Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-22-1982 REGULAR MEETING Q4.7 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1982 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 7:30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the agenda 2. Matters not on the agenda C. MINUTES D. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Revenue Sharing January 4, 1982 2. Continuation of Public Hearing of March 8, 1982, to receive evidence zsthe General Aviation Airport Need and Study. E. lEp 1. Industrial and Economic Development—Preliminary Report from Dr. Ed Bergman 2. Energy Commission weatherization program—Mr. Rob Addelsan F. ITEMS FOR DECISION BY BOARD 1. Resolution establishing Just Campensation—CD Program 2. Topographic mapping award 3. Space Allocation: Renovated NOrthside Center 4. Designation of Board of Equalization and Review Chair 5. Audit Contract for year ending June 30, 1982 6. Executive session for legal and property matters. - ,Ilitifirw INDEX x MARCH 22, 1982 SUBJECT ACTION PAGE Minutes Jan. 4, 1982 Approved as sub. 1 Oct. 26, 1981 Corrected 1-2 Public Hearings Revenue Sharing None 2 Con'd of March 8 Adjourned till 4/20/82 2-4 Reports Industrial &Economic None 4 Energy Commission None 4 Res.--Just Comp. Adopted 4 Topo mapping contract awarded 4 Northside space allocation approved 4-5 E & R Board Chair J. McKee Appt'd 6 Audit contract Awarded to Touche Ross 6 Budget amendment Approved 6 Sub. Moratorium lifted for those at least 5 acres 6 Green boxes S . consideration in Campaign 6 Ex. session convened (legal and property) 6 1. 00823 2" 3, MINUTES 5° MARCH 22, 1982 6. 7. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on 8. Monday, March 22, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange 9. County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina' 10. Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and Commissioners 11° Norm Gustaveson, Shirley E. Marshall, No��n Walker and Don Willhoit, 12. A. Board Comments 13. The Manager added budget amendments to the og ile-Dommissionors I4° Willhuft, Whitted and Gustaveson added consideration of the moratorium on I5° subdivisions, correction of the Minutes of October 26, 1981, and discussion 16. of Green Boxes, respectively. 17° B. There were no comments from the audience on matters either on or not 18. on the printed agenda. 19. C. Minutes. 10" Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to approve 2I° the Minutes of January 4, 1982^ as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 22. Commissioner Gustaveson moved to correct the approved Minutes of October 23. 26, I981, with regard to Article I, Sec. 2 of the Orange County Personnel Policy 24.° amended on that date as follows: Sec.en, 2. Coverage. 26. This policy will cover all permanent, full-time and probationary employees, 27, except as specifically exempted. The county attorneys, members of the 28, Board of Commissioners, and members of advisory and special boards and 29. commissions will be exempted, except in sections where specifically ou^ ed /o 3n^ included. 31. The following employees are exempt from the policy, except in the 12, instances cited below: JJ" (a) employees of the North Carolina Agricultural Snry oe, 34.. except that they will be subject to Article D4 Section 3; 35, (b) employees governed by rules of the State Competitive Service System, except that they will be subject to Article 36, DI, Sections 1-3 and 5-16. Employees of the Orange County Health Department (with the exception of the Director) 37, shall also be subject to Articles X and XI, provided, however, no permanent employee of the Orange County JO, Health Department may be discharged, suspended or reduced 39. -- � _ 00824 I. 41ci 2. �� 3. 14-~ in pay or position except for pursuant to the specific requirements contained in Article 8 of Chapter 5^ 126 )�'O' Sections' 126-34-42) of the North Carolina General ` Statutes. The County Manager shall rep ort to the Board of 6~ Health all grievances involving Orange County Health Department emloyees that reach his office. 7. (c) the executive secretary ot of the Board of Elections, w^ except that this employee will be subject to Articles D-YD; ArticVIII,cl, VIII, Sections 1-5 and 8; Article X, Sections 3, 6, 7, 9^ D, and 16; and Articles and I0^ (d) part-time and/or temporary employees designated by the 1I~ County Board of Commissioners, except that they will be subject to Article I, Sections 3, 4, and 8; Article II, 12. Sections 2, 3, and 6; Article u/, Sections l 2, 3, 4, 20, 28, and 32; Article IV, Sections 2 and 5; Article VIII, Sections I3, 1-6 and 8; Article �! X, Sections 1-6 and 8-15» and Articles XI- � | XVI. 15. (Amended October 26, 1981) 17. Commissioner Whitted seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. 18. D. Public Hearings 19~ 1. Revenue Sharing: Mr. Wallace Harding, Finance Officer, summarized 20" the County's 1982-83 Revenue Sharing for the Board. 21. Ms' Barbara Page asked if the funds were to be spent for Health programs 22° in schools. Mr. Harding said the funds were allocated to Health in general 23. not to school health programs specifically. 24. There were no other comments on Revenue Sharing for 1982-83. 25° 2. Continuation of March 8, 1982, Public Hearing to receive evidence on the General Aviation Airport Need and Polioy,Xll persons were sworn, 27" Mr. Logan Irvin, Planning Board Member, read a letter from Planning Board 28^ Chair, Pat Crawford, who was unable to attend this meeting. Ms. Crawford said 29. the Planning Board had requested the general aviation site study and had instructed " 30~ that it be general in nature, not specifically related to the Midway Adrpnrt, 31. Her letter added that the study was a superficial look at needs, not a'n in- 32, depth analysis due to lack of time. She thinks the section on needs should be 33" considered in that manner, that it is not in-depth study. Additionally, she 34^ feels the pressure to close the Horace Williams Airport contributed to the need 3S° to find an alternative airport. 36^ Mr. Logan Irvin continued speaking,this time for himself. Mr. Irvin feels 37° that in looking for sites for an airport that a central location among the cities 38" which would use such an airport should a prime consideration. He added that 39. 00826 the site should be located near those areas of the County most suitable for industry and within about 10-12 miles of UNC. Mr. Irvin feels that serious thought should be given to financial arrangements for any airport. He feels that the backing should be sound in order to prevent collapse of any new air- port and to prevent leaving UNC without an airport. Mr. Lee Mehler read for the record a letter from a regional representative of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (that letter is on pages of this book). Mr. Mehler feels that there are some deficiencies in the airport study. He stated that he would frame his cnnments specifically to Midway Air- port because of his familiarity with that site. Mr. Mehler then addressed the study: page 22, item g--he questions whether or not there are thirty-four structures; structure is not defined; page 24, item j--soil suitability, he questions whether or not this is a "major factor" or "properly defined." He says it is a "cost factor" for construction and it is a considerable cost factur. He feels this cost will limit future development of the area. Airport approval for a septic system has been re- ceived. page 24, item k- ` page 24, item k--impact on agricultural activity, Mr. Mehler feels this kind of impact by the Midway Airport would be mfmimal because of the noise impacts and restrictions that Midway has. Commissioner Nillhnit asked Mr, Mehler the basis for his speculation on the noise impact; Mr. Mehler replied the "information supplied by Mr. Bruce Matthews." Mr. Mehler further continued in response to Commissioner Willhoit that it was noise over a twenty-four hour period, Mr. Mehler continued his com- ment: the site is barren, surrounded by a buffer of woods; he feels that at this noise level impact on animal breeding activity will be nil . page 37, # 3--Mr. Mehler asked what the definition of "slight" increase in the County tax rate was. He said, due to the ongoing nature of maintenance at the airport he would doubt whether the increase would be slight, but he had no idea what it would be. Chairman Whitted read for the record a letter he had received from Mr. John Temple, representing the University of North Carolina's position with regard to Section IX of the Study. (Item 4 under Consideration #2 and Item 2 under Consideration #3.) (See page of this book for that 1etter.) U1)82# � � Mr. Mehler asked to add one more thought regarding the Airport study. He feels that the needs of Orange County and specifically, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, should be given more consideration than Durham's Airport needs. There were no further citizens who wished to speak at this public hearing. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to adjourn this public hearing until April 20, 1982, at 7:80 P.M. in the Commissioners' Room, to receive the Planning Board's recommendation on the rezoning requests, Special Use Permit request and Land Use Amendment requests taken to public hearing on March 8, 1982, Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0' E. Reports 1. Industrial & Economic Development: Dr. Ed Bergman's graduate students presented the results of a semester long study on the Orange County economic situatiun. Students summarizing the report for the Board of Commissioners were: Jane Buckwalter, Paul R. Greene, John A. Haak, Lynne C. Hollyer, and Julie B.V. McCullough. Students will present a final report to the Board on May 3rd. Chairman Whitted thanked the students and Dr. Bergman for their report. Following a short recess, the Board resumed the meeting with all members present. 2. Energy Commission: Mr, Rob Addelson, Energy Coordinator, and Mr. Jot Bernard, Chair of the Energy Commission, reported to the Board of Commissioners on theresultoof the weatherization program undertaken by the Energy Commission at the Board's request, F. ITEMS FOR DECISION BY BOARD 1. Resolution Establishing Just Compensation, CD program: Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to adopt the Resolution Establishing Just Compensation for Parcels 57, 111, and 110 for $4^000.00, $100'00 and $550.00, respectively. Vote: Ayes, 5;"nnes, O. 2. Topographic mapping award, CD program: Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to award the contract for the topographic mapping of the proposed park area in the Northern Fairview Redevelopment Pro- gram to Piedmont Aerial Survey. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. 3. Space Allocation—Nnrthside' Mr. Roman Kolodji, architect, presented architectural drawings for the Board's consideration. The County Manager pre- sented proposed space allocation for existing agencies; part of this presentation 00827 . � �^�u ^ includes a six hundred feet addition to the main building at Northside for use by the Community School for People Under 3ix, Commissioner Walker moved approval of the plan for space allocation as presented this evening; Commissioner Gustaveson seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. 4. Board of Equalization and Review Chair: Commissioner Willhoit moved seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to appoint Mr. John McKee Chair of the Board of Equalization and Review. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. 5. Audit Contract: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, to award the audit contract for the County to Touche Ross, for Fiscal 1981-82. Vote: Ayes, 4 (Commissioners Marshall, Walker, Whitted and Willhoit); noes, 1 (Commissioner Gustaveson). 7. Budget Amendment: Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to approve the budget amendment (see page of this book) allow- ing for continuation of enemployment insurance. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 8. Subdivision moratorium: Commissioner Willhoit moved to lift the moratorium on development in the University Lake and Upper Eno Watersheds for those subdivisions where the smallest parcel is at least five acres, Commissioner Whitted seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes,G; noes, D. 9, Green Boxes: Commissioner Gustaveson asked that during the Clean Up Litter campaign green box sites in the County be given special consideration for clean up. G' Executive session:Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to convene in executive session for legal and property matters. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, U' The Board of Commissioners then convened in executive session for ti,e purpose stated above, W itted, Ch. r . _--_-- Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk MEMORANDUM ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Room No. 12 106 11Am' MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 ANNS BARNES,Cbair NORMAN GoSAVASON NORMAN WATXRR RICHARD WHITTBD Dormtn imam TO: The Board FROM: The Clerk RE : Minutes of October 26 , 1981 DATE: 2/26/82 iljA‘iVt'/"? fl The County Attorney has suggested the Minutes of October 26 , 1981, be corrected (they were approved on January 25 , 1982) as outlined in his attached letter. cc: County Attorney Enclosure COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 10, 1982 110 CHURTON STREET HILLSBOROUGH,N.C. 27278 919-732-2196 919-942-8000 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SLITS 20,FRANKUN BUILDING 137 E.FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL,N C 27514 Ms. Paulette Pridgen-Pond 919-929.715: Clerk to the Orange County LEGAL CLINICS 136 a ROSEMARY STREET Board of Commissioners NCNB PLAZA 27514 Orange County Courthouse CHAPEL kin_L,N C 919-929-0394 106 Margaret Lane 116w.MAIN STREET Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 DURJ-IAM,NC.27701 919 658-9631 Re: Orange County Personnel Policy ALONZO B.COLEMAN.JR. STEVEN A.BERNHOLZ DONALD R. DICKERSON. ROGER B.BERNHOLZ Dear Paulette: GEOFFREY E GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE MARTIN J.BERNHOLZ Enclosed is a document entitled ORANGE COUNTY PATRICIA STANFORD HUNT PERSONNEL POLICY AMENDMENTS which contains the actual DOUGLAS WEBB 0(Counsel amendments adopted by the Board of County Commissioners with BONNER D.SAWYER reference to the Health Department. Health Department employees (1902.1912) were brought into the County's policy only to the extent of the coverage provided in Articles X and Xl. The appropriate agenda item for consideration of this matter is as follows: Correction of the minutes of the Board for its October 26, 1981 meeting regarding amendments to the Personnel Policy. So much of the October 26, 1981 minutes as pertain to the amendment to Article I, Section 2 of the Orange County Personnel Policy should be striken and replaced with the amendment to Article I, Section 2 contained in agenda attachment Inclusion of Health Department and Social Services Department employees in the provisions of the policy relating to Article II (work week, official conduct, outside employment and travel), Article III, Section 4 (holidays - when work required), Article IV (employee benefits), Article VI, Sections 9-12 (longevity pay, overtime and payroll deductions) and Articles XIII -XVI (records and reports, conflicting policies, separability and effective date) are probably desirable but must be addressed by the Board before the Personnel Policy is amended to include Health Department and Social Services Department within their coverage. Very truly yours, frey ledhill GEG/jac 'Enclosure cc: Ken Thompson Beverly Whitehead • ORE. COUNTY BOARD OF COn4ISSIONS Action Agenda m Nob-1 ACTION 42,GF2-:-In ITEM rIBSTRACT ite .._ MEETL\K; DATE March 22, 1982 Subject: Public Hearing on Proposed Use of Revenue Sharing Funds Departanant: Manager , PubLic Hearing: X yes Attachment(s) : No Information Contact: Ken Thompson/Wal Hari Phone Number: 732-8181 ext. 501 PURPOSE: To receive comments from the public concerning the use of Revenue Sharing Funds for fiscal year 1982-83. NEED: Compliance with federal regulation 31 CFR Subtitle 8. Part 51 .13 governing the payment of entitlements under Title I of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 as amended. EMPACT: The County' s use of $500,000 in the 1982-83 budget. .. ...._ + •, C? E COUNTY BOARD OF CO:-24ISSIONEPS Action .i"-ger.d...a Ite No. h- ACTION pnam ITI.7.,1 ABSTRACT m, riumTLNG DATE March 22, 1982 Subject: Continuation of Public Rearihg on March 8, 1982 to receive evidence on the General Aviation Airport Need and Site Study. Depart:Mat: PLANNING [ Hearin Plablic g: x Yes Attachment(s) : See Agenda Packet for Irifo=tation Contzct: Jim Polatty 3/8/82 PhOne Number: 732-8181 EXT. 342 PURPOSE; Continue the adjourned Public Hearing from March 8, 1982. NEED: The final draft of the General Aviation Airport Site Study was distributed at the March 8, meeting. Zn order to provide time to study that document, in relationship to Buck Mountain Development Company's Special Use Permit request, the meeting was adjourned. IMPACT: Public presentation of evidence should be directly related to the Airport Study. RECOMMENDATION: . =. Ag•- AIRCRAFT OWNERS • AND _FL] PIOT' ASS OCATI0 March 19, 1962 Lee N. t4eh1er A. I. A. Peloquin Associates, P. A. Route 4 Box 174B Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 Dear Lee: The hearing on your proposed airport was very interesting, but I must say I marvel at the patience of the board members and commissioners. Any meeting that goes until that hour of the morning requires patience, and there seemed to be an endless parade of citizens wishing to address the question. I felt I was seeing grassroots democracy in action. Unfortunately too Many of the citizens seemed to have fears that are unreal and not founded on fact. It was clear the group was well organized. It pained me, though, to see so many of them oppose the airport for bad, reasons. One citizen thought the airport would depress land values, while another feared rising values. One young man feared, the odor of kerosene would cover the county, but he seemed not to have heard that you would not have jets. His reference to Love Field in Dallas, by the way, is interesting because that airport is a classic example of what can go wrong around an airport when bad toning is allowed. Your airport out in the country corrects all the ills of places like Love Field and Horace Williams Airport. The field at Chapel Bill cannot he called the safest airport in the world. It is too small and houses and buildings have been allowed too close to the facility. Your airport has 16Viof that, and your 5,000 foot runway, with all the taxiways you have, should be one of the safest to be found anywhere. ' Perhaps you recall the lady who addressed what she called "the endangered species." She feared that airport construction was responsible for the reduction in the number of farmers. Nonsense! Far more farmers have beea displaced by highway construction and by poornnageatent and bad economic conditions. Don't blame airport construction for the farm problems. It isn't true. Her fears are unfounded. Noise a problem? Not at all. A recent study on noise found that six electric typewriters in an office create more noise than a small airplane flying overhead of'the type that will be using your airport. rho',auudino) C Y.,014/TeIpnn(301)64 ag 2,15i Cnbis Adcbes:.: °PA,10.ra5hin51c,n,D C.. '• : • 1 o/ uatt Owner an.1 When vsalino ALWAYS us i your AO1A.number. • • • i• 00829 1 --2— The people's fears should be put to rest. An airport provides social and economic benefits to a community that are enormous. Ironically those who fear the most are likely to benefit the most in the end. The need and sites survey doesn't appear to me to supply any reason why your airport should not be built, but I rather think it supports the location as a good alternative. Any airport certainly could be built elsewhere, but I am not aware of any business group clamoring to build one and willing to risk the investment. The suggestion to study whether the airport should be public or private is also moot. Unless the people of Orange County are willing to finance it themselves through extra taxation, which certainly seems remote, there is no chance for a public facility. I suspect that suggestions of that kind are merely delay tactics by those who oppose any construction of any kind on any grounds at all. The suggestion that the federal govern- ment would finance anything of that kind is without merit at this time. When you have business people willing and able to finance a project, it seems to me that constitutes the best possible market study you can have. Business people won't risk investment that won't pay off. -This proposal can't pay off, of course, unless it has the proper zoning. The day of airports for fun is gone. You have to create sources of income that are sufficient to justify the facility, and that is true whether the airport is developed by private citizens or as a public airport. Your facility is well planned and appears sound. It i.s safe and appears to be based on sound planning, I wish you good luck, and I do hope the problems can be worked out. I know it is very expensive to plan these things, but the ultimate benefits to the community will justify the coat. The people's fears need to be alliidated, for they are needlessly alarmed. Good luck and beet wishes. Cor.'=liy, // Re •eth W._N-. e / AOPA Regional Representative 6225 31st Street North Arlington, Virginia 22207 '`- �` ^ ' - • . � ' ` ' '' '� ' ��'�����- `r ~'- �� 2�� • ' ' ` ���� ��" �� 0' 83M ` � �}��. _ _ _ _ ___ ______--- -- -- -- - -' ------------- fttl! 'qr., THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA kT CHAPEL HILL The��*^��=��=p"��/ o�""^'.^" q',^".^ow/�",wa^ Vice m��m,x"o".'=""am""� o"pe/Hill.mc 27514 March 22, 1982 Mr. Richard Whitted, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners Dear Mr. Whitted: At the public hearing held on March 8, 1982 for a special use permit for the general aviation airport proposed by Buck Mountain Devolupment, a report entitled "General Aviation Airport Need & Sites Survey" was introduced as evidence by the Orange County Planning Staff. Because this report was not made available to the public until the time of this public hearing, the County Board of Commissioners indicated that the public hearing would be held over to March 22, 1982 to provide an opportunity to receive comments on this report. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill would like this letter to be made a part of the public hearing record as commentingnn this report. In two locationS in the Conclusions section of the report (Section IX) there are references to the possibilities for financial assistance from the University for development of a new community airport and speculation about the future disposition of the land now occupied by Horace Williams Airport (Item 4 under Consideration #2 and Item 2 under Consideration #3). The University has clearly indicated on a number of occasions that financial support of an alternative airport facility is not viewed as a University responsibility. The University has no plans to dispose of the Horace Williams Airport land nor does the University have the financial resources to contribute to the construction of a new airport. Any suggestion that the financing of a new airport could be aided by the sale of the Horace Williams land is quite misleading and should not be included as a consideration in the development of an alternative airport facility. ~ Sincerely yours,2 uoun I ' Temple Vice Chancellor for Business and Finance JLT:hca . ` ' ` ,'- . --�� ^ • 0.71-V2,17-Z COUNTY BOARD OF CO:-.?•IISSIONERS Action Agenda ra ACTION Asam. ITE•I :ZSTRACT Ite No 1‘11. .c.n.VT.7 DATE March 22, 1982 Subject: Economic Development Reports DerxerU—rent: County Manager 1 Public Hearing: yes _ Attachment(s) : No Information contact: Kenneth Thompson hone Number: 732-8181 ext. 501 PURPOSE: To receive the first of several reports on this subject. NEED: Mr. Ed Bergman, Chairman of the Industrial Bond Authority and a profe within the School of Urban and Regional Planning and the Orange Count. Planning Director have been compiling survey information for the Boar' to consider economic development questions and specifically consider adoption of a water and sewer extension policy. Presentation of the reports will occur as follows: March 22 - Preliminary reports giving a digest of economic studies on Orange County, summarizing labor force characteristics, and giving the results of a question nai re. April 5 - Presentation by the Chamber of Commerce. May 3 - Final reports on the material presented March 22 together with any recommendations. May 18 - Proposed water and sewer extension policy. - Presentation of economic development area plans 71PACT: Facilitate review and decision on policies for guiding future develop L,°`,^� � � " [D[ r /� �� 330::IRz Ca7.11SSIO`ERS Action A.3.sncla It ro' E-a_, Acrza,T. 7-sarIN 7aSxRAcz »2m-rtna DATE March 2�_1982_--- Progress Report on Energy Conservation Assistance to Low-Income Subject: Energy Assistance Payments Program Recipients x Energy Office '/ ------ Haa.ring: yes Attachment(s): Yes Inforrcation Contact: Rob Addelson zhooeNxrzer: 732-8181 ext. 511 PURPOSE: A progress report on the efforts of the Orange County Energy Commission to coordinate a program to provide energy conservation assistance of a more permanent nature to those citizens receiving cash payments through the Low-Income Energy Assistance Payments Program (LIEAPP). NEED: The Low-Income Energy Assistance Payments Program provides direct cash ts to income-eligible eliyible households to assist families in paying their payments -bill Though beneficial, this assistance serves as a stopgap measure utility only and oug not address`the fundamental issue of conser- vation and the potential of reducing the energy costs of these households by making their homes more energy efficient. On December 17, 1881 , John Bernard, Chair of the Orange County Energy Commission, received a letter from the Chair of the Orange County Com- missioners conveying the concern of the Board of Commissioners that the LIEAPP is only a temporary measure. Further, the Board requested that the Energy Commission investigate ways that more permanent energy con- servation assistance can be offered to LIEAPP recipients, PROPOSAL: \ See Attachment @83 2 L' o� - i'J PROPOSAL: The Orange County Energy Commission has embarked the development k r need u n assistance in reducing of a program to identify those households which nee energy consumption, and to coordinate the efforts of agencies and organiza- tions houaeholds- tions operating in Orange County to provide assistance to these households. The initial steps of this identification process have been to solicit names of those individuals who received LIEAPP assistance by mailing return postage guaranteed cards in the envelopes in which the LIEAPP checks were mailed. Below is a sample of this card. '- -- - - -- '_ - - ' won�rAGE nc�ssxm� W U 11111� �mmu���� UNITED . �� __ ........■ ����. �~�~��~~~� BUSINESS REPLY MAIL ������ K���^3� �VL"�^� ��L-� �-` /vxr^:^- ■=1■1■M� FIRST CtASS PERMIT NO. 35 nmv� N.c °........~.... ~..~�~...~~.. POSTAGE=u'wE PAID~. ADDRESSEE ��.!■1 ��■••••=11 — ORANGE COUNTY ENERGY OFFICE �������� 106 E. Margaret Lane ~•■~■~■11 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 '_ '_______--' - — ___ '----' -- | Fill in this card and drop it in the mail. No postage is required. We need your help to help you The fact that you applied for assistance to pay your fuel bill indicates to us that the house you live in is not as energy efficient as it could be �b=oran�eCvuptyDnec8y Office aao�to assist you ioidcut�y\ngat�s ' you can take to reduce the amount of fuel you use and cut your fuel costs This service is provided at no cost to you If you would like assistance,please provide the following information and mail it to us. * AGE OF HEAD Mamm� --- oF8ODS8H0LD: _------ ADDRESS: DO YOU: OWN YOUR HOME __-__-__- RENT (wood, oil, TELEPHONE wo.. � TYPE YPonF HEAT: gas, etc -'_' - - � � -- _ - _� - _'___� ''_--'---__ . ' Q('l8:73 -2' It is envisioned that this assistance will be to provide some degree of home weatherization using funds and labor available through existing agencies (i.e. , JOCCA) and funds and labor procured from other er nources (i.e. , Salvation Army donations, churches, etc') As of this date a number of Orange County agencies and organizations (JOCCA, Orange County Energy Office, Interfaith Council , Dept. on Aging, RSVP, Orange Congreqati s in Mission) have discussed what steps need to be taken in the development of this program and the timetable for its implementation, It has been agreed that these planning efforts should culminate in the actual weatherization of homes some time in the fall. A general outline of the planning process is listed below. Throughout the periods below efforts to identify recipients of assistance will be ongoing. MARCH I. ESTABLISH ADVISORY COUNCIL CONSISTING OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) WHICH PROVIDE ENERGY ASSISTANCE TO HOUSEHOLDS MARCH- II. ADVISORY COUNCIL ESTABLISHES DETAILED PLAN OF ACTIVITIES APRIL 1) Set goals, objectives, time frames 2) Set policies (who will be served; what services will be provided; referral process; etc.) 3) Define and delegate areas of responsibility and determine funds needed, staffing, and coordinating process 4) Develop subcommittees to concentrate on special areas such as a) volunteer recruitment and community support b) volunteer training and supervision c) funding and contributions (money and materials) d) evaluation e) community education 5) Target neighborhoods, areas to be served APRIL III. FIRM UP PLANS OF OPERATION 1) Get agreements from participating agencies 2) Develop publicity on project 3) Introduce project to general community ' a) send materials to civic groups, governmental units, churches, etc., who will be considering projects for the coming year SUMMER IV, COORDINATE PLANS FOR FALL ACTIVITIES 1) Have committees meet 2) Target neighborhoods for service 3) Mobilize volunteer groups 4) Map out logistics of service delivery »CT.NOY. V. ACTUAL PROJECT OPERATION EC. V[, EVALUATION, PLANS FOR FUTURE PROJECTS 8 3,1 ORANGE covry BOARD OF CaHESSIONEPS Action Ar,r,=.naa Item No. / Acrio:.: 7-sGENDATTE2.1AlagTRACT =CENG DATE 3-22-: SUbject: Resolution Establishing Just Compensation (Right-of-Way Acquistion) • J 1Public HeArimg: yes x nL 1 L cpmthunity Development Information Contact: Albert Kittrell Attec.hment(s): Recommend Values Reyiew Appraisal Certification Phone Ni.rdber: , 425 • • Purpose: The establistment 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 Feed: Rights-of-way and easements have been surveyed by The John McAdams Company. Al] parcels have been appraised by Kathy Buck and Joe Daley. Archie Kelly, Assistant Tax Supervisor, performed review appraisals. The values for parcels 110 and 111 have been adjusted to include a • drainage easement, Parcel 57 has been adjusted to reflect purchase of entire parcel. The acquisition df a portion of this parcel would leave the owner with an undeVelopable lot (uneconomic remanent); Under HUD and North Carolina Department of Transportation guidelines, the County is required to acquire the entire parcel, Immact: Certification of just compensation will facilitate the timely implementation of the real property acquisition process. Approve Recommended Values. U0830 LPJ --- RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SOAPS) OF COMMISSIONERS ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES PROPOSED FOR ACQUISITION IN THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, HUD PROJECT NO. B-BD-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 TBAT, 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 • a 3 t3 Li Li L.) RdVLW Apprais,:r Recommended Square Feet ?arcel No, Ript-of-Way Area first Aapraisal Value ILO 1,230 5500.00 5550.00 3,160(Drainage Easement) 100,00 111 15 0.00 2,600(Drainage Easement) 700,00 4,000,00 57 5,000 1.'150 (uneconomic remanencl 6:250 Total Taking MEMORANDUM IO: Albert Kittrell, CD Director FROM: Archie Kelly, Asst. lax SupervisorUC DATE: March 8, 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 adminstrative 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. \ t)^ S*`/ ^ � oRASZEoOUNrr /` BaaRDoF CMESSIOS actiosA:4enda Item m»' ACTION AGENDA zTE2.1 ABSTRACT }ita.;cI�G DATE March 22, 1982 Subject: Topographic Mapping Contract Award ' Public yes _ X no Phone Nurr±ex^ Ext. 425 PURPOSE: Award $1°817.00 topographic mapping contract to Piedmont Aerial Surveys, Incorporated. This firm will prepare topographic mapping for the former Hillsborough Landfill. NEED: Topographic mapping will enable kecreation and Park Consultants (park planners presently under contract with the County) to begin preliminary/ alternative park designs for the proposed neighborhood park in the Northern Fairview Community. Recreation and Park Consultants have outlined the following timetable: April 18, 1982 Consultants Receive Topographic Mapping and Property Boundary, May 3, 1982 Consultants Receive Community Development Recommendation and Present Alternatives at a Public Meeting May 18, 1982 Consultants Present Alternatives with Recreation Commission Recommendation and Approve Alternatives at a Public Meeting. May 24, 1982 Present Master Plan to Board of Commissioners for Approval. July 10-15, 1982 County Approve Construction Drawings and Specifications. July 15, 1082 Advertise for Construction Bids. August 15, 1882 Received Construction Bids. August 30 to County Commissioners Execute Contract with September 6, 1982 Contractors. September 16, 1982 Begin Cunstruotion, IMPACT: Enhance implementation of the recreation-park component of the County's Community Deyelnpment Program. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as recommended. 0^8 '3� osAusE coonPTY BoARD Action Agencia ~ Itcmmo' ACTION AGENDA oUsTxsG DATE March 22. 1987 Subject: Space Allocation: Renovated Northside Multipurpose Center • Public IT=. -ring:IT=. -ring: Yes v Attachment(s) : Map iriformatlon County Manaqer. | s� . � — . Contact: Bill Laws ebopemuMbsr: 732-8181 ext. 50 PURPOSE: To consider the most effective allocation of space pending renovation. NEED: Effort has been made to accommodate the move of Social Services into the building while not reducing the space of several existing agencies. The revised proposal would involve constructing a 600 square foot addition to augment the total s1ze. A breakdown of the amount by agency would consist approximately of the following: Department ohaning & Nutrition' 2,647 square feet JOCCA Office 120 square feet RSVP Office 260 square feet Visiting Agencies(Legal Aide)lOD square feet plus access to a 400 sq.ft' conference room Social Services 1 ,700 square feet Day Care 1,056 square feet A revised architectural rendering will be presented at the meeting. Decision is needed to give direction for the development of detailed plans and specifications. LaeCz: Cost of the addition would add approximately $15,000 to the $150,000 project budget. Rent cost savings by Social Services would be $16,313. RECOMMENDATION: dd Approve as reoommen e ' P. CRANE COUNTY E0D OF conlissials Action .?,,gtzncla Item No. ACTION AGF2::11A STRACT 11,7m7; DATE MARCH 22, 1982 Subject: BARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW CHAIR Public Hearing yes , Depart,mnt: BOARD OF CONNISSIONERS Attachment(s) : Iriforma:tion Contact: PAULETTE PRIDGEN- NO Pine 732-8181 ext. 510 Ntrnber: PURPOSE: To name a Chair for the Board of Equalization and Ivied. NEED: On March 1 and 16 the Board of Coumissioners named meMbers to the Board of Equalization and Review. On March 16th the Board of Commissioners asked that the four returning members from last year's Board of Equalization and Review be polled to determine their individual willingness to serve as that Board's Chair. I have contacted the following: Ms. Elizabeth Walters Mr. Ken Collins Mr. John McKee 1 have been unable to contact Mr. McAllister. Messrs. McKee and Collins are both willing to serve as Chair; Ms. Walters is willing if someone else cannot serve in that capacity. I will continue trying to contact Mr. McAllister. LMPACT: According to General Statutes, the Board of Commissioners must name the Chair to the Board of Equalization and Review; doing so will assure this Board's compliance with the General Statutes. RECOMMENDATION: 'UC1839 cFIAE. COUNTY' J.1-1 BOARD OF actioo �=naa. Item No. g' � ACTION IAGE,:a; aaSTRKT MEETzsC; DATE March 2?. 198; Audit Contract for Year Ending June 30,, l982 Department: County Manager --- Public H=aring: yes X no 'r�r.zmation Contact: Ken Thompson Attachment(s): Yes' PhooeMniDer: 732-8181 ext. 501 PURPOSE: To consider selecting an accounting firm to do the FY 1981-82 audit. NEED: General Statute 159-34 requires each local government to have its accounts audited by an independent auditor after the close of each fiscal year. This way a unit's financial procedures and internal controls can be tested as to accuracy and reliability and whether they are in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The audit concludes with a report that contains financial statements showing the unit's financial position together with the auditor's opinion and comments thereon. There is normally also a management letter which makes suggestions for improving procedures and control. The same statute establishes certain requirements which among others include: 1. The auditors must be selected by and report to the Board. 2. The Board may select any certified public accountant or accountant certified by the Local Government Commission. 3. The audit contract must be in writing, setting out the terms and conditions including the scope of the audit' The audit contract must be submitted to and approved by the secretary of the Local Government Commission. Likewise, the auditor's bills must be submitted for the secretary's approval before they may be paid. On March 2, 1982, requests for proposals for the County's annual audit were submitted to the following firms: 1. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company 2, Thomas, Knight, Trent, King & Company 3. John C. Muse Company 4. Touche Ross & Company All four firms responded promptly with their proposals and met with the Finance Director to discuss the request. I have analyzed the proposals per our criteria set out in our request and that analysis is attached to aid in your selection. IMPACT: Orange County needs to contract with an audit firm that has a demonstrated understanding of the needs of Orange County. The prior experience of the firm and reputation are very important parts of the evaluation process. I believe each of these firms can provide good service to Orange County. The cost effectiveness of the fees when compared to the expected product appears to be the determining factor as evidenced by the attached analysis. RECOMMENDATION: Award contract to Thomas, Knight, Trent, King & Company or Touche Ross & Co, � ` . �j5����<� ~~' � /` 'D` ^ '— -`' --`-- ^~--- ' —' --- - '^ --' -'------'------------'—^-' ANNUAL AUDIT PROPOSAL ANALYSIS 1982 TOUCHE ROSS JOHN C. MUSE PMM TKTK Estimated # of hours 744 900 900 740 Completion date 9/30/82 70/18/82 10/15/82 Approx. 9/30/82 1st year fee (not to exceed) $19,800 $27,000 $29,500 $22,500 2nd year fee (not to exceed) $22,100 $28,600 $30,000 $24,750 Governmental cexperience in Experienced Very Very Ve'y Very local Experienced Experienced Accessibility - location Durham Sanford Greensboro Durham Preliminary field work to begin April May 15 May 10-26 April rouche Ross and TKTK provide the best time table for starting preliminary xozk- They are the most accessible for rendering year round advice an financial ezqc=durzs' Still further they propose the most competitive fee schedule for first and second year work. u0841. F ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1981-82 BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The 1981-82 Budget Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on June 23, 1981, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: INCREASE FUND - ITEM (DECREASE) TOTAL General: Central Services - Insurance $ 7,477. $ 47,477. Contingencies (7,477-) 108,858. (To make funds available for payment of North Carolina Unemployment Insurance. This has historically been a nominal amount and was paid for out of Central Services - Contract Services. Due to a declining job market and adverse economic conditions, the current year charge for state unemployment insurance is unexpectedly high. It is our intent to provide for this in the 1982-83 budget.) Adopted this the day of / , 1982.