing positions:
Administrative Assistant to the Manager, Soil and Erosion Inspector, land Records
Specialist, Tax Clerk II /the Administrative Officer i to be unfrozen is to be
downgraded to an Account Clerk I1J) . Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
._ Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to unfreeze
the position of the Coordinator for Woven. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
Ms. Peggy McCarthy, Chair Of the Commission for Women, gave the Board a brief
report on the activities of that group for the past few months and outlined a pro
gram of activity for the next few months. She asked that the Board authorize the
temporary filling of the position now occupied by Susan Waldrop in the Commission's
Office while Ms.: Waldrop is on maternity leave from March 1 through June 15. The
Board asked that she refer her request through the Manager.
The Board adjourned for lunch and reconvened at 2:00 P.M. with all members pre-
sent.
Chairman Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to return agenda
Item 5 back to the floor for discussion. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Discussion of
Just Compensation for Rights of way continued. Cmm_issioner Walker said he had ta.7 d
with the Manager during the lunch break and he was satisfied with the responses.
Commissioner Willhoit's motion to adopt the Resolution establishing Just Com-
pensation as stated on page of these Minutes is back for the vote: Ayes, 5;
noes, 0. .
10. Vehicle Replacerrent for Sheriff's departrrpnt: The Manager told the
Board this item was from a previous meeting and had been returned as the Board
00467
desired. Ccmnissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit,
to approve the Manager's recommendation of purchase of two mid-size patrol vehicles
for the Sheriff's department and according to the specifications submitted by the
Purchasing Officer (See page of this book for those specifications). Cormissioner
Willhoit noted that the County Sheriff's department was not involved in "pursuit" and
suggested the "certified for pursuit" specification be stricken; the consensus was to
do so. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
Dr. Pamela Mayer: Dr. Mayer presented a brief report to the Board on the
budget calendar of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools. She said they were in the
process of examining discretionary programs by sham's for effectiveness, with
improvements assigned a priority. Cormissioner. Willhoit said it would be most
helpful if the Board could see the costs for 1)required programs; and, 2) source
of funding; and,3) if there is a required match.
1. The Timbers: This was returned from the agenda of January 19, 1982.
Chairman Whitted asked Mr. Cannity to surmarize first the Planning Board's recom-
mendations; Mr. Cannity did so, those recommendations are on pages of this
book. Chairman Whitted aaked if all the Planning Board recommendations had been
net by the developer and Mr. Cannity replied in the affirmative.
Chairman Whitted then asked Mr. Cannity to summarize the Planning
recormendations; Mr. Cannity did so saying the main concern of the Department was
for the privacy of the individuals. He said they preferred a design more "sympathetic"
to the site which slopes gently; he added there was no screening between the units
which ware too close together. The Planning Department's reconuendaticri is on page
of this book.
Chairman Whitted noted that some structures were already in place, i.e. sewer
and water lines, which dictated to some extent the layout of the development.
The County Attorney said the Board should address the timing of the develop-
ment with regard to the deed restrictions and the phasing in and maintenance of
the public improvements. Mr. Cannity said the Planning Staff and developer had
discussed that and agreed to phase in the project in four phases of approximately
eighteen units each time with the improvements to be completed prior to the issuing
of the building permits for the subsequent phase. Mr. enmity said the developer
had some problems at the,moment with the paving of the access road but that the Board
could address that and any of the other improvements would have to be complete before
each subsequent phase was begun. The pool was planned for the fourth and final phase.
U043
Commissioner Gustaveson expressed a concern that if the pool were not
completed until the final phase that it may not be installed for five or six years
and never installed if the project hit a snag which prevented the final phase being
The Attorney said that an outside tire limit could be worked into the final
docunent.
Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the
Planning Board's reconnendation to grant the Class A Special Use Permit for the Timbers
with all Conditions as listed on pages of this book and that the phasing/
timetable of the construction of all public improvements and what ever instruments
needed to secure those constructions and for the maintenance of the improvements
and security bonding to insure that this is completed he worked out in the final
document. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
11. Sown of Carrboro Ordinance: The Manager told the Board that Carrboro
was requesting the Board adopt an Ordinance to have apartment owners having eight
or more units to submit a list of all tenants as of January 1 to the Tax Supervisor
not later than January 30, 1982. The Manager told the Board that the County already
had the authority to do this under GS 105-296-G and in fact did already require
this; therefore another Ordinance was unnecessary. Commissioner Marshall suggested
the County talk with Carrboro and Chapel Hill and tell them what it is doing with
regard to the collection of taxes.
12. Work Session on Water Resources Task Force Report: The Board set
March 17, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. as the date for a work Session on the Water Resources
Task Force Report. Both the Planning Board and the Task Force are to be notified
and invited to attend the meeting.
• 13. Added Item-Road Matter: Commissioner Gustaveson said there had been a
serious accident at the intersection of Mt. Carmel Church Road (formerly Farrington
Road) and -501 S. the previous week. Cortmissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by
Commissioner Willhoit, to have the County Manager write the Eepartnent of Transportation
expressing this Board's concern with that particular intersection and suggesting ack ion
safety measures. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
The Board adjourned by consensus /th no further business to conduct.
/
worf/A1
Olarit"AL-
4'char. E. K ed, Chair
Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk
•
ORANGE COUNTY
LA;Li
BOARD OF Ca-IMISSIONS Action Agenda
Item No- D-1
ACTION AGE MDA 1114ABSTRACf
mErTLNG DATE FEBRUARY 1, 1982
Subject' The Timbers
D=-partarent: Planning 1 Public If -ring: yes
Ai-tachment(s); YeS, _ J-0-1-0151-4 -icaCcratect" Jim Polatty
•
phone Dkrrber:
PURPOSE: To consider the Class A Special Use Permit and Rezoning Request
from The Timbers(Planned Development R-8) .
NEED: The Board had this subject on its agenda of 1/19/82 and
felt that it needed more time to consider the findings and
evidence presented at the public hearing (11-23-81) and
to digest the Planning Board's recommendation.
The Board requested it be returned to this agenda.
IMPACT:
MEMORANDUM
TO: THE BOARD
FROM: Paulette
SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS TO AGENDA
DATE: January 29, 1982
These are the attachments for the Timbers Sub-division
that were in your packet January 19, 1982.
PPP/jmb
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF
` M-_
G D l S
'T
RI CT
_C-�_L-�_A3 3__b'_
lF
I�C_
'-�
/R�
7-n Oe
M
The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Orange County, North Carolina
�OMMISSIO0I83: 1981 The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number
Block number A
which is presently in a,
Planned Development Housing
Signed: Lot number 4
Residential
for the following reasoin
aoo ATTACHED NARRATIVE d`
_4
2
_
, Shown on'tho accompanying plat,
sstrict
Address: to
. '
'
a
THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
100 HAYES BUILDING,GLEN LENNOX CENTER,CHAPEL HILL
P.O.BOX 2898,CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514 (979)967-7079
THE TIMBERS
A MOBILE HOME PARK DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION TO ORANGE COUNTY FOR PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
SEPTEMBER 9, 1981
LOCATION
The Timbers is located in Orange County, about one mile southwest of the
Town of Hillsborough. The site is to the northwest of Orange Grove Road and
has access off of Orange Grove Road, and is located immediately south of
Interstate 85 and immediately east of the designated right-of-way for the
proposed Interstate 40. The site occupies the western 14 acres of a tract
of land that is totally about 44 acres in size (after a 16 acre taking for
the 1-40 right-of-way) .
DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT
The Timbers will consist of 86 mobile homes, 13 of which will, be on lots 30 - -
feet wide, and the balance on 40 foot wide lots. At the north end of the
development is a 4-acre area reserved as open space, in which will be built
a small pond and a swimming pool. Access to The Timbers is off of Orange
Grove Road, and public water and sewer will be provided. All of the land
will, be under common ownership, with spaces rented to the tenants. In most
cases the mobile homes themselves will, be owned by the tenants.
ACCESS TO THE SITE
The Timbers is located about 900 feet off of Orange Grove Road, which is a
State-maintained two-laned secondary road. Traveling northeastward on Orange
Grove Road, it is only 3/4 of a mile to reach the Town Limit line of
Hillsborough. By traveling northeastward on Orange Grove Road and then taking
Old NC 86 south, one can get on I-85 about two miles from The Timbers. By
traveling southwest on Orange Grove Road and taking two other State roads to
the west that cross under 1-85, one can get into west Hillsborough in the area
of Hillsborough Textiles with about three miles of travel.
The traffic generated from The Timbers will not overload Orange Grove Road.
Although the current traffic load on Orange Grove Road is not now known to
the Developer, The Timbers Development should add only about 100 vehicles per
hour to the peak hour traffic. (The average traffic generated by The Timbers
would be only about 30 vehicles per hour.) The peak hour capacity of Orange
Grove Road, assuming about 40 mile per hour traffic and typical delays for
4
turning onto Orange Grove Road, would be about 1600 cars per hour,
UTILITIES
Water and sewer service will be provided by connection to the Town of
Hillsborough systems. In the case of sewer, Hillsborough has a rather new
2.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant that is currently operating at only 30
percent capacity. There is an existing seer force main that runs along Orange
Grove Road from a pump station at Grady Brown School and that force main has
considerable excess capacity to receive the wastewater flow from this develop-
ment. The Developer proposes to install a sewer pump station at the north
edge of the mobile hone lots, and pump the wastewater south along the entrance
drive to a connection into the existing force main at Orange Grove Road.
Between the pump station and the mobile home, all sewer service will be by
gravity flow.
As for water service, the Town of Hillsborough has a rather new 3.0 MGD water
treatment plant facility, which is currently operating at only 37 percent
capacity. There is an existing waterline on Orange Grove Road which runs from
Hillsborough to the Grady Brown School, and this line also has considerable
excess capacity and can be tapped to serve The Timbers. The elevation of this
development is high relative to the elevation of the Town of Hillsborough,
but the waterline already has a booster pump station located approximately
2000 feet northeast of the 'site, which increases the pressure in the maximum
surface elevation in the area of The Timbers and Grady Brown School. The
existing waterline is B 'incheS in diameter and the demand from The Timbers will
not place a significant burden on the line.
The streets will be maintained by the Developer, or his successor in ownership,
who will retain ownership of all of the land. The streets will be graded and
drained generally in accordance with N.C. DOT Subdivision Roads standards.
Base course will be 5 inches of ABC ("crusher run") , and then asphaltic surface
treatment will be applied to the surface.
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
An erosion control plan for development of The Timbers has been submitted to
and approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer.
FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
The site plan submitted for this application for The Timbers indicates certain
areas of possible future development on the balance of the total 44 acre tract
of land. At the present time, the applicant intends neither to develop that
portion of the land indicated as "Possible Future" nor seek approval of that
possible layout as shown on the plan. The layout is presented simply to comply
with the County application requirements, and to indicate that a coordinated
5
development on the balance of the property is possible. The current portion
of the development for which approval is now sought is only that portion of
the development at the west end of the property which is bordered by a heavy
line and indicated to be The Timbers.
APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Timbers Mobile Home Park will be developed to a density of about 6.2 units
per acre. The balance of the total tract is shown with development in the
range of 6 to 8 units per acre. Development to this density is appropriate
for this site for several reasons. The site is extremely well located from
the standpoint of access. It is very close to Orange Grove Road, yet it is
buffered from the road by some internal buffering as well as some existing low
density residential uses to the south of the site. Orange Grove Road leads
directly into Hillsborough. Access to 1-85, or travel to Durham to the east
or Burlington to the west, is excellent. Access on State roads to west
Hillsborough, where several of the residents are likely to be employed, is also
quite good.
The site is also very well located with respect to utilities. As described
above, the Town of Hillsborough water and sewer already exist on Orange Grove
Road, and this development will not over burden those existing utilities.
Because of the existence of these utilities, and the considerable difficulty
with respect to providing sewer service in so many other areas of the county,
it is particularly appropriate that this site be developed for high density
residential use.
6
ORANGE C OUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA,
27278
September 25, 1991
John R. McAdams Company
ATTN: John R. McAdemq
P.O. Box 2896 '
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514
Dear Mr. McAdams,
I have had the opportunity to review your submittal for The
Timbers (Mobile Some Park). The following information must be supolied
in your application before the submittal can be considered complete
and accepted by this department.
The following figures and items need to be provided, the definitions
and fOrmulas can be found in Articles 5 and 6.
- net land area of site
- gross land area of site
- residential land area
- maximum residential, floor area allowed on site
- minimum open space required on site
- minimum recreation space required on site
- type and number of units on site
- number of parking spaces required - number provided on site
The site plans for The Timbers should be revised and expanded to include
the following information as required in Articles 6 and 7 of the Zoning
Ordinance:
- Sanitary sewer layout for The Timbers with the indication
of size and type of lines.
- Water layout to the lots with the indication of size and
type of lines. This layout will also show the location
Of fire hydrants on the site (located so that no lot is
is any more than 500' by road from a hydrant.
- Road names and road signs according to Orange County
standards. Call the Planning Department to confirm
names to avoid duplication with other existing names.
- Show pedestrian circulation within the development
especially building to building, building to trash
containers, and building to recreation areas.
- Make sure that the mobile homes can meet the building
to building setbacks in 6.12.3.
- Figures for maximum residential floor area permitted
based on site area; and amount of floor area.
7
John R. McAdams
September 25, 1981
Page 2
- Indicate those areas on plan that are included in
your Open space Calculations.
Landscape Plan and details of planting requirements.
- Width of pavement on Orange Grove Road; the width
of travel surface on interior drives, type of
surface treatment.
- Soil erosion-sedimentation control plans.
•
- Location and type of trash removal.
The above are the minimum requirements and the letter of the ordinance.
The following are my personal suggestions to improve the design of the
project:
Since the project is in unitary ownership remove all lot lines and
show only mobile home pads. The lot lines in a PD-H are meaningless. Provide
a 50' buffer around the perimeter of the project in which no building will
be located and in which if there is no vegetation existing new plantings
are shown. The layout of the park does not provide any privacy to each
unit. I strongly suggest that you redesign the park around a staggered
layout or short cul-de-sacs. I am willing to help with this if I can be
of assistance.
If you have any questions about these requirements, please call me at
the Planning Department. When you have submitted these revised plans I can
tell you when they will be presented to the Planning Board.
-
Sincerely,
Rick Cannity
RC/sw
cc: Fred Cates
Louie Callemyn
•
8
ORANGE COUNTY PLAN:MING DEPAIiTAIENT
r117.7,SBOROVGH
NOR= CAROLINA
27278
Mr. John R. McAdams Co.
Post Office Box 2896
Chapel Fill, NC 27514
ATTN: John R. McAdams
Dear Mr. McAdams,
Fel
32
October 8, 1981
I have reviewed your submittal for the Timbers (Mobile Home Park) . Jim
Polatty and. I have discussed this project at length and feel that it needs
further work before it should be submitted to the Planning Board. The present
scale of the drawings do not allow enough detail to be shown and will not display
the project well in a public hearing. The scale of the Plans should be 1"= 20'
Or at a minimum 1" a 40'.
I would make reference to the letter of October 7, 1981 on Cates Farm for
the format on required ratios.
- Indicate the size of the swimming pool,it should, be sized for the expected
number of 'residents.
- Show the size and location of the bath house, any fencing and screening
around it; water line to the pool and water fountains.
- Parking and vehicular access to the recreation area. Parking at one space
per 140 square feet of pool area.
- Road names on all roads with signs according to Orange County standards.
(designated as private roads)
- The building to building setbacks do not meet the standards of Article
6.12.3.
- Soil erosion-sedimentation control plans/drainage plans need to be submitted
- There needs to be more than two (2) dumpsters for the 86 proposed units.
9
Again I will remind you that the Planning Staff does not feel the proposed
layout provides enough privacy to each unit, nor enough buffer between units
and property line. New landscaping should be shown within the buffer around
the property to minimize adverse impacts on this site and adjacent property.
The submittal fee for this project is $490.00 at submittal and $5'.00/nni.t
at the time the final plat is approved.
If you have questions concerning these points please call ma. I need
the revised plans in my office by 900 a,m. October 9, 1981.
Sincerely,
44Zd4gAMwt
Rick Cannity l
Planner
RC/nsw
CC: Mr. Fred Cates
•
10
October 8, 1981
Orange County Planning Department
106 E. Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
RE: The Timbers Mobile Home Park
ATTENTION: Mr, Rick Cannity
Gentlemen:
This is to certify that I, Fred S. Cates, Jr., am the Owner of the tract
of land in Hillsborough Township, Orange County, on Old Orange Grove
Road and south of Interstate 85, on which the mobile home park "The
Timbers" is under development. I certify further that I am in agreement
with all of the improvements, including buildings, roads, parking,
utilities, pedestrian paths, landscaping, and recreational amenities
indicated on the attached site plan dated September, 1981, and prepared
by The John R. McAdamS Company, Inc.
Si. - y,
' •
I
RED . CATES,'JR.
clw
11
_
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
100 HAYES BUILDING,GLEN LENNOX CENTER,CHAPEL HILL
P.0 BOX 2896,CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514 (919)9. 67,7079
October 9, 1981
Mr. Rick Cannity, Planner
Orange County Planning Department
106 East margaret Lane
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
RE: The Timbers Mobile Home Park
CFS 8101
Dear Mr. Cannitys
In response to your letter of October 8, we have revised our plan of The
Timbers Mobile Home Park. We enclose 18 prints of the revised site plan,
and I offer the following specific comments:
-The scale has been enlarged to 1"=40 Ft., which I think makes the site
plan more readable.
-We have supplied the ratio information in the manner you had requested.
-We have revised the site plan somewhat, to fit the topography better. -The density is slightly less than it was before; we now have 79 mdbile
home sites where before we had 86. And instead of showing the mobile
homes as being aligned in a rectangular format, we have shown them
aligned with the contours, which provides some variation in their
placement of the site,
-We show the size of the swimming pool, the water line and a fence around
it. No bath house is proposed, nor is parking at the pool. The people
who are authorized to use the pool have their own residences within a
few hundred feet of the pool, and we feel that a bath house and parking
would facilitate use by nonauthorized perSons.
-Road names will be supplied for your approval, and the Orange County
standard signs will be provided.
-The building to building separations average about 28 feet. We under-
-
a variance on the separations.
-An erosion control plan is provided.
-We remain of the opinion that two dumpsters should be adequate. The guide-
lines we use are one dumpster per 30-40 units. With 79 units, we are at
the top end of that range, but the dumping schedule (twice a week, initially)
can be increased if necessary.
-A landscaping plan is shown on the site plan. The basic concept is to have
44 Ft. wide paved street, grass on the shoulders and a shallow swale, and
most of the remaining area natural. For an area 3 or 5 Ft. out from each
mobile home there will be pine bark mulch, and some shrubbery planted
around each entrance. Additional shrubbery will be planted to form a short
.
Mr. Rick cannity
October 9, 1981
Page 2
hedge between the trailer sites. A stepping stone Walk Will go from
the street to the entrance, with pine bark mulch around the atones.
Skirting will be required on every mobile home. The road and the land-
scaping are designed so that the mobile homes can be moved in or out of
the site without disturbance to the site. The basic landscaping is
designed for low maintenance, although the tenants will be allowed to
enhance their own landscaping.
-The applicant is going to provide you with the $490-00 submittal fee.
We are aware that the planning staff's opinion is that the project does not
provide enough screening either internally or on the perimeter. Our opinion
is different. The interest is to provide a clean, well-constructed and well-
managed mobile home park for a low cost. The proposed rental rate is $50.00
per month. There is a great demand for this type of housing. But if the density
is decreased, the cost of land and improvements associated with each individual
site increases in inverse proportion. The reduced building to building set-
backs we propose do not pose a public health or safety problem; the greater
density affects only the visual impact of the project, which is an aspect that
a prospective tenant can take into account and accept for himself. As far as
impact on adjoining property is concerned, the site is largely bordered by
interstate highway and the applicant himself. Given that there is high demand
for this type of housing,, this appears to be a particularily well-suited site.
We thank you for all yourcooperation with us on this project, and we look forward
to meeting with the Planning Board on October 12.
Sincerely,
THE JOHN R McADAMS COMPANY, INC.
BY; .4 lor
Jo . R. McAD. 5,
P esident
JRMc:kn
Enclosure
13
Mrangt Tuuntu *hinds
(:::i'i',TY 200 EAST KING STREET
HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT (919) 732-8126
December 1, 1981
Ms. Jane L. Atwater, Planning Technician
Orange County Planning Department
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Dear Ms. Atwater:
Re: The Timbers Development
We have reviewed the proposed development noted above and
have shared the information with the Orange County Board of Edu-
cation. The basic concern we have with this development is that
it will have a major impact on the school age population in the
Grady A. Brown Elementary School District. With other develop-
ments that have been approved for the same school district, there
will be a significant impact on the school attendance zone and
available classroom space in the relative near future.
In addition, we have concerns about the sewer and water demand,
since those lines serve the Grady A. Brown Elementary School.
Please take this information into consideration with current
and future development projects.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
P
I.afei
L'uni;k/
Assistant Su,0 rin endent
for Instruction
crm
CC: R. Mike Simmons, Superintendent
14
"t55'''d THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
100 HAYES BUILDING,GLEN LENNOX CENTER,CHAPEL HILL
PD.BOX 2896,CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514 (1319)967-70n
December 30, 1981
Orange County Planning Board Members, and
Orange County Planning Department Staff
106 East Margaret Lane
Hil/sborough, North Carolina 27278
RE: The Timbers Mobile Home Park
CFS 8101
Ladies and Gentlemen:
When the December 22 Planning Board meeting was cancelled due to weather, The
Timbers was rescheduled for the January 5, 1982 meeting. This causes a con-
flict for me; I have a project before the Chapel Hill Planning Board on
January 5.
I will, try to attend both meetings. The Timbers should be fairly early on
the January 5 agenda, and I have arranged for my Chapel Hill project to be
last on their agenda.
In order to handle The Timbers item efficiently on January 5, I wish to make
available to you the comments I am prepared to make at the Planning Board
meeting.
The planning staff has produced a document for your consideration containing
their negative recommendation on The Timbers application, and seven "reasons"
for the recommendation. it is that recommendation and the reasons for it to
which these remarks are addressed. (We have reproduced and attached a copy
of the recommendation and reasons.)
BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS
It is the applicant's position that there is a strong need for mobile home
housing in this area, and this was demonstrated clearly in the Public
Hearing.
It is the applicant's position that low monthly fees are of greater importance
to the potential residents than improved privacy, and this position was
upheld in the Public Hearing.
It is the applicant's position that the site is well situated and sufficiently
buffered from the surroundings, and this was upheld in the Public Hearing
both through comments from residents in the development (stating the noise
was not objectionable), and from the complete lack of comments from the
neighbors of the proposed development.
15
. .
Orange County Planning Board Members, and
Orange County Planning Department Staff
Page 2
December 30, 1981
The applicant requests approval of The Timbers Mobile Home Park, and would
prefer for reasons given below that the approval be for the subdivision as
presented, but if that is not possible then approval with stipulations.
SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO THE STAFF'S SEVEN REASONS
1. Concerning noise and buffers:
--The staff is incorrect on noise being a problem. The development will
have no noise impact on the surrounding community. And the claim
that the noise from the surroundings will adversely affect the site
is untrue, and is contrary to the evidence presented in the Public
Hearing.
--The site has good buffering to the outside, due to topo, vegetation,
and the interstates. An adjoining property owner spoke in favor of
the development at the Public Hearing.
--The proposed recreation area provides buffering from 1-85.
--The west border of the property borders on what will be an access
ramp rather than directly on 1-40. That particular access ramp will
probably be one of the lesser used ones. Our experience with other
sites where 1-40 is crossing is that the paved roadway is 130 feet
inside of the right-of-way line.
2. Concerning spacing and screening between units:
--The staff is incorrect on the average spacing being 18 feet. The
minimum spacing between units is 18 feet, and that occurs between 13
of the proposed units (those along the south side) . For all the
rest of the units (65 of them) the average spacing between units is
26 feet.
--Evidence presented at the Public Hearing is that mobile home residents
do not expect much privacy, and prefer lower rental rates.
--There is a very clear inverse relationship between the density of the
park, and the rates the residents must pay; for the following reasons:
-The costs of the development are constant. (The same amount of land
is involved, and the same length of roads and water and sewer would
be built, even though the mobile homes would be located less fre-
quently along them.)
-Increasing the spacing would result in less mobile home spaces being
provided.
-The fewer number of units would have to bear the payoff of the cost
of all the improvements for the proposed number of units.
-If the spacing were increased, the effect on the monthly rent would
be as follows:
16
Orange County Planning Board Members, and
Orange County Planning Department Staff
Page 3
December 30, 1981
Applicant's Proposal: spacing 18 feet and 26 feet, 79 units,
monthly rent $65.
If spacing were increased to a minimum of 30 feet, 69 units,
monthly rent $74 (14% higher) would be required to produce
revenues equivalent to those in applicant's proposal.
If spacing were increased to a minimum of 37 feet (i.a.w.
Ordinance) , 59 units, monthly rent $87 (34% higher) would be
required to produce revenues equivalent to those in
applicant's proposal.
The applicant acknowledges that the Orange County approval process
is not intended to assure a developer of a certain level of
return on investment, and does not expect such assurance. But
we do point out that whenever there is an investment in land and
improvements, the revenues generated have got to cover the invest-
ment, and if there are fewer units (greater spacing) in the
development then the return from each unit has got to be higher.
The requirement for greater spacing will cause the rents to
increase, and it is the applicant's opinion (supported by evidence
from the Public Hearing) that the people who aspire to live at
The TiMbers prefer lower rent over greater spacing.
-A hedge row about 25 feet long is proposed between each of the units.
To change the spacing of the units would not require extensive
re-design. The orientation of the units cannot be changed because of
the topography of the site. Thus, if indeed it is required of the
applicant to increase the spacing this will simply involve sliding
the units down along the rows they are already in. If increased
spacing is required, we ask not to have to resubmit; but rather just
cover this in a stipulation.
3. concerning parking:
--We have revised and enclosed the site plan to show the parking spaces
in detail. It is proposed to have areas between every two cars for
pedestrian access.
--The proposed surface treatment of the roads would be a form of pave-
ment, and there would be no dust.
--Paved pedestrian paths have been provided along the edges of some of
the parking, and through the middle of the development, to improve
pedestrian circulation and provide separation from vehicular traffic.
4. Concerning recreational amenities:
--We strongly object to including a bath house and parking at the pool.
To do so would encourage non-residents to drive up and use the pool.
17
Orange County Planning Board Members, and
Orange County Planning Department Staff
Page 4
December 30, 1981
In apartment developments there are often pools with no bath houses
and parking.
--The applicant would agree to a stipulation on the play equipment.
--The applicant would agree to a stipulation that all recreation faci-
lities be installed before the last ten mobile homes are moved onto
the site.
5. Concerning dumpsters:
--The applicant has arranged a contract with a trash collection contractor
to provide the dumpsters and collect the trash. The intention is to
collect the trash twice a week, and the frequency can be increased if
the volume of trash begins to exceed the capacity of the dumpsters.
---A third dumpster is now proposed, and the locations adjusted as shown
on the enclosed plan. All the mobile homes except four are within
250 feet of dumpsters, and those four are no more than 300 feet from
dumpsters.
6. Concerning street names:
--The applicant agrees to provide street names subject to the Planning
Department's approval.
7. General comments:
--The applicant agrees with the staff that there is need for mobile home
spaces in Orange County.
--The applicant urges the Planning Board to approve or to approve con-
ditionally this application at this time, and not deny it for re-design
causing further delays.
--We first submitted this project to the Planning Department on
September 9. There have been delays and postponements of meetings
throughout the approval process, and we ask that we be allowed to
proceed in the approval process on some basis at this time.
Sincerely,
THE JOl • H cJi. O .- j, INC.
4 er
BY:
JO ' ti!McADAL P.E. " a
Prlsident
JRN :cw
cc Mr. Fred S. Cates
Mr. Lucius Cheshire
18
EXCERPT FROM
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS ON
"THE TIMBERS (CLASS A) SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATI0N:"------"".""m''".ee"eee.'"e'
The Orange County Planning Staff recommends denial or deferral of the Planned
Development (PD-4) - (Class A Special Use Permit) (and Rezoning from to
R-8) request for The Timbers.
The reasons for this recommendation are as follows:
1. The location of this project adjacent to interstate highways could pre-
sent noise problems. The proposal does not address this concern. There
is no buffer of distance or vegetation between the roads and the units.
Staff feels a minimum of a 50 foot buffer should be required.
2. The site has been logged in the recent past and there is very little
significant vegetation remaining. The proposed layout shows an average
of 18 feet between units: This distance does not provide enough
privacy, especially since there is no vegetation between units. Staff
feels that the size and capacity of landscaping should be increased and
indicated on the plan. Further the distance between units should be
not less than as calculated in Article 6.12.3 j.
3. The parking for each unit will be along the roads; without separate
pedestrian circulation within the project there is considerable possi-
bility for accidents, especially with the smaller children. Also,
with no designated parking for each unit, it is possible that residents
would have to park a considerable distance from their unit. The staff
feels there should be separate pedestrian circulation within the
project to avoid possible conflicts. That parking should be off of
the travel surface of the road. The road width could be reduced if
this is done. There should be a minimum of two spaces per unit located
on the site plan. The surface treatment of the road, should be such
that there would be no dust.
4. The swimming pool is a good improvement for this type development.
There should, however, be some additional improvements. Bathroom
facilities need to be built at the pools, including a drinking fountain.
Two tot lots should be provided, one at each end of the development.
This would allow young children to stay much closer to home. The
usual play equipment should be supplied, swings, slide, bars, eta. are
good examples. There is no parking provided at the pool. This would
require the residents to walk and carry all their belongings and their
children to thepool. There is no indication of when the swimming pool
and other improvements will be completed. Staff feels all improvements
for the project should be installed before the last section of units
is ready for occupancy.
5. Two dumpster locations are proposed for the project. The dumping
schedule is supposed to be twice weekly. Staff feels at least one
more dumpster is necessary. Presently some residents will have to go
19
over 500 feet to get to a dumpster. The dumpsters should be emptied
at least twice per week. The locations should also be more carefully
chosen so that units located near the dumpsters are not overcome in
the summer by odors.
6. No strdet names are indicated nor unit numbers assigned on the site
plan. The Staff feels that each drive should be identified and a
street sign erected at the corners. Each unit should have a number
assigned to it and the same number marked at the unit in a manner
visible from the drive.
'7. Staff feels that there is a need for mobile home spaces in Orange County
and that building them in areas with water and sanitary sewer provides
good protection for residents and the County as a whole. The Staff
further feels that there are serious short comings in The Timbers pro-
posal and these short comings should be addressed in a redesigned
proposal, rather than as imposed conditions on this submittal. it
should also be understood that all spaces are for rent and cannot be
sold under any condition.
20
The Timbers (Class A) Special Use
Permit Application
The following information is the orange County Planning Boards findings of
fact concerning Fred Cates request for a Class A Special Use Permit under
section 8.8.23 of the Orange county Zoning Ordinance. The corresponding
zoning district he has applied for is R-8.
The following evidence has been supplied by the applicant or by the Orange
County Planning Department.
mmmm'mmmu 'm'n.w Article 8 S.-cial Uses.
Ordinance requires: Findings:
8.2.1 a) The applicant shall have the The Planning Board finds that the
burden of establishing, by competent applicant has presented competent
material and substantial evidence, the material and substantial evidence
existence of the facts and conditions for the approval of the requests
which this ordinance requires for with the attached imposed conditions.
approval1 and
8.2.1 b) The Board shall make written The applicant has provided figures
findings certifying compliance with that indicate compliance with Article
the specific rules governing such in- 5, Dimensional Requirements and
dividual Special Use and that the use, Article 6, Application of Dimensional
which is listed as a Special Use in the Requirements. The site plan as
district in which it is proposed to be drawn does not meet the minimum build-
located, complies with all required re- ing setback requirement in Section
gulations and standards, including the 6.12.3. The applicant has requested
provisions of Article 5 and 6 of this that this requirement be waived
ordinance, unless greater or different according to the site plan.
regulations are contained in the indi-
vidual standards for the specific
Special Use. It shall be the res-
sponsibility of the applicant to pre-
sent evidence in the form of testi-
mony, exhibits, documents, models,
plans and the like to support the
application for approval of a
Special Use.
8.2.2. Where the Board finds a perpon-
derence of evidence to indicate compli-
ance with the general standards, spe-
cific rules governing the specific use
and that the use complies with all re-
required regul4tions and standards, the
application must be approved unless the
Board shall also find, in some specific
manner that:
21
a) The use will not promote the public a) The Planning Board finds that
health, safety and general welfare, if there is a perponderence of evidence
located where proposed and developed to indicate compliance with the gen-
according to the plan as submitted; eral standards and specific rules
governing the Special Use and that
the use complies generally with re-
quired regulations. The following
imposed conditions are to be con-
sidered a part of the general stan-
dards and specific rules for this
request.
b) The use will not maintain or en- b) No evidence was presented to the
hence the value of contiguous property Planning Board to show that it will
(unless the use is a public necessity, not enhance or maintain property
in which case the use need not main- values of contiguous property.
tain or enhance the value of contiguous
property);
c) The use is not in compliance with c) This project is appropriately lo-
the general plans for the physical devel- cated in the Ten Year Transition Area
opment of the county as embodied in these around Hillsborough as identified in
regulations or in the comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Plan'. The site has cen-
or =t;n400==n:crIczted by the Board tralized public sewer and water service
of available. This project adds to the
diversity and quantity of housing
available near Hillsborough.
The project is in substantial compli-
ance with the following goals set
forth in the Land Use Plan, including:
5.3 Direct intensive land uses to
existing urban areas and areas de-
signated Transition Areas and away
from areas suitable for continued
agricultural uses and protected as
water supply watersheds.
5.5 Designate land in areas chang-
ing from rural to urban in charac-
ter which could reasonably be devel-
oped to accoinodate urban-type den-
sities, but are currently not com-
pletely served by urban systems such
as water and sewer lines as Tran-
sition Areas. These areas will be
further classified into 10-20 Year
Transition Areas to reflect the most
appropriate sequence of development
as this area changes from rural to
urban and services are extended.
22
7.4 Provide adequate amounts of avail-
able vacant land in and near existing
urban areas for intensive land uses
direct such uses away from viable
farming operations.
8 Adequate, reasonably priced, safe
housing in an appropriate variety of
types in Proximity to jobs and daily
activities for all citizens.
8.1 Encourage the construction and
rehabilitation of a diverse range of
housing types in response to the needs
of various household sizes and incomes.
8.2 Encourage the location of various
housing types according to the acces-
sibility of public services and com-
mercial uses. Multi-family housing
should be built in Urban and Transition
Areas where urban-type services are
available.
8.3 Encourage the provision of a range
of affordable and suitable low-income
housing by means of development in-
'
centives in order to provide a bal-
anced housing stock for the residents
of Orange County.
8.4 Support the use of individual
mobile homes as a useful housing re-
source in the County by affording
these homes the same locational
opportunities as single family units
meeting the State Building Code.
8.10 Discourage medium and higher
density residential development in
the rural portion of the County.
11.2 Identify service by centralized
water and sewer systems as most appro-
,
priate at the higher density levels
which occur in Urban and Transition
Areas.
12.7 Develop a road classification
system to classify major roads by
function for Purposes of effective
long range planning including the
evaluation of highway capacity.
13.3 Require developers to provide
adequate open space suitable for passive/
active recreation in residential de-
velopments.
23
111111111.1111111111111 —
16.1 Include the provision of ade-
quate public safety protection stan-
dards for residential, commercial
and industrial development.
16.2 Include road design standards
to ensure adequate emergency vehicle
access in site design standards for
residential, commercial and indus-
trial development.
8.2.4 In addition to the General Stan-
dard's stated in 8.2 the following
Specific Standards shall be addressed
by the applicant before the issuance of
a Special Use Permit:
a) Method and adequacy of provision of a) The Town of Hillsborough has a-
sewage disposal facilities, solid waste, greed to supply both water and sani-
and water. tary sewer service to the proposed
development. Solid waste disposal
is proposed to be provided by dump-
.
sters that will be hauled away by a
private contractor.
b) Method and adequacy of police, b) Police protection will be pro-
.
fire and rescue squad protection. vided by the Orange County Sheriff's
Department, fire protection by Orange
Rural Volunteer Fire Department, and
rescue protection by Orange County
EMS.
c) Method and adequacy of vehicle c) Access to this site is from State
access to the site and traffic condi- Secondary Road 1006 (Orange Grove
tions around the site. Road) . Accurate traffic counts are
un available' on this section of Orange
Grove Road. 1978 figures south of
this area showed an ADT count of 790
vehicles. Estimated traffic generated
by this development is 632. This pro-
ject will very significantly increase
the traffic on Orange Grove Road.
Although the project lies adjacent
to an existing Interstate and a pro-
posed Interstate the closest access
is about 2 miles away. There is no
public transportation available in
Hillsborough.
24
8.2.4 d) Specific requirements of all
special use requests: The following are specific requirements
for this special use request:
8.8 a) The following additional infor- 8.8 a) A site plan has been supplied.
matron is required for all Special Use
Applications:
Three copies of the Site Plan prepared
by a registered North Carolina land sur-
veyor or engineer which shall contain the
following:
North point scale and date.
Extent of area to be developed,
Locations widths of all easements and
rights of way within or adjacent to
the site.
Location of all existing or proposed
structures on the site.
Location of all areas on the site sub-
ject to flood hazard or inundation as
shown on flood maps or soil's maps.
Location of all water courses on the
site, including direction of flow.
Existing topography at a countour in-
terval of five feet based on mean level
datum.
Proposed or existing fencing, screen-
ing gates, parking, service and stor- the site plan
age areas.
Access to site including site distane
ces on all roads used for access.
Elevations of all structures por-
posed to be used in the development.
Names and addresses of owners and
applicants.
A fee, as set by the Orange County
Board of Commissioners.
25 1. North Point, scale and date shown.
2. Extent of area to be developed is
indicated; possible future devel-
opment is also shown.
3. The location of easements and
rights of way are shown. No
widths are indicated on the
site plan.
4. All existing and proposed structures
are shown on the site plan.
S. There are no flood prone areas on
6. site.
water courses are shown on
the site plan.
7. Existing topography is shown.
8. There are no storage areas,
service areas, or fencing pro-'
posed. There is proposed to
be some landscaping between
each unit as shown on the site
plan.
9, Access to the site is shown on
the site plan
10. The applicant proposes that
mobile homes will be set up in
the development.
11. The name and address of the
owner have been supplied.
12. The application fee has been
paid by the applicant.
8.8.23 Planned Developments
8.8.23.1 Additional Information 8.8.23.1 This refers to the standards
set forth in Article 7 Planned Development.
In addition to the information re-
quired in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8,
information shall be supplied as
part of the application as per
applicable requirements of
Article 7.
Article 7 Planned Develo.ment Districts
7.4.1 Relationship Of Planned Dave!- 7.4.1 Relationship of this project to
ment to Major Transportation Facili- major transportation facilities. (See
ties.
8.2.4 c above)
Requires that Planned Developments
make use of major roads for access;
and public transportation facilities
available.
7.4.2 Relationship of Planned De- 7.4.2 Relationship to Public Utilities,
velopment to Public Utilities, Fa- Facilities, and Services. (See 8.2.4 a
cilities, and Services. above)
Requires that Planned Developments
make use of existing utility systems
and not require the public extension
of such systems. It also requires
that the Planned Development make use
of public transportation if available.
7.4.3 Physical Character of the Site; 7.4.3 Phycical Character of the Site;
Relation to Surrounding Property. Relation to Surrounding Property.
The Site shall be suitable for the type The site is sloping from the south to
development proposed and be free from the north; it has been timbered within
adverse natural impacts, the last few years and there are few
years and there are few remaining large
trees.
The site does not present problems for
the development as proposed,
surrounding this site on two sides are
an existing interstate highway and a
proposed interstate. Immediately ad-
jacent on the other two sides are un-
developed tracts. There are several
single family dwellings nearby. Cates
Farm Apartments are north of this pro-
ject.
26
7.14.3 Site Planning
a) External Relationships!
The site plan should show how the
development will provide protection
for the development from potentially
adverse surrounding influences and
provide protection for surrounding
areas from potentially adverse in-
fluences within the development.
1. Principal access points shall be
designed to encourage smooth
traffic flow. Street layout
shall not connect minor resi- main access does not connect minor
dential streets with collector
streets,
2. Access for pedestrians and motor
cyclists shall be safe and con-
venient. Where there are street
crossings, they shall be so loca-
ted as to be safe, shall be marked
and controlled.
3. Protection of visibility at inter-
sections. Shall be as set forth in
Article 6. 1. Principal access points. Generally,
vehicular access to the site is good
and allows smooth traffic flow. The
main access does not connect minor
streets or cause through traffic in
residential areas. There is no pe-
destrian circulation indicated on the
site plan.
2. Pedistrian access. There is no
pedestrian access; or vehicular-
pedestrian separation indicated on
the site plan.
3. Protection of visibility at inter-
sections. Visibility at the exter-
nal intersection is good and unob-
structed.
4. Uses adjacent to single family dis- 4. Uses adjacent to single family dis-
tricts. This section requires a
permanent 100' buffer on lot sizes
within the district equal to the
adjacent residential district,
5. Yards, fences, walls or vegetative
screening, at the edges of the PD-
F! district shall be such as to pro-
vide protection for the development
adjacent properties.
27 tricts. The developer has asked for
a variance from the required setbacks
from the property line. The required
setback is 100' from the property
line, allowed uses are only those
as allowed in the adjacent resident-
ial area, on lots that meet the re-
quirements of the residential area.
The Planning Board found that the
proposed building setback is adequate.
5. Yards, fences, walls or vegetative
screening. The vegetative screening
propbsed for this development is as
shown on the site plan.
6. Height limits at the edge of 10-H 6. Height limitation. Maximum height
districts shall be as set forth in limits will be met by all structures
Articles 5 and Articles 6. in this development.
7. Signs visible from outside the dis- 7. Al]. signs for this project shall be
trict shall be according to Article in accordance with Article 9.
9.
b) Internal Relationships.
The site plan shall provide for safe,
efficient, convenient and harmonious
groupings of structures, uses and fa-
cilities, and for preservation of de-
sirable natural feacutes and minimum
disturbance of natural topography.
1. Streets, drives and parking. 1. Streets, drives and parking. The
Streets and drives shall provide proposed street pattern provides ade-
safe, and convenient access to quate internal circulation. The pro-
units and other facilities, posed parking layout calls for pare].-
Streets shall discourage through lel parking along both sides of every
traffic and blocks shall be laid street. The imposed conditions that
out to maximize efficient use of follow address to several points
the property, about access and parking.
2. Vehicular_ access to streets shall 2. Vehicular access to streets shall be
be limited and controlled. If the limited and contrelled. The site
street serves less than 50 units plan with the proposed parking' layout
parking can be directly off the can cause friction between the park-
street. ing, the circulation of vehicles and
pedestrians.
If the street serves more than
50 units parking shall be from
controlled points. This mini-
mizes traffic problems.
3. Ways for pedestrians and cyclists 3. Wa s for pedestrians and c clists.
walkways shall form a safe logi- There are no pedestrian circulation
cal and convenient system for pe- ways indicated other than the Streets
destrian access to all units, pro- themselves. Further discussion of
ject facilities and any principal these points is contained in the in-
off site destinations, posed conditions which follow.
4. Protection of visibility for auto- 4. Protection of visibilit for motor
mobile traffic, cyclists and pe- vehicles, pedestrians and c clists.
destrians. Visibility protection All three will be using the same cir-
shall be as set forth in Section culation system with possible conflicts.
7.14.3 (b) 3 above. Further discussion of this point is
contained in the imposed condition
which follow.
28
5. Open space and spacing of build- 5. Open space and spacing of buildings.
ings. The requirements for open The site plan as drawn does not meet
space, and spacing; of buildings the required building to building set-
are contained in Articles 5 and backs as required in Article 6.12.3.
6. The applicant has requested a vari-
ance from this requirement. There is
minimal landscaping shown on the site
site plan. There is no proposed
landscaping on the perimeter of the
site.
29
The Orange County Planning Board finds that there is a preponderence
of evidence to indicate substantial, compliance with the General
Standards and specific rules governing the Planned Development-Housing
fl--B Class A Special Use Permit. The use complies with all regulations
and standards.
The Planning Board voted, six in favor; Gordon and Harris opposed, to
recommend approval of the Special. Use Permit for a Planned Development
(PD-H-R-8) with the following imposed conditions:
1. Toilet facilities shall be built at the 3WiMMing pool,
at the same time the pool is constructed.
2. There shall be a minimum of 26 between units along
the southern boundary of the project.
3. There shall be 2 dumpsters located at the entrance of
the project. These dumpsters shall be screened on the
3 sides away from the road.
I. There shall be a 4, wide sidewalk on at least one side
of all paved roads. The walkway shall be clearly de-
lineated so as to distinguish it from the parking areas
and vehicle travel surface. A 4' wide gravel walk from
the paved road to the swimming pool area, and between
the double row of mobile homes as shown on the plans,
shall be 'constructed.
5. There shall be at least 1.8 parking spaces per unit
in the development.
6. That all streets within the development shall be
401 wide with a 6" base coarse of crusher run and
three applications of asphaltic treatment and pea
gravel.
7. Water and sanitary sewer shall be installed to the Town
of Hillsborough Standards.
8. This tract shall remain in unitary ownership and no
lots shall be sold to individuals.
9. Al]. streets within the development shall be named and
street signs erected at all intersections. Individual
units will be numbered in such a manner that the identi-
fication is visible from the road.
10. The site plan and narrative as submitted shall become
part of the Planned Development Special Use Permit.
All improvements as indicated on the site plan or
stated in the narrative shall be required as a condition
of approval.
The Planning, Board voted, six in favor, Gordon opposed and Harris
abstained, to recommend the rezoning request from R-1 to PD-H-R-8.
The Planning Board also recommended by unanimous vote that the
County Commissioners consider the problem of noise from the existing
and proposed interstate highways as an insignificant problem.
■
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
27278
4146"-N
MEMO
TO: Orange County Commissioners
FROM: Orange County Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Special Use Permit request for the Timbers Mobile Home Park
DATE: January 11, 1982
- . .. . .. . - - . .
The Orange County Planning Staff recommended denial or deferral of the
Planned Development (PD-4) - (Class A Special Use Permit) (and Reton-
ing from R-1 to R-8) request for the Timbers to the Planning Board at
the January 5, 1982 meeting. The Planning Board is recommending ap-
proval of the Timbers Mobile Home Park request with eight imposed con-
ditions (see attached Planning Board recommendations). Many of the
conditions address problems the Planning Staff pointed out to the
Planning Board.
The reasons for this Staff recommendation are as follows:
1. The location of this project adjacent to interstate high-
ways could present noise problems. The proposal does not
address this concern. There is no buffer of distance or
vegetation between the roads and the units. Staff feels
a minimum of a 50' buffer should be required.
2. The site has been logged in the recent past and there is
very little significant vegetation remaining. The pro-
posed layout shows an average of 18' between units. This
distance does not provide enough privacy, especially since
there is no vegetation between units. Staff feels that the
size and capacity of landscaping should be increased and
indicated on the Plan. Further the distance between units
should be not less than as calculated in Article 6,12.3 j.
3. The parking for each unit will be along the roads; without
separate pedestrian circulation within the project there is
considerable possibility for accidents, especially with
the smaller children. Also, with no designated parking
for each unit, it is possible that residents would have
32
. .
to park a considerable distance from their unit. The staff
feels there should be separate pedestrian circulation within
the project to avoid possible conflicts. That parking should
be off of the travel surface of the road. The road width
could be reduced if this is done. There should be a minimum
of 2 spaces per unit located on the site plan. The surface
treatment of the road should be such that there would be no
dust.
4. The swimming pool is a good improvement for this type develop-
ment. There should, however, be some additional improvements.
Bathroom facilities need. to be built at the pools, including
a drinking fountain. Two tot lots should be rpovided, one
at each end of the development. This would allow young children
to stay much closer to home. The usual play equipment should
be supplied, swings, slide, bars, etc. are good examples.
There is no indication of when the swimming pool and other
improvements will be completed. Staff feels all improvements
for the project should be installed before the last section
of units is ready for occupancy.
S. Two dumpster locations are proposed for the project. The
dumping schedule is supposed to be twice weekly. Staff feels
• at least one more dumpster is necessary. Presently some re-
sidents will have to go over 500' to get to a dumpster. The
dumpsters should be emptied at least twice per week. The lo-
,
cations should also be more carefully chosen so that units
located near the dumpsters are not overcome in the summer by
odors.
6. No street names are indicated nor unit numbers assigned on
the site plan. The Staff feels that each drive should be
identified and a street sign erected at the corners. Each
unit should have a number assigned to it and the same number
marked at the unit in a manner visible from the drive.
Conclusion
Staff feels that there is a need for mobile home spaces in
Orange County and that building them in areas with water
and sanitary sewer provides good protection for residents
and the County as a whole. The staff further feels that
there are serious short comings in the Timbers proposal and
these short comings should be addressed in a redesi-ned
proposal, rather than as imposed conditions on this sub-
mittal. It should also be understood that all spaces are
for rent and cannot be sold under any condition.
33
. , •,.
--"■77 , „
OR AIN•GE cararr •
• -•-•-
.74
7 ' ' '••- 7 7.7 . -
ACTIOn AGEND‘ ITEN ABSTRACT
1-3•E'2,T-L\'G
Subject:
APPOINTMENTS • ;
yes X>no
De--parinnent: Board of Commissioners 1 public Hearing:
• ■ Information. Contact:Paulette Pridgen-Pond
One resume PhoneMmber: 732-8181 ext. 510
pattose:To maintain filled seats on Various Boards and Commissions.
To update the Board on vacancies currently existing.
These appointments were on the Board's agenda of 1/4/82
The Board asked that the Clerk contact the Leagues of Woten
voters and the Chambers of Commerce (Chapel Hill-Carrboro and
Hillsborough) to solicit names of interested persons for these
appointments. I have done so and received one resume (attached) .
'Chapel Hill Planning Board: Two vacancies; We have not received
a recommendation from the Town which has been contacted.
Orange County Planning Board: Two vacancies (one designated
from Cedar Grove and one at large) One resume is attached.
(Positions available 3/5/82)
Commission for Women: Several vacancies; no resumes have
been received. •
Energy Commission: Chapel Hill Carrboro Schools' representative
and Town of Carrboro representative (1 have not received a recom-
mendation from either entity- they have been contacted) ; two at
large seats.
Orange County Board of Adjustment: (alternate delegate) I have
received no resumes for this position.
Southern Triangle Fire District Board of Trustees: Four members
were appointed to this Board on 7/7/81. The Board reserved one
•
amiciintment. Commissioner Willhoit is ascertaining interest in
this appointment.
•
•
— .
.. . .. _ .
01:2A1E CO(RATY
BOARD OF Ca'a.LISSIONETS Action 21.3ench.
ACTION AGEWA ITF),..1 ABSTRACT i' Item
MEETLNG DATE Feb. 1, 1982
Subject: Unpaid Real Property and Tax Lien Sale
RESU(ilh'
. .
Name: Sa Pay're., a,_ 6‘')er,1 e—, ________.
Nailing Address: 63 a) j 1 li i, reAl L e-
14/A41rp.517 . . .._______,.._7ip Code .011,277'
Telephone: 5Q - f414 Nome Business , -
Ethnic Background: Black Indian tlhite i--- Other .
—._ _......... .
Sex: Hale Female '' Age: ..._.11,_.
' .
Education: (Highest) , , ' .54. i
Occupation:
----z----__ •
Community Interests and Activities: .4..e. • e&
. ii„),,,„„i;L , 4—.4 n'• P 11/. le /,'' e4-,..e,,,' . e l'
elellefekry .1 e..iildi.4,-)e.n.c/...h &0 Irit h li it 1 19, 44,101 le opL1 i,ib 4
. ,
. ..
. .
,.-
. .
. ? .
•
- _________ ' • . -
------ .
. .
, . .
In Which township do You reside?
. .
, . (not applicable in some instances)
. . .
I I am interested in serving on: '1.4 ,e. eau 9„,- ' ;Ludic' —_______
Ailf , —•--•-•.-r••--•-•••••-T-■--••-••-• ._....._.....
. ,, • . ,, -
, • .
. .
. .._ . , .
- .—.-:......--,,.--.. .---......-........... ,, . ,
' • „ -
k• , : .,
' i " •
. . .
„ , .. , • ,
: .. Date: Oaq lz . Signature ;
. .
. ..
..,
getUrn t Clerk to the ard of county Comissioners.
7.: 1Q6 g, Margaret Lane
4 , Hillsborough, NC 27278 ,...-. ,
.,„.
. . ,
• , '
. . , .
- •-
. ,.
. - ..
„ .
. . : .
. . . ,
• - -;.''. .!, -- ,, :. 41:,!',:t.-Z-,-....- :"-.,",-;-.-.‘, '--
. . .
. . .
•
" .
..,,Jil-..::. 4...`'.:::.:^=7•.''''-:.:‘,..:'..',':.:.E01%-rip-A17. 4,...1‘•=4)............ 1......;:'"....i.^:.:::4,i'ap`..-...4 4:4...a........A0122,-.173Afrt,77-4'.71'.''''''""''''"
'''
—--
-
Aeriox AGE&DA ITEM ABSTRACT -Item No'. D, ;e1:.-
- ,
uric DATE February .1.........-1.9.112_
Subject: Mi. Smith
-- ij"
• j FPublic Hearin yes g:
Department: Manager
. . .
. . . .
. • .:.......1_,...........
. .
AtEaChment(s):
Ken Thompson
Information Contact:
No
-8181 ext. 501
. 1 Phonaambet: 732
.: .
. . --.
Purse; To hear Mr. Smith's comments about the CD project and participation
in the project.
\
....
Need:
Mr. Smith was at the Board's meeting on 1/25/82 and said
he wished to address the Board about particiTation in the
CD project.,
i
i
liTact:
i Unknown at this time.
i 1
1
il
t
11
t'., Rec-oarrendation(s):
As the Board decides
!i
'i
it
;•
',.
,..
-.;
t
r•
.,
t
•
REHABILITATION CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION APPLICATION.
ALL QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED AND THE DATA GIVEN MUST BE CLEAR AND COMPREHENSIVE.
THIS STATEMENT MUST BE NOTARIZED. IF NECESSARY, QUESTIONS MAY BE ANSWERED ON
SEPARATE ATTACHED SHEETS. THE CONTRACTOR MAY SUBMIT ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
HE/SHE DESIRES.
1. NAME OF BUSINESS: Kit Smith Home Improvement Company
2, ADDRESS OF BUSINESS: 223 Omega Road
Durham, North Carolina 27704
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER OF BUSINESS: (919 ) 688-5255 or 471-1794
4. CONTACT PERSON(S): Kid Smith
5. OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES # Home Imirovement and Rehabilitation
6. WHEN ORGANIZED? A.ril 1970
7. IF A CORPORATION, WHERE INCORPORATED AND WHEN? Presently being incorp-
orated.
8. HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN ENGAGED IN THE CONTRACTING BUSINESS UNDER YOUR
PRESENT FIRM OR TRADE NAME? . 12 years
9. GIVE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ANY OTHER CONTRACTING FIRM UNDER WHICH THE OWNER
OR PARTNERS HAVE OPERATED. INCLUDE DATES.
NAME • DATE
•
10. CONTRACTS ON HAND: (SCHEDULE THESE, SHOWING AMOUNT(S) OF EACH CONTRACT AND THE
APPROPRIATE DATES OF COMPLETION.)
CONTRACT APPROXIMATE DATE OF COMPLETION
Manumit Corp. $5,500 January
11. GENERAL CHARACTER OF WORE PERFORMED BY YOUR COMPANY (I.E. , GENERAL CONTRACTING
SPECIALITY IN ANY PARTICULAR TRADE)
Painting_, Carpentry, Plumbing, Electrical Work, Roofing, Tile,
Plastering, Wallpaper, Brick and Concrete Block Work, Steps ,
Sheetrock installation and finishing, and any other work relating
to home improvement and/or rehabilitation.
•
CL;
REHABILITATION CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION APPLICATION
Page 2
12. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO COMPLETE OR DEFAULTED ON ANY WORK AWARDED TO YOU?
YES NO X
IF YES, GIVE DETAILS:
4
13., LIST THE MORE IMPORTANT PROJECTS RECENTLY COMPLETED BY YOUR COMPANY, STATING
THE APPROXIMATE COST OF EACH AND THE MONTH AND YEAR COMPLETED.
CONTRACT ADDRESS AMOUNT DATE
COMPLETED
Grover Burthy 1019 . e• • . , Aug. 25 , 1981
1ElarmiltGory._, 909 N. A el jr , OCt 28, 1981,
DHA JILIrkolLS" . 444„440------ Dec.8, 1981
Rose Autry ,. Ra e' , / 0 Jan.4 , 1981
14-. NAME AND ADDRESS AND YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE OF ALL OWNERS, PARTNERS,
AND STOCKHOLDERS (USE ADDITIONAL SHEET IF NECESSARY.) 7 -
NAME ADDRESS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
Kid Smith 12 years
15. GIVE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE FOLLOWING REFERENCES:
TYPE OF ACCOUNT(S) ACCOUNT NO.
A. BANKS
Mechanics and --I - I ,
B. MATERIAL DEALERS H A B Material Su .1 .nc. nnrham, NC
Boyce Lumber & Su).1
C. SUB—CONTRACTORS Bobby Chambers Plu 1 -
Russel Mack Electrician mr
16. WHAT IS THE DOLLAR CREDIT AVAILABLE TO THE FIRM? 15 .00G
001: 2,
REHABILITATION CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION APPLICATION .
Page 3
17. DOES YOUR FIRM HAVE A RECENT FINANCIAL STATEMENT? YES NO X
IF YES, PLEASE ATTACH WITH IRIS APPLICATION. _
15. HAS THE COMPANY EVER BEEN PARTY TO OR INVOLVED IN ANY ACTION RELATED TO
X
DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON RACE, NATIONALITY, SEX, OR RELIGION? YES NO
IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN: .
' .
.
-
• .
19. HAS THE FIRM EVER CAUSED A LIEN FOR MATERIAL OR MECHANICAL WORK DEFAULT
PAYMENT TO BE PLACED AGAINST A HOMEOWNER? YES 'NOX
IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN: .
•
.., _
• '
20. HOME ADDRESS OF OWNER: 223 Omega Road Durham, NC 27704
... ,
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AUTHORIZES AND REQUESTS ANY PERSON, FIRM OR, CORPORATION
TO FURNISH ANY INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE HOUSING REHABILITATION OFFICE OF
ORANGE COUNTY, HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA IN VERIFICATION OF THE RECITALS
COMPRISING THIS STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS, DATED THIS 30 DAY OF December
1981 .
Kid SmithNome Improvement Co.
NAME OF FIRM
BY: Kid Smith
li--
TITLE: OWNER
----------7----77(;:----7 ,
,.
STATE OF .L.42:7 -1, i )
) SS • ,
/COUNTY OF ' t-c4-. ca,•,,-;,4., )
--(^1 da
iii: 'L-4 C • .,...7":- ---,-.e e..fl,1--,
z2, e4. beg duly sworn/depostsapd says
that keishe is" ,/&:777,-1 ,,,- - .:. . of
Aitd that the answers to the foregoing questions and all statements therein contained
are true and correct. ..--
.
5UB1RIBED AND SWORN tobefore me this 4-.6, day of
1 t>
tiOTARY PUBLIC
z..
• ,, ,,
My Commission ExpireS:. a,""2 4- !:"6 '-'"‹.7 , 19 eek:
00470-
OCOUNTY o COUNTY
-
BOARD OF CaLMISSIONEDS Action Agenda
Item /~) �/
/�' �� 7
ACTION AGENDA rrai yosurACr
DATE 1/29/82
Drbjzct: Housing Rehabilitation Application of Mr. Kid Smith
public W=°riog: yes X. r |
, " - "."'
. .
-�_-
• Contact: Ken Thompson
Attachment(s): Yes Information
- - m,sTtbe±.7 Exf 501 — . -
PURPOSE: To consider application to further participate in construction awards.
NEED: The Charles Smith Home Improvement Company remodeled the Katy McNeil
home in Northern Fairview under HUD contract. The oUntr t
MalEhil.,12E1_,.. authorized to proceed March 24, 1981, and completed
to the fact that the job was late in completion--
� �' 1981. �
thereby causing inconvenience to the owner--a fine of $10 a day for
5 days was withheld h e contractor' final payment, Moreover,
due to the work having been performed inefficiently (as documented
by Robert D. Wilson, Rehab Specialist, memo dated May 22, 1981) and
a negative reference was received from DurhaMCnunty (dated April 10,
'' 1981) the company was banned from receiving further work.
On January 6, 1982, the company reapplied for participation. The CD
Director's determination was to continue the ban, He had the concurrence
of the HUD Regional Office and CD Task Force and the County Manager on
the decision.
IMPACT: Insure the proper expenditure of public funds through monitoring of work
performance.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : Continue to ban the Company from participation,
�� �
uv`m," ^ ^di��
.. '
/. Sr ' � L.-,
MEMORANDUM
TO: County Attorney
FROM: County Manager
DATE: January 8, 1982
RE: Contract Application of Kit Smith Home Improvement Company Dated
January 6, 1982
On December 31 1981 Mr. Kit Smith and a Mr. Mort Levy came to
see me regardipg the � "to file this application. Mr' Smith is the intent th ti r hand, did most of the talking. He
c»ncontractor; Mr. Levy, on the o np `
' ` ~' - � �
said he was a part owner of the company that t had previously (on the same
day) been to see Albert been t Kittrell and complained that they had ee
n denied
further participation in the CD program.
One job had been done formerly. As I gather, unsatisfactory perfor-
mance of that job together with knowledge that the company had been denied
nership in the Durham CD program caused our CD Director to ban them from
participation h
_
/- ��l �
-The points-they � ncloded t�e� ow ng�
1. The work should not have been judged unsatisfactory
had received favorable comment from the property
nxu (Miss Katie McNeil who has since died) and a signed
owner f!cate of satisfactiun. They acknowledge that a CD
certificate developed a letter outlining certain deficien-
cies . '
staff member 1981 letter of Robert D Wilson, Rahab Spe-
cialist).( 22, e ar o D. of the letter
cialis' )` They said they were not aware o ne
until their meeting with Mr. Kittrell, however.
2. The fact that the job was late by five days should not be
^ deposit for 60 days
- The An amount of �l l90 was on epo
a fuctnr n umo , . -�- _
factor. ° ^^~ of -� -
for anything not completed. Horeuve{` pay ment of $10 per
day was paid as penalty for lateness.
3. Being banned from the Durham program should not be a
criterion for eligibility. Mr. Levy pointed out that
the Durham letter was dated April 15, 1981, the Smith .
Company was awarded work in June or early July, Mr. Kittrell's
letter to Mr. Smith--denying further. participotiu,--,"` dated
July 16, 1981.
' '
0����
_ ~ ~ ~~
- - - ' - -'
County Attorney -2- Contract tinn of
Kit Sini th Home Improve-
ment Company Dated
January 6, 1982
I expect they will contest any denial of their application, Mr. Levy
views himself as having a strong basis for overturning any denial of eliqi-
bility. The CD Director has told Me that this same individual was xun-
victed'in December, in Durham, of misusing CETA fonds.
By copy of this memorandum, I am asking Albert Kittrell to provide
you any further information on the matter. He has discussed it with the
HUD office and the HUD representative has advised there is ample case for
denying further participation' I want to know whether you concur with this
after having seen the evidence.
Kenneth R. Thompson
KRT:nm
Enclosure
/i
cc: Di rector
' -- == _
-^-- — 71.1�— �/ �.~�_ �_
-- � � u
. - - - —
-
� _ '
]U�����
"
Response to Mr. Smith and Mr. Levy Allegations
1. The work should not have been judged unsatisfactory as they had received
favorable comment from the property owner (Miss Katy McNeil who has since
died) and a signed certificate of satisfaction. They acknowledge that a
CD staff member developed a letter outlining certain deficiencies (May 22,
1981 letter of Robert B. Wilson, Rehab Specialist). They said they were
' - not aware of the letter until their meeting with Mr. Kittrell , however,- ,
Response' Mr' Smith denial of further participation in the rehab program was
based on inefficient work performance (as indicated in Robert Wilson's memo).
i d certificate of Final Inspection; however,
Ms. McNeil and Mr'�Hil�»»d�tQ»eCoa certy Development Task Force questioned the
Mr, Wilson, Hs McNeil and the =mv/ -
means to '`e end. '`They ^` ~ undue hardship (time) was placed on Ms. McNeil
m�^ = �' ' felt
as a result of inefficient work performance, Homeowners live in the units while
rehab work is performed.
Mr. Smith was not aware of Robert Wilson's memo until December 31 , 1981
because' Mr. Smith did not question the July 16, 1981 ban until December 31 , 1981.
The memo has been filed since May 22, 1081
2. The fact that the job was late by five days should not be a factor. An
amount of $1,190 was on deposit for 60 days for anything not completed,
Moreover, payment of $10 per day was paid as penalty for lateness.
Response: Mr. Smith was charged $10 per day for Mr. u`
lateness. Mr. Smith c*mp�/ted
the job—Five days over his scheduled time limit nf forty-five days. r' � /u/ s
lateness is not the result of bad weather, etc, but more actually related to
inefficient work performance. Since the homeowner remains in the unit while
rehab is being porformed, timeliness is an important factor.
The department does hold ten percen t of the contract amount for r DO days s
after construction has been completed to allow the homeowner ample time to
inspect
the unit. This period has no relationship with the scheduled time
limit for rehab construction.
3' Being banned from the Durham program should not be a criterion for
Mr. Levy pointed
M L out that the Durham letter was dated April 15.
eliUib1lity' d d work in June or early July, Mr, Kittrell's
letter to Mr' Smith--denying further participation—was dated July 16, 1981'
Response: M r' Smith signed a Rehab Contract on March 17, 1981. Mr. Smith's s
"Notice to Proceed" (agreement to start work) authorizes work to begin March 24,
1981' Mr. Smith completed construction work on May 14, 1981'
The City of Durham reference letter is dated April lO` 1981 and received
April 16, 1981,
Contrary to Mr. Levy's assertion, past work performance is an excellent
criterion for eligibility.
-
00474
7 �
• 0, MEMORANDUM
w - � = TO: County Manager ��
�~� r FROM: Albert Kittrell---
~~ DATE: January 27^ 1982
������ ����8� SUBJECT: Denial of Rehabilitation Application
Orange County (Kjd Smith Home Improvement Company)
106'E. Margaret Lane
H|Unuomogh, N/C.27276
On July 16, 1981, Kid Smith Paint Contractor was banned
from further participation in the County's Housing Rehabilitation
Program (attached letter dated 7-16-81), Denial was based on
(l' inefficient work performance (attached memorandum dated
5-22-81 from Robert Wilson, Rehab Specialist); (2) rehabilitation
work was five days over scheduled time limit of forty-five days;
l i to negative concern relative o nega ve reference received from the
City of Durha m Community Development Program (attached letter
dated 4-10-81' In addition, the decision to ban Mr. Smith was
detail in �tail with the Community Development Task Force
(several members had reviewed h d i d wo rk performance and discussed
rehab work with Ms. McNeil). The Interim County Manager, Bill
Laws, was informed and we discussed the matter. Ronald Clapp,
Community Rehabilitation Specialist, HUD Area Office, Greensboro was
Development informed of our decision, he concurred and stated he would
()apartment support the County's decision.
- -'- On December 31 , 1981 , Mr- Charles(Kid) Smith and Mr. Mort
Levy came to see me stating they would like to file an applica-
tion to perform housing rehabilitation. I gave Mr. Smith an
application and informed him of my letter dated July 16, 1981,
At this point Mr. Levy began to do most of the talking, he stated
he was part-owner of the company. Mr. Levy along with Mr, 5m-
asked to review all documents in Mr. Smith's file. They re-
ceived copies of my letter, Robert Wilson's memo, and the City
of Durham reference response.
(619)732.2X1 0367/8181 On January 6, 1982, Mr. Levy and Mr. Smith returned the
Chapel Hill 968-4501 application. Mr. Levy questioned several questions on the .
967-9251 application. I called Ronald Clapp, informed him of Mr. Smiths
Durham 688-7331 application. Nr. Clapp stated Mr. Smith should be denied
Mebane 127-2031 participation based on previous documentation.
Ext. 425
On January 22, 1982, I wrote Mr' Smith a letter informing
him that his company will not be placed on our Rehabilitation
Contractor Register (letter is attached).
AK/mb
Attachments
7
S. I:� •
_1 /, KN.. ���� . . ,
sr- -~.--
Preservation/Revitalization
,
- _ . - - -
- - �.^ ,�' .
^ �\ ; `
�! |�
ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEV1OI'MET DEPARTMENT
106 EAST MARGARET LANE.
HILLSBOROUGH, mC,
27278
(919)732-2163
��" ~*�
e.
A�
•
�~
�'4 ^".
July 16, 1981
Mr. Charles Smith
Kid Smith Paint Contractor
1113 South Roxboro Street
Durham, HC 27707
Dear Mr. Smith:
The Orange County Commu ity Development Department has as revieved your
work
performance in conjunction with th e rehabilitation of Ms. Katie McUeil's dwell
i ng
unit. Careful review indicates that yourcompany completed construction work
five (5) days over your'sc h d l d time limit of forty-five (45) days and your'
' c»nipany'« work per fn rma»ne was inefficient. -Additionally, we are concerne d
about the negative reference received from the City of Durham's Community
Development Department'
Therefore the Orange County Community Development Department, Interim :County
Manager, and the Northern Fairview Community Development Task Force have jointly
" '' � from our Rehabilitation Contractor Register. We
decided to remove'your name from Rehabilitation Specialist, Department of
also conferred with Ronald Clapp, Office, Greensboro, N. C. before making this
Housing and Urban Development Area ce, , ' '
decision.
Should you have questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate
to call me at 732-2163'
Sincerely,
q / //
-A1bert T. Kittrell
Community Development Director
AJK/mb
cc William Laws, Interim County Manager
Caleb Moore, Chairman, Northern Fairview
Community Development Task Force
. '
. '
UR -���
�
MEMO TO FILE: May 22, 1981
KID SMlTH, CONTRACTOK - DWELLING UNIT #ll KATIE MCNEIL
This contractor to me seems not to know in what order to go about doing his
work. The job in which he was awarded called for new shingles and felt and
also new ceiling ti]es. This contractor installed all ceiling tiles before
removing and replacing felt and shingles which would have ruined the tile had
it rained. There was a bathroom to be installed, the contractor put up his
tile board before roughing in his plumbing work and had to remove most of it
in order to plumb for his fixtures. Obviously, most of the contractor's helpers
knew less about building then the contractor himself. One helper was trying
to patch some holes about six or eight inches in a gypsum board wall by
_covering the hole with only tape and joint compound, which I had to have him
remove. The contractor could not weatherstrip a door without help which the
other Rehab Specialist, Leroy Whitmore gave him. The contractor lost and
-wasted to much time which the owner complained about to me. This time lost
caused the contractor to run over his bidded days, I would suggest that he
not be invited to bid on any other job in this program. There are some home
owners in the community that feel the same as self.
- -
Rehab Specialist
. . -
( 7 ,
...r -
(1)\
C,•(Y-'/ /
c,cvOnn, 0
OC Difie' CITY OF DURHAM
) NORTH CAROLINA
lA./.....
d \ - •i : r,
DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
`-'0 a CARL' C3
l'Ift7,7QC) HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
April 10, 1981
Mary C. Bates
Orange County Community Development
Department
106 East Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Dear Ms. Bates:
In response to your letter dated April 2, 1981 regarding Kid Smith, I submit
the following:
1. The City of Durham assumed the administration of the Housing
Rehabilitation Program July 1, 1979. Prior to then the Program
was administered by the Redevelopment Commission.
2._ According to the documentation I find in the files, Mr. Smith
was banned from further participation in the program some time
in 1977 due to poor workmanship and performance.
He has not performed any work since that time for the Rehab Program, and he
will not be allowed to participate in this program again.
Sincerely,
Ginger Newton
Housing Rehabilitation Program
Administrator
---
GN:mpn
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4
ƒY04-^8
`
. --_-
.
� ~ .
.
~ January 22, 1982
. .
:Z.,./r7 7 2
~ ~~ Mr. Charles Smith d/b/a Kid Smith
Kid Smith Home Improvement Company
Orange County 223 Omega Road _. - -
106 E. Margaret Lane Durham, North Carolina 27704
HiUuhonnvgh, NC.27278
Dear Mr' Smith:
I have reviewed your application received in my office
January 6, l982' Your company will not be placed on this
department's Rehabilitation Contractor Register because of
the reasons stated in my letter dated July 16, 1981-
� Additionally, representation by Mr Mort Levy in my
office and in your presence (December 31, 1981) as part
owner of Kid Smith Home Improvement Company is in contrast
with information supplied on your applicatiun-
' Should you have further questions, do not hesitate
Connmunhy to call me.
Development Sincerely,
Department
__
je.-6Cliriali
Director
ATK/mb
cc County Manager
County Attorney
Chairman, CD Task Force
(919)7J24)G8 9361/8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
967-9251
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
Ext' 425
"
,1174fa tasb .
Preservation/Revitalization
^
' ' —
. , `� ' ^� - `��
LiVel "•
r
• C■
CONTRACTOR APPLICATION-
FOR CONTRACTORS INTERESTED IN WORKING
IN THE
REHABILITATION LOAN/GRANT PROGRAM
OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INSTRUCTIONS:
The contractor must satisfy the following minimum requirements before being
awarded contracts under'the above program(s).
1. The Contractor must complete the attached "Statement of Qualifications"
2. The Contractor must have a satisfactory record of past work.
Contractors with limited or no past performance, or those
who have had some problems, but have corrected them, or are -
satisfactorilY correcting them, may be determined to meet
those requirements on a " probational basis" and will not be
awarded more than one contract at a time under any program.
3. The Contractor must have the necessary County and State licenses
that are applicable to his company doing business in North
Carolina.
4. The Contractor must have at least the following insurance
coverage:
a. Manufacturer's and Contractor's Public Liability Insurance
with miniMu5 limits of $100,000.
b. Property Damage Insurance of an amount not less than
$50,000.
c. Workmen's Compensation Insurance as required by State
law governing Workmen's Compensation.
5. That any bid over $10,000 should be in accordance with the
Federal Labor Standards provision.
6. That the Contractor will abide by Equal Opportunity provisions
of the Civil Rights Acts.
ALL INFORMATION AND INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO: •
Community Development Housing Rehabilitation Office
Orange County
106 E. Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
9/80
ORANE COUNTY 004183":,Ajii
BOMD OF Ca.2,1ISSIORS Action Agenda
A.CfICN 1.717.1 rosrrtm`t--. -
rlf...=.= DATE 2-1-82
Subject: Adopt Resolution Establishing Just Compensation (Right of-Way Acquisition)
•
1 Public HeFkring:. YeS, X no
D.:-.0.artant, Community Development
--
•
InformatiOn Cc9tect.: Albert Kittrell
Att.achms.nt(S) : Review Appraisa Certifi-
cation
,..
Recommended Values phone Extension 425 _
Purpose: The establishment of just compensation (dollar amount the County will offer
property owners for rights-of-way) for certain properties proposed for
acquisition in the Northern Fairview Community Development Area,
N°ed: All rights-of-way have been surveyed by The John McAdams Company. All
parcels have been appraised by Kathy Buck, Fred Ruffin, and Joe Daley.
Archie Kelly, Assistant Tax Supervisor, performed review appraisals.
Iwpact:Certification of Just compensation will facilitate the timely implementation
of the real property acquisition process.
Sufficient funds are set aside in the CD budget for payment
of compensation as receommended_
P,,commr,!m1ation(s): Approve Recommended Values.
(All values shown in Column 4)
00484
0-10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albert Kittrell, CD Director
FROM: Archie Kelly, Asst, Tax Supervisor
DATE: January 25, 1982
SUBJECT: Certificate of Review Appraisals
Northern Fairview Community Development Project
(Right-of-Way Acquisitions)
I hereby certify that I have reviewed the properties referred to above;
that the appraisals are complete and consistent with acceptable professional
appraisal techniques and practices; that the information furnished by the
Community Development Department indicated the appraisals comply with all
applicable statutory and administrative requirements of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and is assumed to be correct. In my opinion,
the reports are acceptable for use in determining the "Fair Market Value"
of the property appraised.
- _ _
0.10■4=8 5
, ., •
Review Appraiser
Square Feet Recommended
Parcel No. Right-of-Way Area First Appraisal Value
1 11,430 $3,200.00 $3,200.00
2 1,970 868.30 868.30
3 1,500 585,00 585.00
4 1,125 438,75 438.75
5 1,125 438.75 438.75
6 1,125 438.75 438.75
7 1,125 438.75 438.75
8 1,125 488.75 488.75
9 1,125 528.75 528.75
10 1,250 b 487.50 487.50
11 500 195.00 195.00
12 500 195.00 195.00
13 , 500 195.00 195.00
14 500 195.00 195.00
15 800 487.00 487.00
16 400 156.00 156.00
17 800 462.00 462.00
18 750 292.50 292,50
19 A. B. C. 3,600 1,491.00 1,491.00
20 975 277,00 440.00
21 6,100 2,379.00 2,379,00
22 & 141 2,265 881.79 881.79
23 1,370 584.30 584.30
24 1,200 320.00 450.00
25 220 156.00 156.00
25A 150 134.00 134.00
26 500 195.00 195.00
26A
43 220 85.80 85.80
44 30 11.70 20,00
51 450 175.50 175.50
52 450 175.50 175.50
57 5,000 700.00 1,600.00
58 1,800 347,00 650.00
59 1,630 170.00 600.00
60 3,000 249.00 1,100,00
61 1,035 455,00 455.00
62 675 312,00 312.00
63 225 99,00 99.00
64 450 215.00 215.00
65 450 215.00 215.00
66 450 215.00 215.00
67 900 396.00 450.00
68 450 300.00 300.00
����Y�
' - ~~
'
' 4u
Review Appraiser
Square Feet Recommended
Parcel xo' Right-of-Way Area First Appraisal Value
69 450 300.00 300.00
70 900 430,00 430'00
70A
72 225 ny'oo 99'00
73 500 250.00 250.00
74 500 210'00 210.00
75 1'000 300.00 300.00
76 250 85.00 85.00
n 500 225.00 225.00
- '-- 78 750 500,00 ' - 500.00 -- ' -
79 500 500.00 500'00
80 1,000 800.00 800.00
81. 500 200.00 200.00
82 6,050 1'875'00 1,875'00
83 3,360 1,400.00 1,400.00
84 1,800 700.00 700,00
85 675 250.00 250'00
`
86 450 200.00 200,00
87 675 324.00 324.00
88 900 320.00 320.00
89 & 89A 3,180 986.00 986.00
90 & 90A 2'e50 1,140'00 1'140'00
.
-
91 -- 6,600 1,438'00 1,438'00
92 7,500 540.00 1'700'00
`
93 8,250 z,soo'oo 3,500.00
94 2,750 1,100.00 1,100.00
95 650 260.00 260.00
96 1,100 350.00 350.00
97 375 150.00 150.00
99 175 o'oo 75'00
100 315 125'00 125,00
101 440 1'000.00 1,000'00
102 *50 180.00 180.00
103 315 300'00 300.00
104 75 0.00 , 50,00
105 225 0.00 90.00
106 300 120.00 120.00
107 600 200.00 200.00
108 550 ' 220.00 220.00
109 3'625 400.00 400.00
110 1,230 500.00 500.00
111 15 0.00 15.00
118 A. B. C & 98 750 674'00 *74'00
120 1'760 aes'un 693.00
121 A a B 1,114 *23'00 450'00
litAg4:87
ii ri,,5
Review Appraiser
Square Feet Recommended
Parcel No. Right-of-Way Area First Appraisal Value
133 500 195,00 195,00
134 500 195,00 195.00
135 500 195,00 195.00
136 500 195.00 195.00
137 90 35.10 35.10
138 210 212.90 212.90
139 30 11.70 11.70
140 40 15.60 15.60
130 225 278.00 278.00
131 375) 131.00 131.00
132A & B 1,650 716.00 716.00
123 525 204,75 204.75
124 935 364.65 364.65
125 1,350 526.50 526.50
126 2,250 877.50 877.50
127 1,425 555.75 555.75
. _ .
ao488
RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ESTABLISHING JUST
COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES PROPOSED FOR ACQUISITION IN THE ORANGE
COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, HUD PROJECT NO 8-80-DS-
37-0023
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
THAT, The Orange County Board of Commissioners has obtained appraisals and a
review appraisal for each parcel proposed to be acquired in the Orange County
Community Development Program as required by the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and HUD's implementing at
24 CFR 42.101-127.
THAT, Just Compensation is hereby established for each of the parcels as
follows:
"See Attachment"
i hereby Certify that the above resolution is a true and correct copy of the
resolution adopted at a meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners
on the day of , 19
4
. ,
(}U489
ORANGE COUNTY
BO.A.T2D OF CCCNISSIONMS Action Agenda
• . :1 '7 ItTb
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
MEETING DATE FEBRUARY 1, 1982
Subj°ct-"Amended CDBG Agreement
Public HP-A-ring: yes x
L Drpartrclant: MANAGER
Attaermisnt(S): Yes Idformation Contact: Bill Laws
(1) Letter from Mr. ThompsOn to R. Secrist
(2) Mr. 'Searist's reply P .MneNt.rober: - 732-8181 eict.503 -
•
(3) Copy of amended agreement
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board approval of the amendments to the CDBG agreement
for partial renovation to the Northside Multipurpose Center for
Senior Citizen activities.
/MED:
The County entered into a December 1, 1980, agreement with the Town
of Chapel Hill to partially renovate the Senior Citizens Center at
Northside under a CDBG grant the Town had received. Once the
County completed the work the Town was to reimburse the County
for the work performed ($16,000) .
The Town withheld payment because: 1) the County did not notify
the Town of alterations to the agreed upon work tasks; and, 2)
the County did not make monthly progress reports as required.
The amended agreement represents a revised understanding that is
acceptable to both entities and will permit reimbursement.
IMPACT: Approving the amended agreement will release the $16,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the agreement as amended and empower the
Chairman to sign.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Acrnda.
1* 2=rom AdrkiA AL-i§irmitT"'
lvIEETLNG DATE FEBRUARY 1, 1982
Subject:
ended CDBG Agreement
•
[ parent MANAGER
[public Hearing: yes
RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ESTABLISHING JUST
COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES PROPOSED FOR ACQUISITION IN THE ORANGE
COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, HUD PROJECT NO. B-80-DS-
37-0023
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
THAT, The Orange County Board of Commissioners has obtained appraisals and a
review appraisal for each parcel proposed to be acquired in the Orange County
Community Development Program as required by the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and HUD's implementing at
24 CFR 42.101-127.
THAT, Just Compensation is hereby established for each of the parcels as
follows:
"See Attachment"
I hereby Certify that the above resolution is a true and correct copy of the
resolution adopted at a meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners
on the day of 19
•
•
ORANGE COUNTY'
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda
Item No, ()
Acacu sIceiD2-1 ri ABSTRACT
MEEMG DATE 1/29/82
ORANGE COUNTY
• mr.4..sx3on.ovux-x
NORTH CAROLINA
e.t.staca
December 18, 1981
Mr. Ronald A. Secrist
Interim Town, Manager
Town of Chapel Hill
306 North Columbia Street
Chapel Hill,INC 27514
Dear Ron:
Re: CDBG Funded Renovation of the.Northside School
Building for Senior Citizen Activities
On October 1, 1981, Acting County Manager, Bill Laws informed Chris
Burnette of yoUr Planning Department that all work had been completed on
the above referenced project. A reimbursement of some of the County cost
($16,000) was then to have been made pending final inspection. Two pro-
blems have held this up, according to Mr. John Davis of the Chapel Hill
Inspections Department: ,
- 1. The County altered the list of work tasks without notifying
the Town. .
2, The County did not make monthly progress reports as called
for under Section 8 of the project agreement dated
December 1;1980.
. .
Both of these points are correct, As to the first, the County started
from a 15 item list-Arawn up by Senior Citizen's Council. As work pro-
gressed it appeared to the County that it would be necessary to make some
modifications to stay within budget. A ceiling change (an 8 foot height
was called for; our people could only lower it 10 feet) was eliminated
along with the dropping of electrical outlets. In the case of the latter;
not only was it a matter of cost but there was the view that power would
be inadequate to install all that was called for. It was also realized
that later renovation work planned by the County would remedy this feature.
As to the report problem, the County Public Works Director felt that
the work was done over too short a period to necessitate monthly reports.
The only thing that took a lot of time was the construction of a handicap
ramp.
11111111■Nr.----
recl 0751g
ORANGE COUNTY
HILLSBOROUGH 6/74,---"Or
43
NORTH CAROLINA
dnanagees ofirig.
E%eaStls4cd 1752
October 1, 1981
Chris Burnette, Planner
Town of Chapel Hill
306 N. Columbia Street
Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514
Dear Sir:
Enclosed is a copy of the final work plan for the
renovation of the Senior Citizen Space in the Chapel Hill
Multipurpose Center. All work has been completed with the
exception of the rails for the handicap ramp.
Total cost for renovation excluding the County's
manpower contribution was $18,194.94. The County pro-
vided the balance of funds necessary to complete this
project.
I trust you will find this information in order
and if I can be of further assistance, please advise.
Sincerely,
cfc1-4-4-rd.
Bill Laws
Acting County Manager
BL;kjh
Enc: 1
. _
reC 761 1O/ ( 'g
ORANGE COUNTY
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
dilanaget's lac
eaat(d4 ,1 775.e
October 1, 1981
Chris Burnette, Planner
Town of Chapel Hill
306 N. Columbia Street
Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514
Dear Sir:
Enclosed is a copy of the final work plan for the
renovation of the Senior Citizen Space in the Chapel Hill
Multipurpose Center. All work has been completed with the
exception of the rails for the handicap ramp.
Total cost for renovation excluding the County's
manpower contribution was $18,194.94. The County pro-
vided the balance of funds necessary to complete this
project.
I trust you will find this information in order
and if I can be of further assistance, please advise.
Sincerely,
ad) fa-u-14-
Bill Laws
Acting County Manager
BL;kjh
Enc: 1
_ _ _
I-a
S9-
8
61
.•
ail etc al
o
0 E ro)
HH
c$ CDcP
•1-s• ta. 2
0+ 0
F-0 ;0
8 g cf.06.
61'
cro 09
0 '&41
g as• cr. CD• I
cs• 0 as )4* as
0.
0.co c4-
1. 0, g
a coi c'
F-1-
a 0
Fp. 11 D-a)
CDI
al Er i.
it;
ak-4-
0 0.
0-Ct)
PP,
CD
co
o 8
• al
0. 4
o
e+ 0 .
F.4 1'4 P
1-0. co
04,
gO.c+
ci-
CD.
L.)pi RS 0
2 c+ 6..
X 0
i-0.
• e+
O 0
O r
C,.
r1/4)
11. O.
01 4
6** 0 cl
1' 5-
4
o
-
CD 0
I-0
to
SI will grI CD CD
0
4 co 0 lq) co Fa
trd.
0.
000 cop ;.7. 0
,0 4 •0 ,-_
19 CI. ha Ca
CD■ ct!
ei s, t
Dc4.3 gfirig g
.1 co 4
CD. CD ri• o
ce- co cr 7), P
1-s..0- t$ 0 6.
c-t-
to 0" V 3
Oct X OD IA- 0
O. Ps 0 I g•
I-.3
O 13.
• X co
• C7z
a
cr 4
1--a fla
ID 0
Pir .
X, NO
C4' p. co •
01 1-1 0 0
Co cr 0 i•-•
O (4.1 • asH PP 1-aa*
J0.11 0. ° ° CD
cct c• rea sal o.
c+. WO al
p 0
/-+ ro 0 H 0 0
0 0 0
14, cf 0•O
09 0
0. ird
CO
F-a
- 0
0 CD
E-0
N3
8 CD
O cro
cr
I-P
al
co
CD
co
0
0 •0 CD Co
gn
• 1-1
•
0
f-i 4
0
0
(">
al a.co 0
°
O e.
•01 0 0 cl•
O 1-i 0s co
66 0 00 70'
(01
13
CD
•
0
(4-
$1:1
•.0
•
4-1
0
0
..,. —
. ..—. „ . . .
— _ . ----- 4.)•:-------,...,,--' -
. . .
g:,..,..
. ,
—Pw 0.#100 ep
O 88
" 2 88 ;1g.
10 a .ii g 4D, ti 0
Omtigo- e4
: 0 Oa 0
1 : c.,1 mg, 0 02 . .1
O 0 x e CD 0 01 1-i
12.• ..... X 14
12' " Ig Bao n 4 • .
00
O. ..„ •
IP C0 g"0 02
1%n-1Z i2. g4 e
o 1-.1-'.6 5" f\I P. 0 1-•3
P
c+ p o mW 00
,.0,0
---n1 014 N ci" R.Pa Pr it
0 ogm
.... ._ GI, cp; • g w 0. a) a) g 0
re) 4' L w o ass Ts e g g
O. J0
2)
.4 4, 2:1•*? 4 •
. ...c;g ft.....:
cr a 1-ji 0. E.
& B
0 g: 2 •....•c* 82 ct'IX -
O 4' "& 0 )-. .. CA
cP }4 cl. m e i H 40 0
g Oc+.
a")
CD 1-, Oca a) 011 -.0 N3 Rs 0
o
O ----q+a) z,,- },1 it VA 8 cr 0
CD. a
0 i V-V vi... R2tf
1-. B I
5
. • B
ta.
0
0 r
0
-.4 ON ro 1-1
. 0- ,4 .
54' %..1%
x • .
Pa- 'D:-.01 IND
Hca41 Npi. ?0.1 HI OW40 OW10.0
o 6 JO cla c+ )1..-6A ° Vg g11.. ■gC32.172a ?).-5411
cA•ii )4 0 mi to 0 0 R.0 Pclo grit -
o at. 04 IA.4 1 4 a II 012. 41) ei. fr td I /1 st e• cat 2 0 4 TS
4 Ca 7, SD 0 er 0
4 CD
O '. 0 to hs 0. 0 Ts P. M P. . H c+ a) aq • P
O CD 1 Et F,^I 0 4 Ola 0 a) 1 0 ta• c+ a)
P
a le V".171,. iliiibitl:
OA" 4 a)
ca co 0. al 4 '5" 1
, 0m
CD-
o c•-
I C 0 P 0 Pt 4' 414 4 :
6g t---P1' al 0
m
al 0 § R. 2 2* ge, 2 0. 0 Fa
ca CY P 21; 1-1 .0 -4 In
tis n 0 1--;
0 0
co 0 cAl 113 0 ...c•,-c1,
M It -. 1--A c1- 0-g
1 o 0
0
ID co
co -.2 a. VI. r0
p .
• 1-1
. . .
1:1
CD CD
O 00
o al 0
Ri. B V op op.
4 Nd cD c-) '1 ii . 0 4
CO
P3 • D.f 4 P3 4 MO 4 0
O CD c., co CI 0 08 P3 n
e = g •1 4 e *I 0
O e
1 cl•0• to o a) o ;c g n 4 4 n o
n 4 o 8
g % n
z ....
•
CD • -4 Cr. Vi,
. 0
• - r),
• . . .
a
iti• .co. ii1-
to W H P ,....., ‘.... co IND $a
1..ri k.n. 0 0 0 .. IND
p' p
o 0
o
P ....)
o o
o
a
CD V b
V V
0 0 Cs 0
. 0
Li
c
Cr
. ,
5/3
- .
December 3, 1980
WORK PLAN
for
The Renovation of Senior Citizen S'ace in the Cha 'el Hill Multi .uriose Center
Project Completion Deadline - June 10, 1981 - ready for approved
occupancy
Funding Sources/Amount $16,000 County Development Funds, primarily-
for Materials
Staffing:
I ) Project Coordinator - Jerry M. Passmore, Director
County Department on Aging
Responsibilities 7 (1 ) Liaison between various responsible
roups and individuals
2) Chair project renovation committee
3) Fulfill CD contract
4) Meet project deadline
5 Monitor project costs
6 Provide initial project work crew
• 7 Work with Mark Rees, Purchasing Direc
on selection of materials
(2) Project Consultant/Work - Ron Phillips, Director, Public Works Dep.
Supervisor
Responsibilities - (1 ) Approval of selected materials and
appropriate manpower
(2) Handle necessary inspections and
building permits
(3) Schedule and supervise overall work
(4) Provide public works staff for techni,
assistance or actual work done
(3) Initial Work Crew Bratcher Evans, Foreman
( 5iFfITTITTUTTtaff) Albert Blackwell
CETA Worker (Part Time)
Volunteers
(4) Project Renovation . 7t!.; 'Jerry M. Passmore, Chairman
Committee Gatha Lassiter, 2 members of the Golden A<
Happy Circle (Mrs. Hackney & Frances
Hargraves) , and 2 members of the County
Senior Citizens Board, Earl Chestnut , Rit;
Dowling , Bratcher Evans, Ron Phillips,
James Brittain and Joe Bradshaw
Responsibilities - (1 ) Decide on specific work to be done anc
select materials
(2) Recruit necessary manpower
(3) Approve any manpower subcontracts
(4) Stay within the budget
(5) Inspect work done
FINAL REPORT - THE RENOVATION OF SENIOR CITIZEN
SPACE IN THE CHAPEL HILL MULTIPURPOSE CENTER
All items in the attached Work Plan were completed by May 28 ,
1981 . However, the manpower used to complete the renovations did
change from the plan. The County Public Works purchased materials
and installed the floor tile (item #2) and painted all required
rooms (item #3). Udis Johnson , a Hillsborough contractor, was
hired by the County to provide materials and do the following:
install the drop ceiling (item #1 ) , install carpet in the lounge
(item #4) , install paneling (item #5) , close off entrance between
lounge and craft room (item #6 ) , cut two openings and install
additional doors (item #7) , rewire new light fixtures and additional
outlets (item #8) , install new cabinets (item #9) , install sinks
(item #10) , install folding room dividers ( item #11 ) and put in
new front entrances (item #12) . Jones Concrete Service was hired
to widen outside front entrance and construct the handicapped ramp
(item #13\ ^
Additional renovations of the bathrooms were done with Older
American Act funds under Title IlI~C Nutrition amounting to $5000.
Excluding County manpower contribution , the total costs for
materials and labor for the renovation of the Senior Citizen space
was $18,194. 94. The County provided the balance of funds necessary
to complete the project.
Prepared by Jerry Passmnre
proj . Coordinator
August 31 , 1981
��m��
- '. -'
-
.
Review^
Appraiser Recommended
Square Feet�-o�-��y First Appraisal Value
�i Area Parcel 0o^ y^' e� 300.00
300.00 450 430.00
69 43V.0O
900
7O
99.00
70A 99.00
225 350,00
72 250.00 500 210.00
73 210.00 500 300.00
74 300.00 1,000 85,00
75 85.00 250 225^OO
76 225.00 500 500.00
77 500.00 750 500.00
78 500.00 500 800.00
79 800.00 1,000 200.00
8O 200.00 500 l 875.00
81 1,875.00 '
6,050 l 400.00
82 1,400.00 '
3,360 700.00
83 700.00 l,8OO 250.00
84 25�'OO
675 ', 2O0 0O
85 200.00 '
450 324.00
86 33A'O0
675 320.00
87 320.00 900 986.U�
88 986.00
89 & 89A 3'180
90 & 90A 2'850 1,140.00
1,140.00
1,438.00
I,43B,UO
91 6'600 l ,�OO,D0
540.00
92 7,500
93 8'250 3.500.00
3,500.00
l,l0O.D0
1,100.00
94 2,750 260.O0
260.00 650 350 U0
95 350.00 '
1,100 150 V�
96 150.00 '
375 7S
97 75.00
O0
99 175 125.00
125.00
100 315 1,000.00
1,000.00 101 440 180.00
180.00 450 300 DO
102 300.00 `
103 315 50.00
0.00
104 75 9V,O�
105 O,0O
225 170.00
Review Appraiser
Recommended
S�uaze �eer
Parcel No.
Right-of- ay Area ��rs� Appraisal Value
133 ��0 l95'�O
195 00
134 S0O I95.00 l9S'00
135 SOO l9�'O0 I9S.D0
136 SD0 l95,00 l95.00
137
90 ]�,lU 35.lO
138 �l0 2l2-9O �l3'��
139 JO ll,7O ll,7O
140 4O l5'6O l5,6O
130 3JS 27�.UO
21351 000
131 375
11 70
l3l'D0
132A & 8 l,5SO 7l6.�O ?1�'0U
123 5�5 2O4,75 3O4,7S
124 9]5 ]64'6G �6�,��
125 l,35O �2�'5� S2�.5O
126 2,250
877.50
877.50
127 1,425 555.75 555.75
- (704 9.0 . .
ORANE COMM
. .
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agencla
. .
Itemtto, D-7
ACTION AGagOA ITEM ABSTRACr _
nagrzz DATE February 01, 1982
. :
Subject: Title XX Allocation
. .
Depar .tment: Social Services . , j Public H __PAring: yes ' x D
. .
. .
• .
. • . . • ____... . .
,
Attachment(s): Yes letters. InfOrMatign C°ntaCt: Thomas N. Ward
...„ _ _ . . . . _
. .
- --7- Phone IltIMbe-r: .732-9361 -- ext. 229
-:--
. . • . •
. . . . _
. . „.
. .-
. ,
. . ,
. .
. . . .
, e- 1
Purpose: To present for eomMissioners consideration a.letter from the DSS hoard to
Dr, Sarah Morrow and Gov. Jim Hunt regarding a proposed change in Title:XX allocations
to counties which would reduce 6.ratige County funding by 25%.
, .
. .
. .
. .
. , .
. .
_ ....., , .
' .
Need: DHR is expected to review the current formula in the next few weeks. It is
imperative that Orange County Oppose the formula recently endorced by the N.C. Social
Services Directors Association which gives equal weight to population and county
public assistance recipient ratios.
..
,• ' ' .,
, ..,
I .
. ,
; . .
; .
1 InTafitr. A formula based on Orange County's population as a % of the state
population would slightly increase our current allocation, Our county has:a low %
of public assistance recipients. Orange County's base allocation is spent primarily
1 for Protective Services for Children and Adults who are served without regard
to their income, status, therefore, the reiationshipibetween public assistance levels
and the need for Title XX services is not clearly evident.
1 .
. ,
, .
. ' .
1 .
1 ileaarriendation(s): Orange County advocate for (a) a formula assuring each
county receives its "fair share" of Title XX funds based on population, (b) no
change in the present formula. The commissioners are being askekby the DSS Board ,
to co-sign the pSS Board's letter or communicate separately,With state officials
on this issue, , .. ..
, .
. ' .
. .. ..
• ..
. .
•
: -
■ .
. .
: .
. „ .
,. .
. .
. "
• 00 4 91.
@range Tountg Department of
300 W TRYON STREET
HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278
iDARD Tom Denton, TELEPHONE.
LJaClialLiWG CHAIRPERSON km,Lsttonouan OFFICE 9613-4501 967 975t
SAM ENGLIili January 08, 1982 HILLSPODOUGH OFFICE 732 COG1,732 am
JANICE scHorLcs CHAPEL HILL OFFICE EE Q4&
xxim<aamm.1.4 Shirley Marshall
P J MURPHY MO
DIPECTOR
THOMAS M WARD
TO: Social Services Board Members
FROM: Thomas M. Ward 111/14P)
SUBJECT: Budget Cuts in Title XX
Before I get into the most urgent business at hand, I am sure I speak for
all the Board in welcoming Shirley Marshall to the Board of Social Services.
We look, forward to working with her in the dual role of member and liason
with the County Commissioners.
Title XX Allocations
I am enclosing the monthly staff administrative memorandum which goes into
this subject in some detail. I mailed a memorandum to all 100 county Directors
of Social Services prior to the 01/06/82 meeting which generated enough
interest for five persons to speak at the meeting very strongly in favor of
using a population formula for distributing these funds. So there is some
interest and probably much more than surfaced at the meeting for this formula.
The county directors were told before the vote that 76 counties would receive
increases under the formula approved on 01/06/82 and therefore another formula
• did not have a chance with this group. The interesting fact is that many of
the 76 counties would get larger increases using a population formula and many
of the 24 counties scheduled for cuts would gain greatly from the population
formula. I strongly feel a case can be made for the population formula,
although, research into this area is needed to clarify the options available
to the state,
Additional Background
Until about 5 years ago, North Carolina was not spending the federal funds
available under Title XX. Some counties had a history of inability to budget
matching funds while others were successful in this area. Over a period of
years (and nobody cared until the ceiling was reached), significant inequity
developed because of the above problems. When the ceiling of Federal funds
was reached DHR proposed a formula to reduce spending in counties using more
than their "fair share" and make these monies available to counties needing
to "phase up" their programs. The bureaucracy labeled these "hold harmless"
and "phase up" counties with 34 counties in the first group and 66 counties
in the latter. There was an initial one year reduction to "hh" counties and
since that time allocations to them have been unchanged. Inflation, cost of
living increases, changes in state law and other factors in the last four
years have made cutbacks in service programs necessary, In October, 1981, a
X492
•
Page 2
20% reduction in allocation was imposed due to budget cutting of the current
administration in Washington. We reduced our staff the equivalent of 7 staff
positions and received some additional funds from County Commissioners to
survive the 81-82 year. If DHR follows the recent formula endorsed by the
State DSS Directors Association, we face even greater loss of funds for FY 82-83.
Social Service funds were at least in part generated to prevent dependency
and reduce public assistance caseloads. Counties with a low ratio of public
assistance clients would be penalized under the formula being recommended.
New Twist to Title XX
The word is out (accurate I hope) that the federal block grant approach does
not require local matching funds for federal money. The State, therefore,
is in a unique position to increase funding to counties badly needing to
"phase up" their human service programs without requiring any (or at least
any increase in) local dollars to be budgeted,
DHR Action
The Title XX allocation system has been a very hot potato for DHR to handle.
I feel lobbying there and with the Governor's Office would be beneficial at
this time. I do not feel we can afford to let a formula slip through that has
such a negative impact on our programs without opposition being voiced.
I do not feel the DSS board meeting on 01/21/82 will be too late for a collective
voice to be heard, however, I wanted to get some background information out
in-advance of the meeting and feel any action individual members may want to
take will be useful. I am asking Mrs. Marshall to share any of this information
with the commissioners she feels is appropriate.
S. 41:00
oRar .F...c.:ounTY
• :7
I tem 'rev_ D•-,8
ACfION :AGENDA ITEM ASSTPACt
Subject:Hillsborough ESC Office
•
k 1,Public 110,-4ring: yes
D.partrent: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICE
•
Iriformation Omtect: Tom Ward .
- Attachme_nt.(s):
NO Phone 732-8181 ext. 201
Purpose: An oral report to the Board regatding the programs and/or
services affected by the closing of Employment SecUrity Com-
mission offices.
•
Neea: The Federal Government has closed several Employment Security
Offices among those closed is the Office in Hillsborough,
The Board should be aware of the impact of those closings and
its impact upon the DSS and its clients.
Mr. Ernest Mangum, CETA Director, will comment also.
•.•
*;:
'
February 1, 1982
METING Enay.
sobje .--4 vacant County Positions
Pcribo ending January 31, 1982
Hearing: -----' X �o
| monmol Department . � ' �� �~^~�-~ yes
, __ •
•
Contact: Beverly Whitehead
��r��cn=^�`='^ yes
o � pages P�me 732-8181 ext 516 ..
.
•
°~ ~ '
�uzPase; To consider refilling the vacant positions recommended by the County Manager.
•
Need: See attached
`
ZrTact; -Continuation of positions where a high workload has been verified will
permit service continuity.
-Where the workload is less or it can be shifted continuation of the
freeze will permit the Board to realize salary savings.
Pf.v �1-.•on-Tqtiom(s): -Approve refilling of the following positions:
-Programmer - Truck Driver
-District Supervisor
-Real Property Appraiser
-Business Property Appraiser
-Administrative Officer I
-Smil,6 Erosion Control Officer.
-Approve continuation of the frozen status for the following
vacant positions:
-Administrative Assistant to County Manager
-Soil & Erosion Inspector 4ond Records Specialist
-Tax Clerk Il = ..`
-Coordinator-Commission for Women - As the Board decides.
Programmer (Data Processing Department) page 2 of 3
Considerable workload.in th6 development cif Land Records System and con-
version
District 3upozVivor (Recreation Department)
Position is responsible for program planning,implementation and evaluation
for the Central District activities. Other responsibilities includes
assisting in coordination of county-wide recreation activities.
If the position is kept in a frozen state it will necessitate a severe
service reduction to all districts.
Real Property Appraiser (Tax Supervisor)
Responsible for appraising existing and new construction of real property
for ad valorem tax purposes.
This position is critical to the timely processing of tax bills.
Business Personal Property Appraiser. (Tax Supervisor)
Position is responsible for processing tax listings for Business/Personal
Property and in discovery of non or under-listed business property. Last
year this position was responsible for discovery of property that resulted
in unanticipated revenue of $132,278 plus penalities,
Administrative Officer I (Health Department)
Administrative Office I to the County's Health Dizector. This position
will be down-graded to the Account Clerk IV classification. This position
has been vacant since November 13, 1981.
Soil & Erosion Control Officer (Planning),
Responsible for the Administration and Enforcement of the Soil
& Erosion Control nrdinonce, private road, drainage, and flooding sections
of the County's Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
This iti is critical to the continued operations in the Soil &
Erosion Division of Planning.
_ _
Truck Driver (Public Works Department)
Work involves the skilled and safe operation of a packer truck used in
the collection of refuse from green box locations thru-out the County.
This position is critical for continued operations.
Administrative Assistant I (County Manager)
Performs secretarial and administrative office management duties. This
position has been vacant since October 1981.
Soil a Erosion Inspector (Planning)
Performing work under the County's Soil & Erosion Control
Ordinance,Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations in enforcing their rules regulations concerning Soil & Erosion Control. This position will vacant on February 5, 79e2.
Tax Clerk II (Tax Supervisor)
Performs clerical work and support work in assisting the Tax Sopozv1oor,
Tax appraisers, Tax Listers, Tax Mappers, etc. This position has been
'
vacant since February 16, 1961.
Land Rocozdu.sppniolist (Tax Supervisor)
Performs clerical duties gathering and giving basic information and
instructions regarding Land Records program and procedures. This
position has been vacant since Soptcmh=r_4' 1901.
_ ._--_- _ _
Deputy Sheriff (Sherirf.'s Department) One Position
'
PretecEion and service -- —_ -i^.~
Deputies during the'f.kacal year in order* to-cut'COSt: Thia PoSitiOri has
been vacant since August 1981.
Coordinator Commission for Women (Commission for Women)
Carries out ail of the programs of the Commission. Serving on and
attending a variety of committee and task force meetings. This
position is funded as a part-time permanent position 20 hours per
work. This position became vacant on January 15, 1982.
oeiLet11
Report of Discussion Meeting on Employment
Issues for Women in Orange County
December 9, 1981
Peggy McCarthy presided at this meeting which was sponsored by the
Employment Committee of the Orange County Commission for Women and held
in the conference room at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development
Center in Chapel Hill.
After opening remarks, each of the seven invited participants spoke
briefly about the services offered by the agencies they represented.-
summary of their remarks follows.
Ret Chamberlain, Employment Security ComMission, 516 N. Mangum St.,
Durham, 683v-6880: Matching jobs with people is their main service. One
sixth of their clients collect unemployment insurance and must also par-
ticipate in the job placement program. The Commission administers WIN,
CETA, Tax Credit program, and food stamps, and underwrites bonding when
necessary for job placement. The job counseling program includes test-
ing for specific job qualifications. The Durham office is conducting a
pilot program for the nation on the validity of general tests to assess
qualifications for a variety of jobs. WIN, CETA, and food stamps are
specifically designed for people with low income; all other services are
free and available to everyone. Since the closing of the Employment
Security offices in Hillsborough and Carr Mill Mall as a result of re-
cent budget cuts, the Commission's only current microfiche listing of
job openings in the county is at the Chapel Hill Public Library. The
Employment Security Commission has a broad mandate to serve the public
and cooperates with many other agencies.
Jane S.anel, UNC Career Counseling Service, Nash Hall, 933-2175:
The occupation and resources library is extensive and open to all. All
services are free to students, even those enrolled in only one course
through the evening college. There is a fee for non-students for test-
ing, counseling, and for workshops on such subjects as job interviewing,
resume' writing, time management, test anxiety, and note-taking. Pre-
career experience is arranged for students through internships and summer
jobs. Lists of job openings in the area are maintained. The GED test
is administered, but no preparatory work is offered for it. The Counsel-
ing Service provides broad services for students, who are its main re-
sponsibility, and offers limited services to the community as time allows.
J. McDaniel, Durham Technical Institute, 1637 Lawson Street, Durham,
596-9311: A wide variety of courses are offered for a modest fee, often
scheduled at night or on Saturdays to accommodate workers. About 75%
of their students have jobs; most are between 25 and 45 years of age,
and over 20% already are college graduates but need practical job skills.
Courses prepare people for jobs that are available. Opticians, dental
and nursing assistants usually finish the course, take state exams and
nearly 100Z of them find employment. Students in business and accounting
often get jobs before they complete the entire program, (a successful
conclusion to their studies, but one which inflates the drop-out rate).
Many students of auto-mechanics are interested only in understanding
- , Page 2
their own cars. Other popular courses are in real estate, insurance,
data processing, and computer programming. Job placement is handled by
the Employment Security Commission.
Mary Friedman Orange County Emplo .-nt and Trainin: Agency, (CETA),
410 Caldwell Extension, Chapel Hill, 942-8788: Services are available
to people who qualify because of low income or handicap. There are three
programs. 1) High school equivalency training combined with work experience
two hours a day. Students sometimes get jobs and leave the program be-
fore completing the program. 2) Individual referral. Students-are ,
paid $3.35 per hour for class time and are reimbursed for transportation
to class (usually at Alamance or Durham Technical). They are limited to
fields where need exists, such as-practical nursing, secretarial, data--
processing, accounting, and heating and air conditioning. 3) On-the-
job training (OJT). Private employers agree to train qualified persons
and are reimbursed up to 50% of their wages, decreasing as the trainee
becomes more competent. This program funds 8 people in Orange County
at one time, about 20 in a year, preparing them to work in the private
sector. Placement may be with employers outside Orange County, but,
transportation is a problem.
Mary Hackenbrock, Work Incentive, (WIN), 300 W. Tryon St. Hills-
borough, 732-8181, or 967-9251, ext. 255. This program is provided, by
the Department of Social Services and the Employment Security Commission
to serve welfare recipients. Any woman on AFDC whose children are 6 or
older must participate, while it is optional for mothers with children
under 6. Counseling' services evaluate skills and job history, and give
aptitude tests. Training may include adult basic education (below 8th
grade), GED preparation, one year of training at a technical institute,
and job seeking skills. Group training is provided in ego strength,
communication skills, role playing for job interviews, and other such
subjects to enhance employability. WIN workers go to employers to try
to develop jab opportunities. On-the-job training is the same as that
provided by CETA, and the two agencies work together and share resources.
WIN provides intensive employability services to a population especially
in need of such help.
Eunice Grossman, Duke Peer Counseling / Life Work Planning- Center,
Duke University Department of Continuing Education, Bivens Building,
684-6259: Counseling services are provided for the public (not students),
including self assessment, job exploration, career planning, resume'
writing, job hunting skills, and goal setting. A comprehensive library
and handouts are available. Clients tend to be people with little con-
fidence who may be recent college graduates, divorced women or homemakers
who have been. out of the job market for years, or people- interested in
changing careers. This agency is not publicly funded and must charge
fees for services. However, mast of the counselors volunteer their time,
although they are professionally trained.
Jane McIntyre, Technical College of Alamance, P.O. Box 623, Haw
River, 578-2002: Job training is provided in six month, one year, or
two year courses for $39 a quarter. Basic adult education, adult high
school programs, and GED training are also available. Tutors and learn-
ing labs are abailable free to anyone on a variety of subjects where
..-
Page 3
deficiencies might exist. Dual enrollment is arranged with Alamance schools
for students who wish to take a course such as welding or machine shop
for high school credit. (Dual enrollment is available also at Durahm
Tech.). In the nursing programs and LPN can become an RN with one year's
training. Many special students take one course in a field of personal
interest. Fifty college graduates are now taking courses.
After these individual presentations, the group discussed questions
which had been provided in advance.
What services are lackin: in Oran:e Count'?
Child care and transportation are lacking for some people in CETA
and WIN programs. Although CETA will pay for transportation, it cannot
provide a car. In some cases ownership of a car, along with other assets,
disqualifies a person for aid, so that it can become a "Catch 22" situation.
Orange County lacks an Employment Security Commission office since
recent budget cuts. WIN and CETA workers have more responsibility to
find jobs for their clients with less Commission help.
What services are likely to be cut?
Eligibility requirements are tighter for AFDC and related programs:
The food stamp program is hurt badly. Training funds are cut. WIN has
no money for day care, and help from Social. Services is meager since
their funds for day care are also cut. Workfare may replace job training,
requiring people to work at unskilled jobs with little expectation of
advancement.
What 'lens are bein: made to hel. aeust to cutbacks?
Agencies can increase cooperation by referring clients to other agen-
cies to fill gaps in their own programs.
Legislators need to be educated on the effects or regulations. Some
rules make sense in most cases but are illogical in individual situations,
e.g. an 8 year old boy dropped his paper route because it put the family
into a bracket that provented the family from getting medicaid for his ' -
chronically ill sister. Politicians will correct such rules if they are
aware of the effects.
The WIN tax incentive program has been improved by stricter regula-
tions which prevent employers from retroactively claiming credit for
people already on their payroll. Now, they must be certified as eligi-
ble before employment, which encourages new employment of low income peo-
ple. This is being explained to employers. A possible project for the
Women's Commission would be to get heads of corporations together at a
meeting to learn about tax incentives available to them. Employment
Security could furnish a speaker.
, -
Page 4
What increased or decreased need for services do you foresee?
Technical colleges will be used more because of increase in hi hl
g highly
technical jobs, increased numbers of students who can not afford college,
and the increased number of mature people wanting to develop new skills.
Four year colleges are accepting credits more.
Career counseling is in high demand. Students are increasingly
using services available to them. Private counselors, not excessively
priced, are busy. PREP, a nationwide franchized counseling service, will
open offices here in January.
Unemployment insurance will increase, although this area so, far is
in better shape than most areas in the state and nation. On-the-job
training and tax credits are good programs which will probably continue
to be funded.
JOCCA is helping senior citizens get jobs. Youth Employment Ser-
vices are at the high schools. CETA has more applicants than jobs.
The Triangle Women's Network tries to fascilitate employment or job
changes, but they find a lack of job openings for professional women.
What are some special groups with employment problems?,
The young, poor, elderly, professionals, home-makers, and minorities.
Women need to accept traditionally male jobs in order to increase
their income. Locally the construction industry will hire anyone who
learns the skills, but many women do not want to compete with their bro-
thers and think they will be laughed at. _
)
What can the Commission for Women do?
Support women in non-traditional jobs-by speaking to high schools and
offering workshops and role models.
Educate legislators about needs.
Hold a meeting on tax incentives for employers.
Help women be assertive in handling sexual harassment.
Members of the Orange County Commission for Women who attended the
meeting found it very informative and felt that the participants also
learned from each other, and opened new channels of communication.
o
••
111..
1w\ 0
0
C:7
••
C;3 04 al Cf2
8 0 M
t,r1 0
P4 11.11/111111111111111111
MINN
rCh 111111m
8 II
111 IME=
Ma
0
0
• c-
E-4
0
0
MEM"
rc1 •
••
1111
0 0
c:3
oca • 8 E Nam
allEllat
tO er,
C:3
1111111
tr■ 00
co
a)
- -
THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR WOMEN: a brief history •
April, 1982, will'mark the sixth anniversary of the creation of .
the Orange County Commission for Women by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners, then chaired by Flo Garrett.
During these past six years, the Women's,Commission has had a
significant record of service to the women of Orange County and to all
Orange County residents. the Commission has distinguished itself in three
major areas: needs assessment, information and referral, and advocacy.
During its first sixteen months the Commission members worked with
neither staff nor office space. Nonetheless, they out together the first
'Purvey of the:needs of women in Orange County, managing to write a questionnaire,
collect and collate data, and begin an analysis by the time their first
coordinator was hired. Their report, "Include Us In" was presented to the
Commissioners in January, 1978, and is still a useful needs assessment document.
In 1977, 1978, and 1980 Commission members and staff represented
women's issues at two County human services conferences and Chapel Hill's
needs assessment meeting. In 1981, the Women's Commission co-sponsored.
a professional survey of the women of Orange County with the newly founded
Orange County Women's Center. Several members and former members of the
Commission gave volunteer time in abundance to help collect data for this
valuable report.
The list of Women's Commission accomplishments in information and
referral is particularly long. In 1978, the Commission was co-pUblisher,
history - women's commission page 2
with the Orange County Mental Health Association of the first Orange County
Guide to Family Resources, a highly regarded booklet of information about
_
more than a hundred human service resources available to Orange County residents.
The Women's Commission was sole publisher of the 1980-81 revised edition
of the Resource Guide which was distributed in quantity to all county-funded
schools and human service agencies and sold at cost to individuals and other ,
service providers. Both books were published with an enormous donation of
volunteer time from Commission members.
In the summer of 1979, the Commission directed the publication of
the Teen Guide for Orange County, a project that utilized staff and volunteers
from many human service agencies in the county and employed eight Orange
County teenagers in a project that encompassed experience in every step of
the publishing process.
The Women's Commission has published several; newsletters, mcist'-: :-- -
recently "Women Aware", a joint publication with the Women's Center. It
is also a co-publisher of a brochure on Orange County Day Care, has suppt orted
"Children's: Services News", and assigned staff to work on the publication
of the "Triangle Women's Resource List, 1981". . .
Ever since the opening of its office in November, 1977, the Commission
has served as a referral resource for individual women who have called or
come in to our office. The Commission has also been a resource for professionals
looking for resources not available within their own agencies. The Commission
has served as the convener of a number of interagency committees and projects.
It has used its staff to exceptional value by making it possible for service
delivery staff who have not been able to give time to organizational details
” -
to be able to come together to share information and develop structures for
coordination of services.
.,.--
history - women's commission page 3
As a suppliment to its referral activity, the Commission has
sponsored numerous informational programs, with substantial emphasis on
offering programs in the less populated areas of the County. In Hillsborough
in the summer of 1978, a series of eight meetings covered child care, •
parenting education, non-traditional employment, legal issues, financial
management, and teen pregnancy. A H.C. Humanities Grant to fund programs
on health issues for women of all ages was presented in Hillsborough and
Efland in the Fall. of '78. In 1980-81 the Commission co-sponsored a series
on issues in childbirth in Hillsborough and Chapel Hill with the Women's
Health Counselling Service.
In September, 1979, the Orange County Commissioners sponsored a
county-wide conference on information and referral. The conference was
organized and staffed by the Women's Commission. More than 80 representatives;
of human services, environmental organizations, and media resources attended
to discuss and affirm the need for a coordinated system of information
gathering and dispersal in the community.
Advocacy for women has taken two forms. Perhaps the Commission's
proudest moment was its recommendation for funding of three women's voluntary
service agencies to the County Commissioners in 1979. The Commission followed
up support of these agencies with contract review during the first year of
funding, by staff assignment to a Human Service Advisory Commission study
of the role of these agencies, and by sharing office space so that services
available in the southern portion of the county would be offered to all
Orange County residents.
Another way the Women's Commission has advocated for women has been
...through leadership training. From its earliest days when most Commission
members had no idea about how County government works, Commission members
history — women's commission
peke 4
have struggled to educate themselves about effective ways to represent the
needs of women in local government. First, Commission members and staff
attended several State and national training conferences. , Then, in 1979,
the Commission organized its own leadership training conference which
focused on leadership roles for women in local government. Subsequent '
training conferences were held in 1980 and 1981 with the focus expanding
to all areas of leadership training.
-
In all of its work the Commission has been parsimonious in its
expenditures of County tax dollars. In its six years it has spent less
than $45,000 of tax dollars, with last year's expenditures just a few dollars
over $16,000 -- the Resource Guide alone was worth that much, . Using care
to find other funding resources, to work with other agencies, to budget:
carefully, and using the extraordinary willingness of women in the
—community to dedicate enormous numbers of volunteer hours to projects they
felt were of great value, the Orange County Commission for Women.has been
and exceptionally "good buy" for the Orange County taxpayers over the past
six years.
i.k. C J..z1'z
BOARD Cr' CavilISSICWERS Action
ACTT= :,Gems IT'D] ABSTRACT
Item r�o.D-1 D
MEETZM DATE
St1Dj,ct: Vehicle Replacement, Sheriff's department
Departrent_ Manager's and Purchasing and - Public Hearing: .- x no
trel Services --
? tacll it(s): 11 Cost data on sheriff's InfO2rnetir1 O ntact: Kenneth Thompson Ext501
vehicles. 2) Ranking of vehicles needing re- Mark H. Rees Ext498
placement: 3) Revised vehicle specification P er: 732-9361
Purpose:
To consider which vehicles to replace, upon what schedule and with what
type of vehicle.
Nom:
See attached
Intact: The purchase of two mid-sized patrol vehicles should provide the minimum
vehicle replacement to keep the Sheriff's Department in operation this year.
By following the replacement schedule as outlined, by 1983-84, The depart-
ment should have an efficient and well running fleet of vehicles.
aao rendation(s): Approve specifications au submitted on December 7, 1981, with
additional calculation for maintenance and insurance cost for the purchase
of two vehicles,
NEED:
The Sheriff's Department presently operates a fleet of seventeen vehicles. They
are used in the following capacities:
Patrol two vehicles
Investigation four vehicles
Supervision three vehicles
Undercover two vehicles
Transportation one vehicle
Civil duty two vehicles
Backup/crime three vehicles
prevention
The undercover vehicles are acquired through court confiscation and should not be
included in any replacement schedule. The two civil duty vehicles are assigned to
two deputies, who serve papers full-time. These cars do not need to be replaced
at this time. The transportation vehicle is a van used to transport prisoners,
and also does not need to be replaced at this time. The remainder of the vehicles
are used for patrol and crime investigation activities. The present policy for
the replacement of these vehicles is for newly purchased vehicles to be placed on
patrol or with investigators, where the high mileage use occurs. Mid-sized ve-
hicles are necessary because of response time and deputies comfort while in the
car eight hours a day. As new vehicles are acquired, the older ones are delegated
to supervisory personnel and as backups. Backup vehicles are necessary because of
the downtime the front line vehicle experience due to their high mileage.
The minimum number of vehicles that should be replaced is two, so that the vehicles
presently being used for patrol can be placed in activities not requiring as much
mileage. Two of the least efficient vehicles would then be removed from the de-
partments fleet. Since vehicles used by investigators also put in high mileage,
two other vehicles should be replaced in the near future. Given the current and pro-
jected miles driven and age of the vehicles the schedule for replacement of the
Sheriff's vehicles should be as follows:
FY 1981-82: Cax #8, Car #11
(to replace two patrol vehicles)
FY 1982-83: Car #9, Car 415, Car #2 and Car #10
(to replace two patrol vehicles and two investigator vehicles)
Car #7
(to replace one civil vehicle)
Car #12
(to replace transportation van)
FY 1983-84: Car #1, Car #4, Car #3, Car #13
(to replace two patrol vehicles and two investigator vehicles)
Car #14
(to replace one civil vehicle)
.. .. ...vs....*
.0 -0 ....„...-0.
. -
0. 4..40111.....40..
......... . 40 .4.0404.00.04
4
OnwOrg
1
00. 14. g= .
.
R,Vm
i ccmal . ,.c .g-0t5.m.t1,.
gg gi li VgliTlill 2 i
in
OgOZgOg
d :1 h : i : pm .
1.4 -a ma Eg ill
.....-..
. . . .._ t ttatt as
a alaff i ', n
z.:› ar
-0M-.47....41 4 4 a
agngann nar .0.6 vg„,na21.4nNIM
LI
.. .
.„....... ,,,,11,11.1Aval iiiiama
-,-.-,.
4
..
.
E:-....!. .tg
.....„. _. ,„.3
...
. ..
* $ 40,31441 ,14
o o
r
, ,m ,F
7 ,
- , , . .
. .... . -. 4 44
.... -1. 00.0 . 4. . • „
. • ,.. ...
0 V
W N. NM
-4
M war . CI CI .A ...404WIZiWwwW.W.W A
A, W. MN WwWWW.WwW.mW. .
.4 -1 • • 4. . . • . • • • • • • • • • * 0
g W WW AWWWWW.AWWWWW .
N W 4MO Www.m...wAA0WOW
wA WO .Ww0AWAM.WwWW =
W • i . . 4 . • . . • . . . . • • - ....
M ii101 00 0 0000000,1.4000
M * M
a 0
q
$
MN .. . Ww..... .
.
•*W•m •rWO .. .0.W•W•W IAP •W••W■W• •W*.w.W0O, W CO .
C ) *
NW NW W.MAW.W010=2w.t0 .
ww WIN AWWWW..4WWWACMCD = W
• • . . • • • • • 4 • ■ • . . . ....
IA* Citrl
N 34 NW N M
4Z
.4
•••
. .0
> m
Wt. =
.r4 O. W.NAN.... .
co 00 ...0 mo..0104463m*,00...m..
..,
** 'U'a wurm*mmo,os..omm s — Pi
et
tflt..J Aktm Ww.wwAMAWWW... NI/.
-I.- . ....L4 •(.t.'
Cr
= a
.
K
- .„
-
-
-,
..
_. .
NN NP N!4*520:AP0PFP:4P
*w ** W.-0.4NWNZ4.0107.. .= =
N.
M
Wa' M
„.,
Mr"
CO
....,
4
40* 0
W. .. N WAWwwW. M .
A. .W wAw.Wwwwwm.wo ..,0
... CD. ...W.W...w.m. 07
7-A wW W.WWwWNWAWOKOW e-
. . . , . • • . . • • . . . . .
.. .. ..-. .. (I. . ....-. .. . ...... ..... ..
. . -.
.T.:. .,••• ... .,7°'
r a
._
4n 4=
„„,„ ...• Mo..
ww ww AWWC74044WWW.W.N7 -.007
WW AM MO.Ww.000.A.Nto OA .
• • • • . • . . . • . • „ . , , ,
:Pro ON ..wwW.ww.070144w .4
WO m. .AwAWN.WSOMMAM n17 m
o 0
1.4'" IA
-4
w Ag
alai g47.7 111 '1.11F1574=== = R:11
01. W. 44 i .04..wWWW 1 NO1 1 W
w o,
7171 of
. • • • • . • • . . • • . • * • • .
00 00 0 00000000 00 I.
00 =0 0 000001=00 Ow .
g
4.4 '
m* m* m *m m— ,m.*
.1,1 WI ,..,W7 N11 a,a,10 10 K,.4 1 'OW .0 a 112
1010 •47 W, MWWwWWWW 1 ..•w vl,,a,. . . • • t . • . . . • , , t • • r,,,_
=. .. . ........ ..
.. OW C) .WWWWWWOW oo , o
1 n'
w
ow l'w 6*, wWw.WWW. .. 0
Ow V. O.AMOWAWWWWwA
AW OW W01.0AwWwAww.w W
OW VW W.AWMA.0p
.. ,
. . . • . • • • . . • . . „w w, -
.,- - -......., In
OW 01.4 w-NOw..w.,,,,,,s,„, -.4)
•1,1
...
.*'.
, • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,,, ,,
......' -..... ..........1WwwA ' .
...... Aw ......1WoO.M11.-M.. 1=
w. W. VAWWWw.WWWww. ....c.,
*0
il
•
,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ken Thompson
FROM: Rob &ddeAspn
DATE: January 19, 1982
RE: Ranking of Sheriff's Vehicles Needing Replacement
Based on inspection of cost per mile figures and total mileage of
Sheriff's vehicles, the following vehicles appear to be prime candidates
for replacement based on age, total mileage and cost per mile.
Replacement Model , Year
Priority and Vehicle # Total Mileage Cost Per Mile
1 ±ig A777 ('77 LTD) 92°686 $,417
2 Wq/ A783 ('78 [TD) 125,014 $.2OO
3 �t. 4 �
A776 �`77 LTD) 77,503 $.319
'
4 07/5. A778 ('77 LTD) 96,941 $,229
5 6w A779 ('77 LTD) 59"184 $.227
6 MD, A7711 ('77 LTD) 53,446 $.228
q
Lu
SPECIFICATIONS 1982 SHERIFF'S VEHICLES
DIMENSIONS: Wheelbase, 108" to 115"
Overall length, 192" to 210"
Interior space, minimum (head room, front - 38.5"
rear - 37.6"
leg room, front - 42.5"
rear - 36.6"
hip room, front - 52.2"
rear - 53.2"
shoulder room, front - 56,0"
rear - 55.9"
Fuel capacity, minimum: 113 gallons
Trunk space, minimum: 15 Cu, ft.
ENGINE: Minimum, 255 Cu. in.
V-8 with single barrel carburetor
BRAKES: Heavy duty, front: disc, semi-metallic lining
rear: drum or disc with semi-metallic lining
SUSPENSION: Heavy duty, springs and shocks, front and rear stabilizer bars
TRANSMISSION: Heavy duty, automatic
ELECTRICAL: Battery, heavy duty, minimum 80 AMP/MRS
Alternator, minimum 60 AMP
STEERING: Power
COOLING SYSTEM: Heavy duty with oversized radiator
BODY: Four door
Color to be specified after award (will be standard color)
Bumper guards, front and rear
Corrosion protection, minimum three year warranty
Rearview mirrors, left and right
Hole and wiring in roof for placement of dome light
Glass: tinted all around
Full wheel cover
INTERIOR: Bench type seats, heavy duty cloth with vinyl trim
Carpet, front and rear floor
Floormats, front and rear
AM radio
Electric clock
Cigeratte lighter
Arm rests and ash receivers, front and rear
Glove compartment with lock
Heater and defroster
Air-conditioner
Interior dome light
Certified calibrated speedometer
TIRES: Five steel-belted radial tires, certified for pursuit use
Jack and lug wrench, suitable for vehicle
KEYS: Same key for ignition, door, trunk, and glove box, three keys
for each vehicle.
PARTS MANUAL AND SERVICE MANUAL:
0049R
.. ,..,:-i
LIFE CYCLE COST
The award of this bid will be based on life cycle cost which evaluates both
operating expenses and purchase price. The following formula will be used in
calculating the life cycle cost for the vehicle.
* of miles driven
(
annual
EPA Gas mileage X Price of gas +
maint. cost + annual
insurance cost
2.487 + purchase price = LIFE CYCLE COST
X
Where: 4 of miles driven = 57,000 mi/yr
EPA gas mileage = from 1982 EPA gas mileage
guide for particular car
Price of gas = $1.23/gal
Est. annual maint. cost = from The Cat Book 1982
. _ Vehicles, by Center for Auto
Safety, Washington D.C. for
particular car
Annual insurance cost = from insurance carriers
for particular car
2.481 = discount factor*
purchase price = as submitted on bid
*Discount factor is used to make future expenses for operation of the vehicle
comparable to initial costs incurred in the present time. Useful life of three
years for the vehicles and an inflation rate of 10% is assumed.
A
- - -
911��ci '�
nnmnocnosoY •
BOARD 07 COMMISSIONOS Action Agenda
Item No.-D-11
ACTION AGENDA zrINAasnRaCr .
2/1/82
m�crz�G DATE
Subject: Ordinance for Town of Carrboro
| osparb-renc: (»u»ty Manager a9er ] Public H=aring: yes . X
' -- (s): Yes zricvznstioo Contact: Bill Laws ' _
shonexueber^ Ext. 503
To consider request of Carrboro concerning listing information.
•
_
' —
Need: Town of Carrboro requests that the Board of County Commissioners adopt
an Ordinance to have apartment owners having eight or more units to
submit a list of all tenants as of January 1 to the Tax Supervisor not
later than January 30, 1082.
B.S. 105-296-G already gives such authority and the gathering of names
is a part of the existing listing process as applied to apartments.
Where an apartment owner- fails to include the names on the Tax Depart-
ment's Apartment Owner List this statute is used to subpoena the infor-
mation.
Since the Tax Office is proceeding to gather the information as a matter
of course it would not appear that a separate ordinance is necessary.
zTpaot.` The Tax Supervisor has this authority, under per 105-298 (G) of the
Machinery Act and this is underway already.
. `
neccsmendativn(s):
Direct that the Town of Carrboro be more informed of the Tax office's
listing procedure as applied to apartment owners and determine if this
satisfies their needs.
•
•
'
]l » �
The Town of Carrboro adopted a resolution on January 12, 1982, to
have apartment owners submit by January 30, 1982, a list of all apartment
dwellers within their complex Due to the time frame we could not get
this to the Board of Commissioners until now for consideration for adopting
an Ordinance. The Tax Supervisor's Office will mail out a request to
apartment owners by the last of January. This request will be for the
entire county which is permitted under 105-296 paragraph (G) of the
Machinery Act of North Cnrolina. The Tax Supervisor has used this in
years past as part of an overall check. Once the tax listing forms are
back in the Tax Office they must be put together in books before the check-
ing can be done. By the time the Tax Office is in a position to send
a notice to each apartment resident and await their reply it is May and
most have moved or subleased their apartment and no one knows their where-
abouts. The motor vehicles check is more effective since you have a known
value of the motor vehicles plus the household personal property. With
apartments being shared by two, three and sometimes four people, there
would appear only one resident on the apartment 11st. The first three hundred
dollars of personal household property is exempt from taxation so with
the absence of a motor vehicle many would exempt nut' This is not to say
the Tax Office should not seek out apartment list but only to point out
that all efforts should be exhausted. The Tax Office has already requested
lists from mobile home park owners and these along with apartment and motor
vehicle lists need to be worked together'
� 1�
//��~ '^ ~~,
TOWN OF CARRBORO
cp, noRn+ c.AmOIJnw` ru~*MAw^GrR
January 13, 1982
Mr. Kenneth Thompson
Orange County Manager
106 East Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Dear Mr. Thompson:
The Board of Aldermen of the Town of Carrboro at its regular
meeting on January 12, 1982, adopted the enclosed resolution re-
questing the Orange County Commissioners to adopt an ordinance re-
quiring owners of apartment complexes having eight or more dwelling
units to furnish the names of their tenants to the Orange County
Tax Supervisor by January 30th of each year.
Pursuant to the direction of the Board of Aldermen, I am for-
warding this resolution to you for submission to the Orange County
Commissioners.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter.
'
S rely, /,� '
'~. ./�� ^ .~- '
/ ~ ^, ��
�
� xhord F. Hunter
Town Manager
RFH/jes
enclosure
xc: Richard Whitted, Chairman
Orange County Board of Commissioners
P.O.BOX 337 WEST MAIN STREET CARREORO,NORTH CAROLiNA un,`v
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
' 1•.
196 :. § 105-297 COUNTY LISTING, APPRAISAL,ETC-,OFFICIALS § 105-297
illy (d) He shall convene the list takers for instruction in methods of securing a 4 ,
,,i complete list of all property in the county and of appraising and assessing, in
,of 3' accordance with law, all property that is to be appraised and assessed in the
Ad approaching listing period.He shall conduct this instruction at any time after the
,ns y appointment of list takers as provided in subsection(b),above,but not later than
! the week preceding the date as of which property is to be listed, . ,
08, (e) He shall visit each list taker at least once during the listing period,and he
shall confer with each list taker during the period as often as he or the list taker
deems necessary to assure that all property shall be listed, appraised, and
T; iw assessed according to law. He may require a list taker to visit any property
,; ile subject to taxation in the county, ..
°;l . ( He shall meet with each list taker prior to the date of the first meeting of '
;'T td the board of equalization and review for the purpose of reviewing the abstracts
4 on turned in by the list taker.He shall ascertain if property has been listed at the
valuation required by law and if that standard of valuation has been applied
° 71 uniformly throughout the county.If he determines that the list taker's work has
'' `, • , been completed as required by law, he shall certify the list taker for i.•
.:r: d compensation.He shall require that each list taker make out his account in detail .I :'
t specifying each day's services, The account shall be audited by the county
accountant and approved by the board of county commissioners.
:.: / (g) He shall have po e sjp w any person for examination under oath
,a r and to subpoena documents whenever he has reasonable grounds for the belief '%
• �: " ,/ that such person has knowledge or that such documents contain information that ••
'''''` u is pertinent to the discovery or valuation of an
:r,, r' - ` P ry any property subject to taxation in
J the county or that is necessary for compliance with t j q ntsas t �a1: •)
le
I;
he tax list shall contain,The subpoena shall be signed by the chairman of the `
.!.
board of equalization and review if that board is hi session; otherwise, it shall �.,
be signed by the chairman of the board of county commissioners. It shall be
served by an officer qualified to serve subpoenas.Any person who shall wilfully •
>i fail or refuse to a ear produce subpoenaed documents, or testify concernin 't.
�� .: ( s pP i P P Y g
the subject of the inquiry shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined and/or ': . '
's°i''%. ;: \ imprisoned in the discretion of the court.
�■,'A.• : (h) Only after the abstract has been carefully reviewed can the tax supervisor
',r. d require any person operating a business enterprise in the county to submit a ' '''
detailed inventory, and .�
;;� ry, statement of assets an liabilities, or other similar i
7 ' information pertinent to the discovery or appraisal of property taxable in the
county. Inventories, statements of assets and liabilities, or of ier information ! ;'
secured by the tax supervisor under the terms of this subsection, but not
r. expressly required by this Subchapter to be shown on the abstract itself, shall i
'`'' ' not be open to public inspection but shall be made available, upon request to l '
";.:..::0 ' representatives of the Department of Revenue, Any tax supervisor or other ,j
=. ;:�_ +. official or employee disclosing information so obtained except as such disclosure I ':
.;;.• I may be necessary in listing or appraisingproperty in the performance of official • •
I duties, or in the administrative or judicial proceedings relating to listing i''
• , appraising, or other official duties, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
`..''•�`.., 1 punishable by fine of not exceeding fifty dollars($50.00),
f....:i (i) Prior to the first meeting of the board of equalization and review,he shall ;.
, } � have the power,for good cause,to change the appraisal of any property by the •
;.---.-i.: list taker if the property is subject to appraisal for the current year.Notice of ''�. •
:,. I a change in appraisal made byte tax supervisor shall be given to the taxpayer
•I')':' '1. prior prior to the first meeting of the board of equalization and review.(1939,e.310,
1.:;::.....:'„, ss.403,404; 1953,c. 970, s- 3; 1955,c. 1012,s. 1; 1957, e.202; 1959,c.704, s. 3;
1963, c. 302; 1971, c.. 806, s, 1; 1973, c. 560..) I ,;,'
. -5.
!:: "','. ; § 105497• Assistant tax supervisors.—The board of county commissioners
4.').4 -.? may, upon the recommendation of the tax supervisor, 'appoint one or more `.1.
` •
47 <<
1::.:':..
1y
5 •,4�llpf,� ;t i.
M crae, f'PAlC1.3” """:77 vr,!gr11 `
--=••_Ili: ....,» t
.. r�;
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF CCNMISSIONERS
Action Ag.9nda
Iterrt.E!io.P-12
ACTICN AGENMINDIABSTRACT.7.
MEETING DATE TF.J1BUARv 1 , 1 cl 52
Subject: Discussion of work session for Water Resources Task Force
Report & related Zoning Ordinance Amendments
X
Daparbient: BOARD OF COMMTRSTONFRR 1 public Hearing: yes no
r
Attachmmt(s): ,
No
phone thriber, 732-8181 ext. 510
• •
PURPOSE:
To schedule a work session on the Water Resources Task Force
Report and the recommendations contained therein and a work
session on zoning ordinance amendments which would incorporate
those recommendations.
hEED:
This item was on the Board agenda for January 25, 1982. Board
asked that it be returned for discussion of a work session date
to the February 1 agenda.
Board indicated that it would be interested in having Planning
Board members attend this work session.
IMPACT: A work session would give the Board opportunity to discuss
the Water Resources Task Force Report and work on the zoning
Ordinance amendments, as recommended by the Planning Board,
prior to taking the report and amendments to Public Hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board should set a date for a work session.
O?A�1 Fa LWS11 '.7"} /4r/ I
130:1110 c: caps ssto�'r_•LS V/yru■�`/�_
lac ion
. ACTIOg .7,GENQA IIr:[ :`JS;zmc^ Item :'o, E-7
DErrm5 DATE January 25. 1982
5iI1 Procedure for water Task Force Report Consideration
n"�r re:nt;, ,imnrLnr _� ,� f Public [i rirg: .___--yes r0J
'-t(s): Minutes of Planning "Eva CizneaL-t: Jim Polatty
Board meetings where Report n nn_. _rr 732,8181
was discussed
pJ rosE:To consider what approach the Board of Commissioners wishes to follow
to review recommendations of the Planning Board on the Water Task
Force Report and the Text Amendments for implementation and to decide
whether a public hearing on either or both will be MED:
The Planning Board completed its work December 1, 1981, on the Report
and January 18, 1982, on the Text Amendments. While minutes on the
former have been circulated Minutes of their action on the text
amendments will be ready by the date of the January 25, 1.982,
meeting. The Board should indicate any further information it
desires and whether a work session and/or public hearing would
facilitate Board and the general public's consideration. A
public hearing is not required by law for the adoption.. Rowever,
since a number of recommendations contained in the Report have
generated much public interest, the hearing would provide a forum
for persons to address those concerns directly to the Board.
ESA CT: The ;dater Task Force Report contains recommendations on sewer
and water extension policy, large lot zoning, natural buffers
along streams that will impact the owners of land in proposed
protected watersheds.
RECOMMENDATION:
As the 3oard decides.
•
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPA_RTHENT
Err1r,9)3OROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA.
, Ill 27278
6.(0,01
• Fir.31
..;;;.:; • I
w.00
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 1, 1981
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Crawford, Steve Kizer, Alice Gardon, Art Cleary,
Tan Bacon, Claudine Harris, John Wilson, Nancy Laszlo,
RazPI Lunsford, Logan Irvin
STAFF PRESENT: Fred Ti , Susan Smith, Jim Polatty, Norma Walker
Agenda Item #1 Additions to the agenda.
Consideration of Section 2.2.11,i) of theaoning Ordinance -
Advisory Councils.
Agenda Item #2 Final Plat of Gail and Gary Barker.
Polatty explained that the Beard of County Carnassicners had
initiAlly denied this plat based on a =cc:Emendation by the
Car/bozo Planning Board and the CcamissicnerS concern about
continued small lot development in University Lake watershed.
They have set a maritorium on all develcpment in University
lake watershed but decided to reconsider the Barker subdivision
since it was in prccess. The Cannissioners have approved the
preliminary plan.
Kizer moved approval. Seconded by Cleary. Approved.
unanimously.
Agenda Item #3 Memo on subdivision which do not come under the moritoriam.
A, gemo to the Board of Carmissiznexa fl.kAa Staff listing subdivi-
sions in process which could be exempt from the develcgrent
moritorium in University lake watershed was handed out for the
Boards information. Polatty explained that the Board of
annUssioners was waiting for the Planning Boardts consideration
of the water Task Force report before it Made any decisions on
the report.
Added Agenda Item - Secticn 2.2.11.i) of the proposed zoning ordinance - Advisory
Councils.
•.
Cleary asked if the section as written was sufficient for the
Boards purposes. Tte old ordinance allowed the Planning Board
Planning Board Minutes
September 1, 1981
Page 2
to establish such Councils.
Polatty said 2.2.11.j establishes the advisory councils.
Wilson said he recalled that the committees in j were
specialized committees and not advisory councils.
Cleary =timed a clarificaticn of section 2.2.11,i) that the
Board recommend to the Board of County Ccmmissioners the
establistunant and/or =Intimation of'TownthipeAdvisory Councils.
Cooperate with these Councils to the end that the Planning
Board investigations of plans mey receive full consideration..
Gordon seceride& notion carried with Kizer, Gordon, Cleary,
Harris, Wilson, Taselo, Lunsford, Irvin in favor and Bacon
abstained.
Agenda Item #4 Consideration of the Water Task roroe Report.
Luce suggested that the Board consider each of the reccmmenda-
tions in the Water Task Force Report.
Reammerldation #1
Policy an minimizing outflows of water fromcne major basin to
ee. another. Luce described the three major basins in Orange County
and the transfers of water which now take place either an a
day-to-day basis or in water emergency situation. He said that
there was concern on the part of some Task Farce monaers that
water transfers from northern Orange to southern Orange could
become more ccmmcn to the detriment of water users in the
Hillsboroueh area.
Dan Cox, a member of the audience, said that during recent
drcughts, the Eno River was very low and Hillsborough did not
have excess water to give to southern Orange County. HO
expressed concern that the emergency line between Hillsborough
and Chapel Hill would be tapped into for day-to-day use.
Wilson expressed ounce= that Alamance County was receiving
northern Orange County water while the policy would deny southern
Orange County the water.
Kizer motioned that the Board of Coamissioners adopt recommenda-
tion number one of the Water Task Force. Wilson seconded.
nation carried with one abstention Gordon.
Becontrerr3atich #2
Allocation of water from Lake Orange. Luce said that the water
from Lake Orange is owned by the County but not Allocated to
anyone. Luce said that this rezennandation is tied to the first
reaxenemiation in that it says the water in Lake Orange should
stay in the use Basin.
Planning Board Minutes
September 1, 1981
Page 3
Wilson commented that he saw a problem with th:reccueend.m17Iatd.on
in that it proposed to give some of the Lake Orange water to
the Orange-Alamance Water Systems which was pumping it out of
the Ni 'se Basin to mebane, a conflict with reccmmendation
number one.
Wilson asked why the water supply for Hillsborough decreased
with time. Luce replied that it was because of the withdrawals
upstream at Corporation Lake.
Kizer notici,ed approval of the sec re at1orz of the
Water Task Force. Cleary seconded. Motion carried with 4 in
favor, 3 against and Bacon and TATle abstaining.
Recommendation #3
Water cansezvatien in receiving and withdrawal basins.
Luce described CAS 's water conservaticn plan. He said there
was no emilmr plan in place for northern Orange.
Kizer motioned apprdval of the recommendation. Laszlo seconded.
Approved unanimously.
Receenendaticn 44
Identification of prime reservoir sites.
Luce described the criteria which were used in selecting the five
prime reservoir sites from among the twenty-nine potential sites
identified in the report.
Kizer questioned why only five sites wexe selected. Irvin noted
that industrial development in and around Hillsborough could
cause a great demand for water in the future.
that in addition sites 17 and 18 in the report an the north and
south forks of the Little River be included as protected sites.
Irvin seconded.
Luce noted that the five sites identified in the Report are
within protected watersheds. The protection of the new
sites would require that aelditicnal areas of the County be
afforded to them as to Cane Creek reservoir for example.
Ayes: Kizer, Gordon, Cleary, Earns, Wilson, Laszlo, Irvin.
4r !II Nees: None
Abstentions: Lunsferd.
17k„
Planning Board Minutes
September 1, 1981
„III Page 4
Recoantendation #5
Regional water sources investigated and water reserved from
the'Jordan.
Irvin moved approval of this recommendation. Kizer seconded.
Carried unanimously.
Reccumendation t6
Orange County should promote efforts to conserve water.
Kizer moved approval of the recmmendation. Laszlo seconded.
Carried unanimously.
Recommndation #7
Adoption of a land use plan Which identifies protected
watersheds.
Luce explained that these watersheds were Shown on the Land
Use Plan which was approved by the Planning%Board and adopted
A III _ by the County Commissioners and no further action was needed
fron this Board on this recarnendation.
Recomendation 48
Orange County should adopt a Land Use Plan Which preserves and
enhances water quality in protected watersheds.
Luce painted out that the adopted Land Use Plan approved by the
Board incorporates this reccnrchendation with the exception of
MCGowan Creek, watershed areas in the Plan are low density
residential areas with little or no commercial or industrial
areas.
Kizer motioned that the reccarrendation be approved with the
addition of either the watershed for sites 17 or 18 added as
a protected watershed. Irvin seconded. Ayes: Kizer, Gordon,
Cleary, Bacon, Wilson, Irvin. Noes: None:
Recainendation #9
Driplemantatian of protection measures by Carrboro, Alamence
County, Hillsborough and Chatham County.
IIIGordon motioned to accept the recoatrendation with a change in
the wording from "should incorporate" to "should be encxxiraged
to incoroorate". Irvin seconded. Ayes: Kizer, Gordon, Harris,
-... .
Wilson, Laszlo. Noes: Cleary, Lunsfard. Abstention: Bacon.
Planning Board Minutes
4110 raign 1
ber 1, 198
Beccarendation 010
General policy by sewer and water provides not to extend
services into preteeteduetertheds.
Cleary motien approval of the reccarendatich with a dhange
in the language from "should adopt" to "should be encouraged
to adapt". Irvin seconded. Ayes: Kizer, Gordon, Cleary,
Harris, Wilsan, Laszlo, Irvin. Noes: Nam. Abstention:
Lunsford.
Recoarrendatiren #11
Extension of zoning to water semplyeaterthed areas in Bingham,
Hillsborough, Cheeks and Cedar Greve.
Cleary noted that the Board had voted against extension in the
past. Luce said that the information in the Report might cause
the Board to Change its position.
Kizer motioned that for the protection of County water resources
the Coenty Should consider future extension of the Zoning
Alb Ordinance to include those protected water supply areas
Cheeks, Hillsborough, Bingham and Cedar Grave. No second.
Wilson moved adoption of the recommendation as written in the
report. Laszlo secanded. Ayes: Kizer, Gordon, Bacon, Harzis,
Wilson, Laszlo, Irvin. Noes: Cleary. Abatention: Lord..
Pecmendation #12
Minimum
L acre resideneiel eat size in protected watersheds.
There was discussion about how existing small lots would be
treated. Stormwater management requirecents were discussed.
There was discussion of the impervious surface ratio for non
residential development. Luce said he would bring further
information to the next meeting bearing on the reascnableeess
of this particular recommendation.
Gordon niched that coneir3eration of this reccenendatien be
tabled until staff supplies further information about the non-
residential LOT ratio and until the Board can hear input from
the nship Advisory Councils. Seconded by Irvin. Approved
unanimously.
commendation #13
Require/rent for stream buffers.
There was discussion about what uses could be made of the land
in the buffer area. Luce explained that ideally the area would
Planning Board ninutes
September 1, 1981
of Page 6
remain in natural vegetation. Polatty noted that this would
be a zoning regulation and forms would be exempt from it.
Gordon moved that the Board table further discussion of this
recomendation until they could hear from the Township Advisory
Councils. Seconded by Lunsford. Ayes: Kizer, Gordon, Bacon,
Taszlo, Lunsford, Irvin. Abstention: Cleary Wilson. ,1 :
Meeting adjourned at 10:30.RM,
/le
tz....
ft
ATTACHMENT A
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
• November 16, 1981
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Crawford; chairperson, Art Cleary, Dr. Kizer,
Hazel Lunsford, Claudine Harris, Dr. Irvin, Dr. Gordon,
David Shanklin
STAFF PRESENT: Jim Polatty, Eddie Kirk, Rick Cannity, Susan Smith, Fred
• Luce, Norma Walker
Agenda Item #1: There were no additions to the agenda.
Agenda Item #2: The Board unanimously approved of the September 21., 2.981
minutes as written.
The minutes of October 19, 1981 meeting were approved
with the following correction:, agenda item 4, third line,
remove the words "by Cheeks Residents".
Agenda Item #3: Final Plat approval of Airel Hill Subdivision
Kirk gave a brief presentation and gave staffs recommendation for approval.
motion for approval made by Cleary, seconded by Shanklin, approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #4: Final Plat approval of the Francis T. Hill Subdivision
Kirk gave a brief presentation and gave staffs recommendation for approval.
Motion for approval by Irvin,. seconded by Lunsford, approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #5: Final Plat approval of Riveredge Subdivision
Kirk gave a brief presentation. Re indicated that the developer had combined
lots "C C D" into one and that the Commissioners had approved this compromise.
staff recommended approval.
Motion for approval by Lansford, seconded by Irvin, approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #6: Final Plat approval of Ann aoyner et. al, Subdivision
Kirk gave a brief presentation and gave staffs recommendation for approval.
Motion for approval by Cleary, seconded by Irvin, approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #7: Revised Preliminary Plat, for Steep Bottom Run Subdivision
Kirk gave a brief presentation explaining that the Commissioners had referred
411 the subdivision back to the Planning Board for consideration of shared
driveways to increase traffic safety. The Commissioners felt that by
restricting the number of driveways along a stretch of road, the ability
of that road to carry traffic would not be reduced. Staff recommended approval.
Shanklin expressed the idea that shared driveways might not be safer and might
41110 increase the chances for an accident. Don Collins, the developer, of the
project stated he would do whatever the Board requested. He indicated that it
would have been easier for him if all standards such as this could be spelled
out before hand.
After further discussion a motion to approve the revised preliminary plat was
made by Irvin, seconded by Cleary, approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #8: Revised Preliminary Plat for Seven Mile Falls Subdivision,
Section II
Kirk gave a brief presentation of this subdivision. The Commissioners had
referred this project back- to the Board for the same reasons as Item 07.
Kirk stated that staff recommended approval of the revised preliminary plan.
There was a brief discussion of the idea of shared entrances, and its use-
fulness.
Motion for approval of revised plan made by Cleary seconded by Irvin, approved
unanimously Lunsford abstained,
Agenda Item #9: Renewal of preliminary plan approval of Oakdale Woods
Kirk gave a brief presentation, stating that this was the second request
for a one year extention of preliminary approval. The request had been approved
first in 1979, and renewed in 1980. Cannity apologized for not have-a formal
staff recommendation, he stated staff recommended approval. He also stated
that some of the Board's previous conc..xns about water pressure in the Oakdale
area may be addressed by the construction of Cornwallis Hills Subdivision,
and the proposed water tank. Since the project was originally approved
the Town of Hillsborough had zoned the area. The minim= lot size meets the
towns zoning..requirements.
motion to approve one (1) year extension of preliminary plan by Kizer,
seconded by Lunsford, approved unanimously. Shanklin abstained.
Agenda Item 410: Board discussion of the Northern Fairview Redevelopment
Plan and the 1979 Community Development Target Area Study.
Polatty introduced Albert Kittrell, Orange County Community Development Director
He briefly described the process the Planning Department had gone through
in arriving at the Northern Fairview Target Area request for funding. The
study included the levels of rehabilitation needed in an area, the number of
units requiring work, etc. Kittrell answered questions by the Board, conc :m-
a
ing location., demolitiOn and condemnation of property.
Agenda Item 411: Water Resources Task Force Report
The Planning Board continued their previous review of the Report's recommendation.
-2-
Recommendation �l4i
Luce noted a phrase deleted in the recommendation as printed.
S.J. Friedman criticized the necessity and redundancy of the recommendation
as he felt that the Health Department approved drainage fields with sufficient
area, even for repairs. He clarified this to mean additional lines. He
suggested that the Board and staff contact the Health Department to determine
the merits of the recommendation before discussion of it.
Luce responded that this recommendation referred to an easement which the Health
Department did not require. Crawford recognized that the recommendation went
beyond the Health Department's requirements. Friedman responded that this
easement was unnecessary as current policies assured future repair capacity.
Luce noted that the easement prevents the location of any structure on that area.
Gordon felt that any potential redundancy could be taken care of through
implementation and his custom was appropriate.
General discussion followed:
Shanklin questioned the need for the requirement. Cleary clarified that it
restricted development on an area where future lines might go.
General discussion of the intent of the recommendation followed.
Shanklin felt there were too many interpretations. Luce clarified that the
purpose of the easement was to allow for a second system. Luce read the
recommenation with the missing portion:
ORANGE COUNTY SHOULD ADOPT THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING ON-SITE WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS: ALL NEWLY
PLATTED LOTS BORDERING ON PERENNIAL STREAMS AND REQUIRING
AN ON-SITE WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM SHOULD SHOW A SECOND_
DISPOSAL AREA TO BE RECORDED AS AN EASEMENT ON THE FINAL
PLAT AND NO BUILDING OR 0TEER ACTIVITY SHOULD OCCUR ON THIS
PORTION OF THE PARCEL OF LAND WHICH WOULD PREVENT ITS FUTURE
USE FOR ON-SITE WASTE. DISPOSAL. ORANGE COUNTY SHOULD
INVESTIGATE DEVELOPING AN ON-SITE WASTE WATER DISPOSAL
SYSTEM MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR THE THREE
WATER SYSTEM WATERSHEDS IN THE COUNTY.
Shanklin asked if power lines would be allowed. Luce responded that those
structures to be restricted would be stipulated for the easement.
Gordon asked if one can build on existing Lines. Cannity responded that
the Health Department will ask why you are requesting a building permit
and where you intend to locate it.
-3-
Ste:thYuh inquired a:cr trloe;::::mentsidwotcflytgidae=lid.ed ouanld emphasized d
•
11111, a survey and result in increased expense.. Polatty responded that it was
a trade off between expense and pollution. Gordon felt that in the past
people have not considered the pollution costs of development.
Friedman inquired if there was an inspections process to determine the
need for repairs. Luce responded that the inspections activity was addressed
in the second part of the recommendation.
4L
Friedman expressed concern with the costs involved, especially if the
desired location was changed at some later point.
Crawford indicated that the Board was not involved at the moment in the
fine tuning of the reccmmendations, but that those concerns would be
considered at a later date. Friedman responded that functioning does not
tend to be a public process. Crawford responded that implementation would
require a public hearing.
Kizer felt that this recommendation would be a monster to administer. He
askid why 3 or 4 easements would not be identified to accomplish the same
purpose.
Gordon expressed concerns about the rate of septic tank failure in the
county. She noted that septic tank failure could threaten an entire subdivision
She felt that this recommendation was an improvment over nethigg.
Crawford asked if there was any coxeelation between soils and system failures
along streams, along the attached report. Luce responed that the point
of the Report was the problems experienced in the Efland area.
OatdDnApotioned approval of the recommendation as amended with the conclusion
of the missing statement. Irvin seconded the motion.
Kizer cited harsher requirements such as certification of homes,
He expressed dissatisfaction with the massive approach outlined in the
recommendation.
Gordon expressed concern that failing systems in subdivisions would lead to
demand for water and sewer lines to remedy the problem, resulting in an
economic burden.
Brian Dodge noted the alternatives as 1) condemn (and; 2) extend sewer
lines; or 3) assure a back up system. He noted the last item was the
e least expensive.
Don Cox noted that the existence of a second site provides for an alternative
usage system and the option to alternate sites.
Shanklin asked if the first system fails, what is to assure the second
will not fail or will maintain better. Friedman indicated that failure
was inevitable and it was only a matter of the economic life of the house as
opposed to the system.
-4-
•
Shanklin suggested doubling the amount of lateral line at the onset and
• asked for information on the age of the systems surveyed on the report.
Kizer felt that given certain failure, the recommendation would not prevent
stream pollution, merely delay it. Irvin noted that fields do recover
and that it might be possible to alternate between fields.
Motion passed WithLunsford, Irvin, Gordon, Cleary, Harris, Crawford, for and
Kizer and Shanklin.
Recommendation 415:
Luce cited the handout on Stormwater Management measures distributed at the
earlier meeting when the Report had been reviewed by the Board.
Cleary moved approval of the recommendation. Irvin seconded the motion, passed
unanimously.
Recommendation #16:
Kizer suggested a consistent policy for all possible watersheds in the County.
Kizer moved approval of the recommendation as revised:
ORANGE COUNTY SHOULD ADOPT THE TWO FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION: THE COUNTY SHOULD
CONTINUE TO ADMINISTER A STRONG LOCAL SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION
CONTROL PROGRAM. THE COUNTY SHOULD SPONSOR IN =JUNCTION WITH
°RASA A RESOURCE=SERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON CANE CREEK,
UNIVERSITY LAKE, UPPER ENO, NORTH FORK LITTLE RIVER AND SOUTH FORK
LITTLE RIVER WATERSHEDS.
S.J. Friedman inquired about the pollutants cited on page 5-14. Luce
responded that oars were the major source of heavy metal pollutants and
cited the thesis by Bob Forbes. Friedman requested that references be
noted so the source of data and its justification could be traced and evaluated.
Shanklin cited road building as a major source of erosion that was not referenced
Don Cox cited erosion due to farm activity and the variation in erosion
levels relative to certain practices. He added that considering all watersheds
as conservation areas required requesting federal funding for planning and
complementation of structural changes on farms to reduce run off.
The motion passed, with Shanklin opposed, all other for.
Recommendation #17:
Gordon moved approval of the recommendation. Irvin seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
411111/ The Board returned to earlier recommendations for which they had requested
Township Advisory Councils input prior to approval.
-5-
Recommendation #12:
• Luce cited the Council minutes in the agenda packet and distributed
the Cedar Grove and Eno Township Advisory Council minutes.
Crawford inquired about the temporariness of Carrboro's five acre
minimum in the watershed. Luce explained the source and status of
that action. Shanklin expressed concern that the County with 98% of the
area in the watershed had followed in the footsteps of Carrboro with
2% of the area.
Cleary responded that Ca.rrboro merely had acted faster. Polatty indicated
Carrboro's action came after County discussion on a 5 acre minimum.
Shanklin expressed concern that a moratorium was an inadequate method and
that it would be preferable to continue to allow growth as management
means are developed.
Crawford asked about whether a two acre lot could economically provides
for stormwater measures. Luce responded that it was possible though
better applicable to large sites where controls are worked into the over
all plan.
Gordon asked about one acre lots of record. Luce responded that if they
precede the water quality amendments to the zoning ordinance, they would
be exempt.
Friedman asked how the figures 2 and 5 acres were arrived at. Luce responded
that it was not a magical number, but reflected appropriate levels of
development or a continuim of protection. He noted the subdivision lot
size averages for each township. Friedman asked what assurance there was
that these were sufficient. He felt the numllers were arbitrary and capricious
unless evidence could be provided to substantiate them, noting that such
evidence was not in the Report. Crawford asked if he had a recommendation.
Friedman responded that a monitoring alternative activity should be pursued.
Don Cox cited the results of the Triangle J, Pollution Source Study and
other:4udies as the source of comparative data.. He noted that these numbers
represented the concensus of the Task Forces that these were politically
defendable, if not ideal lot sizes for water quality protection, adding
that they reflected a serious compromise.
Lunsford noted Brian Dodge's comments in the Hillsborough TAC minutes.
Dodge reindicated his concern what a minimum lot size may be unnecessary
if appropriate storm water protection measures were developed.
F
Gordon moved approval of the recommendation, Harris seconded the motion;
all others for the motion passed. Opposed Lunsford and Shanklin.
The Board moved to the next agenda item and noted that if time remained
at the completion of the agenda they would return to discuss recommendation
#13 in the Water Resources Task Force Report.
-6-
The Board agreed to extend the meeting for an additional fifteen minutes
to complete the review of the Water Resources Task Force recommendations.
4111 Recommendation 413:
S.J. Friedman expressed concern that the Report gives the impression that
the formula is being pushed by the Forestry Service, notions that the
formula in the recommendation was more stungent. Friedman cited portions
of the source of the formula: "How Far Pram A Stream Should A Logging
Road Be Located" in the 3ournal. of Forestry, May 1957. Friedman felt
that the study area did not correspond to Orange County; that the 100 year
flood plain criteria addition was without justification; that the formula
derived in the paper was not intended to be applied to municipal watersheds
and had been doubled orbitiarily. That only a tenuous relationship had
been found between sediment movement and slope; and that the formula was
not bowie out by the duty as the study was marginal in technical competence
and had achieved an aura of respectability having been cited and utilized
so frequently. He emphasized that the formula was incorrect and did not
apply to Orange County, suggesting that the Board detete the recommendation
as technically incompetent and look for something else.
As Friedman had done a simple correlation test on the data, Gordon asked
what method he had used. Kizer asked if Friedman had data to prove the
inaccuracy of the formula. Friedman responded that the studies conclusions
were not supported by the data and were refuted by the simple correlation
test he had done. Be emphasized that even if data were correct it would
41110 not apply to Orange County as the study area was a vergon forest with a
logging road and the tests were visual on nature and did not identify other ,
pollutants or carriers.
Cleary asked if Friedman felt the formula was merely over protective.
Friedman felt it was unnecessarily so and suggested a monitoring program
to determine stream quality degradation levels emphasing the County's
responsiblity to spend money to do so rather than to act on guessing.
He asked if this was really a panic situation.
Luce responed that although the formula is not perfect, it will assure
protection. Friedman felt that there was a need to determine acceptable
levels of pollution. He noted the restriction on bottom land. Don
Cox noted that farmland is exempt. Crawford clarified that farmland was
exempt from the Zoning Ordinance. Shanklin asked if these requirements
would then only apply to the 1-B5 - US 70 Corridor in Cheeks Township.
Luce responded that some land outside the corridor is rural residential
and that the regulations would apply to all residential uses. shanklin
asked if it would apply in unzoned Cheeks and Cedar Grove Townships.
Crawford responded that it would apply whereever the Zoning Ordinance
applies.
Kizer moved approval of the recommendation. Gordon seconded the motion.
el" Kizer felt that even if the formula was not perfect there was some correlation
between slope and pollution.
The motion passed, opposed Lunsford and. Shanklin.
-7-
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT
:110 December 1, 1981
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Crawford; (Chair) , Art Cleary, David Shanklin,
Steve Kizer, Hazel Lunsford, Logan Irvin, John Wilson,
Nancy Laszlo.
STAFF PRESENT: Jim Polatty, Susan Smith, Rick Cannity, Norma Sue Walker,
Fred Luce.
GUEST PRESENT: Albert Kittrell.
AGENDA ITEM 41: Agenda Additions.
There were no additions to the agenda.
AGENDA ITEM 42: Approval of November 16, 1981 Minutes.
Cleary expressed concern that some elements of the
discussions regarding the subdivisions were missing
from the motions. Crawford directed that the minutes
should reflect the meeting and indicate that the
requirements specific to a subdivision were met.
The minutes of November 16, 1981 were approved with
IIIthe following corrections:
Recommendation 13 of the Water Resources Task Force
Report was discussed after Agenda Item 15.
Page 3, paragraph 5 - Insert "discussion" and delete
the words "his custom" in Gordon's statement.
Page 5 - Vote on the motion for approval of recommendation
14 should show: Kizer and Shanklin opposed. Note:
Crawford did not vote on this motion.
AGENDA ITEM 43: Discussion of the Water Resources Task Force Report.
Crawford inquired about the status of the Report. She
noted that she voted on the recommendations as presented,
but had not considered the implementation of the recommend-
ations at that time. she added that discussion of the
implementation of the recommendations would require con-
sideration of other factors.
Luce responded that staff's presentation was essentially
complete,
110 Polatty said staff was interested in the Board's general
comments and overall. recommendation. Crawford asked
if anyone had any comments-
Ark'
Wilson asked why New Hope Creek watershed was not a
protected watershed and expressed concerns regarding the
Jordan Lake Reservoir. Irvin stated the Board should
recommend including New Hope Creek watershed in the final
recommendation. Luce indicated protection of that water-
shed is a regional problem. Wilson indicated what needed
to be done was to include that watershed in the recommend-
ations. Luce noted that Triangle J was developing a
watershed management plan. Wilson expressed concern
that instead of waiting we could extend our existing
recommendations to address protection of the Jordan
Lake Reservoir, Crawford asked how Orange County would
be affected by this watershed. Luce noted the entire
Cape Fear Basin in Orange County, including New Hope
Creek, drains into the Jordan Reservoir. Polatty
noted there had never been a policy to use the Jordan
Reservoir for water supply due to its poor water quality.
Ultimate success of attempts to clean up the effluent
from sewer plants and industrial uses in the Haw River
would be most difficult.
MOTION: Irvin moved that the Planning Board approve in principle
the Report of the Orange County Water Task Force,
and call attention to the fact that the Report does
not address the utilization and protection of water in
the Jordan Lake Reservoir which should be given con-
sideration in the future as representing a potentially
4111 be and important source of water. Measures should
be taken to eliminate pollution from treatment plants
_ and other sources of pollutants. Wilson seconded the
motion.
Crawford noted the motion was partially covered in
Recommendation 5. Wilson responded that this motion
was directed at the protection of an adr7ttional water-
shed.
AMENDED MOTION: Cleary amended the motion adding: This issue shoald ,be given
consideration to emphasize concern with what is happen-
ing in Orange County. Otherwise, the Commissioners
would consider the matter as outside their jurisdiction.
The County could indicate that it is capable of doing
something with this action.
VOTE: The motion passed with Cleary, Kizer, Lansford, Irvin,
Wilson and Laszlo in favor and Shanklin abstaining.
Polatty noted that different issues were involved with
existing and future water supplies. Wilson asked
which is imminent, Cane Creek or Jordan Lake. Cleary
suggested that both areas be considered so as not
• to add to existing pollutants. Kizer noted that these
efforts are directed to keep pollutants from increasing
(perhaps technology will catch up) and improvement of
the County's relative position.
DT
Shanklin stated the Water Task Fort.? Report shcul'
go to pblic hearing. Crawford indicated that would
not occur until the Report was incorporated into an
ordinance. Shanklin wanted a public hearing prior to
incorporation, noting certain statements in the Report
as-being opinions, not fact, upon which other con-
clusions were drawn. Crawford stated the Report can
and will, be discussed in terms ofimplementation.
AGENDA ITEM #4: Revised Watershed Zoning Amendment Proposals
Luce distributed the revised Proposed Zoning Amendments.
Polatty noted the following changes in the Proposed
Zoning Amendments: PW-I, applied to urban watersheds
such as McGowan Creek; PW-II, applies to all other
protected watersheds; PW-II b) application criteria:
"This district should be applied to all protected water
supply watersheds designated in the Land Use Plan,
except McGowan Creek r 4.2.27 b) 1, should read as
This district will be applied in all protected water
supply watersheds designated in the Land Use Plan."
DISCUSSION OF THE AMENDMENTS FOLLOWED.
Discussion on 6.23 Extra Requirements for Protected
411 Watershed Districts (PW-I and PW.II) ensued. 6.23.1
c) Should read as follows: "Streets and bridges
crossing a buffer area shall enter and exit the area
as nearly perpendicular to it as possible."
Shanklin asked how the buffer is to be calculated,
especially noting the problem of slope. Staff res-
ponded that the recommendation had been changed
earlier, and was not yet clear in this document and
would be similar to the wording in the Task Force
report.
Discussion took place on 6.23.1.5. The Board discussed
the trade-offs between centralized sewer systems and
individual septic systems. Crawford noted the language
in the amendment is prohibitive.
Kizer cited 6.23.2 a) and inquired as to what method
would be used for measuring runoff. Cannity responded
e# that runoff figures are available for different
A, vegetative types. He noted it was primarily an
engineering problem.
Shanklin questioned 6.23,1. Cannity responded indicat-
410 ing that storage would be required to assure a dis-
charge rate equal to the runoff rate before develop-
ment. Kizer inquired how this would be administered.
cannity responded it would be an engineering exercise.
Lunsford inquired who was responsible for getting the
engineers. Cannity noted that the developer was res-
ponsible for hiring an engineer adding that these
requirements would only apply to new development.