Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-19-1991 (2)ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1991 ON ALL ABSTRACTS 7:30 P.M. AVAILABLE IN THE OLD POST OFFICE CLERK'S OFFICE. CHAPEL HILL, NC NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING: Audio amplification equipment is available on request. If you need this assistance, please call the County Clerk's Office at 732 -8181 or 968 -4501. I. BOARD COMMENTS II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. Matters on the Printed Agenda (We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked.) B. Matters not on the Printed Agenda PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. V. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) A. Exercise of Lease Option- -Carr Mill Mall (Health Department) B. Lease Renewal --- Drivers License Bureau C. Resolution to Apply and Enter into Agreement with N.C. Department of Transportation for UMTA Section 18 Capital Funds D. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment -- Camp /Retreat Center E. Proposed Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Text Amendments F. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment -- Development Advisory Committee G. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment-- PWII /WQCA District Intent H. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment --- Action Subsequent to Approval of Preliminary Plat I. Budget Ordinance Amendment #8 J. Change of Meeting Date VI. RESOLUTIONS PROCLAMATIONS VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. For Citizen Comments and a Decision 1. Continuation of Feasibility Study - -NC 54 Widening IS. REPORTS A. Poe Center for Health Education X. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- REGULAR AGENDA A. 1991 -96 Capital Improvements Plan B. 1991 Board of County Commissioners Goals C. Orientation Program for County Appointed Boards/ Commissions D. Annual Achievement Award Competition (NACo) X1. APPOINTMENTS XII. MINQTES XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Litigation XIV. ADJOURNMENT ( *) Indicates items that need immediate attention. F Approved March 4, 1991 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FEBRUARY 19, 1991 REGULAR MEETING The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. at the Franklin Street Post Office in District Courtroom in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman hoses Carey, Jr., Vice - Chair Stephen Halkiotis, Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Albert Kittrell, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Finance Director Ken Chavious, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Personnel Director Elaine Holmes, Purchasing Director Pam Jones, Public Works Director Wilbert McAdoo, Department on Aging Director Jerry Passmore, Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass, Land Records Manager Roscoe Reeve, Health Director Dan Reimer, Planner David Stancil, Budget Analyst Donna Wagner, and EMS Director Nick Waters. I. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Gordon reminded the Board members about the lecture and discussion on Neo- traditional town. planning. She. thanked the responsiveness of the County staff for their attendance at the Groundwater Conference held today. Commissioner Halkiotis commended those involved with the tin can recycling at the County Jail. He asked for information about the vender and how much money the County is being paid. With regards to Carden's Mobile Home Park, the landscaping is now being completed and the pipeline is in for the self- contained water treatment plant. II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT John Link introduced the County's new Budget Director Sally Kost. IIY. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA ADD under Appointments - "Triangle J. Emergency Medical Council" REPLACE agenda item V -J with the agenda abstract distributed this evening. IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGEN A Chair Carey announced that t:zose citizens who would like to speak on an item on the printed agenda would be recognized at the appropriate time. B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA - NONE V. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSEWT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as stated below: A. EXERCISE OF LEASE OPTION - CARR MILL MALL HEALTH DEPT. This item was postponed to the next meeting. Additional information on the consumer price- index will be provided as requested by Commissioner Willhoit. B. LEASE RENEWAL - DRIVERS LICENSE BUREAU To approve and authorize the Chair to sign the lease renewal through January 31, 1994 with SAD Realty Corporation for space used for the Driver's License Bureau at Carrboro (formerly Plantation Plaza). C. RESOLUTION TO APPLY AND ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR UMTA SECTION 18 CAPITAL FUNDS To approve a resolution as stated below to apply for UMTA Section 18 capital funding and authorize the Chair to sign the necessary documents subject to the review of the County Attorney. RESOLUTION SEEKING PERMISSION TO AMEND FY 1990 -91 /FY 1991-92 APPLICATION FOR SECTION 18 FUNDING WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has received a grant from the US Department of Transportation authorized by Section 18 of Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, to provide assistance for rural public transportation projects; and WHEREAS, the purpose of these transportation funds is to provide grant monies to local agencies for the provision of rural public transportation services; and WHEREAS, Article 2B of Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General Statutes and the Governor of North Carolina have designated the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as the agency responsible for administering funds received through Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964; and WHEREAS, the County of Orange, has assured and certified to the NCDOT that it will comply with the Federal Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Special Section 13(c) Warranty, and all administrativ(_ requirements which relate to the applications made to and grants received from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, as well as the provisions of Section 1001 of Title 18, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Chairman of the Orange Cou::ty Commissioners is hereby authorized to submit a grant appyication amendment for funding under Section IS of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. D. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - CAMP RETREAT CENTER To approve Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 8.8.5 - Camp /Retreat Center, Article 22 Definitions and Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table as presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and recommended by the Planning Board on January 28, 1991. These are incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. E. PROPOSED FLOOD DAY-AGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS To approve Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 2 Definitions and Article 4.5 Manufactured Homes as presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and recommended by the Planning Board on January 28, 1991. These are incorporated in the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's office. F. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE To approve a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Article 2.4.2.1 which deletes any role for the Development Advisory Committee in the issuance of Stop Work orders. This was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and the Planning Board recommended approval at their meeting held on January 28, 1991. This text amendment is incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance that is in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's office. G. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - PWIT W CA DISTRICT INTENT To approve the Zoning ordinance Text Amendment to Article 4.2.27 PWII District Intent and Article 4.2.28 WQCA District Intent which corrects a technical discrepancy between the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas and provides consistency in the wording. This was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and the Planning Board recommended approval at their meeting held on January 28, 1991. This text amendment is incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance that is in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. H. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT -- ACTION SUBSE UENT TO APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT To approve a Subdivision Regulations Text amendment to Section III -D -2 -e with regard to action subsequent to approval of preliminary plat. This would add another basis for allowing the phasing plan for a major subdivision to bc< revised. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and the Planning Board recommended approval at their meeting on January 28, 1991. This text amendment is incorporated in the Subdivision ordinance that is in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ;Y8 To approve amendments to the 1990 -91 Budget Ordinance as listed below: GENERAL FUND $ ( 2,546 ) Source -- Intergovernmental Appropriation (2,546) Contributions to Outside Agencies (To budget CBA funding reduction.) Source - Miscellaneous $ (20,000) Appropriation - Human Services 20,000 (To transfer additional funds for the DSS Child Day Care program from Contingency.) Source - Intergovernmental 25,210 Appropriation Contributions to Outside Agencies 25,210 (To budget for additional funds awarded to the Orange County Arts Commission.) Source - Intergovernmental 19,992 Appropriation - Human Services 19.992 (To budget for additional state Child Day Care funds.) COUNTY CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Source -- Appropriated Fund Balance 20,000 Appropriation - Transfer to County Capital 20,000 projects Fund (To budget additional funds for the Jail renovation project.) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND Source - Intergovernmental 51,400 Appropriation - Orange Community Housing 51,400 (To establish budget for orange Community Housing project). J. CHANGE OF MEETING DATE To approve the following resolution which changes the meeting date of the March 19th meeting to March 20 and the meeting place from District Courtroom in Chapel Hill to Lincoln Center in Chapel Hill: WHEREAS, General Statute 153A -40(a) requires the Board of County Commissioners to fix the time and place of its regular meetings; and WHEREAS, this Board desires to change the date of the regular meeting scheduled for March 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. WHEREAS, this Board desires to change the place of the regular meeting scheduled for the courtroom in the old Post Office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners that the March 19 regular meeting shall be held on March 20 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. This notice is provided pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153 -40. VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS VI. RESOLUTIONS PROCLAMATIONS - NONE VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - NONE VIII. PUBLIC HEARING 1. CONTINUATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY - NC 54 WIDENING Planning Director Marvin Collins stated that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen adopted a resolution opposing the project. The Town of Chapel Hill will have no comments. The Bingham Township Advisory Council (TAC) also adopted a resolution in opposition to the project as did the Orange County Planning Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to close the public hearing and direct the staff to draft a letter to the Department of Transportation to express the County's opposition to this proposal and request that it be removed from the 1990 -96 Transportation Improvement Program. This letter will include a list of those improvements the County would like to be added to the program. IX. REPORTS A. POE CENTER FOR HEALTH EDUCATION Mary Rendleman, Development Chairman, presented a video which explained the educational programs that would be offered at the Poe Center f.or Health Education. She explained that they have raised 2.7 million of the 3 million they need for the project. They expect the Center to open the first of November. She asked that Orange County consider a one -time sponsor fee of $6,000 for the center. This is not a prerequisite for participation by the schools in the service area. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the statistics in the video and Ms. Rendleman will provide him with additional information. Various questions about the programs were answered by Ms. Rendleman. X. ITEMS FOR DECISION --REGULAR AGENDA A.I. 1991 -96 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN County Manager John Link gave an over of the "newcomers" to the 1991 -96 CIP. Discussion ensued and it was decided that: (1) a study shall be done to determine how many days a month and how many hours a day the four courtrooms are being used and the feasibility of using night court and weekend court, (2) the possibility of utilizing an existing building to house an additional EMS base station would be explored, (3) consideration would be given to conducting a long -term facility study and financing far the study, (4) the goal for availability of rams out of utilization of space_ will be to move the existing programs rental space into the Court Street Annex and make a determination for providing the space necessary for the Small Business Training Center and other training programs, and (5) a fee for parking will be considered. Population projections for the schools were discussed. David Stancil stated that since 1975 there has been an increase in the birth rate of 430. It is expected that the increase in the Chapel Hill /Carrboro System by the end of the decade will be 450 for a total of 8,000 students and the increase in the orange County system will be 20o for a total. of 6100 students. The areas that are expected to see the influx of new enrollment are in the transition areas north and west of the towns, Eno and Little River Townships and the Rural Buffer area Chairman Carey asked that the discussion be focused first on the need for a new high school.. He would like for that planning to be considered in the context of that high school serving all of Orange County. when it comes on line it should be planned to serve all of Orange County and be strategically placed to serve both school. systems. Second, he would like to focus on the remaining needs. He suggested a citizens group which will recommend timing and the other components of a bond issue. John Link stated that with regard to the requested 90 million dollars for a bond issue, the staff could not recommend, from a fiscal accountability standpoint, that the Board consider anything more than 30 million. That would create a three cents property tax increase for three years, a total of nine cents. to Discussion ensued on the responsibility of the County provide school facilities and the best way to finance these facilities. Commissioner willhoit questioned if the housing had already been built for this increased student population and what revenues a proposed impact tax might generate. John Link will develop a charge for a citizens committee for consideration by the Board at the March 4 meeting. It was decided that the Countv Manager would work with the school superintendents on the concept of one high school and develop a proposal on how this may be accomplish and report back to the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis proposal for March 20. Aoom at Lincoln Center Board on what items to than April 1. VOTE: UNANIMOUS to set a Public Hearing on the entire CIP It will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Board in Chapel Hill. A final decision by the include in the CIP will be made no sooner B, 1991 BOARD OF COtiNTY COMMISSIONERS a ALS This item was postponed to the March 4th meeting. C. ORIENTATION PROGRAM FOR COUNTY APPOINTED BQARDS /COMMISSIONS Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the program as presented in the agenda abstract with an addition to the charge to formulate a recognition program for those citizens going off a board cr commission. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ANNUAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARD COMPETITION NACv Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve the five entries as presented in the agenda abstract for submission to NACo for their consideration of an Annual Achievement Award. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XI. APPOINTMENTS roved by The followin g appointments were unanimously app the Board: BOARD OF HEALTH Barbara Chavious to complete the unexpired term Of Ruth Royster ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Joan Jobsis - Cheeks representative CARRBORO PLANNING BOARD Toy Cheek - Extraterritorial Representative TRIANGLE J EMERGENCY MEDICAL COUNCIL Barbara Overby - Volunteer Provider X11. MINUTES - February 4, 1991 Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for the February 4, 1991 meeting as revised. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was commissioner Willhoit reconvene into Regular VOTE: UNANIMOUS made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by to adjourn the Executive Session and to Session. XIV . ADJOII RAIMENT With no further items for Board Yonsiderat an, Chairman Moses Car =�y, Jr. adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on March 4, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey,Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Approved March 4, 1991 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FEBRUARY 19, 1991 REGULAR MEETING The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, p.m. at the Franklin Street Pas Oe i District courtroom nchapel Hill, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., Vice - Chair Stephen Halkiotis, Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Albert Kittrell, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Finance Director Ken Chavious, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Personnel Director Elaine Holmes, Purchasing Director Pam Jones, Public Works Director Wilbert McAdoo, Department on Aging Director Jerry Passmore, Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass, Land Records Manager Roscoe Reeve, Health Director Dan Reimer, Planner David Stancil, Budget Analyst Donna Wagner, and EMS Director Nick Waters. Y. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Gordon reminded the Board members about the lecture and discussion on Neo- traditional town planning. She thanked the responsiveness of the County staff for their attendance at the Groundwater Conference held today. Commissioner Halkiotis commended those involved with the tin can recycling at the County Jail. He asked for information about the vender and how much money the County is being paid. With regards to Carden's Mobile Home Park, the landscaping is now being completed and the pipeline is in for the self- contained water treatment plant. TI. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT John Link introduced the County's new Budget Director Sally Kost. zZI.. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA ADD under Appointments - "Triangle J. Emergency Medical Council" REPLACE agenda item V -J with the agenda abstract distributed this evening. I IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED_AGENn4 Chair Carey announced that those citizens who would like to speak on an item on the printed agenda would be recognized at the appropriate. time. B. MATTERS NOT ON THE-PRINTED AGENDA -- NONE V. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- CONSEWT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as stated below: A. EXERCISE OF LEASE OPTION - CARR MILL WZLiHEALTH DEPT. This item was postponed to the next meeting. Additional information on the consumer price- index will be provided as requested by Commissioner Willhoit. B. LEASE RENEWAL - DRIVERS LICENSE BUREAU To approve and authorize the Chair to sign the lease renewal through January 31, 1994 with SAD Realty Corporation for space used for the Driver's License Bureau at Carrboro (formerly Plantation Plaza). C. RESOLUTION TO APPLY AND ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR UMTA SECTION 18 CAPITAL FUNDS To approve a resolution as stated below to apply for UMTA Section 18 capital funding and authorize the Chair to sign the necessary documents subject to the review of the County Attorney. RESOLUTION SEEKING PERMISSION TO AMEND FY 1990- -91 /FY 1991 --92 APPLICATION FOR SECTION 18 FUNDING WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has received a grant from the US Department of Transportation authorized by Section 18 of Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, to provide assistance for rural public transportation projects; and WHEREAS, the purpose of these transportation funds is to provide grant monies to local agencies for the provision of rural Public transportation services; and WHEREAS, Article 2B of Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General Statutes and the Governor of North Carolina have designated the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) as the agency responsible for administering funds received through Section .18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964; and WHEREAS, the County of orange, has assured and certified to the NCDOT that it will comply with the Federal Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Special Section .13(c) Warranty, .� and all administrative_ requirements which relate to the applications made to and grants received from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, as well as the provisions of Section 1001 of Title 18, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Chairman of the Orange Cox:,;..--y Commissioners is hereby authorized to submit a grant application amendment for funding under Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. D. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - CAMP /RETREAT CENTER To approve Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 8.8.5 - Camp /Retreat Center, Article 22 Definitions and Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table as presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and recommended by the Planning Board on January 28, 1991. These are incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. E.• PROPOSED FLOOD DA_M.AGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS To approve Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 2 Definitions and Article 4.5 Manufactured Homes as presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and recommended by the Planning Board on January 28, 1991. These are incorporated in the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. F. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE To approve a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Article 2.4.2.1 which deletes any role for the Development Advisory Committee in the issuance of Stop Work Orders. This was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and the Planning Board recommended approval at their meeting held on January 28, 1991. This text amendment is incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance that is in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. G. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - PWII W CA DISTRICT INTENT To approve the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Article 4.2.27 PWII District Intent. and Article 4.2.28 WQCA District Intent which corrects a technical discrepancy between the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas and provides consistency in the wording. This was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and the Planning Board recommended approval at their meeting held on January 28, 1991. This text amendment is incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance that is in the ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. H. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT - ACTION SUBSE DENT TO APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT To approve a Subdivision Regulations Text amendment to Section III -D -2 -e with regard to action subsequent to approval of preliminary plat. This would add another basis for allowing the phasing plan for a major subdivision to btt revised. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and the Planning Board recommended approval at their meeting on January 26, 1991. This text amendment is incorporated in the Subdivision Ordinance that is in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. I. BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 08 To approve amendments to the 1990 -91 Budget Ordinance as listed below: GENERAL FUND Source -- Intergovernmental $ (2,546) Appropriation Contributions to Outside Agencies (2,546) (To budget CBA funding reduction.) Source - Miscellaneous $ (20,000) Appropriation - Human Services 20,000 (To transfer additional funds for the DSS Child Day Care program from Contingency.) Source - Intergovernmental 25,210 Appropriation Contributions to Outside Agencies 25,210 (To budget for additional funds awarded to the Orange County Arts Commission.) Source - Intergovernmental 19,992 Appropriation - Human Services 19.992 (To budget for additional state Child Day Care funds.) COUNTY CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Source - Appropriated Fund Balance 20,000 Appropriation - Transfer to County Capital 20,000 Projects Fund (To budget additional funds for the Jail renovation project.) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND Source - Intergovernmental 51,400 Appropriation - Orange Community Housing 51,400 (To establish budget for Orange Community Housing project). J. CFLANGE OF MEETING DATE To approve the following resolution which changes the meeting date of the March 19th meeting to March 20 and the meeting place from District Courtroom in Chapel Hill to Lincoln Center in Chapel Hill: WHEREAS, General Statute 153A -40(a) requires the Board of County Commissioners to fix the time and place of its regular meetings; and WHEREAS, this Board desires to change the date of the regular meeting scheduled for March 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. WHEREAS, this Board desires to change the place of the regular meeting scheduled for the courtroom in the old Post Office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners that the March 19 regular meeting shall be held on March 20 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. This notice is provided pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153 -40. VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS VI. RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS - NONE VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - NONE VIII. PUBLIC HEARING I. CONTINUATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY - NC 54 WIDENING Planning Director Marvin Collins stated that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen adopted a resolution opposing the project. The Town of Chapel Hill will have no comments. The Bingham Township Advisory Council (TAC) also adopted a resolution in opposition to the project as did the Orange County Planning Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to close the public hearing and direct the staff to draft a letter to the Department of Transportation to express the County's opposition to this proposal and request that it be removed from the 1990 -96 Transportation Improvement Program. This letter will include a list of those improvements the County would like to be added to the program. IX. REPORTS A. POE CENTER FOR HEALTH EDUCATION Mary Rendleman, Development chairman, presented a video which explained the educational programs that would be offered at the Poe Center for Health Education. She explained that they have raised 2.7 million of the 3 million they need for the project. They expect the Center to open the first of November. She asked that Orange County consider a one -time sponsor fee of $6,000 for the center. This is not a prerequisite for participation by the schools in the service area. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the statistics in the video and Ms. Rendleman will provide him with additional information. Various questions about the programs were ., answered by Ms. Rendleman. X. ITEMS FOR DECISIOW - REGULAR AGENDA A. 1991 -96 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN County Manager John. Link gave an overview of the "newcomers" to the 1991 -96 CIP. Discussion ensued and it was decided that: (1) a study shall be done to determine how many days a month and how many hours a day the four courtrooms are being used and the feasibility of using night court and weekend court, (2) the possibility of utilizing an existing building to house an additional EMS base station would be explored, (3) consideration would be given to conducting a long -term facility study and availability of financing for the study, (4) the goal for utilization of space will be to move the existing programs out of rental space into the Court Street Annex and make a determination for providing the space necessary for the Small Business Training Center and other training programs, and (5) a fee for parking will be considered. Population projections for the schools were discussed. David Stancil stated that since 1975 there has been an increase in the birth rate of 48 %. It is expected that the increase in the Chapel Hill /Carrboro System by the end of the decade will be 45% for a total of 8,000 students and the increase in the Orange County system will be 20% for a total of 6100 students. The areas that are expected to see the influx of new enrollment are in the transition areas north and west of the towns, Eno and Little 'River Townships and the Rural Buffer area. Chairman Carey asked that the discussion be focused first _on the need for a new high school. He would like for that planning to be considered in the context of that high school serving all of Orange County. When it comes on line it should be planned to serve all of Orange County and be strategically placed to serve both school systems. Second, he would like to focus on the remaining needs. He suggested a citizens group which will recommend timing and the other components of a bond issue. John Link stated that with regard to the requested 90 million dollars for a bond issue, the staff could not recommend, from a fiscal accountability standpoint, that the Board consider anything more than 30 million. That would create a three cents property tax increase for three years, a total of nine cents. Discussion ensued on the responsibility of the County to provide school facilities and the best way to finance these facilities. Commissioner Willhoit questioned if the housing had already been built for this increased student population and what revenues a proposed impact tax might generate. John Link will develop a charge for a citizens committee for consideration by the Board at the March 4 meeting. It was decided that the Countv Manager would work with the school superintendents on the concept of one high school and develop a proposal on how this may be accomplish and report back to the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to set a Public Hearing on the entire CIP proposal for March 20. It will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Board $oom at Lincoln Center in Chapel Hill. A final decision by the Board on what items to include in the CIP will be made no sooner than April 1. VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. 1991 BOARD OF COU=NTY COMMISSIONERS GOALS This item was postponed to the March 4th meeting. C. ORIENTATION PROGRAM FOR COUNTY APPOINTED BOARDS/COMMISSIONS Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the program as presented in the agenda abstract with an addition to the charge to formulate a recognition program for those citizens going off a board cr commission. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ANNUAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARD COMPETITION (NACo) Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve the five entries as presented in the agenda abstract for submission to NACo for their consideration of an Annual Achievement Award. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XI. APPOINTMENTS The following appointments were unanimously approved by - the Berard: BOARD OF HEALTH Barbara Chavious to complete the unexpired term of Ruth Royster ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Joan Jobsis - Cheeks representative CARRBORO PLANNING BOARD Toy Cheek -- Extraterritorial Representative TRIANGLE J EMERGENCY MEDICAL COUNCIL Barbara Overby - Volunteer Provider XII. MINUTES - February 4, 1991 Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for the February 4, 1991 meeting as revised. VOTE: UNANIMOUS X111. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Wil.lhoit to adjourn the Executive Session and to reconvene into Regular Session. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XIV. PDJOII^NMENT With no further items for Board nnextrregularCmeeting Moses Car ? The y, Jr. adjourned the meeting. the will be held on March 4, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. e the courtroom e old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey,Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk sip 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda A Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: EXERCISE OF LEASE OPTION; CARR MILL MALL (HEALTH DEPT.) -------------------------------------- ----- - - - - -- DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO:XX _ ------------------------ - ---- ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES FORM OF LEASE OPTION Telephone Number - EXT 2650 Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 Mebane -227 -2031 Durham -688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider exercising a two year option on the lease for the Health Clinic space at Carr Mill Mall, Carrboro, NC. BACKGROUND: In March, 1979 Orange County leased 4136 square feet for Medical Clinics and offices at Carr Mill Mall. The cost was $26,884 per year. In September, 1979, the County received grant funds from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to operate a primary care dental clinic. An option to lease an additional 1444 square feet of space was exercised in order to provide space for the clinic. The cost for this space was $9,386 per year, bringing the total annual lease amount to $36,270 or $6.50 per square foot. The lease amount is adjusted annually by the "Consumer Price Index for Atlanta, Georgia, . . . for the first month of the first lease year and for the corresponding month in each lease year thereafter" (November, in our case). For your information, a schedule of renewal amounts is provided: Inception of lease Expiration of lease Annual lease amount 3 -13 -79 11 -1 -82 $36,270 11 -1 -82 10 -31 -85 44,640 11 -1 -85 10 -31 -88 54,405 11 -1 -88 10 -31 -90 60,281 2 Current amount of the lease is $67,270. This amount will increase by the CPI in November, 1991. The lease in effect since November, 1985 provides for two two -year renewal options. The attached option form proposes that the remaining two year option be exercised. Although ownership of the shopping center changed in 1989, all terms and conditions of the present lease remain the same. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the execution of one, two -year renewal option on the Carr Mill lease; and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.� ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: LEASE RENEWAL; DRIVERS LICENSE BUREAU ----------------------------------- DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SERV. PUBLIC HEARING YES: N0: X ------------------------ -- - --- -- --- _ - - - -- ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: - PAM JONES LEASE Telephone Number - EXT 2652 Hillsborough -732 -8181 Chapel Hill -967 -9251 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham -688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider lease renewal for space used as the Driver's License Bureau at Plantation Plaza. BACKGROUND: For several years the County has provided space for a Driver's License Bureau to be located in the southern part of the County. It is the State's policy to provide one Driver's License Bureau per County. If the County desires to have more than one facility, it must pay for space to house it, with the State providing personnel and operating costs. The Orange County Commissioners voted to support this satilite center several years ago. The office has been housed in several locations. The latest move occured in 1986 when the office was relocated from the Carrboro Town Hall to leased space at the Plantation Plaza Shopping Center (now called Carrboro Plaza). The current owners of the Shopping Center are SAD Realty, Vienna, Virginia. The new location provided better accessibility for citizens taking the driving test. Since semi - trailer truck drivers are regularly tested at this facility, easy accessibility in a less conjested area is critical. The semi - trailer trucks presented considerable problems at the Town Hall. In addition, the lease rate at Plantation Plaza was considerably lower than comparable sites in the area. The site continues to serve the needs of the Driver's License Bureau staff well. 2 It is proposed that the existing lease be extended for a period of three years, with expiration on January 31, 1994. The leasing agent has maintained last year's lease rate ($13,230 /year) with a five percent (5 %) increase proposed for year two and year three. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the lease through. January 31, 1994 with SAD Realty Corporation; and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. fl ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda �G ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: Resolution to Apply and enter into agreement with N.C. Dept. of Transportation for UMTA Section 18 Captial funds DEPARTMENT: Aging- C.A.T. Program ATTACHMENT(S): Resolution PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: % INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry M. Passmore, ext 2000 TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To authorize a resolution to apply for UMTA Section 18- Capital funding and enter into an agreement with the North Carolina Department of Transportation. BACKGROUND: Orange County Commissioners approved on January 22, 1991 an updated Transportation Development Plan (TDP). The approved plan makes the County eligible for federal and state funding of vehicles and equipment requested in the document over a four year period. The plan for FY91 -92 involves the purchase of five 14 - passenger vans, two 14 - passenger vans with lifts, one 24 - passenger bus, two minivans and five mobile radios to provide human service transportation. The C.A.T. (Coordinated Agency Transportation) Program will administer the grant and coordinate the use of approved equipment. The total cost is $233,300 with 60% requested from UMTA 200 from the N.C. Department of Transportation and 20% from local agencies. Local match is provided by participating C.A.T. agencies assigned use of the equipment. A required public hearing on Orange County's proposed UMTA, Section 18 application will be held by the Orange County Human Services Transportation Advisoryu Board on Tuesday, February 26, 1991, 9:30 P.M., 300 W. Tryon St., Hillsborough, N.C. RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Chair to sign necessary documents subject to the review of the County Attorney. 2 Appendix A RESOLUTION Seeking Permission To Amend FY 1990 -91 / FY 1991 -92 Application For Section 18 Funding. A motion was made by - v and seconded (Board Membeea Name) by (Board Member's Name) for the adoption of the following .resolution, and upon being put to a vote was duly adopted. WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has received a grant from the US Department of Transportation authorized by Section 18 of Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, to provide assistance for rural public transportation projects; and WHEREAS, the purpose of these transportation funds is to provide grant monies. to local agencies for the provision of rural public transportation services; and WHEREAS, Article 2B of Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General Statutes and the Governor of North Carolina have designated the North Carolina Department of Transportation'(NCDOT) as the agency responsible for administering funds received through Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964; and WIERE_AS, The County of Orange , haa assured and certified aAppumars Nanua) to the NCDOT that it will comply with the Federal Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Special Section 13 (c) Warranty, and all administrati ve requirements which relate to the applications made to and grants received from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, as well as the provisions of Section 1001 of Title 18, U. S. C. I 3 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the arizd Offlcwl'a T de) of the orange County Comm issioneris hereby authorized to submit a grant • • 'Name 0" i aral Governing Board) application amendment for funding under Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. I `(Certifying Ol6dare Name) ' (Title of CerWng official) ' do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the minutes of a meeting of the , duly held on (Name of loeal Governing Basta) the day of I ,19 *(signature oCCerb&Mg GlBicial) (Name of Lard! Governing Board) Subscribed and sworn to me this day of , 19 (seal) •Notary Public My commission expires * Note that the official authorized to submit the grant application, certifying official, and notary public should be three (3) separate individuals. O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Februa y 19. 1991 1 Action Agenda Item #V; SUBJECT: ZONING CLE 88..8.5N- CTAMP /RETREATECENTER ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS ARTICLE 4.3 - PERMITTED USE TABLE PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No DEPARTMENT: PLANNING -�� ATTACffiK ENT (s): Proposed Amendment 12/11/90 Public Hearing Minutes 1/28/91 Draft Planning Board Minutes 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 proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to add a new section addressing Camp /Retreat Centers as Class B Special Uses. A definition for Camp and Retreat Center would be added to the definition section of the ordinance. BACKGROUND: Camp /Retreat Centers are not specifically addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. This amendment would provide specific standards and set up a Camp /Retreat Center as a Class B Special Use. If a new Camp /Retreat Center were proposed under the existing ordinance, it would be classified as non - profit recreation or a community center, both of which are classified as Class B special uses. Existing camps or retreat centers would not be affected by the amendment unless they were proposing to expand. At the time of proposed expansion a Class B Special Use Permit would have to be obtained. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990. There were no comments. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendments on January 28, 1991 and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval as per the Planning Board recommendation. 1) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 8.8.5, Article 22, Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff -� � _ Planning Board BOCC public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle _X—Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 11, 1990 -------------------------------- PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To add a new section addressing Camp /Retreat Centers to the - Zoning Ordinance. Camp /Retreat Centers would be classified as a Class B Special Use in the Agricultural Residential (AR), Rural Residential (R -1) and Rural Buffer (RB) zones. Appropriate definitions would be added to the definition section of the ordinance. IMPACTS /ISSUES: The Zoning Ordinance does not presently address Camp /Retreat Centers. If a new Camp /Retreat Center were proposed under the existing ordinance, it would be classified as non - profit recreation or a community center, both of which are classified as Class B Special Use Permits. This amendment would specifically set up a Camp /Retreat Center as a Class B Special Use Permit and provide specific standards that would apply. Existing Camps or Retreat Centers would have to obtain a Class B Special'Use Permit to expand. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Article 8.8.5 - Reserved Article 22 - "Camp" - no present definition "Retreat Center" - no present definition PROPOSED AMENDMENT; 8 C m Re rest C n e C s c'a Use 8.8.5.1 Additi-onal Infom&tjon In addition to.the information required by Subsection 8.2 and 3 8.8, the following shall be submitted as part of the application: a) A Site Plan showing all existing or proposed buildings, campsites, storage areas, fencing and gates, outdoor recreation areas and all other requirements as indicated in- Subsection 14.2. b) - Access road(s) to the site, as well as on -site roads, with an indication of type of proposed surface. C) A description of the type of facility planned, the size, capacity, and use of proposed buildings; a signed statement from the owners or operators that there shall be no activity allowed that will have adverse effects on adjacent property. The statement shall also include a complete list of all recreational activities that will take place on the site. d) A phasing plan, when necessary, indicating the area to be developed in each phase with time periods for construction of each phase. This may be indicated on the site plan. 8.8.5.2 Standards of Evaluation The following specific standards shall be used in deciding on an application for this use: a) Unless public sewer is proposed to be extended, the adequacy for the method of sewage disposal will be determined by the lot size and soil suitability. Appropriate letters from the Orange County Environmental Health Department, local jurisdictions and /or the State Division of Environmental Management shall be submitted to indicate preliminary approval. b) The site plan shall show the distances to the nearest residential structures. C) The landscape plan shall show how the facilities will be screened from the adjacent properties. A minimum 30 foot Type B buffer, as indicated in Section 12.6.1 shall be observed around the perimeter of the property. d) If private recreational facilities are proposed, the improvements must meet the site improvement requirements in Section IV- B -7 -b -4 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. The site plan for recreational facilities shall be reviewed by the Orange County Recreation and Parks Director. e) Off street parking requirements shall be as required in Section IV- B -7 -b -4 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations for improved recreation facilities. Retreat Centers must meet the same parking requirements as for churches in Article 10 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Article 22 Definitions "Camp" - A recreation use which may include locations for tents, cabins, or other recreational sleeping structures, but would not include mobile homes or recreation vehicles. A camp may be owned by a profit or not -for- profit corporation. "Retreat Center" - A new or existing facility operated by a corporation or association of persons or churches for social and recreational purposes. A retreat center may be owned by a profit or not- for - profit corporation. 3 ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1990 pLANNING HOARD REVIEW: November 19, 1990 HOCC REVIEW: December 11, 1990 W 4 n I I ' 4: -71 I Ir � I t I �I � I �I N a . C row - � Iml I (n c L cl o L. c :° — a ro W m I N I q I C) o a o1 ^ u c s ro W a a y I O W r+ N u 0 VI m I a O (o d I L1 V c ^� I � w 3 ag i V, W ( � L � I U � I Z I" w n � Cv Cti 1r1 q W W U J J q r N I J.. Lr ml I a c Q � m Lr% 11 J 1 1 W W Lk a N N C m J J .� L w Q� ro I V W4. N L � N U U a' a W W y1 _ C ro w G N F.M J W U �I N 0. r V1 N1 W C N'1 Q C Cr �+ w J J Cr U U C R R R N I q n W m � q L. W CL Q q '+ m m Ch _ C v, `.' a O V 4d -- ro Z E 7 m I I ' 4: -71 I Ir � I t I �I � I �I N a . C row ro q Iml (n c L c N -Y o L. c :° — a ro w '^ Q 1•- a r v C) o a o1 ^ u c s ro W a a y I O W r+ N u 0 VI u U a O (o d I L1 V c ^� w 3 ag i V, � L � ro c O m u 0 a 0 O U Lrf C N 4 u kn w L a u c m 0 0 O u H N 0. ro C O ro u .► w a 1.r y O ro L L a a 1 QL Q N 4 I m I °I I rI ml I �I ml m � I ml �I N E! c r C 0 N N I c ro L r N I N 4 w a CI v a r yl N � L i a -- a +r c C 1"1'L N 4 i N cm C 7� m a u 4- O L a v H1 L ro C ro V'f w L a to 1�1 N d I© q Iml IqI i � I I m I °I I rI ml I �I ml m � I ml �I N E! c r C 0 N N I c ro L r N I N 4 w a CI v a r yl N � L i a -- a +r c C 1"1'L N 4 i N cm C 7� m a u 4- O L a v H1 L ro C ro V'f w L a to 1�1 N d .ti q w C N � I — W I O Lr1 U r I L1 V I U Z I" J n � q r N I J.. Lr ml I a c m Lr% 11 m co 1 1 Lk a 0 w .� L w ro ro V a N L � c a' a � r _ ro E E c d U �I N 0. .ti =, `'A 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 iy 4 A, motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer these matters to the Planni Board for recommendation to be returned to the Board Commissioners no sooner than February 4, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Items 3 (d), (e) & (f) were presented together. )y Ig )f d. Article 4.3 Permitted Uses (Camp /Retreat centers) This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 4.3 PERMITTED USE TABLE by adding "Camp /Retreat Centers" as a use permitted in the Rural Buffer (RB), Agricultural - Residential (AR), and Rural Residential (R -1) zoning districts following the approval and issuance of a Class B Special Use Permit. e. Article 8.8 Special Uses (Camp /Retreat Centers) This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 8.8 regulations governing individual special uses by adding a rew Article 8.8.5 Camp /Retreat Center which sets forth specific site plan and development standards applicable to camp /retreat centers. f. Article -22 Definitions (Camp /Retreat Centers) This item, was presented to amend ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS by adding the definitions of "camp" and "retreat center ". THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis,�seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer these matters to the Planning Bo rd for recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than February 4, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS - 4. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments a. Section III- D--2 -e Application Requirements This•presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. This item was presented to amend SECTION III -D -2 -e APPLICATION REQUIREME14TS by adding another factor which the Board of Commissioners may consider in determining whether or not to approve an amen ed phasing plan for a subdivision. The new provision would allow approval of an amended phasing plan if the time available to install improvements (roads, etc.) was not extended. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. Commissioner Gordon asked if the Four Birch Subdivision would have been approved with this proposed amendment. Scearbo indicated that this amendment would have made a stronger case for them, MOTION: VOTE: MOTION: VOTE: AGENDA ITEM #9: Draft 1 -28 -91 Plannina Board Minutes access to the creek. Cameron stated that 60 parkland dedication is required. Unless Recreation and Parks decides that dedication will not fit into the system, then payment -in -lieu of dedication could be recommended. Due to the lower number of lots, the amount required results in a fairly small strip of land. Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton. Unanimous. b. Preliminary Plans (20 Lots) (1) Buck Run /Deed of Easement Acceptance (20 Lots - Cheeks Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. On March 5, 1990 the Orange County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan and Resolution of Approval for Buck Run Subdivision. In this resolution it was indicated that a deed would be provided to Orange County for a public right -of- way between lots 14 and 15 to allow future access to property east of the subdivision. A 60' wide deed of easement has been prepared and recorded with the final plat. The County Attorney has indicated this deed should be accepted by the County in an amended Resolution of Approval. The attached amended Resolution of Approval has been approved by the County Attorney. The neighboring property owner has indicated his concern with the 60' wide right -of -way in that he would like to connect a 5o' wide right -of -way when he develops his property. NCDOT has indicated that a 50 foot right -of -way has been connected to a 60 foot right -of -way in the past and it would probably be acceptable in this situation. They indicated they would have to see development plans for the adjoining property before approval could be given. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended Resolution of Approval. Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jacobs. Unanimous. MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (12/11/90) a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Development Advisory Committee (a) Article 2.4.2.1 (e) - Duties T (2) Watershed Protection (a) Article 4.2.27 PW -II District (2) Article 4.2.28 WQCA District (3). Camp /Retreat Centers (a) Article 4.3 Permitted Uses (b) Article 8.8 Special Uses (c) Article 22 Definitions b. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Preliminary Plat Approval (a) Section III -D -2 -e Amended Phasing Plan c. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Amendments (1) Revised FEMA Regulations (a) Article 2 Definitions (b) Article 4.5 Manufactured Homes MOTION: Best moved to approve Agenda Item #9. Seconded by Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (2/25/91) a. Assignment of House & Building Numbers (1) Rural Routes 2,3,5,6, and 7 - Mebane Eidenier stated that this is the last of the assigning of the rural routes. b. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (1) CP -1 -91 Robert Ayers & Harold Harris Stancil stated that the property is located at the intersection of Old 86 and I -40 on the southeast quadrant. The applicants are looking for a land use plan designation of commercial activity node for 33 acres. They have indicated a possible desire for pursuing an office park on that site. Stancil stated that this would involve a primary plan amendment which could onlj be heard at the February public hearing. Property owners will be notified in the next two weeks and an analysis of the proposal will be prepared. Best asked if the EDC had mentioned that the Office Institutional is something that the c is in need of. Stancil stated that the Target Advisory Committe has not ruled that out as of yet. He stated tha this committee had talked about identifying site in the county and this is one site that will be looked at. Best asked about the water line from Chapel Hill O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19 1991 Action Agenda Item #-Y-- E_ SUBJECT: PROPOSED FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (ARTICLE 2 - DEFINITIONS, ARTICLE 4.5 - MANUFACTURED HOMES) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes —x —No ATTACHMENT(S):' Proposed Ordinance Amendments 12/11/90 Public Hearing Minutes 1/28/91 Draft Planning Board Minutes INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Extension 2582 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to comply with revisions recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. BACKGROUND: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has revised the floodplain management regulations and is recommending changes to the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance based on these changes. The proposed revisions are additions and clarifications of existing definitions to correspond to the model ordinance definitions and new requirements concerning manufactured homes. Replacement manufactured homes in existing parks will now have to elevate to the base flood elevation or 36 inches in height above grade on reinforced piers. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990. There were no comments. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendments on January 28, 1991 and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval as per the Planning Board recommendation. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2 ORDINANCE: FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Article 2 - Definitions Article 4.5 - Manufactured Homes ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: —x_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle —x—Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 11, 1990 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To comply with revisions recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. IMPACTS /ISSUES: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has recently revised the floodplain management regulations. Orange County received a memo from the agency in Atlanta recommending changes to the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. These revisions are additions and clarifications of existing definitions to correspond to the model ordinance definitions and new requirements concerning Manufactured Homes. Replacement Manufactured Homes in existing parks will now have to elevate to the base flood elevation or 36 inches in height above grade on reinforced piers. The proposed amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance reflect these recommended changes. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: ARTICLE Z. DEFINITIONS Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this ordinance its most.reasonable application. "Atteal" means a request for a review of the Zoning 0__icer's interpretation of any provision of this ordinance. "Frea of sL)ecial flood hazard" is the land in the f loodway and floodway fringe as defined in this ordinance. °A---t ificial obstruc,jon" means any obstruction, which is nct a natural obstruction, including any which, while not a significant obstruction in itself, is capable of accumulating 3 debris and, thereby, reducing the flood- carrying capacity of the stream. "Base flood" means the flood having a one percent chance of being equally or exceeded in any given year, also known as the 100 -year flood. "Develonment" means any man -made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations. "Existino Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision" means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities including utilities, final grading or pouring of pads and the construction of streets is. completed before the effective date (March 2, 1981) of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance adopted by Orange County. (AMENDED 9 -20 -88 TO ADD DEFINITION) "Expansion to an Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision" means the preparation of additional manufactured home sites in an existing manufactured home park or _ subdivision beyond those that had been completed prior to the effective date (March 2, 1981) of the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. (AMENDED 9 -20 -88 TO ADD DEFINITION) "Flood Boundary = Floodwav Man FFB -F'M1° means the official maps for Orange County, on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. �- "Flood Insurance Rate Mao ("i.RM�° means the official maps for Orange County, on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special (food hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. "Flood Insurance Study" is the official report written for Orange County by the Federal Insurance Administration. The report contains flood profiles, as well as the Flood Hazard Boundary- Floodway Map and the water surface elevation of the base flood. "F10201y° means that portion of the stream channel and floodplain of a stream designated to provide passage for the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. As used in this ordinance, the term refers to that areas designated as floodway on the Flood Boundary - Floodway Map or on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration. "H bit ble Floor" means any floor usable for living purposes which includes working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof. A floor used only for storage is not a habitable floor. "Lowest Floor° means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or floor resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non - elevation design requirements of this ordinance. (AMENDED 1 -3 -89 TO ADD DEFINITION) "Manufactured ome".means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. "Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision" means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. ':New Construction" means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of this ordinance. "Start of Construction" for other than new construction or substantial improvements under the Coastal Barriers Resources Act (Public.Law 97 -348), includes substantial improvement, and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement, or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the __rst placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab, or footings, the installation or piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and-filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and /or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nc_ does it include the installation of property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. siream" means a water course that collects surface runoff from an area of one square mile or greater. "Structure- means a walled and roofed building that is principally above ground, as well as a mobile home. "Substantial Improvement" means, for a structure built prior to the enactment of this ordinance, any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure either (1) before the improvement or repair is started or (2) if the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes or this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to S occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration effects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include either (1) any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions or (2) any repair, rehabilitation or storciPlacesaorstructure listed North the CarolinaNational InventoryRegister of O f Hi H�stori Historic.Places. "Variance" means a relaxation of the terms of this ordinance where such relaxation will not be contrary to the public interest and where, owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of actions or the situation of the applicant, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship. 4.5 MANUFACTURED HGMES a. On the effective date of this ordinance, no manufactured home shall thereafter be placed in a floodway. In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, a manufactured home removed may be replaced at the same location. b. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within Zones Al -30, Fu, and AE shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured 'home is at or above the base flood elevation, provided, however, the elevation requirement applies only to manufactured homes placed or substantially improved in expansions to existing manufactured home parks or subdivisions. The elevation requirement does not apply to other manufactured homes placed or substantially improved in existing : manufactured home parks or subdivisions except where the repair, reconstruction, or improvement of the streets, utilities or pads in the existing manufactured 'home parks equals or exceeds fifty percent poy of the value of the streets, utilities or pads. (AMENDED 9- 20 -88) In addition, all manufactured homes to be placed oT substantially improved within Zones P_1 -30, W and AE shall be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system in accordance with the following provisio ^s: (AMENDED 9- 20 -88) (1) over- the -top ties be provided at each end of the manufactured home, with one additional tie per side at an intermediate location on manufactured homes of less than fifty feet and one additional tie per side for manufactured homes of fifty feet or more; 6 (2) frame ties to be provided at each corner of ` the manufactured home with four additional ties per side at intermediate points for manufactured homes less than fifty feet long and one additional tie for manufactured homes of fifty feet or longer; (3) all components of the anchoring system be capable of carrying a force of 4,800 pounds; and (4) any additions to the manufactured home be similarly anchored. Other anc:oring techniques specified in the.FSMA's manual, "Manufactured Home Installations in Flood Hazard Areas" published September, 1985, may be utilized in place of the methods specified in subsections 4.5 (b) (1) and (2). (c) Manufactured homes may be placed in the floodway fringe for manufactured home parks or subdivisions - and for manufactured homes not placed in a manufactured home park or subdivision as long as the following requirements are met: (1) stands or lots are elevated so that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated to or above the base flood elevation; (2) adequate surface drainage and access for a hauler are provided; and (3) in the instance of elevation on pilings: (a) lots are large enough to permit steps; (b) piling foundations are placed in stable soil no more than 10 feet apart; and (c)—reinforcement is provided for pilings "more. than 6 feet above the ground level. PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used it this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this ordinance its most reasonable application. "Addition_ Ito In jZistim, buildInq " means any walled and roofed erDansion to the Rerimete7 s a building in which the addition is connected by 1 common load - bearing E111 other VA than a ire wall. A_ny walled and roofed addition which is connected by a fire wall or is senarated by indenende -- perimeter load-bearing walls is new construction. "AA20 eal" means a request from a review of the zoning Officer's interpretation of any provision of this ordinance. "Area of Sha low Flooding" means a designated AO or vO zone on a commu itv's Flood Insurance Rate Mar) tFIRMI w base flood depths from one to three feet where a clearly defi -ed -channel does not. exist, ..where._the . i th o.F ,flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate and where velocity flow may be evident. "Area of Snecial Flood Hazard" is the land in the floodnlain within a community subject to a one percent or creates chance of be-.ng equaled or exceeded in a =y criven year. "Artificial obstruction" means any obstruction, which is not a natural obstruction, including any which, while not a significant obstruction in itself, is capable of accumulating debris and, thereby, reducing the flood- carrying capacity of the stream. ase Flood" means the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, also known as the 100-year flood. "Basement" means that lowest level or story which has its floor sub rade on all sides. "Breakaway Wall" means a wall that is not hart of the structural sup -oort of the building and is intended throuch its desi n and construction to collapse under snec;fic lateral loading forces without causing damaoe to the elevated nortion Of the building or the sutDOrting flu ndation systen. A b- eakawav wall shall have a design safe loading resistance of not less than i0 and no more than 20 nounds per scuare foot. A wall with loading resistance of more than 20 tcunds p =r sguare foot require., a nYefessionel engineer or arch'tect's certificate. "Bui ldina" means an—v structure built for support shelter-, o- enclosuge for any occunancv or storage.. "Day- elopment" means any man -made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not li.*nited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, o'- s }o age of equipment o,�- maueri als . "Elevated $uilding means a non - basement building Laj_ built An the case of a bu� Wilding jLn Zones 7- j -v 30 xF, x.1 z �9J Foy Pa B� or X to aye the tot) of the e�evated floor, or n the case of a building in Zones VI -vao, V= or v_ oo have the bottom of the owest horizontal structure member of the elevated oor above the &round means of pilings, columns (,posts and piers, shear walls para_1_lel to the flow of water and L1 adequately anchored so as not to impair the structural integrity of the buildin durin_cT a flood R2 to the ma nitude of the base lood. In the case of Zones Al -P.30 AE, A, A99, Ao, P.H,_ B� C and X, "elevated building" also includes a building elevated by means of fill or solid foundation verimeter walls with openings sufficient to Lacilitate the unimpeded movement of flood waters. In the case 21 Zones V1 -V30, V.EL or V,_ "elevated building" also includes a building otherwise meetin the definition of "elevated building L even thou h the area below_ s, enclosed by means of breakaway walls if the breakaway walls meet the standards of Article 5L Section B(5) of this ordinance. "Existin Manufactured Home P-ark or Manufactured Home Subdivision" means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots an whit h the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or tre pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of this ordinance. "Expansion to an Existing Manufactured Home ?ark or Subdivision" means the preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities fro servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed Lincluding the- instal ation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete slabs. "Flood" ox "Flooding" means a general and temnorary condition of partial 22-: comnlete inundation of normally dry land areas from: (), the overflow of inland,or tidal watersi a^d� u the unusual and rarid accumulation o; runoff of surface waters from any source. "Flood Hazard Boundary Man (FHBnM " means an _ official :pan of a community, issue by thg Federal Emergency Management Agency where the bounds1ries 1 the areas of special flood hazard have been defi as _ Zone A. "Flood insurance ate Mara (FIRM)" means zn official map of ? community, on which the Federa Emergency Management Agency has delineated both the areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. "Flood Insurance Stud y•" is the official report nro� idea by the Federal 'Emergency_ Management Agency. The report contains flood profiles, as well as the Flood Boundary Floodway Map and the water surface elevation of the base flood. "Floodway" means the channel of a fiver or other watercourse Ana the adjac t lamed areas thaw must _e reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. N "Floor" means the tog surface of an enclosed area in a buildin (including basement) i.e., top of slab in concrete slab construction or t-op of wood floorin in wood --rane construction. The term does not include the floor of a ara a used solely for narking vehicles. _Functionally Dependent Facility means a facility which cannot be used for its intended our2bse unless it is located or carried out in close poxmity to water, such as a docking or' port- facility- necessary for .the loading. and unloading of cargo or assen ers shipbuilding_ shin repair, or seafood r)rocessincr facilities. The term does not include long -term storage, manufacture, sales, or service facilities. "Highest Adjacent � Grade" means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of the s- ructure. "Historic Structure" means any structure that is: rat listed individuals in the National Register of Historic Places ra listing ma'ntaEned by the US De artment of Interior), ar preliminarily determined by the Secretary of Interior as mee;.inc the recuirements for individual listing on the National Register_ 112-1 certified or nreliminari lv determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered r_�storic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to gualifv as a registered - historic district; icI individLally listed on a State inventory of historic places; (d) individually_ listed on a local inventory o historic places in communities with historic preservation nrograms the- have been certified Lij by an annroved state -program as determined by the Secretary of the interior, or (2) dArectiv by z e Secr r etav of Interior int sates� without annroved nrocrams. "Levee" means a man -made structure, usually an ear -hen embankment, designed and cons4ruc -ed in accordance w--'-:h sound engineering prat -ices to cor.ta n, con�rol, or diver- -he =low of water so as to provide nrotec -ion fZoM temporary floor-inc. "Lowest _door" means the lowest floor of. the lowest enclosed area (including basement). kn unfinished or floor res_Ls.ant enclosure,.usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or 'storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor provided that such an enclosure is not built so as to render the strucnure in violation of the applicable non- elevau_on design recuirements of this ordinance. "Manufactured Home" means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent- foundau_on when connected to the recuired utilities. The te_;,i "manufactured home" does not mode a "recreational vehic a "_ "Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision" means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. "Mean Sea Level" means the average height of the sea for all stages of the tide. It is used as a reference for establishing various elevations within the flood lain. For ur ose of this ordinance- the term �s svnonvmous with National Geodetic vertical Datum (NGVD) "National'Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)" as corrected in 1929 is a vertical control used as a reference for establishi q varynq elevations within the floodolain. "New Construction" means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of this ordinance and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. "New Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision" means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the .construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed including at a minimum the installation of utilities the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the Douring of concrete slabs), is comoleted on or after the effective date of this ordinance_ "Non- Conformincx Building or Use" means anv legally existing buildino or use which fails to comply with the OrOyisions 0- the ordinance. "Recreational Vehicle" means a vehicle which is: ) built on a single chassis,_, 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizonta_1 projection; 1cj designed to De self - propelled or ne=anentiv towable by a light duty truck- ands ) pesicrned Urilll�r lv not ro- use es a mermanert dwelling, but As temoorary living cuarte_s for recreational. cam -cinc, travel or seasonal use. "Remedy A Violation" to bring the structure or other develoe ent into comL)Iiance with State or local floodplain manaaeme_p` reoul ons o,, if this �'s not Dosswble. to redly �' iMDacts of its nor. -- compliance. wevs . what mAaacts May __ bo reduced ude gotectina mha srruct.u_e or other gfected �evelovment from flood damages, implementing the enforcement ov "5' a ord' ce or otherwise ceterrino juture sim violations_,_ pT, reducing Federal financial exgosure wiLt regard to the strug ure o- oche_ development. "Stmt 2 Construction" (for other than new cons :ruction or substantial improvements under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (Public Law 97- 348)), includes substantial jmr)rovement, and means the date the building De --mit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition or i=ro- ,semen_ was within 180 days 11 of the permit date. The actual start means the first placement of permanent construction of a structure (including a.manufactured home ) on a site, such as the pouring of slabs, or footings, the installation of piles, construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and /or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the-erection of- temporary forms;.nor.does.it include the installation of property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement the actual start of construction means the first elteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of. t ^e building, whether yr not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. "Stream" means a water course that collects surface runoff from an area of one square mile or greater. "Structure" means for floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building a manufactured home,�ir.cludina a gas or liquid storage tank, of other mar. -made facilities or infrastructures that are principally above ground. "Substantial Damage" means damage of any origin sustained by A structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to jLs before damaged condition would ecual or exceed 50 ne -cent of the market value of the structure beore the damage occurred. See definition of "substantial irrproyeme ^.t" "Substantial Improvement" means any repair, reconstruction, rehabilita� ion, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which ecuals or exceeds fifty nerve t of the market value of the structure before the "start o, construction" of the improvement. Tr :.s term includes structures which have incurred "substantial damage" recardless of the actual repair work performed. The tee does not, however, include either: (1) any project for . improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, of safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and w�- c -are the minimum necessary :.o assure safe living conditions; or, (2) any alteration or a historic structure provided "hat the alteration W-1 Tot preclude the structure's continued designation as a- _ ^istoric struct -� "Variance" is a Grant of relief to A person from the recuirements of this ordinance which vermits construction in a manner otherwise trohibited by this ordinance where specific enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship. "Violation" means the failure of a structure or other 17 deve onment oo be fu_, llv comnliant with the commu ^.itv' s ood lain management regulations` A structure or other develo ment without the —elevation gertificate, other certifications, or other evidence of comoliance recuired in Articles 4 and 5 ;s presumed to be in, violations until such Lime as that documentation is provided. 4.5 MANUFACTURED HOMES a. Manufactured homes that are placed or substantially_ improved .within _.Zones P_1 -A30, ANA and P.E on sites u outside a manufactured home park or subdivision: u in a new manufactured home 2.g--k 2Z - subdivision_; u in an exRansion to an existing manufactured home ,park or subdivision; or, (dl in an existing manufactured home nark or subdivision on which a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damace" as the result of a r_lood -_ must be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated to or above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adecuately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse - and lateral movement. b. Manufactured homes that are placed or substantially 'mnroved on sites in an er.istinc manufactured home 2gZk or subdivision within Zones Al -A30, A.F.- and PE that are not subject to the yroylslons of Article b Section B(3a� of this ordinance must be elevated so that either Lj_j the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated to or above the base flood elevation, or Lii_j the manufacnu:-gd home chassis is sunnorted by reinforced viers or other foundation elements of at least equivalent stren.cth that are no less than 36 inches in height a'nove c_ade and be securely anchored to an adecuately anchored foundation to resist flotation collapse and lateral movement. C. An evacuation plan must be developed for evacuation 01 Z11 resider. Of A manufactured hgme nark O:- subdivisions loca,,ed u t n flood krone areas and filed with and anz, oveJC hy the county or local Emergency Management Coordinator. ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1990 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: November 19, 1990 BOCC REVIEW: December 11, 1990 13 1 however, they did not have a very strong case for approval- 2 3 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Planning for 4 k stomatter be Board of Comm Commissioner Tone r s no 5 recommendation to returned a a 6 sooner than February 4,- 1990. 7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8 9 5. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Text Amendments 10 a. Article 2 Definitions 11 b. Article 4.5 Manufactured Homes made by Eddie Kirk. This 12 These presentations were item was presented to amend ARTICLE 2- DEFINITIONS and ARTICLE J4.5- 13 14 MANUFACTURED HOMES to conform with changes to the floodplain 15 management regulations administered by the Federal Emergency 16 Management Agency (FEMA). The proposed amendments include new 17 definitions, clarifications to existing definitions, and new designated 1$ requirements concerning manufactured homes. In in existing 19 floodplains, replacement manufactured homes be to the base flood 20 manufactured home parks will have to elevated 21 elevation or 36 inches above grade on reinforced piers. 22 23 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF 24 COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. 25 26 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Board 27 Commissioner Willhoit, to refer this matter to the Planning be to the Board of Commissioners 29 for a recommendation to returned 29 no sooner than February 4, 1990. 30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 31 32 D. ADJOURNMENT 33 34 With no further business for consideration by the Board, 35 Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. adjourned the meeting. The next meeting in the 36 will be held on Tuesday December 18, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 37 Courtroom of the Old Post Office 38 39 Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman 40 41 Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk 42 Draft 1 -28 -91 Plannina Board Minutes access to the creek. Cameron stated that - parkland dedication is required. Unless Recreation and Parks decides that dedication wL not fit into the system, then payment -in -lieu o: dedication could be recommended. Due to the lower number of lots, the amount required result in a fairly small strip of land. MOTION: Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Preliminary Plans (20 Lots) (1) Buck Run /Deed of Easement Acceptance (20 Lots - Cheeks Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. On March S. 1990 the Orange County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan and Resolution of Approval for Buck Run Subdivision. In this resolution it was indicated that a deed would be provided to orange County for a public right -of- way between lots 14 and 15 to allow future acces to property east of the subdivision. A 60' wide deed of easement has been prepared and recorded with the final plat. The County Attorney has indicated this deed should be accepted by the County in an amended Resolution of Approval. Th attached amended Resolution of Approval has been approved by the County Attorney. The neighboring property owner has indicated his concern with the 60' wide right -of -way in that h would like to connect a 50' wide right -of -way when he develops his property. NCDOT has indicated that a 5o foot right -of -way has been connected to a 60 foot right -of -way in the past and it would probably be acceptable in this situation. They indicated they would have to se development plans for the adjoining property before approval could be given. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended Resolution of Approval. MOTION: Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM 09: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (12/11/90) a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Development Advisory Committee (a) Article 2.4.2.1 (e) - Duties 14 1 :s 15 (2) Watershed Protection (a) Article 4.2.27 PW -II District (2)'Article 4.2.28 WQCA District (3) Camp /Retreat Centers (a) Article 4.3 Permitted Uses (b) Article 8.8 Special Uses (c) Article 22 Definitions b. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Preliminary Plat Approval (a) Section III -D -2 -e Amended Phasing Plan c. Flood Di Revised (a) (b) MOTION: Best moved Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. image Prevention Ordinance Amendments (1) FEMA Regulations Article 2 Definitions Article 4.5 Manufactured Homes to approve Agenda Item #9. Seconded by AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (2/25/91) a. Assignment of House & Building Numbers (1) Rural Routes 2,3,5,6, and 7 - Mebane Eidenier stated that this is the last of the assigning of the rural routes. b. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (1) CP -1 -91 Robert Ayers & Harold Harris Stanch stated that the property is located at the intersection of Old 86 and I -40 on the southeast quadrant. The applicants are looking for a land use plan designation of commercial activity node for 33 acres. They have indicated a possible desire for pursuing an office park on that site. Stancil stated that this would involve a primary plan amendment which could only be heard at the February public hearing. Property owners will be notified in the next two weeks and an analysis of the proposal will be prepared Best asked if the EDC had mentioned that the Office Institutional is something that the county is in need of. Stancil stated that the Target Advisory Committee has not ruled that out as of yet. He stated that this committee had talked about identifying sites in the county and this is one site that will be looked at. Best asked about the water line from Chapel Hill. .x O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19 1991 14 Action Agenda Item # V-- F SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Article 2.4.2.1 - Development Advisory Committee DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment 7/25/90 Letter from Co. Attorney 12/11/90 Public Hearing Minutes 1/28/91 Planning Board Minutes (Draft) PUBLIC HEARING Yes —X-No INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo ext. 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane -- 227 -2031 Chapel Hill -- 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment deleting any role for the Development Advisory Committee in the issuance of Stop Work Orders. BACKGROUND: On October 17, 1989, the Board of Commissioners approved an amendment which allows the Zoning Officer is issue a Stop Work Order for activity which violates provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and could cause irreparable injury if allowed to continue. The amendment involved changes to several sections of the Ordinance. Article 2.4.2.1 was amended to expand the duties of the Development Advisory Committee to render advise to the Zoning Officer in the issuance of Stop Work Orders. The County Attorney has indicated that the Development Advisory Committee should have no role in the enforcement of the Ordinance. The proposed amendment would delete paragraph 2.4.2.1(e), which was inadvertently recommended for approval on October 17, 1989. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990. There were no comments. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on January 28, 1991 and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 4P a PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2 ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 2.4.2.1(e) (Development Advisory Committee) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: County Attorney STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 11, 1990 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To consider a Zoning Ordinance amendment to delete any role of the Development Advisory Committee in the issuance of Stop Work Orders. IMPACTS /ISSUES: On October 17, 1989, the Board of Commissioners approved an amendment which allows the Zoning Officer is issue a Stop Work order for activity which violates provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and could cause irreparable injury if allowed to continue. The amendment involved changes to several sections of the Ordinance. Article 23 (Violations, Penalties and Remedies) was amended to establish a Stop Work Order as a penalty for a violation. Article 2.3.3 (Board of Adjustment Administration) was amended to establish an appeal procedure. Article 2.4.2.1 was amended to expand the duties of the Development Advisory Committee to render advise to the Zoning Officer in the issuance of Stop Work Orders. The County Attorney has indicated that the Development Advisory Committee should have no role in the enforcement of the Ordinance. In practice, decisions regarding Stop Work Orders have been made by the Zoning Officer, with input from the County Attorney when needed. The proposed amendment would delete paragraph 2.4.2.1(e), which was inadvertently recommended for approval on October 17, 1989. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 2.4.2.1 Duties and Responsibilities The Development Advisory Committee has the following duties and responsibilities. The Committee shall: a) Review proposed amendments, Planned Developments, Special Uses, rezonings, and subdivisions for the Zoning Officer on the technical issues raised; and 3 b) Review in cooperation with the Zoning Officer the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan and this code; and C) Produce, as required, for all County governing bodies and planning boards a report on such amendments, Planned Developments, Special Uses, rezonings, subdivisions or other technical issues that may be referred to the Committee; and d) Render technical advice and recommendations related to this Ordinance and its operation. 32 *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1990 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: January 28, 1991 BOCC REVIEW: f e i# the e4leqped v4elftti-dgj r *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1990 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: January 28, 1991 BOCC REVIEW: COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 129 E. TRYON STREET P.O. DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 919 -732 -2196 July 25, 19 9 0 919- 942 -8000 FAX 919 -732 -7997 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 300. THE CENTER 1506 E. FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 Ms. Mary Scearbo 919 - 929.7151 FAX 919- 929 -3992 Planner III ALONZO s. COLEMAN, JR. Orange County Planning Department STEVEN A. BERNHOLZ 306F Revere Road ROGER 'BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL g � Hillsborou h North Carolina 27278 DOUGLAS HARGRAVE G. NICHOLAS HERMAN Re: Zoning rdinance - 10/17/89 amendments KIM K. STEFFAN g MARILYN E. TOME[ related to stop work orders JOE L. WEBSTER TERRY 0.'HARN JANET B. DUTTON Dear Mary: Or Counsel BONNER D_ SAWYER while looking for something else, I ran across (1902 •.1972) Section 2.4.2.1(e) of the Zoning Ordinance. That section calls for the "Development Advisory Committee" to render advice to the Zoning Officer pertaining to the issuance of a stop work order. On or about October 5, 1989, you sent me a copy of the proposed Board of Commissioners action agenda item abstract dealing with the stop work order revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. We spoke briefly thereafter by telephone. During that telephone conversation I opined that the Development Advisory Committee has really no place in Ordinance enforcement and should not be rendering advice to the Zoning Officer pertaining to stop work orders. Further, I suggested that the power to issue the stop work order should not be repeated in this section. It is included within Article 21 of the Ordinance. I suggest, as a technical correction, that this reference to the stop work order and the authority to issue a stop work order be removed from Section 2.4.2.1. GEG /lsg Very truly yours, Gledhill 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2) 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 '1 32 Y V 34 35 35 37 JS 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded b Commissioner Insko, to approve the proposed house and buildin, numbers, followed by notification of the Hillsborough Postmaster the Efland Postmaster and the N.C. Department of Transportation, as required by G.S. 153A -240. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Zoning Atlas Amendments a. PD -4 -90 - Weston Place Planned Development This item was deleted. 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments These presentations were made by Mary Scearbo for iter -< (a), (b) and (c) and by Eddie Kirk for items (d), (e), and (f), a. Article 2.4.2.1 (e) Development Advisory Committer This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 2.4.2.1(e DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE by eliminating the role of th Committee in advising the Zoning Officer about the issuance of Stc: Work Orders. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD 0; COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon. seconded b• Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this matter to the Planning Boar; for recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners r,. sooner than February 4, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Items 2 (b) & (c) were heard together. b. Article 4.2.27 Protected Watershed (PW -II) This .item was presented to amend ARTICLE PROTECTED WATERSHED -II (PW -II) DISTRICT by clarifying that the Pw- II zoning district overlay will be applied in the zoned portion of the county designated as Water Supply Watershed in the Land Us Element of the Comprehensive Plan. C. Article 4.2.28 Water Critical Area (WQCA) This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 4.2.2 WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREA (WQCA) DISTRICT by clarifying that to WQCA zoning district overlay will be applied in the zoned portion of the county designated as Water Quality Critical Area in tr Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD CI COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. Draft 1 -28 -91 Plannina Board Minutes 6 access to the creek. Cameron stated that. - parkland dedication is required. Unless Recreation and Parks decides that dedication will not fit into the system, then payment -in -lieu of dedication could be recommended. Due to the lower number of lots, the amount required results in a fairly small strip of land. MOTION: Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Preliminary Plans (20 Lots) (1) Buck Run /Deed of Easement Acceptance (20 Lots -- Cheeks Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. On March 5, 1990 the Orange County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan and Resolution of Approval for Buck Run Subdivision. In this resolution it was indicated that a deed would be provided to Orange County for a public right-of- way between lots 14 and 15 to allow future access to property east of the subdivision. A 60' wide deed of easement has been prepared and recorded with the final plat. The County Attorney has indicated this deed should be accepted by the County in an amended Resolution of Approval. The attached amended Resolution of Approval has been approved by the County Attorney. The neighboring property owner has indicated his concern with the 60' wide right -of -way in that h would like to connect a 50' wide right -of -way when he develops his property. NCDOT has indicated that a 50 foot right -of -way has been connected to a 60 foot right -of -way in the past and it would probably be acceptable in this situation. They indicated they would have to se development plans for the adjoining property before approval could be given. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended Resolution of Approval. MOTION: Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (12/11/90) a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Development Advisory Committee (a) Article 2.4.2.1 (e) - Duties (2) Watershed Protection _ (a) Article 4.2.27 PW -II District (2)'Article 4.2.28 WQCA District (3) Camp /Retreat Centers (a) Article 4.3 Permitted Uses (b) Article 8.8 Special Uses (c) Article 22 Definitions b. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Preliminary Plat Approval (a) Section III -D -2 -e Amended Phasing Plan c. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Amendments (1) Revised FEMA Regulations (a) Article 2 Definitions (b) Article 4.5 Manufactured Homes MOTION: Best moved to approve Agenda item #9. Seconded by Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (2/25/91) a. Assignment of House & Building Numbers (1) Rural Routes 2,3,5,6, and 7 - Mebane Eidenier stated that this is the last of the assigning of the rural routes. b. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (1) CP -1--91 Robert Ayers & Harold Harris Stancil stated that the property is located at the intersection of Old 86 and I -40 on the southeast quadrant. The applicants are looking for a land use plan designation of commercial activity node for 33 acres. They have indicated a possible desire for pursuing an office park on that site. Stancil stated that this would involve a primary plan amendment which could only be heard at the February public hearing. Property owners will be notified in the next two weeks and an analysis of the proposal will be prepared. Best asked if the EDC had mentioned that the Office Institutional is something that the county is in need of. Stancil stated that the Target Advisory Committee has not ruled that out as of yet. He stated that this committee had talked about identifying sites in the county and this is one site that will be looked at. Best asked about the water line from Chapel Hill. O R A N G E C O U N T Y 1 BOARD OF CONHISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19 1991 Action Agenda Item # - SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Article 4.2.27 PWII District Intent Article 4.2.28 WQCA District Intent DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes —X-No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo ext. 2583 Proposed Amendment 12/11/90 Public Hearing Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 1/28/91 Planning Board Minutes Hillsborough - 732 -8181 (Draft) Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment that would correct a technical discrepancy between the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas, and provide consistency in wording. BACKGROUND: Section 4.2.27 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the PW- II Protected Watershed Zoning overlay may be applied to the zoned portions of the University Lake, Cane Creek and Upper Eno Watersheds. At the time that the PW -II district was first adopted, these were the only water supply watersheds designated on the Comprehensive Plan. In late 1988, the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan was amended to designate Back Creek, Flat Creek, and Little River Watersheds as Water supply Watersheds. The Zoning Ordinance was also amended to apply the PW -II overlay on the zoned portion of those watersheds. Article 4.2.27 of the Zoning ordinance should have been amended as well to reflect the expansion of area designated as water supply watershed. The proposed amendment would allow the PW -II overlay to be applied to any watershed designated as a water supply watershed in the Comprehensive Plan. Article 4.2.28 applies the WQCA Water Quality Critical Area overlay. The proposed amendment to this section is for clarification only. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990. There were no comments. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on January 28, 1991 and recommended approval. RECONXENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT N ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Section 4.2.27 PW -II District Section 4.2.28 WQCA District ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT:� Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _"High Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC_ HEARING ` DATE_- -December _11,w1990-_y_ -_-_ PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To correct a technical discrepancy between the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas, and provide consistency in wording. IMPACTS /ISSUES: Section 4.2.27 of the Zoning Ordinance describes the intent of the PW- II Protected Watershed Zoning Overlay, and identifies the areas to which the overlay may be applied. The application criteria specifically refers to the zoned portions of the University Lake, Cane Creek and Upper Eno Watersheds. At the time that the PW -II district was first adopted, these were the only water supply watersheds designated on the Comprehensive Plan. In late 1988, the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan was amended to designate Back Creek, Flat Creek, and Little River Watersheds as Water supply Watersheds. Although the water impoundments to which the streams flow is not located in Orange County, is it likely that the water contained within those impoundments may be used by residents of Orange County in the future. The Zoning Atlas was also amended in late 1988 to apply the PW -II Zoning Overlay to the portions of those watersheds within Cheeks, Hillsborough and Eno Townships. Article 4.2.27 of the Zoning Ordinance should have been amended at that time to reflect the expansion of area designated as water supply watershed. Article 4.2.28 describes the intent and application criteria for the WQCA Water Quality Critical Area overlay. The proposed amendment to this section is for clarification only. 3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 4.2.27 Protected Watershed II (PW -II) District a) Intent It is the intent of Orange County to regulate the uses of land and structures in watersheds which drain to reservoirs supplying drinking water to the people of Orange County. . . . . b) Application Criteria The Protected Watershed II (PW -II) is established as a district which overlays other zoning districts established in this ordinance.. . . . 1. This district will be applied to the zoned portions of Lake, Oree a43-d ire Lt�r- dt as land designated as Water suRRlv Watershed on the Land Use Element of the adopte d Comprehensive Plan. 4.2.28 Water Quality critical Area (WQCA) District a) Intent It is the intent of Orange County to regulate the uses of land and structures in the portions of water supply watersheds which are immediately adjacent to the water supply impoundments.. . . b) Application Criteria The Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) District is established as a district which overlays other zoning districts established in this ordinance.. . . . 1. This district will be applied to portions of protected water supply watersheds as designated as Water Ouality Critical Area in the Land Use Element of the ad& p6ed Comprehensive Plan. ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1990 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: January 28, 1991 BOCC REVIEW: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3 2 V �3 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 A cL THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, second( Commissioner Insko, to approve the proposed house and bui numbers, followed by notification of the Hillsborough Postma the Efland Postmaster and the N.C. Department of Transporta as required by G.S. 153A -240. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Zoning Atlas Amendments a. PD -4 -90 - Weston Place Planned Development This item was deleted. 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments These presentations were made by Mary Scearbo for i (a), (b) and (c) and by Eddie Kirk for items (d), (e), and (f d by ding ;ter, ,ion, tems a. Article 2.4.2.1 (e) Development Advisory Committee This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 2.4.2.1(e) DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE by eliminating the role of the Committee in advising the Zoning Officer about the issuance of Stop Work Orders. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this matter to the Planning B for recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioner sooner than February 4, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Items 2 (b) & (c) were heard together. OF by )ard no b. Article 4.2.27 Protected Watershed (PW -II) This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 4. .27 PROTECTED WATERSHED -II (PW -II) DISTRICT by clarifying that the PW- II zoning district overlay. will be applied in the zoned Portions Of the county designated as Water Supply Watershed in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. C. Article 4.2.28 Water Critical Area (WQCA) This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 4.29 WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREA (WQCA) DISTRICT by clarifying that WQCA zoning district overlay will be applied in the zoned porti of the county designated as Water Quality Critical Area in Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. .28 the ons the OF I Draft 1 -28 -91 Planninc Board Minutes access to the creek. Cameron stated that -. - -. parkland dedication is required. Unless - Recreation and Parks decides that dedication will not fit into the system, then payment -in -lieu of dedication could be recommended. Due to the lower number of lots, the amount required results in a fairly small strip of land. MOTION: Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Preliminary Plans (20 Lots) (1) Buck Run /Deed of Easement Acceptance (20 Lots - Cheeks Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. On March 5, 1990 the Orange County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan and Resolution of Approval for Buck Run Subdivision. In this resolution it was indicated that a deed would be provided to Orange County for a public right -of-- way between lots 14 and 15 to allow future access to property east of the subdivision. A 60' wide deed of easement has been prepared and recorded with the final plat. The County Attorney has indicated this deed should be accepted by the County in an amended Resolution of Approval. The attached amended Resolution of Approval has been approved by the County Attorney. The neighboring property owner has indicated his concern with the 60' wide right -of -way in that he would like to connect a 50' wide right -of -way when he develops his property. NCDOT has indicated that a 50 foot right -of -way has been connected to a 60 foot right -of -way in the past and it would probably be acceptable in this situation. They indicated they would have to see development plans for the adjoining property before approval could be given. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended Resolution of Approval. MOTION: Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (12/11/90) a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Development Advisory Committee (a) Article 2.4.2.1 (e) - Duties (2) Watershed Protection (a) Article 4.2.27 PW- II .District - - (2)'Article 4.2.28 WQCA District (3) Camp /Retreat Centers (a) Article 4.3 Permitted Uses (b) Article 8.8 Special Uses (c) Article 22 Definitions b. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Preliminary Plat Approval (a) Section III -D -2 -e Amended Phasing Plan c. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Amendments (1) Revised FEMA Regulations (a) Article 2 Definitions (b) Article 4.5 Manufactured Homes MOTION: Best moved to approve Agenda Item #9. Seconded by Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (2/25/91) a. Assignment of House & Building Numbers (1) Rural Routes 2,3,5,6, and 7 - Mebane Eidenier stated that this is the last of the assigning of the rural routes. b. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (1) CP -1 -91 Robert Ayers & Harold Harris Stancil stated that the property is located at the intersection of Old 86 and I -40 on the southeast quadrant. The applicants are lookinc for a land use plan designation of commercial activity node for 33 acres. They have indicate a possible desire for pursuing an office park c that site. Stancil stated that this would involve a primary plan amendment which could o3 be heard at the February public hearing. Property owners will be notified in the next ti weeks and an analysis of the proposal will be prepared. O ly. Best asked if the EDC had mentioned that the office Institutional is something that the cou ty is in need of. Stancil stated that the Target Advisory Commit ee has not ruled that out as of yet. He stated that this committee had talked about identifying sites in the county and this is one site that will b looked at. Best asked about the water line from Chapel Hill. O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Februar 19 1991 11 Action Agenda SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT Item`� Section III -D -2 -e Action Subsequent to Approval (of Preliminary Plat) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X —No ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment 10/1/90 Commissioners Minutes (Four Birches) 12/11/90 Public Hearing Minutes 1/28/91 Planning Board Minutes (Draft) INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo ext. 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations which would add another basis for allowing the phasing plan for a major subdivision to be revised. BACKGROUND: On January 8, 1990 the Subdivision Regulations were amended to allow revisions to the phasing plans of major subdivisions. Six criteria used to justify revised phasing plans were set forth in Section III- D -2 -e. On September 4, 1990, the Board of Commissioners approved a revised phasing plan for Four Birches Subdivision. Four Birches' justification for a revised phasing plan, when compared with the current criteria set forth in Section II- D-2-e, did not present a strong case for approval. The fact that proposed phasing would not extend the time limit for completion of improvements was found however to be a reasonable basis for approval. The Board of Commissioners directed Staff to prepare of an amendment to Section II -D -2 -e allowing approval of a phasing plan if the time available to install improvements was not extended. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990. There were no citizen comments. Commissioner Gordon asked several questions related to Four Birches Subdivision and expressed concern with the breadth of the existing and proposed criteria. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on January 28, 1991 and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: Section III -D -2 -e ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High _X_Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 11, 1990 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To consider a proposed amendment which'would add another basis fo subdivision to be revised. IMPACTS /ISSUES: to the subdivision Regulations r allowing the phasing plan for a maj On January 8, 1990 the Subdivision Regulations were amended to allow revisions to the phasing plans of major subdivisions. The amendment provides a remedy for development plans for which the 12 -month time limit for obtaining Final Plat approval had expired or was about to expire. Six criteria used to justify revised phasing plans were set forth in Section III- D -2 -e. On September 4, 1990, the Board of Commissioners approved a revised phasing plan for Four Birches Subdivision. The Preliminary Plat for Four Birches expired on August 1, 1990. Road and landscaping improvements were not complete, and there had been no security posted to assure their completion. The revised phasing plan allowed an additional four months (December 1, 1990) to receive Final Plat approval. If the improvements are not completed by that time, then security must be posted. However, conditions of the phasing plan approval state that, even if secured, the improvements must be completed by August 1, 1991. Had the subdivision been approved on August 1, 1990, security could have been posted for a period of one year, requiring the applicant to complete the improvements by that same date of August 1, 1991- Four Birches' justification for a revised phasing plan, when compared with the current criteria set forth in Section II- D -2 -e, did not present a strong case for approval. The fact that proposed phasing would not extend the time limit for completion of improvements was the basis for the administration's recommendation for approval, and the Board of Commissioners approval of the Four Birches phasing plan. The Board of Commissioners directed Staff to prepare an amendment to Section II -D -2 -e allowing approval of a phasing plan if the time available to install improvements was not extended. 3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISION$: III -D Application and Approval Procedures III -D -2 Preliminary Plat Approval III -D -2 -e Action Subsequent to Approval . . . . In determining whether to approve an amended phasing plan, the Board of Commissioners shall consider: (1) whether or not approval of other diligently pursued regulatory requirements can be obtained before the expiration of the time periods established in the phasing plan; and (2) the quality of and length of time of the experience of the subdivider in managing development projects; and (3) whether factors other than market conditions and beyond the control of the subdivider caused a delay in meeting the phasing plan; and (4) whether the development project, if completed consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat, will tend to aid or meet an important public policy goal established by the Board of County Commissioners; and (5) whether the application for an amended phasing plan was submitted before the previously approved time limit(s) has lapsed; and (6) the possibility of and practicality of the subdivider and developer completing the development project consistent with Orange County regulations applicable if the phasing plan amendment is not granted; and (7) whether the time by which improvements must be completed or installed would not be extended by the revised Phasing plan. ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1990 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 4 asked that there be an appeal procedure that would involve the Plann'ng Director, the Manager and County Attorney. John Link indicated they would set up such a procedure. Commissioner Willhoit referred to Section 3.2.2 which refers to hazardous materials and Mary Scearbo indicated this should be changed to hazardous waste. Motion was m Commissioner Marshall to amended. The Ordinance reference and is attached VOTE: UNANIMOUS ide by Commissioner Willhoit, approve the Environmental Impact is hereby made a part of these to these minutes on pages seconded by Ordinance as minutes by E. FOIIR BIRCHES --AMENDED PHASING PLAN Planner Mary Scearbo presented an amended phasing plan Four Birches Subdivision. The preliminary plan was approved by Board of Commissioners on August 1, 1989. On July 25, 1990, applicant submitted an application for Final Plat approval. application was considered incomplete since the required improveme had not been made and security was not provided for their complete On January 8, 1990, the Subdivision Regulations were amended to a7 revisions to the phasing plans of major subdivision. The applicant indicated that improvements will be completed by August 1, 1991- Motion-. was made by- Commissioner Marshall, seconded Commissioner Halkiotis to approve extending the deadline for receil approval of the Final Plat for Four Birches to December it 1990, that Section II- D•-e -2 of the Subdivision Regulations be amended to that a phasing plan may be approved if the time available to comp; the construction- of-improvements.-.is not extended. VOTE: UNANIMOUS F. MIC C 8 •- P I WIDTH RIG -OF -WA Motion was made by Chair Carey, seconded by Commissi Halkiotis to approve a partial width right -of -way of 30 feet from Rock Road to the northernmost property line of Lot 15H (approxima 550 feet in length). VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by _ Carey to change the date for the Quarterly Public Hearing from No 27, 1990 to December 11, 1990. VOTE: AYES, 3; NOES, Commissioner Willhoit. XI. AP POI MENTS The following appointments were made to the O DISTRICTS ADVISORY D Elizabeth Walters - Cedar Grove Township Chris Hogan - Chapel Hill Township Robert Nutter - Bingham Township Pearson Stewart - Chapel Hill Township for the the The nts on. low has 3-5 ing and add ete ly it er °.,�. 5 1 2 A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded tv 3 Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer these matters to the Planning 4 Board for recommendation to be returned to the Board cr 5 Commissioners no sooner than February 4, 1990. 6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7 8 Items 3 (d), (e) & (f) were presented together. 9 10 d. Article 4.3 Permitted Uses (Camp /Retreat Centers) 11 This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 4,3 12 PERMITTED USE TABLE by adding "Camp /Retreat Centers" as a use 13 permitted in the Rural Buffer (RB), Agricultural - Residential (AR). 14 and Rural Residential (R -1) zoning districts following the apc)rova 15 and issuance of a Class B Special Use Permit. 16 17 e. Article 8.8 Special Uses (Camp /Retreat Centers) 18 This item was presented to amend ARTICLE £.E 19 regulations governing individual special uses by adding a new 20 Article 8.8.5 Camp /Retreat Center which sets forth specific site 21 plan and development standards applicable to camp /retreat centers. 22 23 f. Article 22 Definitions (Camp /Retreat Centers) 24 This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 23 25 DEFINITIONS by adding the definitions of "camp" and "retreat 25 center ". 27 28 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF 29 COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. 30 31 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis. seconded by 32 Commissioner Insko, to refer these matters to the Planning Board 33 for recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners nc 34 sooner than February 4, 1990. 35 VOTE:_ UNANIMOUS 36 37 4. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments 38 a. Section III -D -2 -e Application Requirements 39 This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. This item 40 was presented to amend SECTION III- -0-2 -e APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 41 by adding another factor which the Board of Commissioners may 42 consider in determining whether or not to approve an amended 43 phasing plan for a subdivision. The new provision would allow 44 approval of an amended phasing plan if the time available to 45 install improvements (roads, etc.) was not extended. 46 47 THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF 48 COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. 49 50 Commissioner Gordon asked if the Four Birch Subdivision would 51 have been approved with this proposed amendment. Scearbo indicated 52 that this amendment would have made a stronger case for them, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 is 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 6 however, they did not have a very strong case for approval. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners nc sooner than February 4, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Text,Amendment a. Article 2 Definitions b. Article 4.5 Manufactured Homes These presentations were made by Eddie K�rk. This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 2- DZamend S and ICL J4.�-- MANUFACTURED HOMES to conform with to e flo dplair management regulations administered Fe ral Em rgenc� Management Agency (FEMA). The propod nts include new definitions, clarifications to exis nitions, a d new requirements concerning manufactured In des gnatec floodplains, replacement manufactumes in a istin_ manufactured home parks wi l l have to be d to the bas f l oc:. elevation or 36 inches above grade on ed piers. THERE WERE NO QUESTI/returned MENTS FROM THE BOARD Or COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNCITIZENS. A motion was made sioner Gordon, seconded t% Commissioner Willhoit, tmatter to the Planning Boarc for a recommendation to to the Board of Commis ioner� no sooner than February VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT with no rther business for consideration by the Board Chairman Mos�A Carey, Jr. adjourned the meeting. The next eetin: will be h d on Tuesday December 18, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroo of the Old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Car ling. . L.. , J W. -, Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman V, Draft 1 -28_91 Plannina Board Minutes 6 access to the creek. Cameron stated that - -_ - -_ - - parkland dedication is required. Unless----,"".-'- Recreation and Parks decides that dedication will not fit into the system, then payment -in -lieu of dedication could be recommended. Due to the lower number of lots, the amount required results in a fairly small strip of land. MOTION: Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Preliminary Plans (20 Lots) (1) Buck Run /Deed of Easement Acceptance (20 Lots - Cheeks Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. On March 5, 1990 the Orange County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan and Resolution of Approval for Buck Run Subdivision. In this resolution it was indicated that a deed would be provided to Orange County for a public right -of- way between lots 14 and 15 to allow future access to property east of the subdivision. A 60' wide deed of easement has been prepared and recorded with the final plat. The County Attorney has indicated this deed should be accepted by the County in an amended Resolution of Approval. The attached amended Resolution of Approval has been approved by the County Attorney. The neighboring property owner has indicated his concern with the 60' wide right -of -way in that he would like to connect a 50' wide right -of -way When he develops his property. NCDOT has indicated that a 50 foot right -of -way has been connected to a 60 foot right -of -way in the past and it would probably be acceptable in this situation. They indicated they would have to see development plans for the adjoining property before approval could be given. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended Resolution of Approval. MOTION: Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jacobs. VOTE: 'Unanimous. AGENDA STEM 09: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (12/11/90) a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Development Advisory Committee (a) Article 2.4.2.1 (e) - Duties (2) Watershed Protection (a) Article 4.2.27 PW -II District (2)'Article 4.2.28 WQCA District (3) Camp /Retreat Centers (a) Article 4.3 Permitted Uses (b) Article 8.8 Special Uses (c) Article 22 Definitions b. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Preliminary Plat Approval (a) Section III -D -2 -e Amended Phasing Plan c. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Amendments (1) Revised FEMA Regulations (a) Article 2 Definitions (b) Article 4.5 Manufactured Homes MOTION: Best moved to approve Agenda Item #9. Seconded by Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (2125191) a. Assignment of House & Building Numbers (1) Rural Routes 2,3,5,6, and 7 - Mebane Eidenier stated that this is the last of the assigning of the rural routes. b. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (1) CP -1--91 Robert Ayers & Harold Harris Stancil stated that the property is located at the intersection of old 86 and I -40 on the southeast quadrant. The applicants are looking for a land use plan designation of commercial activity node for 33 acres. They have indicate a possible desire for pursuing an office park on that site. Stancil stated that this would involve a primary plan amendment which could only be heard at the February public hearing. Property owners will be notified in the next two weeks and an analysis of the proposal will be prepared. Best asked if the EDC had mentioned that the Office Institutional is something that the c is in need of. Stancil stated that the Target Advisory Committee has not ruled that out as of yet. He stated that this committee had talked about identifying sites in the county and this is one site that will be looked at. Best asked about the water line from Chapel Hill. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: Budget Ordinance Amendment #8 - DEPARTMENT Budget - ATTACHMENT(s) --------------- - -- Proposed Budget Amendments 1 Action Agenda Item No -�L� - - -- PUBLIC HEARING YES _ NO X - INFORMATION CONTACT Budget Office, ext 2450 TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 6887331 --------------------------------- - -- -- -- -- - -- _-_- _- -- PURPOSE: To approve proposed budget ordinance amendments. BACKGROUND: (1) Orange County has received notification of a reduction in the 1990 -91 CBA allocation. The amount of the reduction is $2,546. The Youth Task Force met in November and decided on the following program reductions: Sheaffer House - $576; Planned Parent -hood - $55; Dispute Settlement Center - $45; Goodbye Cinderella - $20; OPC Drug Program - $35; Volunteers for Youth - $30; Project Attend - $70; OPC Day Treatment - $60; OPC Respite - $55; Adolescent Sex Offenders - $1,600. The attached budget amendment will reduce the 1990 -91 allocations to those agencies. (2) At the August 21, 1990 meeting, the Board of Commissioners approved a capital project ordinance authorizing the appropriation of an additional $20,000 in County funding to complete the Jail Renovation project. The attached technical budget amendment will complete the transfer of $20,000 from fund balance in the County Capital Reserve Fund to the Jail Renovation project in the County Capital Projects Fund. (3) At the February 4, 1991 meeting, the Board of Commissioners authorized the an appropriation of $20,000 from Contingency for an emergency allocation for the DSS Child Day Care Subsidy Program. This amendment will appropriate these funds from the Contingency account. 2 (4) The Orange County Arts Commission has received two grants from the NC Arts Council. The first grant, totalling $1,000, is a local government challenge grant which will enable the Arts Commission to further support the arts in Orange County. The second grant, totalling $24,210, is a grassroots grant. This grant will allow the Arts Commission to provide sub - grants to various organizations throughout the County as they promote art programs for citizens. (5) The Orange County Department of Social Services has received notification of a reallocation of state Child Day Care funds. There have been two reallocations, totalling $19,992, received since December. No County match is required for the receipt of these funds. (G) At the January 7, 1991, meeting, the Board of Commissioners approved an employment agreement with the Orange County Housing Corporation. Orange County will be reimbursed by the Housing Corporation for all costs associated with this employment agreement. The attached budget ordinance amendment will authorize the expenditure of these funds for the purposes outlined in the agreement. RECOMMENDATION(s): Approve the attached budget ordinance amendments. ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1990 -91 BUDGET AMENDMENTS The 1990 -91 Orange County Budget Ordinance, as amended, is hereby amended as follows: BEFORE AMENDMENT 1) GENERAL FUND Source Intergovernmental $6,344,446 Appropriation Contributions to Outside Agencies $1,941,410 To budget CBA funding reduction. 2) COUNTY CAPITAL RESERVE FUND 3 AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT $ (2,546) $6,341,900 $ (2,546) $1,938,864 Source Appropriated Fund Balance $ 103,804 $ 20,000 $ 123,804 Appropriation Transfer to County Capital Projects Fund $1,329,404 $ 20,000 $1,349,404 To budget additional funds for the Jail Renovation project. 3) GENERAL FUND Source Miscellaneous $ 653,012 $ (20,000) $ 633,012 Appropriation Human Services $10,640,980 $ 20,000 $10,660,980 To transfer additional funds for the DSS Child Day Care program from Contingency. BEFORE AMENDMENT AMENDMENT 4) GENERAL FUND 4 AFTER AMENDMENT Source Intergovernmental $6,341,900 $ 25,210 $6,367,110 Appropriation Contributions to Outside $1,938,864 $ 25,210 $1,964,074 Agencies To budget for additional funds awarded to the Orange County Arts Commission. 5) GENERAL FUND Source Intergovernmental $6,367,110 $ 19,992 Appropriation Human services $10,660,980 $ 19,992 To budget for additional state Child Day Care funds. 6) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND $6,387,1021 $10,680,9721 source Intergovernmental $3,047,100 $ 51,400 $3,098,500 Appropriation Orange Community Housing $ 0 $ 51,400 $ 51,400 To establish budget for Orange Community Housing project. BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 8 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No._ Meeting SUBJECT: CHANGE OFMEETING$DATEFebruary 19, 1991 DEPARTMENT: COUNTY - COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC- HEARING -- -YES: ------- - - - - -- __ _ ----- ___ NO: X ATTACHMENT(S): - YES -- NOTICE -- INFORMATION - CONTACT: - BEVERLY - BLYTHE TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To officially change - the -date of -a regular -Board ofrCommissioners meeting from March 19 to March 20. BACKGROUND: The 1991 NACo Legislative Conference is scheduled to begin on March 15 and end on March 19. The regular meeting schedule approved in September, 1990 listed March 19th as a regular meeting date. Since three Commissioners will be attending the NACo Conference, it will be necessary to change this meeting date to March 20. RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the "Notice of Change of Date of Meeting" as provided pursuant to N.C.G.S. 153 -40. COUNTY OF ORANGE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF DATE OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WHEREAS, General Statute 153A -40(a) requires the Board of County Commissioners to fix the time and place of its regular meetings; and WHEREAS, this Board desires to change the date of the regular meeting scheduled for March 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners that the March 19 regular meeting shall be held on March 20 at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. This notice is provided pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153 -40. Beverly A. Blythe Clerk to the Board i O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19 1991 Agenda Abstract Item # - 1 SUBJECT: FEASIBILITY STUDY - NC 54 WIDENING DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: _X—yes No ATTACHMENT(S): Feasibility Study 10 -15 -90 Planning Board Minutes 12 -18 -90 Commissioners Minutes Notice of Public Hearing 1 -22 -91 Public Hearing Minutes 2 -7 -91 Bingham TAC Comments Citizen Correspondence 2 -11 -91 Town of Carrboro Comments INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Director X2592 PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough Mebane Durham Chapel Hill 732 -8181 227 -2031 688 -7331 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive comments from the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill, and citizens submitted since the January 22, 1991 public hearing on a feasibility study for the proposed widening of N.C. Highway 54 in Orange County. Upon closing the public hearing, the Board of Commissioners may act on the proposal. BACKGROUND: NCDOT has provided a copy of the proposed widening of N.0 I -85/40 in Burlington to the in Carrboro /Chapel Hill. The the 1990 -1996 Transportation feasibility study but is not a feasibility study of Highway 54 from N.C. Highway 54 Bypass project is included in Improvement Program for currently funded. According to NCDOT, N.C. 54 is classified as a minor arterial on the County Functional Classification Plan. In the Orange County Transportation Plan, N.C. A4 is classified as a principal arterial on the rural portion and as a major thoroughfare on the urban (Chapel Hill) portion. The existing N.C. 54 is a two -lane, 24 -foot paved road with 12 -foot shoulders, located in a 120 -foot right -of -way. A four -foot section of the shoulders on 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 6,000 vehicles per day (vpd) at the Orange County line to N 13,000 vpd near Carrboro. Volumes are expected to increase to 12,000- 17,000 vpd by 2010. The capacity of the existing road is 5,000 vpd. The proposed project is divided into three sections: A, B, and C. Section C comprises the majority of the Orange County portion, extending eight miles from 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 in 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, provided funding is w available. Alternative locations were considered but were 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 96 residences and eight businesses; 3. Increased noise levels for adjacent development; and 4. Possible impacts on two watersheds (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. C 2. N.C. 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. The existing impervious surface of N.C. 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 N.C. 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 N.C. 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 N.C. 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 N.C. 54. NCDOT should contact both organizations to determine the impact, if any, of the widening project on quarry expansion. 4a 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 Staff comments, the Planning Board recommended that additional concerns be expressed to NCDOT. Their comments are provided as part of this abstract. At its December 18, 1990 meeting, the Board of Commissioners considered the Planning Staff and Planning Board comments, and set January 22, 1991 as the public hearing date on the feasibility study. At the request of the Board, representatives of the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro as well as OWASA were invited to comment on the study. NCDOT officials were also asked to attend and present the study findings. At the January 22 public hearing, 11 citizens from both Orange and Alamance Counties spoke in opposition to the project. The Chair of the OWASA Board of Directors also expressed concerns about the effect of the proposed project on the quality of Cane Creek and University Lake reservoirs. The Board of Commissioners held the public hearing open until comments were received from the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. During this period, additional written comment from citizens would also be received. At its February 12, 1991 meeting, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen considered the proposed project. The Board's comments are provided as an attachment to this abstract. The Town of Chapel Hill, through its Planning Director, informed the County staff that the Town would have no comment on the project. Written comments have been received from the Bingham Township Advisory Council and 18 citizens. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the public hearing be closed and that any comments, recommendations or statements that the Board may have be forwarded to the N.C. Department of Transportation. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4b 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2727$ y 'Ii NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FEASIBILITY OF WIDENING N.C. HIGHWAY 54 IN THE RURAL PORTIONS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Pursuant to the direction of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the District Courtroom of the Old Chapel Hill Post Office, Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, on Tuesday, January 22, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to comment on the following matter: FEASIBILITY -STUDY - N.C. HIGHWAY 54 WIDENING PROJECT The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has prepared' a study regarding the feasibility of widening a 20 -mile section of N.C. Highway 54 from I- 40/1 -85 in Burlington to the N.C. Highway 54 Bypass in Carrboro and Chapel Hill. Although the project is included in the 1990 -1996 N.C. Transportation Improvement Program for study, it is not currently funded for right -of -way acquisition and construction. NCDOT has circulated the feasibility study and asked for comments on the project. According to NCDOT, N.C. 54 is classified as a minor arterial on the County Functional Classification Plan. In the Orange County Transportation Plan, N.C. 54 is classified as a principal arterial on the rural portion and as a major thoroughfare on the urban (Chapel Hill) portion. The existing N.C. 54 is a two - -lane, 24 -foot paved road with 12 -foot shoulders, located in a 120 -foot right -of -way. A four -foot section of the shoulders on 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 6,000 vehicles per day-(vpd) at the Orange County line to 13,000 vpd near Carrboro. volumes are expected to increase to 12,000 - 17,000 vpd by 2010. The capacity of the existing road is 5,000 vpd. The proposed project is divided into three sections: A, B, and C. Section C comprises the majority of the Orange County potion, extending eight miles from Stanford Road (SR 1100) to the Carrboro - 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. J .. A 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, provided funding is available. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing an be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Questions regarding the feasibility study maybe directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning & Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. You may also call 732 -8181 (Hillsborough), 688 -7331 (Durham) or 967 -9251 (Chapel Hill- Carrboro). Please ask for Extension 2585 or 2575. You will-be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. Vka., t4 � Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: January 15, 1991 January 22, 1991 - 12- 18-90 Commissioners - Minutes - Ad 1 attached to these minutes. It will cost approximately $30,000 to 2 implement these changes. 3 Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by 4 Commissioner Insko to approve the adoption of the Phase I Classification 5 Study changes to the Orange County Classification and Pay Plan with all 6 classification changes, salary grade changes, and salary increases to 7 be effective January 7, 1991. 8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9 10 D. E911 GIS CONSULTING AGREEMENT 11 Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by 12 Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the E911 /GIS consulting agreement with 13 Richard J. Taylor in the amount of $13,600 and authorize the Chair to 14 sign. 15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 16 17 E. FEASIBILITY STUDY - NC 54 WIDENING 18 The proposed widening of NC 54 would. be- from I -85/40 in 19 Burlington to the NC•54 Bypass in Chapel Hill.- The widening project as 20 : - -it extends through orange County would include widening NC 54 to four 21 lanes -- two twelve foot lanes going both east and west. The right -of- 22` way would be increased from 120 feet to 200 feet in width. The project 23, is included in the 1990 -96 Transportation improvement for feasibility 24w study but is not currently funded.-., The Planning Department staff listed 25.:7= in the agenda abstract some potential problems that need to be further 26 studied by NCDOT.' The - Planning Board also made' comments which are included in the agenda abstract. The purpose for widening NC54 is not _.28 =: clearly_ defined,- by_ the. Department. of Transportation..... 29 After a brief discussion, it was decided that a public hearing 30 on the proposal to do a feasibility study would be held with the other 32 Governing Boards and OWASA on January 22. Transportation officials will 321, requested -to explain what they intend to do in this project. 34:,--.. F. MATERNAL CARE COORDINATION 357. Health Director Dan Reimer reported that the legislature has 36 allocated $500,000 for FY 90 -91 to create additional Maternal Care 37' -- 'Coordination positions. These funds will be allocated to those health 38- .- :.:.....departments which apply on the basis of a demonstrated, unmet need. 39 `- Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chairman 40 Carey to endorse the Orange County Health Department's application for 41 the Maternal Care Coordinator funds, approve the addition of a Maternal 42._.:::...:Care Coordination position with continuation of the position contingent 43. .upon Medicaid revenue sufficient to cover the cost of the position; and 44 authorize the signature of the Agency Director and the Agency Finance 45 = officer_- on the statement of assurance which must accompany the 4 6__- application of funds.- unds : _.. 47 - VOTE: -... UNANIMOUS -- __ - -: 48._' °_.. Chairman Carey -asked that a report showing the Medicaid 4-9.,.-. billings for those served by this new position be prepared and provided 50 =: to the Board. Dan Reimer will also provide a report on the funds being generated by the Childcare Coordination Program. 52 10 -15 -90 Planning Board "Sinutes 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 late 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 b very severe, resulting in the inability of property owners to build on this land, even if the lot was large enough to accommodate water an 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 mos- of the lots could be developed as a lot -of- record. c. Feasibility Study - NC 54 Widening N (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 I- 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 .r fA 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: Ro API �' 8 1 o /qo DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GEORGE E. WELLS. P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR 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 Eaual Opoonunity /Affirmative Action Emplover 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 Angela mith awson, jr., v. L. ProJect Planning Engineer Head of Feasibility & Speci Studies Unit to L. J. Ward, P. c., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch 7 4 10 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%. 2 I Four bridges are located on the project. They are as follows: Clear Bridge Length Width Age Rating No. Location Ft. Ft. ) (Xrs.) - 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 /100MVM), which is less than the statewide average of 214.2 ACC /100MVM for comparable 2 -lane rural NC routes. Rear -end slow or stop (23x), angle (17x), and left turn same road (150%) 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 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 deve7opea, 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. 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 S 700,000 81900,000 (utilities only) Section B 8.0 5910001000 S 9,500,000 $18,500,000 (56 relocatees) Section C 8.0 58,800,000 512,000,000 520,800,000 (48 relocatees) The total cost of the proposed project (including all sections) is $48,200,000. Cost estimates were prepared by the Preliminary Estimate ngineer 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 1.3 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 alternatives and their,associated impacts planning and environmental document prior decision made as to the most appropriate AS/ plr in the future, all feasible will need to be evaluated in a to that time, and a final improvement. 0 w 14 I ? r l n i As jZli el L) 4D IL; U o7 c Imp 2 SI �oz ui IP) v z / � �/ � r r /.�� r. �.. :�• �_�J J � 1;l \ ~� 1 .� Est u++'e :U pgr �/ .I l� f \Y, 1`._ 1 I /^`Jr��•rt = -`�•�� ( /r� v 1 \ \r,,` �•C � 1•• � � � � rr � u = KC 119 to 'Y Ilk ma tr 7�!/ \ .'^1 -� rY . � ~. Ra.� �\ ) �n`�% � I ter'• W f '� 'q� ,��' � \. G� •1 ,�(1 "'� -r', �t ah' 1f�.G r,�� �i� 'r .•1:' x,11 / `� � 'V ✓� /'� ..IJ . -111 11:;,.;/ J j`rj �, � ��� • ?�' �' C ;' %.....:y , � %,� � � ~:; ,'a/rm .--'og �.�. r� ' r 1� 9 . ^Ir � 1 r . `- � �, • ,rv� • y*,•j, f'_• C,.� 1 r'1�7r'�' �r�+\ - '� #�.. ,.:�4�- '�r`�' �I ir, \lam ••x• ,�••��••` ,�•• ��i � .` r �: .�, �'I �� ��j''•�,• d%���� �:�!•'i 1 F:� f �r } _ 1`�! {, r � rte-. �.•.... `�� '�� - -�j6n v (•_`� \ '•�7 � - .N � _� ?wit "`\ \���{' �- .��r'_ `� �.`` ; \` �,'l� f '�. V� (f Qntl i• -` V r_ --- � Lam! � �"- - - 17 -- - �. \ ? \ Y1 �!^\ lot IN IN" oe INTI ell r I �C •.l�``i•z /�I,I���Jri•'�`�� �� �f�"�.�+M•I.Y 1� -OSS 88 ..���'� �' r �� ',�I r•� •v �1 ,• f� `+� ,� � .,,3 �,� •,;? i` _ �.�;� � ., �. '1 %1•�.. �I ����' r ' � '�� �,_��� •,nom,,, . • ����. !� �, � / 'r � �: ~ � �_ V r� it •�� L�•rf �G, • •' � �:• r - _ _ � '� . ` :'� �:,� �' bra. - " ��_•�• • \��• ; ..�; ��,-; • �1` � -- / uY �• '� �•% •: a *�►�►G C';�'��iil , -.' :� .Y /���'� I�i;�lj�r.:{ ry �c:r -��\ , TI WW 17 V1- tZ � It '�s Ak, Ivy - r Fes^ U Lu U J Q I ■ C c c t e t z O 0. U LIP) w ❑ Q z O 4 U O w Q z ❑ Y H U W r 0 N R a v b p (l) % N a x C j t ' W U) Lu I cc a z U a n r Ci 0 r rr U 1n�w a LU L) � F a .•a r 'rA O N O w U d rn M O r�� owu F wCN 0-0 oD� Q U � a w Y C w J °' U�w me t" � � awx�( wZ«] 0❑� O U ❑ to d as Na IrI U In '-7 W c. N ty 4 G U J cn Q w eNn f_] wi rn 1"I � I h♦ w F, U D o O U x F � � N H z O 0. U LIP) w ❑ Q z O 4 U O w Q z ❑ Y H U W r 0 N R a v b p (l) % N a x C j t ' W U) Lu I cc a z U a n r Ci 0 r rr U 1n�w a LU L) � F a .•a r 'rA O N O w U d `T M O r�� z O 0. U LIP) w ❑ Q z O 4 U O w Q z ❑ Y H U W r 0 LM 1..1 m .a 0 1� a e H by O O N co 1.•7N a � �••� V) N 011n ACGt�UU m p 4 N O to to %D �I a • ^J x w� ox HWW OAF F• — C7 O M Uwo z «7 F F�W N Al W u] '- w 0 Imo, N LM D a M a 0 �k A D H y 7.1 ap mU dF ) a �a G Q �F C7. 0 � 0 •w V1 O d7 A a�w w w W U A` or d zo w � � C7 Dz m.. � v) V1WH CD w h'• .� i4 N 75 LM E 7 -5 N v x r4 % N a x W F x x z ..m D ❑ 0 r rr U 1n�w � F U Dux FJF O r�� owu F wCN 0-0 oD� vYF U � a U�w me t" � awx�( wZ«] 0❑� °• d as Na IrI U In '-7 N ty 4 G .. I rn 1"I � I h♦ LM 1..1 m .a 0 1� a e H by O O N co 1.•7N a � �••� V) N 011n ACGt�UU m p 4 N O to to %D �I a • ^J x w� ox HWW OAF F• — C7 O M Uwo z «7 F F�W N Al W u] '- w 0 Imo, N LM D a M a 0 �k A D H y 7.1 ap mU dF ) a �a G Q �F C7. 0 � 0 •w V1 O d7 A a�w w w W U A` or d zo w � � C7 Dz m.. � v) V1WH CD w h'• .� i4 N 75 LM E 7 -5 ■ l +j h— U LW [G f% I ❑ W U f17 J U w O x W H a W a U B z 9 19 x O F O U � a m � 1 H d y U D o x F � N U a H En a a a a v b o O O O N O Q co O r r- q N •1 En W Q CL CG U G O 0L U to N - N C e O O O 0 %n G .1 r. N R w r . 47 Z y.i ❑ i.i x F ►d7 W N H x w U l7 0.' aXrar W�Ld., Od D NwU D O C. O 3 N W N Fxa M • O N H O „] 4] ^+ i - ° F U -x Nd r w`� a U— " •h. CS W" E13 .r 0 rJ d 1n .d d w .,v rz `UWQ d Dkdi �Wa O V W'0 Z.+ ,xEa0 r] U Z C7 w ww .�7d vn7w aF iz 1ntn:r o F • Cl q t- W N rti h► d 7 w cz z y{., vitGF� D[rW IF M to N L e N �p N N a a a D z 0 F C7 N p r hen ■ l +j h— U LW [G f% I ❑ W U f17 J U w O x W H a W a U B z 9 d i 10 t ORANGE COUNTY ROAD MAP PROPOSED ROAD FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN LEGEHO wr srno� rrr scu oaw w..o j. mornp nL ■� somm Aw7vpbfi- .,..M „=AA. OCAD �. z 20 LEGEHO wr srno� rrr scu oaw w..o j. mornp nL ■� somm Aw7vpbfi- .,..M „=AA. OCAD �. z N r Z K r P • w w W _._ ... _ .. E L✓ 7 C r -..- • 'D w • .r d c a • Y . ✓ d u O b O O r C P 4 V O G P Y •� r V L r r C P O m V y m O 4 C L L r V L L L N C m 9 N •� O C �' H w R 7 O 4 C L 0 E.0 V .0 a N w A w • X .+ r 4 r w a C L Y C ~ O r u e C N L Y O me 4 E M L r r� ?• o o A C L V V E w w L �' o _ y r 7 m u V X- G 4 7 C D �,• .� C U N N N O D m V V 2 V X L V m w A r r m- P r U 7 O V V L L v u A m O r h r s C- r w 4 ..• r- L Y L r P r L V V V L b N ^2 w a 7 a r V V 4 b V V I? r N X C p r V ✓ V V i r L r G V G d Y � v Ar W E� m �C' . C G m V 4 C e L V O d Y w w N •C O �"� L e e N V •i L L L r V L -M r 6 L r O' O L r d D O r y r 4 E r r Y d •� O C N L C X .� L.7 U O C V d e L r E A O y m L 4 L L CD ~ w ~ w r V •- a d C E V m W W 4 L C 3 b L r }. .r ✓ r Y ~ � r m— m V •� V a �s P D + � r Y 4 O L En C LI u w V E L L C V b o L �` f•� V L V e O - ?. V L N 4 V �` ^^ 4 L L V C D o x -a r w Y o— C C: G. r w m a L C C s r G C b r« C •► u O C O O V O G L T a D a a r N 4 + E V '" Li 2 a C L m 6 u 4 e � � C c o m v- m �- b d u a E v C C C C 4 s G }• X C w v, � D - o e o w .• - 4 ry S V 4 �c •+ + G m E e N C .Z w .. V L L V E L m L L O 4 O x = 7 S V V C w m V D L e O r r C- 'p 'O O 'r •� O c? O 6 0 C a o a C e r u— E *• N ?. V •� L • • C e V L V r r C r m r O r C d L E w L m m C r- > - c D u 7 •„ w w ✓ w 4 - C L V ✓ - e O w u - V r. C L O C Y p • 6 V V Lt O r H V r p N a b O m 4. r O 7 } In w C. . m L7 `J C r r u 7+ L V C r. G y Q EA 7✓ a s m L C N m N O ✓ a 7 L w O C V' 7 - a C C C y 4 m V V m f? a •` c.. V r C L G h •^ •� C � r u 7 C. K 7 H v C C C O- d d C w 0 O v v Y r a x � •- � N F �±w 22 P - - [ r CL G O O O +� •+ y y r M •- p E •+ L ro G P 7 o r T o r M v v a ro T G Y+ C lit E tl� o ro a e o C o C A u .� u M e a o w o ro tl r i 4 7 L i C L L w •� p w '� r a w V r 7 V r ro u— u v u E r L e •- r C 7 e T 4 7 o O + L C C v A + �• i V ro -C O L tl r• 7 v V N o C 7 E u 4 O V C A Y •r, p • Y L V U d r L r r a� t tl L O V C O d O S a 4 N 7 u r C ••- C G aE i d M O Y r L L — r 4 v L O D n Y C Y C E E A ui C6. e r r E u L a 19 U L V = Y C C � Y i � r L V O ✓• - V 7 14 .. - L a x ro E N O Y E 4 e 7 r C -• C Y L E r Y y� O L Y q r r r r ✓ S y w r •C N 7• c c c �- N [ r C ro V. V tl a N ..yr T O O - r r y Y L i L N tl � l.i w- 3 Q •' V L 7 C C 4 L 7 4 4 t u C •� o C u o u« C i V C �- D O F O U L •r � '� 4 u C N 7 c i a o d T N 7 • L r L 4 4 � tl 4- y u V �[ u C •� � � C .w o i a- tl a r a L L r C 3 F 7 a C. O 4 1 �• L� i C •� C � O u �+ tl Y c O ... V OQ ... ... — rt I c r w [ .� c •.- c r � .� r -� L— w ti C C d w N a i 4 O L 6 r O 4 4 — D V V Y V x u i t E d n V G L T [ V w r r T A r q D — 4 7 L V 0. V 4 G i •� ] r r 4 r L A U N •+ j,? �••' t u u « T 7 •. ro i h 7 4 L r T ro L C d[ •► 7 d- 7 u L+ O t r ri L. O tl [ 4 a ]. L1 4 4 Y x L G 4 L 4 C C« r 7 7 Y 4 F tl F 4 4 w C� Y O L v u r ro -- oro s F �±w 22 10 r` Grar!ct :c t 'I 1v Fr:G::PaI TGY!1shi ' A °1F7la1 hino ., nr1Fr' of CO)IF:ior :c_ai :�cr La.a X11 Kf U' 70 . ; "� .`.� 1.J( tu.�'� LL)V.K .Ll 11 5 ;JC'rlr 6r! C .,P 11 ,510 t n�! (n! « �L11�S Ri11 Sp d1 1,.- /.36 r"1 ^, n,nil w , ,1Mkc,u .�.5,. Rif C ,,P Vii 1 9 ,n�/K., F i'S .ml .t :Ht l SR 1306 �. «ttT i.'.E�ANN' n %1 SR 1139 (HEERON CH.iFIN SP 11343 ( DE Pu.1 FL) SF; 1310 1h,jRTH FP. Ir SF 5306 +:EST LEIANL � R(!) SR 5344 (;. E E; N ni l SR /�10 :�,�! i ^r..! r• tihlSh n�e.h RU1 SR 131 :�,G - i /7... (k;;F.in F'r;h.ca%'1 Cn .,r, 1304 r. iin;,,l Si 1144 NEST TEN) SF 1341 (N. FRn11ER RD) SR 1311( L ANN AS'• F.1 SR 11346 (Sni!C'LE CLUE R(l) SR 1353 FAYLGR) SP 1344 (FERRY) SP, / �G :., !aE1tV1U is inn n^ I '1 ..;,. :4c EiGCliel. NC 54 SP 1005 (OLD GBOU R01 SR 1006 (DRANnE 6ED'JE RD) SR 1100 MANI FORD RD) SE 51(l': i':EEF EC SR 1102 (OD SON XE'nJS S) SR 1007 lliEBr,NE CAKE RD) SR 11~11 (T -ER RD) S^, '1116 !APPLE ►r LL RP SE I BUTLER R01 SR 1115 (Ea"(lS'r..�w' e13nFF,Y) 5F. 1117 (Gn1; GROVE CH RD) 5P'1Slc IPEP.Kuk iii ,•^ SR 1555 is- 7E CR.M R -N SR , 111! , n , r &'K iKUVE N RU) ^ :,R 111 ,:,5 (NICK'S RD) r, 111'4 y !r1f i I N .DOS $R 1177 iL'AIRY TKO RuI SR 1115 (CHESINUi RI(iGF CH R 1 SR 1166 :Sn ".'S PC $P 1 19,2 !:ONES =tiiRY ii;ll C .,R M1I 1� -% rl, (FEF' ^:Sun kU) 5R 1113 111 'ER, 1 11 �v•.+;Lhh Ir ^. � -- SP 1556 (CR U.I ) 0AIRY Rut SR 15 "D 11UHM ^ t /•.I l IrO H1 , Sr' Mb :rinKE Sr 145: (WHiiE CRASS NO SP 1447 (14EY) CLOVER n f 61+r:[!EN r�) SP ! ,0.5 3 „ 1 FHK ( «II.00nT C•.tr, RG) Sk , 19x5 r n !r1�J nU! 1 SR 1554 (:ELLIf;S IiT, kOl SR 11955 ((�iSDN EOi SR 1550 (":.'r.h;3V 15ILL RD) SP 195: (cDLU KINE L0 SR 1401 ' ^')P'rin" SR 15 'r „ ' S.� .. •.., �. clLu r: r.., ,. , '.Dt':•�n .ilr n 3 r !J 10 2n TABLE 3 RECOMMENDED AND URBAN THOROUGHFARE PLAN COMPARISON OF CLASSIFICATIONS (SR 1538) The results of the comparison above is summarized in Table 4. 12 Thoroughfare Recommended Plan Planning Road Nlame (SR h.l Classification Classification Area Jones Ferry (SR 1942) Collector Major Thoroughfare Chapel Hill Old Greensboro Road Minor Arterial Major Thoroughfare Chapel Hill (SR 1005) NC 1 Principal Arterial Major Thoroughfare Chapel Hill Dairyland Road (SR 1177) Collector Major Thoroughfare Chapel Hill Dodsons Crossroads North Minor Arterial Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough (SR 1 102) 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 ?tiger Road (SR 154 1) Major Lon, 2.1 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 Overall Hap of Natural Areas in Orange County w01 L Hyco Creek A Section ' 103 r � � i LD1 L02 /1 E11 t/ A. ED9 4 L E04 A• E05 E08 AL ` E121 E13 E06 E10 1 1 w E01 _ E03 E14A E15 1 E07 E16 Cane Creek ,�-- _ _ - _ _ _ AL Section X17 1 1 Mar Macs Mp8 0 A, w' XD9 10 X13 i ittl( Ri Se tion En Rive Sectio L Xr18 X02 XDS ♦ A M16 New Hoae � Xt2 A, 1111 X14 ,& Creek Sec' ♦ X04 M01 \X01 X03 - - A, 0 �' -�15 771 � � � - � - Noz \ � \ BZC3 ca3 . 601 Bolin Cree M2 Section ~ 1 \ 1 � 1404 KID K11 )K1.5 1103 M06 M09 M'14 ` W' 1107 XDB M13x16M 7Morgan Creel �( Sectycn M181 rw.Im 1 - 2t Gas _ �' •�_ 1477) - Clever Gamen ' ��� - '• : � � = : � -� _ • r --- ;•�.'�- �'. -,,�' �,'�� rr ' J? 11 �� v - . y..' ,mil :� �•:.` l _ _ d –: Jfc `�1 'Fhn _ — y I i4 ~'✓ ' /7 -:- -.1V 11 i. :'ice`•, }+' .'� • ;�•� /„ � � / '0 It V r CO2 USGS Topographic man 5. Sites: CO2, CO3 1 inch = 24,000 feet \t Quad: White Cross, Saxapahaw d! ' 1�a 27 ORANGE COUNTY NATURAL AREAS SURVEY. SITE DESCRIPTION. 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 (CoraQVps 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 mast 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 (Faces Qrandifolia) and white oaks (Quercus alba). This is the driest situation where the usually mesic beech is found. Other species here include red maple (Aces rubrum), dogwood (Cornus florida), and red cedar (Juniperus vircriniana). The most abundant herbs are beechdrops (Enifacrus virainiana_), woodrush (Luzula acuminata) , hepatica (Hepatica ameri.cana), and Christmas fern (Pol.vstichum acrostichoi. des). One interesting zoological feature is a large den, possibly of a groundhog (Marmota monax) or for. (yulnes vulnes or Urocvon cinereaarQenteus). 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 (Trvthronium americanum), spring beauty (Clavtonia virginica) , toothwort (Cardamine anaustata), 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 �amaicensis), yellow- throated vireos (vireo 45 :AIE MM flavifrons), ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocaRillus), summer and scarlet tanagers (Piranga rubra and P. olivacea), and gray squirrels (Sciuus carolinensis). r 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 (Jualans_ ni ra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweet gum (Licruidambar 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 (oporornis 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 canadensis), which we observed denning here, as well as beaver (Castor canadensis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), parula warbler (Parula americana), and Louisiana waterthrush (5eiurus motacilla). One non - riparian species of interest is the black vulture (Coracyns 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 ouite 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, agriculture E: Forest, agriculture S: Forest 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 proper-,y; negotiate for a conservation easement. ownership: See Appendix A 46 G 1p �Y I- . tjr .{ Orance Grove b I r f Wltle Cd' u y `� Ip o r s I e ■F] e ar Mcnarw. V A Rio r b \ `I sco I el: r B I NGHRII- TOWKSH I P '"` 1. Oak &rove Baptist Church 2. Bethsada Baptist Church 3. Cane Creek Baptist Church 4. Bethlehem Presbyterian Church 5. Clover Barden United Methodist Church 6. Orange Chapel United Methodist Church 7. Antioch Baptist Church B. Alston &rave Congregationalist Church 9. Terrell's Creek Missionary Baptist Church 10. New Hope Baptist Church - CDE79IES I. Sykes Cemetery 2. Cher 1 ey hnlrews Fax i 1 y Cemetery 3. Mare U gam (Mimis -Pickard - Crawford) 4. Mimis Pickard 5. Mare Unknown 6. Bivins Cemetery 7. Edwards (or &ramy Cabe) Caetery L Durham Faxily Cemetery 9. Old Terrell's Cemetery 10. Mama Unknown - BUILDIN=— 1. Seline Sykes Hoare Z S. S. Webb House 3 Old Stafford House A. Bingthas School S. Lloyd HNh & Sax Tthorpsm House 7. Pflu h Strad Fars -MILL Pxvsrm 1. Thampson's (till Z Apple's Kill 3. The Mill at Teen (Union Kill) 4. Hopson's Kill S. Itcerar's Kill - COIK,Xl7Y /i MWJMGN SITES 1. Oak &Vve Athletic Park 2+ Orange &rove Volha+teer Fire Department t 3. Prange &vn Comhncity Building A. Tarheel Senora Club 5. White Cross Recreation Association c_� 30 L. BUILDINGS 1. ;ELINE RM WJSE n/s Oak 6rove Church Road [SR1117] 0.8 miles e/o junction with Vernon Road [5R111B] tmr: 6.10.. Nineteenth century two--story frame house with plain exterior and turned porch posts. Victorian arched windows added 1 Private. 2. S. S. WE3i8 W-M e/s Mlebare-Daks Road [[SR10073 approximately one mile south of Bradshaw Guarry Road ISR11151 tor: 6.17.. Two- story, five bay house, part of which dates to the 1640's. House has four chivneys, one of which is laid in Flea bond. Additionally; sore of the original interiors, with paneled doors and louvered blinds, remain. Private. 3. OLD STAFM HIM 0.33 miles down a dirt road east of Mebane—Oaks Road [SR10077, 0..2 riles north of N�4 tmr: E.17.. Eclectic one -story house with additions. Enclosed breezeway connects two small houses. Much interior work dates from 1 though some original glass and hardware survive. Private. 4. BIH M4 54m `VV northeast corner NC54 and Mebane -Daks Road [5R1007] tmr: 6.17..19 National Register of Historic places site. Rural complex consisting of rid - nineteenth century Greek Revival house outbuildings. Was site of Bingham School 1845 -IBB4. Private. A 5. WM fEJSE n/s leer Road [5R1100] 1.3 tiles west of Orange 6rove Road [SR1006] tor: Two - story, three bat frame house with hip roof, box cornice, and plain exterior trim. Original hip roof porch remains. story wing dates from early 1900's. Private. E. SflMI TMVSE i hEw.1SE e/s Crawford Dairy Road [SR10,56] tmr: 6.39.. Circa rid- nineteenth century. Two -story gable roof frame house built twenty feet west of Original homestead. Extensive outbuildings, including a V -notch log dairy. Private. One log home on family 7. PI*0 9W FPM e/s Collins Mountain Road [SR195b] 0.8 miles south of Old 6reensboro Highway [SR1= tor: E.41:. Circa mid - nineteenth century. Twv -story frame farmhouse with Greek Revival details, syoetrically molded frames, blocks, and molded sills. Flush sheathing under porch. Common bond chisneys at east and Hest gables. private. C. MILL PDO AND SIMi 1. TH3VW S KILL Turkey Run Creek 0.33 miles from confluence with Cane Creek tsr: 6.15.. Circa 1613. Only the dam remains of the sill. Dam is about 200' long and 15' high and in good condition. Private. 6 -4 4I Draft BOCC 1/22/91 Minutes 4 32 1 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 A. FEASIBILITY STUDY - NC 54 WIDENING 3 Planning Director Marvin Collins presented this item to 4 receive citizen comment on a feasibility study for the proposed widening 5 of N. C. Highway 54 in Orange County. The proposed widening would be 6 from I -85/40 in Burlington to the N.C. Highway 54 Bypass in 7 Carrboro /Chapel Hill. Mr. Collins listed the possible negative 8 environmental impacts as well as staff comments to the feasibility 9 study. 10 Mr. Collins entered into the record a letter from Blair 11 Pollock. Mr. Pollock opposes the widening of NC 54 for three reasons: 12 (1) displaces existing buildings, people and agricultural land, (2) 13 disrupts important areas of the local drinking water supply watersheds 14 especially University Lake, and (3) implies that the only way to handle 15 transportation needs is with more roads with no examination of 16 alternatives. He supports the development of passenger rail service 17 between the Burlington area and Chapel Hill /Carrboro, and also 18 encourages carpooling or convenient, regular, cheap, good bus service. 19 Mr. Richard Davis from North Carolina Department of Transpor- 20 tation (NCDOT) stated that they would explore all feasible alternatives 21 to the widening of NC 54. It has not been definitely decided that this 22 widening will be planned. 23 In answer to a question from Commissioner Willhoit about how 24 an item is proposed for a feasibility study, Mr. Davis indicated it 25, . could be by a request from a member of the Board of Transportation or 26 a member of the DOT staff 27 In answer to a question from Chair Carey about the need an 28 where this fits into the proposal, Mr. Davis indicated that it is a need 29 perceived by someone --- a Board member or citizen. He stated that what 30 the feasibility study was saying was that to choose another location 31. would be too expensive. 32 In answer to Commissioner Willhoit's concern about increased 33 truck traffic, Mr. Davis stated that this would be a longer route 34 because of the many stops for signals and intersections. 35 Mr. Davis stated that the next step is that the project could 36 be added as an active project. 37 In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon on the 38 impact that action by the Board of County Commissioners would have on 39 this widening, Mr. Davis stated that it would depend on the level of 40 support. It would either move it along or slow it down. 41 42 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS 43 44 RAY SPARROW spoke against the widening of NC 54. He agreed 45 with the letter received from Blair Pollock. He feels that some 46 alternate form of transportation could be looked at to ease the traffic 47 on NC 54. He stated that this road is a shortcut for truckers. They 48 dodge the scales on Highway 85 and use this route because it is still 49 the most direct route to many points. He indicated that if the project 50 must be done that it be done with minimal impact on the road. 51.• 52 LOIS HERRING, Chair of the OWASA Board, read a letter into 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ... 41 42'. . 3 44 45 _46 �47 48 49 50 51 52 33 the record. In essence she voiced OWASA's concern about possi A ro'ect on the quality of Cane Creek 61 ,le nd effects of the propose p University Lake water supply reservoirs. OWASA is concerned about he direct effects of the construction work itself, and about the lon er term effects of increased traffic and subsequent activities that may follow the project. A copy of the complete letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office. JANE KELLY purchased and restored an old home on NC 54. She spoke in opposition of the proposed widening of NC 54 stating it wo ld destroy her property. She questioned why North Carolina is first in highway construction and last in education. MIRIAM MURDOCK spoke in opposition of widening NC 54. She agreed with all the environmental concerns stating that not only would this destroy homes but it is most inappropriate at this time. The State cannot afford it and it is no time for more highways and more cars. Funds should be diverted to more needed social and educational things. She suggested a rail line between Chapel Hill and Burlington as an alternative means of travel. She asked that the Board not encourage more automobiles. She feels the widening of NC 54 is not inevitable and stated that now is the time to stop proposal. HENRY WILSON, owner of Wilson and Staples Auto Service, s He express d a stated that this widening would take his busines . concern about the people who may be hurt by this widening. of money being spent on public transportation. He approves JAMES ASBAUGH stated that when 54 was redone in the 7 money was allocated in 1956. If DOT had thought it through then, would have changed some things at that time instead of doing it He questioned the traffic count of 6,000 vehicles per day and asked that count was conducted -- before Highway 40 was opened or after. feels this is a shortcut for trucks and widening would increase tra on NC 54 and create a need for a weigh station. He noted that Sout Bell has a fiber -optic line along NC 54 which would need to be movec the widening. Also, one of the main feeders to University Lake , .have to be crossed. The widening of NC 54 will cause more runoff erosion of the .andeneeds feels to be studied intersection a solution. Fayetteville Roac NC 54 is dangerous PETER TODD, member of the Sierra Club and Orange G Greens , made reference to a transportation a stud to work Tt gethe study points our the need for governments - coordinate their transportation needs. He advocates that no acti taken before 1992. This would give all the governing bodies tip �. . respond to the land use issues. He referred to an EDC target v . He feels th i group which advocated development of Highway 54s encourage sprawl and further promote congestion and increase air, and soil pollution. Another primary concern is that Highway 54 through several feeders of the University Lake Watershed. He doe feel this project is financially prudent. The highway fund is prof rs hey ow. hen He fic for ould and and This to n be P to .sory could rater goes > not 34 C 1 to be twenty million short this year. He encouraged all local 2 governments to work with Triangle Transit Authority and TJCOG to 3 encourage ridesharing /carpooling in West Orange County. 4 5 EDDIE WILLIAMS, business owner in Alamance County, stated 6 that this widening would take the buffer he has in front of his 7 business. He feels this will be necessary at some time in the future 8 but not at this time. He feels it is important to plan ahead but asked 9 that the widening be kept at a minimum. He feels the 200 feet right - 10 of -way is excessive. 11 12 MARGARET BROWN expressed concern about the effects of this 13 widening on University Lake Watershed. She asked that the Board of 14 Commissioners not look favorably on this proposal. 15 16 JEF asked who originally suggested that the road be widened 17 and why. No one could answer this question. 18 19 LADY FROM ALAMANCE COUNTY stated that there is less traffic 20, now since I -40 has opened. She lives on 54 and does not support the 21 proposal. She questioned if this has been considered by Alamance 22 County. 23 24 MARTIE MANDELL stated.that there seems to be a great deal of 25.,_7-= confusion about why the proposal was made. She questioned if this is 26- : an,,,- 8710 year. plan or -. a:. 30- year.. plan. She supports other means of 27$: = -`- .,transportation if there:is indeed a problem. - She asked that the 28.; Department of- Transportation give the citizens some choices to the 29:`"'..% problem. If this is a 30 -year plan, she asked that a light rail system 30,- :- ­_between Chapel Hill and Burlington be considered. If this is an 8 -10 3i.-.__ year plan, other solutions or studies need to be considered. 32 33 Commissioner Willhoit questioned the increase in the amount 34 of impervious surface this widening would create. Marvin Collins stated 35 that in the description of the existing facility there was reference 36 made to four-foot paved shoulders on each side which were counted in 37 terms of calculating the impervious surface. When the new project was 38 described, there was no reference to the paved shoulders. 39 There were several questions about the traffic count and Mr. 40 Davis will find out exactly when and where the traffic count was done. 41 _ . Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by 42•�--- Commissioner. - Gordon to hold the public hearing open until a written 43. ;_:':. response is received from the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and for 44 additional written comments. 45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 46 47' I%. REPORTS - NONE 48 49 S. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA 50. A. ARTSCENTER APPROPRIATION 51= . The Board was asked to consider releasing $5,000 that has 52._. -' been held in escrow for the ArtsCenter. The County has received all tfm e_ - 35 MEMORANDUM To: Moses Carey, Jr., Chair orange county Board of commissioners Betty Eidenier, Chair orange County Planning Board From: Norm Gustaveson, Chair OGIAS Bingham Township Advisory Council Date: February 11, 1991 Subject: Feasibility Study on Widening N.C. 54 The purpose of this memorandum is to pass along the concerns on the .Bingham Township Advisory Council (TAC) regarding the Feasibility Study for widening NC 54 currently being undertaken by N.C. DOT. The Township Council met on February 7 to consider this and other items. While the TAC recognizes that the current issue is not a project in itself, but a study to.determine the feasibility of widening NC 54, the TAC is nonetheless quite concerned about the transportation, environmental, and social impacts that such a proposal would create if implemented. Among the concerns listed by TAC members were: The potential effect on structures on the north side of NC 54, such as the historic Bingham Inn, since the current proposal would involve widening on the north side of the road. Likely negative impacts on environmentally - sensitive lands in the University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds, both of which are traversed by N.C. 54 in whole or in part. The potential negative impact of increased traffic on a four - lane facility, especially as it might affect the "rural character" of communities such as White Cross and oaks. Questions regarding the necessity of this project with Interstate 40 now completed from Burlington to Chapel Hill. The potential for expanded truck traffic on NC 54 if it were a four -lane facility. Concern presently exists that some trucks are using this stretch of NC 54 as a bypass of the weigh station on Interstate 40/85. The appearance of Alamance County residents at the recent public hearing - indicating inter- county concerns. 36 Having stated these concerns, the Bingham TAC would also add that although they oppose even the concept of a feasibility study for wideninq N. C. 54, th e::::sha��: r� >;: >:;: ,n <;.:> :::::<:::::, ,,..r a: ;;;» :: »:: >::::::;:> ,> >.:.....:> , recognizes the need o= "'safety addition.s, �va:n;courages that safety concerns on this roadway continue to be addressed. In summary, the Bingham TAC would like to express its opposition to the proposed feasibility study, as it might open the door to future funding of this widening project. The TAC is deeply concerned about this issue, and asks the Planning Board and County Commissioners to recommend that DOT take no action beyond the feasibility study on this issue. xc: Bingham TAC Marvin Collins, Planning Director Gene Bell, Staff, Transportation Advisory Subcommittee pds/21191 37 January 30, 1990 DISTRIBUTED n a Mr. Moses Carey / k County Commissioner / -1 ' G 11991 P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: I would like to ask for your help in opposing the N.C. Department of Transportation's proposed widening of NC 54 -- from the current two -lane to a four -lane highway, extending from Chapel Hill to Burlington. This project is excessive in cost and totally unnecessary considering the present amount of traffic. Considering our state's ever - growing economic problems, it would seem more prudent to wait until the demand exists. At present I think that 46 million dollars could be put to more constructive uses. Please express your opposition to this project to the N.C. Department of Transportation. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Best regards, "I�L f�AOWrJ Arlene Furman 119 Leslie Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27516 D DISTRIBUTED 38 8232 Morrow Mill c� Chapel G p Hill, NC 27_ January 31, 1991 Tc-,, Orange County Commissioners Chairman Moses Carey POB s181 Hillsborough NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey and other Commissioners: Thank you for opposing the widening of NC54 west in Orange County. When North Carolina is unable to give its teachers a raise, this is NO time to consider wasting millions of dollars on the Department of Transportation's massive highway- widening and road - building project. With lives being sacrificed in the Gulf crisis we should be conserving oil by cutting back on unnecessary driving, encouraging or even man- dating car - pooling, and developing a well- planned mass - transit system. Random suburban development and reliance on individual autos uses ten to fifty times as much land and wastes many times the energy of mass transit .Autos pollute our water supplies with toxic run -off and foul the air with poisons that damage our lungs and brains. We must plan and work toward mass - transit BEFORE we have wasted the needed funds on highways and parking -lots and spread ourselves out to where the convenience of mass - transit is not feasible. Furthermore, mass transit must be made available to all, including those who cannot afford an individual car to get to a job or a doctor, and those who through age or disability are unable to operate a vehicle safely. Nov is the time for planned land -use to concentrate development at appropriate centers along mass - transit corridors. Several of these corridors have already been studied by the Joint Greater Raleigh - Durham- Chapel Hill- Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee. Also the Triangle Net -work for Transportation''thas worked out a comprehensive Triangle -wide Public Transportation System incorporating light rail, buses, park - and -ride lots and bike lanes, which I urge you to consider. One particularly unwanted and unnecessary high- way - widening plan which should be scrapped entirely is NC 54 between I85 at Graham and the By -pass at Carrboro. The supposed future "need" for this was apparently based on car - counts on a football Saturday in 1989, before completion of I40 actually decreased traffic on this section of road. On these special occasions buses could be chartered from Fait 148 of I85 to the game, The only part of this proposed plan that should be executed at all is a stop -light at the intersection of Fayetteville Road and NC54 at Carrboro, and that is needed now. Now is the time to balance the budget and hasten the end of the Gulf War by concentrating on energy - saving and mass transit instead of building unneccessary roads. At this time of crisis our love- affair with the auto is downright immoral! Very truly yours, - ref. 7 y z- 3747 DISTRIQU TED Mr. Moses Carey County Commissioner P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: 119 Leslie Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27516 January 30, 1991 39 =-4 I am writing to urge you to oppose the N.C. Department of Transportation's proposed widening of N.C. 54 -- from the current two -lane to a four -lane highway, extending from Chapel Hill to Burlington. This $46 million project is supposedly anticipating a demand trend extending over the next 20 years. However, beyond the project's excessive costs, and beyond the fact that there is no resent need for a superhighway through Graham, one can't help but be somewhat amazed and alarmed that this type of action is our state's solution to long -term transportation problems. Considering the present war in the Middle East, considering our current overdependence on oil imports, and considering our own state's ever - growing environmental concerns, this short - sighted (and unsightly) quick -fix seems absolutely unacceptable. We would rather expect that our officials would be considering long -term alternatives to conventional traffic management. That is, rather than anticipating future demand by current automobile trends, we ought to be seriously trying to change the trend itself. Clean mass - transit solutions (electric trolley or light -rail systems) would lessen the number of cars on our available roads and highways, and would offer a sensible alternative to the expanding asphalt tangle which threatens our own area and much our state. Please express your opposition to this project to the N.C. Department of Transportation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jack Nestor 3 4o V Dear Chairman: 1/28/91 I am increasingly distressed as I hear about the possible widening of NC 54 from Graham to Carrboro. I feel this would have detrimental effects to the environment (watershed effects), homes and businesses along the proposed route, and to tax dollars, specifically the cost to change the location of the four million dollar water line recently installed on the north side of NC 54. It is unnecessary to widen the road when interstates are so conveniently located. I live seven miles west of Carrboro and just north of NC 54. In ten minutes I can reach I-40 and in fifteen minutes I am at I -85. THe entire reason I live in the country is to have a peaceful atmosphere with a minimum of traffic. I choose to live farther out and commute via I -40 /I- 85 to work - the freeways are very convenient. Why does NC 54 need to be widened when these freeways are so close? The end result will be increased trucking, increased congestion and decreased safety. Additionally, during these trying times in the Persian Gulf when oil is such an issue, why not use tax dollars towards mass transit which would decrease the need for widening roads and decrease oil consumption? As a taxpaying citizen of North Carolina, I strongly object to the widening of NC 54. Sin cy, , Louise R. a`ts 9118 Collins Creek Dr. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 L.1 January 29, 1991 To: Board of County Commissioners From; Jean Stanford Mann 8422 Stanford Road Chapel Hill, N. C. 27516 Subject: Proposed widening of Highway 54 41 3 01991 I am writing to let your board know that I oppose the widening of Highway 54. I live on Stanford Road in Bingham Township where our family farm is located. We own land on both sides of Highway 54 and have several years ago been forced to sell a large portion of our land to OWASA for the Cane Creek Reservoir. In 1972 8.65 acres were sold to the N.C. Highway Commission to improve Highway 54. I am not convinced that there is a need to have more land taken by government. We travel Highway 54 everyday and only on UNC sports events or student holidays do we see an increase in traffic. I think your Board should do some studies of traffic midway between Chapel Hill and Graham. I feel that widening this road will just increase traffic and development in this area. It will become a shortcut to Carrboro and Chapel Hill and to Highway 40. I am especially concerned for the 48 residences and businesses which would be destroyed. We know many of these families and these are friends. I would suggest that you request the DOT spend money on paving many of the dirt roads in the county which are very difficult to live on. Better still, spend our tax money on education, children's needs and the elderly, etc. Let's protect our land, our houses, our businessess, and our environment. If this project proceeds it will cause much pain to many of the citizens of rural Orange County by destroying their homes and their land. January 29, 1991 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Edward N. Mann, Jr. 8422 Stanford Road Chapel Hill, N. C. 27516 Subject: Proposed widening of Highway 54 This letter is to let you know of my opposition to the proposed widening of Highway 54, and of my reasons for the opposition. As a resident of Bingham Township (Stanford Road) for the past 20 years I am familiar with the traffic volume on that roadway. I drive to work in Chapel Hill and return home five times each week. Also, we attend UNC football games and basketball games on a regular basis. Also, we drive to both Chapel Hill and Burlington for shopping, entertainment, etc. I must _ have made 10,000 trips on that road. Highway 54 is not overly crowded, not even close. At peak daily times in the morning and afternoon commutes there is a great deal of traffic, but it is nowhere near dangerous or inefficient. Even on the worst of days- - football Saturdays- -the increased traffic is not an overload situation. If you want to see what it is really like I invite you to drive from Carrboro to Graham at anytime between nine in the morning and four in the afternoon. You will be amazed at how light the traffic is at that time. It is always a surprise to me to drive that approximate 20 miles and not meet more that 10 to 12 cars at that time of day. It is difficult to understand how the numbers were obtained to indicate the capacity use concerns. My feelings are that Highway 54 is nowhere near capacity, and the proof is in the seeing that I do on a daily basis. And, I can tell you, it_just ain't so. Before this idea-gets very far I would request that Orange County do some counting of its own. DOT's numbers are misleading. 42 _ Ins CQ.�,.Q..� 212 S QA Ct�x� WL VIT 16 �anw-a&y 2,91, Mat I C A4 A Ak A", . k4d-rc " 1.40,' O-m O?PQSFd 40 4k& LA.)iAC&%iKj Lo s U, 4-s 4-L& tjeA �A KcA mot A.CaLdLWAja 4 #%iL-e vlekj JOIA i , � - h i C ! k, � �''+�SZLZ �ti 44 MDSC5 C 2/ 0 r � e P. 0, E" gl l DL.v . Mr, ^n 4° egress. n� o��'.�,•o�,q o-n - ass -u.� /� , � r IC • 6`j' / -&,LOW a 40 /altQS 7 10-m C_.uxrpr-rT o 40 ivc /A dwd6p4lce-4 C ncrt ab `mss �s f 1-awt, �o r►,eti mho o o( a Y �7= 3 0 AM , � , M�L ill C t; . �'� /'Ytu.c.� �� Zt� r`� n� Q.cr�?` B•i• r'�L7 -o�5 , ,l�Des nl C e4le.,, Azwe ms`s rv� `�o j. -- 0 Aa,s —fl�. s _ Al / a b ,�,� ' a.Ga • 1�- 4o , q-AOO( ./ IK vcr 45 cl.�� vex M ,C 5 do n all Inr. Oa.,r` � � . �- ' T y Lti ��•`+V r �, /' • fm I L-,vwiA Ii kz �w `otce re f ab�c�c -f-,rte -/-b `EfNe- L, -3jer if—,q C-+ NG s -4 Ck,--. ; 6cA-X-> cir-.,l C—r -ems m , 40U me tciz f &ve -e- - fMF17�G Yo �kl- N'Aetk - �o cal, 46 Hi ii lip) zW-1 � �/l eet r l L 5��f Cmuxr January 28, 1991 Orange County Commissioners PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Members: 47 In the proposed widening of 54 West, my concerns are: I) More traffic taking a short cut from 185 to 40. 1 have lived on 54 for 24 years. I know that the tractor trailers run this road all the time. If you approve this preposal, that traffic will double or triple in no time. II) By reducing the speed limit to 45 on the existing highway from I85 to Chapel Hill, this would induce people to continue down 185 until they reached 40. III) We have worked very hard on our home and yard for the last 24 years. In 1970, when the highway was widen, we gladly signed the papers - because there was a great need for that improvement. We saw this and gladly practicaly gave our land for this improvement. But now, if my calculations are right, we would have to give up our home. We are dead set again this. Our plan was to live in our home until we die and then pass it down to our children. You say with us having a 10 acre plot, we could relocate our home. I do not think that Orange County would allow this because of the health department. So we would have a useless lot on our hands. This year, our assessed tax value is $100,753.00. IV) Our daughter has an acre lot but her septic system is on our land. The proposed widening of the highway would take the system. What would happen to her? She had wanted to add a bedroom to her system last year and Orange County wouldn't allow this. She is a single parent and barely making end's meet. How cruel to uproot two small children from their home. V) Our grandchildren meet the school bus on Highway 54. If the proposed widening takes place with a medium, the safety of meeting the school bus is greatly reduced. Even now cars coming from the opposite direction do not want to stop for the bus. We are two families that are against this proposal. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs Charles E. Mauer Linda F. Binder r 48 0 Lit. 2 9 1591 IIVJ January 16, 1991 Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman orange County Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey, I am writing to you because of my concern about the proposed widening of Highway 54 West. My husband and I own a home in the Dodson's Crossroads area of Orange County, and _ I travel Highway 54 daily. I do not find the traffic on 54 so heavy as to warrant further development of that highway. The only time traffic is a real concern in the area is before and after major sports or entertainment events in Chapel Hill. With Interstates 85 and 40 nearby and the limited need, I do not see how the economic, ecological, or personal human costs can be justified. I urge you to vote against the widening of this highway. In addition, I want to thank you for continuing to recognize the concerns of citizens against the proposed Orange County airport. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Lydia A.Aydlett, Ph.D. 0 E. Foreman 9118 Collins Creek Drive, Chapel C. 27516 291:x; Alice Cordon CranCe County 'oard of Commissicners 49 As a new commissioner, I hope you have an appreciation for the necessity of fighting to maintain the rural quality of life in Crange County. I urze you to oppose the widening of W �. The state is widening 140 &- 85, which is only 10 miles "north. +,idenin '„ 54 will not improve traffic flow asit will result in more trucks & vehicles -wi-±± turn,—/ off at Graham. It is a relief as a senior citizen to have a quieter highway that does not have trucks j pounding along with you. Impact on Cane Creek Wildlife A. flora �. watershed issue all need to be considered. Any efforts the Commissioners can make to block this widening would be a -prreciated. Sincerely DISTRIBy�TEC VIA J � cil/l ax)t� I ' �d �r Z 6�a k, 27 J7 DISTRIBUTED February 2, 1,M91 Mr. Mosr-S Orange County Commissioner P.O. Box 8181 '4 Hil"- -horoucyh, N,-- .2— 2 '17 E,' " e a r c Lj 52 7 a jrn Wr4 .Ltin tc, the p- op -cj r. i -:n rcr MY family ii-ves 54 in 0,--ancje u n v W e 1- -a V e I C n. N -j 4 s e Vc- r a a da d ?+ v aL r j- c) %1 s ro he day. Regardless of what- D01, traffic flow fiG1237&S indicate, NC 541 seems to be handlincr the current flow well and could hanzftle more. From iry e,—)erieace, no -vliderinc_ is needed now -r in -1-4— n r? EL I- fr U tu r e . L dc, nct n, U 7 -ecess-�n and 2:u,2,zrc-4- -ew ' � n d' - J- u a b e advocating highway expansion. ,ir state a Ali d Should be placing our ta%-w dolllarE they are j-, e ed-e�- the iri,- 4n human Ferv:ces. Z -.on Z: 7.7 towards improving h.-a,. -h ware serf: ic,-�2. . creating anc- strengthening day care centers for car, children and c1der citizens, and helping our public education system. From where I stand we stand 'very Proposea widening of INC 54 and we ,_, 4 --t-h respect our env i-ronmen%., Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Leorl 7 ;�TpWlp-t� 7,, 1-Ittle to gain by endorsing -h,�i ha�-- = rac -&r, DISTRIBUT D / T df Dear Orange County Commissioners., 53 January 29, 1991 Douglas C. Willson Royal Park Apts., 6A Carrboro, NC 27510 I am glad you will receive comments on the widening of Hwy. 54 from Burlington to Carrboro through February 4. I am not a property owner who would be directly affected by such a project; however, as a citizen of Carrboro and North Carolina I believe widening Hwy. 54 would be an inexcusable mistake. I have driven the stretch from Carrboro to Burlington several times and find the road to be more than adequate. In fact, I think it is a beautiful drive which may be threatened by doubling its size. Concern number one deals with the construction project - itself. It seems to me such a project would create more traffic problems than it would alleviate. I am also wary of such a project's effect on the environment. There is also the matter of affecting those with land abutting the highway. My second concern deals with the effect a four -lane highway would have once built. It seems to me we should not be promoting more auto traffic into the Chapel Hill area when we know that this adversely affects an already severe parking dilemma in the town, our dependence on oil, and our air quality. The triangle area already hosts an environment where one usually has to drive an auto to get most places; let's not exacerbate the situation. Even in an automobile society, let's keep our traffic plans logical. We already have a major artery from Burlington to Chapel Hill via I -40. Why would we want to divert the already light traffic from this? Most importantly is the issue of affordability. Even if the above opinions are found to be wanting, and indeed we did need to widen 54, we cannot justify spending money on this when there are far more pressing needs. Let us keep our priorities in order; there is a major budget crisis on top of glaring educational, health, environmental, housing, and employment. problems. These will not be solved in the next ten years, I guarantee you. please scrap this project before we go any further. It would be disgraceful to waste more time and resources discussing this matter. I would be very disturbed to hear government officials claim once more that we have backed ourself into a corner from which we can no longer escape. Sincerely, JL DISTRIBUTED 4'x:7 Hwy 54W Chape.1 Hill, NC 7`16 February 2, 1991 54 Dear Chairman Carey: li)rY wnl11;J lira to go on record as be ni g against. the E =r :roaal `. make Highway 54W a four lane road. We have lived on Hwy 54 since 196,8 and witnessed the changes that the former widening proauced. For us, the most devastatir:,� change resulted form a reroutine of drainage water in our area from both sides of 54 to the south side. Thus the i Rhino- k,ilt's _cit t_ ; W'1tr.r draining of �.:ZC 11:i�'�^'r'Tw��L ;S �L]rr �C :��. �Ji lies iltiori17i3 lo-t and otddltio -,al large but IlorC p'JrnL;ti .rea.s prI the n�rt.] side is shLlnted to a shall creek on the south side Mich ro;.�es our property. Ancther d�,ainage ditch annin:g Lack line Of =,ur property also carries water fr -:n the north side tc, our creek which ultimately drains into Mc:rg.an 'reek. Needless t. L7�Yr, the volume .-)f water handlW'j by our creek has greatly increased cauaing flooding and occasionally washing cut the private road which serves _is and five ,other fair ilwes . Other severe erosion caused by this f loOdir _T has resulted in the, loss of Dur gard?ns., iawns (albeit temporary* but rE-quiring rp'.-�uii.lin . ;,, an_i fruit trees. We have seen Highway 54 c`,ar.ge from a rough, lightly traifi, -4:.e country road to a broad thoroughfare that is the primary lint= to Burlingt -on, (3raham, Green =:boro and points west. 1t now carries huge volumes of high -speed traffic producing increased exha-lYt emisTi or.- and an amazing amount of noise �A]ra`.eurs in : r,it'ao' ogy, we have difficulty hearing the birds.) We deplore these highly undesirable changes brought about by the previous widening of Highway 54. We can only believe that the pro- posed project to add two lanes to this highway would significantly worsen these environmental problems and would very likely prc:)duce other nesat.ive effects. We are -trongly opposed to this project and, hope that it will never be enacted. We much prefer that the state develops a mass transit system connecting significant North Carolina areas; of population. Sincerely. yours a1. Keller e ? {.11cr DIS I'HIQU ) -ED 05 January 1990 The Honorable Moses Carey, and other Grange County Commissioners P. U. Box 8101 Hillsborough NC 27278 Your Honorable Commissioners, J 55 li v�J Six years ago I purchased a home off NC Highway 54, five miles past Carrboro, to enjoy living in the country without forfeiting a quick daily drive into Chapel Hill. I was therefore startled to hear that you are considering widening the highway- - at the cost of urban sprawl, increased water, air, and noise pollution, and increased traffic, for the four lanes will needlessly attract trucks away from NC 85. These trucks will lead, of course, to further congestion along the 54/15 -501 bypass! 2ecause I rarely encounter a lineup of cars (only on gems -days at UNC' or a slow- moving vehicle in the 'stretch being considered for widening, I cannot comprehend how you can rationalize the various costs of empansion. Thank you for taking into consideration the concerns of the residents involved in-this decision. Sincerely, Dr. Alice Kuznia,- 9711 Leslie Drive Chapel Hill NC 2751( R. J. Fisher 6400 Gold Mine Loop -� - Chapel Hill, N C 27516 0 I 5 FEB 12 191 12:47 CARRBORO NC PD. P.2 The following ordinance was introduced by Alderman and d ly seconded by Alderman A RESOLUTION OPPOSING R -2538, BIGHT OF WAY PROTECTION FOR THE WIDENING OF NC 54 FROM I -40/85 IN BURLINGTON TO THE BYPASS WHEREAS, the proposed project would duplicate the route that the recen ly built I -40 provides; WHEREAS, the project would entice trucks to use NC 54 as a short cut to avoid weigh stations; WHEREAS, the project will cause negative environment consequences including loss of forest land, agricultural land, and disruption of natural habitats; WHEREAS, -the project will erode the integrity of the Inn at Bingham School, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; WHEREAS, the project bisects the southern tip of Cane Creek watershed and traverses the middle of University Lake watershed, and will c significantly the amount of impervious surface area in these watersheds; NOW THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE_TOWN OF CARRBORO RESOLVES: Section I. The Board of Aldermen opposes the proposal to widen NC from 1 -40/85 in Burlington to the Bypass (R- 2538). section 2. This resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Dtt^ LC4�� -a 58 h-C 3� i2 40 �1 IL LV-44 V� 0 v �ti 90-.1 Utz=, " lk-, 41- �4-0 ........... dam. tzx �� 1 (>-,t P.MM cl'L�" ti� �u L 0��z4 wi 4� Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road OWASA P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 2 7510 (919) 968 -4421 Comments To A Public Hearing Of The Orange County Board Of Commissioners: NCDOT FEASIBILITY STUDY TO WIDEN NC 54 IN ORANGE COUNTY Old Post Office - District Court Room Chapel Hill, North Carolina January 22, 1991 Presented by Lois T. Herring„ Chairman Board of Directors GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS LOIS HERRING. I CHAIR THE ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND AM SPEAKING TONIGHT ON ITS BEHALF. OWASA WANTS TO USE THIS EARLY OPPORTUNITY TO REGISTER ITS CONCERN ABOUT POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON THE QUALITY OF OUR CANE CREEK AND UNIVERSITY LAKE WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS, WHICH PROVIDE DRINKING WATER TO 55,000 PEOPLE IN THE CARRBORO- CHAPEL HILL AREA. WE'RE CONCERNED BOTH ABOUT THE DIRECT EFFECTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK ITSELF, AND ABOUT THE LONGER TERM EFFECTS OF INCREASED TRAFFIC AND SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITIES THAT MAY FOLLOW THE PROJECT. WE CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE STATEWIDE WATERSHED PROTECTION REGULATIONS RECENTLY ENACTED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION. ALTHOUGH THESE RULES IMPOSE VERY STRINGENT LIMITS ON PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY, THEY REQUIRE NO NEW PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. WE RECOMMEND A FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF ALL POSSIBLE WATER QUALITY EFFECTS ON UNIVERSITY LAKE AND CANE CREEK RESERVOIR, AND URGE DOT TO COMMIT TO STATE OF THE ART STANDARDS AND PRACTICES OF HIGHWAY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. An Equal Opportunity Employer .rl 1 OWASA Comments Public Hearing on NC 54 Proposal January 22, 1991 Paget WE ALSO WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE STATE IS AWARE OF - AND WILL FULLY CONSIDER - THE PRESENCE OF OWASA'S MAJOR 'CAPITAL ASSETS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY. WE HAVE RECENTLY COMPLETED INSTALLING A NEW $4 MILLION DOLLAR RAW WATER MAIN ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF NC 54 BETWEEN CANE CREEK AND CA'RRBORO. IF I UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSAL CORRECTLY, THIS 30 -INCH WATER LINE IS LOCATED IN WHAT WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME THE 46 -FOOT MEDIAN BETWEEN THE EAST- AND WEST -BOUND TRAFFIC LANES; UNLESS, OF COURSE, DOT PLANS TO RELOCATE THE LINE. I TRUST THAT THE STATE IS ALSO AWARE OF OWASA'S ACCESS ROADS TO THE CANE CREEK RESERVOIR AND THE STONE QUARRY RESERVOIR - BOTH OF WHICH ARE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE NORTHERN RIGHT OF WAY ALONG NC 54. BOTH ENTRIES WILL HAVE TO BE RELOCATED IF THE WIDENING PROJECT IS CARRIED OUT. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO 'BRING THESE ISSUES TO YOUR ATTENTION, AND ENCOURAGE DOT STAFF TO CONTACT OWASA STAFF AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO DISCUSS FURTHER DETAILS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT THE POTENTIAL, EFFECTS OF WIDENING HIGHWAY NC 54 ON n1E STATER QUALITY OF THE CANE CREEK AND UNIVERSITY LAKE WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS .WHEREAS, The North Carolina Department of Transportation has Published a feasibility study (R -2538, September 28, 1990) for widening NC 54 from Burlington to Carrboro; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners will conduct a public hearing to receive comments for submittal to the Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: I. That the Board of Directors of Orange Water and Sewer - Authority hereby expresses its concern about potential direct and secondary effects of the proposed project on the quality of its Cane Creek and University Lake water supply reservoirs; and 2. That the Board of Directors authorizes and directs its Chairman and Executive Director to prepare a statement of such concern for presentation at the public hearing to be conducted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Adopted this 9th day of January, 1991. Lois T. Herring, Chairman ATTEST: Riley Wil n Secretary— Treasurer M FEB 13 '91 17.07 &MRRBuRu NC RL [arrb ' or( N.C. P.0, :BOX 3 :307 LVast Main 5tr at Ca.frburo, P;orm CwoJina _15:0 The following ordinance was introduced by Alderman Frances Shetley and duly seconded by Alderman Jay Bryan. & RESOLUTION OPPOSING R -2528, RIGHT OJ' WAY PROTECTION FOR THE WIDENING OF NC 54 FROM I -40/85 IN BURLINGTON TO THE NC 54 BYPASS Resolution No. 30/90--91 WHEREAS, the proposed project would duplicate the route that the recently built 1--40 provides; and WHEREAS, the project would entice cars and large trucks to use NC 54 as a short cut through Carrboro to connect with 1 -40 east of town; and WHEREAS, the project will cause negative environment consequences including loss of forest land, agricultural land, and disruption of natural habitats; and WHEREAS, the project will erode the integrity of the Inn at Bingham School, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, the project bisects the southern tip of Cane Creek watershed and traverses the middle of University Lake watershed, and will increase significantly the amount of impervious surface area in these watersheds; and WHEREAS, the project will cause increased noise levels in Carrboro's high density, residential areas along 54 Bypass. NOW THEREFORE, THE.BOARD.OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF CARRSORO RESOLVES: Section 1. The Board.of Aldermen opposes the proposal to widen NC 54 from x -40/85 in Burlington to the Bypass (R- 2538). Section 2. The Board of Aldermen requests that this project be removed from the Transportation Improvement Program. Section 3. This resolution shall become effective upon adoption. r r tE 13 '51 17-06 fvi_ r'Li [9.-2 -6 Page Two Resolution No. 30/90 -91 The foregoing resolution having been submiLted to a vote, received the following vote and waA duly adopted this 12th day of February, 1991: Ayes: Randy Marshall, Tom Gurganus, Hilliard Caldwell, Eleanor Kinnaird, Frances Shetley, Jacquelyn Gist, Jay Bryan Noes: None Absent or EXaused: None le Sarah C. Williamson, Town Clerk of tho Town of Carrburo, North Carolina, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct. copy of a resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen at its meeting held on February 12, 1991. r �� �•� ;'.dam �•:�� •+ �O w Town C ler + � r W •J 6� � r P rR. Ob ••� y+ /a,G •,..••r.a , �� ��� .0 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.�A Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: POE CENTER FOR HEALTH EDUCATION REPORT ------------------- DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HE YES: --- _- -_ -_ -- ARING ------------- - - - - -- - -- _ __ ____ -- X ATTACHMENT(S): YES - UNDER SEPARATE INFORMATION CONTACT: MOSES CAREY COVER TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 __________ __________ Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To present information on the -Poe Center for Health Education. BACKGROUND: Mary Rendleman, Development Chairman of the Poe Center will be present to show a video which will describe exactly what the Poe Center for Health Education is and what they plan to achieve with their efforts. She will answer any questions the Board may have. RECOATION(8): None - presented as a report for information only. f I O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 19, 1991 Action Agenda Item # &„� SUBJECT: 1991 -96 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X—No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, EXTENSION 2300 MEMORANDUM FROM COUNTY MANAGER MEMORANDUM FROM FINANCE TELEPHONE NUMBERS: DIRECTOR Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: The Board of County Commissioners will deliberate on the 1991 -96 Recommended Capital Improvements Plan during the regular meeting of February 19. BACKGROUND: As support to the Board's deliberations, the following information is attached for review: RECOMMENDATION: 1. Memorandum from the Manager providing additional information on "newcomer" projects included in the CIP and identifying elements to be considered in addressing short -range and long -range planning for future County capital projects. 2. Memorandum from the Finance Director to the Manager outlining the steps taken during the 1988 Bond Referendum process. 2 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.' FROM: JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER v RE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION; 19 1 -96 RECOMMENDED CIP DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 1991 During the compilation of this year's CIP, a myriad of issues were raised regarding space and the intended use of certain County buildings. We attempted to categorize these issues in the following manner: ..Issues to be addressed immediately through the operating budget or through funds provided in the CIP for fy 91-92; ..Long -term issues to be addressed through pay -as- you -go funding; ..Long -term issues to be addressed through a bond issue. COURT STREET ANNEX The Government Services Center being built with proceeds from the 1988 bond issue has brought about a domino effect on space for County offices in Hillsborough. The new building will allow all offices currently housed in the Court Street Annex to be relocated. There are several forces competing for the released space. The Economic Development Commission (EDC), as part of the implementation of their strategic plan, has suggested creating a Small Business Training Center. The training center would consolidate to one location several functions currently in place, such as the Employment Security office, the GED classroom, the Economic Development administrative offices as well as adding office space for the Small Business Technology Development Center (SBTDC), classrooms for Durham Technical Institute (DTI), and an office for a Job Training representative from DSS. Ted Abernathy has estimated a space requirement of approximately 2500 s.f. for this function. The Court Street Annex space would be suitable for this function with little renovation required. It is also anticipated that other offices in the leased Sawyer Building could be'relocated to the Court Street Annex. 1991 CIP INFORMATION PAGE 1 3 They include: Child Support Enforcement, Commission for Women, and the Literacy Council office. - To address expansion requests in the Sheriff's Department, the Board of Elections is targeted to move to the Court Street building as well. it could occupy the space currently held by the Finance Department. It should be noted that Child Support receives approximately 60% reimbursement from the State for their expenses. They have expressed interest in staying in the Sawyer Building. At the current level of reimbursement, the County's cost for the lease would be approximately $19,200 /year. The Courts have also expressed interest in the Court Street Annex with the intent to develop at least one courtroom and associated offices. If the Courts used part of the building it would obviously preclude some of the County Departments mentioned earlier from relocating to the Annex. As one can see, there are several challenges associated with the intended use of this building as yet unresolved. Within the Court Street Annex funding recommendation we have included $15,000 to secure professional assistance and begin the development of a coordinated facilities plan. This plan would be used to assist us when addressing long -term needs, particularly as it regards the Courts and Law Enforcement, and would also be a valuable tool in providing direction for the best use of currently available or soon to be available space. JAIL As you may be aware, Orange County has a very good chance of receiving a $1,000,000 grant from the Federal Marshall's office to use for construction of additional detention cells at the Jail. . Prior to the beginning of such a building project however, the Sheriff has expressed interest in seeking professional assistance in determining the best approach to future jail expansion. He has suggested extending the contract with Grier- Fripp, the firm who designed the expansion we are now completing. We anticipate the Sheriff will request these funds in his FY 91--92 budget. The actual construction project is contingent upon the receipt of grant funds. However, it appears that funds may be available as early as the second quarter of 1991. 1991 CIP INFORMATION PAGE 2 4 SHERIFF ADMINISTRATIVE In addition to Jail space, the Sheriff has expressed a critical need for an additional 3,500 -5,000 square feet of administrative space. A portion of his space needs will be met when the Board of Elections is relocated following the completion of the Government Services Building. There will apparently still be a need to add 2,000 -3,000 square feet however. In order to accommodate this expansion several options were explored. For example: ..Should we vacate the existing building and relocate the Sheriff's offices as an addition to the Jail? Our conclusion was that to replace the existing offices our costs would likely be in the neighborhood of $1,056,000 (based on 12,000 s.f. @$80 /s.f. plus 10% design fees). It is highly unlikely that any portion of the Federal Marshall's grant funds could be used for this purpose, thereby necessitating the use of County funds. Since pay -as- you -go funds are not available to support this project, it would be a likely target for a bond issue. An additional complication for the relocation of the administrative offices to the Jail involves the site itself. The site is not suitable for the massive new construction that would need to be placed there, particularly if the Jail's plan is to build an .additional 30 -40 beds for detention purposes. Considering all of these factors, it appears that relocation of all administrative offices for the Sheriff as well as an addition of detention space on this site is not possible. If new space for the Sheriff's administrative function is needed, an alternative would be the addition of 2,000 -3,000 s.f. on the existing building. The design of an addition to the Sheriff's building should reflect flexibility in its interior design in order to make upfitting for any future use easier. Assuming $80 /s.f. construction cost and a l0% design fee, this addition could be constructed for approximately $176,000- $264,000. 1991 , CIP INFORMATION PAGE 3 _., COURTS The Court System in Orange County is experiencing growth pains as well. The Court Facility Capital Needs Committee, consisting of representatives of the area Judges, the Chair to the Board of Commissioners and County staff, met in the Fall, 1990. The session was designed to discuss issues and brainstorm solutions. Several critical space issues were raised, the most costly being the location of two new courtrooms and the relocation of one existing courtroom in Hillsborough. We explored several possibilities to identify the space needed by the Courts. As previously mentioned, the Court Street Annex is a possibility, but would solve only a portion of their space dilemma. Relocating the Sheriff's Administrative offices and allowing this area to be used by the Court system would only serve to create another, expensive capital project, and would not provide sufficient space for the Courts either. - Yet another possibility involves the construction of an addition to the New Courthouse. Upon initial review, it appears that approximately 10,000 square feet will be necessary to provide three additional courtrooms and associated staff support offices. Assuming 10,000 s.f. at $80 s.f. plus 10% design fees a minimum budget of $880,000 would be required. It should be noted that although additional courtrooms would be available, this option provides no staff growth. During the brainstorming session, the question was raised as to whether there was sufficient buildable area on the County campus to consider constructing any additional buildings. If it was determined that the campus is at capacity and if long -term planning (1995 -2000) included the relocation of Courts and Law Enforcement functions to a separate complex, this project would require a bond issue. Although we would expect the proposed coordinated facility study to provide accurate construction cost data, based on similar projects, it is estimated this endeavor would carry a price tag of approximately $30 -40 million. Two things have become apparent after review of the major needs expressed by the Courts: 1. A comprehensive facilities study should be conducted prior to any piecemeal construction work; and 1991 CIP INFORMATION PAGE 4 V1 I b 2. Any major construction project developed from the study would be a likely candidate for a bond issue or other financing alternatives. Fully understanding that a bond issue might be the key to a longer term solution, but also not an immediate occurrence, we have attempted to address some of the Judge's more critical needs in this year's CIP. The $30,000 set aside in the Court Facilities project is intended to address such items as: ..acoustical problems in the Old Courthouse; ..development of a holding cell at the Chapel Hill Courthouse; and ..installation of restroom facility for the District Court Judge. COUNTY CAMPUS PARKING ** * *(Note: The County campus considered in the parking space Y estimates include all County property from Churton St. to Cameron St. south of Margaret Lane.) One common problem in all of the construction projects mentioned here is parking. You are all well aware of the on- going discussions between the Town of Hillsborough, the Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce and the County regarding the Downtown parking situation. Although the County has been able to comply with the Town's ordinances regarding on site parking for our existing campus, the construction of additional court space would further complicate matters. For example, the additional space for courtrooms would probably be built on the upper parking lot of the New Courthouse, thereby displacing at least 30 parking spaces. The latest site plan prepared by Norma White for the campus parking expands the lower lot to capacity. It does not consider the use of the green space leading down to the river, however. The $100,000 allocated to the County Campus Parking could be used to address such things as: ..improvements to the present parking lot to increase the number of parking spaces, including paving; or ..assist in funding the coordinated facilities study to determine the most efficient use of the area; or 1991 CIP INFORMATION PAGE 5 V ..some funds could _be held in reserve in anticipation of recommendations forthcoming from the facilities plan as it regards parking. EMS BASES County growth has prompted an ambulance placement study which will determine the most feasible ambulance base locations in the northern and southern portions of the County. The location of the two proposed bases will offer citizens increased response time. EMS call records indicate that approximately 83% of calls occurring north of Highways 70 are routed to an area bounded by Highways 70, 57 , and 86, east to the Durham County line. (refer to attached map). If a base were located closer to the area around the intersection of Highways 86 and 70, response time could be improved by at least 5 to 6 minutes. Travel time from both base locations is greatly affected by either distance or traffic conditions through downtown Hillsborough. Population statistics indicate that the townships of Little River and Cedar Grove, both located north of this intersection, are seeing the fastest rate of increase, and it is likely that increase will continue over the next several years. Statistics from southern Orange indicate that calls in the EMS station III area have increased to a level which requires frequent back -up of ambulances from the Station II area. The net effect of this action increases response time from 3 -8 minutes to 7 -15 minutes. CANE CREEK PARK This project is a component of the Master Recreation and Park Plan, adopted July, 1988. This project was chosen as the third priority in the Plan's implementation timetable. The proposed location of the district park adjacent to the Cane Creek Reservoir will require extensive coordination of effort between the Recreation and Parks Department and the reservoir's controlling agency, OWASA. Such cooperative efforts have been most successful in the past, resulting in the development and maximizing of joint use of facilities having recreational significance. As you will note in the CIP, actual effort on this project will not begin until 1995, therefore allowing sufficient time for coordination between 1991 CIP INFORMATION PAGE 6 A the County and OWASA on the scope of these recreational facilities. CONCLUSIONS It is understood that there are projects which must be addressed during the next 0 -5 years with available resources. Included in this category are such projects as County Campus Parking, modifications to Court facilities, upfitting of the Court Street Annex for its new residents, and the EMS bases. During this same time period there may be other projects that, due to their magnitude may require bond funds or other long -term financing, such as an addition to the Courthouse, Law Enforcement space or solutions to the parking problem. In addition, there are projects that encompass needs whose funding will extend into the future for ten or more years. During this time, one must pose the question of how much expansion can be accommodated on our existing Hillsborough campus; and what direction future expansion should take. The only thing that is clear after review of these many interrelated issues is that there are, at present, many options, but no clear cut answers. With that in mind, we would suggest that the Board consider consolidating funds from some of the newcomer requests and pursue a comprehensive facilities plan. Both the Campus Parking Project and the Court Street Annex project are likely candidates to support this effort. 1991 CIP INFORMATION PAGE 7 a- a Tow POO -41 1 t, C6AA r p E ' to 'a.... ORO .rte ENO rrn 1 p .J �.li o. �w 'n! n„ a G 1 •� �1a1 ,. rr of r •r. to I r IV Fill IF to to dN Ap X41,1 „•� `�, 1 � .y Ir Aj x77 714 '1 •I?. 1x1 r "; (r:' i,,r � , � 1 •ice � 1 • rt'' �3B to 11r r —C ,yl i JQ1nl �t.. �. -. � ,,1• ,,./ �j� r� 111 , - �"'f: 1 k,r � �}•I I L � Oil � � • I • � �� , or ,,,, INO Ahl. 1 �`.., �` poi -�•:,, � �. �Ur' Ng �IiP ��� n 41�4 to CPO Ott? 4 j I11•, • .. '.111 \ '�• , d fr ` — w...�a.. -..y 1�� (.� � , .. ��, .. j •"''- �� ,11' �" car w 22 FINANCE DEPARTMENT 10 MEMORANDUM ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA TO: John Link, County Manager FROM: Ken Chavious, Finance Director4;:_ DATE: February 14 , 1991 SUBJECT: CIP and Bond Issue information I have reviewed all information related to the 1988 Bond Referendum regarding the procedures, timetables, and the Citizen Advisory Committee. The following information outlines the occurances leading up to the November 1988 referendum. CIP CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE: This committee had a primary responsibility to help determine projects suitable for a Bond Referendum. The Commissioners chose a committee of Thirty -five persons that represented the County population geographically and politically. Independent Opinion Research & Communications, a consulting firm from Wilmington, was hired by the Commissioners to facilitate the committee process. Commissioners Carey and Willhoit co- chaired the committee. A total of six committee meetings were held beginning on March 28 and ending on May 18, 1988. These meetings included presentations by county staff members and school officials. One of the meetings also included a tour of County and School facilities. The work of the committee concluded with recommendations to the Commissioners on priorities within the 5 year CIP as well as priorities to be considered for a possible bond referendum. BOND ISSUE PROCESS: The process leading up to the 1988 Bond Referendum began on June 21, 1988 and ended with the November election. All of the legal requirements associated with the Referendum were completed in August of 1988. 109 COURT STREET • P.O. BOX 8181 • HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 • 919/732 -8 11 BOND ISSUE PROCESS Page 2 According to the Local Government Commission, the entire process takes about 90 days, which is approximately the timeframe experienced in 1988. I have attached the legal procedures required for a bond referendum, as well as, the schedule which we used for the 1988 issue. BOND EDUCATION STEERING COMMITTEE: After the County Commissioners decided which projects would be included in the bond package, a second committee was appointed. The mission of this committee was twofold. First of all the committee was charged with informing citizens of needs which prompted the bond referendum and costs associated with its passage, and secondly, the developement of a network of community resources to properly educate the public. Some of the strategies of this committee included developement of a speakers bureau and developement of educational tools such as slide shows and pamphlets. This committee also took the lead on fundraising and media advertising campaigns associated with the referendum. The committee began it's work in July 1988 and continued throughout the summer and fall leading up to election day. The efforts of this committee proved to be very effective and contributed substantially to the success of the referendum. As indicated above, the use of citizen committees proved to be invaluable to the 1988 Bond Referendum process. Please contact me if you have any questions or need more information. liz c 12 ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE FOR PROPOSED BOND ISSUE DATE ACTION June 21 Orange County Commissioners formally request resolutions of support from both school systems. Begin deliberation on amount and projects to be included in Bond Issue. July 5 Public Hearing on Bond Issue, Orange County Schools Board adopt resolution. July 7 Special meeting to adopt resolution authorizing submission of application for issuance of Bonds to Local Government Commission. Final decisions on amount and projects to be included must be made. July 9 Clerk to the Board publishes "Notice of Intent" to file application. 11 Manager and Finance Officer attend preliminary conference with Local Government Commission to discuss proposed Bond Issue. Chapel Hill /Carrboro School Board adopts Resolution. 19 Application accepted to go to Local Government Commission. Introduce Bond Order. Finance Officer files sworn statement of debt. Set date for public hearing. 22 Publish proposed Bond Order and Public Hearing date. August 16 Public Hearing, adoption of Bond Order, and official call for referendum. 19 Publish Bond Order and Notice of Election. r im lob 13 PROCEDURES FOR BOND ISSUE Once the projects to be considered for a Bond Issue are determined the follo;air�g steps must be taken prior to submission of referendum to the voters. 1. Notice Of Intent To Make Application For issuance of Voted Bonds A legal notice must be published of the intent to make application to the LGC for the issuance of bonds 10 days before the application is filed. 2. „oplication To LGC For ynnroval Of Bond Issue, Preliminary Conference, And Acceptance Of Application The application form provided by the LGC must be completed and submitted to the Secretary oL the LGC. The application can be completed within the 10 day period mentioned above. Before the application is accepted, the Secretary may require the Board ex its representatives to attend a preliminary conference to consider the proposed issue. - the iling and acceptance of the application, the Secretary submits it to the Commission for approval. The entire process takes approximately 30 days. This time frame includes the possibility of a preliminary conference and any additional information or hearings that may be required by the LGC. 3. The Bond Order lifter the application is accepted for submission to the Commission, a bond order should be introduced before the Board and a time and place or a public hearing on the Order should beset. lecal notice should be published containing the bond Order as introduced and the time place set for the heari -_c- ^he hearing must be at least six says after the publication date. L. Swcrn Statement Of Debz-And Debt Limitation ter the _,.trcduction of the Bond __der tc the Board and before -ne public hearing the - inance Officer should file t•:wth the Clerk to tine Board a sworn statement con Yaw - -_nc the Count,,-'s current debt and debt limitation- 1 C� 1 5. Passage Of Bond Order The Bond Order should be adopted (Passed) after the public hearing. upon adoption of the Order the Clerk must again publish it. The publication must state the date of adoption and publication. It must also contain a statement informing the Public that there is a 30 day period for any actions questioning the validity of the Order. This is the final step that has to occur before the Bond Referen um is out to vote. According to the Local Government Commission, the entire process for a voter approved, Bond Referendum should take a maximum of ninety (90) days. This 90 day period includes preparation of the actual ballots as reaui ed by the Board of Elections_ I r AW 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 Action Agenda Item # X n SUBJECT: 1991 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GOALS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, EXTENSION 2300 BOCC GOALS TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967- 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To approve the Board of County Commissioners goals for 1991. BACKGROUND: At the December Board Retreat, the County Commis- sioners confirmed the goals to be pursued for 1991. The management staff and department heads responded to those goals with specific objectives and plans of action during the Department Head Retreat on January 17 -18, 1991. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the goals and related plans of action as attached be approved by the Board of Commissioners. • LONG RANGE PLANNING GOAL - PROMOTE EFFECTIVE LONG RANGE PLANNING BY DEVELOPING A COMPLETE SET OF IMPACT STATEMENTS WITH WHICH TO ASSESS THE LONG RANGE EFFECTS OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC, AND SERVICE RESOURCES OF THE COUNTY. OBJECTIVE 1. Provide an Infrastructure Impact Statement which identifies the extent to which new development utilizes the capacity of existing roads, utilities, parks, and other facilities. PLAN OF ACTION A. Identify facilities /impact measures. B. Prepare spreadsheet template. C. Work Session /Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), Planning Board (PB) and Economic Development Commission (EDC). D. Revise spreadsheet template. E. Report /BOCC, PB, and EDC. OBJECTIVE 2 N TIMETABLE February 1991 March -April 199 May 1991 May 1991 June 1991 Provide a School Facilities Impact Statement utilizing existing data which identifies the extent to which new development utilizes the capacity of existing schools in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro and Orange County School Districts. PLAN OF ACTION A. Work Session /County and School Staff. March 1991 B. Prepare spreadsheet template. April 1991 C. Work Session /County and School Staff. May 1991 D. Revise spreadsheet template May 1991 E. Work Session /BOCC and School Boards. June 1991 Page 1 OBJECTIVE 3 Provide a Fiscal Impact Statement which identifies the projected tax base, revenues, operating expenses, and capital improvement costs generated by new development. PLAN OF ACTION A. Work Session /BOCC, PB, and EDC. B. Revise spreadsheet templates. C. Work Session /BOCC, PB, and EDC. Page 2 3 February 1991 March 1991 April 1991 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTION GOAL —CONTINUE COOPERATIVE EFFORTS IN RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENT STATE - MANDATED STANDARDS. OBJECTIVE 1 Complete development of cooperative planning procedures between Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough. PLAN OF ACTION A. Work Session /County and Hillsborough staff. B. Alternatives presentation /Work Group. C. Planning Board recommendation. D. Work Session /BOCC and Hillsborough Board of. Commissioners (BOC). E. Adoption of procedures. OBJECTIVE 2 Identify method(s) and implement State- mandated watershed protection standards in University Lake, Cane Creek, Upper Eno, Little River, Flat River, Hyco Creek, and Jordan Lake watersheds. A. Land use data to Environmental Management Commission. B. Develop standards comparison. C. Work Sessions /Utility Providers. D. Township Meetings /Community Assessment. E. Draft proposals. F. Township Meetings /Community Response. G. Revise proposals. H. Public hearing. Page 3 TIMETABLE January 1991 February 1991 February 1991 March 1991 March 1991 February 1991 March 1991 April -May 1991 June 1991 July- August 1991 September 1991 October 1991 November 1991 R GOAL - TO DEVELOP A PLAN FOR THE USE AND CONTROL OF OPTIONAL WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS WHICH PERMITS FLEXIBLE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTS THE ENVIRONMENT. OBJECTIVE 1 To establish a body of county regulations and requirements which will insure that utility owner /operators will operate, maintain and repair all optional waste treatment systems in a manner consistent with state law and with sound utility, engineering and environmental protection practices. PLAN OF ACTION A. Develop an impact fee process for the creation of a capital reserve fund to repair failing systems. B. Develop a process for removing /replacing unsatisfactory operators of troublesome and failing treatment systems. OBJECTIVE 2 Health Department establish its monitoring and maintenance assurance program consistent with health and environmental statutes. PLAN OF ACTION A. Initiate data base for conventional and non - conventional systems. B. Determine need based on data base. C. Board of Health revise local sewage disposal rule. D. Implement monitoring inspections. E. Develop educational plan for conventional and non - conventional systems. Page 4 S October 1991 October 1991 February 1991 March 1991 June 1991 July 1991 September 1991 RURAL CHARACTER STUDY 6 GOAL - PREPARE /RESOLVE STRATEGIES AND ORDINANCES TO PRESERVE RURAL CHARACTER OBJECTIVE 1 Pursue mutual adoption, by Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro, of Options A (2 --Acre Lots), B (5 -Acre Lots), and C (1 -Acre Clusters) of the Rural Buffer Conceptual Guidelines. PLAN OF ACTION A. Chapel Hill adoption. (Carrboro adopted all options - October 23 1990) B. Planning Board recommendation. C. Board of Commissioners adoption. TIMETABLE February 1991 February 1991 March 1991 OBJECTIVE 2 Develop Conceptual Guidelines for the remainder of Orange County. PLAN OF ACTION A. Township Meetings /Community Assessment. January 1991 B. Draft strategies. January -March 1991 C. Township Meetings /Community Response. D. Revise strategies. E. Public hearing. OBJECTIVE 3 Pursue development of acceptable countywide strategies for the provision of wastewater disposal service for all options (A -E). PLAN OF ACTION A. Develop staff proposal. B. Work Sessions /Utility and Municipal Staffs C. Revise proposals. Page 5 March 1991 April 1991 May 1991 February -May 1991 June 1991 July 1991 R 4 7 D. Presentations /Utility Boards and Municipalities and August 1991 Board of Health E. Revise proposals. September 1991 F. Public hearing. October 1991 OBJECTIVE 4 Prepare ordinances for implementing rural character strategies. PLAN OF ACTION A. Township Meetings /Community Assessment. B. Draft strategies. C. Township Meetings /Community Response. D. Revise strategies. E. Public hearing. Page 6 July 1991 July- September 1991 September 1991 October 1991 November 1991 I P i PIN "141 �Tlf*klvq GOAL -- EDC AND PLANNING STAFF TO DEVELOP "BUILDOUT MODEL" BASED -ON CURRENT LAND USE PLAN, PROJECTING JOBS, HOUSES AND TAX BASE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME (10 -20 -40 YEARS). OBJECTIVES TIMETABLE 1. Complete county -wide inventory of property tax August 1991 valuation by type (40,000 parc.). 2. Review and enhance Fiscal Impact Model. October 1991 3. Analyze 1990 census to project growth of the March 1992 residential sector. 4. Using commercial inventory project future non- April 1992 residential growth. 5. Final report. May 1992 GOAL - TARGET ADVISORY GROUP (TAG) WILL REPORT LONG -RANGE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES ON ECONOMIC GROWTH TARGETS. 1. Final TAG report. January 1991 2. Report presentation to Board of County Commissioners. February 1991 3. EDC staff analysis of recruitment strategies-and May 1991 targets. 4. Targeted recruitment program. Fall 1991 5. Joint work on geographic targets through joint Spring -Fall planning process. 1991 GOAL -- DEVELOP PROPOSAL FOR SHARED SPACE CENTER FOR BUSINESS SERVICES AND TRAINING (AND RETRAINING) EMPLOYEES. OBJECTIVES 1. Develop preliminary recommendations for EDC Board February 1991 review. 2. Inclusion of space requirements in CIP. Spring 1991 Page 7 A 3. Presentation of final proposal to BOCC. GOAL - CONTINUE COOPERATIVE PLANNING BETWEEN PLANNING BOARD AND EDC OBJECTIVES I. EDC and Planning Board joint committee formation. 2. Presentation of pre - development conference and courtesy review procedures. 0 July 1991 November 1990 March 1991 May 1991 Summer 1991 Fall 1991 10 HUMAN SERVICES GOAL - ASSIST LOW INCOME FAMILIES TO SECURE AND MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT BY EXPANDING DAYCARE RESOURCES. OBJECTIVE TIMETABLE To increase the availability of daycare subsidies in Orange County. PLAN OF ACTION A. Increase the amount of county funding for daycare February 1991 subsidies until federal funds are available. B. Support the Day Care Resources Task Force and the ongoing development of a strategic plan. C. Assess the Child Care Development Block Grant and February - advocate for the maximum amount of subsidy funds. March 1991 D. Convene meeting with legislative delegation to March 1991 discuss the statewide impact of decreased federal and state subsidy. GOAL- DEFINE THE COUNTY'S ROLE /CONTRIBUTION IN ADDRESSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Identify possible affordable housing financing options/ methods. PLAN OF ACTION A. Identify current affordable housing initiatives. March 1991 B. Describe various housing programs administered by March 1991 federal and state programs. C. Research possible financing options with the county February - non- profit housing corporation and other county April 1991 housing organizations. D. Recommend methods of county financial participation May 1991 in affordable housing programs. Page 9 U GOAL - DEVELOP APPROACH TO ACHIEVE OPTIMAL COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF SERVICES AMONG PUBLIC AND PRIVATE HUMAN SERVICES AGENCIES. To develop strategic plan for human services. PLAN OF ACTION A. Human Services Management Team (HSMT) assist Human Services Advisory Commission (HSAC) in developing specific objectives for a strategic plan. 1. Meet with representatives from the county -wide human service community, including towns, United Way, and other appropriate agencies. B. HSAC and HSMT jointly establish budget and select consultant for strategic plan. April 1991 May 1991 C. Ensure that strategic plan interfaces with Ongoing Opportunities for Families Grant and United Way Needs Assessment planning processes. D. HSAC and County management continue discussions with October 1991 United Way, Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro to develop common funding request application form for private non - profit agencies. 1. Draft new application form before 1992 -93 budget. E. Finalize strategic plan and present to BOCC. November 1991 GOAL - IMPROVE AND EXPAND LITERACY PROGRAM. Develop a family literacy program with the assistance of the Governor's Advisory Council on Literacy and Orange County Literacy Council. PLAN OF ACTION A. County management assist Literacy Council in March 1991 assessing family literacy needs and identifying existing services. B. Determine family literacy priorities. May 1991 Page 10 x 12 C. Develop a mechanism for implementation of family August 1991 literacy program. GOAL - DEFINE THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN AND ADDRESS THE FEASIBILITY OF IT BECOMING A FULL -TIME DEPARTMENT. County management, staff and Commission to identify, refine and prioritize functions of the department. PLAN OF ACTION A. Compile and review past achievements. February 1991 1. Historic time line. 2. Past accomplishments. B. Review current role. March 1991 1. Examine mission statement. 2. Examine current objectives. C. Address the broadening of functions to determine April 1991 expansion. 1. Discuss internal functions. 2. Discuss external functions. 3. Discuss objectives for next fiscal year. 4. Break down objectives as external, internal, or both D. Examine budget. April 1991 1. Cost of operation based on objectives of half -time department. a. Break down cost to include internal functions b. Break down cost to include external functions c. Prioritize objectives 2. Cost of operation based on objectives of full -time department. a. Break down cost to include internal functions b. Break down cost to include external functions c. Prioritize objectives E. Discuss options. May 1991 1. Through feedback from HSMT. 2. Through budget process. Page 11 a 13 GOAL - COMPUTERIZATION OF HUMAN SERVICES OBJECTIVE To upgrade current system of maintaining and sharing client information. PLAN OF ACTION A. Develop a Master Client Index (MCI) with the assistance of the UNC School of Social Work Human Services Research and Design Laboratory. 1. Assess existing county human services computer January 1991 network. 2. Evaluate and design hardware. January 1991 3. Evaluate and design software specifications. January 1991 4. Evaluate system cost. February 1991 5. Draft final report with recommendations for March 1991 implementation. GOAL - REVIEW THE COUNTY MINIMUM HOUSING CODE (MHC). OBJECTIVE To strengthen the Minimum Housing Code Ordinance and Enforcement Program. PLAN OF ACTION A. Meet with the HSAC to determine their initial January 1991 concerns /issues related to the MHC. B. Review the present ordinance provisions and February - enforcement procedures. Research other N.C. March 1991 jurisdictions' enforcement programs. C. Make recommendations to the HSAC based on results of April 1991 research and local experience. D. HSAC make MHC recommendations to the BOCC. May 1991 Page 12 14 GOAL - REEVALUATE JOB TRAINING AND PARTNERSHIP ACT (JTPA). OBJECTIVE To examine current JTPA program activities and ensure maximum use of funding. PLAN OF ACTION Assistant Manager submit JTPA report to the Board of July 1991 County Commissioners (BOCC). (Report will include possible partnerships with neighboring counties.) Page 13 SOLID WASTE GOAL - IDENTIFY LANDFILL SITE AND ESTABLISH A NEW LANDFILL. OBJECTIVE Identify the best landfill site in Orange County. PLAN OF ACTION A. Establishment of the Landfill Site Search Committee (LSC) and securing engineering consultant to conduct the site search. B. LSC, consultant and staff educate the public about the need for a landfill and the process of selecting the landfill site. LK TIMETABLE Spring 1991 ongoing C. LSC, consultant and staff meet and adopt screening Fall 1990 - -and ranking criteria and apply criteria. Winter 1991 D. Hold periodic public meetings to update April, November 1990 citizens on the status of the landfill site April, October search. December 1991 E. LSC make recommendation to Landfill Owners Group (LOG) on two to four possible landfill sites. F. Landfill Owners Group (LOG) make recommendation to January 1992 BOCC on landfill site. GOAL - TO EXPAND PUBLIC INFORMATION EFFORTS ABOUT SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING. OBJECTIVE To provide the opportunity for a better understanding of solid waste and recycling issues and encourage public participation. PLAN OF ACTION A. Mailing of newsletter to all County residents on the February - status of solid waste and recycling in the County. March 1991 (LOG and county staff). B. Ongoing bi- weekly column in the "The Chapel Hill ongoing Herald" called "Watching Our Wastelines ". (LOG) Page 14 16 C. Distribution of updated "Solid Waste in orange Ongoing County" brochures and recycling brochures. (LOG and county staff) D. Investigation of a compost demonstration site in Spring 1991 northern Orange County to educate citizens on composting. (LOG and county staff) E. ongoing contact with all of the schools in the County Ongoing to educate students about solid waste and recycling. (LOG and county staff) F. Participation in the observance of Earth Day. (LOG and county staff) G. Investigation of a Household Hazardous Waste drop off day in the 1991 -1992 budget. (LOG) April 20 19911 H. Mass mailings and newspaper ads on solid waste issues. Ongoing (LOG and county staff) I. Public forums on solid waste issues. (LOG and county Ongoing staff) J. Meetings with civic groups to update them on solid ongoing waste issues. (LOG and county staff) GOAL - TO DEVELOP SOLID WASTE COLLECTION PLAN. To identify the most efficient and economically feasible solid waste collection method(s) available to Orange County (including financing options). PLAN OF ACTION A. Implementation of pilot compactor center. Spring 1991 B. BOCC approve preferred solid waste collection center Fall 1991 alternative. C. Incorporation of private haulers into the Orange Summer - County Solid Waste Plan. Fall 1991 D. BOCC approve preferred financing method for solid Fall 1991 waste collection center alternative. E. Development of a Solid Waste Ordinance for Orange Fall 1991 County. Page 15 • 17 F. Enhanced education for solid waste collection plan Ongoing and recycling. G. Implementation of Phase Two of collection system FY 1991 -1992 alternatives (addition of two more collection centers). H. Implementation of Phases Three, Four and Five in subsequent years. Page 16 18 BUDGET OBJECTIVE To develop strategies to promote efficiency and savings in orange County government operations. PLAN OF ACTION A. Identify positive incentives for savings in ongoing programs funded in continuation budgets of county departments and outside agencies. B. Departments encouraged to phase out older, less productive programs and identify more effective methods of delivering services. Page 17 a 19 EDUCATION OBJECTIVES 1. Continue with present approach to funding current expense for next fiscal year. 2. Both school boards review in further detail the remaining viable options for school equity funding. County and school staff continue working together. 3. Staff to study which functions are in recurring capital budget, and which are in CIP. Will work with two superintendents and make recommendations. 4. Staff to make general recommendations in January 1991 -1996 CIP on timing of bond referendum to include school and county priorities. Page 18 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: February. 19, 1991 SUBJECT: ORIENTATION PROGRAM FOR COUNTY APPOINTED BOARDS /COMMISSIONS ------------------------------- ---------------------------------- DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X -- - - - - -- ----------------------------------- ATTACHMENT(S): NO INFORMATION CONTACT: MOSES CAREY, JR. TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To develop an orientation program for county appointee members to County Boards and Commissions. An orientation program would provide to the new appointee a better understanding of their role. It would provide to those already serving a clearer understanding of the similarities and differences between the various boards and commissions and would provide to the staff support of the various boards and commissions some guidelines for improving effectiveness and enhancing services provided by County Government. BACKGROUND: The Board of Commissioners appoint citizens to serve on the various boards and commissions. A need has been expressed by those presently serving, new appointees and county staff for an orientation program which would include but not be limited to the following: 1. An overview of County Government and what services are provided to the citizens to include the organizational structure. 2. An historical perspective of Orange County including the similarities and differences between those boards which have statutory authority, those that serve as an advisory board and those that actually serve in a supervisory capacity. 3. Appropriate leadership training to enhance the citizens ability to effectively serve and to understand their role as an appointed member of a particular board or commission. RECOMMENDATION(8): 1. Appoint a committee to include but not be limited to one or more staff persons who works with (1) an advisory board, (2) a statutory board, and (3) a supervisory board, and a staff person from the Personnel Department and the County Commissioners' Office. 2. To charge this committee with developing a proposal for an orientation program for county appointees to boards and commissions, the process for conducting the orientation, and the resources necessary to implement the program. This would include recommendations for revising the present resume form used to recruit new members and strategies for recruiting new members as vacancies occur. 3. Bring back this proposal within six months of the appointment of the committee to the County Commissioners for their consideration. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. X-D Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: ANNUAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARD COMPETITION (NACo) DEPARTMENT: Board of Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X - -- ---------------------------------- ATTACHMENT(S): Applications to be INFORMATION CONTACT: Commissioners' submitted Office TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 --2031 Durham - 688 --7331 - PURPOSE: To review and approve the five entries assubmitted- for- the NACo Annual Achievement Award competition. BACKGROUND: Any project or program which has been undertaken during the past year and which resulted in improved services is eligible for entry into the NACo Awards competition. Five applications have been received for consideration by the Board. These five are listed below. 1. Emergency Management Comprehensive Training Program 2. Environmental Impact Ordinance 3. Land Use Plan 4. Project KIDS 5. Rural House Numbering Program RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve program descriptions for submission to NACo. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. -xz Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 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 at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed boards and commissions. BACKGROUND: The following recommendations are presented for the Board's consideration. BOARD OF HEALTH: Appoint Barbara Chavious to fill the unexpired "Public Representation" term previously held by Ruth Royster. This term will end June 30, 1993 and then she will be eligible to serve three full terms. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Appoint Joan Jobsis to fill the Position currently held by Barry Jacobs. Jacobs has completed the maximum number of terms as the Cheeks representative. Jobsis' first term will end in February, 1994 and she will be eligible to serve another full term. CARRBORO PLANNING BOARD: Accept the Resolution of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen requesting the reappointment.of Toy Cheek as one of the extra- territorial representatives. His term will end in February, 1994. Mr. Cheek has served four terms in this office. RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.] ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 19, 1991 SUBJECT: MINUTES DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ATTACHMENT(S): UNDER SEPARATE COVER PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -1501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PURPOSE: To correct and /or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: February 4, 1991 - 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 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF DATE OF MEETING AND CHANGE OF PLACE OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WHEREAS, General Statute IS3A -40(a) requires the Board of County Commissioners to fix the time and place of its regular meetings; and WHEREAS, this Board desires to change the date of the regular meeting scheduled for March 19, 1991 at 7 :30 p.m. WHEREAS, this Board desires to change the place of the regular meeting scheduled for the courtroom in the old Post Office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners that the March 19 regular meeting shall be held on March 20 at 7 :30 p.m. in the Board Room of Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. This notice is provided pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153 -40. Beverly Blythe Clerk to the Board CORRECTED ABSTRACT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: CHANGE OF MEETING DATE AND LOCATION DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTACHMENT(S): YES - NOTICE Action A ea a Item No. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To officially change the date of a regular Board of Commissio meeting from March 19 to March 20 and the meeting place to Lincoln Cen .s BACKGROUND: The 1991 NACo Legislative Conference is scheduled to begin on March 15 and end on March 19. The regular meeting schedule approved in September, 1990 listed March 19th as a regular meeting date. Since three Commissioners will be attending the NACo Conference, it will be necessary to change this meeting date to March 20. RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the "Notice of Change of Date of Meeting and Meeting Place" as provided pursuant to N.C.G.S. 153 -40. JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR THOMAS J. HARRELSON SECRETARY sue" STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 RALEIGH 27611 -5201 j� c-, December 18, 1991 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OFFICE DIVISION O 25201 919/733 -4713 Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners Courthouse 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Project No. 92 -18 -044 Work Order No. 9.9043300 9.9050895 Dear Mr. Carey: The enclosed original of the subject project agreement for the above project was executed by the Secretary of Transportation on December 18, 1991. The period of performance for allowable costs incurred against the subject project agreement is from October 11, 1991 to September 30, 1992. The enclosed invoicing forms should be used in preparing requests for reimbursement. It will not be necessary to submit other documentation with the invoices since the County is currently reporting under the requirements of OMB Circular A -128. A copy of the County's year end audit report should be forwarded to this office after completion, but no later than one year after the audit period ends. Please identify this project using Project No. 92 -18 -044 and Work Orders 9.9043300 and 9.9050895 on all correspondence. If you have any questions regarding the contract, requests for reimbursement or related matters, please contact me directly. Otherwise, the staff representative assigned to the project is Rodney Jenkins. Sincerely, rry Miriam S. Pe Grants Administration Manager MSP/ j sm Enclosures cc: J. Bruce Dillard, NCDOT An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer f STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE NONURBANIZED AREA PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION GRANT AGREEMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ) WORK ORDER 9.9043300 9.9050895 and ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) PROJECT NO. 92 -18 -044 THIS AGREEMENT made this the I?— day of , 19 1�, by and between the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (hereinafter referred to as the "Department ", an agency of the State of North Carolina) and the COUNTY OF ORANGE (hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor "). WHEREAS, Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (49 U.S.C. app 1601 et seq.), as amended, provides federal capital assistance for public transportation in rural and small urban areas by way of a formula grant program to be administered by the State; and WHEREAS, the purposes of Section 18 are to enhance access of people in nonurbanized areas for purposes such as health care, shopping, education, recreation, public services, and employment by encouraging the maintenance, development, improvement, and use of passenger transportation systems; and WHEREAS, Article 2B of Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General Statues designates the Department of Transportation as the agency of the State of North Carolina responsible for administering all federal and /or State programs relating to public transportation, and granted the Department authority to do all things required under applicable federal and /or State legislation to properly administer the public transportation within the State of North Carolina; and WHEREAS, The Governor of North Carolina, in accordance with Section Page 2 of 15 18(a) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, has designated the North Carolina Department of Transportation as the agency to receive and administer federal funds under this program. WHEREAS, in order to assist in providing incidental transportation services, the Department, under the terms of this Agreement shall make a grant of capital assistance to the COUNTY OF ORANGE. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein set forth, the Department and the Contractor agree as follows: Section 1. Purpose of Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the undertaking of a nonurbanized area public transportation project (hereinafter referred to as "Project ") by the Contractor and to state the terms, conditions, and mutual undertakings of the parties as to the manner in which the Project will be undertaken and completed. Section 2. Scope of Project. The Contractor shall undertake and complete the Project in accordance with the procedures and guidelines set forth in the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (hereinafter referred to as "UMTA ") Circular 9040.1B, dated July 1, 1988, the State Management Plan for the Section 18 Program (hereinafter referred to as "State Management Plan "), the Project Application and Transportation Development Plan for the COUNTY OF ORANGE. The aforementioned documents, and any subsequent amendments or revisions thereto, are herewith incorporated by reference, and are on file with and approved by the Department. The Public Body shall adhere to the standards established by the Office of Management and Budget Circular A -102, Attachment G, dated January, 1981 and additions or amendments thereto, for "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants -in -Aid to State and Local Governments ", and in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Page 3 of 15 Section 3. Limitations of Project. This Agreement shall be subject to, and the availability of funds contingent upon, the terms and conditions of a grant agreement between the UMTA and the Department. Section 4. Period of Performance. The Contractor shall commence, carry on, and complete the Project as described in the Approved Project Budget from October 11 1991 to September 30 1992. This Agreement shall remain in effect until the Contractor has satisfactorily disposed of all project equipment in accordance with Sections 14 and 15 of this Agreement. Section 5. Cost of Project. The total cost of the Project, approved by the Department and UMTA, is ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY -FOUR THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED FIFTEEN DOLLARS ($174,615) as set forth by Appendix A, Project Description and Budget. (a) State Share. The Department shall provide, from federal funds, eighty (80 %) percent of the actual net cost of the Project for Capital I, not in excess of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY -TWO THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY -TWO DOLLARS ($132,972). The Department shall provide, from state funds, eighty (80 %) percent of the actual net cost of the Project for Capital II, not in excess of SIX THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS ($6,720). (b) Local Share. The local share must be provided from source other than federal funds, except where specific legislative language of a federal program permits its funds to match other federal funds. The Contractor hereby agrees that it will provide twenty (20 %) percent of the actual net cost of the Project for Capital I and Capital II. The net cost is the price paid minus any refunds, rebates, or other items of value received by the Contractor which have the effect of reducing the actual cost. The Contractor shall initiate and prosecute to completion all actions necessary to enable the Contractor to provide its share of Project costs at or prior Page 4 of 15 to the time that such funds are needed to meet Project costs. The Contractor shall provide its share of Capital costs from sources other than UMTA funds. (c) Capital Expenditures. In order to assist the Contractor in financing the capital costs of the Project, the Department will reimburse the Contractor for eighty (80 %) percent of allowable capital costs not in excess of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY -NINE THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED NINETY -TWO DOLLARS ($139,692). (d) Payment. Progress payments based upon actual allowable net costs may be made upon receipt of an itemized invoice, supported by documentation of costs from the public body. Any partial invoices and the Project's final invoice shall be approved by the Public Transportation and Rail Division and the Department's Fiscal Section prior to payment in accordance with Departmental procedures. Any costs in excess of the Project Budget, or any cost deemed ineligible for reimbursement by the Department in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, shall be borne in full by the Contractor. A retainage of five percent (5 %) of the approved payment may be withheld until the approved the Project is completed, accepted, and the final audit has been made. The Department may waive the retainage requirement on capital expenditures in excess of $10,000 if so requested by the Contractor. Any cost deemed ineligible for reimbursement by the Department shall be deducted from the invoice payment or from the retainage before the final payment is made. Any rejected or unaccepted costs shall be borne by the Contractor. The Contractor agrees that in the event the UMTA or the Department determines, due to rules and /or regulations of the UMTA or the Department, that grant funds must be refunded, the Contractor shall reimburse and pay to the Department a sum of money equal to the total amount of grant Page 5 of 15 funds to be refunded to the UMTA in addition to the corresponding amount of Department match if so required by the Department. Section 6. Records and Reports. (a) Establishment and Maintenance of Accounting Records. The Contractor shall establish and maintain, in accordance with requirements established by the Department, separate accounts for the Project, to be known as the Project Account, either independently or within its existing accounting system. The Department shall have the right to inspect the Project Account as necessary. (b) Documentation of Project Costs. All charges to the Project Account shall be supported by properly executed invoices, contracts, or vouchers evidencing in detail the nature and the propriety of the charges, as referenced in 49 CFR Part 18. (c) Allowable Costs. Expenditures made by the Contractor shall be reimbursed as allowable costs to the extent they meet all of the requirements set forth below. They must be: (1) based on work completed to the satisfaction of the Department within the time frame established by the approved Project, and further be made in conformance with the approved Annual Budget and all other provisions of this Agreement; (2) necessary in order to accomplish the Project; (3) actual net costs to the Contractor, defined as the price paid minus any refunds, rebates, or other items of value received by the Contractor which have the effect of reducing the cost actually incurred, including credit for fuel or sales taxes paid by local governments and private nonprofit organizations eligible to file for such tax refunds from the appropriate State or Federal office; Page 6 of 15 (4) incurred and be for work performed. within the periods of performance specified in this Agreement, unless specific authorization from the Department to the contrary is received; (5) in conformance with the standards for allowability of costs set forth in OMB Circular A -87, "Principles For Determining Costs Applicable to Grants and Contracts With State, Local, and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments "; and (6) treated uniformly and consistently under accounting principles and procedures approved or prescribed by the Department. (d) Checks Orders and Vouchers. Any check or order drawn by the Contractor with respect to any item which is or will be chargeable against the Project Account will be drawn only in accordance with a properly signed voucher then on file in the office of the Contractor stating in proper detail the purpose for which such check or order is drawn. All checks, invoices, contracts, vouchers, orders, or other accounting documents pertaining in whole or in part to the Project shall be clearly identified, readily accessible, and to the extent feasible kept separate and apart from all other such documents. (e) Reports. The Contractor shall advise the Department regarding the progress of the Project at such time and in such manner as the Department may require throughout the useful life of the Project equipment as defined in Section 12 herein. These reports shall be used, in part, to document utilization of the Project equipment. Failure to carry out the requirements set forth in this Section, or to fully utilize the project equipment in the manner directed by the Department, shall constitute a breach of contract and, after written notification by the Department, may result in termination of the Agreement or any such remedy as the Department deems appropriate. Page 7 of 15 The Department shall provide all instruction, guidance, or forms necessary to prepare such reports. The Contractor shall retain the reports for a period of three (3) years after the reporting period. The Department shall have the right to inspect such retained data as necessary. (f) Audits. In accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -128, "Audits of State and Local Government ", dated April 2, 1985, and the Single Audit Act of 1984, the Contractor shall arrange for an independent financial and compliance audits of its fiscal operations. The Contractor shall furnish the Department with a copy of the independent audit report within thirty (30) days of completion of the report, but no later than one (1) year after the end of the audit period. Section 7. Contracts Under This Agreement. Unless otherwise authorized in writing by the Department, the Contractor shall not assign any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement, or execute any contract, amendment, or change order thereto, or obligate itself in any manner with any third party with respect to its rights and responsibilities under this Agreement without the prior written concurrence of the Department. Further, the Contractor shall incorporate the provisions of this Agreement into any vehicle lease arrangement and shall not enter into any vehicle lease arrangement without the prior concurrence of the Department. Any lease approved by the Department shall be subject to the conditions or limitations governing the lease of Project equipment as set forth by UMTA and the Department. Section 8. Purchase of Project Equipment. The purchase of project equipment pursuant to this Agreement shall be undertaken in accordance with either of the options in this Section: (a) Purchase by the Department. The Department may act as the Page 8 of 15 procurement agency on behalf of the Project, purchasing equipment through the North Carolina Department of Administration, Purchase and Contract Division. (b) Purchase by the Contractor. The Contractor may purchase project equipment utilizing procurement procedures set forth in North Carolina General Statute 143 -129, and UMTA Circular 4220.1B, and any subsequent amendments or revisions thereto. The Contractor shall submit Invitations To Bid and Requests For Proposals to the Department for review and approval. If formal advertising is used for a procurement, the Contractor shall submit to the Department a tabulation of all bids received, certified by an authorized official of the Contractor's organization; copies of correspondence pertaining to exceptions to the approved specifications; and a copy of the bid submitted by the low, responsive bidder recommended for the bid award by the Contractor. The Department shall approve the bid award prior to the execution of any agreement between the Contractor and the selected bidder. Section 9. Title to Vehicles. The Certificate of Title to all vehicles purchased under the Project shall be in the name of the Contractor. The Public Transportation Division shall be recorded on the Certificate of Title as first lienholder. In the event of Project termination or breach of Contract provisions, the Contractor shall, upon written notification by the Department, surrender Project equipment and /or transfer the Certificate(s) of Title for Project equipment to the Department or the Department's designee. Section 10. Use of Project Equipment. The Contractor shall use all project equipment for the duration of its useful life in the manner specified in the Project description contained in the approved grant application. Page 9 of 15 With the prior written approval of the Department, Project equipment may be used for other purposes provided that these other uses are consistent with uses outlined in the Transportation Development Plan and do not interfere with the primary purpose of service provisions. The aforemented documents, and any subsequent amendments or revisions, thereto, are herewith incorporated by reference. If any Project equipment is not used in accordance with this Section or is withdrawn from the transportation service, whether by planned withdrawal or casualty loss, the Contractor shall immediately contact the Department. If the Department determines that Project equipment is not being fully utilized, the Contractor shall transfer or dispose of the Project equipment at the direction of the Department. Failure to carry out the requirements set forth in this Section shall constitute a breach of contract and, after notification by the Department, may result in termination of the Agreement. Section 11. Maintenance and Inspection. The Contractor shall maintain all project equipment at a high level of cleanliness, safety, and mechanical soundness. The Department shall conduct inspections, not less than once every two (2) years, to confirm proper maintenance pursuant to this Section and use compliance in accordance with Section 11 of this Agreement. The Contractor shall maintain all records of maintenance deemed necessary and appropriate by the Department until disposition of Project equipment. Section 12. Insurance. The Contractor shall be responsible for protecting the federal and state financial interests in project equipment purchased under this Agreement throughout the useful life of the equipment. The Contractor shall provide, on an annual basis and in such manner as the Department may require, written documentation that all equipment is insured against loss in an amount equal to or greater than ninety (90X) percent of Page 10 of 15 the real value of the equipment. Failure of the Contractor to provide adequate insurance shall be considered a breach of contract and, after notification by the Department, may result in termination of this Agreement. Section 13. Useful Life of Project Equipment. "Useful life" for all Project equipment shall be determined by the Department. Upon the end of the period of useful life, the Contractor may dispose of Project equipment after notifying and receiving disposition instruction from the Department. Section 14. Disposition of Project Equipment. The Contractor shall dispose of all project equipment in accordance with General Statutes 143 -64.1 through 143 -64.5 and the provisions of OMB Circular A -102, dated January 1981. (a) Disposition of Equipment at the End of Useful Life. Fair market value shall be deemed to be the value of the property as determined by at least two (2) competent appraisals at the time of disposition. Loss of value as a result of negligence, maintenance practices of the Contractor, or other causes outside of normal use are the responsibility of the Contractor and may, at the discretion of the Department, be added to the fair market value. (b) Loss of _Project Equipment Due to Casualty or Fire. Fair market value shall be deemed to be equal to the damages paid by the Contractor's insurance carrier or from the self- insured reserve account. In no event shall salvage value be considered as fair market value for project equipment. Section 15. Interest of Members of or Delegates to Congress. No member of or delegate to the Congress of the United States shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefit arising therefrom. Section 16. Prohibited Interest. No member, officer, or employee of the Department or of the Contractor shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds therefrom. Page 11 of 15 Section 17. Equal Employment Opportunity. In connection with the execution of this Agreement, the Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training including apprenticeship. Section 18. Title VI - Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Contractor will comply with all the requirements imposed by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252), the Regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation issued thereunder (CFR Title 49, Subtitle A, Part 21), UMTA Circular 4702.1, "Title VI Program Guidelines for UMTA Recipients" dated May 26, 1988. The aforementioned documents and any subsequent amendments or revisions thereto, are herewith incorporated by reference. Section 19. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. (a) Policy. It is the policy of the Department that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) as defined in 49 CFR Part 23 shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts financed in whole or in part with federal funds under the Agreement. Consequently, the DBE requirements of 49 CFR Part 23, and any subsequent amendments or revisions thereto, apply to this Agreement. (b) DBE Obligation. The Contractor or its subcontractors agree(s) to ensure that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises as defined in 49 CFR Part 23 have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in part with federal funds provided under this Agreement. In this regard the Contractor or its contractors shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with 49 CFR Part 23 Page 12 of 15 and UMTA Circular 4716.1A, dated July 26, 1988, and any subsequent amendments or revisions thereto, to ensure that Minority Business Enterprises have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. Contractors and their contractors shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of Department assisted contracts. (c) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall advise each subrecipient, contractor, or subcontractor that failure to carry out the requirements set forth in 49 CFR subsection 23.43(1) shall constitute a breach of contract and, after the notification of the Department, may result in termination of the Agreement or contract by the Contractor or such remedy as the Contractor deems appropriate. (d) DBE Program. If as a condition of assistance the Contractor has submitted and the Department has approved a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program which the recipient agrees to carry out, this program is incorporated into this Agreement by reference. This program shall be treated as a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of the financial assistance Agreement. Upon notification to the recipient of its failure to carry out the approved program, the Department shall impose sanctions as noted in 49 CFR Part 23, Subpart E, which sanctions may include termination of the Agreement or other measures that may affect the ability of the Contractor to obtain future UMTA financial assistance. Section 20. Section 504 - Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Contractor will comply with all the requirements imposed by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93 -112, 29 U.S.C. 790 et se q), the Regulations of U.S. DOT issued thereunder (CFR Title 49, Part 27), and the assurance by the Contractor pursuant thereto. The aformentioned documents Page 13 of 15 and any subsequent amendments or revisions thereto, are herewith incorporated by reference. Section 21. Section 13(c) - Labor Standards. In connection with the execution of this contract, the Contractor shall protect the interest of employees affected by federal assistance as part of the Project, as provided by Section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, and the assurance by the contractor pursuant thereto (Appendix B). The Contractor shall be financially responsible for the application of the Section 13(c). Section 22. Contract Changes. Any proposed major changes in this Agreement that would result in changes in the scope, character, or complexity of the Agreement, as determined by the Department, shall require a supplemental agreement. Any proposed minor changes in this Agreement may be authorized by the Department's Director of Public Transportation, or his delegate, by notifying the Contractor in writing of the approved changes. Section 23. Termination of Agreement. (a) The Department of Transportation. In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with any of the provisions of the Agreement, the Department may terminate the Agreement by giving the Contractor thirty (30) days advance notice. The Department, before issuing notice of Agreement termination, shall allow the Contractor a reasonable opportunity to correct for noncompliance. Noncompliance with the nondiscrimination section of this Agreement may be cancelled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and the Contractor may be declared ineligible for contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Orders No. 11246 and No. 11375, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in the said Executive Order, and as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations (41 Page 14 of 15 CFR, Part 60), or as otherwise provided by law. (b) The Contractor. The Contractor may terminate its participation in the Project by notifying and receiving the concurrence of the Department thirty (30) days in advance of the termination. (c) Action Upon Termination. Upon the termination of this Agreement, the Contractor shall dispose of all project equipment acquired under the Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Sections 10, 11, and 15 of this Agreement. Section 24. Resolution of Disputes. In any dispute concerning a question of fact in connection with the Project, the decision of the Secretary of North Carolina Department of Transportation shall be final and conclusive for all parties. Page 15 of 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the Department, an agency of the State of North Carolina, and the Contractor by and through a duly authorized representative, and is effective the date and year stated herein. COUNTY OF ORANGE BY: TITLE: Chair, Board of Commissioners �. _- TITLE: Clerk to the Board TITLE: Secreta (SEAL) .. - _.:..� r ... �.. .. APPENDIX A NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND RAIL DIVISION SECTION 18 GRANT 92 -18 -044 APPROVED BUDGET SUMMARY EFFECTIVE 10 -11 -91 JECT SPONSOR: COUNTY OF ORANGE JECT DESCRIPTION: FY92 SECTION 18 PROGRAM TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES DEPARTMENT - 4523 CAPITAL I PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE OCT 11, 1991 - SEP 30, 1992 DEPARTMENT - 4525 CAPITAL II PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE OCT 11, 1991 - SEP 30, 1992 III. TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING ITAL I ITAL Iz TOTAL (100 %) 166,215 $ TOTAL (100 %) 8,400 174,615 $ FEDERAL ( 80 %) 132,972 FEDERAL ( 0 %) 132,972 $ STATE ( 0 %) STATE ( 80 %) 6,720 $ 6,720 $ 166,215 8,400 LOCAL ( 20 %) 33,243 LOCAL ( 20 %) 1,680 34,923 ` OFT jSpORTATION CAROLINA DEPARTMENT RAIL DIVISION NORTH SpORTATI RANT 92_1$_044 PUBLICS CTION 18 APPROVED PROJECT BUDGET ROJECT SPONSOR COUNTY OF ORANGE APPROVED P AMOUNT # ACCOUNT TITLE - - -~ ~_ ~ -- - CAPITAL I $ 25,830 4523 DEPARTMENT $ 39,900 REPLACEMENT) $ 2,525 545 O1 CONVERTED VAN REPLACEMENT) $ 19,950 02 STANDARD VAN REPLACEMENT) 46,410 546 01 WHEELCHP.IR LIFT FOR VAN $ 31,500 548 VAN (v 548 $ 566 O1 STANDARD 569 02 CENTER-AISLE $ 166,215 572 02 MINIVAN TOTAL DEPARTMENT 4525 CAPITAL II $ 8,400 555 05 MOBILE RADIO UN IT $ 8,400 TOTAL I APPENDIX B SPECIAL SECTION 13(c) WARRANTY FOR APPLICATION TO THE SMALL URBAN AND RURAL PROGRAM The following language shall be made part of the contract of assistance with the State or other public body charged with allocation and administration of funds provided under Section 18 of the Act: A. General Application The Public Body (The North Carolina Department of Transportation) agrees that in the absence of waiver by the Department of Labor, the terms and conditions of this warranty, as set forth below, shall apply for the protection of the transportation related employees of any employer providing transportation services assisted by the Project, County of Orange , (Legal Name of Applicant /Recipient) and the transportation related employees of any other surface public transportation providers in the transportation service area of the Project. The Public Body shall provide to the Department of Labor and maintarn at all times during the Project an accurate, up -to -date listing of all existing transportation providers which are eligible Recipients of transportation assistance funded by the Project, in the transportation service area of the Project, and any labor organizations representing the employees of such providers. Certification by the Public Body to the Department of Labor that the designated Recipients have indicated in writing acceptance of the terms and conditions of the warranty arrangement will be sufficient to permit the flow of Section 18 funding in the absence of a finding of noncompliance by the Department of Labor. B. Standard Terms and Conditions (1) The Project shall be carried out in such a manner and upon such terms and conditions as will not adversely affect employees of the Recipient and of any other surface public transportation provider in the transportation service area of the Project. It shall be an obligation of the Recipient and any other legally responsible party designated by the Public Body to assure that any and all transportation services assisted by the Project are contracted for and operated in such a manner that-they do not impair the rights and interests of affected employees. The term "Project ", as used herein, shall not be limited to the particular facility, service, or operation assisted by Federal funds, but shall include any.changes, whether organizational, operational, -45- technological, or otherwise, which are a result of the assistance provided. The phrase "as a result of the Project ", shall when used in this arrangement, include events related to the Project occurring in anticipation of, during, and subsequent to the Project and any program of efficiencies or economies related thereto; provided, however, that volume rises and falls of business, or changes in volume and character of employment brought about by causes other than the Project (including any economies or efficiencies unrelated to the Project) are not within the purview of this arrangement. An employee covered by this arrangement, who is not dismissed, displaced or otherwise worsened in his position with regard to his employment as a result of the Project, but who is dismissed, displaced or otherwise worsened solely because of the total or partial termination of the Project discontinuance of Project services, or exhaustion of Project funding shall not be deemed eligible for a dismissal or displacement allowance within the meaning of paragraphs (6) 'and (7) of the Model Agreement or applicable provisions of substitute comparable arrangements. (2) (a) Where employees of a Recipient are represented for collective bargaining purposes, all Project services provided by that Recipient shall be provided under and in accordance with any collective bargaining agreement applicable to such employees which is -then in effect. (b) The Recipient or legally responsible party shall provide to all affected employees sixty (60) days notice of intended actions which may result in displacements or dismissals or rearrangements of the working forces. In the case of employees represented by a union, such notice shall be provided by certified mail through their representatives. The notice shall contain a full and adequate statement of the proposed changes, and an estimate of the number of employees affected -by the intended changes, and the number and classifications of any jobs in the Recipient's employment available to be filled by such affected employees. (c) The procedures of this subparagraph shall apply to cases where notices involve employees represented by a union for collective bargaining purposes. At the request of either the Recipient or the representatives of such employees, negotiations for the purposes of reaching agreement with respect to the application of the terms and conditions of this arrangement shall commence immediately_ If no agreement is reached within twenty (20) days from the commencement of negotiations, any party to the dispute may submit the matter to dispute settlement procedures in accordance with paragraph (4) of this warranty. The foregoing procedures shall be complied with and carried out prior to the institution of the intended action. (3) For the purpose of providing the statutory required protections including those specifically mandated by Section 13(c) of the -46- Act 1, the Public Body will assure as a condition of the release of funds that the Recipient agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the National (Model) Section 13(c) Agreement executed July 23, 1975, identified below 2 provided that other comparable arrangements may be substituted therefore, if approved by the Secretary of Labor and certified for inclusion in these conditions. (4) Any dispute or controversy arising regarding the application, interpretation, or enforcement of any of the provisions of this arrangement which cannot be settled by and between the parties at interest within thirty (30) days after the dispute or controversy first arises, may be referred by any such party to any final and binding disputes settlement procedure acceptable to the parties, or in the event they cannot agree upon such procedure, to the Department of Labor or an impartial third party designated by the Department of Labor for final and binding determination. The compensation and expenses of the impartial third party, and any other jointly incurred expenses, shall be borne equally by the parties to the proceeding and all other - expenses shall be paid by the party incurring them. In the event of any dispute as to whether or not a particular employee was affected by the Project, it shall be his obligation to identify the Project and specify the pertinent facts of the Project relied upon. It shall then be the burden of either the Recipient or other party legally responsible for the application of these conditions to prove that factors other than the Project affected the employees. The claiming emp -oyee shall prevail if it is established that the Project had an effect upon the employee even if other factors may also have affected the employee. 1 Such protective arrangements shall include, without being limited to such provisions as may be necessary for (1) the preservation of rights, privileges, and benefits (including continuation of pension rights and benefits)'under existing collective bargaining agreements or otherwise; (2) the continuation of collective bargaining rights; (3) the protection of individual employees against a worsening of their positions with respect to their employment; (4) assurances of employment to employees of acquired mass transportation systems and priority of reemployment of employees terminated or laid off; and (5) paid training and retraining programs. Such arrangements shall include provisions protecting individual employees against a worsening of their positions with respect to their employment which shall in no event provide benefits less than those established pursuant to Section 5(2)(f) of the Act of February 4, 1887 (24 Stat. 379),. as amended. 2 For purposes of this warranty arrangement, paragraphs ( 1 )> (2)• (5)> (15); (22); (23); (24); (26); (27); (28); and (29) of the Model Section 13(c) Agreement, executed July 23, 1975 are to be omitted. -47- (5) The Recipient or other legally responsible party designated by the Public Body will be financially responsible for the application of these conditions and will make the necessary arrangements so that any employee covered by these arrangements, or the union representative of such employee may file claim of violation of these arrangements with the Recipient within sixty (60) days of the date he is terminated or laid off as a result of the Project, or within eighteen (18) months of the date his position with respect to his employment is otherwise worsened as a result of the Project. In the latter case, if the events giving rise to the claim have occurred over an extended period, the eighteen (18) month limitation shall be measured from the last such event. No benefits shall be payable for any period prior to six (6) months from the date of the filing of any claim. (6) Nothing in this arrangement shall be construed as depriving any employee of any rights or benefits which such employee may have under existing employment or collective bargaining agreements, nor shall this arrangement be deemed a waiver of any rights of any union or of any represented employee derived from any other agreement or provision of federal, state or local law. (7) In the event any employee covered by these arrangements is terminated or laid off as a result of the Project, he shall be granted priority of employment or reemployment to fill.any vacant position within the control of the Recipient for which he is, or by training or retraining within a reasonable period, can become qualified. In the event training or retraining is required,by such such employment or reemployment, the Recipient or other legally responsible party designated by the Public Body shall provide or provide for such training or retraining at no cost to the employee. (8) The Recipient will post, in a prominent and accessible place, a notice stating that the Recipient has received federal assistance under the Urban Mass Transportation Act and has agreed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(c) of the Act. This notice shall also specify the terms-and conditions set forth herein for the protection of employees. The Recipient shall maintain and keep on file all relevant books and records in sufficient detail as to provide the basic information necessary to the proper application, administration, and enforcement of these arrangements and to the proper determination of any claims arising thereunder. (9) Any labor organization which is the collective bargaining representative of employees covered by these arrangements, may become a party to these arrangements by serving written notice its desire to do so upon the Recipient and the Department of Labor. In the event of any disagreement that such labor organization represents covered employees, or is otherwise eligible to become a party to these - arrangements, as applied to the Project, the dispute as to whether such organization shall participate shall be determined by the Secretary of Labor. -48- C X (10) In the event the Project is approved for assistance under the Act, the foregoing terms and conditions shall be made part of the contract of assistance between the federal government and the Public Body or Recipient of federal funds; provided, however, that this, arrangement shall not merge into. the contract of assistance, but shall be independently binding and enforceable by and upon the parties thereto, and by any covered employee or his representative, in accordance with its terms, nor shall any other employee protective agreement merge into this arrangement, but each shall be independently binding and enforceable by and upon the parties thereto, in accordance with its terms. Waiver As a part of the grant approval process, either the Recipient or other legally responsible party designated by the Public Body may in writing seek from the Secretary of Labor a waiver of the statutory required protections. The Secretary will waive these protections in cases, where at the time of the requested waiver, the Secretary determines that there are no employees of the Recipient or of any other surface public transportation providers in the transportation service area who could be potentially affected by the Project. A thirty (30) day notice of proposed waiver will be given by the Department of Labor and in the absence of timely objection, the waiver will become final at the end of the thirty (30) day notice period. In the event of timely objection, the Department of Labor will review the matter, and determine whether a waiver shall be granted. On the absence of waiver, these protections shall apply to the Project. Acceptance of Warran I, Moses _Carey, _ Jr- Chair, County Commissioners do hereby (Name and Title) certify that the County of Orange (Legal Name of Applicant /Recipient) has agreed to the terms accept this agreement as North Carolina Department (SEAL) and conditions of this Warranty and will part of the contract of assistance with the of Trnncnn" +n+inn -49- (Date) - - -- Appendix A RESOLUTION Seelting Permission To Amend FY 1990 -91 / FY 1991 -92 Application For Section 18 Funding. A motion was made by Commissioner Verla Insko and seconded (Board MemheYa Name) by Commissioner Alice Gordon for the adoption of the following (Board Member's Name) resolution, and upon being put to a vote was duly adopted. WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has received a grant from the US Department of Transportation authorized by Section 18 of Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, to provide assistance for rural public transportation projects; and WHEREAS, the purpose of these transportation funds is to provide grant monies to local agencies for the provision of rural public transportation services; and WHEREAS, Article 2B of Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General Statutes and the Governor of North Carolina have designated the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as the agency responsible for administering funds received through Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964; and AREAS, mhe County of Orange , has assured and certified (Applicants Name) to the NCDOT that it will comply with the Federal Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Special Section 13 (c) Warranty, and all administrative requirements which relate to the applications made to and grants received from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, as well as the provisions of Section 1001 of Title 18, U. S. C. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the *(Authorized O[Fcial's lltle) of the Orange County Commissionerfs hereby authorized to submit a grant (Name of Local Governing Board) application amendment for funding under Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. 4 . ;, Z: E, . 1, Z YYiI I-Beverly A. Blythe � Clerk to the hoard *(Certifying Official's Name) (Title of Certifying Official) do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the Orange Co. Board of Commissioners minutes of a meeting of the , duly held on the 22nd day of January "'e of Local Governing I ll.) )1 J *(Signature of fjring Official) t (Name of Local Governing Board) Subscribed and sworn to me this day of M tv, , 19q/ (seal) eaz 2 �-, 9 � - �_ *Notary Public My commission expires * Note that the official authorized to submit the grant application, certifying official, and notary public should be three (3) separate individuals. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ORANGE EXERCISE OF LEASE OPTION Under the terms of a lease dated October 4, 1985, between J.W. and Patrician Ann French d /b /a/ Carr Mill Mall and the,County of Orange, pursuant to Section 1 of attached lease (exhibit A), the County chooses to exercise the second two -year option for the leased premises known as Suite 225, Carr Mill Mall; said option to commence on November 1, 1990 and shall and on October 31, 1992. Section 1, TERM OF LEASE, is hereby- modified to allow Lessee to exercise a one -year option, extending lease through October 31, 1993. Lessee will notify Lessor 90 days in advance of it's intent to exercise one -year option. Section 2(c) is deleted and the following language is inserted: The following base rent schedule shall apply: All other terms and conditions of lease shall remain the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Exercise of Option of the lease has been duly executed by the parties as of the 3rd day of March, 1991. MONTHLY BASE RENT ANNUAL BASE RENT Through 10/31/91 $5554.81 $66657.72 Through 10/31/92 $5832.55 $69990.60 Through 10/31/93 ** $6124.18 $73490.16 * *As per Section 1, upon written notice to Lessor, Lessee may extend present lease through 10/31/93. All other terms and conditions of lease shall remain the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Exercise of Option of the lease has been duly executed by the parties as of the 3rd day of March, 1991. WITNE S: Clerk, 0 nge County oard of Commissioners LESSOR: MALL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By Partner LESSEE: ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH By: ores Carey, Jr., C Orange County Board Commissioners Eoz1 QT COUNTY I� a tart' P lic for said County State, do hereby ertify that a general partner in Carr Mill Mall Limited Partnership, pe sonally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution the foregoing instrument. Witness my hand and official seal, this the _43 day of /X1L 199Q NOTAFT PUBLIC My commission expires: NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY BARBARA JEAN OLSEN NOTARY PUBLIC STATE FeOF M 28, 19�-� My ComihWjon E* and of I, :5�j1Ut4 T_ CLevneUrs , a Notary Public for said County and State, certify that Beverly Blythe personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commis- sioners of Orange County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of Orange County, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman, sealed with its official seal, and,attested by herself as its Clerk. Witness my hand and official seal, this the jAt�- day of � e em p� ►--- , 1991. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: y� «rn dew �0 1995 y�1SY�S1�', �e4a Moses Carey, Jr.. Alice M. Gordon Stephen H. Halkiotis Verla 1. Insko Don Willhoit ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 TENANT ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE December 6, 1991 732 -8181 968 -4501 688 -7331 227 -2031 644 -3004 (F,,) Realex Carrboro Plaza Associates Limited Partnership c/o The Realex Capital Cor�aoration 445 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Partnersh�.d ` AcFelori_da9GeneralPar en Plantation RE: Lease , p� tnershi.p and Orange County, d ''korth Carolina Dear Sirs: We are tenahtp at sufferance under the.lease described above and we execute thiig,acOrtificate.to.peiinit you to rely on it as conclusive evidence of the matters stated below in completing your purchase ofl�the Veal estate that ;includes the premises covered by such lease." We represent and "warrant to you as follows: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit ", "A is a complete and correct copy of the lease',"wlth all "amendments and modifications thereto and all consents and waivers "granted by Landlord thereunder. 2. The lease term commenced December 1, 1986 and expired January 31, 1991. 3. There are no renewal or extension options that have been granted to us. No such options have been exercised. 4. We do not have an option to purchase or a first refusal or similar right with respect to the premises. 5. The current monthly rent is $1,102.50. No rent has been prepaid for more than one month and there are no rental concessions, abatements, free rent, rebates or partial rent of any kind due after the date hereof. The undersigned is current in the payment of basic annual rent, additional rent and other sums provided for under the lease. YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY Realex Carrboro Plaza Associates Limited Partnership Page 2 December 6, 1991 6. The security deposit paid by the undersigned and now held by the Landlord is in the amount of $1,200. 7. All work required to be performed by the Landlord has been fully and completely performed in accordance with Landlord's obligations. 8. Landlord has fully performed all of its obligations under the lease and is not in default under any term of the lease. 9. Tenant has fully performed all of its obligations under the lease and is not in default under the lease or any of its terms and has no defenses, setoffs or counterclaims to the payment of rent or other amounts due under the lease. There are no actions or proceedings instituted by Landlord against Tenant or by Tenant against Landlord. 10. Tenant is now negotiating with SAD REALTY CORP. for a lease for the premises for a term commencing February 1, 1991 and terminating January 31, 1994. 11. The correct address for all notices to Tenant under the lease is: Orange County State of North Carolina 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Attention: Pam Jones, Director, Orange County Department of Purchasing and Central Services 12. The undersigned is authorized to execute this certificate on behalf of the Tenant. Very truly yours, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA By: r F UiWe 1- fir `� [SEAL] Moses Carey, Jr. Chairman, Orange C Board of Commissi ;J. T LEA B6verlydnythe, erk to the Board of Commissioners NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY It 5�1Jo iA 1 . 0-t-me w5 , a Notary Public for said County and State, ce— t y that Beverly Blythe personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commis- sioners of Orange County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of Orange County, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman, sealed with its official seal, and attested by herself as its Clerk. Witness my hand and official seal, this the rA tk day of 1991. NOTARY PUBLI My commission expires: �P � A � Y bb yy To, C21 ,total ou 100" ,, . M� - I ITEMS FOR FOLLOWUP BOARD MEETING DATE: ;.ITEM # TITLE TYPE OF FOLLOWUP FOLLOWUP COMPLETED. Del xy r •r r t' ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: LEASE RENEWAL; DRIVERS LICENSE BUREAU 1 Action Agenda Item No. - -V-5 DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SERV. PUBLIC HEARING YES: - N0: X ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM - JONES EXT 2652 LEASE Telephone Number - Hillsborough -732-8181 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 Mebane -227 -2031 Durham -688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider lease renewal for space used as the Driver's License Bureau at Plantation Plaza. *ACKGROUND: For several years the County has rovided space for a P P Driver's License Bureau to be located in the southern part of the County. It is the State's policy to provide one Driver's License Bureau per County. If the County desires to have more than one facility, it must pay for space to house it, with the State providing .personnel and operating costs. The Orange County Commissioners voted to support this satilite center several years ago. The office has been housed in several locations. The latest move occured in 1986 when the office was relocated from the Carrboro Town Hall to leased space at the Plantation Plaza Shopping Center (now called Carrboro Plaza). The current owners of the Shopping Center are SAD Realty, Vienna, Virginia. The new location provided better accessibility for citizens taking the driving test. Since semi - trailer truck drivers are regularly tested at this facility, easy accessibility in a less conjested area is critical. The semi - trailer trucks presented considerable problems at the Town Hall. In addition, the lease rate at Plantation Plaza was considerably lower than comparable sites in the area. The site continues to serve the needs of the Driver's License Bureau staff well. `A It is proposed that the existing lease be extended for a period of three years, with expiration on January 31, 1994. The leasing agent has maintained last year's lease rate ($13,230 /year) with a five percent'(5 %) increase proposed for year two and year three. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the lease through January 31, 1994 with SAD Realty Corporation; and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. * •