HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-21-1990k .
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COM41SSIONERS
AGENDA
GOVERNMENT SERVICE BUILDING WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1990
5:45 P.M.
OLD POST OFFICE
CHAPEL HILL, NC
REGULAR MEETING NOTE:
TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1990
7:30 P.M.
OLD POST OFFICE
CHAPEL HILL, NC
BACKGROUND MATERIAL
ON ALL ABSTRACTS
AVAILABLE IN THE
CLERK'S OFFICE.
NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING:
amplification equipment is available on
If you need this assistance, please call
Clerk's Office at 732 -8181 or 968 -4501.
Audio
request.
the County
I. BOARD COMMENTS
II. COIINTY 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 toss a citizens of
Orange County its respect. The
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 the
meeting until that individual regains personal
control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the
a such
Chair will recess the meeting
genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
V. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- CONSENT AGENDA
(Any item may be removed for separate consideration)
A. Carolina Air Care Ground Unit Contract
B. Cable TV Ordinance Amendment -- Second Reading
C. Budget Amendment #1
D. Jail Renovation Contract -- Change Orders
VI. RESOLQTIONB PROCLAMATIONS
A. Resolution of Support for Regional Sports
Authority
VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
IX. R_ TS
A. Status of County -Wide School District Tax
X. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- REGULAR AGENDA
A. Contract with Animal Protection Society for
Animal Shelter Operation
B. Cable TV Franchise-- Cablevision of Durham -
First Reading
C. Efland Cheeks Community Center and Park
D. Proposed orange County Thoroughfare Plan
E. Proposed Amendment to Section 2.6 Transportation
Of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan
F. Proposed Amendments to Orange County Zoning
Ordinance and Orange County Subdivision
Regulations Concerning the Requirements for a
Traffic Impact Study
G. Purchase of Development Rights - -Study Group
Proposal
XI. APPOINTMENTS
XII. MIS
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
( *) Indicates items that need immediate attention.
1
2
3
4 MINUTES
5
6 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
7 REGULAR MEETING
8 AUGUST 21, 1990
9
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session
12 on Tuesday, August 21, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the old Post Office, Chapel
13 Hill, North Carolina.
14
15 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., Commissioners
16 Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell, Shirley E. Marshall and Don Willhoit.
17 ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
.18 STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant
19 County Manager Albert Kittrell, Planner Gene Bell, Clerk to the Board
20 Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Purchasing Director
21 Pam Jones, Beth McIver, Department on Aging Director Jerry Passmore,
22 Health Director Dan Reimer, Budget Manager Rod Visser, and EMS Director
23 Nick Waters.
24
25 NOTE: COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE
26 PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE
27
28 I. BOARD COMMENTS
nounced that the County has been notified that
29 Chairman Carey an
Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June
30 the Comprehensive Annual
31 30, 1989 has again received a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence
32 in Financial Reporting. This represents a significant accomplishment
33 for orange County and its management. An official presentation will be
34 made to Ken Chavious and his staff when the plaque is received.
35
36
37 II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
38 None
39
40 III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
41 None
42
43 IV. AUDIENC -COMMENTS
44
45 A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA
45 Chairman Carey announced that all citizens who have indicated
47 a desire to speak on any of the items on the printed agenda will be
48 recognized at the appropriate time.
49
50 B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA
51 Jef made comments about action taken by the Board on August
52 6 to pay $3,000 to the ArtsCenter. He noted that the Board had
53 increased their at
space a f
54 e statedhat he had beenas ur d that t is payment was protecting the
1
2
3
MINUTES
4
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5
SPECIAL MEETING
6
AUGUST 21, 1990
7
8
9
10
The orange County Board of Commissioners met in Special Session
at 5 :45
11
p.m. on August 21, 1990 in the Courtroom of the old Post Office
in Chapel Hill for the
12
purpose of holding a work session to discuss the
proposed Government Service Building.
13
14
15
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., arid
Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell,
16
Shirley Marshall and Don
Willhoit.
17
18
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Clerk to the
Board Beverly A. Blythe, Register
19
of Deeds Betty June Hayes, Purchasing
Director Pam Jones and Budget Manager Rod Visser.
20
21
22
Discussion ensued on the different scenarios as presented by the
architects for the
23
proposed Government Service Building.
24
25
It was decided that the large meeting room would not be pursued
at this time. Instead there
26
will be one or two smaller meeting rooms
with the remainder of the square footage distributed to the offices
27
28
scheduled for that building. The architects will review the renovation
29
costs of the Tax and Records Building in an effort to decrease the
projected cost. -
30
31
32
The benches in the Old Courthouse will be looked at in an effort
to make the seating more
33
comfortable.
34
35
The Board indicated a decision needs to be made about includin
36
a meeting room in the proposed southern human services building and i
the
37
County plans to continue holding one meeting a month in Chapel Hill.
38
39
The architects presented several ideas for parking for the ne
building as well increased
as parking for all the buildings in thi
40
41
area. It was the consensus of the Board that some type of a parkin
deck should be
42
explored. John Link advised the Board that th
Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce would like for the and
43
County the Tow
of Hillsborough to meet and discuss parking initiatives.
44
45
46
Pam Jones briefly outlined the plans for the space in the
existing Court Street Annex. The offices in the
47
Sawyer Building would
be relocated to this building as well as provisions made for a business
48
education center. Further information will be forthcoming.
49
50
51
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
52
53
54
1 benefit to the public is less than their cost and when the board affected
2 determines that the persons potentially affected (including
f an application for
3 current grantee of a franchise) by application. Media coverage
4 a CATV franchise has r n wspap rs,1 the
stations or television stations
5 of the application by
6 widely read, heard or seen by residents of Orange County satisfies this
7 notice requirement.
8
8 C. BUDGET AMENDMENT 1
10 To approve the following amendments to the 1990 -91 Budget
11 Ordinance and to authorize the following permanent positions for the
12 Social Services JOBS program:
13
14 AMENDMENTS
15 GENERAL FUND $ 428,223
16 Source - Intergovernmental $ 428,223
17 Appropriation - Human Services ral funding of JOBS program)
18 (To budget for State and Fede
19 $ 2,3 -02
20 Source - Intergovernmental $ 2,302
21 Appropriation - Human Services
22 (To budget for additional RSVP funding)
23
24 PERMANENT POSTTTONS FOR THE JOB PROGRAM
25 Social Work Supervisor effective 9/1/90
26 Accounting Technician effective 9/1/90
27 2 Social Workers effective 10/1/90
28 Clerk- typist effective 10/1/90
29
3Q D. JAIL RENOVATION CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS
31 To approve four change orders to cover unanticipated items
32 in the Jail Renovation Project authorizing the Purchasing and Central
33 Services Director to execute. The costs for all four change orders
34 total $15,104 and are reflected in the capital project ordinance as
35 stated below:
36
37 JAIL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
38 CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE
39
40 Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners that pursuant to Section
41 13.2 of Chapter 159 of e hereby General
adopt dStatutes of North Carolina, the
42 following Capital project
43
44 Section I. The project authorized will provide improvements to and
5 expanded capacity at the Orange County Jail. The project
45 will be financed by appropriations from the County
47 Capital Reserve Fund and federal grant funds.
4$
49 Section 2. The officers of the County are hereby directed to proceed
50 with the project within the budget contained herein.
51
52 Section 3. The following revenue is anticipated to complete this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
County's interest in having space for the Senior Citizens program
that part of the County. Jef talked with Main Street Partners
indicated no one from the County had contacted them. Jef made refere
to state funds that were suppose to go to the artists but did not.
stated he feels that the County should not put tax dollars into
organization that cannot account for its spending over the past
years.
�q
n
W o
Chairman Carey emphasized that the Board acted in the
interest of protecting the continued operation of the senior citizens
space without interruption.
Commissioner Halkiotis stated his concern about State monies
earmarked for the artists but not received by them. He su
County's method of providing protection for the senior citizensrcent r
in the southern end of the county.
Commissioner Willhoit noted he feels the additional $3,000
reflects the fair market rate for the space and is a way to help the
ArtsCenter at this time.
Commissioner Marshall emphasized that when there are senior
citizens involved, it is extremely important. to try and not have them
become upset about where they are going to be or what is going to
happen. She voiced her support for continuing the high morale of this
group without any disruption or uncertainty. She suggested referring
to the Arts Commission the question of why State funds for the artists
were not paid to the artists.
County Manager John Link clarified that the $3, 000 represent
the true market rates and he reinforced the fact that the County want
to remain in that space
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. read the Public Charge.
V. ITEMS FOR DECISION.- CONSENT AGENDA
Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded b�
Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the items on the Consent Agenda a
listed below:
A. CAROLINA AIR CARE GROUND UNIT CONTRACT
To approve and authorize the Chair to sign the contract wi
UNC Hospital to provide ground ambulance service to support the a
transport program.
B. CABLE TV ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - SECOND READING
To approve on second reading an amendment to the Cable
Ordinance as stated below:
Section iV(d) is rewritten to read:
. (d) The county may request or accept applications fc
a portion of the unincorporated area of the county less than a whole e
the unincorporated area. The board may dispense with any or all of th
procedural requirements of this Section when it determines that thei
5
1 various local governments join in promoting the region as a location for
2 such major sporting activities, and
3 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners wishes to join
4 with other local governments in the Triangle area in the promotion of
5 the area as a location for such large scale sporting events.
6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of
7 Commissioners endorses the concept of joining with other local
8 governments in the region to create a regional sports authority in
sions of Part 3 of Article 20, Chapter 160A of
9 accordance with the provi
10 the North Carolina General Statutes.
11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a financing mechanism of the
12 be explored that i n use
will impact only on the
13 sports facility any property direct beneficiaries tax, sales tax, revenue
14 inventory or intangible tax.
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 IX. REPORTS
18
19 A. STATUS OF COIINTY -WIDE SCHOOL. DISTRICT TAX
20 Chairman Carey explained that this item has been pending for
1 some time and the time frame for making a decision for putting this on
22 the November ballot is early September. The district tax has been
23 discussed as a possible way to achieve equal funding of the two school
24 systems. Chapel Hill- Carrboro schools have been assured that equal
25 funding will not adversely affect their school system. He asked that
26 the Board consider putting this on the agenda for September 4 for
27 decision and at that time ask the two school systems to make comments.
28 Commissioner Willhoit feels there is not enough time to
29 promote this tax. The County currently has a countywide district tax
30 of 34.9% for current operating expense and another four cents goes to
31 current capital def ine plus
between designated
and, November tax.
how H this tax questions t
wou d he
32 County c
33 managed.
34
35 Commissioner Marshall feels that there would be a favorable
36 vote which would allow the schools and the county to move more directly
37 toward their educational goals.
38 Commissioner Halkiotis illustrated the importance of
39 education in the northern end of the County. The need for a new high
40 school will henecessitate
Board tneeds the
t know the position of the in this
41 county. T County
42 School System on this issue
43 Chairman Carey feels it important to put this districtwide
44 tax to the vote of the people so that the County will know whether or
45 not the citizens support it.
46 Commissioner Halkiotis suggested that the individual school
47 Boards meet and each decide their level of commitment to the
.48 districtwide tax.
49 Commissioner Willhoit again questioned how this tax would be
50 managed.
issues which need to be resolved. It
51 John Link posed two
52 needs to be decided what the tax will address. Will it be expansion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Section 4.
Section 5.
Section 6.
project:
Transfer from County- Capital $ 402,00!
Reserve Fund
Intergovernmental
Total Revenue $ 657,01
The following amount is appropriated for this project:
Jail Improvements Project
$ 657,015
This ordinance supersedes all previous Jail Improvement
Capital Project Ordinances.
This ordinance shall be in effect from the date o
adoption until June 30, 1991.
VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS
VI. RESOLUTIONS PROCLAMATIONS
A. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR REGIONAL SPORTS AUTHORITY
Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded b
Commissioner Halkiotis to adopt and authorize the Chair to sign th
following resolution as amended with the addition of a second No
Therefore be it further resolved.
RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE CONCEPT OF A
REGIONAL SPORTS AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, Orange County Board of Commissioners recognizes that ouz
community is part of a region commonly identified as "the Triangle," anc
WHEREAS, local governments located in the Triangle area have lonc
recognized the value of a regional approach to issues which transcenc
their own jurisdictions, and
WHEREAS, the promotion of large scale sporting events and
endeavors is in the best interests of all local governments in the
Triangle because of the potential for generation of revenue and national
as well as international exposure, and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly has enacted enabling
legislation which provides for the creation of regional sports
authorities, and
WHEREAS, a regional sports authority is the logical vehicle tc
promote the Triangle area as a site for national and international
sporting events, and
WHEREAS, the Triangle area is a potential location for some of
the 1994 World Cup Soccer Matches, and
WHEREAS, interested has been expressed in the Triangle area as
a potential location for a National Football League franchise, and
WHEREAS, it is in the ..best interests of the region that the
4
VA
1 property and to
again approach the Orange County
of
Board of Education to
a Community Center and
2 lease 5.5 acres
of land for the construction
3 Park.
4
5 D. PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY
6 Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
7 Commissioner Marshall to approve the recommendation as stated below:
8
g 1) Adoption of the Orange County- specific road classification
10 as developed by the TAS and consultant and coordinated with
11 NCDOT.
12
val of the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan until
13 2) Withhold appro
14 a meeting(s) between the Hillsborough Town Council and Orange
15 County Commissioners can be scheduled to address:
16
17 a) the proposed Hillsborough "Loop" system and interchange
18 modifications in the Efland area;
19
20 b) Elizabeth Brady Road extension and bridge;
21
22 c) in- town.traffic patterns,in Hillsborough, and
23
24 d) Davis Road
25
26 3) Approval of the DCHC Plan conditioned upon removal of e
27 Orange County portion of the Outer Loop and classification
28 of Dairyland Road as an urban minor thoroughfare to promote
29 consistency at the plan boundary.
30
31 4) Approval of the Alamance County Urban Area Plan contingent
32 upon a re- assessment of the need for the Mattress Factory
33 Road interchange.
34
35 5) No further action on the Draft Orange County Thoroughfare
36 Plan until the Hillsborough /orange County issues have been
37 resolved and the Draft plan has received a more thorough
38 review by the TAS including such items as comments by TAS
39 member Wendy Olson regarding pedestrian and bicyclist safety
40 on bridges.
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 E. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.6 TRANSPORTATION OF THE LAND
44 USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
45 This proposed amendment involves replacing the section
46 entitled ORANGE COUNTY HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (including the road
47 listing and map) with the sections entitled COUNTY - SPECIFIC ROAD
48 CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM and COLLECTOR /SUBCOLLECTOR ROAD SYSTEM from the
49 Kimley -Horn report. These will be inserted into the Ordinance Book and
50 are hereby made a part of these minutes by reference.
51.
52
1
2
3
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
and /or expansion and part of the continuation budget. The staff favor
using this tax to address expansion with the general tax funding th
continuation and additional continuation. Second, once the tax i
established and the revenue is generated, will it be dispersed per Bien
Commissioner Hartwell stated his support for carrying
referendum to the people in November. He recognizes the time may t
short but feels there are many people in his part of the County who wil
vote in favor of this districtwide tax.
Commissioner Halkiotis feels that questions like what is th
money going to go for, and who is going to carry out the educationa
process needs to be answered.
It was decided that the two school boards will be requeste
to give the County Commissioners an indication of their commitment fo
this districtwide tax before or at the September 4. Board meeting an
that the administration will develop• concrete examples - of how th
districtwide tax would be distributed and what portion would b
allocated for specific items (expansion, continued expansion, etc.)
Commissioner Willhoit asked if this is a plan to clearl,
identify the expansion budgets of the schools and the dichotomy o:
requests of the two systems and is a mechanism toward increasing the
district tax by shifting it into a countyw,ide district tax which is
preparatory to merger at the time, another high school is built. i
countywide district tax will not be new money and will not enable thi
County to do anything that can't be done now.
Commissioner Marshall emphasized that finding a way tc
equitably fund the two school systems will prepare the County foi
merger.
X. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA
A.
OPERATION
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded
Commissioner Hartwell to approve and authorize the Chair to sign t
contract with APS for Animal Shelter Operations.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
John Link stated that the procedures manual will be ready f
the Board's consideration on November 20.
B. CABLE TV FRANCHISE - CABLEVISION OF DURHAM - FIRST READING
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded b
Commissioner Hartwell to approve on first reading the Cable TV Franchis
between Cablevision of Durham and the County.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
C. EFLAND CHEEKS COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK
The Board discussed at length the different scenarios for
this community center and park. It was the consensus of the Board to
make an offer to Mr. Fuller for the two acre parcel adjacent to this
Is
.e
a.
e
1
�7
1 Commissioner Marshall, seconded by
2 Motion was made by
3 Commissioner Willhoit to approve the minutes for August 6, 1990 as
4 circulated.
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
7
g XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
9 Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by
10 Commissioner Marshall to go into Executive Session to discuss a property
11 matter.
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13 Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by
14 Commissioner Marshall to go back into Regular Session.
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 XIV. ADJOURNMENT
re no further items for consideration, Chairman
lg Since there we
19 Moses Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be
20 held on Tuesday, September 4, 1990 at 7:30 in the courtroom of the old
21 County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
22 Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
23
24 Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit,
Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the proposed amendment
of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
F.
8
seconded y
to Section 2.6
REQUIREMENTS FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT vSTUDY+•u �.vav�.�K1Y1 RVG T E
These proposed amendments to Article 13 of the Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision .Regulations outline the requirements for a
Traffic Impact Study. These will be inserted into the Ordinance Book
located in the Clerk's Office and are hereby made a part of these
minutes by reference.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded
Y
Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Administration's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS
G. PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - STUDY GROUP PROPOSAL
The Administration recommends that the Agricultural District s
Advisory Board be charged with the responsibility of developing a
proposal for a Purchase of Development Rights Program. There are only
three members of the present Board that want to be reappointed to serve
on this new committee. Marvin Collins provided a list of candidates for
membership on this committee.
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Hartwell to charge the Agricultural Districts Advisor
Board with developing a Purchase of Development Rights proposal in
conjunction with the staffs of the Soil Conservation Service,
Agricultural Extension Service, Agricultural Stabilization an
Conservation Service, and Planning & Inspections Department.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Appointments to this committee will be considered at the
regular meeting.
Xi. APPOINTMENTS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - Mr-Edward G. Siebert wa
appointed to an "AT LARGE" position.
XII. MINUTES
The Minutes for January 18 and April 10 were delayed for Furth
clarification.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded
Commissioner Marshall to approve the minutes for May 15, 1990
circulated.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
I
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. �L--fl
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 21, 1990
SUBJECT: Carolina Air Care Ground Contract
PUBLICHEARING: YES X NO
DEPARTMENT: Emergency Management INFORMATION CONTRACT:
ATTACHMENT(S):
(1) Contract with University
of N.C. Hospital
Nick Waters, 732 -8161
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Hillsborough -
732 -8181
Chapel Hill -
968 -4501
Mebane -
227 -2031
Durham -
688 -7331
PURPOSE: To review an updated contract with UNC Hospital to
provide ground ambulance service to support the air
transport program. Contractural stipulation will allow
the county more flexibility than last year and the
contracted rate of payment is increased from $7,000 per
month to $9,000 per month.
BACKGROUND: This contract was entered into this past fiscal year.
Prior to that time, the contract was between UNC
Hospital and South Orange Rescue Squad. This
contract has proven beneficial to both UNC Hospital
and the County.
RECOMMENDATION(S): To approve the contract as submitted.
2
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HOSPITALS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into the 1st clay of July 1990 and by
between the University of North Carolina Hospitals, hereinafter referred to as "TVIE
140SPITAL" and Orange County, North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as 1"ITIE
COUNTY ", for its Office of Emergency Management Services.
WITNESSETH:
of: WHEREAS, THE HOSPITAL desire ground transportation services consisting
1. A primary ambulance and driver available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
who can arrive at THE HOSPITAL within 30 minutes of a request from Carolina stir
Care.
2. A second ambulance and driver available Kam - 7pm, Monday through
Saturday who can arrive at THE HOSPITAL within 30 minutes of a request from
Carolina Air Care for acute transports, or within one hour for non -acute transports.
3. Carolina Air Care reserves the privilege to define transport needs and level of
transport acuity. The transport include, but ctre not limited to, patient transports, organ
transports, equipment returns, transport of HOSPITAL specialty teams, patient
transport to and from THE HOSPITAL and its MRI facility, and transport of Carolina
Air Care personnel. All transports are to be 'at the direction of Carolina Air Care.
administrative staff.
WHEREAS, THE COUNTY desires to provide these services to THE
HOSPITAL.
WHEREAS, THE HOSPITAL desires to reimburse THE COUNTY for such
services;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the following
mutual promises, covenants and conditions, THE HOSPITAL and THE COUNTY
agree as follows:
a
3
COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES
1. To schedule drivers for both primary and secondary vehicles.
2. Upon request from THE 110SPITAL, to provide a second driver to
accompany the primary driver on any transport which exceeds 100 miles one -way and is
initiated between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
3. To provide replacement ambulances in case the primary or secondary vehicles
are out of service due to maintenance or repairs, subject to availability of County units at
the time of request.
4. To perform daily check -out of each unit and all equipment aboard cite
ambulance at the beginning of each shift. Repair or replace any items that require same
and ensure a sufficient supply of air and oxygen.
5. To properly maintain the vehicles in good working order and to maintain the
equipment on board the ambulance in accordance with the North Carolina Emergency
Medical Services Act of 1973, as amended, and implementing regulations.
6. To provide liability and property insurance on both primary and secondary
vehicles and to provide proof of insurance to THE HOSPITAL upon request.
7. To ensure THE COUNTY's staff is attired in the uniform provided by
Carolina Air Care for each Carolina Air Care transport or function.
8. The drivers will ensure that necessary communications regarding their
status during Carolina Air Care missions are made on a regular basis with the Carolina
Air Care Communications Center.
9. Upon request, the drivers will provide assistance to the medical crew to
load /unload equipment and patients.
10. After each transport, restock equipment and make repairs as necessary to
ensure the proper operations of all equipment. Leave vehicles fully stocked and full of
gas, 02, and air for the on -call driver(s) at night and on weekends.
a.. -9
4
HOSPITAL RESPONSIBILITIES
To provide one primary and at least one secondary vehicle.
a. The primary vehicle shall be a 1990 Type III Modular truck and shall be
equipped with radio and medical equipment to meet all State requirements. In addition,
the vehicle shall be equipped with oxygen and compressed gas cylinders of at least H size.
The vehicles will be equipped with suction, 110 volt source, a fixture to hold the ventilator
used in the helicopter, a fixture to hold the Life Pak V, and high- intensity directional
lighting in the patient care area. The vehicles will be fitted with a device to secure the
"pediatric stretcher." There will also be fittings to secure two neonatal transport isolettes
of the variety currently used by THE HOSPITAL. The primary vehicle will be identified
with a logo and paint scheme similar to the one on THE HOSPITAL helicopter. The
primary vehicle is to be used exclusively for Carolina Air Care purposes.
b. The secondary vehicles shall be equipped with radio and medical
equipment to meet all State requirements. They also will be equipped with identical
additional equipment as specified in Section 1 a . The seconds
identified with a logo and paint scheme similar to the one on THE ambulances HOSPITAL
helicopter. The secondary ambulances may be utilized for Orange County EMS
purposes as long as it can be made available within 30 minutes of a request from Carolina
Air Care for acute transports or within one hour for non -acute transports.
2. Carolina Air Care Communications will be responsible for notifying
Orange Central Communications of the need for the primary or secondary units and their
drivers- For MRI transports the Carolina air Care Communications will notify Orange
Central Communications if the adult or pediatric team is needed, all other MRI
transports will be coordinated from the MRI unit to the Orange Central
Communications.
3. THE HOSPITAL retains full authority and responsibility for the care and
treatment of its patients and will have administrative and professional supervision of any
Orange County EMS employee while said employees are rendering services to THE
HOSPITAL under this agreement. During a transport THE HOSPITA1, its
and members of the Medical Staff will be in charge of the medical aspectspof the
transports, including the authority to prescribe to the driver the degree of urgency of the
transport, and the authority to order the vehicle to stop and remain parked while medical
procedures are being performed. The driver will operate within Orange County EMS
policies concerning the safe movement of the vehicle.
4. THE HOSPITAL will reimburse THE COUNTY for the services provided
at the rate of $9,000 per month.
TERM OF AGREEMENT
1991. This Agreement shall run from the 1st day of July, 1990 to the 30th day of June,
5
TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
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 ninety (90) days prior to termination. In the event of such termination, any
payment due shall be prorated to the date of termination. The parties agree and
understand that the Director of Orange County Emergency Services may temporarily
suspend services under this Agreement in the event of a county -wide disaster.
ACCESS OF RECORDS
In compliance with 42 U.S.C. 1395x (V) (1) (1) and implementing regulations,
Orange County agrees, until the expiration of four (4) years after the services are
furnished under this Agreement, to allow the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services and the Comptroller General access to this contract and to the books,
documents and records of Orange County necessary to verify the nature and extent of the
costs of this contract. If Orange County chooses to subcontract this service, such
subcontract shall contain a clause to the effect that, until the expiration of four (4) years
after the services are furnished under such subcontract, the Secretary of the Department
of Health and Human Services and the Comptroller General shall have access to such
subcontract and to the books, documents, and records of the subcontractor necessary to
verify the nature and extent of the costs of such subcontract.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties and shall not be
altered, amended, or modified, except by an agreement in writing executed by the duly
authorized officials of both parties.
GOVERNING LAW
The laws of North Carolina shall govern the validity and interpretation of the
provisions, terms and conditions of this Agreement.
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto signed this Agreement in
their official capacities of the day and year listed below.
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF:
THE UNIVERSITY NORTH CAROLINA i iospi 'ALS
I N _ DATE: - y�
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF:
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE:
R , JR.
CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST:
BEVE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
M
I
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda
Item No.3L--a
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 21, 1990
SUBJECT: Cable TV Ordinance Amendment -- Second Reading ------------------------ --------
DEPARTMENT:- Manager - - -- r PUBLIC -HEARING
r--YEST-_'--NO_+X---
ATTACHMENT(S): -- _ -_____ INpORMATION CONTACT: Manager's Office
(1) Amendment to Section IV
of the Cable TV Ordinance TELEPHONE NUMBER -
(2) Section IV of the Cable Hillsborough - 732 -8181
TV Ordinance Chapel Hill - 968 -4501
Mebane - 227 --2031
Durham - 688 -7331
PURPOSE: _To consider amending the Cable TV Ordinance.
BACKGROUND: The Cable TV Ordinance Amendment dispenses with extensive
procedural requirements necessary for the County to award a
franchise. The existing procedural requirements are
appropriate for initial franchising of the entire County and
perhaps renewals of all County franchises, but are not really
meaningful for an area franchise awarded because the current
County cable franchises cannot reasonably serve these areas.
To be adopted on the first reading, this Ordinance will have
to be approved unanimously by the Board. Please note the
findings necessary by the Board in highlighted area of the
Amendment.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the Cable TV Ordinance Amendment.
F4
AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY
CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM ORDINANCE
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ORDAINS:
Section IV(d) is rewritten to read:
(d) The county may request or accept applications for a
portion of the unincorporated area of the county less than a
whole of the unincorporated area. ?w
an
.: }:ti•�Yifnti ii 4•::...e•• ✓n^�virn }w:4'•.. •� : +t e��'4��:ifi�•:r.;: }.? 4:ry.,g. ,�"',
••. ;.a' <::'•2•. zs• N{{ v':;• sx.: h.{: 5:; isi:; sw }s•;.•.•�`,.,{�/•;s;.y:• >• {.:. l }:n,.'...•:..:�.•'�r.�' "�.
�:. :r}:::p:. }4 k }s ::•: ? } ?j.�k.} Y•.Ari•• ✓,.:0•: .y�}a.�4. � :✓: �x5•;y :�.. ::iM }' { {5' ?'•:.•.
::. h�•. Vh{: �' i, 1. u' v:' ��•'+ •n�'�.,vinv..•:.••',�•✓•✓kti•i0{ : v:: ..N..' �C'^ � • :•y:.. '• •i: } } i•::..{•.
'\ S:{{ 4] 0f 54�iv.•: tii{{•: is ,•:C{i'vti::::iYii::j:: }i`:i{�::
ry }...:d9f::S¢e4•••rhk}}t? % • .his iw{C.: '{? }
.rL�..•:F } }:5•
.b:{3'w'4:ycr�o-y,•'+:}}Y:Y: .. '•vh�{.V.Vi'C .:•i; .;}�:(iV.a�i.:.;n• �:ia�:'.
• .'-0: y�SV: iQ�} n. •y:44:}}•5•:.:v.:.ikC }ip: {•ii•: Y \4�ii4'.,�, �•�,. }� }:Y�:. ��M:e�'}:':,��1.5: }:: "::W�C
+�...ti. }};•; 4•}��hff¢K¢•,1yy�.i'•�1M;}'i:. }:: .`'i•�Y .;:•yY.4]MS.:✓ '{ _
flit' .���a.,'y'(�,;' . �`: 4 ;:4(4 } }:0::.:.rY{k�j ".}y.; ?;: :. }4:• ?:::.:<. };:.;.
.....�: {{•:v::'.O:i{'ri'... :i'' >iT { :i %Si.'3.:�'�'+•,kS: y}}�i '�±� \W?�y?y��; iY�•4.4 �}�G'��.::::.: !�! i•
`:• Y�: •38i0W�:�•'xf:S::�'iC}i••�• /-•t y�h :�:�:Y:, ff�
•r ✓:C{{{ +: {vi :vhJF:+Kh.•.{•S}.ti•:tiv'.� • ti: i. �.•' {�{v'�:':'•''++ti:'''�b:'''':hin }.9® lii��• �'" V • �: '•���' >:k• � .::
•T:.::• k:' i��{ '.•,•••y;•••�n�:in�:%.{OY•$:i6' �'... .•i.�+,•.•• ��.�h...•..•. :'S }�, � •• }} ?:55.v {':: }:5• ?:.iY.}:v....: �:.::.:::::
''+^^ J:. 4k�•: ��: '.,•. •'r::7d: #YY�;i:�c6 >::w2:r;�4 #i: •.: { 4`.:: • }•:. : ,;:.:-- ::;�._..�".,wQ,l.•-
This ordinance amendment shall become effective upon its
adoption.
Adopted:
Date
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 21, 1990
Action Agenda
Item No
S
SUBJECT: Budget Ordinance Amendment #1
DEPARTMENT- Budget-------- - - - - -- PUBLIC- HEARING -- YES----- NO --X--
ATTACHMENT(S) - INFORMATION CONTACT
proposed Budget Ordinance Budget Office, Extension 2450
Amendments TELEPHONE NUMBER
Hillsborough 732 -8181
Chapel Hill 968 -4501
Mebane 227 -2031
Durham 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To approve proposed budget ordinance amendments.
BACKGROUND: (1) During the 1990 -91 budget worksessions, the Orange
County Department of Social Services notified the
Board of Commissioners of the upcoming JOBS Program
as outlined by the State. At that time, the Board
approved the program "in concept" and decided to
approve necessary positions during the year as the
need for them arose. The Department of Social
Services is ready to implement the JOBS program as
soon as possible. This amendment will increase the
JOBS budget with the acceptance of the State grant
and authorize the following positions: Social Work
Supervisor and Accounting Technician effective
September 1, 1990; 2 Social Workers and a Clerk
Typist on October 1, 1990. Additional County funds
are not necessary since the required County match for
this program was approved during the 1990 -91 budget
process.
(2) The Orange County Department on Aging has received
additional ACTION grant funding to be used for
administrative expenses in the RSVP program.
No County match is required for this additional
funding.
Z
RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) Approve amendments to the 1990 -91 Budget
Ordinance by the proposed amendments.
(2) Authorize the following permanent positions
for the Social Services JOBS program:
* Social Work Supervisor effective 9/01/90
* Accounting Technician effective 9/01/90
* 2 Social Workers effective 10/01/90
*Clerk-Typist effective 10/01/90
9
ORANGE COUNTY
PROPOSED
1990 -91 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
The 1990 -91 Orange County Budget Ordinance, as amended, is hereby
amended as follows:
BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 1
BEFORE
AFTER
AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT
GENERAL FUND
(1) Source:
Intergovernmental
$ 5,820,085
$ 428,223
$ 6,248,308
Appropriation:
Human Services
$10,067,445
$ 428,223
$10,495,668
To budget for State
and Federal funding
of JOBS
program.
(2) Source:
Intergovernmental
$ 6,248,308
$ 2,302
$ 6,250,610
Appropriation:
Human Services
$10,495,668
$ 2,302
$10,497,970
To budget for additional RSVP funding.
BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 1
P
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1
Action Agenda
Item No. V -D
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: AUGUST 21, 1990
SUBJECT: JAIL RENOVATION CONTRACT; CHANGE ORDERS
DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENT SVCS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: XX
--------- ATTACHMENT(S): - -- INFORMATION CONTACT:
CHANGE ORDERS PAM JONES, EXT 2650
FEDERAL GRANT MODIFICATION
CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE Telephone Number-
Hillsborough
- 732 -8181
Chapel Hill
-967 -9251
Mebane
- 227 -2031
Durham
- 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To consider approving change orders associated with
the Jail Renovation Project.
BACKGROUND: The Jail Renovation Project is approximately 60%
complete, with anticipated completion by the end of October
1990. As with any renovation project however, problems
arise which could not have been anticipated in the initial
evaluation. The result is additional work which necessitates
a change order.
Change Orders #1, #2, and #3 all deal with miscellaneous
items incidental to the project. Each item covered by the
change order is outlined on the letter from the Architect.
Change orders #1, #2 and #3 total $5,351.
Our Architect and Electrical Engineer for this project have
verified the comments made by Mr. Edwards (Autonomic Systems,
Inc.) in his July 6, 1990 correspondence regarding the
condition of the fire alarms in the Jail. It does indeed
appear to be more economical for us to entirely replace
certain sections rather than attempting to retrofit the
existing system. Since this is such a high potential
2
liability area, we are recommending that the Architect's
recommendation be followed, at a cost of $9,753. This will be
change order #4.
The US Marshals Service has also agreed to provide additional
funding in the amount of $33,189.50 for the purchase of
surveillance equipment to be installed as part of the
renovation project.
The attached proposed capital project ordinance would
increase total project authorization to $657,015. Federal
grant funding would increase from the current level
of $221,825 to $255,015. county funding would increase
from the current level of $382,000 to $402,000. The
county funding increase would cover the grand total for
change orders #1 through #4 of $15,104 and provide $4,896 in
project contingency funding to cover any minor additional
costs that might arise as the project is completed. Funds
have been identified in the Capital Reserve Fund to cover
these charges.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve change orders #1, #2, #3 and #4 and
authorize the Purchasing and Central Services Director to
execute. Adopt the proposed Jail Improvements Capital
Project Ordinance.
CRIER -FRIPP ASSOCIATES, INC.
Architects and Engineers
09 May 1990
GENERAL CONTRACT CHANGE 0 DER NO. GC--1
EXPLANATION AND REASON FOR CHANGE:
ITEM ccurs front entrance walkway. off hise sectionetofls the
opening g
railing is
o
necessary for safety.
ADD ..........................$ 321.00
ITEM N0. 2: New 8 -bed Dormitory Area -120 has existing combination of vinyl
asbestos painted and thistareaDrefinishedwi requested
thpai
to nted
I concur t
floor.
ADD..........................$ 814.00
ITEM NO. 3: We requested the contractor to re -use existing brick removed at new
openings, however, the brick are so brittle they cannot be saved. This cost is
for new brick to match the existing.
ADD......................... 2.00
Total this Change Order - Add S1.377-00
77.00
Respectfully submitted,
GRIER -FRIPP ASSOCIATES, INC.
William E. Fripp, Jr., AIA, PE
WEF,Jr.:dh
POST OFFICE BOX 11207 / 4108 PARK ROAD, SUITE 300 [28209]
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28220 / [704] 527 -2514 / FAX [704] 527 -2516
3
CRIER —FRIPP ASSOCIATESs INC.
Architects and Engineers
16 July 1990
GENERAL CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. GC -2
EXPLANATION AND REASON FOR CHANGE:
TEM N0. : The Owner has requested three (3) convex mirrors to be located
in new ,_ Area 120. The mirrors will be 18" D, 26" D and 30" D at a
total cost of $645.00 as per the attached letter.
ADD ..........................$ 645.00
ITEM NO. - 2 1: The Owner has requested the installation of a 6" x 6" sight
lite in each of the two existing doors into the fresh air exercise yards at
a cost of $885.00 as per attached letter dated 8 June 1990.
ADD .......................... 885.00
Total this Change Order - Add jLj&00
Respectfully submitted,
GRIER -FRI 4SOCIAS, .
Wil fam . Fri E J
WEF,Jr.:dh
POST OFFICE BOX 1 1 207 /41 08 PARK ROAD, SUITE 300 [28209]
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28220 / (704] 527 -2514 / FAX (704] 527 -2516
4
DRIER -FRIPP ASSOCIATES, INC.
itmcts and Engineors
07 August 1990
GE GE MER H -3
E Y R OR GE!
LAN
ITEM[ H0. The Owner requested that we repair and weld the split seams in
the existing stainless steel showers.
STEM ro. 2: The Owner requested that
the deck nabove tot plates
prevent the continual
existing steel shower units up to
necessity of shake down due to contraband being stored above these showers.
I0, The welded wire fabric material securing the two connections fresh
air exercise yards proved was necessaryav�ofo9ofribcaconandPetack weld this
originally designed and it
material to the supporting steel beams and repaint the welds.
ITEM H0. _41 The Owner requested that we install that food pass on D ort1i5
going into the new dormitory area No. 120 in
area can be fed without the necessity of opening this door.
,M 5; It was necessary to install a new opening going from the and 6 Bed Dormitory
Mechanical Equipment Room to thewn�kaconflictiin9pwithZthe original opening.
Area due to the mechanical duct
ITEM No, _Lt We were instructed by the local Building oinspectionDepartment
to remove the brick and concrete landing
from the 6 -bed cell area in order to x give a clearer path of exit from the
new door being installed through the existing exterior
front of the institution.
Respectfully submitted,
GRIER--C�RIP�►SSO�Y ES, I
willia�4o."W ,77TAIA1 "
wEF,Jr.;dh
POST OFFICE BOX 11207 / 4108 PARK ROAD, SUITE 300 [282083
eH
r
_ _
6
RIGGS- HARROD BUILDERS. INC.
POST OFFICE BOX 1 S32, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
(818) 887 -0111 FAX(910)68'
July 31, 1990
Mr. Bill Pripp
Grier, Fripp Associates
P.Q. Box 11207
Charlotte, North Carolina 28220
Re: Additions and Renovations
Orange County Jail
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Dear Mr, Fripp:
In regards to the above referenced project, Z am submitting
for the following change orders. These items have previously
been discussed with you and were all verbally approved except
for item #3 which is still under review.
1. Welding of stainless
Subcontract welding
overheard and Profit
Total item 01
Total Change Order p
steel shower:
150.00
(7 %) 10.50
$160.50
rice $160.00
2. Welding for steel plates above shower units:
Labor w /insurance, etc. 33.82
Welding equipment (1 day) 65.00
Plates w /tax 114.45
Subtotal 213.27
Overhead and Profit (15 %) 31.99
Total item #2 $245.26
Total Change Order price $245.00
3. Weld wire material to beams at courtyard:
Labor w /insurance, etc. 273.06
Welding equipment (2 days) 130.00
Subtotal 403.06
overhead and Profit (15 %) 60.46
----- - - ----
Total item #3 X5463.52
Total Change Order price $463.00
RIGGS- HARROD BUILDERS. INC.
POST OFFICE BOX 1 S32, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
(818) 887 -0111 FAX(910)68'
July 31, 1990
Mr. Bill Pripp
Grier, Fripp Associates
P.Q. Box 11207
Charlotte, North Carolina 28220
Re: Additions and Renovations
Orange County Jail
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Dear Mr, Fripp:
In regards to the above referenced project, Z am submitting
for the following change orders. These items have previously
been discussed with you and were all verbally approved except
for item #3 which is still under review.
1. Welding of stainless
Subcontract welding
overheard and Profit
Total item 01
Total Change Order p
steel shower:
150.00
(7 %) 10.50
$160.50
rice $160.00
2. Welding for steel plates above shower units:
Labor w /insurance, etc. 33.82
Welding equipment (1 day) 65.00
Plates w /tax 114.45
Subtotal 213.27
Overhead and Profit (15 %) 31.99
Total item #2 $245.26
Total Change Order price $245.00
3. Weld wire material to beams at courtyard:
Labor w /insurance, etc. 273.06
Welding equipment (2 days) 130.00
Subtotal 403.06
overhead and Profit (15 %) 60.46
----- - - ----
Total item #3 X5463.52
Total Change Order price $463.00
7
July 31, 1990
Mr. Sill Fripp
Re: Orange County Jail
Page 2
4. Pass thru at door #105 (zoom 120):
221.00
Subcontract price
Overhead and Profit (7$)
15.47
Total item #4
$236.47
Total Change Order price
$236.00
S. Catwalk at Mechanical room to top of slab
over rooms 201, 202 and 203:
As quoted
$231.00
6. Removal of stoop at welded shut door
(old door #122):
535.05
Labor w /insurance, etc.
Dump Truck (3 hours)
105.00
Bobcat (4 hours)
120.00
Compressor (2 days)
140.00
15.00
Dump fees
1 load of dirt
50.00
Subtotal
965.05
Overhead and Profit (15$}
144.76
Total
$1,109.81
Total Change Order price
$1,109.004
Thank you for your assistance.
r^. a�
Sincerely#
RIGGS- HARROD BUILDERS, INC.
Douglas McKelvey, Estimator
DM/ ip
f J'00011 ,
Iq
le I
Zi
DRIER -FRIPP ASSOCIATES, INC.
Architects and Engineers
13 July 1990
Ms. Pamela Jones
Director, Purchasing and Central Services
300 West Tryon Street
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Re: Orange County - Additions and Alterations
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Job No.: 709 -88
Dear Pam:
Enclosed you will find a copy of Electrical Change Order Request No. 4 in
the amount of $9,753.00 to renovate and update the existing fire alarm
system in the jail. After getting into the construction work of this pro-
ject, we discovered that the present fire alarm system is in pretty bad
shape and, in fact, is probably more of a hazard than a help. We requested
the electrical contractor to have the fire alarm subcontractor come in and
survey the existing system and make recommendations on ways to improve the
system and bring it up to Code. The accompanying Request for Change Order
outlines the basics and the projected cost for same. By copy of this
letter, I am requesting my electrical engineer, Mr. Winston Ezzell review
this information. and give us his opinion on same. In this same respect I
would request that you give me the benefit of'the owner's desires regarding
updating this system to present day Code and safety in order that we may
take the necessary steps to do so. If you have any questions on this,
please do not hesitate to call me and /or discuss it with Captain Joe Dickey.
Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
GRIER 4DDq'l SOCIA'
W.E. ., I.
WE F,Jr.:dh
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Winston Ezzell
Captain Joe Dickey
POST OFFICE BOX 11207 / 4108 PARK ROAD. SURE 300 [28209]
CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA 282201(7041527-2514 / FAX [704) 527 -2516
►;1
7
6
PPA Mechanical Contractors
Member of THE BEAZER GROUP
P.O. BOX 2955 • 4008 NEAL ROAD • DURHAM, N. C. 27705.0955 • TELEPHONE 919/383 -2502
Jutu 9, 1990
ELECTRICAL CHANGE ORDER REQUEST 4 4
Bit.i_no Fi)ie A�a�r►.n Svstem un To Code See
attached 5heet .6I
JOB NAME:.Cnanae Coun.tu Jait
LOCATION : Hift,Sbonou h, Nonth Canoe,(na
OWNER : 04an e Coun.tu
ARCHITECT /ENGINEER: G4-(en 7Fnina Aseociate�s Inc.
Electrical Material ...................... $ 800.00
Miscellaneous Material. .F izz..A�anm ..... $ 4, 229 . 0 0
TOTAL Material ................ ...............................
$
5,029.00
N.C. Sales Tax ... l. dal ......... ........................ .......
$
251.45
Labor - Electrician $ 1 , 210 . 25
Labor- Helper ....... 103 . Nn s. 0 .. 9.. ,5 0 - -- 978 .5 0
Labor- Service ............................ $
TOTALLabor ..................................................
$
2,188.75
Job Expense: Supervision: 5 % ...........................
$
4
Other Direct Cost (travel & board, Equipment Rental,
shipping Costs, Etc.) .....................
$
SC'B- TOTAL ..................... ............... ................
$
7,578.63
iti % Overhead and Profit of Sub - Total .....................
$
1.136_7Q
43 % Labor Cost (Taxes, Insur., Etc.) .....................
$
941.16
Byd&9X ATM l i .................... ............... .......... ......
$
General Sub - contract .......... ...............................
$
...................
$
% Mark -up of Su.'-- contract ..............................
$
SUB TOTAL .....................................................
$
9.656.58
1% Bond ......................................................
$
96.56
TOTAL CHANGE ORDER ............ ............................... $ 9 , 753.14
10
JAIL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE
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 following capital project is hereby adopted.
Section 1. The project authorized will provide improvements
to and expanded capacity at the Orange County
Jail. The project will be financed by
appropriations from the County Capital Reserve
Fund and federal grant funds.
Section 2. The officers of the County are hereby directed to
proceed with the project within the budget
contained herein.
Section 3.
section 4.
Section S.
Section 6.
The following revenue is anticipated to complete
this project:
Transfer from County Capital $402,000
Reserve Fund
Intergovernmental 2.55,015
Total Revenue $ 657,015
The following amount is appropriated for this
project:
Jail Improvements Project
$ 657,015
This ordinance supersedes all previous Jail
Improvements Capital Project ordinances.
This ordinance shall be in effect from the date
of adoption until June 30, 1991.
Adopted this 21st day of August, 1990.
k U.S. Department of Justice
United States Marshals Ser.ice
u
-Modification of Co6peratiti-e Agreement
1. MODIFICATION NO.
2. EFFECTIVE DATE OF MODIFICATION
Six (6)
7/19/90
3. ISSUING OFFICE
4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
5. CAP NO.
United States Marshals Service
6-57-84
6. FACILITY CODE(S)
Prisoner Operations Div.
600 Army Navy Drive
Orange County
144 East Margaret Lane
Arlington, VA 22202 -4210
Hillsborough, NC 27278
i
7. ACCOUNTING CITATION
8. FUNDING AMOUNT j
15X1020 OC 4102
$33,189.50
9. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED SPECIFICALLY HEREIN, ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CAP DOCUMENT j
REFERRED TO IN BLOCK 5, REMAIN UNCHANGED. TERMS OF THIS MODIFICATION: j
The purpose of this Modification is to increase the funding for
CAP Project No. 0007 -57 -84 SC, in the amount of $33,189.50 for
surveillance equipment.
i
i
i
I
10. INSTRUCTIONS 'w LU(:AL GOVERNMENT FOR ,EXECUTION OF THIS NIODWICATION:
A. [❑ LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT REQUIRED
B. ® LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRED
TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT
TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN
2 COPIES TO U.S.-MARSHAL
11. APPROVALS:
A. C GOVEI ENT
B. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Signature
Signature
Joseph B. Enders, Assistant Director
7/'2Q
for Operations Support 7/18/90
TILE DATt
TITLE DATE
Form USM -247
Rev. 9/86
Page I of / Pages
I
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No.LV--I---14
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 21, 1990
SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting Regional Sports Authority
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S): Resolution INFORMATION CONTACT: Manager's Office
Report TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill - 968 -4501
Mebane - 227 -2031
Durham - 688 -7331
------------- ----------..---------------- --- --------- --- ----- -- - - --
PURPOSE: To adopt a resolution supporting a Regional Sports Authority.
BACKGROUND: on August 2, 1990 Research Triangle Area elected officials
and business representatives met to discuss the possibilities
of creating a Regional Sports Authority and pursue
soliticing sports franchises. Wake County officials asked
all local governments in the Research Triangle to adopt a
resolution prior to September 1, 1990. Government officials
present agreed that passing a resolution of support for the
Regional Sports Authority indicates an interest, but not a
commitment of their jurisdictions.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Adopt resolution supporting Regional Sports Authority.
2
RESOLUTION ENDORSING TSB CONCEPT OF A
REGIONAL SPORTS AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, Orange County Board of Commissioners recognizes
that our community is part of a region commonly identified as
"the Triangle," and
WHEREAS, local governments located in the Triangle area
have long recognized the value of a regional approach to
issues which transcend their own jurisdictions, and
WHEREAS, the promotion of large scale sporting events
and endeavors is in the best interests of all local
governments in the Triangle because of the potential for
generation of revenue and national as well as international
exposure, and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly has enacted
enabling legislation which provides for the creation of
regional sports authorities, and
WHEREAS, a regional sports authority is the logical
vehicle to promote the Triangle area as a site for national
and international sporting events, and
WHEREAS, the Triangle area is a potential location for
some of the 1994 World Cup Soccer Matches, and
WHEREAS, interest has been expressed in the Triangle
area as a potential location for a National Football League
franchise, and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the region that
the various local governments join in promoting the region as
a location for such major sporting activities, and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners wishes
to join with other local governments in the Triangle area in
the promotion of the area as a location for such large scale
sporting events.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County
Board of Commissioners endorses the concept of joining with
other local governments in the region to create a regional
sports authority in accordance with the provisions of Part 3
of Article 20, Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General
statutes.
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
By:
ATTEST:
By:
Clerk, Orange County Board
of Commissioners
Chair, Orange County Board
of Commissioners
[ SEAL]
Raleigh - Durham's Market Potential
For The
National Football Leagues
Carolina Franchise
PREPARED BY
1111 OBERLIN ROAD
RALEIGH, N.C.27605
5
FORWARD
The information presented in this report is intended to assist and
educate the reader concerning the Raleigh -- Durham- Research Triangle
Park market area and its potential for: hosting a contemplated
National Football League ( "NFL ") Franchise; hosting other
professional sports franchises such as Major League or AAA
Baseball; and serving as a venue for major sports events such as
World Cup Soccer, Olympic Trials, etc. The material presented in
this document is a synopsis of research that has been conducted
over the past 9 months regarding this subject. In conducting this
research, every effort has been made to utilize the most up -to -date
information from unbiased sources.
Clearly, predicated upon demographics, per capita income, economic
business growth, television market shares and cable t.v.
penetration, the Raleigh- Durham region is not only viable and ripe
for hosting NFL expansion, but also for hosting AAA Baseball and
ultimately Major League Baseball along with other major, national
and international sporting events of the calibre of World Cup
Soccer. In the course of gathering this information, it became
abundantly clear that our region compares very favorably, or
presents a stronger opportunity than other areas do that are vying
for NFL expansion franchises. In some instances on these
particular fronts, our region exceeds other areas that already
possess NFL franchises.
Based upon this investigation, and subsequent conversations with
various local leaders, it has been determined that an effort should
be put forth promoting the Raleigh- Durham region as an acceptable
host for not only the proposed Carolinas NFL Franchise, but also
for AAA Baseball, World Cup Soccer and other sporting events such
as the Goodwill Games and the U.S. Olympic Trials.
It has not been our purpose in preparing this report to determine
a final site location for a proposed NFL franchise that might be
located in the Raleigh- Durham region; that determination properly
resides with the NFL and its Owners. Rather, the goal of this
report is to assist the NFL in heightening its awareness to the
untapped potential of the entire Carolina region and particularly
the Raleigh- Durham -- Research Triangle Park portion of the North
Carolina market. Likewise, it is essential that the local
communities and governing bodies not only realize this untapped
potential but also act to seize the opportunities that are present
and reap the economic rewards that professional sports can bring
to the region.
TCPPL90 DAA /tth
,PREENSAV
• BUFFALO . -
-- -- OETROIT s - - ...J -•tr::
GI ��i �� . f,.'yii i.�.�1 =rr : � . - :. A.6���eik' .::: ice: •.. ..i.r:.���.:, _..... - _ ...,. Y.rc
ST.LOVIS
* FULTON COUNTY STADIUM
Capacity 59,643
Average Atten ce
1988 1989
33,477 40,069
capacity 56 66
MEMPHIS f
_r'•Gr'
W ORLEANS r
NORF
GREENSBORO . DURHAM
I RALEIGH
CHARLOTTE
L+�1 � r COLUMBIA"
JACKSONVILLE
- eo!
f�
R.F.K. STADIUM
Capacity - 55,6
Avaraa� Atten a
71
� e
1988 1989
55,671 55,671
t of capacity 1o0 100
NORTH
N.F.L.
Market Areas
RALEIGH - DURHAM
0 50 100 200
PREPARED By
ENVIROTEK
JOB CODE: TCPPL90
DATE: 23 APRIL 1990
D W G.NO.
:A
300 MI
G 21
1988 ESTIMATED T.V. REVENUES BY 150 MILE MARKET AREA f_ ,
• RALEIGH- DURHAM BALTIMORE - 7
Local Market Estimated Revenues
$ (000) 1
Charlotte 91,000
Norfolk 70,000 WASHINGTON
Raleigh /Durham 75,600
Richmond 54,500
Greensboro /Kinston Salem 55,700
Roanoke /Lynchburg 32,200
h
$ 379,000 FREDER ICKS BURG
r
STAUNtpN p �
AYNE880R0
G IIMOND
/ I rrrcai9uRA: FApi t' • .
'NEWPORT NEWS
SLUEFIELD rJ NORFO
:�:.• ��Y, 6ETTI arr
-- T -MAR
BRISTOL '- r
T,
/ BOONE WIN ON SA
0
GREENVILLE
0 ='a
j BTATEuN1 8 �' I KJ
MORGANTOM I 0 MCK r F, �b
.eVILLE
GAS O -
v_- P o
SPARTANBUR ROC( L \
REENVILLE
ILAIINGTON
ANDERSON D ry' \` -
FLORE C `
0
COLUMBIA SumTER 1SO MILE RADIU
0
'LANTA
1 -20
AUGUSTA
CHARLESTON
TOTAL POPULATION BY CONCENTRIC CIRCLES
AROUND PAGE AD, AND INTERSTATE 40 INTERSECTION. AT RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. N.C.
188.`Bpf� q%IpUge 150 MILE RADIUS
YEAR t9B9 _ r ^,6,687 8,332.846
YEAR 1994 ' "5,994,90Y,` 8,778.490
PER CAPITA INCOME
YEAR 1989 11.983 11.731 12.034
YEAq 1994 15,484 15,223 15.614
NORTH
MARKET AREA
POPULATION
RALEIGH— DURHAM
20 MI. 0 20 40 so to
PREPARED BY
ENVIROTEK
JOB CODE: TCPPL90
GATE: 23 APR 1990
OWG.NO: MG 5
TCPPL90
19 APRIL 1990
TABLE A
COMPARISON OF 1989
ESTIMATED POPULATIONS
WITHIN 100 MILES OF
SELECTED NORTH CAROLINA
MARKETS AND EXISTING
N.F.L. CITIES IN THE
SOUTH
Charlotte 5,065,111
Raleigh /Durham 4,113,046
Greensboro 5,145,342
Miami FL 4,127,178
Atlanta GA 5,234,780
Tampa FL 4,778,821
New Orleans LA 2,898,065
Washington DC 9,802,442
C.'
1-
TCPPL90
19 APRIL 1990
TABLE A
COMPARISON OF 1989
ESTIMATED POPULATIONS
WITHIN 100 MILES OF
SELECTED NORTH CAROLINA
MARKETS AND EXISTING
N.F.L. CITIES IN THE
SOUTH
Charlotte
5,065,111
Raleigh /Durham 4,113,046
Greensboro 5,145,342
Miami FL 4,127,178
Atlanta GA 5,234,780
Tampa FL 4,778,821
New Orleans LA 2,898,065
Washington DC 9,802,442
E
T'I
10
TCPPL90 19 APRIL 1990
TABLE C
COMPARISONS OF PAST AND PROJECTED
POPULATION GROWTH FOR SELECTED COUNTIES
IN NORTH CAROLINA
Source: National Planning Data Corp
r
T 3
1970
1980
1989
1994
1970 to
COUNTY
POP
POP
POP
POP
1989
Change
Durham Co.
132,681
152,785
174,069
187,799
+ 41,388
(Durham)
n/a
+ 15.1%
+ 13.9%
+7.88%
+31.1%
% change
Guilford Co.
288,644
317,154
338,737
352,339
50,093
(Greensboro)
n/a
%
+9.8°
+6.8%
+4.0%
+17.3%
% change
Mecklenburg Co.
354,656
404,220
482,991
531,453
128,335
(Charlotte)
n/a
+13.99°
+19.47%
+10.0%
+36.10
% change
Orange Co.
57,705
77,055
89,162
96,859
31,457
(Chapel Hill)
n/a
+33.53%
+15.7%
+8.6%
+54.5%
% change
Wake Co.
229,004
301,327
393,520
442,653
164,516
(Raleigh)
n/a
+31.58%
+30.5%
+12.48%
+71.8%
% change
R.T.P.Area
419,390
531,167
656,751
737,311
237,361
(Durham, Orange,
Wake)
n/a
+26.6%
+23.3%
+10.7%
+56.6%
% change
Source: National Planning Data Corp
r
T 3
I I I
■ . ,
TCPPL90 19 APRIL 1990
TABLE C
COMPARISONS OF PAST AND PROJECTED
POPULATION GROWTH FOR SELECTED COUNTIES
IN NORTH CAROLINA
Source: National Planning Data Corp
M
T 3 1
1970
1980
1989
1994
1970 to
COUNTY
POP
POP
POP
POP
1989
Change
Durham Co.
132,681
152,785
174,069
187,799
+ 41,388
(Durham)
% change
n/a
+ 15.1%
+ 13.9%
+7.88%
+31.1%
Guilford Co.
288,644
317,154
338,737
352,339
50,093
(Greensboro)
% change
n/a
+9.8%
+6.8%
+4.0%
+17.3%
Mecklenburg Co.
354,656
404,220
482,991
531,453
128,335
(Charlotte)
% change
n/a
+13.99%
+19.47%
+10.0%
+36.1%
Orange Co.
57,705
77,055
89,162
96,859
31,457
(Chapel Hill)
% change
n/a
+33.53%
+15.7%
+8.6%
+54.5%
Wake Co.
229,004
301,327
393,520
442,653
164,516
(Raleigh)
% change
n/a
+31.58%
+30.5%
+12.48%
+71.8%
R.T.P.Area
419,390
531,167
656,751
737,311
237,361
(Durham, Orange,
Wake)
% change
n/a
+26.6%
+23.3%
+10.7%
+56.6%
Source: National Planning Data Corp
M
T 3 1
TCPPL90 19 APRIL 1990
TABLE D
COMPARISONS OF PROJECTED
POPULATION GROWTH FOR
SELECTED NORTH CAROLINA COUNTIES
1990 -2010
NOTE:
0K
The State forecasts Wake County to grow at a rate of 2.5% per
year and Mecklenburg County to grow at 1.4% per year from 1990
to 2010. At those rates, Wake County population will pass
that of Mecklenburg County in the year 2012.
Source: N.C. State Data Center
ice'
1990
2000
2010
Durham Co.
174,000
194,833
213,825
(Durham)
+12%
+9.70
% change
Guilford Co.
337,490
349,172
353,500
(Greensboro)
%
+3.50
+1.20
'
% change
Mecklenburg Co.
482,405
555,611
619,421
(Charlotte)
%
+15a
+11%
o change
Orange Co.
89,334
101,589
111,837
(Chapel Hill)
+14%
+100
% change
Wake Co.
404,751
508,622
607,279
(Raleigh)
%
+260
+19%
% change
RTP Area
668,085
805,044
932,941
(Durham, Orange, Wake)
+21%
+16%
% change
NOTE:
0K
The State forecasts Wake County to grow at a rate of 2.5% per
year and Mecklenburg County to grow at 1.4% per year from 1990
to 2010. At those rates, Wake County population will pass
that of Mecklenburg County in the year 2012.
Source: N.C. State Data Center
ice'
OR AN G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: AUGUST 21, 1990
SUBJECT: STATUS OF COUNTY -WIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX
DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER
COMMISSIONERS OFFICE
ATTACHMENT(S):
Action Agenda
Item # TY -A
PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X —No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
JOHN LINK, EXTENSION 2300
MOSES CAREY, EXTENSION 2130
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501
PURPOSE: To consider establishing a county -wide school district
tax to provide funding for the expansion needs of both
school systems.
BACKGROUND: As a part of the 1989 -90 Manager's recommended budget,
a financial model to achieve equity in school funding
for both school systems was presented, and endorsed by
the Board as a part of the adopted budget. The 1990-
91 recommended school budget reflected the continu-
ation of the financial model noting that equity in
school funding would require the support of the entire
community and would involve tax increases to fund it.
If the tax alternative chosen by the Board for
consideration by Orange County voters was a county-
wide school district tax, and if a special election
for this purpose was affirmed for November 6 in
conjunction with the regularly scheduled elections,
the Board would need to take appropriate action at the
meeting of September 4. Should the outcome of a vote
on November 6 on a special district tax be positive,
there would be ample time to include the results in
planning for the 1991 -92 budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. X- A
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 21, 1994
SUBJECT: Contract with Animal Protection Society for Animal Shelter
Operation
DEPARTMENT: Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S): Contract INFORMATION CONTACT: Manager's Office
TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill - 968 -4501
Mebane - 227 -2031
Durham - 688 -7331
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PURPOSE: To approve Contract with Animal Protection Society for Animal
Shelter operation.
BACKGROUND: The contract with APS for operations of the Animal Shelter
has not been revised or reviewed by the Board for sometime.
The County Attorney and county staff have determined that the
contract with the APS should be renegotiated and redrafted to
clarify areas of responsibility. Concerns which have been
set out in more detail are: prohibition from accepting
animals which originate outside Orange County; reporting and
financial requirements; and access to the shelter by County
personnel. Other concerns regarding shelter operations were
not specifically addressed in the contract. County staff and
shelter staff will pursue the development a Procedures Manual
for the Shelter which will be referenced in the contract.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve Contract with APS for Animal Shelter
Operations.
2
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY CONTRACT
This CONTRACT, made this the day of , 1990,
is by and between Orange County, North Carolina, a body politic and
corporate ( "County "), and the Animal Protection Society of Orange
County, Inc., a North Carolina nonprofit corporation ( "Society',);
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, County has responsibilities under the laws of North
Carolina and other directives to control dogs and other animals and
to promote health, welfare and safety of humans and animals; and
WHEREAS, Society exists to promote humane treatment of
animals; and
WHEREAS, County has obligated itself, pursuant to its Animal
Control Ordinance, to operate and maintain a County Animal Shelter
( "the shelter "), either itself or by contract with another entity;
and
WHEREAS, County desires to contract with Society, and Society
desires to contract with County, for the operation and maintenance
of the shelter;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and
covenants contained herein, County and Society agree as follows:
1. Purpose. This Contract is to provide for the management
and operation of the shelter by Society.
2. Responsibilities of Society Society shall manage the
shelter and shall be responsible for operating the shelter in a
safe, sanitary, humane, and efficient way. It is the intention of
County and Society that only animals originating in Orange County
1
0
3
will be impounded in the shelter. Specific operating procedures
designed to carry out this intention shall be included in the
Procedures Manual described in Section 3.C. of this contract. It
shall be the duty of Society to:
A. Hire and supervise shelter personnel pursuant to
County - approved procedures adopted by Society. Society shall
present its proposed personnel procedures to County for review
and consideration by the Board of County Commissioners no
later than September 15, 1990. Any changes to the personnel
procedures of Society proposed by Society shall be presented
to County for its consideration and approval. No such
personnel procedures shall be implemented by Society without
the approval of County.
B. Properly impound animals coming into its control.
C. Be responsible for disposing of, as Society deems
necessary, all animals brought to the shelter in compliance
with applicable North Carolina law and local ordinances.
D. Handle, care for and dispose of animals in
accordance with applicable North Carolina law including the
Animal Welfare Act, and local ordinances.
E. Require citizens redeeming animals from the shelter
to pay applicable reclamation and boarding fees established
by County, and account for and remit same to County quarterly.
G. Have the shelter open for business at County- -
approved times which permit the public to redeem animals
during other than normal working hours. Society shall present
2
4
a proposed schedule of shelter hours of operation to County
for its review and approval.
H. Maintain records on all animals received at the
shelter including:
admission source (from the public or from Animal
Control)
- animal identification (species, breed, etc.)
- disposition (reclamation, adoption, euthanasia)
- status of animal (stray or surrender)
- length of stay.
Such records shall be summarized monthly and a copy of such
summary provided to County no later than fifteen (15 ) days
after the close of each calendar month.
I. Comply with receipt and cash control procedures
prescribed by County including prenumbered, controlled
receipts itemizing fees collected. Such receipts shall be
made available for inspection by County personnel at all
reasonable times.
J. Provide the County Finance Officer fiscal expense
and expenditure performance reports on a quarterly basis and
in such detail as to permit evaluation and cost analysis of
the contracted services. Provide, as part of the performance
reports, justification and methodology used by Society in
allocating its indirect expenses or allocated direct expense
between shelter operations and other Society programs and
functions. Quarterly reports for the quarter running July 1
through September 30'each year shall be transmitted to the
3
W
Finance Officer no later than October 31; for the quarter
October 1 through December 31, no later than January 31; for
the quarter January 1 through March 31, no later than April
30; and for the quarter April 1 through June 30, no later than
July 31.
K. Permit access and inspection to all areas of the
shelter by Animal Control personnel and other health and
safety officials in pursuance of their duty. Specifics and
standards relating to access shall be developed in the
Procedures Manual described in Section 3.C. of this contract.
L. Add no new structure or modify the shelter
facilities or the premise whereon the shelter facilities are
located without the written approval of County. County may,
in its sole and absolute discretion, approve or disapprove any
such new structure or modification to the shelter facilities,
subject at all times to limitations and restrictions imposed
on the premises contained in the Special Use Permit effecting
the premises.
3. Count Res onsibilities. In exchange for Society,s
services outlined hereinabove, County shall:
A. Provide an annual appropriation to Society in an
amount approved in the annual budget by the Board of County
Commissioners. The amount of compensation to Society will be
specified in a "Letter of Agreement" that will be considered
an annual addendum to this Contract. The annual appropriation
will be payable in twelve (12) equal monthly increments due
the first day of each month.
2
6
B. Provide a structure for the shelter and provide
facility repair services. Such repairs will be performed by
County's Public Works Department.
C. Review and approve procedures for operation of the
shelter and fees to be collected. Such procedures shall be
outlined in a Procedures Manual to be adopted by County and
Society and, if necessary, augmented and revised from time to
time. The Procedures Manual upon its adoption by County and
Society shall be considered a part of this Contract.
D. Audit Society's financial records as part of
County's annual budget.process.
E. Cooperate with Society in promoting health, safety
and rabies control.
4. Term Termination and Renewal. This Contract is for the
period July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991. This Contract may be
terminated on ninety (90) days written notice by either party. The
obligations of County and Society contained in this Contract are
all deemed covenants. A breach of any covenant in this Contract
or in any other document incorporated by reference into this
Contract shall make this Contract immediately terminable at the
option of the non - breaching party. In the event this Contract is
terminated for breach of Contract, Society will be allowed a
reasonable time, not to exceed thirty (30) days from the date the
termination is to be effective, to remove its property from the
shelter. This Contract may be renewed annually for July 1 through
June 30 fiscal years by action of the Board of Directors of Society
and the Board of Commissioners of County. Society and County shall
61
7
provide the other with written notice of intention to renew this
Contract no later than April 1 of each renewal year. In the event
Society or County fails to provide this written notice, the other
party shall immediately following April 1 begin preparation for
shelter operations by County or its designee effective July 1 of
the year in which there is no renewal notice by Society or County.
All property of Society shall be removed and operations
responsibility shall be transferred in its entirety on or before
July 1 of the year of termination.
5. Liability. Society will indemnify, save and hold
harmless County, against any and all liability up to $500,000 which
might arise or accrue by reason of the act or failure to act of any
and all Society's officers, agents, employees, members,
representatives, volunteers or assigns. Society will carry a
comprehensive general liability insurance policy with limits for
each occurrence of $500,000 covering the operation of the shelter
and the actions of Society, its officers, agents, employees,
members, representatives, volunteers or assigns in the operation
of the shelter. County shall be a designated insured under the
policy. Society shall provide County with a certificate of
coverage from the insurance provider. County will be provided at
least thirty (30.) days written notice of cancellation of the
policy. The certificate of coverage shall so provide in a
cancellation clause. Society shall provide County with a copy of
the policy.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, ORANGE COUNTY has caused this instrument
to be signed in its name by its duly authorized officers and its
6
E:l
seal to be affixed by authority of its Board of Commissioners
and ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC. has caused
this instrument to be signed in its name by its duly authorized
officers and its seal to be affixed by authority of its Board of
Directors the day and year recited above.
ATTEST:
By:
Clerk, Orange County Board
of Commissioners
C11kQ **d;
By:
Secretary
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
By:
Chair, Orange County Board
of Commissioners
[SEAL]
ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY OF
ORANGE COUNTY, INC.
By:
President
[SEAL]
This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by
the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
Finance Officer
VA
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
9
CONTRACT ADDENDUM
This CONTRACT ADDENDUM, made this the day of
, 1990, is by and between Orange County, North
Carolina, a body politic and corporate ( "County "), and the Animal
Protection Society of Orange County, Inc., a North Carolina
nonprofit corporation ( "Society ");
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, County and Society have entered into a contract
describing the responsibilities of each in operating the Orange
County Animal Shelter, which contract, by its terms, may be renewed
from year to year; and
WHEREAS, that contract requires Society to quarterly remit
boarding fees collected at the shelter to County; and
WHEREAS, the amount of the fiscal year 1990 -91 County
appropriation to Society for the operation of shelter will be
insufficient for its operation if boarding fees are remitted during
fiscal year 1990 -91;
NOW, THEREFORE, County and Society agree that for the July 1,
1990 -June 30, 1991 fiscal year the requirement contained in
paragraph 2.E. of the contract is amended to require Society to
remit to County only reclamation fees.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, ORANGE COUNTY has caused this instrument
to be signed in its name by its duly authorized officers and its
seal to be affixed by authority of its Board of Commissioners and
ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC. has caused this
instrument to be signed in its name by its duly authorized officers
1
.. 4 .
and its seal to be affixed by authority of its Board of Directors
the day and year recited above.
ATTEST:
By:
Clerk, Orange County Board
of Commissioners
ATTEST:
BV:
Secretary
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
By:
Chair, Orange County Board
of Commissioners
[SEAL]
ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY OF
ORANGE COUNTY, INC.
By:
President
[SEAL]
10
This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by
the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
Finance Officer
4
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. _,Y
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 21, 1990
I
SUBJECT: Cable TV Franchise - Cablevision of Durham (First Reading)
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S): Franchise INFORMATION CONTACT: Manager's Office
TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill - 968 -4501
Mebane - 227 -2031
Durham - 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To approve the first reading of Cable TV Franchise between
Cablevision of Durham and the County.
BACKGROUND: On February 20, 1990, Cablevision of Durham presented a
proposal to the Board requesting a five year delineated cable
TV franchise agreement. Cablevision of Durham desired to
serve homes in Northeastern Orange County. The areas border
Durham County where Cablevision of Durham has extended
cablevision service to the Orange County Line. During
discussions it was acknowledged that Cablevision of Durham had
connected cable services to a few homes in orange County
without a cable TV franchise agreement.
At the June 26, 1990 Board meeting, Carolina Cable
(one of the current County cable franchisees) committed to
build cable in Northeastern Orange County within six months.
The Board directed the County Attorney to draft a delineated
Cable TV Franchise for Cablevision of Durham covering homes
currently connected by the company and may be constructed in
two specific areas. Areas which border Durham County, but can
not be reasonably served by current County cable franchisees.
The attached franchise will enable Cablevision of Durham to
operate according to its terms and within the geographical
limits spelled out in the franchise. The franchise ordinance
will have to be approved by the Board at two readings. It
must be approved by two independent actions and each action
taking place at a different meeting.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the Franchise Ordinance for Cablevision of
Durham after finding in considering the Franchise
Ordinance:
1. The benefit to the public in completing the
procedures set out in Section IV of the Cable
TV System Ordinance is less than their cost;
2. All persons affected by the granting of the
franchise have received notice of the
application of Cablevision of Durham through
press coverage or otherwise.
I
N
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO
CABLEVISION OF DURHAM, INC.
TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A CABLE
TELEVISION SYSTEM WITHIN A
DELINEATED PORTION OF THE
UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ORDAINS:
Section I. Grant and term.
Subject to the terms and conditions of the Orange County Cable
Television System Ordinance as amended and as it may be amended,
(hereinafter "the ordinance ") which ordinance is incorporated
herein by reference, and the other terms and conditions of this
ordinance (hereinafter "the franchise "), Cablevision of Durham,
Inc., its successors and assigns, (hereinafter "grantee" or "the
grantee,,) is hereby granted the right, privilege and franchise to
construct or have constructed, operate and maintain a cable
television system and to operate a cable television service in the
portions of the unincorporated areas of Orange County, North
Carolina (hereinafter "county" or "the county ") delineated below
AND NO OTHER for the purpose of providing cable television service
to the citizens of the delineated portions of the unincorporated
areas of the county, and for that purpose to erect, install and
construct upon, across, beneath and along any street or road all
necessary cable and other equipment and facilities as may be
necessary and appurtenant to the cable television system. In
1
I
0
3
addition, this right, privilege and franchise shall extend to
Property rented or leased from other persons, including but not
limited to any public utility or other grantee, franchisee or
permittee, in order to do business in the delineated portions of
the unincorporated areas of the county. The CATV system and
service herein franchised shall be used and operated solely and
exclusively for the purpose expressly authorized by ordinance of
the county and no other purpose whatsoever. The term of this
franchise shall commence upon the acceptance of this franchise by
the grantee, as provided in Section VI of the ordinance and shall
terminate at midnight, February 24, 1996.
Delineated Franchise Areas
1• Area I: Homes which now exist or may be constructed
fronting any portion of Saddle Drive, Horseshoe Road, Big Fork Road
or Fox Drive.
2• Area II: Homes which now exist or may be constructed
fronting any portion of Kerley Road from its intersection with
Cornwallis Road to its intersection with Mt. Sinai Road, Pascal
Way, Wilhelm Drive, Montvale Road and Osborne Place.
Section II. Renewal.
The franchise may be renewed for an additional period of ten
(10) years upon terms satisfactory to both the county and the
grantee.
E
S
4
Section III. Nonexclusive.
The franchise shall be nonexclusive, and the county reserves
the right to grant similar franchises to any person or persons at
any period during the present franchise or any extension thereof.
Section IV. Construction of system.
Grantee shall obtain the proper permission and authority from
the North Carolina Department of Transportation, or other agency
of competent jurisdiction, and where appropriate, private land
owners before any cable or other equipment necessary and
appurtenant to the cable television system may be placed within
any street or road. All highways, roads, streets, sidewalks,
avenues, alleys, bridges and other public and private places that
may be disturbed or damaged in the construction or maintenance of
the cable television system shall be promptly repaired or replaced
by the grantee at its own expense. All poles, wires, cables or
other facilities to be constructed or installed within the streets
or roads shall be constructed or installed only at such locations
and depths and in such manner as to comply with all federal and
state statutes, county and other local ordinances and rules and
regulations of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, or
other agency of competent jurisdiction. All such units of
government and governmental agencies with approval authority over
the construction and maintenance of the CATV system must approve
the construction and maintenance. All facilities constructed or
installed within the streets or roads shall be so constructed and
3
I
E
installed so as to cause minimum interference with the proper use
of said streets or roads, and minimum interference with the
Property rights of property owners adjoining said streets or roads.
Such facilities shall be constructed or installed so that, after
construction or installation is complete, they shall cause no
interference with proper use of said streets or roads, and no
interference with the property rights of owners of property
adjoining said streets or roads. In the event the grantee shall
fail to replace or repair any of said public and private facilities
within ten (10) working days after written notice to do so from the
county manager, the same may be replaced or repaired by the proper
authorities of the county, and in that event, the grantee shall
forthwith pay to the county the cost of such work.
Section V. Relocation of facilities.
In the event (at any time during the franchise period or any
extension thereof) the county, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation or any other unit of government or public agency,
by reason of traffic conditions, street closing, or highway or
street construction changes in or the establishment of any street
grade, the installation of sewers, drains, water pipes, power
lines, signal lines, or any type of structure or improvement, the
grantee shall, at its expense, protect, support, temporarily
disconnect, relocate in the same street or other place any of its
properties, owned or leased, upon reasonable notice by the agency
involved in the work. The county, the North Carolina Department
4
S
:.1
r
of Transportation or any other unit of government or agency shall
not be liable for any disturbance of. the grantee's installation
resulting therefrom. The grantee shall carry out instructions and
directions of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
District Engineer or his designee whenever it is necessary to raise
or remove any of the grantee's wires or cables temporarily for the
purpose of moving or removing structures on the public streets or
roads of the county. The grantee shall do such tree trimming or
other maintenance work as shall be necessary to maintain its lines
and cables and other property in good working order, and where
necessary, with the prior approval of the appropriate public or
private agency and person. As between the county and the grantee,
all actions herein required to be performed shall be performed at
the expense of the grantee and the grantee shall hold the county
free and harmless from all damages or claims for damages, including
attorneys fees and other litigation expenses necessary to defend
any such claim, arising from such actions of the grantee.
Copies of all joint use of poles and right -of -way agreements
and encroachment agreements which authorize grantee to use poles
and right -of -ways within the unincorporated areas of the county
shall be provided to the county manager within thirty days of
acceptance by the grantee of this franchise and thereafter within
thirty days of their acquisition.
0
a
Section VI. Ordinances applicable.
The grantee shall be subject to all laws and ordinances
relative to the use of all public facilities, relative to cable
television systems and operations, and where appropriate, planning
ordinances, policies and procedures.
Section VII. Location maps.
The grantee agrees to maintain in the office of the Orange
County Manager copies of all maps showing the location of all
wires, cables and other fixtures situated within the unincorporated
areas of the county.
Section VIII. Hold harmless.
The grantee, its successors and assigns, shall indemnify and
save harmless the county, its officers and employees as expressly
provided in Section XIV of the ordinance.
Section IX. The system and its operation.
A. Except as otherwise required by this franchise or unless
otherwise required by the ordinance, grantee agrees to build and
operate a cable television system in the delineated portions of the
unincorporated areas of the county. The documents describing
"technical synopsis," "subscriber network," "quality customer
service," "service management system," "service response," and
"preventive maintenance" included with - tha 7 1 000
Proposal of grantee have been examined and approved by the county.
A
7
8
They are attached to this franchise as exhibits and incorporated
herein by reference. The grantee, by its acceptance of this
franchise, acknowledges that any such standards which exceed FCC
requirements are freely offered by grantee. These standards shall
apply to all CATV service and new construction within the county.
Grantee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the county
manager that its system meets the minimum technical standards
offered in its September 7, 1989 proposal and prescribed in this
franchise by providing test results from tests performed at the
terminus of its system and at random points within Orange County
along its system. These tests shall be performed periodically at
the request of the county manager. Random testing shall result in
the entire system being tested every three months.
B. The following construction practices shall be followed:
1. Sag. To avoid or at least minimize the danger of
cable breaks, grantee shall specify that TV cables shall sag at
least as much as the telephone cable below it, and should never be
allowed to sag less than 1% of the spanned length. Preferred sag
will be 1.5% to 2% (22 --30 inches in a 125 -foot span).
2. Sleeved connectors. To minimize interference due
to signal infiltration from mobile transmissions, CB, amateur
transmissions and strong local TV signals, connectors with integral
internal sleeves will be used.
3. Connector seals. Cable splices and housing
connectors shall be sealed against moisture either by properly
7
applied shrink tubing, or by means of sealant tape such as Bi -Seal,
or Aqua -Seal or equivalent.
4. Lightening and power surge „protection. The
following, or its equivalent as certified to the county by a
qualified engineer, shall be done to provide lightening and power
surge protection. Adequate grounding, at -the first, last and every
tenth pole, and at every repeater or power supply location shall
be installed. Adequate bonding to telephone strand and electric
neutrals shall be done. Careful attention shall be given to the
proper use of surge protection devices, resetting circuit breakers,
and gas ionization devices to protect equipment and maintain
service during abnormal power situations. Particular attention
shall be given to the regulated do power packs at repeater stations
through the use of adaptive regulator circuits, surge protection
modules, transient absorbing diodes, or 3- terminal regulator hybrid
specially designed to provide current limiting, thermal overload
protection, and maintain operation within safe limits.
S. Installation standards. Each subscriber shall have
a separate drop from the residence to the Feeder Line. Buildings
with more than four units may be treated as apartments.
Installation methods shall be explained to all subscribers. No
drop lines shall be spliced. All installation standards and
practices shall be "state -of- the - art." All installations shall be
done in a workman -like manner using "state -of- the -art" techniques
and "state -of- the -art" materials.
L
6
10
6. Construction manual. Grantee shall provide its
construction crews and any contract construction company with a
construction. manual detailing each stage of the construction
process. A copy of this construction manual shall be provided to
the county manager before construction commences. Any comments
and recommendations made by the county manager concerning this
manual shall be considered by grantee and if necessary to meet the
requirements of the franchise or the ordinance, the manual shall
be revised by the grantee.' All installations shall be supervised
and inspected by grantee's engineers.
C. Channel__ capacity and__system _design. Grantee shall
install and maintain a "state -of- the - -art" system and abide by all
reasonable requests of the county to upgrade the system. Without
limiting the generality of this requirement:
1. All new construction of plant in the unincorporated
areas of the county shall be 400 MhZ capable and be two -way
capable.
2. Grantee shall operate its existing plant in the
county and all new plant in the county in accordance with the
technical synopsis and subscriber network exhibits to this
franchise. Grantee shall upgrade its entire system within the
unincorporated areas of the county contemporaneously with any
upgrade of its Durham County franchised system. Grantee shall
immediately notify the county manager of any plans it has for
upgrading or any Durham County franchise required upgrade.
0
11
3. Grantee shall provide a trouble feed -back system
which allows the monitoring of all active elements of all Main
Trunk Cable of the system. Grantee may satisfy this requirement
in one of two ways: (1) it may, within 18 months of its acceptance
of this franchise, install and activate bi- directional capacity in
the Main Trunk Cable of its system or, (2) it may immediately
provide service to subscribers along all Main Trunk Cable at such
intervals as will provide a "trouble feed -back system" in effect
activated by subscriber calls in the event of system failures which
is comparable in terms of reliability to an activated bi-
directional feed -back system. In the event grantee elects to
utilize a subscriber "trouble feed -back system" it must provide the
necessary service to subscribers without regard to the system
extension requirements contained in this franchise and, if
necessary in order to obtain their subscriptions, at no cost to the
subscribers that are part of the "trouble feed -back system."
4. Grantee shall design and operate its system so that
it has interconnect compatability to share programming with any
existing franchised cable operator within the unincorporated areas
of the county and provide verification to the satisfaction of the
county manager of this compatibility.
Section X. Programming and Access.
A. Grantee shall provide at least one public service and /or
access channel. This channel shall be reserved for and used for
10
12
I
such things as community billboard, local origination programming
and educational access programming other than PBS.
B. Grantee shall provide a local origination studio,
together with the necessary equipment and personnel, to enable
members of the public to create and broadcast programming. Grantee
may satisfy this requirement to provide local origination studio
and necessary equipment and personnel by contracting with a third
party. However, the responsibility to provide the local
origination studio and necessary equipment and personnel is that
of grantee. Air time shall be provided free of charge to everyone
except "for- profit" entities and declared political candidates.
Fees may be charged for equipment and labor supplied by grantee in
assisting persons in developing programming, except that no charge
shall be made for live studio cable casts of five minutes or less
by public access users or for the broadcasts of such special events
as are designated by the board of commissioners of the county.
C. Grantee shall make its local origination and public
access channel programming available to any other franchised cable
operator in the county at the time that cable operator makes its
local origination and public access channel programming available
to grantee. Grantee shall carry any other franchised cable
operators local origination and public access programming when it
becomes available to grantee. Grantee shall not be required to
carry such programming if it is commercially sponsored. Any charge
made by grantee to another franchise cable operator as a price for
grantee making its local origination and public access channel
11
13
programming available shall be commercially reasonable and shall
be at no charge provided the other franchise cable operator
provides its local origination and public access channel
programming available to grantee at no charge.
Section XI. Effective date.
Subject to the provisions of Section VI of the ordinance, this
franchise shall become effective on the date on which grantee files
the acceptance, bonds, fees and expenses, and proof of insurance
required by the ordinance.
First Reading.
The foregoing ordinance received the following vote and was
duly adopted this day of , 1990:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
Second Reading.
The foregoing ordinance received the following vote and was
duly adopted this day of ,,1990:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
12
14
TECHNICAL SYNOPSIS
Cablevision of Durham operates the cable television distribution
network in Durham County, and proposes to construct and maintain
plant in the rural residential areas of Orange County that are
adjacent to its existing plant, or that may become economically
feasible in the future.
The existing distribution network covers nearly 1,000 miles of
cable plant. It is comprised of RCA and C -Cor active
electronics, .750 trunk cable, .500 feeder cable and passive
devices manufactured by Magnavox, Jerrold and C -Cor. The band-
width of the core system is 270 MHZ. New line extensions are
designed for 400 MHZ feeder distribution to facilitate possible
future channel capacity upgrade.
Signals originate at a headend site on Ellis P.oad in Durham
County, just south of the Durham Freeway. This location is the
heart of the technical operation of the system. Signals will be
transported from the headend to a central hub by way of
fiberoptic cable. Additional fiberoptic hub sites are planned
for the near future. The fiber hub network will be capable of
distribution of an expanded bandwidth, thus facilitating future
channel expansion. The fiberoptic terminal equipment is
provided by AT &T under the trade name of "Laser Link ". This
equipment uses amplitude modulation, thus providing a relatively
economical means of using fiberoptic technology. The fiber is
manufactured by AT &T and Alcatel through a partnership with Comm
Scope.
The fiberoptic hub network reduces the excessively long
amplifier cascades to improve picture quality and signal reli-
ability. This permits the extension of service to more remote,
distant areas than was previously technically feasible.
The coaxial distribution system is two way capable. All service
taps are directional. Standby powering is used at critical
locations, and at points that have historically experienced
problems with commercial power interruptions.
Cablevision of Durham strictly complies with all regulations
concerning safety as mandated by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, Department of Transportation rules and
the National Electric Code.
Y
SUBSCRIBER NETWORK
Cablevision of Durham will design and maintain the extensions
into Orange County in areas adjacent to its Durham County system
to comply with the following technical standards as measured at
the input to the television receiver of the customer at the most
distant subscriber locations on the subscriber network except as
noted:
Minimum Carrier to Noise
44 db
Maximum Cross Modulation
52 db
Maximum Composite Triple Beat
52 db
Maximum Second Order
60 db
Maximum Hum Distortion
2.0%
Maximum Difference Between
Adjacent Channels
3 db
Maximum Difference Between
Any Channels
10 db
Minimum Signal at Back of Set
0 db
System Bandpass Peak
to Valley N 110 + 1.5 Trunk only
System Bandpass Peak
to Valley N 110 + 2 Bridgers and Line
Extenders
System Band Width 5 MHZ to 30 MHZ
Reverse
54 MHZ to 330 MHZ
Forward
Maximum L.E. Cascade 2 Amplifiers
Note: All amplifiers reverse capable, but reverse only
activated when and where required.
15
c
16
QUALITY CUSTOMER SERVICE
Our service falls into two broad categories: repair requests
and system service interruptions. The majority of our repair
work involves minor problems isolated to individual residences.
Typical problems include: fine tuning of television, cable
pulled loose in the home, cable drops (cable running from
utility poles to homes) which have been damaged by high wind and
fallen tree limbs.
To reduce our response time to customers' repair requests, the
repair service hours have increased Y 22% in the past
months and the technical staff itself has increased by 100%
during the past thirty months. Customers may call our Repair
365
Center to report any problem, any time of the day or night,
days a year. Trained cable professional personnel are always on
duty, ready to assist. The technical staff performs service
calls in the home Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm,
8:00 am through 5:00 pm on Saturday and 9:00 am through 5:00 pm
on Sunday. During the remaining hours, a team of technicians
is on call.
Our goal is to respond to every service call within 18 hours;
however, in cases of major service disruptions, our response
time may be impaired.
System outages
Area outages are usually weather related, caused by the high
winds, lightning, power surges and power outages which often
the flow Of
accompany thunder storms. Outages are determined by
incoming calls. Once the area experiencing the outage has been
identified, technicians are dispatched immediately.
fD rinheoff
hours, the response time is typically one half hour
time the technician is notified.
The amount of time required to restore service depends enly
on the damage to the cable television equipment. During
elec-
trical failure, Cablevision must wait for the power company to
complete its work before beginning our own. However, service is
usually restored within two hours.
U
SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Applying computer technology, Cablevision has created a sophis-
ticated trouble call management system. The system features:
Sorting service calls by map grid and "technician
area
Calculation of the length of time, in hours, each
individual has been in "aging" or a not yet
cleared status.
Calculation of the number of pending trouble calls
in each tech area, as well as the average aging time
for those calls.
Calculation of the total number of pending trouble
calls in the entire system, as well as their average
aging time.
The creation of this automated system provides for easy and
efficient access to information by customer service represent-
atives and supervisors, early outage identification, automated
service call routing and improved monitoring and analytical
capability.
17
4 18
SERVICE RESPONSE
As part of our continuing commitment to customer service,
Cable -
vision repair calls are nswRepair4requests usually trained
inta
Cablevision professionals.
one of two categories: system outages or individual repair
requests. As calls for individual repair service are received,
a computerized work order i areethenddispatched communications
next
center. These service call ointment is scheduled at the
available technician or an appointment
calls generated by a system
customer's convenience. Repair After three calls
service interruption are handled ed, the is analyzed and
are received, the pattern response
from the same vicinity problem. technicians are sent to repair the p
time to outages, once identified, is often within 30 minutes.
The time required to restore TSeicaleresolutaon time for �` ents
the nature of the problem. YP
service interruption is less than request wo hours.
thereditomjustm
for customers are processed up
Customer Service and Repair peroaapp�avala to grant up
to five days credit without a supervisor's
ower
Included in the area of repair response is standby p power
lies. The installation of battery operated standby p
supp improve
supplies in the system will �hetcurrentdinstallatianeof these
overall plant reliability.
power
supplies follows major distribution trunk routes an
e to
specific areas that have demon This placement assuresethe
problems with commercial power.
of our customers. Cablevision
maximum benefit for the majority supply units from a variety
continues to evaluate standby Power supply available today has
of vendors. While no standby P we will
proven to fully meet our staonaradmeasuredlbasis.
continue to install standby
19
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
Cablevision of Durham has and will continue an ongoing technical
maintenance procedure. The primary benefits of this program are
improved overall technical service to our subscribers and
increased usable life of cable plant facilities. Additionally,
it ensures all system technical specifications are met and
Cablevision of Durham is in compliance with the FCC require-
ments. A few pertinent examples are listed:
- Quality control tests for convertors
- Tower light monitoring
- Signal level for satellite delivered signals
- Satellite receiver monitoring
- Signal processor monitoring
- Modulator monitoring
- Standby power supply check
It is to the benefit of the longevity of our business to provide
the clearest, most reliable technical service to our subscribers
as possible. We will administer and implement maintenance pro-
cedures to meet FCC requirements, as well as keeping our
subscribers satisfied.
20
ORANGE COUNTY
CABLE REVISION SYSTEM
ORDINANCE SECTION IV
Section IV. Procedure for granting of franchise.
Subject to and in addition to the procedurE
contained in the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,
U.S.C. Section 521 et seq•:
5
�s
17
e
r
(a) Within twelve months from the adoption of this
ordinance and whenever necessary thereafter, Orange Count
shall first y
publish a notice seeking applications for
franchises in a newspaper of general circulation ou throu h
the United States and in a newspaper of general throughout
circulation
throughout Orange County. This notice shall be published a
least once a t
week for four (4) consecutive weeks. This
notice shall contain the name of the county, the name and
address of the issuing board, the name and address of a
representative of the county who can answer inquiries about
the county, in brief the
proposed terms of each franchise
advertised which terms shall be a minimum requirement for
issuance of a franchise, and the date on which the
applications for issuance of a franchise will be opened
which date shall be at least forty -five (45) days after fir ,
publication of notice. The st
county shall have available upon
request, from and after the date of the first publication of
the notice seeking applications, a detailed statement of
minimum requirements which must be met for issuance the
franchise advertised of each
and notice of this fact shall be
published as part of the above notice.
(b) On the date specified in the notice for the
opening of applications all applications received will be
opened and placed on file in the office of the clerk to
board of commissioners for ten (10) consecutive calendar he
where the ar days
y will be open for public inspection during normal
q
business hours. After the applications are opened, a notice
shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation
in orange County stating that said applications are open to
public inspection.
' rd may grant a franchise or franchises,
(c) The boa
after a full and complete public hearing affording all
interested parties, including the applicants and the public,
the right to be heard. The board will grant a franchise to
the applicant or applicants whose proposed system is in the
best interest of the public and the potential subscribers
within the area covered by the franchise. If the board
determines that no system proposed by any applicant is in the
best interest of the public, no franchise will be granted.
Any franchise granted shall contain recitations that
demonstrate that the board has examined and approved the
grantee's legal, financial and technical qualifications, as
well as the adequacy and feasibility of grantee's
construction arrangements.
(d) The county may request applications for a
portion of the unincorporated area of the county less than a
whole of the unincorporated area.
7
,f
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 21, 1990
SUBJECT: Efland- Cheeks Community Center and Park
DEPARTMENT: County Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) Map (Under separate cover)
2) Excerpt from Capital
Improvement Program
I
Action Agenda
Item No. x_
PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
INFORMATION CONTACT: Manager's - Office
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough
- 732 -8181
Chapel Hill
- 968 -4501
Mebane
- 227 -2031
Durham
- 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To consider requesting the - Orange County Board of Education to
lease land for construction of Community Center and Park.
BACKGROUND: On May 22, 1989 County staff presented to the County Board of
Education an overview of the proposed Efland- Cheeks Community
Center and Park and discussed the possibilities of leasing
approximately 10 acres of land to the County for this project.
The proposed site, contiguous to Efland- Cheeks Elementary
School, would house Joint Orange- Chatham Community Action
Agency (JOCCA) and Department on Aging sponsored senior
citizens activities in the Community Center. The park would
be western Orange County's first park and recreation facility.
The County School Board did not take action on the proposal,
however, concerns were raised about future expansion of the
elementary school on this site.
On January 22, 1990 County staff presented a revised proposal
requesting approximately 5.5 acres of land for the Center and
Park. The School Board approved a lease for 50 years for a
tract of land 300 feet north -south and 300 feet east -west or
approximately 2 acres.
County staff has indicated the School Board approved site is
inadequate for the proposed construction. The Board of
Commissioners has not taken action since the School Board's
decision. Staff seeks Board direction on the proposal. Funds
have been allocated in the Capital Improvements Program for
this project.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Request the County Board of Education to
reconsider leasing 10 acres of land to the County for
Construction of a Community Center and Park.
EFLAND-CHEEKS COMMUNITY CENTER
Construction of a 3,000 square foot new multipurpose community center in Efland Cheeks Township is
funded through this project. Presently, the only community resource center in western Orange County
is ,leased, and it does not meet Health codes nor is it handicapped accessible. That facility would be
replaced with this new center.
In addition to providing facilities for JOCCA and Senior Citizen Nutrition programs, the new center
will serve the Department on Aging and Recreation and Parks Department programs. I,t is planned for
this facility to be constructed on publicly owned property, and in conjunction with the proposed
Efland-Cheeks Community Park; therefore, land acquisition costs are not anticipated.
This project will be funded with pay- as-you -go money.
Thru
$9 -90 90 -91
PROJECT COSTS
Land
Architect 10,000
Construction 90,000 100,000
Other
Total Cost 100,000 100,000
FUNDING SOURCES
91 -92 92 -93 93 -94 94 -95 Total
10,000
190,000
0 0 0 0 200,000
Pay-As- You-Go 100,000 100,000 200,000
Bond Funds
Grant Funds
Fees
Total Funding 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 200,000
Orange County, Norm, Carolina
3
EFLAND - CHEEKS PARK
Funds for this project involve design and development of a neighborhood park within the Efland- Cheeks
Community. Proposed plans include expanding the recreational facilities located at the Efland- Cheeks
Elementary School. Planned improvements include the addition of play apparatus, picnic sites and
shelters, multipurpose play fields, basketball /multipurpose court, and tennis courts. The project
will be built to coordinate with both the school facilities and the new Efland Community Center, which
will share the same location.
This project will be financed with pay -as- you -go funds.
Thru
89 -90 90 -91 91 -92 92-93 93-94 94 -95 Total
PROJECT COSTS
Land
Architect 8,400 8,400
Construction 51,600 40,000 91,600
Other
Total Cost 0 60,000 40,000 0 0 0 100,000
FUNDING SOURCES
Pay- As-You -Go
Bond Funds
Grant Funds
Fees
60,000 40,000
Total Funding 0 60,000 40,000 0 0
Orange County, North Carolina
100,000
0 100,000
a
Nu
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date August 21, 1996
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY THOROUGHFARE PLAN
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
ATTACHMENT(S):
- Proposed Thoroughfare Plan Map
- Draft 5 -16 -90 PH Minutes
- Draft 7-- 10--90 PB Minutes
k1
Action A enda
Item #�,
PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No
INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Be
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To consider adoption of the proposed Orange County
Thoroughfare Plan. The existing Hillsborough
Thoroughfare Plan and applicable portions of the
proposed thoroughfare plans for the Durham - Chapel
Hill - Carrboro Urban Area and Alamance County Urban
Area have been merged with a County - specific road
.classification system for the rural areas of the
County.
The proposed thoroughfare plan was presented at public
hearing on May 16, 1990.
BACKGROUND: In 1987, the Town of Hillsborough appointed a study
committee to work with a representative of NCDOT to
develop a thoroughfare plan for the town. A plan was
developed and adopted in the fall of 1987 by the town
and State Board of Transportation. In that a
substantial portion of the area encompassed by the.
plan was in County planning jurisdiction, the County
was asked to adopt the plan too.
The County declined to adopt the plan, citing a desire
to see a coordinated plan for the entire County. At
that time, the Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrboro (DCHC)
Thoroughfare Plan was in the formative stages and
NCDOT had been requested to provide assistance to
Orange County in developing a plan for the rural areas
of the County.
In the spring of 1988 the Draft DCHC Plan went through
the first round of public hearings. A public hearing
was held in Hillsborough on March 30, 1988 with 90
citizens in attendance. The Outer Loop (Northern
Freeway) was the focal point of comments and
unanimously opposed by residents of Hideaway Estates,
Trinkus Manor, Hills of New Hope, and Pleasant Green
Road. They cited disruption of their communities,
adverse environmental impacts, violation of the Rural
Buffer concept, and lowered property values as their
main concerns. The Draft Plan was revised and
presented again to the County Commissioners on May 1,
1989. Extreme displeasure was expressed by the
Commissioners because the Outer Loop was still
depicted on the plan.
The Outer Loop was a topic for comment at a public
hearing held by the Durham County Commissioners on
March 21, 1990. Following public comment, the Durham
County Commissioners adopted a unanimous resolution
opposing construction of the Outer Loop through
northern Durham County.
In June 1988, NCDOT prepared a draft sketch plan for
the rural portions of the County's road system. The
plan lacked the specificity desired by the County and
the consulting firm of Kimley -Horn and Associates in
Raleigh was hired to assist the Transportation
Advisory Subcommittee (TAS) in developing a County -
specific road classification system for the portions
of the County not covered by an urban thoroughfare
plan. The classification system developed by Kimley-
Horn was coordinated with NCDOT to ensure acceptance
and proper match -up at the boundaries of the urban
plans.
The Planning Board considered this item on July 10,
1990 and recommended the following:
1) Adoption of the Orange County - specific road
classification as developed by the TAS and
consultant and coordinated with NCDOT.
2) Withhold approval of the Hillsborough Thoroughfare
Plan until a meeting(s) between the Hillsborough
Town Council and Orange County Commissioners can
be scheduled to address:
a) the proposed Hillsborough "Loop" system and
interchange modifications in the Efland area;
b) Elizabeth Brady road extension and bridge;
C) in -town traffic patterns in Hillsboroughiand
d) Davis Road
3
` 3) Approval of the DCHC Plan conditioned upon removal
of the Orange County portion of the Outer Loop and
classification of Bethel- Hickory Grove Church Road
as an urban minor thoroughfare to promote
consistency at the plan boundary.
4) Approval of the Alamance County Urban Area Plan
contingent upon a re- assessment of the need for
the Mattress Factory Road interchange.
5) No further action on the Draft NCDOT Thoroughfare
Plan until the Hillsborough /Orange County issues
have been resolved and the Draft plan has received
a more thorough review by the TAS including such
items as comments by TAS member Wendy Olson
regarding pedestrian and bicyclist safety on
bridges.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval per the
recommendation of the Planning Board.
DK9:CCTPLAN.DOC
1
ORANGE COUNTY ROAD MAP -.....�
Kim
PROPOSED ROAD FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
LEGEND
iEAN STUIN
iEA BOUNDARY
VAL ARTERIAL
INOR ARTERIAL Admmmm�
COLLECTOR swum %•
R LOCAL ROAD nmmmm�unm
IR LOOAL ROAD
EXICTING .UTU.rt
ROAN MINOR
HOROUGHFARE
ROAN MAJOR
HOROUGHFARE wSNER! ORw
FREEWAY
NOTC URBAN TNO- OUGNNNI CL- SUIFIC -Tian
Figimi
4
S
W
DRAFT 5 -16 -90 PH Minutes
5
page 2
Planning Board for a recommendation to be presented to the Board of
Commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
B. ORANGE COUNTY THOROUGHFARE PLAN
The existing Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan and applicable
portions of the proposed thoroughfare plans for the Durham - Chapel
Hill - Carrboro Urban Area and Alamance County urban Area have been merged
with a County - specific road classification system for the rural areas of
the County. The Transportation Advisory subcommittee expressed a
concern about the plan as it relates to the Hillsborough plan. To
alleviate the traffic congestion on Churton Road, it is proposed that
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension connect with St. Mary's Road. The TAS
identified several concerns with this proposal. The Eno River and its
floodplains cross this proposed road and a bridge would need to be
built. Also, the proposed road would come very close to some historic
properties as well as several established homes in that area.
The western bypass that extends from Coleman Loop Road to
U.S. 70 was another concern expressed by the TAS. The primary
consideration was potential water quality impacts on the upper Eno
Watershed.
The work done by Kimley Horn and Associates, the State and
the Town do not match up. The TAS requested that the classification be
consistent from one jurisdictional line to the next. Two concerns were
expressed about the Efland Interchange and I -85 widening which the
Commissioners passed a resolution on in March. Gene Bell mentioned that
there is some inconsistency in the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan as it
relates to Davis Road. Mr. Norwood from DOT stated that the section
from Orange Grove Road to Old 86 would be two lanes within a 100 -foot
right -of -way. The section from Old 86 to New 86 would eventually be
three lanes.
With reference to the Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrboro (DCHC)
plan, Gene Bell explained that the plan is based on existing land use
patterns and existing and future traffic flow. On this item the
Planning Staff recommended:
1) Adoption of the Orange County functional road
classification;
2) adoption of the DCHC Plan following Chapel Hill adoption,
provided that the Outer Loop is removed in its entirety
and there is a consistent classification applied to
Dairyland Road;
3) adoption of the Hillsborough Plan, provided that, there
is a re- assessment of the need for the Western By -Pass. There is a
consistent classification applied to High Rock Road, and
a recognition of the County Commissioners resolution of
March 5, 1990 concerning best management practices and
continued access under I -85 as part of the programed
improvements for I -85; and
contingent upon aaoreassessment of athecneedufor theaMattresslFactor
interchan a as e y Road
g xpressed by the Planning Board at their
I
page 3 `
meeting of March 19, 1990.
Commissioner Marshall suggested including in the recommendation
for the adoption of the Hillsborough Plan, the perimeters that Mr.
Norwood has indicated are intended for Davis Road.
Commissioner Hartwell expressed a concern about the
inconsistencies between the two maps. Since the map is the plan, he
would like to see the map corrected. Mr. Norwood assured the
Commissioners that the inconsistencies will be corrected on the map.
With regard to Davis Road, Commissioner Hartwell stated there was
a map drawn by Edison Johnston of the western bypass which showed that
the road went around that area so it did not penetrate that watershed.
He feels that some descriptive language would be helpful to clarify this
route. The Elizabeth Brady Road crossing of the Eno would require a
bridge and depending on the way the bridge is built could have little
impact on the river.
In response to a question from a citizen, Mr. Rogers stated tha
the selection of the Brady Road Extension as the western bypass is sti 1
the Town's choice.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
ELIZABETH FOX of Foxhill Farms spoke in favor of excluding the
proposed Northside Drive from the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan. She
stated that she nor her husband want the associated property
restrictions on a large portion of their acreage for a proposed road
that may never by necessary, particularly in light of additional lanes
and other improvements proposed for St. Mary's Road.
KIRK PELLAND spoke about the inconsistencies between the Hillsborough
Plan and the DOT Plan. He questioned the inconsistency of a two lane
road,with a 100 -foot right -.of --way. He asked that the whole idea of a
Davis Road beltline be reconsidered. The development south and west of
Hillsborough is primarily residential. The roads in that area serve
very well and I -40 is a beltline that goes across Hillsborough. He
asked who this road will serve. Mr. Norwood responded that the looped
facility would carry the traffic around town. It is envisioned to serve
the development already there and additional development. This will
upgrade those roads to service those people in that area. It is not
envisioned to carry a large volume of traffic. Kirk Pelland
reemphasized that he does not want this beltline and does not think it
is necessary.
JAY ZARAGOZA referred to the outer loop and the fact that there are
a
lot of people who do not want it. He recommended that the commissioners
fully understand the implications of approving the Thoroughfare Plan and
develop policies and procedures such as compensation for landowners for
incorporating the proposed highway and decide how the exact alignment
will be determined. He asked that the Board thoroughly analyze which
highways they want built -- it is easy to add to a thoroughfare plan but
hard to delete something from an approved plan.
ROLLAND WRENN who lives on Davis Road spoke about the rural character
of Davis Road. She read a prepared statement. When she was first
page 4
informed about the Thoroughfare Plan she was assured by Fred Cates that
as long as he was mayor, no thoroughfare plan would touch Davis Road.
She objects to DOT taking 20 feet of her land for the road right -of -way.
She asked that the Board and DOT leave Davis Road the way it is. She
asked that the portion of the plan dealing with Davis Road be deleted.
KEN FAUCETTE spoke against the Davis Road proposal.
C. D. JACK KNIGHT. JR. lives on the proposed extension of Elizabeth
Brady Road. He spoke in opposition of the extension of this road
through Highland Loop Road to Highway 70. He asked that the individual
members of the County Planning Board and the County Commissioners drive
through this community before they vote on this extension. This private
road which is 30 feet wide is isolated and very peaceful. He feels that
the value of the homes and property on this road will be affected by a
road that
will destroy the privacy of the community. The proposed 100 -foot right -
of -way would include a two lane bridge crossing the Eno River. He
questioned the existing right -of -way for the Elizabeth Brady Road on the
South side of the Eno River. If that is less than 100 -feet, he does not
understand the need to take their individual homes and property and
request a 100 -foot right -of -way on their side of the road. He expressed
concern about the alignment of the extension of the Elizabeth Brady Road
and asked that it be given special consideration so they may retain some
degree of privacy for the existing homes in the area. He referred to a
map which shows that the location of the road does not adequately
address the issue of least disturbance to existing homes in an
appropriate manner. Mr. Rogers from DOT indicated that none of the
homes in that area would be destroyed or damaged if at all possible.
Knight does not feel that the proposal has addressed this adequately.
The existing map shows the road going through some of the yards and in
his case through his house. He distributed a map and made additional
comments about the location of the proposed extension of Elizabeth Brady
Road in relation to the existing homes. He asked that special attention
be given to this alignment. In conclusion, he stated that he nor any of
his neighbors want the road through their secluded area. However, if
the road is to be built he asked that special attention be given to the
alignment and the importance it has on their private lives.
WILLIAM CROWTHER stated that the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan dated
September, 1989 is not the one adopted by the Town of Hillsborough in
1987. The one dated 1987 is the only official thoroughfare plan in
existence and has not been changed by any vote since that time. He
noted that the plan dated 1989 should be titled Hillsborough
Thoroughfare Plan Study Report. He noted that an explanation of purpose
needs to be included in the 1989 document. He asked that the original
document be reviewed before consideration of adoption by the County.
MARY BALLARD stated that as a resident of Elizabeth Brady Road she
opposes the alignment of the road and asked that it go across vacant
land which would not disturb anyone.
ED BAILEY who lives on Davis Road spoke in objection of the road
going through that area.
DIANE FAUCETTE who lives on Davis Road spoke about her concern
state wanting so much right -of -way on both sides of the road. It
take her pond on one side and part of her house on the other.
page
5r
of T wou
ANN NICHOLSON who lives on Davis Road is totally against the proposal
for that road. She would like for her neighborhood to stay rural.
TOM NICHOLSON spoke in opposition of the proposal for Davis Road. fie
expressed concern about the State wanting a 100 -foot right -of -way.
JOE & LOIS TAYLOR live on Olde Turner Road and spoke in opposition of
a freeway going through that area.
WAYNE PATTERSON lives on Highland Loop Road and spoke in opposition
of a road going through that area.
TONY RALL spoke in opposition of the northern loop. He is concerne
about the cost of the proposal. There is a pattern is southern cities
that the growth is in the southern part of the city. He asked that th
Commissioners say no to the transportation plan until the northern loo
is deleted. DOT is not listening and by saying NO an impact may be
made.
NANCY SMITH lives on Highland Loop Road and is opposed to the
proposal. She agreed with everything that Jack Knight said. She asked
why they chose a road that would need a bridge since Lawrence Road
already has an existing bridge. Mr. Norwood stated that the cost
effectiveness of using the Bridge on Lawrence versus Brady Road is that
they are trying to have both roads carry some of the traffic that would
occur in that corridor. He feels that traffic will come in from the
northeast along St. Mary's Road. One of the drawbacks on Lawrence Road
is that the south end does not tie directly back into NC 86. Brady Road
does tie into 86. They are considering the traffic that would be served
and feel that the extra cost for the bridge can be justified.
BETTY SMITH stated she agreed with the comments made by Jack Knight,
She invited the Commissioners to drive this road. The homes on this
road mean everything to them and she asked that the road not be put
through that area.
T. C. WILLIAMS owns land on Davis Road and hopes to build his
retirement home there. He does not see the necessity of having a
100 -foot right -of -way. He sees no need for a thoroughfare on that si
of town. There are four lanes on I -40 and there will be six lanes on
1 -85.
PAT DAVTS spoke as a representative of the Economic Development
Commission. In summary he stated that the proposal is sufficient to
support the types of economic development that are envisioned by the
Economic Development Strategic Plan. With reference to the road
classification system, he supports the effort to develop a road
classification system for the county and the effort to inventory all
page 6
public roadways within the County's jurisdiction. This will help
develop an adequate transportation system over the long term. He made
reference to the Buckhorn Road bridge which is adjacent to the Efland
Cheeks economic development node. A road network would be needed in
that area if it were ultimately developed for economic development
activities. EDC concurs with the Board's request that DOT consider the
need for incorporating some Best Management Practices in that potential
design.
JANE JONES spoke in opposition of the St. Mary's Road extension. She
lives on Rt. 70 near Highland Loop Road. She feels the Eno River should
not be disturbed further. She asked for the cost of building this
thoroughfare stating that when Churton is congested, it is only for a
short time and does not warrant people being uprooted. She asked that
the Commissioners visit Highland Loop Road. She suggested that the
money it would take to build this thoroughfare be used for education.
Barry Jacobs asked how Elizabeth Brady Road was selected as the
preferred bypass route when Hillsborough has not adopted that as such.
He would like for DOT to meet with the Planning Board and list the
alternatives for this bypass. He questioned Hillsborough's efforts at
solving the traffic congestion on Churton Street. Mr. Norwood stated
that the extension of Elizabeth Brady Road is a proposal on the
thoroughfare plan that says that at some point in time, which may be
tomorrow or twenty years from now, there will be a need for a facility
on the east side of town to alleviate the traffic on Churton. There is
currently no funds set aside by the Department of Transportation to
improve Elizabeth Brady Road. The Town of Hillsborough has asked the
Board of Transportation to consider funding this project as a priority.
The Board will take this under advisement and it may depending on many
factors be placed on the transportation improvement program. As of
today, there are no plans to construct a foot on that road. DOT would
like to work with these people to miss as many houses as possible. They
are concerned about the people who live on this road. Should it be
programed for construction, there will be a very detailed environmental
impact statement done that will look at all the impacts, both social and
to the physical environment and to the traffic need itself to insure
that the road is needed and exactly what alignment they should take to
minimize the cost of the project. They will ask for input from the Town
and the County Commissioners at the time an Environmental Impact Study
is done. On Davis Drive, it is not their desire to make this a 4 -lane
facility nor does he feel they will buy 20 feet of right -of -way on both
sides of the road. The 100 -foot of right --of -way that is proposed is in
a planner's mind in looking to the future.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked what DOT envisions for the Town of
Hillsborough and suggested that a meeting be held with the Town to talk
about solutions to the traffic congestion on Churton. There may be a
solution that would not involve running roads through the countryside.
Mr. Norwood indicated they would rather solve problems with management
of the existing system of roads. The capacity for Churton now is about
9600. In twenty years they expect that traffic to be about 20,000.
Commissioner Halkiotis suggested that the Town and County look at the
parking problems downtown and talk about solutions.
page
JAY. ZARAGOZA understands that the right -of --way for St. Mary's Road i
150 feet which means four lanes and this would be an alternate bypass t
get from 70 to north Durham.
Mr. Norwood referred to the staff recommendation of deleting the
outer loop and the roads that will ultimately face the greatest
consequence from that is Elizabeth Brady Road and its extension and
Lawrence Road. He asked that this be considered when making a decisio .
on this outer loop.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation
no sooner than August 6, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
a. Article 13 Orange Counter Zoning Ordinance
b. Section IV Orange Count Subdivision Req_ulations
These proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance and the Orange County Subdivision Regulations include the
requirements for a Traffic ,Impact Study. The proposed amendments woulc
require that a Traffic Impact Study be performed for zoning changes,
special use permits, and site plans that would generate traffic in
excess of 800 trips per day. Amendments proposed to the TIS.
requirements deal primarily with clarification. However, there are soi
changes of a substantive nature, most notably:
1) The inclusion of 100 trips during the AM or PM peak -hour
of highway traffic as a threshold for requiring a TIS;
2) using level of service D as the measure of deficiency in
urban or developed areas; and
3) adding Table 13.1, Typical Thresholds for Required
Preparation of a Traffic Impact Study, to the Zoning ordinance.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
PAT DAVIS stated that the EDC has some concerns about the existing
ordinance and the proposed amendments. They agree with the concept th,
the impacts of land development activities upon all transportation
systems be considered. They agree that developments should be require
to pay their fair share of these improvements that are needed to suppo
growth in accordance with the County's Land Use Plan. One concern is
that the way the ordinance is written, it appears that a developer cou
potentially be required to make substantially off site improvements of
their particular development parcel and that these improvements might
benefits adjacent property owners and could also benefit existing
residents as well. There is an equity issue that needs to be addresse
The ordinance doesn't clearly define how the improvements area is goin
to be established. It appears that it is somewhat open ended as to he
far away from the project site a developer must evaluate existing and
future traffic patterns. The limits of these areas need to be
established. The Ordinance appears to utilize some high vehicle trip
generation rates to establish a threshold for development that would x
1) -
it
Nk
e
-1
DRAFT 7 -10 -90 PB Minutes
2
Bell continued that this amendment introduces
more specificity in terms of road classifications
and defining the system of collector and
subcollector roads for incorporation into the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
The TAS recommended approval of the amendment on
June 6 and the Planning Staff concurred with that
recommendation.
Best asked if the tables with the Comparison of
Classifications would be included in the Land Use
Plan and Bell indicated it would be included.
Best continued that this would indicate changes
as they occurred in the Hillsborough and DCHC
Thoroughfare Plan and keep the County
Thoroughfare Plan aware of these changes. Bell
agreed that was the intent.
MOTION: Cantrell moved approval of the amendment.
Seconded by Boland.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(2) Orange County Thoroughfare Plan
10 Presentation by Gene Bell.
This item is to consider the proposed Orange
County Thoroughfare Plan. The existing
Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan and applicable
portions of the proposed thoroughfare plans for
the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Urban Area and
Alamance County Urban Area have been merged with
a County - specific road classification system for
the rural areas of the County.
A plan was developed and adopted by the Town
of Hillsborough and State Board of
Transportation. In that a substantial portion of
the area encompassed by the plan was in County
planning jurisdiction, the County was asked to
adopt the plan too.
The County declined to adopt the plan, citing a
desire to see a coordinated plan for the entire
County. At that time, the Durham - Chapel Hill -
Carrboro (DCHC) Thoroughfare Plan was in the
formative stages and NCDOT had been requested to
provide assistance to Orange County in developing
a plan for the rural areas of the County.
In the spring of 1988 the Draft DCHC Plan went
through the first round of public hearings. A
11
2�
3
public hearing was held in Hillsborough on March
30, 1988 with 90 citizens in attendance. The
Outer Loop (Northern Freeway) was the focal point
of comments and unanimously opposed by residents
of Hideaway Estates, Trinkus Manor, Hills of New
Hope, and Pleasant Green Road. They cited
disruption of their communities, adverse
environmental impacts, violation of the
Rural Buffer concept, and lowered property values
as their main concerns. The Draft Plan was
revised and presented again to the County
Commissioners on May 1, 1989. Extreme
displeasure was expressed by the Commissioners
because the Outer Loop was still depicted on the
plan.
The Outer Loop was a topic for comment at a
public hearing held by the Durham County
Commissioners on March 21, 1990. Following
public comment, the Durham County Commissioners
adopted a unanimous resolution opposing
construction of the Outer Loop through northern
Durham County.
In June 1988, NCDOT prepared a draft sketch plan
for the rural portions of the County's road
system. The plan lacked the specificity desired
by the County and the consulting firm of Kimley-
Horn and Associates in Raleigh was hired to
assist the Transportation Advisory Subcommittee
(TAS) in developing a County - specific road
classification system for the portions of the
County not covered by an urban thoroughfare plan.
The classification system developed by Kimley -
Horn was coordinated with NCDOT to ensure
acceptance and proper match -up at the boundaries
of the urban plans.
The TAS considered this item on June 6, 1990
(minutes an attachment on pages ) and
recommended the following:
1) Adoption of the Orange County specific road
classification as developed by the TAS and
consultant and coordinated with NCDOT.
2) Withhold approval of the Hillsborough
Thoroughfare Plan until a meeting($) between
the Hillsborough Town Council and Orange
County Commissioners can be scheduled to
address:
a) the proposed Hillsborough "Loop" system
and interchange modifications in the
13
Efland area;
b) Elizabeth Brady Road extension and
bridge; and
c) in -town traffic patterns in Hillsborough.
3) Approval of the DCHC Plan conditioned upon
removal of the Orange County portion of the
Outer Loop and classification of Bethel -
Hickory Grove Church Road as an urban minor
thoroughfare to promote consistency at the
plan boundary.
4) Approval of the Alamance County portion once
a reassessment of the need for the Mattress
Factory Road Interchange is done.
The Planning Staff concurs with the TAS
recommendation and further recommends no action
be taken on the Draft NCDOT Thoroughfare Plan
until the issues identified have been resolved
and the Draft Plan has received a more thorough
review by the TAS. This would include
consideration of items such as the comments by
Wendy Olson that there was nothing in the
specifications that suggested there was any area
for pedestrians or bicyclists to safely cross
bridges. A copy of the suggested bridge
standards from Ms. Olson is attached to these
minutes on pages
Best noted the concerns with the Hillsborough
Thoroughfare Plan and the lack of Best Management
Practices (BMP's) around the Efland Interchange.
The request made previously by the Planning Board
of NCDOT that walkways be left open under I -85
connecting West 10 Road
and Ben Johnson Road is an issue that the TAS
will also be discussing with the Town of
Hillsborough,
MOTION: Reid moved approval as recommended by the TAS and
Planning Staff. Seconded by Eddleman.
VOTE: unanimous.
Beth McIver, liaison between EDC and the Planning
Staff spoke to clarify comments by Ted Abernathy,
EDC Director regarding the flexibility of study
area definition in Prince George's County,
Maryland. Mr. Abernathy said that while the
study area is flexible, it is, by far, the most
controversial part of the legislation.
I
O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date August 2
Action Agenda
Item # X-E_
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.6 TRANSPORTATION OF THE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell
- Existing Section 2.6
- Proposed Amendments to Section
2.6
- Draft 5 -16 -90 PH Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
- Draft 7 -10 -90 PB Minutes Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 --2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To consider adoption of a proposed amendment to the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan which
defines County- specific road classifications and a
collector /subcollector road system.
The proposed amendment was presented at public hearing
on May 16, 1990.
BACKGROUND: Section 2.6 of the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan as adopted in 1981 classifies
highways broadly as interstate, arterial, and
collector. Several years ago, the Planning Board
identified the need for more specificity in
classifying the County's road network taking into
account the character as well as the gross carrying
capacity and current traffic flow on existing roads.
It was also the desire of the Planning Board to define
a classification system that would lend itself to
inclusion in a county -wide thoroughfare plan to be
produced in cooperation with NCDOT.
To aid in developing the functional classification
system, the following roadway characteristics were
inventoried: length, type of surface, number of
lanes, road width, shoulder width, right -of -way width,
adjacent land use, extent of development, speed limit,
traffic control, roadway alignment, and traffic
volumes (historic, existing, and projected).
The Transportation Advisory Subcommittee (TAS) working
with the consulting firm of Kimley -Horn used the
above information in conjunction with the existing
classification system and NCDOT recommendations to
define the following County- specific classifications:
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Major Local
Minor Local
The classifications were then applied to the rural
road network. For areas of County jurisdiction
inside the urban thoroughfare plan boundaries, a
comparison with the urban classifications was done and
recommendations based upon the County - specific
classifications were made.
Also included in developing a County - specific road
classification was defining, and analyzing the
adequacy of, a system of Collector and Subcollector
roads. Collector roads were identified in the
functional classification system. Subcollectors were
deemed to be the Major Local roads. Kimley -Horn
determined that the existing Collector /Subcollector
system was adequate to serve expected development and
densities as projected in the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. They did however, identify seven
large blocks of rural land (2,800 to 3,000 acres) in
Bingham and Cedar Grove Townships where additional
through -road construction may be needed in the future
depending upon the intensity of development.
The Planning Board considered this item on July 10,
1990 and recommended approval of the proposed
amendment.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
amendment to Section 2.6 of the Land Use Element.
DK9:CCSEC2 -6.DOC
3
*2.6 TRANSPORTATION *Amended 8/1/89
GENERAL FRAMEWORK
While providing a vital service function, the means and manner by which
people and goods are transported influences the physical development
pattern throughout Orange County. Areas which are served by the most
convenient transportation access are the most appropriate locations for
centers of employment, leisure activities, schools, services, and
commercial and industrial activity. Residents of the County require an
adequate transportation network to insure convenient and safe access to
such activities and, generally, their locational decisions are
influenced by such transportation related factors.
The interrelatedness of land use and transportation are key factors in
the County's overall Comprehensive Plan. The separate considerations of
the transportation system and process will be further detailed in the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This element is
undergoing formulation at this time, and should be completed in late
1989.
The primary means of transportation in the County is the road system.
The system serves two main functions: traffic movement and land
service. Given the potential incompatibility of these two functions,
efforts should be directed at balancing the two functions through an
integrated system. This requires consideration of the location and
distribution of the population; the intensity and spatial distribution
of land uses and their potential for traffic generation; and the
economic character of the County.
The relationship between residential and commercial uses and the
adequacy of the road system is particularly important as the system
integrates and links such uses, providing access between homes and the
goods and services needed and demanded by County residents. However,
the adequacy of the road system can be determined from two
perspectives. The individual county resident evaluates the system on
the basis of user objectives such as speed, convenience, safety and
cost. In broader terms, the system is evaluated on the basis of its
impact on the economic growth potential and the general ambiance or
environmental character of the County. It is clearly important that
neither of these factors can be excluded in the provision of
transportation services for Orange County as they are interrelated and
interconnected elements.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ROAD NETWORK IN THE COUNTY
Orange County contains a relatively adequate road network. Major
population and employment centers are linked throughout most areas of
the County - primarily by Interstates 85 and 40. The presence of a
widespread state - maintained rural highway system has significantly
"Opened up" the rural areas of the County for residential development.
Subsequently, residential pressures in these rural areas have created
additional pressures and demands for commercial development serving the
needs of the residents.
The road network in Orange County is focused on the urban and urbanized
2.6 -1
a"
areas of the County as evidenced in the Highway Classification System
Map.
Major roads throughout the County provide access to and link the rural
areas of the County with the Towns of Hillsborough, Chapel Hill and
Carrboro. The newly - completed Interstate 40, NC 86 and SR 1009 (Old NC
86) link Hillsborough with the Chapel Hill - Carrboro urbanizing area.
In addition to providing intra- county service, inter- county service
linking Orange County residential areas with employment centers in
Durham, Research Triangle Park and Raleigh is facilitated along I -40,
US 15/501, NC 54, NC 1737 (Erwin Road) and NC 1718 (Mt. Sinai Road). As
Orange County is characterized by a negative net commutation pattern,
with Orange County residents employed outside the County numbering more
than non- residents employed in orange County, the adequacy of the road
network providing access to these employment centers is particularly
important. In turn, the existing road network influences and encourages
residential /workplace dispersion, both within Orange County and between
Orange County and adjacent counties containing important employment
centers, by facilitating such commutation patterns. Already, Interstate
40 has significantly impacted the existing traffic patterns by
providing greater access to major traffic generators and encouraging
potential development in areas adjacent to the route.
The relationship between residential and commercial uses throughout the
County is a bit more problematic, particularly in the fringe areas just
outside the urban and urbanizing portion of the County along
heavily- traveled roads. These roads are subject to the sprawl of
commercial activities in an unsightly manner along long stretches of
the road. In rural areas, however, the provision of commercial
activities in appropriate locations to serve the needs of local
residents is important to satisfy quality of life concerns and minimize
the adverse effects of the relative isolation of these residents from
major population centers in the County.
The goals and policies of the Orange County Land Use Element seek to
focus commercial activities in a concentrated manner at and near the
intersections of important highways and roads, thereby providing for
the needs of the local residents and minimizing the inconvenient, land
consuming and unsightly sprawl of such uses along the transportation
system. Certain important intersections in the County have been
designated activity nodes at which non - residential development of
various types and varying levels of intensity would be permitted within
a given distance of the intersection. In essence, the transportation
system would serve to provide good access to these activities and would
support the land use policies directed at achieving the pattern of
development desired in the County.
ORANGE COUNTY HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
In order to'assess the capacity of the existing transportation system
to accommodate existing and future land use in term of access and
mobility, a highway classification system is required. The highway
classification system describes the roads comprising the transportation
network by a functional hierarchy; that is, the level of service
provided. In the classification, the higher the road classification,
the greater the access provided to land uses; the lower the road
2.6 -2
ki
classification, the greater the land service provided.
As the Orange County Land Use Element is concerned primarily with those
areas outside the corporate and planning boundaries of the urban areas,
the focus of the classification scheme is the rural road network. A
modified version of the N.C. Highway Functional Classification Systeml
was used by the Orange County Planning Department to describe the
County's road network. The system describes parts of the road network
according to the service they are intended to supply based on the
factors of access and mobility. The classification of roads reflects
the integration of road types in providing transportation service
throughout the County.
The classification scheme used describes roads according to the
following categories: Interstate, arterial, collector and local. The
Interstate and arterial highways provide the best service (shortest
travel times) to and from important employment, shopping, educational'
and population centers. They are characterized by relatively high
travel speeds with minimum interference to through movement. Collector
roads provide areas with access to the major road system. Local roads
are least important in terms of traffic movement, but provide the
greatest service in terms of land area, in aggregate providing large
land areas with access to more important roads. In terms of total road
miles, local roads will account for the largest proportion of road
miles in the County given the large land areas they serve, while
arterials will account for the smallest proportion.
The classification of roads in Orange County is presented on the
following page and on the Orange County Highway Classification System
Map on the following page.
OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS
Orange County's transportation system is dominated by the road network,
but is not entirely defined by it. Rail facilities and air services
additionally comprise the transportation system and contribute to the
movement of people and goods through Orange County.
Rail Facilities. Orange County is served by the Southern Railroad which
traverses the central portion of the County in an east /west direction
through Eno Hillsborough and Cheeks Townships parallel to the I -85 /US
70 corridor. The Southern Railroad also serves the southern portion of
the Carrboro /Chapel Hill area, although this segment of the line is now
rarely used.
Air Seri v, ices. Orange County is served by publicly -owned airport. Horace
Williams, a general aviation airport, is owned and operated by the
University of North Carolina. Concentrated residential development has
surrounded the airport during recent decades and resulted in conflict
between the airport and its environs. In an effort to reduce the level
of conflict the University of North Carolina has elected to impose a
50 -craft limit on based aircraft and a corresponding ceiling on
aircraft activity, effectively limiting the airport to one -third of its
1- Highway Functional Classification: Concepts; Criteria and
Procedures. U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway
Administration. July 1974.
2.6 -3
6�
HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
INTERSTATE -- I -85
ARTERIAL -- US
NC
NC
NC
US
NC
NC
NC
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
70
86
57
54
15 -501
49
157
751
1002 (St. Mary's Road)
1005 (Greensboro Road)
1008 (Mt. Carmel Church Road)
1009 (old NC 86)
1733 -35 (Weaver Dairy Road)
1737 (Erwin Road)
1777 (Homestead Road)
1919 , (Smith Level Road)
1942 (Jones Ferry Road)
COLLECTOR -- SR 1001 (Walnut Grove Church Road)
SR 1003 (Guess Road)
SR 1004 '(Corbett Ridge Road)
SR 1004 -1357 (Efland Cedar Grove Road)
SR 1006 (Orange Grove Road)
SR 1007 '(Mebane -Oaks Road)
SR 1102 (Dodson's Crossroads North /South)
SR 1113 -15 (Arthur Minnis Road)
SR 1114 (Buckhorn Road)
SR 1117 (Oak Grove Church Road)
SR 1120 (Mt. Willing Road)
NC 1142. (Bowman Road)
NC 1144 (West Ten Road)
SR 1177 (Dairyland Road)
SR 1306 (Lebanon Road East /West)
SR 1343 (Mill Creek Road)
SR 1352 (Carr Store Road)
SR 1364 (Lynch Store Road)
SR 1507 (Wilkerson Road)
SR 1538 (New Sharon Church Road)
SR 1543 (Little River Church Road)
SR 1545 (Saw Mill Road)
SR 1548 (Schley Road)
SR 1956 (Crawford Dairy Road)
SR 1567 (Pleasant Green Road).
SR 1569 (Cole Mill Road)
SR 1710 (Old NC 10)
SR 1718 (Mt. Sinai Road)
SR 1723 (New Hope Church Road)
SR 1730731 (Whitfield Road)
SR 1939 (Poythress Road)
SR 1940 (Damascus Church Road)
SR 1951 (White Cross Road)
2.6 -4
7
full service capacity. This action has not assuaged the concerns of
residents of surrounding neighborhoods who continue to exert pressure
aimed at closing the airport. Recent discussions about the phase -out of
the airport have contributed to the controversy surrounding the need
and location of new air facilities in the County providing the same
level of service. A study was commissioned in 1988 to find another
location for a County airport, but no suitable site could be
identified and selected.
Three small privately owned and operated airstrips are located
throughout the County serving a small amount of air traffic use. These
facilities are Hogan, Neville and Rice's airstrips.
2.6 -5
II
,I
z
0
U
W
C]
z
Q
rr
0
ORANGE COUNTY HIGHWAY
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
ARTERIAL ROADS INTERSTATE HWY, SCALE
............... COLLECTOR ROAD 0 11000' 16000•
- -- MAY '1981 ...v�� rr...
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 2.6 TRANSPORTATION OF THE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Listed on the attached sheets are proposed amendments to
Section 2.6 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan. The amendments involve replacing the
section entitled ORANGE COUNTY HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
(including the road listing and map) with the sections
entitled COUNTY - SPECIFIC ROAD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM and
COLLECTOR /SUBCOLLECTOR ROAD SYSTEM from the Kimley -Horn
report.
nn /
1
2.6 TRANSPORTATION
GENERAL FRAMEWORK
While providing a vital service function, the means and manner by
which people and goods are transported influences the physical
development pattern throughout Orange County. Areas which are served
by the most convenient transportation access are the most appropriate
locations for centers of employment, leisure activities, schools,
services, and commercial and industrial activity. Residents of the
County require an adequate transportation network to insure
convenient and safe access to such activities and, generally, their
locational decisions are influenced by such transportation related
factors.
The interrelatedness of land use and transportation are key factors
in the County's overall Comprehensive Plan. The separate
considerations of the transportation system and process will be
further detailed in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan. This element is undergoing formulation at this time, and should
be completed in late 1989.
The primary means of transportation in the County is the road system.
The system serves two main functions: traffic movement and land
service. Given the potential incompatibility of these two functions,
efforts should be directed at balancing the two functions through an
integrated system. This requires consideration of the location and
distribution of the population; the intensity and spatial
distribution of land uses and their potential for traffic generation;
and the economic character of the County.
The relationship between residential and commercial uses and the
adequacy of the road system is particularly important as the system
integrates and links such uses, providing access between homes and
the goods and services needed and demanded by County residents.
However, the adequacy of the road system can be determined from two
perspectives. The individual county resident evaluates the system on
the basis of user objectives such as speed, convenience, safety and
cost. In broader terms, the system is evaluated on the basis of its
impact on the economic growth potential and the general ambiance or
environmental character of the County. It is clearly important that
neither of these factors can be excluded in the provision of
transportation services for Orange County as they are interrelated
and interconnected elements.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ROAD NETWORK IN THE COUNTY
Orange County contains a relatively adequate road network. Major
population and employment centers are linked throughout most areas of
the County - primarily by Interstates 85 and 40. The presence of a
widespread state - maintained rural highway system has significantly
"opened up" the rural areas of the County for residential
development. Subsequently, residential pressures in these rural
,1
areas have created additional pressures and demands for commercial
development serving the needs of the residents.
The road network in Orange County is focused on the urban and
urbanized areas of the County as evidenced in the Highway
Classification System Map.
Major roads throughout the County provide access to and link the
rural areas of the County with the Towns of Hillsborough, Chapel Hill
and Carrboro. The newly - completed Interstate 40, NC 86 and SR 1009
(Old NC 86) link Hillsborough with the Chapel Hill- Carrboro
urbanizing area.
In addition to providing intra- county service, inter- county service
linking Orange County residential areas with employment centers in
Durham, Research Triangle Park and Raleigh is facilitated along I -40,
US 15/501, NC 54, NC 1737 (Erwin Road) and NC 1718 (Mt. Sinai Road).
As Orange County is characterized by a negative net commutation
pattern, with Orange County residents employed outside the County
numbering more than non - residents employed in Orange County, the
adequacy of the road network providing access to these employment
centers is particularly important. In turn, the existing road network
influences and encourages residential /workplace dispersion, both
within Orange County and between Orange County and adjacent counties
containing important employment centers, by facilitating such
commutation patterns. Already, Interstate 40 has significantly
impacted the existing traffic patterns by providing greater access to
major traffic generators and encouraging potential development in
areas adjacent to the route.
The relationship between residential and commercial uses throughout
the County is a bit more problematic, particularly in the fringe
areas just outside the urban and urbanizing portion of the County
along heavily- traveled roads. These roads are subject to the sprawl
of commercial activities in an unsightly manner along long stretches
of the road. In rural-areas, however, the provision of commercial
activities in appropriate locations to serve the needs of local
residents is important to satisfy quality of life concerns and
minimize the adverse effects of the relative isolation of these
residents from major population centers in the County.
The goals and policies of the Orange County Land Use Element seek to
focus commercial activities in a concentrated manner at and near the
intersections of important highways and roads, thereby providing for
the needs of the local residents and minimizing the inconvenient,
land consuming and unsightly sprawl of such uses along the
transportation system. Certain important intersections in the County
have been designated activity nodes at which non - residential
development of various types and varying levels of intensity would be
permitted within a given distance of the intersection. In essence,
the transportation system would serve to provide good access to these
activities and would support the land use policies directed at
achieving the pattern of development desired in the County.
COUNTY - SPECIFIC ROAD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Policy Issues
Roads can be classified by the function they serve in the total road network. This
classification takes into consideration the existing conditions as well as the planned
future function. Some roads are more important in terms of carrying major traffic
volumes or in making connections between major destinations, while other roads have a
primary value in providing access to adjacent property. In general, there is an inverse
relationship between the traffic - carrying function and the land- access function; i.e., a
four -lane road's primary function would be to move traffic, while the function of a
two -lane road in a subdivision would be to serve the abutting land with frequent
driveways. The extreme for each case would be an Interstate freeway for the function
of moving traffic and a short, narrow, residential cul -de -sac for the function of land
access. With the exception of an Interstate freeway, all roads provide each function
to varying degrees.
Data Collection
There are certain roadway characteristics that are related to a properly designed and
classified road. To aid in developing the functional classification for Orange County,
the following roadway characteristics were inventoried for every public road in the
County, outside of the urbanized planning boundaries: length, type of surface, number
of lanes, road width, shoulder width, right -of -way width, type of adjacent land use,
extent of development, speed limit, traffic control, roadway alignment, and traffic
volumes. This inventory was collected by -the County and, if maintained, will provide a
thorough and accurate data base for further planning and programming.
Kimley -Horn obtained mapping of public roads within the county and NCDOT roadway
inventory printouts, developed a spreadsheet format for recording the data, and
conducted a data collection training program with County staff. County staff input the
data from the maps and printouts, as well as data observed and checked in the field.
This data file originally included only the portion of the county included in the
classification study; i.e., the portion outside the Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrboro,
q
Hillsborough, and Mebane study areas; however, the data file was later expanded to
include the area within the Hillsborough study area but outside the city's extra-
territorial planning jurisdiction (ETJ).
Both of these data files are reproduced in Appendix A of this report. Data fields in
the files include the following:
- Road (route name and road name)
- Segment description (from, to)
- Distance (miles)
- Pavement type (paved or unpaved)
- Road type (number of lanes)
- Pavement width (feet)
- Shoulder width (feet)
- Paved shoulder (paved or unpaved)
- Right -of -way width (feet)
- County land use designation
- Existing land use along road frontage (percent agricultural, residential,
industrial, or commercial -- remainder assumed undeveloped)
- Type of control at termini (stop sign, signal, none)
- Speed limit (MPH)
- Advisory speed on curve (MPH)
- Terrain (level, rolling, mountainous)
- Historic traffic counts (vehicles per day)
- Projected traffic volumes (vehicles per day)
- County road classification (existing classification)
- NCDOT road classification
- Recommended classification
- Comments (Township and other comments)
4
1.3
Classification Criteria
Upon evaluating the above data as well as the geographic relationships of roads to
adjacent counties and to cities and major destinations within Orange County, the
following classifications were determined to best . describe the public roads in Orange
County outside of the urbanized planning boundaries:
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Major Local
Minor Local
This classification is a refinement of the current NCDOT classification as used in the
County Land Use Plan, which stops at the collector level. The definition of a road
classification is subjective and qualitative; and subsequently so is its application to a
road system. The description of these functional classifications developed for Orange
County is shown in Table 1.
Recommended Classification
The criteria described in Table 1 were then applied to the street network in the rural
Orange County study area. The recommended classifications for the road system are
shown in Figure 1 and summarized in Table 2.
Comparison With Urban Study Area Classification
The road classifications developed here were compared with those determined by
NCDOT for the Hillsborough and the Durham- Chapel Hill- Carrboro (D -CH -C)
transportation planning areas, where those roads cross the planning boundaries (see
Table 3). It would generally be expected that roads classified as principal arterials,
5
15
minor arterials, or collectors in the county study area would correspond to freeways or
major thoroughfares in the urban study areas, while the county major or minor local
streets would not be classified as thoroughfares. (Minor thoroughfares are not common
and are determined on almost a case -by -case basis.)
6
i. 6
L
m P V
r C
O D O
O N
M w G Y
�
r
•r q« m m
7 a
d
L
d
o
O
•
i
a o
u 7
Y
L m
a
7
i],
m
L
C L r r
1
r V
d
r
d
d
r q a U Y V
a O L r
a 0
C •�
«
a
7
m
A 9
0
r
u
u a V u
r O Y C c Y
..•
P r
7
4
1V
Y
o
L
L
Cl
q L m« V
O
4
E L r a c r
O
■
a
w Y L C
w1
L
w o
L
u
L
9
C
L g c
u P
Om
O u O
O
a Ol a O
a
a
C d
V
O
C
d C)
a
L)
7 c w r u
]. r v
w
r a
x
}
v+
d
..
a r
? u C 7•
o •r A e
«—
a w
C
u o
o
c
•
L
P 7 -� W Y r
4m L
r
a
Y r
a
q
C u J •-
a c q
r
46 a
a
a
a+
C)
7
G 1.
x
C
L
V O u r
U Y
u
`•
q V U 4 O
u
10
O
v
to •w
a
•L
V
r C L C a
«+
L 4 a V L L
O
m
;
C
C C O—
a 7
L N
« u
O
pz
w
.
Y O C V 9+ v
a d
IL
Y
O O .0 L O
S+ c O
C u
O b
N
m
,
=
a
d p
C w+ « G C «
L7
u U « d
0
L
r.
c q'
N
a
0 v
rp
V a 3 O V C L
µ O
G
v
= L
V
J
M
V
=
07
N
u C O
m
C a
r O «
V«
y
a«
a
q—
a
c v
7.
a v
o
O
2« N
r
Y M
C
L at c
�•
ot
« u a c a
L
U 0
1
7— a
4 V Y Y a E
D_
L r
— a
�,
o
O c C L V 'O
E
Y Y
C L
L
p
A
i O C a L « m
O
G 7
.
u-0 7
.
p
U
a L O ?+ O N D
u
Y
JL
•-
b
O
U
111
P m
O
V r
Y
Y r
2
Y 2
L
U
C
L
Y q « a—
0)«
..•
U 2
O
V
q
O
7 a Y E c r 0 u
L
L Y
Y
b a o
r
a
— r 'D - Y D o
o
a x
c
« r
u
«
=
q a a— v
v
a
o
V O a
r
o
m
[ o a Y .• Y
r
v
q
r L
c
N
Y V L •r Y Z L Z
10
C w
O
C« v
o
V
o
CC r (y O L« a r
U
r O
4
•r m a
U
Y
J
v
H
Or
Lz7
H
H
a 7.
C
a s a U C
C
a
[�
b 4 4-0 E ••- a u
v
r
a
a L e v e
u
L
L
L
p
a Y« a A .�
C
a
L Y
7
0
d
E
Y
• V a
y
H
L
++ •+ V ?. » a«
a
C
E r 0
C
a
a
H
O
r q C— m Y 2 L
L
L
«
Y 4 ..
..
p
c
q ..' .+ CL L r
O
O L
r P V
q
q
O
--I
u L E r it
a
O
c
a A
¢
s
r
o
0
W
v
O C Y O q ). r
E
a
O
A a C
a
L
L
Grr W
Y« Q •.• Co O C
E m
a «
L
a
V
a
o
p.4 a
m L L c % m
L
—
r
a V
M
L
A
N
Ul
C
a •� a Y r« U
M
a 0-0
r r a
r U
L
O
4
cn
(.i
M m « E Y +�-
C
««
C
a
O
m a
q
«
q
1
sc H
U V Y E L L c w
••-
U q
r q i
C
•-
a
V L Z V V O r
7+
d L
a
6 U«
r
L L
L
V
C
p
q
w V C
L
c Y
C
v— 0
u
v Y
O
r
O
o
x
c m a v a p
1-
c c
2
r 0. c
a
«
c
r
u
C)
O C O 7. C C O ••+
10
P V
O
L S.. v
a
L C
•-
O
0)
p
E
u
h
1!1
u1
Z
H
F-4
O
z
a V
10
].
p.
C_ L a O. u
A
L
p
Gy
a
O 0 4 a—
r,
a
n
u a E C L C v
C
q
0
L
v Y r q a r a
r
L
u
p
V
C u� P r C a
•••
P m
',
V
b
++
C C c L= c A
7
c V
m
L
O a - a O v«
— L
1e'1
U L a r— c
a
E a
tv
a s L— 7
Y
%N.
m
L
10 r o a r V O
u
L c
V
1
O
V C q« O. a r u
a
O OI
«
c
1D Y •-• q— o a 1
o
a
a
s
v L f. U E L a
6
L P
O m
Cl
S
Z
i x V d c v m
V
e L
L V
p
x
O a+ r C — 'a 'D O
r
•, O
a
L V L Y L c O L
c
a x
Li O
C
O
CL A o o a a i U—
E &+
x L
i. 6
m P V
r C
O N
�
r
•r q« m m
7 a
d
L
d
o
O
•
i
a o
u 7
Y
L m
a
7
i],
m
L
C L r r
1
r V
d
r
d
d
M
a O L r
a 0
C •�
«
a
7
m
L
r
u
u a V u
m r
..•
P r
7
4
1V
Y
o
L
'v
q L m« V
O
U +
O
■
C
w Y L C
L L
L
a
L
u
L
9
C
L g c
u P
O
a Ol a O
a
a
V U
V
O
C
d C)
a
L)
7 c w r u
]. r v
w
r a
x
}
v+
d
..
a r
o •r A e
«—
a w
C
>
o
H a
•
7 r O) C A
4m L
r
a
c
u
q
C u J •-
a c q
0
46 a
a
a
a+
C)
7
G 1.
x
C
L
V O u r
U Y
u
L m
V
u
10
O
v
to •w
a
•L
V
r C L C a
V Y«
O
m
;
C
C C O—
a 7
C.
« u
O
4
w
.
7-
a d
IL
Y
O O .0 L O
S+ c O
C u
0
3%
W
a
a
d p
p
L7
u U « d
0
L
r.
w
N
13
0 v
rp
i. 6
t
d:
W
r
LL
V
i
d
w
!
V
H
K'
Li
r
K
S
O
0
of
g 4 c L o o L t o u L
a
O
O
C
«
C L
d
O•
D
u
m
>.
g
r
7.
i
O
••�
M
r
t L
r•
L
r
q
L
Y
'fi
7•
■
4
C
V r
m r
7
4
V
q
•+
u
i
...
L
r
O
«
7
L.
■
O
O
r
p
re
^
9 C
■
4
O
•�
u
u C
r
u
-
u
C
r
4
C
�
e
E
�•
M
L
N
�
•�
O_
O
6
q
r«
V
4
w
5
O
Mf
z
0
.•
7
P
L
N
a
G
O
y
«�
m C
O
'p
D
C
b
N
L
v
g
L q
L
cc
m
C m
V
D.
N
C
a
E
■
-
p
�
q
q
O
C
O
C
C
N
L
O
Y
r
u
r C
C
P
m
m V
C.
q ■
O L
O r
0
q
V r
O
V
V
Y L
i w
u a
f q«
E
P a
u
r
b
r ■
q
q
++
q
V
Y
C
•- •�
-
O
4
r
N
M
«
l0
Y
«
7
4
«
'o
w
— u
r
u
«
E
ie
L
a
m C
7
OL
•�
C
C
r
V
•�
L
4 r
a
q •r
u
CL 7
V
t
O
L
a
- 7«
r
7
D
N
q
c
7
E
a
u L
L
L
v .+
M L
■ a
L
V
!
u
Y
r
L �
7.
D
•. �
■
]+ q
q m
�c
r.
O
•�
L w
N
O
O
P
��
N
C •�
q
O
d
« C
u
7
C
V u
E a
C
0
0
E G
a
_
_
•-
r
u
C
L
V
Ol
G
•
S
O
C
a
E
■
E
■
m
O L
M m
L
D
q
C
L.
d I.
Y
L
P
b •+
V
f0
V r
4
L
�
C
V 4
4 C
C ««
7 7
V
V
C
•
Y
Z
Ib
V
7
I
V
«
V
■
u
q
«
V
L
`
.+
L
a
s
p
E
r
o
4
E
O
■
7«
C«
C
V
r
E.=
V
M
�
m
V
N«
r
to
7+
C
C
C
7-
m
C«
C
9
0
V
a
■
m
�
V
>•
7
O
e
�
Z
o
-
O
m
•-
D�
.
..
r
•�
q
ti
u
•-
4
4
m-
r
L
q—
V
r
4«
—
4
L
7
C
O
V
L
7
V
V
Q
c«
D
C
u«
or
u«
g 4 c L o o L t o u L
R
17
O
O
O
C
«
C L
d
O•
>.
m
7
7.
.�
M
/-
t L
r•
L
r
q
■
q�
V r
m r
7
4
V
q
•+
u u
L L
O
«
7
L.
Y
r
a+ V
st
.0
9 C
■
4
C
Y
u C
r
L c
u
C
r
4
C
w
«
- a
c u
0
4-
q
r«
V
4
w
■
z
C
.•
7
P
O.
!
•� m
« b
«�
m C
O
'p
■ U
S
V U
g
L q
L
cc
m
C m
a
we a
r C
C
P
m
m V
C.
q ■
O L
O r
0
q
V r
O
V
V
Y L
i w
u a
f q«
E
P a
u
r
b
r ■
C
-0
7
-
O
4
r
M
q
C
r
V
M
w«
4 r
V q
■
C
CL 7
V
0.
m ••-
- 7«
L
L
v .+
M L
■ a
L
V
!
u
Y
r
L �
7.
D
•. �
■
]+ q
q m
�c
r.
V
L w
]+ a
t
C
P
C B
q
O
d
« C
u
7
C
V u
E a
C
0
0
E G
a
_
c
7
u
7
Y
■
L. .�
O L
M m
L
D
q
C
L.
d I.
Y
L
P
b •+
V
f0
V r
4
L
C
V 4
4 C
C ««
7 7
V
R
17
pfiPCi W,
To�nslilp Arterial Minor Arterial
Little (NuC NC 57
Ri.er
NC 157
Cesar
V ove
TABLE .
PROPOSED ROAD CLASSIFICATION
Orange County, North Carolina
Collector Major local
5R ;54 (HOLLY Rit ►6E RD) SR 15115 (BREEZE RD)
Sr'; 153E (NU SHARD` CHURCH RD) OR i516 (°ROW4 RD)
OR 1543 (LITTLE RIER CHID) OR 1517 'LAWS STORE RD)
OR 1548 (SCHLEY RD E NC 57) Sr 119 :'GATES RDi
SR 1523 (BERRY RD' '
OR 1525 (HALL DAIRY RD)
OR 1526 (CRAY RD)
SR 1526 (SAWYER RD)
OR 1534 (MCKEE RD)
OR 1536 (,:ILL POOLE RD)
SR 1540 (HUNT RD)
Si 1541 (KIGER RD)
OR 1548 (SCHLEY RD W NC 57)
OR 1552 (MINCEY)
NC 86 NC 49 t (WALNUT SR 001 ;6A�NUT SRUrE P.H. RD) OR 1341 ~HARMONY CHURCH RD:
OR 1004 (CARR STORE RD.) OR 1350 (HARMONY CHURCH RD)
SR 1004 (CORBETT RIDGE RD.) OR 1350 (LONESOME RDi
5R 1004 (EFLAND —CEDAR GROVE RD) 5R 1351 (60V. SCOTT ROAD)
SR 1343 (MILL CREY RD) OR 1353 (COMPTON RD)
OR 1352 (CARR STORE RD) SR 1354 (McDADE STORE RD)
SR 1357 (EFLAND— CEDAR, GROVE RD) SR 1355 (ALLISON RD)
OR 1364 (LYNCH RD) OR 1358 (McDADE STORE RD)
OR 1545 (SAWMILL RD } OR 1360 (LEE'S CHAPEL RD)
SR 1507 (WILnERSON RD) OR 1361 (McDADE STORE RD)
SR 1361, (PENEC "ST RD)
OR 1363 (COC CORBETT RD)
SR 1366 (ATI IN5 RD)
SR 1370 (DOC CORBETT RD)
SR 1383 (ENO CEMETERY)
5R 1500 (ALLISON RD)
OR 1500 (HENSLEY RD)
SR 1501 (ALLISON RD)
OR 1503 (BAMA RD)
SR 1504 (ART RD)
SR 1504 (HURDLE MILLS RD)
SR 1506 (CAVNESS JORt ►AN RD)
SR 1506 (HURDLE MILLS RD;
SR 1,508 (HAWKINS RD EAST`
SR 1508 (HAWKING RD C I
SR 1510 (DR"ONr RD)
SR 1511 (PRESTON 6EORSE RD)
OR 1512 (NESTER RD)
SR 1513 (TAPP RD)
5R 1544 (PEARSON RD)
SR 1546 (OLIN RD)
OR 1577 (HURDLE MILLS RD)
0
18
Minor Local
SR 15:8 (TILLEY RD)
OR 52r ,' ,
1 J fMnr''i Hh4L R' i
SR 1521 (BLALOCK D)
SR 1522 fwAbUNER DAI 1 Y M;)
OR 1529 (COU.N'i"Y LA` )
SR 1530 (NEW ('ETHEL K RD) O
13 )
R 5 i (Sh;.Ua
SR 1532 (MILE BRANCH RD)
SR 1533 (BU`INY RD)
SR 1535 (McBROUM RC')
OR 1537 (HOPKINS RD)
SR 1539 (RiC4Rr. LAN EE)
OR 1542 (JACKS "f1, RD)
SR 1578 (BEASLEY RC)
OR 1579 (GREEN RILEY RD!
SR 1581 (S`E--D RO1
OR 1597 (NORMAN'S RD)
OR 1323 (LAKE ORANGE RD)
SR 1341 (IRA RD)
OR 1341 (LIB RD)
OR 1348 (SHANKLIN DEAD END)
OR 1349 (POTEAT RD)
SR 1356 (TOM FOPE LOOP)
SR 1359 (OAKLEY RD)
OR 1362 (ALLIE MAE RD
OR 1365 (MT. ?ION CHU CH ?D;
OR 1367 (C AIBORNE'S D)
OR 1368 (WADE LOOP)
SR 1369 (415E DEAD EN )
OR 1369 (WADE LOOP)
SR 1371 (McCULLOUGH R►)
OR 1502 (BURTGN RD)
OR 1505 (WHEELER'S CHURCH RD
SR 1509 (RALPH'S DEAD END)
5R 1514 (JIMMY ED RD)
SR 1517 (BRASHER RG)
OR 1549 (WOOD LOOP RD
SR 1550 (EDMOND LATTA RD)
SR 1576 (STEWART FARM RD)
SR 1591 (GREEN FINE R )
rivic•al
Tovriihir° Arterial Minor Arterial
Cleeks US 70 (NONE:
TABLE 2 (Cor :timed)
PURSED RUB , ,m
Orange Coiir �,rw1h cual -.a
Collector
SR 1114 (3UCKHORN)
SR 1120 (MT WILLIl6 RD)
K 1306 +.'rEST LEBANON RD)
SR 1310 (NORTF FRAZIER)
SR 1340 (HIGH ROCK RD)
SR 1144 (WEST TEN)
singwal NC 54 SR 1005 (OLD 6BORO RCS) SR 1006 (ORANGE GROVE RD)
SR 1102 (DO SIN XROADS S) SR 10.07 (MEBANE MKS RD)
SR 1951 (BUTLER RD) . SR 1115 (BRADSOU RUARRY)
SR 1951 (WHITE CRO SS RD) SR ill ' (ry -«'" 6RO" E CH RD)
SR 1177 (DAIRYLAND RD)
SR: 1%2 (JONES FERRY RD)
SR 1956 (CRAWFORD DAIRY RD)
SR 1956 (ORANGE CHAPEL
CLOVER GARDEN RD)
10
Maor Local
SR 1137 MUSHY COOK RD)
SR 1130 RD)
SR 1139 (HEBRON CHURCH)
SR 1306 (BEST LEBANON RD)
SR 1310 (NORTH FRAZIER)
SR 1342 (N. FRAZIER RD)
SR 1346 (SADDLE CLUE RD)
M(l s
Minor Local
SR 1145 GNU IRES RD)
SR 1309 (S4M5LEY)
SR 1343 ('DOE RUN RD)
SR 1344 ('OE RUN Rig)
SR 1334 (MACE)
SR 1392 (LANCASTER)
SR 1393 (TAYLOR)
SR 1394 (PERRY)
SR 1399 (REDMAN CRISSING
`R 14.41
. (ALPHA)
SR 1405 (SHETLAND ACRES:
Sr". 1100
(STANFORD RD)
SR
1100 (TEED RD)
SR ii01
(HER RD)
SR
1116
(URE MILL RD)
SR 1117
(UK GROVE CH RD)
SR
1113
(VERNON RD)
SR 1119
(NiCK'S RD)
SR
1124
(MARTIN RD)
SR 1125
(CHESTNUT RIDGE CH RD)
SR
11$3
(SAM�S RD)
SR 1945
(FERRSON RD)
SR
1213
(OVERLAND PASSAGE)
SR 1950
(CAF;L DURHAM RD)
SR
1214
(COACH WAY)
SR 1952
(WHITE CROSS RD)
SP.
1947
(IVEY)
SR 1953
(WILDCAT CREEK RD)
SR
1949
(FORD RD)
SR 1954
(COLLIES MT. RD)
SR
1955
(DAWSON RD)
SR 1955
(MC1RROW MILL RD)
SR
1957
(GOLD MINE LOOP:
SR 1961
(SAXPAHAW RD)
SR
1959
(MIJKAN RD)
SR
1960
(LLOYDTu%N RD
SR
1972
(MORROW KILL)
SP
2004
NILLIS RD)
SR
2024
(SIDNEY GREEN S"`
SR
2025
(EASY ST.)
SR
2023
(BOBCAT ED)
SR
2029
(PUMA LN)
SR
20330
(WILDCAT Ltd)
SR
2044
(FOXFIRE RD)
SR
2045
(EDWARD'S DRIVE)
1
ORANGE COUNTY ROAD MAP /V
Ki ky. ,, PROPOSED ROAD FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
LEGEND
?IAN SILw
a BOUNDARY
SAL ARTOVAL NWWM
IOR ARTERIAL monommon
COLLECTOR ■ommissio
LOCAL ROAD uuuuemuuuw
iLOCAL ROAD
RX15n n PUTYNE
6AN MINOR
OROUGHFARE —
BAN MAJOR
OROUGHFARE SWISS
^REEWAY m
NOTE -.R \AN rHORONGN.ANE CLA35- FICATION
ER N,G.O.O.T, PLANS.
Figure 1
20
ri
TABLE 3
RECOMMENDED AND URBAN THOROUGHFARE PLAN
COMPARISON OF CLASSIFICATIONS
The results of the comparison above is summarized in Table 4.
12
21
Thoroughfare
Recommended
Plan
Planning
Road Name (SR No.)
Classification
Classification
Area
Jones Ferry (SR 1942)
Collector
Major Thoroughfare
Chapel Hill
Old Greensboro Road
Minor Arterial
Major Thoroughfare
Chapel Hill
(SR 1005)
NC 54
Principal Arterial
Major Thoroughfare
Chapel Hill
Dairyland Road (SR 1177)
Collector
Major Thoroughfare
Chapel Hill
Dodsons Crossroads North
Minor Arterial
Major Thoroughfare
Hillsborough
(SR 1102)
Orange Grove Road (SR 1006)
Collector
Major Thoroughfare
Hillsborough
Bradshaw Quarry Road
Collector
Major Thoroughfare
Hillsborough
(SR 1115)
Chestnut Ridge Church Road
Major Local
Unclassified
--
(SR 1125)
Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120)
Collector
Major Thoroughfare
Hillsborough
Bushy Cook Road (SR 1137)
Major Local
Unclassified
--
West Ten Road (SR 1144)
Collector
Major Thoroughfare
Hillsborough
1 -85
Principal Arterial
Freeway
Hillsborough
US 70
Principal Arterial
Major Thoroughfare
Hillsborough
Lebanon Road (SR 1306)
Collector
Minor Thoroughfare
Hillsborough
High Rock Road (SR 1340)
Collector
Unclassified
--
Harmony Church Road
Major Local
Minor Thoroughfare
Hillsborough
(SR 1339)
Governor Scott Road
Major Local
Unclassified
--
(SR 1351)
Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004)
Collector
Major Thoroughfare
Hillsborough
NC 86
Principal Arterial
Major Thoroughfare
Hillsborough
Edmund Latta Road (SR 1550)
Minor Local
Unclassified
--
NC 57
Minor Arterial
Major Thoroughfare
Hillsborough
Schley Road (SR 1548)
Collector
Major Thoroughfare
Durham
Kiger Road (SR 1541)
Major Local
Unclassified
--
Guess Road (SR 1003)
Minor Arterial
Major Thoroughfare
Durham
New Sharon Church Road
Collector
Major Thoroughfare
Durham
(SR 1538)
The results of the comparison above is summarized in Table 4.
12
21
X
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF CLASSIFICATION COMPARISON
Recommended Thoroughfare Plan
Qlas5ification Clufficalion Number
Principal Arterial Major Thoroughfare 4
Minor Arterial Major Thoroughfare 4
Collector Major Thoroughfare 9
Minor Thoroughfare 1
Unclassified I
Major Local Minor Thoroughfare 1
Unclassified 4
Minor Local Unclassified 1
24
As can be seen from Tables 3 and 4, major thoroughfares on the urban area plans
generally corresponded to principal arterials, arterials, and collectors in the county
classification system. The one collector that corresponds to a minor thoroughfare is
Lebanon Road (SR 1306), has more significance at the county level than it does within
the Hillsborough study area. One collector in the county system is not classified in
the urban study areas. High Rock Road (SR 1340) connects into Lebanon Road only a
short distance into the Hillsborough urban study area and serves only a small portion
of that area. Most roads classified as major or minor local in the county study area
are not classified as thoroughfares in the urban areas. Harmony Church Road (SR
1339), which is classified as a minor thoroughfare, connects directly with Brookhollow
Drive, another minor thoroughfare. It is probably on the borderline between being a
collector or a major local road in the county. Since it is parallel to High Rock Road
(SR 1340) and has fewer of the collector characteristics, it was given the lower
classification.
13
u
23
Right -of -way requirements were also compared. Recommended right -of -way for all
thoroughfares in the Hillsborough plan is at least 100 feet, which is generally
consistent with the 110 feet recommended for arterials and exceeds the recommended
width for collectors. The recommended right -of -way for the thoroughfares under the
1976 Chapel Hill- Carrboro transportation plan was only 60 feet, but will be upgraded to
at least 100 feet as part of the D -CH -C plan.
14
2a
COLLECTOR /SUBCOLLECTOR ROAD SYSTEM
Policy Issues
The functional classification of Orange County's road system identifies the major and
minor arterials as well as the collector roads. These form the basic roadway
infrastructure or skeleton for the movement of people and goods. In addition, there
are classifications below the collector which comprise the majority of the system
mileage where the greatest degree of interface occurs between roadway and land use.
A properly designed road system should have a sufficient number of properly spaced
roads of each classification in order to adequately serve the desired land uses and
intensity of development. However,. it is generally not desirable to provide
significantly more roads than necessary to service this demand, due to consumption of
land and resources required by the road as well as capital and maintenance cost. A
proper balance in the roadway system should be sought in order to serve the existing
and planned land use as well as through or out -of- county travel.
Road System Assessment
In applying this philosophy to Orange County, a qualitative assessment of system
balance in the non -urban areas was made. Since the arterial system is fairly well
defined, it will be briefly discussed; however, the primary focus was on the collector
roads and the major local roads which are served by the collectors.
The arterial system provides good north -south mid east -west movement, with the
primary demand being east and w:
est. Based on the future land use plan, there is
adequate potential capacity to serve existing and future traffic volumes. The east -west
facilities are fairly well spaced, with NC 54 and Old Greensboro Road located in
southern Orange County and the I -85 /US 70 corridor located slightly north of the
middle of the County. The north -south arterial demand is served by NC 49, NC 87, NC
57 and Dodson Crossings Road. In addition, there are other north -south arterials
located within the urban study areas -- NC 86 and Old NC 86.
15
25
In order to adequately assess the balance of collectors and major local roads, the
desired or expected future land use must be understood. The rural portion of the
County (for the purposes of this study) is contained primarily in Little River, Cedar
Grove, Cheeks and Bingham Townships. The adopted land use plan and the land use
goals and organizing concepts contained in the Plan clearly indicate that the rural
character and low density development of the non -urban areas is intended to continue.
With the exception of some continued urban transition along the US 70 corridor
between Hillsborough and Mebane, the area will continue to be agricultural or low -
density residential with no urban utility services required. The extensive water supply
watershed zoning, water quality critical area zoning, and rural and agriculture
residential zoning categories assure low - density residential development with average
lot size expected to be 2.0 to 2.77 acres. Any non - residential development would be
confined to activity nodes at certain crossroads at a level not requiring utility
services.
The existing collector and major local road system in Orange County is well developed
in both the north /south and east /west directions. The average spacing between
collectors or from collectors to arterials is three miles. The major local roads are
spaced more frequently and form a finer network of roads. Spatially there does not
appear to be a deficiency in the collector and major local road system. There are
several large "superblocks ", primarily in Bingham Township ranging from 2,800 to 3,000
acres. These areas are shown in Figure 2 and described below.
Bingham lownshin
o Area bounded by NC 54 on the south, Dodson Crossroads South (SR 1102) on
the east, Dairyland Road (SR 1177) on the north, and Orange Grove Road (SR
1006) on the west.
o Area bounded by Dodsons Crossroads on the west, Dairyland Road on the north
and east, Bethel- Hickory Grove Church Road (SR 1104) on the east (within
Chapel Hill study area), and NC 54 on the south.
o Area bounded by NC 54 on the north, Wildcat Creek Road (SR 1953) on the east,
Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) on the south, and Orange Chapel Road (SR 1956)
and Morrow Mill Road (SR 1958) on the west.
16
n r n c G r
ORANGE COUNTY ROAD MAR
Kim/ey -Horn
POTENTIAL. FU'T'URE ROAD SERVICE AREAS
LEGEND
am STUD
FA BOUNDARY
PAL ARTERIAL
VOR ARTERIAL r�
COLLECTOR ■rrrr r�
9 LOCAL ROAD uuuuuunwuia
a LOCAL ROAD
■xuTING raiaui
iBAN MINOR
IOROUONFARE -
IBM MAJOR
IOROUONPARE■
FREEWAY � —B
POTENTI ' PU TUBE •:.•,,,,,°�
ROAD 5E= ACE AREA
■OTL UAS- T O"F.A[ 4.�YIIG.TIOa
' M.O.O.O.T, �L
Figum z
26
r
27
o Area bounded by Old Greensboro Road on the north, Ferguson Road (SR 1948)
on the east, Jones Ferry Road (SR 1942) and the Chatham County line on the
south, and White Cross Road (SR 1951) on the west.
o Area bounded by Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120) on the north, Buckhorn Road (SR
1114) on the east, Bradshaw Quarry Road (SR 1115) on the south, and Vernon
Road (SR 1118) and Oak Grove Church Road (SR 1117) on the west.
Cedar Qrove Townshin
o Area bounded by Harmony Church Road (SR 1350, SR 1341) on the north, Mill
Creek Road (SR 1343) on the east, High Rock Road (SR 1340) on the south, and
Lynch Store Road (SR 1364) on the west.
o Area bounded by NC 86 on the east, Kenion Road (SR 1335) on the south (within
Hillsborough study area), Highland Farm Road (SR 1332) and Efland -Cedar Grove
Road (SR 1004) on the west, and Carr Store Road (SR 1352) on the north.
o Area bounded by Schley Road (SR 1548) on the north, NC 57 on the east, Phelps
Road (SR 1551) on the south (within Hillsborough study area), and NC 86 and
Walnut Grove Church Road (SR 1001) on the west.
While roads in these areas are adequate for existing land use, some additional major or
local road construction may be needed in those areas, depending upon the intensity of
development. The following general guidelines should be used in the County's review
of future development plans as related to the need for additional roadway
infrastructure.
Implementation Guidelines
Spacing: Based on existing development and land use, current spacing is adequate. If
more than an additional 100 dwelling units are anticipated within one of the
superblocks described above, or in any area with greater than two miles between
arterial, collector, or major local roads, consideration should be given to the
construction of new public roads or the extension of existing major local roads to
further divide the block.
18
�g
Location: The initial planning for one of the above facilities would be to physically
bisect a superblock in order to derive the greatest benefit. However, there are
geographical considerations that may alter such placement. Major creek crossings and
severely steep topography should be avoided. Generally the maximum grade for such a
facility would be approximately 7 -9%.
Need: Because different levels and types of development intensity will generate
varying amounts of traffic, the need for additional facilities should be determined based
on the County Land Use Plan and on specific development plans. The Planning Staff
should review transportation needs as development occurs, as provided for in Article 13
of the county code. Any needed additional collector or major local road facilities
should be provided as public roads in order to ensure maintenance and access by the
general public.
19
20
OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS
Orange County's transportation system is dominated by the road
network, but is not entirely defined by it. Rail facilities and air
services additionally comprise the transportation system and
contribute to the movement of people and goods through Orange County.
Rail Facilities. Orange County is served by the Southern Railroad
which traverses the central portion of the County in an east /west
direction through Eno Hillsborough and Cheeks Townships parallel to
the I -85 /US 70 corridor. The Southern Railroad also serves the
southern portion of the Carrboro /Chapel Hill area, although this
segment of the line is now rarely used.
Air Services. Orange County is served by publicly -owned airport.
Horace Williams, a general aviation airport, is owned and operated by
the University of North Carolina. Concentrated residential
development has surrounded the airport during recent decades and
resulted in conflict between the airport and its environs. In an
effort to reduce the level of conflict the University of North
Carolina has elected to impose a 50 -craft limit on based aircraft and
a corresponding ceiling on aircraft activity, effectively limiting
the airport to one -third of its full service capacity. This action
has not assuaged the concerns of residents of surrounding
neighborhoods who continue to exert pressure aimed at closing the
airport. Recent discussions about the phase -out of the airport have
contributed to the controversy surrounding the need and location of
new air facilities in the County providing the same level of service.
A study was commissioned in 1988 to find another location for a
County airport, but no suitable site could be identified and
selected.
Three small privately owned and operated airstrips are located
throughout the County serving a small amount of air traffic use.
These facilities are Hogan, Neville and Rice's airstrips.
page
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 16, 1990
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint-session wi
the Orange County Planning Board on May 16, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in
Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. The purpose of the
meeting was to receive comments on the proposed Orange County
Thoroughfare Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, and
Private Road Standards for Orange County, North Carolina.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissione
Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell and Shirley E. Marshall.
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Don Willhoit
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Betty Eidenier,
Chris Best, Barry Jacobs, William J. Waddell, Dan C. Eddleman, Mike
Lewis, Jean Hamilton, Virginia Boland, Carol Cantrell, and Larry Reid.
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Planner
Gene Bell, and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe.
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. THESE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING
Report #3 - Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrboro Urban Area
1985 -2010 Transportation Study
Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan dated September, 1989
Orange County Thoroughfare Plan, May, 1990
Kimley -Horn & Associates - Final Report, Phase I
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. read the public charge.
PLANNER GENE BELL MADE ALL THE PRESENTATIONS. CITIZEN COMMENTS ARE
LISTED FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATIONS. BEFORE EACH PRESENTATION PLANN
BOARD CHAIR BETTY EIDENIER BRIEFLY DESCRIBED EACH ITEM.
1. ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. SECTION 2.6 TRANSPORTATION
This is a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of th
Comprehensive Plan which defines County - specific road classifications
and a collector \subcollector road system.
There were no comments or questions. Motion was made by Commissi
Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to t
n'
1
Is
31
page 2
Planning Board for a recommendation to be presented to the Board of
Commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
B. ORANGE COUNTY THOROUGHFARE PLAN
The existing Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan and applicable
portions of the proposed thoroughfare plans for the Durham - Chapel
Hill - Carrboro Urban Area and Alamance County urban Area have been merged
with a County - specific road classification system for the rural areas of
the County. The Transportation Advisory subcommittee expressed a
concern about the plan as it relates to the Hillsborough plan. To
alleviate the traffic congestion on Churton Road, it is proposed that
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension connect with St. Mary's Road. The TAS
identified several concerns with this proposal. The Eno River and its
floodplains cross this proposed road and a bridge would need to be
built. Also, the proposed road would come very close to some historic
properties as well as several established homes in that area.
The western bypass that extends from Coleman Loop Road to
U.S. 70 was another concern expressed by the TAS. The primary
consideration was potential water quality impacts on the upper Eno
Watershed.
The work done by Kimley Horn and Associates, the State and
the Town do not match up. The TAS requested that the classification be
consistent from one jurisdictional line to the next. Two concerns were
expressed about the Efland Interchange and I -85 widening which the
Commissioners passed a resolution on in March. Gene Bell mentioned that
there is some inconsistency in the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan as it
relates to Davis Road. Mr. Norwood from DOT stated that the section
from Orange Grove Road to Old 86 would be two lanes within a 100 -foot
right -of -way. The section from Old 86 to New 86 would eventually be
three lanes.
With reference to the Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrboro (DCHC)
plan, Gene Bell explained that the plan is based on existing land use
patterns and existing and future traffic flow. On this item the
Planning Staff recommended:
1) Adoption of the Orange County functional road
classification;
2) adoption of the DCHC Plan following Chapel Hill adoption,
provided that the Outer Loop is removed in its entirety
and there is a consistent classification applied to
Dairyland Road;
3) adoption of the Hillsborough Plan, provided that, there
is a re- assessment of the need for the Western By -Pass. There is a
consistent classification applied to High Rock Road, and
a recognition of the County Commissioners resolution of
March 5, 1990 concerning best management practices and
continued access under I -85 as part of the programed
improvements for I -85; and
contingent upon aaoreassessment ofa the c County
needfor the aMattress lFactory Roa d
interchange as expressed by the Planning Board at their
32
1
D R A F T
LONG RANGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JULY 10, 1990
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Best (Acting Chair), Virginia Boland, Carol
Cantrell, Dan Eddleman, Mike Lewis, Larry Reid, Bill
Waddell.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Pegge Abrams, Clint Burklin, Betty Eidenier, Jean
Hamilton, Barry Jacobs (all excused).
STAFF PRESENT: Marvin Collins, Gene Bell, Beth McIver, David
Stancil, Joanna Bradshaw.
AGENDA ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no additions to the agenda.
AGENDA ITEM #4: CHAIR COMMENTS
Best noted that three of the absent Planning Board
members are on the Transportation Advisory
Subcommittee and did vote on the TAS
recommendation that is being presented tonight.
AGENDA ITEM #5: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING 5/16/90
10 a. Orange County Comprehensive Plan
(1) Section 2.6 Transportation
Presentation by Gene Bell.
Bell noted that Transportation Consultant, Larry
Meisner, was present to address any technical
questions that the Board may have.
Bell noted also that Beth McIver would present
comments from Ted Abernathy, Economic Development
Director.
Bell stated that the proposed amendment to the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan which
defines County - specific road classifications and
a collector /subcollector road system received no
comment at the public hearing or the TAS meeting.
33
2
Bell continued that this amendment introduces
more specificity in terms of road classifications
and defining the system of collector and
subcollector roads for incorporation into the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
The TAS recommended approval of the amendment on
June 6 and the Planning Staff concurred with that
recommendation.
Best asked if the tables with the Comparison of
Classifications would be included in the Land Use
Plan and Bell indicated it would be included.
Best continued that this would indicate changes
as they occurred in the Hillsborough and DCHC
Thoroughfare Plan and keep the County
Thoroughfare Plan aware of these changes. Bell
agreed that was the intent.
MOTION: Cantrell moved approval of the amendment.
Seconded by Boland.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(2) Orange County Thoroughfare Plan
Presentation by Gene Bell.
This item is to consider the proposed Orange
County Thoroughfare Plan. The existing
Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan and applicable
portions of the proposed thoroughfare plans for
the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Urban Area and
Alamance County Urban Area have been merged with
a County- specific road classification system for
the rural areas of the County.
A plan was developed and adopted by the Town
of Hillsborough and State Board of
Transportation. In that a substantial portion of
the area encompassed by the plan was in County
planning jurisdiction, the County was asked to
adopt the plan too.
The County declined to adopt the plan, citing a
desire to see a coordinated plan for the entire
County. At that time, the Durham - Chapel Hill -
Carrboro (DCHC) Thoroughfare Plan was in the
formative stages and NCDOT had been requested to
provide assistance to Orange County in developing
a plan for the rural areas of the County.
In the spring of 1988 the Draft DCHC Plan went
through the first round of public hearings. A
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date August 21 1990
Action Agenda
Item #X,F
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AND
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
ATTACHMENT(S):
- Proposed Amendments to Orange
County Zoning Ordinance
- Proposed Amendments to Orange
County Subdivision Regulations
- 5 -16 -90 PH Minutes
- 7 -10 -90 PB Minutes
- 7 -10 -90 Memo to Planning
from Planning Director
PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No
INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Board Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To consider adoption of proposed amendments to the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Orange County
Subdivision Regulations concerning the requirements
for a Traffic Impact Study.
The proposed amendments were presented at public
hearing on May 16, 1990.
BACKGROUND: At the November 23, 1987 public hearing, proposed
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations were considered which would require that a
Traffic Impact Study (TIS) be performed for zoning
changes, special use permits, and site plans that
would generate traffic in excess of 800 trips per day.
The proposed amendments were adopted in February 1988
and incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance as Article
13 and into Section IV of the Subdivision Regulations.
The TIS requirements as incorporated into the
ordinances were formulated by the Ordinance Review
Committee and planning staff and based largely on the
"Model Traffic and Transportation Impact Study"
prepared by the Bucks County Pennsylvania Planning
Commission. It was the intent of the Ordinance Review
Committee that the TIS be reviewed by a professional
transportation consultant for "fine- tuning" when
County hired a consultant to assist with the
z
Transportation Plan. Accordingly, review of the TIS
was incorporated into the scope of services to be
provided by kimley- -Horn.
Amendments proposed to the TIS requirements deal
primarily with clarification. However, there are some
changes of a substantive nature, most notably:
1) The inclusion of 100 trips during the AM or PM
peak -hour of highway traffic as a threshold for
requiring a TIS;
2) using level of service D as the measure of
deficiency in urban or developed areas; and
3) adding Table 13.1, Typical Thresholds for
Required Preparation of a Traffic Impact Study,
to the Zoning ordinance.
The Planning Board considered this item on July 10,
1990 and recommended approval of the proposed
amendments with the following changes:
1) Delete AM and PM peak hours;
2) Change the trip generation chart to reflect the
actual trips generated;
3) Maintain the general exemption under Section 13.3
of the existing ordinance; and
4) Underline the word may in Article 13.5.c.2.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
amendments per the Planning Board recommendation with
two exceptions:
1) Elimination of rezoning as a situation where a
a TIS may be required since this issue is already
addressed at the site plan approval stage; and
2) Elimination of proposed Table 13.1.
DK9:CCTIS.DOC
3
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 13 - TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
OF THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
Listed on the attached sheets are proposed amendments to
Aricle 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. As indicated at the
bottom of each page, text to be removed is in [brackets] and
proposed new text is boldface underline. Explanatory
comments, as appropriate, are shown in (italics).
13.1
*Amended
2 -1 -88
13.2
13.3
* ARTICLE 13. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Purpose
A traffic impact study shall be required of zoning changes,
special use permits, and site plans as defined in this Articl
The study will enable Orange County to assess the impact of a
proposed zoning change, special use permit, or development on
the highway system when that system is at or near capacity or
safety problem exists. Its purpose is to insure that propose
developments do not adversely affect the highway network and
identify any traffic problems associated with access from the
site to the existing transportation network. The purpose of
study is also to identify solutions to potential problems and
present improvements to be incorporated into the proposed
development.
Conduct
a
U
he
to
A traffic impact study shall be prepared by a qualified
professional . traffic engineer and /or certified transportation
planner with previous traffic study experience. The procedures
and standards for the traffic impact study are set forth in
[Article] Section 13.4 of this Ordinance.
Prior to the Bre2aration of a traffic im act study, a sco in
meeting shall be held including the 21anning staff, the
aRRlicant, and the RreRarer of the study, The discussion at
this meeting should set the studY 2arMeters, including the
- - - - - - • -- %V
or- others- road links and intersectioas to be analyzed,
which analysis is to be erfo ed and other staff concerns.
to this meeting.
(The proposed amendments clarify the qualifications of the
professional performing the TIS and establish the need for a
pre -TIS conference).
Applicability
Except as described below a traffic impact study shall be
required for all zoning changes, special use permits, or si
plans that meet the following criteria:
zoning Changes: estimated average traffic generated by
uses permitted in the zone being applied for exceeds
800 trips /day or 100 triRs during the AM or PM peak-hour
of highway traffic.
[] = delete text
bold underline = add text
�A
Special Use Permit: estimated traffic generated by
the permit exceeds 800 trips /day or 100 tri s during the
AM or PM peak-hour of highway traffic.
Site Plan: estimated traffic generated by the development
exceeds 800 trips /day or 100 trigs during the AM or PM
peak-hour of highway traffic.
(The proposed amendments incorporate a peak -hour threshold
to cover uses that generate a high proportion of their trips
during the peak hour).
zoning changes, special use permits, or site plans that
produce more than 800 trips per day or 100 tri s during the AM
or PM eak -hour of highway traffic may be exempted from the
requirements to prepare and submit a traffic impact study if
a traffic im act study has Rreviously been Rre2ared for this
articular groject or develo ment and there is to be no chap e
in land use or density that would increase travel and no
change in access to the external street systems [material is
submitted to demonstrate that traffic created by the proposal
when adding to existing traffic will not result in a need for
transportation improvements.] Planning Department staff will
review material submitted in support of an exemption and will
determine from that material whether or not to grant the
exemption. If an exemption is granted, documentation of the
exemption will be submitted as part of the staff recommendation
(The proposed amendment identifies criteria under which a
proposed development may be exempted from TIS requirements).
Orange County may require any zoning change, special use permit,
or site plan application to be accompanied by a traffic impact
study when a road capacity or safety issue exists. If one is
required, the County will notify the applicant of the reason for
the requirement.
If the Rroject is reviewed as a Planned Develo meat only one
traffic im act study is required for the zoning change changex s ecial
use Rermidtand site Rlan apRroval unless revisions are prOROsed
that would increase traffic or change access.
13.4 General Requirements and Standards
The traffic impact study shall contain the following
information:
a) General Site Descri tion
The site description shall include the size, location,
proposed land uses, number of units and gross s uare
footage by land use existing land use and zoning,
construction staging and completion date of the proposed
land development to the extent known or able to be
[] = delete text
bold underline = add text
3
described at the time the a lication is prepared-.- If the
development is residential, types of dwelling units and
number of bedrooms shall also be included. A brief
description of other major existing and proposed land
developments within the study area shall be provided. The
general site description shall also include probable socio-
economic characteristics of potential site users to the
extent that they may affect the transportation needs of the
site (i.e., number of senior citizens).
(The proposed amendment identifies additional data
requirements).
b) Transportation Facilities Description
The description shall contain a full documentation of the
proposed internal and existing external transportation
system. This description shall include proposed interns
vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation, all proposed
ingress and egress locations, all internal roadway width
and rights -of -way, turn lanes, parking conditions, traffic
channelizations, and any traffic signals or other
intersection control devices at all intersections within
the site. Internal site data shall be required only for
site lan aRRrovals, including lanned developments.
(The proposed amendment specifies internal site data only
in the case of site plan approvals and planned developments
to distinguish them from general rezonings which would
preclude discussion of specific land uses).
The report shall describe the entire external roadway
system within the study area. Major intersections in th
study area and all intersections or driveways adjacent t
or within 400 feet of the site shall be identified and
sketched. All existing and proposed public transportati
services and facilities within one -mile of the site shal
also be documented. Future highway improvements, includ
proposed construction and traffic signalization, shall b
noted. This information shall be obtained from North
Carolina's Transportation Improvement Program. Any
proposed roadway improvements due to proposed surroundin
developments shall also be noted.
(The proposed amendment expands the scope of the study
area).
C) Existing Traffic Conditions
1
ng
Existing traffic conditions shall be [measured and]
documented for all roadways and intersections in the study
area. This shall include documentation of traffic
accident counts as recorded by the N.C. De artment of
Trans ortation District Engineers Office munici al or
[] = delete text
bold underline = add text
W
4
county law enforcement and the N.C. Highway Patrol.
Existing traffic volumes for average daily traffic, peak
highway hour(s) traffic, and peak development generated
hour(s) traffic, if appropriate, shall be recorded. Manual
traffic counts at major intersections in the study area
shall be conducted, encompassing the peak highway and
development - generated hour(s), if appropriate, and
documentation shall be included in the report. Existin
average daily or eak -hour traffic counts made within one
year of the study date may be used subject to Planning
De artment approval. A volume /capacity analysis based upon
existing volumes shall be performed during the peak highway
hour(s) and the peak development- generated hour(s), if
appropriate, for all roadways and major intersections
ex ected to be im acted by development traffic. [in the
study area.] Levels of service shall be determined for
each [location] signalized intersection or roadway segment
analyzed above.
This analysis will determine the adequacy of the existing
roadway system to serve the current traffic demand.
Roadways and /or intersections experiencing levels of
service E or F shall be noted as congestion locations.
(The proposed amendments add traffic accidents as a
required component of documenting existing conditions and
allow the Planning Department some discretion in deciding
on the suitability of traffic counts).
d) Transportation Impact of the Development
Estimation of vehicular trips to result from the [proposal]
groposed development shall be completed for the average
weekday, the average daily AM and PM peak [highway hour(s)]
hours of highway travel in the study area, and, if
appropriate, the peak [development generated] hour[(s)]
of traffic generation by the develo meat. Vehicular trip
generation rates to be used for this calculation shall be
obtained from an accepted source such as [the
Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, Institute
of Transportation Engineers] "Trip Generation" (Institute
of Trans ortation Engineers, Fourth Edition 1987 as
amended). These development- generated traffic movements as
estimated, and the reference source(s) and methodology
followed shall be documented. [All turning movements shall
be calculated.] These generated volumes shall be
distributed to the study area and assigned to the existing
roadways and intersections throughout the study area.
Documentation of all assumptions used in the distribution
and assignment phase shall be provided. All average daily
traffic link volumes within the stud area shall be shown
ra hicall . Peak hour turning movement volumes shall be
,shown-for signalized and other major intersections,
,including all access ROints to the develo meat. [Traffic
[] = delete text
bold underline = add text
5
volumes shall be assigned to individual access points.]
otherwise ARRlicable shall be re rted. [Pedestrian
volumes shall also be calculated, if applicable. If school
crossings are to be used, pedestrian volumes shall be
assigned to each crossing.] Any characteristics of the
site that will cause [particular] trip generation [problems
shall be noted]
to vaKy significantly from average rates available in
ublished sources shall be documented including-such
tactors as diversion of Rasser-by traffic, internal
capture, staggered work hours or use of transit.
(The proposed amendments are more specific regarding the
times for which trips for the proposed development are to
be estimated, require graphic depiction of estimated
traffic volumes, and require documentation of volumes that
vary significantly from average rates in published
sources).
e) Analysis. of Transportation Impact
The total traffic demand that will result from construct
of the proposed development shall be calculated. This
demand shall consist of the combination of the existing
traffic [and], traffic generated by the proposed
development, and traffic due to other developments and
If staging of the proposed development is anticipated,
calculations for each stage of completion shall be made.
This analysis shall be performed [during] for average-
weekday traffic, the peak highway hour(s) and, if
appropriate, peak development - generated hour(s) for all
roadways and major intersections in the study area.
Volume /capacity calculations shall be completed for all
major intersections. It is usually at these locations t at
capacity is most restricted.
(The proposed amendment requires that all traffic expected
in the study area at the time of proposed development
completion be documented, not just the traffic expected as
a result of the development).
All access points and pedestrian crossings shall be
examined for adequate sight distance and [as to the
feasibility of] for the necessit of installing traffic
signals. [This] The traffic signal evaluation shall
compare the projected traffic and pedestrian volumes to the
warrants for traffic signal installation.
(The proposed amendment
to be addressed at all
crossings).
[] = delete text
bold underline = add text
adds sight distance as an elemen
access points and pedestrian
f) Conclusions and Recommended Improvements
Levels of service for all roadways and signalized
intersections serving 10 Rercent or more of peak-hour
project traffic shall be [listed] reported. All roadways
and /or signalized intersections showing a level of service
below D in urban or develo ed areas or below C in rural
areas shall be considered deficient, and specific
recommendations for the elimination for these problems
shall be listed. This listing of recommended improvements
shall include, but not be limited to the following
elements: internal circulation design, site access location
and design, external roadway and intersection design and
improvements, traffic signal installation and operation
including signal timing, and transit service [design]
improvements. All physical roadway improvements shall be
shown in sketches.
[The listing of recommended improvements for road
improvements shall include for each improvement, the party
responsible for the improvement, the cost and funding of
the improvement, and the completion date for the
improvement.]
(The proposed amendments specify the roadways and
intersections for which levels of service shall be
determined and specify volumes below level of service D in
urban or developed areas as the threshold for deficiency).
13.5 Submission and Implementation
The traffic impact study will b
Planning Department within the
below. The Planning Department
the development review process.
incorporated into the approval
a) Zoning, Changes
1. Time of Submission
e submitted to the Orange County
applicable time frame indicated
will review the study as part of
Recommendations will be
process as indicated below.
The traffic impact study shall be submitted to the Planning
Department with, and as a Rart of the application for the
zoning change.
2. Implementation
The Planning Department and such other agencies or
officials as may appear appropriate in the circumstances of
the case shall review the impact study to analyze its
adequacy in solving any traffic problems that will occur
due to the uses allowed by the proposed zoning. The Board
of Commissioners shall consider the impact study and the
[] = delete text
bold underline = add text
b)
or
2.
c)
1.
2.
7
analysis of the impact study before any change of zoning
approved or denied.
Special Use Permits
Time of Submission
The traffic impact
Planning Department
for the special use
Implementation
is
study [will] shall be submitted to th
with, and-as a part of, the applicat on
permit.
The Planning Department and such other agencies or
officials as may appear appropriate in the circumstances
the case shall review the impact study to analyze its
adequacy in solving any traffic problems that will occur
due to the proposed use.
The Board of Commissioners or Board of Adjustment, as
appropriate, shall consider the impact study and the
analysis of the impact study before the application is
approved or denied. The Board of Commissioners or Board
Adjustment, as appropriate, may decide that certain
improvements on or adjacent to the site or on roadways_o�
intersections for which the im rovements are needed to
adequately and safely accommodate site traffic are
mandatory for special use permit approval and may make
these improvements conditions of approval, may require
modifications in the use, or may deny the permit.
(The proposed amendment clarifies where improvements may
required).
Site Plan ARRroval
Time of Submission
The traffic impact study will be submitted to the Plannir
Department with, and as_a_ part of, the site plan.
Implementation
The Planning Department and such other agencies or
officials as may appear appropriate in the circumstances
the case shall review the impact study to analyze its
adequacy in solving any traffic problems that will occur
due to development proposed on the site plan. The Plann.
Department may recommend that certain improvements on or
adjacent to the site or on roadwa s or intersections for
accommodate site traffic are mandatory for site plan
approval and may require these improvements to be on the
approved site plan.
[] = delete text
bold underline = add text
FIN
MA
be
of
11
(The proposed amendment clarifies where improvements may be
required).
Table 13.1
TyRical Thresholds for Required Pre aration of a
Traffic Impact Study_
Residential
Single Family
Apartment
Mobile Home
Retail
Shopping Center
Restaurant sit -down service
Fast Food Restaurant
Supermarket
Convenience Store
Bank
Of f ice
Office Buildin
Medical Office
Other
Manufacturing Plant
Hotel Motel full service
Hotel Motel limited services
Warehousing
80 units
130 units
150 units
AAY
4,000 s..f.
AAY
6 500 s.f.
1 000 s.f.
3,000 s.f. or 3 Windows
Any with drive -in or
through service
50,000 s.f.
30,000 s.f.
300 employees or
200,000 s.f.
80 rooms
100 rooms
100,000 s.f.
(The proposed amendment gives examples of various land uses
and the thresholds at which they would be required to
submit a TIS).
[] = delete text
bold underline = add text
I
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION IV- B -3 -e. TRAFFIC IMPACT
STUDY OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Listed on the attached sheets are proposed amendments to
Section IV- B -3 -e. of the Subdivision Regulations. As
indicated at the bottom of each page, text to be removed is
in [brackets] and proposed new text is boldface underline.
Explanatory comments, as appropriate, are shown in (italics).
13
1
*IV- B -3 -e. Traffic Impact Study - A traffic impact study
shall be required of subdivisions as defined
in Section IV- B- 3 -e -3. The study will enable
Orange County to assess the impact of a
proposed subdivision on the highway system
when that system is at or near capacity or a
*Amended safety problem exists. Its purpose is to
2 -1 -88 insure that proposed developments do not
adversely affect the highway network and to
identify any traffic problems associated with
access from the site to the existing
transportation network. The purpose of the
study is also to identify solutions to
potential problems and to present improvements
to be incorporated into the proposed
development.
*IV- B- 3 -e -1. Conduct - A traffic impact study shall be
prepared by a qualified professional traffic
*Amended engineer and /or certified transportation
2 -1 -88 planner with previous traffic study
experience. The procedures and standards for
the traffic impact study are set forth in
Section IV- B -3 -e -3 of this Ordinance.
Prior to the vrevaration of the traffic impact
study, a scoRiM-meeting shall be held
including the planning staff, the applicant,
and the preparer of the study. The discussion
at this meeting should set the study_
arameters including the-study area lanned
and committed roadway improvements (by NCDOT
or others road links and intersections to be
analyz,ed,_vreliminary traffic distribution,
other planned developments to be considered
traffic growth rate, available data, periods
for which analysis is to be performed, and
other staff concerns. The qualifications of
the vrevarer may be discussed at or vrior to
this meetin
(The proposed amendments clarify the
qualifications of the professional performing
the TIS and establish the need for a pre -TIS
conference).
*IV- B- 3 --e -2. Applicability - Except as described below a
traffic impact study shall be required for all
*Amended subdivisions containing 80 or more dwelling
2 -1 -88 units or where the estimated traffic generated
by the subdivision exceeds 800 trips /day 2-r-
100 trips_during_ the AM or PM peak -hour of
highway traffic.
[] = delete text
bold underline = add text
I
A subdivision containing 80 or more dwelling
units or which generates traffic in excess of
800 trips /day or 100 trips during the AM or
PM Reak- hour__of highway traffic, may be
exempted for the requirement to prepare and
submit a traffic impact study if, as part of
sketch plan review for the subdivision, --A
traffic impact_ study has previously been
re ared for this garticular ro ect or
develo went and there is to be no change in
land use or densit that would increase travel
and no change in access to the external street
system. [material is submitted to demonstrate
that traffic created-by the subdivision when
added to existing traffic will not result in a
need for transportation improvements.]
Planning Department Staff will review material
submitted in support of an exemption and will
determine from that material whether or not to
grant the exemption. If an exemption is
granted, documentation of the exemption will
be submitted as part of the staff
recommendation on the preliminary plan.
(The proposed amendments incorporate a peak -
hour threshold for developments that generate
a high proportion of their trips during the
peak hour and identify criteria under which a
proposed development may be exempted from TIS
requirements).
Orange County may require any subdivision
approval application to be accompanied by a
traffic impact study when a road capacity or
safety,issue exists. If one is required, the
County will notify the applicant of the reason
for the requirement.
*IV- B- 3 --e -3. General Requirements and Standards - The
traffic impact study shall contain the
*Amended following information:
z -1 -88
A) General Site Description - The site
description shall include the size, location,
proposed land uses, number of units and gross
s care foots e by land use existing land use
and zoning, construction staging and
completion date of the proposed land
development to the extent known or able to be
described at the time the agglication is
prepared. If the development is residential,
types of dwelling units and number of bedrooms
[] = delete text
bold underline = add text
15
3
shall also be included.. A brief description
of other major existing and proposed land
developments within the study area shall be
provided. The general site description shall
also include probable socio- economic
characteristics of potential site users to the
extent that they may affect the transportation
needs of the site (i.e., number of senior
citizens).
(The proposed amendment identifies additional
data requirements).
B) Transportation Facilities Description - The
description shall contain a full documentation
of the proposed internal and existing external
transportation system. This description shall
include proposed internal vehicular, bicycle
and pedestrian circulation, all proposed
ingress and egress locations, all internal
roadway widths and rights -of -way, turn lanes,
parking conditions, traffic channelizations,
and any traffic signals or other intersection
control devices at all intersections within
the site.
The report shall describe the entire external
roadway system within the study area. Major
intersections in the study area and all
intersections or driveways adiacent to or
within 400 feet of the site shall be
identified and sketched. All existing and
proposed public transportation services and
facilities within one mile of the site shall
also be documented. Future highway
improvements, including proposed construction
and traffic signalization, shall be noted.
This information shall be obtained from North
Carolina's Transportation Improvement Program.
Any proposed roadway improvements due to
proposed surrounding developments shall also
be noted.
(The proposed amendment expands the scope of
the study area).
C) Existing Traffic Conditions - Existing traffic
conditions shall be (measured and] documented
for all roadways and intersections in the
study area. This shall include documentation
of traffic accident counts as recorded by the
H.C. Department of Transportation District
Engineers Office munici al or coun&y law
enforcement and the N.C. Highway Patrol.
[] = delete text
bold underline = add text
Existing traffic volumes for average daily
traffic, peak highway hour(s) traffic and peak
development generated hour(s) traffic, if
aRpropriate, shall be recorded. Manual
traffic counts at major intersections in the
study area shall be conducted, encompassing
the peak highway and development generated
hour(s), if appropriate, and documentation
shall be included in the report. Existing
average daily or eak -hour traffic counts
made within one year of the study date-maybe
used subject to Planning Department-Approval.
A volume /capacity analysis based upon existing
volumes shall be performed during the peak
highway hour(s) and the peak development
generated hour(s), if aMropriate, for all
roadways and major intersections expected to
be impactedJby deve,loRment traffic [ in the
study area.] Levels of service shall be
determined for each [location] signalized
intersection or roadway segment analyzed
above.
This analysis will determine the adequacy of
the existing roadway system to serve the
current traffic demand. Roadways and /or
intersections experiencing levels of service E
or F shall be noted as congestion locations.
(The proposed amendments add traffic accidents
as a required component of documenting
existing conditions and allow the Planning
Department some discretion in deciding on the
suitability of traffic counts).
D) Transportation Impact of the Development -
Estimation of vehicular trips to result from
the [proposal] proposed development shall be
completed for the average weekday_, the average
daily AM and PM peak [highway hour(s)] hours
of _highway travel in the study area, and, if
appropriate peak [development generated]
hour [(s)] of traf kc generation by the
development. Vehicular trip generation rates
to be used for this calculation shall be
obtained from an accepted source such as [the
Transportation and Traffic Engineering
Handbook, Institute of Transportation
Engineers] "Trip Generation" (institute of
Trans ortation Engineers, Fourth Edition 1987
as amended. These development generated
traffic movements as estimated, and the
reference source(s) and methodology followed
shall be documented. [All turning movements
[] = delete text
bold underline = add text
17
k,
shall be calculated.] These generated volumes
shall be distributed to the study area and
assigned to the existing roadways and
intersections throughout the study area.
Documentation of all assumptions used in the
distribution and assignment phase shall be
provided. All average daily traffic link
volumes within the stud area shall be shown
graphically. Peak hour turning movement
volumes--shall be shown for signalized and
other major intersections, including all
access points to the development. [Traffic
volumes shall be assigned to individual access
points.] Pedestrian and bicycle volumes at
school crossings and as otherwise applicable
shall be re noted. [Pedestrian volumes shall
also be calculated, if applicable. If school
crossings are to be used, pedestrian volumes
shall be assigned to each crossing.] Any
characteristics of the site that will cause
[particular] trip generation [problems shall
be noted] to vary significantly from average
rates available in published sources shall be
documented, including such factors as
diversion of passer -by traffic, internal
capture, _staggered work hours, or use of
transit.
(The proposed amendments are more specific
regarding the times for which trips for the
proposed development are to be estimated,
require graphic depiction of estimated traffic
volumes, and require documentation of volumes
that vary significantly from average rates in
published sources).
E) Analysis of Transportation Impact - The total
traffic demand that will result from
construction of the proposed development shall
be calculated. This demand shall consist of
the combination of the existing traffic [and]
traffic generated by the proposed development,
and traffic due to other developments___and
other growth in traffic that would be
ex ected to use the roadway at the time the
proposed development-is completed_. If staging
of the proposed development is anticipated,
calculations for each stage of completion
shall be made. This analysis shall be
performed [during] for average weekday
traffic, the peak highway hour(s) and if
a ro riate, peak development generated
hour(s) for all roadways and major
intersections in the study area.
[] = delete text
bold underline = add text
M1
0
Volume /capacity calculations shall be
completed for all major intersections. It is
usually at these locations that capacity is
most restricted.
(The proposed amendment requires that all
traffic expected in the study area at the time
of proposed development completion be
documented, not just the traffic expected as a
result of the development).
All access points and pedestrian crossings
shall be examined for ade uate sight
distance and [as to the feasibility of] for
the necessity of installing traffic
signals. [This] The traffic signal evaluation
shall compare the projected traffic and
pedestrian volumes to the warrants for traffic
signal installation.
(The proposed amendment adds sight distance as
an element to be addressed at all access
points and pedestrian crossings).
F) Conclusions and Recommended Improvements -
Levels of service for all roadways and
signalized intersections serving 10
ercent or more of Beak-hour Rroject
traffic shall be [listed] reported. All
roadways and /or signalized intersections
showing a level of service below D in urban
or developed areas or below C in rural areas
shall be considered deficient, and specific
recommendations for the elimination of these
problems shall be listed. This listing of
recommended improvements shall include, but
not be limited to the following elements:
internal circulation design, site access
location and design, external roadway and
intersection design and improvements, traffic
signal installation and operation including
signal timing, and transit service [design]
improvements. All physical roadway
improvements shall be shown in sketches.
[The listing of recommended improvements for
road improvements shall include for each
improvement, the party responsible for the
improvement, the cost and funding of the
improvement, and the completion date for the
improvement].
(The proposed amendments specify the roadways
and intersections for which levels of service
[] = delete text
bold underline = add text
I
7
shall be determined.and specify volumes below
level of service D in urban or developed areas
as the threshold for deficiency).
*IV- B- 3 -e -4. Submission and Implementation - The traffic
impact study will be submitted to the Orange
County Planning Department within the
*Amended applicable time frame indicated below. The
2 -1 -88 Planning Department will review the study as
part of the development review process.
Recommendations will be incorporated into the
approval process as indicated below.
A) Time of Submission - The sketch plan should be
sufficiently detailed to allow the Planning
Department to assess the need for a traffic
impact study. The traffic impact study shall
be submitted to the Planning Department with
and as Rart of, the preliminary plan
application for subdivision approval.
B) Implementation - The Planning Department and
such other agencies or officials as may appear
appropriate in the circumstances of the case
shall review the impact study to analyze its
adequacy in solving any traffic problems that
will occur due to the subdivision. The
Planning Department and Planning Board may
recommend and the Orange County Board of
Commissioners may decide that certain
improvements on or adjacent to the site are
mandatory for plan approval and may attach
these conditions to the approval. If the
Board of Commissioners concludes that
additional improvements are necessary, the
applicant shall have the opportunity to
resubmit alternative improvement designs for
approval.
H = delete text
bold underline = add text
DRAFT 5 -16 -90 PH Minutes
2
page
JAY ZARAGOZA understands that the right -of -way for St. Mary's Road i
150 feet which means four lanes and this would be an alternate bypass t
get from 70 to north Durham.
Mr. Norwood referred to the staff recommendation of deleting the
outer loop and the roads that will ultimately face the greatest
consequence from that is Elizabeth Brady Road and its extension and
Lawrence Road. He asked that this be considered when making a decision
on this outer loop.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation
no sooner than August 6, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
a. Article 13 Orange County Zoning ordinance
b. Section IV Orange County Subdivision Regulations
These proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance and the Orange County Subdivision Regulations include the
requirements for a Traffic Impact Study. The proposed amendments woul
require that a Traffic Impact Study be performed for zoning changes,
special use permits, and site plans that would generate traffic in
excess of 800 trips per day. Amendments proposed to the TIS
requirements deal primarily with clarification. However, there are so
changes of a substantive nature, most notably:
1) The inclusion of 100 trips during the AM or PM peak -hour
of highway traffic as a threshold for requiring a TIS;
2) using level of service D as the measure of deficiency in
urban or developed areas; and
3) adding Table 13.1, Typical Thresholds for Required
Preparation of a Traffic Impact Study, to the Zoning ordinance.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
PAT DAVIS stated that the EDC has some concerns about the existing
ordinance and the proposed amendments. They agree with the concept that
the impacts of land development activities upon all transportation
systems be considered. They agree that developments should be require
to pay their fair share of these improvements that are needed to support
growth in accordance with the County's Land Use Plan. One concern is
that the way the ordinance is written, it appears that a developer could
potentially be required to make substantially off site improvements of
their particular development parcel and that these improvements might
benefits adjacent property owners and could also benefit existing
residents as well. There is an equity issue that needs to be addressed.
The ordinance doesn't clearly define how the improvements area is goin
to be established. It appears that it is somewhat open ended as to ho
far away from the project site a.developer must evaluate existing and
future traffic patterns. The limits of these areas need to be
established. The Ordinance appears to utilize some high vehicle trip
generation rates to establish a threshold for development that would b
21
page 8
required to complete a traffic impact study. Some of these levels used
for the various land uses are considerably lower than the threshold used
for other areas. EDC will look at these and submit some specific
recommendations for the different land uses. The ordinance has an open
ended approach for projecting traffic impact of future development in a
study area during the period under which a development is under
construction. EDC would like for this approach to be standardized to
reduce the potential for misunderstanding during the entire review
process. The existing ordinance under 13.3 provides a general exemption
which is to be deleted. EDC feels there may be certain instances in
which this provision may be needed. EDC is presently in the process of
making a recommendation for prezoning of certain areas in the County
that would be suitable for economic development. The extent to which
the traffic impact study ordinance provisions are going to be required
for the areas they have under consideration is an important concern.
They have not included in the budget monies to pay for the traffic
impact study on these areas under consideration. He stated that a
written statement from EDC will be sent to the Planning Board before
they consider this item and make a recommendation to the Board.
Barry Jacobs made reference to an area in Durham County which was
prezoned and the traffic impact was not taken into consideration and how
this adversely impacted the neighborhood. The only way he would feel
comfortable with prezoning would be to consider the impact of the
development in the area and a way to include that in the approval.
Larry Meisner from Kimley Horn stated that the thresholds were put in
as a guideline. Rather than have a developer come in and take a look at
the trip generation of 800 trips a day or 100 trips in a peak hour and
determine if his development meets that and wonder if he has to go
through a whole impact study to find out if he needs to do an impact
study, the TAS suggested to put in these typical thresholds. These are
not necessarily the final guidelines. They are based on the Institute
of Transportation Engineers trip generation report which is a standard
for the number of trips generated per one thousand square feet of
office, per thousand square feet of retail, per unit of single family or
multi family units, etc.
Chairman Carey questioned the necessity of having the transportation
plan certified stating that this increases the cost of doing the study.
Meisner indicated they want the study to be done by someone who is a
registered engineer or certified planner. It is a way to protect the
applicant and the public. The cost of a traffic impact study will
depend on the location, the intersections involved, the complexity of
the project, etc. Usually the minimum cost would be $2,500 to $3,000
for a small project. For a medium size project it could cost from
$3,000 to $5,000.
JAY ZARAGOZA stated that what Chapel Hill or Durham does should be
irrelevant to what Orange County does. Wake County seems to function
very well without a traffic impact analysis. He feels that hiring a
certified engineer to come up with figures that can't be all that
accurate is unnecessary.
2C
page
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner
Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendatio
to come back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6,
1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. PRIVATE ROADS
a. Section IV and Y Orange County Subdivision Regulations b.
Orange county Private Road Standards
These proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations and the Orange County Private Road Standards relate to the
private roads policy and standards. Major features of the proposed
revisions to the Subdivision Regulations and Private Road Standards
include:
1) Coordination of private roads with the public road system;
2) clarification as to where public roads will be required;
3) clarification as to where private roads are appropriate;
4) additional certification on final plats regarding access, futur
development, and disclosure to prospective purchasers;
5) a cap on the number of lots /dwellings that can be served by a
Class
A private road;
6) transfer of inspection and certification responsibility from th
County to professional engineers and /or registered land
surveyors; and
7) a reduction in the maximum grade allowed on a private road.
ALICE GORDON referred to the implication of "existing road" in the
ordinance and in particular as this would apply to a person who has a
two acre lot and wants to divide it into two one acre lots. She feels
this would be a burden on that landowner to upgrade the road.
JAY ZARAGOZA referred to the 12% grad and sees this as excessively
restrictive. He referred to the road maintenance agreement and stated
that while it is possible to get twenty -five people to agree to
something it is another thing to get them to do what they have agreed i
is another matter.
Mr. Meiser stated that the purpose was to look at the new private
roads as well as the existing ones to be sure there is not a small
private road that is twelve feet wide where someone subdivides a twent
acre parcel and builds another ten units which would produce that much
more traffic. The assumption would be that the road would be improved
to at least the minimum standard that would be required by that number
of units.
William Waddell asked about the existing roads that do not meet thi
criteria and asked if another road would need to be built if additiona
development takes place. Mr. Meiser stated this will be taken into
account when considering the final recommendation.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner
Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendati
M
DRAFT 7 -10 -90 PB "linutes
MOTION:
VOTE:
C7
b)
Efland area;
Elizabeth Brady Road extension and
bridge; and
4
c) in -town traffic patterns in Hillsborough.
3) Approval of the DCHC Plan conditioned upon
removal of the Orange County portion of the
Outer Loop and classification of Bethel -
Hickory Grove Church Road as an urban minor
thoroughfare to promote consistency at the
plan boundary.
4) Approval of the Alamance County portion once
a reassessment of the need for the Mattress
Factory Road Interchange is done.
The Planning Staff concurs with the TAS
recommendation and further recommends no action
be taken on the Draft NCDOT Thoroughfare Plan
until the issues identified have been resolved
and the Draft Plan has received a more thorough
review by the TAS. This would include
consideration of items such as the comments by
Wendy Olson that there was nothing in the
specifications that suggested there was any area
for pedestrians or bicyclists to safely cross
bridges. A copy of the suggested bridge
standards from Ms. Olson is attached to these
minutes on pages
Best noted the concerns with the Hillsborough
Thoroughfare Plan and the lack of Best Management
Practices (BMP's) around the Efland Interchange.
The request made previously by the Planning Board
of NCDOT that walkways be left open under I -85
connecting West 10 Road
and Ben Johnson Road is an issue that the TAS
will also be discussing with the Town of
Hillsborough,
Reid moved approval as recommended by the TAS and
Planning Staff. Seconded by Eddleman.
Unanimous.
Beth McIver, liaison between EDC and the Planning
Staff spoke to clarify comments by Ted Abernathy,
EDC Director regarding the flexibility of study
area definition in Prince George's County,
Maryland. Mr. Abernathy said that while the
study area is flexible, it is, by far, the most
controversial part of the legislation.
?.3
K
5
b. Traffic Impact Study
(1) Article 13 - Zoning Ordinance
(2) Section IV - Subdivision Regulations
Presentation by Gene Bell.
The requirements for a Traffic Impact Study
(TIS) were adopted into the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Regulations in February of 1988.
Basically, the ordinances require that a TIS be
conducted for any zoning changes, special use
permits,' or site plans that would generate
traffic in excess of 800 trips per day. To date,
.no developments generating 800 trips per day have
been proposed and a TIS has never been done.
When the TIS requirements were adopted, it was
the intent that they be reviewed by a consultant
for fine- tuning. This was done by Kimley -Horn
working with the TAS.
The most substantive changes are:
1) The inclusion of 100 trips during the AM or
PM peak -hour of highway traffic as a
threshold for requiring a TIS;
2) using level of service D as the measure of
deficiency in urban or developed areas; and
3) adding Table 13.11 Typical Thresholds for
Required Preparation of Traffic Impact Study,
to the Zoning Ordinance.
At the public hearing, Pat Davis spoke on
behalf of the EDC expressing a list of concerns.
Marvin Collins, Planning Director, will
address those concerns.
The TAS recommended approval of the proposed
amendments including clarification as to the
intent of the thresholds listed in Table 13.1
and further work with the consultant to define a
more acceptable methodology for defining study
area boundaries.
Marvin Collins made a presentation of a
memorandum addressing each of the concerns as
stated by Pat Davis at the public hearing.
(A copy of this memo is an attachment to these
minutes on pages •)
25
[7
Waddell expressed concern that the Traffic Impact
Analysis is just another entanglement that the
developer must deal with, and it will not make
Orange County an attractive place for good
economic development. Collins responded that the
Planning Staff is not opposed to development,
particularly economic development which will
benefit the County. He noted that the fiscal
impact analysis had indicated that residential
development alone cannot support the school
system. He stressed the fact that, even though
there is an expense involved in a Traffic Impact
Study, it is a study that is needed if a
determination is to be made of major impacts.
Collins continued, citing Churton Street as a
perfect example of why Traffic.Impact Studies are
needed. He noted that too much reliance is
placed on NCDOT to make massive corrections after
development and traffic problems have already
occurred.
The cost of a Traffic Impact Study was discussed.
Larry Meisner, Kimley -Horn consultant, stated
that the cost for a TIS is $3,000.00 to
$5,000.00. He indicated that the profit a
developer makes on a subdivision would far
outweigh the cost of the TIS. Meisner continued
that the recommended modifications in the
ordinance are to insure that the right things are
being done as development occurs in order to
improve the quality of life and traffic in the
area. This includes improvements which insure
adequate capacity for road; turn lanes, and
proper location for driveways. He continued that
he views the TIS as a decision- making and
information tool for the County.
Best stated that the TIS should be viewed as
part of the entire transportation package. The
TAS feels that the County can become more
involved in the Transportation Improvement
Program with the State. The TIS will help in
requesting funds from the State for needed
improvements. In the long term, all of this is
designed to try to provide a better
transportation network.
Reid expressed concern with the possibility of a
developer investing in a TIS and then losing that
investment due to the inability to complete the
project because of disapproval or additional
costs. Collins responded by explaining again the
situations whereby a TIS would be required.
1)
7
Meisner expressed agreement with the majority of
the responses as prepared and presented by
Collins.
MOTION: Cantrell moved approval with the changes as
follows:
1) To delete the AM and PM peak hours;
2) To change the trip generation chart to
reflect the actual trips generated; and
3) To maintain the general exemption under
Section 13.3 of the existing ordinance; and
4) Underline the word may in 13.5.c.2.
Seconded by Eddleman.
Cantrell expressed concern that the Planning
Board be perceived as being friendly to Economic
Development.
VOTE: 5 in favor.
2 opposed (Reid - noted he did not fully
understand why the caps were placed where they
are; Waddell - felt the caps are too low and have
not specifically described ground where TIS would
be required and felt it was not conducive to
economic development.
c. Private Roads
(1) Sections IV /V - Subdivision Regulations
(2) Private Road Standards
Presentation by Gene Bell.
Proposed amendments to Private Road Standards
were proposed as an outgrowth of a meeting
involving the County Attorney and the Planning
Board several years ago. He indicated that
revisions to private roads policy and standards
clarifying appropriateness and maintenance
responsibility were needed. The TAS spent
considerable time discussing the subject and
working with the consultant on it. Major
features of the proposed revisions to the
Subdivision Regulations and Private Road
Standards include:
1) Coordination of private roads with the public
road system;
2) Clarification as to where public roads will
be required;
3) Clarification as to where private roads are
appropriate;
27
MEMORANDUM
TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD q�
FROM: MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
DATE: JULY 10, 1990
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING /SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS -
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
COPIES: JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER
GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY
PAUL THAMES, COUNTY ENGINEER
TED ABERNATHY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
GENE BELL, PLANNER III
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE
At the May 16, 1990 public hearing, Mr. Pat Davis spoke on behalf of the Economic
Development Commission regarding the above mentioned subject. The concerns identified by
Mr. Davis as well as my response to each are presented below.
1. The impacts of land development activities on transportation systems should be
addressed comprehensively rather than on a small scale basis. The Land Use Plan
provides a basis for determining impacts of projected land uses on such systems, and
the thoroughfare plan should provide a timetable for accomplishing and financing
needed improvements. The EDC believes that if a rezoning is proposed consistent with
the Land Use Plan designation, then a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) should not be
required.
While the initial statements are generally correct, the conclusion reached is not.
The Land Use Plan contains very general land use designations. As an example, land at
a rural crossroads may be designated as a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. Such a
classification or the zoning districts associated with it (Local and Neighborhood
Commercial) are insufficient to project traffic impacts.
Even if an area is designated for commercial purposes, the types of land uses as well
as the traffic generated may vary considerably. For example, a convenience store
generates 887 trips /1,000 sq.ft., while an office building generates 16 trips /1,000
sq.ft. Even if an "average" trip generation rate is used for all commercial uses,
there is no way to predict where specific uses will locate. Trips are thus averaged
over the entire thoroughfare system or major portions thereof. Only through a traffic
impact study can specific impacts and needed improvements associated with development
of a specific site be determined. As an example, the thoroughfare plan may have
accurately determined that a street be widened to handle projected traffic flow, but
it could not predict the need for additional off -site turn lanes or signalization
improvements associated with a proposed shopping center development. Neither could it
predict the need for additional on -site turn lanes /access points.
There is one argument which could be made in favor of eliminating rezoning requests
2
from the requirement of including a TIS. In considering a rezoning, the governing
board must take into account the full range of uses permitted in the requested
district, making it somewhat more difficult to prepare a TIS which focused on specific
impacts. While the particular use under consideration by the applicant could not he
identified, he /she could still analyze the range of traffic impacts (low -high)
associated with rezoning. This would allow the governing board to make a more informed
decision.
2. The definitions and method for determining the geographical extent of the
required "study area" and "improvements" area need to be clarified. It is uncertain
and open -ended as to how far away from a project the developer must evaluate existing
and future traffic patterns.
While it is agreed that a "defined" study area is desirable, the type, size, and
location of projects varies so much that it is difficult to derive a standard which
uniformly reflects this diversity. An argument could also be made that the applicant
will benefit by being able to "negotiate" the study area boundaries. A standard could
be proposed/ adopted which is actually detrimental to him /her. The Planning Department
is not interested in stretching the boundaries as far as possible. Traffic impacts
will disperse as distance from the project increases. Thus, the focus of the
Department will be on the area immediately adjacent to the project and beyond that, on
intersections/ facilities which may be negatively impacted .
3. High vehicle trip generation rates appear to have been used to establish thresholds
for development that would be required to complete a TIS. it appears that threshold
levels used for various land uses are considerably lower than those used for other
areas. Consideration should be given to increasing these threshold levels and
expanding the threshold list.
The basic standard or threshold for development is 800 trips per day. Shown on
Attachment A are the trip generation rates for the representative land uses shown on
Table 13.1. As illustrated by the range of trip rates, high vehicle trip generation
rates were not used to establish thresholds. Average trip rates were used.
The application of the average trip rates to the typical thresholds shown in Table
13.1 does not result, however, in projected traffic of 800 trips per day. The
alternate thresholds shown on Attachment A do correspond with the basic standard and
are recommended for use.
4. The proposed threshold of 100 trips during the peal: hours of traffic may require
several types of development that would not have required a TIS under the old
ordinance to now complete a TIS.
On Attachment A, the number of trips generated by the land uses shown on Table 13.1
has been calculated for both an average weekdav and for the average daily Am and PM
peak hours of highway traffic. Also shown is AM and PM peak hour traffic as a
percentage of total weekday traffic.
The purpose for incorporating a peak -hour threshold was to cover uses that generate a
high proportion of trips during the peak hours. As shown on Attachment A, there are
very few uses which generate high proportions. For this reason, it would seem more
29
appropriate to drop the proposed "100 trips during the AM or PM peak -hour of highway
traffic" and stay with the standard of 800 trips per day.
5. It appears that the County could require the developer to pay for not only
transportation system improvements Within and adjacent to the property but for off -
site improvements as well. Such improvements would benefit adjacent property owners
and existing residents, and alternative approaches for addressing this equity issue
should be considered.
While off -site improvements can be required, a measured approach must be taken in
deciding if improvements are essential for public safety purposes, if they are
proportional to the project impact, and if they are achievable. A better way to meet
the "proportionally test" and address equity issues through pursuing a system of
impact fees or taxes. On -site and adjacent impacts could then be dealt with directly
by the applicant, and major improvement costs could be distributed equitably to the
larger population.
6. A standardized approach for projecting traffic impacts of future development in the
"study" area should be developed and included in the ordinance.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) conducted a study to investigate
methodologies for traffic impact assessment. The Committee formed by ITE prepared a
guide for the preparation of traffic impact analyses - "Guidelines for Transportation
Impact Assessment of Proposed New Development" - which would be useful to applicants.
The Committee did conclude, however, that it would be impractical to develop a
detailed procedural manual for the performance of all traffic impact analyses. Every
proposed development is unique in its relationship to the adjacent transportation
system, each requiring different details of analyses.
7. The general exemption under Section 13.3 of the existing ordinance should be
maintained rather than deleted.
The exemption as proposed excludes any project for which a TIS has already been
prepared, proposes no change in use, and creates no new traffic or access points. Such
an exemption seems overly restrictive. For example, if a building occupied by an
office (16 trips /1000 sq.ft. /day) changed to a clinic (23 trips /1000 sq.ft. /day), a
TIS would be required for change of use and increased traffic. It would seem more
appropriate to retain the current exemption and place the burden of proof on
the applicant. In most instances, the applicant would almost have to prepare a
complete TIS to clearly demonstrate that the project would not result in needed
transportation improvements.
S. It appears that a TIS would be required for each separate area proposed by the EDC for
pre - zoning for economic development purposes. The cost for such studies has not been
included in the EDC budget for FY 1991.
The Planning Department has assisted the EDC in developing methods for analyzing the
fiscal impact of development. The Planning Department could provide the same
assistance in evaluating traffic impacts associated with specific pre - zoning
proposals. The cost for such work is already covered by the Planning Department
budget.
TRArFIC GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR SELECTED LAND USES
Actual Actual
Range of Proposed Peak Hour Threshold Threshold Alternate
Trip Average Typical Trips as % of @ B(K) Trips @ 100 Trips Per Typical
and Use Rates Trip Rate Threshold Generated Weekday Per Weekday AM /PM Peak Hour Threshold
ESiCENTIAL
Single - Family
80 Units
Weekday
4.307- 21.900
10.1'62
805
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
0.333 -2.271
0.754
60
Weekday -PM Peak Hour
0.420 -2.977
1.005
80
Apartment
130 Units
Weekday
0.542 - 11.814
6.103
793
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
0.095 -1.024
0.532
69
Weekday -PM Peak Hour
0.095 -1.636
0.673
87
Mobile Home Park
150 Units
Weekday
2.283 - 10.422
4.814
722
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
0.162 -1.000
0.412
62
Weekday -PM Peak Hour
0.3331 -1.044
0.559
84
__TAIL
Shopping Center
100000 S.F.
Weekday
NA
74.31
7431
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
NA
1.75
175
Weekday-PM Peak Hour
NA
6.23
623
Restaurant, Sit -Down
4000 S.F.
Weekday
48.563- 139.333
95.620
382
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
0.250 -1.500
0.909
4
Weekday -PM Peak Hour
2.200 - 13.636
7.250
29
Restaurant, Fast Food
4000 S.F.
Weekday
284.000- 1359.50 632.125
2529
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
2.000- 147.000
55.851
223
Weekday -PM Peak Hour
8.259 - 99.500
33.257
133
Supermarket
6500 S.F.
Weekday
51.700 - 271.000
125.500
816
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
0.102 -1.242
0.545
4
Weekday -;N Peak Hour
0.796 - 59.667
8.821
57
Convenience Store
1000 S.F.
Weekday
396.000- 932.000
887.056
667
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
25.000 - 125.000
67.611
69
Weekday -PM peak Hour
25.000 - 145.000
75.5%
76
Bank, Walk -In
33000 S.F.
Weekday
137.000- 301.333
189.951
570
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
4.400- 15.333
8.146
24
Weekday -PM Peak Hour
11.571 - 35.800
20.195
61
Bank, Drive -In
3'Windows
Weekday
207.000 - 466.667
318.400
955
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
4.500 -5.000
4.8333
14
Weekday -PM Peak Hour.
3.000 - 81.000
44.867
135
aourcesa Trip Generation,
4th Edition, Institute of
Transportation
Engineers.
Proposed Amendments - Orange County
Zoning /Subdivision
Regulations.
80 Units
80
7.5% 133
10.0% 100
131 130 Units
8.7% 189
11.0% 149
166 165 Units
8.6% 243
11.6% 179
10766 10800 S.F.
2.4% 57143
8.4% 16051
8366 8400 S.F.
1.0x 110011
7.6% 13793
1266 1300 S.F.
8.8% 1790
5.3% 3007
6375 6400 S.F.
0.4% 183486
7.0% 113337
902 900 S.F.
7.6% 1479 -
e.5% 1324
4212 4200 S.F.
4.3% 12276
10.6% 4952
3 3 Windows
1.5x 21
14.1% 2
1 .
TRAFFIC GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR SELECTED LAND USES
Actual Actual
Range of Proposed Peak Hour Threshold Threshold Alternate
Trip Average Typical Trips as % of @ 800 Trips @ 100 Trips Per Typical
and Use Rates Trip Rate Threshold Generated Weekday Per Weekday AM /PM Peak Hour Threshold
- ICE
384
13.5%
45249
13.5%
Office Auiding
2333
3400 S.F.
50(KKi S.F.
Weekday
NA
16.310
P7J79
816
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
NA
2.210
111
Weekday -PM Peak Hour
NA
22.210
111
Medical Office
132511
3(1000 S.F.
Weekday
23.163 - 4.553
334.170
92
1025
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
0.851 -2.150
1.633
142
49
Weekday -PM Peak Hour
2.208 -5.468
3.626
109
THER
80 Rooms
79
Manufacturing Plant
6.9%
300 Employees
143
Weekday
0.597 -6657
2.085
160
626
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
0.176- 0.941
0.420
164000 S.F.
129
Weekday -PM Peak Hour
0.140 -0.839
0.391
11.7%
117
Manufacturing Plant
15.2%
200000 S.F.
135135
Weekday
0.500. 52.050
3.846
769
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
0.100- 8.750
0.780
156
Weekday -PM Peak Hour
0.091 -7.850
0.749
150
Hotel /Motel - Full Service
80 Rooms
Weekday
5.310 -9.580
8.704
696
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
0.20(-1.033
0.7(W
56
Weekday -PM Peak Hour
0.310 -1.026
0.664
53
Hotel /Motel - Limited Service
100 Rooms
Weekday
4.667- 14.643
10.189
1019
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
0.41(x1.178
0.698
70
Weekday-PM Peak Hour
01306 -0.900
0.625
63
Warehousing
1000(Ki S.F.
Weekday
1.506 - 17.004
4.882
486
Weekday -AM Peak Hour
0.326 -1.927
0.569
57
Weekday -PM Peak Hour
0.340 - 1.6577
0.740
74
urCes: Trip Generation, 4th
Edition, Institute of Transportation.
Engineers.
Proposed Amendments
- Orange County
Zoning /Subdivision Regulations.
49000 S.F
49050
384
13.5%
45249
13.5%
4549
2333
3400 S.F.
23412
4.8%
61237
10.6%
P7J79
385 Employees
31
384
20.6%
2333
18.8%
X56
208000 5.
208008
20.3%
1,28205
19.5%
132511
90 ROOM5
92
8.1%
142
7.6%
151
80 Rooms
79
6.9%
143
6.1%
160
164000 S.F.
163867
11.7%
175747
15.2%
135135
31
i
1
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August_ 21, 1990
Action Agenda
Item # - CZ
SUBJECT: STUDY COMMITTEE - PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROPOSAL
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes —X—No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
- Goal Statement /Plan of Action Planning Director - Extension 2592
- G.S. 106 Article 61
- Excerpt from draft Voluntary TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Farmland Preservation Program Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Ordinance Durham - 688 -7331
- Roster of Agricultural Mebane - 227 -2031
Districts Advisory Board Chapel Hill - 967- 9251/968 -4501
- Charge to Advisory Board
PURPOSE: To consider establishing a Study Committee to prepare a
proposal for a Purchase of Development Rights Program.
BACKGROUND: In December, 1989, the Board of Commissioners included
the preparation of a Purchase of Development Rights
(PDR) Program proposal on its list of annual goals. In
January, 1990, at the annual Department Head Retreat, a
general plan of action was developed by which to
implement the goal. The Commissioners approved the
final list of goals and implementing actions, including
the PDR proposal, at its February 20, 1990 meeting.
In May, 1990, representatives of the Soil Conservation
Service, Agricultural Extension Service, Agricultural
Stabilization & Conservation Service, and Planning &
Inspections Department began meeting to discuss various
ways of involving Orange County citizens in developing
the PDR proposal. A Study Committee of 10 members was
suggested, comprised principally of persons with
agricultural, development, and conservation interests.
Following the meeting, the Planning Director was
contacted by Mrs. Elizabeth Walters, Chair of the
Agricultural Districts Advisory Board. Mrs. Walters was
among the citizens recommended for the PDR Study
Committee and suggested that the Advisory Board be used
to develop a proposal rather than creating an entirely
new committee.
Chapter 106, Article 61, of the N.C. General Statutes
i
r
7
provides the legal basis for counties to establish
voluntary agricultural districts. Under the statutes,
any ordinance adopted for implementation purposes must
provide for the establishment of an Agricultural
Advisory Board, organized and appointed as the County
deems appropriate.
A draft Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program
Ordinance, prepared by the Agricultural Districts
Advisory Board but never considered for adoption by the
Commissioners, contained specific provisions for
appointing such a Board. The Board would be comprised
of nine members, with seven actively engaged in
farming. While all members must be county residents,
each farmer must represent a different township. The
two remaining members would include.an at -large member
and a representative of the development community.
Mrs. Walters' reason for suggesting the Advisory Board
was the group's knowledge of farmland preservation
issues, including PDR. However, if the Advisory Board
is charged with developing the PDR proposal, some new
members will have to be appointed. In addition, more
lattitude in membership may be needed, since some
townships have fewer farms than others, and it will not
always be possible to insure a farm representative from
each. This may require that more than one farmer be
appointed from a township.
The current slate of Advisory Board members was
appointed in March, 1987. Existing members who have
indicated their continued willingness to serve include
the following:
Mrs. Elizabeth Walters Cedar Grove Township
Mr. Chris Hogan Chapel Hill Township
Mr. Bob Nutter Bingham Township
In addition to the above, a list of persons who may be
interested in serving on the Advisory Board is provided
as an attachment. Rather than recommending persons for
membership now, they can be contacted to determine
their interest. A revised list, from which appointments
can be made, can then be presented to the Board of
Commissioners at its September 6, 1990 meeting.
RECOHMNDATION: The Administration recommends that the Agricultural
Districts Advisory Board be charged with developing a
Purchase of Development Rights proposal in conjunction
with the staffs of the Soil Conservation Service,
Agricultural Extension Service, Agricultural
Stabilization & Conservation Service, and Planning &
Inspections Department.
Ic
PLANNING /RURAL CHARACTER
GOAL - COMPLETE PREPARATION OF RURAL CHARACTER STRATEGIES.
OBJECTIVE
TIMETABLE
To present at the may 29, 1990 quarterly public hearing.
PLAN
OF ACTION
A.
Rural Character Study
Subcommittee complete recommendations.
Ongoing
B.
Rural Character Study
Committee develop preliminary strategies.
Ongoing
C.
Township Advisory Groups provide citizen input.
Ongoing
D.
Rural Character Study
Committee develop final strategies.
Ongoing
E.
Planning Board review
and make comments on final strategies.
April 16, 1990
F.
Presentation to Board
of County Commissioners and setting for a public
May 1, 1990
hearing date.
G.
Hold a public hearing
for citizen input.
May 29, 1990
GOAL - DEVELOP A PROPOSAL FOR A PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE
To ensure the preservation of farmland in Orange County.
PLAN OF ACTION
A. Investigate procedures used by counties that have implemented Purchase of July 1990
Development Rights (PDRs) (Fors)rth County and others).
S. Address special concerns associated with the implementation of PDRs such August 1990
as watershed, rural districts and natural areas.
C. Outline criteria for those who are to participate in PDRs. This will include September 1990
priority for selection, funding sources and rank.
D. Outline all legislative requirements including local ordinances and special October 1990
considerations for PDRs.
E. Develop proposal for implementation, administration and monitoring of PDRs. November 1990
F. Present proposal for implementation of PDRs at Board of County Commissioners Retreat. December 1990
C3
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
1995 SESSION (REGULAR SESSION, 1986)
RATIFIED BILL
CHAPTE,R 1025
HOUSE BILL 1190
AN ACT TO ESTABLISH POLICIES TO pRESEHYE FLEISLAND.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
Section 1.. Chapter 106 of the North Carolina General
Statutes is amended by adding a new. Article 61 to read as
follows:
"Article 61..
"Preservation of rarmland..
"S 106 -735.. Short title and up P e "" (a) This Article shall
be known as 'The Farmland Preservation Enabling Act'.
(b) The p+irpose of this Article is to authorize counties to
undertake a series of programs to encourage the preservation of
farmland as defined berein.
"S 106 -736. Farmland preservation Procirams authorized. - -A
i
county may by ordinance establish a farmland preserize9nalifyinq
under this Article. The ordinance maw
farms, as defined in G.S..106 -737, to take advantage of One Or
more of the benefits authorized by the remaining sections of this
Article..
"f 106 -737.. uali ing Earn and. - -In order for farmland to
qualify under this Article, it aunt be real sent-asety that:
(1) Is participating in the farm pre sent- use5valve taxation
program established by G.S. . 105 -277.2 through 105 -277.7 or is
otherwise determined by the county to meet all the qualifications
of this program set forth in G.S..105- 277.3:
(2) Is certified by the Soil Conservation Service of the
United States Department of Agriculture as being a farm on which
e
at least two - thirds of the land is composed of soils that (i)
best suited for providing food, seed• fiber, forage, timber, and (iii) are
oil seed crops, (ii) have good soil qualities,
favorable for all major crops common to the n, an
county d e the
recland
is located, (iv) have a favorable growing
the available moisture needed to produce high yields an average
of eight out of ten years; or on which at least two- thirds of the
land has been actively used in agricultural,
horticultural or
forestry operations as defined in G. S. , 105 -277. 2 (1) , (2) , and (3)
ensured then the date on
daring each of the five previous pears, •
vhich the deteraination must be made as to whether the land in
question qualifies;
(3) Is managed in
osion accordance vith the that arelladdressedtlto
Service defined r
highly erodable land; and
(4) Is the subject of a conservation agreement, as defined in
G. S. 121 -35, between the county and the owner of such alperiodhof
prohibits nonfars use or development of such land r
at least tea years, except for the creation of not more than
three lots that meet applicable county zcning and subdivision
regulations.
�9 106 -737. 1. Revocation of conservation agreement.--ET
written r:)tice to the county, the landowner may revoke this
conservation agreement. Such revocation shall result _AD loss of
qualifying farm status.
-If§ 106 -738. yoluntaLy agricultural districts. - -(a) on
ordinance adopted under this Article shall provide:
( 1) for the establishment of voluntary ?gricultural
districts consisting initially of at least the
number of contiguous acres of qualifying farmland
or the number of qualifying farms deemed
appropriate by the board of county commissioners;
(2) For the formation of such districts upon the
execution by the owners of the requisite acreage of
an agreement to sustain agriculture in the
district;
(3) That the fare of this agreement must be reviewed and
approved by an agricultural advisory board
established under G. S.. 106 -739 or some other county
board or official;
(4) That each such district have a representative on
the agricultural advisory board established under
G. S. 106 -739.
(b) The purpose of such agricultural districts shall he to
increase identity and pride in the agricultural community and its
way of life and to increase protection from nuisance suits and
other re gative impacts on properly manage3 farms. The county may
take such action as it deems appropriate to encourage the
zormatiz)n of such districts and to further their purposes and
objectives.
116 106 -739. Agricultural advisory board. --An ordinance adopted.
under this Article shall provide for the establishment of an
agricultural advisory board, organized and appointed as the
county shall deem appropriate. The county may confer upon this
advisory board authority to:
(1) Review and make recommendations concerning the
establishment and modification of agricultural districts;
(2) %eviev and make >recoumendatious concerning any ordinance
or amendment adopted or proposed for adoption under this Article;
(3) Hold public hearings on public projects likely to have an
impact on agricultural operations, particularly if such projects -
involve condemnation of all or part of any qualifying farm;
(4) Advise the board of county commissioners on projects,
programs, or issues affecting the agricultural economy or way of
life within the county;
(S) Perform other related tasks or duties assigned by the
board of county commissioners.
106-740. Public herrings on condemnation of farmland.
ordinance adopted under -this Article may provide that no State or
local public agency or governmental unit may formally initiate
any action to condemn any interest in qualifying farmland within
a voluntary agricultural district until such agency has requested
the local agricultural advisory board established under G.5. 106-
739 to hold a public hearing on tLe proposed condemnation. .
(1) Following a public hearing held pursuant to this section,
the board shall prepare and submit written findings and a
2 house Pill 1190
\5
- recommendation to the decision- making body of the agency
prcposiaq acquisition.
�'. (2) The board designated to hold the bearing shall have 30
days after receiving a request under this section to hold the
public hearing and submit its findings and recommendations to the
agen cy.
(3) The agency may not formally initiate a condemnation action
while the proposed condemnation is properly before the advisory
board within these time limitations.
"S 106 -741. Record notice of rroximit_y to farmlands. - -(a) Any
county that has a computerized land records system may require
that such records include some form of notice reasonably
calculated to alert a person researching the title of a
particular tract that such tract is located within one --half mile
of a poultry, swine, or dairy qualifying farm or within 600 feet
of any other qualifying ±arm or within one -half Bile of a
voluntary agricultural district.
(b) In no event ,shall the county or any of its officers,
employees, or agents be held liable in damages for any
misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance occurring in good faith
in connection with the duties or obligations imposed bT any
ordinance adopted under subsection. (a) .
(c) In no event shall any cause of action arise out of the
failure of a person researching the title of a particular tract
to report to any person the proximity of the tract to a
qualifying farm or voluntary agricultural district as defined in
this Article.
444 106 -742. Waiver of water and sever assessments.--(a) A
county may provide by ordinance that its water and sever
. assessments be held in abeyance, with or without interest, for
farms, whether inside or outside of a voluntary agricultural
district, until improvements on such property are connected to
the water or sewer system for which the assessment was made.
(b) Ifie ordinance may provide that, when the period of
abeyance ends, the assessment is payable in accordance with the
terms set out in the assessment resolution.
(c) Statutes of limitations are suspended during the time that
any assessment is held in abeyance without interest.
(d) If an ordinance is adopted under this section, then the
assess:pent procedures followed under Article 9 of Chapter 153A
shall conform to the terms of this ordinance with respect to
qualifying farms that entered into conservation agreements while
such ordinance was in effect.
(e) Nothing in this. section is intended to diminish the
authority of counties to hold assessments in abeyance under G. S. .
153A -201.
"i 106 -7430 County ordinances. - -d county adopting an ordinance
under this Article may consult with the North Carolina
Commissioner of Agriculture or his staff before adoption, and
shall record the ordinance with the Commissioner's office after
adoption. Thereafter, the county shall submit to the
Commissioner at least once a year, a written report including the
status, progress and activities of the county's farmland
preservaticu program under this Article."
0
!1:)-use till 1190 3
I,
L
sec. 2. This act is e{fective upon ratification.
1n the General AsseLbly read three times and ratified,
this tue 1tth day of July, 1986.
91
_ROBE RT B.. IORDAH _ i
hobert B. Jordan III
President of the senate
_ LISTON B. RA_MSEY
Liston B. Ramsey
Speaker of the House of Representatives
House Bill 1190
Section - ACnIC:,...�- "r.A:. DTS :r.I S A._::SORT BOARD
A. CR- SATION
A County Agri lu Ural Districts Advisory Board, to consist of nine =embers
appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, is hereby established.
1. Require =ents
A. Each board member 'shall be a county resident. -
b. .Seven of the nine members shall be actively engaged in fa Wing, With
_ -._one coring fro= each township. -
c. The seven members actively engaged in fa Wing shall be appointed by
the Board of Commissioners from the names of individuals submitted
-to the Board of Commissioners by the membership of the Agricultural
Districts in each to%mAip. _
d._-,e two re =aining members shall be appointed by the County CamWis-
.J �sioners, one at large and one frc ='the developme:dcom=uni.y:
2. Tenure
Tae =embers are to- -serve for tens of four gears, except that'the trial
board is to consist of three appointees for a ter of two years, - three -
:
appo tees for zc=-_s of three years, and three appointees for terns of
four gears. :Therea.�er! all appointments are to be for. te=_S of four -
years, with reappointments pe Witted.. �- - _- -
•- ^� - - :� st_fcts Advisc� Board is to be
Any vaczncy on the Agricultural D_
w- led
bq the Board of Commissioners for the re =zinder of the unemp red to w
accord_ Q to B •- l . - . •_ . - - .... -
4.' Removal for Cause
A^. }• me��er
of the Agric::l :oral �istr.itts Advisory Board mzp be removed
for cause by the Board of Commissiene_s upon vr'_ttea caarges and after
a p::blic hearing.
D,
}
X
Page 1
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY BOARD
(September, 1988)
MAILING ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
TERM EXPIRATION
RACE
SEX
TOWNSHIP
REPRESENTATION
,01
Carl Walters
563.3842
W
Route 2, Box 225
M
Cedar Grove
At Large
Efland, NC 27243
Fra
.02
ces . Shetley
Route 1 Box 330
942.5773
✓�
9/1� 4J
W
F
Chapel Hit(
At Large
Chapel ill, NC 27516
p�J
.03
Robert Nutter
929-6397�J
W
F
Route 3, Box 542
Bingham
At Large
Hillsborough, NC 27278
.04
Larry Rogers
562.5269
W 6
Route 5, Box 85
M
Cedar Grove
At Large
Mebane, NC 27302
.05
W. Whitfield Morrow
544-2900
218 Hillcrest Circle
W
M
Chapel Hill
At Large
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
.06
Dean A. Deter
732 -7482
Route 2, Box 347
W
M
Cedar Grove
At Large
Hillsborough, NC 27278
•07
Elizabeth Walters*
563.3842
Route 2, Box 225
W
F
Cedar Grove
At Large
Efland, NC 27243
.08
Chris Mogan
929 -8080
99 Briar Patch Lane
W
F
Chapel Hill
At Large
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
09
Vacant
At Large
10
Vacant
At Large
Page 1
III
POTENTIAL MEMBERS - AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY BOARD
Farm Community Representatives
Cedar Grove Township
Mrs Elizabeth Walters (X)
Mr. Larry Rodgers (D)
Mr. Bobby Nichols
Mr. Howard Pope
Mr. Mike Chockley
Cheeks Township
Mr. Ben Lloyd
Mr. Howard McAdams
Mr. Bill Dorsett
Eno Township
Mr. Reid Poole
Mr. Douglas Crabtree
Mr. David Walker
Mr. Ted Martin
At -Lard Re resentatives
Mr. Dean Rainey
Mr. Pearson Stewart
Ms: Livy Luddington
Mr. Whit Morrow (0)
Ms. Cathy Carroll
Mr. Clint Burklin
Ms. Bibby Moore
Col. Bill Breeze
Mr. Jerry Taylor
Mr. George Horton
Mr. Bill Birch
Little River Townshi
Mr. David McKee
Mr. Earl McKee
Mr. Russell Hall
Mr. Nelson Parker
Mr. David Walker
Hillsborough Township
Mr. Joe Phelps
Mr. Frank Miller
Mr. Paul Latta
Chapel Hill Township
Mr. Bob Strayhorn
Mr. Chris Hogan (X)
Bingham Township
Mr. Bob Nutter (X)
Mr. Charles Snipes
Mr. Bobby Kirk
Farm Credit Service
Triangle Land Conservancy
Public- Private Partnership
Triangle Land Conservancy
Rural Character Study Committee
Developer
Real Estate Broker
Planning Board
Rural Character Study Committee
N.C. Botanical Gardens
SCS District Board
Real Estate Broker /Retired Farmer
Developer
Land Owners Association
(X) - Former member willing to serve.
(0) — Former member who may serve but not contacted.
11.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY BOARD
CHARGE
The Agricultural Districts Advisory Board is to develop a
proposal for a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program
to help insure the preservation of farmland in Orange County.
In achieving this goal, the Advisory Board is to be guided by
the following plan of action:
1. Investigate procedures used by counties that have
implemented PDR (September 1990).
2. Address special concerns associated with the
implementation of PDR such as watershed protection,
rural character, and natural areas preservation (October
1990).
3. Outline criteria for those who are to participate in
PDR. This will include priority for selection, funding
sources, and rank (October 1990).
4. Outline all legislative requirements, including local
ordinances and special considerations for PDR (November
1990).
5. Develop proposal for implementation, administration, and
monitoring of PDR (November 1990).
5. Present proposal for implementation of PDR at Board of
Commissioners Retreat (December 1990).
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 21, 1990
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS
DEPARTMENT: Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): Under Separate Cover
Action Agenda
Item No.
PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Blythe
Ext. 2130
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 recommendation is presented for the Board's
consideration.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Appoint Edward G. Siebert to fill
an unexpired "At Large'l position. This term will end June 30, 1991 and
he will be eligible to serve two full terms.
RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No.�_
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
SUBJECT: MINUTES Meeting Date: AARril _17, 1990
----------------------------------
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:
January 18, 1990 - Rural Character Work Session
April 10, 1990 - Senate Bill 2
May 15, 1990 - Regular Meeting
August 6, 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.
RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE CONCEPT OF A
REGIONAL SPORTS AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, Orange County Board of Commissioners recognizes
that our community is part of a region commonly identified as
"the Triangle," and
WHEREAS, local governments located in the Triangle area
have long recognized the value of a regional approach to
issues which transcend their own jurisdictions, and
WHEREAS, the promotion of large scale sporting events
and endeavors is in the best interests of all local
governments in the Triangle because of the potential for
generation of revenue and national as well as international
exposure, and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly has enacted
enabling legislation which provides for the creation of
regional sports authorities, and
WHEREAS, a regional sports authority is the logical
vehicle to promote the Triangle area as a site for national
and international sporting events, and
WHEREAS, the Triangle area is a potential location for
some of the 1994 World Cup Soccer Matches, and
WHEREAS, interest has been expressed in the Triangle
area as a potential location for a National Football League
franchise, and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the region that
the various local governments join in promoting the region as
a location for such major sporting activities, and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners wishes
to join with other local governments in the Triangle area in
the promotion of the area as a location for such large scale
sporting events.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County
Board of Commissioners endorses the concept of joining with
other local governments in the region to create a regional
sports authority in accordance with the provisions of Part 3
of Article 20, Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General
Statutes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that financing mechanisms be
explored that will impact only the direct beneficiaries of
sports facilities not using any property tax, sales tax,
revenue inventory or intangibles tax.
•
ATTEST:
By:
'oe e'16=
Clerk, O ge Coun y Kard
of Commissioners
C
•
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
By: ��a
Chair, Orange Count o rd
of Commissioners
3
Raleigh - Durham's Market Potential
For The
National Football League's
Carolina Franchise
PREPARED BY
1111 OBERLIN ROAD
RALEIGH, N.C.27605
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HOSPITALS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into the 1st day of July 1990 and by and
between the University of North Carolina Hospitals, hereinafter referred to as "THE
HOSPITAL' and Orange County, North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as "THE
COUNTY ", for its Office of Emergency Management Services.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, THE HOSPITAL desire ground transportation services consisting
o£:
1. A primary ambulance and driver available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
who can arrive at THE HOSPITAL within 30 minutes of a request from Carolina air
Care.
2. A second ambulance and driver available 8am - 7pm, Monday through
Saturday who can arrive at THE HOSPITAL within 30 minutes of a request from
Carolina Air Care for acute transports, or within one hour for non -acute transports.
3. Carolina Air Care reserves the privilege to define transport needs and level of
transport acuity. The transport include, but are not limited to, patient transports, organ
transports, equipment returns, transport of HOSPITAL specialty teams, patient
transport to and from THE HOSPITAL and its MRI facility, and transport of Carolina
Air Care personnel. All transports are to be at the direction of Carolina Air Care
administrative staff.
WHEREAS, THE COUNTY desires to provid6 these services to THE
HOSPITAL.
WHEREAS, THE HOSPITAL desires to reimburse THE COUNTY for such
services;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the following
mutual promises, covenants and conditions, THE HOSPITAL and THE COUNTY
agree as follows:
COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES
1. To schedule drivers for both primary and secondary vehicles.
2. Upon request from THE HOSPITAL, to provide a second driver to
accompany the primary driver on any transport which exceeds 100 miles one -way and is
initiated between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
3. To provide replacement ambulances in case the primary or secondary vehicles
are out of service due to maintenance or repairs, subject to availability of County units at
the time of request.
4. To perform daily check -out of each unit and all equipment aboard the
ambulance at the beginning of each shift. Repair or replace any items that require same
and ensure a sufficient supply of air and oxygen.
5. To properly maintain the vehicles in good working order and to maintain the
equipment on board the ambulance in accordance with the North Carolina Emergency
Medical Services Act of 1973, as amended, and implementing regulations.
6. To provide liability and property insurance on both primary and secondary
vehicles and to provide proof of insurance to THE HOSPITAL upon request.
7. To ensure THE COUNTY's staff is attired in the uniform provided by
Carolina Air Care for each Carolina Air Care transport or function.
8. The drivers will ensure that necessary communications regarding their
status during Carolina Air Care missions are made on a regular basis with the Carolina
Air Care Communications Center.
9. Upon request, the drivers will provide assistance to the medical crew to
load /unload equipment and patients.
10. After each transport, restock equipment and make repairs as necessary to
ensure the proper operations of all equipment. Leave vehicles fully stocked and full of
gas, 02, and air for the on -call driver(s) at night and on weekends.
HOSPITAL RESPONSIBILITIES
1. To provide one primary and at least one secondary vehicle.
a. The primary vehicle shall be a 1990 Type III Modular truck and shall be
equipped with radio and medical equipment- to meet all State requirements. In addition,
the vehicle shall be equipped with oxygen and compressed gas cylinders of at least H size.
The vehicles will be equipped with suction, 110 volt source, a fixture to hold the ventilator
used in the helicopter, a fixture to hold the Life Pak V, and high - intensity directional
lighting in the patient care area. The vehicles will be fitted with a device to secure the
"pediatric stretcher." There will also be fittings to secure two neonatal transport isolettes
of the variety currently used by THE HOSPITAL. The primary vehicle will be identified
with a logo and paint scheme similar to the one on THE HOSPITAL helicopter. The
primary vehicle is to be used exclusively for Carolina Air Care purposes.
b. The secondary vehicles shall be equipped with radio and medical
equipment to meet all State requirements. They also will be equipped with identical
additional equipment as specified in Section 1 (a). The secondary ambulances will be
identified with a logo and paint scheme similar to the one on THE HOSPITAL
helicopter. The secondary ambulances may be utilized for Orange County EMS
purposes as long as it can be made available within 30 minutes of a request from Carolina
Air Care for acute transports or within one hour for non -acute transports.
2. Carolina Air Care Communications will be responsible for notifying
Orange Central Communications of the need for the primary or secondary units and their
drivers. For MRI transports the Carolina air Care Communications will notify Orange
Central Communications if the adult or pediatric team is needed, all other MRI
transports will be coordinated from the MRI unit to the Orange Central
Communications.
3. THE HOSPITAL retains full authority and responsibility for the care and
treatment of its patients and will have administrative and professional supervision of any
Orange County EMS employee while said employees are rendering services to THE
HOSPITAL under this agreement. During a transport THE HOSPITAL, its employees
and members of the Medical Staff will be in charge of the medical aspects of the
transports, including the authority to prescribe to the driver the degree of urgency of the
transport, and the authority to order the vehicle to stop and remain parked while medical
procedures are being performed. The driver will operate within Orange County EMS
policies concerning the safe movement of the vehicle.
4. THE HOSPITAL will reimburse THE COUNTY for the services provided
at the rate of $9,000 per month.
TERM OF AGREEMENT
1991. This Agreement shall run from the 1st day of July, 1990 to the 30th day of June,
TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
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 ninety (90) days prior to termination. In the event of such termination, any
payment due shall be prorated to the date of termination. The parties agree and
understand that the Director of Orange County Emergency Services may temporarily
suspend services under this Agreement in the event of a county -wide disaster.
ACCESS OF RECORDS
In compliance with 42 U.S.C. 1395x (V) 1) (I) and implementing regulations,
Orange County agrees, until the expiration of four (4) years after the services are
furnished under this Agreement, to allow the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services and the Comptroller General access to this contract and to the books,
documents and records of Orange County necessary to verify the nature and extent of the
costs of this contract. If Orange County chooses to subcontract this service, such
subcontract shall contain a clause to the effect that, until the expiration of four (4) years
after the services are furnished under such subcontract, the Secretary of the Department
of Health and Human Services and the Comptroller General shall have access to such
subcontract and to the books, documents, and records of the subcontractor necessary to
verify the nature and extent of the costs of such subcontract.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties and shall not be
altered, amended, or modified, except by an agreement in writing executed by the duly
authorized officials of both parties.
GOVERNING LAW
The laws of North Carolina shall govern the validity and interpretation of the
provisions, terms and conditions of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto signed this Agreement in
their official capacities of the day and year listed below.
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF:
THE UNIVERSITY NORTH CAROLINA HOSPITALS
DATE: ] RI B. N
� 7 90
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF:
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
��G✓� , DATE: J:1�2
MO
E ARY, JR.
CHAIR OF THE BO COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST:
B R,
A. BLYTHE,
CLERK O THE BOARD
1 5 1 1 M)c go
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
CONTRACT
This CONTRACT, made this the 21st day of August , 1990,
is by and between Orange County, North Carolina, a body politic and
corporate ( "County "), and the Animal Protection Society of Orange
County, Inc., a North Carolina nonprofit corporation ( "Society ");
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, County has responsibilities under the laws of North
Carolina and other directives to control dogs and other animals and
to promote health, welfare and safety of humans and animals; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Society, as stated in its
corporate charter and bylaws, is the prevention of cruelty to
animals and the relief of suffering among animals; the
investigation of cruelty. reports; the care of lost, homeless,
mistreated or injured animals; the operation of an animal shelter,
privately or under contract with public authorities; the
establishment of an adoption system for people seeking pets; public
education for the humane treatment of animals; and other purposes
set out in the corporate charter and as allowed by law; and
WHEREAS, County has obligated itself, pursuant to its Animal
Control Ordinance, to operate and maintain a County Animal Shelter
( "the shelter "), either itself or by contract with another entity;
and
WHEREAS, County desires to contract with Society, and Society
desires to contract with County, for the operation and maintenance
of the shelter;
1
� r : I I
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and
covenants contained herein, County and Society agree as follows:
1. Purpose. This Contract is to provide for the management
and operation of the shelter by Society.
2. Res onsibilities of Society. Society shall manage the
shelter and shall be responsible for operating the shelter in a
safe, sanitary, humane, and efficient way. It shall be the duty
of Society to:
A. Hire and supervise shelter personnel pursuant to
County - approved procedures adopted by Society. Society shall
present its proposed personnel procedures to County for review
and consideration by the Board of County Commissioners no
later than September 15, 1990. Any changes to the personnel
procedures of Society proposed by Society shall be presented
to County for its consideration and approval. No such
personnel procedures shall be implemented by Society without
the approval of the Board of County Commissioners.
B. Properly impound animals coming into its control.
C. It is the intention of the County and Society that
only animals originating in Orange County will be impounded
in the shelter. Specific operating procedures designed to
carry out this intention shall be included in the Procedures
Manual described in Section 3.C. of this contract.
D. Be responsible for disposing of, as Society deems
necessary, all animals brought to the shelter in compliance
with applicable North Carolina law and local ordinances.
2
E. Handle, care for and dispose of animals in
accordance with applicable North Carolina law including the
Animal Welfare Act, and local ordinances.
F. Require citizens redeeming animals from the shelter
to pay applicable reclamation and boarding fees established
by County, and account for and remit same to County quarterly.
G. Have the shelter open for business at County -
approved times which permit the public to redeem animals
during other than normal working hours. Society shall present
a proposed schedule of shelter hours of operation to County
for its review and approval.
H. Maintain records on all animals received at the
shelter including:
- admission source (from the public or from Animal
Control)
- animal identification (species, breed, etc.)
- disposition (reclamation, adoption, euthanasia)
- status of animal (stray or surrender)
- length of stay.
Such records shall be summarized monthly and a copy of such
summary provided to County no later than fifteen (15 ) days
after the close of each calendar month.
I. Comply with receipt and cash control procedures
prescribed by County including prenumbered, controlled
receipts itemizing fees collected. Such receipts shall be
made available for inspection by County Finance Officer at all
reasonable times.
3
J. Provide the County Finance Officer fiscal expense
and expenditure performance reports on a quarterly basis and
in such detail as to permit evaluation and cost analysis of
the contracted services. Society will advise the County
Finance Officer how the allocation of direct and indirect
expenses between shelter operations and other Society programs
and functions is made. Quarterly reports for the quarter
running July 1 through September 30 each year shall be
transmitted to the Finance Officer no later than October 31;
for the quarter October 1 through December 31, no later than
January 31; for the quarter January 1 through March 31, no
later than April 30; and for the quarter April 1 through June
30, no later than July 31.
K. Permit access and inspection to all areas of the
shelter by Animal Control personnel and other health and
safety officials in pursuance of their duty. Specifics and
standards relating to access shall be developed in the
Procedures Manual described in Section 3.C. of this contract.
L. Add no new structure or modify the shelter
facilities or the premise whereon the shelter facilities are
located without the written approval of County. County may,
in its sole and absolute discretion, approve or disapprove any
such new structure or modification to the shelter facilities,
subject at all times to limitations and restrictions imposed
on the premises contained in the Special Use Permit effecting
the premises.
.!
3. County Responsibilities. In exchange for Society's
services outlined hereinabove, County shall:
A. Provide an annual appropriation to Society in an
amount approved in the annual budget by the Board of County
Commissioners. The amount of compensation to Society will be
specified in a "Letter of Agreement" that will be considered
an annual addendum to this Contract. The annual appropriation
will be payable in twelve (12) equal monthly increments due
the first day of each month.
B. Provide a structure for the shelter and provide
facility repair services. Such repairs will be performed by
County's Public Works Department.
C. Review and approve procedures for operation of the
shelter and fees to be collected. Such procedures shall be
outlined in a Procedures Manual to be adopted by County and
Society and, if necessary, augmented and revised from time to
time. The Procedures Manual upon its adoption by County and
Society shall be considered a part of this Contract.
D. Audit Society's shelter financial records as part
of County's annual budget process. County will provide
Society with a copy of the official monthly Animal Control
report not later than the 15th of each month.
E. Cooperate with Society in promoting health, safety
and rabies control.
4. Term, Termination and Renewal._ This Contract is for the
period July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991. This Contract may be
terminated on ninety (90) days written notice by either party. The
5
obligations of County and Society contained in this Contract are
all deemed covenants. A breach of anv covenant in fh; Q rrnn +,-m"*
or in any other document incorporated by reference into this
Contract shall make this Contract immediately terminable at the
option of the non - breaching party. In the event this Contract is
terminated for breach of Contract, Society will be allowed a
reasonable time, not to exceed thirty (30) days from the date the
termination is to be effective, to remove its property from the
shelter. This Contract may be renewed annually for July 1 through
June 30 fiscal years by action of the Board of Directors of Society
and the Board of Commissioners of County. Society and County shall
provide the other with written notice of intention to renew this
Contract no later than January 1 of each renewal year. In the
event Society or County fails to provide this written notice, the
other party shall immediately following January 1 begin preparation
for shelter operations by County or its designee effective July 1
of the year in which there is no renewal notice by Society or
County. All property of Society shall be removed and operations
responsibility shall be transferred in its entirety on or before
July 1 of the year of termination.
5. Liability. Society will indemnify, save and hold
harmless County, against any and all liability up to $500,000 which
might arise or accrue by reason of the act or failure to act of any
and all Society's officers, agents, employees, members,
6
representatives, volunteers or assigns. Society will carry a
comprehensive general liability insurance policy with limits for
each occurrence of $500,000 covering the operation of the shelter
and the actions of Society, its officers, agents, employees,
members, representatives, volunteers or assigns in the operation
of the shelter. County shall be a designated insured under the
policy. Society shall provide County with a certificate of
coverage from the insurance provider. County will be provided at
least thirty (30) days written notice of cancellation of the
policy. The certificate of coverage shall so provide in a
cancellation clause. Society shall provide County with a copy of
the policy.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, ORANGE COUNTY has caused this instrument
to be signed in its name by its duly authorized officers and its
seal to be affixed by authority of its Board of Commissioners and
ANIMAL, PROTECTION SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC. has caused this
instrument to be signed in its name by its duly authorized officers
and its seal to be affixed by authority of its Board of Directors
the day and year recited above.
ATTEST:
By:
Clerk, j ge County Board
Of COmmoners
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
By:
Chair, Orange Count rd
of Commissioners
[SEAL]
7
ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY OF
ORANGE COUNTY, INC.
By:
President
ATTEST:
By: [SEAL]
Secretary
This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by
the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
Finance Officer
N
I.
NORTH CAROLINA
CONTRACT ADDENDUM
ORANGE COUNTY
This CONTRACT ADDENDUM, made this the day of
, 1990, is by and between Orange County, North
Carolina, a body politic and corporate ( "County "), and the Animal
Protection Society of Orange County, Inc., a North Carolina
none -r, it corporation ( "Society ");
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, County and Society have entered into a contract
describing the responsibilities of each in operating the Orange
County Animal Shelter, which contract, by its terms, may be renewed
from year to year; and -
WHEREAS, that contract requires Society to quarterly remit
boarding fees collected at the shelter to County; and
WHEREAS, the amount of the fiscal year 1990 -91 County
appropriation to Society for the operation of shelter will be
insufficient for its operation if boarding fees are remitted during
fiscal year 1990 -91;
NOW, THEREFORE, County and Society agree that for the July 1,
1990 -June 30, 1991 fiscal year the requirement contained in
paragraph 2.E. of the contract is amended to require Society to
remit to County only reclamation fees.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, ORANGE COUNTY has caused this instrument
to be signed in its name by its duly authorized officers and its
seal to be affixed by authority of its Board of Commissioners and
ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC. has caused this
instrument to be signed in its name by its duly authorized officers
1
and its seal to be affixed by authority of its Board of Directors
the day and year recited above.
ATTEST:
By
6z k, fflrrange Couney Board
of omnfissioners
ATTEST:
By. 1 /XG 42L4= --
Secretary
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
By:
Chair, Orange County Erb
of Commissioners
[SEAL]
ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY OF
ORANGE COUNTY, INC.
By: -t4 flik
Pr sident
[SEAL]
This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by
the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
Finance Officer
2
•
•
•
J
ITEMS FOR FOLLOWUP
BOARD MEETING DATE: f L-
BEM i TITLE TYPE OFF FFOLLOWUP� FOLLOWUP
&I' / - �r�i /.rte . / !y0_ ! vI^iJi►s.t�4 //l�Eia� ! �}}s/l/i� ti
r r
r
� w
r
NOTES: