The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 12-18-1990. ', l ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION - Litigation and Property Acquisition TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1990 6:00 P.M. OLD POST OFFICE CHAPEL HILL, NC REGULAR MEETING NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1990 ON ALL ABSTRACTS 7:30 P.M. AVAILABLE IN THE OLD POST OFFICE CLERK'S OFFICE. CHAPEL HILL, NC NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING: Audio amplification equipment is available on request. If you need this assistance, please call the County Clerk's Office at 732 -8181 or 968 -4501. I. BOARD COMMENTS II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. Matters on the Printed Agenda (We would appreciate your 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. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. Xi. XII. XIII. XIV. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- CONSENT AGENDA (Any item maybe removed for separate consideration) A. Data Processing Service Agreements B. Petition for Addition -- Wisteria Drive and Sweetbriar Lane in Birchwood Lake Estates Subdivision RESOLUTIONSIPROCLAMATIONS A. Resolution of Appreciation -- William H. Bunch SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS REPORTS A. Cable TV Expansion in Northeastern Orange County B. Economic Development -- Occupancy Tax C. County Commissioners' Retreat Follow -up- -Rural Character Proposals ITEMS FOR DECISION -- REGULAR AGENDA A. Searle Farms -- Amended Phasing Plan B. Zoning Enforcement Cases (Civil Penalties) C. Classification Study D. E911 /GIS Consulting Agreement E. Feasibility Study - -NC 54 Widening F. Maternal Care Coordination MINUTES EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURNMENT ( *) Indicates items that need immediate attention. Approved January 7, 1991 295 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 18, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Special Session at 6:00 p.m. in the Franklin Street, Post Office District Courtroom, Chapel Hill, North Carolina for the purpose of going into Executive Session. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, Alice M. Gordon, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, and Purchasing Director Pam Jones. OTHERS PRESENT: Former County Commissioner Shirley E. Marshall and Attorney Michael Brough. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation and property acquisition. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to go back into Special Session for adjournment. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT With no further items to discuss, Chairman Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. December 18 in the Courtroom of the old Post Office in Chapel Hill. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk I Moses Carey, Jr., Chair 296 Approved January 7, 1991 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 18, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. in the Franklin Street Post Office District Courtroom, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., Vice -Chair Stephen Halkiotis, and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Albert Kittrell, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Data Processing Director Keith Brooks, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Personnel Director Elaine Holmes, Personnel Analyst I.. Yelena Chandra, Land Records Manager Roscoe Reeve, Health Director Dan Reimer, County Engineer Paul Thames, EMS Director Nick Waters, and Planners Mary Scearbo, Emily Cameron and Eddie Kirk. I. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Willhoit noted that at the NCACC meeting held last week in Pinehurst the banquet speaker, Representative Anne Barnes, placed high emphasis on the Counties defining their relationship with the State. The Counties continually ask for money but also want to maintain their independence. Commissioner Willhoit highlighted the legislative goals as proposed by the organization. Chair Carey asked that the Manager report back on the involvement of the Sheriff in the new or reactivated Drug -Crime Task Force. II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT The County Manager reported that the families whose water was contaminated by an underground gasoline storage tank in Northern Orange County have been provided with water. The State has indicated they will reimburse the County for any expenses they incur. Commissioner Halkiotis and John Link both commended those County employees who helped provide a short -term solution to this problem. III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA It was the consensus of the Board to add an Executive Session to discuss a potential litigation matter. IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA - None 297 B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA - None V. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve those items on the Consent Agenda as listed below: A. DATA PROCESSING SERVICE AGREEMENTS Agreements between the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Orange County for data processing services were approved with authorization for the Chair to sign such agreements. These new agreements require an annual payment based on the number of terminals, printers, and communication devices connected to the system by each Town, as well as monthly payments based on each Town's actual usage of the computer system. B. PETITION FOR ADDITION - WISTERIA DRIVE AND SWEETBRIAR LANE IN BIRCHWOOD LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION The petition from NCDOT for the addition of Wisteria Drive and Sweetbriar Lane in Birchwood Lake Estates to the State - maintained Secondary Road System was approved. VOTE: UNANIMOUS VI. RESOLUTIONS PROCLAMATIONS A. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION - WILLIAM H. BUNCH Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to adopt the resolution of appreciation as stated below for William H. Bunch for his tenure on the Board of Adjustment. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR WILLIAM H. BUNCH WHEREAS, William Bunch "has actively served on the Orange County Board of Adjustment since December 3, 1984; and WHEREAS, William Bunch has faithfully served his fellow citizens of Bingham Township as their representative on this volunteer board charged with aiding the elected Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, he has given of his technical skill and talent to benefit all the citizens of Orange County in upholding the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; THEREFORE, the members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners do hereby thank William Bunch, upon his retirement from the Orange County Board of Adjustment for the services he performed on their behalf. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 298 VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - NONE VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE IX. REPORTS A. CABLE TV EXPANSION IN NORTHEASTERN ORANGE COUNTY John Link stated that in early summer, Carolina Cable was instructed to submit within six months a plan for providing cable TV to several subdivisions in Northeastern Orange County. These are all listed and shown on a map that is in the permanent agenda file. Randy Houser stated he expects all connections to be completed by mid January. B. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - OCCUPANCY TAX Economic Development Director Ted Abernathy provided information regarding the effort to address challenge 9 of the Orange County Economic Development Strategic Plan - "Program to Attract and Serve ..Visitors" A task force was formed by the Public Private Partnership on which a representative from Economic Development served. The two resolutions in the agenda packet from the two Chambers differ slightly in content but agree in the following: (1) that a County -wide entity be created to operate a countywide program, (2) that the entity be governed by members representii appropriate organizations, (3) that the County Commissioners seek legislative authority to levy a countywide occupancy tax dedicated to this purpose, (4) that Chapel Hill commit 20% of its current occupancy tax to this entity, and (5) that other sources of funding continue to be explored. The Economic Development Commission agreed to these five items in principle. Ted Abernathy clarified that at the present time Chapel Hill is using only 7% of its current occupancy tax for visitor services. The typical norm is 50% or more. Commissioner Willhoit expressed his objection to #4 above stating he feels that a countywide effort should be done with a countywide tax. Chairman Carey emphasized that if a countywide entity is formed, it should be the responsibility of that entity to pursue sources of funds to cover its operating expenses. After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to accept the resolutions and to endorse in principle moving forward with all recommendations except #4 listed above. Chairman Carey agreed to work with the mayors on the details that need to be addressed including the exact structure of an authority and the implementation of the program. C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RETREAT FOLLOW -UP ON RURAL CHARACTL PROPOSALS 299 Chairman Carey asked for Board input on the process that should be followed in moving the Rural Character Report recommendations to their next step of approval. Carrboro has approved the recommendations and Chapel Hill is currently considering them. Commissioner Gordon made the following statement which is hereby made a part of these minutes: "As we discuss proposals for the Rural Buffer, I would suggest that we follow three principles: A. Support the Joint Planning Agreement and continue to promote intergovernmental cooperation with Carrboro and Chapel Hill. As I tried to emphasize at the Commissioners' planning retreat on December 8, it is important to approach any discussions in the spirit of cooperation not confrontation. As co -chair of the advisory group which helped to shape the Joint Planning Agreement, I believe it is extremely important to support such joint planning. During the coming decade joint planning and regional cooperation are going to be increasingly significant. B. Follow Rrocedures that will resolve the remaining issues as quickly as is Rrudent and ROssible. We owe that to the residents in the current rural Buffer area and we also owe it to the members of the Rural Character Study Committee who have worked so long and so fruitfully. C. Ado t proRosals which are environmentally sound. As we deliberate we need to know the carrying capacity of the land for development. I believe there is a considerable amount of information already available on the amount of groundwater in the buffer and the capability of the land to support septic tanks, as well as other information on soils and slopes. we should have that information presented to us in the course of our deliberations and we should consider it carefully." Commissioner Willhoit feels that the only way to resolve the issues is to have a forum in which all views can be heard and discussed. He sees the remaining issues as (1) Rural Buffer and (2) Alternative Sewage Disposal Systems. The real issues to be decided have to do with option D -- planned residential development and option E -- rural villages. The real issue is the desirability of D & E as a, means of addressing the concerns about rural character. Commissioner Willhoit listed the issues he feels need to be discussed in considering options D & E. 1. LOCATION - are the locations of planned residential developments and rural villages to be directed, identified on the Land Use Plan, or are they to just happen? This decision will impact on the planning for utilities and other services. 300 2. TRANSPORTATION - it has been suggested that transportation. should be the chief location criterion. He questions this because the density of D and E would not be that much higher than the other proposals so there is nothing to be gained. If transportation is important for A -C, it would be just as important for D and E. 3. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - a sewer line is the most sound sewage disposal system from an environmental standpoint. The real question is do sewer lines promote growth in ways that cannot be controlled through a Land use Plan and zoning. 4. URBAN SERVICES - he questioned what constitutes "an area where urban services are not planned to be provided "? urban services, e.g., fire protection, police protection, solid waste collection, water and sewer utilities, and recreation facilities are needed by all residents regardless. of where they live. The question is how to provide these services. There has been some question about clustering and if that would make an area suitable for annexation. Commissioner Willhoit stated the emphasis should not be on preventing annexation, but on agreeing what the plan should be and whether the municipalities are going to serve the area. He stated that on the alternative service question, he feels t7 County should proceed on addressing the management problem without regard to the Rural Buffer. Addressing the question of management of alternative systems should be done with a countywide perspective. Another issue to be addressed deals with remediation in the case of failing alternative systems. One of the largest concerns has to do with the ability to effect repairs in the event of a system failure. A bond, to be put up by the developer /owner, has been suggested as one mechanism. Concern has been expressed about the ability to collect funds in a timely manner using this mechanism. Another possibility would be to establish a "super fund" to be used for emergency remediation. The fund could be established by an upfront fee charged at the time new systems. are approved. The system owner would be responsible for replenishing the fund which could be done through an assessment -lien procedure. The State has established a similar fund to address leaking underground storage tanks in cases where the tank owner denies ability to fund the cleanup. Annual tank registration fees are used. He asked that legislation be sought to provide for the creation of a fund that could be used to address the alternative sewage disposal systems problem. Chairman Carey agreed that the land use decisions need to be discussed and decided upon before implementation is discussed. Commissioner Insko feels that D & E may be acceptable if a satisfactory system can be found to provide alternative treatment packages in that area. She agrees that the two issues --- land ur decisions and alternative sewage disposal systems need to be separatf- out. She supports going ahead with A, B, and C and putting D & E on 301 hold until the other issues have been resolved. Geoffrey Gledhill clarified that the State regulates discharge systems and permits discharge systems. The County permits septic systems no matter how big they are. The State gets an opportunity to review and make recommendations if the size of the system is greater than 3,OOOgpd. Commissioner Willhoit suggested going ahead with obtaining legislation that would give the County the ability to regulate those things the County doesn't have the authority to regulate with regard to discharge systems and to set up a fund as a means of handling failing systems. This would give the County the framework it needs to move forward with making land use decisions. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon on the statutory authority for alternative systems, John Link stated that there is no additional legislation needed for the Health Department to address what is already its responsibility for individual septic systems. The program as proposed by the Health Board has the legislation to implement. The question has to do with what process the County is going to use fob the design, construction, monitoring and remediation of these larger alternative systems. Geoffrey Gledhill will provide the Board with written information on what legislation may be pursued. A presentation on alternative systems will be made at the next regular meeting of the Board as well as additional information on groundwater and suitability of soils. Z. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- REGULAR AGENDA A. SEARLE FARMS --AMENDED PHASING PLAN Planner Emily Cameron presented for consideration of approval a revised phasing plan for Searle Farms, a cluster subdivision. The Preliminary Plan for Searle Farms was approved by the Board of Commissioners on December 4, 1989. The applicant is requesting additional time for construction beyond the December 4, 1990 expiration date. The property is located on the south side of New Hope Church Road west of the intersection with I -40 in Chapel Hill Township. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the extension of time based on the evidence presented with respect to the findings required in Section III - D-2-e of the Subdivision Regulations. Final Plat approval must be obtained before December 4, 1991. VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. ZONING ENFORCEMENT CASES CIVIL PENALTIES On November 5, 1990, the Board considered making written demand for payment of civil penalties for zoning violations on six properties. Four property owners -- McDuffie, McMillan, Scurlock, and Turner were represented at this meeting and were given an extended deadline to Thursday, November 29, 1990. The Board decided to make written demand for payment of civil penalties to the other two property owners -- Garrett and Williams. Enforcement Officer Jim Hinkley requested that the Board consider making written demand for payment of civil penalties from Mr. 302 Paul G. Scurlock in the amount of $14,200. Mr. Scurlock has made i effort to come into compliance. With regard to Lori B. and Nathan. McDuffie, substantial progress has been made on cleaning up their property. He asked that they be given another extension to finish their cleanup work. lie asked that the demand for civil penalties against Gayle and Chris McMillan be postponed again because of substantial progress that has been made on the cleanup. He asked that the civil penalties against Mr. Ralph Turner be rescinded because they have come into compliance well before the deadline. Mrs. McMillan assured the Board that if they grant her an extension she will have the work completed after the holidays. Mr. Gamble spoke on behalf of Mr. Scurlock. He stated that Mr. Scurlock has no funds to clean up his property. He has been building a house for the past five years. Commissioner Gordon asked on what basis an extension of time was granted. Gledhill stated that the imposition of civil penalties is one of the remedies available to the County as a means to enforce its Zoning Ordinance. Whether the County pursues it or not is purely discretionary. The enforcement of the Ordinance is not considered to be discriminatory. Whats at issue is how much time to give people before deciding to make a demand for civil penalties or pursue civil penalties in court. In his opinion, substantial progress toward getting the property in compliance is a valid basis for doing so. A decision based solely on economics would be a problem. Economics may be a basis for giving somebody more time but whether to enforce the Ordinanc- through the use of civil penalties based purely on the ability of ti person to pay the civil penalty may be a problem. Mr. Scurlock stated that he would probably finish his house by the end of the summer. He is trying to get a loan at this time. The car has been in the streambed for thirty years. He indicated he would not be able to move the car until he puts in a road and has the finances to hire a tow truck. Commissioner Halkiotis expressed his disappointment that Mr. Scurlock has not made an effort to clean up his property. He suggested that he be given an extension of thirty days and if no substantial effort is made to clean up his property that the County make written demand for the full amount of money due. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Chairman Carey to give an extension of time to January 17, 1991 to Lori B. and Nathan McDuffie and Gayle and Chris McMillan and to rescind making demand for civil penalties against Ralph Turner. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to delay action on the demand for civil penalties against Paul G. Scurlock and to evaluate the situation on January 7, 1991 to determine if an effort has been made by Mr. Scurlock to come into compliance. VOTE: UNANIMOUS For Mr. Scurlock to come into compliance, he will need to remove everything from the streambed and on the floodplain. C. CLASSIFICATION STUDY 303 Personnel Director Elaine Holmes presented for consideration of approval the Phase I Classification Study changes to the Orange County Classification and Pay Plan as stated on pages attached to these minutes. It will cost approximately $30,000 to implement these changes. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Insko to approve the adoption of the Phase I Classification Study changes to the Orange County Classification and Pay Plan with all classification changes, salary grade changes, and salary increases to be effective January 7, 1991. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. E911 1GIS CONSULTING AGREEMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the E911 /GIS consulting agreement with Richard J. Taylor in the amount of $13,600 and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. FEASIBILITY STUDY - NC 54 WIDENING The proposed widening of NC 54 would be from I -85/40 in Burlington to the NC 54 Bypass in Chapel Hill. The widening project as it extends through Orange County would include widening NC 54 to four lanes -- two twelve foot lanes going both east and west. The right-of- way would be increased from 120 feet to 200 feet in width. The project is included in the 1990 -96 Transportation improvement for feasibility study but is not currently funded. The Planning Department staff listed in the agenda abstract some potential problems that need to be further studied by NCDOT. The Planning Board also made comments which are included in the agenda abstract. The purpose for widening NC54 is not clearly defined by the Department of Transportation. After a brief discussion, it was decided that a public hearing on the proposal to do a feasibility study would be held with the other Governing Boards and OWASA on January 22. Transportation officials will be requested to explain what they intend to do in this project. F. MATERNAL CARE COORDINATION Health Director Dan Reimer reported that the legislature has allocated $500,000 for FY 90 -91 to create additional Maternal Care Coordination positions. These funds will be allocated to those health departments which apply on the basis of a demonstrated, unmet need. Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chairman Carey to endorse the Orange,County Health Department's application for the Maternal Care Coordinator funds, approve the addition of a Maternal Care Coordination position with continuation of the position contingent upon Medicaid revenue sufficient to cover the cost of the position; and authorize the signature of the Agency Director and the. Agency Finance Officer on the statement of assurance which must accompany the application of funds. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chairman Carey asked that a report showing the Medicaid billings for those served by this new position be prepared and provided 304 to the Board. Dan Reimer will also provide a report on the funds heir generated by the Childcare Coordination Program. XI. APPOINTMENTS The following appointments were unanimously approved by the Board of Commissioners: DOMICILIARY HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - Ann Jenkins--Agar EMS ADVISORY COUNCIL - Shirley E. Marshall HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION - Peter Fore NATIONAL ORGANIZATION ON DISABILITY - Mrs. Martha Barbee NOTE: The appointments to the Cable TV Citizens Advisory Committee were postponed to allow additional time to receive applications. XII. MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Chairman Carey to approve the minutes for December 3, 1990 as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to go into Executive Session to discuss possible litigation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to go into Regular Session to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XIV. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to discuss, Chair Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on Monday, January 7, 1991 in the Courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.--V--A ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 18, 1990 SUBJECT: Data Processing Service Agreements DEPARTMENT: Data Processing PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Service Agreements Town of Chapel Hill TELEPHONE NUMBER - Town of Carrboro Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PURPOSE: To enter into new agreements between the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Orange County for data processing services. 1 BACKGROUND: The County has provided data processing services to the Town of Carrboro since 1983 and to the Town of Chapel Hill since 1984 using similar agreements. Under these agreements, the Towns were charged a fixed rate based on the number terminals or printers being used by each entity. In connection with the County's User Fee Study, a rate schedule was developed for data processing services based on costs and usage levels. These new agreements require an annual payment based on the the number of terminals, printers, and communications devices connected to the system by each Town, as well as monthly payments based on each Town's actual usage of the computer system. These new agreements have been reviewed and approved by Chapel Hill and Carrboro officials. RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve agreements and authorize Chair to sign. NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is ent"red into this .Z1 day of Maw .1 _ 1990 and by and betweem the —Town of t:arrboro, a munTa ?. corporation "7he Town ") and O7°ange County, a body polit' i':. and corporate Iht' County"). WHEREAS, the County presently operates and maim* a computer center serving various County departments an outside agancias and wishes to continue making its Computer Operations and services available to the Town; and WHEREAS; the Town desires to purchase certain necessary, computer services f-rQm the County; NOW THEA ORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promise, set Polk below, the parties agree that, for a fee `Section 123. thq County shall provide 24 –hour, 7 day a week computer services to the Town, including equipment, hardware and software maintenance, required operator training and software programs along with required communication= linkage, all to be provided in accordance with tKe following teems, conditions, and specifications. The County shall provide the Town with the following e•ga_pment: A. $ . Mainframe Ports B. 6 Data processing terminals C. 1 High speed line printer D. 1 Slow speed printer(s) E. 2 ib Channel multiplexers (Town Hall) V 2 9.6K Claud modems U_ 2 Line drivers (PW) 2. The Town may add additional equipment, by an addendQm to this agreement (Section 15). The fixed fee shall be prorated based on actual start date for the equipment, the additional charges will be based on Section 12. The County shall not be required to purchase more equipment, supplies, cables, etc than the Town pays for the first year of service for any new ports or requested service or equipment. Ownership of equipment purchased pursuant to this agreement shall remain in Orange County. O. The County shall provide all equipment ,maintenance, replacement or upgrades at the same level as that provided for the other users of the grange County Data Processing Cehter. The Town shall be responsible for repair of and tha cost of repair and replacement to and the cost of replacement to equipment damaged by the Town's negligent or abusive use of the equipment. ti . "-.t - ;or s Vii-; e,' �. The county sty.: -�.i � � - - -- �;r,1e t..: da�r�a_lcs i.t lr ��_� by the Town caused bq interruption and /or delay of services. However, the County shall do aF! tnings Yeasonably necessary to bra •:g the seT i a up to the required level as soon W possible after identification of the problem causing the interruption and/or solay. w. The County =hail provide the same "software- maintenance services as provided other users of the Orsngp County Data Processing Center. 6. The County shall maks available to the Town all existing "software" operational programs or new programs OT re— programming that may become available to other users of the renter. If the County purchases such "software" from some ~third party which is used oy the Town then the Town shall be asked to share pro rata in this purchase price. The County agrees to make such "cosmetic" changes as may be required to meet the partiu l,r needs of the Town. This type of programming support will be limited to twelve hours per port in section i,A per year Custom programming is to be charged to the Town at the current rate of the Person doing the fob plus fringe benefits- 7. The county shall provide required operator training for each program to be used oy the Town. Such operator training shall be available as required by the Town f"ar the life of this agreement. S'. The County K all provide necessary communication linkage between Town G. The County shall provide necessary communications linkage between Town Hall, Public Works and the Orange County Data Processing Center_ S. The county shall provide the Town with the same level of service and no less than equal priorities as other users of the Orange County Data Processing Center. iU. The County shall provide a security system an a part of the software programming that will permit the 'own to control user accessibility. 11. The County shall provide the same data security and retention of data for the Town as provided for other users of the system, including daily "back —up" and other routine security storage. 3 12. The Town shall make an annual payment to the County in the wmourt O: f twelve hundred dollars ($1,2C&00) for each par~ JSection . VA) provided by the County. 7h; - payment to be Paid by .July 31st of each year this agreement is in effect. The County will will the Tobin monthly for actual computer resouTwes used based on the fallowing: All computer ,use will be recorded and the totai Operating cost of the Center will be pro— rated to all user based -n the actual percentage of use by that user_ tine third will be based on connect time (actual time from LOGON to LOGOFF), One third will be based on disk reads (actual number of times disk storage is accessed), and one third will be based en memorq cycle- use. The twelve hundred dollars pre —paid annually will be deducted from the bill based on charges per port (K00.00 minimum charge per month). i3. This agreement Shall begin on tiiuly 1, 1990 and shall end ,June 30th wf any year by mutual agreement of both parties. The County :nay terminate the agreement upon one year notice to the Town. The Town may terminate this agreement with sixty e60) day written notice to the County. :4. This agreement is subject to the appropriation of the required funds by the Town council for the fiscal years commencing after June 30, 1990. 15. This agreement, may be amended in writing by mutual agreement of the County and the Town. TOWN OF C l3ORRO ORANGE COUNTY BY: —_ --- ------------ BY: ------ --------------------------- v MOSES CAREY, CHAIRMAN ORANGE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Attest +T,4`tlrrfl9atglatter lbw, +r�•• "b� r .- ,.,,:' `'ea ww a rp v o !' • n'• • ,ik�� r L �r��ti ,aya 4 %Ifi /t5#1110%%" Attest: Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Orange County Commissioners NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 21 day of /VA , 1990 and by and between the Town of Carrboro, a munic,pp1 corporation ("The Town") and Orange County, a body politic and corporate ( "The County "). WHEREAS, the Count; presently operates and maintains a computer canter serving various County departments and outside agencies and wishes to continue making its computer operations and services available to the Town; and WHEREAS; the Toxin desires to purchase certain necessary computer services froo, the County; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual oromises set north below, the parties agree that, for a fee (Sectior: 12): the County shall provide 24- -hour, ? day a weak computer services to the Town, including equipment, hardware and software maintenance, required operator training and software programs along With required communications linkage, all to be provided in accordance with the following terms, conditions, and specifications: The County shall provide the Town with the a, !owing :a..* _a,Tent: A. 8 Mainframe (Ports B. 6 Data processing terminals C. 1 High speed line printer D. 1_ '..,'low speed printer .$) E. 2 1-6 Channel multiplexers (Town Hall) F. 2 9. 6A ?aud modems S Line drivers (PW) w. The Town may add additional equipment by an addendaa% to this agreement (Section 15). The fixed fee shall be prorated based on actual start date for the equipment, the additional charges will be based on Section 12. The County shall not be required to purchase more equipment, supplies, cables, etc than the Town pays for the first year of service =or any new ports or requested service or equipment. Ownership of equipment purchased pursuant to this agreement shall remain in Orange County. 3. The County shall provide all equipment maintenance, replacement or upgrades at the same level as that provided for the other users of the grange County Data Processing Center. The Town shall be responsible for repair of and the cost of repair and replacement to and the cost or replacement to equipment damaged by the Town's negligent or abusive use or the .:gaipment. 5 k. The County.sh:all not be liable Tor damages incurred by the Town :caused bg interruption and /or delay of services. However, the County shall do all things reasonably necessary to bring the service up to the required level as soot, as possible after identification of the problem causing the interruption ,and /or delay. The County shall provide the same "software" maintenance services as provided other users of the Orange County Data Processing Center. _ 6. The County shall make available to the Town all existing " software" operational programs or new programs or re— programming that may become available to other users of the Center. If the County purchases such "software" from some third party which is used by the Town then the Town shall be asked to share pro rata in this purchase price. The County agrees to make such "cosmetic" changes as may be required to meet th, particular needs of the Town. "his type o•F programming support will be limited to twelve hours per port in section I.A per year. Custom programming is to be charged to the Town at the current rate of the person doing the ,fob plus cringe benefits. 7. The County shall provide required operator training for each program to be used by the Town. Such operator training shall be available as required by the Town for the life or this agreement. e. The County shall provide necessary communication linkage between Town S. The County shall provide necessary communications linkage between Town Mall, Public Works and the Orange C -aunty Data Processing Center. 9. The County shall provide the Town with the same level of service and no less than equal priorities as other users of the Orange County Data Processing Center. 10. The County shall provide a security system as a Part of the software programming that will permit the Town to control user accessibility. 11. The County shall provide the same data security and retention of data for the Town as provided for other users of the system, including daily "back —up" and other routine security storage. 12. The Town shall make an annual payment t4 the County in the amount of twelve hundred dollars 01, 200. 00) for each port (Section 1.0 provided by the County. This payment to be paid by July 31st of each year this agreement is in effect. The County will bill the Town monthly for actual computer resources used based on the following: All computer -use will be recorded and the total operating cost of the Center will be pro--rated to all users based on the actual percentage of use by that user. one third will be based on connect time (actual time from LOGON to LOGOFF), one third will be based on disk reads (actual number of times disk, storage is accessed), and one third will be based on memory cycle use. The twelve hundred dollars pre —paid annually will be deducted from the bill based on charges per port Qi00.00 minimum charge per month). 12. hall end parties. year noti agreement This agreement June 30th of an The County may ce to the Town with sixty (60) shall begin. on ,July 1, 1990 and Y y?ar by mutual agreement of both terminate the agreement upon one The Town may terminate this day written notice to the Count,. 14. This agreement is subject to the appropriation of the required funds by the Town council for the fiscal years commencing after dune 30, 1990. iW This agreement may be amended in writing by mutual agreement at the County and the Town. TOWN OF CARBORRO ORANGE COUNTY - ------------ BY: ------------------------------ MOSES CAREY, CHAIRMAN ORANGE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Attest- �0%�t''�r s a loll r n llll��,,' Attest: — Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to— the ---_ Orange County Commissioners V] NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of _ i?90 and by and between the Tow: of Chapel Hill, .. municjpa:. corporation ( "The Tocsr") and Orange County, a body , njit:w and corporate = "The Wownty "). WHEREAS -', the County present!; operates and maintains compoter- Center Sp 'img var2:ur aunty depar.d�m�.y�,_ti outWida agencies and wishes to continue making` its c i_nputs :.- operations and service s available to the Town; and WHEREAS; the Town desires to' purchase certain ne: esharm computer services from the County; NOW THEREFORE: in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises set forth below: the parties agree that: for • fee ;Section 12); the County snail provide 24—:`your: 7 day • week comp'ute'r services to the Town, including equipment: hardware and soktware maintenance, required opeTato training and software programs along with required communications linkage, all to be provided in accordance with the following terms, conditions, and sp ecificatior,_ 4. The County shall provide the Town with the following equipment- A. 17 Mainframe Ports B. it Data processing terminals C. 1 High spud line printer D. 3. .Slow speed printer (s) E. 2 In Channel multiplexers (Towns Hall) F- 2 56K Baud modems G. 2 4 Channel Multiplexers (Police) H. 2 9600 Baud modems 1. 2 Line drivers (PW) J. 2 8 Channel multiplexers(Housing) K. 2 4800 Baud modems r 2 The Town may add additional equipment by yp addendum to this agreement (Section 15). The fixed f.s.�- shall be prorated based on actual start date for the equipment; the additional charges will be based on SecKot�s' 12. The County shall not nbe required to purchase mpre equipment, supplies, cables, etc than the Town pays for the first year of service =or any new parts or requested service or equipment. Ownership of equipment purchased pursuant to this agreement shall regain in Orange County. 3. The County shall provide all equipment maintenance, replacement or upgrade= at the same level as that provide- for the other users of the Orange County Data Processing Center- The Town shall be responsible for repair of and the cost of repair and replacement to and the cost of replacement to equipment damaged by the Town's negligent pr abusive use of the equipment. "`S a 41. The C=ounty ShAl not be 1 sale Yon :damages Incur ed by the Town caused b y interruption and/or delay of ssrvinRs. Howev= the county shall do an things `va5onably r'fea eEvar to bri7g the sarvicy u; to the oequi; ed level as SOW as possi le after Ldenti, ..cation of the problem causing th': interruption and/or Aelay, The Coun , shall provide the same "suftwarV maintenance services as provided other users of the M a7"g Count; Data Processing :.enter. 6_ The County =..hall make available to the Tour: all existing "software" : operational programs or new programs or re—programming that maQ become available to other users of the Center. if the Co:.'nt:y purchases such "software" frog, some third party whLah is used by the Town then the Town shall be asked to share pro rata in this purchase price. The County agrees to :rake such ' cosmetiL ' changes as may be required to meet the particular needs of the Town. This type of programming sopport will be limited to twelve sours per Port in seUior 1. A per year- Custom programming is to be charged to the Town at the current rate of the pv7sor-I doing the job plus I :nge benefits- 7, The County shall pro•: ide required operator trwi2ing for each program to be used by the Town_ Such operator training shall be available as required by the Town for the life of this agreement. S. The Count, shall provide necessary communication linkage between Town Hall: Public Works, Transportation: Police, Dousing and the Orange County Data Processing Center. V. The County shall provide the ;'own with the same level of service and no less than equal priorities as Other - users of the Orange County Data Processing Center. 10. The County shall provide a security system as a part of the software programming that will permit the Tarr+ to control user accessibility. 1.. The County shall provide the same data security and retention of data for the Town as provided for other users of the syste; including daily "back —up" and tither routine security storage. L� I _. The Town shall an anrnuaI Pa y I'll er,t t the �ount: in. t.`e amourt of e hundred dollars r i, �� C ,3, for ew is Fort 'Section LA) prov-%dei by the Count;. payment to be p:nid try July 31st of each year this aq 'er_•::ient is in effect 'I he County will bill the Town monti IAA, fir actu ;al computer reso,_�rc.es Qsed based on tkici f411 awii,q: All computer use will be recorded and th :e t�)taI operating cost of the venter will be pro -rated to all users based on the actual percentage of use by that use•T', or) E. third tuJill Wa based 7n connect there (actual time from L_s`li0'v to L01'70FF), one third will be based on disk reads (actual number of times disk storage is accessed), and one third will be based on memory 'cycle use. The twelve hundred dollars pre -paid annually will be deducted from the ball based on char gas per port (' I00. flG minimuiii charge per month). 13. This agreement shall begin on July 1, 1990) and shall end :June 30th of any year by mutual agreement of both parties- The County .nay terminate the agreement upon one year notice to the Town- The Town may terminate "his agree,Tsent with sixty (60) day written notice to the C:;j+rrty. 14. This agreement is subject to the appropriation of the required funds by the Town council for the fiscal years commencing after June 3Q, 199C`- .15. This agreement may be amended in writing by mutual agreement of the County and the Town. TOWN OF C AP L HILL ORANGE COUNTY Ci t _ __.-- ____- __ - - - - -- ------------ ....-- ____---- _- w____...•,---- _.�__ -_ _ _ BY: - - MOSES CAREY, CHAIRMAN ORANGE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS t 4 L '07 ,tom Attest: �c2 ---------- ---------------- ly. A. Blythe, - Clerk - to - the Q �' ge County Commissioners a TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Town Manager Town Clerk (SEAL) Approved as to Form: Town'Attorney This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. i ance Director M ROUTING SLIP Document: G+ �t- "�f --C 1. Department Head 2. Contractor or other party(ids) (if applicable) for signature and attesting 3. Department Head 4. Purchasing Agent 5. Finance Director (per Budget Act) 6. Legal -form 7. Assistant'Town Manager' 8. Manager 9. Clerk (attest) 10. Purchasing Agent (for mailing, distribution of copies) REQUESTED DATE FOR FULL EXECUTION: DEADLINE FOR SIGNING: �G NOTES /EXPLANATION: Date Received Date Please Forwarded Initia: NORTH TAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY AGREE!ENT THIS AGREEMENT is poterej into, this _ day Of 1790 amd by an! bett�eeo th" 7CIT IS Chapel Hill, a municipal corporation ("The Tour.") and STange County, 3 body pniitic and cc-paratp i"Thy oojnty"; WHEREAS, the Co, t, presumtly apapates &md computer center ser.lng varivas county departmentj OM,� Outsiw� agencies and wishes to continue making its curputE7 Operat:ans and SeTvlzes availatle to the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to purchase certain npcxjtar,- compu:sr services frQm the Ccurtyj NNW THEREFORE, in considenation of the premises and the mutual promissi 5et vortn cel,,, the parties agree that, fo- * Fee Section 12). the Count, snail Provide 24—hour. 7 da. * week ZOMPUZOr SeTIICea to the Town, including equipmant, , hardware Emu SoMware Mai5renanwe, required oiler ato-i- training an SaFtwers, PrcgTams along with required commun;cationE linkage, all to be Prowided in aCco7dancc- With the f0il0wing toums, c0nditions, and specipicatio., 1 The Coun ry S h a t P-0-vilp the Town wit' to f6ilowang eqQ!pment A. 17 MainfPsms Curt= B 16 Data P7QcPssirj terminals C. I High speed line p-inter D. is Slow need Printer( 5 ) E. Z2 1= Channel mult3plexer, (Town Hall) 2 56V Saul modems 2 4 Channel mWlt1P!6XET5 (police) H. 2 9600 Eaud modem= 1 2 Lino drivers CPW.-. j 2 8 Channel K. Z •%Q Baud modemi The Town may add a I d i t 10 n a 1 enipment t addencam to this agpeement csy�tjoq 15) The filed" shall me Proratcd ca lej on actual start date equWlnt the additioDal char;Es will be tasEj on S2LV!ZW` 12. 74s. Cow7ty small rot to requirej to purchase more eqQipmont, Swl;!L&S, CabjeS, It, thin the Tour pays For t,& first year of iervile 007 any new Pants or requested servicy or eqL.pm*nt Ownership OF equiOmOnt Punchased pursuant to this aeement g i I The Tourty ohill prayiie all equipment maintena ce. rep laGament 07 upundvo at the same level as that provlde.: for the other users of tme Oranpe County patg PrOLOS41n� Centev The To ol Town staij be resPsible for repair of and tjs cost cf repair ani replacement to and tno cost of- replacement try equipmeqt damaged by the Town's negligent 0- Bbusi" use Of the equipment. I. 13 14 4.—The County sh -;Il not be liaole Tor damages incurred 5y' the Town caused by interruption and /cr delay of services Howev_— the County shall dry all things reasonably necessary to br -r3 the sRr:icy up to tpe •equired level as soon as po_sitle after idenzification of the problem causing the interruption and/or inlay The Count.; =hall provide the same "soft'ware'' maintenance services as provided oth[.r users of the Orange County Data Pr:occasing Center. 6 The County shall m ke available to the Town all existing "so4tware" operational programs or new programs or Te- programming that Ta; become avai'a bIR to Other use" of the Center 1? the lw. ntg pur... ases such "software" 0 :n. some bird party w jwh is used by the Town then the Town shall we asked to Wave pro rata in this purchase price. The Cianty ag7ees tj wake such ' coOmetiS" chances as Tay be required to meet the partioular needs of the Town -his type cr prog: smming n4pport will be limited tc twelve h=ours per po-t in sac Lion i' A per year. Custom programming is t:. be charged to the 7oWn at the Current rate of the `•y_.,a-i-, doing the J jet plus fringe benefits The County :hall provide required operator tr_i •in_ for each grog -am t: he used by the Town. Such opar:stor traMnt shall be .s s h l able as required by the Town for the life of this s greem t. 8 The Counr.4 sholl'pru:ide necessary communicatiOn linkags betwear. Town Hall, Public Works. Transportation. Police Housing ar d the Orange County Data Processing Center =. The County shall prc'vids the Town with the ;amp level of service an, no lass than equal priorities as othe- users of the Orange 'oAty Data Qroeen;ing Center. 10. The Counts snail proviic a se--urity system as a part the scl wara p7 gr•3:Tmirg that will permit the 70w r: to control user accO sj b i lltY y The Count j shall pr.• • Sade tn � lame data Sec`uv i y r-,d retention OF d..,,_7 for. the Tow as provided for other u system includ., daily "each -W and other . rbutive secu71 4 IL07ME U I h, .� 1 1�.. r,. � otur, _ � , -.�.. _ �: -• an-.._,aI }:y t t� _ c, JTl t: 1.. t:% _ am,0,.. , t e r Ir z d dC, laT c (al. f e porgy Sir+ nil 1. r7 p r C, _4ed 'Jy the C0 Lint ,�v ShY2= PriyMe'. _ t:D _ J 31 t GF . arh a ti:1 E; dgT: 1 S 1? a FfeG : he C,! ! ^t , 1 1 b i 1 the To�lr1 month a fo- aCt ai CUITpUt a - rr - u�3 =� c,n ther f011(:,win �% _I _unr.. t,aT, llii b� recer, ed and trla i_.a.. operating cost 0* ti: Center uu 11 be pro -rated to all i C, S based on the actLa' pE— .-entag= .f ose by that user. 0r,� third u:ili be 0 b a -OTt�nect `:r:� :actual time fru,T. L; LC.; t0 LLI1 ;OT=r :tom tr11 'j 1- I/;.11 tiA.."'ased or. d . 15{{ read i ? ?"'iJa: number of ti:nz d, >,: .-t: -,rage i -. accez-:;ed). ar,d Dnf thirc mill ua3e_ •-I n ir;c:rl: yc�� =. i.he twe _ :ijT-1 r 7 do1ic'._ pr,e•--pai+1 lnnually WZL b dedL., tQd fr u:ri b __ bae.ed Cr, C"I —QS peT• Port inir,i chaT•a6 eT- r_- :t;h'. sha11 Wn� p a r t i ` year n, t7. a9T-ee M. EA r,t Thy_ I 11 C a _ tr 1 t --i y - ._ '. 11 t h a t_ h e n- 1-1 J TI •..1 Cl � ? 1 K7!71�' a', C year b;~ITr;;tl,.yl agYeerrlent of aot -• te,;ni.la`_e t agrwemx-Tit opor, or,- `h_ -r4,wn, ma h�- y _. d notice to the _•a: :tLj 1.. Th_ ayr__I -:ent - e_t +,o tf,o dGj7r:3priat Gr the r`e;jtj. -7ev: fWndS '.�: ToLtTlr_:GUn. -i1 for the T15CyI csr? I �= a:;re t mars amen,ded In �jri`..i-^g k�y ;n�,`_ria: a g ree:T,er , f t•• , `DW! "J Or CHAPEL HI' i._ 0FA.NGE CC. i`. T Y ` MOSES ^CAREY. BOARL OF .L �►: R6 Qlt ail i1yv,��_ilytha, �Cle?-s; to t;l_ - - - - -- cr �ar<ITlty Car<lnissiu,',�:r= 15 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Town Manager Town Clerk (SEAL) Approved as to Form: R This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. i ance Director �r v_ SUBJECT: O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 18 1990 1 Action A ends Item #_„-a PETITION FOR ADDITION - WISTERIA DRIVE AND SWEETBRIAR LANE IN BIRCHWOOD LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): E.M. Cowan Letter of 11/15/90 Secondary Road Addition Report PUBLIC HEARING 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: To consider a petition from NCDOT for approval of the addition of Wisteria Drive and Sweetbriar Lane in Birchwood Lake Estates to the State - maintained Secondary Road System. BACKGROUND: The N.C. Department of Transportation has submitted a petition for the addition of Wisteria Drive and Sweetbriar Lane in Birchwood Lake Estates to the Board of Commissioners for review. The Board's decision will be forwarded to the N.C. Board of Transportation for its deliberation on acceptance of the road to the State - maintained Secondary Road System. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the addition of Wisteria Drive and Sweetbriar Lane in Birchwood Lake Estates to the State - maintained Secondary Road System. SrwyrA�_ Q �M! v4 *rn. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, North Carolina 27253 -0766 November 15, 1990 JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR THOMAS J. HARRELSON SECRETARY Orange County Mr. John M. Link, Jr., Manager Orange County 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 NOV 1 S 1990 DIVISION OF HIGHWAY( WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRA Subject: Petition for Addition - Wisteria Drive and Sweetbriar Lane in Birchwood Lakes Subdivision Chapel Hill Township Dear Mr. Link: Attached is Form SR -4, Secondary Road Addition Investigation Report for the above subject road. This is being forwarded to you for review by your Board of Commissioners. Yours very tru , E. M. Cowan, P.E. DISTRICT ENGINEER /acr Atta. cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer K I U Nov 19 1347 3 NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT County an a Co. File No. Township Chapel Hill Div. File No. Local NameWisteria Drive, Sweetbriar Lane Date Subdivision Name Birchwood Lakes Estat( Length See Attached Width 20' Type I -2 Condition Good Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for such streets? Yes _� Recorded 02 -25 -75 Book 24 Page 6 Is this a subdivision street subject to participation paving? Mo Number of homes having entrances into road See attached Other uses having entrances into road Does right -of -way obtained meet present Division of Highways re requirement? If not, why? q Is petition (SR -1 ) attached? Yes Is the County Commissioners' Approval SR -2) attached? If not, why? Does the road meet pres�:it minimum Division of Highways construcIIL ion requirement57 If not, state what is needed to place the road in an acceptable maintenance condition under Remarks and Recommendations. Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locating road by the Planning Department? Yes Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $ Grade, drain, stabilize $ - Drainage $ - Other Remarks and Recommendations Meets minimum r irements. Lot #8 is unsuitable see attached re rt from Oran a County Health De rtment) - Sweetbriar Lane West is fully-develo22d, recommend add. Reviewed and approved Board of Transportation Member Reviewed and approved _ DIVISION ENG NEERns L. DISTRTUT ENG Form SR -4 (7 -77) (Do not write in this space - For use of Secondary Roads Dept.) Petition No. (Do not write in this space - For use of Planning Dept.) ATTACHMENT TO: FILE 0 -88 -09 ADDITION TO SYSTEM BIRCHWOOD LAKES ESTATES SUBDIVISION Length No. Homes Wisteria Drive 0.09 Mi. 2* Sweetbriar Lane (East) 0.10 Mi. 3 ** (Fully Developed) Sweetbriar Lane (West) 0.16 Mi. 4 * Total number of homes on Wisteria Drive is seven with a total length of 0.33 mile. ** Lot #S is not suitable for development. NU r i i�3Q 1 c r [ II 1 2 S2L !c. AD sea I 76 Al sa 28 A. 0 d 5� .dc. _ � +. 9 /.PG�'/✓� LIItF EST.4PE.S i„C 267s ,#. G....�..Y. r Cr...v lam..• .r: � TrsS 1. pft As— uvT� �.Tr. • .a •w •, y a... •. w. • 6 „a c�smsr He C[[T C• [ OI [Y1r[TO■ ..� 1.•11•. ..y-w��. IMr,• . i -•.•; •I.r �[. •...•• _ :.r LIM. • 1., si ... •. -- N: La.N..�0, •.�..Mylw Arr..� r +� _ r �... ..r. .. .1•... • � ..• w1 r�T rY ^ A w r.�:�'.r •• ..r....+ ..... Y.1 •. w..w.� w N.• ..•.•r. 1 Js s'wr _ .b.YJ .•.k... Nr.w ML +/.r +/. Y/ mil ...• r•. .. ....... .. :•; :w.• •.•^.w �.•. -[r. �T.••�rw [•. • L + del. w- Mu •p // i +l.V Nr w - . fv ..•�L•w./".c. r1.l l�i.it)�:.r �f.' �y.�w �.• 1'� � r,.r� � rrarr� �� •r...••• 1.1 M Lbs[ •li �'t� .. � • ��:• .•• '••�r.r •.ri.••I,r.'• • •�y[�N�y,. M.•r•• ••••� [ r�l�wa �b � �w. �. +Y..„ �_�.• •. 1, .. __4.- .... rte'' ..• .. • Q. xily iw/ '] . 1 .�� r u ••rwry ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 18 1990 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): Resolution 1 Action Agenda Item #, V PUBLIC HEARING 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: To recognize William H. Bunch for service to the Orange County Boari BACKGROUND: William H. Bunch has retired from Adjustment after serving two full terms he served as Vice Chair for Chair for two years. his contribution of i of Adjustment. the Board of terms. During these three years and RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution and present it to the recipient at the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners. RESOLUTION OF APP-RECL4TIOAT for . William H. Bunch WHEREAS, William Hunch has actively served on the Orange County Hoard of Adjustment since December 3, 1$84; and WHEREAS, William Hunch has faithfully served his fellow citizens: Of Hingham Township as their repLeseatative on this volunteer board charged with aiding the elected Hoard of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, he has gk-ven of his technical skill and talent to benefit all the citizens of Orange County in upholding the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; THEREFORE, the members of the Orange County Hoard of Commissioners do hereby thank William Hunch, upon his retirement from the Orange County Hoard of Adjustment for the service he performed on their behalf ADOPTED this 18th dap of December, 1990. Afose s Cary, Jr., Chair -' Stephen Halkiotis, Vice Chair ---- . .Alice M. Cordon Verla C. insko Donald G. Willhoit 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.-TL-.A ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 18, 1990 SUBJECT: Cable TV Expansion in Northeastern Orange County DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: County Manager's Office Ext 2300 TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To receive a report from Carolina Cable regarding.cable TV service expansion in Northeastern areas of the County. BACKGROUND: On February 20, 1990 Cablevision of Durham presented a proposal to the Board requesting a five year delineated cable TV franchise agreement. Cablevision of Durham desired to serve approximately 253 homes in specific areas of Northeastern Orange County. The areas border Durham County where Cablevision of Durham has extended cablevision service to the Orange County Line. At the February 20 Board meeting, Carolina Cable voiced objection to Cablevision of Durham expansion into Orange County. Although Carolina Cable's services were not in the areas, the general manager of Carolina Cable stated their franchise agreement with the County covered the entire County and their service could be extended to the areas within a few months. Discussions with both Cable Companies revealed Cablevision of Durham had connected cable service to a few homes in Orange County without a franchise agreement. The Board requested the County Manager to review the situation further; recommend the most appropriate method of providing cable service to the areas; and resolve the issue of Cablevision of Durham providing cable service without a franchise. After several months of discussions Cablevision of Durham proposal to serve a delineated area of Orange County remained the same; however, Carolina Cable submitted a proposal outlining expanded service to the areas within six months contingent on approval of a cable TV corridor through Durham County and weather conditions. F At the June 26, 1990 Board Meeting the County Manager recommended that the County Attorney draft a delineated Cab Le TV Franchise for Cablevision of Durham covering homes currently connected by the company and homes that may be constructed in two specific areas (Kerley Road and Saddle Drive areas of the County). The areas border Orange County, but can not be reasonably served by existing County cable franchisees. (Board approved delinineated franchise November 20, 1990.) The Manager also recommended that Carolina Cable submit in writing a commitment to connect homes in the area (map is under separate cover) within a six month time perio beginning June 26 and obtain a corridor franchise through Durham County. On August 6, 1990 Carolina Cable submitted documentation indicating a corridor franchise had been approved by Durham County. The corridor was needed before Carolina Cable cowl access several subdivisions in Northeastern Orange County. Carolina Cable also agreed to construct cable service in th, areas within six months of June 26, 1990. Randy Houser, General Manager, Carolina Cable will present status report on Cable construction in Northeastern orange County. o r ^_ 0 R A N G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 18, 1990 Action Agenda Item # 1X_' �7 SUBJECT: Economic Development Visitor Services DEPARTMENT: Economic Development PUBLIC HEARING: Yes __I __No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Public Private Partnership Res. * Chapel /Hill Carr Chamber Res. Hillsborough Area Chamber Res. Chairman's Report - Visitor Task Force Ted W. Abernathy, Director TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967- 9251 /968 -4bOl PURPOSE: To provide information regarding the effort to address challenge 9 of the Orange County Economic Development Strategic Plan - "Program to Attract and Serve Visitors ". BACKGROUND: To meet part of the EDC Strategic Plan the County entered into a contract with the Chambers of Commerce to study and make recommendations on an appropriate course of action to attract and serve visitors. The Chambers working with a Public Private Partnership Task Force have studied the issues and passed resolutions detailing their recommendations. Each of the resolutions was presented at the December 13th Economic Development Commission meeting and all were accepted, in principle. The resolutions differ slightly in content but agree in the following: (1) That a County -wide entity be created to operate a County -wide program (2) That the entity be governed by members representing appropriate organizations (3) That the County Commissioners seek legislative authority to levy a County -wide occupancy -tax dedicated to this purpose (4) That Chapel Hill commit 20% of its current occupancy tax to this entity (S) That other sources of funding continue to be explored. RECOMMENDATION: 1 PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ORANGE COUNTY VISITOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. WHEREAS, Visitor Services are an important part of the economy of Orange County; and WHEREAS, the Public Private Partnership at its Boulder inter -city conference discussed the need for a formal county visitor program; and WHEREAS, the Public Private Partnership adopted a resolution on June 13, 1990 establishing a task force to determine the feasibility of creating a county -wide bureau of visitor services; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Economic Development Commission and the Chambers of Commerce of Chapel Hill- Carrboro and Hillsborough were joint participants with the task force; and WHEREAS, after numerous meetings and the active involvement of many people, the Task Force submitted its report and recommendations to this body: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Public Private Partnership Board of Directors that it receives and accepts the task force report and recommendations submitted at this meeting with thanks for a job well done and commends the report to all the participating parties. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Public Private Partnership Board of Directors request the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the municipalities of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsbor- ough to create the Orange County Visitor Development Authority along the following lines: a. The primary purpose of the Authority is to establish and operate a County -wide professional visitor services program. b. The make up of the Authority should include representatives of government, the business community and service providers. c. To seek legislative authority from the 1991 General Assembly for a county wide Hotel/Motel occupancy tax of three percent (3 %) dedicated solely for the purposes of the Authority with one percent (1%) being levied initially. d. To seek a commitment from the Town of Chapel Hill for a minimum of twenty per -cent (20 %) of their existing hotel/motel occupancy tax to be used to support the funding and programs of the Authority. e. To seek additional funding from other governmental agencies and private sources to enhance the funding and programs of the Authority. f. To request the Authority, when established, to continue to explore alternative sources of long term funding. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Public Private Partnership Board of Directors request the Orange County Economic Development Commission and the Chambers of Commerce of Chapel Hill - Carrboro and Hillsborough to support the creation of an Orange County Visitor Development Authority. Adopted December 12, 1990 . -k-7 a '4 CHAPEL DILL- CARRBORO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 3 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ORANGE COUNT" VISITOR DEVELOPMENT AU'T'HORITY. WHEREAS, Visitor Services are an important part of the economy of Orange County; and WHEREAS, The Chapel Hill- Carrboro Chamber of Commerce served over 30,000 requests for V isitor information in 1990; and WHEREAS, the Public Private Partnership at its Boulder inter -city conference discussed the need for a formal county visitor program and adopted a resolution on June 13, 1990 establishing a. task force to determine the feasibility of creating a county -wide bureau of visitor services; and WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, the Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce and the Orange County Economic Development Commission have entered into an agreement to provide certain visitor information services; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Economic Development Commission and the Chambers of Commerce of Chapel Hill- Carrboro and Hillsborough were joint participants with the task force; and WHEREAS, after numerous meetings and the active involvement of many people, the Task Force submitted its report and recommendations to the Public Private Partnership, the Chambers and Orange County Economic Development Commission, and WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Chamber of Commerce accepts the report and recommendations of the joint Task Force pursuant to the above stated agreement: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors that it receives and accepts the task force report and recommendations submitted at this meeting with thanks for a job well done and commends the report to all the participating parties. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Board of Direc- tors request the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the municipalities of Chapel lull. Carrboro and Hillsborough to create the Orange County Visitor Development Authority along the following lines: a. The primary purpose of the Authority is to establish and operate a County -wide professional visitor services program. b. The make up of the Authority should include representatives of government, the business community and service providers. c. To seek legislative authority from the 1991 General Assembly for a county wide Hotel/Motel occupancy tax of three percent (3%) dedicated solely for the purposes of the Authority with one percent (1%) being levied initially. d. To seek a commitment from the Town of Chapel Hill for a minimum of twenty per -cent (20 %) of their existing howl./motel occupancy tax to be used to support the funding and programs of the Authority. e. To seek additional funding from other governmental agencies and private sources to enhance the funding and programs of the Authority. f. To request the Authority, when established, to continue to explore alternative sources of long term funding, RECEIVED FROM 919 968 6874 12.14.1996 08'21 P. 1 41 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Board of Dirt c- tops request the Orange County Economic Development Commission and the municipalities of CliaF el Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough to support the creation of an Orange County Visitor Development Authority. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors that we pledge our cooperation and support to the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the municipalities of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough to secure the necessary legislation to author- ize the creation and establishment of the Visitor Development Authority and further advises that we stand ready to assist in implementing the programs of the Visitor Development Authority. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chapel dill- Carrboro Chamber of Commerce in endorsing advancement of Orange County Visitor Development Authority does so in anticipation and expectat of the support and cooperation of the proposed Authority in carrying forward the Complementary pu' poses and programs of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. Adopted December 13, 1990 RECEIVED FROM 919 968 6874 12. 14.1990 08:22 P. 2 0 Rfflsboroup4 Area (94amber of Tommerve 150 East King Street • Phone 732 -8156 • Hillsborough, NC 27278 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ORANGE COUNTY VISITOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, Visitor Services are an important part of the economy of Orange County; and WHEREAS, The Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce is committed to the development of the tourism industry; and WHEREAS, the Public Private Partnership at its Boulder inter -city conference dis- cussed the need for a formal county visitor program and adopted a resolution on June 13, 1990, establishing a task force to determine the feasibility of creating a county -wide bureau of visitor services; and WHEREAS, The Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce, the Chapel Hill - Carrboro Chamber of Commerce and the Orange County Economic Development Commission have entered into an agreement to provide certain visitor information services; and WHEREAS, The Orange County Economic Development Commission and the Chambers of Com- merce of Hillsborough and Chapel Hill - Carrboro were joint participants with the task force; and WHEREAS, after numerous meetings and the active involvement of many people, the Task Force submitted its report and recommendations to the Public Private Partner- ship, the Chambers and Orange County Economic Development Commission, and WHEREAS, The Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce accepts the report and recom- mendations of the joint Task Force pursuant to the above stated agreement. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by The Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors that it receives and accepts the task force report and recommenda- tions adopted on December 12, 1990, with thanks for a job well done and commends the report to all the participating parties. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors requests the Orange County Board of Commissioners to create the Orange County Visitor Development Authority along the following lines: A. The primary purpose of the Authority is to establish and operate a County -wide professional visitor services program. B. The make -up of the Authority should include representatives of govern- ment, the business community, chambers of commerce and service provi- ders. C. To seek legislative authority from the 1991 General Assembly for a County- wide hotel /motel occupancy tax of three percent (3 %) dedicated solely for the purposes of the Authority with one percent (1 %) being levied initially. Home of Hillsborough Hog Day Visit Historic Hillsborough 9 Chartered Seventeen Hundred Fifty -Nine 0 Hillsborough Resolution Page 2 D. To seek additional funding from other governmental agencies and private sources to enhance the funding and programs of the Authority. E. To seek a commitment from the Town of Chapel Hill for a minimum of twenty percent (20 %) of their existing hotel /motel occupancy tax to be used to support the funding and programs of the Authority. F. To request the Authority, when established, to continue to explore alternative sources of long -term funding. BE IT FURTHER RESOLOVED that The Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors requests the Orange County Economic Development Commission and the muni cipalities of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough to support the creation of an Orange.,County Visitor Development Authority. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by The Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors that we pledge our cooperation and support to the Orange County Board Of Commissioners and the municipalities of Chapel Hill,' Carrboro and Hillsborough to secure the necessary legislation to authorize the creation and establishment of the Visitor Development Authority and further advises that we stand ready to assist in implementing the programs of the Visitor Development Authority. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce in endorsin the advancement of the Orange County Visitor Development Authority does so in anticipation and expectation of the support and cooperation of the proposed authority in carrying forward the purposes and programs of the Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce. Adopted December 13, 1990 n ORANGE COUNTY VISITOR TASK FORCE Chairman's Report December 5,1990 real 46) (ATIMM The following programs, interim and long -term funding recommendations, mission statement and budget model are the result of many hours of work by the marketing, research and funding committees of the Orange County Visitor Task Force since August 1, 1990. These recommendations will best serve the diverse needs of Orange County's visitor industry and provide for enhanced revenues through the broadening of the county tax base. Additionally, these recommendations have taken into consideration the existing staff and budgets of organizations currently providing visitor services. In this respect, this proposal has been designed to enhance, not duplicate, effective ongoing visitor efforts. The primary mission of an Orange County Visitor Development Authority would be to attract additional compatible visitor business and provide an organized, central "voice" for the visitor industry for more cost -efficient and impactful marketing of the county externally and locally with county organizations and residents. Cooperative marketing of the county's attractions and accommodations and improved internal public relations within the hospitality industry are vital to successful economic impact with regard to visitor services. This program will be the basis of a strategic plan for a series of public forums and for formal presentations to elected officials at a county and municipal level. Sharon Finch Chair Orange County Visitor Task Force Mike Fales Chair, Marketing Committee R. Bruce Holsten Chair, Finance Committee Ed Rehkopf Chair, Research Committee E CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. MISSION 3. OBJECTIVES 4. RELATED VISITOR FACTS 5. RECOMMENDED MARKETING PROGRAMS AND LITERATURE 6. PROPOSED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT 1991 -1993 7. INTERIM AND PERMANENT FUNDING SOURCES 8. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS a 7 1NTR [) TI N TfTG R N E VI IT IZ DEVE I'Ai1rNTA fiOl71 "I'�' Why Market Orange County to Visitors? A frequently asked question is "Why should we spend money to attract visitors we already have", • Area visitors' facilities and services are underutilized. City -wide hotel occuparlcv in C11111,l I -lilt last year was around 6317,. County -wide the occupancy was 53 %. • Visitors are unfamiliar with our area and need information. • Visitors often become repeat visitors if their experience in our communities is positive 1'c,,1)1e 111,e to go where they are made to feel welcome. • Conference and event planners need help coordinating their visits. Planners appreciate the availability of information and the convenience of a local community's efforts to attract them. They know full well the economic impact of their event on the local economy and they have collie t,, expect professional and efficient response to their queries. Organizations planning conferences ;mQi events are no different than people shopping - they want information, value, convenience Llnd service. The community that can provide these gets their business. • Other communities recognize the importance of actively seeking visitor groups and provide a central point of contact to disseminate information and facilitate the planning of events. Our area and economy is often in direct competition with these other communities. • While we have premiere educational, research and medical institutions that are a natural magnet for conferences and visitors, we must remember that other communities have them too. There is often competition for conferences and events. Central dissemination of information and efficient facilitation and coordination of needs, makes a difference when trying to attract groups. Is It Worth the Trouble and Expense? The answer is an emphatic yes. Would Raleigh, Durham, Charlotte and a host of other cities across the country be operating Visitor Services Authorities were it not deemed advantageous? Each dollar spent by a visitor in our communities has a ripple effect throughout the local economy. Primary recipients of visitors' expenditures must themselves pay taxes, support payrolls and buy goods and services for their businesses. To the extent that this "outside" money is churned through the local economy, it provides more sales tax revenues to provide for government services, thereby lessening the pressure to increase property taxes. Doesn't this Idea Benefit just a Few? This is not a plan to spend tax dollars just to help local hotels. While hotels are obvious recipients of increased visitor traffic, many other businesses also benefit - restaurants, gas stations, retail shops and the host of businesses that supply their needs for goods and services. In Chapel Hill, hotels are subject to a 3% occupancy tax on room revenues, so increases in room business directly impacts on local govern- ments' revenues. Last year, Chapel Hill hotels sold close to 200,000 room nights, generating approxi- mately $250,000 in occupancy tax. For each 1% increase in hotel occupancy city -wide, an additional $4,730 is raised in occupancy tax revenues. Total hotel sales topped $I5,000,000, making the lodging industry one of the largest in the community. What Can We Do to Attract Visitors? RA Project a conscious official attitude that we want visitors - that we are willing to extend ourselves to help them and to bring them to our communities. We each can't assume that someone else is doing it. We've all got to do it and our community leaders need to stand squarely behind it. Offer gracious hospitality to those who already come. Let's make them feel welcome with an official voice - someone representing our communities who will say "Thanks for coming ", "How can we help you ? ", and "Please come again ". Provide better service, information and assistance to those who want to come. We need to make it easier for conference and event planners who are trying to bring their business to our communities. Instead of having them burn up the phone lines to many individual providers of visitor facilities and services, give them a central point of contact to facilitate and coordinate the many details of their event. What Will It Cost to Establish a Visitor Development Authority? Based upon the Boulder, CO, example and those of other communities, a new organization could cost approximately $150,000 in startup for each of the first two years of operation to establish a permanent infrastructure. After startup, it will cost an estimated $200,000 per year for a full time, permanently funded program with the principal increase being for programs and marketing. These figures could be significantly lowered by "piggybacking" the Visitor Development Authority with existing represent- ational organizations such as the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, the Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce, the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Downtown Commission or the UNC Visitors' Center. Where Will the Money Come From? There are a number of possibilities: • Provide a larger allocation of the current hotel occupancy tax to fund a Visitor Development Authority. • Increase the hotel occupancy tax, with the full increase going to fund a Visitor Development Authority. • Institute a prepared meal tax with some or all of it going to fund a Visitor Development Authority. • Set up a sliding scale on either occupancy tax or prepared meal tax where the first so many dollars of tax revenue goes to a Visitor Development Authority and all proceeds above that are split between the Visitor Development Authority and other governmental needs on a percentage basis. • Convince local hotels, restaurants and other interested businesses to contribute matching or seed money for several years to get the program off the ground. All of these alternatives are seen as a way to "prime the pump" - to increase visitor expenditures in our communities - by offering better visitor services. 2 NK 2 MISSIOriSTAIEMENT An Orange County Visitor Development Authority would be a county -wide, not - for - profit, umbrella organization formed by local government and the visitor industry to attract and serve visitors to Orange County. It will enhance and promote the social, cultural, and economic benefits of visitors to Orange County, including increased county revenue, new jobs, and a better quality of life. • Generate positive awareness of Orange County as a destination for pleasure and business visitors. • Stimulate interest and desire in groups and individuals to visit Orange County. • Increase the extent and length of stay of visitors to Orange County. • Provide a liaison between visitors and the facilities, services, events, activities, agencies and organizations that serve and satisfy them. • Develop market research and target descriptions of existing and prospective visitors to guide and measure new marketing activities for the Orange County visitor industry. • Generate positive community awareness of Orange County visitors and provide opportunities for county -wide support and participation. • Provide a vehicle to merge resources from private business, government agencies, non - profit organizations and individuals into a cohesive, county -wide effort to market Orange County as a visitor destination. 4 REL&IED VTSMQR.EACTS • Chapel Hill dedicates approximately $I7,500 or 7% of its hotel -motel occupancy tax to visitor services. The average across the state is 50 - 100%. An average of $250,000 is collected annually from this tax. Where it is directly reinvested in visitor services/ tourism, the economic impact is five dollars generated for every dollar invested. • $7.8 million will be spent in Orange County by the end of July 1991 by visitors for events of the NCHAA and the Junior Olympics in track. • If every visitor for home college football games stayed an extra night or spent another $47, it would generate over $200,000 in occupancy and sales taxes. • Over 35,000 prospective undergraduate and graduate students visit UNC each year. Most cluster their visits around several schools in the area and travel with friends and parents. • The Chapel Hill- Carrboro and Hillsborough Chambers of Commerce average 3,000 visitor information requests per month. • There are approximately 12 million visitors to Orange County annually generating $72 million in sales revenues. 13 • Downtown merchants credit out -of - towners for over 50% of their business (one merchant credits visitors for over 90% of his business - with receipts to prove it!). • The top two reasons retirees travel is natural scenic beauty (63%) and historic sites (52 %). • Vacation travel is more oriented to long weekends than extended vacations and over 50% of inquiries about the Triangle result in actual travel to the area. (This is much higher than the industry average.) • Over 40% of local visitors stay in private homes and visit friends. (The national average is less than 24 %.) • 91 % of the county tax base is residential property taxes. • There are under 1,000 hotel, motel, and bed and breakfast rooms in Orange County. The average occupancy for the past year was 53 %. (Every room night has direct impact on restaurants, merchants, and attractions, concerts and sporting events.) The county, as a whole, currently has an investment of approximately $50,000 in direct visitor services. This includes Chambers of Commerce, the Downtown Commission and the Preservations Societies. • There are currently four primary providers of visitor services: Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce (5 days a week), Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce /Visitor Center (6 days a week), Chapel Hill /Carrboro Downtown Commission (5 days a week), and the UNC Visitor Center (5 days a week). N z4 � RP D R IN R RAM I RA E A permanently funded Orange County Visitor Development Authority would develop programs to: • attract new visitors, as well as • service existing visitors and visitor programs. This will be achieved with existing organization visitor service staff and through newly appointed professional management. The Authority would coordinate existing programs, provide comprehensive and aggressive marketing organization and serve as a central point of contact for visitor service information with a centrally located staff and facility. Its three most critical roles would be: • external marketing, • development of coordinated marketing materials, and • establishing county needs with a single authoritative voice via improved marketing and communications. PROPOSED PROGRAMS AND LITERATURE A coordinated marketing program would include. 5.1 County Visitor Guide Including hotels, country inns, motels, restaurants, attractions, retail outlets, etc. and county map with highlights. 5.2 hj(12ting Planners Guide With a services directory, meeting space information, usages /inventory of UNC meeting spaces. 5.3 Motorcoach Guide With developed itineraries and packages for Orange County including representation at trade shows to solicit business. 5.4 Centralized rketing Facility/Staff Coordinated inventory county-wide, using.existing and new staff. One central point of contact for organizers for press conferences, mayor appearances, accommodations, area tours, customized agendas, facilities information, advertising and public relations activities. 5.5 Calendar of Events A monthly or quarterly calendar to serve all county organizations and eliminate the overlap of events, hotel bookings and to spread business over the year for more economic impact and better servicing of visitors. N1 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 Membership/Travel Pro am Pro -active solicitation of desirable group and association business via membership in key trade groups, such as NC Travel and Tourism Council, Triangle hotel and restaurant associations, NC Association of Convention and Visitor Bureaus (NCACVB), US Association of Convention and Visitor Bureaus, and others. Establishment of a central facility and contact person would facilitate our ability to piggyback state mailings to prospects and participate in cooperative trade show booths and match grant ad and PR funds from the state. It also enables Orange County to be a "player" in the development of compatible business with a resource bank of experienced professionals nation and state wide. Press/Marketiniz Kit A coordinated and complete marketing kit is necessary for travel writers, meeting organizers and unifying the facts and figures from which the area is "sold" to prospective visitor groups. This is different from the mass produced overall brochure which would be available locally for use by the Chambers, Downtown Commission, UNC Welcome Center, hotels and motels, and state welcome centers. Information Hot - lines: • Hotel Hot -line for ease of booking groups and coordinating efforts. • Visitor Hot -line toll-free number for updated visitor information. • CINET Hot -line national hot -line access for prospects looking to set up meetings and conferences making inquiries through the US Conventions and Visitors Bureau hot -line. Tour Packages Packaging of Christmas historic tours, concerts, Christmas parades, shopping and sightseeing with tour operators and with sponsoring organizations, travel agencies, hotels and airlines. An example is "Christmas in Orange County" theme, booking Orange County rooms with Messiah tickets, PlayMaker's Nutcracker, and local area attractions. NC Travel and Tourism 6-Day October Blitz to Neighboring States Participation in joint marketing activities for the state marketing theme with literature and manpower. Destination Video Used for speaker engagements and group use, featuring county attractions and history to be produced with copies available for purchase by local organization and individuals /tourists. (This project could be an opportunity for corporate sponsorship.) VIP Host Pro am and Convention Services Coordination of hosting any dignitaries that require special itinerary, arrangements, airport pick -up, welcome gifts or entertaining in conjunction with special requests from town, UNC, or area organizations. all arrangements, transport and aamdkhahiag details. C 00 2 L11`^►n �� 15 5.13 Spgakers Bureau 1.6 Industry professionals available to address civic groups, give media interviews or perform as a spokesperson for the visitor industry. 5.14 Research and_P_hotographic Library On -going inventory updating, usage fees and rules, for all facilities and related services to visitors. 5.15 Editorial Placements /FAM Tour Hosting Pro - active inclusion of Orange County area with state and national media and hosting of travel writers via inviting groups to see the county's sites and natural beauty. Solicitation of advertising usage of our area as a back -drop and local homes, attractions, and locales. 5.16 Employee Hospitality Training A training program for hotel concierge desks and key contact sales persons on the history and attractions of the towns and county and a guided tour of the area's key attractions. 5.17 Coordinated County Signage_Pragram Special signage for Visitor Development Authority, Welcome Center, area attractions and special event directional signage. (The single largest complaint from attendees of the Summer Olympic Festival in the Triangle was insufficiently marked venues. With the heavily forested areas, clarity of signage is critical for visitor success.) 5.18 Welcome Center /Visitor Center Support Program_ Umbrella program serving existing facilities located in Hillsborough, downtown Chapel Hill, UNC and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, funding and human resources would be dedicated to these facilities. 7 6. Proposed Income and Expenditure Statement 1991 -1993 This budget assumes permanent funding from fiscal year 1991 - 92. This assumes an initial staff of one with an increase to three in fiscal year 1992 -1993. *** The marketing expenditure totals assume line item allocations based on the program priorities determined by the new Executive Director. 8 17 1990 -1991 % 1991 -1992 % 1992 -1993 % SUBSIDY * Orange County 2W= 115,000 115,000 Municipalities 17,500 50,000 50,000 Private 12,500 - - S%,000 $165,000 $165,000 REVENUE Sponsorship - 25,000 35,000 $50,000 $190,000 $200,000 EXPENSES Personnel ($12,500) 25.0 ($80 000) 42.1 ($90,000) 45.0 Director (12,500) (38,000) (40,000) ** Admin Assistant(s) - (20,000) (25,000) Benefits - (15,750) (18,750) Furniture & Equip. - (6,250) (6,250) OlLeration ($20,000) 40.0 ($40,000) 21.1 ($40,000) 20.0 Rent - (10,000) (10,000) Administration (20=) (10,000) (10,000) Tele & CINET - (51000) (5,000) Postage - (6,000) (6,000) Dues - (3,500) (3,500) Auto /Gas - (2500) (2500) Supplies - (3,000) (3,000) * * * *Ma�rketine ($17500) 35.0 ($70,000) 36.8 ($70,000) 35.0 Guide (s) - _ (10,000) (10,000) Brochure (s) (10,000) (15,000) (10,000) Video (s) - (81000) Media Advertising - (4,500) (10,000) Conference (s) - (7,500) (7,500) Welcome Center (s) - (20,000) (25,000) Tour Program (s) (7500) (5,000) (51000) Contract Services - (2500) TOTAL EXPENSES ($50,000) ($190,000) ($200,000) This budget assumes permanent funding from fiscal year 1991 - 92. This assumes an initial staff of one with an increase to three in fiscal year 1992 -1993. *** The marketing expenditure totals assume line item allocations based on the program priorities determined by the new Executive Director. 8 17 0 ��1IIL�_C�tuTl«`�L1C�rI3u_ 1�ir a The financial recommendations are based on the evaluation of both existing sources of funds and state legislative precedent for new forms of revenue. The various options that are available to Orange County to establish and fund a suitable infrastructure for the provision of visitor services, will be assessed based on the efficiency with which they can be secured and the ability to access existing revenue sources that could be dedicated to a visitor initiative. In this respect, the financial objectives of the authority are: • To utilize the information that is generated from the research and marketing sub - committees, in identifying the most readily achievable source of existing or new funds with which to implement initial programs and infrastructure; • In conjunction with the appropriate government bodies and agencies of Orange County, to provide for the formation of an authority and financial guidelines to administer the funding of a county wide program; • To identify a permanent source of funding to implement the recommended programs on an ongoing basis. At present, there are three identified sources of existing and new funding, which have been discussed and evaluated informally by the Task Force; these being: • Chapel Hill Occupancy Tax (Existing) • County Occupancy Tax (Overlay) • Prepared Food and Beverage Tax (Meals Tax) An Entertainment Tax and Sales and Use Tax were both evaluated and deemed inappropriate or not feasible for either interim or permanent funding at this point in time. 7.1 Existing 0ccuRAncy Tax Cha 1 Hill ® 3°) The town of Chapel Hill appropriates approximately 20% of its existing occupancy tax to visitor and cultural activities. If this percentage tax were applied to a visitors initiative at a county level, it would provide a minimum of $50,000 to a dedicated county program that would be responsible for the administration and allocation of the funds to the designated areas. 7.2 County, Occupan y Tax This new county-wide tax, requested as an overlay of up to 3%, would generate as much as $345,000 annually. Initially, only 1% would be applied, generating approximately $115,000 per annum for a county program for visitors. There is a legislative precedent for this tax being levied on a county wide basis (Mecklenberg). 9 19 7.3 County Pre aced Food and x cols Tax There is only one example of this tax at present, which is in Mecklenberg County, and it is totally dedicated to visitor services and the building of a new convention center. This is a 1 % tax levied on all prepared foods and beverages including restaurants, cafeterias, caterers, bars and delicatessens. The Prepared Meals Tax, if levied in Orange County, would generate the following revenue historically: GROSS RETAIL SALES AND SALES TAX COLLECTIONS IN BUSINESS CLASS OF 306 FOR ORANGE COUNTY FOR SELECTED FISCAL YEARS FISCAL YEAR' GROSS COLLECTIONS GROSS RETAIL SALES PER 0.1% PER 1.0% 1985 -86 $1.925,661 $69.541,722 $69,541 $695.417 1986 -87 $1,669,648 $61,516,923 $61,516 $615.169 1987 -88 $1, 876 ,078 $66,227,328 $66,227 $662,273 1988 -89 $1.815,537 $65,588,106 $65,588 $655,881 1989 -90 $2,008,740 $69,619,092 $69,619 $696,190 • Fiscal year runs from July 1st through June 30th. Therefore, a OS% tax would generate between $330= and $350,000. These funds would constitute a new source of revenue and, like the Occupancy Tax, would require legislative approval in the coming General Assembly. This revenue source, if approved, could only be implemented in fiscal year 1992 -1993. In addition, the NC Restaurant Association has identified seven specific criteria that must apply prior to their legislative support for the legislation. The most important of these being a 90% dedication of all revenues generated to an approved visitor services program. Although the concept of imposing any new taxes right now is politically sensitive and problematic, public opinion indicates that any newly identified revenue sources for visitor services should be allocated to a new program. It is the consensus of the Task Force that an educational program be initiated to brief our state, county and municipal officials of the direct benefits attributable to a professionally managed Visitor Development Authority. In addition, the Visitor Development Authority will undertake a minimum of two public forums to evaluate public sentiment regarding a county -wide visitor program and will make contact with the local hotel /motel association and local restauranteurs to build a consensus for any new tax based initiatives. 10 20 I SUMMARY AND ATIObiS A synthesis of the investigation into visitors services in Orange County has led to the following summary and recommendations on the impact of increased visitors on our towns and county. The Task Force has found that the visitor industry is a strong, clean industry which will have an increasing benefit for economic development and growth in Orange County. It is viewed as an important contributor to both increased revenue and employment in the county. It is anticipated that it will develop into one of the principal industries in the county in the next ten years. The Task Force has ascertained that a county -wide visitors program is: • growing and will be good for the county's economy, • of critical importance and needs more attention to professional development, • a sound investment and positive revenue source, and • should be developed according to national industry standards. As an employer, the visitor industry is seen as very important in an establishment of new and better job opportunities. In this respect, the visitor industry is perceived to provide above average wages and should not have a negative impact on the environment or quality of life. County and municipal funding as well as public support should be committed to increasing efforts to promote Orange County as a travel destination. Specifically, funding should be committed to the formation of a professionally managed visitors development authority and for county promotional and marketing activities. In addition, the industry should be involved with issues which directly and indirectly impact on itself, its constituents and the citizens of Orange County. The industry should be actively involved in issues of: • environmental quality • economic development • transportation • education • public safety, and • cultural resources. In general, the Task Force believes that the Orange County visitor industry should unify and consolidate its resources and current efforts designed to enlist and encourage support from legislators and the public. Unification and consolidation will not only result in a better return on investment, but it will ensure that a common message is heard by our local and state government officials, as well as visitors to the county. 11 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: DECEMBER 18, 1990 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RETREAT FOLLOW -UP-- -RURAL CHARACTER PROPOSALS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes —X —No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MOSES CAREY /JOHN LINK, EXT. 2300 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To more specifically discuss the methodologies by which the recommendations of the Rural Character Study Committee will be enacted by local jurisdictions. BACKGROUND: At the Orange County Board of Commissioners' Retreat on Saturday, December 8, Board members recommended that there be further discussion at the December 18 meeting with regard to specific steps necessary to enact the Rural Character Study recommendations. RECOMMENDATION: •Y.: y - r 0 RANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS '° = `• ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date December 18,1990 t'.SUBJECT: SEARLE FARMS - AMENDED PHASING PLAN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING -ATTACHMENT (6) "Letter Requesting Extension (:,Vicinity Map ..Approved Preliminary Plan .,i -Staff Findings 11/19/90 Draft Planning Board Minutes 1_ Action A da Item # g - PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No 1 INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron Extension 2580 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 --8181 Durham 688 -7331 Mebane 227 -2031 Chapel hill 967- 9251/968 --4501 �_FURPOSE: Consideration of a revised phasing plan for Searle Farms, a cluster subdivision. .BACKGROUND: The Preliminary Plan for Searle Farms was approved by the Board of Commissioners on December 4, 1989. The plan was for a cluster subdivision containing thirty - one (31) new lots to be served by new public roads, individual septic tanks and a community well. The subdivision was to be built in one phase. The applicant is now requesting additional time for construction. The preliminary approval expired on December 4, 1990. The property is located on the south side of New Hope Church Road (SR 1723) west of the intersection with I- 40 in Chapel Hill Township. It is also adjacent to New Hope Creek where there is considerable floodplain. The zoning is Rural Buffer with a portion located in the Major Transportation Corridor overlay district. The total acreage of the tract is 82.34 acres including the State road right -of -way. Over thirty -three acres will be preserved as open space. The applicant has proposed to dedicate to orange County a 50' strip of land adjacent to New Hope Creek along the entire southern boundary of the subdivision. A conservation easement which runs approximately parallel to the 100 -year floodplain is being negotiated with Triangle Land Conservancy. The applicant has requested a one -year time extension to obtain Final Plat approval by December 4, 1991. Searle Farms will still be developed in one phase. Th Planning Staff's findings regarding the request in relation to Section III -D -2 -e of the Subdivision Regulations are attached. Based on the applicant's difficulty in locating a suitable community well, personnel changes, and the public benefits gained through cluster development, an amendment to the Searle Farms Phasing Plan is appropriate. Final Plat approval must be obtained before December 4, 1991. The request for additional time was considered by the Planning Board at their meeting on November 19, 1990. They recommended approval of the amendment to the phasing plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the requested amendment to the phasing plan of Searle Farms based on the evidence presented with respect to the findings required in Section III -D -2 -e of the Subdivision Regulations. �J RICHARD SEARLE LOTWIN. D.P.M. 3 PoD1ATRIC MEDICINE AND SURGERY R �D October 23, 1990 Ms. Emily Crudup, ASLA Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Searle Farms Preliminary Plat Time Extension Request Dear Ms. Cru -dup: Pursuant to your letter dated October 8, 1990, I would at this time request a one- year time extension for the preliminary plat approved for Searle Farms. I have outlined the reasons for the time request as follows. As developers of the property, we are not prepared at this time to submit an application for Final Plat approval. The current status of the project is that we are continuing to proceed to market the property and seek to resolve the conditions attached with the Preliminary Plat approvals by the Orange County Commissioners dated December 4, 1989. We are requesting the time extension as per Option 2 of Section III D -2 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. We have proceeded with due diligence in seeking to meet these requirements, but due to site conditions with obtaining additional approvals and other circumstances beyond our control, we will need additional time. A well was dug at the location indicated on the plan; however, water was found at sufficient pressure. Thus, approvals must be obcained from the State to locate a new well on the sice. The staking of the roads and lots was accomplished for engineering purposes and some general site improvements were made to the community area. We continue to feel that the development of the project at the planned layout and density supports the County's goal of preserving open space and the natural beauty of the site. Over 40 percent of the site will remain as open space. Representatives of the Triangle Land Conservancy visited the site last] uly to review the portion of land which has been preliminarily approved to be managed by the TLC. Mr. Larry Miller, formerly the agent for Searle Farms, will no longer be representing the project or associated with the property. I have pursued other alternatives in seeking to develop the project, however, as I am sure you are aware, the current economic conditions have made it difficult to market the property. We have experienced a time delay with Mr. Miller's removal from the project development and we anticipate this to be resolved shortly. n October 23, 1990 Page Two The Searle Farms project was not anticipated to be developed in phases. We have intended to implement and market the entire project because the nature of the cluster development and layout of the property. We.feel that because of the location of the property we can develop these 31 lots-in a single phase. We will notify you as soon as possible if we find this is unacceptable and would formally request an amendment for a phasing plan if so required. , We would like to request the time extension for the above reasons, and I would be happy to discuss any of the points or address any questions you may have in this request. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the address below or Mr. David Swanson, Land Planner, at 967.3355. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Dr. Richard S. Lotwin RSL /rks L10 -23EC 6 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 5 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 4• i MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Planning Board FROM: Planning and Inspections Department i SUBJECT: Searle Farms - Request for Amended Phasing Plan DATE: October 24, 1990 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 Subsecrugnt to Approval 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 (Approval of the Preliminary Plan would expire on December 4, 1990. The applicant has stated that additional time is necessary to meet the conditions of approval. Staking of roads and lot lines has been completed as well as "general site improvements" to the common R area. However, a delay in construction has resulted in part from the inability to locate a site for the community well that could be approved by the-State.) (2) the quality of and length of time of the experience of the subdivider in managing, development projects; and (No information was provided regarding the developer s experience in project implementation.) (3) whether factors other than market conditions and beyond the control of the subdivider caused a delay in meeting the phasing plan; and (The applicant has encountered difficulty in locating a suitable well site for the community water system. In addition, there has been a change in personnel coordinating the project. Both factors resulted in a delay in proceeding with Searle Farms Subdivision. In addition, 31 lots in one phase is considered large for a standard subdivision. However, in a cluster development, one large phase is preferable to several smaller phases, because it facilitates acquisition and /or development of open space.) (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 (If Searle Farms can be completed as previously approved, a significant amount [33* acres] of open space would be protected, including floodplain along New Hope Creek. Preserved open space through clustering would protect natural and visual resources as well as water quality in the creek. Cluster development also provides for energy conservation. Protection of natural resources and water quality, and promoting energy conservation are all important public policy goals.) (5) whether the application for an amended phasing plan was submitted before the previously approved time limit(s) has lapsed; and (The previously approved time limit would expire on December 4, 1990. The request for additional time was received on October 23, 1990.) (6) the possibility of and practicality of the subdi- vider 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 of Searle Farms would have to obtain approval of a new Preliminary Plan in order to continue development. This would further delay project completion. None of the regulations which apply to the proposed subdivision have changed measurably during the last year.) 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(s). rA 8 VOTE: Unanimous. b. Preliminary Plans (31 Lots) (1) Searle TownshgPlan ( p) Presentation by Emily Cameron. The Preliminary Plan for Searle Farms was approved by the Board of Commissioners on December 4, 1989. The plan was for a clusteots subdivision containing thirty -one (31) new l to be served by new public roads, individual septic tanks and a community well. The subdivision was to be built in one phase. The applicant is now requesting additional time for construction. The current approval would expir( on December 4, 1990, if the final Plat is not approved by that time. The property is located on the south side of Ne, Hope Church Road (SR 1723) west intersection with I -40 in Chapel Hill Township. it is also adjacent to New Hope Creek whereRthe is considerable floodplain. The zoning Buffer with a portion located in the Major Transportation Corridor overlay district. The total acreage of the tract is 82.34 acres including the State road right -of -way- Over thirty -three acres will preserved,as open P ace The applicant has proposed to dedicate to Oranc County a 50' strip of land adjacent to New Hopf Creek along the entire southern boundary of thi subdivision. A conservation easement which ru: approximately parallel to the 100 -year floodpl is being negotiated with Triangle Land Conservancy. The applicant has requested a one -year time extension to obtain Final Plat approval by December 4, 1991• Searle Farms will still be e developed in one phase. Based on the app difficulty in locating a suitable community we personnel changes, and the public benefits gai through cluster development, an amendment to t Searle Farms Phasing Plan is appropriate. Fil Plat approval must be obtained before Decembe: 1991. 1 Ls Lin :lls .ned :he ial 4, The Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment to the phasing plan of Searle Farms. n MOTION: Best moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. c. Final Plats (10 Lots) (1) Wyngate Subdivision - Phase B (10 Lots - Hillsborough Township) Presentation by Emily Cameron. The property is located on the south side of Interstate 85 in western Eno Township on the corner of Old NC 10 (SR 1710) and Lawrence Road (SR 1709). It is zoned Residential -1 with an overlay district of Major Transportation Corridor, and designated as Twenty -Year Transition in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County. The preliminary plan for Wyngate was approved on May 1, 1989. The final plat for Phase A included 17 lots and was approved on July 17, 1989. Phase A -2 was approved on November 20, 1989, and consisted of three (3) lots all having access to Old Oak Place. The new road intersects with Wyngate Drive, the existing subdivision entrance road which leads to Lawrence Road. All ten lots are approved for individual wells and septic tanks. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Phase B of Wyngate Subdivision pending the County Attorney's approval of the letter of credit submitted for road construction. Best asked about the letter of credit for road construction. Cameron indicated that the only road left to be constructed is Old Oak Place. Best asked if turn lanes had been proposed for Lawrence Road. Cameron responded that Lawrence Road is not classified as a collector so turn lanes are no required. MOTION: Best moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (12/11/90) L, O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 18 1990 SUBJECT: Zoning Enforcement Cases (Civil Penalties) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENTS(S): Summaries of Four Zoning Case Histories 1 Action Agenda Item #_2LIL PUBLIC HEARING Yes xx No INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Hinkley Extension 2584 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Durham 688 -7331 Mebane 227 -2031 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 PURPOSE: To request that the Board of County Commissioners make written demand for payment of Civil Penalties for two violations of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, to postpone demand in one case, and to withdraw demand in another. BACKGROUND: At the County Commissioners meeting of November 5, 1990, the Board was requested to make written demand for payment of civil penalties for zoning violations occurring on six properties. The Garrett, McDuffie, McMillan, Scurlock, Turner, and Williams cases were presented, as described respectively in the abstract prepared on October 26, 1990. Four property owners -- McDuffie, McMillan, Scurlock, and Turner, were represented at the November 5 meeting. The Board extended the compliance deadline to Thursday, November 29, 1990, for these four property owners. For the other two -- Garrett and Williams, the Board decided to make written demand for payment of civil penalties. M 2 RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Board of County Commissioners take the following actions. 1. Make written demand for payment of civil penalties from Lori B. and Nathan McDuffie ($5,500) and Paul G. Scurlock ($14,200). 2. Postpone making demand for civil penalties against Gayle and Chris McMillan ($5,200). 3. Rescind making demand for civil penalties against Ralph Turner ($3,000). 3 MCDUFFIE CASE SUMMARY Location: West side of Buckhorn Road just to the north of Mt. Willing Road violation: Outside storage of an estimated 15 junked motor vehicles, an unoccupied mobile home, automotive parts, batteries, motors, junked white appliances, building materials, and trash status: Since the County Commissioners' meeting of November 5, 1990, no perceivable activity to bring the property into compliance has occurred. As of Monday, December 3, 1990 the use of the property remained in violation. Piles of tires, vast amounts of debris, two apparently disabled trucks, a junked mobile home, junked white appliances, etc., remain on the premises. , Accumulated Civil Penalties as of October 24, 1990: $1,500 Accumulated Civil Penalties as of December 3, 1990: $5,500 SCURLOCK CASE SUMMARY Location: South side of US 70 near Palmer Road intersection (second tier parcel) violations: Storage of goods outdoors including a junked motor vehicle and parts in a stream bed and other vehicles and surplus building materials Status: There has been no perceivable change on the property since November 5, 1990. Accumulated Civil Penalties as of October 24, 1990: $9,200 Accumulated Civil Penalties as of December 3, 1990: $14,200 I 4 MCMILLAN CASE summARY Location: To the west of Old School Road (second tier lot) Violations: Land filling without a permit Status: There has been substantial effort to remove thel dumped materials and to reclaim the property as of Friday, November 30, 1990. Accumulated Civil Penalties as of October 23, 1990: $5,200 Accumulated Civil Penalties as of December 3, 1990 :. $9,200 TURNER CASE SUMMARY Location: South Side of US 70 East of Forrest Road Violation: Outside storage of junked motor vehicles, reconditioned construction equipment, tires, batteries, building materials and debris, and trash Status: Since the November 5, 19901 meeting, the property has been brought into compliance. The premises was free of violations as of Fri- day, November 30, 1990. Accumulated Civil Penalties as of October 24, 1990: $3,000 Accumulated Civil penalties as of November 20, 1990: $5,700 r.. OR AN G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 18, 1990 SUBJECT: Classification Study - Phase I Adoption DEPARTMENT: Personnel ATTACHMENT(S): Attachment A - Phase I Schematic List of Classes and Assignments To Salary Grades Attachment B - MAI Proposed Classes To Be Restudied in Phase II Action Agenda Item # L- Q-, PUBLIC SEARING: Yes __j `No INFORMATION CONTACT: John M. Link, Jr. TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane- 227 -2031 Chapel Hill- 967 - 9251/968 --4501 Attachment C - Positions with Salary Increases as a Result of the Phase I Study PURPOSE: To adopt the Phase I Classification Study changes to the Orange County Classification and Pay Plan as specified in this Abstract. BACKGROUND: At the November 5 and 20, 1990 meetings, the Orange County Board of Commissioners heard reports on the completion of Phase I of the Classification Study and the study process. As reported, there were approximately 290 employees included in Phase I. Following a process of listening to all individual concerns brought to the attention of the County Manager and Personnel Director and weighing these as well as the study implementation needs, action on the Phase I classification study is proposed as outlined below: A. Adopt the revised "Phase I Schematic List of Classes and Salary Grades" (Attachment A) effective January 7, 1991. 1 rai r B. Defer consideration of the classes shown on the list entitled "MAI Proposed Classes To Be Restudied in Phase II" (Attachment B) pending further classification study in conjunction with Phase II. C. Provide that any salary increase resulting from restudy of the Phase 1 classes in Phase II would be retroactive to January 7, 1991 (the Phase I implementation date) when.implemented, unless the salary increase results from duty changes which occurred after the original Phase I study beginning date. Of the original 131 classes recommended by MAI (Municipal Advisors, Inc.), 109 classes are shown on the Attachment A list for adoption at this time. There is one salary grade change shown on this list from the MAI Classification and Pay Study report dated September 18, 1990. As a result of further review by MAI and the Personnel staff, the class of Deputy Sheriff /Sergeant is shown at Salary Grade 69 rather than Salary Grade 68. This change is proposed to provide an appropriate internal salary relationship with Deputy Sheriff /Investigator at Salary Grade 68. The Attachment A Phase I classes list affects 254 positions.) Of these positions: - 118 are moving to higher salary grades, - 5 are moving to lower salary grades, and - 131 are staying at the same salary grade. Of these employees whose positions are recommended for salary grade increases, only those whose positions are moving to a higher salary grade as a result of reclassification or those whose current salaries are below the minimum of the new grade, will receive a salary increase. The Orange County Personnel Ordinance, Article V, 8.0 states: An employee whose position is reclassified to a class having a higher pay range shall receive a one step salary increase or an increase to the minimum step of the new salary range, whichever is higher. However, in no case shall the salary exceed the maximum for the range. An employee whose position is reclassified to a class having a lower pay range shall not receive a reduction in salary as a result of the reclassification. As a result of the study and our interpretation of the orange County Personnel Ordinance, there are two groups of employees (a total of 37) whose salaries will be affected by implementation of the Attachment A Phase I classes list. (Attachment C shows the classes involved by department.) - There are approximately 18 employees whose positions will move to a higher salary grade as a result of a reclassification. These 18 employees will receive a one step increase or an increase to the minimum of the proposed new range, whichever is higher. There are approximately 19 employees whose current salaries are below the minimum of the proposed salary range. These 19 employees' salaries will be raised to the minimum of the proposed range. No employee's salary will be reduced as a result of the study. The estimated cost to implement the Phase I classes list (Attachment A) for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1990 -91 is about $30,000. The funds necessary to cover this implementation already are included in the Fiscal Year 1990 -91 budget. Attachment B lists 22 classes proposed by MAI for which action is not requested at this time. The 45 positions affected by the classes shown will be restudied in Phase II. These restudies arise from a variety of circumstances including: - Response to concerns that certain positions such as Administrative Assistant and Building Maintenance positions require additional study to assess the classes and levels. - Need to look at Administrative Assistant positions wholistically, combining review of both Phase I and Phase II positions. 4 - Taking account of reorganization and other changes in duties which have occurred in a number of positions (such as in the Register of Deeds) during Phase I. Along with the Attachment B restudies, the Phase II Classification Study includes positions in the departments of Health and Social Services and six positions newly established during Phase I. RECOMMENDATION: To approve the adoption of the Phase I Classification Study changes to the Orange County Classification and Pay Plan with all classification changes, salary grade changes, and salary increases to be effective January 7, 1991. r" Attachment A ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA PHASE I SCHEMATIC LIST OF CLASSES AND ASSIGNMENTS TO SALARY GRADES CLASS TITLE GRADE Tax Clerk 62 Clerical Administrative and Related 63 Central Services Clerk 58 Office Assistant I 59 Office Assistant II 60 Deputy County Clerk 64 Clerk to the Board 69 Deputy Register of Deeds I 60 Deputy Register of Deeds II 62 Deputy Register of Deeds III 63 Deputy Supervisor 62 Elections Supervisor 73 Assistant County Manager 81 Finance, Data Processing, and Related Accountant 69 Tax Clerk 62 Senior Tax Clerk 63 Tax Collection Clerk 60 Assistant Tax Collector 67 Revenue Technician 63 Assistant Revenue Director 70 Revenue Director 76 Budget and Management Analyst 69 Budget Director 73 Director of Finance 77 Appraisal Technician 63 -2- CLASS TITLE GRADE Finance, Data Processing, and.Related (Continued Business Personal Property Appraiser 69 Real Property Appraiser 69 Chief Appraiser 74 Tax Assessor 79 Tax Systems Coordinator 71 Assistant Tax Supervisor 71 Data Entry Clerk 58 Computer Operator /Programmer 65 Systems Analyst 74 Data Processing Manager 80 Purchasing Technician 63 Purchasing Agent 67 Director of Purchasing and Central Services 76 Planning, Ins ections Economic Develo meat and Related Permit Technician 60 Code Enforcement Supervisor Planning Technician Planner I Planner II Planner III Planning Director County Engineer Property Mapper I Property Mapper II Property Mapping Supervisor GIS Mapper I Land Records Manager Erosion Control Officer Erosion Control Supervisor Conservation Technician Soil conservationist Economic Development Director 72 63 68 70 72 79 80 62 64 67 64 77 68 72 63 70 77 G N -3 CLASS TITLE GRADE Labor, Trades, Labor Supervision, and Related Custodian 57 Building and Grounds Supervisor 67 Solid Waste Collector 60 Sanitation Supervisor 64 Motor Pool Supervisor 71 Assistant Public Works Director 72 Public Works Director 76 Parks, Recreation, Leisure Services, and Related Facilities Supervisor 58 Athletic Coordinator 62 Senior Citizen Program Coordinator 64 Program Supervisor I (Special Events /Public Information) 66 Program Supervisor I (Special Populations) 66 Program Supervisor II (Athletics) 68 Program Supervisor II (General Programs) 68 Recreation and Parks Director 75 Social Services and Related Driver /Courier 58 CAT /Transportation Supervisor 65 Information and Referral Specialist 65 Care Manager 66 Senior Center Administrator 68 Senior Citizen Program Administrator 68 RSVP Project Assistant Director 62 RSVP Project Director 66 Department on Aging Director 77 Child Support Officer 67 Child Support Director 75 -4- CLASS TITLE GRADE Social Services and Related Continued Director - Commission for Women 68 Housing specialist 65 Housing Technician 63 Rehabilitation Specialist /Housing Inspector 67 Community Development Coordinator 67 Housing and community Development Director 75 Public Safety and Related Telecommunicator 65 Telecommunications Shift Supervisor 66 Assistant Telecommunications Supervisor 67 Telecommunications Supervisor 69 Emergency Medical Technician 62 Emergency Medical Technician - Intermediate 64 Emergency Medical Technician - Paramedic 66 Air Medical communications Specialist 65 Air Medical Shift Supervisor 66 Flight Paramedic 6$ Lead Flight Paramedic 70 Deputy Emergency Management Director /Fire Marshal 71 Deputy Emergency Management .Director /Administration 71 Director of Emergency Management 77 Jailor /Matron 62 Deputy Sheriff I 66 Deputy Sheriff II 67 Deputy Sheriff /Investigator 68 Deputy Sheriff /Sergeant 69 Deputy Sheriff /Lieutenant 70 Deputy Sheriff /Captain 74 Deputy Sheriff /Major 75 Sheriff . 80 9 Attachment B MAX PROPOSED CLASSES TO BE RESTUDIED IN PHASE II CLASS TITLE GRADE NOMBER OF POSITIONS Administrative Assistant I 61 5 Administrative Assistant II 62 8 Administrative Assistant III 64 1 Administrative Assistant to Assistant County Managers 66 1 Administrative Assistant to County Manager 66 1 Assistant to the Clerk 60 1 Human Resources Technician 63 1 Human Resources Analyst I 67 2 Human Resources Analyst II 69 1 Human Resources Director 77 1 Assistant Register of Deeds 67 2 Accounting Technician 63 2 Senior Accounting Technician 64 1 Code Enforcement Officer I 64 0 Code Enforcement Officer II 66 4 Code Enforcement Officer III 68 0 Custodial Supervisor 61 1 Building Maintenance Mechanic Helper 59 1 Building Maintenance Mechanic 63 7 Solid Waste Manager 69 1 Mechanic Helper 57 1 Automotive Mechanic 64 3 Attachment G; POSITIONS WITH SALARY INCREASES AS A RESULT OF THE PHASE I STUDY DEPARTMENT CURRENT TITLE & GRADE PROPOSED TITLE & GRADE AGING (4 employees) Clerk Receptionist III office Assistant II 58 60 Clerk Typist III Office Assistant II 58 60 Senior Center Coordinator 62 Senior Center /office Mngr 63 Senior Center Administrator 68 Senior Citizen Prgm Admin 68 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (1 employee) Clerk Typist III Office Assistant II 58 60 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES (6 employees) Dispatcher Technician Asst. Telecommunications Supv 66 67 EMS Supervisor 70 M"..N 60 HOUSING (1 employee) Housing Services Director 74 PLANNING (1 employee) Planner II 70 Deputy Emer Mgmt Dir /Admin 71 Same (4 employees) 62 Housing /CD Director 75 Planner III 72 PUBLIC WORKS (3 employees) Custodian Same 55 57 10 11 -2- DEPARTMENT CURRENT TITLE & GRADE RECREATION AND PARKS (4 employees) Program Supervisor 63 Program Supervisor 63 Program Supervisor 63 Program Supervisor 63 PROPOSED TITLE & GRADE Prg Spv I -Spec Events /Pub Info 66 Prg Spv II - Athletics 68 Prg Spv II-- General Programs 68 Prg Spv I - Spec Populations 66 REGISTER OF DEEDS (2 employees) Dep Register of Deeds II Dep Register of Deeds III 62 63 Dep Register of Deeds I Dep Register of Deeds III 60 63 REVENUE (1 employee) Tax Clerk II 62 SHERIFF (11 employees) Deputy Sheriff I 65 Revenue Technician 63 Same 66 SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION (2 employees) Conservation Technician Soil Conservationist (2 emp) 63 70 TAX ASSESSOR (1 employee) Tax Clerk II Appraisal Technician 62 63 : - i z ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 18, 1990 SUBJECT: E911 /GIS Consulting Agreement DEPARTMENT: Central tand Records ATTACHMENT(S): Agreement Action Agenda Item No. PUBLIC HEARING: Yes No INFORMATION CONTACT: Roscoe Reeve, Nick Waters TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To approve the signing of an Agreement, by the Chair, to obtain consulting services to support the E911 -GIS Implementation Committee in their choice of a computer -aided dispatch (CAD) capability to tie E911 and GIS into an integrated dispatch system. GIS (geographical information system) is the new computer mapping system chosen by the County that has analytical capabilities. It will build a map for an EMS dispatcher of where an emergency call is coming from, and tell responding ambulances or police cars how best to travel to the site. BACKGROUND: The E911 -GIS Implementation Committee - -comprised,_ of GIS,EMS, fire, and police jurisdictions - needs technical expertise to evaluate possible options for the implementation of an integrated E91.1 -GIS capability in Orange County. The Committee is proposing the use of a local consultant, who assisted the County,:and the various other participants, in choosing a GIS system in 1989. He is familiar with our system, and the implementation plans. The technical assistance is needed to keep the E911 contract schedule on line with the agreed dates. The specific tasks to be performed are defined in a appendix of the Agreement. The tasks are all directly in support of the dispatch capabilities of E911, therefore it is proposed that the E911 funds be used to pay for the Agreement. RECOMMENDATION(S): that the Board approve the signing of the E911 -GIS Consulting Agreement, by the Chair. v g 2 COUNTY of oPv4NGE- CENTRAL LAND RECORDS OFFICE Roscoe E. Reeve Patricia B. Smith Manager Mapping Supervisor AGREEMENT This Agreement, by and between the County of Orange, hereafter referred to as COUNTY, and Richard J Taylor- - herda €ter-- referred to as CONSULTANT. That for the sum of $13,600 CONSULTANT will assist COUNTY with professional services as described in the attached appendix, consisting of five tasks to identify, evaluate and make recommendations on the obtaining of an integrated E911- -GIS capability. Further, payment to CONSULTANT shall be made at the completion of each task, said completion affirmed by submission to COUNTY of a written report product describing the accomplishment of the ta: and the required evaluations and /or recommendations. This the 18th day of December, 1990. by Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners accepted by Richard J Taylor County Seal 208 South Cameron Street 0 P. O. Box 8181 0 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Telephones: 919 732 -8181 - 919 967 -9251 • 919 688 -7331 • 919 227 -2031 a i I K APPENDIX Scope of Work orange County Computer -Aided Dispatch (CAD) Functional Needs and Preliminary Design Study rile pui 7UJe5 of unis study are 1) to produce an analysis and evaluation of available computer -Aluea Dispatch (CAD") products and systems t) to aeveiop functional requirements for LAD in Orange county 3) to aevelop Cali system design, equipment and implementation alternatives 4) to develop approaches ror integration of GIS and Enhanced 9ii data ana functions for CAD applications 5) to dexine pnased deployment requirements for CAD impicsucntation The major steps in this study are education, needs assessment, preliminary design, systems anaiysis and implementation planning. Tasxs requirea to accomplish these purposes include I'asK i - Education: inventory of Existing CAD Systems and r)roducts Using contact references, literature search and local examples, aeveiop a catalog and comparison of existing CAD systems ana commercialiy available products. provide overview to c_L)urity task force. Coordinate demonstrations and site visits as required. Task 1 - heeds Assessment: CAD Systems Profile and Needs Develop a categorization of features and functions in existing CAD systems and products. Define major functional requirements for a CAD system. Present results to County task force for review and update. 4 Tasx 3 - rreiiminary Design: Urange County CAD System Functiunai requirements anu Impiementation Aiternatives Based.on review of County E911 and GIS plans and requirements, develop a functional specification for an Orange County CAD system. Define implementation alternative and benefits and liabilities of each approach. Prepare and present report to task force. Task 9 -- Systems Analysis: Hardware, Software and Communications Alternatives Define alternative system technical configurations and technicai issues in phased implementation. Task 5 - impiementation Manning: GIS /E911 Integration for CAD ana Implementation Approach Develop plan for aat.a and functional integration of Orange County GIs and x;911 for CAD applications. Define igQiementation issues, phased deployment approaches and long ranee planning options. Prepare systems analysis and implementation report for task force. 5 Costs for orange County CAD Study Task 1 - Education $1,450 Task 2 - Needs Assessment $2,250 Task 3 - Preliminary Design $2,700 Task 4 - Systems Analysis $4,500 Task 5 -- Implementation Planning $2,700 Total $13,600 (Assumes telephone and mail expenses covered by use of orange County facilities) i s O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 1.9 V-3, 0 SUBJECT: FEASIBILITY STUDY - NC 54 WIDENING DEPARTMENT: Planning ATTACHMENT(S): Feasibility Study 10 -15 -90 Planning Board Minutes 1 Agenda Abstract Item # PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Directclr X: :::5'.3:42 PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -5181 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 Chapel Hill 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider a feasibility study fl.ir the prclpossed widening of NC: 54 and provide ccztmments to NC-DOT. BACKGROUND: NCDOT has provided a copy of a the proposed widening of NC 54 Burlington to the NC 54 Bypass The prow1.ject is included in the Transportation Improvement for but is not currently funded. feasibility study of from IM-85 /40 in in 1- :hape:l. Hill. 1 1913C)_ 1 19 96 feasibility study According to NCDOT, NC 54 is classified as a minor arterial con the County Functional Classification Flan. In the Orange Cc.Ltnty Transportation Plan, NC 54 is classified as a principal arterial -:::-n the rural portion and as a major thorclughfare on the urban t:C:hapel Hill: porticin. The existing Ni--: 54 is a two -lane, 24 -foot paved road with 1 -foot shoulders, located in a 120 -fc,ot right - of -way. A four- foot section of the shoulders can either side is paved. The existing speed limit in the rural portions of Orange County is 55 mph. The volume of traffic using the route ranges from 6,00o vehicles per day (vpd :) at the Orange County line to vpd near Carrboro. Volumes are expected to increase to 12,000-17,000 vpd by 2(-)10, The capacity of the existing read is 5,000 vpd. The proposed project is divided into three se-- tic-ns. A, B, and C. Section 1_7 cc_impr ises the ma.j cnr ity --If the Orange Ccaunty portion, extending eight miles, fr,--,m 2 Stanford Road (SR 1100) to the Chapel Hill Bypass. The total cost of Section C is $20.8 million, with $8.8 million earmarked for actual construction. The remaining funds would be used for right-of-way acquisition and relocation expenses. The recommended cross section is a four-lane divided section with two, 24-foot pavements and a 46-foot median width on a 200-foot right-of-way. All widening would be -accomplished on the north side, and 48 residences and businesses would have to be relocated. If staging of the project occurs, Section C would be the second phase. No time period for the construction of Section C is cited, but the total project is to begin in 1991. � Alternative locations were considered but are not recommended because of the high cost of a new route and the adequacy of the existing alignment. Possible negative environmental impacts include: 1. Loss of forest land; 2. Relocation of 98 residences and eight businesses; 3. Increase noise levels for adjacent development; and 4. Possible impacts on two watershed (Cane Creek and University Lake). If the project is to be implemented, all feasible routes and their impacts are to be evaluated in a planning/environmental document. A final decision will then be made as to the most appropriate location. Staff comments regarding the feasibility study include the following: 1. The proposed widening of NC 54 is consistent with its classification and use as a principal arterial highway. NCDOT should give consideration, however, to adding bike lanes to the shoulders on either side of the highway. 2. NC 54 bisects the southern tip of Cane Creek watershed and traverses the middle of University Lake watershed. In both, sediment retention ponds should be installed before construction begins. ^ 4W , 1i * 3 The existing impervious surface of NC 54 in Section C is approximately 31 acres. The widening project would increase the impervious surface area by 50 percent to 46 acres. 3. One site identified in the Natural Areas Inventory is located south of NO 54. Where Cane Creek crosses the highway, three types of habitats are found: a riparian strip; a steep, dry, west-facing bluff; and mesic slopes. Several important animal species are found in the habitats, including the State-listed notched rainbow mussel, the regionally-rare otter, and a large roost of black vultures Because this is one of the most important wildlife corridors in the county, potential impacts to plant/animal species should be mitigated and the highway designed to permit the movement of wildlife from one side to another. 4. One National Register site, the Inn at Bingham School, may be impacted by widening on the north side. The site is located on the northeast corner of NC 54 and Mebane Oaks Road, and contains a mid-19th century Greek Revival house and outbuildings' A determination should be made as to whether or not the Section 106 review process will apply. If applicable, NCDOT should comply with the provisions of that act. 5. Three major drainages tributaries, Cane Creek, Collins Creek, and Morgan Creek, and their floodplains cross NC 54. If there are wetlands associated with these floodplains, 404 permits, if required, should be obtained from the Corps of Engineers before construction begins. 6. OWASA and American Stone Company have discussed plans to expand the quarry on NC 54. NCDOT should contact both organizations to determine the impact, if any, of the widening project on quarry expansion. In conclusion, the NCDOT planning/environmental document may satisfy the environmental assessment required by the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance. The document must be submitted to the Planning Staff for review and determination as to whether a full environmental impact statement would be required. At its October 15, 1990 meeting, the Planning Board considered the feasibility study. In addition to the 4 Staff comments, the Planning Board recommended that additional concerns be expressed to NCDOT. These are identified on page #G of this abstract. � ION: The Administration recommends that the comments of the Planning Staff and Planning Board plus others that the Board of Commissioners may have be submitted to NCDOT for consideration. 10 -1590 Planning Board 1inutes 5 case, the issue was lot size. Lots had been created by deeding a series of 25 -foot wide strips. In may cases, four strips were combined for a lot width of 100 -feet and lot area of 36,000 square feet. Some of the combinations occurred after the zoning was adopted for Cheeks Township. A citizen with a 36,000 square foot lot was denied a variance. The staff considered rezoning the area to R2, as it was in a Transition Area. However, application criteria for the R2 district require that the lots be served by both public water and public sewer. Perry Hill is served only by public water. Scearbo pointed out that this was one of the issues which lead to the recent proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations (Lot Standards). That amendment would have allowed lots served by public water and septic tanks to contain 30,000 square feet. Under existing regulations, there was no rezoning solution available to Perry Hills. (Perry Hills was later resolved through additional information related to the lot -of- record.) Much discussions ensued. Waddell asked how often these situations occur. Scearbo responded that it would not occur often, but that when it did occur, the problems could be very severe, resulting in the inability of property owners to build on this land, even if the lot was large enough to accommodate water and septic disposal facilities. A Planning Board member asked if a title search would reveal illegal subdivisions or other problems which could result in the inability to obtain permits. Scearbo and Collins stated that such information could be obtained in a title search, but sometimes the attorneys retained by the owner do not do sufficient research. Eddleman stated that the potential buyer was responsible for researching the property before purchasing it, and that the Board of Adjustment was not responsible for resolving situations which resulted from failure to do so. The Planning Board felt that there would be few problems with non - conforming lot size, since most of the lots could be developed as a lot -of- record. c. Feasibility Study - NC 54 Widening 6 (A copy of the abstract with information as presented by Marvin Collins is an attachment to these minutes on pages . A copy of the Feasibility Study is on file in the Planning Department.) Jacobs asked about the level of service for NC 54 and Collins responded that, according to NCDOT, it is classified as a minor arterial. Jacobs indicated that he felt lowering the speed limit would increase the road capacity and eliminate the need for widening the road. Board members also expressed concern about the following: 1. The current level of service is not identified. Even though the capacity of the road is exceeded, the level of service may be such that higher volumes can be accommodated. This would mean that trips may take longer but the road would not have to be widened. 2. The distribution of automobile vs. truck traffic is not identified. This raises a question about the purpose of the improvements. Is the widening needed to carry automobile traffic or provide an alternate truck route to 1- 85/1 -40 or both? Additional information is needed. 3. Bingham Township is a focal point for agricultural activity in the county. Cane Creek and University Lake Watersheds are also located there. The widening of NC 54 may increase the probability of farmland conversion and contribute to water quality degradation. 4. The widening of NC 54 is premature in relation to Orange County's transportation planning efforts. Phase II of the Transportation Plan includes an explanation of standards for scenic roads, and pedestrian and bikeway facilities (including bridge design). Phase II should be completed and standards adopted before the widening project is pursued. The Planning Board asked that Chapel Hill and Carrboro be provided a copy of the feasibility study in the event that those jurisdictions wished to comment. The Board also asked staff to determine if the County Manager and Board of 7 Commissioners have received copies of the study and wish to comment. d. Noise Problem - Eddleman Planning Board member Dan Eddleman expressed concern with a motion detector alarm at a commercial operation on NC 54 near his home. He noted that, on the weekend of October 12 -14, the alarm was almost constantly being activated, but no one was available to turn it off. He indicated he contacted the Sheriff's Department and a Deputy informed him that they were unable to do anything since Orange County does not have a noise ordinance. Collins responded that Orange County does have a Noise Ordinance but that alarm systems may be exempt. Collins indicated he would obtain a coy of the ordinance and provide it to Mr. Eddleman. Meeting adjourned 9:35 p.m. Prepared By Approved By Date JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR THOMAS J. HARRELSON SECRETARY STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 RALEIGH 27611 -5201 October 5, 1990 Mr. Marvin Collins Planning Director Orange County 306 Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Collins: 1101E [02MD DIVISION OF HIGHWA GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRA SUBJECT: Feasibility Study - R -2538, NC 54 from I -40/85 in Burlington to Chapel Hill Bypass, Alamance - Orange Counties Our staff has completed a feasibility study for the subject project. This brief analysis suggests the location and improvements that would be logical if the project was funded. A copy of our report is attached for your information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this project. Thank you for your assistance during our study. Sincerely, L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager Planning & Environmental Branch AHS /plr Attachments cc: Dr. M. R. Poole, P. E., Assistant Manager for Statewide Planning An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer FEASIBILITY STUDY NC 54 From I -40/85 in Burlington to Chapel Hill Bypass Alamance- Orange Counties R -2538 Prepared by Planning and Environmental Branch Division of Highways N. C. Department of Transportation 7 An-g6la Smith G. Dawson, Jr., V. E. ' Project Planning Engineer Head of Feasibility & Speci,l Studies Unit ate .War , anager Planning and Environmental Branch 1�1 NC 54 From I -40/85 in Burlington to Chapel Hill Bypass Alamance- Orange Counties R -2538 I. DESCRIPTION This report covers a preliminary study of a proposed widening of a 20 -mile section of NC 54 from I -40/85 in Burlington to the NC 54 Chapel Hill Bypass (see Figure 1). This project is included in the 1990 -1996 Transportation Improvement Program for feasibility study and /or right - of -way protection and is not currently funded. The project begins just beyond the I -40/85 interchange at the intersection of NC 54 and SR 2106 to the east and SR 2217 to the west. The Y -line improvement for the I-40/85 widening project (I -303K, con- struction scheduled to begin in 1990) includes a 5 -lane curb and gutter section tapering back into the 2 -lane section just south of SR 2106. The project terminates approximately 0.3 mile west of SR 1107, where the proposed widening of the western portion of NC 54 Chapel Hill Bypass ends. This widening project (U- 2003AA) is scheduled to start construc- tion in 1991. II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT Existing Conditions NC 54 is classified as a minor arterial on the County Functional Classification Plan. NC 54 acts as an important connector between the Chapel Hill /Carrboro areas and Burlington. Existing NC 54 is generally a 2 -lane, 24 -foot paved facility with 12 -foot shoulders (4 feet of which is paved). Left turn lanes are pro- vided at all major intersections and along short sections of NC 54 from I -40/85 to SR 2106 and from SR 2136 to NC 119. The speed limit from the I -40/85 ramps in Burlington to SR 2136 is 45 mph, rising to 55 mph as NC 54 continues to the project terminus in Carrboro. The existing development along the project consists mainly of light density residential and industrial uses. Existing right -of -way is generally 120 feet throughout most of the project length, except for the section from I -40/85 to SR 2109, where only 100 feet was reserved. The existing alignment of NC 54 is generally good and built through rolling terrain. The maximum degree of curve is 6 degrees (maximum safe speed of 55 mph), and the maximum percent grade is 5 %. I N 11 Four bridges are located on the project. They are as follows: Clear Bridge Length Width Age Rating No. Location Ft. Ft, (yrs.) New =100 17 Cane Creek 151 44.0 17 92.6 11 Haw River 316 44.0 62 85.6 34 Back Creek 172 44.0 17 96.6 70 Haw Creek 148 44.0 17 97.9 Bridge number 11, originally built in 1928, was reconstructed and widened in 1973. This improvement accounted for the high sufficiency rating. Traffic Volumes, Capacity, and Accident Record The volume of traffic that utilizes this route ranges from approxi- mately 6,000 vehicles per day (vpd) near the Alamance- Orange County line, to 13,000 (vpd) near Burlington and also near Carrboro. These volumes are estimated to increase to 12,000 to 17,000 vpd by the year 2010. The capacity of the existing road is approximately 5,000 vpd. The actual volumes presently using the facility (6,000 to 13,000 vpd) indi- cate that the capacity is exceeded along the entire studied route. Accident data for a recent 3 -year period shows a total of 282 accidents along the studied section. This yields a total accident rate of 118.1 accidents per hundred million vehicle miles (ACC /1OOMVM), which is less than the statewide average of 214.2 ACC /100MVM for comparable 2 -lane rural NC routes. Rear -end slow or stop (23 %), angle (17 %), and left turn same road (15 %) were predominant accident types. Need for Project The improvement of NC 54 from the Chapel Hill Bypass to Burlington is needed to provide adequate capacity for existing and future traffic volumes. III. RECOMMENDATIONS AND COSTS For purposes of recommendations and possible staging of construc- tion, the project has been divided into 3 sections: A, B, and C (see Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5). For Section A, from SR 2106 (south of the I -40/85 interchange) to SR 2138, it is recommended the existing roadway be widened to a 5 -lane, 64 -foot curb and gutter facility due to the concentration of existing roadside development and lower speeds. This would match the proposed cross section of the Y -line improvement for the I -303K 3 12 project. All widening can be accomplished symmetrically within the existing 100 -foot right -of -way with possible construction easements required at certain locations. Bridges at Back Creek and at Haw Creek would require widening to accommodate the proposed cross section. It is recommended a new bridge be built to replace Bridge No. 11 at Haw River. The recommended cross section for Section B, from SR 2138 to SR 1100, where the roadside is lightly develope`2, ss a 4 -lane divided section with two, 24 -foot pavements and a 46 -foot minimum median width on an estimated 200 -foot right -of -way. Widening should be accomplished on the north side of the existing road. A new bridge would parallel the existing bridge at Cane Creek. Section C extends from SR 1100 to the Chapel Hill Bypass project terminus. The recommended cross section is a 4 -lane divided section with two, 24 -foot pavements and a 46 -foot minimum median width on an estimated 200- foot right -of -way, with all widening to be accomplished on the north side. The recommended 4 -lane divided section should taper at the project terminus to match the proposed cross section for the Chapel Hill Bypass project (two, 24 -foot pavements with curb and gutter, divided by a 21 -foot raised median). These recommendations are consistent with the anticipated traffic volumes, the development in the project area, and the function of the route. The estimated costs of the recommended improvements are as follows (residential and business relocations are indicated in parentheses for Sections B and C): Length Construction Right -of -Way Total miles Cost Cost Cost Section A 4.0 $8,200,000 $ 700,000 $ 8,900,000 (utilities only) Section B 8.0 $9,000,000 $ 9,500,000 $18,500,000 (56 relocatees) Section C 8.0 $8,800,000 $12,000,000 $20,800,000 (48 relocatees) The total cost of the proposed project (including all sections) is $48,200,000. Cost estimates were prepared by the Preliminary Estimate Engineer and the Right- of- Way.Branch. If staging of the total - project length is desired for funding reasons, Section A should be the first stage, because no right -of -way costs would be incurred, it connects with an interstate highway, and it serves higher volumes of traffic. Section C should be the second stage, since it would tie into the planned NC 54 Chapel Hill Bypass widening project and also serves higher volumes of traffic. Section B is recom- mended to be the third stage since it carries the lowest volume of traffic. 4 IV. OTHER COMMENTS ].3 No other alternative locations for the proposed project were found to be more desirable or feasible from overall cost and traffic service considerations. The existing route has adequate alignment for high speed operation with limited.roadside interference along most of the project length. Complete relocation of NC 54 was considered, but it is not recommended, because it would require considerably higher expenditure of funds for construction and would serve much less traffic. Possible negative environmental impacts of the proposed widening of NC 54 are as follows: (1) loss of forested land; (2) relocation of approximately 96 residences and 8 businesses; (3) increased noise levels for adjacent development; and (4) possible impact to two watersheds in Orange County (Cane Creek and University Lake), shown in Figures 4 and 5. The Nello -Teer Rock Quarry is located near the end of the proposed project, on the north side of NC 54 at SR 1104 (see Figure 5). The Quarry appears to have an adequate setback to allow the proposed im- provement. The Carrboro Community Park is located at the end of the project, off of NC 54. Its boundary does not abut NC 54 and thus is not anticipated to present any problems. If the project is to be implemented in the future, all feasible alternatives and their associated impacts will need to be evaluated in a planning and environmental document prior to that time, and a final decision made as to the most appropriate improvement. AS/ pl r �im 0 I 0 14 n 41 z 0 r, J f 12. Ck, jig 41 z 0 . '16 r, J f Ck, . '16 Ras "Joe -- j/ '/ /- .� °i "� \�� /� �-"_e'� -� I-:� I• Alai r, \�.. -1 \\ +�_ � �hM� .aau y ' SIL ORM lul NC 119 s4t j: T;; ��C.. • �,' , - _tea � �`� • �✓• j�iJ~ �% T I � `�: -� �' J. - - -' ii- / J •• � .•� •.�, ; �� it ;� �k�� j�! t � ^;., . •`-`� �-, r�; `r.'�:�, V � � t t � - � •'� / fhb,::. -= 1 �' 1f1 �J�:•: �:W <T• � .3t• f\ a �, r ~ .�� i 1 1, ey � ,. ,. oo •$� ... ' �� fir,. -' ~�J- ...•` = ~.i% •- r' � a -�•.: fir. 'Z r � r ;� 4� � ws� � r ,� (� \`. .':: r`I .,�� `J _ �� // ✓ ,rte Y r -~"'`:.:�' ^; �Ir� • 90iZ egg• y� � `; _ � • _•'�. - � s _ y - r z �� .; �� rte• � �� _ - `.a / 1 ` _ ^a, 'J 16 zau v-4, • � 'd � � ^-tea 'Y�j j .. � , •. C `y P"O a, ,_; j _- -Q, I y. I � t v r\ •.��I r 'nj .�� j� � j- j� rol .14 is is ��CCC j�• :< jam- � k I 9R, 17 .�• �..•�. — � I`r7 -.�O /'�` r, -'`• q. n� f� /�i/ ��` � %( �6O tip yn��n IM ilk LU Y IN lot go , It. 10 LD i uoqs--v I ON, 7(� nk a j 0 m M-/, r ■ N N. to UE V, CL cl� UO j Jill m M-/, r ■ N N. to UE V, CL cl� 19 o i o N a I 0 O CD C4 W z' d d d e C C C C c W J Q U Q W c 11 z U V) W C J W w C C C W E O U dH ri • a � o w a Cr7 r, e o Q Y 0 0 C Y� w a w U 0U cc rn = Ci (X n N r •C U -Cr f~ �n = 0 w N r ?, z 0 r 4 2 U U) W Cl IA 4 z 0 a U O J O z a U w r rY H z z r� E x rn H M a w E-4 zz Z w w �-� 92 U @ uim0 U 7- RI QUzi H F Z y T W MO3 UYE AZ3 w F O EN w UMW CD!'w o"X `iz rJ N m c7�+� DfCkOi N frl O G W {"1 I 1 Ln 1.1 m .o C-) @ b• H M 0 0 N m knLnao WNLnN C% Ln x a MHVv C�cGcZUU m 0 cc 0 .ti W O ID %0 a d• O M W w x Val H W H 0x N�,�y 0zE- C7 Vl 2NF IEn rl W rY� YW wa O 1 W m 0 H D A 0 F ?+ "z .40 M M M N G1 wd Cd O ?+ G. sC 0 n E- �O U w �x 1 z O M E U O a E- 0 [U77 E y O a 0 0 v y wea O O r m 101 0 O @ fY. U m N N �D 0 r E z 0 U a H V) 0 of 0 0 O N v aoa a O a 0 0 Ln 0 17 rR N Vf V) O ..1 N A •w V1 ❑ •C U x ?+ ?, z E CE-- Lei 14 rl wyw "=P-4 a 04G U pG a►ar wwp9c a ° w E w a5 �z9u rd W O 00 e. . W HXO 24 [j r0'1W 1 �V.71 Ln 0N94 .N xF! a F~.. ...0 EOr qq 'N' •~• W E 0 C U.4 E as z ,wad i ua Ina + NF0 aG a w w Iuw� 3 �z °°o •C zW Z)w trio �`nz H M 00 cz ~aE" v+wH >1 H n w �r cx)U0 +► eaL z M M MH @.7 as Ul?0 O H OtrOU X14 H►AWW+Q r "�►Ni w• G. xW s� =WF4 pCF�a. vaioGGOG co M O IV l�1 O .-1 1p N N In 117 N N @ N N 1p N N a z rz a o z H cti z @ N O r N U") .v r ao x x D x LO 7 -5 N a z w O a 7 a O r- u W M In H W J a W x u H M C O Ix a w a dNd 02 W a u d z I 20 POW" sTucpr P, eOLIMAW :NU..IR7.AL COUACTOR am :K wrx warn MR Lorx'14r0 LMSA11 WHO* wrnw Los" KAJOA I'HOROIIO•fA� �`� rweemy e l = (ORANGE COUNTY ROAD MAP �¢�) PROPOSED ROAD FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFWATTON ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN F%gw I 7 a L e D D 9 r r C r • O O L b b w« u« Y 21 O w C C Y L O w E L 7 C r a �n w O r ro m U p r O u O C a J 7. u •� C ]+ U O C r 0 7- r a r Y a L r L « r C a a O a 4 u a O .� .1.. x C L L r a L L L. N d a O C Y ]. Y O-a m a ; . C •- r C C r « C a ro y Y a 7 0 Y C L O c Y V� u E p u a D a s L Y r n V C P N u C O a C 7 ro - O « O r b a« a a t •- r C Y ?. Y O O k« a ro .9 C L K « U a C .a L a Y a e E L 4 u O L r K 7- a .. O r O C a t r a O a Y .. ro 7 a C? U r L O� o N o u Y �[ •� r •p D 1.1 r L r b t 7 7 C c �A J }• `•- ••- a U 0 r O a 4 •� V r a V s Y r O m D a V i L O u C L 4 a« r a- m r « u 7 O Y a D 7 r Y E C r a U •� L ro •� V O- O L O L Y a X 4 C a a O r y t 'a «« •^ O ro U L r P r L a 4 V L d = o m 7 D. - Y C O M r r 4 a r a 4 ro a V Y.0 M L r O C N a = Y Y L M• 4 Z L r q L� O C r V O Y O ct r D. 0 4 .. a r U r o L •w a b u Z 1 .T H CC La7 F N a >+ c V G C a a L G 4 a •- u L L L p O a 4 r a t •� C a L Y 7 O d O L E N r w a E Y Y w 7 1-4 w L E O t m m Ey 0 r a a N a j L L L Y 4 r « r b O o D L r O u a a O u r L E r -%9 a— O C a L C i •� O O Y O a L r E a O 7+ a r a L L (y 49 r u- P O c- E a os r i r 4 m O 0.4 ..a r 4 L C X a L « D. .+ « a Y « L y. N En O r •� a V -« u m a O O r r X r u L O L vj d u r r « E V •� C r C a r P a a a r a Q F u Y Y E L L G� •+ u a — a .0 c— `•` u b S a 4 L Z Y a O 7• 4 L m L u r- L L L V C O d b c L C Y C 4- m u a s O r O o = C ro ee Y a m L c c X r a G a r r G r u a o C o a• r c o— a o Y o �. a s A. L c— o Y o u a« y « L m U u P« a r a a- E u 1/1 Y1 6F1 Z O H F O U C z a 4 a 7 ow a o 0 7- L a d •� •- L a 7 O b 7 u G E c 4 t Y c O O L Y C U b O r C P •� O N 4 O r C C C L 3 C Y X C Y a 1. O ••• a m D Y« - L �n i U L a r r C m 6 a N CL r L r ] a w a D u L r Y a r« u a o, m « a ••- O a 1 w a 1 O 7• •- 4 L L u E L m L L O O a O d Y a s Y V C 4 a V O L L O x O✓ r C ••� ro ro O r •- O e O. d a m es a s u- L L ? m 0 Y r C O h y ?. V •+. t C a � r. L a ,i .+ E O C O L a O - L V D u 7 Y L m N 7 a m L •� r G L .� •� - Y Y M Y 4 r •+ a O L M a O V C- M r � N L « u u Y u m V D+ O i r i C `►. 7 Y L C L L .� r L � L u L � O V r. O w P a O a O Y u L) O t fJ N a u D u >•. L V w r a= Y a V- G r O r t q r «- a F C ] 2« co a d r m L u a C u t- 7 a C a m w y y a« O 7 C L 2 c L - a O u « u a ti u L m Y U 1a O g •- d • Y O N Z C C C O- 6 Y O O L L O >•• C O t C u O 'I• Y,I O m V p O C7 u U« Q. x - a 1-. ... q L r N •O C v .p 7 4c x W r u 0 r- w W N N J u D dc O Y: O u a C L 9 M u w � Y C. Q C L V O V Y - J q « m •^ O d« a L o 6 u •^ u . V u O E q L a C m C M V Y S• Q w C E a L o a q g O C O C M m O V E R �i ` u L 9 Y C. L V O d O C c � a d« 'J Y« � u •^ u . V u E q L a •^ m C M V q « Y • • L L C C •� L a M m O V E p �+ a C s E E V J •- V a q Y T• O Y M V U p �+ Z L w « d L q r O V C O Dl O •- w q O C `- m C •^ L m 7 u •� r b ... C = q a a O d r 10- L' O a w � E d •o � L o, . •^ V C V C s C E E a L Y b w .0 V O •- O Y O b 4 a •^ r •_ q E y L L q R �i ` L 9 Y C. L V O d O C c r V 7 3 V « 4 M V q « Y • • L m O V E .0 E t V C c ?+ b C C'a b d a q b 7 O a ,C . •_ q •O V V d m •_ •- V L Y C a Y L 7 V Y U C r O C V •+ O -+ V « a Y C L O O L L O V L w OI •- d V q m 7 q q ,a 0 OI C w C L - Y a L a Y a C L r• �� Q q q Y •_ w 7 Y 'Y a •_ • u u r L o Y a u Y V f-1 9 C is V C Y u L « L G V C •^ � L C •^ « •^ i� L O q Y •+ Y V « d L L r q Z w « Y N d q V Z ✓' d V q L a L C a C m eo CL 49 t u u b L L « r •_ L � o •^ A C E G o V C C 01 m m V •� u E •^ L� Y •� C Cp 7 C C m r a M O L D O a Y ^ O V V q L C L 7+ c r L C 7 L 6 a d d a a C Q 7 v CL •L M L q Y r d « �. L « •^ « L .00 L V t U Y r L ^� �� •. b Y L + � •p S C � C� q O q« C V w 7 C Y u H a C a O O •^ E C b •^ C 7 �. V s 6 •^ 7+ Y q L r O X" m • L O q Q !. u« ._ u L d •L Y L CD b •- d b Y Y C V L Y C C «« s 7 V V t q L Y Y m C+ V O L C9 H U •• � b •- •_ O � Y + R �i ` I FrJroc a Town..ship Arterial Minor Arterial �S 1vn !El �r�eeKS �r5 r T D .11w L! TABLE 2 (tontiriad) PROPOSED ROAD- C14E3i"ICA 1UN Orar:ge Courty, kcrt' a- e)i',a Collector SR 1114 'BUCKHHN) SR 1120 'MT WILLIkG R ") SR 1306 'BEST LEBANON KCt) WHTH 'PAIiE 5R 1310 R) SR 1340 (HIGH ROCK RD) SR 1144 (WEST TEN) Binghal NC 54 5R 1005 (OLD GBOR0 RD) SR 1006 (ORANGE GROVE RD) SR 1102 (DODSON XPOADS S) SR 1007 (MEBANE OAKS RD) 5R 1951 (B�JTLER RD) SR 1115 (BRADSHAW HARRY) SR 1951 (WHITE CROSS RD) SR 1117 (OAK GPUVE CH RD) SR 11177 !DAIRY AND RD) SR 1942 (JONES FERRY RD) SR 1956 (CRAWFOFD DAIRY RD) Sr' 1756 (ORAN;H CHAPEL CLOV =R GAPDEN RD) 10 Ma;or Lo,_ai SR 11.57 MUPY COOK RD) SR 1138 (YARPIMUGH RD) SR 1139 (HEBRON CHURCH) 5R 1306 (:EST LEBANON P11) SR 1310 (NORTH FRAZIER) SR 1342 (N. FRAIIER RD) SR 1346 (SADDLE CLUB RD) r• 7Z Minor Ln' :al SR 1145 31'UIPES RD; SP, 1309 SAME -LEY) SR 1343 114OE RUN RD) SR 1.44 (S E RUN Rig) SR 1384 (MACE) SR 1392 ;LANA5TEP1 SR 1393 (PAYLOR) SR, 1394 (PERRY) SR 1399 (REMAN � ,CS i. E' SR 1403 iALPHA) 5P, 14:)5 (SHETLAND ACRES' SR 1100 (STANFORD RD) SR 1100 (T-'ER FD) SR 1101 (TEER RD) SR 1116 (APPLE MILL RD S;; 1117 (OAK GROVE CH RD) SR 1118 (VERNON RD) SR 1119 (NICK'S RD) SR 1124 (MARTIN RD) SR 1125 (CHESTNUT RIDGE CH RD) SR 1188 iSAM`S RD) 5P, 19.18 (FERSUSON RD) SR 1213 f0YERLAND PAES4 E :� SR 1950 iCAFL DURHAM RD) SP 1214 (COACH 41AY) SR 11952 'WHITE CROSS RD) SR 1947 (IVEEY) SR 1953 (WILDCAT CREEK RD) SR 1949 (FORD RD) SR 1954 (C ."LLINS MT. RD) SR 1955 (IA;SON RD) SR 1958 (MORROW MILL RD) SR 1 95 1 (:OLIi MINE LOO": SR 1961 (SAX.PAHAW RD) SR 1959 (MILIKAIN RD) SP. 1960 (LLOYDTOWN RD SR 197: (MORROW MIL:) SR 12 : (wILLIS RD) SR 2024 ;SIDNEY GREEN , SR 2'. (cAcr JT•� SR 2028 'BH-CMIT RD1 SR SR 2030 (WILDCAT N) SF 2044 (FOICIPE RD) 5R 2:'45 ,- Dii1,,,.n. , l:n,r, � S D : 4c; 2n TABLE 3 RECOMMENDED AND URBAN THOROUGHFARE PLAN COMPARISON OF CLASSIFICATIONS The results of the comparison above is summarized in Table 4. 12 Thoroughfare Recommended Plan Planning Road Name (SR No.) Classification Classification Area Jones Ferry (SR 1942) Collector Major Thoroughfare Chapel Hill Old Greensboro Road Minor Arterial Major Thoroughfare Chapel Hill (SR 1005) NC 54 Principal Arterial Major Thoroughfare Chapel Hill Dairyland Road (SR 1177) Collector Major Thoroughfare Chapel Hill Dodsons Crossroads North Minor Arterial Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough (SR 1102) Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) Collector Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough Bradshaw Quarry Road Collector Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough (SR 1115) Chestnut Ridge Church Road Major Local Unclassified -- (SR 1125) Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120) Collector Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough Bushy Cook Road (SR 1137) Major Local Unclassified -- West Ten Road (SR 1144) Collector Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough 1 -85 Principal Arterial Freeway Hillsborough US 70 Principal Arterial Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough Lebanon Road (SR 1306) Collector Minor Thoroughfare Hillsborough High Rock Road (SR 1340) Collector Unclassified -- Harmony Church Road Major Local Minor Thoroughfare Hillsborough (SR 1339) Governor Scott Road Major Local Unclassified -- (SR 1351) Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) Collector Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough NC 86 Principal Arterial Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough Edmund Latta Road (SR 1550) Minor Local Unclassified -- NC 57 Minor Arterial Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough Schley Road (SR 1548) Collector Major Thoroughfare Durham Kiger Road (SR 1541) Major Local Unclassified -- Guess Road (SR 1003) Minor Arterial Major Thoroughfare Durham New Sharon Church Road Collector Major Thoroughfare Durham (SR 1538) The results of the comparison above is summarized in Table 4. 12 4 Overall Map of Natural Areas in Orange County 25 y Hal L04 Hyco M02 Creek • • Section L43 1 � 'I 111 Littl( ` • River i \ L01 Section 1 l L02 I t Ell r A E09 A A E04 A E05 EOA$ A E12 E13 Eno 1 E06 E10 River 1 Section E01 E02 • _ E03 E14• E15 A - - i E07 E16 Cane Creek — _ _ _ , _ _ - A Section M17 M07 1 M06 • MOB M09 M10 M 3 A M1E 902 M05 A • M16 New Hope I r AA M12 M14 IL Creek Section MIDI �`M0l M03 04 - - - _ A � ' -�15 Cot � "02 \ � \ � Bso A CO3 601 ' Bolin Creek A section i UZ "04 CO2 A M06 M09 "10 N11 1 "15 \ 1103 A" 14 \ N' 1407 "08 "13"16 � Morgan Creek �.A� Section N �M— W—A, -)ti i� _- p 'C' a Fes_. - 2 X. SYS 64? CO3 �l � I I agl '�i••� _ � �� • � •,� 1997 \`�� - 1 : 1. • = '� `` ,.r _ - � •� ---� I I�r� )A. -• ` Or ° .574 IF. 57 r ]� • ^��_�. \1 / ~� ( /�1 . 9 ('lar r Garden .. 1r56 ; ORANGE COUNTY NATURAL AREAS SURVEY. SITE DESCRIPTION. 27 Site name: Lower Cane Creek Slopes and Bottom Site number: CO3 Significance: 3 - County High Integrity: 1 - Prime Threat Status: 4 - Slight Location: South of NC 54 along Cane Creek. USGS Quad: White Cross and Saxapahaw Approx. acreage: 140 Jurisdiction: Bingham Township Reasons for significance: Although the plant communities along this section of Cane Creek are mostly in young second growth, there are several important animal species here, including the state - listed notched rainbow mussel (Villosa constricta) and the regionally -rare otter (Lutra canadensis). A large roost of black vultures (Coragyps atratus) was also observed in the forest next to the creek; this species is considered threatened state -wide, and the only known roosting population of this species in Orange County occurs in the Cane Creek valley, both here and upstream near the reservoir (C01). This is one of the most important wildlife corridors within Orange County, due to its connection to the Haw River and Cape Fear system. The water quality in Cane Creek is excellent, and supports one of the best remaining fish and mussel faunas in the Piedmont. General description: This site includes three types of habitats: a riparian strip; a steep, dry west- facing bluff; and mesic slopes with a more sheltered, gentler aspect. The most unique of these botanically is a dry, 30 foot bluff of felsic volcanic tuff supporting a stunted forest composed mainly of beeches (Fa us grandifolia) and white oaks ( uercus alba). This is the driest situation where the usually mesic beech is found. Other species here include red maple (Ater rubrum), dogwood (Cornus florida), and red cedar (Juni erus vir iniana). The most abundant herbs are beechdrops (Epifagus vir iniana), woodrush (Luzula acuminata), hepatica (Hepatica americana), and Christmas fern (Pol stichum acrostichoides). One interesting zoological feature is a large den, possibly of a groundhog (Marmota monax) or fox (Vu pes vul es or Uroc on cinereoar enteus). Contiguous with this bluff is a large forested area covering the gentle slopes and ravines which rise approximately two hundred feet in elevation from the creek. Parts of this forest are disturbed, but the section downstream from the bluff is a particularly good example of mixed mesic hardwoods. Rich mesic herbs are abundant here, including bloodroot (Sancruinaria canadensis), trout lily (Er thronium americanum), spring beauty (Claytonia virginica), toothwort (Cardamine an ustata), hepatica (Hepatica americana), trillium (Trillium catesbaei), and extensive colonies of wild ginger (Asarum canadensis). Upland animals seen here in addition to the groundhog are red - tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), yellow- throated vireos (Vireo 45 flavifrons), ovenbirds (Seiurus aurora illus), summer and scarlet tanagers (Piranga rubra and P. olivacea), and gray squirrels JJ (Sciurus carolinensis). The more important habitat for animals, however, is the riparian area along the creek. The forest here is mainly in young second growth, consisting of such species as walnut (JueLns n_igra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweet gum (Liguidambar styraciflua), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Though heavily disturbed, the presence of pawpaw (Asimina triloba) and spicebush (Lindera benzoin) thickets attest to the richness of the alluvial Chewacla soil. These thickets also provide habitat for two low- nesting warblers, the Kentucky (Onorornis formosis) and hooded (Wilsonia citrina), the first being exceptionally abundant here. An outstanding feature of this site is the creek itself; the water quality of Cane Creek has been widely recognized as one of the best within the Piedmont. Reflecting these prime conditions are the rich mussel beds, which include the rare notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), and fish diversity. This watershed was formerly the only place within the Cape Fear drainage where the state- listed Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis) was found. Although most of its habitat is currently being destroyed by the Cane Creek Reservoir, this species could still persist within this section downstream. other riparian animals of interest include the regionally - rare river otter (Lutra c_anadensis), which we observed denning here, as well as beaver (Castor canadensis), great blue heron V (Ardea herodias), parula warbler (Parula americana), and Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla). One non - riparian species of interest is the black vulture (Coragyps atratus), which roosts in the trees on the west bank of the creek. While this species is still found fairly commonly in neighboring Chatham County, it is quite rare and declining throughout the rest of the state. This is the only site within Orange County (except for a winter roost observed just upstream) where they are still known to roost. Protection Status: None Surrounding land use: N: NC 54, E: Forest, S: Forest agriculture agriculture w: Forest, agriculture Threats: Immediate: A survey line recently run alongside the creek (1987) indicates the possibility of development. Potential: Same Recommendations for management or protection: Alert landowners of the significance of the natural values of their property; negotiate for a conservation easement. Ownership: See Appendix A 46 K 7 •4 It T, e � G ..K6 I K� �a a s �r dr, ' 29 r I .wD Rt rwiw5 Iwmodsi i 1 •- 1 � I 5x! I BINSHHfl TQUMSHIP ''� Seale: ii ►oJ N f 1. Oak Grove Baptist Church 2. Bethsada Baptist Church 3. Cane Creek Baptist Church 4. Bethlehem Presbyterian Church S. Clover Garden United Methodist Church 6. Orange Chapel United Methodist Church 7. Antioch Baptist Church B. Alston Grove Congregationalist Church 9. Terrell's Creek Missionary Baptist Church 10. *" Hope Baptist Church - 0ETEAIES 1. Sykes Cemetery 2. Chesley Andrews Family Cemetery 3. Name UNmown (Mirnnis- Pickard - Crawford). 4. Minis Pickard 5. Hamm Unknown 6. Bivins Cemetery 7. Edwards (or Granny Cabe) Cemetery B. Durham Family Cemetery 9. Old Terrell's Cemetery 10. Name Unknown -BUILDINSS 1. Seline Sykes House 2 S.S. Webb House 3. Old Stafford House 4. Bingham School 5. Lloyd House 6. Sam Thompson House 7. Pikney Strowd Farm -MILL POMD6 sra 1. Thampson's (till E. Appple's Mill 3. The Mill at Teen (Union MID 4. Hopson's Mill S. Morrow's Mill - COMMLNITYIFED ATION SITES 1. Oak Grove Athletic Park Z Orange Grave Volunteer Fire Deputient 3. Orange Grove Community Building 4. Tarheel Sertow Club 5. White Cross Recreation Association cr+ 3 A i r 7 l B. BUILDINGS I. SELINE SYKES HDl15E n/s Oak Grove Church Road ISR11171 0.8 miles e/o junction with Vernon Road [SR11183 tar: 6.10.. Nineteenth century two-story frame house with plain exterior and turned porch posts. Victorian arched windows added later. Private. 2. S.S. k8B HOU5E e/s Mebane -Oaks Road ICSR10071 approximately one mile south of Bradshaw Quarry Road ISR11151 tar: 6.17.. Two - story, five bay house, part of which dates to the 18401s. House has four chimneys, one of which is laid in Flemish bond. Additionally, some of the original interiors, with paneled doors and louvered blinds, remain. Private. 3. a.D STiB:FIxiD HOl6E 0.33 miles down a dirt road east of Mebane -Oaks Road [SR10073, 0.2 miles north of NC54 tar: 6.17.. Eclectic one -story house with additions. Enclosed breezeway connects two small houses. Much interior work dates from 1900, though some original hardware glass and survive. Private. 4. BING" SD03L northeast corner NC54 and Mebane-Oaks Road ISR10071 tor: 6.17..19 National Register of Historic Places site. Rural complex consisting of mid-nineteenth century Greek Revival house and outbuildings. Was site of Bingham School 1845 -1884. Private. 5. LLOYD H13USE n/s Teer Road [SR11003 1.3 miles west of Orange Grove Road ISR10063 tmr; 6.19.. Two - story, three bat frame house with hip roof, box cornice, and plain exterior trim. Original hip roof porch remains. One story wing dates from early 1900's. Private. 6. SAM TFDP.,OH HOUSE e/s Crawford Dairy Road ISR19561 tor; 6.39.. Circa mid - nineteenth century. Two -story gable roof frame house built twenty feet west of original log home on family homestead. Extensive outbuildings, including a V -notch log dairy. Private. 7. PIKIEY STRU FARM e/s Collins Mountain Road ISR19563 0.8 miles south of Old Greensboro Highway ISR10053 tor: 6.41.. Circa mid-nineteenth century. Two -story frame farmhouse with Greek Revival details, symmetrically molded frames, corner blocks, and molded sills. Flush sheathing nder n9 Common P�'ch• bond chimneys at east and west gables. Private. nest gales C. MILL PONDS AND SITES 1. T1 M9W S HILL Turkey Run Creek 0.33 miles from confluence with Cane Creek tar: 6.15.. Circa 1813. Only the dam remains of the mill. Dam is about 200+ long and 15' high and in good condition. Private. 6-4 ORANGE COUNTY 1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No, Meeting Date: December 1.9, 1990 SUBJECT: Maternal Care Coordination DEPARTMENT: HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING: Yes Y No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT; Maternity Care Coordination HEALTH DIRECTOR'S OFFICE X2412 Grant Application Instructions TELEPHONE NUMBER: for FY 90 -91 Hillsborough -'.32 -8151 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To provide maternity care coordination for at least one hundred fifty pre -natal patients receiving Medicaid covered services. BACKGROUND: The N. C. General Assembly has received Maternal Care Coordination systems in North Carolina which demonstratesuthatnthese services rendered for pre -natal patients have had an effect on reducing the infant mortality rate in North Carolina, Therefore, the legislature has allocated $500,000 for FY 90 -91 to create additional Maternal Care Coordination allocated to those health departments which apply on the basis lofGa demonstrated,wun1 e need. The funds are intended to be used as "working capital" to fund new Maternal Care Coordination positions for 3 1/2 months, allowing time for the Medicaid reimbursement to provide sufficient funds for the remainder of the year. The enclosed Maternity Care Coordination Grant Application Instructions includes a report of the number of women covered by Medicaid who delivered in Orange County. This report indicates that 194 women covered by Medicaid who delivered babies between July, 1989 through June, 1990 received no care coordination. This number is in excess of the rninimum number required for a full time maternal care coordination position. Executive Director of the Orange Chatham Comprehensive Service (OCCHS), Moses has indicated that they do not intend to apply for the funds for this has Jr., Likewise, the University Hospital's Department of OB /GYN is not intendingltooapply for this position. Therefore, these Orange Count patients Coordination unless the Health Department applies for thesel funds Yandipr Maternal Care ovies services. Therefore, the Orange County Health Department is seeking authorization1from the Board of Commissioners to apply for the above - mentioned funds and to establish a Social Worker position. The State grant and anticipated Medicaid revenue would more than cover the cost of the position. Therefore, no County funds will be required for this position. The Board of Health is reviewing this proposal at its meeting of December 5, 1990. Upon its approval, an application will be submitted to the State Division of Maternal and Child Health in order to meet the December 14 deadline. However, the application will be made contingent upon approval by the Orange County Board of Commissioners at its neeting on December 18, 1990, RECOMMENDATION(S): Endorse the Orange County Health Department's application for the Maternal Care Coordinator funds, approve the addition of a Maternal Care Coordination position, with continuation of the position contingent upon Medicaid revenue sufficient to cover the cost of the position; and authorize the signature of the Agency Director and the Agency Finance Officer on the statement of assurance which must accompany the application of funds. 2 a �. 1�•. r •I• •�• •• • -,Ill �• • �. • r . r•• w . . FY 3-990 - 91 W414 b i P"I _ II �• L . -lye • I`.My. �1- U I •1" r ".• Is Imo' - 3 As part of a $10.3 million initiative to reduce North Carolina's high infant mortality rate, the 1990 rene_1 Assembly appropriated $500,000 to the Division of Maternal and Child Health to increase the number of Medicaid recipients receiving maternity care coordination services. The appropriation will be used as seed funding for local health departments, comm=ty health centers, and other qualified providers to employ additional full -tire or -tine maternity care coordinators. It is anticipated that these positions will become self -- supporting through the generation of Medicaid earnings. In Fiscal Year 1989- -90, 40 percent of the 28,000 deliveries funded by Medicaid were to women who received care coordination services. With expansion of Baby Love Program benefits to pregnant wcu en up to 150% of poverty in January 1990, pregnant teenagers in April 1990 and pregnant women up to 185% of poverty in October 1990; it is estimated that the Medicaid Program will cover 35,000 deliveries per year - an increase of 25 %. • � Grants will provide approximately three and one -half months of salary and fringe benefits for additional maternity care coordination staff. Awards will be based upon $8,750 per full -time positi on. Prorated amounts will be awarded for part -time positions. Three and one -half months is the approximate amount of time needed to train a new maternity care coordinator and to generate the revenue necessary to support their position. The maxis = amount that will be awarded is $17.50 0 per county. The level of funding requested should be c nwxzurate with the additional number of Medicaid recipients to be served. An appropriate caseload for a full -time Maternity Care coordinator is approximately 150 clients RM year. If the total amount of funds requested exceeds the $500,000 available, approved applications front counties with excessive rates and numbers of infant deaths will be given priority. roved a ligation not funded due to insufficient funds will be criven riori consideration in - 1991 -92, when another $500,000 in start-up grants will be made available. The application must include a signed statement from the agency director and finance officer. 'the statement must provide assurances that (1) grant funds will be used to establish new care coordination position(s) and,/or increase the percentage time of existing part-time positions and (2) that the revenues generated by care coordination staff will be used to support their salaries in the current and subsequent fiscal years. -A sample assurance statement _ (Attacmlent I) is included in the application package. Agencies that fail to comply with these conditions or to serve additional numbers of Medicaid recipients to with the funding provided, will not be considered for maternity care coordination grants - ire- future fiscal years. — 1� Cpl %0'vow Qualified providers applying for a maternity care coordination grant must provide the following information on DEHRR Form T-659 (copy attached): 1. A county estimate of the annual number of pregnant Medicaid recipients who are not receiving maternity care coordination services. 2. An estimate of the additional number of Medicaid recipients (public and private patients) who will be served each year. 3. The amount of funding requested. 4. The number of full -time and/or part --time maternity care coordinators who will be employed. District health departments must complete a MHM T -659 for each county for which funding is being requested. A special statistical report (Attachment II) is enclosed to help local agencies estimate the number of Medicaid recipients who are not receiving care coordinatior services. It provides data by on the number of deliveries paid for by the Medicaid Program in FY 1989 -90. The report also provides the following information: (1) The number of Medicaid deliveries to women who did not receive MCC services as indicated by "No CARE COORDM." (2) The number of Medicaid deliveries to women who received MCC sery . from the local health department as indicated by "Div OF HEALTH SE." (3) The number of Medicaid deliveries to women who received MCC sexvi from a conumxnity heal_ center as indicated by the name of the agency (e.g. MAXTCH MEDICAL, HOONE TRAIL, SLUE R=, etc.). Please note that the number of Medicaid deliveries paid for in Fiscal Year 1989 -9 does not include those pregnant women who will be added to the Medicaid Program a a result of eligibility increasing to 185% of poverty. Moreover, expanded eligibility for pregnant women below 150% of poverty was in effect for only sax months of FY 1989 -90, and expanded eligibility for pregnant teenagers was in effect for only three months: It is suggested that applicant agencies increase the number of Medicaid deliveries in FY 1989 -90 by 25 percent as a guide for estimating the number of pregnant women who will be eligible for care coordinatic services under these expm%W coverages In determining the number of positions (full -time equivalents) and the amount of funding needed to serve a given n=ber of additional clients, the Division of Maternal and Cud Health requests that applicant agencies use the following- - formula: 5 • • • •J ■D. • v •J •••: -.• r .• • - � �' }• �• `•� • 'JAI r'J }• 150 100$ $8, 750 1.20 1.12 8Cf$ Y7 /000 90 75% $6,563 75 60$ $5,250 60 50$ $4,375 37 40% $3'500 30 25� $2,188 20% $1,750 Local applicant agencies are to use this formula in preparing their funding requests. in counties with more than one maternity care coordination agency, each may submit a separate request for funds. However, if both agencies indicate that they intend to extend maternity cane coordination services to Medicaid recipients served by private physicians, then their applications must also include a signed letter of agreement. The letter of agreement must detail the client assignment arrangements that have been agreed to by the two agencies. -$ - r •: •:r• At " VI The sulnnission deadline for is December 14 1990. must either be received or Applications_ ked that date. arts that fail to meet the submission deadline or that are fete will not be a-----, Applications should be mailed to: Ms. Marcia Roth Division of Maternal and Auld Health Rost Office Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 -7687 Applications should be delivered to: Ms. Marcia Roth Room ;302 1330 St. Mazy /s Street Raleigh, North Carolina ■ • ..� a- �- ■ r• .• -Ja.� — Applications may be Med to: Ms. Marcia Roth FAX # (919) 733 -0488 r • r:y • r i •:• ell r ••a . ;� ti '• r ar R RE�i� APID APPACNAL PAS ' Each application will be reviewed by a technical review o=uttee Office of includes representatives frcan the Division of Medical Assistance, the J:h,,l Health and Rase Development, and the Division of Maternal and te; ( Health. The committee will make sure (1) that the application is CcuP (2) that the estimated r=ber of Medicaid recipients not receiving maternity care coordination services is accurately d=rented; (3) that the numbers of additional persons to be served and care coordinators to be hired are cc u -ate with the level of funding request; (4) that red assurarK)es are included, and (5) that the sutmission deadline was met. Based upon their review, the technical review committee will determine which applications meet all 0ftz fission requirements and prioritize each one. Priority will be given to those applications from counties with excessive rates and numbers of infant deaths. The technical review comuittee will then forward its recCIMMendations to the Maternal Health Branch. Notification of approval /denial will be mailed to applicant agencies by January 31, 1990. Successful applicants will also be mailed contract and budgetary instructions at that time. SICK AND TDC HNICAL MSISM = Local health departments that need consultation and technical assistance in the preparation of their application should contact their Regional MCH Nursing and migrant health centers that need consultation and Consultant. C=mmlity Caroline technacal assistance should contag 9Ms733 -240. �d at the Office Foural Health and Re�'� Development DkIIF i Kl c�i2,�5ffE I • • ' r. Y9• -� r. - Ir • I r ly 1 r. Yy�.� r. y i••`�•11 r- • C• «. • m- MENE KPMER: / 7-3.2-9/f/ Jl ON Ct7f,]I N: Or A4 t ati 1 Y7• I /. I.'�- • I�• ./• Ir -JaM1• III a I 1 1 •• 1 • •J � e•11.1 r- • . a.- • �. 1. Yap` THE 7CITAL NUMEM OF DELIVERIES • &MICAM •Ja.•I• ■} I 1 •J 91 a• TO ATmamW 33:) 2. ENTER EsT7NhTED r.'y• • r • • ►• EEU,nuum TO BE a aRa• BY THE la• V• rr • -.•C• . -Ja.. la u • • ■• - 3. • v al !1I'1 I:.?- • 1016 •r Ir •J7•iI• I an I • I -.•/7 1 JaSI91 1 . iai- M�. 14:71 a• . • la � 1. MMER SUMM IN FY 3989 -90 BY APPLYC? m, AGuL -Y 9 2. NUMIEER SIIRVID IN FY 1989 -90 BY OMER Mac' AG22CY + '31 3. 70M SERVED (B. 1. PUS B.2.) ` 4 E3TIMAXED ARRML NL14MR • ' MWICAM -J CU Ia 1. iN axwN • • -1 • 'J7•a1• r „• `1 ?; •7s q :411 M D. 7ti 1 n Y?• _ N r• L, }- • • r r r• MEDICAID RECIPIENTS THE Cc um H• I -.r n �l • E •7. I" v ' C.a IF I ;r r - -47.191 7i ran CHILD 1E 1 MTnNm 70 BE 'ia- a1 • ENTER AMIMCNAL NUKEER OF PR W= 17 • BE SERVED • •1 Y • r. 'rq�iqpii 711111117 • • EEHNR T-659 90 Maternal Health Branch /so J •1 • r 1 I It •.' 'a L= 411 I: • V • C•] L,y. � i00% $8,-$,50 $ 750 80% $7,000 S 75% $6,563 $ 60% $F"..50 $ _ 50t $4,375 $ 40% $3,500 $ 25% $2,188 $ 20$ $1'ZOTAL $ 1 • I • r. Y�'. •n y ••• " +1)1 / • II imjvz, e 1�• y+ Y:r1 Fx J Attachment I PMMgRNIW CAS iL uEaNATICK (fir STATE1ENr of AssuR iii The (name Of agency) agrees to the following requirements as a condition for receiving maternity care coordination grant funds from the Division of Maternal and Child Health: (1) 'Ib use grant funds to establish new maternity care coordination Position(s) and/or increase the page time of existing part -time care coordination positions, and (2) To use the revenue generated by maternity rare coord]r ot,on staff to support their salaries and fringe benefits in the current and subsequent fiscal years. Signature of Agency Director W71;M Signature of Agency Finance Officer Da " Date : ^1i r 11 I'h • J•JIr. 11 "�' "• 11 Ix 1 ;•SIC' 1; 1 :� a�: • 14 r _ V _ lil X41• •' • Il ;r• COUNTY JF R=_.iiDcNCE =MITCHELL CARE COUKUINATION PROVIDER NAME FREQUENCY._ P.ERCE.b,,T W CARE COORUINA 45 65.2 ,IV OF HEALTH SE _ 24_ 34.8 COUNTY OF RESIUENCE=MQNTGOMERY CARE COORDINATION PROVIDER NAME _ FREUUENCY PERCENT ------------------------------------..- 1 CARE COORUINA 146 b4.4 IV JF HEALTH SE 27 -- __._15.6 - COUNTY OF RESIUENCEzMOORE CARE COORUINAT104 PROVIDER _NAME_ _........._. - FRE.RUENCY PEAC_EhlT -------------------- - - - - -- -- -- - - -w -- rCARE COORUINA 177 59.0 :U OF HEALTH SE 123 41.0 GOUVTY OF RESIDENCE=NASH !CARE COORDINATION PROVIDER NAME �..._..__._.__ FRE011ENtY PERCENT -------------------------- -------- IV OF HEALTH SE 290 67.0 J CARE CUOROINA 143 33.0 COUNTY OF RESII)ENCEnNEW HANOVER CARE COORDINATION PROVIDER ..NAME__,_ FREgUENGY PERCENT --------------- •._------_------------- �) CARE CUURJINA 432 77.3 14 tJf AEALTH SE 127 22.7 Attachment II ' COUNTY OF RESIDENCE=N0RTHAMPTOi, CAKE _'UjjRDINAUON PROVIDER NAME FREQUENCY DIV OF HEALTH SE J2 NO CARE COJRu IIlA 65 ROANURE AMARANTH 19 OB -GYN ASSOC OF 15 BERTIE LU RURAL 1 BERTIE LJUNTY RU 1 -:( PEF CENT 4 .8 3 .5 IC .4 .2 .5 •5 COUNTY OF RESIDENCE= ONSLOw CARE COORDINATION PROVIDER NAME FREQUENCY PEN DIV OF HEALTH SE 316 61 NO CARE COQRDINA 199 3E COUNTY OF RESIDENCE= ORANGE CARE GQQRUINATIUN PROVIDER NAME FREaUENCY PERCENT NO CARE COORDINA 194 82 .9 ORANGE CHATHAM C 31 1 392 DIV OF HEALTH 3-'E 9 1.8 COUNTY OF RESIUEr4CE= PAMLICU CAKE COORDINATION PROVIDER NAME FREuUENCY PERCENT NU CARE CQURDINA 52 b5"6 UIV_ OF HEALTH SE _ 27 .2 COUNTY OF RESIDENCE= PASwUUTA'N CARE COORDINATION PROVIUER NAME FREUUE_NCY _ PERCENT UIV OF HEALTH SE 167 7901 - kO CARE COURDINA 44 2009 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A enda- Item No.V ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 18, 1990 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS __ -.------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT: 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 - - PURPOSE: To maintain membership ateffective levels on- Commissioner's appointed boards and commissions. BACKGROUND: The following recommendations are presented for the Board's consideration. CABLE TV CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Appoint David Gephart and Donald Tilley to fill vacancies on this board. Also appoint James Kelly to serve as an Alternate Member who will have voting privileges only if a full member is absent. DOMICILIARY HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Appoint Ann Jenkins - Agar to serve the probationary training period ending in June, 1991. She will then be eligible to be appointed to regular full terms. EMS ADVISORY COUNCIL: Appoint Shirley Marshall to fill the orange County citizen representative position on this board. There is no time limitation of service with this council. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION: Appoint Peter Fore to fill one of the vacant "At Large$' positions. His term of office will end in November, 1993 and he will be eligible to serve an additional term. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION ON DISABILITY (Special Appointment): Appoint Mrs. Martha Barbee, who is visually impaired, to serve as the Orange County representative to this organization. Representatives serve for two years or until a new representative is appointed. RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. xz SUBJECT: MI NUT ES Meeting Date: DECEMBER 18, 1990 - - - - - -- ---------------------------------- DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X -- - - - - -- ---------------------------------- ATTACHMENT(S): UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 -------------------------------------- PURPOSE: To correct and /or approve the minutes assubmitted for consideration: December 3, 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. COUNTY of ORANGE CENTRAL LAND RECORDS OFFICE Roscoe E. Reeve Patricia B. Smith Manager Mapping Supervisor AGREEMENT This Agreement, by and between the County of Orange, hereafter, referred to as COUNTY, and Richard J- Taylor;r-hexea €ter= .'=referred to as CONSULTANT.. That for the sum of $13,600 CONSULTANT will assist COUNTY with professional services as described in the attached appendix, consisting of five tasks to identify, evaluate, and make recommendations on the obtaining of an integrated E911 —GIS capability. Further, payment to CONSULTANT shall be made at the completion of each task, said completion affirmed by submission to COUNTY of a written report product describing the accomplishment of the task, and the required evaluations and /or recommendations. This the 18th day of December, 1990. by Chair, Orange County VaA of Commissioners accepted by �..� Richard V Tavlm;r County Seal 208 South Cameron Street 0 P. O. Box 8181 0 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Telephones: 919 732 -8181 - 919 967 -9251 - 919 688 -7331 - 919 227 -2031 DoWellho; i "l SA&APOW" f /R.. /Y. yo ALTERNATIVE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS AND THE RURAL BUFFER The Rural Character Study Committee (RCSC) recommendations have again emphasized the need for the County to develop a strategy for managing "alternative sewage disposal systems" (ASDS) . This is an issue that should be considered for all of Orange County, not just the Rural Buffer. In fact, ASDS manage- ment is not the primary issue to be decided in RCSC recommenda- tions. I would suggest that we split these issues and consider them separately. RURAL BUFFER Assuming that RCSC options A -C are relatively non- controversial, the issue is then whether option D, planned residential developments (PRD), and option E, Rural Villages (RV)., are desirable in the Rural Buffer (RS). If there is not a consensus among the three governments that PRDs and RVs are desirable, the reasons should be stated and then let's move on to other matters. If PRDs and RVs are desirable, under certain con- ditions, then those conditions need to be identified. ISSUES Location - Are the locations of PRDs and RVs to be directed, identified on the :land use plan_, or are they to just happen? This decision will impact on the planning far utilities and other services. Transportation -- It has been suggested that transportation should be the chief location criterion. Why, if the density o PRDs and RVs is not significantly different than that associated with op- tions A -C? Sewage Disposal - ASDSs or sewer lines? Clearly, sewer lines provide the highest degree of environmental protection, but they may not be economically feasible. ASDSs can provide a reliable means of sewage disposal if properly des :gned, installed and maintained. What Is the basis of the apposition to sewer lines? Do sewer lines promote growth in ways that cannot be controlled t_ ".rough a and use plan and zon -Ang? urban Sir ices - what constitutes "an area where urban services are not planned to be provided "? ::rban services, e.g., fire protection, pol_ce protection, so1!d waste co_lection, water and sewer ;;ti_ities, and recreation facilities are needed by all residents. A "not planned to be urban, ser.-ice area" is best described as a^ area for which a=^ne ---cation is not practicable be- cause the cost of prow ding services exceeds t:he taxes that would be ccwlected. n_,D not be developed to ..roan den - sities. Cou_d RD or RV clusters be candidates for annexation? ASDSs There appears to be'a consensus that a management systems is needed to assure proper design, construction, operation, main- tenance and remediation of ASDSS. only the form is tobe agreed n upon. Management entities that have been suggested . Health Depaftment, QC Administration, UwASA and private co:,1- panies. ISSUES Liability - what is the exposure if one agency is responsible for site evaluation, design, inspection, monitoring, maintenance, remediation- and enforcement. Should these functions be split be- tween the Health Department and another entity? Remediation -- one of the largest concerns has to do with the ability to effect repairs in the event of a system failure. A bond, to be put up by the developer %owner, has been suggested as one mechanism. Concern has been expressed about the abil`:ty to collect funds in timely, manner using this mechanism. Another possibility would be to establish a "super fund" to be used for emergency remediation. The fund could be established by an up front tee charged at the time new systems are approved. The sys- tem owner would be responsible for replenishing the fund which could'be done through an assessment -lien procedure. The state has established a similar fund to address leaking underground storage tanks in cases where the tank owner denies ability to fund the cleanup. Annual tank registration fees are used, I believe, for that fund. Legislation should be sought to provide for the creation of a fund that could be used to address the ASDS problem. DW 12/18/90 MEMORANDUM To: Orange County Board of Commissioners From: Alice Gordon Subject: Rural Buffer Date: December 18, 1990 As we discuss proposals for the Rural Buffer, 1 would suggest that we follow three principles: A. Su ort the Joint Plannin Agreement-and continue to romote Ater overnmental coo eration with Carrboro and Chanel Hill. As I tried to emphasize at the Commissioners' planning retreat on December 8, it is important to approach any discussions in the spirit of cooperation not confrontation. As co -chair of the advisory group which helped to shape the Joint Planning Agreement, I believe it is extremely important to support such joint planning_ During the coming decade joint planning and regional cooperation are going to be increasingly significant. B. Follow rocedures that will resolve the remaining issues as uickl as is rudent and ossible. We owe that to the residents in the current Rural Buffer area and we also owe it to the members of the Rural Character Study Committee who have worked so long and so fruitfully. C. Adopt ro osals which are environmental) sound. As we deliberate we need to know the carrying capacity of the land for development. I believe there is a considerable amount of information already available on the amount of groundwater in the buffer and the capability of the land to support septic tanks, as well as other information on soils and slopes. We should have that information presented to us in the course of our deliberations and we should consider it carefully. V ITEMS FOR FOLLOWUP BOARD MEETING DATE: ITEM # TITLE TYPE OF FOLLOWUP FOLLOWUP COMPLETED NOTES: