Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-15-1983 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. , TUESDAY FEBRUARY 15, 1983 COURTROOM, OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the printed agenda 2. Matters not on the printed agenda C. MINUTES January 18, 1983 D. BOARD DE ISIONS 1. Midland vicious animal complaints 2. Midway Airport--Special Use Permit 3. Nortfiside Contracts 4. Lease for Driver's License Office 5. Housing Program Signature Authorization 6. Addition to State Maintained Road System--Pineview Drive 7. Addition to State Maintained Road System-.-Laine Road 8. Addition to State Maintained Road System--Quail Hollow Driv 9. Executive Session--Legal Matters e E. REPORTS 1. DHR Audit Report 2. Capital Improvements Update 3.. Discussion of SB 51 MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 1983 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 15, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. in the Courtroom of the Old Post Office Building, Chapel Hill , North Carolina. Commissioners present: Richard E. Whitted, Chair, and Commissioners Ben Lloyd, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit. A. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Whitted added Proclamation on School Bus Safety; Commissioner Lloyd added discussion of the Town of Mebane participating in the Orange County Economic Development Commission. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were none. C MINUTES Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve the ,Minutes of January 18, 1983, as corrected and resubmitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. D, BOARD DECISIONS 1. Wild/Vicious Animal Complaints: The County Manager presented a summary of ,a report he had prepared on various aspects of wild animal ordinances (that report its on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board in the agenda folder for the pro- f 1ceedings of this meeting). The Board discussed questions of regulation, enforcement or complete ban on this issue. Mr. Bill Sheffield, Durham attorney, told the Board he recommended that they do as Chatham County did with regard to a wild animal ordinance. Mr. Sheffield further suggested a simple ban on importation of more such animals into the County and raised the question of "grandfathering" existing animals. He said the Board's options are three: I) regulate across the board; 2) prohibit some animals; 3) out and out ban on wild or undomesticated animals, Mr. Stanley Bennett, who lives in Chapel Hill Township, said there were legitimate reasons for some wild/undomesticated animals and that the University of North Carolina zed many of these animals in research, He feels that UNC-CH should be exempted from my such ban or Ordinance. Mr. Tim Greene, Chapel Hill Township, said any such ban would drive the owners of :uch animals "un" :rground." '.lJ i Ms. Lorie Stephenson, Chapel Hill Township resident, referring to the Manager's estimate of $17,000/yr. to regulate wild animals, said "Why should County citizens have to spend this money for the small percentage of people who have these animals?" Ms. Stephenson favors a complete ban on such animals specifying the animals kept as pets, not those used for research purposes. She concluded by saying that these animals are dangerous to people; that you can't put a price/value on a human life. Commissioner Lloyd asked Ms. Stephenson if she would be "comfortable" with regulations concerning the housing standards for such animals? Ms. Stephenson replied standards strict enough to make it "almost impossible" for the animals to escape were still not good enough. She referred to the Manager's report (previously cited) that said people who keep wild animals as pets consider themselves an "elite group." She said why should the County spend money to regulate the animals thereby taking is chance for this "elite" group? ,t Mr. Jack Griffith, owner of a "small, non-domestic cat," is in favor of regulation ,!!not banning. He said it is his a) personal right to own such an animal; while, b) preserving safety for his neighbors. He added that there is a difference between the ;;small, non-domestic cat, which is harmless to humans, and the large non-domestic cat. Additionally, he cited preservation of species as justification for owning such ', creatures. Ms. Eva vonHougvitz, representing APS of Chapel Hill , said her group is "reluctantly" ;supporting a ban on such animals. The reasons are: 1) such animals are potentially idangerous and don't make good pets; 2) the animals' welfare since they are not good pets. Ms. vonHougvitz agreed with Mr. Greene that a ban would probably drive some owners underground but at the same time those who are "lukewarm" on the question of ownership will probably not keep their animals in the face of having to provide more secure cages for such animals. Mr. Michael Bleyman, Chatham County animal breeder, said that preservation of endangered species is one reason for keeping such animals; he does not advocate the keeping of such animals as pets. He said if the County enacted a ban prohibiting the ownership of such animals that those who do keep them will not tell authorities when and if the animals escape. Mr. Bleyman supports a ban on importation of such animals into the County while the Commissioners consider ways of regulation. The Board members discussed regulation, registration fees and penalties for ion-compliance; however, no action was taken on these topics. Commissioner Marshall stated that APS could make recommendations to the Board on the feasibility of a County- wide dog control ordinance and that this issue should not be considered along with wild and exotic animals. She requested the County Attorney to research 1) penalties that could be placed on those who violate an animal control ordinance and 2) the question of "grandfatbering" of any animals already in the County if an ordinance regulating such wild animals is enacted. Commissioner Willhoit moved., seconded by Commissioner Walker, to approve the Manager's recommendation # 8, that is, "The North Carolina General Assembly should be requested to consider more extensive legislation which,will, apply state- wide. An expanded role for the State should be encouraged." Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. It was agreed, by consensus, that this vote was separate from any other action that would be taken. Ccuraissioner Willhoit moved to adopt recommendations # 7 and # 3 excluding the animals at the University of North Carolina used for resPPrch purposes. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Lloyd moved to adopt recommendations # 3 and # 7, that is, "'Wind animals' shall include all species.not traditionally considered domesticated;" `and, "All persons, firms or coporations must register within 45 days all wild animals in their possession with the County. The number, species (Common and bin- name and location of the animals as well as the owner or possessor's name and address should be provided;" the motion continues to exclnclP those animals used by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for resPPrch and/or teaching pur- poses. Ctmmissioner Walker seconded the motion with an amendment, accepted by Commis- sioner Lloyd, that this registration is for information purposes only Vote: Ayes, 3, (Commissioners Lloyd, Walker and Willhoit); noes, 2 (Commissioners Marshall and Wihi.tted). The County Attorney told the Board that this action would have the same effect as an ordinance therefore, it would need to have a second reading at the next regular meeting of the Board (March 7, 1983). firmmissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to rescind the action just taken and to move it in tote substituting 21 days for the 45 days in recommendation • 4 7. Vote: Ayes, 4 (Commissioners Lloyd, Walker, Whitted and Willhoit); noes, 1 (Commissioner Marshall). This will be on the agenda for a second reading on March 7, 1983. Following a ten minute break, the Board resumed deliberations with all members present. D-2 MEDWAY AIRPORT Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director, summarized the request from Midway Airport ieveloper Fred Hazard that some of the conditions placed upon the Class A Special Use 41 )C. Permit granted to Buck Mountain Development be modified. (See page Ii of this book for the abstract attached to and part of these minutes.) Mr. Hazard was present in the absence of his attorney, Mr. Northen; he said he had been unable to obtain the easements for the required approach-departure zone for the runway. He maintained that he would follow FAA requirements for such distances but that this condition was unreasc able. During discussion Mr. Rick Cannity, Planning Staff, was asked where he derived the figure of 5,000 ft. for the approach-departure zone. Mr. Cannity replied that ' FAA did not have standards for private airports, such as Midway is, but that he had gone to FAA guidebooks and based on the figures given for the size of the project, 5000 ft. was the distance recommended for the approach-departure distance. After discussing the issue at length, the Board, by consensus, referred the ' issue to the Planning Board and placed it on the agenda for March 28th for a Public •Hearing; the basis is that it requires a substantial modification of the Special Use ' Permit granted to Midway and citizens should have input into the process. Ms. Crawford, ! former Planning Board Chair, spoke as a private citizen, in favor of having a public *hearing on these condition modifications and deletions requested by Mr. Hazard. • D-3 NORTHSIDE MULTIPURPOSE CENTER RENOVATION • The Manager presented the complete bid results to the Board (those are on pages of this book and are attached to and part of these minutes). While the amount •budgeted for this project is $157,043 the bids came in at $228,665, or $71,621 over that budgeted. (See pageLM of this book for the abstact attached to and part of these *minutes for a summary.) Following discussion of the various alternates outlined by the Manager, Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve °recommendation # 3, that is, to accept the low bids and seek additional funding by *spreading construction over two budget years as permitted by,GS 153A-13. Vote: Ayes, •4 (Commissioners Lloyd, Marshall, Whitted and Willhoit); noes, 1 (Commissioner Walker). • D-4 DRIVERS` LICENSE EXAMINER'S OFFICE SPACE • Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to approve a three year lease agreement with the Town of Carrboro for office space in the basement of °Carrboro Town Hall for the Drivers' License Examiner's Office. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0, • 0-5 SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM • Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to authorize the *Manager as official signatory on HUD form 62663, "Regulation for Partial Payment of *Annual Contributions." Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. a s r �i1 D 6-8 ROAD ADDITONS Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, the approval of the addition of Pineview Drive, Pineview Road, Leine Road and Quail Hollow Drive to the State Secondary Road System. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. D-10 PROCLAMATION Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to proclaim the week of February 20-26 School Bus Safety Week in Orange County. Vote: Ayes, 5; 'noes, O. D-11 MEBANE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPATION Commissioner Lloyd asked the other Board members if they would be willing to 'have a luncheon meeting with Mebane Town Council to discuss Mebane's participation 'in the Orange County Economic Development Commission. There was a consensus that 'Commissioner Lloyd and the County Manager pursue such a meeting. i E- REPORTS 1. AUDIT APPEAL HEARING--Mr. Wallace Harding, Finance Director, told the Board 'that the result of the November 19, 1982, was that the County would recover $52,229 'of previously diallowed costs due to the Department of Social Service's move into the New Human Services Center. (Please see abstract on page G of this book.) • 2. FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM--The Manager presented the revised 'Capital Improvements Program to the Board (please see page of this book attached 'to and part of these minutes). The Board agreed by consensus to accept this as a 'planning document. • 3. SB 51 DISCUSSION--Commissioner Whitted summarized Senator Royall 's bill 'entitled (short) "4% State Sales Tax/No Tax on Food." Commissioner Willhoit noted 'that if the bill passes it would result in about $551,000 for Orange County; he suggested 'that the Board work through its legislators and the North Carolina Association of County 'Commissioners to remove restrictions on how the funds are to be used. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to endorse the 'concept of SB 51 and to relay that information to our legislative delegation. Vote: 'Ayes, 3 (Commissioners Marshall, Whitted, and Willhoit); noes, 2 (Commissioners Lloyd and 'Walker). D-9 EXECUTIVE SESSION--LEGAL MATTERS ' Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to go into executive 'session to discuss legal matters. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Richard E. Whitted, Chair Paulette Pridgen, Clerk �.� MANGE COt3'3 Y BOARD OF Ca:•?LISSIONERS Action A ender Item Mo. b- 1 ACTIUM AGENDA lir.a ABSTRACT Mht.2ING DATE February 15, 19 83 Subject: Complaints as to Wild and Vicious Animals Depe.: feat: Planning & Count Mana.er Publirl Hearing: yes x f t Attackuttent(s) ; r inforrnatic' CcuitaGt% Planning Director 732-8181 Extension 349 Phan°. n-I r: Manager Extension 501 PURPoSE: To consider a staff report concerning a proposed policy regarding the keeping of such animals in the county. NEED: At its January 18, 1983 meeting, the Board of Commissioners heard comments from the staff and various citizens regarding whether to regulate or ban the keening of wild animals in the county. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Board instructed the staff to prepare a report addressing the fiscal and impacts of regulating wild animals in Orange County. AC, : The report will assist the County Commissioners in deciding upon a policy to follow with regard to the regulation of wild animals. The report will be presented at the meeting. .= 12 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is recommended that the County place a ban in effect in 120 days. 2. The ban would prohibit the keeping of wild animals by any person, firm or corporation, except recognized animal dealers, transporters, exhibitors (zoos), researchers and authorized animal rehabilitation programs, and would allow time for relocation of animals affected by the ban. 3. "Wild animals" shall include all species not traditionally considered domesticated. 4. "Recognized" shall include the following criteria for assessing the legitimacy of a program. a. Proof of the long-term nature of the program. The affected party must show that the program has financial stability and that the program and facilities will be maintained. b. Professional expertise. The party must be familiar with the species of animal in question, conversant with pertinent scientific literature and able to demonstrate a successful program. The party must be able to successfully submit his expertise to peer review. c. Adequate facilities. The party must provide facilities responsive to the species of animal involved. The facilities should be able to pass professional review. d. Appropriate care program. The party must be able to specify, , maintain and support an appropriate program of annual and daily care. 5. Within the 120-day grace period, a further exception will consider involving the keeping of smaller wild animals such serbals, caracels, and lesser pandas. If regulations for these animals are established, owners or possessors must show proof of the non-dangerous nature of the animals and must agree to abide with County standards for enclosures. 6. Within the 120-day period, a moratorium would exist, preventing any person, firm or corporation from bringing additional wild animals into the County and from transferring ownership or possession of a wild animal to another person, firm or corporation within the County. 7. All persons, firms or corporations must register within 15-days all wild animals in their possession with the County. The number, species (common and biological) name and location of the animals, as well as the owner or possessors name and address should be provided. 8. The North Carolina General Assembly should be requested to consider more extensive legislation which will apply statewide. An expanded role for the State should be encouraged. ae.) * c) .Y/Y/T5 Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange C. Court House E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Subject: Proposals to Ban or Regulate Ownership of Wild Animals Gentlemen: I would tike to explain who I am and why I make the demand of writing a long letter. I am an animal geneticist working at Duke University and I have been an Orange County resident for 9 years and a homeowner for the last 5 years. I am also a current NC Humane Federation and US Humane Society member and for 3 years worked as a cruelty investigator for the Orange Co. Animal Protection S ciety. I am vitally concerned with animal welfare. My main interest is in local, state and federal legislation which will allow all legitimate u es of animals (for companionship, research, food and farm uses, exhibition, nd as pets, etc.) while providing flexible and potent provisions for prosecuting inhumane practices in all of those areas. My wife nd I own several dogs but no pets described as exotic. I have made an effort to get to know all of the people in Orange, Durham, and Chatham counties who keep large carnivores as pets. I have managed to meet many of them and see the conditions their animals are housed in. Speaking only of Orange county: I know Ms. Lynn Moredock, Mr. Bill Lindsey, Drs. Paul Modrich and Vickers Biurdette, and Mr. Tim Green. I have s en Ms. Moredocks facilties and those of Drs. Modrich and Burdette. They are hum ne, secure and safe. Ms. Moredock owns one jaguar and Modrich and Burdette wn one serval . I have not seen Mr. Linc-iseys enclosure but I Understand that it is larger tha minimum standards and secure. He owns one cougar. I have me Mr. Green several times but I have not visited his premises. I understand that he owns I. or 2 tigers,several leopards, and 4 brown bears. There may be other large carnivore owners in Orange Co. but they are not well known an do not seem to give their neighbors reason to present petitions. This Is My Main Point: Only a small number (probably less than half-a- dozen) of people would be affected by a total ban on wild animals in Orange Co. All of t ese people are probably rather eccentric but most of them have built a human and safe enclosure for their potentially dangerous pet and do not move that animal around at all . (As one board member correctly pointed out during th 18th meeting, the main danger of accident and escape occurs the process o moving animals from one enclosure to another. ) Mr. Green on the other hand,owns several potentially dangerous pets, and according to his statements and those of several others who spoke at We- Jan. 18th meeting, he seems to move them around a lot. Did I hear him mention bears on leashes? Did Mr. Green actually say that he had carried his tiger aro nd town? Which town? How? (In What?) Mr. Green has had at least one escape and Modrich, Burdette, Moredock and Lindsey have had no escapes. This is a matter of public record. { One can almost define harmless eccentrics and dangerous eccentrics by whether they keep one or more-than-one dangerous carnivore pet. Essential) Facts: 1) Lions, Tigers, Bears (and Leopards and Jaguars) are dangerous pets 2) Dangerous pets can, with sufficient care, effort and expense, be kept in residential areas. 3a) Some very few people in Orange County keep dangerous pets safely and humanely. 3b) Some, even fewer, people to not have a good record with safety. Your problem is how to assure the safety and peace-of-mind of many Orange County votors of child-bearing age, and How to avoid needlessly restricting fiche civil rights of a few taxpaying eccentrics who like to keep dangerous pets and most of whom house that pet safely and humanely. I would rge you to find some way to address any specific danger found at Mr. Green's remises by referring the problem to several organizations charged with enforci g several different kinds of regulations. For example: The U.S. Department of the Interior - Endangered species specialists U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Safety of cages N.C. Fish and Wildlife NC Humane Federation - Humane housing for Animals State and County ordinances on Maintaining a Public Nuisance Many ind'viduals who spoke at the Jan. 18th meeting of the Commissioners tried to distract you with discussions of endangered species and philosophical questions of whether animals should ever be kept in cages. These are, of course, irrelevant. Pictures of cute pets and cages are also irrelevant. Orange County has no need to pass any legislation on Wild Animals to ensure the safety of its citizens, we need only make sure that existing laws are appropriately enforced. Thank yoL very much for your attention. Sincerely yours, 1c r Alhhhirle‘ Alan C. Whitmore Rt. 11, Box 264 (new) Rt. 4, Box 663 (old) Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 cc: Orange 'County Planning Dept., Attn. Marvin Collins J _ I WILD, NON.-IOMESTIC ANIMAL ISSUE PAPER TOPICAL OUTLINE Incidents involving the escape of wild, non-domestic animals have raised concerns in Orange and adjacent counties that steps be taken to reduce or elimi- nate the potential danger to persons or property by these animals. On January 18, 1983, the Orange County Board of Commissioners considered the com- plaints of citizens as well as statements by the owners of wild animals and instructed the County Manager to prepare a report on the fiscal and enforcement implications of regulating such animals. Meetings were held February 1 and 11 to identify issues involved in regula- tion and prohibition approaches. -The first was with representatives from the N. C. Zoo, the N. C. Wildlife Commission, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, the N. C. Museum of Life & Sciences, the Humane Society of the U. S., the Animal Protection Society of Orange County, and the Animal Control Division. . The second was with William Sheffield, attorney representing pet owners and Dr. Michael Blyman and Mr. Sonny Yates, persons interested in animal preservation. This repot will outline what was learned from these meetings and from other inquiries made by staff. The information will be presented as a summary of testi- mony and findings as relate to six issues or questions. I. WHAT PROBLEMS ARE PROPOSED BY THE KEEPING OF WILD ANIMALS IN THE COUNTY? A. There his a confirmable danger to the owners and keepers and to the surrounding citizens who may come in contact with an escaped animal . 1. Nile not quantifiable, numerous newspaper accounts have been ecorded of individuals being injured and killed by pets such s lions, cheetahs, boa constrictors and pythons. One incident . involved a small 20 pound Capuchin monkey which attacked and killed a boy, age 4, whose father had purchased the pet three months earlier. 2. everal books have been written by experts attempting to rate the danger and potential to be dangerous that each animal xhibits by nature. There are variations in behavior, however, depending upon such factors as sex, age, level of activity, presence of other animals, procreation pattern, exposure to ;humans, type of care, amount of stalking space, etc. 3. any species, when forced to live in poorly designed captive conditions such as a cage that is too small or a cage in some- one's living room or basement, eventually develop aberrant behaviors that are not representative of that animal in the wild and may pose risks to the owner. 4. Some unusual and dangerous species are related as untrainable, untamable, difficult to keep alive in captivity. Nonetheless they remain popular to a segment of the public which stresses that a wild or exotic pet will bring much private and public reward. Roger Cares, a pet authority stated in an article of GEO Magazine. "Exotic pet owners see themselves as part of 1-5 ETite; a group of select people able to spend the money, run the risks, help educate the public, save a species, contribute in some unique way." -2- B. Danger exists for the animals when they are not allowed to live according to their natural habitat, inclinations and diet. This can lead tb unintended or intended animal abuse. 1 . As distinguished from legitimate zoos, research and breeding institutions, most owners are inexperienced with care, feed- ing and management of animals. They look on them as pets which anyone with sensibility and sensitivity can success- 'ully raise. In fact the expertise, time, training, equip- ment and cost-commitment is substantial. Examples are num- erous of owner disenchantment when the animals go through behavioral changes, grow larger, show nutritional problems. tine case referenced was an owner with a pet cheetah. She (ad fed the animal a diet of red meat, not realizing that the cat needed massive supplements of vitamins and minerals. 2. ?articular problems arise when they are kept in private homes as the environment is unnatural and difficult to make secure. The following organizations condemn such keeping: The American ''eterinary Medical Association, The Center for Disease Control of the U.S. Public Health Service, and the American, Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. C. There are often nuisance factors associated. 1. Noise from growling is sometime a problem with large cats. 2. Unless proper sanitary standards are adopted and enforced, Bealth problems may result. 3. People living near sites where wild animals are kept often live in fear of an escape and possible injury. II. WHERE MIGHT COUNTY ACTION BE FOCUSED WHEN FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES ARE CHARGED WITH WILD ANIMAL CONTROL AND PROTECTION? A. To ansJrer this one must understand the role, strengths and limitations under which existing regulatory agencies operate and make a determina- tion of what a county should do to foster greater activity by these agencies or have the County fill gaps in regulation and service delivery. 1 . Regulation of the N. C. Wildlife Commission do not apply as they cover indigenous species; i.e. animals native to North Carolina. 'This is not to say the scope of the Commission's charge could not be broadened as at least one other State's Wildlife Commis- iion (Florida) oversees wild non-domestic as well as indigenous animals. 2. `the U. S. Department of Interior concerns itself with replenish- ing animals threatened with extinction. 3. lihe U. S. Department of Agriculture regulates interstate move- ment of wild animals as well as the facilities in which animals are held by dealers, exhibitors, transporters and researchers. its licensing, registration and inspections program does not aipply to wild animals kept as pets. To circumvent federal enforcement one need only claim that one's animals are not ept for sale, exhibit or research. Moreover, were an owner o fall under the regulation there is admission by the agency that response to complaints is slow and that action for non- dompliance is hard to prove and time-consuming. -3- B. In the absence of further State law, the County could act to ban or regulate wild, non-domestic animals kept as pets. This would not overlap with State and Federal regulations unless the County sought to regulate dealers, transporters, researchers and exhibitors. Alternatives are to do nothing or press for the N. C. Wildlife Commis4ion or the USDA to expand its scope to cover supposed pets. III. SEVERAL PROBLEMS ARE INHERENT IN TAKING ACTION, AMONG WHICH INCLUDE DIFFERING ANIMAL CLASSIFICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT CONSIDERATIONS A. "Classification" and "Definition" must be addressed in order to deter- mine what to regulate. 1. Definitions- are numerous, but give guidance. a. "Wild" animals - All species of animals not traditionally considered domesticated b. "Tame" animals - Wild animals that can be handled by human beings but which are not domesticated c. "Exotic" animals - All species of animals not naturally occurring either presently or historically in any ecosystem in the United States. d. "Domesticated" animals - Animals which have been carefully bred over a long period of time with genetically more pre- dictable results for easy handling by human beings; i.e. , more subject to control . Farm animals would be included under this category. e. "Indigenous" animals - All species of animals naturally occurring either presently or historically in any ecosystem in the United States. f. "Nonindigenous" animals - See "exotic" animals. g. "Vicious" animals - All species of animals inclined or trained to be savage or dangerous, including domesticated and undomes- ticated animals. h. "Feral" animals •- Wild animals which have been tamed then returned to the wild. i. "Undomesticated" animals - See "Wild" animals. 2. Some link should be made to G.S. 153A-131 which authorizes counties to restrict or regulate "wild` and/or "dangerous" animals. 3. Classification of animals and regulation thereby poses some legal problems. a. Classifications can be "too ambiguous" or "too specific". b. "Equal protection" must exist so that similar animals will be treated similiarly. The problem is in identifying which animals are similar. c. "Delegation of powers" could result from classifications which are vague. Interpretation is delegated to adminis- trative personnel . d. Classification can occur by type of animals, by size and by habitant locality. Classification by type of animal ; i.e. , lion, tiger, leopard, bear, etc., is possible but most, if not all , will fall in general category of "wild" or "undomesticated" animals. Classification by size is diffi- cult for decision required as to cut-off point; i .e. , 200 lbs. or 400 lbs. Smaller animals may be "wild" and may pose just as great a problem as large animals. The size does not accurately reflect the degree of predictability. Classifi- cation by degree of danger to human life may have some -4- potential but specificity is still a hinderance. Large cats and bears, primates and venomous reptiles could be banned, and smaller cats and bears (lesser pandas) could be allowed but regulated. The problem, though, is still how to confirm which animals are generally equivalent to domesticated animals; i.e. , have a high degree of behavior predictability and low degree of danger. Classification by habi tant,local i ty offers limited benefits. 4. An ordinance distinguishing beteen "wild" or "undomesticated" and 'domesticated" animals offers a solution, for it focuses on a central issue; i.e. , the degree of predictability and control and, in turn, the potential for danger. B. Enforcement difficulties must be considered if the County is to assume a role in wild animal control . 1 . -here are no precedents for regulations. Bits and pieces of good ordinances exist in some states and some counties, but no Overall model exists to provide guidance. 2. Keeping of animals in homes is most serious problem, but standards for separate enclosure poses a problem as well. . a. The primary purpose for enclosures is to protect the general public and provide suitable, safe, restricted environment. Unless constructed properly, the likelihood of escape is greater. b. The cost of enclosures is high ($1 ,50042,000 for a large cat) and standards vary almost as greatly as the number of animal species. The American Humane Association has published standards for 62 different enclosures. Enclosures should provide for primary and secondary contain- ment. Primary containment involves the area where the animal is actually housed, whereas the secondary area contains the animal if it escapes from the primary enclosure. c. Specifications for enclosures must address materials, space requirements, ventilation, water disposal , lighting, shelter from inclement weather, social separation, drainage, pest control , temporary refuge, locomotion patterns and claw con- ditioning. This wide array of specifications, the variety of standards and the lack of consensus on proper standards would make it difficult for Inspections personnel to enforce. d. Separate specifications must be prepared for animals kept in homes. The home thus becomes the primary enclosure and must be adapted for this purpose through securing windows and doors. Entrances must be secured through the provision of an air lock to limit direct access to the exterior of the building. A secondary enclosure surrounding the home would also be advisable in the event the animal escapes from the home. 3. en if an enforcement capability -is desired, the availability of E gaining for personnel is limited. a. According to N. C. Zoo officials, there are no training programs offered in the field of wild animal care and handling. The problem is providing adequate training when the program would have to cover so many varieties of animals, and no one knows which animals an inspector will have to deal with. _55,. b. Most training has resulted from people working on the job with personnel at zoos. For the county to enforce an animal control program effectively, this may mean hiring a zoo employee or paying a retainer for their assistance. 4. ¶'ersonnel are needed not only for field work but to handle the tiaperwork associated with a wild animal control effort. a. An animal census would have to be taken to determine the extent of ownership/possession in the county. This, as well as an on-going licensing/regulation effort would require a record keeping/maintenance responsibility. b. The approval procedures would require the involvement of personnel from several departments. This could involve the Manager's, Planning, Health and Sheriff's Departments as well as the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners , depending on the degree and complexity of the enforcement effort. 5. Other aspects of the enforcement issue cover practical as well as legal difficulties. a. Particularly important are the legal ramifications of an enforcement effort if an animal escapes. Who is liable? The owner? The County? Both parties? b. A practical problem too is the ability to carry out or assist in search and recovery efforts. The county is not equipped or trained to perform this function, and it is compounded by the varieties of equipment needed to effectively carry it out. There is no one place to go to purchase such equipment and, as the animal species are so varied, so would be the equipment needed to handle or subdue them. c. Other practical problems involves the care of the animals in the event of the owners death or lack of interest in the animal ; and the problem of notifying surrounding owners in the event an animal is allowed in a particular location. Requirements would have to be established defining who would be responsible for the animal if the owner died or wished to get rid of it. Continued care is a problem,for zoos are unwilling to accept animals when they know little of the breeding lines, health and behavior characteristics. A holding capability established by the County would require expenditures for animal enclosures, equipment, food, etc. Assistance from State agencies or other animal avenues would have to be sought. Notification of property owners is more of a technical problem but offers a real dilemma as far as where to draw the line. Should notification be required within 500 feet, a mile, five miles or where? Whose responsibility is it to notify surround- ing owners? IV. A FOURTH AREA FOR CONSIDERATION IS THAT OF ENFORCEMENT COST AND HOW THOSE COSTS MIGHT BE RECOVERED. A. Costs 1 . (Tittle or no cost would be entailed in enforcing a ban. Investigation of animal complaints would be through the Sheriff's Office utilizing existing personnel and procedure to take action on ordinance viola- tion as a misdemeanor offense. -6- 2. Installing a limited regulatory capacity would, on the other hand, require new County expenditure to an annual amount estimated at $17,000. This would pay mileage, training materials and part-time Salaries for an animal control officer to do licensing and inspect animal conditions; a building inspector to make sure cages are wilt as required; clerical support for processing permits; recep- ionist time for handling requests for information and complaints; and some administrative time for policy generation, coordination and making sure standards are enforced. B. Cost Recovery 1. Abasic principle of North Carolina Law, though not tested in the case of wild animal enforcement, is that a jurisdiction may charge Fees for the costs incurred for permits, licenses, and possibly the initial inspection. According to David Lawrence of the Institute Of Government it would stretching that principle to expect that licensing and inspection fees could be on a level to recover full operating costs. 2. Mere the special use permit process used, bonding and some of the el level of liability insurance could be made a condition of approval structure to ensure safe operation. 3. General Statutes permit civil and criminal penalties and even injunctive relief for violation of a regulatory ordinance. V. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING,THE MAJOR QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IS WHAT THE COUNTY ROLE SHOULD BE--WHETHER TO BAN OR REGULATE THE KEEPING OF WILD AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS A. Ban Approach Advantages 1. Risk to the public of animals escaping and doing human injury would be all but eliminated. In a highly populated County like Orange such concern for public safety has to be higher than would be 4tarranted in counties where population is more dispersed. 2. A ban would prevent the spread of the animals through pet prolif- eration or uncontrolled breeding practice. 3. It would avoid having to develop a regulatory capacity which would be both time-consuming, complex and costly. The expenditure of funds for strengthening existing animal control ordinances would seem a more legitimate use of public funds than supporting a program t,hich would allow a fairly limited segment of the population to benefit by keeping these animals. 4. ,4 ban is easier to administer as there is greater public understand- ing of what constitutes a violation. 5. Representatives from knowledgeable agencies (N. C. Wildlife, NSDA, N. C. Zoo, Museum of Life and Science, local and national humane ociety) all recommended that the County institute a ban rather than try to develop added regulatory capacity. From literature references it is known others are against wild animal being kept as pets. These include the American Veterinary Medical Association, Ehe U. S. Center for Disease Control , and the American Association tor Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Disadvantages 1. To ban would be to restrict what some pet owners count as private privilege and a public benefit. It`s private in the sense of the satisfaction that is derived and a public good in fact that breeding Permits offspring to be produced. -7- 2. Feeling has been expressed that government has no right to interfere with animals kept as pets. There is even the threat y some owners to not cooperate with a ban but to instead hide heir possession. 3. Iardship would result if the owners were not allowed time to relocate the animals. Some testimony was given that even with adequate time there would be problems in.making transfers as Many of the animals do not come from quality breeding stock. B. Regulation Approach Adva tapes I. This too would enable safeguard of the public. 2. It has the support of animal owners even to complying with licensing, registration and inspections. 3. Ample legal basis exists. Disadvantages 1. There are many levels of regulation that could be mounted with dif- ering costs. If either the Chatham or Craven County Ordinances Were adopted, cost would be higher than the $17,000 or County enforce- ment would overlap with State and Federal enforcement. 2. regulation of wild animals is not a traditional County function nor is it one which counties should be expected to perform since the expertise required is so high relative to the number of animals to be regulated in any one jurisdiction. 3. There are no good model ordinances to go by. 4. Since Orange County's chief problem relates to animals being kept in homes lying in highly populated areas, it could take a adminis- trative warrant to carry out an inspection. 5. The cost to modify a home to meet requirements would be prohibitive to most if not all owners. 6. Tjt would take time to develop the ordinance and staff capability for implementation. 7. Municipalities would need to follow the County in adopting ordinances for all Orange County citizens to be protected. County of Craven County Manager Henry E. Dick i T 1 L2 February 11, 1983 Commissioner Richard Whitted Orange County c/o Orange Co9ty Courthouse 106 Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 28278 Dear Richard: t Please find enclosed a copy of the ordinance regulating wild animals in Craven County. As you will see, we adopted this ordinance on the 7th day of September 1982. This was our second stab at such an ordinance and this one contains provisions to 411ow the North Carolina Wildlife Commission and its officers Ito:enforce the ordinance as well as County personnel. I would suggest that you strongly consider this same type of language in your ordinance in that it provides you with experienced enforce- ment individuals. If we can be of further service please .let us know„ T remain, Sincerely, Henry E. Dick County Manager HSD•:a l f Enclosure Post Office Box 1425 i 405 Middle Street New Bern, NC 28.560 (919)637.3338 • .4/00, A ,t1t) 00 'LI, c ORDINANCE REGULATING WILD ANIMALS IN CRAVEN COUNTY ARTICLE General 1 .1 NEED FOR ORDINANCE. Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Craven County finds and determines that certain residents of said county have possessed and harbored wild and dangerous animals, as hereinafter defined, in and about their premises; or on the premises of others; that such animals have not been properly secured by their owners or keepers, that such animals could cause personal injury and property damage while unsecured; and are dangerous to the general public, that such animals are inherently incapable of being domesticated; that such animals have not been properly cared for in accordance with accepted standards for such animals; and that possessing and harboring of such animals without regulation is dangerous to persons and property in Craven County and to the welfare of such animals. NOW, THEREFORE, to regulate the possession and harboring of wild and dangerous animals, as hereinafter defined, and to abate the aforesaid dangers, the Board of County Commissioners does hereby ordain, establish and promulgate the following provisions: 1 . 2 CONFLICT WITH GENERAL STATUTES. No provision of this dinance shall be construed or applied in conflict with the provisions of North Carolina General, Statutes pertaining to the regulation of wildlife and wildlife resources . 1 .3 DEFINITIONS . a- Wild and Dangerous Animals: The term "wild and dangerous animals" shall include but not be limited to animals of the cat, bear, wolf family, including but not limited to mountain lion, cougar, puma, catamount, panther and lions and other members of the cat family, which normally are born and live in a wild habitat, even though such species may be raised and kept in captivity b. Possessing: The term "possessing" shall mean the keeping and maintaining of a wild and dangerous animal by and on the premises of the owner of the animal . c. Harboring: The term "harboring" shall mean the keeping and maintaining of a wild and dangerous animal by and on the premises of a bailee, volunteer, or other person not the owner of the animal.. d. Cage! The term "cage" shall mean an enclosure containing at least the minimum square feet or floor space as required by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Regulation, which are adopted and incorporated herein by reference, which cage shall be constructed of bars or wire mesh of adequate strength, or equivalent material, which secures all sides, top, and bottom from entry or egress . The bottom of said cage shall be constructed of at least 3 inches of concete or of solid steel at least 3/8 inches thick. The said cage shall be constructed so as to have a common roof and a common floor with the outer fence hereinafter required. e . Running at Large: The term "running at large" shall mean the act or state of being outside of the enclosure system required by this Ordinance, except when removal from such enclosure is necessary to provide veterinary care or to transport the animal to another place of permanent confinement and the animal is secured in a temporary cage or is securely bound and adequately sedated so that such removal provides no chance for the animal to escape and endanger the public. 2 ARTICLE II POSSESSING AND HARBORING WILD AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS REGULATED 2 . 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR KEEPING WILD AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS . It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or harbor a wild and dangerous animal in Craven County unless the following conditions are met: a. The owner has provided a double enclosure system for confining the animal, the inner enclosure being a cage as herein defined, and the outer enclosure being a fence which secures all sides top and bottom from entry and egress constructed out of metal no less than 11 1/2 gauge. Each enclosure shall have a separate individual entrance gate and be so constructed that the outer fence is no closer than one (1) foot to the inner cage at any point. Both enclosures shall possess a common roof and common floor. Said enclosures shall meet at least the minimum specifications and requirements of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission except where the requirements provide herein are greater, in which case the greater requirements shall be meet. b. Adequate safeguards are provided to prevent the unauthorized access to such animal by members of the public and said enclosures shall be kept securely locked. c. The enclosure in which such animal is kept or confined is adequately lighted and ventilated and is so constructed that it may be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and that the health or well- being of the animal is not otherwise endangered by the manner of confinement. d. The manner of keeping the animal will not create or cause offensive odors or constitute a danger to the public health. 3 e. The possession or harboring of the animal is not in violation of any local, state or federal regulations other than this Ordinance. ARTICLE III WILD AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE 3 .1 RUNNING AT LARGE PROHIBITED. It shall be unlawful for any person possessing or harboring a wild and dangerous animal to allow, intentionally or negligently, such animal to run at large. 3 . 2 1 APPREHENSION OF ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE. Any wild and dangerous animal rune ng at large shall be apprehended by officers of the County Animal Control Department, County Dog Warden or by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and be confined in a suitable place at the direction of such department. 3 .3 DESTRUCTION OF ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE. Any wild and dangerous animal running at large may be destroyed by officers of the County Animal Control Department, County Dog Warden, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission or by any law enforcement officers, if in the opinion of such officers on the scene the animal presents a clear and immediate danger to human life, or if the animal cannot be apprehended and is fleeing the scene, or, if it appears that the animal cannot be apprehended without endangering human life or inhumanely causing the suffering to the animal . ARTICLE IV ENFORCEMENT 4. 1 • RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT. It shall be the responsibility of the County Animal Control Department or the County Dog Warden or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance . Such assignment shall not preclude 4 mignammi r enforcement of this Ordinance by law enforcement. agencies within the jurisdiction in the areas of Craven County to which this Ordinance applies including the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, provided said commission adopts a resolution accepting the duties of enforcement. 4.2 INSPECTIONS. The County Animal Control Department, County Dog Warden or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission shall make inspections of the enclosure specified in this Ordinance as follows: a. Initial Inspection: An initial inspection of the enclosure specified in the Ordinance shall be made to determine that the enclosure conforms to the design and location specified in the Ordinance. b. Follow-up Inspection: The County Animal Control Department, County Dog Warden or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission shall inspect the enclosure specified in the Ordinance at least once during the period January 1 through June 30 and once during the period July 1 through December of each year. No such follow-up inspections shall be required during any such 6-month period in which the initial inspection was made. 4.:3 INSPECTION FEE. Every person possessing or harboring a wild and dangerous animal, whose premises are inspected by the County Animal Control Department, County Dog Warden or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, if such charge is assessed, as provided in this Ordinance, shall pay the county a fee of $10 .00 per inspection regardless of the number of wild and dangerous animals so possessed or harbored. 4 .4 INVESTIGATIONS . The County Animal Control Department, County Dog Warden or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission shall, investigate any complaints that a wild and dangerous animal is possessed or harbored in 5 Craven County in violation of this Ordinance to determine whether or not a violation has occurred. Nothing in this SECTION shall be construed to free the investigating officer from any requirement for a search warrant under state or federal law. 4.5 PENALTIES : a. Criminal Offense: A violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in North Carolina General Statute, Section 14-4. Each day' s continuing violation shall constitute a separate offense. b, Civil Penalty: Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $100.00. No penalty shall be assessed until the person alleged to be in violation has been notified of the existence and nature of the violation. Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation. The Craven County Board of Commissioners shall determine the amount of the civil penalty or set a schedule of penalties to be assessed hereunder and shall make or cause to be made a written demand for payment to be served upon the person in violation; which shall set forth in detail a description of the violation for which the penalty has been imposed. In determining the amount of the penalty, the Board of Commissioners shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation and the cost of rectifying the damage. If payment is not received or equitable settlement reached within 60 days after demand for payment is made, the matter shall be referred to the County Attorney for institution of a civil action in the name of the County of Craven in the appropriate division of the general court of justice for recovery of the penalty. Any sums recovered shall be used to carry out the purposes and requirements of this Ordinance. 6 r 1 • / if c. Injunctive Relief: (1) Whenever the County Animal Control Department, County Dog Warden or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has cause to believe that any person is violating or threatening to violate this Ordinance, it may, either before or after the institution of any other action or proceeding authorized by this Ordinance, institute a civil action in the name of the County of Craven for injunctive relief to restrain the violation or threatened violation. The action shall be brought in the Superior Court of Craven County. (2 ) Upon determination by a court that an alleged violation is occurring or is threatened, it shall enter such orders or judgments as are necessary to abate the violation or to prevent the threatened violation. The institution of any action for injunctive relief under this SECTION shall not relieve any civil or criminal penalty prescribed for violations of this Ordinance. d. Nothing in this Ordinance shall restrict any right which any person or class of persons may have under any statute or common law to seek injunctive or other relief. 5. 1 Nothing herein shall apply to prevent any circus or menagerie permitted in Craven County for a period of no longer than seven (7) days, by proper authority, from possessing animals and conducting its business. 5 .2 SEVERABILITY, If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is declared to be invalid, such invalidity shall not effect other provisions or applications or the Ordinance which can be given effect without 7 ' // the invalid provision of application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable. 5 ,3 EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance sh 11 become effective on and after the 7 day of September, 1982 . Adopted the day of September, 1982 . CRAVEN COUNTY ATTEST: / r Itz ,J71 ft . ri5 -p-‘< k 7,2 CLERIC, TYLER B i HARRIS SIDNEY R. :"ENCH, CHAIRMAN CRAVEN Cq NTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 8 CRA: E CCUNT BOARD OF CCk 1TSSIQ'J S Action Agenda Item No.� =LNG DATE abruary 15, 1gR1 Subject: Special Use Permit -- Midway Airport Depacua_t_ Planning Public Hearing: Yes x At' u .Zt(s): l/28/B3 fitter of John In! oL,.w.tiCn Contact: M c: arvin Collins A. Northern and 10/5/82 Letter of Rick Cannity g} Num r: 732-8181 Extension 349 PURPOSE: To reconsicIar the conditions set forth in connection with the Midway Airport Special Use Permit. NEED: Can September 7, 1982, the Board of Caranissioners approved a special use permit for a general aviation airport for the Buck Mountain Development Company. Approval was granted subject to those conditions listed in the 10/5/82 letter of Rick Cannity. Mr. John A. Northern, representing Buck Mountain Development Co., has requested that the Board of Commissioners modify the conditions as follows: 42 - Reduce the required approach-departure zone distance from 5,000 feet to 1,000-1,500 feet due to inability to obtain easements to control structure height. 43 -- Allow a greaf-er number of accessory uses; i.e., snack bar or restaurant, aircraft sales office, etc., than shown on the site plan and descr*ld in the project narrative. #4 - Delete the requirement of providing an access road from the airport to Teer Road to provide reduced response time for fire protection personnel. - Delete the regpireuent of limiting flight training operations to 50% of total operations, allowing flight training as demand exists. IMPACT: Orange County's role has been that of a permit agency, reviewing and approving plans for the development of public/private airports. It has not attempted to assist such developments through "hazard" zoning to control noise, structure height, etc., nor has it attempted the acquisition and development of a public airport. It has provided a review function rather than intervening directly in such a development. One implication of modifying the conditions might be to alter the County's role and increase its involvement in airport development. Specifically, a reduction in the approach-departure zone would leave the County with two (2) alternatives: (1) To leave approximately 3,500 feet of the approach-departure zone unprotected from the standpoint of height restrictions and crash potential. (2) To implement zoning regulations surrounding the airport to restrict structure height in the approach-departure zone and to limit development due to excessive noise levels and crash potential. In the latter case, the County wot'1d become more involved in airport zoning„ a role which heretofore it has rejected. • Deletion of the 50% limitation on f1 i ght training may increase the number of "touch and go" Fessesmade to practice landing manueve.rs. An increase in noise would occur and create a nuisance problem. Uses permitted at the airport under the special use permit were those identi- fied and requested by the developer in the project narrative and those shown an the site plan. An alteration of the allowable uses would probably require another public hearing too formally amend the approved permit. Deletion of the access road regtaxt would result in increased response time for fire protection purposes. The necessity of such access, however, was greater for protection of the initial airport proposal; i.e. an airpark, inclir ing the airport as well as offices and warehouses. The County Attorney will provide information relative to whether another public hearing will be required on all or some of the requested modifications. It has been the County's policy not to take a direct interest in the develop- ment of airport far5litaes, either through specific regulations such as air- port hazard zoning, or through construction of a public facility. It has assumed the role of "permitting authcFrity", establishing through the special use permit procedure neressary safeguards to secure the public health, safety and. welfare. For this reason, condition #2 should stand, making it ant upon the appli- cant to secure necessary easenents for control of the approach-departure zone. Condition 07 should stand as well, pending development of the airport and the establishment of records as to demand for flight training. If the demand does not exceed the established limit, there is no need for modification of the condition. Condition 03 should, stand, pending the submission of a list of specific uses desired at the airport feri lity. These uses should be noted as well on the site plan. Condition #4 should stand, pending a re-evaluation of the access problem by fire/rescue personnel. As noted previously, any changes are subject to the County Attorney's opinion regarding the need for another public hearing. NORTHEN, LITTLE & BAGWELL ATTORNEYS AT LA' ' 431 W FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL. N C. :2514 P 0 BOX 21 JOHN A NC)RTHEN 1 ANDERSON LITTLE 1919) 942-415 (0. KENNETH BAGWELL JR. 19191 942 852, CHARLES H THIBAUT January 28, 1983 Mr. Richard Whitted, Chairman Orange County Commissioners Orange County Court Rouse Hillsborough, NC 27278 re: Midway Airport Buck Mountain Development Co. Dear Mr. Whitted: By letter dated October 5, 1982, the Orange County Planning Department notified us of the specific conditions which will become a part of a Special Use Permit for Midway Airport. Upon receipt of this letter, we reviewed the conditions with the members of the Buck Mountain Development Company, and made inquiries to the adjacent land owners concerning the availability of over-flight easements as required by these conditions. At this point, and for the reasons set forth below, we now formally petition the Orange County Commissioners to reconsider the conditions set forth in the letter dated October 5, 1982, in connection with the Midway Airport Special. Use Permit, and modify certain of those conditions as indicated below:` 1. The first imposed condition provides that jet aircraft are not permitted at the facility, and that the owners shall notify the Department of Commerce of this restriction. This condition is generally in accord with our application, and we have no objection to it. 2. The second condition requires us to own or control the height of objects in the approach-departure zone as sketched in the letter, which begins 200 feet from the end of the runway, and extends a distance of 5,000 feet, fanning to a width of 2,000 feet. We have contacted the owners of all the property located within the approach-departure zone as indicated on both ends of the runway, and with very few exceptions have been refused such easements by the property owners. In order to meet this condition, we would have to have the voluntary consent of the owners of the property, giving us a written, recordable easement or right-of-way to come onto their property and limit the height of any objects thereon, whether the objects be natural or man-made. Without the consent and approval of the landowners, we are completely unable to comply with this provision, through no fault of our own, and we do not have the power of eminent domain to force such compliance. 2,36 • Mr. Richard Whitted Page 2 At the present time, we own or control sufficient land to provide an approach--departure zone of between 1,000 and 1,500 feet on either end of the runway, but no more. We ask the County Commissioners to reduce the requirements set forth in Condition 2 to cover an approach-departure zone. of 1,000 feet from each end of the runway, or in the alternative no more than 1,500 from either end of the runway. At a distance of 1,500 feet from the runway, objects could be no higher than 75 feet, and we believe this would be substantial compliance with the intent of the ordinance to provide adequate safety measures for the use of the airport, As the airport is being built in a residential and agricultural zone, we do not envision that any structures will be built to a height greater than 75 feet, and would therefore pose no problem to incoming aircraft beyond the 1,500 foot distance. 3. We believe that the third condition, restricting commercial uses only to those uses specifically referenced in the project narrative and the site plan, is unduly restrictive and would greatly hamper the operation of the airport. For example, the condition would appear to prohibit any type of normal accessory commercial use, such as snack bar-or restaurant, gift shop, office for sale of aircraft, and other normal and incidental activities associated with airport facilities. We believe this condition can be made more flexible, and generally be within the intent of the zoning ordinance dealing with accessory uses normally associated with such projects. 4. The fourth condition contains many safety features which are acceptable to the developer, but some are outside our ability to obtain. The condition requires us to provide an access road from the project to Teer Road, but the developer does not have, nor is there any indication that we can obtain, a right-of-way across the adjacent property located between the project and Teer Road. I believe the fire chief indicated in his letter that such as access road would be desirable, but would not be essential for the provision of adequate fire protection services. Therefore we ask that this condition of requiring the fire access road to Teer Road be deleted from Condition 4. 5. The construction schedule set forth in Condition 5 appears to be adequate and reasonable. 6. The requirement of a bond for the public improvements set forth in Condition 6 appears to be adequate and reasonable. Mr. Richard Whitted Page 3 7. The seventh condition limits flight training operations to 50% of total operations for the facility, would be extremely difficult for the developer to verify or enforce, and appears to us to be an undue restriction on the operations of the airport. We ask that this condition be deleted in its entirety, so that the airport may be used for flight training as the demand may exist. 8. The remaining conditions, (Numbers 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) all appear to be acceptable and reasonable as drafted. Please place this matter on as a Petition on the next regularly scheduled meeting of the County Commissioners, so that we may ask the Commissioners to reconsider these particular items as conditions on the final draft of the Special Use Permit. Thank you for your attention in this regard. Sincerely, John A. Northen JAN:bj cc: Buck Mountain Development Company Peloquin Associates Geoffrey E. Gledhill Rick Cannity, Orange County Planning Department Ben Lloyd Shirley Marshall Norman Walker Donald Willhoit A • PR , ■ Ocher 5, 1982 Buck Mountain Development Company clo Mr. Fred Hazard, Agent 910 Airport Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Dear Mr. Hazard: On September 7, 1982 the Orange County Board of Commissioners considered your request for a Class A special use permit for a general aviation airport. The Board approved the • application finding that the applicant had met its burden of establishing by competent, material and substantial evidence the existence of the facts and conditions which the County Zoning Ordinance requires for approval of a general aviation airport provided that the special conditions contained in this letter and which will. become part of the special use permit are met by the applicant. In summary, the evidence supporting the action taken by the Board on this application is as follows: - - 1. Special use permit sought for property located in. Bingham Township off Highway 54 West. The property and surrounding A. area is in the agricultural-residential land use category. A rural neighborhood activity node (BH-1) is within one quarter mile of the sight. The land use plan does not address directly the appropriate location for an airport. The Orange County Airport Feasibility Study evaluates this proposed airport sight along with a large number of -••. -. . -other potential sites. The site proposed in this application compares well to other sites identified in this study according to the evaluation criteria set forth in the study. The site is away from current or proposed residential development, close to Chapel H .l,/Carrboro and has good access along Highway 54. It has disadvantages in that it is located within one mile of the proposed Cane Creek Watershed. Evidence at the hearing of development pressure which could accompany the development of this airport is seen as a negative factor in this agricultural-residential region. 2. Article 5 and Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance provide dimensional requirements and the application of dimensional requirements. Evidence presented at the public hearing indicates these requirements have been met. 3. The Orange County Health Department has approved an area for septic tank installation near phase I of the development. Phases II and DI are to be serviced through the central disposal system ti t. which has not yet received approval. Solid waste disposal will be handled by a private hauler. The airport will be served by decentralized wells. 4. Police protection will be provided by the Orange County Sheriffs Department. Twenty-four hour security will be provided by a security/maintenance vehicle with radio capability to augment the Sheriff's police protection. This plan has been approved by the Orange County Sheriff. 5.. Rescue squad protection will be provided by the Orange County EMS.. 6. Fire protection will be provided by the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Company. The Board of Directors of the Fire Company have indicated they can provide fire protection to the airport so long as the special conditions contained herein are met by the applicant. All other information required by Article 8 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and including that required in Section 8.8.8.1 was provided by the applicant at the public hearing.. 7. Documentation from the North Carolina Department of Transportation indicating that all FAA and State regulations governing general aviation airports will be satisfied by the applicant were presented at the public hearing. 8. The airport if operated as shown on the site plan and stated in the narratiVe and according to the imposed conditions herein should not adversely affect adjacent existing land uses. There was evidence presented at the public hearing indicating that adjacent land uses could be adversely affected. The Board found however that if operated as indicated and according to and in compliance with the _ _ _ _ _special conditions that these adverse effects would be minimal. 9. Provided the applicant can obtain control of the height of structures as detailed in the special conditions contained herein, the applicant has demonstrated that it owns or controls land sufficient to provide approach zones and overrun areas. The site plan and narrative indicate that adequate land area is provided for all of the proposed uses, buildings and storage areas provided the applicant can obtain control of the height of structures as detailed in the special conditions. 10. Site plan and narrative!indicate appropriate screening of buildings, storage and maintenance areas and provided the screening requirements contained in the special conditions are met. IL There is a secured access easement to Highway 54. The access road will be built to Department of Transportation standards and dedicated to the public. 12. The Ordinance requires that compatible land uses be located in the final approach areas of the airport. The evidence presented at the hearing indicates that the land use located in the final approach areas for the airport will be compatible with an airport of this size and scope provided the applicant can control the height of structures to the degree set forth in the special conditions. The following are the imposed conditions required of the applicant for approval of this special use permit: L There shall be no jet aircraft permitted at the facility and the Airport Facility Directory published by the U.S. Department of Commerce (N.O.S.) shall specify that jet aircraft are not permitted at the facility. The applicant/owner shall be responsible for notifying the U.S. Department of Commerce of this restriction and shall demonstrate compliance with this condition. 2. The applicant shall own or control-the-height-of objects in an area at each end of the runway which is known as the approach-departure zone. The dimensions of this zone are shown in the diagram below. The approach-departure zone begins 200' from the end of the runway and rises at a 20:1 slope to a height of 250' at a distance of 5000'. The zone is 500' in width at its beginning and 2000' in width at its end. The easement rights negotiated with each property owner must specify that the developer can control the heights— - of objects within the approach-departure zone. All easement agreements and other evidence of ownership of the approach-departure zone shall be in farm and content approved by the County Attorney. 5000' >I I I I I I � 1 APPROACII o CEPARTE RE 500' wryer 1 • • 3_ The final site plan and narrative of the project incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project are incorporated herein and made part of the Special Ilse Permit. A copy of the final site plan and narrative are to be maintained on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Only those commercial uses specified in the project narrative and on the site plan, including but not necessarily limited to the sale of fuel for aircraft, maintenance service and flight training classes, will be permitted at the airport facility. All improvements as indicated shall be constructed according to the construction schedule set up in the final site plan and narrative. 4. The following fire protection measures shall be provided by the applicant: Cl) construction of a fire access road to the • property from Teer Road; (2) a 24 hour/day vehicle for security, fire fighting and maintenance purposes. The vehicle will be outfitted with master keys, radio system, turn-out gear, portalle fire extinguisher; _ . ... _ ._- fire fighting foam and airpack. Satisfaction of these requirements shall be determined by the Chief of the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Company (Fire Company) and the County Manager; (3) three ponds shall be constructed, each capable of supplying 30,000 gallons of water over a two hour period. The water level of each pond shall be maintained at a level sufficient to supply 30,000 gallons of water over •,- a two hour period by the construction of wells and the necessary— hardware which would be activated when the water level drops below the required level Drafting stations shall be located and constructed to the specifications of the Fire Company with all-weather access provided. The ponds shall be constructed in the following locations and according to the following timetable: pond number one shall be located 600 feet north of the phase one F.B.O. Hanger and shall be completed when phase one construction begins. Pond number two shall be located 600 feet north of the phase two maintenance hanger and shall be completed when phase two construction begins. Pond number three shall be located 400 feet northeast of the phase three maintenance hanger and shall be completed when phase three construction begins; Access to Midway Airport shall be provided periodically to the Fire Company and its successors in fire protection responsibility for training exercises; (4) two hundred gallons of 6% AFFF foam shall be provided to the Fire Company, a portion (determined by the Fire Company) to be kept on the trucks of the Fire Company and the remaining stored in the airport maintenance hangers and made available to the Fire company at all times. An additional 20 gallons of 6% APFF foam shall be provided to Fire Company annually for training purposes. Two foam nozzles and educators, one for a I-1/2" line and one for a 2-I/2" line shall be provided to Fire. Company; (5) two portable 50 pound dry chemical fire extinguishers shall be provided and maintained in each of the three phases of the Airport. One shall be located in the fueling area, the r. n f other stationed in the T-hanger area of each phase; (6) a contribution to Fire Company in an amount not to exceed $10,000 to enable Fire Company to purchase a water pump to be mounted either on a Fire Company trailer or truck. This amount is payable on demand upon the issuance to applicant of any building permits; (7) the following safety features must be adhered-to by applicant: (a) the T-hangers must contain no open-flahne heaters; (b) no loading or unloading or storage of fuel shall be permitted in any hanger area; (c) the requirements of (a) and (b) shall be prominently displayed in all hanger areas and incorporated into an Airport Operating Manual which manual shall be ° made available to all airport users; (d) all FAA safety requirements pertaining to construction and operation of a public airport the size of Midway shall be adhered to; (8) a communication system between the Midway F.B.O. control room and Fire Company shall be installed by applicant. 5. The following construction schedule shall be adhered-to by the applicant: Construction of the runway—shall—beg. -within one _ _ year of final approval of the Special Use Permit and all construction on the runway shall be completed one year after construction begins. All construction detailed in phase one of the site plan and project narrative will be completed ninety (90) days after completion of the runway. Phase two will be initiated within six months after the start of construction of phase one and be completed within two years of initiation. Phase three will be completed within two years of_ completion of phase two. - - - 6. The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of construction of all public improvements, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing and stabilization of all areas in public streets and the erection of street signs, fire ponds and fire fighting equipment, plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Speical Use Permit. Security for construction of the improvements in this project may be released according to the phasing in the project. Specifically, as improvements are completed in each phase, that phase and a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the unconstructed portion of the improvements.. 7. Flight training operations shall not exceed 50% of the total operations for the facility. 8. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone, sewer and water) installation, servicing and hookups to the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. r • L 4 V 9. All plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation control shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County. The project shall at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 10. Dense evergreen screening shall be provided for any buildings that are not at /east 500' from the property lines of the facility. These lines are the outside perimeter of the property described in the following conveyances: Deed Book 196, Page 527 and Deed Book 126, Page 30, Orange County Registry. This screening .,,. material shall be of sufficient size to provide a 6' hedge within 3 years of planting. Also acceptable as a screening material is a 6' birth or a solid wood fence. II. Any lighting of the runway or other parts of the airport necessary for safety or convenience shall be of a design and so located and screened so as not to create a nuisance to adjoining property owners. T 1.2.. All public improvements shall be maintained in � �^ perpetuity. All documents specifying responsibility for maintenance of the approved public improvements shall be approved by the Orange County Attorney. Rick Cannity, Acting Planning Director Orange County Planning Department /jac cc: Lee Mehler, Peloquin Assoc,, P.A. John Northen Kenneth Thompson Geoffrey E. Gledhill Richard E. Whitted • ORAi3m C3ai7m ' _ . BOARD OF CISSIOIQE1S Action Agenda ACTION AGZNDA ITEM AWTRACT Item Nal: etc; DATE February 15, 1983 Subject: Northside Multipurpose Center Renovation • LEe t t:� pun y , anaoer i Public Hearing: yeses--- no J AttaC -nt(s : InfoLindtion amtar'±: Yes County Manager's Office Phone fir: 732-0181 ext.. 501 pb-RPO6J: To consider what course to take on the proposed renovation in light of bid results. D: A bid opening January 26, 1983, revealed a cost of $228,665 as necessary to renovate the building (see attached bids). This compares to budgeted funds for construction of $157,043 or a difference of $71 ,621. Such difference in amounts necessitated the architect to reassess the cost elements and compare them to earlier projections. From this there were five major explanations: 1. Prior to 1981 the budget was $138,568, construction cost. Plans were to only brimg the deficiencies up to code require- ments and providing new heat and air conditioning. 2. In March of 1981 it was decided by the County to locate more agencies within the building in lieu of their being housed in rented space. This created the need for internal parti- tioning and additional HVAC cost of $15,321 ($6,000 HVAC and $8,600 for partitioning). 3. It was agreed to permit the Community School for People Under Six Day Care to remain in the building and occupy an equivalent amount of space. Day Care operation, however, created a dif- ferent and more costly use category with which to comply for licensing and building code requirements (Class E and I institu- tional). This was above what would have been necessary for the rest of the building. Uhile $20,000 of the project budget was appropriated for the Day Care addition actual cost added--over what would have been necessary for another use--is $56,300. ($12,300 in extra plumbing work of which $3,200 was added by Day Care Staff, without Board approval,to house toddlers; $3,000 in added electrical ; $7;400 for a separate HVAC air distribution; $4,000 in additional fire protection and $30,000 for the struc- tural addition with 942 square feet required by State standards versus the 600 square feet that was Board approved). 4. There would have been additional cost attributable to keeping the day care function apart from whether the addition to the building had been approved. This was because the scope of remodeling exceeded 50 per cent of the appraised value of the building, requiring full compliance with code standards. 5. The architects' estimate for this degree of improvement is $27 per square foot and the bid cost interpret to $22 per square foot. Options include: 1 . Reject all bids; 2. Seek space for day care in an alternate building which meets the building standards for that use and rebid project; or 3. Accept bids and seek additional funding by spreading construe- ,tion over two budget years as permitted by General Statute 153A-13, RECQiti1MENDATIQ C5/L..__ . LOW BIDDERS* NORTHSIDE MULTIPURPOSE CENTER General Contract: Security Building Company Chapel Hill, N. C. Base Bid: $114,800.00 (4 other bids received) Altenate Carpet $ 3,980.00 $118,780.00 Electrical Contract: United Electric Cary, N. C. Base Bid: $ 33,865.00 (8 other bids received) Plumbing Contract: Brown Brothers Plumbing F, Heating Company Durham, N. C. Base Bid: $ 14,940,00 (4 other bids received) HVAC Contract: Mechanical Associates Cary, N. C. Base Bid: $ 60,660.00 (4 other bids received) Total Project: $228,245.00 *NOTE: RESULTS OF ALL BIDS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE BOARD MEETING. 4 -% J A M E 5 M . W E B B , A R C H I T E C T & P L A N N E R MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS ANA AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS 201 EAST ROSEMARY sT. CERI"TIFIED TABULATION OF 'BIAS„'RECEIVED CHAPEL HILL, N., C. 27514 TELEPHONE 929 - 6585 NORTliSIDE MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER Date: January 26, 1983. Time: 3 p.m. Location: Office of Purchasing Director, Orange County - Mark Rees 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, Korth Carolina r Bidder (General)License Bid Base Bid Alternates No. Bond G-1 G-2 IG-3 G-4 C & A Construction Co. oa zz�T O*3s7 57' I1°f1�1•ca y1zF YYoo 2. coo & Carter Q4.11 570 31Sd 10 a() 2,Zap .2-3v6 Security Build- 1/ ra in: Co. 3-50 /SY a c 61. ” 67410 3 -c 9.900 Triad, Inc, I/3 fyf 11vo 55-Pb q.00 2Zp° 3u r' Trout & Riggs Constr. 570 /215 5 83 t u v5'1y a-20tf p..z57 D. W. Ward Con- struction Co. } .nom Bid Tabulation Bidder (Electrical) License Bid Band Base Bid ,., • No. Adams and Tilley ii93 S9" 34 5;0 v • 5"'".1 11* ,$"5y cK+ 3743T" Alternate Electric Barber Electric 340 t p 3•770YY • Bitting Electric V6ry ... � S�� yf 457 Odell Electric 3917 di 3-9b do 30 o Pedergraph & Thom- 7.9�` a S5o '34 779 -' T erson • • United Electric 4 3X•i t Vaughan Electric Rita k' 5"7a 3774.3 Watson Electric a.•13 tc, .!-y„ 3 S'yFY Bidder (Plumbing) Acme /0.7-5/ " American Mechani- r 9.L y 9D Gz-o�7 fv• cal Brown Brothers 2-1/y 3-90 iN�JUv - Rural Plumbing °! `)n /k 557 Sparrow & Sons �V�� 5`50 t 5$3 --- Bidder (H:',AC) Carolina Air Con- e..“y $qp G alp ditioning Hockaday Heating z 5frG syO 6,Tr'5-6 o, Lee Air Condi- i 5-77 .5% G 5Q 0 tioners Mechanical Assoc- 1 GS 4 5)70 G G 660 iates caw suc � 941 •r Yo & 7 Zra MANIF. COUNTY. BOARD C'~ CCt MISS ONERs Action Agenda =CV AGENDA rrzm liESTP=1 Item No. 4 G 2km FEBRUARY 15, 1983 Subject: Rental of space in Carrboro Town Hall for Driver License Examiner's office. DepattMent: Manager s & Purchasing PWaliC Eew."'ing: yes X no^^T • AL —mt(S): Lease will be pr9vided IrlfcaxMat. i Ccntact:gill .Laws, ext 501 at the meeting Mark H. Rees, ext. 498 Phone fix: Pulse_. To consider approval of a three year lease agreement with the Town of Carrboro for the rental of approximately 800 sq, ft, in the basement of the Carrboro Town Hall, This space will be used for the Southern Orange County office of the State Driver License Examiner's office. rte: Office space presently being rented for the Driver License Examiner's office is considerably higher in cost than will be charged by the Town of Carrboro, Expected savings over the three year period will be a minimum of $15,000.00. Orange County will construct office space in the basement of the Iown Hall at a cost of $8,100.00 including labor, Funds & labor for this project will come from the FY 82-83 Public Works budget. In return for this improvement, the Town of Carrboro will lease the space to Orange County for three years charging only for janitorial services and utilities ($75.00/mo.)• The Town of Carrboro will reserve the right to cancel the agreement after one year if it is determined that the Driver License Examiner's office is creating a serious hardship on their operation in the Town Hall, If the Town of Carrboro exercises this option, the County will be refunded a pro-rated amount for the improve- ments that were made, P.ecc. erdat ,cn(s) _ Approve lease i NORTH CAROLINA j Olt ORANGE COUNTY I LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of by an (hereinafter,between the Town of Carrboro, lessor (hereinar, "The Town") and Orange County, lessee (hereinafter, "The County") , WHEREAS, The County wishes to lease space within the Carrboro Town Hall from The Town and make this space available to the State of North Carolina for the operation of a divers' license examination office; and WHEREAS, The Town has available excess space within the Town Hall and is willing to lease this space under the terms of this agreement so that a drivers' license examination office can be made conveniently available to town residents; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual cove- nants and conditions set forth below, the parties to this agreement hereby agree as follows: 1. Leased Premises. The Town hereby leases to The County and The County hereby leases from Town a portion of the lowest level of the Town Hall behind the recreation department, which space comprises approximately A-00 square feet as shown on the diagram attached hereto as Attachment A and incorporated herein. However, The Town reserves the right of access to and through the hallway immediately bordering the entrance door to the office space. 2. UJe of Leased Premises. The space described in paragraph one is leased to The County so that The County may make the space available to the State of North Carolin for use as a drivers' license examination office. If the drivers' license examination office fails to locate in the leased premises or vacates the premises during the lease period, then this lease may be terminated by The Town. 3. U e of Parkin• Sfaces and Other Facilities. Lease of the above described premises carries with it, both on t e part of the drivers' license ex- aminers and the iublic who will make use of this office, the right to reasonable access through the Town Hall parking lot (the drivers' license examiners shall park their personal vehicles in the small parking area adjoining him Street and the rear of the ballfield) and the right to use other common facilities including restroom facilities. 4. Rent/Improvements. As consideration for The Town entering into this lease, TheCounty shall improve and renovate the leased premises in accor- dance with the work description shown on Attachment A. All work shall be done subject to The Town's approval by employees or agents of The County and at The County's expense) Both parties agree that the reasonable value of the improve- ments to be made as shown on Attachment A is $8,100. In addition, The County shall pay to The Town monthly, by the 10th of each month, the sum.: of $75.00 to cover the cost of all utilities provided to the premises (other than tele- phone service, 14ich shall be paid for separately by the occupant of the leased premises) and custodial services. The County shall also reimburse The Town for the cost of placing sufficient signs on the Town Hall premises to direct persons to the drivers' license examination office. 5. Im rovements to Remain .Pro erty of Town, At the termination of this lease or any extension thereof, all improvements made pursuant to paragraph four 4... ..-F Tho Tnt.en ' LEASE AGREEMENT I(con 't) 0 3 8. Partial Refund of Rent. If The Town terminates the lease at the end of one year rinder paragraph seven, it shall refund to The County two-thirds of the agreed upon value of the improvements installed by The County under para- graph four (i .e. 1 a total refund of $5,400.00) . 9. Cstodial Services and Maintenance. The Town shall provide routine custodial services to the leased premises to the same extent that it services other offices located ikithin the Town Hall . Replacement of overhead light bulbs shall be included as partiof these custodial services. Other maintenance or repairs to the walls, floors, and ceiling of the leased premises shall be performed by and at the expense of The County after obtaining the written approval of The Town. At the end of the lease term, or any extension thereof, the leased premises shall be left in as good a condition as existed at the commencement of the lease, reasonable wear and tear excepted. 10. Utilities. Heat, air conditioning, and electricity shall be pro- vided by The Town' to the leased premises. The charges therefor are included in the rent, as provided in paragraph four. No alterations to these utility systems may be made without tihe written consent of The Town. No supplemental heating devices may be installed in the leased premises. Telephone service shall be contracted for separately by the occupants of the leased premises . 11. Right of Entry by Town. The Town shall have the right to enter the leased premises at reasonable times to perform custodial services, to inspect the premises, or for other legitimate reasons. The Town shall be provided at all times with keys to the entrance door of the premises. 12. Dektruction b Fire or Other Casualty. In the event the leased premises or any substantial portion thereof are destroyed by fire or other casualty during the original term of this lease, The Town shall rebuild if and to the extent that The Town's property insurance covers the costs of reconstruction so that no additional appropriations by The Town are required. IN WITfESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this lease the day and year first above �,ritten. TOWN OF CAARRBORO, Lessor ORANGE COUNTY, Lessee BY: BY: Richard F. Hunter, Town Manager and E. Whitted, Chair- Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: ATTEST: Sarah Williamson, Town Clerk Paulette PPridgen-Pond, Clerk LA-7 A lJ5 cl Two. � , etc ry vim, 4106. IV flAT" Cett 114 C� e- U)PAI &iziA SEW 31 \\.,O Pico 14 A I Ivi j Ati ti EvTto IV C� 6-,tf ET4-ff%e-c fll?EA LOU* (Do A Ndf� OA M U'�r" ST l o� ll�cz ����� Pe . i I I 4C_tF' I L C-L CLi ge LJ POP "4YN If T-144-eta vaa:f R 111,9%-st ) s,,rc"„ emit htmara,.i "44144 2Ffl t • dig c`5T ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONEF75 Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.1-5 METING DATE February 15, 1983 Subject: Orange County Housing Assistance Payments Program (Section 8 Housing) .I'epartr t: , aunty 'anager 1 Public Hearing: yes Attachment s : Information Contact: County Manager's Office Phone Number: 732-8181 ext. 501 PURPOSE: For the Board to authorize the County Manager as official signatory on HUD Form 62663, "Regulation for Partial Payment of Annual Contributions". gyp: One of the elements of the recently signed contract between Orange County and the Chapel Hill Housing Authority assigns to Orange County the responsi- bility, formerly undertaken by the Housing Authority, to make requests for partial payments of annual contributions, In order for the county to exercise this responsibility, the Board needs to comply with HUD's regulation that the governing board of the requesting body authorize an individual as official signatory. IMPACT: Strengthens internal control over past requisition procedures and allows the County additional monitoring capabilities. RECOMMENDATION(S): Approval. ORANGE aura • U 2. BO.Z D OF CCx 1ISSIO E2S Action Agenda. ACTION AGENDA .1.1124 ?BSTMCT Item t?o. - MEET G DATE February 15 , 1 98 3 Subject: Addition of Pineview Drive and Pineview Road in- Pineview Estates Subdivision to the State-maintained road system. Dep nt: Planning Public Hearing: yes r Attachment(s) : (a) setter from Sam Jones Iriforinatr Contact: Susan Smith to Manager dated Februray 4, 1983 b) Secondary Road Addition Investigation Phone Nuaiber: 732-8181 Extension 359 1t7RPC : Petition from NC DOT for approval of the addition of Pineview Drive and Pineview Road in Pineview Estates Subdivision to the State-maintained Secondary Road System. 1 D: Addition of unpaved roads to State-maintained Secondary Road System. 1 IMPACT: The Board's decision will be forwarded to the N.C. Board of Transportation for their deliberation on acceptance of the road to the State-maintained Secondary Road System. RECOMMENDATION: Approval • • • 4. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT,JR, GOVERNOR Graham, North Carolina 27253-.0766 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM R.ROBERSON,JR. February 4, 1983 SECRETARY Orange County Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson, County Manager Orange ty 106 East &rgaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Subject: Petition for Addition . Pineview Drive and Pinevi.ew Road in Pine view Estates Subdivis .on Dear Mr« ' hompscn: Attached is Form SR-4, Secondary Road Addition 2ur• vestigation Report, for Pineview Drive and Fineview Road in Pineview Estates Subdivision. r = s is being forwarded to you for review by your • County B._ . of Conmdssioners. • Yours very truly, ,'?,,V:. 8. H. aloes DTS CT EE�IGM� /jbh Atta. cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins j .v EJ i . 023 NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS S=CONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT County Orange _ Co. File No. Date Township 1 H-111. Div. File No. Local Name Pineview Drive and Pineview Road Subdivision Name Pineview Estates Length Q.16r 0.11a Width 40' D_to D _ Type E Condition Fair Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for such streets? Yea 'Recorded 05-OS-.73 Book 21 Page 81 Is this a subdivision street subject to particiJation paving? Yes Number of homes having entrances into road€q.ne (9), SI.x 61_ _ Other uses having entrances into road Ncsis Does right-of-way obtained meet present Division of Highways requirement? Dedicated If not, why? _ Is petition (SR-l- attached? Yes Is the County Commissioners' Approval (SR-2) attached? If not, why? Does the road meet Olresent minimum Division of Highways construction requirements? Ye I If not, state what ils needed to place the road in an acceptable maintenance condition under Remarks and Recommendations. Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locating road by the Planning Department. Yes Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $ 0.00 Grade, drain, stabilize Drainage $_ , Other $ Remarks and Recommen ations Meet minimum re 'rements. Recotmmend addditi.on. Reviewed and approve Board of Transportation Member _ Reviewed and approved J. W. Waters S. H. Janes DIVISION ENGINEER DISTRICT ENGINEER , i 'l pS, (Do not write in this space - '"`' ,,.-4,,f. For use of Secondary Roads Dept. ) 1 Petition No. I • I OF'.AN E COUN 'Y U c„4.4 BR COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No_ j! '7.7 I I VIEEfG DATE February 15 , 1 983 I 1 Subject: Addition cilf Laine Road in Grampian Hills subdivision to the State-maintained road system. __ ° q: Yes x D� p1 inni nrr Public Hearin a Att4C1M/SITt(S) :: (a) Letter from Sam Jones Iriformation Contact: Susan Smith to Manager dated February 3, 1983 (b) Secon- dary Road.Addition Investigation Report. phone muber: 732-8181 EXT. 359 PURPOSE: Petition fxjom NC DOT for approval of the addition of Laine Road in Grampian Hills Subdivision to the State-maintained Secondary Road System. NEED: Addition of paved road to State-maintained Secondary Road System. IMPACT: The Board's decision will be forwarded to the N.C. Board of Transportation for their deliberation of acceptance of the road to the State-maintained Secondary Road System. RECOMMENDATION: Appri val • • 545 $),U.1 0 44 n;A. ;fir 4i' , ..-.:ffm f STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT.JR. GOVERNOR Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM R.ROBERSON,JR. February 3, 1983 SECRETARY Orange County Mr. Kemaeth R. Thompson, County Manager Orange Cdru ty 106 East1Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Subject: Petition for Addition .. Lane Road in Grampian Hills Dear Mr. Thompson: Attached is Form �, Secoudsry Road Addit .ou In..n vestiga "on Report, far Tom a Road in Grampian Hills Sub • divisi.on.. This is being forwarded to you for review by your County B 7 of Commissioners. Yours v truly, S. . Jones DISTRICT ENGINEER /5-bh Atta. cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins . y1 . NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT County _ Orange Co. File No. Date Township Chapel Hill ` Div. File No. Local Name Tine R fad Subdivision Name GrampLan Hills Length 0,13 Width _ 22' _ Type &.i Condition Good Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for such streets? Yee Recorded 10-.oi... b Book 26 Page 20 Is this a subdivision street subject to participation paving? - No Number of homes hav�"ng entrances into road _ F Other uses having entrances into road . None """""� Does right-of-way ot1tained meet present Division of Highways requirement? yep If not, why? Is petition (SR-1 attached? Y;s Is the County Commissioners' Approval -(SR-2) attached? If not, why? Does the road meet pjresent minimum Division of Highways construction requirements? Yes If not, state what is needed to place the road in an acceptable maintenance condition under Remarks and Recommendations. Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locating road by the Planning Department? Yes • Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $ Grade, drain, stabilize $ _ , Drainage $ , Other ____ Remarks and RecommenIdationsgeetsi_rinencerecommendeddition. I f • Reviewed and approveld Board of Transportation Member Reviewed and approved J. W. Watkins S. H. Jones DIVISION ENGINEER DISTRICT ENGINEER /y, E s` ' - -• 1 )1 � (Do not write in this space - ' Am ., For use of Secondary Roads Dept. ) ORATZE COUNT U'.! , BOARD OF CctISSIOR Action Agenda ACTION AGES. 1'1124 ABSTRACT Item: No. • Si j vIFSTnG DATE :February 15 , 1983 l 1 i Subject: Addition cif Quail Hollow Drive in Fox Run Subdivision to the State-maintained road system. LDepartl'ent: Plann n I Public Hearing: _ yes g r Abtachrrr.,.rt(s) : (a) Letter from Sam Jones Itform ticrn Cone: Susan Smith to Manager dated February 3, 1983 (b) Secondary Road Addition Investigation P1ane 'Aran= 732-8181 Extension 359 Report PURPOSE: Petition from NC DOT for approval of the addition of Quail Hollow Road in Fox:Run subdivision to the State-maintained Secondary Road System. NEED: Addition of unpaved paved road to State-maintained Secondary Road System. 1 IMPACT: The Board's vision will be forwarded to the N.C. Board of Transportation for their del 7.beration on acceptance of the road to the State-maintained secondary Roap System. RECOMMENDATION: Approval E i J ' i_] •;•. t l • sitir, ''-`1k.‘;1),4‘ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B.HUNT,JR. GOVERNOR wham, North Carolina 27253.O766 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM R.ROBERSON,JR. February 3, 1983 SECRETARY Orange County Mr. Set n th R. Thompscm, County Manager Orange ty 106 FestMaMargaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Subject: Petition for Addition Quail Hollow Drive in Fox Run Sub divi"sz,on Dear Mr. ,Thompson: Attached is Form SR-4, Secondary Road Addition. In- vestiga "on Report, for Quail Hollow Drive in Fox Run Sub- division. This is being forwarded to you for review by your County Board of Commissioners. Yours v tru�,y, r ✓ S . Jones DISTRICT ENGINEER /jbh Atta. cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins ' - ., -. " rte: - - .r !-'..••.:~r''4 • NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ..' " - DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT County Orange Co. File No. Date Township Li le Ricer Div. File No. Local Name Qi'ai.1 Hollow Drive _ Subdivision Name Fox Run Length - 0,06 Width40' D to D Type R Condition Good. Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for such streets? Yes _Recorded 02..28-.73 Book 21 Page 20 Is this a subdivision street subject to participation paving? Number of homes having entrances into road Four (k) Other uses having entrances into road None Does right-of-way obtained meet present Division of Highways requirement? Dedicated If not, why? I Is petition (SR-1 attached? Yes Is the County Commissioners' Approval (SR-2) attached? If not, why? Does the road meet Present minimum Division of Highways construction requirements? Y-. If not, state what is needed to place the road in an acceptable maintenance condition under Remarks and Recommendations. Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locating road by the Planning Department? Yes Cost to place in ac eptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $ 0.00 Grade, drain, stabilize $ Drainage $ Other Remarks and Recommendations Meets minimum requirements. Recommend addition. Reviewed and approved Board of Transportation Member Reviewed and approved J. W, Watkins S. H. Jones DIVISION ENGINEER DISTRICT ENGINEER um— , .,. -• ti ;'- 1. a6"4' (Do not write in this space E"_ _ r.a;�\;d .4 - I•I For use of Secondary Roads Dept. ) y r ! v r'.� -' Petition No. e p `» -�xss W •i J • r ORAIV3 cOuNTY "/'r BOA.re o CO iISsION rrC c.ion Agenda.-.' lterti I o. �V/ ACTION F uIZTEA i1 :•1 id3S R4T --~ M : G DATE FEBRUARY 15, 1983 Subject: PROCLA11A T ION --SCHOOL BUS SAFETY WEEK . L Depa 4i mt: COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: _ yes xx o n Attac:brnent is) : information Contact: Clerk to Board No Phone Number: 732-8181 ext. 505 PURPOSE: To proclalim February 20-26, 1983, School Bus Safety Week This is a joint proclamation issued by the Commissioners and the Mayors of Chapel. Hill-Carrboro. NEED: To issue to the following proclamation: We, the Mayors of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the Orange County Board of Commissioners do hereby proclaim the week of February 20-26 , 1983, to be School Bus Safety Week We all wish to stress the importance of providing training for both riders and drivers and to impress upon them the need for being courteous and helpful to each other while riding or operating our school buses; and, We wish toicall attention to the importance of cooperation by parents, teachers and students, and to urge all those concerned to work together diligently to ensure that necessary safety precautions are taken throughout the school year. This the l 'th day of. February, 1983. Don Willhoit, Vice Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners Joseph L. Nassif, Mayor Town of Chapel Hill Robert Drakeford, Mayor Town of Carrboro TMOArm, mi ... .-- . • c i • ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH,N. C. 27278 RICHARD E%71311"lED,CA,i, BEN LLOYD SHIRLEY J"HA7SHALL NORMAN mAF.RER DON WILLHOIT P R O C L A M A T I O N We, the Mayors of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim the week of February 20-26, 1983 to be SCHOOL BUS SAFETY WEEK We all wish to stress the importance of providing training for both riders and drivers and to ,impress upon. them the need, for being courteous and helpful to each other, bilwe .ridin or g -operating our school. buses; and, We wish to call attention to th.e importance of cooperation by parents, teachers and students; and to urge al.I those concerned to work together diligently j;tf to ensure that necessary safety precautions are taken throughout the school year • This theft th_day,:,u `Fehrusxy—}.85 County of Orange • rl � Don Willhoit, Vice Chair Town of Carrboro Ttr of Chapel 1 J..-• L. Nassif, Maor Robert Drakeford, Mayor • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No,4•, . MEETING DATE February 15, 1983 Subject: Report on Findings of the November 19, 1982 Audit Appeal Hearing Department: Finance • f Public HeRri.ng: yes X no1 Attachfent(s Information Contact: Yes Finance Director Phone Number: 732-8181 PURPOSE: To report to the Board the resolution of the audit findings in the June 30, 1981 DSS audit. Nom: The County responded to the 6/30/81 DSS audit findings and was able to resolve and receive allowances for disallowed costs in the amount of $18,873. This brought the disallowed costs down from $64,271 to $45,398. The majority of this disallowance was due to the move by Orange County's Social Services to new Department facilities in July, 1980. The County , had claimed accelerated depreciation during the occupancy of the old building and is required to pay back the difference between accelerated and straight line depreciation. The County had not charged to DSS any cost of space in the new building for the 1980-81 fiscal year pending resolution of the above. Therefore, upon receipt of this finding the County requested that the $52,229 not charged in 1989-81 be credited against the disallowed costs. We received a response to this by letter August 26, 1982, which stated that Orange County did not have the required prior approval for space costs in the new building until April, 1982. Therefore, we would not be allowed to offset any of the disallowed costs as we proposed. The County then requested and received an appeal hearing on November 19, 1982. Our plea was that even though we did not receive prior approval of space costs, we did provide the space and have documented the costs of that space and that Orange should not be penalized for this. As stated in the attached letter, the appeal board ruled in our favor. IMPACT: Recovery of $52,229. ..l Gr; 1 r S .. r ita!!121 `�.■•■s' STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 325 NORTH SALISBURY STREET JAMES B. HUNT. JR, SARAH T. MORROW. M.D.. M.P.H. GOVERNOR RALEIGH 27611 SECRETARY January 26, 1983 TELEPHONE 9191793-4334 Mr, Wallace Harding Finance Director Orange Count Finance Department Hillsborough; North Carolina 27278 Re: Orange County Department of Social Services IV-D Child Support Enforcement Office Audit, June 30, 1981 Dear Wallace: Attached you will find a copy of Mr. Syria's letter to Mr. ward which sets forth ti-Ie Division's position on the above referenced audit appeal. I believe the Division has been most conciliatory in dealing with your unusual problem,and Ij think they are suggesting a viable solution. Even if we went to full hearing, it is difficult for me to imagine a better solution from the audit appeal committee. All three (3) committee members have received Mr. Syria's letter, and all agree that it presents a fair and equitable dis- position of tie matter» Therefor?, if I have not received written notice from you within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter, stating that you wish to continue with the appeal hearing, I will presume that you no longer wish to pursue the . matter. Please let me know if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, c/se..+:71,4......" Linda Stott, Chairman Audit Review Committee wwr ; • . a 4,0 5040, �.. V 3 Lw STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JAMES B.HUNT JR, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES JOHN nn.SYRIA GOVERNOR DIVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR 325 N.. SALISBURY STREET / RALEIGH 27611 ow SOCIAL SERVICES SARAH T.MORROW.M.D M..P.H TEL Iels}73.3-3C65 I SECRETARY IN REPLY REFER TO CODE DEPT.HUMAANRES011RCES February 2, 1983 CCA Thomas M. Ward, Director Orange County Department of Social Services 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborouigh, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Ward: We have coisidered the information presented in the November 19th hearing at which Orange County appealed the originally proposed resolution of the Dot audit for the FY 1980-81. We have also sought clarification of certain federal regulations that bear on the situation, in the hope that we might thereby be enabled to offer an avenue of relief. The Division has given particular consideration to the undeniable benefit imparted to social services programs as a 'result of the county DSS's occupancy of the Tryon Street building during the 1980-81 fiscal year. As a res lt, the Division is now prepared to permit Orange County to amend their current indirect cost plan to allow for the inclusion of 1980- 81 actual occupancy costs. This revised position is predicated, however, on the coalition that the county seek reliable and expert advice in making a realistic determination of the comparable rental rates (in the same locality) applicable to the 1980-81 fiscal year, and that the county evidence tite results of this effort by forwarding at least three such comparable rental statements to the Division Controller. The county is cautioned that this dispensation does not extend to the disallowed cost of space ($5,935) that was included in the county's 1980-81 plan (the circumstances were different), nor does it alter the Division's requirement that prior approval and/or comparable rental rates be established before the reporting of occupancy costs. I am pleased that the Division may now avoid having to penalize the county for a sit4tion in which they may not be entirely at fault. In any case, we'll appreciate hearing of the county's intentions as soon as possible. Si. . -rely, if //,. .. . Syr a. Director ORANGE COUNTY L J I1 HOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda AC LCN AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item MEETING DATE Februar,Y Subject: Report: Five Year Capital Improvements Plan pepa nt: oun y anager 1 Public Hearing: yes X no 'Attachment(s) : information contact: Yes o County Manager's Office Phone Number: 732-8181 ext. 501 PURPCSE: To receive information on a tentative schedule of County capital improve- ments program over a five year period for budget and planning purposes. NEED: The County was to prepare this projection in preparation for a joint meeting, February 21, 1983, with the two school boards per instructions from a previous joint meeting. Staff has developed the attached list by surveying each department. The list is tentative and subject to change based on Board decision and subject to the availability. By the Board indicating any additions or deletions, the process can begin to arrive at a capital budget recommendation during the upcoming budget process and provide staff guidance for compiling subsequent year projects. Based on an analysis of the past ten years the items in Category I projects are normally funded with bond issues or capital reserves. Category II and III are usually funded from current operations. At its meeting on February 7, 1983, the Board requested that the capital projects for the current year be included as originally budgeted and in a separate column as subsequently amended. I Acr: Budgetary impact will depend upon the scope of programs finally adopted in July. RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides. -,,...%-. "MullI I FIVE YEAR CAPITAL 114PROVEMENTS PROGRAM Proposed 1982-83 1982.83 FY FY FY FY TOTAL tructures} Original Budget Bet as Amended 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 83-8$-QgX closure 4,000 g,Qr)O velopment 75,000 75,000 150,000 55,000 10,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 275,000 65,000 59,000 180,090 200,000 380,000 260,000 260,000 °t 9,000 91000 -1-50-,000 150,000 13,001) 150,000 27,000 27,000 14,000 14,000 23,000 23,000 6,000 6,000 41 ,000 41 ,000 � 4,600 4,6110 s0,aa0 37,090 35,500 telocati on 4 694 80,000 66 �?� 3 335:01]0 390390 00, 00 230,000 11}5,000 ,42� 8t000 8,000 8,000 20,000 20,000 5,000 5,000 t 10,000 10,000 20,000 15,000 8,000 23,000 acements 20,000 21,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 91000 45,000 12,000 12,000 5,000 7,500 12,500 1 11 ,000 7 030 X00 -36 tW% 87,000 36,500 47,000 29,000 34 233,510 40,000 40,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 68,000 68,000 68,00 68,000 68,000 340,000 27,400 27,400 30,000 30,000 .60,000 10,000 10,000 9,000 9,000 35 000 78,000 112;40(1 155,400' 118;000 148,000 127,000 148,000 318#000 659,000 _ O?,ONE COUNTY BOARD OF CO MISSIGNMS Action. Agenda Item No. 3 ACTION AGED L I'J.` M ABSTRACT MEETING DATE February_15, 1983 Subject: Discussion of SB 51 part- Board of Commissioners A Ir;fox tion Contact= Mr. Whitted or Clerk to the Board 1 Phone Number: 732-8181 ext. 505 4 PURPOSE: Board ciscussion of SB 51 introduced by Senators Royall and Marvin. NEM: Propos d SB 51 (4% State Sales Tax/No tax on Food) was sent to the elects officials of House:District 17 by Representative Hackney. At the meets n g on February 7, 1983, Commissioner Whitted asked that y this BTU be on the Board's agenda for discussion. _ •:: mfr. . t ' _ti+�;-p M .� .. .... , rte. _ d GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA ` SESSION 1933 . " SENATE BILL 51 Short Title: 4% State Sales Tax/No Tax on Food. (Public) € Senators Royall; Garvin. - Sponsors: Y + Deferred to: F1nance.. I January 28, 1983 -A, BILL TO BE ENTITLED 1 2 AN ACT TO ENACT THE NORTH CAROLINA ANTI-BECHSSION PUBLIC WORKS 3 AND TAI EQUITY ACT OF 1983.. 4 Whereas, the prospects for emerging from the current 5 lingering economic recession are clouded by a neglected and 6 decaying system of public works; and y^.F 7 Whereas, a system of neglected and aging public works 9 poses (t major obstacle to a sustained economic recovery in 9 providi g more goods and services, more jobs, more income and an . 10 expanded State and local tax base; and 11 Whereas, almost one out of every 10 workers in North t2 Carrolbi;na,, over 270,.000, are currently unemployed; and 13 Whereas, increased local ad valorem taxes and uncertain 14 interest rates during the .economic recession have drawn public 15 resistance against new local and State bonded indebtedness; and b 16 Whereas, 30-year bonded indebtedness can require a 17 repaymen of more than twice the amount of the bond principal 18 when i„4 rc sd. ........-- - __ . y• . w . • ^L._k-t. LYel. T.s,4. �r +a..+rw.:.G.. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 1 983 1 Whereas, many of the State's water and sever facilities .2 are operating at full capacity, further retarding economic growth 3 and local tax bases; and 4 Whereas, many local water and sever facilities have been 5 in use for 30Ito 50 years and are plagued by leaking lines and 6 aging treatment plants; and 7 Whereas, over one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) is : 8 needed to rem dy local water and sewer problems; and 9 Whereas, many of the State's municipalities are being 10 forced to raise their existing water and sewer rates to their 11 citizens with increased frequency; and 12 Whereas, some thirty percent (30%) of the teaching 13 • stations in NollFth Carolina' s two thousand public schools have 14 been in use follc over 35 years; and (l 15 Whereas, some two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) is 16 currently needed for repairs to and replacement of the State's 17 public school facilities; and 18 Whereas, the new career opportunities for the State's 19 future employeles enrolled in the Community College System depend 20 upon the -students being trained with the latest technological, 21 industrial, scientific and laboratory equipment; and 22 Whereas, much of the instructional equipment used in the 23 Community _.Collleges is over 40 years old or -was used -when • 2h originally acgi�i.red; and . uhoreis, North Carolina's agricultural, retail trade and 20 manufacturing.. economy depends upon the best possible Av=mom ^,P S _ice- .y'..�. • 1 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH. CAROLINA SESSION 1983 1 Whereas, North Carolina stands to lose hundreds of 2 millions of dollars in available federal highway aid without 3 sufficient nonfederal matching funds; and It Whereas, many of the facilities used by State 5 governujent, including prisons, in,titutions for the mentally ill, 6 tetarded, handicapped, and disturbed, and classrooms in the 7 State's University Systems, were originally constructed prior to 8 World War 11, and some prior to World War 1, and are plagued by 9 leakin roofs, faulty wiring and plumbing; and 10 Whereas, ;the State's average family of four, with a per 11 capita .ncome of five thousand eight hundred dollars ($5,800) per 12 year, Ipendss some three thousand three hundred 03,.300) annually 13 for in-home consumption of food; Now, therefore, 114 The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: ,{t 15 PART I. 16 Revenues. 17 Section 1,. G.S. 105-164.4, 105-164.6 and 105-164. 10 are 18 each amended by deleting the phrase "three percent (3%) ' each 19 time it appears and inserting in lieu thereof the phrase "four 20 percent (4%) “. 21 Sec. 2. G.S. 105-164. 10 is amended by rewriting the tax 22 table at the end of the first paragraph to read: a3 '01 0) -:No -amount :on sales of less than 100; 24 (2) 10 on sales of 100 through 290; 25 (3) 20 on sales of 300 through 590; 26 . (4) 30 on sales of 600 through B40; 03 1 . GENERAL ASSEMBLY; OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 1 983 1 (6)1 'sales of over $1. 12--straight four percent (4%) 2 with major fractions governing. " (:: : _3 Se • -3. The second sentence of G. S. 105-164. 13(18) is 4 amended by j1 ubstituting the phrase "four percent (q%)" for the 5 phrase "thre percent (3%) ". 6 Sec! 4. The second sentence of G.S. 105-164.4(1) is q ,rewritten toj read: g 8 "The tax onn the sale of an aircraft, railway locomotive or car,: w 9 motor vehicl,.e, or boat shall be at the rate of three percent (3%) 10 Of .the _sales 1.prica, not -to exceed 'three hundred dollars ($300_00) 11 on the sale of any of the enumerated vehicles, including all 12 accessories attached to the vehicle when it is delivered to the 13 purchaser." 114 Sec 5. G.S. 105-164.6(3a) is amended by deleting the 15 phrase "two ercent (2%) " and inserting in lieu thereof the ( . 16 phrase "thr a percent (3%) ", and by deleting the phrase "one 17 hundred twent1y dollars ($120.00) " and inserting in lieu thereof 18 the phrase "tree hundred dollars ($300.00) ". 19 Sec. 6. G.S. 105-465, 105-467, 105-468 and 105-470 are }2D amended by deleting the phrase "three percent (3%)" and inserting 21 .,in lien the ereof the phrase "four percent (WW1 each time it 22 appears in those sections. -2 3 Sec. 7. :ah pper 1096 of the 1967 Session Laws, as t . 24 amended, is frther amended by deleting the phrase "three percent 25 (3%) " wherevr it a � appears and inserting in lieu thereof the • 26 phrase "four percent (4%) ". , ')7 } 1 ._ 040 .. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 1983 1 the 1967 Session Laws, as amended, are amended by deleting the 1: 2 tax table at the end of the first paragraph and inserting in lieu '3 thereof the following new table to read: " (1} I No amount on sales of lc js than 1Q¢; 5 (2) 1% on sales of 10% through 190; 6 (3) 2% on sales of 20% through 39%; 7 ` (4) 3% on sales of 40¢ through 590; 8 (5) 4% on sales of 60% through 790; `9 (6) � 05%-on sales of 80 "'through $1.09; and ID ,c4 .FSales of" over X1. 09---straight r;ve percent (5%) with major 11 fractidlns governing. u 12 Sec. 9„ Approval under the Local Government Sales and 13 Use Tax Act, Article 39 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes, 1L or under the Mecklenburg County Sales and Use Tax Act, Chapter ' 15 1096 of the 1967 Session Laws, of one ..., percent (1%) sales and use 16 taxes In addition to the three percent (3%) State sales and use 17 taxes .cvnsti,tutes approval of one percent (1%) sales and use 18 taxes In addition to the four percent (4%) State sales and I use 19 taxes. 20 1 Sec. 10. G. S. 105-164..4 (1) is amended by adding a n'e�' 21 -p�ara h at the `end 'thereof to read: 22 p.rovi' ed further, the tax on fool and food products for human 23 -consumption shall ,;be ,fat the rate of two l percent U2%) of the sales 24 price from June 1, 1983, through May 31, 1984, and shall be at 25 the rate of one percent (1%) of the sales price from June 1, 26 1984, though May 31, 1985.n 77 ' 'J,' 'w i', 1. :572,r::i:. - 17-4 ' 1-r: _:ate: $ c. _ w . . I • f GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NOpTH CAROLINA SESSION 1983 1 Sec. 11L G.S. 105-164.3 is amended by adding a new 2 subdivision to read: (:: 3 "(5a) 'rood and food products for human consumption' includes to the following: • 5 a. food products packaged by the manufacturer thereof 6 in the usual and customary container used for the 7 particular. type of food product and delivered 8 intact in the container by the retailer to the . 9 purchaser for consumption off the premises of the LO retailer; Li. b. basic food items such as fruit, vegetables, meat, L2 dairy y and poultry products, cereals, and bread and 13 other bakery products; di c. prepared meals or foods sold by grocery stores, .5 supermarkets, or any other similar business unless .6 the business provides facilities for the customers .7 to consume the meals or foods on the premises; .8 d. prepalred meals sold in a boarding house provided the .9 meal are sold only to permanent roomers of the ,0 boa.a ding house and the charge for the meals is l included in the weekly or monthly charge for the 1 room of each boarder; and 13 =:e. coffeI e and other foods sold through vending machines ''4 located at places that have no facilities for • 5 serving prepared meals or foods. 6 The term does not include t.bA fnl 1 nu;net. fin `�`... —...... ..w.., ,. .....��.....^..w...�sr.si:.wAr...ca:c.r...v.. k .., ..r...r w .,..r.+.:.r...zw —�..w..w....la.,. _ _ - -......-.. '_ GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 1983 113. 68(a) (1) , dry or liquid cocktail mixes, and 2 soft drinks or soft drink powders or syrups subject 3 to the soft drink tax under Article 2B of Chapter L 105 of the General Statutes; 5 b. candy and other confectionaries, chewing gum, popped 6 popcorn, and all preparations sold as dietary 7 supplements; and 8 c. prepared meals or foods sold and served on or off 9 the premises by restaurants, cafes, cafeterias, 10 delicatessens, drug stores, concession stands, 11 'fast-foods businesses that sell prepared meals or 12 foods on a stake-out0 basis, and any other 13 establishment, mobile or otherwise, that maintains 1h facilities, equipment, services, or inventory for 15 the sale of meals, snacks, sandwiches, and other 16 prepared food to customers. Prepared meals 17 furnished to employees in any of the foregoing 18 places as part of their compensation, however, are 19 not taxable." 20 Sec. 12. Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 105- 21 467, G.S. 105-468, and Sections 4 and 5 of Chapter 1096 of the 22 1967 Session Laws, food and food products for human consumption 23 taxed at the rate of either two percent (2%) or one percent (1%) 24 of the sales price by the State are subject to one percent (1%) 25 local sales and use taxes from June 1, 1983, through may 31, 26 1985. 8i tailers in taxing counties are required to collect local - ..0 4: �- - K +�.-�......••...w... ....-.«..►..... i .... _.....- -.�- - .m..-.. ... - - -: `:r-, rii •.-1 ERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH;CAROLINA SESSION 1983 -_c'r for human consumption during this two-year period even though � .;y these items are taxed by the Mate at a rate of less than four k percent (4%) . 1rw - i C Sec. 13. 1G.S. 105-164. 13 is amended by adding a new .t,---‘',.-:Y subdivision to read: 11 (36) Sales of food and food products for human consumption.“ -_`, ,, PART II . s. =- ; Appropriations. ,. Sec. 14. Tr.1 the extent that net additional General Fund .1r"'",,,,, Revenues are generated by this act, appropriations are hereby 1-1.-:.-: made from the General Fund for the 1983-85 biennium for the :-r'',,. following current operations: rw:•: , Current Operations - General Fund 1983-84 1984-85 1,.....-.-z.,1 DEPARTMENT OF COf1C1 UN ETY ...--: I 4F y1- COLLEGES - TOTAL $10,000,000 $10,000,000 ��V; 01. Reserve for Y oc� ti-octal P7--; . and Technical I structional, Al Equipment 10,000,000 10,000,000 ' -., DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION- TOTAL $55,000,000 $60,000,000 rN-; �.,.' 01. Reserve to tats Federal ii,4`-'`, Highway Aid 55,000,000 60,000,000 4•_,. GRAND TOTAL GENERAL FUND CURRENT ?µ =M !1��M•C OPERATIONS APPRO RI TION $65,000,000 $70,000,000 :.' w ,'t�,c�i:. See. 15. o the extent that net additional General Fund � �=Fqq�` r,. rpvi nnragg arr•} tipnrsratp9 by +him art . annrnnrimtinna ara 1.etr-co-vr. 1 •:.. t .... R `.i L 044 .. ...T--•=—..�..T...,w....w....r f�+i... .....,., ..–._..+:.iw::..:,r.'4-way.w+...._.._—..._. –............ . .�..... n..w.....�._., w•m...rr....n.l...r w«...— ....+.r.a,,. .... .........,._„–.,^,...r.........`........ . GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 1983-- i X83 1 follow .ng capital purposes. (:- 2 Capital improvements- 1983-84 198 -85 3 General Fund 4 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION- 5 TOTAL $75,000,000 $70,000,000 6 01. Grants to Units of 7 Government for 8 Cohstruct.ion and 9 liu. rovenent of Wastewater 10 Tr4atmen.t Works, -Wastewater Collection Systems 12 au Water Supply Systems 60,000,000 60.000,000 13 02. Res rve for Maintenance 14 and Repair of State 41' 15 Government Facilities 15,000,000 10.000,000. 16 DEPARTMIT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION- 17 TOTAL $60,000,000 $60,000,000 18 01., Grants to Units of 19 Gov rni ent for Construction, 20 Recvnstructio n, 21 Ertl rgement, Improvement, 22 Repair and Renovation �3 of Pxblic School 21j Facilities 60,000,000 60,000,00 �5 UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA 26 BOARD OF GOVERNORS -TOTAL $30,000, 000 S r GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 1 983 1 for Capital improvements 30,000,000 I (., 2 GRAND TOTAL GENERAL FUND 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $ APPROPRIATION $165,000,000 $130,000,000 5 Sec. 160 The capital funds appropriated to the 6 Department of Administration in Section 15 of this act for the 7 construction and improvement of wastewater treatment works, 8 wastewater collection systems and water supply systems shall be 9 administered by the Department, which shall be responsible for 10 the disburse ent of the appropriation. The Department of 11 Administration, in conjunction with the Department of Human 12 Resources' Di ision of Health Services, the Department of Natural 13 Resources and), Community Development, and the Department of 14 Commerce, is eI powered to adopt rules and criteria necessary for 15 the allocation and disbursement of funds and the performance of 16 other administrative duties pursuant to this section. However, 17 no rule or cr teria adopted by the Department of Administration, 18 the Division f Health Services, the Department of Natural 19 Resources and Community Development, or the Department of 20 Commerce, indi idual]y or collectively, shall become effective 21 until approved by the Governor after consultation with the 22 Advisory Budgelt Commission. 23 In allocating funds pursuant to this section, the 24 Department of Administration shall conform to the same principles 25 of allocation as contained in Chapter 993 of the 1981 Session 26 Laws. ' 'fi r'. " r•, ., . - _ ,:f,"- .(.y.rY....,....n..F�...+.w. ......+...., .w.r•+�M `�'Y4:,r.+i.LS.u.Ai.:w.:.+..:Ni: S'L'•'_-,rw.r..ru awr._ __ _ .__.... __ _ .».,...wrr-•—.— -. .-- - a�...wM+wM+nw.rw..-.s . --.1... GENERAL ..ASSEIBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 1983 1 Department of, Public Education in Section 15 of this act for the ‘.1,,_ 2 construction, reconstruction, enlargement, improvement, repair, 3 and renovation of public school facili • GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 1983 1 to be appropriated only by the General Assembly. 2 Sec. 181 Article 39 of Chapter 105 of the General 3 statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: tt nil 105-472. 1. Itood tax reimbursement.-- (a) The Secretary of 5 Revenue shall, on a quarterly basis, determine the amount of 6 sales and use taxes that would have been collected in each taxing 7 county on food and food products for human consumption during the B preceding quarter if local one percent (1%) sales and use taxes 9 had been levied on those items during that quarter, and shall .0 distribute this tmount from revenue collected under Article 5 of P L1 this Chapter to ech taxing county and its municipalities in 12 accordance with G.S. 105-472 or Section 9 of Chapter 1096 of the 13 1967 Session Laws, as appropriate. IL (b) The quarterly distribution required under subsection (a) (I.5 shall be wade only if food and food products for human .6 consumption are not subject to one percent (1%) local sales and .7 use taxes during the preceding quarter." LB Sec. 19. (a) Sections 4 and 5 of Chapter 993, Session 9 Laws of 1981 are repealed, and no bonds may be issued under that ?O act. 1 (b) Section 54 of Chapter 1282, Session Laws of 1981 '2 (Regular session 1982) is repealed. ?3 PART III. !LA Effective Date. 1 5 sec. 20. Sections 1 through 12 of this act shall become '6 effective June 1, 1983. Section 13 of this act shall become r . . - -1 I , s. 2 rrM, wi:rs.Irsra.Y.a-:+i1.4�.wM•�.:-i�ww+-.vim... . ____._.�—__ .. . - r:a...aaw...ww-.......wwn--�rr���+w"w.rr_... ' .r--wrir�+r-.J-..r�..�nw4...n...tl.1. •"•u••JF� .. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 1 983 1 effectik a July 1, 1983. Section 19 is effective upon 2 ratification_ The first distribution required under Section 18 3 shall b made at the end of the quarter that begins July 1, 1985 u 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 IL h� 16 17 1.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 26