HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-04-1990ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL
REGULAR MEETING ON ALL ABSTRACTS
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 AVAILABLE IN THE
7:30 P.M. CLERK'S OFFICE.
OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE
HILLSBOROUGH, NC
Audio
NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING:
amplification equipment is available on request.
If you need this assistance, please call the County
Clerk's Office at 732 -8181 or 968 -4501.
I. BOARD COMMENTS
II. COIINTY MANAGERS REPORT
III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
IV. AIIDiENCE COMMENTS
A. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead
of time so that you are not overlooked.)
B. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of
Orange County its respect. The Board asks its
citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful,
courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow
citizens. At any time should any member of the Board
or any citizen fail to observe this public charge,
the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the
meeting until that individual regains personal
control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the
Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a
genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
V. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- CONSENT AGENDA
(Any item may be removed for separate consideration)
A. Budget ordinance Amendment #2
B. Rencher Street CDBG Financial Status Update
C. Housing Rehabilitation Contract Awards
D. Contract Renewal- -Jail Medical royal
E. Jail Renovation Project -- Change Order App
Approval for Mebane Packaging
- --
Amp-
F. Industrial
VI. RESOLUTIONB PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation Designating September 13, 1990 as
D.A.R.E. Day in Orange County
VII. SPECIAL PRES NTATIONS
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
IX. RE_ POD
A. Affordable Housing Loan Program
X. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- REGULAR AGENDA
A. County -Wide School District Tax
B. Environmental Impact Ordinance (New)
C. Bid Award -- Phases I and II -- Courthouse Square
Project
D. Four Birches -- Amended Phasing Plan
E. Michael Campbell -- Partial Width Right -of -Way
F. November 27, 1990 Public Hearing -- Alternative
Date
G. Procedure for Local Travel Expense R%imbursement
XI• APPOINTMENTS
XII. MISS
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XIV. &W0URNMENT
( *) Indicates items that need immediate attention.
I
2 MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 REGULAR MEETING
5 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990
6 ulcer Session
7 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Reg
g 199p at 7.30 p.m- in the Courtroom of the Old
9 on Monday, September 4,
10 Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr•, vice- Chairman
11 BOARD ME Shirley E. Marshall and
12 Commissioners John Hartwell,
13 Stephen Halkiotis,
14 Don Willhoit. Gledhill
15 ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Jr -, Assistant
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link,
16 Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy
Baker,
17 County Manager Albert Kittre$iythe, planning Director Marvin Collins,
1g Clerk to the Board Beverly Development Tara Fikes, Purchasing and
1g Director of Housing and Community public .Works Director Wilbert
20 Central Services Director Pam Jones,
Mary
cntra Budget Administrator Rod Visser, and Planners Jim Hinkley,
21 McAdoo,
22 Scearbo and David Stancil.
ITEMS REFERENCED IN THESE MI
23 I,Z, NUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA
25 NOTE: FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
26
26 I. BOARD COMMENTS room which
Commissioner Willhoit announc �d have aWlarge meeting their which
28 He indicated that th y
29 building today. other groups. Commissioner. Willhoit asks
30 will be available for nggsto by to the State's request to establish
31 if the County was g suggested that it be placed on
32 a Physical Fitness Council. Chair Carey
33 the next agenda for discussion.
Commissioner Halkiotis stated 3e members commission o that will look
34 He plans to
35 Commissioners' representative on the
36 at sentencing laws in the State of North Carolina.
37 participate.
38
39 II, COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT art has been received.
40 John Link reported that the Postcensus rep days to .review the
41
it allows each local g
overnment f fifteen working any discrepancies
42 preliminary figures and to submit documentation citing
preliminary
findings. He asked that the Board authorize the
43 of the p resented o�
44 Planning St es. f to research the censuisd data Will determine be there are a ,
45 discrepancies. The result of seconded b'
46 September 18 as -a rep Commissioner Willsa£ to review th
47 Motion was made by a there ma
4g Commissioner Marshall the Chaireto the sign whatever challeng
49 census data and auth
50 be to the postcensus report.
51 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
52
53
54 III• ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
`A
None
IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
A• MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA - none
B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA - none
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Moses Carey, Jr. read the public charge.
v• ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA
Motion was made
Commissioner Halkiotis to approve Y Commissioner Marshall
listed below: the items on the ConsentcAgenda as
A—*--RUD(4ET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2
Position of Athletic Coordinator at cation and
Athletic Coordinator position for the ad Pay plan to include the
grade 62, to authorize a permanent
effective 9/4/90 and to a Recreation and Parks Department,
Ordinance as listed below: approve amendments to the 1990 -g1 Budget
GENERAL .FUND
Source - Miscellaneous
Appropriations
(To budget for Athleti - Human Services $ (4,400)
c Coordinator position for the 4,400
and Parks Department)
Recreation
Source - Intergovernmental
(TO budget for
Appropriation n - Miscellaneous $ 25,850
Center) grant funds for Orange Count 25,850
Y Rape Crisis
�• RENCHER STREET CDBG FINANCIAL STATUS UPDATE
To date expendituresatotal $429,!901_ t s� xth
quarter ending June 30, Improvements ar
80 percent complete. All water and sewer lines have been nstal ed are
Rencher Street has been paved. Two houses are now completely installed and
p tely renovated.
To award three- housing AWARDS
Rencher Street Co Y Development rehabilitation contracts for the
mmunit Develo ment Area as listed below:
DWELLING UNIT BID AMOUNT
13 $18,683 CONTRACTOR
15 $ 6,285 Thames Construction Company
21 $24,700 Thames Construction Company
Taylor Home Improvements
D• CONTRACT RENEWAL - JAIL MEDICAL
3
1 To approve a contract with Orange Family Medical Group, P.A.
2 through June 30, 1991 for a sum of $1,000 per month; and authorize the
3 Chair to sign on behalf of the Board.
4
5 E. JAIL RENOVATYON PROJECT CHANGE ORDER APPROVAL
6 To approve Change Order EC -1 for a total of $33,189.50 which
7 reflects the work to be done to add surveillance equipment for the
8 exterior perimeter of the Jail compound.
9
10 F. INDUSTRIAL BOND APPROVAL FOR MEBANE PACKAGING
11 To approve the Resolution stated below approving the issuance
12 of the Authority bonds for the Mebane Packaging Corporation Industrial
13 Revenue Bond:
14
15 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE ORANGE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL
16 FACILITIES AND POLLUTION CONTROL FINANCING AUTHORITY OF ITS
17 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS ( MEBANE PACKAGING
18 CORPORATION PROJECT) SERIES 1990, IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
19 AMOUNT OF $5,200,000 TO FINANCE AN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT FOR MEBANE
20 PACKAGING CORPORATION
21
22 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners for the County of
23 Orange:
24 Section 1. The board of Commissioners has determined and does
25 hereby declare as follows:
26
27 (a) The Board of Commissioners of the Orange County
28 Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control Financing Authority
29 (the "Authority ") will meet on October 5, 1990, and will take the
30 following action in connection with the proposed issuance and
31 sale of the Authority's Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
32 (Mebane Packaging Corporation Project) Series 1990, in the
33 aggregate principal amount of $5,200,000 (hereinafter sometimes
34 called the "Bonds "):
35 (1) authorized the borrowing under and the issuance and
36 performance of the Authority's Industrial Development Revenue
37 Bonds (Mebane Packaging Corporation Project) Series 1990, in
38 the aggregate principal amount of $5,200,000 and direct the
39 execution and delivery of said Bonds;
40
41 (2) approve and authorize the execution, delivery and
42 performance of the Trust Indenture dated as of September 1,
43 1990 (the "Trust Indenture "), from the Authority to Branch
44 Banking & Trust Co. as Trustee (the "Trustee ") providing for
45 the sale of the Bonds;
46
47 (3) approve and authorize the execution, delivery and
48 performance of the Loan Agreement, dated as of September 1,
49 1990, between the Authority and Mebane Packaging Corporation
50 (the "Company ") with the form of the Company's promissory
51 Note dated as of September 1, 1990 (the "Note ") attached as
52 Exhibit "A" thereto;
4
(4) approve the form of the Note and authorize th
endorsement thereof without recourse to the order of and th
pledge thereof to the Trustee;
(5) approve and authorize the execution, delivery an
performance of the Remarketing Agreement, dated as o
September 1, 1990, among the Authority, the Company and Th
Bank of New York, as Remarketing Agent (the " Remarketin,
Agent ");
(6) approve and authorize the execution, delivery ant
performance of the Placement Agreement, dated as of Septembe:
1, 1990, among the Authority, the Company, and First Unioi
National Bank of North Carolina (the "Bank ");
(7) approve and authorize the execution, delivery an(
performance of the Purchase Contract, dated as of September
1, 1990 among the Authority, the Company and the Bank;
(8) approve the form of each of the Letter of Credit
and Reimbursement Agreement (the "Reimbursement Agreement ";
dated as of September 1, 1990, the Deed of Trust dated as ol
September 1, 1990, the Tender Agency Agreement dated as of
September 1, 1990, the Pledge Agreement dated as of September
1, 1990, the Letter of Credit issued under the Reimbursement
Agreement and the section of the form of Private Placemeni
Memorandum describing the Authority;
(9) approve and authorize the execution, delivery anc
performance of various other documents and instruments, datec
as of September 1, 1990 by the Authority in connection witt
the issuance and sale of the Bonds;
(10) approve the forms of the various other document:
and instruments dated as of September 1, 1990 to be executec
and delivered in connection with the issuance and sale of the
Bonds;
(b) The Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange ha
reviewed the action that will be taken by the Board o
Commissioners of the Authority in connection with the issuanc
and sale of the Bonds and has made such other examination an
investigation as it deems necessary and relevant as the basis fo
the approval set forth herein.
Section 2. Pursuant to and in satisfaction of the requirement!
of Section 159C -4(d) of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the
Board of Commissioners. for the County of Orange hereby approves the
issuance by the Authority of the Authority's Industrial Developmeni
Revenue Bonds (Mebane Packaging Corporation Project) Series 1990, in the
aggregate principal amount of $5,200,000.
5
1
2 Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon
3 its passage.
4
5 Commissioner Marshall moved the passage of the foregoing
6 resolution and the resolution was passed by a unanimous vote.
7
8 VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS
9
lq
11 VY. RESOLUTIONS LPROCLAMATIONS
12 A. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 130 1990 AS D.A.R.E. DAY
13 IN ORANGE COUNTY
14
15 Motion_ was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by
16 Commissioner Willhoit to proclaim September 13, 1990 as D.A.R.E. Day in
17 Orange County as stated below:
18
19 PROCLAMATION
20
21 WHEREAS, D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) is a
22 semester -long program that teaches young people ways to resist peer
23 pressure to experiment with drugs and alcohol;
24 WHEREAS, D.A.R.E. targets young people when they are most
25 vulnerable to tremendous peer pressure and teaches the skills to make
26 positive decisions and resist pressure to engage in negative behaviors;
27 WHEREAS, more than 100,000 classrooms in 49 states as well as
28 schools in America, Samoa, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand conduct
29 the D.A.R.E. Program;
30 WHEREAS, over 20 million students have been reached through
31 D.A.R.E.;
32. WHEREAS, the D.A.R.E. Program is taught by veteran police
33 officers and deputies with direct experience in involving criminal
34 activities and ruined lives caused by substance abuse;
35 WHEREAS, each police officer who teaches the D.A.R.E. Program
36 completes an 80 hour training course that included instruction in
37 teaching techniques, officer - school relationships, development of self-
38 esteem, child development, and communication skills;
39 WHEREAS, the D.A.R.E. curriculum developed by the Los Angeles
40 Police Department and the Unified School District, and adopted by our
41 State Department of Public Instruction and State Bureau of
42 Investigation, helps students understand self - image, recognize stress
43 and manage it without taking drugs, evaluate risk - taking, behavior,
44 resist gang pressure, apply decision making skills, and evaluate the
45 consequences of the choices available to them;
46 WHEREAS, the D.A.R.E. Program has achieved outstanding success
47 teaching positive and effective approaches to what is one of the most
48 difficult problems facing our young people today -- drug abuse;
49 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Orange County Board of
50 Commissioners that September 13, 1990 is designated as "D.A.R.E. DAY ".
51
52 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
1
2
3 VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS —none
4
5 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - none
6
7 IX. REPORTS
8 A. AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM
9 Mr. William R. Rogerson, Vice - President of Wachovia, presente
10 information to the County Commissioners on Wachovia's Neighborhoo
11 Revitalization Program and Affordable Housing Mortgage Loans. H
12 discussed the main features of the program and the criteria an
13 qualifications for eligibility to participate in their loan program.
14
15
16 X. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA
17 A. COUNTY -WIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX
18 John Link reviewed the language that was on the ballot in the
19 March, 1976 special school referendum stating that the information of
20 the ballot for a county -wide tax would need to specify the purpose an(
21 the rate authorized. He presented a proposed ballot which would statf
22 the maximum rate as allowed by the State which is fifty cents per $101
23 of property valuation. The'Board may specify from fifty cents down tc
24 one cents to be levied. The purpose would be to "equalize educations:
25 advantages within Orange County and the money derived from the tax woulc
26 be used to supplement the funds from State and County allotments anc
27 thereby to operate the schools within Orange County at a higher
28 standard. ".
29 Discussion ensued on the language for the ballot but nc
30 decision was made. This will be discussed further.
31 Chapel Hill - Carrboro School Board Member Mary Bushnell read
32 a prepared statement from Sue Baker, Chair of the School Board. Ir.
33 summary, the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Board of Education reached a
34 consensus that the purpose of the tax should be for expansion items ir.
35 their annual budget request. They suggested that the revenue be
36 distributed on the ADM formula. They will pledge the time necessary tc
37 promote the referendum. She stated the Board also agreed that it might
38 be useful to keep the cap on the tax at a low figure. They support a
39 bond referendum in November, 1990.
40 Ralph Warren, Chair of the orange County Board of Education,
41 read a prepared statement. He stated that it was the Board's general
42 feeling that a county -wide district tax should be enacted.' Also, they
43 feel that revenue derived from such a district tax should be distributed
44 on the same ADM formula as' other current expense funding. While most
45 of the Board generally supports the special district tax, the consensus
46 of the majority of the Board Members is that they do not support the
47 inclusion of this question on the November 6 ballot. They feel it might
48 be well to consider planning now for a referendum to be held in the
49 spring.
50 Commissioner Hartwell stated he supports going ahead with a
51 district -wide tax at this time because the citizens are aware that this
52 may be on the ballot. Those seeking office could express their opinion
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
on the tax and the media would expand
Commissioner Marshall noted
increased programming in the schools
respond to and she supports a November
John Link stated that the
referendum and have the tax included i
March.
on this topic.
that the citizens
is something the
7
desire to have
Board should
vote.
last possible time to vote on a
n the budget for 1991 -92 would be
Commissioner Halkiotis expressed concern about some of the
strategies that the politicians may use for winning in November. He
feels it may be better to wait until March and have a special election.
County School Board member Kay Singer expressed her concern
for holding the referendum in November. Among other things their school
system will be interviewing for a new superintendent which will take a
lot of their time. They are willing to work hard to promote a district -
wide tax in March.
Chairman Carey indicated that if the referendum is delayed,
a decision needs to be made within the next few weeks about the March
date. He previously favored putting it on in November but felt that to
some extent that might have an adverse effect on the outcome.
Commissioner Willhoit stated he is not opposed to the county-
wide district tax but he is opposed to the process. He feels that the
use for the money must be defined before the tax can be promoted and
explained to the people. He stated the possible outcomes of the
election and emphasized the need to be ready to respond to that outcome.
He questioned if this is an attempt to phase out the district tax over
time by shifting funds to a county -wide tax. He asked if the expansion
items in next years budget would become continuation items in the
following years budget. He feels there needs to be a determination on
how the tax will be managed and the purpose defined. After, these
questions are answered, he would approve a special referendum in the
spring or in November, 1991.
Commissioner Halkiotis emphasized the importance of having
the support of the teacher associations for both school systems.
Commissioner Marshall noted that the Board has been talking
for several years about multi -year budgets from the school boards,
particularly on expansion programs. If the County Commissioners and the
School Boards could agree on some management policies, it would help in
knowing what continuation money would be necessary for a three year
period.
Commissioner Willhoit stated he feels the question is how to
move forward with two school systems -- whether it is toward equal
County funding, equal total funding of State, Federal and County, or
whether it is toward merger.
It was the consensus of the Board to wait until the spring
to put the referendum on the ballot.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by
Commissioner Marshall to work everything out within the next four or
five weeks to put the referendum before the people in early March.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
NOTE: COMMISSIONER JOHN HARTWELL WAS EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING
L
1 B. BID AWARD - PHASES I & II - COURTHOUSE S UARE PROJECT
2 The bids for the Courthouse Square Project, Phases I and I
3 were higher than anticipated. John Link recommended a modified pla
4 that would complete Phase I. Phase I would include the renovation o
5 King Street including the walkway leading to the front door of th
6 courthouse, the flagpole installation, the two curb ramps, stri
7 drainage and catch basins as detailed in the plans.
8 Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded b-
9 Commissioner Willhoit to award the bid as negotiated to C. C. Wood
10 Construction Company for an amount not to exceed $50,000; approv
11 contracts, contingent upon attorney and staff review; and authorize the
12 Chair to sign on behalf of the Board.
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15
16 C. PROCEDURE FOR LOCAL TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
17 Chairman Moses Carey presented a revised procedure for loca:
18 travel expense reimbursement for members of the Board of Count`
19 Commissioners. He recommended compensation for local travel at $50.0(
20 a month for the Commissioners and $75.00 a month for the Chair. Thi;
21 revised procedure provides the Commissioners with a choice of taking
22 set monthly amount for local travel or the actual amount as reported or
23 the regular travel reimbursement form.
24 Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded b)
25 Commissioner Willhoit to approve this new procedure for local travel
26 expense reimbursement. This procedure will be listed in the Countl
27 Commissioners "Policy and Procedures" manual located in the Clerk's
28 Office.
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31
32 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE NEW
33 Planner Mary Scearbo explained that the Ordinance would
34 provide a special review process for projects or activities that are
35 deemed to have a potential environmental impact on the environment.
36 Projects which are subject to the Ordinance could require preparation
37 of an environmental assessment which would be a review by the Planning
38 Staff or the preparation of an environmental impact statement which
39 would involve public review and a presentation to the County
40 Commissioners during the public hearing process. The second item is a
41 series of amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning
42 Ordinance. These amendments incorporate review procedures that are
43 established in the Environmental Impact Ordinance and provide for the
44 protection of natural and cultural resources during the subdivision
45 review process. The act of subdividing land would not trigger the
46 preparation of an environmental assessment under the Environmental
47 Impact Ordinance itself. Planner Mary Scearbo briefly summarized the
48 Ordinance.
49 in answer to a question from Commissioner Willhoit, Scearbo
50 explained that if someone should appeal the review, it would be an
51 administrative appeal up to the Planning Director. There would also be
52 the option to appeal it through the court system. Commissioner Willhoit
1 asked that there be an appeal procedure that would involve the Planning
2 Director, the Manager and County Attorney. John Link indicated they
3 would set up such a procedure.
4 Commissioner Willhoit referred to Section 3.2.2 which refers
5 to hazardous materials and Mary Scearbo indicated this should be changed
6 to hazardous waste.
7
8 Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
9 Commissioner Marshall to approve the Environmental Impact Ordinance as
10 amended. The Ordinance is hereby made a part of these minutes by
11 reference and is attached to these minutes on pages
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 E. FOUR BIRCHES AMENDED PHASING PLAN
16 Planner Mary Scearbo presented an amended phasing plan for
17 Four Birches Subdivision. The preliminary plan was approved by the
18 Board of Commissioners on August 1, 1989. On July 25, 1990, the
19 applicant submitted an application for Final Plat approval. The
20 application was considered incomplete since the required improvements
21 had not been made and security was not provided for their completion.
22 On January 8, 1990, the Subdivision Regulations were amended to allow
23 revisions to the phasing plans of major subdivision. The applicant has
24 indicated that improvements will be completed by August 1, 1991.
25 Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by
26 Commissioner Halkiotis to approve extending the deadline for receiving
27 approval of the Final Plat for Four Birches to December 1, 1990, and
28 that Section II -D -e -2 of the Subdivision Regulations be amended to add
29 that a phasing plan may be approved if the time available to complete
30 the - construction -of improvements is not extended.
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 F. MICHAEL CAMPBELL - PARTIAL WIDTH RIGHT -OF- -WAY
34 Motion was made by Chair Carey, seconded by Commissioner
35 Halkiotis to approve a partial width right -of -way of 30 feet from High
36 Rock Road to the northernmost property line of Lot 15H (approximately
37 550 feet in length).
38 VOTE:. UNANIMOUS
39
40 G. NOVEMBER 27 1990 PUBLIC HEARING - ALTERNATIVE DATE
41 Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Chair
42 Carey to change the date for the Quarterly Public Hearing from November
43 27, 1990 to December 11, 1990.
44 VOTE: AYES, 3; NOES, Commissioner Willhoit.
45
46 XT. APPOINTMENTS
47 The following appointments were 'made to the AGRICULTURAL
48 DISTRICTS ADVISORY BOARD
49 Elizabeth Walters - Cedar Grove Township
50 Chris Hogan - Chapel Hill Township
51 Robert Nutter - Bingham Township
52 Pearson Stewart - Chapel Hill Township
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
Robert Strayhorn - Chapel Hill Township
XII. MINUTES
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded
Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the August 21 - Special Meet
minutes as amended.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded h
Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Regular Meeting minutes for Augus
21, 1990 as circulated.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION - none
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
With no further items to consider, Chairman Carey adjourned th
meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on September 18, 199
in the Courtroom of the old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
Moses Carey,Jr., Cha
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 4, 1990
SUBJECT: Budget Ordinance Amendment #2
DEPARTMENT Budget
ATTACHMENTS)
Proposed Budget Ordinance
Amendments
Proposed Classification and Pay Plan
Amendment
VOCA Grant Award
01
Action Agenda
Item NO
PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X
INFORMATION CONTACT
Budget Office, Extension 2450
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Hillsborough 732 -8181
Chapel Hill 968.4501
Mebane 227 -2031
Durham 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To approve proposed budget ordinance amendments and
classification and pay plan amendment.
BACKGROUND: (1) Included in the approved 1990 -91 budget were reserve
funds for creation of an additional permanent position in the
Recreation and Parks Department. The Personnel Department and
classification consultant have reviewed the requirements for this
position, and recommend that a new class be created as Athletic
Coordinator - Grade 62. The department is ready to recru' d hire
for this position; therefore, it is necessary for the Board of
Commissioners to formally authorize the creation of an Athletic
Coordinator position and transfer the reserve funds into the Recreation
and Parks Department budget.
(2) The Orange County Rape Crisis Center has received
federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) grant funds in the amount of
$25,850 for underserved victims of sexual violence. Orange County has
agreed to receive these grant funds and pass them through to the Rape
Crisis Center as one of the conditions of the grant. It is necessary
that this arrangement be incorporated into the 1990 -91 Budget Ordinance
per the attached proposed amendment. There are no County funds
involved in this grant.
RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) Amend the Classification and Pay Plan to
include the Athletic Coordinator - Grade 62 class.
(2) Authorize a permanent Athletic Coordinator
position for the Recreation and Parks Department, effective 9/4/90.
.(3) Approve amendments to the 1990 -91 Budget
Ordinance by the proposed amendment.
K
ORANGE COUNTY
1990 -91 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
The 1990 -91 orange County Budget Ordinance, as amended, is hereby
amended as follows:
BEFORE AFTER
GENERAL FUND ND
AME ENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT
(1) source:
Miscellaneous $ 577,459 $ (4,400) $ 573,059
Appropriation:
Human Services $10,497,970 $ 4,400 $10,502,370
To budget for Athletic Coordinator position for the Recreation and
Parks Department.
(2) source:
Intergovernmental $ 6,250,610 $ 25,850 $ 6,276,460
Appropriation:
Miscellaneous $ 573,059 $ 25,850 $ 598,909
To budget for VOCA grant funds for Orange County Rape Crisis
Center.
BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 2
w
3
ORANGE COUNTY
1990 -91 CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN
AMENDMENT
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of orange County that the
ordinance establishing the 1990 -91 Orange County Classification and Pay
Plan is hereby amended as follows:
SECTION I. Section II of the above mentioned ordinance is amended to
include the following:
CLASS TITLE GRADE
ALLIED HUMAN SERVICES
Athletic Coordinator 62
Adopted this 4th day of September, 1990.
Urime U
Uontrol & P
Public d atety
Box 2 6 87 430 N
N. Sal
In accordance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 and on the basis of the
plication, the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety hereby awards to the foregoing grantee an
amount above.
This grant is subject to the conditions listed in the grant application as well as all applicable rules, regulatio
tions, as prescribed by the Office of Justice Programs. It is subject also, to such further rules, regulations
as may be reasonably prescribed by the Department bf Crime Control and Public Safety consistent with the
authorization of P.L. 98 -473. If special conditions have been- applied to this grant, they are attached to this
dicated below.
grantef I
award
sand c
and pc
purpoE
sward
This grant shall become effective, as of the date of award; -L.?on retur 4 artment of C ' e nt
Safety of three uplicate cop i f this award, properly executed on h f o e grantee.
sr, ture of D Autho rized Official Sign of Du thorized Of icial
John M. Lint Jr.. County M Gregg. C Stahl, Exe t: a Director
Typed Name and Title of Official
Date
(x,) This Award is subject to the attached conditions.
Typed Na7te Qd Title of Official
vLJ
Date
C
w
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda
Item NO--Y--a
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRA�C�a
Meeting Date: September 4,
SUBJECT: Rencher Street CDBG Financial Status Update -+ ----------- - -- ---
_ -- - - - - -------------------
- - - - - -- YES: NO: x
-- ^ ~r -r - ^- - ^ - - - -- Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING
DEPARTMENT: Housing/ -- ----- ---- - - - - ---------------------
pikes
- ----------- - - - - -- INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L.
ATTACHMENT (S)
Status Update TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Hillsborough - 932 -81$1
- 968 -4501
Chapel Hill
Mebane - 22'7 -2031
Durham - 688!7331 --__- -
--------------------
----- - - - - -- r-- +r-- ~-- oard -of Commissioners of the status of the
PURPOSE: To advise the S
Rencher Street CDBG Program.
BACKGROUND'_ One of the requirements of the County's plan for CDBG project is
Program Administration for the Rencher rt
updates on expenditures
the provision of quarterly status up
and accomplishments to the Board of County Commissioners.
with this requirement, the Housing and
In order to comply
Community Development Department will submit these updates
to the Board at the end of each quarter until the project
is complete.
This is the seventh update which covers the sixth quarter
which ended June 30, 1990-
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Receive as information.
1.
2.
3.
r,N
RENCHER STREET CDBG FINANCIAL STATUS UPDATE:
EXPENDITURES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
PROJECT AREA: Rencher Street Area
REPORTING PERIOD: Seventh Quarter endin
REPORTING DATE : September 4, 1990 g June 30, 1990
ACTIVITY:
BUD- GET'
Acquisition
EXPENDITURES:
$
3,000
Street Im r
P ovements
-0-
Sewer Improvements
99,925
$ 52,034
249,441
Water Improvements
185,839
64,718
Clearance
64,718
1,700
Housing Rehabilitation
185,128
-0-
Administration
63,794
81,388
62,716
TOTAL $
685,300
$ 429,901
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
2
Held quarterly Project Area Committ
residents - May 15, 1990. ee meeting g with neighborhood
Held Fair Housing Forum - May 31, 1990.
Public Facilities Improvements are 80
and sewer lines have been install eoStreet.hasAll
been water
Paved. Remaining activi e and Rencher
ties for the next
water /sewer connections to individual homes.
arter include
Completed housing rehabilitation work on two providing
Continuously preparing work specifications for2addiitis'ona.l housi ng
rehabilitation to be completed.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 4, 1990
SUBJECT: Housing Rehabilitation Contract Awards
DEPARTMENT: Housing /Community Dev.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Results of Bid Oneninq
1
Action Agenda
Item No. V -O--,
PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x
INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes
TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill - 968 -4501
Mebane - 227 -2031
Durham - 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To award three housing rehabilitation contracts for the
Rencher Street Community Development Area.
BACKGROUND: The Housing and Community Development Department solicited
bids from qualified housing rehabilitation contractors
participating in the County's Housing Rehabilitation
Program. Sealed bids were received from five contractors on
Friday, August 10, 1990 and were opened on the same day.
Bid results are attached.
Present program procedures provide that housing
rehabilitation contracts be awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Approve award of three housing rehabilitation contracts.
Dwelling Unit
Bid Amount
Contractor
#13
$18,683
Thames Construction Co.
#15
$ 6,285
Thames Construction Co.
#21
24,700
Taylor Home Improvements
RESULTS OF BID OPENING
OMER : Payne
ADDRESS: Route 2, Rencher St.
PERCENTAGE OF HID OVER UNDER
CHECK ONE: JOB BID X
1. English Construction Co.
_ 2. Ha es Construction Co.
3. H.D. Johnson Construction
4. Taylor Home Improvements
5.
J.W. Thames Construction Co.
zi . ,2
APPLICATION NUMBER: 15
COST ESTIMATE: 5,325.00
13 COST ESTIMATE
JOB NEGOTIATED
BID AMOUNT
8,800.00
Bids opened by: Tom J. Bryant, Jr.
Time of Hid Opening: 3:00 p.m.
Date of Bid Opening: August 10, 1990
Witnessed by: Thomas Day
4,650.00
9,600.00
14,500.00
6,285.00
Lowest Acceptable Hid: 4,650.00
Negotiated Amount: _ N/A
Contractor: Cleveland Hayes Construction Co.
COMMENTS:
Submitted by:
Bid Approved by:
Proceed Order: Issued
COMMENTS:
NAME
1618 Riddle Road Durham, NC 27713
ADDRESS
( 919) 596 -7468
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Tara L. Fikes
DATE 8 -28 -90
RESULTS OF BID OPENING
OWNER: Riley
ADDRESS!Rt, 2, Box 42-115 Rencher-S
PERCENTAGE OF BID OVER 14 UNDER
CHECK ONE: JOB BID X
COMPANY
1• English Construction Co.
2• Hayes Construction Co.
3• S.D. Johnson Construction
4. Taylor Home Improvements
5. JW Thames Construction Co.
APPLICATION NUMBER: 13
COST ESTIMATE: 16,450.00
JOB NEGOTIATED
Bids opened by: Tom J. Bryant, Jr.
Time of Bid Opening: 3:00 p.m.
Date of Bid Opening: August 10, 1990
Witnessed by: _ Thomas Day
COST ESTIMATE
19,469.00
20,160.00
24,600.00
21,175.00
18,683.00
Lowest Acceptable Bid: 18,683.00
Negotiated Amount: N/A
Contractor: JW Thames Construction Company
NAME
834 Junction Road Durham, NC 27704
ADDRESS
(919) 688 -6815
TELEPHONE NUMBER
COMMENTS:
Submitted by: Tara L. Fikes DATE
Bid Approved by:
Proceed Order: Issued
3
RESULTS OF BID OPENING
OMER: Blackwell
ADDRESS: Route 2, Box 52 Rencher
PERCENTAGE OF BID OVER
CHECK ONE: JOB BID X_
APPLICATION NUMBER: 21
COST ESTIMATE: 27,720.00
UNDER 11 COST ESTIMATE
JOB NEGOTIATED
BID AMOUNT
_ 28,9Q0.00,,
24 00.00
24 786.00
Bids opened by: _ Tom J. Bryant, Jr.
Time of Bid Opening: 3.00 p.m.
Date of Bid Opening: Au ust 10, 1990
Witnessed by: Thomas Dav
Lowest Acceptable Bid: 24,700.00
Negotiated Amount: N/A
Contractor: Taylor Home 1HErovements
. NAME
1156 Fiske Street Durham, NC 27703
ADDRESS
688 -3214
TELEPHONE NUMBER
COMMENTS:
Submitted by: Tara L. Fikes
Bid Approved by:
Proceed Order: Issued
.4
R
'.t
e
ti.
u
■.n^ lie • -q -q
of-
APPLICATION NUMBER: 21
COST ESTIMATE: 27,720.00
UNDER 11 COST ESTIMATE
JOB NEGOTIATED
BID AMOUNT
_ 28,9Q0.00,,
24 00.00
24 786.00
Bids opened by: _ Tom J. Bryant, Jr.
Time of Bid Opening: 3.00 p.m.
Date of Bid Opening: Au ust 10, 1990
Witnessed by: Thomas Dav
Lowest Acceptable Bid: 24,700.00
Negotiated Amount: N/A
Contractor: Taylor Home 1HErovements
. NAME
1156 Fiske Street Durham, NC 27703
ADDRESS
688 -3214
TELEPHONE NUMBER
COMMENTS:
Submitted by: Tara L. Fikes
Bid Approved by:
Proceed Order: Issued
.4
R
'.t
e
ti.
u
f
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. V-1)_
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 4, 1990
SUBJECT: CONTRACT RENEWAL; JAIL MEDICAL
DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SRVS. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: XX
------------------------------------------------------------------..___--
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: SHERIFF OR
PURCHASING DIRECTOR
Renewal Telephone Number -
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
Mebane -227 -2031
Durham - 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To consider renewing a contract with the Orange Family
Medical Group for Jail Medical Services through June 30, 1991.
BACKGROUND: From 1985 to 1988 the Orange Family Medical Center has
provided medical services to the inmates of the Orange County Jail. We
are mandated by State law to provide the medical care. In 1988,
ownership of the Medical Group was changed and the name of the
facility changed to the Orange Family Medical Group.
Orange Family Medical Center received some subsidy from the University
of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, which perhaps allowed them to keep the
cost of service to the County artificially low. During the past two
years during which the Orange Family Medical Group has operated the
practice, the County's cost has risen from a total of $6,000 to a
total of $6,600 per year. At renewal time this year however, we were
presented with a cost increase of $5,400 per year (82$), bringing the
total contract amount to $12,000 per year ($1,000 per month).
The reasons cited by the Medical Group for this increase include:
1. Substantially more patients being seen at the jail. Example
comparison: 80 prisoners seen in May, 1990 as opposed to 48 in May,
1989.
2. The complexity of the medical care has increased dramatically.
The physician states that he now sees more chronic diseases, more drug
abuse patients, a greater number of female patients, and more
psychiatric problems, all of which need a greater level of care than
purely routine problems being addressed in the past.
3. The time commitment for caring for prisoners as well as follow
up for prescription renewals and administrative details has been
drastically increased.
2
When confronted with the increase in fees, County staff began
investigating the possibility of contracting with the Orange County
Health Department and others for some of the services, thereby reducing
the over cost. However, considerable time must be spent to put
together 'a medical package that will accomplish the budgetary goal and
still meet our statutory requirements. Alternatives along these lines
will be pursued for the 1991 renewal.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a contract with Orange Family Medical Group,
P.A. through June 30, 1991 for a sum of $1,000 per month; and authorize
the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board.
.r'
RENEWAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COUNTY OF ORANGE
AND
ORANGE FAMILY MEDICAL GROUP, P.A.
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
WHEREAS, an agreement was made and entered into as of the
1st day of July, 1989 by and between Orange County,
hereinafter referred to as the "County" and Orange Family
Medical Group, P.A., hereinafter referred to as "Medical
Group ", for the provision of primary medical services for the
Orange County Jail.
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the MEDICAL GROUP mutually agree to
the following:
1. The agreement will be continued for the period
beginning on the date of the signing of this
renewal and ending at 12:00 midnight on
June 30, 1991.
2. Section E, 1(a) shall read "Twelve thousand
dollars per annum to be paid in equal monthly
installments of $1,000 each. This compensation
is for all services described in this agreement
performed by the MEdical Group during the
normal business hours including the sick calls
and other visits to the jail, the office of the
Medical Group or such other health care
facility selected by the attending physician
pursuant to Section A of this agreement."
3. All other terms and conditions remain the same.
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
COUNTY OF ORANGE
DATE:
MOSES CAREY, JR., CHAIR
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
ORANGE FAMILY MEDICAL GROUP, P.A.
DATE:
DR. ARTHUR AXELBANK, PRESIDENT
This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by
the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
KENNETH T. CHAVIOUS, FINANCE DIRECTOR
3
;t _ .
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. E
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 4, 1990
SUBJECT: JAIL RENOVATION PROJECT; CHANGE ORDER APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING 8 CENTRAL SRVS. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: XX
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES
EXT 2650
ARCHITECT'S LETTER REQUESTING CHANGE Telephone Number -
MODIFICATION OF COOPERATIVE Hillsborough - 732 -8181
AGREEMENT WITH FEDERAL MARSHALL'S Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
OFFICE Mebane -227 -2031
Durham -688 -7331
PURPOSE: To approve change order N EC -1 for the Jail Renovation
Project.
BACKGROUND: On July 19, 1990 the Federal Marshall's office increased
their funding of the Jail Renovation Project by $33,189.50. The funds
were approved to add surveillance equipment for the exterior perimeter
of the Jail compound. Change order #EC -1 reflects the work to be done
and is the exact amount of the funds provided by the Marshall's office.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Change Order EC -1 for a total of #33,189.50;
and authorize the Purchasing Director to execute the Change Order.
{
2
GRIER -FRIPP ASSOCIATES, INC.
Architects and Engineers
03 August 1990
ELECTRICAL CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER 0. EC-
EXPLANATION AND REASON FOR CHANGE:
ITEM N0. 1: This Change' order is requested by the Owner to complete the
exterior surveillance system of the existing jail, as per attached quotation
by Comfort Engineers.
ADD ......................... . S33,169,50
Total this.Change Order - Add 533.189.50
Respectfully submitted,
GRIER -FRIPP ASSOCIATES, INC.
0
William E. Fripp, Jr., AIA, PE
WEP,Jr.:dh
POST OFRCE BOX 11207 / 4108 PARK ROAD, SURE 300 [28209]
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28220 / (704] 527 -2514 / FAX [704] 527 -2516
f
r,
I
3
United States Marshals Service Modification of Cooperative Agreement
1. MODIFICATION NO.
Six (6)
3. ISSUING OFFICE
United States Marshals Service
Prisoner Operations Div.
600 Army Navy Drive
Arlington, VA 22202 -4210
4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
2. EFFECTIVE DATE OF MODIFICATION
7/19/90
5. CAP NO.
6 -57 -84
Orange County 6. FACILITY CODE(S)
144 East Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
7. ACCOUNTING CITATION 8. FUNDING AMOUNT
15X1020 OC 4102 1 $33,189.50
9. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED SPECIFICALLY HEREIN, ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CAP DOCUMENT
REFERRED TO IN BLOCK 5, REMAIN UNCHANGED. TERMS OF THIS MODIFICATION:
II
The purpose of this Modification is to increase the funding for
CAP Project No. 0007 - 57-84 5C, in the amount of $33,189.50 for
surveillance equipment.
A. ❑ LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT REQUIRED
TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT
A. GO
Signature
�D
E DA
;87 d
B. ® LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRED
TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN
2 COPIES TO U.S.•MARSHAL
B. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Joseph B. Enders,,AAssistant Director
for Operations Support - 7_/].8/90
TITLE DATE
Form USM -247
Rev. 9/86
Page of -1— Pages
0 RANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 4, 1990
Action Agenda
Item #
SUBJECT: Industrial Revenue Bond Approval for Mebane Packaging
DEPARTMENT: Economic Development PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) Extract from Minutes of
Board of Commissioners
2) Extract from Minutes of
IRB Authority
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ted Abernathy, ext. 2326
Geoff Gledhill 732 -2196
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane -- 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967- 9251/968 -4501
PURPOSE: To consider final approval for the issuance of $5.2
million in Industrial Revenue Bonds by the Orange County Industrial
Facilities and Pollution Control Financing Authority to pay for all
or a portion of a facilities and equipment expansion of Mebane
Packaging Corporation.
BACKGROUND: On August 6, 1990, the Board approved the Mebane Packaging
Corporation IRB project in principle and approved the issuance of $5.5
million in industrial revenue bonds. There is now a commitment by
First Union National Bank to buy the bonds. Final approval of the
issuance of the Authority's bonds is the last step for both the
Authority and the County Commissioners.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Resolution approving the issuance of the
Authority bonds for the Mebane Packaging Corporation Industrial Revenue
Bond.
1
EXTRACTS OF MINUTES
OF
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FOR
THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, NORTH CAROLINA
The Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North
Carolina, met in regular session in the Courtroom of the Old
County Courthouse, Churton and Kings Street, Hillsborough, North
Carolina, at _ — —.m., September 4, 1990.
Present: Chairman
Commissioners
Absent:
Also present:
Commissioner
resolution:
Resolution #
presiding and
introduced the following
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE ORANGE COUNTY
INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND ,POLLUTION CONTROL FINANCING
AUTHORITY OF ITS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS
(MEBANE PACKAGING CORPORATION PROJECT) SERIES 1990, IN THE
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $5,200,000 TO FINANCE AN
INDUSTRIAL PROJECT FOR MEBANE PACKAGING CORPORATION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners for the County
of Orange:
Section 1. The Board of Commissioners has determined and
does hereby declare as follows:
(a) The Board of Commissioners of The Orange County
Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control Financing
Authority (the "Authority ") will meet on September , 1990,
and will take the following action in connection with the
proposed issuance and sale of the Authority's Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds (Mebane Packaging Corporation
Project) Series 1990, in the aggregate principal amount of
$5,200,000 (hereinafter sometimes called the "Bonds "):
(1) authorized the borrowing under and the
issuance and performance of the Authority's Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds (Mebane Packaging Corporation
Project) Series 1990, in the aggregate principal amount
2
of $5,200,000 and direct the execution and delivery cf 3
said Bonds;
(2) approve and authorize the execution, delivery
and performance of the Trust Indenture dated as of
September 1, 1990 (the "Trust Indenture "), from the
Authority to Branch Banking & Trust Co. as Trustee (the
"Trustee ") providing for the sale of the Bonds;
(3) approve and authorize the execution, delivery
and performance of the Loan Agreement, dated as of
September 1, 1990, between the Authority and Mebane
Packaging Corporation (the "Company ") with the form of
the Company's Promissory Note dated as of September 1,
1990 (the "Note ") attached as Exhibit "A" thereto;
(4) approve the form of the Note and authorize
the endorsement thereof without recourse to the order
of and the pledge thereof to the Trustee;
(5) approve and authorize the execution, delivery
and performance of the Remarketing Agreement, dated as
of September 1, 1990, among the Authority, the Company
and The Bank of New York, as Remarketing Agent (the
"Remarketing Agent ");
(6) approve and authorize the execution, delivery
and performance of the Placement Agreement, dated as of
September 1, 1990, among the Authority, the Company,
and First Union National Bank of North Carolina (the
"Bank ");
(7) approve and authorize the execution, delivery
and performance of the Purchase Contract, dated as of
September 1, 1990 among the Authority, the Company and
the Bank;
(8) approve the form of each of the Letter of
Credit and Reimbursement Agreement (the "Reimbursement
Agreement ") dated as of September 1, 1990, the Security
Agreement dated as of September 1, 1990, the Deed of
Trust dated as of September 1, 1990, the Tender Agency
Agreement dated as of September 1, 1990, the Pledge
Agreement dated as of September 1, 1990, the Letter of
Credit issued under the Reimbursement Agreement and the
section of the form of Private Placement Memorandum
describing the Authority;
(9) approve and authorize the execution, delivery
and performance of various other documents and
instruments, dated as of September 1, 1990 by the
Authority in connection with the issuance and sale of
the Bonds;
N
(10) approve the forms of the various other
documents and instruments dated as of September 1, 1990
to be executed and delivered in connection with the
issuance and sale of the Bonds;
(b) The Board of Commissioners for the County of
orange has reviewed the action that will be taken by the
Board of Commissioners of the Authority in connection with
the'issuance and sale of the Bonds and has made such other
examination and investigation as it deems necessary and
relevant as the basis for the approval set forth herein.
Section 2. Pursuant to and in satisfaction of the require-
ments of Section 159C -4(d) of the General Statutes of North
Carolina, the Board of Commissioners for the County of orange
hereby approves the issuance by the Authority of the Authority's
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Mebane Packaging
Corporation Project) Series 1990, in the aggregate principal
amount of $5,200,000.
Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately
upon its passage.
Commissioner moved the passage of the fore -
going resolution and the resolution was passed by the following
vote:
Ayes: Commissioners
Noes:
3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA)
) ss.:
COUNTY OF ORANGE . )
5
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk of the Board of Commissioners of
the County of Orange, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, as follows:
1. A regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the
County of Orange, (the "Board ") a county of the State of North
Carolina, was duly held on September 4, 1990, proper notice of
such meeting having been given as required by North Carolina
statutes, and minutes of such meeting will be duly recorded in
the Minute Book kept by me in accordance with law for the purpose
of recording the minutes of the Board.
2. 1 have compared the attached extract of the Resolution
so adopted and the extract is a true copy of the Resolution
insofar as it relates to matters referred to in such extract.
3. The extract of the minutes correctly states the time
when the meeting was convened and the place where such meeting
was held and the members of the Board who attended the meeting.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and have
hereunto affixed the corporate seal of the County, this
day of September, 1990.
Clerk, Board of Commissioners
( SEAL)
4
[y
EXTRACT FROM MINUTES
OF ORANGE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
AND POLLUTION CONTROL FINANCING AUTHORITY
The Orange County Industrial Facilities and Pollution
Control Financing Authority met at the Commissioners' Library in
Hillsborough, North Carolina at —:— . _.M. on September
1990.,
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Mr. presented the following documents in
connection with the proposed issuance by the Authority of its
industrial development revenue bonds (Mebane Packaging
Corporation Project) Series 1990, in the aggregate principal
amount of $5,200,000.
A. Trust Indenture dated as of September 1, 1990 with form
of the Authority's Industrial Revenue Bond contained
therein.
B. Loan Agreement dated as of September 1, 1990 with form
of Promissory Note attached thereto.
C. Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement dated as
of September 1, 1990 with form of Letter of Credit
attached thereto.
D. Deed of Trust and Security Agreement dated as of
September 1, 1990.
E. Security Agreement dated as of September 1, 1990.
F. Remarketing Agreement dated as of September 1, 1990.
G. Placement Agreement dated as of September 1, 1990.
H. Form of Purchase Contract dated as of September 1,
1990.
I. Tender Agency Agreement dated as of September 1, 1990.
Y
J. Pledge Agreement dated as of September 1, 1990.
K. Form of Private Placement Memorandum.
Mr. stated that he had reviewed these
documents and in 91s opinion, they are in order. The documents
presented were delivered to the Secretary of the Authority and
directed to be marked Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K
respectively, and made a part of the permanent records of the
Authority. Mr. introduced the following resolu-
tion, the title of which was read aloud:
BOND RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF
$5,200,000 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (MEBANE
PACKAGING CORPORATION PROJECT) SERIES 1990 AND THE EXECUTION
AND DELIVERY OF A TRUST INDENTURE, A LOAN AGREEMENT AND
OTHER DOCUMENTS.
WHEREAS, the Authority is authorized under the Industrial
and Pollution Control Facilities Financing Act, Chapter 159C of
the General Statutes of North Carolina, as amended (the "Act "),
to issue revenue bonds for the purpose, among others, of paying
all or any part of the cost of an industrial project for
industry, to acquire, construct and equip any such project and to
make and execute financing agreements, security documents and
other contracts and instruments necessary or convenient in the
exercise of such powers; and
WHEREAS, Mebane Packaging Corporation, a North Carolina
corporation (the "Company "), has requested the Authority to issue
its industrial development revenue bonds in the aggregate
principal amount up to $5,200,000 (the "Bonds "), and loan the
proceeds thereof to the Company to finance the acquisition,
construction and installation of industrial facilities (the
"Project ") in Orange County, North Carolina as described in the
Loan Agreement referred to below; and
WHEREAS, there have been submitted to this meeting forms of
the following documents:
(a) Trust Indenture dated as of September 1, 1990
(the "Trust Indenture "), between the Authority and
Branch Banking and Trust Company (the "Trustee ") with a
form of the Authority's Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds (Mebane Packaging Corporation Project) in the
aggregate principal amount of $5,200,000 dated as of
September 1, 1990 (the "Bonds ") contained therein;
(b) Loan Agreement dated as of
(the "Loan Agreement "), between the
Company with the form of Promissory
(the "Note ") attached thereto;
2
September 1, 1990
Authority and the
Note of the Company
7
S
(c) Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement
dated as of September 1, 1990 (the "Reimbursement
Agreement ") between First Union National Bank of North
Carolina (the "Bank ") and the Company with form of
Letter of Credit attached thereto;
(d) Deed of Trust dated as of September 1, 1990
(the "Deed of Trust ") from the Company to a Deed of
Trust Trustee for the benefit of the Authority and the
Bank;
(e) Security Agreement dated as of September 1,
1990 (the "Security Agreement ") between the Company and
the Bank;
(f) Remarketing Agreement dated as of
September 1, 1990 among the Authority, the Company and
The Bank of New York (as "Remarketing Agent ");
(g) Placement Agreement dated as of September 1,
1990 among the Bank, as Placement Agent, the Issuer and
the Company;
(h) Purchase Contract dated as of September 1,
1990 among the Bank, the Company and the Authority;
(i) Tender Agency Agreement dated as of
September 1, 1990 between the Company and Branch
Banking and Trust Company, as Trustee and as Tender
Agent;
(j) Pledge Agreement dated as of September 1,
1990 between the Company and the Bank; and
(k) Private Placement Memorandum.
WHEREAS, the Authority desires and deems it expedient to
issue and sell the Bonds pursuant to the Act, the Trust Indenture
and this Resolution and to loan the proceeds thereof to the
Company to finance the Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by The Orange County
Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control Financing Authority
as follows:
Section 1. The Authority hereby affirms that the Project
will promote the right to gainful employment opportunity and
private industry and thereby promote the general welfare of the
people of the State of North Carolina by, among other things,
providing jobs in Orange County, and that the Authority, in
assisting with the financing of the acquisition, construction and
installation of the Project, will be acting in furtherance of the
public purposes for which it was created.
3
9
Section 2. The Authority hereby authorizes the issuance of
the Bonds pursuant to the Act, the Trust Indenture and this
Resolution and the loan of the proceeds of sale thereof to the
Company pursuant to the Loan Agreement.
Section 3. The Trust Indenture in the form submitted to
this meeting, is hereby approved and the Chairman or the Vice -
Chairman is hereby authorized and directed to execute and
deliver, and the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary is hereby
authorized and directed to attest, the Trust Indenture substan-
tially in such form with such necessary and appropriate varia-
tions, omissions and insertions as may be'approved by the
Chairman or the Vice - Chairman. All of the provisions of the
Trust Indenture shall be deemed to be a part of this Resolution
as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim and
shall be in full force and effect from the date of delivery
thereof.
Section 4. The Loan Agreement in the form submitted to this
meeting, is hereby approved and the Chairman or the Vice - Chairman
is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver, and the
Secretary or the Assistant Secretary is hereby authorized and
directed to attest, the Loan Agreement substantially in such form
with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions and
insertions as may be approved by the Chairman or the Vice -
Chairman. All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement shall be
deemed to be a part of this Resolution as fully and to the same
extent as if incorporated verbatim and shall be in full force and
effect from the date of delivery thereof.
Section 5. The Note, in the form of Exhibit A to the Loan
Agreement, is hereby approved and the Chairman or the Vice -
Chairman is hereby authorized and directed to endorse and assign
the Note payable to the order of the Trustee.
Section 6. The Remarketing Agreement in the form submitted
to this meeting, is hereby approved and the Chairman or the Vice -
Chairman is hereby authorized and directed to execute and
deliver, and the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary is hereby
authorized and directed to attest, the Remarketing Agreement
substantially in such form with such necessary and appropriate
variations, omissions and insertions as may be approved by the
Chairman or the Vice - Chairman. All of the provisions of the
Remarketing Agreement shall be deemed to be a part of this
Resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated
verbatim and shall be in full force and effect from the date of
delivery thereof.
Section 7. The Placement Agreement and the Purchase
Contract in the forms submitted to this meeting, are hereby
approved and the Chairman or the Vice - Chairman is hereby
authorized and directed to execute and deliver, and the Secretary
4
10
or the Assistant Secretary,is hereby authorized and directed to
attest, the Placement Agreement and the Purchase Contract
substantially in such forms with such necessary and appropriate
variations, omissions and insertions as may be approved by the
Chairman or vice-Chairman. All of the provisions of the
Placement Agreement and the Purchase Contract shall be deemed to
be apart of this Resolution as fully and to the same extent as
if incorporated verbatim and shall be in full force and effect
from the date of delivery thereof.
Section 8. The Tender Agency Agreement, the Pledge
Agreement, the Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement, the
Letter of Credit, the Deed of Trust and Security Agreement, the
Security Agreement in the forms submitted to this meeting are
hereby approved. The section entitled "The Issuer" of the form
of Private Placement Memorandum describing the Authority is
hereby approved in the form submitted to this meeting.
Section 9. The Bonds shall be issued, executed and
delivered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
Trust Indenture and this Resolution. The Bonds shall bear the
manual or facsimile signature of the Chairman or the Vice- -
Chairman and the seal of the Authority shall be affixed,
imprinted, lithographed or reproduced thereon, with attestation
by the manual or facsimile signature of the Secretary or
Assistant Secretary. The Bonds shall bear interest at a variable
rate per annum (subject to adjustment, limitations, conversion
and reconversion to a floating rate, a variable rate and a fixed
rate under the conditions described in the Trust Indenture)
determined as set forth in the Trust Indenture. The initial rate
shall be that rate generally determined by the Local Government
Commission of North Carolina and approved by the Chairman or
Vice - Chairman.
Section 10. The Bonds shall be delivered to First union
National Bank of North Carolina (the "Placement Agent ") subject
to and in accordance with the Trust Indenture and upon payment to
the Trustee of the purchase price therefor in an amount equal to
the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds and the proceeds of
sale of the Bonds shall be deposited by the Trustee to the
account of the Authority in the Project Fund created by the Trust
Indenture.
Section 11. The Authority hereby elects to have the
provisions of Section 144(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, , as amended (the "Code "), and any successor therefor, apply
to the Bonds if they are issued in a principal amount greater
than $1,000,000. The Chairman, Vice - Chairman, Secretary or
Assistant Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to execute
and cause to be maintained in the records of the Authority or
filed with the internal Revenue Service on behalf of the
Authority if required (a) an election to have the provisions of
Section 144(a)(4) of the Code apply to the Bonds and (b) an
�i
11
Information Return for Tax - Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues
(Form 8038) and (c) such other instruments and documents as may
be necessary or desirable to comply with applicable provisions of
Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code. In addition, the
Company is hereby appointed as the Authority's authorized
representative for purposes of making all (formal and informal)
elections with respect to the Bonds under the Treasury Regula-
tions (including, without limitation, Temp. Treas. Reg. § 1.148 -
OT through § 1.148 -9T).
Section 12. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 159E -8(a) the Authority
hereby appoints, subject to approval by the Local Government
Commission of the State of North Carolina, Branch Banking and
Trust Company, as bond registrar, paying agent and transfer agent
in connection with the issuance, sale, delivery, transfer,
registration and payment of the Bonds issued under the Trust
Indenture (the "Bond Registrar "), said Bond Registrar to maintain
on behalf of the Authority the system of registration, within the
meaning of N.C.G.S. § 159E- 2(14), of certificated registered
obligations issued under the Trust Indenture, as more
particularly set forth in the Trust Indenture, such provisions to
control to the extent in conflict with the provisions of N.C.G.S.
§ 159E -4(d) respecting the setting of record dates for the
payment of principal, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds.
Section 13. The records of the Bond Registrar pertaining to
its duties under the Trust Indenture, including the bond
registration books provided for therein, shall be maintained by
the Bond Registrar at its principal corporate trust offices
located in Charlotte, North Carolina, or at such other of its
offices as it may notify the Authority in writing.
Section 14. The Bond Registrar shall receive such compensa-
tion and fees, to be paid by the Company, as are provided for in
the Trust Indenture and the Loan Agreement.
Section 15. The Secretary or the Assistant Secretary of the
Authority is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of
these resolutions forthwith to the Secretary of the Local
Government Commission of North Carolina, such a transmittal to
constitute the request by the Authority that the Local Government
Commission of North Carolina, or its duly authorized designate,
approve the system of registration of the Bonds, and the
appointment of a Bond Registrar, as provided in these Resolu-
tions.
Section 16. The actions by officers of the Authority in
filing with the Local Government Commission of North Carolina an
application for approval of the issuance of the Bonds, in
notifying the Secretary of the Department of Economic and
Community Development of North Carolina of such filing and in
applying for all other approvals referred to in this Resolution
are hereby ratified and confirmed.
0
12
Section 17. The Chairman is hereby designated the
Authority Representative, and the Secretary is hereby
designated the alternative Authority Representative, for the
purpose of acting as such on behalf of the Authority pursuant-to
the Loan Agreement.
Section 18. The Chairman, the Vice - Chairman, the Secretary,
the Assistant Secretary and the other officers of the Authority
are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver for and
on behalf of the Authority any and all financing statements,
certificates, documents or other papers and to perform any and
all acts they may deem necessary or appropriate in order to carry
out the intent of this Resolution and the matters herein.
Section 19. This Resolution shall be in full force and
effect immediately upon its passage.
Commissioner moved passage of the immediately
foregoing resolution and the resolution was passed by the
following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners:
Noes: Commissioners:
rA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
I, Maury D. Klein, Secretary of The Orange County Industrial
Facilities and Pollution Control Financing Authority and keeper
of the official minutes thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing is a true copy of certain proceedings of the Board of
Commissioners of the Authority taken at a meeting held on
September _, 1990, and is a complete copy of so much of the
recorded minutes of said meeting as relates in any way to the
subject matter of the resolution hereinabove set forth and that
such resolution was duly adopted and remains in full force and
effect on the date hereof.
I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY that, at least forty -eight hours
before said meeting, I posted written notice thereof at the door
for the usual meeting room of the Authority and mailed or
delivered such notice to each person, newspaper, wireservice,
radio station and television station that had filed with it a
written request for notice pursuant to G.S. 143 - 318.12 and that,
pursuant to Article II of the Bylaws of the Authority, I gave all
members of the Authority written notice of said meeting not less
than twenty -four hours prior to _ `.M., September , 1990.
WITNESS my hand and the official seal of The Orange County
Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control Financing Authority,
this day of September, 1990.
(SEAL)
1.1
Secretary
13
SUBJECT:
O R A N G E CO U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 4, 1990
1
Action Agenda
Item #
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 AS D.A.R.E. DAY
IN ORANGE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT: SHERIFF PUBLIC HEARING: Yes —X —No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
ARCHIE DANIEL /CAROL MCGOWAN
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967- 9251/968 -4501
PURPOSE: To request that the Orange County Board of
Commissioners proclaim September 13, 1990 as D.A.R.E.
day in Orange County and endorse appropriate
ceremonies and activities.
BACKGROUND: D.A.R.E. is the largest and most successful drug
education program in the U.S. today. It is taught in
more than 100,000 classrooms in 49 states. In Orange
County, D.A.R.E. is a partnership between the Orange
County Sheriff's Department, the Orange County School
Board and the private sector.
RECOMMENDATION: In consideration of September 13 as National D.A.R.E
day, the Manager recommends that the Orange County
Commissioners adopt the attached proclamation as
recognition of the D.A.R.E. program in orange County.
W
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 AS D.A.R.E. DAY IN ORANGE CO.
WHEREAS D.A.R.E. (DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION) IS A
SEMESTER -LONG PROGRAM THAT TEACHES YOUNG PEOPLE WAYS TO
RESIST PEER PRESSURE TO EXPERIMENT WITH DRUGS AND ALCOHOL;
WHEREAS D.A.R.E. TARGETS YOUNG PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE MOST
VULNERABLE TO TREMENDOUS PEER PRESSURE AND TEACHES THE SKILLS
TO MAKE POSITIVE DECISIONS AND RESIST PRESSURE TO ENGAGE IN
NEGATIVE BEHAVIORS;
WHEREAS MORE THAN 100,000 CLASSROOMS IN 49 STATES AS
WELL AS SCHOOLS IN AMERICAN SAMOA, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, AND NEW
ZEALAND CONDUCT THE D.A.R.E. PROGRAM;
WHEREAS OVER 20 MILLION STUDENTS HAVE BEEN REACHED
THROUGH D.A.R.E.;
WHEREAS THE D.A.R.E. PROGRAM IS TAUGHT BY VETERAN
POLICE OFFICERS AND DEPUTIES WITH DIRECT EXPERIENCE IN CASES
INVOLVING CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES AND RUINED LIVES CAUSED BY
SUBSTANCE ABUSE;
WHEREAS EACH POLICE OFFICER WHO TEACHES THE D.A.R.E.
PROGRAM COMPLETES AN 80 HOUR TRAINING COURSE THAT INCLUDED
INSTRUCTION IN TEACHING TECHNIQUES, OFFICER - SCHOOL
RELATIONSHIPS, DEVELOPMENT OF SELF - ESTEEM, CHILD DEVELOPMENT,
AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS;
WHEREAS THE D.A.R.E. CURRICULUM, DEVELOPED BY THE LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
AND ADOPTED BY OUR STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION AND
STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HELPS STUDENTS UNDERSTAND
SELF - IMAGE, RECOGNIZE STRESS AND MANAGE IT WITHOUT TAKING
DRUGS, EVALUATE RISK- TAKING BEHAVIOR, RESIST GANG PRESSURE,
APPLY DECISION MAKING SKILLS, AND EVALUATE THE CONSEQUENCES
OF THE CHOICES AVAILABLE TO THEM;
WHEREAS THE D.A.R.E. PROGRAM HAS ACHIEVED OUTSTANDING
SUCCESS TEACHING POSITIVE AND EFFECTIVE APPROACHES TO WHAT IS
ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT PROBLEMS FACING OUR YOUNG PEOPLE
TODAY- -DRUG ABUSE: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
PROCLAIMED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
THAT SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 IS DESIGNATED AS "D.A.R.E. DAY ".
THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1990.
BY:
MOSES CAREY, JR., CHAIRMAN
H
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. fix_
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 4, 1990
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S): UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT: DR. HALKIOTIS
TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Hil.lsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill - 968 -4501
Mebane - 227 -2031
Durham - 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To make a presentation to the Board on Wachovia's affordable
housing loan program.
BACKGROUND: Wachovia Bank & Trust Company has a program called
Neighborhood Revitalization. This program provides affordable housing
mortgage loans which Mr. William R. Rogerson, Vice President would like
for the Commissioners to know are available.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive as a report.
1
7
2
WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO., N.A.
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITILIZATION PROGRAM
Affordable Housing Mortgage Loans
Property Type: Owner occupied, single family dwellings (including townhomes
and condos, minimum 850 sq.ft.).
Loan Amount: Maximum $60,000 (renovation loans up to $50,000).
Down Payment: Minimum 3% (loan amount not to exceed 97% of the appraised
value or purchase price, whichever is less). Sources of downpayment:
Savings, documented gifts and secondary financing from city /county.
Maximum Income: $30,000 per family (exceptions may apply for large families).
Qualifying Ratios:
1st Ratio: Total mortgage payment (PITI & HOA) cannot exceed 35% of
borrowers' gross monthly income
2nd Ratio: Total mortgage payment and total monthly debt cannot exceed
50% of the borrowers' gross monthly income.
Closing costs: $300 origination fee, reduced attorney and appraisal fees, no
discount points, no application fee, no credit report fee, no mortgage
insurance requirements.
Terms: Maximum 30 years, reduced interest rate.
Rate Lock -In: For 60 days of application. If rate goes down, lower rate
will be given.
Employment: Two years verification by W -2's. Self - employed - 2 years tax
returns.
Credit History: Satisfactory credit history or history of rent or utility
payments.
Mortgage Credit Certificate: Through NCHFA. Can reduce federal income tax
for first time home buyers.
For Additional Information Contact:
Joy E. Paige John S. Towles Bill Rogerson
(919) 967 -7061 (919) 929 -6700 (919) 967 -7061
IF
C
WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO., N.A.
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITILIZATION PROGRAM
Affordable Housing Mortgage Loans
Property Type: Owner occupied, single family dwellings (including townhomes
and condos, minimum 850 sq.ft.).
Loan Amount: Maximum $60,000 (renovation loans up to $50,000).
Down Payment: Minimum 3% (loan amount not to exceed 97% of the appraised
value or purchase price, whichever is less). Sources of downpayment:
Savings, documented gifts and secondary financing from city /county.
Maximum Income: $30,000 per family (exceptions may apply for large families).
Qualifying Ratios:
1st Ratio: Total mortgage payment (PITI & HOA) cannot exceed 35% of
borrowers' gross monthly income
2nd Ratio: Total mortgage payment and total monthly debt cannot exceed
50% of the borrowers' gross monthly income.
Closing costs: $300 origination fee, reduced attorney and appraisal fees, no
discount points, no application fee, no credit report fee, no mortgage
insurance requirements.
Terms: Maximum 30 years, reduced interest rate.
Rate Lock -In: For 60 days of application. If rate goes down, lower rate
will be given.
Employment: Two years verification by W -2's. Self - employed - 2 years tax
returns.
Credit History: Satisfactory credit history or history of rent or utility
payments.
Mortgage Credit Certificate: Through NCHFA. Can reduce federal income tax
for first time home buyers.
For Additional Information Contact:
Joy E. Paige
(919) 967 -7061
John S. Towles
(919) 929 -6700
Bill Rogerson
(919) 967 -7061
WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO., N.A.
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITILIZATION PROGRAM
Affordable Housing Mortgage Loans
Property Type: Owner occupied, single family dwellings (including townhomes
and condos, minimum 850 sq.ft.).
Loan Amount: Maximum $60;000 (renovation loans up to $50,000).
Down Payment: Minimum 3% (loan amount not to exceed 97% of the appraised
value or purchase price, whichever is less). Sources of downpayment:
Savings, documented gifts and secondary financing from city /county.
Maximum Income: $30,000 per family (exceptions may apply for large families).
Qualifying Ratios:
1st Ratio: Total mortgage payment (PITI & HOA) cannot exceed 35% of
borrowers' gross monthly income
2nd Ratio: Total mortgage payment and total monthly debt cannot exceed
50% of the borrowers' gross monthly income.
Closing costs: $300 origination fee, reduced attorney and appraisal fees, no
discount points, no application fee, no credit report fee, no mortgage
insurance requirements.
Terms: Maximum 30 years, reduced interest rate.
Rate Lock -In: For 60 days of application. If rate goes down, lower rate
will be given.
Employment: Two years verification by W -21s. Self - employed - 2 years tax
returns.
Credit History: Satisfactory credit history or history of rent or utility
payments.
Mortgage Credit Certificate: Through NCHFA. Can reduce federal income tax
for first time home buyers.
For Additional Information Contact:
Joy E. Paige John S. Towles Bill Rogerson
(919) 967 -7061 (919) 929 -6700 (919) 967 -7061
r
WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO., N.A.
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITILIZATION PROGRAM
Affordable Housing Mortgage Loans
Property Type: Owner occupied, single family dwellings (including townhomes
and condos, minimum 850 sq.ft.).
Loan Amount: Maximum $60,000 (renovation loans up to $50,000).
Down Payment: Minimum 3% (loan amount not to exceed 97% of the appraised
value or purchase price, whichever is less). Sources of downpayment:
Savings, documented gifts and secondary financing from city /county.
Maximum Income: $30,000 per family (exceptions may apply for large families).
Qualifying Ratios:
1st Ratio: Total mortgage payment (PITI & HOA) cannot exceed 35% of
borrowers' gross monthly income
2nd Ratio: Total mortgage payment and total monthly debt cannot exceed
50% of the borrowers' gross monthly income.
Closing costs: $300 origination fee, reduced attorney and appraisal fees, no
discount points, no application fee, no credit report fee, no mortgage
insurance requirements.
Terms: Maximum 30 years, reduced interest rate.
Rate Lock -In: For 60 days of application. If rate goes down, lower rate
will be given.
Employment: Two years verification by W -2's. Self- employed - 2 years tax
returns.
Credit History: Satisfactory credit history or history of rent or utility
payments.
Mortgage Credit Certificate: Through NCHFA. Can reduce federal income tax
for first time home buyers.
For Additional Information Contact:
Joy E. Paige
(919) 967 -7061
John S. Towles
(919) 929 -6700
Bill Rogerson
(919) 967 -7061
5
M
WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO., N.A.
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITILIZATION PROGRAM
Affordable Housing Mortgage Loans
Property Type: Owner occupied, single family dwellings (including townhomes
and condos, minimum 850 sq.ft.).
Loan Amount: Maximum $60,000 (renovation loans up to $50,000).
Down Payment: Minimum 3% (loan amount not to exceed 97% of the appraised
value or purchase price, whichever is less). Sources of downpayment:
Savings, documented gifts and secondary financing from city /county.
Maximum Income: $30,000 per family (exceptions may apply for large families).
Qualifying Ratios:
1st Ratio: Total mortgage payment (PITI & HOA) cannot exceed 35% of
borrowers' gross monthly income
2nd Ratio:. Total mortgage payment and total monthly debt cannot exceed
50% of the borrowers' gross monthly income.
Closing costs: $300 origination fee, reduced attorney and appraisal fees, no
discount points, no application fee, no credit report fee, no mortgage
insurance requirements.
Terms: Maximum 30 years, reduced interest rate.
Rate Lock -In: For 60 days of application. If rate goes down, lower rate
will be given.
Employment: Two years verification by W -21s. Self - employed -- 2 years tax
returns.
Credit History: Satisfactory credit history or history of rent or utility
Payments.
Mortgage Credit Certificate: Through NCHFA. Can reduce federal income tax
for first time home buyers.
For Additional Information Contact:
Joy E. Paige John S. Towles Bill Rogerson
(919) 967 -7061 (919) 929 -6700 (919) 967 -7061
r
WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO., N.A.
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITILIZATION PROGRAM
Affordable Housing Mortgage Loans
Property Type: Owner occupied, single family dwellings (including townhomes
and condos, minimum 850 sq.ft.).
Loan Amount: Maximum $60,000 (renovation loans up to $50,000).
Down Payment: Minimum 3% (loan amount not to exceed 97% of the appraised
value or purchase price, whichever is less). Sources of downpayment:
Savings, documented gifts and secondary financing from city /county.
Maximum Income: $30,000 per family (exceptions may apply for large families).
Qualifying Ratios:
1st Ratio: Total mortgage payment (PITI & HOA) cannot exceed 35% of
borrowers' gross monthly income
2nd Ratio: Total mortgage payment and total monthly debt cannot exceed
50% of the borrowers' gross monthly income.
Closing costs: $300 origination fee, reduced attorney and appraisal fees, no
discount points, no application fee, no credit report fee, no mortgage
insurance requirements.
Terms: Maximum 30 years, reduced interest rate.
Rate Lock -In: For 60 days of application. If rate goes down, lower rate
will be given.
Employment: Two years verification by W -21s. Self- employed - 2 years tax
returns.
Credit History: Satisfactory credit history or history of rent or utility
payments.
Mortgage Credit Certificate: Through NCHFA. Can reduce federal income tax
for first time home buyers.
For Additional Information Contact:
Joy E. Paige
(919) 967 -7061
John S. Towles
(919) 929 -6700
Bill Rogerson
(919) 967 -7061
7
0
WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO., N.A.
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITILIZATION PROGRAM
Affordable Housing Mortgage Loans
Property Type: Owner occupied, single family dwellings (including townhomes
and condos, minimum 850 sq.ft.).
Loan Amount: Maximum $60,000 (renovation loans up to $50,000).
Down Payment: Minimum 3% (loan amount not to exceed 97% of the appraised
value or purchase price, whichever is less). Sources of downpayment:
Savings, documented gifts and secondary financing from city /county.
Maximum Income: $30,000 per family (exceptions may apply for large families).
Qualifying Ratios:
1st Ratio: Total mortgage payment (PITI & HOA) cannot exceed 35% of
borrowers' gross monthly income
2nd Ratio: Total mortgage payment and total monthly debt cannot exceed
50% of the borrowers' gross monthly income.
Closing costs: $300 origination fee, reduced attorney and appraisal fees, no
discount points, no application fee, no credit report fee, no mortgage
insurance requirements.
Terms: Maximum 30 years, reduced interest rate.
Rate Lock -In: For 60 days of application. If rate goes down, lower rate
will be given.
Employment: Two years verification by W -21s. Self - employed - 2 years tax
returns.
Credit History: Satisfactory credit history or history of rent or utility
payments.
Mortgage Credit Certificate: Through NCHFA. Can reduce federal income tax
for first time home buyers.
For Additional Information Contact:
Joy E. Paige John S. Towles Bill Rogerson
(919) 967 -7061 (919) 929 -6700 (919) 967 -7061
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 4, 1990
SUBJECT: Countywide School District Tax
DEPARTMENT County Manager
ATTACHMENT(S)
Action Agenda
Item No >_(-A
PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X
INFORMATION CONTAC
Manager's office,
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Hillsborough
Chapel Hill
Mebane
Durham
T
ext 2300
732 -8181
968 -4501
227 -2031
688 -7331
PURPOSE: To consider calling a special election for November 6,
1990 on the establishment of a countywide school district
supplemental tax.
BACKGROUND: At the August 21, 1990 meeting, the Board of Commissioners
discussed the possibility of calling for a special
election on November 6, in conjunction with regularly
scheduled elections, on the subject of establishment of a
countywide school district tax. It was the consensus of
the Board that it was important to obtain the views of the
two Boards of Education on the matter before deciding
whether or not to call for the election. Letters were
sent to each school board chair soliciting Board of
Education perspectives on the following points: what
purposes the proceeds of the tax should address;
confirmation of ADM as the basis for allocation of the
proceeds; and whether or not the issue should be included
on the November 6 ballot. Furthermore, the school boards
were asked to have a representative present at the
September 4 meeting to discuss their views about the
supplemental tax issue.
Statutory electoral timetables and notification
requirements make it necessary for the Board of
Commissioners to decide at the September 4 meeting whether
or not to pursue this issue on the November 6 ballot.
Should the Board desire to pursue it, the staff will need
direction on what elements, in addition to those
statutorily required, are to be included on the ballot and
in the legal notice for the election.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Decide whether or not to call for a special
election on November 6, 1990 to consider a countywide
school district supplemental tax, and give appropriate
direction to staff.
I
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. —A-
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 4, 1990
SUBJECT: BID AWARD; COURTHOUSE SQUARE PROJECT
DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SRVS. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: XX
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES
EXT 2650
BID TABULATION Telephone Number -
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill --967 -9251
Mebane - 227 -2031
Durham - 688 --7331
PURPOSE: To consider awarding a bid for work to be done as part of
the Courthouse Square Project.
BACKGROUND: The County has solicited bids for Phases I and II of the
Courthouse Square Project. The work consists of constructing flagstone
sidewalks along Churton Street and King Street around the Old
Courthouse and correcting drainage problems which exist on the site.
Phases III and IV consist of completing the sidewalks along Court and
King Streets and plantings. It is anticipated that these phases will
be funded during the 1991 -92 fiscal year.
Two alternates were included in the current bid; one for the flagstone
cut -aways to accommodate the benches; and the other for reduced
aggregate in the actual base construction of the sidewalks. Even with
the alternates, the project has significantly exceeded the funds
appropriated. It is therefore recommended that the County negotiate
with the low bidder to determine the cost of completion for Phase I
(King Street sidewalks) and whatever additional work can be done within
the confines of the appropriated funds.
RECOMMENDATION: Award the bid to C. C. Woods Construction Company for
an amount not to exceed $50,000; approve contracts, contingent upon
attorney and staff review; and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of
the Board.
JECT: COURTHOUSE SQUARE; PHASES I AND II
DATE: AUGUST 13, 1990
DER
1 HORVATH
BENNER
K DIANGELOS
ID ALLEN COMPANY
. WOODS COMPANY
I I
! BID BOND I BASE BID
I
I
no bid
I I
I I
I
yes I 87000.00
! I
I I
1 no bid I
no bid
yes
I
I
80245.00
I
I
ALTERNATE I
I
ALTERNATE II
I
I
4100.00 I 1300.00
I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
3908.00 I 1554.00
.... _ ... ............. . I _._......__
I I
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. �
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 4,- 1990
SUBJECT: PROCEDURE FOR LOCAL TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTACHMENT(S): NO
PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
INFORMATION CONTACT: MOSES CAREY, JR.
CHAIRMAN
t4A1.44�(9)11= -f210�' - :4 I�
Hillsborough
- 732 -8181
Chapel Hill
- 968 -4501
Mebane
- 227 -2031
Durham
- 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To revise procedure for local travel expense reimbursement for
members of the Board of County Commissioners.
BACKGROUND: The level of reimbursement to Commissioners has ranged from
$30 to $80 per month which does not include out -of -area travel. Based on
this information, I ask that the Board consider changing the procedure for
paying local travel expenses for Commissioners. Currently, each
Commissioner is required to keep track of all local travel associated with
his /her role as Commissioner and submit an itemized request for
reimbursement in a timely manner. I ask that you consider the policy of
paying each Commissioner a local travel expense stipend to cover all local
travel. Each Commissioner would be taxed on this amount and can list all
local travel on his /her tax form as a deduction at the end of the year.
While this process does not eliminate the need to keep records, it
minimizes the time required for reimbursement and transfers the reporting
process to the end of the year.
Based on past experience, I would recommend $50 per month for
each Commissioner and $75 per month for the Chair. Each Commissioner will
have an opportunity at the beginning of each fiscal year to elect to be
reimbursed based on submission of periodic local travel expense
reimbursement requests or receive a set amount each month. Out -of -area
travel would continue to be handled as it currently is. Out -of -area means
greater than 30 miles from Orange County.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve this revision in procedure for reimbursement
for local travel expenses effective September 1, 1990.
r
1
O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 41990
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE (New)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
ATTACHMENT(S):
Summary of Ordinance (EIO)
(See 5/29/90 Public Hearing Agenda)
Draft Environmental Impact Ord.
Related amendments to Subdivision
and Zoning Regulations
(See 5/29/90 Public Hearing Agenda)
Proposed Assessment Form
PUBLIC HEARING
Action Agenda
Item # X-®
Yes X No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Scearbo extension 2583
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
5/29/90 Public Hearing Minutes (draft)
8/20/90 Planning Board Minutes
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance (EIO)
and related amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and
Zoning Ordinance.
BACKGROUND: Enabling Legislation
The North Carolina General Statutes give local
governments authority to require the preparation of
documents disclosing the environmental impact of a major
development project. An Environmental Impact Ordinance
has been developed to implement these provisions,
allowing Orange County to require preparation of an
Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for certain projects.
Previous Public Hearings
Early drafts of the Ordinance were presented for public
hearing on October 10, 1988 and January 23, 1989. Issues
focused primarily on the applicability of the Ordinance,
and what types of projects could be subject to the
requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
2 •.
Establishment of Environmental Impact Ordinance Review
Committee
A Committee which included the Ordinance Review
Committee, a County Commissioner, the County Manager,
County Attorney, County Engineer, representatives from
EDC, and several citizens who offered expertise in areas
of environmental concern was formed at the direction of
the Board of Commissioners. The Committee has met on
numerous occasions during the past year to develop
ordinance provisions which address environmental concerns
while minimizing costs to the developer.
Summary of Environmental Impact Ordinance
The EIO would require preparation of an Environmental
Assessment, or and Environmental Impact Statement for
non - residential development projects which meet specific
applicability criteria.
- The EA would consist of a form supplied by the
Planning Department, to be completed by the
applicant, and would provide additional information
on certain aspects of the project.
- The EIS would involve a more detailed discussion of
environmental impacts of and alternatives to the
proposed development project. Few projects would be
required to submit an EIS.
Related amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and
Zoning Ordinance
The proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations
involve the protection of resources identified in
"Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational,
Biological, & Geological Significance in the
Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" and the "Orange
County Inventory of Natural Areas"
Zoning Ordinance amendments pertain to review procedures
for Site Plans and Special Use Permits.
A more detailed discussion of the proposed regulations
can be found as an attachment in the 5/29/90 public
hearing agenda packet.
Public Hearing Comments
(Staff response in italics)
1. A letter from Neal Littman (attached) was received
into the record and contained the following
• C
3
suggestions:
Include in Section 2.3.5 the word "surface" in
referring to land application wastewater systems
which require environmental review.
Incorporated into attached draft.
- Revise Section 3.1.4 to require that the Board of
Commissioners determine if an EIS will be required
if the applicant disagrees with the Planning
Department decision.
The text was modified by staff to allow for appeal
of the requirement for an EIS to the Board of
Commissioners after receiving a recommendation from
the Planning Board. The Administration recommends
against this modification.
2. A letter from William Spang (attached) was submitted
into the record and included the following concerns:
- "Failure to provide adequate protection of natural
and cultural resources" is a vague criterion for
requiring an EIS.
Methods of providing adequate protection are
described in amendments to the subdivision
regulations. The appropriate protection
strategy for a particular site will depend on
its significance, and the nature of the project.
The County Environmental Planner will review the
proposed means of protection. Any decision to
require an EIS will be brought before the Board
of Commissioners if the applicant feels that is
an unfair requirement.
- Would sludge disposal in a Water Quality Critical
Area require preparation of an EIS? If so, why not
change the criterion from "land (surface)
application" of wastewater to "sludge disposal" ?
Sludge disposal is one type of land application
of wastewater, and would require preparation of
en EIS if proposed in a Water Quality Critical
Area. There are other land application systems,
however, such as spray irrigation, which would
also require preparation of an EIS.
3. Commissioner Hartwell cited the example of
constructing a two -acre pond on a portion of a much
larger parcel. A concern was the expense of
providing topographic information for the entire
4
parcel, as required in an Environmental Assessment.
Detailed information would be required only for the
portion of the property associated with the activity
which triggered the requirement for an EA or EIS.
This has been stated in the proposed Assessment.
4. Commissioner Willhoit questioned the wording of
criteria pertaining to generation and storage of
hazardous waste. It was suggested that the language
be modified to require an EA if the facility would be
considered a small or large quantity generator of
hazardous waste according to State standards,
omitting any reference to a specific amount of waste
generation.
The text has been modified accordingly.
5. The Economic Development Commission expressed concern
about "the trend toward adding successive layers of
regulations ".
Every effort was made during the drafting of the
Ordinance to minimize the costs to property owners
and developers. The Planning Department feels that
the proposed amendment represents a reasonable and
effective compromise.
on August 20, 1990. the Planning Board recommended
approval of the proposed Ordinance and related amendments
to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance.
There were no changes recommended, however, there was
lengthy discussion of how the ordinance balances the
differing concerns of the Committee members. Minutes of
the Planning Board meeting are attached. Concern with
the length of the Environmental Assessment (EA) form
(eight pages) was also expressed. The EA is being
converted to a more versatile word - processing program
which has more type styles and sizes.
RECOHMNDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the
proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance, with
elimination of the proposed revision to Section
3.1.4.
The proposed revision to Section 3.1.4 establishes a
procedure to appeal a requirement for an EIS. The
appeal would be heard by the Board of Commissioners,
after receiving a recommendation from the Planning
Board.
Criteria for requiring an EIS are clearly set forth
7/2/90 5a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly has authorized
the governing bodies of all cities, counties, and towns acting
individually, or collectively, to require any special - purpose unit of
government or private developer of a major development project to
submit detailed statements reflecting the environmental impact of such
projects (North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, N.C. Gen. Stat.
113A -1 et seg., more specifically N.C. Gen. Stat. 113A -8); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Administrative Code contains
provisions interpreting the authority of local governments pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. 113A -8, and the role of State Government with respect
to this authority (N.C.A.C. Title I, Ch. 25, .0100 et seg.); and
WHEREAS, Section .0802(c) of Title I, Chapter 25 of the North
Carolina Administrative Code specifically provides that "In processing
applications for state permits, state agencies shall consider any
information generated by the local government pursuant to" the Code's
provisions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners
of Orange County, North Carolina:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
Pursuant to the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act the Orange
County Board of Commissioners adopts this ordinance establishing a
County policy to encourage the wise and productive use of the
county's natural resources; to encourage a public and governmental
awareness of our environment and of the consequences of
development which affect it; to require that a full disclosure be
made as to the anticipated effect of proposed development on the
resources of the county; and to permit and facilitate full
enforcement of all ordinances and regulations concerning the
environment in an efficient, coordinated and comprehensive manner.
The intent of this ordinance is to provide a mechanism for full
disclosure of anticipated impacts of developments as herein
defined and to make such information publicly available so that
citizens of the county may have input into developmental issues
before they become moot. More specifically, it is the intent of
this ordinance to require the preparation and evaluation of
environmental impact documents for projects that either require
certain state permits, or require a local land use permit for
development within environmentally sensitive areas, as provided in
Section 2 of this ordinance.
on
5
in the Ordinance itself. Preparation of an EIS is a
procedural issue only, and does not involve
substantive issues such as development standards.
The Administration recommends that the decision to
require the preparation of and EIS be made by the
Planning Department, in accordance with the standards
and criteria set forth in the Ordinance. That
decision could be appealed through the court system.
The Administration further recommends approval of the
related amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and
Zoning Ordinance..
C
SECTION 2. APPLICABILITY
2.1 Exemptions
The following projects are exempt from the provisions of this
ordinance, and no Environmental Documentation is required:
2.1.1 Any project involving a total area of 2 acres or less.
2.1.2 Routine repairs and housekeeping projects.
2.1.3 Routine grounds maintenance and landscaping.
2.1.4 Bonafide farming operations, not including sludge
disposal.
2.1.5 Single - family residential development, except for
Planned Developments
2.1.6 Any project located outside of the Orange
County Planning Jurisdiction, including Transition
Areas subject to development regulations of an Town
within Orange-County.
2.2 Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment (EA) shall consist of a document
supplied by the Planning Department to address issues of
environmental concern to the County, and completed by the
applicant. Environmental Assessment is required for non-
exempt projects that:
2.2.1 *se• eftepeete am' tro - gener-a4& ar m mer-e tA-an "D pounds
of a 55- gallee drum) per month of hazardous
wastes, a$ defied In the--Gods e€ F44e-i:&1 ,
paw R-64y Subp&r4 I3; endlor-
Oualify as a small or large generator -of hazardous
waste as defined by the North Carolina De artment of
Human Resources Hazardous Waste Branch of Solid
Waste M_a_nagement Section]; ;and or
2.2.2 Involves as an integral part of the operation of a
commercial or industrial activity more than 10,000
gallons per day of water usage, exclusive of domestic
water (25 gpd per employee), and water used for
climate control (air conditioning and heating); and /or
2.2.3 Require grading in excess of 40,000 square feet,
exclusive of roads, for non - residential or attached
residential development; and /or
2.2.4 Require grading in excess of 40,000 square feet,
exclusive of roads, for non - residential components of
residential development (golf courses, recreation
facilities, and the like); and /or
-2-
2.2.5 Require any of the following Environmental permits:
(a) A Mining Permit pursuant to the NC Mining Act.
(b) A State NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) Permit, as administered by
the NC Division of Environmental Management.
(c) A Non - Discharge Permit for a land application
waste disposal system.
(d) A permit for sludge disposal site.
2.2.6 Require Environmental Documentation by a State or
Federal agency.
2.2.7 Are located within the Water Quality Critical Area
of the Water Supply Watershed, as defined in the Land
Use component of the Orange County Comprehensive
Plan; and /or
2.2.8 Contain sites identified in "An Inventory of Sites of
Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and
Geological Significance in the Unincorporated
Portions of Orange County" or "Inventory of the
Natural Areas and wildlife Habitats of Orange County,
North Carolina "; and /or
2.2.9 Contain lands with slopes in excess of 25% outside of
drainage easements or stream buffers, as determined
by USGS Topographic maps, at a contour interval of 10
feet.
2.3 Environmental Impact Statement
For projects which require submittal of an Environmental
Assessment, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will also
be required if the project has a significant environmental
impact. A project has a significant environmental impact
when it :
2.3.1 Involves surface or subsurface extraction activity
requiring a Mining Permit from the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources; and /or
2.3.2 Involves long -term storage or disposal of hazardous
wastes; and /or
2.3.3 Requires an EIS by a Federal or State agency; and /or
2.3.4 Fails to adequately protect (as described in Section
IV- B -2-e of the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations) sites identified in "Inventory of Sites
-3-
'Al
of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, &
Geological Significance in the Unincorporated
Portions of Orange County" and the "Orange County
Inventory of Natural Areas "; and /or
2.3.5 Involves a land surface application wastewater
treatment system, within the Water Quality Critical
Area of Water Supply Watersheds as defined by the
Orange County.Comprehensive Land use Plan.
Orange County reserves the right to require preparation of an
EIS pursuant to Section 2.3, notwithstanding a Finding of No
Significant Impact on the part of Federal or State agencies.
SECTION 3. REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
3.1 Review of Environmental Assessment
3.1.1 The Environmental Assessment may be submitted prior to
submittal of the development application to determine
if an Environmental Impact Statement may be required,
provided that:
a) all information necessary to perform the Assessment
is provided, and
b) the project application, when submitted, is
consistent with the project described in the
Assessment.
3.1.2 The Planning Department shall review the EA for
completeness within 5 calendar days of the date of
submittal.
If the EA is found to be incomplete, it will be
returned to the applicant with notification of its
deficiencies.
3.1.3 If accepted as complete, the EA will be reviewed by
the Planning Department and will be distributed to
other appropriate Departments or Agencies for their
review and comment.
3.1.4 Final Action on the EA shall occur within 14 days
from the date of acceptance, or such longer time as
agreed to in writing by the applicant. If the EA
reveals no "significant environmental impacts ", as
that term is defined in this ordinance, the Planning
Department shall issue a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
If significant impacts are identified, then the
Planning Department shall issue a Finding of
-4-
Significant Impact and shall require that an
Environmental Impact Statement be prepared.
The decision of the Planning De artment may be
appeal at the next available meeting. and forward its
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. The
Board of Commissioners shall consider the a eal at
the first available meeting after the Planning Board
recommendation.
3.1.5 The applicant shall be notified if the Planning Staff-
learns of any additional state or local permits which
may be required to conduct the proposed activity.
Likewise, those agencies which may require additional
permits shall be notified of the proposed activity and
have an opportunity to provide comments.
3.2 Review of Environmental Impact Statements
3.2.1 The Planning Department shall review the EIS for
completeness within 5 working days of submittal.
If the Statement is found to be incomplete, it will be
returned to the applicant with notification of its
deficiencies.
3.2.2 Upon acceptance of a com lete EIS the applicant
shall submit 10 copies to the Planning Department.
Additional copies may be required if needed. The EIS
will be distributed to other appropriate departments
.and agencies for review and comment.
A notice shall also be placed in a newspaper of
general circulation, stating that the EIS will be
available for public review at the Planning Department
for a period of at least 15 days.
If the proposed activity requires a Mining Permit from
the State of North Carolina, or involves the Storage
of hazardous materials, the EIS shall also be sent to
the State Clearinghouse for distribution and review
pursuant to Title I, Chapter 25, .0100 et seg. of the
North Carolina Administrative Code.
If an EIS prepared for a State
completed the Federal or State
process, including publication
Bulletin" then the EIS and any
thereto shall be advertised as
review at the Planning Departm
recirculated through the State
-5-
or Federal agency has
Environmental Review
in the "Environmental
required addendum
available for public
ant, but need not be
Clearinghouse.
I_
3.2.3 Upon Completion of the advertised 15 -day review
period, and upon receipt of comments from the State
Clearinghouse when applicable, all comments will be
compiled and summarized by Planning Staff.
3.2.4 The EIS, along with all comments received during the
review period, shall be presented for public hearing
concurrently with the development project. If a
public hearing before the Board of Commissioners is
not required for approval of the development project,
then a special hearing may be scheduled. The hearing
shall take place no later than 30 days after the close
of the public review period or receipt of comments
from the State Clearinghouse, whichever is later.
3.2.5 The Board of Commissioners shall receive the EIS and
all comments as information only. The information
presented may be used only to determine compliance
with specific development standards established in the
Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations.
3.2.6 No action shall be taken on the development project
until after the EIS has been presented to the Board of
Commissioners.
SECTION 4. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EIS
4.1 Purpose
The primary purpose of an EIS is to serve as a decision -
making tool to ensure that the purposes and policies defined
in the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (G.S.
113A) are given full consideration in the ongoing programs
and actions of state and local government. It should provide
a full and fair discussion of significant environmental
impacts and should inform decision- makers and the public of
the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize
adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the environment.
4.2 Requirements
Preparers should use a format for EIS's
good analysis and clear presentation of
including the proposed activity, while
complexity. These documents should na
should include site location maps.
4.2.1 Format and Content:
which will encourage
all alternatives,
minimizing length and
t exceed 50 pages and
(a) Cover Sheet. A single cover sheet including the
following information;
(1) designation of the document as a draft,
supplementary or final statement;
(2) title of the proposed activity that is the
l ]_
subject of the statement;
(3) list of any involved cooperating entities,
(4) name, address, and telephone number of the
person who can supply further information.
(b) Summary. An adequate and accurate summary of the
statement stressing the major conclusions, areas
of controversy, and issues to be resolved. The
summary shall also list all federal, state, and
local permits, licenses, certifications, and other
approvals which must be obtained in implementing
the proposal. If there is any uncertainty about
whether any one of these is necessary, it should
be so indicated.
(c) A completed Environmental Assessment document.
(d) Purpose and Need. The underlying purpose and need
for the proposed activity.
(e) Alternatives including proposed activity. Based
upon information and analysis presented in the
following sections on the affected environment and
environmental consequences, it should present the
environmental impacts of the alternatives
including the proposed activity in comparative
form. To the extent possible the comparison of
alternatives should quantify how the purpose and
need would be satisfied by each alternative and
the proposed activity. It should also:
(1) explore and evaluate all reasonable
alternatives;
(2) discuss the reasons for the elimination of
alternatives from detailed study;
(3) include appropriate mitigation measures not
already included in the alternatives; and
(4) describe the environment of the area(s) to be
affected and the environment to be created by
the alternatives under consideration. The
description should be no longer than is
necessary to understand the effects of the
alternatives.
(5) describe environmental consequences, such as;
(a) direct effects and significance;
(b) indirect effects and significance;
(c) possible conflicts between the proposed
activities and the objectives of
IM
1-2
federal, state, and local plans,
policies, and controls for the affected
area.
(6) list the names and qualifications of the
persons who were primarily responsible for
preparing the EIS.
(7) If an appendix is included in an EIS, it
should meet the following requirements:
(a) consist of materials substantiating any
analysis fundamental to the principal
document, as distinct from material of
lesser significance that may accompany
the document or be incorporated by
reference;
(b) normally be analytic and relevant to the
decision to be made;
(c) shall not be counted in the EIS 50 page
limit; and
(d) be circulated with the EIS or be readily
available upon request.
SECTION S. ENFORCEMENT.
5.1 Injunctions and Equitable Relief.
Pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. 153A- 123(d) and
(3) the County may seek an injunction or other appropriate
equitable remedy against any violation of this ordinance or
to require compliance with any provision of this ordinance.
5.2 Effect on Other Permits and Actions.
Construction or installation of any major development project
shall not commence until subsequent to the filing of a
Finding of No Significant Impact or acceptance of the Final
EIS by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The EIS
shall be presented to the Board of County Commissioners
pursuant to public hearing procedures established in Section
VII of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, and Article
20 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 6. DEFINITIONS
As used in this ordinance, unless the context indicates otherwise:
(1) "EA" - an Environmental Assessment.
(2) "EIS" - an Environmental Impact Statement.
13
(3) "FONSI" - a Finding of No Significant Environmental
Impact.
(4) "Completed EA "' - an Environmental Assessment that has
been accepted by the County Planning Department as
technically acceptable for purposes of this ordinance.
(5) "Completed EIS" - an environmental impact statement
that has been accepted by the County Planning Department
as technically acceptable for the purpose of being
transmitted to the State Clearinghouse or for being
reviewed for adequacy by the County Planning Department.
(6) "County" - Orange County.
(7) "County Planning Department" or "Planning Department"
means the Orange County Planning Department.
(8) "Environmental Document" - an EA, EIS or FONSI, or all
of them.
(9) "Land Use Permit" means a zoning permit or subdivision
approval. building permit, site plan, or special use
permit.
(10) The term "major development project" shall include but
is not limited to shopping centers, Planned Developments
and industrial and commercial projects, but shall not
include any projects of less than two contiguous acres
in extent.
(11) "Public water supply" means a water supply system that
serves a city or town located partly or entirely within
Orange County that has a population in excess of 2,500.
(12) "Special- purpose Unit of Government" - includes any
special district or public authority.
(13) "State agency" - includes every department, agency,
institution, public authority, board, commission,
bureau, division, council, member of Council of State,
or officer of the State government of the State of North
Carolina.
(14) "State Clearinghouse" - the clearinghouse agency
established by the North Carolina Department of
Administration under the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act.
(15) "Watersupply Watershed" - Land draining to existing
reservoirs which serve as public water supplies for the
County, or to potential reservoir sites which have been
designated for protection against treats to the water
quality of future water supplies.
IM
la
(16) "Water Quality Critical Area" - Land draining directly
to existing or future watersupply impoundments by
overland flow and interflow, called shorelands, and
draining into the main channels of trunk streams
emptying into the impoundments, called non -basin
drainage areas.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon and
after its adoption.
-10-
15
APPLICATION EOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Project Name
Applicant
Address
Omer
Address
Location of property
Acreage
Tax Map Reference
Zoning District
Date received-
Date accepted /rejected
Summary comments:
Phone
Phone
Township
PIN(s)
Land Use Plan Category
FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Reviewed by
3-6
I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT,
WITH ASSISTANCE FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS NEEDED
A. Zoning and use of adjacent property.
North South
East
West
B. Topography:
highest elevation
lowest elevation
general direction of slope
Estimate % of property with
0 - 5% slope
5 - 15% slope
15 - 25% slope
more than 25% slope
Required onlv for the uortion of the site associated with or
im acted by the proRosed activity)
C. Drainage
Are there any streams or drainage easements located on the
property?
Is any of the site located within a:
Watersupply Watershed
Water Quality Critical Area
Floodplain
Describe
17 I r
D. Does the property contain any of the following Inventory
Natural or Cultural Resources? (As identified in the "Inventory of
Sites of Cultural, Historical, Recreational, Biological, and
Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange
County" or the "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of
Orange County, North Carolina ".)
yes no
a. cemeteries
b. archaeological sites
c. historic sites
d. areas of geological significance
e. designated natural areas
f. designated habitat
g. other
For each "yes" answer above, please indicate location on site plan
and complete the following, with the assistance of the Orange
County Environmental Planner. Also complete Attachment A.
(1) Type of resource
Inventory reference no. or page
Description of Resource
(2) Type of resource
Inventory reference no. or page
Description of Resource
(3) Type of resource
Inventory reference no. or page
Description of Resource
11:3
II. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Describe proposed use of property
2. Number of lots
3. Number of structures
4. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for
development of attached residential units (excluding roads, but
including parking areas)
5. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for non-
residential use (excluding roads)
6. Estimated area to be graded for roads
7. Road Type: Public Private
Class A
Class B
Class C
Total road length
8. Hours of operation for commercial or industrial use
J.q I ,
B. STATE PERMITS REQUIRED
1. Does the project involve the mining of earth products?
If so, how many cubic feet of material are expected to be
excavated?
Has an application for a Mining Permit been submitted to
NCDRCD?
Please attach map indicating expected extent of proposed
activity.
Z. Does the project involve generation or storage of hazardous
or toxic wastes, as identified by the Environmental
Protection Agency? (A listing of all hazardous materials is
available from the Planning Department)
Describe the wastes to be generated.
How much material is expected to be generated per month?
Will any material be treated onsite?
Volume?
Will any material be stored onsite?
Volume?
Where will disposal of the material take place?
How will materials be transported to the disposal site?
What measures are proposed to protect water quality and air
quality in case of spills?
20
3. will the project involve a land application system for
treatment of wastewater?
4.
If yes, describe
Has an application for a non - discharge permit been submitted
to the NC Department of Environmental Management or Orange
County Department of Environmental Health?
Describe provisions for operation and maintenance of the
system.
Is a septic tank system proposed which has a design
capacity of more than 3000 gallons per day?
If yes, describe
Has an application for a non - discharge permit been submitted
to the NC Department of Environmental Management or Orange
County Department of Environmental Health?
Describe provisions for operation and maintenance of the
system.
5. Does the activity involve sludge disposal?
If yes, where is the source of the sludge?
Describe where and how the sludge is being disposed.
Has a NPDES permit from the NC Division of Environmental
Management been issued?
21
6. Water Usage
a. Estimated no. of employees X 25 gpd - gpd
b. Estimated water use for climate control gpd
c. Process water gpd
% consumed
% discharged to septic system
% discharged to sanitary sewer system
% discharged to surface (including storm sewers)
(describe:
% evaporated
% reclaimed /reused
% other
100%
d. Water used for cooling, heating, etc., in
association with production or manufacturing
% reused
% consumed
% discharged
(describe:
% other
100%
e. Describe source of water
...
gpd
Total Water Usage
22
ATTACHMENT A
TO HE COMPLETED ONLY IF INVENTORY SITE(S) WARE IDENTIFIED IN I.E
(ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY)
(1)a. impact on Resource from Proposed Development
b. Proposed Mitigation
(2)a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development
b. Proposed Mitigation
(3)a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development
b. Proposed Mitigation
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
`1
I
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
�n
51
52
23
Mr. Norman Patterson, of Patterson Road, indicated that his road has been named
a street marker has not been erected. He asked if the county would put up a road i
sign. Mr. Collins indicated that because this is a private road the residents are
responsible for erecting the sign and the county will then maintain it.
Mr. Joe Taylor indicated that he moved in March of 1989 and was given a permanent
address of 2511 Old NC 86 South. He asked for clarification as to why his number w
being changed again. He was advised.that this was a human error which is now being
corrected.
Mr. E. C. Brooks, a resident of Scarlett Mountain Road, indicated that Scarlett
Mountain Road is a public road which does not have a road sign. He asked that
consideration be given to the proper placement of this sign when it is erected.
Commissioner Willhoit asked for clarification on the present road signs on Old 8E
He was advised that it is called Greensboro St, and then Old 86.
t
Commissioner Halkiotis pointed out that strong support has already been received
from the residents of the Calavander area to name this road NC Old 86 and their wis es
need to be considered when a final decision is made.
Commissioner Hartwell indicated he was in agreement with naming at least a portic
of this road Old Chapel Hill Road. He indicated that New Hope Church Road could be
the dividing line. He suggested delaying a decision on this until the wishes of th
community can be heard. He also spoke in support of not renumbering the houses in
Cornwallis Hills.
Commissioner Marshall suggested that before this item is brought back to the Board
of Commissioners, Mr. Haas circulate a petition to the residents of this road to se
how much interest there is in this renaming issue. These petitions should be recei ed
in the Clerks's office before July 15th.
It was the consensus of the Board to delay action for 60 days on Orange County Ru al
Route 7 until a Public Hearing on the name is held. This may be scheduled for Au
gu t
27th during the regularly scheduled Quarterly Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis,
approve the proposed house and building numbers for Rural Routes 1 and 7 (partial)
followed by notification of the Hillsborough Postmaster, the Durham Postmaster and
N.C. Department of Transportation, as required by G. S. 153A.240.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE
1. Environmental Imipact Ordinance
2. Related Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
a. Article 8.8 Special uses
b. Article 14 Site Plan Approval
3. Related Subdivision Re lations Text Amendments
a. Section III -C Approval Procedure -Minor Subdivision
�s— F:aAt' 1 2,-i
1 b. Section III -D Approval Procedures - Major Subdivisions
2 C. Section IV -B -2 -e Resource Protection
3 d. Section IV -B -5 -d Flag Lots -
4 e. Section IV -B -8 Landscaping & Buffers
5 f. Section IV -B -10 Cluster Developments
6 g. Section V -D Final Plat Specifications
7 These presentations were made by Mary Scearbo. In summary these items
8 were presented to receive public comment on a proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance
9 (EIO) and related amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. The
10 North Carolina General Statutes give local governments authority to require the
11 preparation of documents disclosing the environmental impact of a major development
12 project. An Environmental Impact Ordinance (EIO) has been developed to implement
13 these provisions, allowing Orange County to require preparation of an (EA) or
14 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for certain projects. The EIO would require
15 preparation of an EA or an EIS for non - residential development projects which meet
16 specific applicability criteria. The proposed amendments to the Subdivision
17 Regulations involve the protection of resources identified in the "Inventory of Sites
18 of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, & Geological Significance in the
19 Unincorporated Portions of Orange County ", and the "Orange County Inventory of Natural
20 Areas." Zoning Ordinance amendments pertain to review procedures for Site Plans and
21 Special Use Permits.
22
23 QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD
24
25 Betty Eidenier indicated that this ordinance is in response to a request from the
26 State for local governments to take control of the environmental impact in their own
27 area. She stated support for adoption of this ordinance.
28
29. Commissioner Hartwell indicated that he had received a letter from Neil Littman.
30 Mr. Littman raised questions concerning Sections 2.3.5 and 3.1.5. Commissioner
31 Hartwell suggested changing the wording as Mr. Littman requested. A copy of this
32 letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. He indicated in the
33 letter that this ordinance will give some assurances to Orange County citizens
34 concerning the industrial and commercial enterprises which are coming to Orange
35 County. Commissioner Hartwell stated that the difficulty with this ordinance as it is
36 now written is with non - commercial and non - industrial projects that bear little threat
37 to Orange County citizens. An example of this type of project is the pond which he is
38 putting on his land. Along with obviously needed information, certain information
39 such as Deed Book and Page number, were requested. In addition to this stumbling
40 block he pointed out that if his pond had been one square foot larger than 2 acres,
41 the steepness of the slopes on the whole property and what percentage of the whole
42 property is affected by the slope steepness would have had to be provided The cost
43 for such a topographic survey would be thousands of dollars. This would cover the
44 cost of the assessment only, not the impact, statement itself. These type of
45 regulations could make it impossible for citizens to build ponds. These type of
46 regulations need to be addressed before this ordinance is approved. He suggested that
47 requesting the application of the slope criteria should be applied only within a
48 certain proximity of the area to be disturbed.
49
50 Larry Reid asked if this ordinance would be applicable to municipalities where 1
51 larger than 40,000 were being cleared. Scearbo indicated that it is not applicable
52 the municipalities.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT
Bill Waddell asked how a development which was impacted by Articles 2.2.2, 2.2.3,
2.2.4 and /or 2.2.9 could also come under the influence of the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) He questioned why the Environmental Assessment (EA) would be requi ed
if it was clear at the outset that the EIS would not be required. Scearbo indicat d
that for those types of projects the Planning Department would want some of this
information regardless of whether an EIS would be needed. This would enable conta t
to be made with other State agencies to ensure that all permits that are required for
the state and the county would be obtained. This would also help the applicant
because he would be made aware early in the process of any additional permits he m ght
need. If an EIS is going to be required, the project would not fall into any of t e
categories in 2.1.
In response to a question from Mr. Waddell pertaining to sections 2.2.1 and 2.3.2 ,
Ms. Scearbo explained that if 220 pounds or 1/2 of a 55 gallon drum of hazardous waste
is generated in one month a State permit for a "small generator of hazardous waste' is
required. If you create more than 220 pounds or 1/2 of a 55 gallon drum it is
classified as a "large generator of hazardous waste ". The county Planning Staff
decided to require the EA for small and large generators so that it can contact th
State and require the EIS only if it is a facility that is actually storing hazard us
materials.
Commissioner Willhoit questioned what procedure the county would follow for
companies that initially did not exceed the 220 pound limit but grew in size to wh re
they did exceed that figure? Scearbo indicated that at the very least a site plan for
expansion would have been filed and in going through the site plan review this iss e
would surely come up. The applicant would be notified about the limitations again at
that time.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT
Mr. Lindsay Efland, a representative of the Economic Development Commission,
indicated that he was a member of the EDC's Environmental Impact Ordinance Review
Committee. In summary he stated that the EDC supports the need to have environmental
regulations to minimize environmental damage. However they are concerned that the
Draft Environmental Impact Ordinance will adversely affect business coming into Orange
County. The EDC would like to see the requirements included in the EIO be
incorporated into existing local development ordinances to avoid and additional level
of regulations. They also suggest that the threshold for requiring an IA be adjusted
so that builders /developers could be informed of EA requirements within 15 days of
submittal of the project. A copy of this statement is in the permanent agenda file in
the Clerk's office.
In response to a question from Mr. Efland, Scearbo indicated that if the total
project was less than two acres it is automatically exempt. If the project is more
than two acres and involved 40,000 feet of grading the project may be subject to this
requirement.
Mr. Efland stated that the Economic Development Commission believed that the County
needs to move toward developing one Comprehensive Development Ordinance. He indicated
-D1 that the EDC expressed concern about the trend toward adding successive layers of
52 regulations.
DRAF�-
1
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to
4 refer the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance and related amendments to the
5 Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance to the Planning Board for a
6 recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6th.
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 F. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
10
11 1. Z -3 -90 BINGHAM TOWNSHIP
12 This presentation was made by Emily Crudup. In summary this item was
13 presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment in Bingham
14 Township. The purpose of the rezoning is to make the Zoning Atlas consistent with the
15 Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. When the Land Use Plan for Bingham
16 Township was updated on September 6, 1988, portions of the Agricultural Residential
17 areas were changed to Rural Residential. To make the Zoning Atlas consistent with the
18 Comprehensive Plan, the Rural Residential areas must be rezoned to Residential -1.
19 Most of the property proposed for rezoning is located on the south side of NC Highway
20 54 near the White'Cross Rural Community Activity Node. A smaller portion is located
21 on the north side of Dairyland Road (SR 1177) west of Dodsons Crossroads (SR 1102).
22 The current zoning is Agricultural Residential. Residential -1 zoning is recommended
23 to provide the consistency referenced above.
24
25 QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD
26
27 Commissioner Hartwell indicated that the questions centered around what to do with
28 specific parcels. The Land Use Plan and the Zoning Atlas need to be in compliance
29 with each other. Amending the Land Use Plan is a viable option here for excluding the
30 parcels in question.
31
32 In response to a question from Commissioner Willhoit, Crudup indicated that the
33 reason for not permitting on- premises sales was that R -1 is primarily for residential
34 purposes. With on- premises sales you increase the intensity of land use in a
35 residential area. This additional traffic is expected in Agricultural zoning.
36
37 Bob Goggins indicated that he does have a road maintenance agreement. The primary
38 purpose of his greenhouse is to grow vegetables to sell at the Farmer's Market,
39 however customers occasionally do come directly to the greenhouse. His goal is to
40 assure that on- premises sales are disallowed. A copy of his statement is in the
41 permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
42
43 Commissioner Hartwell mentioned that AR, not R -1, was established far agriculture.
44 AR permits a wide range of businesses, including greenhouses. It would appear to be
45 an appropriate zoning category for the operation under discussion.
46
47 Mr. Craig Burch asked for clarification of the restrictions for on- premises sales.
48 Mr. Collins explained that when an area is designated R -1 it is a statement that the
49 area is going to become predominantly residential. The goal is to protect the
50 residential integrity of neighborhoods that developed in that area. Commercial
51 operations are restricted as a result of this goal of protecting the residential w
52 character of the area.
27
Neal Littman
228 South Churton Street
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
919- 732 -7568
May 29, 1990
Board of County Commissioners
Orange County
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Re: Proposed Environmental Impact
Ordinance
Dear Commissioners:
During your consideration of the proposed Environmental
Impact Ordinance please consider the changes proposed in this
letter. For-the sake of clarity, the suggested additions to the
ordinance are in boldface print.
1) Please amend Section 2.3.5 so that it reads:
"Involves a land surface application wastewater
treatment system, within the Water Quality Critical
Area of Water Supply Watersheds... 1'
As the ordinance is currently written, it could (and should) be
interpreted to include conventional septic systems as "land
application wastewater treatment system[s] ". This should not be
the intent of the ordinance.
2) Please amend Section 3.1.5 so that it reads:
"...If significant impacts are identified, then the
Planning Department shall issue a Finding of Significant
Impact and shall recommend to the Board of Commissioners
that they require that an Environmental Impact Statement
be prepared. If, upon issuance of the Finding of
Significant Impact by the Planning Department, the
applicant does not voluntarily agree to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement, then the Board of
Commissioners shall consider the recommendation of the
Planning Department at their next regularly scheduled
meeting. If the Board of Commissioners concurs in the
Finding of Significant Impact by the Planning
Department, no further consideration of the project
application shall occur until the completion of the
zs
Page Two: Proposed EIS
Environmental Impact Statement by the applicant."
The requirement that an applicant prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement will impose a substantial financial burden on the
economic viability of a proposed project. While a useful public
tool in terms of protecting the environment, the Environmental
Impact Statement will not be frequently prepared because of its
cost in both time and money. Many projects that are feasible
with only an Environmental Assessment may not be economically
viable if an Environmental Impact Statement is required. This
decision is one that inherently involves analysis of some
subjective criteria. The ultimate and final decision to require
the Environmental Impact Statement should not be made without
having protection from an arbitrary or inappropriate interpretation
of information by the Planning Department staff.
Thank you for your consideration of these important aspects
of the proposed ordinance.
Sincerely,
s
Neal Littman
NL:ck
MA' ,e-49— =►0 TUE 1-?:41 SPANG-�STRom Co.
"g
SPA&NG
May 29, 1990
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Hillsborough, N.C.
RE: Environmental Impact Ordinance
Public Hearing, May 29, 1990
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As a professional, commercial real estate developer with both my office and my home
in Orange County, I was particularly interested in the proposed environmental impact
proposed for public comment at tonight's meeting. Since I will be unable to attend tonight's
meeting, it has been suggested that I forward the attached comments by fax and that they
will be included with other public comment. Thank you for the opportunity.
Generally, I found the purposes for the now ordinance laudable and the proposcd
requirements for more information on which the commissioners can base decisions, especially
for larger, more intrusive development, an appropriate direction to follow; however, I am
concerned with a certain lack of specificity as the wording is now proposed.
Specifically, with respect to those projects which will require an environmental
impact statement, beyond those that need a mining permit, are hazardous waste storage, or
require a federal or state environmental impact statement, I think it is important that
landowners know exactly which and which will not need to comply. "Failure to provide
adequate protection of natural or cultural resources" is a very open and broad statement
which will be quite subjective in its determination until which time precedent is established.
It seems to me that subjectivity here is not in the best interests of the County. Rather, I
would suggest that the development process is one which should follow the lead taken by the
County Commissioners by establishing a plan for the future growth of the County. That
plan of growth is normally embodied in a zoning ordinance for the County and directs
landowners on how the County wishes to utilize its lands to support new construction. Then,
if uses follow that plan, I can't imagine why an environmental impact statement would be
necessary.
On the other hand, if a landowner is requesting a "major" change to the plan already
adopted by the County, or if the landowner was proposing uses which were to fall into a
specific list or be in excess of a specific size as determined by the Commissioners, then a
clearer direction will be established for residents and landowners to follow.
Certainly, if development will be of a size or height or density that exceeds that
which has been expected by the County for a particular location, or if it were to be placed
in an already identified traffic - congested area, or if it be of a use to exceed a certain noise
level, or be of certain uses in a particular watershed, then those proposed developments may
Cnanp na;vl,�n^nenr [O
-Ili Cloister Court • su'+'? 9x09
Mr •29 -90 TUE 17:42 SP04NG -STROM CO. 30
Orange County Board of Commissioners
May 29, 1990
Page 2.
very well rcquire the information that an environmental impact statement would provide for
proper consideration by the Board. Otherwise, I would expect that the normal development
anticipated by the Board in its zoning plan raced not be burdened by the very large cost and
time expense required to property complete an environmental impact statement.
I would also mention that the proposed language also would require environmental
impact statements where the project involved land application of waste water in a water
quality critical area. Does this mean that sludge disposal is a use that would require an
environmental impact statement if it was in a Water Quality Critical Area, and so would
sanitary sewer treatment like that which has been installed at Hard Scrabble? If sludge
disposal is what the County is limiting, then I think the words "land application of waste
water" should be corrected to read "sludge disposal in a Water Quality Critical Area ".
Thank you for the opportunity to forward these comments.
Sin er
v�
Willia
WFS:mwc
M M p ff V
31
property. The current zoning on the property is
R -1 (Rural Residential). The proposed zoning is
I -1 (Light Industrial).
The area is designated as Twenty Year Transition
and Commercial /Industrial Node in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Letters from the Orange County Sheriff's
Department and Orange County EMS have indicated
services can be provided.
The applicant, Mrs. Dorothy Bane, stated that the
proposed use is the operation of a crematorium
with the proposed access a private road.
Kirk reminded the Board that in a rezoning
application all of the permitted uses must be
reviewed rather than just the proposed use.
Best noted that the private road to be requested
by the applicant would not be permitted since
this is a transition area.
AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (5/29/90)
a. Environmental Impact Ordinance
(1) Environmental Impact Ordinance
(2) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
(a)
Article 8.8 Special Uses
(b)
Article 14 Site Plan Approval
(3) Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments
(a)
Section III -C Approval Procedures -
Minor Subdivisions
(b)
Section III -D Approval Procedures -
Major Subdivisions
(c)
Section IV- B-2 -e Resource Protection
(d)
Section IV- B -8 -5 -d Flag Lots
(e)
Section IV -B -8 Landscaping & Buffers
(f)
Section IV -B -10 Cluster Developments
(g)
Section V -D Final Plat Specifications
Presentation by Mary Scearbo.
This item is to consider a proposed Environmental
Impact Ordinance and related amendments to the
Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance.
The North Carolina General Statutes give local
governments authority to require the preparation
of documents disclosing the environmental impact
of a major development project. An Environmental
T
D G3 I ff 4 „
Impact Ordinance (EIO) has been developed to
implement these provisions, allowing Orange
County to require preparation of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for certain projects.
Early drafts of the Ordinance were presented for
public hearing on October 10, 1988 and January
23, 1989. Issues focused primarily on the
applicability of the Ordinance, and what types of
projects could be subject to the requirement to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
A Committee which included the Ordinance Review
Committee, a County Commissioner, the County
Manager, County Attorney, County Engineer,
representatives from EDC, and several citizens
who offered expertise in areas of environmental
concern was formed at the direction of the Board
of Commissioners. The Committee has met on
numerous occasions during the past year to
develop ordinance provisions which address
environmental concerns while minimizing costs to
the developer.
The EIO would require preparation of an
Environmental Assessment, or an Environmental
Impact Statement for non - residential development
projects which meet specific applicability
criteria.
The EA would consist of a form supplied by the
Planning Department, to be completed by the
applicant, and would provide additional
information on certain aspects of the project.
The EIS would involve a more detailed discussion
of environmental impacts of and alternatives to
the proposed development project. Few projects
would be required to submit an EIS.
The proposed amendments to the Subdivision
Regulations involve the protection of resources
identified in "Inventory of Sites of Cultural,
Historic, Recreational, Biological, & Geological
Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of
Orange County" and the "Orange County Inventory
of Natural Areas ".
Zoning Ordinance amendments pertain to review
procedures for Site Plans and Special Use
Permits.
The Planning Department recommends approval of
UWL°WI?ti
the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance and
related amendments to the Subdivision Regulations
and related amendments to the Subdivision
Regulations and Zoning Ordinance.
Eidenier suggested that the Application for
Environmental Assessment be reduced in size but
not the content. Scearbo responded that she
is in the process of placing the application on a
WordPerfect Program which compresses type and
will reduce the number of pages of the
application.
Best noted that residential development had been
deleted from the EIO and asked if it has been
addressed in the Subdivision Regulations.
Scearbo responded that amendments are being
proposed to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations to address residential development.
MOTION: Jacobs moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Lewis.
Jacobs expressed concern that more protection
is needed and this ordinance does not provide a
means by which to stop a project such as a
reservoir from being completed.
Eidenier noted that there would be citizens who
would object to the ordinance due to the paper
work required.
Waddell asked about the goals behind the
Environmental Assessment and the Environmental
Impact Statement. Scearbo responded that an
Environmental Assessment gives more in -depth
description of a project and the Planning Staff
could notify the State to verify if additional
permits are required beyond the local
requirements. Waddell continued, asking if that
information was something the applicant would
have to determine. Scearbo responded that this
would provide a service to the applicant as well
as providing more in -depth information about a
project for the Staff. This would help determine
whether an Environmental Impact Statement is
needed. Waddell noted that he was not sure that
there is a demand for this type of service
and if it is a service, that it should be
required of the development. If it is a service,
he felt it should not be provided through an
ordinance.
MM R5 7
Jacobs commented that the EA and the EIS are two
different levels of information. He continued
that he would be supportive of reserving the
right to make the EA a basis for requiring an
EIS.
Best expressed concern that the EIO did not
provide for more than asking an applicant to
mitigate the problems. He felt that more could
be done for protection of the environment and
gave the Traffic Impact Study as an analogy.
Lewis expressed concern with the use of the
Natural Areas Inventory list as criteria for an
EIS. Jacobs agreed, noting that some of the
sites listed on the inventory are large tracts,
as much as one hundred (100) acres.
Scearbo responded that disturbance of natural
areas was deleted because of the size of some of
the tracts. That is the reason this is addressed
in amendments to the Subdivision Regulations.
Waddell asked if an EIS prepared for federal or
state offices would be accepted by Orange County.
Scearbo responded that if areas of cultural
importance to Orange County were not addressed,
then an addendum to the state of federal EIS
would be prepared for the County.
Eidenier asked if the Planning Board would be
presented with a finding -of -facts of the EIS.
Scearbo responded that the EIS would go
through the public hearing process. The Planning
Board would review the EIS and attached to that
would be the comments from public hearing. Then,
Planning Board comments would also be attached
for review by the Board of Commissioners.
Question called by Best.
Eidenier restated the motion - To approve the
Environmental Impact Ordinance and related
amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and the
Zoning Ordinance.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ($130190)
JOINT PLANNING ITEMS
a. Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 4, 1990
SUBJECT: FOUR BIRCHES - AMENDED PHASING PLAN
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
ATTACHMENT(S):
Vicinity Map
Requested Amendment
8/10/90 Staff Memorandum
Preliminary Plan
8/20/90 Draft Planning
Board Minutes
PUBLIC HEARING
Action A en
Item #— -A
Yes —x—No
INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Extension 2582
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: Consideration of an amended phasing plan for Four
Birches Subdivision.
BACKGROUND: The preliminary plan for Four Birches was approved by
the Board of Commissioners on August 1, 1989. The
plan was for a subdivision containing 16 lots ranging
in size from 1.3 acres to 5.1 acres. The subdivision
was proposed with 13 lots being served by two private
roads and the remaining 3 lots having frontage on
existing state roads. The preliminary plan indicated
the subdivision was to be developed in one phase.
The property is located at the northeast intersection
of Hopkins Road (SR 1537) and Bill Poole Road (SR
1536) in Little River Township. The property is not
zoned and the Land Use Plan designation is
Agricultural Residential.
On July 25, 1990, the applicant submitted an
application for Final Plat approval. The application
was considered incomplete since the required
improvements (roads, landscaping) had not been
installed and security was not provided for their
completion. On August 1, 1990 the Preliminary Plan
approval expired, since 12 months had elapsed without
Final Plat approval.
On January 8, 1990 the Subdivision Regulations were
amended to allow revisions to the phasing plans of
major subdivisions. The amendment provides a remedy
for development plans for which the 12 -month time
2
limit had expired or was about to expire. (Refer to
the attached Staff memorandum for a comparison of the
applicant's request with the criteria set forth in
Section II- D--2 -e of the Subdivision Regulations.)
The attached letter from the applicant's agent states
that improvements will be completed by August 1, 1991.
The applicant's agent has indicated an intent to -
complete landscaping and road improvements by December
1, 1990.
In their August 20th meeting the Planning Board
recommended that the deadline for receiving approval
of the Final Plat for Four Birches be extended to
December 1, 1990. It was further recommended that if
improvements are not completed by that date, the
letter of credit or escrow agreement securing
completion would be written to expire on August 1,
1991.
ION: The applicant's justification for a revised phasing
plan, when compared with the criteria set forth in
Section II- D -e -2, does not present a strong case for
approval. However, the revised phasing will not
extend the time limit for completion of improvements.
This factor is the basis for the administration
recommendation for approval.
It is further recommended that Section II -D -e -2 of the
Subdivision Regulations be amended to add that a
phasing plan may be approved if the time available
to complete the construction of improvements is not
extended.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Planning Board
FROM: Planning and Inspections Department
DATE: August 13, 1990
SUBJECT: Four Birches - Request for Amended Phasing Plan
The items to be considered by the Board of Commissioners in
determining whether to approve an amended phasing plan are
listed below. The Planning Staff comment regarding each is
provided in italics.
III- D -2 -e. Action Subse uent to A2proval
where a time period has elapsed, the developer shall be
required to resubmit a new Preliminary Plat for the
tract or portion thereof for which approval has expired.
The new plat shall be subject to all applicable
regulations in existence at the time of resubmittal.
Provided, however, the development phasing plan approved
as part of the Preliminary Plat (hereafter "the phasing
plan ") may be amended by the Board of Commissioners upon
application by the subdivider. In determining whether
to approve an amended phasing plan, the Board of
Commissioners shall consider:
(1) whether or not approval of other diligently pursued
regulatory requirements can be obtained before the
expiration of the time periods established in the
phasing plan; and
(The Preliminary Plan was approved on August 1,
1989. No other major regulatory permits
are required prior to Final Plat approval.
(2) the quality of and length of time of the experience
of the subdivider in managing development projects;
and
(Mr. Verwoerdt has had numerous development
projects and has been in business for 40 years.)
3
4
(3) whether factors other than market conditions and
beyond the control of the subdivider caused a
delay in meeting the phasing plan; and
(The developer has indicated that he had intended
to build the road during the dry weather of the
summer. Problems arose in developing a contract
for the grading. The developer then attempted to
secure a letter of credit, but was unable to
complete the process before the time limit
expired, due,in part to uncertainty about the
estimated grading costs.)
(4) whether the development project, if completed
consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat, will
tend to aid or meet an important public policy goal
established by the Board of County Commissioners;
and
(The subdivision is in conformance with the
policies and provisions of the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan, however, there are no
specific public policy goals which would be
particularly furthered by this subdivision.)
(5) whether the application for an amended phasing plan
was submitted before the previously approved time
limit(s) has lapsed; and
(The developer was notified in June, 1990 that the
Preliminary Plat would expire on August 1, 1990.
The application for an amended phasing plan was
submitted on July 25, 1990 after failure to
resolve grading contract issues. Extension of the
time limit from August 1, 1990 to December 1, 1990
would allow time to install landscaping
improvements during the cooler weather of autumn,
and construct or secure construction of the
private roads.
(6) the possibility of and practicality of the
subdivider and developer completing the development
project consistent with Orange County regulations
applicable if the phasing plan amendment is not
granted.
(If the phasing plan amendment is not granted, the
developer will be required to repeat the Concept
Plan and Preliminary Plat approval procedures.
Development standards affecting the subdivision
have not changed since the preliminary plat was
approved.)
After consideration of the evidence submitted by the
applicant concerning each of the factors listed above,
the Board may, in its discretion and for good cause
shown, grant the amendment to the phasing plan unless it
concludes that to do so would not maintain or promote,
in some specific manner, the general health, safety and
welfare. If the Board approves an amendment to the
phasing plan, it may require reasonable additional
conditions of approval of the unapproved final plat.
7
7876 //
FOUR EIRCEES
131.7514AC- APPLICAKT: JULIUS VERWOERDT
LUP: AGRICULTUXU RESIDENTIAL
SCALE: 1" 400'
5967
//
�1 b 3Q9
96 AC.TOTAL
77 AC. OC.
I
/
�
5)1 q 932
Fu /
164.33 AC. 707AL
E5� 74 AC. 0C.
►� � � ( 5249
i r „ ru wromr
0076 5.v ` t£.►£r£ Nr+p 852
1.6411: 1.33 ^ s _ 5A al J PARCEL 13
5090 1 AC. OLRKW ca.
1 .
-t
8722 �1 � v
� SG 5H C5j
3.19 x 0589 3608 5E35
I . SO 1.59X ' 0 8614
I I 1
I / ,I
/ Jl� I i
s
IVA' 0
Z z
O p
U U
1
- _ ■
u
El
7
ALOIS CALLEM1W
LAND SURVEYOR
104 N. CHURTON STREET
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
TELEPHONES. 732 -3883 • 682 -6240
August 8, 1990
Eddie Kirk
Orange County Planning Department
306 Revere Rd.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Eddie:
Enclosed please find the 17 copies of the preliminary plat
and the answers to the six questions for the amended phasing plan
that you requested. If you need any additional information,
please contact me.
AC:mw
Sincerely,
Alois Callemyn, RLS
FARM, LOT. BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHIC, LOAN, AND CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS • SUBDIVISION DESIGN AND LAYOUT
8 `
P2
ALOIS CALLEMYN
LAND SURVEYOR
104 N. CHURTON STREET
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
TELEPHONES. 732.3883 • 682.621
AMENDED PHASING PLAN (ANSWERS TO THE SIX QUESTIONS)
1. Both roads and all landscaping can be finished by the
requested deadline: August 1, 1991. All of the other
requirements have been met so far.
2. Mr. Verwoerdt has had numerous experiences in developing
project of this magnitude and has been in business for 40
years in the United States and overseas.
3. The difficulty in selecting and contracting with a grading
contractor was the prime reason for missing the first
deadline. At this time the contractor has been hired and
work will be finished in a timely fashion.
4. There are no changes in the design of this subdivision nor
are there any changes requested for the requirements set
forth by the Board of County Commissioners.
5 No, it was not submitted before the approved time limit.
6. Do to time constraints, the roads and landscaping were not
able to be built before the deadline ran out. The road and
landscaping are the only remaining requirements for final
approval of the subdivision.
FARM, LOT. BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHIC. LOAN, AND CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS a SUBDIVISION DESIGN AND LAYOUT
ML� Q 7 9 5 i'
a
The Concept Plan for CK Properties was originally
submitted with a private road request in February
of 1989. That plan was approved with a public
road by the Planning Board on March 6, 1989. The
applicants requested an appeal of the Planning
Board's decision from the County Commissioners in
March of 1990. The Commissioners upheld the
approval with a public road. The Concept Plan
approval expired on March 6, 1990. The
applicants have resubmitted the Concept Plan with
a public road.
The property is located on the south side of
Dairyland Road (SR 1177) approximately 800 feet
west of the intersection with Dodsons Crossroads
(SR 1102). The property is zoned Residential -1;
the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan
designates it as Rural Residential. Adjacent
land uses are residential.
The total acreage of the tract is 4.063 acres.
Four (4) lots are proposed which will access
Dairyland Road by Roy Road, to be upgraded to a
public road. The lots will have individual wells
and septic tanks.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
Concept Plan for CK Properties with a public
road built to State standards.
MOTION: Best moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Jacobs.
VOTE: Unanimous.
b. Preliminary Plats (16 Lots)
0 (1) Four Birches - Amended Phasing Plan
(16 Lots - Little River Township)
Presentation by Eddie Kirk.
The preliminary plan for Four Birches was
approved by the Board of Commissioners on August
1, 1989. The plan was for a subdivision
containing 16 lots ranging in size from 1.3 acres
to 5.1 acres. The subdivision was proposed with
13 lots being served by two private roads and the
remaining 3 lots having frontage on existing
state roads. The preliminary plan indicated the
subdivision was to be developed in one phase.
M M 9 T 7 .a
The property is located at the northeast
intersection of Hopkins Road (SR 1537) and Bill
Poole Road (SR 1536) in Little River Township.
The property is not zoned and the Land Use Plan
designation is Agricultural Residential.
On July 25, 1990, the applicant submitted an
application for Final Plat approval. The
application was considered incomplete since the
required improvements (roads, landscaping) had
not been installed and security was not provided
for their completion. On August 1, 1990 the
Preliminary Plan approval expired, since twelve
(12) months had elapsed without Final Plat
approval.
On January 8, 1990 the Subdivision Regulations
were amended to allow revisions to the phasing
plans of major subdivisions. The amendment
provides a remedy for development plans for which
the 12 -month time limit had expired or was about
to expire.
A letter from the applicant's agent states that
improvements will be completed by August 1, 1991.
The agent has also indicated an intent to
complete landscaping and road improvements by
December 1, 1990.
The Planning Staff recommends that deadline for
receiving approval of the Final Plat for Four
Birches be extended to December 1, 1990. It is
further recommended that if improvements are not
completed by that date, the letter of credit or
escrow agreement securing completion would be
written to expire on August 1, 1991.
Best expressed concern with the use of two dates
(December 1, 1990 and August 1, 1991). Kirk
responded that the intent of the applicant is tc
complete landscaping and road improvements by
December 1, 1990. If this cannot be
accomplished, the letter of credit will
be written to expire August 10 19916
Scearbo explained that the Final Plat would be
submitted by December 1. Hopefully, improvements
would be complete by that time as that is the
intent of the applicant. If the improvements
were not complete, security would be posted. If
secured through a letter of credit or escrow
agreement, the time available to complete the
roads and landscaping would be extended to August
1, 1991.
P
MOTION:
VOTE:
M M a ff 7
Is
Best continued, expressing concern with the
extension of time into 1991 when the applicant
has already had a year to complete the
improvements.
Scearbo continued that even if the Final Plat had
been submitted and approved by August 1, 1990,
then improvements could have been secured through
a letter of credit or escrow agreement valid
until August 1,- 1991. - The-recommended adjustment
to the phasing plan extends the deadline for
securing approval of the final Plat, but does not
extend the time available for completing
improvements.
Lewis moved approval as recommended by the Planning
Staff. Seconded by Hamilton.
8 in favor.
1 opposed (Jacobs - should have used only one
date - either December 1, 1990 or August 1, 1991).
c. Partial Width Right -of -Way
(1) Michael Campbell
(3 Lots - Cheeks Township)
Presentation by Jane Garrett.
On August 6, 1990, Planning Staff approved a
Minor Subdivision Concept Plan for Michael
Campbell property. The subdivision is located
south of High Rock Road (SR 1340), approximately
1130 feet (.21 mile) east of Charlie's Dead End
(SR 1347).
The total lot size is thirteen (13) acres. The
applicant proposes to divide the property into
three (3) lots. An existing private road (30
foot right -of -way) approximately 1000 feet in
length provides access to the lots. The required
road classification is Class H.
Reduction of the right -of -way from the required
fifty (50) feet to the existing thirty (30) feet
is needed due to the unwillingness of the owner
of Lots 15 and 67 to grant additional right -of-
way.
The partial width right -of -way of 30 feet is
requested from High Rock Road to the
northernmost property line of Lot 15H
I w
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September-4- 1990
SUBJECT: MICHAEL CAMPBELL
PARTIAL WIDTH RIGHT -OF -WAY
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
ATTACHMENT(S):
Subdivision Concept Plan
Tax Map
Documentation Regarding
Pre - Existence of Road
Letters Regarding Additional
Right -of -Way from Property
Owners
8/20/90 Planning Board Minutes
(Draft)
1
Action Agenda
Item # —X- F
PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x—No
INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Garrett
Extension 2581
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To consider a request by Michael Campbell for a
reduction in right -of -way width from 50 feet to 30
feet.
BACKGROUND: On August 6, 1990, Planning Staff approved a Minor
Subdivision Concept Plan for Michael Campbell
property. The subdivision is located south of High
Rock Road (SR 1340), approximately 1130 feet (.21
mile) east of Charlie's Dead End (SR 1347).
The total lot size is 13 acres. The applicant
proposes to divide the property into three (3) lots.
An existing private road (30 foot right -of -way)
approximately 1000 feet in length provides access to
the lots. The required road classification is Class
B.
Reduction of the right -of -way from the required 50
feet to the existing 30 feet is needed due to the
unwillingness of the owner of Lots 15 and 67 to grant
additional right -of -way.
The partial width right -of -way of 30 feet is requested
from High Rock Road to the northernmost property line
of Lot 15H (approximately 550 feet in length). The
remaining right -of -way (approximately 450 feet in
length) will be 50 feet.
The Planning Board recommended approval of the partial
width right -of -way on August 20, 1990.
RBCOMMUDATION: The Administration recommends approval of a partial
width right -of -way as requested for the private road.
�a
PROPERTY OF n► I4N
CITY OF GHEeac.S TOWNSMP
REFERENCE Terzo BOOK PAGE
r�Y�)
3
SCALE r ■ Zoo
of
COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY REGISTER of DEEDS
c
Y
(- ) F 4r
�� v au1 �5r � �ti• �. �
O 6 SFM E-/YT q
y'� �c�,e�Laue► 1, � w
I \
I
Mr A. ggppCNA W \
I
-�, � 'Y�3L• . -ZG
a
U
N
Z
;u
' 1 u
� O
h
� N N R L E � 13 � l� PS N/r►✓ �
I
r�I
I � I
�I .h
i�
wl ,
P 42 -IIA
3. T WP
111.335AC.
lip
% G
�\ Z'
'3315
1
69AC
�} I
T I,
�I
ic 14 A E L, CAM PBELL
PA;rr#A L - WI" ;U4 HT- of -WAY 4
- GN TW P. rAy. MAP J r
i
L
z��/350
RED
4
cr
7j:,f J
5�
MICHAEL CAMPBELL
6800 HIGH ROCK ROAD (S.R. 1340)
EFLAND, NC 27243
June 28, 1990
To: Orange County Planing Board
I have made every effort
to secure the signatures of Alfreddie Smith
and his
Wife
Brenda B. Smith on a document
granting me a fifty feet right of way,
then a
letter
stating that they refused
to grant more than the existing thirty feet
right of
way(Plat
Book 37, page 56 Orange
County Registry). They will not sign any documents
presented to them for any
reason. There are no other avenues for me
to take
to get
these people to consider
signing anything. However I was granted a
fifty feet right
of way from land owner
Elizabeth Whellers Breedlove and I also will
grant a
fifty feet
right of way upon sub - division
of property.
Regards,
ichael C pbell
Vl
DATE: July 28 , 1990
c D I
TO : Orange County PLaning Board 7 - 31 "9a 1 JJ
FROM : Michael Campbell
The easement that is currently being used by Michael Campbell will be the legal
right of way with a 30 feet access. I Alfreddie Smith will not grant a 50 feet right of
way. This letter is -- only to -cerifty to the Orange Planing Board that Michael. Campbell
did ask for a 50 feet access in order to sub - divide his property and was denied. This
letter can not be used for any legal binding us
Alfeddie Smith
ael Campbell
mmlff V 9
(approximately 550 feet in length). The
remaining right -of -way (approximately 450 feet in
length) will be 50 feet.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of a
partial width right --of -way as requested for the
private road.
Best asked if the Minor Subdivision approved by
the'Planning Staff had restrictive covenants
prohibiting further subdivision. Garrett
responded no. Best continued, expressing concern
with the granting of a partial width right --of -way
and then further subdivision be proposed. The
applicant, Mr. Campbell, stated that he had no
plans to further subdivide. He desires to
subdivide in order to sell five acre lots.
Garrett reminded the Board that should further
subdivision be desired, it would be brought to
the Planning Board and the additional right -of-
way needed would be required.
Best noted that the Transportation Advisory
Subcommittee is concerned that partial width
rights -of --way lock in the potential for roads to
be upgraded to State standards (paved) in the
future. There is a potential here for a lot of
land to be locked in with the granting of a
partial width right -of -way.
Mr. Alfreddie Smith, unwilling to grant the
additional easement because it would be so close
to his house, stated that he wants simply to
legalize the road which has already been in use
for at least forty years. If the other property
beyond the thirty -foot portion of the easement is
ever developed, a fifty -foot right -of -way would
be available.
Mr. Carl Walters spoke in support of the request
of Mr. Campbell. He stated that the road had
been in existence as a thirty -foot road and
continually used for at least forty -five years.
Jacobs indicated he was in favor of granting the
request but did understand and agree with the
concern expressed by Best.
Garrett noted that future subdivision would be
reviewed by the Planning Board and fifty -foot
rights -of -way could be required.
Jacobs suggested that the requirement of no
further subdivision could be applied in cases of
MMA�7 e
Best continued, expressing concern with the
extension of time into 1991 when the applicant
has already had a year to complete the
improvements.
Scearbo continued that even if the Final Plat had
been submitted and approved by August 1, 1990,
then improvements could have been secured through
a letter of credit or escrow agreement validuntil
August 1, 1991. The recommended adjustment to
the phasing plan extends the deadline for
securing approval of the final Plat, but does not
extend the time available for completing
improvements.
MOTION: Lewis moved approval as recommended by the Planning
Staff. Seconded by Hamilton.
VOTE: 8 in favor.
1 opposed (Jacobs - should have used only one
date - either December 1, 1990 or August 1, 1991).
c. Partial Width Right -of -Way
(1) Michael Campbell
(3 Lots - Cheeks Township)
Presentation by Jane Garrett.
On August 6, 1990, Planning Staff approved a
Minor Subdivision Concept Plan for Michael
Campbell property. The subdivision is located
south of High Rock Road (SR 1340), approximately
1130 feet (.21 mile) east of Charlie's Dead End
(SR 1347).
The total lot size is thirteen (13) acres. The
applicant proposes to divide the property into
three (3) lots. An existing private road (30
foot right -of -way) approximately 1000 feet in
length provides access to the lots. The required
road classification is Class B.
Reduction of the right -of -way from the required
fifty (50) feet to the existing thirty (30) feet
is needed due to the unwillingness of the owner
of Lots 15 and 67 to grant additional right -of-
way.
The partial width right -of -way of 30 feet is
requested from High Rock Road to the
northernmost property line of Lot 15H
p� e
1,
partial width rights -of -way just as it is with
private roads and no further subdivision.
Eidenier noted that this could be reviewed by the
Ordinance Review Committee.
Further discussion indicated concerns that future
developers or applicants would have over the
ability for further subdivision, particularly if
the adjoining properties were subdivided into
lots there were smaller than five -acre lots.
Scearbo explained that any further subdivision
would have to be reviewed for the determination
of public or private roads. The Planning Staff
and the Planning Board would have the option of
not approving further subdivision if the
right -of -way requirements were not met.
Best expressed the concern that future
subdivision of the adjoining properties would
require those property owners /developers to bear
the cost of all road improvements which would
also benefit those subdivisions already in place.
Best indicated he felt other Planning Board
members had the same concern.
Burklin expressed concern with anticipating what
"might' be developed in the future requiring
road improvements. Best responded that this was
a part of planning for the future developments.
Hamilton also indicated concern with restricting
further subdivision.
MOTION: Lewis moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Burklin.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(To accommodate citizens who must leave for another meeting,
Agenda Item #10 c (1) Z -4 -90 Dorothy C. Bane was presented at this
point on the agenda.)
Presentation by Eddie Kirk.
The property in question is located on the south
side of US 70 approximately 750 feet west of
Mount Herman Church Road (SR 1713). It is known
as part of Lot 35, Tax Map 26 of Eno Township.
The total tract contains approximately 2 acres
and fronts on US 70 for a length of approximately
25 feet. Access will be provided by a private
road that extends along the south side of the
O RANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 4s 1990
Action Agenda
Item #
SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 27, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING - ALTERNATIVE DATE
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Planning Director - Extension 2592
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501
PURPOSE: To consider postponing the November 27, 1990 public
hearing until December 11, 1990.
BACKGROUND: Interest has been expressed by several members of the
Board of Commissioners in postponing the November 27,
1990 public hearing until new Board members have taken
office. Tuesday, December 11, 1990 has been suggested
as an alternate date. The change would allow new
Commissioners the benefit of being part of the entire
public hearing process rather than having it split
between two Boards.
Based on the December 11 hearing date, the revised
schedule would be as follows:
BOCC - Advertisement Approval 11/5/90
Notice to Newspapers 11/23/90
1st Advertisement 11/28/90
2nd Advertisement 12/5/90
Public Hearing 12/11/90
Planning Board Recommendation 1/22/91
BOCC Action 2/5/90
RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. X^
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 4, 1990
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS
DEPARTMENT: Board of Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S): Under Separate Cover INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Blythe
Ext. 2130
TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill - 968 -4501
Mebane - 227 -2031
Durham - 688 -7331
---------------------------------------------------m------------------
PURPOSE: To appoint members to an Agricultural Districts Advisory Board.
BACKGROUND: The following appointees are presented for recommendation.
Additional representation is being solicitated from throughout the county
to achieve a total membership of nine citizens.
Elizabeth Walters (Cedar Grove Tnsp.): Chair, Agricultural Advisory Board
Chris Hogan (Chapel Hill Township): Member, Agricultural Advisory Board
Robert Nutter (Bingham Township): Member, Agricultural Advisory Board
Pearson Stewart (Chapel Hill Township): Member, NC Piedmont RC &D Council
Robert Strayhorn (Chapel Hill Township): Chair, Agriculture Conservation
and Development Board; Member, Rural Character Study group
ION(S): As the Board decides.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action A ends
Item No
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 4. 1990
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S): UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE
TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill - 968 -4501
Mebane - 227 -2031
Durham - 688 -7331
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PURPOSE: To correct and /or approve the minutes as submitted for
consideration:
August 21, 1990 - Special Meeting
August 21, 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.
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 AS D.A.R.E. DAY IN ORANGE CO.
WHEREAS D.A.R.E. (DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION) IS A
SEMESTER -LONG PROGRAM THAT TEACHES YOUNG PEOPLE WAYS TO
RESIST PEER PRESSURE TO EXPERIMENT WITH DRUGS AND ALCOHOL;
WHEREAS D.A.R.E. TARGETS YOUNG PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE MOST
VULNERABLE TO TREMENDOUS PEER PRESSURE AND TEACHES THE SKILLS
TO MAKE POSITIVE DECISIONS AND RESIST PRESSURE TO ENGAGE IN
NEGATIVE BEHAVIORS;
WHEREAS MORE THAN 100,000 CLASSROOMS IN 49 STATES AS
WELL AS SCHOOLS IN AMERICAN SAMOA, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, AND NEW
ZEALAND CONDUCT THE D.A.R.E. PROGRAM;
WHEREAS OVER 20 MILLION STUDENTS HAVE BEEN REACHED
THROUGH D.A.R.E.;
WHEREAS THE D.A.R.E. PROGRAM IS TAUGHT BY VETERAN
POLICE OFFICERS AND DEPUTIES WITH DIRECT EXPERIENCE IN CASES
INVOLVING CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES AND RUINED LIVES CAUSED BY
SUBSTANCE ABUSE;
WHEREAS EACH POLICE OFFICER WHO TEACHES THE D.A.R.E.
PROGRAM COMPLETES AN 80 HOUR TRAINING COURSE THAT INCLUDED
INSTRUCTION IN TEACHING TECHNIQUES, OFFICER- SCHOOL
RELATIONSHIPS, DEVELOPMENT OF SELF - ESTEEM, CHILD DEVELOPMENT,
AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS;
WHEREAS THE D.A.R.E. CURRICULUM, DEVELOPED BY THE LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
AND ADOPTED BY OUR STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION AND
STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HELPS STUDENTS UNDERSTAND
SELF - IMAGE, RECOGNIZE STRESS AND MANAGE IT WITHOUT TAKING
DRUGS, EVALUATE RISK- TAKING BEHAVIOR, RESIST GANG PRESSURE,
APPLY DECISION MAKING SKILLS, AND EVALUATE THE CONSEQUENCES
OF THE CHOICES AVAILABLE TO THEM;
WHEREAS THE D.A.R.E. PROGRAM HAS ACHIEVED OUTSTANDING
SUCCESS TEACHING POSITIVE AND EFFECTIVE APPROACHES TO WHAT IS
ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT PROBLEMS FACING OUR YOUNG PEOPLE
TODAY- -DRUG ABUSE: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
PROCLAIMED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
THAT SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 IS DESIGNATED AS "D.A.R.E. DAY ".
THIS THE 4TH DAY OF S
BY
1 QQn
�f�9 701
RENEWAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COUNTY OF ORANGE
AND
ORANGE FAMILY MEDICAL GROUP, P.A. -- ---
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
WHEREAS, an agreement was made and.entered into as of the
1st day of July, 1989 by and between Orange County,
hereinafter referred to as the "County" and Orange Family
Medical Group, P.A., hereinafter referred to as "Medical
Group ", for the provision of primary medical services for the
Orange County Jail.
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the MEDICAL GROUP mutually agree to
the following:
1. The agreement will be continued for the period
beginning on the date of the signing of this
renewal and ending at 12:00 midnight on
June.30, 1991.
2. Section E, 1(a) shall read "Twelve thousand
dollars per annum to be paid in equal monthly
installments of $1,000 each. This compensation
is for all services described in this agreement
performed by the MEdical Group during the
normal business hours including the sick calls
and other visits to the jail, the office of the
Medical Group or such other health care
facility selected by the attending physician
pursuant to Section A of this agreement."
3. All other terms and conditions remain the same.
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
COUNTY OF ORANGE/)
0
MOSES CAREY, JR., CHAI
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
ORANGE FAMILY MEDICAL GROUP, P.A.
DR. ARTHUR AXELBANK, PRESIDENT
DATE:
TE: % Ir 90
This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by
the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
KENNETH T. CHAVIOUS, FINANCE DIRECTOR
� F; i�1
� e
e
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
Mr. Moses Carey, Chair
Orange County Commissioners
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Mr. Carey:
Mrangt (gvuntg #r4ovis
200 EAST KING STREET
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 -2570
(919) 732 -8126
September 4, 1990
Re: Orange County Board of Education's Perspective Reference the Request
from County Commissioners on the Special District Tax
The Orange County Board of Education met on August 30, 1990, for the specific purpose of
discussing the request from the Orange County Board of Commissioners reference the possibility
of placing a separate referendum on the November 6 Ballot to establish a county -wide school
district tax. Following a lengthy discussion, the general consensus of our Board in response to
your three statements outlined in your letter of August 23, 1990, is as follows:
1. a. Should a county -wide district tax be enacted?
It is our general feeling that yes, a county -wide district tax should
be enacted. However, some members of our Board feel that no tax
should be levied unless approved and voted on by residents of the
Orange County School District only.
b. Would the revenue be designated for budget expansion items or a combination of expansion
and additional continuation items?
We believe that any funds generated from a special district tax should
be used in the Orange County School System in the area of "expansion."
Specifically, professional and classified supplements, reduction of
class size and any other items that might come under this category.
Confirmation that revenue derived from such a district tax would be dis-
tributed on the same ADM formula as other current expense funding, as
provided for in the State statutes.
We support the Commissioners' formula for distribution of revenue
derived from a special district tax being distributed on an ADM basis
as outlined in State statutes.
Moses Carey -2- September 4, 1990
III. Is your Board receptive to pursuing the inclusion of this question on the November 6
Ballot?
While most of our Board generally supports the special district tax,
the consensus of the majority of the Board Members is that we do not
support the inclusion of this question on the November 6 ballot. We
are of the opinion that we need additional information; that is, the
exact details as to the rate structure, the effect on other school funding (for
example, the Chapel Hill district tax), and any restrictions that
might be placed on the utilization of funds derived (supplanting)
from a special district tax. Also, there is not enough time between
now and November 6 to effectively inform the public of the specifics
of a special district tax and the long -range educational effects. We would
recommend that an extensive public educational campaign be developed
to include dialogue between both school boards and the Commissioners,
and input from the public prior to any vote. It might be well to con-
sider planning now for a referendum to be held in the spring for a
special district tax.
Yours truly,
C144)_
�L
Ralph Warren, Chairman
Orange County Board of Education
/ha
EXTRACTS OF MINUTES
OF
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FOR
THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, NORTH CAROLINA
The Board of Commissioners for the County of orange, North
Carolina, met in regular session in the Courtroom of the Old
County Courthouse, Churton and Kings Street, Hillsborough, North
Carolina, at 7:30 p.m., September 4, 1990.
Present: Chairman Moses Carey presiding and
Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell_
Shirley Marshall and Don willhoit
Absent: none
Also present: County Manager John Link, Clerk to the Board
Beverly Blythe and County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill
Commissioner C6Lrey introduced the following
resolution:
Resolution #
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE ORANGE COUNTY
INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND POLLUTION CONTROL FINANCING
AUTHORITY OF ITS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS
(MEBANE PACKAGING CORPORATION PROJECT) SERIES 1990, IN THE
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $5,200,000 TO FINANCE AN
INDUSTRIAL PROJECT FOR MEBANE PACKAGING CORPORATION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners for the County
of Orange:
Section 1. The Board of Commissioners has determined and
does hereby declare as follows:
(a) The Board of Commissioners of The Orange County
Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control Financing
Authority (the "Authority ") will meet on September _, 1990,
and will take the following action in connection with the
proposed issuance and sale of the Authority's Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds (Mebane Packaging Corporation
Project) Series 1990, in the aggregate principal amount of
$5,200,000 (hereinafter sometimes called the "Bonds "):
(1) authorized the borrowing under and the
issuance and performance of the Authority's Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds (Mebane Packaging Corporation
Project) Series 1990, in the aggregate principal amount
of $5,200,000 and direct the execution and delivery of
said Bonds;
(2) approve and authorize the execution, delivery
and performance of the Trust indenture dated as of
September 1, 1990 (the "Trust Indenture "), from the
Authority to Branch Banking & Trust Co. as Trustee (the
"Trustee ") providing for the sale of the Bonds;
(3) approve and authorize the execution, delivery
and performance of the Loan Agreement, dated as of
September 1, 1990, between the Authority and Mebane
Packaging Corporation (the "Company ") with the form of
the Company's Promissory Note dated as of September 1,
1990 (the "Note ") attached as Exhibit "A" thereto;
(4) approve the form of the Note and authorize
the endorsement thereof without recourse to the order
of and the pledge thereof to the Trustee;
(5) approve and authorize the execution, delivery
and performance of the Remarketing Agreement, dated as
of September 1, 1990, among the Authority, the Company
and The Bank of New York, as Remarketing Agent (the
"Remarketing Agent "); -
(6) approve and authorize the execution, delivery
and performance of the Placement Agreement, dated as of
September 1, 1990, among the Authority, the Company,
and First Union National Bank of North Carolina (the
"Bank ");
(7) approve and authorize the execution, delivery
and performance of the Purchase Contract, dated as of
September 1, 1990 among the Authority, the Company and
the Bank;
(8) approve the form of each of the Letter of
Credit and Reimbursement Agreement (the "Reimbursement
Agreement ") dated as of September 1, 1990, the Security
Agreement dated as of September 1., 1990, the Deed of
Trust dated as of September 1, 1990, the Tender Agency
Agreement dated as of September 1, 1990, the Pledge
Agreement dated as of September 1, 1990, the Letter of
Credit issued under the Reimbursement Agreement and the
section of the form of Private Placement Memorandum
describing the Authority;
(9) approve and authorize the execution, delivery
and performance of various other documents and
instruments, dated as of September 1, 1990 by the
Authority in connection with the issuance and sale of
the Bonds;
K
(10) approve the forms of the various other
documents and instruments dated as of September 1, 1990
to be executed and delivered in connection with the
issuance and sale of the Bonds;
(b) The Board of Commissioners for the County of
Orange has reviewed the action that will be taken by the
Board of Commissioners of the Authority in connection with
the issuance and sale of the Bonds and has made such other
examination and investigation as it deems necessary and
relevant as the basis for the approval set forth herein.
Section 2. Pursuant to and in satisfaction of the require-
ments of Section 159C -4(d) of the General Statutes of North
Carolina, the Board of Commissioners for the County of orange
hereby approves the issuance by the Authority of the Authority's
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Mebane Packaging
Corporation Project) Series 1990, in the aggregate principal
amount of $5,200,000.
Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately
upon its passage.
Commissioner Marshall moved the passage of the fore-
going resolution and the resolution was passed by the following
vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Carey, Halkiotis, Hartwell
Marshall and Willhoit
Noes: none -
3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA)
) ss.:
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk of the Board of Commissioners of
the County of Orange, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, as follows:
1. A regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the
County of Orange, (the "Board ") a county of the-State of North
Carolina, was duly held on September 4, 1990, proper notice of
such meeting having been given as required by North Carolina
statutes, and minutes of such meeting will be duly recorded in
the Minute Book kept by me in accordance with law for the purpose
of recording the minutes of the Board.
2. I have compared the attached extract of the Resolution
so adopted and the extract is a true copy of the Resolution
insofar as it relates to matters referred to in such extract.
3. The extract of the minutes correctly states the time
when the meeting was convened and the place where such meeting
was held and the members of the Board who attended the meeting.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and have.
hereunto affixed the corporate seal of the County, this
day of September, 1990.
(SEAL)
4
, 'Nop :._ ? - -
,,,,c.
Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
The Board of Education Telephone: 919/967 -8211 Ext. 226
FAX: 933 -4560
August 31, 1990
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
106 East Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Moses:
The Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Board of Education appreciates the
opportunity to respond to the proposal to have a countywide school tax
referendum in November. We are pleased that the Board of Commissioners are
considering this method of implementation of equal funding.
During our discussion, the Board of Education reached consensus on the
questions you posed to us.
1. We believe that the purpose of the tax should be for expansion items
in our annual budget request. In this way the tax would be for
improvement of program and services with tax payers not being
asked to pay more for more of the same. Long -range planning
would also be improved and more realistic if the tax was designated
for expansion of programs and services to students.
2. We believe that the revenues should be distributed on the ADM
formula as are the present current expense funds. This ensures that
each child in the county receives an equal amount no matter which
school system he /she attends.
3. We believe that although the time allotted to educate the citizens of
Orange County is brief, we, as board members, are willing to devote
our time to the information activities necessary to pass the
referendum. It was suggested that the citizen groups which
formulated the bond package and helped educate the public on that
vote be reconstituted to provide the information to the voters of
Orange County.
4. We also agreed that it might be useful to keep the cap on the tax at a
low figure.
5. We believe that there are numerous unanswered questions
concerning the specifics of the tax, but in principle support such a
move on the part of the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
Thank you again for requesting the reactions of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro
City Board of Education on this question.
Sincerely,
Sue Baker, Chair
Board of Education
SB /asw
su �4es
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: John Link
County Manager
From: Dave Stancil, AICP Q>
Comprehensive Planner
Date: August 31, 1990
Subject: Preliminary 1990 Census Data
On Monday, August 27, we received from the Census Bureau
Preliminary 1990 Housing Unit and Group Quarters Population Counts.
This information is provided to all local governments participating
in the Postcensus Local Review Program. A copy of the cover letter
and summary page are attached.
The Postcensus Local Review allots each local government 15 working
days to review the preliminary figures, which are subject to change
even without local review. If local governments can document
discrepancies or inaccuracies in the preliminary. figures, governing
bodies of a jurisdiction can challenge the preliminary findings -
at the census "block" level only. Census blocks are the smallest
geographical denominator in Census data and represent land area
bounded by roads or natural features.
As can be seen, the preliminary figures indicate that Orange County
as a whole contains 38,430 housing units, of which 2676 (or 7 %) are
vacant. The population of the County is currently shown as 92,885,
which represents an increase of 21% over the 77,055 persons shown
in 1980. Almost 10% of the County population is housed in "group
quarters" (dormitories, hospitals, etc.).
The County has until Wednesday September 19 to identify
discrepancies or inaccuracies it wishes to challenge. In February -
March of this year planning staff met with Census representatives
and participated in the staff -level Pre - Census Local Review, which
involved the analysis of housing units by census block at that
time. In the Pre - Census review, staff was able to identify a few
areas of discrepancy on Census maps which were corrected.
County population projections have varied considerably since the
1980 Census. In 1987, population projections influenced somewhat by
an ongoing residential "boom" resulted in a 1990 projection of
108,000 persons. However, new projections in 1989 indicated that
the County's 1990 population would more likely be 96,000 persons.
Refinement of those techniques led staff to project the population
to be between 92,000- 97,000 as of the 1990 Census.
The one significant early finding that can mentioned is that (if
the 1990 Census figures are accurate) the County has a
significantly lower persons per housing unit rate than in 1980.
The rate of persons per household has been declining across the
nation since the 1970's. In 1980, Orange County had 2.68 persons
per housing unit. This rate has been projected to converge downward
to 2.4 by the year 2000. There are a number of reasons for this;
the most prominent being increased single - parent households and the
young student -age population in this County.
In considering the preliminary 1990 data, it appears that this
convergence has occurred more quickly than anticipated. The new
figures show Orange County with 2.41 persons per unit in 1990.
In summary, the preliminary Census findings are within the range
expected by County staff - albeit the low end of that range. There
is reason to believe, however, that the final tally of persons for
Orange County will rise somewhat.
First, there are a number of housing units in Orange County that
are very difficult to locate from the ground. Many houses in Orange
County are well - hidden from roadways and isolated from other
development. it is very possible that some of these units (a few
per tract) have been overlooked.
Second, the Towns of Carrboro and Hillsborough have indicated that
they feel their municipal counts are low, and plan to review and /or
challenge these numbers. Any such revision upward in the towns
would also revise the County total upward.
Last, the Census Bureau itself admits that it has not completed the
counts. It is possible that the bureau will revise its own numbers.
County staff plans to take a thorough look at the data provided.
With your concurrence, I would like to report our findings to you
on Wednesday, September 12. Any challenge to these figures would
require the signature of Moses Carey as chairman of our elected
board, If necessary, the Commissioners could consider action on
this challenge at their September 18 meeting, allowing staff to
submit the challenge on the September 19 deadline.
Please contact me if you have questions or concerns with the above.
xc: Marvin Collins
�t CO
rr�.E6 pi
August 23, 1990
FROM THE DIRECTOR
CHARLOTTE REGIONAL CENSUS CENTER
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of the Census
Regional Census Center
Charlotte, NC 28217 -1355
As part of the 1990 Decennial Census Local Review Program, we
are providing Form D -77, the Postcensus Local Review Listing,
for your local government. This listing provides for your
review postcensus counts of housing unit and group quarters
population at the 1990 census block level. These census counts
are based on the results of census enumeration and processing
activities completed through late summer. Since these counts
are partial and preliminary in nature, they are subject to
change pending completion of ongoing census activities,
including Postcensus Local Review. The Census Bureau neither
encourages nor sanctions their use for official purposes such as
budgeting or redistricting.
The Postcensus Local Review counts are tabulated based on the
boundaries of your local government that were in effect as of
January 1, 1990. This is the official date for all boundary
information used for the 1990 census. If the Postcensus Local
Review maps did not reflect those boundaries legally in effect
as of that date, we requested that you submit the documentation
outlined in Chapter 3 of the 1990 Decennial Census Local Review
Program Technical Guide. To provide sufficient time to verify
and update geographic files before we tabulate the 1990 census,
we needed to receive this documentation by August 1, 1990.
Please review these counts using the boundaries shown on the
Postcensus Local Review maps and guidelines provided in the
technical guide. The Census Bureau will accept only challenges
to housing unit and group quarters population counts at the
census block level. The data provided at other geographic levels
are for informational purposes only and may not be challenged.
Your block estimates must be based on census block numbers and
boundaries on the Postcensus Local Review maps. When creating
your estimates, use sources similar to those described in
Chapter 5 of the technical guide.
Ma
Please submit your response on the enclosed Form D -74B, Local
Review Response Form (you may reproduce additional copies, as
needed), along with a signed letter on official government
stationery from your government's Chief Executive or Highest
Elected Official. When identifying census blocks where you
suspect the postcensus counts are in error, you must also
provide the source and date of your local estimate. You have 15
working days from the date you received the counts (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays) to review them and
send your response to the Census office below:
Regional Census Center
ATTN: Judith Jeffries
3410 Saint Vardell Lane
Charlotte, NC 28217
Adhering to this review time is important in order to provide us
the opportunity and time to address any discrepancies and, as
necessary, conduct field recanvassing.
The Census Bureau encourages you to participate in the 1990 Local
Review Program. We will use your response to determine if
corrections are required to our 1990 census counts. The Census
Bureau will notify you of the outcome of our review. Final and
official 1990 census data will be issued to the President on
December 31, 1990. We will issue the final population counts for
your local government as part of the Thank You America Campaign
in early 1991.
If you have any questions about conducting your review, please
refer to the technical guide or call Judith Jeffries at
(704) 521 -4416.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM F. HILL
Regional Director
Enclosure
CC: HEO (letter only)
W
5
W
N
z J
W
U
0
Q
z
Z
W V r
U
LU
D
o Uj
a z
) G. i
W
U)
0
CL
MJ
F_
Z
0
U
_0
H
a
D
m
0
IL
(/1
W
a
CI
CL
�°
V
2
a-
Z
Z
C/7
Q
CZ
G
J
W
CL
O C
� N N
CU N
41 x a
O Ey U
G O
Li
ry • a
rnro
O C c
.r- -•+ ro
N 41
aro
M M�4
0 'O a
,A w
a La pi
14 0 G
:3 -4
41 v+ a
roc G
C •w -.a
41 a l
c U c
-.a 4 O
1+ U
1>4 41
" N w
C
fo ro O
ac
Ego
a a a
CL E E
b ro O
c x U
ro a
r1 La 0
mw a
j..+
L a
ro N m
Oa a 0
N tp
(: a u
ro L+
m O
N a �+
41 A
C •-i V\
:3 ro�
O -•+ a
U Ux
.'•t --I
N w �--i
a w .
N O a N
aL+ro•�
U O �+
w N -ry
a " a
NEC -.i
a a O 41
�.0 O U
Ey -w Uro
Sa
a
a E4.3
O 0
c G
C N ro N
. La 0
4aroro
41
N t7l -W
1a
�G>aN
E w ro
C w Er a ,
r-t O 4J
--
U r1
O • x CLx
••-I O U E: to
.QE00 --
N 1] G a
M 41
N N w N
c U N ro
a.G ro -4
U -W La C
_W ro ro
a w a
�roLn
Mro�
a N
w r-t c U 3
O.0 a --,
c0 U .0 N
aro01,O
r-f a rn-4
t0a0Q
a c E a
O O+ N
w G O
N -W N
0-- M b C
4 Ux (u
-x 4 U
N U a
1.a 0 = 14 L
t0 r--i 41 O 0
a .Q w w
CL
d41 OwN
roc C .6)
.cam O c
O c
a U 0
L r-t U
O N
aG w a O N
N N 7
.-4 C N
14 G a G
a a 0 U a
+� 0 U
N U a
G a ro a
t0 N a G�
C CL a U
wao..=e
r-I
ro
G
O
.N
N p1
� a
N lz
G
a L,
U �
O
a a,
x ro
� U
O
O a
%A N
= ro
�a
G a.
O
.,.a
,U .
U ri
-••+ 0)
ro m
N rl -
-� N
La ?C C
Or-I O
ro�
1•+ O N
C a
O c a
>41 01
O = L,
�+ c a
M=
ro 4.)
�to
N 6 w
N ro
-••+ V A,
.4 L ro
•� a
r-1 La
a
N 7 0
O
C �+
O w
U G
c0 w
OFD
N= c
C a
a N V
U-
O N
t0 O
RS a N
c 1.i G
•4=1a
W M U
W tq
U 7
¢ lA
W
�U
O W
UI
u. ~
d LL
�Q
wa
W
F 5
a7
am
W
Q
H
a
00
�m
oY
to
Kr
co
• �,
CC)
CN
o�
rn
z
O
o
a
¢
J
J
z
a
a
a
_a
C
J
to
J
Q
CLJ
U
O
m
cw
z
a
¢
w
L.
a
O
a
0
0
0
T
CO
n
.•
Q
to
c
m
CN
t'
o
U
N
Y
Cl)
z
R
0
o
U
z
z
LD
z
to
to
En
Cl
x
0
M
Q
z
CN
r
a
m
O
v
cv
r
¢
>
O
d
m
CJ
CN
L)
O C
� N N
CU N
41 x a
O Ey U
G O
Li
ry • a
rnro
O C c
.r- -•+ ro
N 41
aro
M M�4
0 'O a
,A w
a La pi
14 0 G
:3 -4
41 v+ a
roc G
C •w -.a
41 a l
c U c
-.a 4 O
1+ U
1>4 41
" N w
C
fo ro O
ac
Ego
a a a
CL E E
b ro O
c x U
ro a
r1 La 0
mw a
j..+
L a
ro N m
Oa a 0
N tp
(: a u
ro L+
m O
N a �+
41 A
C •-i V\
:3 ro�
O -•+ a
U Ux
.'•t --I
N w �--i
a w .
N O a N
aL+ro•�
U O �+
w N -ry
a " a
NEC -.i
a a O 41
�.0 O U
Ey -w Uro
Sa
a
a E4.3
O 0
c G
C N ro N
. La 0
4aroro
41
N t7l -W
1a
�G>aN
E w ro
C w Er a ,
r-t O 4J
--
U r1
O • x CLx
••-I O U E: to
.QE00 --
N 1] G a
M 41
N N w N
c U N ro
a.G ro -4
U -W La C
_W ro ro
a w a
�roLn
Mro�
a N
w r-t c U 3
O.0 a --,
c0 U .0 N
aro01,O
r-f a rn-4
t0a0Q
a c E a
O O+ N
w G O
N -W N
0-- M b C
4 Ux (u
-x 4 U
N U a
1.a 0 = 14 L
t0 r--i 41 O 0
a .Q w w
CL
d41 OwN
roc C .6)
.cam O c
O c
a U 0
L r-t U
O N
aG w a O N
N N 7
.-4 C N
14 G a G
a a 0 U a
+� 0 U
N U a
G a ro a
t0 N a G�
C CL a U
wao..=e
r-I
ro
G
O
.N
N p1
� a
N lz
G
a L,
U �
O
a a,
x ro
� U
O
O a
%A N
= ro
�a
G a.
O
.,.a
,U .
U ri
-••+ 0)
ro m
N rl -
-� N
La ?C C
Or-I O
ro�
1•+ O N
C a
O c a
>41 01
O = L,
�+ c a
M=
ro 4.)
�to
N 6 w
N ro
-••+ V A,
.4 L ro
•� a
r-1 La
a
N 7 0
O
C �+
O w
U G
c0 w
OFD
N= c
C a
a N V
U-
O N
t0 O
RS a N
c 1.i G
•4=1a
W M U
W tq
U 7
¢ lA
W
�U
O W
UI
u. ~
d LL
�Q
wa
W
F 5
a7
am
W
Q
H
a
00
�m
oY
i
ESTIMATED TAX RATE IMPACTS
Hypothetical Tax
• Figures reflect total amount
of County appropriation originally
requested by each school system in
1990- 91 budget
All continuation and additional
continuation funding is covered by
regular County appropriation
Existing CHCS base tax revenue
at the present rate of 17.75 cents
per $100 valuation
•
Estimated tax base for district
tax is same as that estimated for
County general ad valorem tax in
1990- 91 budget
One cent on hypothetical tax rate
generates $357,210
Tax rate measured in cents per $100
valuation
co
C)
..rrr
.a.-. clL
>1
C„)
0
N
�%
_
� -J 0
.
C:
co
!"1
0
C co
co
0 5, -;F
>
F-
{-0-�
4 °'E
x
4) .
>1
CD
C:
4-1 � �
M
0
a_
Z_
ry
L0
CL 0 �: b
_
CD
C
Lo
�y
W
0)
LL
0
C'7
Lo
CD
co
�a
0
C)
r
ar
r
Lo
Lo
co
CCU
LL
co
C)
Lo
Lt
Lo
0
F—
t
CCa
d-
rt'
co
C)
..rrr
.a.-. clL
>1
C„)
0
N
J
C)
.a.-. clL
>1
(C
(
X
�
_
� -J 0
.
C:
C:
C) 0 �
0
C co
0 5, -;F
>
U} {
{-0-�
4 °'E
>1
0
C:
4-1 � �
M
0
Z_
0
CL 0 �: b
J
ESTIMATED TAX RATE IMPACTS
Hypothetical Tax
Figures reflect total amount
of Counter appropriation originally
requested by each school system in
1990- 91 budget
+�
All continuation and first 50 of
additional continuation funding is
covered by regular County appropriation
Existing CHOOS base tax revenue
at the present rate of 17,75 cents
per $100 valuation
+�
Estimated tax base for district
tax is same as that estimated for
County general ad valorem tax in
1990- 91 budget
• One cent on hypothetical tax rate
generates $357,210
• Tax rate measured in cents per $100
valuation
A
0
C
U
0
`t
T
Lo
Z
CL
73
� CL
0)
L
Lo
C
a
�
C'7
�
cv
f
I
-r-C)
`'
C)
Nt
Lo
M
Lo
N
0
LL
2 OWN
�
CI}
Lo
N
0
>j
f...
Lo
r
C)
co
A
co
0
C
U
`t
T
Lo
Z
CL
73
� CL
0)
L
Lo
C
07)
.0
_7
CL
f
-r-C)
`'
C) y-
4--+ flj
M
Lo
N
0
LL
2 OWN
CI}
Lo
N
70
>j
2w �~
im
Lo
r
C)
co
i..
�..�
V�y
L
�.
06
- w
�Co
C6
o
CL
6
LS
07 S
_
k.-
aL.S.-I �50o42
O
C
•;t
Lo
Lo
co
OD
U.
Lo
co
0
C
U
C
0
ilmon
'D
0
>'o
bR
Z co
O)OZ
C {:,
Z
CL
Lo y- o
� CL
X
-j
C
`-}
{]]
07)
O
_7
CL
f
-r-C)
`'
C) y-
4--+ flj
—
1
0
CI}
n_ 0_0
>0
70
OZ
C E
E
- w
�Co
0
E Co
M'�o.:C
07 S
_
k.-
aL.S.-I �50o42
O
i
F
OFFICIAL BALLOT
SPECIAL REFERENDUM
IN THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT
March 23, 1976
INSTRUCTIONS
1. To vote "FOR" the tax make a cross (x)
mark in the square to the left of the
word "FOR'
2. To vote "AGAINST" the tax make a cross
(x) mark in the square to the left of the
word "AGAINST".
3. If you tear or deface or wrongly mark
this ballot, return it and get another.
FOR a local tax to' be levied and
collected on all of the taxable
property within Orange County at a
rate not to exceed five cents ( 5)
Per one hundred dollars ( $100) of
property valuation to pay the
teachers of the school system a
supplement and to employ additional
teachers.
AGAINST a local tax to be levied and
collected on all of the taxable
property within Orange County at a
rata not to exceed five cents ( b)
per one hundred dollars ( $100) of
property valuation to pay the
teachers of the school system a
supplement and to employ additional
teachers.
W
OFFICIAL BALLOT
SPECIAL REFERENDUM
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
November 6, 1990
INSTRUCTIONS
1. To vote "FOR" the tax make a cross (x)
mark in the square to the left of the
word "FOR"
2. To vote "AGAINST" the tax make a cross
( x) mark in the square to the left of the
word "AGAINST".
3. 1 f you tear or deface or wrongly mark
this ballot, return it and get another.
FOIE a local tax to be levied and
collected on all of the taxable
property within Orange County at a
rate not to exceed fifty cents
per one hundred dollars ($100) of
property valuation to equalize
educational advantages within Orange
County and to be used to supplement
the funds from State and county
allotments and thereby to operate
the schools within Orange County. at
a higher standard
[�
AGAINST a local tax to be levied and
collected on all of the taxable
property within Orange County at a
rate not to exceed fifty cents
per one hundred dollars ($100) of
property valuation to equalize
educational advantages within Orange
County and to be used to supplement
the funds from State and county
allotments and thereby to operate
the schools within Orange County at
a higher standard.
O
ti
C O Cn Ln
;5.
Qn
n
ro
m O 00
fm
y
a 0 0
rt
E ';3"O.0 n0
rD
2_ 8 2
�• `�' O'
A) O `G ice`•^,. p �'a
'CS Q. O Z) � rw
�. on m eD
G 23
O �,
ID
C �
v O Lv C
O m ro
cm alp
CCD
y n O O C.
ro
n
ro
eD
&4 ro.A
R
-
03 o C
w rD o '
m o o H.�
O v'
� O
V
K.
� �
n
iG
ro , ro
t9
as rD , '*
O w ID A>
w aq'
O O O
O
w o
ti �
�
ro
A
�
h �
�
o
�,
n r
.�. rD N
11— 4
zs o
C,
0 �_ o
oq
fL �
O �
ero
: �'' .:�"
••n m
N.O.
:. ....
Q �'
p O
C O
O': O
A.
e' .ro ...�.... y
y
C
U)
� n V W
ro
m
w
O
0
(gyp] rt
rt
K
`E
Q. y oc
`O
w
._..
dQ iD
0
O
ti
C O Cn Ln
;5.
Qn
n
ro
m O 00
fm
y
a 0 0
rt
E ';3"O.0 n0
rD
2_ 8 2
�• `�' O'
A) O `G ice`•^,. p �'a
'CS Q. O Z) � rw
�. on m eD
G 23
O �,
ID
C �
v O Lv C
O m ro
cm alp
CCD
y n O O C.
O
��.CIQ: 0
eD
ro .:.:tD
-
03 o C
w rD o '
m o o H.�
,
� o cn ZF'
C 0
.• - � � *1
n o Q,
['�
iG
ro , ro
t9
as rD , '*
O w ID A>
w aq'
O O O
O
Ir
.b
~ w
rq
tj
n m
5 ro a "�
o
�,
n r
.�. rD N
11— 4
zs o
C,
0 �_ o
oq
.:
ero
: �'' .:�"
I�r w
0' can
Q �'
p O
Oq
A.
e' .ro ...�.... y
y
U)
� n V W
m
m `� `� `� `!
m
—.
Z) 'd O n
a. 0 0
(gyp] rt
rn
K
Q. y oc
Q Q
(,
._..
dQ iD
.--. fD
A� n O
'O Z 2. (D
�
crq
-
-
rt w• ��
-O
C+
m
... . _... ...
CL M
.: _ .. . .
.......... - . .. Q� r0
ro fD o
En n
O�! O
'r SY rr
�..... __::.
Q Cn O
W n
O
��.CIQ: 0
eD
-
03 o C
w rD o '
ro. C D. O
O p r
ro , ro
n o (
(D o
o �.. :
~ O
O n
.._�• .
C
rt C
n r
.�. rD N
w �
rt•. Z
I�r w
�. C A
A O
O r
e' .ro ...�.... y
y
Hrti. e
CA
O C (
(D
CL M
.: _ .. . .
.......... - . .. Q� r0
ro fD o
En n
O�! O
'r SY rr
�..... __::.
Q Cn O
W n
O
OVA
a
O
�n
� a
r'
O O
� O
•p V a
zO
$.i
a
1 bA
zoo::
� a �
1p
v.Z
o -dv o:av
cC v y p ai v +;
�
v b° biD
lu
Q� pp fC
3 m v C) � A
oj
H u q°qz H m x Q o'd
y m G V) p p
rtz
W-4
�
.
�
cj
O
O
m
cc
o Q
v
G1
4. P
O
y
Z G
o
1p
v.Z
o -dv o:av
cC v y p ai v +;
�
v b° biD
lu
Q� pp fC
3 m v C) � A
oj
H u q°qz H m x Q o'd
y m G V) p p
cu
'd '.°C --,Z v by
p m cA -C�
cu -C UQII
M cc
co
--• v o
a o'er o�0 °
U o
U
�
cj
o v
m
cc
o Q
v
cu
'd '.°C --,Z v by
p m cA -C�
cu -C UQII
M cc
co
--• v o
a o'er o�0 °
CD N l O C 'C 07 C 3 'c � � ' C ) D 7 O )
D W N N � C �p wO -O C W O O O n O�
W - 3 _ 0 O
CD C CD {g C (D = -O ¢ N ' ° C . . a W O 7 O 0 w D O 3 3. O (0
CD T O
om� o
c �c_ 0-0 Q �zc�W =3 `tirij n3om�o c0M =r CD c�c�a�ao3zo'0
CD Cr c � Q � � ,� � rid m m � m c °' 0 � 9 '< � z CD O: CL - --a -- CD 0 CL cr 00-0 O Jp c�DU cn C �� O O Sll W �� Qro �Q O W 0 CDD �"�'^D'C �Cp ]73� �� C O
CD y CD a G7 G� g o m g m cn o Q
l< 0 - m n� 0* a_ W m a �N �c m om? �_� -Ucr ao
m� o c m �' o `�� m �� OL 3� =� °c'o o Ica �' 0 ° 0 3�Q ��•CD
mo-M m m m g O Yr O. o �o w _ -D ��m�
@cc krJ cm>•�wcD� wm5 =r 0oc.zo0
o cn 3 - m O_ ... o m
° W v_,m3v •a (nm c: a) CD OWE mro� w
7 •n W OL a) CD
CD 400 � 0 0 y a 9 D a707C � Ln
C `C O O �] sZ -. C m C 'C O c y O CD W 7 CL
W ao �po�mo -0 CD CD ,�3UnooL m c °mom
❑ ❑ ❑ M0 m m -0cn m �? � m m so o ° 3 o x Q'm' m ��� C/1y�
w m CD O O O O CD CD O A) CD `C c 4' 0.� O' 0 D D 7 N 5 p x-CO �' M
❑ ❑ ❑ p c m 3-0 �'�cCn 0c °nc�COmc°_n3�. ^°moo �C
° mM�g� wn m030m co 0cm •�I�
I CL o
N
fn w 7 `C 'C w O 0 5 --! � (,n �
m�m0D� c =r mzM0 d c30 c= o �'
cQ -I et wp'r- cmo300oC) O N�mn - mac �- -0cc= ocnp Wcr
CD n =-o N CD O cn-0 cn ::r :3 0 3`C 3 ►••r =CS —a �`C w � C Al O =� w � � D � r. m =
3-0 a� CD° Q m.��•� y 3 - °c ? m o a °c @ a0 �T i m 0 En � c
❑_ D „y n? 3 n 3 C D C O C a tQ (D W ¢� — CD m W Cn Cn .0
CD (a .� � (] CD N O `C O =r O ° Cp 3 .+ C O O O 0 C o CL 3 C]
° °' �c o o v', _° `�� in s 3 m �o '� m M cn o � m� � m cu
w"tip g .�'0 0 cc6 w �• m g Q •m i'" s0 M W m _m ac o m v�� a
r[ O ep 3 0 .W.. C p m '_` N O c , Cl) CD CD y O Cn -0 m 0- N O' C] M C .N.. o
r.L Z N c � 0- m m `A - 3 acD �3 — o =' m°@ 0 ril M 5 m N x o O
o �� �� w w c Cap m �0 0 == c �CD o ay 4 Q
CD Cp �. Uj 7 * -u — 0 p th
m� �n '�30 3�'m�Qo 'c
;W 000 Sb
3° M m° c m 0�< Cn 3 0 gym_ 0 a c m._
Q C CC1 7 CS C 0 3 c� 7 M 0 `C n• O- n m 0 N• ❑ ❑ co
CD 7 CD N
w -u O" W �
3�, o�� oc �o '~ a 033 =g w 'M �'.3V<-0 0
0m Uccm 3 20ma° wL Wv 00 cu 30cN a03cC(DW
cnv� 3 cr0 3 m 3 y� -o 0 0 0 0 -D 3 W< 0 3° - 3 -y
mX a°e a Qw ° `cg 3m rooQOca- ,<� '<`� 0 CD
mc� o�c ^° �� S 71% CD `< °3 0� �'� �3� �°cn -3CD0 — 0))0cn- —CD
C c w o Cn �n CL
3c°n 3cn ��'0 mca`.-ma '.cfDDOCOO�m3WV=
CD M M Cn M 0 Q � '-' C, C L C]
W Q m CcD O .c w 7 W N n W O' y m 0 A�
Cn D 0 3 =w m WO '< ...C'� -0- mc M �gM0 Cp Mmw =r C:,C7
Q ? +,g . to ° 0 E Eta " cp c ? vi �- m 3 � . . • 0 c c
me g0- o�����m30.3n
mo 0 cn2Ai�Q�03c -t3 S7cr�30
o =r CD 303 0-, D
M m -• rn m o M C o Oa.°
00 3 �- �3�0' cDav,�cpW
CD - (n
W -- Co
a�
rn cn C) O�
m w ro - m o CD
w
C O CD co � � -0�A) O W �. Dip ~' + * �k'� o O O C? M � w > � O'3 w 7 �O
�.00 m. -.10 3 0 3 m� 3 o c w 0 cr w n`D co m '0 m 3c c�D uci o ca
`� °O M° O3 n3 CD o ft r coC� �� -0 �CnAm�cn
3WCD=rFD ��m �o-4 4,5w co m0 w 0CD 3m'+ c.�m..ocpcD
�33'mCD�Cp� m�O jai _0 m CD cp N 3 W C �c�3OO
O 'C + O O M-0 3� CD N W Cl � a m to CD C2 CD C
O'3 3^"
`C C.N 0 O cn 3CCIZ C) CD -- � Q O CD � �D+��
mm _OmpcumCCA-0 °-0 OCD" �• � � o?c=r c<�
CD ..
° c o �M �g� a o ,ego o m 0 M 3 w x
0— ^ p. O' W CD CD Cr w C CD O W C
C 0 `C �. ? C1 M — D_ SD j co a„ 3 lD .. 7 X ° A) C.
CD °aw *3DW3 30 � N. .a '. CD �` =5 CD Q3
—� =ro 0� �m m m 3 x o � �0 W r� m m
c D m W o CO � O O p CD ^W" @ =7
w 3
j Cn Q w M p d' p �. O C
m ? O- [Q 7 C C) Cn W O
'C C) * * V Q m 0 .�
CD o
C/)
H
CI]
0
U
F
z
Grp
f�
a
E-�
E-�
W
❑
Q
r/]
W
O
a
O
i
Cd
N
N
b
O
O
s.
O
.,C
oldbA
U
O
U
cd
W
N
CO
y N
0000000OdOdO
C7QdaOd000000
Q
O
O
o a o 0 0 o o o
�
OOOOOOOOOL(�L(y0
OOdO0d00
to
co
0 Cn Co D LO 0 0 0 0) N N LO
N
N
Er
Lo Cn L() LC) L() LO LO In
(D
N
Cr) NrC7 Cl) rr
�
IL
00000(700
U
y
��
e
$
ifl 6F! E!3 6R 6% V3 6F} 6fi 6R 6f3 6F} 6F!
64'
Q
c
z
j
z 2
cc
�
O
-C1
a
Op�LL7(ANCOdCO'')
0
N�
7 z
Q1
E
*
(prLnO�COC'71�
CA qt 00 (M r,- D O
0
to
U
N
+
C
N Cr) C7 qt �r LO LA (0
E!3 6Ft 6A tf} 61)- ER 643 6Fr
Lr)
N
+ LO
00
E+0
04004004
O
L6 N
W
�
O r
CO CD CD CO CD CD CO CD
C
Ca
U
O. M
0
ON
�e
Z
CO m m co cn CO CO CO
a)
Ci
@� °
a
W
c
cc��
Eft
7+ O �
(� LO N
_
(�
Q
Cfl
OD
y
N
00
-O � r
CD
z
�4
W
ft
C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
�
N
N
co
t5
N
W
CU
0OdO0000
y
a r�
U
w
CD O
E O
C
C E
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
C
N U O c-
ETd 0
W
x
m
Od
tiNONcoLOC)C(DN
rrr
j
0cp
0
C)
c
O *- C CU N
(D (D yCCUO
❑
rrY
5
C
O
�Tv
'O
C6 C N I,.l_
O�( C C^
W
U
INA as
— y C= C= CU (Lf E 0 Cl
7+-- — CL M O
u)
Q
d O O d 0 0
C
CU
G
ii s O
Cu y
O
"0- w C� O O
Q
N+
d O
O0Od00d0
O O 0 O O Q O O
E
A
C V
Q
U
CL
Ca C O , +
M CL-0 '
N ir
CC
CL
L�
N
UO m CC O CD 7 O
.J Q 0 = _ 5 () F- CC CA d
0
Cn
W
O O
2 0
LF) m mt un Lf) CO
6H 6Fr H3 64 V3L 03 6R 63
+
I-" O O
Ci