Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-21-1990 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1990 ON ALL ABSTRACTS 7 :30 P.M. AVAILABLE IN THE OLD POST OFFICE CLERK'S OFFICE. CHAPEL HILL, NC NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING: Audio amplification equipment is available on request. If you need this assistance, please call the County Clerk' s Office at 732-8181 or 968-4501. I. BOARD COMMENTS II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. Matters on the Printed Agenda (We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked. ) B. Matters not on the Printed Agenda PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the. Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to- leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. V. ITEM$`- FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) A. Section 8 Program Reserve Funds B. Budget Ordinance Amendment #11 - C. First Union National Bank Lease Purchase Proposal-Equipment D. Tax Refunds Request E. Agreement Between Wake County Opportunities Incorporated and the Orange County Health Department VI. RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS A. Community Development Week VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS IX. REPORTS A. Carden's Mobile Home Report B. Rural Character Study Update C. Upper Eno Watershed Reclassification D. Poverty Forum Final Report (Draft) X. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA A. Appointment to Landfill Site Search Committee B. Culbreth Park Interim Assistance Grant Program C. Proposed Enabling Legislation--Affordable Housing and Farm Preservation and Watershed Protection D. Special Committee for EAS XI. APPOINTMENTS XII. MINUTES XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION -. To discuss a property matter and Attorney consultation on legal matter - XIV. ADJOURNMENT (*) Indicates items that need immediate attention. . Y PAGE 1 APPROVED 4/17/90 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on March 21, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. , and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell, Shirley Marshall and Don Willhoit. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Assistant County Managers Albert Kittrell and Ellen Liston, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Finance Director Ken Chavious, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Director of Housing and Community Development Tara Fikes, Purchasing Director Pam Jones, Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass, Health Director Dan Rimer, County Engineer Paul Thames, Budget Administrator Rod Visser, Planners Mary Scearbo and David Stancil. NOTE: COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. I. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Hartwell asked for the Board's reaction to a proposal from TJCOG to enlarge their membership. Also, there may be an increase in the amount of dues paid by the County to Triangle J this year. Reali ent was discussed and Commissioner Marshall suggested that the Regional drum investigate the viability of this request. Commissioner Halkiotis reported on the NACo Legislative Conference. He talked about the Cable TV dilemma and the Child Care issue. Commissioner Willhoit stated that this is not the year for enhancements in the budget. From every indication state revenues as well as County revenues will be decreasing next year. The Board agreed with Commissioner Willhoit. II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT County Manager John Link informed the Board about a zoning situation in which the County issued a Stop Work Order to Mr. King whose property is located in Efland. There are a number of junk vehicles on this property in violation of the County's ordinances. The property owner has until next Monday to correct the problem or face paying $100 a day civil penalties starting next Tuesday. III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Item 9D - Poverty Forum Final Report was deleted from the agenda. Two appointments to the Personnel Advisory Board were added under Appointments. IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Those citizens who have indicated a desire to speak will be recognized at the appropriate time. 3 PAGE 2 B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Ms. Patricia Owen asked for the Board's assistance in getting her hybird wolf dog returned to her and her husband. According to the County 's Ordinance they are harboring a wild animal. The animal was picked up by Animal Control and is now being boarded in Durham County. She explained the dog is not wild and has never offered to bite anyone. The Board asked the County Manager to follow up on this situation and do whatever can be done administratively to have the dog returned to the owners. PUBLIC CHARGE Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. read the Public Charge. V. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and as listed below: A. SECTION 8 PROGRAM RESERVE FUNDS Approve the grant project ordinance and budget ordinance amendments to appropriate Section 8 program reserve funds in the amount of $112,000 for housing and community development purposes. The two amendments are stated below: 1. GENERAL FUND Source - Transfer from Other Funds $ 85,000 Appropriations - Human Services 47,500 - Miscellaneous 10,000 - Contributions to Outside Agencies 27,500 2. Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners that pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina the ordinance adopting the "Section 8 Program Grant - 1989" project is hereby amended as follows: Section 1. Section 3 of the above mentioned ordinance is amended to read as follows: Existing $ 1,865,968 Moderate Rehab 425,331 Voucher 245,674 Appropriated Fund Balance ,112.000 Total Revenues $ 2,648,973 Section 2. Section 4 of the above mentioned ordinance is amended to read as follows: Rental Assistance - Existing $ 1,708,178 Rental Assistance - Mod Rehab 385,884 Rental Assistance - Voucher 224,352 Administration - Existing 157,790 Administration - Mod Rehab 39,447 Administration - Voucher 21,322 Section 8 Program Automation 27,000 Transfer to Other Funds 85,000 Total Appropriations $ 2,648,973 B. BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT #11 - r PAGE 3 To approve the amendments as listed below to the 1989-90 Budget Ordinance: GENERAL FUND Source - Intergovernmental $ 18,041 Appropriation - Human Services 18,041 (To budget for additional Child Day Care grant funds) Source - Intergovernmental $ 4,443 Appropriation - Human Services 4,443 (To budget for Independent Living Program grant funds) Source - Miscellaneous Expense $ 5,000 Appropriation - Contributions to Outside Agencies 5,000 (To transfer additional funds for the Adolescents in Need Program from Contingency) Source - Intergovernmental $ 13,338 Appropriation - Miscellaneous Expense 13,338 (To budget for Emergency Shelter Grant Program funds) Source - Intergovernmental $ 20,000 Appropriation - Miscellaneous Expense 20,000 (To budget grant funds for Community Housing Alternatives) Source - Appropriation Fund Balance $(85,000) Appropriations - Miscellaneous Expense (10,000) - Human Services (47,500) - Contributions to Outside Agencies (27,500) (To decrease General Fund appropriations for housing related purposes and for appropriated fund balance) C. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK LEASE PURCHASE PROPOSAL - EQUIPMENT To approve and authorize the Chair to sign a lease purchase proposal submitted by First Union National Bank of North Carolina for the purchase of a hazardous materials vehicle and for telecommunications hardware and software upon review and approval of County Attorney and Finance Director. The total amount to be financed is $417,200. D. TAX REFUNDS REQUEST To approve four request for refund of tax bills as listed below: Acct. # 85981 Norman M. Walters $ 426.12 Acct. # 20012 James & Zuliene Douglas 78.08 Acct. # 112189 Mils J. Hoffman, Jr. 29.97 Acct. # 119585 Allen L. & Karen S. Bishop 29.44 E. AGREEMENT BETWEEN WAKE COUNTY OPPORTUNITIES INC. & 0/C HEALTH DEPT. To approve and authorize the Chair to sign a renewal agreement between Wake County Opportunities Incorporated for its Head Start Program and the Orange County Health Department for its Dental clinic to provide dental services to children enrolled in the Cedar Grove Head Start Center. VOTE: UNANIMOUS PAGE 4 VI. RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adopt and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation designating April 7 - 14, 1990 as Community Development Week in Orange County. The Proclamation is stated below: PROCLAMATION NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK APRIL 7 - 14, 1990 WHEREAS, the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM has operated since 1974 to provide local governments with the resources required to meet the needs of persons of low and moderate income; WHEREAS, community development block grant funds are used by thousands of neighborhood-based nonprofit organizations throughout the Nation to address pressing neighborhood and human services needs; WHEREAS, in the last several years the Federal Government has reduced Federal assistance to local governments and nonprofit organizations; WHEREAS, during this time of constricted Federal contributions to the task of meeting the needs of low and moderate income persons, the problems have grown as evidenced by the dwindling supply of affordable housing, the massive rise in homelessness, and the resurfacing of hunger and malnutrition; WHEREAS, during this time of Federal withdrawal from responsibility, the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM has assumed increasing importance for meeting pressing community problems; WHEREAS, the Congress and the Nation has often overlooked the critical value of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM and the significant number of organizations and projects that rely on its funds for support; WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has declared April 7 - 14, 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners proclaim April 7 - 14, 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK and call upon all citizens of our County to support the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, ON THIS THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. IX. REPORTS A. CARDEN'S MOBILE HOME REPORT County Engineer Paul Thames referred to the proposed plan that was submitted to DEM to correct the situation with the disposal of waste at Carden's Mobile Home Park. He explained that Carden's is presently served by two discharging septic tank/sand filter systems and five conventional nondischarging septic PAGE 5 tank/nitrification field systems. The existing plans calls for eleven (11) mobile homes to discharge into the new treatment system. Mr. Harden who is trying to purchase the mobile home park indicated he would be willing to hook up all the trailers to the new system to insure maximum treatment of the waste. Mr. Harden informed Mr. Thames that an application was submitted this afternoon for a revised SOC and for a revised MPDES permit to discharge the waste to Stoney Creek and to allow them to increase the waste loading to pick up every existing and potential trailer on this lot. In all likelihood, the actual changing of the discharge point may not occur until late summer or early fall. Health Director Dan Reimer reported that the screening tests done by the State Lab did show significantly high levels of human chloroform that would constitute a public health nuisance. Mr. Reimer stated that his responsibility in such a finding would be to consider what appropriate action is necessary. The State Assistant Health Director reviewed the findings and stated that the issuing of an abatement order was a possibility although the trend in the state is to use that strategy as an intervention in those cases where the owner has either resisted resolving the problem or there is no solution apparent and action needs to be taken. In this case the present owner and the possible new owner have taken action that has been ordered by DEM and it does not appear that issuing an abatement order at this time would move anything along any faster. However, if anything in the system of steps being taken break down, the grounds are there for issuing an abatement order. John Link informed the Board that the administration will keep them informed on the progress of the installation of the new system. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the resolution as stated below. This will be presented at the public hearing to be held next week by DEM on Carden's Mobile Home Park. R E S O L U T I O N A resolution from the Orange County Commissioners to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management regarding the relocation of the point of discharge from the waste treatment facility serving Carden's Mobile Home Park. WHEREAS: A substandard waste treatment facility serving Carden's Mobile Home Park has been discharging untreated sewage to a roadside storm drainage ditch on Hwy 70 for nearly twenty years; and WHEREAS: Said untreated sewage has been flowing across and ponding on the property of one Talmage Stephenson for nearly twenty years; and WHEREAS: Mr. Stephenson and other area residents have been attempting without success to have said untreated sewage flow abated or diverted for nearly twenty years; and WHEREAS: The division of Environmental Management has scheduled a public hearing for the purpose of receiving public comment on a Special Order by Consent under which a new waste treatment facility at Carden's Mobile Home Park will operate and discharge; Be it resolved that the Board of County Commissioners most urgently request that the Division of Environment Management direct Carden's Mobile Home Park to cease discharging waste treatment effluent to its present point of discharge and to pipe the waste treatment effluent along the Hwy 70 right-of-way to Stoney Creek or to stop discharging effluent and install a non-discharging system. VOTE: UNANIMOUS PAGE 6 B. RURAL CHARACTER STUDY UPDATE Planner David Stancil reported that the Rural Character Committee has been working very diligently on (1) development of a set of guidelines for the Rural Buffer section of the County, and (2) education of the public by holding meetings in the townships to involve the citizens and respond to their concerns. Mr. Clink Burklin, Chairman of this committee, reported on the activities of this committee. He stated that the Rural Character Study Committee received the consultants recommended strategies for preserving the rural character of Orange County last fall. While these recommendations introduced new ideas, they were not responsive to a lot of the input that the committee received from the local community. The Rural Character Study Committee subsequently met in many intense sessions throughout the winter to develop a rural character preservation plan directed at the unique needs of Orange County. The Committee has now developed a draft plan for preserving the rural character of the Rural Buffer portion of Orange County. The process is to canvass the community to receive comments on the draft plan. The second task is to develop a plan for the remaining rural areas of Orange County. The committee requests that the County Commissioners grant them an additional two months to finish their work and prepare their recommendation for the Commissioners consideration. After ensued discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to give the Committee an additional month to complete its work and to report back to the Board of Commissioners at the end of this month. Carole Crumley, spoke as a member of the Rural Character Committee, and the Chair of the Education Subcommittee. They are in the process of simplifying the language that was very difficult for citizens to understand. She feels that this education process is community based in that the community is involved in telling the committee what they feel the issues are that the County face. Bob Strayhorn stated their committee worked hard in educating the public and that the education process is making progress. The citizens are listening and asking questions. It is their hope that when this goes to public hearing that the citizens will understand and support the plan. C. UPPER ENO WATERSHED RECLASSIFICATION Paul Thames provided information on the possibility of and the procedure for obtaining upgraded water supply watershed classification for the Upper Eno River basin and the Seven Mile Creek basin. Because of all the departments involved in the process of reclassification it becomes a very involved and complicated procedure. The application process for any change in the water classification would start with the governing board having jurisdiction over the land in the watershed. They would pass a resolution stating it was their intent to have DEM give them a watershed upgrade. In addition to that, the County would submit information about any watershed protection measures that are already in effect, present zoning, any programs run by the Soil Conservation for protection of erosion, the standard construction erosion sedimentation control measures and zoning densities, etc. DEM will then study the information, investigate the existing water quality and rule on the upgrading request. H.S. 156 will require DEM to identify all the watersheds in the state and determine its best use. Every local government having zoning, subdivision, etc. , jurisdiction over the newly classified watersheds is to enact local regulations which protect the watersheds to the degree specified in the new statewide classifications and regulations. He explained the options available to the County to upgrade the watershed classifications for these two basins. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to write a letter to DEM emphasizing that for a long time Orange County has identified Seven Mile Creek as a future reservoir and have been taking measures to protect that s PAGE 7 area from development and request that it be given a reclassification to WSII. This letter would indicate a willingness on the part of the county to take whatever steps necessary to achieve that designation. This letter will be shared with the Town of Hillsborough on March 26 at a Special Meeting between the two Boards. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. POVERTY FORUM FINAL REPORT (DRAFT) This item was deleted from the agenda. X. ITEMS FOR DECISION = REGULAR AGENDA A. APPOINTMENT TO LANDFILL SITE SEARCH COMMITTEE Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to appoint Susan Dovenbarger as the County's governmental representative to the Landfill Site Search Committee of the Landfill Owner's Group. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. B. CULBRETH PARK INTERIM ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve execution of the Development Agreement with Culbreth Park Community Development Corporation and the Grant Agreement/Funding Approval with ECD after final award has been received and authorize the Chair to sign the documents contingent upon approval in form by the County Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D PROPOSED ENABLING LEGISLATION ; AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FARM PRESERVATION AND WATERSHED PROTECTION. AND BONDING FOR OPERATORS OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill asked the Board to consider requesting local legislation for (1) clarifying the County's ability to grant housing density bonuses (2) clarifying the County's ability to purchase development rights for purposes of farm preservation and watershed protection, and (3) requiring operators of community alternative systems to secure the operation of those systems for some significant period of time by requiring the operators/owners to be bonded. The bond would be sufficient to cover some period of time of operation. Bills for proposed legislation must be submitted by May 29. Verla Insko, Chair of the OWASA Board, asked that OWASA be given an opportunity to respond to this proposal before it is submitted. It was decided to have the proposed legislation drafted and distributed to OWASA and the municipalities for their comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to authorize the County Attorney to prepare local legislation to (1) clarify Orange County's authority to provide density bonuses for affordable housing, (2) to clarify Orange County's authority to acquire land and an interest in land for farmland preservation and watershed protection, and (3) to require the owners/operators of alternative wastewater systems to be bonded. VOTE: UNANIMOUS SPECIAL REPORT FROM COMMISSIONER MARSHALL Commissioner Marshall gave a report on the Special Meeting held on March 12 by the Utilities Commission. She stated they had three speakers who were very effective. Southern Bell is going to submit an entirely new proposal which does not have the r PAGE 8 support of the Triad or Orange County. D. SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR EAS Chairman Moses Carey stated that this Special Committee would be charged with developing strategies for convincing the Utilities Commission of the importance of toll free calling to the citizens of Orange County. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to establish this Special Committee and to appoint Frances Douglasf, David Garrison, Daryl Dunlap and Harry F. Robinson to this committee. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. XI. APPOINTMENTS The following appointments were approved by the Board. BOARD OF HEALTH - Beverly Havens to fill the unexpired term of Winifred Prysock RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL - Michael R. Ford - Bingham Township Rep. PERSONNEL ADVISORY BOARD - Dr. Kit Simpson and James Britian XII. MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the minutes for the February 20, 1990 Regular Meeting as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the minutes for the February 26, 1990-Joint Public Hearing with the Planning Board as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for the February 28, 1990-Joint Planning Area Public Hearing as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION - TO DISCUSS A PROPERTY MATTER AND ATTORNEY CONSULTATION ON A LEGAL MATTER Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to go into Executive Session to discuss a property matter and for attorney consultation on a legal matter. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to go back into regular session. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XIV. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to be discussed, Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on April 2, 1990 at 7:30 in the Courtroom of the Old Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No V_nc ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 21, 1990 SUBJECT: Section 8 Program Reserve Funds DEPARTMENT Budget PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X ATTACHMENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT Proposed Grant Project Ordinance Rod Visser, extension 492 Amendment TELEPHONE NUMBER Proposed Budget Ordinance Hillsborough 732-8181 Amendment #10 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 PURPOSE: To appropriate Section 8 program reserve funds in the amount of $112 , 000 for housing and community development purposes. BACKGROUND: Orange County Housing and Community Development is authorized to use reserve federal grant funds that have accrued from prior years' operations of Section 8 housing programs. These funds would be transferred from fund balance in the Housing Fund and appropriated for housing related purposes in both the Housing Fund and the General Fund by means of the proposed budget ordinance amendment and the proposed grant project ordinance amendment. Reserve funds would be used to purchase computer hardware and software to assist in the administration of the County's housing programs and for other affordable housing purposes. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the proposed grant project ordinance and budget ordinance amendments. I GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SECTION 8 PROGRAM GRANT - 1989 Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners that pursuant to Section 13 .2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina the ordinance adopting the "Section 8 Program Grant - 1989" project is hereby amended as follows: Section 1. Section 3 of the above mentioned ordinance is amended to read as follows: Existing $1, 865,968 Moderate Rehab 425, 331 Voucher 245, 674 Appropriated Fund Balance 112,000 Total Revenues $2, 648,973 Section 2. Section 4 of the above mentioned ordinance is amended to read as follows: Rental Assistance - Existing $1,708, 178 Rental Assistance - Mod Rehab 385,884 Rental Assistance - Voucher 224,352 Administration - Existing 157,790 Administration -- Mod Rehab 39,447 Administration - Voucher 21, 322 Section 8 Program Automation 27, 000 Transfer to Other Funds 85,000 Total Appropriations $2,648,973 Adopted this 21st day of March, 1990. F ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1989-90 BUDGET AMENDMENTS The 1989-90 Orange County Budget Ordinance, as amended, is hereby amended as follows: BEFORE AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT GENERAL FUND (1) Source: Trans from Other Funds $1, 115,840 $ 85, 000 $1, 200, 840 Appropriations: Human Services $9, 242,849 $ 47, 500 $9,290, 349 Miscellaneous $ 474, 146 $ 10, 000 $ 484, 146 Contributions to Outside Agencies $1, 829,521 $ 27,500 $1,857, 021 To budget Section 8 reserve federal grant funds for housing related purposes. BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 10 d ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No V ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 21, 1990 SUBJECT: Budget Ordinance Amendment #11 DEPARTMENT Budget PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X ATTACHMENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT Proposed Budget Ordinance Rod Visser, extension 492 Amendments TELEPHONE NUMBER Notifications of Additional Social Hillsborough 732-8181 Services Grant Allocations Chapel Hill 968-4501 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 PURPOSE: To approve proposed budget ordinance amendments. BACKGROUND: (1) The Orange County Department of Social Services has been awarded an additional $18, 041 in Child Day Care grant funds. No County match is required. (2) The Orange County Department of Social Services has been awarded $4,443 for FY 1989-90 Independent Living programs for youth. No County match is required for this grant. (3) At the January 23 , 1990 meeting, the Board of Commissioners approved a request from the Adolescents in Need program for an additional $5,000 in funding for FY 1989-90. This amendment will appropriate these funds from Contingency. (4) The Board of Commissioners previously accepted $13,338 in Emergency Shelter Grant funds from the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development for FY 1989-90. This amendment will appropriate those funds for use by the Interfaith Council shelter program. at • (5) Earlier this year, the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation agreed to pro4ge :.$20,000 in grant funds to Community Housing Alterha? s,, a non-profit housing development corporation. As this volunteer agency has no paid staff or accounting capability, the Board of Commissioners approved an agreement for Orange County to act as grant recipient and to provide accounting services for the grant for FY 1989-90. The County has no other obligation under this arrangement. This amendment appropriates those grant funds for use by Community Housing Alternatives. (6) Reserve funds from the Section 8 housing program in the amount of $85, 000 are transferred to the General Fund for housing related purposes by another budget amendment. This amendment reduces required General Fund appropriations for housing related purposes and reduces the amount of appropriated fund balance required in the General Fund by corresponding amounts. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve amendments to the 1989--90 Budget Ordinance by the proposed amendments. • ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1989-90 BUDGET AMENDMENTS The 1989-90 Orange County Budget Ordinance, as amended, is hereby amended as follows: BEFORE AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT GENERAL FUND (1) Source: Intergovernmental $5,500,794 $ 18, 041 $5,518,835 Appropriation: Human Services $9,290, 349 $ 18, 041 $9, 308, 390 To budget for additional Child Day Care grant funds. (2) Source: Intergovernmental $5,518,835 $ 4,443 $5, 523, 278 Appropriation: Human Services $9, 308, 390 $ 4,443 $9, 312, 833 To budget for Independent Living Program grant funds. (3) Source: Miscellaneous Expense $ 484, 146 $ 5,000 $ 479, 146 Appropriation: Contributions to Outside Agencies $1,857,021 $ 5,000 $1,862, 021 To transfer additional funds for the Adolescents In Need Program from Contingency. (4) Source: Intergovernmental $5, 523,278 $ 13 , 338 $5,536, 616 Appropriation: Miscellaneous Expense $ 479, 146 $ 13,338 $ 492,484 To budget for Emergency Shelter Grant Program funds. (5) Source: Intergovernmental $5,536, 616 $ 20, 000 $5,556, 616 Appropriation: Miscellaneous Expense $ 492,484 $ 20, 000 $ 512,484 To budget grant funds for Community Housing Alternatives. (6) Source: Appropriated Fund Balance $ 824,722 $ (85, 000) $ 739,722 Appropriations: Miscellaneous Expense $ 512, 484 $ (10, 000) $ 502,484 Human Services $9,312, 833 $ (47, 500) $9,265, 333 Contributions to Outside Agencies $1,862, 021 $ (27,500) $1,834,521 To decrease General Fund appropriations for housing related purposes and for appropriated fund balance. BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 11 CHILD DAY CARE FUNDING AUTIHORIZATION # 2 EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 1990 Issued To: ORANGE County Department of Social Services Issued By: The Department of Human Resources Division of Facility Services Child Day Care Section 1. Initial Allocation 276,386 2. Annual Allocation 347,970 • 3. Add/Delete This Increment 18,041 4. Adjusted Annua]. Allocation 366,011 5. GRANT INFORMATION: CHILD DAY CARE REALLOCATION Obligations incurred and Expenditures made under this advice will be subject to. limitations published by Federal and State Agencies as to the availability of Funds 6. ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTION STATE FISCAL YEAR 7/1/89 -- 6/30/90. 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 41'11 QUARTER 124,447 109,294 1101.1111P. - AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES � � ` Date: ,h. • / 'Date: V /lO/y21 t _r _ .� DFS-0300 (Rev-5/85) Fiscal Unit r � 'N NRT CAROLINA FUNDING O +• � E�ARH TMENT bi r.L ■�YJ■* NUM AN RESOURCES DIVISIONof SOCIAL SERVICES AUTHORIZATION ISSUED T0 : • ALLOCATION PERIOD ORANGE COUNTY FROM 10/01/89 THRU 06/30/90 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING SOURCE EFFECTIVE AUTH# DATE - INDEPENDENT LIVING 10/01/89 1 INITIAL ALLOCATION $ 4,443 PRIOR YEAR TO DATE. . . INCREASE (DECREASE) INCREASE (DECREASE) THIS AUTHORIZATION NET ANNUAL ALLOCATION $ 4,443 GRANT INFOR;CATION : OBLIGATIONS INCURRED AND EXPENDITURES MADE UNDER THIS ADVICE WILL BE SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS PUBLISHED BY FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES AS TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE Chit ,OCT 1 0 1989 DDS-7]69 7 4) li' BOARD Or JIMISSIONERS ; Action Agenda Item No. V-� ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 4 Meeting Date: March 21 , 1990 SUBJECT: First Union National Bank Lease Purchase Proposal - Equipment DEPARTMENT: Finance PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : Proposal INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Chavious TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider approval of a lease purchase proposal submitted by First Union National Bank of North Carolina for the purchase of a hazardous materials vehicle and for telecommunications hardware and software . BACKGROUND: The purchase of a hazardous materials vehicle was approved _by the Board at the September 19, 1989 meeting. Subsequently, on December 19, 1989, the Board approved the purchase of telecommunications hardware and software. The purchases were approved with the understanding that third party financing would be the method of payment for these items . First Union National Bank of North Carolina, administrators of the County Commissioner ' s Association Installment Purchase Program, has propropsed a financing arrangement . The total amount to be financed is $417 , 200 . This amount is based on the following; total cost down pymt amt financed Haz . mat vehicle $ 89,712 $20 , 012 $ 69,700 Tele equip 386,165 38,665 347 , 500 Total $475 , 877 $58 , 677 5417 , 200 First Union' s proposal requires 20 quarterly payments of 525 , 122 at a 5 year fixed interest rate of 7 . 36%. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve proposal from First Union and authorize Chairman to execute final lease documents upon review and approval of County Attorney and Finance Director. First Union National Bank 2 of North Carolina First Union Plaza Charlotte, North Carolina 28288 � N March 5, 1990 Mr. Ken Chavius Finance Director Orange County 109 Court Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Ken: On behalf of First Union National Bank, please accept my thanks for the opportunity to submit a proposal to assist Orange County in its acquisition of telephone equipment and a hazardous materials truck. First Union is actively interested in supporting the County in this endeavor, and as such, we are well prepared to help you meet your needs. The rate and payment factors contained within our proposal are effective for fundings accomplished within the next thirty days. Upon your acceptance of our proposal and final credit approval, we will issue a commitment on the rate and terms established therein. To the extent that interest rates are stable, we will endeavor to hold the identified rate and payment factor beyond thirty days if a commitment cannot be made prior to the proposal expiration date. . Thanks again, Ken, for your time and consideration in this matter. As you review our proposal, don't hesitate to contact me at 704-374-4976 should you have any questions. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincer y, C�eJ P. Scott Nagelson Public Finance 1p . 3 INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPOSAL The enclosed proposal Exhibit (I) contains additional information regarding this proposal and is incorporated herein by reference. If the terms are mutually satisfactory, they will be incorporated in an Installment Purchase Contract which will be executed by the parties. The proposal is as follows: 1. COUNTY: Orange County, North Carolina. 2. SECURED PARTY: First Union National Bank or its nominee. 3. EQUIPMENT, TERM AND PAYMENT: See attached exhibit. 4. TYPE OF CONTRACT: The contract will be a net contract whereby the County will be responsible for all expenses related directly or indirectly to the use of the equipment including maintenance, taxes, insurance coverage, etc. Should this proposal be acceptable in principal, please sign, seal and date this document in the space provided below and return it to us as an indication of your acceptance. In addition, please include the required deposit and one copy of the County's three (3) most current Financial Statements. As is our standard practice, this proposal is subject to final approval by our Pricing and Credit Committee. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK ACCEPTED PROPOSAL EXHIBIT NO. 1 se �� / - L_______ Orange County, North Carolina (Seal) P. Scott Nagelson By: Public Finance Title: Date: THIS PROPOSAL SHALL EXPIRE ON April 5, 19 9 UNLESS ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY PRIOR TO THAT DATE. 4' PROPOSAL EXHIBIT (NO. 1) The terms of this Proposal Exhibit are incorporated by reference within the Proposal letter dated March 5. 1989. 1. TYPE OF PROJECT: Installment-Purchase of telephone equipment and a hazardous materials truck. 2. AMOUNT TO BE FUNDED: Approximately $417,200. 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Hillsborough, North Carolina. 4. ANTICIPATED FUNDING DATE: April 1990. 5. TERM: Five (5) year fixed interest rate alternative. The contract will amortize over the term, with payments at the interest rate and payment factor as illustrated below. The rate and payment factor are effective for fundings accomplished within the next thirty days. No. of Quarterly Payments (in arrears) 20 Interest Rate 7.36% Payment $25,122.33 Payment Factor .060217 6. PREPAYMENT OPTION: Zero at the end of the lease term. 102% of the remaining principal at any time during the term. 7. TITLE: Title to the project will pass to the County on the acceptance date. Title will remain in the County's name so long as all payments in the agreement have been made. 8. NO DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT: In compliance with N. C. General Statute Section 160A-20, the contract will provide that in any action for default, no deficiency judgment may be rendered against the County for amounts that may be owed when the proceeds of the sale of the Equipment are insufficient to pay in full the remaining obligations under the contract. 9. TAX STATUS: This proposal is subject to the County being qualified as a governmental entity or "political sub-division" within the meaning of Section 103(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended. The County agrees to cooperate with First Union in providing evidence as deemed necessary or desirable by First Union to substantiate such tax status. 5 Exhibit No. 1 Page Two 10. LEGAL OPINION: The County will be required to provide an opinion of County counsel that the installment purchase agreement is a valid, enforcable obligation. 11. DEPOSIT: The County will be required to remit a deposit equal to one percent (1%) of the cost of the project upon acceptance of the proposal. If a commitment from the Secured Party is not received within thirty (30) calendar days this deposit shall be returned to the County. Upon acceptance of a commitment and execution of the documents the deposit (without interest thereon) will be applied on a pro rata basis to the first payment. If the commitment is issued on substantially the same terms and conditions as outlined in this proposal and is not accepted by the County by the commitment acceptance date, the Secured Party shall retain the deposit. 12. EXPENSES: Any expenses associated with the revision of the basic documentation which would require the use of outside counsel will be paid by the County. 13. BANK OUALIFICATION: County represents that this contract is designated as a qualifying obligation under the $10,000,000 small issue exemption as described within Section 265b3 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. • 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. yD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 21, 1990 SUBJECT: Tax Refunds Request DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No Tax Supervisor ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Individual Request TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider 4 request for refund of tax bills. BACKGROUND: General Statutes 105-381 (b) Action of Governing Body - Upon receiving a taxpayers written statement of defense and request for release or refund, the governing body of the Taxing Unit shall within 90 days after receipt of such a request determine whether the taxpayer has a valid defense to the tax imposed or any part thereof and shall either release or refund that portion of the amount that is determined to be in excess of the current liability or notify the taxpayer in writing that no release or refund will be made. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Board approve request for refund of tax bills. 2 ACCT # 85981 TRACT # 701668 MAP 7.50.G.12 BILL # 8948350 C 1 Norman M. Walters 433 Ridgefield Rd. Chapel Hill, NC ] COMMENT: Property was taxed on value of land and house ($101,098). However, house did not exist Jan 1, 1989. Refund due on $67,897 REF: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1989 tax overpayment Valuation $67,897 GO $482.06 G2 387.01 CH 120.51 989.58 .RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: 3 ACCT 20012 TRACT # MAP BILI, # 8916960 C James & Zuliene Douglas 1120 B. Smith Level Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 C COMMENT: 1987 Mazda 4S listed in both Orange County and Wake County. Should have been listed in Wake County only. RE-"': G.S. 105-381(a)(1 )b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1989 Tax overpayment Valuation $8070 GO $57.30 FC 6.46 • CH 14.32 $78.08 Total Refund • .RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: 4 ACCT # 112189 TRACT # 7i5750 ► MAP 7.16K. .7 SILL # 8922357 Mils J. Hoffman, Jr. & Sandra 105 Hollowood Ct. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 [ 1 COMMENT: 1982 Honda valued at $3190 was listed in error. Did not own 1-1-89 per letter. REF: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1982 tax overpayment Valuation $3190 GO $22.65 • FD 1.66 CH 5.66 $29.97 .RECOMMENDATION: Approve • ORDER: DATE: • • ACCT # • 119585 5 TRACT # 715808 MAP 7.24G.B.5 BILL ifs 898747 [ ] Allen L. & Karen S. Bishop 140 Kingston Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27514 1 COMMENT: Taxpayer listed 1986 Mazda Truck VIN JM2UE2114G0606457 which computer priced at $6,630. Correct VIN should have been JM2UF2114G0606457 valued at $4610. -- REF: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)a. A tax imposed through clerical error. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1989 tax overpayemnt. Valuation Difference: $2,020 GO $14.34 G2 11.51 CH 3.59 $29.44 .RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: ORANGE COUNTY 1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. V-E ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Ar Meeting Date: March 21. 1990 SUBJECT: Agreement Between Wake County Opportunities Incorporated and the Orange County Health Department DEPARTMENT: HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT'S ! : INFORMATION CONTACT: HEALTH DIRECTOR'S OFFICE X 311 3 Page Agreement Daniel B. Reimer TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To approve a renewal agreement between Wake County Opportunities Incorporated for its Head Start Program and the Orange County Health Department for its Dental Clinic to provide dental services to children enrolled in the Cedar Grove Head Start Center. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Health Department Dental Clinic has provided dental services to Head Star--t-children at the Cedar Grove Center for a number of years. The attached contract is a renewal in a revised format. The terms are basically the same as before. The $ 5.200 income to the Health Department Dental Clinic has already been incorporated within .the approved revenue budget. - RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the contract and authorize the Chair to sign. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ORANGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WAKE COUNTY OPPORTUNITIES, INC. AND THE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this the first day of October, 1989 by and between Wake County Opportunities, Inc. of Raleigh, N.C. , for its Head Start Start Program referred to as "Head Start"; and the Orange County Health Department of Hillsborough, W.C. , for its Dental Clinic hereinafter referred to as "Dental Clinic." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Head Start desires the services of the Dental Clinic to provide dental services to the children who are enrolled at the Cedar Grove Center; WHEREAS, The Dental Clinic wishes to provide dental services for Head Start; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the following mutual promises, covenants, and conditions, Head Start and the Dental Clinic agree as follows: 1. The Dental Clinic will provide dental examination, assessment. treatment, and educational services for approximately sixty (60) children, 3-5 years old, enrolled at the Cedar Grove Center. 2. The Dental Clinic will assure that its employees and contract officers are covered with professional liability insurance while rendering services to the Head Start children. Between Wake County Opportunities, Inc. and Orange County Health Department Page 2 of 3 3. The Dental Clinic will submit a bill in an amount of Five thousand two hundred dollars ($5 ,200.00) to: Health Coordinator Wake-Orange and Chatham Head Start Wake County Opportunities, Inc. , 568 East Lenoir St. Raleigh, N.C. 27601 4. Head Start will transport and supervise children to the Dental Clinic in numbers and at times mutually agreed upon by Head Start and the Dental Clinic. 5. Head Start agrees to provide automobile liability insurance during the transport of the children to and from the Dental Clinic; and agrees to hold the Dental Clinic harmless during such transport. 6. Head Start agrees to supply copies of necessary eligibility determination forms, medicaid cards, medical and dental history, and record forms (CAP-H.S.-30) for the Dental Clinic to provide, document and bill for services rendered. 7. Upon receipt of a bill from the Dental Clinic, Head Start agrees to make a check payable to the Dental Clinic of the Orange County Health Department and address it to: Mr. Daniel B. Reimer, Director Orange County Health Department Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 8. In the event that the Dental Clinic shall cease or significantly reduce the level of service below the objectives set out in section one (1) of the agreement, Head Start may terminate this agreement; and the Dental Clinic agrees to return to Head Start a pro rata share of the payment for services not provided. Between Wake County Opportunities, Inc. and Orange County Health Department Page 3 of 3 9. This Agreement shall run for a period of one year, from the 1st day of October, 1989 to the 30th day of September, 1990. and shall be renewable thereafter. 10. This Agreement or its renewals may be terminated at any time without penalty by either party provided that written notice of such termination is furnished to the other party at least sixty (60) days prior to termination. In the event of such termination, any payment made or payment due shall be prorated to the date of termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The parties have hereunto signed this Agreement in their official capacities on the day and year listed below. FOR AND ON BEHALF OF: FOR AND ON BEHALF OF: WAKE COUNTY OPPORTUNITIES, INC. THE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT p,QAIX ,rte. Y Name: Daniel B. Reimer Health Director or Title: Date: This instrument has been preaudited in the / manner required by the Local Government ♦� ' J /��� Budget and Fiscal Control Act. r I ' Dat 4 Kenneth T. Chavious Director, Orange County Finance 4- as- 15' Date: .� 4Q4 # Moses Carey, Jr. Chairman, Orange Count/Board of Commissioners c .ts /9i Date:, 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.V. A ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 21 , 1990 SUBJECT: Community Development Week DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes Proclamation TELEPHONE NUMBER- . Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To proclaim April 7 - 14, 1990 as Community Development Week in Orange County to recognize the significant contribution the Community Development Block Grant program has provided to the low and moderate income residents of Orange County . BACKGROUND: The National Community Development Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities and the National Association of Counties are continuing efforts in support of National Community Development Week - April 2 - 14 , 1990 . They are urging all cities and counties to support this week by proclaiming Community Development Week in their respective localities. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Adopt proclamation designating April 7 - 14, 1990 as Community Development Week and authorize the chair to sign the proclamation on behalf of the Board. 2 PROCLAMATION NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK APRIL 7 - 14 , 1990 WHEREAS, the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM has operatea since 1974 to provide local governments with the resouices required to meet the needs of persons of low and moderate inccn e; WHEREAS , community - development block grant funds are used by housaad:-3 c•r neighborhood-based nonprofit organizations throughout the Nation to address pressing neighborhood and human services ne eds ; WHEREAS , in the last several years the Federal Government has reduced Federal assistance to local governments and nonprofit organizations ; WHEREAS, during this time of constricted Federal contrioutions to the task of meeting the needs of low and moderate income persons, the problems have grown as evidenced by the dwindling supply of affordable housing, the massive rise in homelessness , and the resurfacing of hunger and malnutrition; WHEREAS . during this time of Federal withdrawal from responsibility , the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM has assumed increasing importance for meeting pressing community problems; ' ;WHEREAS , the Congress' and the Nation has often overlooked the criticai value of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT r?RC hAM and the significant number of organizations and projects •that rely on Its funds for support ; WHEREAS , the Congress of the United States has declared April 7 - 14 , 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners proclaim April 7 -- 14 , 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK and call upon all citizen of our County to support the L:OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. GIVEN UNL,LR MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, .iN THIS THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY. Moses Carey, Jr . , Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners SEAL ORANGE COUNTY 1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 21, 1990 Action A enda Item # A SUBJECT: Carden's Mobile Home Park Waste Treatment Systems DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: _____Yes x No Health Department_ ATTACHMENT(S) : Report INFORMATION CONTACT: Under Separate Cover- Map of Paul Thames, County Engineer Carden' s Mobile Home Park Dan Reimer, Health Director TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To present additional information on the status of existing and proposed waste treatment facilities at Carden's Mobile Home Park BACKGROUND: Problems relating to waste treatment and disposal systems at Carden's Mobile Home Park have been recorded as a matter of public concern for approximately the past twenty years. These problems have primarily concerned a discharging system or systems where the effluent from these systems has flowed across and onto neighboring properties. A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled by the North Caroling Division of Environment Management for March 29, 1990. The Board of County Commissioners has expressed an interest in providing some official input into the proceedings and, as a factual basis for that input, has requested information in the form of a series of investigations, memoranda and reports from various elements of the County staff and state agencies. 2 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON CARDEN'S MOBILE HOME PARK WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS In the County Commissioner's meeting on March 5, 1990, during a report by the OC Health Director concerning Carden's Mobile Home Park's existing discharging waste treatment system, the Commissioners directed that a supplemental report be prepared. The supplemental report was to include information on the status of all waste treatment facilities serving Carden's, particularly the existing conventional nondischarge septic tank systems. This report, along with the attached plan view drawing of the Carden's Mobile Home Park layout, represents the County Engineer's effort to clarify the situation regarding the existing, proposed and potential waste treatment systems at Carden's. Carden's is presently served by two discharging septic tank/sand filter systems and five conventional nondischarging septic tank/ nitrification field systems. The construction plans (see attached drawing) submitted to DEM for Carden's Mobile Home Park' s new package waste treatment facility show five existing mobile home sites presently containing homes (sites 3,4,5, 6 & 8) and two existing sites not presently containing homes (sites 2 & 7) tied into a large existing sand filter treatment system which discharges into a roadside stormwater drainage ditch for Hwy 70. An, additional mobile home site containing a home (site 1) presently ties into a smaller individual septic tank\sand filter system which also discharges to the Hwy 70 roadside ditch adjacent to the point where the large sand filter system discharges. The construction plans show that all of these sites will be utilizing the new treatment system. In addition the construction plans show that four addition mobile home sites presently containing homes and an existing frame house (sites 24, 25, 26, 27 & 28) , which are presently tied into a conventional nondischarging septic tank system, will also be tied into the new discharging treatment system. The existing discharge permit, which applies to Carden's existing discharging system as well as to the new discharging system, is for 6000 gallons per day. Generally waste treatment . design, by state and local regulation, uses a quantity of 120 gallons per day as that waste volume which is generated by one bedroom in residential use. The 6000 gallon volume which is presently permitted to Carden's would then accommodate 50 bedrooms or approximately 17 three bedroom residential facilities. If all of the proposed mobile homes and homesites listed above are tied into the new treatment system, somewhere between 26 and 39 bedrooms of the 50 bedroom total capacity (3120 to 4980 gallons of 3 the 6000 gallon total capacity) of the new system will be allocated. It is impossible, at this time, to be more precise regarding the waste flow quantities or the number of bedrooms because the exact number of bedrooms for each existing and future mobile home is not known. The problems with the discharge from the exiting sand filter systems are well documented over a twenty year period. Insofar as the remainder of the mobile home park is concerned, septic tank treatment system problems are not well documented. There have been or presently are a few problems with these other waste treatment systems. A preliminary inspection of the entire Carden's site was undertaken during the on-site meeting of February 23, 1990 between representatives of the OC Health Department, the OC engineer and representatives of DEM. The inspection of the waste treatment facilities for sites not presently proposed for connection to the new treatment system turned up two problems. The most serious of the two problems is a septic system which is presently failing. The septic tank nitrification field serving two sites presently containing mobile homes (sites 22 & 23) , one unoccupied site (site 21) and possibly one other unoccupied site (site 20) , is failing. The second problem that was noted concerned the existing sewer piping from sites 9, 10, 11 and 13 (no site 12 is shown on the plans) . This piping showed signs of a probable pipe stoppage, between the home sites and the septic tank, where raw sewage had been discharged through a vent pipe onto the surface of the ground. At the time of the inspection, the surface discharge was not occurring but had obviously occurred in the past. None of the sites listed in the paragraph above are proposed to be tied into the new treatment system according to plans submitted to DEM. From an engineering and construction standpoint, it would not be difficult to tie these sites into the new system. Study of the topography of Carden's as indicated on plans submitted to DEM shows that it may also be possible for sites 14, 15 and 16, which are presently served by an existing septic system, to be served by the new treatment system using all gravity piping. These three sites are presently unoccupied, so that it is impossible to tell if the existing septic system which would serve them is functional or if these sites would need to be tied into the new treatment system. It is probable, but not certain, that the total waste flow from homes on sites that could be connected to the new treatment system by a gravity sewage collection system would exceed the permitted discharge flow for the system. Sites 17 and 18 could not be served by the new treatment facility without the addition of a pumping station. At the present time, all matters relating to the operation of Carden's Mobile Home Park's discharging systems are under the jurisdiction of DEM. Until such time as the authority to control +a+w� 4 discharge quantity and quality passes to another jurisdiction, orange County will have to assume that DEM is making certain that too many mobile home generating too much flow are not tied into the new waste treatment facility. The OC Health Department retains authority over the existing nondischarge septic systems. If no repair or repair field is available to correct the situation at the treatment facility for sites 21, 22 and 23, the Health Department may require that those sites be vacated or that those sites be serviced by the new discharging treatment facility. r 5 A RESOLUTION from the Orange County Commissioners to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management regarding the relocation of the point of discharge from the waste treatment facility serving Carden's Mobile Home Park. WHEREAS: A substandard waste treatment facility serving Carden's Mobile Home Park has been discharging untreated sewage to a roadside storm drainage ditch on Hwy 70 for nearly twenty years; and WHEREAS: Said untreated sewage has been flowing across and ponding on the property of one Talmage Stephenson for nearly twenty years; and WHEREAS: Mr. Stephenson and other area residents have been attempting without success to have said untreated sewage flow abated or diverted for nearly twenty years; and WHEREAS: The division of Environmental Management has scheduled a public hearing for the purpose of receiving public comment on a Special Order by Consent (SOC) under which a new waste treatment facility at Carden's Mobile Home Park will operate and discharge; Be it resolved that the Board of County Commissioners most urgently request that the Division of Environment Management direct Carden 's Mobile Home Park to cease discharging waste treatment effluent to its present point of discharge and to pipe the waste treatment effluent along the Hwy 70 right-of- way to Stoney Creek or to stop discharging effluent and install a non-discharging system. Adopted This day of 1990. Moses Carey, Jr. Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: Beverly Blythe, Clerk W rr ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date March 21, 1990 Action A ends Item # L-13 SUBJECT: RURAL CHARACTER STUDY UPDATE DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: * - "Conceptual Guidelines for David Stencil, Ext 566 the Rural Buffer. . . " * - Communications Subcommittee TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Report Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To provide the County Commissioners with an update on the progress of the Rural Character Study Committee. BACKGROUND: In 1988, a committee of 23 Orange County citizens was appointed to study methods of protecting the County's rural character. Specifically, the committee's goals were to address the preservation of natural and visual resources, the protection of agriculture, and function of such a program as a growth management tool. Since that time, and particularly over the past six months, the Committee has utilized their consultant, two subcommittees and a number of meetings with rural groups in the county's townships to draft a document entitled the "Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer" . This document is designed to guide the drafting of ordinance amendments for the Rural Buffer area (excluding University Lake watershed) . The Guidelines would provide development and design flexibility in return for the protection of natural and visual resources and agriculture. It attempts to achieve these goals by providing up to five development options using a sliding scale of density and open space. The "Guidelines" also make several policy statements about simplifying the subdivision process for large- V 2 lot (5-acre lot) developments that by their own nature help to preserve resources and serve as a growth management tool. These policy statements represent months of discussion of these issues and consensus-building by the Rural Character Study Committee. They also represent issues mentioned as critical to the preservation of the county' s rural flavor by rural residents, environmentalists, developers and planners . While this document is designed for the Rural Buffer portion of the County as its focus, it is important to note that many facets of the proposal could have broad, county-wide application. At this time, the Committee's purpose is to interact with the Commissioners by updating them on their recent progress, as well as informally discussing their future course of action with the Board. RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information. ADOPTED 3 31290 CONCEPTUAL GUIDELINES FOR THE RURAL BOUNDARY PORTION OF THE RURAL CHARACTER STUDY Adopted by the Rural Character Study Committee March 12 , 1990 ************************************************************* PART ONE - DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS 1) The Committee finds that five development categories should be permitted within the Rural Boundary district, as defined on the attached map, and in Parts Two and Four. These categories or options, followed by a brief description, are as follows : OPTION A. Allows for two-acre lot developments, as is permitted presently in Rural Buffer. Resources protected as in present manner. OPTION B. Allows for five-acre lot developments, treated as Minor Subdivisions, with an expedited and simplified subdivision review process (staff approval) , private roads, and lower fees as incentives . Resources protected as in present manner. OPTION C. Allows for clustered 1-acre lot developments with 40% open space. OPTION D. Allows for a planned developments with a density of 0 . 72 (72 units per 100 acres) and 67% open space. OPTION E. Allows for development of a Rural Village, with a density of 0 . 84 (84 units per 100 acres) , 80% open space and minimum of 200 acres in size. Use of transferred development rights would be required in order to utilize this option. 2 ) The Committee recommends that four of these five development options be a matter of right for the property owner. Option E would be allowed as per item 3) below: 3) The Committee finds that Option E is significantly different from the other options, and should therefore be permitted with the following conditions: a. There should be a minimum tract size of 200 acres . b. Public water and sewer extension should be required for Option E, developments . Such lines should be adequately sized and limited to serve the village only. 1• ADOPTED 31290 c. Option E developments should be located within one mile of arterial or collector roadways for traffic management reasons . Such developments should not be located directly on intersections, and should be buffered from roadways . d. Use of transferred development rights from within the Rural Boundary district would be required in order to create an Option E development. Development rights would be equal to the density in excess of one dwelling unit per acre. e. In conjunction with the above, the Committee should analyze and define a "Development Sector" for Option E developments, which would factor in the location of arterial and collector roadways and feasible public utility extension to create a logical, cost-effective and easily-defined corridor of the Rural Boundary district where such developments would be encouraged. f . Option E, as a self-contained community, should allow a commercial/institutional core to be designed at a village level . This should include a road network designed to protect the rural character and discourage passer-by commercial activity. 4) The Committee finds that the Option D (Planned) option may also require some form of sewer system. The Committee recommends that Option D developments utilize public water and sewer where available. Where public water and sewer extension is not cost effective, the use of community alternative sewer systems would be permitted. The use of these community systems would be contingent on participation in a Monitoring and Maintenance program adopted by the County, and such systems should be built to public specifications so that they might be incorporated into a public system in time. 5) For Option B, the maximum tract size for development with "Minor Subdivision" review incentives would be 200 acres. Option B subdivisions of greater than 200 acres in size would be permitted in accordance with the provisions of "Major Subdivisions" . ************************************************************* PART TWO - PROPOSED LOT SIZE AND OPEN SPACE The Committee recommends the following standards for the five development categories : 2 5 ADOPTED • 31290 Option A AVERAGE LOT* SIZE: 1 . 84 Acres REQUIRED OPEN SPACE** : 0% Option 8 AVERAGE LOT* SIZE : 4 . 59 Acres MINIMUM LOT* SIZE: 1 . 84 Acres REQUIRED OPEN SPACE** : 0% Option C AVERAGE LOT* SIZE: 0. 92 Acres (40, 000 SQ FT) REQUIRED OPEN SPACE** : 40% Option D NUMBER OF UNITS: 72 units per 100 acres (D= 0 . 72 ) REQUIRED OPEN SPACE* : 67% Option E NUMBER OF UNITS: 84 units per 100 acres (D= 0. 84) REQUIRED OPEN SPACE* : 80% * - Single family lots only. ** - Roadways and easements, except pre-existing utility easements, cannot be placed in or subtracted from open space set-asides . ************************************************************* PART THREE - RESOURCE PROTECTION The Committee finds that sites listed on the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildl ' fe Habitats of Oran a Count should receive special consideration. The Committee therefore recommends that upon receipt of any development proposal for land containing such a site, the Planning Department recommend the voluntary use of a conservation easement to protect the site in question. Such an easement would allow development to occur while preserving the portions of the natural site contained within private property. This conservation easement should allow for annual inspection by a designated party, but should otherwise be maintained as private open space - not for public use unless so deemed by the property owner. The Committee further recommends that upon receipt of a development proposal as described above, the Planning Department will contact private conservation organizations in order to facilitate mutual protection by discussion between the potential developer and the conservation organization. 3 ADOPTED 6 31290 PART FOUR - POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 1 ) The Committee finds that the University Lake watershed portion of the current Rural Buffer has characteristics and growth management functions inherently different from the remainder of the Rural Buffer. The Committee therefore recommends that the University Lake watershed be exempted from consideration for the proposed "Rural Boundary" district, and that it be considered along with other water supply watersheds during a subsequent phase of the Rural Character Study. 2 ) The Committee further recommends that a program for the Purchase of Development Rights be set up for use by both the Towns and County. One recommended use of such a system would be in water supply watersheds, to allow the users of water supplies to compensate property owners in the watershed for any loss of development rights or value from more restrictive standards than those being proposed here. Such a system could also be an effective means of protecting sites listed on the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County. 3) The Committee endorses an expedited planning review process for "Minor Subdivisions" . For the purposes of this document, "Minor Subdivisions" shall be construed to mean: a) the subdivision of land into not more than four (4) single family building lots; OR b) the subdivision of land into single-family building lots such that the average lot size of the subdivision is greater than 4 . 59 acres . 4) The Committee recommends that a system of incentives for larger lot developments, as outlined in Option B, should include private roads and an expedited planning review process . 5) The Committee finds that growth management concerns over the extension of water and sewer would be addressed through the proposed density rates permitted within the district. In this way, the Rural Boundary plan would drive water and sewer extension, and not vice versa. 6) Uses (such as churches and schools) that are currently permitted in the Rural Buffer zoning district would continue to be permitted in the Rural Boundary district. rb312fin.doc\31290pds 4 PROPOSED RURAL BOUNDARY DISTRICT . LITTLE RIV:R TWP. 7_____ 11111 TT or aw nn as;t Ei ion A J' s Areas ea an and AI. 1 Proposed Rural Boundary rillik I Rural Character Study March 1990 A d k \APAZ iliallgit 1 p ' i 1 ,Sa0ROUGH TWP. CHEEKS. . O S KIr • i N.1141111 :.‘ th i .., 4 Aop"4116,MR ieN :--- . AlliVrailidlittiter P I NGHAM TWP „IiikiLvArimiwNin: Tv .....,....... .......... .. .,..........., ..... .. . .. ........ . /kr* , . , , LW" V .pel 1111AOV 1 . _...-... \ 4. /71010Plik . 1941 _. . . SCALE: I'm 3 Miles • 0 ORANGE COUNTY 8 PROGRESS REPORT COMMUNICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Since its formation on January 29, the Communications Subcommittee of the Rural Character Study Committee has been attempting to open channels of communication with rural residents - particularly in those areas where rumors of 25- acre lot requirements (alleged to be from the watershed and rural character studies) have many residents concerned. A definite need for accurate information in rural areas was identified by the Committee. At their February 5 subcommittee meeting, the group identified an immediate goal of meeting with small groups in each township. These informal discussions would be held "on the road" in each rural township, where a few committee members and staff could outline and distribute an information sheet,, go over the proposed Rural Boundary district standards as an example of their work to date, and get input from residents on the progress of the study. It was decided this would be the focus of the subcommittee' s current efforts . In opting to utilize small group discussions at this point, the Subcommittee felt that, in light of the emotional concerns on several issues, a large public meeting in each township would not accomplish much at this time. However, the Communications Subcommittee did recognize the need for large public meetings in the townships at a later date. On February 13, a very positive meeting was held in Cedar Grove, where a number of residents and landowners indicated that they felt better about the thrust of the study and further stated that the current "Rural Boundary" recommendations looked workable to them as a strategy. The Subcommittee has also made itself available to speak with other groups informally about the Rural Character Study. In February, different study committee members and/or staff have met with the Chapel Hill Landowners Association (where another positive response was elicited) , the Bingham Township Advisory Council, and the Hillsborough Ruritan Club, to brief these rural groups on the study. Prior to the March 1 Rural Character meeting, several committee members met informally with the township presidents of the Orange County Landowners Associations in what both groups have termed a constructive discussion. r 9 On March 6, another informal discussion was held in Caldwell for Little River Township residents. The reception at that meeting was generally favorable as well . In addition, county staff presented the committee's work to date to the Town of Chapel Hill planning staff on March 12 . A return visit to Bingham Township was held on March 13 . Other tentative upcoming meetings include: TUESDAY MARCH 20 . . . .CHEEKS TWP (Efland Methodist Church) TUESDAY MARCH 27 . . . .HILLS/ENO TWP (Agricultural/Planning Ctr) THURSDAY MARCH 29 . . .CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP After having a chance to meet with small groups in each township, the Subcommittee will produce a brochure/news release for county-wide distribution. This brochure would not be generated until the Rural Boundary district standards are finalized to ensure consistency and harmony in communicating ideas to the general public. In summary, the Subcommittee would like to continue its efforts towards opening channels of communication with rural residents, providing a grassroots type of process as opposed to a top-down process . Therefore, its primary focus is to continue meeting with small groups through the end of March and possible into mid-April, if necessary. comrept.doc ds9/22790 t 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 21, 1990 Action Agenda Item # I-C SUBJECT: Upper Eno/Seven Mile Creek Watershed Reclassification DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _x No ATTACHMENT(S) : Report INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Thames, County Engineer TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To provide information on the possibility of and the procedure for obtaining upgraded water supply watershed classifications for the upper Eno River basin and to the Seven Mile Creek basin. BACKGROUND: Surface runoff of stormwater is expected to be increased in the Seven Mile Creek watershed as a result of the widening and reconstruction of Interstate 85, a section of which traverses a part of the watershed. DOT has indicated through its environmental assessment process that it expects no significant short or long term environmental impact to result from the proposed project. The major reason that DOT gave for the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is that Seven Mile Creek is a WS-III category watershed which by definition is classified as low quality waters. Discussions among officials of Orange County have indicated the desire to have DOT mitigate potential water quality impacts by constructing BMP facilities along the reconstructed sections of 1-85 in the Seven Mile Creek basin. One strategy for convincing DOT to construct these BMP' s is to have the watershed reclassified to a higher standard so that DOT will need to take measures to mitigate the potential water quality impacts. The County Commissioners have directed that a report be prepared to outline the process for obtaining a watershed classification for Seven Mile Creek and for the entire Upper Eno River watershed. 2 RECLASSIFICATION OF WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS IN THE UPPER ENO RIVER AND SEVEN MILE CREEK BASINS The Orange County Board of Commissioners and other officials have expressed an interest in investigating the process for upgrading the water supply watershed classification for the upper Eno River basin and the Seven Mile Creek basin. Unfortunately, upgrading the existing classification is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, for the next year or longer. The reason for the difficulty lies in the process, which is presently underway, by which the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) and the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) are trying to develop a new classification system for water supply watersheds. The process which is being used to develop the new classification system and the watershed protection regulations that are attached to each classification is very cumbersome and is expected to take nearly two years to finalize. The proposed new watershed classifications and standards are much more stringent than those which are existing. The final classifications and standards will be enacted by January 1990, if the process moves according to schedule. It is impossible, however, to forecast how the final standards will evolve after being taken to public hearing and being subjected to the political process at both the state and local level. In the meantime, the uncertainty regarding the outcome on the classifications and the standards will prevent the staff at DEM from reclassifying the watersheds under the old procedures. The process that DEM has traditionally used to upgrade water supply watershed classifications began with a resolution by the jurisdiction using the water from the watershed in question or by the jurisdiction having planning or zoning authority over the watershed. This resolution generally stated the concerned jurisdiction's intent and desire to seek a reclassification of the watershed and was addressed the DEM or the EMC. When the resolution was received, DEM would begin a study of the watershed with particular emphasis on its water quality, waste discharging situation, existing and allowed land use, watershed protection ordinances and measures, erosion control ordinances, etc. DEM would then use the collected information to make a judgement on the potential for the watershed and rule on the requested reclassification. The process would allow the local jurisdictions time to take steps to enhance the potential classification by passing local ordinances for watershed protection. 3 The new process for classifying watersheds has been outlined under House Bill 156, which was ratified in June 1989. This bill requires that, with the help of an advisory commission which is to be established under the requirements of the bill, the EMC and DEM develop a new set of water supply watershed classifications and watershed protection standards and regulations which will apply to every existing and proposed water supply watershed in the state. The new classifications and regulations are to be enacted by January 1991. House Bill 156 further requires that the EMC and DEM investigate every existing water supply watershed in the state and catagorize each watershed into the new classifications, which is to be accomplished by January 1992 . Under the requirements of House Bill 156, every local government having zoning, subdivision, etc. , jurisdiction over the newly classified watersheds is to enact local regulations which protect the watersheds to the degree specified in the new statewide classifications and regulations. While there undoubtedly be an opportunity for local jurisdictions to have some degree of input into the classification to their watersheds, participation in the classification and regulation program will be mandatory. Orange County really has only two choices for actions that it can take to upgrade the watershed classifications for the Seven Mile Creek and upper Eno River basins: it can wait and see what comes out of the state mandated reclassification process, or it can pass a resolution or resolutions requesting either a WS-II or WS-III classification under the new classification system. Obviously there is somewhat of a problem with the second alternative, as it is difficult to project what the final regulations and standards will eventually turn out to be for any particular classification of watershed. However, if an assumption can be made that the watershed classifications and standards will remain substantially similar to those recommended by the DEM staff, then the Orange County Planning Department can make recommendations to the Planning Board and the County Commissioners for changes in the existing Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to reflect the DEM staff recommended standards for the desired watershed classification. A watershed protection ordinance can be drafted to include the recommended standards for that area of the upper Eno River basin which is located in an unzoned township. The public hearing and enactment process would then follow just as with any zoning ordinance amendment. The Board of County Commissioners would not have to pass a resolution requesting a watershed reclassification, because the reclassification would occur automatically at some point in 1991 as a part of the process mandated by House Bill 156. 1 ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS R ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MARCH 21, 1990 Action Agenda Item # j1Dir SUBJECT: POVERTY FORUM FINAL REPORT (DRAFT) DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X_No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: REPORT MANAGER'S OFFICE, EXTENSION 501 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To review and comment on the Poverty Forum Final Report (Draft) . BACKGROUND: On November 29, 1989, a county-wide Poverty Forum was sponsored by the Board of Commissioners. The purpose of the forum was to bring together community service providers, business, religious and civic leaders. Also, the forum was intended to promote greater understanding of the complex nature of poverty, to foster dialogue among participants, to explore and develop a local plan of action to reduce poverty conditions. The goals and objectives of the Poverty Forum were accomplished except development of a local action plan to reduce poverty conditions. The recommendations embodied in the final report represent the first phase of the action plan. Staff and the Poverty Forum Program Committee solicit Board review and comments on the final report before an action plan is developed to address the recommendations. RECOMMENDATION: Refer the Poverty Forum recommendations to the Human Services Advisory Commission (HSAC) and Human Services Management Team (HSMT) . Request the HSAC and HSMT to jointly identify the most appropriate methods of addressing the recommendations and present methods to the Board for consideration in April. • 2 Report to the community _. 11-0 6 Poverty in e bran County g existing problems and strategies to reduce poverty from the Forum of Community Leaders Kenan Center, Inc Chapel Hill, NC November 29, 1989 3 • BACKGROUND More than 120 Orange county community leaders gathered on November 29, 1989 at the Ke- nan Center in Chapel Hill to participate in a forum addressing poverty in the county. Orange County Commissioners initiated the all-day meeting in response to last year's symposium on services for the county's youth. Participants included representatives from community and county agencies and boards, area churches,the university, the Commissioners, and concerned citizens. The morning presentation focused on the general demographics of poverty. Panel discussions followed which addressed poverty issues in three areas of concern: Health, Education and Employ- ment. After a luncheon address by William Friday,Honorary Chair of the Board of Directors of the North Carolina Poverty Project, five "break-out" groups met to discuss possible solutions and/or strategies related to the identified problems and issues regarding poverty in Orange County. High- lights from the morning discussions follow, as well as a brief summary of the outcome of the group sessions. Enlightening and somewhat startling statistical data on poverty in Orange County provided participants a rich source of information as a base for determining what might be done to reduce poverty in the county. To stimulate discussion in the break-out groups, Professor Andrew Dobelstein of the UNC-CH School of Social Work presented demographics and health statistics,education data, employment/income patterns, and child care statistics. The following are synopses of the statistical data/problem identification and the findings of the Forum's discussion groups. Needs, solutions and/or strategies to reduce poverty in the area of health,education, employment,and child care are listed. In reading the discussion groups strategies it is important to recognize that the four topic areas are interrelated. STATUS OF ORANGE COUNTY Health 4 Overall population growth in Orange County has increased 9.7 percent since 1980,showing a rapidly expanding population in the county. A greater percentage of women are single than men dug to higher rates of widowhood and divorce. High percentage rates of single women indicate a high poverty concentration among female older adults and heads of household with children. Almost 75 . percent of all women with children in Orange County are working, and approximately one-quarter of them have children under age five. Compared to state statistics,Orange County does not seem to have a serious problem with infant births to teenage women and infant mortality rates. However, whenever there are teenage mothers, children face risk factors associated with poverty. STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE/IMPROVEMENT • Provide more health clinics —Prenatal clinics —Mobile units —Night clinics —School-based clinics —Child care at clinics • Provide more caseworkers to refer clients —Referral to other available resources —Education for single parents • Provide comprehensive health care for teens • Critical need for comprehensive transportation services —Provide better coordination of transportation —Coordinate with existing human services system • Need for better employee health benefits —Need for guaranteed insurance plan with expanded benefits —Employers should provide prenatal programs -Required prenatal care in health insurance —Employers should examine and improve health benefits —Employers should provide prorated insurance benefits for part-time workers • Need licensing and malpractice coverage for retired physicians who volunteer their services • Need more non-categorized county funds which could be targeted at health care needs • 5 STATUS OF ORANGE COUNTY Education About 88 percent of Orange County youths age 16-19 years old are still in school, while 6.36 percent have dropped out. The remaining 5.64 percent,presumably have graduated. Of the group + who are not in school,slightly more than one-half (52.13 percent) have dropped out. About one- fourth of 16-19 year olds who are not in school are unemployed. Despite the presence of the univer- sity,more than one-fourth of persons age 25 and older have less than four years of high school educa- tion. Also, under-education for blacks is more than twice the rate for whites. Ca° STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE/IMPROVEMENT • Establish department of human services in schools —link with existing human services —Provide on-location personnel -to provide outreach -to bring needed services to potential clients -to coordinate with service providers outside of school -to provide parent education • Need for more cooperative effort between schools and sources of employment —Provide economic incentives to stay in school —Ensure appropriate education/training for employment —Coordinate school food services curriculum and food services employers -to provide education/training for future food services providers • Coordination of after-hours use of school facilities (such as computer labs and shops) to promote education and training —Encourage involvement by volunteers and businesses • Establish a career information center —Redirect services and funds for those non college-bound • Provide adequate funding for basic education and job training/retaining • Lengthen school day and school year to provide better educational base for both college-bound and non college-bound students • Establish a satellite Community College Campus in the County • Seek revenues/resources other than county property taxes • Expand extended-day programs —Utilize existing resources (e.g.,4-H and volunteers) • Start pilot program incorporating preschool (three and four year olds) into schools 6 STATUS OF ORANGE COUNTY Employment The overall average annual wage in Orange County (1987 statistics) was a low$18,063. More than 25 percent of jobs in Orange County pay wages that keep a family of three (the average sized family in the County)below the poverty line. These axe the "working poor" in the county. Also, sources of income have shifted since 1986. The number of persons working in low-paying service jobs has increased in the county, while jobs in the high- paying manufacturing sector have decrea - Forty-four percent of all county residents were involved in service employment in 1987. Low wage industries contribute considerably to the population of the working poor. STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE/IMPROVEME T • Establish an employment council —Need for job fairs -identify location of jobs -identify job requirements —Differentiate between "career" and "jobs" -provide counselling and/or referral to enable individuals to acquire skills • Need more comprehensive transportation system —Coordinate with existing human services system —Expand current services (e.g.,request McBroom bus system to explore how they might h-.Jp relieve some of the current needs) • More economic development —Need for forthcoming report from Economic Development Commission —Need to review and revise development restrictions which discourage industry from locating in the County • Encourage basic income to all —More competitive wages and improved working conditions -Critical need for TJNC-CH and Orange County, as primary employers, to reclassify obs and raise wage scales —Need for wages to be comparable to the cost of living in the County —Need for employers to put more resources into training/ education for a better work fore —Need for employers to offer incentives to continue/finish education —Utilize volunteer programs that increase productivity (e.g.,Habitat for Humanity and Literacy Council) • Promote farming in county —Provide workable regulations for land use and water quality —Promote and coordinate a county farmers market STATUS Cz ORANGE COUNTY Child Care 7 Day care availability is an important issue to the high percentage of working oor in the county. Although there is,no apparent shortage in child care in the county now, with about 500 families on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),many of whom Welfare Reform in 1990, and with many of the working poor who could be eligible ifor child involved in under welfare reforms,an estimated 1000 new day care slots could be needed in the next year. Also state subsides, which include only minor contributions from the county and municipalities, are being cut in Orange County. State government has determined that other counties are not getting their fair share and funds formerly designated for-Orange County are being disbursed elsewhere in the state. Currently, churches have made little progress in developing additional child care, providing only five percent of the county's child care services, Businesses have had no involvement. STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE/IMPROVEMENT • Establish a comprehensive child care plan/network —Coordinate agencies and services —Coordinate transportation needs —Serve as a liaison with employers/government/churches and volunteers —Improve quality of child care -Provide better pay and benefits for child care providers -Attract better qualified child care providers --Develop child care for second shift workers —Could be supported by a child care foundation • Need for area churches to provide facilities,funds, and human resources for early childhood and extended-day (after school)services —Need for inter-denominational coordination of services,funds and human resources -Churches currently provide only five percent of the County's child care services • Need for UNC-CH to provide more leadership and resources in development of child care • Need for employers to subsidize child care • Establish preschool and child care centers in schools • Need for matching federal/state/local funds for child care for individuals in job training programs and those affected by Welfare reform • Need for more tax dollars for child care development —Establish service district taxes -Need for more non-categorized funds —Need for more scholarship and subsidy funding for child care and summer programs —Need more funds for Family Day Care Homes subsidies —Need for more Head Start funding revise eligibility requirements • Publicize 1990 tax reduction for child care for state employees m. 8 SUMMARY The Forum was comprised of a good mix of persons from the business sector,human services agencies,and voluntary action organizations,as well as county citizen representatives. The level of '. experience and the quality of ideas was superior. Discussion groups concurred that health,educa- tion,employment,and child care issues that impact on poverty in the county were inextricably inter- twined. Solutions will be complex. Nevertheless, some commonly shared themes emerged. • More funding is required. The tax base must be increased and Orange County must look for funding ding resources other than property taxes (e.g., service district taxes). • Reclassification of jobs and increase in wage scales at the university (state) and in county government are essential. Participants recommended that these bodies should set an example for other employers. • Expanded services,better coordination of services and improved referral systems are necessary. • All county residents need and deserve a basic family income that keeps pace with the cost of living in the county. Housing issues were not discussed in depth and may need to be addressed in a separate forum devoted to specific housing problems which impact on poverty in Orange County. Community leaders see a need for,and want involvement in, the process of reducing poverty in Orange County. Participants acknowledge the "Family Support Act of 1988" (Welfare Reform) will play a part in addressing poverty issues in the next few years; however,it will not be the sole answer. Participants also expressed an awareness that the Commissioners have their work rut out for them and the tasks ahead will require that community leaders work together, and with their elected officials. All appeared ready to meet the challenge. r mmimmmmmimmm 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No._Y„- ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 21 , 1990 SUBJECT: Appointment to Landfill Site Search Committee DEPARTMENT: Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : List of Members INFORMATION CONTACT: Manager's Office Ext. 501 TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To appoint Orange County' s governmental representative to the Landfill Site Search Committee of the Landfill Owner 's Group (LOG) . BACKGROUND: The Landfill Site Search Committee is scheduled to have 13 members in all . Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill will each appoint a governmental representative. The other members of the committee have already been appointed by the LOG. These appointees are listed in the attachment . For the Board 's information, the applications of individuals who were reviewed by the LOG are available in the Clerk to the Board's Office. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. illkih, 2 LANDFILL SITE SEARCH COMMITTEE Township Name of Member Little River Thomas S . Warren , Jr . - At Large Bryant Walker Cedar Grove William A . Ralston- At Large Ina Whitted Cheeks Valerie B . Kubacki Bingham Edward N . Mann , Jr . Hillsborough Leigh Peek Eno Walter Faribault , Jr . Chapel Hill Nina Baird - At Large Daniel A . Textoris 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. -2 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 21 , 1990 SUBJECT: Culbreth Park Interim Assistance Grant Program DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes (Under Seperate Cover ) Development Agreement Grant Agreement Funding Approval TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To approve the execution of a Development Agreement with Culbreth Park Community Development Corporation and a Grant Agreement and Funding Approval with the N.C. Department of Economic and Community Development on or about March 30 , 1990 . BACKGROUND: In December 1989 , the County was awarded a preliminary Interim Assistance Grant for 2 . 25 million dollars from the N.C. Department of Economic and Community Development Department (ECD) for the Culbreth Park Affordable Housing Project . This preliminary award was conditioned by a list of additional information ECD required before final grant award was made. After much additional staff work, this information has been forwarded to ECD by County staff and an affirmative response, i .e. final grant award, is expected by March 30 , 1990 . Therefore, in order to avoid delay in actual implementation of the project , County staff would like to begin processing the necessary paperwork/documents which are necessary to proceed with this project . Since Culbreth Park Community Development Corporation (CPCDC) will be the actual "developer" of the proposed housing subdivision, it is necessary for the County to execute an Agreement with CPCDC to carry out these responsibilities. This Agreement will be secured by a Promissory Note and Letter of Credit . The final form and content of these documents will be approved by the County Attorney. Additionally, the County will be required by the State to execute a Grant Agreement and Funding Approval Form in order to receive grant funds. Attached is a copy of these documents. They are standard with any CDBG grant award from the State. Staff anticipates receiving these official documents on or about March 30 , 1990 . 2 It is envisioned that after all documents are in place, they will be executed by the Chair of the Board of Commissioners with the facilitation of the County Attorney. With this schedule, Culbreth Park should be able to break ground in April . RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve execution of the Development Agreement with CPCDC and the Grant Agreement/Funding Approval with ECD after final award as been received and authorize the Chair to sign the documents approved in form by the County Attorney on behalf of Orange County. • 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. X_C_, ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 214 1990 S..B.:ECT: Proposed Enabling Legislation: (1) Affordable Housing and (2) Farm Preservation and Watershed Protection DEPARTMENT: County Attorney PUBLIC HEARING YES : NO: x ATTACHMENT(S): (1) Henry Hill INFORMATION CONTACT: Geoffrey Gledhill, article on Affordable Housing and County Attorney (2) Part 4, Article 19, Chapter TELEPHONE NUMBER- 732-2196 160A, Acquisition of Open Space Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hi11 - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider requesting legislation clarifying the County's ability to grant housing density bonuses and to clarify the County's ability to purchase development rights for purposes of farm preservation and watershed protection. BACKGROUND: . Affordable Housing: -It has recently been proposed that Orange County, in its Zoning Ordinance, provide for voluntary density bonuses. This is proposed to be done by special use zoning. Generally all zoning regulations must be uniform for each class or kind of building throughout each zoning district. Legislation is probably unnecessary for bonus densities in special use districts because the Legislature has authorized nonuniformity in such districts when they are created pursuant to an application by the owners of all of the property to be included in the special use district. It is the recommendation of the Administration that Orange County receive legislative authority for density bonuses and other incentives for - developers of housing for persons of low and moderate income .so •that incentives can be provided as a matter of right upon the satisfaction of conditions stated in the Ordinance, all of which could be determined administratively. ' Farm Preservation and Watershed Protections Part 4 of •Article 19 of Chapter 160A-..of 'the North Carolina General Statutes• authorizes a county to acquire by gift, purchase or . otherwise land and interests in land to' achieve the stated intention of the General Assembly to preserve open-spaces and areas for public use and enjoyment. Open spaces,- open areas, open space land and open space uses are broadly defined. However, they do not expressly include land reserved or preserved for farm use or watershed protection. The Administration recommend . that- Orange County receive express legislative authority for. public fund acquisitions .for these purposes by requesting that land acquired or reserved for• farm use and watershed protection be included within the definition of open _ c Areas. The onl water protection program 2 •r a operated within the State having as a feature the purchase of development rights (Guilford County and the Cities of High Point and Greensboro) is operated pursuant to a local modification of Part 4 of Article 19 of Chapter 160A. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Board authorize the County Attorney to prepare local legislation clarifying Orange County's authority to provide density bonuses for affordable housing and Orange County's authority to acquire land and an interest in land for farmland preservation and watershed protection. - _ - T . 101111 * r gEpnppmmimmimrq,. (� J ., (�5 ukSQ' 4 �hYl ro/`✓V-(4 Lail �Ltek r - [310] . of a new C. Exclusionary Zoning and Inclusionary Techniques .ocal gov- ' ublic and tide will The sug- GOVERNMENT. MANIPULATION OF LAND 1p in the VALUES TO BUILD AFFORDABLE undone HOUSING: THE ISSUE OF atives in COMPENSATING BENEFITSt ti&cation .tuts any also fair HENRY A. HILL• industry range of se to.us I The notion that builders should be forced to provide a certain and de- percentage of their developments for housing to serve lower- mprove- income households has generated a good deal of interest, and in tat Jane several jurisdictions has been mandated by government as a one can cure for "exclusionary zoning." This article examines the think- , ing behind the concept of "exclusionary zoning" and explores the problem of who actually bears the cost for such housing. n that we with the Introduction 41.1, Crrx. e'solved' uary,,the The notion that government, which controls the use of all ven make land; should condition such use on the construction and sale of . low- and moderate-income housing, was first pioneered on a npanytng I major scale in California.2 Recently it has emerged as a judicially ,lems ex- 'tions for ,pared to t Com-right © 1984 by.Brener,Wallack& Hill,Princeton, New Jersey. Reprinted .hux by permission from 13 Real Estate Law Journal 3 (1984). Partner in the law firm of Brener. Wallack& Hill. Princeton. New Jersey. '�' Mr. Hill was assisted in the preparation of this article by Thomas J. Hall of Brener. Wallack & Hill. ire- ' Land uses have been regulated by governments since antiquity. See. e.g., des Buescher. Wright & Gitelman. Land Use 1-3 (2d ed. 1976) (discussing the Twelve Tables of Roman Law or the Statute of Winchester. 13 Edw. I.Stat. 2 (12851). ich zed 2 California has experimented with several forms of state and local encour- ire agement of low- and moderate-income housing. For a recent review of these w programs. see Schwartz&Johnson. "Inclusionary Housing Programs," 1983 )ur .1, Am. Plan. Assoc. 3-21. An earlier attempt to include low- and moderate- i income housing as part of a zoning process was struck down in Virginia. See Board of Supervisors v. DeGroff Enterprises. Inc..214 Va.235. 198 S.E 2d 600 (19731. 147 I • k 148 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT [4] imposed state constitutional mandate in New Jersey.3 The no- tion is derived from a political theory that holds that governmen- tal rezoning of real estate into a more profitable use bestows a benefit on the landowner and, therefore, a portion of that benefit may be allocated by government toward a public purpose, such as the construction by a developer of below-market "afford- able" housing. The specific regulatory technique recently man- dated in New Jersey and first implemented on any scale in Orange County, California, is the inclusionary set-aside. This system requires housing builders to set aside some percentage of their housing development for housing affordable to low- and moderate-income families. The New Jersey and Orange County systems have interesting public policy implications. If New Jersey and Orange County can provide for the housing needs of some substantial portion of their poor by simply making housing developers market every fourth or fifth house below cost, perhaps government largess can be expanded in other areas without new taxes or other costs. Perhaps government should require automobile manufacturers, drug companies, and food distribution outlets to distribute some portion of their products to the needy at "affordable" prices so that everyone can enjoy the benefits of society with lower taxes • and less guilt. The advocates of inclusionary housing delivery systems main- tain that they have stumbled upon a method through which government can contribute toward the resolution of broad social problems without cost to any sector of society. If they are correct, the concept is truly revolutionary. This inclusionary theory would be the equivalent, in the field of political science, of the perpetual-motion machine in the field of engineering, al- chemy in the field of finance,or the fountain of youth in the fields of medicine and geriatrics. In Orange County, county government, acting within the con- text of a California statute passed to encourage the construction of housing for a broad spectrum of people, created a requirement that builder-developers construct "affordable" housing units, with some commensurate benefit, largely within the context of 3 Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount laurel, 92 N.J. 158 (1983) (hereinafter cited as Mr. Laurel l/). 4 Cal. Gov't Code §§ 65915-65917 (West 1983). While the Orange County mechanism reflects the statute, it goes substantially beyond it in terms of mechanisms. V .). 5 d LAND USE , •[4] [51 E 149 • '` _ the free-enterprise system. Despite its relative success and rela- tivelY low governmental cost, the system is in the process of -I I.• g t; l'.' a being phased out.5 ;. • r. In New Jersey, the state's highest court,in effect,ordered t at it , 'iI ii h all municipalities in that state enact mandatory inclusionary or- I_ dinances requiring the construction her-density zones, ;�'!I _ and moderate-income units in hlg needs of that state's `'��' �' • } n sufficient to meet the theoretical housing n l s lower-income populations, or face total loss of their land use �I`is li ' 1 ,f powers.6 ;,..∎ ,i , iil: . ..t Inclusionary Systems: Two Examples I�, 1,,, - g stem Y The Orange County Sy i.' ' y I Orange County, where more than half of California's inclu- Y Orange units have been built? adopted its mandatory set-aside Ti n ordinance in 1979, pursuant to the new enabling legislation, to it. settle a class-action suit filed by the Legal Aid Society and the I.1 1. a The Orange County legis- `d;, Western Center on Law and PoVe ro'ects of five or more units " lotion requires that all housing p J '�'' contain at least 25 percent affordable dwellings for rent or for ,i Y I. !I I.a' sale. The affordable units, which are deed rest ict ao keep the ;i1., 'f, , sale price controls to prevent windfall p 1, units affordable, are available for purchase by only two groups Ii!i ii h t; I. of families, designated as either medium 1 or medium 11 income ' 7e families. The builder is obligated, in the absence of federal �i,' -e percent of his housing units for medium 1 subsidies, to build 1 S p , e income families (those who make between 80 and 100 percent of e, the county's median income) and 10 percent for miuf the um II •i ;� ' s (those who make between 100 percent to 120 percent is county's median income)9 ' n- . The most interesting aspect of the Orange County system is {i the transfer credit program. This prog ram allows builders of five : !i; ; nt or more units who choose not to build affordable housing to .11 s, \i'.1 M5 Breckenfeld. " 'Rubin Hood' Subsidies: A Dubious New F..u. Fortune. of March 21. 1983. at 152. :i s 92 NJ. 158 at 258-290. esp. 267-274. lit 9- 7 Schwartz & Johnson. note 2 sigma, at 7. 13ff: A. Mallach, inclrrsiunnry t Housing: Policies and Practices (furthcorninB 191id1- .t j 5 supra. at 149. ,ty I l3reckenfeld, note . xrr/ i of !!` e Schwartz & Johnson, Hole 2.ar/rrn, at K. , i.l 150 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT [6] purchase credits from other builders who have built and deliv- ered more than their share of deed-restricted, price-controlled low- and moderate-income units. These credits, each of which carries with it the right to build three market units in a develop- ment of over four units without the obligation to build low- or moderate-income units, have sold for prices ranging up to $15,000.10 In Orange County, where the median income is $33,425 per year, the system has worked surprisingly well. This is largely because the Orange County income definition of low- and mod- erate-income families is high. This housing delivery system does not attempt to provide housing for families within the lower-income range (0 to SO percent of median) targeted by most federal housing programs. Condominiums, selling at prices be- tween $72,000 and $95,000 (very low by Orange County stan- dards),qualify and apparently builders can make a profit,even in Orange County, by bringing in housing at reasonable densities • within these ranges, particularly after they have sold the credits. _ - In addition, Orange County has provided buyers of such afford- . . able projects with tax-exempt bond issues to cut mortgage rates, faster processing, reduced parking requirements, and waivers of the numerous fees for sewer, water, schools, and parks, which burgeoned after enactment of Proposition 13.11 These benefits are required under California statutes, which require both "regu- latory concessions and incentives" to enable moderate-income housing to be built.12 There is no statutory requirement that the lost profits or costs of the inclusionary system be balanced with the benefits offered. The Orange County program is clearly the most successful inclusionary program ever attempted on any scale in this country if success is to be judged by the number of units actually built and delivered with resale price controls. Its success must be in part attributed to the willingness of the builder-developers to play by its rules and to subsidize each other by allowing the credits to be bid up to a level within the free-market system that in some way reflected the profit opportunities lost by producing housing below its fair-market price. Its success may also be a result of its scale and the particularities of the Southern Californ:,. housing market, which by 1979 had escalated so far 10 A.Mallach,note 7sapra, ch..7:Schwartz&Johnson.note 2supra, at 15. " Breckenfeld, note 5 supra. at 150. 72 Cal. Gov't Code § 65915 (West 1983). r _, . . . ,,,,_ ... , . , . Loin,-. . . , , i , . , t [71 LAND USE 151 i' ; ii above the national average as to place new housing beyond the reach of all but the most affluent families." :lied re .; !' rich � ' I lop- New Jersey—Mt. Laurel II in a Nutshell �l 1 - or On January 20, 1983, the New Jersey Supreme Court deliv- l : to I •'. .. ered a 216-page unanimous decision founded on the New Jersey l�;, State Constitution's general welfare clause, a clause that does •'t' per l li; ;, .ely not exist in the language of the constitution but was held by the god- , court to be there by implication. The decision effectively invali- i.I 1:I .� dated every municipal ordinance that did not contain inclusion- , , , em ! ary, mandatory set-asides. The decision has become known as • the �I1 � Mt. Laurel !1.'a I ;1! lost ii!,ll: ': be- Mount Laurel 11 basically gives teeth, direction, and amazing 1 !„ propulsion to a prior landmark decision, well reported in popular ,I ili i ', 1 nn- and scholarly journals,15 known now as Mt. Laurel 1 in which ili I min ;,li,li 1 ties the same court articulated the concept that a municipal ordi- nance is invalid if it fails to make available realistic housing I II, • its. I opportunities to meet the needs of persons of low and moderate . .!i • Les, income. In Mt. Laurel II, the court declared it was not kidding it u �eof when it decided Mt. Laurel I" The court deplored the judicial ?� V!, :ich resources wasted between 1975 and 1983, during which no aster- iii i.i. fits tamable low- and moderate-income housing was built or zoned i I; for, while many municipalities litigated with developers and i me I public interest groups. The court proceeded to discuss and ,. I me it the I resolve myriad arguments raised by various recalcitrant munic- I r i ,ith ipalities which, in its view, had impeded the enforcement of , , Mt. Laurel 1. The court then set forth a number of new rules to i 1 ful be applicable in the litigation of all such exclusionary zoning ' cases. These rules are explicitly designed to expedite the han- 1 i try ' Jilt = i� �` i in 1� Breckenfeld. note 5 supra, at 149. e 14 92 N.J. 158. { ' -he :m i5 A list of articles and commentary that have appeared since this opinion �� was written would be staggering. For example, comments have appeared in I. by • this Journal. Payne, "From the Courts." 12 Real Est. L.J. 85 (19831: in the I ' ay Land Use Law and Zoning Digest (March 1983): and various academic and I ' rn popular publications. The Center for Urban Policy Studies at Rutgers Univer- i 1 sity. in November 1983.published a 430-page document on how communities lit ar and developers could deal with Mt.Laurel!t: see Burchell. Beaton& Listokin. Mount Laurel 11: Challenge and Delivery of Low Cost Housing (1983). , !l 5• 15 Southern Burlington Council NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel. 67 • N.J. 151.336 A.2d 713.appeal dismissed and cert.denied. 423 U.S. 808(19751. 17 92 N.J. 158. at 199. I . 152 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT [8] dling of and to encourage the institution of such cases by builder-developers."B Among these rules are: (1) A rule that all municipalities must affirmatively calculate their indigenous need for low- and moderate-income hous- - ing. (2) A rule that all municipalities within a designated growth area (the opinion contains a map of each county in the state with the growth areas designated) must calculate ,; their prospective needs in six-year increments and provide for such needs in their zoning. (3) A discussion of various inclusionary zoning techniques, their effectiveness, and a conclusion that only mandatory set-aside ordinances are effective according to their re- search. Implicit in this decision is a warning that any municipality without mandatory set-asides calculated to meet its low and moderate indigenous and prospective needs cannot pass judicial scrutiny. (4) A rule to the effect that any developer or landowner who .- initiates a successful Mt. Laurel suit and who is willing to provide 20 percent low- and moderate-income housing . shall be entitled (unless the town proves the development of his land would constitute an environmental hazard) to receive density bonuses and the elimination of cost- generating design standards, utility connection costs, in- spection fees, and off-site improvement requirements sufficient to make it worth his while. (5) The supreme court, to expedite such cases, has appointed , three special judges. They have eliminated all interlocut- ory appeals to prevent judicial delays before the town has been rezoned, the approvals granted, and the builder be- gins building. (6) The special judges are empowered to grant all approvals formerly administered by the towns and to order the is- suance of building permits. They can (and should in most cases) appoint masters, who are described as receivers who take over the towns' planning, zoning, and other ad- ministrative functions. These receivers are paid by the towns. with a statewide methodology for(7) The special judges aredtrdetermining region and fair share. The supreme court states explicitly that the special 1e Id. at 214-220 (summary of the court's findings). 4 . 9 :1 [8] [9] LAND USE 153 I by judges may. while focusing on the obligation of one town. t . determine the region and total regional fair share and such late calculations shall be "presumptively binding" on all other i. i )us- towns in the region. 1' (8) Low-income families are defined as those making between �' , • wth U and 50 percent of the median income for the applicable the census statistical area. Moderate-income families are l :- the those making between 50 and 80 percent of median. A i:!` late ride housing unit is "affordable" if a person in the applicable ! ' income group spends no more than 25 percent of his yes, income on rent, or, if he buys. on principal, interest, 11I gory taxes, and insurance.19 . re- The New Jersey Supreme Court appointed the special judges 1 . any to handle exclusionary zoning litigation in August 1983: as of i. J to early February 1984. seventy cases were being handled and new i five exclusionary zoning cases were being filed at a rate of about five cases a week.20 There are only 567 municipalities in New Jersey, rvho several hundred of which have land that can be fairly described illi g to in a rowth zone, and it is expected that they will all be as being g sing brought into compliance in less than four years. Interlocutory lent appeals have been attempted and have been refused by the 1) to state's appellate division within days after they were filed. Mu- ost- nicipal attorneys representing traditional values have compared • in" themselves with baby harp seals during the periodic Canadian ortts harp seal hunts, "We can slither and we can bleat but only for a very short time." cut- In short, New Jersey, by judicial mandate. has required every cut- } municipality with any kind of growth-zoned land to implement has 20 percent mandatory set-aside in sufficient quantity to meet the �" present and prospective needs of persons earning below 50 per- cent of the median income of the region in which they live. This t. means that house sales costs, in some cases where the median 1 Is- incomes are low, will be less than $20.000 for a three-bedroom Host unit and well below that for a one-bedroom unit.' vers ad- I . i9 hi. at 221 n.x. This is one of the many important footnotes in the case. the �' 29 Telephone conversations with the staffs of Mr. Laurel 11 judges (Feb. 1984). h a _' Assume that the median income for an area is $25.000. Fifty percent of fair 25 percent of that--which is all that the court allows for (' that is $12.5(x1. and � p I Clal housing costs—is$3.125. Assume that local property taxes amount to$500 per year.and that insurance on the structure would cost$125 per year.This would li leave $2.50(1 to support principal and interest payments. At 12.75 percent interest—the lowest thirty-year market rate mortgage in this 1 I . 1 154 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT 10 • The Impact of Mt. Laurel II on Broader Issues It is impossible to understand the success of the Orange County inclusionary system and why,for instance,5,000 persons would attend a lottery for the right to purchase fifty-eight small condominium units priced between $72,000 and $95,000, deed restricted and price controlled,22 without understanding the in- flationary spiral that hit the California housing market in the 1970s and early 1980s. So, too, it is impossible to understand what is happening in New Jersey without historical perspective. New Jersey, until relatively recently, was a strong home-rule state with a political tradition23 that tolerated and encouraged exclusionary housing to a virtually unparalleled degree. The New Jersey Supreme Court developed a doctrine of presumptive validity of municipal ordinances that was used to virtually rub- berstamp municipal action, including five-acre zoning through- out an entire municipality and, the exclusion of trailer parks. Since the state had no income taxes prior to 1974, and up to that time property taxes supported everything, local governments learned to manipulate land use policies for local tax advantage. More important, local governments, the training grounds for future state politicians, were virtually lawless in their adminis- tration of land use approvals and adherence to enacted Stan- - dards. Lawyers functioned in this morass as lackeys to the "public will" or as peddlers of political favors. It is no accident that New Jersey, the nation's most densely populated state today, stands forty-eighth in the nation in the number of man- - ufactured homes or trailers that have been erected in rela- tion to its housing stock.24 Trailers have not been permitted under most zoning ordinances because they are perceived to area at the time of this writing—$2;500 would just support a 519.000 mortgage. The courts have permitted some flexibility with respect to income figures and family size, in that a two-person family would be assumed to have a lower mecian income than a five-person family, and housing prices are affected by the income levels. Note that the income level is what determines affordability, and afford- ability—not costs—is what determines housing prices. If interest rates or property taxes or insurance costs rise, housing costs must fall. 22 Breckenfeld. note 5 supra. at 149. 23 3 N.Williams,J.,American Land Planning Law:Lund Use and(hr Policy Power # 66005 (1974). 24 The problem of siting mobile homes in New Jersey was studied by the New Jersey legislature (–Report and Recommendations of the Mobile Home Study Commission,– Oct. 1980) by the Legislative Study Commission asp- , _ Il [10) [11] LAND USE 155 I° yield less in taxes than they cost in services. Today. New Jer- sey's permitted residential densities on undeveloped land are range still among the lowest of any largely urbanized state. !' rsons The New Jersey system, it should be remembered, requires ; ` small that developers who bring exclusionary zoning suits receive Ii' deed court-ordered benefits sufficient to give them an incentive to , le in- commence such litigation. However;the system has not, to date, I. n the set standards for municipal set-aside ordinances adopted to il,' stand avoid such litigation. It seems clear, therefore. that successful li;I :Jive. litigants are entitled to benefits that exceed the cost of the 2-rule :, , obligation imposed upon them while noncombatant landowners. raged , , who do not engage in litigation. may have obligations imposed The upon them without density or other compensating benefits. ptive Mt. Laurel II will succeed in New Jersey. despite the in- ij rub- equities inherent in the mandatory set-aside mechanism adopted ,i!II .'ugh- by municipalities, because it will allow builders to at last begin to : arks. serve a huge market for medium-priced market housing. This i.II ► that market has been artificially pent up for many years. Further- tents more. any system where developers are protected from local cage. ,, . lawlessness is preferable to what existed before. The incentive - {I i s for for litigation, which will force compliance. is adequate. it finis- The Mt. Laurel ll decision may be criticized for its nontradi- stan- tional approach to the separation-of-powers doctrine, for being , the too activist, for establishing expedited procedures that offend ..I dent traditional notions of due process. for seizing legislative and state executive powers through a dubious interpretation of the state's non- constitution, and for its expression of economic and land use i; rela- truths from literature without the usual technical legal founda- itted tions. Nonetheless, it is, at bottom, an expression of judicial d to courage. The decision is a refusal. in spite of pretty clear defiance by local government, to accept the notion that New Jersey is ungovernable and that unpopular decisions directed :age. 1 against local government cannot be enforced. :and ;,wee If the court holds its ground against the legislative and execu- d by tive attacks that are sire to come. the decision may do for New ford- pointed pursuant to JR 3 of 1977. 'Ibis report cites I970-1975 HUD figures for s or the low ratio of muhile homes for total housing units. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's A 1IIuu-s- in} Surrey (1976)shows that New Jersey ranked forty-eighth.after Massachu- setts and Hawaii. in terms of ratio of mobile homes to total housing units:and ?hey the 19143 figures. supplied by the Manufactured Housing Association in Wash- ington. D.C.. indicated that New Jersey ranked forty-fourth out of forty-eight the states.although'it ranked ninth among the states in terms of population.in total : shipments of mobile homes and manufactured housing units.indicating that the ame sit tuition is nut improving. ap . • t 1*.. . '4illIllIllIllIllIllIllIllIllIllnIIIIIIIIIIn'. _ _ _ . , s ' • 156 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT [12] Jersey something that will be far more valuable in the long run than inclusionary housing and increasing the supply of higher- density, lower-cost market housing. The decision will require that elected and appointed officials spend countless hours with their lawyers and planners attempting to understand the legal limits of their land use choices. the rationale for the decision, the need for carefully written ordinances setting forth the standards for development approvals, and the requirement that the local version of the "public will" be subordinated to process and law. In the process, New Jersey's grass-roots body politic may be reformed. Economic Incidence25: The Theoretical Justification for Inclusionary Set-Asides • Some economists, academics, and politicians are genuinely troubled by the fact that governmental activities can greatly affect land values and cause either losses or benefits for land- owners and developers. These benefits or losses are, they feel, unearned and unwarranted. Government should devise mecha- nisms, these people argue, that recapture windfall profits from those who benefit and compensate those landowners who suffer losses due to governmental activities. In the absence of • widespread support for such megasystems, these egalitarians • have argued since the 1960s that local government could use its land use powers to solve such local problems as the need for affordable housing, not by more taxation, but by simultaneously rezoning land to higher densities and requiring mandatory set- asides in such a way that the benefit received would either be equal to or greater than the obligation imposed. These housing • advocates argue that if the cost of distributing the low- and moderate-income housing is less than the increase in the value of the land resulting from the rezoning, there is no economic hard- ship, no taking, no illegal taxation of one segment of the economy—and the landowner should be grateful. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the economic impact of an inclusionary device that just increases costs without a 25 The author is indebted to an article by Dean Misczynski. which appeared as Chapter 6 in Hagman and Misczynski's seminal Windfalls for Wipeouts (1978). The author also wishes to acknowledge his intellectual debt to the late Donald Hagman. not only for the work cited, but also to Hagman's unpub- lished Taking Care of One's Own: Bootstrapping Low and Moderate Income Housing by Local Government.which was delivered to the Lincoln Institute's Housing Seminar in April 1981. r - 13 157 �I [127 [13] LAND USE such higher-run commensurate benefit. The debate over the acceptability of higher- an ordinance centers around the question of economic inci- require dence. which is the economist's jargon f for talking about who ire with ultimately pays for the low- and moderate-income io legal dente. however, is not a problem if the particular than the costs of ion. the device contains benefits equal he local the obligation demanded. The incidence t problem bneais created o the he local governme>�,when it increases time bestowing a commensurate ind law, economy may be benefit. The Incidence Problem cation The principal argument against regulatory mechanisms that seek to build inclusionary housing through s that such mechanisms �nuinely that do not have commensurate be nefits greatly f such are inequitable because housing builders home buyers of on its in or land- housing to market home buyers. Since i feel, higher-density developments. which include inclusionary hous- m echa _ ing, are assumed to be middle class not than provhsions, Its from in estate areas• which are usually inequitable. The rich are :rs who the system is said to be particularly the entire Bence of 1 getting off free and the middle classes are carrying .litarians I burden' supporters of such mechanisms, because Not so, argue the supp rites d use its ! ward as need for this argument assumes that home builders cessup p mneously ! directly in proportion to their costs--adjusting inept ric. would sell s rosy set- I costs increase. No builder. except a very a tither be house for $100.000 if he c n as based sell it on economic for $10.000. housing modeling, houusing � According to economic pricing for maximum economic return can be d determined n d ifi the ow- and I and demand, value of elasticities of supply iic hard- production rates, and some other t sli known. of the prices in economic models usually w5 downabsorpt on rates). (or the number of units a builder sells t an ec1onumc modeltc uld ven period of c impact There is a theoretically ideal pf1Ce ithout a all calculate for any point in `ime lic tee and soedependenknown.on vari- pacing theories are do appeared ables that can only he guessed at that builders pay no attention to wtheo late them. There is evidence. in fact, vino usingmatte et are basi- s to the late tally irrational because they depend Income Institute's s unpu� perceptions and motions of value and prestige. Builders believe ercep prices will actually in- that under certain situations increasing p" perceived by in- crease demand. because price is almost always p 158 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT [14] buyers of housing to be linked with quality and prestige. Suffice it to say that cause-and-effect predictions about housing markets are about as reliable as cause-and-effect predictions about the stock market. There are a number of theories and countertheories in the economic literature purporting to explain how, in an economic model, an economist might determine who bears the economic incidence of a tax or regulation which, as discussed earlier, may depend on achieving a perfect understanding of pricing and its relationship to cost. Economists generally agree that any factor that affects costs may be passed on to the consumer; and/or the landowner, and/or the builder, and/or the suppliers of labor or materials, depending on the elasticities of supply and demand- . and the agreement stops right there. A majority of economists would probably disagree with anyone who purported to have an understanding of the housing market sufficiently exact to tell who and in what proportion the various participants in the hous- ing market might be expected to pay the costs associated with any particular inclusionary mechanism. The incidence problem is particularly frustrating in light of the fact that both set-aside proponents and opponents base their support on, or opposition to, their particular conclusions as to who ultimately pays and their views of the equities of that situation. Most economists, builders, and social planners agree, how- ever, that any regulatory system that drives up builder costs in a housing market area will certainly result in an increase in hous- ing prices for market home buyers in that area. The agreement will be less general about whether a regulatory mechanism that limits profits on a segment of the housing product will also drive up costs. These questions are relevant because in New Jersey the in- clusionary rule, which requires that housing be delivered, in some areas, for as little as $20,000 a unit, probably results in .outright builder losses equal to the amount his costs exceed the price allowed him in the specific ordinance. In Orange County, where dwelling units priced between $72,000 and $95,000 qual- ify, presumably the builder is losing only "profits." A loss of profits, however, deprives that builder of all or a portion of that reward the Orange County housing market would otherwise pay for that builder's initiative, organizational abilities, and willing- ness to risk capital. • = 15 [14] [15] LAND USE 159 e. Suffice The Utopian Example markets To understand fully the concept that inclusionary housing ibout the advocates have hit upon, a theoretical example of this mecha- nism in operation, The Township of Utopia, on a 100-acre prop- es in the erty known as Fairhaven, will be examined. conomic In this example, the city council of Utopia is concerned about conomic the lack of affordable housing and has asked both the city attor- lier, may ney and a professor of urban planning, who also purports to :g and its understand the economics of the housing and land development ny factor business, to come up with a land development ordinance that nd/or the will produce low-cost housing, avoid litigation, and be fair to labor or new-market home buyers, land owners, and housing developers. emand— After considerable discussion and study, the city attorney and onomists the professor advise the city council that a mandatory set-aside have an ordinance will be legal and fair to all affected parties, providing ct to tell that all of the following rules are observed: he hour- (1) The ordinance must simultaneously bestow a benefit upon ►ted with and extract an obligation from all affected properties. �ht of the (2) The benefit bestowed on the land must have a value at ase their least equal to and probably greater than the cost of ful- filling the obligation. ins as to (3) To make the system work, the city council must be careful of that to apply it only to land that has a substantial residual �e, how- capacity for higher-intensity uses than those permitted under the current zoning. :osts in a in hous- The city council and the planning board agree to follow this ;reement advice and, after carefully studying the housing market and :ism that evaluating all substantial undeveloped properties within the city Iso drive limits to designate three pieces of property for inclusionary rezoning, including our specific example, a 100-acre parcel cur- the in- rently zoned residential at a permitted density of four housing ered, in units per acre. esults in :.eed the County, The New inclusionary Ordinance 00 qual- The new inclusionary ordinance increases Fairhaven's per- . loss of mined density from four to ten units per acre but requires that 20 1 of that percent of all housing units built on the property be low- and vise pay moderate-income units. The ordinance requires that half of the willing- set-aside inclusionary units be low-income units, that they be F .. 1 16 160 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT [16] sold only to families whose income is less than 50 percent of the median income of the U.S. Census Bureau's primary metropoli- tan statistical area for the region that includes Utopia, and that these units be deed-restricted with provisions requiring that they be resold only to low-income people for resale prices that are tied to rises in the consumer price index. The moderate-income units are limited to persons and families making between 80 and 50 percent of the median income and also have requirements designed to keep those units, upon resale, affordable to moderate-income persons. A unit is affordable to a given income group, according to the ordinance, if a family making an income that would put it at the top of its group could afford to rent or buy the unit by spending no more than 25 percent of its income. In the case of for-sale housing, the ordinance permits the builder to set the price based on a formula, applied at the time occupancy permits are obtained, that assumes a 10 percent down payment, and sets a price based on the maximum mortgage a home buyer at the top of the applicable group's income range can carry at prevailing interest rates without spending more than 25 percent of that family's income on interest and principal payments, esti- mated homeowner association dues, and estimated taxes. The Utopia City Council has carefully studied the housing market in the area, with the help of the professor and the city attorney, and is confident that the new ordinance satisfies all three requirements, which is necessary to avoid legal and politi- cal problems. Obviously the ordinance in question simulta- neously bestows both the higher-density benefit and the in- clusionary obligation. Although it took considerable study of the housing market, the council is also satisfied that the benefit be- stowed on the land is more valuable than the obligation extracted. In fact, the council has concluded that the owner of Fairhaven can make a lot of extra money while benefiting Utopia by con- structing 200 low- and moderate-income units. The city council has discovered that residential undeveloped land sells in Utopia for about $10,000 per permitted housing unit. Fairhaven, for instance, where only 400 market units could be built before the inclusionary ordinance was passed, can now build 800 market units plus 200 inclusionary units, with an in- crease in value from $4 million to $8 million plus or minus the cost or value of 200 inclusionary units. The city council of Utopia has done its research and knows that building 200 inclusionary units will not cost$4 million. It has been determined from a study, which the council ordered prior 17 [16] [17] LAND USE 161 ent of the to passing the inclusionary ordinance. that if the council's ordi- ietropoli- nance were applied immediately using prevailing interest rates and that (which everyone knows will be going down soon), the current that they median income figures for the Utopia P.M.S.A. (which everyone that are knows will be going up) requires only that a builder deliver a e-income two-bedroom condominium unit, which under the ordinance can ..n 80 and be as small as 800 square feet for$25,000 for a low-income family iirements of four persons. The identical unit, Utopia's experts have con- Jable to cluded. could be sold today to a moderate-income family for n income $35,000. n income The experts Utopia hired also know a great deal about the nt or buy house-building industry, and have talked to architects, site plan- 'ome. In ners, civil engineers as well as the subcontractors that builders iuilder to use. They have concluded and advised the city council that an cupancy efficient builder can construct high-density, small condominium iayment, units under the new zoning for $40,000 per unit, including aver- se buyer age land development costs and sewer and water connection fees carry at in full compliance with Utopia's development regulations. This percent I figure does not include land costs but it includes 5 percent for - nts, esti- administrative expenses, construction financing, the cost of all es. � bonding for municipal improvement, all municipal fees, and ac- housing tual estimates from suppliers and subcontractors. The Utopia the city study, which the city council is relying on, states that these isfies all numbers are conservative and that a production builder who d politi- buys in bulk and has economies of scale may be able to build simulta- these inclusionary units for as much as 15 percent less. the in- i if this study is right, a builder could build the 200 inclusionary 'y of the units required on Fairhaven and sell at a cost or loss to himself of refit be- only about $2 million since he would only lose $500,000 on the traded. 100 moderate-income units and $1.5 million on the 100 low- irhaven income units. by con- After reviewing all the of information in the study, the city council decided that in calculating the value of the benefits to /eloped Fairhaven from the new zoning the council should use the num- ng unit. ber of market units only in estimating land value and subtract )uld be from that the predicted losses a builder would incur from build- in now i ing low- and moderate-income units. Using that approach, the an in- council decided that Fairhaven, which was worth $4 million ius the before rezoning, is now worth $6 million. The professor, however, disagreed with the city council's knows conclusion that the owners of Fairhaven had made $2 million It has from the process. He said that the city council should also prior subtract some undetermined amount from the land value of iiiimmimummaiimmini-- . M s ' 162 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT [18] Fairhaven in case land values were affected by builder percep- tions of marketing difficulties with respect to the sale of market units due to the presence of the low- and moderate-income units. The professor also said that perhaps an additional undetermined amount should be subtracted from the land value of Fairhaven because builders might be disinclined to become involved with the complicated administrative procedures that the ordinance required for the low- and moderate-income units. These regulations require builders to verify the incomes of prospective purchasers of low- and moderate-income units, and hire people to interview prospective buyers so that their posi- tions on waiting lists can be ascertained under the complex rules that Utopia has adopted in the interest of fairness. These rules give priority on the waiting list to certain minority groups, mu- nicipal and county employees, people who work in Utopia but cannot afford to live there, and others in accordance with a fairly complicated weighting system. In addition, the city attorney pointed out that the first inclusionary builders would spend a lot on lawyers' fees because title insurance companies, mortgagors and their attorneys, as well as the attorneys for various govern- ment agencies which insure mortgages, might need to be per- suaded that the deed restrictions and resale controls designed to keep the housing affordable in perpetuity were legal and would not affect their security interests. It has all been worked out in California, the city attorney said, and it can be worked out here but the first few projects will pay high legal fees. Everyone eventually agreed that the owner of Fairhaven, because of regu- latory costs and market perceptions, was not making quite $2 million but he was certainly making $1 million. Controversy Over Builders' Profits One issue caused a great deal of controversy in Utopia and almost delayed passage of the ordinance. The authors of the housing market study Utopia ordered pointed out that the pro- cess of rezoning Fairhaven would create two profit opportunities for the owners of Fairhaven if they were also the builders. Not only would the land appreciate, but the builders would make profits on 400 extra market housing units. The market study stated, for instance, that the two-bedroom inclusionary units, which could be built for only $40,000 without land costs, would have a fair market value of$65,000. Although the study pointed out that this would not be all profit (since the builder would incur \Mt -,ti 3.9 [181 [19] LAND USE 163 certain costs associated with marketing the units, such as adver- _:rcep- iarket tising and brokerage commissions), the profits would still be i .nits. over $10,000 per unit. The builders, everyone agreed, would nined make at least an extra $4 million due to this rezoning. raven Several councilmen said that they heard that the owner of 'I with Fairhaven, who lived out of town, was also a builder, and if lance that was the case, the density was too high and that he would make too much money as a result of the inclusionary ordinance. es of One councilman suggested that the density be decreased or the and percentage of low-income units be increased so that the builder would only make between $I million and $2 million on the ;t post- 'I rules rezoning. like the people who owned the other pieces of land :� rules selected for inclusionary zoning. • mu- The professor disagreed strongly and convinced the attorney ■ a but that land should not be zoned because of who owns it. and that fairly the builders' profits should not be impaired. The professor ex- ), irney plained that builders are reasonably intelligent people with orga- 1 a lot nizational skills and capital that they are willing to risk in the g free-market system providing the rewards are adequate. If that ir igors reward is$10,000 per unit, the professor said, there is no guaran- per- tee that the builder will even build in Utopia if his profit is cut to ed to $3,000 per unit when he can make $10.000 per unit by applying 'ould his skills, his organization's efforts, and his capital elsewhere. ut in Also, the professor pointed out, if Utopia only allowed builders here to make $3,000 per unit on the benefit units, this would make the yone land on which these units were to be built worth considerably ego- less, perhaps $7,000 per unit less. If this were so, and the owner ;. e $z of Fairhaven turned out not to be a builder, the landowner would suffer a loss due to the inclusionary zoning ordinance. The city attorney warned the council that if the benefits con- ferred on the land were not arguably more valuable than the obligation imposed (and the market study would certainly help and the landowner here) and assuming that the landowner could get the an appraiser to testify that the extra units would be worth only f $3,000, the city attorney could not be responsible in any court '. pro- action in the defense of the new ordinance. A smart attorney i ities Not could get the ordinance overturned on any number of legal sake theories, such as unconstitutional.taking, discrimination in zon- ■ udy ing, or spot zoning. Why, one could even argue that this ordi- iits, nance was an illegal tax-in-drag requiring certain landowners and _ iuld home builders to support an in-kind redistribution-of-housing • lied scheme for the poor. in effect a redistribution of wealth without � cur statutory authority. The city council could raise taxes to support ' i ■ '' 20 • 164 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT [20] the poor in any way that it chose, he said, but the council could not just tax developers and home builders. As a result of the controversy over the builders' profits, the professor and the city attorney proposed a fourth rule, which they said they had overlooked when they came down with the first three rules. The fourth rule is: (4) In assessing the value of the benefit incurred, the con- cern should be with immediate land-value-for-resale- purposes-only using an appraiser. Value to a particular person, builders' profits, or users' profits should not be a concern. Appraisals should be very conservative since it has been impossible to ascertain what market perceptions are regarding the existence of the inclusionary units and what builders' perceptions are about what the costs and hassles connected with the inclusionary units will do to residual market values. Although landowners and builders may not be able to prove the costs associated with these factors, the courts will probably be persuaded that these factors will result in some diminution in residual value. It is therefore now recommended that the benefit will result in all cases in an incremental land value greater than projected cost. The city council and the planning board also carefully exam- ined all parcels tentatively identified as suitable for, the new zoning and each was judged acceptable. Fairhaven had sufficient road frontage on a public road with enough capacity to accept safely the traffic projected for 1.000 housing units. The site was served by all utilities required and the city engineer verified that increasing the density would not affect any existing systems. Every projected impact was analyzed and found acceptable. With the blessing of both the professor and the city attorney the city council enacted the ordinance as originally proposed. Thus far, it has worked perfectly in Utopia. The out-of-town owner of Fairhaven, who turned out not to be a builder,sold the land to a builder at a price surprisingly close to the projected $6 million shortly after the ordinance was passed. The builder has built I,000 units on the land, including the 200 required inclusionary units. These units were built and occupied by lower-income families. who, although they complain some- times that the deed restrictions and price controls deprive them of the right that every other Utopian enjoys of substantial ap- At g1 • [20] [211 LAND USE 165 preciation on their homes. appear to be content with their new Quid homes. The S(10 market units sold for prices that, if they were , ., the adjusted for inflation, are astonishingly close to the prices pre- I vhich dicted in the market study. indicating that the builder neither hiked prices to pay for some extra costs associated with the . h the p inclusionary units nor discounted prices due to market resis- tance from the presence of the inclusionary units. The builder of con- the 1,000 units at Fairhaven appears to have prospered as a =sale- result of the undertaking. He has moved into a much larger home icular on the outskirts of Utopia, has greatly increased the size of his , t t be a organization, and has bought a luxurious condominium in the I ,. ' rice it Caribbean. Everyone associated with Fairhaven appears to have �,g ..I Itians benefited or, in the case of the market unit buyers, obtained his ii and money's worth. I s and do to . 1 . ilders • Who Paid for the 200 Low-Income and Market Units? �; .• these The professor has an interesting theory. He argues that no one these paid because Utopia was able to use an incremental value in the ue. It land which existed because the land's zoned capacity for hous- result I' ing units was much lower than the land's true physical capacity. than As demonstrated, the professor says. Fairhaven was as good a site for 1,000 units as it was for 400. Zoned for 400 units it was worth $4 million; zoned for 1,000 units it could have been worth •xam- $10 million. The only thing that was used up to build the project new was land capacity. icient Some people in Utopia feel that the original owner really paid ccept was For the 200 lower-income units and that if he had not lived out of •i. town he could have sued Utopia and won for not zoning his land .1, .1 t erns. was for ten units per acre in the first place, because clearly it had that that capacity. They argue that he should have been entitled to the full t ale. $10 million. The professor, however, vehemently disagrees t irney cause he says the original owner bought the property twenty cased. years before, according to the deed books in the county court- ' house, for about $3,000 an acre before the city of Utopia had to be turned into the kind of thriving town it is r today. At not served the ise to property was zoned for only one unit per . Sled. city water and sewers, and only had a capacity for individual , 200 septic systems of one unit per acre. The owner of Fairhaven. i even though he paid an assessment for benefits when the sewer ome-p ied and water went in, just before the property was upzoned from them one to four units per acre, has profited sufficiently, the professor them tl ap- says, from the city council's actions. 22 166 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT [22] Some people in Utopia who do not care about whether the landowner should have received $10 million are worried about the inclusionary ordinance because it is so popular that the city council, the city attorney, and the professor are working to- gether to "tap residual land capacity" to pay for more of the things that the city council would like to do but is unwilling to increase taxes to pay for directly. These people are concerned that an idea that worked well in Fairhaven, where it was care- fully applied, has become too popular and will be misapplied. They feel that Utopia's ability to create value by increasing permitted land use intensities is too limited a resource in Utopia to be relied upon to fuel governmental largess. Most people in Utopia, however, are pleased with the city council, and its members have been reelected again and again with overwhelming landslides. Real-World Applications and the Incidence Problem . In Utopia, the mandatory set-aside inclusionary mechanism worked relatively well in the case that was examined, mainly because the city council followed the professor and the city attorney's four rules. The city council took care to "create" more value through benefits than it extracted through obligations and made sure that both the obligations and the benefits were applied to the land at the same time. The landowner was appar- ently not hurt because his land increased in value. The builder was not hurt because he knew the cost of the obligation and deducted that from the value of the market units when he bought the land.Since no one suffered or was economically squeezed, it must be assumed that no one incurred unexpected costs that they would attempt tospass on or litigate over or that would cause them to go bait The system worked well because it P upset no expectatio In the real world , _`-T. little care is taken by government generally to make sure .t the cost of the obligation is balanced y{w. with the benefits, and geryone argues about who is paying. In New Jersey, where municipalities will voluntarily or pursuant to court order adopt manatory set-asides on a scale that will dwarf the Orange County; periment, the problem has not even been addressed beyondatement by the supreme court to the effect that builders are entitled to their profits. No great care was taken in California, particularly in Orange County, to value either the benefit or the cost of: hsr;obligation. In some cases, it appears from the literature..thOindowners received no new benefit. S. [22] = [2S] LAND USE 167 23 Nether the Clearly mandatory set-asides can be applied to land in many ried about different ways. There is the Utopian example, where the benefit it the city is greater than the obligation and perhaps nobody pays. A man- orking to datory set-aside could be applied to land without increasing the ore of the density at all or providing any compensating benefit, as in swilling to Orange County. Benefits can have a value of less than the cost of :oncerned the obligation. Through what is known as incentive zoning, a was care- given extra benefit can be offered in return for an obligation and isapplied. builders can decide if the benefits are worth the obligation.There ncreasing are any number of variations. in Utopia Land use lawyers, developers, investors, planners, and politi- cians should all be concerned about what is happening in New 1 the city Jersey and in California, whether or not they live and do busi- Ind again ness in those states, because the notion that broad societal problems can be fixed by assessing others is, on the surface, attractive. These inclusionary programs are likely to become 'roblem increasingly popular, as an alternative to taxation, as the federal government further reduces funding levels on existing housing echanism programs and as these regulatory mechanisms become further 1, mainly legitimized through wide-scale implementation. It is imperative, the city therefore, that policymakers everywhere understand that in- "create" clusionary regulatory mechanisms, which do not "create" a fli were benefit equal or greater than the obligation they impose, will fits s w were result in economic burdens of the kind that the various actors in is appar- the housing economy will attempt to pass on. builder The issue of who ultimately pays for inclusionary set-asides, tion and unless it is felt that the landowner in Utopia should have re- bought ceived $10 million, becomes relevant only if government in- eezed, it creases costs without a commensurate benefit or bestows the tsts that benefit at a differential point in time from when it gives notice of t would the obligation so that the benefit and obligation fall on different cause it people. Timing is important also from a public policy point of • view even when the same people own the land, because slapping :rnment on obligations after bestowing benefits ("Indian giving") irri- alanced i tates most people. Some of those people will incur reliance ying. In interests that should be protected. ivant to !I dwarf .n been Incidence and Public Policy effect Assuming that it is not possible to understand incidence be- h he cause of an irn rfect knowledge of the housing market and her r the the pricing, the pro="e= will be approached in a different way. appears Let us ass_-tee .e are the city council or the Supreme Court of nefit. New Jerse; a:== w= do not want to give out any zoning 4., 168 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT [24] benefits—we just want to make builders build lower-income housing. Let us also assume that we can choose the victims for this experiment and make them pay. On whom should we place this burden? From a public policy perspective, most people would agree that it should not be the new market home buyers in inclusionary developments because making them pay will violate traditional notions of equity. In most cases, these home buyers will consist of many people who, although not members of the protected class of lower-income home buyers, may be only marginally wealthier than the protected class. In fact, the people who are protected in Orange County (80 to 120 percent of the median) could be expected to be market buyers in New Jersey's inclusion- ary developments supporting not only their own homes but also 25 percent of one inclusionary unit. Wealthy home buyers would pay nothing because presumably they would not buy in a devel- opment subject to inclusionary obligations. Making only market . home buyers,pay would be unacceptable. Placing the burden on housing developers is certainly a more politically palatable idea than placing it on new market home buyers. The problem here is not politics but practicality. Hous- ing developers are in a position to pass on costs to new home buyers, and it will be difficult to squeeze away their profits, keep them from passing on costs, and make them stay in busi- ness all at the same time with any inclusionary housing delivery system. Builders could move their business out of your jurisdic- tion or go into some other business which better rewarded their intelligence, organizational skill, and willingness to risk substan- tial capital if you squeeze their profits. We need builders in any inclusionary housing system and losing them would give the system a bad name. Landowners, on th, other hand, are stationary targets who cannot leave the junsiction. If you believe that government creates all land valu ; they are logical victims. They are not particularly popular 4:;.s class. Most people, if pressed between the three logical victims, would choose the landowners for sac- rifice to the public good. There is one big problem with picking on the landowners;he. as nowhere to go except to court, and he has a major weafOin the "taking" issue. The taking issue can be a dangerous ofi.for an inclusionary housing advocate, even if it is the New Jersey Supreme Court, because the taking issue can take you to federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that it has little patience with inclusionary constitutionalist; who [24] [25] LAND USE 169 lower-income he victims for violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." It is not so ould we place shocked at the notion that the poor cannot afford most new housing to permit the pillaging of land values from private prop- = would agree erty owners to support inclusionary zoning schemes. n inclusionary tie traditional Inclusionary Set-Asides and the Law r5 will consist the protected Inclusionary set-aside techniques are certainly legal mecha- ly marginally nisms in New Jersey and California. Most commentators who ople who are have written on the subject argue that in principle they are valid the median) regulatory devices.27 The supporters of inclusionary programs y's inclusion- argue that they are no different than other development exac- 'mes but also tions, such as off-site improvement exactions. Since exclusion- wyers would ary developments externalize costs onto society, the argument y in a devel- goes, inclusionary exactions, which merely require developers only market to internalize costs, bear a rational nexus to the needs otherwise created by the development. Other supporters of such programs tinly a more view such regulatory techniques as government's legitimate re- larket home capture of a windfall that government created by allowing the ality. Hous- development. new home Opponents of inclusionary zoning programs view them as an ieir profits, inefficient and inequitable scheme for the redistribution of tay in busi- wealth or as a tax on new housing to make in-kind distributions ng delivery to a narrow class of householders. )ur jurisdic- Most will conclude, after reading the literature,2B that such arded their programs will probably be upheld from a federal constitutional sk substan- iers in any d give the 26 See the Court's discussion in Agins v.Tiburon,447 U.S.225,260-261, 100 S. Ct. 2138, 65 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1980), which, while reiterating the Court's concern for the "taking issue," does conclude that in this case no taking had rgets who occurred. See also San Diego Gas& Elec. Co. v. City of San Diego, 450 U.S. )vernment 621, 101 S. Ct. 1287, 67 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1981). :y are not 21 Schwartz&Johnson,note 2supra. at 19; Hagman, note 25 supra. But see i between Board of Supervisors v.DeGroff Enterprises,Inc.,214 Va.235, 198 S.E.2d 600 's for sac- (1973)• h picking 28 The author would suggest, in addition to the Hagman works cited herein, rt, and he that the interested reader should consult: M. Brooks, et al.,Housing Choice issue can (1980); H. Franklin, D. Falk & A. Levin, In-Zoning: A Guide for Policy Makers on Inclusionary Land Use Programs (1974); Ellickson. "The Irony of e, even if Inclusionary Zoning," Resolving ng," in Resolvin the Housin g Crisis M.B. Johnson, ed. issue can 1982); Burton, "California Legislature Prohibits Exclusionary Zoning, Man- said that dates Fair Share: Inclusionary Housing Programs a Likely Response," 9 San 5tti who 4 Fern. V. L: Rev. 19 (1981): Kleven, "Inclusionary Ordinances—Policy and Legal Issues in Requiring Private Developers to Build Low Cost Housing," 21 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1432 (1974). 170 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT [26] persp:ctive, provided that the cost of inclusionary obligation is sufficiently offset by benefits to keep housing developments profitable. But what do practicing lawyers tell their developer clients who inquire about the legality of any specific inclusionary scheme? Can it be said that it is legal if a profit can be made building under it and that it is illegal if it is impossible to make a reasonable profit? Must lawyers go to court with witnesses who pretend to have a complete understanding of the housing market and try to prove the impossibility of profit on some theoretical basis? If it is theoretically possible to make some profit if the price of the land is reduced below the client's costs, what defense is there against the allegation that the clients overpaid for the land? Or must lawyers be safe and practical and tell their clients that no given inclusionary scheme is likely to be invalidated until some rea- sonable number of developers who have received their land as gifts have attempted diligently and efficiently to build under it and have gone bankrupt? Neither the enabling legislation in California nor the New Jersey Supreme Court meaningfully addresses the issue of to what extent an inclusionary obligation cost must be balanced by benefit values. It is not sufficient, in the real world, to set as a standard for the validity of a complex economic technique merely that it works or results in a profit. Typical exclusionary . municipalities in New Jersey, at least, will not resist the tempta- tion of conducting allegedly bona fide experiments designed to test the limits of profitability in the hope that while economists argue no housing will be built. Conclusion: The Need for Standards to Ensure Sufficient Compensating Benefits Inclusionary set-aside Ordinances work well without the kind of pressures on the free-market system that are likely to squeeze landowners, builders, or free-market home buyers in munici- palities like Utopia, which provides compensating benefits that have a value that exceeds the cost of the inclusionary obligation. In the real world, however, local government, acting with legal advice, will be tempted to withhold benefits as long as it is satisfied that a home'builder can make some profits if he buys the land at the correct 'tiiiireciated value. This practice is exceed- ingly likely to generate litigation and a perception that the entire ;i4. . n�te,6 .'r14''�. .h:., ... r. Y..00,1 ;r�,.. — , r414,„ w '✓ r '473' ■ [26] [27] LAND USE 171 obligation is inclusionary scheme is bootstrapped onto the aching backs of Developments new home buyers, builders, and landowners. This article suggests that while such inclusionary mechanisms clients who may be effective and equitable in some cases, where traditional iary scheme? land use intensities fall far below the land's real capacity, the 'uilding under general application of such mechanisms without compensating a reasonable benefits is likely to generate severe impacts upon real estate ho pretend to values, the housing industry and, eventually, the cost of market et and try to housing. ' basis? If it is :e of the land there against nd? Or must that no given til some rea- their land as `uild under it or the New issue of to balanced by 1, to set as a is technique exclusionary t the tempta- designed to economists Ensure out the kind y to squeeze in munici- vnefits that /obligation. g with legal n g as it is he buys the is exceed- tt the entire - . : 1 iI w. OWNS § 160A-399.12 ART. 19- PLANNING § 160A-402 § 160A-399.13 :� . I. ' z § 160A-399.13. Remedies. I prized to make appropri In case any building, structure, site, area or object designated as established pursuant to " a ro ert ursuant to this Part is about to be demolished ermine necessary for the'% '. a historic p p Y p .I m, and may make avaih :: whether as the result of deliberate neglect or otherwise, materially I altered, remodeled, removed or destro ed, exce t in compliance the acquisition, restora = - p h , Y y,��-� with the ordinance or the rovisions oft is Part t e cit or count I gent of historic buildings; . -'r the historic properties commission, or other party aggrieved by a ad as historic properties,`: ",.such action may institute any appropriate action or proceedings to uctures are located,or to;,`. firrevert such unlawful demolition, destruction, material alteration, , s. 9; 1973, c. 426 s. 62. ` p, �r`-.remodeling or removal, to restrain, correct or abate such violation, ':- or to prevent any ille al act or conduct with respect to such historic g � �. property. Such remedies shall be in addition to any others autho- I operty. }' rized by this Chapter for violation of a municipal ordinance. (1971, :c. 885, s. 13, 1973, c. 426, s. 62; 1979, c. 644.) ;:as or objects acquired by . :tLiii,.. hall be acquired in the ,, :-`"' provided by the govern- (v i§ 160A-400: Reserved for future codification purposes. - ` county, historic proper- .- - ervision and control of `,i""' Part 4. Acquisition of Open Space. : . p ildings or structures ac ! i from funds other than"!1. `"" :i be acquired in the name i` § 160A-401. Legislative intent. city or county, or bath. 1 in enacting this Part to Ia 1979, c. 644.) -`. . It is the intent of the General Assembly g .rovide a means whereby any county or city may acquire, by pur- �'! `'' chase,.gift, grant, bequest, devise, lease, or otherwise, and through �, pi•'' tlie expenditure of public funds, the fee or any lesser interest or • publicly owned.' ',the=right in real property in order to preserve, through limitation of f ores. their future use, open spaces and areas for public use and enjoy- l,'; r m i,f -eby made applicable to ent. (1963, c. 1129, s. 1; 1971, c. 698, s- 1.) 111 Ind demolition of build - • 'ci ''1 t tical subdivisions, agen-`-, V... Local Modification.-- Guilford and "Urban Planning and Land Use Regula- 'leither this section nor ::: `',' cities of Greensboro and High Point: tion: The Need for Consistency," see 14 . ,:,'1987, c. 669, s. 1. Wake Forest L. Rev. 81 (1978). " `I • y project of the Univer-` P, Legal periodicals. — For comment, 'C istitutions for which an ,i�i� , r 25, 1979. (1971, c. 885, f:' - e•§ 160A-402. Finding of necessity. T t The General Assembly finds that the rapid growth and spread of I��j f urban development in the State is encroaching upon, or eliminat- ',: e �r laws. -. .mg, many open areas and spaces of varied size and character in- it ` t to this Part requires a'.'r eluding many having significant scenic or esthetic values, which her standards with re- ', areas and spaces if preserved and maintained in their present open -" 1 i i are established under State would constitute important physical, social, esthetic, or eco ulation, this Part shall - nomic assets to existing and impending urban development. The I I' General Assembly declares that it is necessary for sound and proper ,, 1. er statute, charter pro-.' this . ,n er waiting p - urban development and in the public interest of the people of t is �,., g g period or State for any county or city to expend or advance public funds for, i 11 established under this �: y �k ordinance or regulation :°; or to accept by purchase,gift,grant,bequest,devise,lease,or other- ;1• wise,the fee or any lesser interest or right in real property so as to � 4 26, s. 62; 1979, c. 644.) acquire, maintain, improve, protect, limit the future use of, or oth- 1 k.; erwise conserve open spaces and areas within their respective juris � . , dictions as defined by this Article. i The General Assembly'declares that the acquisition of interests or rights in real property for the preservation of open spaces and ,., areas constitutes a public purpose for which public funds may be expended or advanced. (1963, c. 1129, s. 2; 1971, c. 698, s. 1.) .,; 293 ;''''.1 !" il'ii I i ,,,i i ,;,v 4c, , - ,,,,,L . - ' - -1 ' 29 "kti-__, z=1 § 160A-403 CH. 160A. CITIES AND TOWNS § 160A-406 t § 160A-403. Counties or cities authorized to ac- , :, ,i quire and reconvey real property. , -.,-_'.0 ;; Any county or city in the State may acquire by purchase, gift, _• .^i q grant, bequest, devise, lease, or otherwise, the fee or any lesser -:.1, interest, development right, easement, covenant, or other contrac- tual right of or to real property within its respective jurisdiction, f - :., when it finds that the acquisition is necessary to achieve the pur- :i ;: • �` ,,,; poses of this Part. Any county or city may also acquire the fee to �' -" any property for the purpose of conveying or leasing the property . back to its original owner or other person under covenants or other • •- . contractual arrangements that will limit the future use of the prop- -- ;i erty in accordance with the purposes of this Part, but when this is ti'i done, the property may.be conveyed back to its original owner but to no other person by private sale. (1963, c. 1129, s. 3; 1971, c. 698, r{s. s. 1.) t ,, Local Modification.—Guilford and Decade of Preservation and Preserva- cities of Greensboro and High Point: tion Law," see 11 N.C. Cent. L.J. 214 ,1 1987, c. 669, s. 2. (1980). 1 Legal Periodicals.—For article,"A "I § 160A-404. Joint action by governing bodies. !` Any county or city may enter into any agreement with any other -`F i;; county or city for the purpose of jointly exercising the authority 'f;. granted by this Part. (1963, c. 1129, s. 4; 1971, c. 698, s. 1.) § 160A-405. Powers of governing bodies. Any county or city, in order to exercise the authority granted by this Part, may: • • :'F . (1) Enter into and carry out contracts with the State or federal •; government or any agencies thereof under which grants or • other assistance are made to the county or city; = s" (2) Accept any assistance or funds that may be granted by the State or federal government with or without a contract; = << (3) Agree to and comply with any reasonable conditions im- posed upon grants; f, (4) Make expenditures from any funds so granted. (1963, c. 1129, s. 5; 1971, c. 698, s. 1.) Legal Periodicals.—For article,"A tion Law," see 11 N.C. Cent. L,i. 219 Decade of Preservation and Preserve- (1980). § 160A-406. Appropriations authorized. For the purposes set forth in this Part, a county or city may r•: appropriate funds not otherwise limited as to use by law. (1963, c ;,}' 1129, s. 6; 1971, c. 698, s. 1; 1973, c. 426, s. 60; 1975, c. 664, s. 14. 4 294 . . .,'7£ .' :=...—.•-... '.. _A, "P'r.! '�, i is La • I. i S II t I; § 160A-407 ART. 19. PLANNING § 160A-411 .i.I. !; ir1 160A-407. Definitions. ,, §160A- purpose of this Part an"open space" or"open (a) For the purp en area" is p p p any space or area(i)characterized by great natural scenic beauty or 1� whose existing openness, natural condition, or present state of (ii) use, if retained, would enhance the present or potential value of abutting or surrounding urban development, or would maintain or �,, inofna natural or scenic resources. I conservation enhance the cons , en ha „ (b) For the purposes of this Part"open space" or"open area" and R; , the "public use and enjoyment" of interests or rights in real prop- , erty shall also include open space land and open space uses..The term "open space land" means any undeveloped or predominantly undeveloped land in an urban area that has value for one or more of the following purposes: (i) park and recreational purposes, (ii) con- r.;+ ..servation of land and other natural resources, or (iii) historic or ±_:`scenic purposes. The term "open space uses"means any use of open �' 'ill sppace land for (i) park and recreational purposes, (ii) conservation ce r-of land and other natural resources, or (iii) historic or scenic pur- " poses. (1963, c. 1129, s. 7; 1969, c. 35, s. 1; 1971, c. 698, s. 1.) R, m o Local Modification.—Guilford and i I` d4 cities of Greensboro and High Point: i■' , il 1T 2 H 1987, c. 669,,s. 5. 9 1 I r6s§§ 160A-408 to 160A-410: Reserved for future codification ,, , i purposes. i . it' c` Part 5. Building Inspection. '{ g .;a=i;' i'1I 1 >��,:.., Iti , a §ii60A-411. Inspection department. �'+i :' Ti ,,Every city in the State is hereby authorized to create an inspect y fl1 I tion department, and may appoint one or more inspectors who may ill I be given the titles of building inspector, electrical inspector,plumb- 1 f,fi ing inspector, housing inspector, zoning inspector,heating and air- 'III; conditioning inspector,fire prevention inspector,or deputy or assis- tant inspector, or such other titles as may be generally descriptive I ;, of the duties assigned.The department may be headed by a superin- I tendent or director of inspections. Every city shall perform the du- ' ties and responsibilities set forth in G.S. 160A-412 either by: (i) I`;; , creating its own inspection department; (ii) creating a joint inspec- Iti l � tion department in cooperation with one or more other units of local ,l government, pursuant to G.S. 160A-413 or Part 1 of Article 20 of this Chapter; (iii) contractin with another unit of local govern- ?I _,_ ment for the provision of inspection services pursuant to Part 1 of {. Article 20 of this Chapter;or(iv) arranging for the county in which ,; s it is located to perform inspection services within the city's'urisdic- I: tion as authorized by G.S. 160A-413 and G.S. 160A-360. Such ac- :�;,!:I I" tion shall be taken no later than the applicable date in the schedule i4 1 ' below, according to the city's population as published in the 1970 :11, ' .l United g d States I Census: �! 1 Cities over 75,000 population — July 1, 1979 ;I Cities between 50,001 and 75,000 — July 1, 1981 Cities between 25,001 and 50,000 — July 1, 1983 �i Cities 25,000 and under — July 1, 1985. f ' {; i 295 , , . +11 � "� �1 _ -:-mss_: A ._ �T „ate: ;vy�� - �y- - _ "x: �:; ,. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.J[-D ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 21, 1990 SUBJECT: SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR EAS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : NONE INFORMATION CONTACT: MOSES CAREY TELEPHONE NUMBER-- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To appoint a special committee to support plans for toll free calling. BACKGROUND: At the present time the Board of Commissioners and TJCOG is working together to convince the North Carolina Utilities Commission to require the six telephone companies serving Orange County to provide toll free calling throughout this area. The Board has requested that the Utilities Commission hold public hearings in Orange, Durham and Wake Counties which are affected prior to making its decision. Since the telephone companies involved support plans other than toll free calling, it is recommended that a Special Committee or Task Force be formed to develop strategies for convincing the Utilities Commission of the importance of toll free calling to the citizens of Orange County. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the formation of this Special EAS Committee. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. � ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 21, 1990 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT: Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : Under Separate Cover INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Blythe Ext. 505 TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioner's appointed boards and commissions. BACKGROUND: The following recommendations are presented for the Board's consideration: BOARD OF HEALTH: Accept the resignation of Winifred Prysock who has served at the RN representative. The Health Board submits the resume of Beverly Havens to fill this unexpired term. It is recommended that she be appointed to a full tern ending June 30, 1993 . Ms. Havens presently serves as an "At Large" representative on the Human Services Advisory Commission and would continue on that board as the representative of the Board of Health. HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION: Appoint Forest E. Walton to fill a vacancy on this commission. The "At Large" vacancy is reserved for a representative of the private business sector who has experience in public transportation. The appointment has no specific expiration date. RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL: Appoint Michael R. Ford as the Bingham Township representative. His term will end March, 1993, and he will be eligible to serve another term. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A end ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: March 21 1990 SUBJECT: MINUTES DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: February 26, 1990 - Joint Public Hearing February 28, 1990 - Joint Planning Area Public Hearing February 20, 1990 - Regular Meeting BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the governing Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. fIF Treat Me Like a Dog 3—..2 i-90 1419-D Crawford Dairy Road Chapel Hill,NC 27516 919/929-3939 March 21, 1990 Orange County Board of Commissioners Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Dear County Commissioner: This is flat a request for a permit to keep a wild animal within Orange County, but a request for exemption from that ordinance for the numerous sound genetic, socialization, training, environmental and (most importantly) behavioral reasons contained herein. Our dog is neither a wild wolf nor a wild wolf crossbreed. Her domestic lineage can be traced back over seventy years. Over twenty generations of loving care and selective breeding for temperament and responsiveness have produced this animal with an incredibly loving and sweet nature. We are responding to an ordinance both ambiguously defined and incomplete in remedy -- other than for wild tigers and lesser big cats. I obviously have a great interest in seeing this situation pleasantly and equitably resolved. To this end, I offer my time and energy -- as well as my and my associate's combined 45+ years of professional animal/training experience in helping to develop a more realistic, appropriate, and enforceable ordinance. If there possibly can be a benefit to this traumatic and expensive ordeal, it is that Katula has added to her family of friends and well wishers. They, as I, feel confident that in the final analysis, Katula's genetics, breeding, and upbringing will continue to be reflected in her gentle and loving nature -- and it is, after all, behavior with which we are concerned, is it not? From time to time over the last two plus years I have been asked to volunteer my professional services and opinions in support of Orange County's Animal Control Office, and I always have enjoyed the company, intellect, concern and dedication of the Animal Control staff. I look forward to resolving this situation to everyone's advantage. But I implore you, too, for timely consideration. No sensitive being can suffer the confinement and severing of home and family ties without consequence. Please help us to minimize these negative consequences. Thanks for all your time, consideration and effort. 41 // ill 1 Or , , __,.....___ ohn S Coleman • This is not an application for a permit to house a wild animal in Orange County, but a request for a conditional exemption from this ordinance for very sound and solid reasons. Our dog Katula fits neither the definition of a wild wolf nor a wild wolf crossbreed, according to the Orange County ordinance or the Random House Dictionary of the English Language. WILD 1 - living in a state of nature. not tamed or domesticated 2 - growing or produced without cultivation or the care of man 3 - uncultivated, uninhabited 4 - uncivilized or barbarous Katula fits no recognized (or sensible) definition of wild, destructive or aggressive. The reasons: • Katula was not born a wild animal. • Her ancestors can be traced back through 20+ generations of domestic pets. • She has been hand-raised from the age of 10 days by men, women and children • She has been socialized and in training from the age of 4 weeks. • She has been a house-pet from the age of 4 weeks -- with a macaw and a cat -- neither of which are caged. • Even under quite adverse conditions she has never been aggressive. • No one who met her before or during this recent episode, including the Exec. Dir., the Kennel Master, and a number of APS attendants, have reported her as being anything other than a "nice, friendly r.Qg.." • Her further development into a dog of exceptional capability is dependant upon her continued socialization and training--and it has stopped in this now lengthening period of disruption and dislocation. • The trouble with the individuals calling the animal control officers is, we believe, a form of harrassment and retaliation for our having taken these same individuals to court on another matter. Katula's grandmother is a direct descendant of Count, one of Gordon Smith's first rescued wolf cubs back in the late 1920s. (Not all her ancestors are so distinguished, however; one of her ancestors was rescued from what would have been a short life on an Alaskan fur farm.) Gordon Smith was the founder and past president of the IOWOLFERS Association. It is he who literally wrote the book on domesticating wolf/dogs. SLAVE TO A PACK OF WOLVES remains the resource book on the proper breeding, rearing, socializing, training, care and physical maintenance of wolf/dogs. It was Gordon Smith himself that began Katula's long domestication process -- 70 plus years of tireless love and devotion. World-wide, Smith's associates and disciples carry-on and add to his work. One such is Randel Bowen, Katula's breeder, who is Founder/President of the Carolina Wolfers Association and the WOLFER'S JOURNAL, as well as V.P. of the Iredell county Humane Society. Both the Association and the Journal are non-profit entities devoted to the perpetuation of the standards set by Gordon Smith and others over the years -- the kinds of standards which produced such a sweet and loving animal as Katula. It was Randy's wonderful family who brought her and her brothers into their home at 10 days of age, bottle feeding them every four hours around the clock until we took over at four weeks of age. Indeed, we met Katula when she was 11 days old, nursing a bottle and dressed in doll clothes while snuggled into the arms of Randy and Cathy's seven year old daughter. After better than a year of careful thought and consideration: talking with owners, visiting breeders, observing and testing litters, we chose Randy as our breeder and were screened and qualified by him in turn. After four weeks of preparation my wife and I picked up Katula on our wedding day and spent our honeymoon bonding with our baby fuzz ball. • Housebreaking and socializing her to her housemates, a cat and a scarlet macaw, began immediately. Training has been an on-going, integral component of Katula's daily life. She is obedience trained. Come, sit, stand, down, belly-up, flip, fetch, out, stay, wait, crawl, back, gentle, place, let's go, and heel are the commands in her current daily vocabulary. Her training, socialization and guidance continued to the day she was arrested. Patricia, my wife, was/is taking her through one of my group obedience classes with dogs 4 months to 4 years of age, 25 to 100 pounds. She missed her group lesson on the past two Sundays -- and they missed her. The process is unfinished; she is still an exuberant, puppyish, loving and responsive canine, and there is much more to be done. She possesses an impressive intellectual capacity. She has learned basic tracking and my associate and fellow trainer was preparing her for Human Search and Companion Animal work. I ask for a conditional exemption and offer these conditions as both realistic and adequate: • supervision by professional dog trainer(s) • adequate confinement • continued socialization • further obedience training • resumption of Search training • relocation away from the old neighbors and neighborhood. • continued collaborative interaction with both Animal Control and APS. I realize you are faced with a difficult and potentially precedent-setting circumstance. I, too, plan a growing future in offering precedent-setting services to animal loving Orange County -- Katula has been and is a significant factor in that plan. I can only offer my continued support and cooperation. It is a complex issue! The dog is the most variable specie in the animal kingdom next to man, and that variability accounts for its remarkable intelligence and talents. Dogs range in size from four pounds (Chihuahua) to 220 lbs. (Tibetan Mastiff), and in temperament from the placid to the ferocious." "As far as we can tell from genetic analyses, canis familiaris, doesn't exist. It's Canis Lupus. They hybridize freely and their offspring are fertile. All the breeds we see, from the teacup Chichuahua to the giant mastiff, are subsets of the grey wolf. The dog is a man-made artifact." (THE POLITICS OF DOGS - Mark Derr - ATLANTIC MAGAZINE March 1990) Thanks for your patience, effort and consideration / S________________ Ilk ohn Stuart Coleman w. • • Section 3. Permit Required Permit Required - Permits shall only be issued for animals physically located in Orange County and registered as of the date of this Ordinance enactment. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or harbor in Orange County a wild animal as defined herein without first applying for and obtaining a permit from the Director. Further, it shall be unlawful for any person to trade, breed, sell or barter any wild animal unless exempted by the provisions contained in Section 4 of this Ordinance. No permit shall be required for the transportation of wild animals through Orange County from a point of origin outside the County to a point outside the County. Requirements for Permit - As a condition precedent to the possession or harboring of any wild animal, the prospective owner or permittee shall have on the premises where such animal is kept, sufficient equipment and/or chemicals necessary to tranquilize or kill any animal for which the owner or permittee has a permit to keep. As a further condition, the prospective owner or permittee must present evidence of training and experience in the care and handling of wild animals. Prospective owners or permittees must submit an application for said permit which shall contain the following: (1) Name and address of the applicant; (2) If a corporation, the state under which incorporated, the date of incorporation, the address of the principal office, and the names and addresses of its officers; (3) If any other type of organization, the name thereof, the location of its office, and the names and addresses of the principal -3- officers, directors, trustees, or managing officials or partners; (4) Statement of the owner's purpose in keeping the animal; (5) The place of origin (city or county and state) of the animal or animals or classes of animals, including the method of acquisition (gift, purchase, etc.); (6) A description of the animal (size, weight, distinctive markings, etc.) or animals including species and a photograph of each animal taken within seven (7) days of the date the application is submitted. (7) List of previous incidents involving animals to be registered; including escapes, injury to persons or property, etc.; (8) The address of the premises where the animal or animals will be kept; (9) A description of the method, materials, and square footage of facilities for confinement of the animal or animals; (10) Proof of the applicant's ability to respond in damages for bodily injury to or death of any person or persons or for damage to property owned by any other person which may result from the ownership, keeping or maintenance of such animal. Proof of ability to respond in damages shall be given by filing with the Director a certificate of insurance from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State stating that the applicant is, at the time of application, insured by a policy of $100,000 combined single limit liability for bodily injury and property damage. Such certificate of insurance will provide that no cancellation of the insurance will be made unless ten days -&- U41 written notice is first given to the Director; (11) Copies of all State and Federal permits and licenses required for such animals; (12) A schedule of the personnel who will service and maintain this facility; (13) Keeper's training and experience with animals, especially wild animals, particularly the species in the application; and/or (14) A list of tranquilizing equipment, chemicals and instruments of destruction as required by this Ordinance. Only one permit shall be required for each location at which wild animals are to be kept. Investization by Director - Each application for permit or amendment shall be filed with the Director who shall inspect all locations for the keeping of any wild animal for cleanliness and safe possession of the animal. Prior to the granting of a permit or amendment the applicant shall be required to present to the Director, for his inspection, a State of North Carolina Wildlife Resources Permit, if the keeping of such animal in this state requires any such permit. Such permit or amendment shall be issued by the Director after satisfactory completion of the application, proof of insurance required herein and evidence satisfactory to the Director that the applicant will confine any wild animal in facilities that meet the standards contained in Appendix A. Such permit or amendment will not be issued by the Director when he finds one or more of the following: (1) Intentional misstatements or misleading statements of fact in the application; -5- • • Information requested for a permit for a wild animal in Orange County This is not a request for a permit, but rather a request for an exemption for very sound reasons. 1 . John S. Coleman / Patricia N. Owens 1419-D Crawford Dairy Rd. Chapel Hill N C 27516 2. n/a 3. n/a 4. To field-test and to prove the positive behavioral effects of proper early training philosophy and methodology with a canine generally thought to be difficult to socialize and train. To train her to be our family pet, training demonstration animal, a Human Search community resource and Companion Animal. 5. Statesville, Iredell County, N C . Purchase. 6. Katula is a selectively bred hybrid of Timber Wolf, German Shepherd and Alaskan Malamute. She stands 26" at the shoulder; 42" tip of nose to base of tail; +/- 77.5 lbs. (13 March 1990). She has erect ears slightly slanted eyes and an intelligent, friendly expression. She is basically a tan and cream haired animal with a faint black German shepherd saddle. She is a long-legged, lanky animal whose coat makes her appear larger than she is. 7. 8 March,1990 early evening, Katula was put out on a non-wire lead on our front porch/front yard unsupervised (a rare and regrettable occurrence). She was discovered missing at about 9:30 P M. She evidently went to a neighbor's house where she was one time welcomed, broke through a screen door to get at some trash and they held her for Animal Control rather than notifying us or returning her home. Her collar with county and rabies tags was removed and she was falsely reported as a wild animal. 8. 1419-D Crawford Dairy Rd. Our home at present. New Hope Drive, our training site. 9. A chain link/welded wire kennel/run, attached to our house. It will be: 300 sq. ft. minimum. 7 ft. high, cedar post, with heavy-duty, double- latched door. 10. We are covered by our home owners policy. 1 1 . No State or Federal permits or licenses required. 12. John Coleman, Patricia Owens, Mark Durell. 13. John Coleman has been involved in animals/training full or part time since 1967. He trained under one of the finest dog trainer's in the U.S., Jay Rapp, and has worked with and for a number of exceptional bird, dog and other animal tamers and trainers. He has worked with a few cheetahs, African lions, Pumas, Ocelots, hundreds of birds, mostly parrots and a few raptors, reptiles, a few wolves and wolf hybrids. He has trained well over 1000 dogs, owners, and three or four good animal trainers. In 1988 he copyrighted, TREAT ME LIKE DOGI both as a training manual for present and prospective dog owners, and as the name of his dog training company. Three of his older companies, Creative Aquaria, Parrotphernalia and Creative Pets, were each specialty pet and pet supply designers, manufacturers and wholesalers. ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY • aps 1081 AIRPORT ROAD • CHAPEL HILL. NORTH CAROLINA 27514 TELEPHONE 919-967-7383 To I4hom I t May Concern : John Coleman's wolf-hybrid was brought to the Shelter on 3/9/90 . There was an animal control hold on the animal , and it was reclaimed by Mr . Coleman on March 13, 1990 , with permission from Elma Johnson , Director of Animal Control . While the animal was at the shelter I had adequate time to observer her . She is a well -adjusted animal , friendly, and submissive to humans. The animal is well -trained. She is also in good health and well cared for . Since ely, 4—S'CZ Pat Sanford March 20 , 1990 Executive Director ! "-�,- ��:r '` i`s ''i'?a4 , ... ....... T *�ti :may f� + S i1 .ZR �_ -a• ii INC - TECHNOLOGY WITH TRADITION -- 1. �` ,:g: - _ t=n'�` - -M1-• 'r �. ,t,. ,z•=. - - _. ....March: 20,._1.��Q� �ra��s� _ - .mo_:, fry � � - ,,,.... . - � fP ,:�� :.,_ i.}•sue-r Ms, Elma Johnson y : 7::.:`: Director Animcal Control ': ;''',- -= P: 0 Box 8181 7 Hillsborough, NC 272 8 • - _._._ - Dear Ms. Johnson: •;.:.. • -S-;-FPS.;'::-=--'-::_-; '. .. _. - ... - Coleman's Just a voice.--in support of exempting John C lema dog Katula frorCr '��N. ` •: .. t h e absurdity of a wild a animal classification. _ . _ ,.�-. M English sheepdog, Maxwell, and Katula are classmates. and have '_ _:;':': , . ,i 3 :`-__ played together-since Katula was four months old - r�'__,a: - ;-_ __ have always found her to be a sweet, lovin playful .do - anid'asp 1_ ,-. : ; , ' _._;o eclient and less_aggressive_than a number of other dogs in,,our class ..-,=.-,,-;,,,,,,:;,7.„.: •-_ �� . y -)...:i.-1-:2-,-:--7,., ,..-.----,-,--- - Please let Katula and her family be reunited as soon i l _-- _ - y as. pose b eT - _��`�'`� rt= Thank;you or you consi eration;,!;:.. '::•., . , *AL, _ __ _ , . ,,. Michael Carve th r = _ r. '<.^e;^-::--1:, .; :, .,.,,: _....... .. _ _ - _ _ -••;�•, ;•,..;rte=- ,. :o:�,{— Rou ,.:� :. . _. . to 6 B x - - - o .968 Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-732=9292 - _ Other letters of support are on file with the Animal Control Office. Ms. Elma Rae Johnson of that office will also be glad to answer an questions you may have. A RESOLUTION from the Orange County Commissioners to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management regarding the relocation of the point of discharge from the waste treatment facility serving Carden's Mobile Home Park. WHEREAS: A substandard waste treatment facility serving Carden's Mobile Home Park has been discharging untreated sewage to a roadside storm drainage ditch on Hwy 70 for nearly twenty years; and WHEREAS: Said untreated sewage has been flowing across and ponding on the property of one Talmage Stephenson for nearly twenty years; and WHEREAS: Mr. Stephenson and other area residents have been attempting without success to have said untreated sewage flow abated or diverted for nearly twenty years; and WHEREAS: The division of Environmental Management has scheduled a public hearing for the purpose of receiving public comment on a Special Order by Consent (SOC) under which a new waste treatment facility at Carden's Mobile Home Park will operate and discharge; Be it resolved that the Board of County Commissioners most urgently request that the Division of Environment Management direct Carden's Mobile Home Park to cease discharging waste treatment effluent to its present point of discharge and to pipe the waste treatment effluent along the Hwy 70 right-of- way to Stoney Creek or to stop discharging effluent and install a non-discharging system. Adopted This 21st day of March, 1990. ClIFC0 ` . r Moses Carey, Jr. ChairmaJ Orange County Board of •,-mmissioners ATTEST: everly,lythe, Cler /1,F ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CARRY,JR, PROCLAMATION STEPHEN H.HALKIOTIS JOHN HARTWELL SHIRLEY! MARSHALL NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK DON WiLLHOIT APRIL 7 - 14, 1990 WHEREAS, the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM has operated since 1974 to_ provide local governments with the resources required . to meet the needs of persons of low and moderate income; WHEREAS, community development block grant funds are used by thousands of neighborhood-based nonprofit organizations throughout the Nation to address pressing neighborhood and human services needs; WHEREAS, in the last several years the Federal Government has reduced Federal assistance to local governments and nonprofit organizations ; WHEREAS, during this time of constricted Federal contributions to the task of meeting the needs of low and moderate income persons, the problems have grown as evidenced by the dwindling supply of affordable housing, the massive rise in homelessness, and the resurfacing of hunger and malnutrition; WHEREAS, during . this time of Federal :-..withdrawal from responsibility, the' COMMU.NITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM has assumed increasing importance for meeting pressing community problems;. WHEREAS, the Congress' and the Nation has often overlooked the critical value of the. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT f3 LOCK GRANT PROGRAM and the significant number ' -`of organizations and - projects that rely on its funds. for. support ; WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has declared April 7 - 14, 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners proclaim April 7 - 14, 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK and call upon all citizen of our County to support the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, ON THIS THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY. c..46e,4_,.- Moses Carey, Jr . , Chair r SEAL Orange County Board of ommissioners A 3- U9a y.. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Orange County Commissioners FROM: Rural Character Study Committee Clint Burklin, Chairman DATE: March 21, 1990 SUBJECT: Progress Report on Drafting a Plan for Protecting the Rural Character of Orange County This memorandum serves to update the Orange County Commissioners on the activities and progress made to date by the Rural Character. Study Committee on drafting a rural character protection plan for Orange County. The Rural Character Study Committee received the consultants recommended strategies for preserving the rural character of Orange County last fall. While these recommendations introduced new ideas, they were not responsive to many of the input our committee received from the local community. The Rural Character Study Committee subsequently met in many intense sessions through the winter to develop a rural character preservation plan directed at the unique needs of Orange County. The first area of the county to be addressed by our committee was the Rural Buffer. As our committees proposed plan has developed, we have discussed our concepts with various community groups. The inputs from these groups have helped strengthen our proposals. The Rural Character Study Committee has now developed a draft plan for preserving the rural character of the Rural Buffer portion of Orange County. Our proposed plan can succinctly be described as an incentive program. The plan preserves the land use options currently available to Orange County property owners. However, our plan goes on to offer incentives such as an expedited planning review process for property owners willing to go with greatly increased lot sizes. Moreover, for property owners who choose to set aside or preserve significant tracts of open space our plan offers incentives such as density bonuses. } M E M O R A N D U M Orange County Commissioners March 21, 1990 Page Two Our Committee has two important tasks before us which we are pursuing with vigour. First we want to complete the process of canvassing community inputs on our draft plan. We have visited many groups with which we wish to meet. These groups have been very supportive of our general proposal and have offered many valuable suggestions. The second task before our committee is the development of a plan for the remaining rural areas of Orange County. Now that we have developed an effective approach to the preservation of rural character, we do not expect the process of addressing the remaining county to take as much time. The Rural Character Study Committee unanimously recommends that we present the Orange County Commissioners with a county-wide proposal for the preservation of rural character. In consideration of these two tasks that lie before us, the Rural Character Study Committee respectfully requests the Orange County Commissioners grant our committee an additional two months to bring our recommendations before your Board. Our committee feels that this additional time will contribute significantly to the effectiveness and strength of our proposed plan for preserving the rural character of Orange County.