Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-03-1991� - w ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1991 ON ALL ABSTRACTS 7:30 P.M. AVAILABLE IN THE OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE CLERK'S OFFICE. HILLSBOROUGH, 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. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA II. 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. III. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) A. Food Stamp Direct Mail Issuance Contract B. Child Support Enforcement Attorney Contract IV. RESOLUTIONS PROCLAMATIONS A. Resolutions of Appreciation for Serving on the Commission for Women V. 'SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. To Receive Additional Information From the County Attorney and Board Action 1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment- -Large Day Care Homes VII. REPORTS A. Eno River Capacity Use Weir Construction and Monitoring Gage Modification Status Report B. Economic Development Commission Activity Status Report C. Agricultural Advisory Board Progress Report D. Classification Study- -Phase II Report VIII. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- REGULAR AGENDA A. Orange Regional Landfill Tipping Fees B. Piney Mountain, Phase II-- Amended C. Garden View -- Preliminary Plan D. Habitat for Humanity -- Letter of Credit Release E. Contract Approval -- Independence Day Celebration F. Contract Approval -- Southern International Fireworks, Inc. G. Fireworks Permit -- Independence Day Celebration IX. BOARD COMMENTS X. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT XI. APPOINTMENTS XII. MINUTES - None %III. EXECUTIVE SESSION XIV. ADJOURNMENT ( *) Indicates items that need immediate attention. The on Monday, Courthouse, Approved .dune 259 1991 1 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD U OLAR MEETING COMMISSIONERS JUNE 3, 1991 Orange County Board of Commissioner met in Regular Session June 3, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the Old County Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Alice Gordon (arrived at 8:00), Stephen Halkiotis, and Don Willhoit. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Verla Insko COIINTY ATTORNEY: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Managers Albert Kittrell and Rod Visser, Economic Development Director Ted Abernathy, County Extension Director Fletcher Barber, everly Commission for Women Director Lana eChandra, Planning the Director BMarvin Blythe, Personnel Analyst Collins, Personnel Director Director Wilbert McAdoo, Socials Sery Director Jones, Public Works es Director Marti Pryor -Cook, Health Director Dan Reimer, Planner Eddie Kirk and County Engineer Paul Thames. NOTE: All background information on all agenda items is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's Office. I. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Two additional appointments for the School Capital Needs Advisory Committee were added to item XI. BOARD COMMENTS Chairman Carey announced that a letter has been recd approved N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission indicating they have including Orange County in the list of counties where shining lights on deer is prohibited. MANAGER COMMENTS John Link made reference to a newspaper article about reevaluation and property tax increases. He clarified that reevaluation does not necessarily mean any kind of general tax increase. decrease increase in tax values of property is normally offset by the property tax rate. John Link reported that on the Underwood zoning violation, Ms. Underwood has asked for a building permit to build an outdoor storage shed so that she can move the building and on August which are in violation. He will provide an update II. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Fa Chairman Carey announced that anyone who has indicated a desire to speak to any of the items on the printed agenda will be recognized at the appropriate time. III. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve those items listed on the Consent Agenda as stated below: A. FOOD STAMP DIRECT MAIL ISSUANCE CONTRACT The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the Food Stamp Direct Mail Issuance Contract with Cost Containment, Inc. of Raleigh. This contract is effective as of July 1, 1991 and the cost per issuance is $ .55. B. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ATTORNEY CONTRACT The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign a renewal contract with Coleman, Bernholz, et al, for legal representation for the Child Support Office. VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS IV. RESOLUTIONSLPROCLAMATIONS A. RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION FOR SERVING ON THE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the resolution as stated below for each of the three being recognized, Ann Loeb, Miriam Saxon and Ann McPherson. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, Ann McPherson, Ann Loeb and Miriam Saxon have served Orange County's Commission for Women in an exemplary manner by serving as Chair of the Commission and chairing numerous committees; and, WHEREAS, Ann McPherson, Ann Loeb and Miriam Saxon have given freely and generously of their time, talents and energy for the improvement of the quality of life for all women in Orange County; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners, through its members Moses Carey, Jr., Alice Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis, Verla Insko and Don willhoit; does express its sincere appreciation to Ann McPherson, Ann Loeb and Miriam Saxon for their efforts on behalf of the women of Orange County. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chairman Carey read a prepared statement from Commissioner Verla Insko in which she expressed her grateful appreciation to the 3 three of them for their dedication and distinguished service to the orange County Commission for Women. V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - NONE VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND BOARD ACTION (continued from the May 28, 1991 Public Hearing) 1. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - LARGE DAY CARE HOMES Planner Eddie Kirk summarized the proposed revisions to the existing Zoning ordinance provisions applicable to large day care centers. County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill explained his concern about the public notice. This would be a use permitted by right from a use that required a special use permit and there is a fundamental difference between these two. In deciding a use permitted by right, the Board has made a legislative determination that within that district all those uses are compatible and that the public health, safety and welfare is protected and is safe by allowing these uses within a district. In a special use context, there are health, safety and welfare issues that aren't resolved which would require a public hearing and a judicial process. The applicant presents evidence and findings of fact must be made. On the second question, the Zoning Ordinance assumes that a small daycare operation --- up to five children -- is a use compatible with residential uses and that there would not be any impact that makes the Board have to hear evidence on this question before permitting a small daycare in a residential area. However, if there are fifteen children and there are impacts and you have to meet special conditions, the first five kids can't be ignored and these impacts considered on an incremental basis. All the kids must be considered in deciding the impact. If these are allowed on private roads, the full impact of the large daycare home should be considered. Planning Director Marvin Collins explained the concept of the Special Use Permit and how the uses are determined by the impact the use has on the neighborhood. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chairman Carey to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than August 5, 1991. VOTE: UNANIMOUS VII. REPORTS A. ENO RIVER CAPACITY USE WEIR CONSTRUCTION AND MONITORING GAGE MODIFICATION STATUS REPORT County Engineer Paul Thames presented for information only a report on the status of construction of flow monitoring and control weirs in the Eno River below the dams of each of the three Eno river reservoirs. He presented information on the modification of the flow recording instruments in the Hillsborough gaging station. He gave a progress report on the Eno River Capacity Use Agreement. 4 B. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT The Board of County Commissioners was provided for information only a status report for the period July, 1990 through March, 1991. The report detailed accomplishments and future activities of the Economic Development Commission. C. AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY BOARD PROGRESS REPORT Planning Director Marvin Collins gave a report on the status of a Committee proposal for a Development Rights Program (PDR). Two reports have been prepared by the Agricultural Advisory Board which were included in the agenda packet. The Agricultural Advisory Board would like for the County Commissioners to give them some direction on what they should do next with this proposal. The Commissioners suggested that the Agricultural Advisory Board meet with the Township Advisory Boards in each township to receive public reaction and comments to the plan. It will be important that the citizens understand this program because more than likely it will need to be funded with a special referendum. It could then be placed on the public hearing docket for August. The Commissioners agreed to enlarge the committee with representatives from the municipalities. At the same time, the goals can be defined. Commissioner Willhoit asked that the Manager put together some ideas for developing a charge for the expanded committee. He made reference to the special legislation obtained several years ago and stated that if there is sufficient interest, this is something the committee could work on which includes an ordinance. D. CLASSIFICATION STUDY - PHASE II REPORT Personnel Director Elaine Holmes gave a report for information only on Phase II of the Classification and Pay Study. This phase is now complete. It included a study of those positions in the Health and Social Services Departments and certain Phase I restudies. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to receive the report. VOTE: UNANIMOUS VIII. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA A. ORANGE REGIONAL LANDFILL TIPPING FEES Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adopt the new landfill fee schedule as stated below: 1991 -92 Orange Regional Landfill Tipping Fees Mixed solid waste Construction waste Ash from the U.N.C. Asbestos Power Plant Pickup trucks or trailers Cars Tires $100 ton $ 21 /ton $ 21 /ton $ 20 /ton $100 /ton $ 5 /each $ 3 /each or $1 /each 9 B. PINEY MOUNTAIN, PHASE II AMENDED The property is located on the northeast side of Mt. Sinai Road approximately one half mile west of the Orange /Durham County line. The tract is zoned Rural Buffer and designated as Rural Residential on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The second phase was approved in April, 1989. The applicant is requesting an amendment which involves relocating one lot and adding additional area for nitrification field. Lot 45 will be relocated from its current position south of lot 44 about 500 feet southwest to the west side of lot 46. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Chair Carey to approve the amendment to the Preliminary Plat of Phase Two of Piney Mountain Subdivision subject to the conditions contained in the resolution attached to these minutes on pages VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. GARDEN VIEW - PRELIMINARY PLAN This property is located in Bingham Township on the south side of Dairyland Road approximately 800 feet west of the intersection with Dodsons Crossroads. The property is zoned Residential -1; the Land use Element of the Comprehensive Plan designates it as Rural Residential. The total acreage of the tract is 4.063 acres. Four 1 -acre lots are proposed. The Planning Board recommended approval on May 20, 1991, with a public road built to State standards, and according to the Resolution of Approval included in the attachments. Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Preliminary Plan for Garden View Subdivision with a public road built to Sate standards and subject to the conditions contained in the resolution attached to these minutes on pages VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - LETTER OF CREDIT RELEASE Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to authorize the Planning and Inspections Department to release the letter of credit submitted by Habitat for Humanity in the amount of $55,410 at the time the County obtains CDBG funding from the North Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development in the amount of $175,000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. CONTRACT APPROVAL - INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION F. CONTRACT APPROVAL - SOUTHERN INTERNATIONAL FIREWORKS INC. G. FIREWORKS PERMIT - INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION These three items were postponed and will be considered at the June 25th meeting of the County Commissioners. IX. BOARD COMMENTS - listed above on page 1 X. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT - listed above on page 1 XI. APPOINTMENTS TRANSPORTATION BOARD N. Postponed for additional information. BOARD OF HEALTH Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis to reappoint J. Marinshaw and Fred Battle to the VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon, seconded by William Beel, Cleon Currie, Richard Board of Health. SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to appoint the following people to the School Capital Needs Advisory Committee: Ralph Warren, Chair, orange County school Board Mary Bobbitt-- Cooke, Member, Orange County School Board Sue Baker, Chair, Chapel Hill /Carrboro School Board Charles Foskey, Member, Chapel Hill /Carrboro School Board Gerry House, Superintendent, Chapel Hill /Carrboro Andrew Overstreet, Superintendent, orange County Schools David Taylor, CH /Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Guido DeMaere, EDC Trinia Holman, Chair, NC. Assoc. of Educators Linda Haac, President, CH /Carr PTA Council Lee Black, Member, Chapel Hill /Carrboro PTA Council Judy Jones, President, CH /C NC Assoc. of Educators Shannon Pace, Member, CH /C American Federation of Teachers Lionel Wells, Member, PTO Organization Barbara Palmer, Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce VOTE: UNANIMOUS The Board indicated they this Board at their next regular a Commissioner Co -Chair will be XII. MINUTES - NONE XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION - NONE XIV. ADJOURNMENT With no further items the meeting at 10:05 p.m. The Tuesday, June 25, 1991 at the Courtroom in Chapel Hill, NC. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk would appoint the citizens members of meeting scheduled for June 25. Also, appointed. to consider, Chairman Carey adjourned next regular meeting will be held on Franklin Street Post Office District Moses Carey, Jr., Chair a A ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE JUNE 3, 1991 1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO . i� SUBJECT: FOOD STAMP DIRECT MAIL ISSUANCE CONTRACT DEPARTMENT: ORANGE CO'U'NTY SOCIAL SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING —YES _X -NO ATTACHMENTISI: INFORMATION CONTACT: MARTHA PRYOR -COOK EXT: 2800 CONTRACT FOR DIRECT MAIL ISSUANCE OF FOOD STAMPS PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732 -8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732 -9361 CHAPEL HILL 967 -9251 MEBANE 227 -2031 DURHAM 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To continue Direct Mail Issuance of Food Stamps to eligible clients living in Orange County. BACKGROUND: Current Food Stamp Direct Mail Issuance Contract with Cost uonLainment, Inc. expires as of June 30, 1991. Cost Containment, Inc. of Raleigh submitted the low bid again this year. Current contract began as of July 1, 1988. Service under this contract has been very good. The State has given verbal approval to the contract. Written authorization from the State is forthcoming. Please note that while the c above the current $.55 rate, reflected in the increase of to $10,000.00. This results from an average of 1,000 per month. ost per issuance does not increase expansion of total cases i$ the total cost cap from $6,600.00 from an increase in case loads month to an average of 1,300 per RECOMMENDATION: Approve Food Stamp Direct Mail Issuance Contract between Cost Containment, Inc. of Raleigh and the Orange County Department of Social Services, effective as of July 1, 1991. And autroi-ize the Chair to sign the contract upon receiving written approval from the State. i 2 NORTH CAROLINA SERVICE AGREEMENT ORANGE COUNTY THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT entered into as of the IST day of Jul 19 91_, by and bewtween COST CONTAINMENT, INC. a corporation incorporated under' the laws of the State of North Carolina with a place of business in Wake County, North Carolina (308 -B Sherwee Dr., Post Office 1661, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602), hereafter referred to as Contractor, and . County a body corporate and politic, of County, HILLSBOROUGH NC. hereafter referred to as County shall be valid for 12 months commencing he effective dates hereof unless terminated pursuant to this agreement. FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF SERVICE PAYMENTS and the mutual covenants and agreements herein set forth, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED: I. SERVICE PAYMENTS: County agrees to pay to Contractor for service: METHOD ONE: DIRECT MAIL ISSUANCE OF REGULAR (NON- CERTIFIED) ENVELOPES Cost Containment, Inc. bids Fifty five cents ($0.55) per regular mail issuance of food stamp, plus postal costs. CCI defines postal costs as First -Class postal rates for sending a non- cerfified envelope based on the weight by the U.S. Postal Service. METHOD TWO: DIRECT MAIL ISSUANCE OF CERTIFIED ENVELOPES. Cost Containment, Inc. bids _ remts per certified mail issuance of food stamps plus postal costs. CCI defines postal costs as First -Class postal rates for sending a certified envelope based on weight by the U.S. Postal Service.(Current Certified fee( $1.00) METHOD THREE: DIRECT MAIL ISSUANCE OF CERTIFIED ENVELOPES SUBSTITUTING CCI DELIVERY FOR POST OFFICE DELIVERY. Cost Contaiment, Inc.'charges the same fee for delivering certified mail as the U.S. Post Office. The current certified postal fee is $1.00 in addition to the First Class postage fee based on the weight of the envelope. (See delivery, Para. VI. Items j & k). The postage amount includes the issuance fee; there is no other charge with this method. All calls to CCI are free on our toll free lines. The Contractor agrees to insure the mailings against any replacement losses that exceed the Federal Tolerance Level (0.5 %) In the event the U.S. Postal Service increases the cost of the 1st Class postage during the contract period, the increased costs of postage (to the Contractor) will be borne by the county effective with the month such increase occurs. All monthly service payments shall be paid to'Cost Containment, Inc. P.O. Box 850055, Charlotte,North Carolina 28289. Compensation at the rate set above to represent full and complete compensation for services rendered under the terms of this agree- ment with total annual cost to the County estimated not to exceed $ 10 000.00 plus postage. Actual cost is determined by application of Method l or 26a e. 3 Page 2 NC SERVICE AGREEMENT II. SERVICE PROVIDED: Contractor agrees to provide the following service to the County: (a) Contractor will correctly mail, by First -Class mail, food stamp coupons to clients designated by the County at the addresses furnished to the Contractor by the State FSIS or by phone calls from the County. (b) Contractor will, within 24 hours of receipt of the same from the County, make any and all changes of the mailing lists to comply with the applicable changes submitted to ensure the correct mailing to clients at changed and corrected addresses. (c) The Contractor will complete and deliver, between the 15th -20th, a monthly FNS -250 report to the County for certification and forwarding to the State Office. The Contractor will complete a daily Cashier's Reconciliation Report (CDRR) and forward same to the County along with a copy of the issuance register. The Contractor shall also provide to the County monthly CCI -3 (DSS -8638) and such information needed by the County to complete reports as may be required. (d) In order to deter thefts, Contractor will stagger the dates of mailing of coupons by date and zip code according to instructions from the County. (e) Performance of service will be conducted in a manner to ensure the confidentiality of information, data, instruments, documents, studies, and reports given to Contractor to use or prepared by the Contractor for the County. (f) Approved vault storage for coupons while in possession of Contractor. Vault equipped with electronic motion sensors which are monitored 24 hours per day when facility is closed. (g) Contractor will place one stuffer per quarter at no cost to County. Additional stuffers will be placed at a minor expense to County. III. LIABILITY: Inasmuch as the County is liable to the State of North Carolina for any unauthorized coupon issuances or coupon thefts and for any coupon shortages or losses for whatever cause, including, but not limited to, loss due to erroneous mailings, the Contractor agrees that it shall be liable to the County in like manner and amount and shall hold the County harmless from claims of the State arising from any such cause; the Contractor further agrees: (a) That it will maintain in full force and effect during the term of this contract, or any renewal or extension thereof, such insurance or bond, and in such amount, as the County may require to indemnify the County against any theft of coupons while they are in the actual or constructive possession of the Contactor, its agents and employees, and against any loss or shortage of coupons or other loss arising out of any act or omission of the Contractor, its agents and employees. 4 r Page 3 NC SERVICE AGREEMENT (b) That if the County suffers any loss or any shortage or reduction in coupons by reason of any act or omission of the Contractor, its agents or employees, the County, may recover the value of its losses by requiring that the Contractor pay the amount of such loss under the terms of this contract: but in no event shall the amount recovered by the County hereunder exceed its losses. IV. AUDITS AMID PROCEDURES: As required the Contractor will allow onsite reviews, audits, and inspections by County, State, or Federal staff and comply with their procedural requirements. Any deviations from Federal or State guidelines and procedures by either Contractor or County must have both the State office and FNS PRIOR approval. V. DEFAULT AND TERNQNATION: (a) Upon default by County, Contractor shall determine and receive from County the sum due for services rendered. In the event Contractor shall be required to institute a suit to collect any unpaid service payments due under this service agreement, Contractor shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees set by the Court. (b) Upon default by Contractor, County shall be entitled to immediate termination of this agreement and, further, to liquidated damage in an amount equal to the sum of service payments made by County to Contractor for the first month of service rendered under this agreement. County, however, is not limited to the amount of liqui- dated damages if the county suffers damages in excess of the amount of liquidated damages determined as herein set forth. In the event County shall be required to institute a suit to collect any damages for any amounts due under this agreement, County shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees set by the Court. (c) Either party may terminate this agreement by giving to the other party hereto a written notice of its intention to terminate this agreement. This agreement shall be considered terminated upon the date set forth for termination of the agreement which shall be not less than 60 days from the service and delivery of the notice. The parties hereto may agree to an earlier date of termination of the agreement. Contract may be terminated because of circumstances beyond control of Contractor -- such as war, strikes, riot and /or natural disaster. VI. SPECIAL PROVISIONS: (a) It is understood and agreed between the Contractor and the County that the payment of compensation specified in this agreement, its continuation or any renewal or extension thereof, is dependent upon and subject to the allocation of appropriation of necessary funds to the County by the Federal Government and the State of North Carolina for the purposes set forth in this agreement. 5 Page 4 NC SERVICE AGREEMENT (b) County may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of the services of the Contractor to be performed under this agreement including but not limited to renewal or extensions shall be incorporated in written amendments to this agreement. (c) Neither this agreement nor any part hereof which involves the specialized skill or expertise of the Contractor shall be assigned, subcontracted, or in any way transferred without the prior approval of the Contract Administrator (project coordinator) and the State of North Carolina. (d) The authorized County official, Martha Pryor-Cook is designated as the Contract Administrator project coordinator) for the County with responsibility for all matters relating to this agreement including but not limited to invoice approval. However, any CHANGES in the scope of the agreement which will increase or decrease the contractor's compensation shall not be effective until they have been approved by the Contract Administrator and documented through a written amendment to this agreement. (e) Contractor shall comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246, entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity ", as amended by Executive Order 11375, and as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations (41 CFR Part 60). (f) County officials, State Officials, Contract Coordinator, the Federal Grantor Agency, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books, documents, papers and records which are in any way pertinent to this agreement for the purpose of making audit explanation, excerpts, and transcriptions. Contractor shall maintain all required records for three years after the County makes final payments and all pending matters are closed. Contractor assures the County that the County, with the other officials and agencies mentioned in this item (f), Section VI, of this agreement, shall have access to any and all books, documents, papers, and records of the Contractor for the purpose of audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions. (g) Contractor shall comply with mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the State Energy Conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94 -165). (h) The County is granted the right to renew this contract for two additional one --year periods upon mutual acceptance fo both parties All terms and conditions shall remain constant for the entire duration of the Contract. Price change in the second and consecutive years is permissible, if the need is documented through cost analysis by the provider and the increase is no more than ten per cent (10 %) of unit cost. (i) The Contractor will be responsible for all County losses under the U.S.D.A. regulations for replacements for any quarter as long as the Agency abides by the following conditions: 1.1 Page 5 NC SERVICE AGREEMENT I. All allotments of $300.00 and over and known postal probien cases will be sent to the DSS for pickup or by certified mail. 2. The county agency will assign participating households for either mail- pickup at the DSS (or issuance office) or for certified mail issuance upon the event of one replacement loss. The agency may elect to use mail- pickup or certified issuance for reasons other than replacement losses. 3. The county agency agrees to log such households at risk as a code 3 or code 7 respectively, on the State Computer (FSIS). 4. When losses for any quarter approach or exceed the USDA tolerance level (now .5% of total quarterly issuance) all issuances of $200.00 and over will be sent certified mail. The County retains the option at all times to have such issuances sent to the agency for recipient pick -up. 5. Claims will be accepted by the Contractor at the time the loss is established by the state based on written notice to the county agency. To file a claim, the county agency will forward to the Contractor copies of the letter of notice from the state and form FNS -259 for the appropriate period. Losses are not to be deducted from the service invoice. The county agency is protected against losses by private insurance, paid by Contractor. Losses will be filed with the insurance carrier and reimbursement will be sent to the county agency.when received by CCI, usually within 90 days. (j) The monthly postage cost will be based on the amount of money the U. S. Postal Service charges for First Class postage. CCI weighs each envelope to the hundreth -of -an -ounce to ensure that the county is not charged for more that first class postage. (k) When directed by the county the certified, sealed envelopes are escorted from the CCI vault location to the city issuance center(s) by an idependent, armed -guard courier service. According to County needs authorized by the Agency Director, CCI will establish the location(s), hire, and train issuance personnel, and direct a mail delivery system according to the following guide lines. I- A completed issuance is the client presenting an approved I.D., signing the issuance register and receiving their sealed envelope containing their monthly allotment of food stamps. 2- An operational unit is the smallest segment for issuance. It has an armed guard for crowd control and for checking the I.D.(s), a clerk who checks the I.D. and presents the register for signing, and a second clerk who receives the order for release and presents the envelope to the client. This unit can issue up to 4 clients per minute on established performance but will issue in excess of 2 per minute. If need be the guard and clerk can be one in the same. 7 page 6 3- Each city issuance center will use that many units as deemed necessary to promptly issue the clients scheduled to be served on any given day. The issuance schedule must eliminate serious lines at all times. 4- The issuance centers are open from 10:00 until 6:00 P.M. This allows time for movement of the envelopes from local bank storage to the center(s) and allows for the working poor to come after normal working hours. One unit can issue 120 per hour based on 2 per minute or 960 issuances a day. 5- The last names of the client determines on which alpha day a client will be served: a client can come after their "day" but never before. The number of issuances will determine the number of issuance days. The code "C" will be used in the computer to identify all cases the agency wants to report to the center. One or two days will be added as "MAKEUP" days. Mail left over after the last issuance day will either be mailed to the clients or returned to the local agency for client pickup and review. Direct mail will be used for all daily issuances for the balance of the month after the center has closed. II. AUTHORITY OF COUNTY: The official executing this agreement covenants that he or she has authority to execute this agreement on behalf of the County of , and approves the proprosal submitted by the Contractor for the services to be rendered as set forth in Section II of this agreement. VIII. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: Conformity with The Laws (a) For all purposes of this agreement, the Contractor shall be deemed an independent Contractor, and neither the Contractor nor its agents or employees are or shall be deemed to be agents or employees of the County Agency or the State of North Carolina; and the Contractor shall hold and save harmless the County and the State of North Carolina from the claims of third parties arising out of any act or omission of the Contractor, its agents or employees, in performance of this agreement. (b) The Contractor shall pay all taxes, assessments, premiums and fees and shall file all reports and returns required by law and arising out of its operations under this agreement. (c) The Contractor shall perform its obligations under this agreement in conformity with all applicable laws and regulations, Federal, State, or local. E_3 lln ,e 7 INC SERVICE ACREafNT IN WITNESS WiiEREOF, the parties through their duly authorized representatives, havo caused this agreement to he executed in their respective names on the clay and year first above written. ATTEST: (CORPORATE SEAL) CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR AUTHORIZED COUNTY OFFICIAL Sworn and subscribed to before me this the day of 19 NOTARY PUBLIC COST CONTAINMENT, INC. by: cL�.Go ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER —DORIS L. COINKLIN a Y IF O RANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3, 1991 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: Child Support Enforcement Attorney Contract DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes —X —No Child Support Enforcement ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Sparks, Extension 2175 Contract TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967- 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To authorize a renewal contract with Coleman, Bernholz, et al, who provides legal representation for the Child Support Office. BACKGROUND: Certain functions essential to the IVD program can be performed only by an attorney. Orange County must have legal representation to be in compliance with North Carolina law and Federal regulations. There is no substantive change in this renewal contract from prior years. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends approval of the contract as presented and authorization for the Chair to sign it. 3 a w �a 0 ¢ v a x a A a c� N a 0 z a w �a N a 0 z a w �c z x 0 U z STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) THIS CONTRACT made and entered into this the 1st day of July, 1991, by and between Orange County, hereinafter County, and Coleman, Bernholz, Bernholz, Gledhill, Hargrave and Herman hereinafter Attorneys. W I T N E S S E T H: THAT WHEREAS, the County desires to employ Attorneys as its counselors at law for the County of Orange upon the following terms: 1. This Contract shall begin July 1, 1991 and unless sooner terminated by 30 days, notice of either party shall exist and continue through June 30, 1992. 2. Attorneys, upon reasonable notice, are to be available for consultation, legal advice, and for representation as requested by the Child Support Enforcement Agency on all legal matters arising from the duties of County under Article 9 of Chapter 110 of the North Carolina General Statutes, Title Iv -D of the Social Security Act, and the federal regulations lawfully promulgated pursuant thereto. 3. Recognizing that from time to time representation of County by Attorneys may result in a conflict of interest for the Attorneys, it is agreed that when such a conflict arises, the Attorneys may refer cases requiring legal services to other lawyers in Orange County. Such referrals shall be with the 1 b 3 L z r U z a x x 0 w V 0 S z s p 0 x z Z Rdr 3 consent and approval of the County Manager. In all cases of referrals, the attorney to which the case is referred shall be compensated in the same manner as specified in paragraph 5 below, and shall keep an itemized record of work performed for County on a case -by -case basis, submitting a bill therefor showing a breakdown of services performed on a case -by -case basis as specified in paragraph 5. In the event such an attorney is awarded counsel fees by the Court in this regard, an accounting shall be made to County in the same manner as provided for in paragraph 5 below. 4. Attorneys agree to comply with all the requirements of Article 9 of Chapter 110 of the North Carolina General Statutes, Title IV-D, of the Social Security Act, and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto relating to the performance of program legal services including, but not limited to, maintaining such records as are required by County, to make said reports available for federal or state audit, if required, and to make financial, statistical, and program progress reports as are required. 5. For their services under this Contract, County agrees to pay Attorneys Sixty and No /100 Dollars ($50.00) per hour for each hour spent by them providing legal services under the Child Support Enforcement Program. Such hourly rate shall encompass all expenses, including but not limited to, those for salary, supplies, office space, heating and maintenance for office space, telephone service, long - distance telephone calls, and travel. 7 4 Attorneys are not to be reimbursed for any extraordinary expense incident to performing the services included under this agreement; except, that County agrees to pay all court costs and filing fees which are required to be paid in conjunction with services provided by the Attorneys under this agreement. 6. Attorneys further agree to attend at least one regional training session on Child Support Enforcement per year conducted by the State Child Support Enforcement Agency. Reimbursement shall be made based upon the hourly rate but not to exceed a maximum of $200.00 for the full two --day session or $100 for each day attended or such amount as set by the State Child Support Enforcement Agency. With the prior approval of the Orange County Child Support Enforcement Director, Attorneys may attend training functions other than those conducted by the State Child Support Enforcement Agency. If attendance is approved, Attorneys shall be reimbursed for travel and per diem at the prevailing Orange County rate. Attorneys shall not be reimbursed at the hourly rate for attendance at any such non- -State Child Support Enforcement Agency training function. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, said parties have executed this Contract in triplicate originals, one of which is to be retained by County, one of which is to be retained by Attorneys, and one of which is to be filed with the Child Support Enforcement Section, Division of Social Services of the Department of Human Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. 3 Q a 0 u COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL, WGRAVE & HERMAN By: By: ATTEST: Beverly Blythe Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Gle , NORTH CAROLINA Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Orange County Finance Officer 4 �.1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action AgendaA Item No. TV- ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3, 1991 SUBJECT: RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION FOR SERVING ON THE COMMIS- SION FOR WOMEN DEPARTMENT: Commission for Women PUBLIC HEARING: Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S): Yes - INFORMATION CONTACT: Hope Bethea Individual resolutions for: Ann Loeb TELEPHONE NUMBER: Ann McPherson Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Miriam Saxon Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Plaques under separate cover. Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To recognize the service of three retiring Commission for Women members. BACKGROUND: Ann Loeb and Miriam Saxon have both served on the Commission for Women for six years. Ann McPherson has served for nine years. During this time they have each served as Chair of the Commission and have chaired or served on numerous committees. These resolutions are being presented to show appreciation for their leadership, service and support for the Commission for Women; and their efforts on behalf of women in Orange County. RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the resolutions and present to each recipient, along with the plaques provided. 1 Moses Carey, Jr. Alice M. Gordon Stephen H. Halkiotis Verla I. Insko Don Willhoit ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS .P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR ANNE NELSON LOEB WHEREAS, Anne Nelson Loeb has served Orange County's Commission for Women in an exemplary manner by serving as Chair of the Commission and chairing numerous committees; and, WHEREAS, Anne Nelson Loeb has given freely..and generously of her time, talents and energy "fa"r the improvement of the quality of life for all women in Orange County; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners, through its members Moses Carey, Jr., Don Willhoit, Stephen Halkiatis, Alice Gordon and Verla Insko; does express its sincere appreciation to Anne Nelson Loeb for her efforts on behalf of the women of Orange County. THIS, the 3rd day of June, 1991. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Alice Gordon Stephen Halkiotis Verla Insko Don Willhoit YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY 1 0 � 732 -8181 968 -4501 688 -7331 227 -2031 644 -3004 (Fax) pia i 3 ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 Moses Carey, Jr. 732 -8181 Alice M. Gordon 968 -4501 Stephen H. Halkiotis 688 -7331 Verla 1. Insko 227 -2031 Don Wdlhoit 644 -3004 (Far) RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION VGTJ ANN MCPHERSON WHEREAS, Ann McPherson has served Orange County's Commission for Women in an exemplary manner by serving as Chair of the Commission and chairing numerous committees; and, WHEREAS, Ann McPherson has given freely and generously of her time, talents and energy for'the improvement of the quality of life for all women in Orange County; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners, through its members Moses Carey, Jr., Alice Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis, Verla Insko and Don Willhoit; does express its sincere appreciation to Ann McPherson for her efforts on behalf of the women of Orange County. THIS, the 3rd day of June, 1991. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Alice Gordon Stephen Halkiotis Verla Insko Don Willhoit YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY I ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 Moses Carey, jr. 732 -8181 Alice M. Gordon 968 -4501 Stephen H. Halkiotis 688 -7331 Verla I. Insko 227.2031 Don Willhoit 644.3004 (Fax) RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR MIRIAM S. SAXON WHEREAS, Miriam S. Saxon has served Orange County's Commission for Women in an exemplary manner by serving as Chair of the Commission and chairing numerous committees; and, WHEREAS, Miriam S. Saxon.has given freely and generously of her time, talents and energy. "for!thj'e improvement of the quality of life for all.women in Orange County; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that.the Orange County Board of Commissioners, through its members Moses Carey, Jr., Alice Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis, Verla Insko and Don Willhoit; does express its sincere appreciation to Miriam S. Saxon for her efforts on behalf of the women of Orange County. THIS, the 3rd day of June, 1991. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Alice Gordon Stephen Halkiotis Verla Insko Don Willhoit YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY ! K-1 L O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3 1991 FI Action Agenda Item #� SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (Large Day Care Homes) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING x Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk -- ext. 2582 Refer to 5 -28 -91 Public Hearing Agenda Packet. TELPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 --7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comment concerning proposed revisions to existing Zoning Ordinance provisions applicable to day care centers. This matter was continued from the May 28,1991 public hearing. BACKGROUND: Day care facilities are currently permitted in residential zoning districts upon approval of a Class B Special Use Permit. In commercial and office zoning districts, such facilities are permitted by right. A day -care arrangement which provides care for more than 5 children on a regular basis as defined by the NC Child Day Care Commission is considered a Day Care and must receive approval of a Class B Special Use Permit from the Board of Adjustment. Recently, Child Care Networks contacted the Planning Department about a new category of child care arrangement approved and licensed by the N.C. Child Day Care Commission. The new category is a "large day care home" and is termed a "home" because it is located in a family residence. A large day care home may have up to 15 children, depending on their ages. 2 Child Care Networks requested that large day care homes be permitted as a use by right. The attached amendment proposes that large day care homes be permitted by right, provided that specific development standards which address the potential impacts are met. The standards are incorporated into a new Article 6.27 and are almost identical to those applicable to larger facilities. The principal difference is that large homes would be subject to administrative (staff) approval rather than that of a quasi- judicial board. The County Attorney has indicated in his letters dated May 10 and May 17 concern with three items in the proposal. His first concern is that the wording in 6.27.2 a) is vague and should be written to describe the dangers that are of concern. This section reads as follows: "The large day care home is to be located in an area which is free from conditions dangerous to the physical and moral welfare of the children." This wording is the same wording that is presently in section 8.8.16.2 a) of the special use section for day care facilities in the zoning ordinance. If this wording needs to be amended, an amendment could be considered at a later time that would amend both of these sections at one time. Secondly, he indicated a concern about permitting large day care homes on private roads. The Planning Board has revised section 6.27.2 c) to require upgrading of a private road based on the number of homes currently served by the road and the projected traffic to be generated by the large day care home. The County Attorney is concerned about the amount of traffic that will be generated by the large day care home . Also, if there is an existing road maintenance agreement on the road, other residents may be required to pay more to maintain the road up to a set standard. The Planning Staff agrees that this would be inequitable for other lot owners and recommends that large day care homes only be allowed on public roads. If an applicant wanted to place a large day care home on a private road, a special use permit would have to be applied for. This would give the Board of Adjustment a chance to review the proposal. Thirdly the County Attorney has indicated his concern with the lack of public input in this process. Also, if this amendment is approved, the general conditions in the ordinance which speak to a 3 the public health, safety and welfare, the value of contiguous property, and compliance with the general plan will automatically be made. The Planning Staff has considered these issues, and feels that they are addressed through the recommended standards. At the May 28 public hearing, Commissioner Gordon requested that consideration of the amendment be continued until the June 3 Commissioners meeting. She wished to question the County Attorney about his concerns. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment with large day care homes being allowed on public roads. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, this item should be referred to the Planning Board. The Planning Board will make a recommendation no sooner than their June 17 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider this item for decision no sooner than August 5, 1991. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3, 1991 1 Action Agenda Item No. V T-T -A SUBJECT: Eno River Capacity Use Weir Construction and Monitoring Gage Modification DEPARTMENT: County Manager -------------------------- - - - - -- PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO:x ATTACHMENT(S): Report INFORMATION CONTACT: County Engineer TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 -------------------.._-_----------_----------------------------------- PURPOSE: To present to the County Commissioners, for information only, a report on the status of construction of flow monitoring and control weirs in the Eno River below the dams of each of the three Eno River reservoirs and of the modification of the flow recording instruments in the Hillsborough gaging station. BACKGROUND: In the spring of 1989, the Town of Hillsborough, the Orange - Alamance Water System, Piedmont Minerals and Orange County formally entered into a Capacity Use Agreement which was to be conducted under the supervision of the NC Division of Water Resources. This agreement bound the participating parties into a framework of rules and cooperative effort to limit water withdrawals from the Eno River and to maintain a minimum of flow in the river by means of releases from the Lake Orange reservoir during periods of low natural stream flow. At the time of the ratification of the Capacity Use Agreement, each of the parties involved in the Agreement had primitive systems for releasing water from the respective reservoirs and no way of accurately verifying the quantity of water released from any reservoir. The only equipment available to determine the quantity of water released into the river was at the USGS stream flow monitoring station in the Eno River on the eastern edge of Hillsborough. This gage's location put it some six hours of flow time downstream from the nearest reservoir release point. In its entirety, the existing system for river flow control was extremely cumbersome and totally inadequate to maintain minimum stream flow while conserving the maximum amount of water in the reservoirs. 2 On the recommendation of the Division of Water Resources and the County Engineer, the Board of County Commissioners allocated approximately $35,000 for construction of flow measuring devices at each reservoir release point and for upgrading the flow monitoring and recording equipment in the stream monitoring gage at Hillsborough. Reimbursement of a pro rata share of the construction costs were to be repaid to the County by each of the other participants in the Agreement by a formula agreed upon by all parties involved. Construction of the flow monitoring devices was initially to be complete during the low flow period expected to occur during the summer of 1989. The dry weather and low flow did not occur during 1989, and construction was delayed until the summer of 1990. The summer of 1990 was dry and a substantial portion of the construction was accomplished during that time. The remaining elements of the construction project have been scheduled to be completed during the summer of 1991. RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information only. MEMORANDUM TO: John M. Link, County Manager County Commissioners FROM: Paul K. Thames, County Enginee DATE: May 24, 1991 SUBJECT: Progress report for the Eno River Capacity Use Agreement As per the request of the County Manager, this report has been prepared to update the BOCC on the status of the operation of the Eno River Capacity Use Agreement. A portion of the report involves the installation of equipment and construction of flow measuring weirs required to control the flow in the river during periods of low normal flow. The remainder of the report deals with the cooperative efforts of Eno River water users in the actual operation of the Agreement during the past two years. The details involving maximum Eno withdrawal and minimum instream flow requirements of the Eno River Capacity Use Agreement were finalized in the spring of 1989 and the document was formally ratified by Orange County, Piedmont Minerals, Hillsborough and the Orange - Alamance Water System shortly thereafter. It was determined, by consensus of the parties involved in the Agreement, that installation of flow monitoring and control devices in the Eno would be necessary to meet the Agreement's minimum flow requirements while simultaneously retaining the maximum quantity of water within the three Eno River reservoirs. A budget for construction costs and equipment purchase was drawn up and a cost share agreement was worked out among the parties. The County provided the initial funding for the project, with each of the other parties agreeing to reimburse the County over a three year period for its pro rata share of the total project costs. One major component of equipment necessary to comply with the requirements and provisions of the Capacity Use Agreement is a computer and computer software. The computer and software are needed to automatically call the USGS Eno River stream flow monitoring gauge located on the eastern side of Hillsborough. The computer system is designed to call the gauge every two to four hours, record the stream flow data from the gage and put the data into a form which can be used to determine both instantaneous and twenty -four hour C M totalized stream flow. This stream flow information is essential to ensure compliance with the minimum instream flow requirements. The computer was installed in the County Engineer's office in October, 1989, but the monitoring software, which had to be created specifically for the monitoring program, was not fully developed and installed until March, 1990. The second component of the proposed Eno River monitoring system consists of small dams, called weirs, constructed just below the dam of each of the three Eno reservoirs. The purpose of the weirs, which are crude yet accurate flow measuring devices, is to enable each of the reservoir operators to instantly determine the amount of flow that he is releasing from his reservoir. Knowledge of the exact quantity of flow being released is a critical factor in the overall low flow operation of the river, in that it allows operators to release just enough water to satisfy minimum instream flow requirements while retaining as much water as possible in reserve storage in the reservoirs. The weirs were originally scheduled to be constructed in the summer of 1989. it was anticipated that the summer dry season would cause very low natural instream flow in the river, allowing the necessary excavation and temporary stream diversions which would be required to construct the weirs. The dry period never occurred in 1989, and construction of the weirs was rescheduled for the summer of 1990. The anticipated dry period did occur in 1990, allowing the start of weir construction in early July. By the end of August, 1990, the two most critical weirs, those at Lakes Ben Johnson and Orange, had been substantially completed and were being used to control water releases from those reservoirs. Construction of the least critical weir at Corporation Lake was not begun in 1990 because the County staff that had been involved in the weir construction had to return to their normal jobs to catch up on their normal summer workload. Construction of the Corporation Lake weir and completion of the Ben Johnson and Lake Orange weirs are scheduled for the summer of 1991. The total budget for this project was set at $38,400, a cost figure that was developed with the assumption that all construction would be performed by independent contractors. No contractors could be located who were both willing to undertake the weir construction and had experience in the type of construction being undertaken. Consequently, all construction to date has been accomplished by County Public Works Department staff, the County Engineer, an independent grading and excavation contractor, and an independent crane operation contractor. At the present time, a total of $19,700 has been expended from the total budget. Of the funds expended, approximately $2900 are direct labor costs for County staff, excluding any labor cost for the County Engineer. The breakdown of expenditures to date are $3325 out of $6000 budgeted for the Hillsborough gauge monitoring equipment; $8250 out of $11.700 budgeted for the Lake Ben Johnson weir; $4975 out of $11,350 budgeted for the Lake Orange weir; and $2500 out of the $9360 budgeted for the Corporation Lake weir. The expenditures for the Corporation Lake weir are for materials that are on hand but have not yet been installed. Unless major difficulties are encountered during construction at Corporation Lake, the project should be completed for less than the budget. The Eno River Capacity Use Agreement restrictions on the Eno water users were in effect for the seventeen week period from July 3, 1990 until October 29, 1990 . Four of those weeks had Stage II water withdrawal restrictions is place, which meant even more stringent restrictions. Overall, the system for coordinating withdrawals, releases from reservoirs and maintaining instream flow worked fairly well. Although Hillsborough went ten weeks into the restriction period before beginning to purchase water to supplement its withdrawals and exceeded its Eno water allocations for the majority of that time, total Eno withdrawals were-very nearly within the Capacity Use requirements. During the period of withdrawal restriction, it became obvious to the Eno water users that some sort of allotment sharing agreement was necessary to deal with those situations where one or more of the users were not using their full allocation. However, such an agreement has yet to be created or approved. During the period of time when Hillsborough was purchasing water from OWASA, there were no instances where excess withdrawals from the Eno occurred. Several minor glitches in maintaining minimum instream flow also occurred during the summer of 1990. These occurred due to several mechanical failures at the Eno stream flow gauge and to a stoppage in the flow control /release valve at Lake Ben Johnson dam. In spite of the mechanical failures and withdrawal overages, the 1990 operation of the Eno River Capacity Use Agreement was successful and resulted in serious attempts at minimizing water use, maintaining instream flow and limiting Eno withdrawals. With minor exceptions, the NC Division of Water Resources and all of those who use and enjoy the waters of the Eno were pleased by the efforts of the Eno River Users group. L O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3, 1991 SUBJECT: EDC Activity Status Report DEPARTMENT: Economic Development Commission ATTACHMENT(S): Page 1 Action Agenda Item # _V11-T3 PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No INFORMATION CONTACT: Refer to Third Quarter Report Ted Abernathy, Director previously distributed. TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham -- 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967- 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To provide the Board of Commissioners with an update on EDC activities, for information only. BACKGROUND: Recently, the EDC provided the Commissioners and the EDC Board of Directors with a status report through three quarters of the 90 -91 fiscal year. The report detailed accomplishments and future activities. The Director will be present to answer any questions or address any concerns about the report. RECOMMENDATION: No Board action required. For information only. F O RANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3, 1991 Agenda Abstract Item # V TL -C SUBJECT: REPORT - AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY BOARD DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X —No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Article 61 -G.S. 106 Planning Director X2592 (PDR reports are PHONE NUMBERS: provided as separate Hillsborough 732 -8181 enclosures.) Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 Chapel Hill 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To report to the Board of Commissioners on the status of a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program proposal and to solicit Commissioner comments in response to the report. BACKGROUND: In recent years, renewed interest has been expressed in a PDR rights program for Orange County. This interest has originated from several diverse points involving farmland preservation efforts, watershed protection strategies, and performance standards to maintain rural character. Farmland Preservation In 1986, the N.C. General Assembly passed enabling legislation which authorized counties to undertake programs to encourage the preservation of farmland (see Article 61 of G.S. 106). Based on the legislation, the Board of Commissioners appointed an Agricultural Districts Advisory Board for Orange County in 1987. The Advisory Board immediately set about the task of drafting a local ordinance to implement the provisions of G.S. 106, and, in mid - 1988, produced a draft ordinance as well as recommendations for additional farmland preservation efforts. Among them were the following: 1. Adopt policies for PDR in agricultural districts upon the request of the farmer. K, 2. Set up provisions for donation of and lease of development rights under the policies. 3. Request funds for PDR on agricultural lands and natural areas in the county. 4. Recommend that Orange County adopt the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) point system as a means of evaluating where agricultural districts and PDR will be pursued. While no action was taken on the draft ordinance, the recommendations of the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board contributed substantially to the renewal of interest in PDR. Watershed Protection Watershed protection is not a new concern. Since the late 1970's, Orange County has been a leader in watershed protection efforts in North Carolina. In 1987, however, concern about the adequacy of existing protection standards emerged in response to a proposed development in the University Lake Watershed. Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro jointly requested that the Orange Water and Sewer Authority ( OWASA) commission a carrying capacity study of the watershed to determine what changes, if any, needed to be made in the existing standards. In late 1987, OWASA employed the consulting firm of Camp, Dresser, and McKee to undertake the study. The final report was submitted in March, 1989, and representatives of the three jurisdictions began meeting thereafter to formulate a coordinated watershed protection program. Strategies for protecting University Lake watershed were drafted in October, 1989, based principally on the recommendations of the OWASA consultant. In April, 1990, Orange County amended its development regulations to implement most of the strategies proposed by the Watershed Work Group. The basic strategy for protecting University Lake was to increase the minimum required lot size to five acres. This represented a substantial decrease in permitted densities and raised concern among farmers and property owners about losses in property values. To address this concern, the Watershed Work Group recommended the following: 1. That the jurisdictions develop strategies for dealing with special hardships that farmers i n H 3 might experience in order to further the public purpose of protecting farmland; 2. That OWASA be requested to create a watershed protection fund to acquire rights in sensitive lands; and 3. That the County conduct a study of the possible use of transferable development rights for purposes of watershed protection. Because of the number of watersheds in the county and the proportion of land (60 %) situated therein, Orange County opted to consider an approach similar to that recommended for OWASA - the acquisition of development rights. Another reason for this was the apparent reluctance of local municipalities to be receiving areas for transferred development rights. A PDR program would also serve a dual purpose - watershed protection and farmland preservation. Maintaining Rural Character In January of 1987, as part of joint planning activities with Chapel Hill and Carrboro, Orange County incorporated a new district, the Rural Buffer, into its zoning regulations. Residents of the area around Chapel Hill and Carrboro were opposed to the new district, because permitted densities were lowered from one unit per acre to one unit per two acres. Although the intent of the Rural Buffer was to maintain the rural character of the area around the two municipalities, the Board of Commissioners viewed the zoning measures as an interim solution. In November of 1987, the Commissioners created a Rural Character Study Committee and charged it with the responsibility of developing alternative strategies for preserving rural character. In May of 1990, the Study Committee presented a set of strategies which offered density bonuses in return for greater amounts of open space in developments. As part of its recommendations, the Study Committee also suggested that a PDR program be instituted and used as a tool for agricultural preservation. The Charge Each of these initiatives culminated in action by the Board of Commissioners in December of 1989. As part of its annual goal - setting retreat, the Board established a goal to develop a proposal for a PDR program. In August of 1990, after work had been completed on University Lake watershed protection 4 measures and the annual budget cycle was finalized, the Board of Commissioners reconstituted the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board and charged it with the responsibility of achieving the goal. The Advisory Board initiated its work during the following month. Program Pro osals As it began its work, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board.focused on the successful program implemented by Forsyth County. Since the first purchases in 1987, Forsyth County had acquired development rights to 19 farms with a total of 1,192 acres. The County acquired these rights through purchases and leases for a total of $1.71 million or an average of approximately $1,500 per acre. As Forsyth County had done, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board started with the most basic question - How does one go about deciding which farms should have priority in terms of PDR? The method recommended by the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board,is through evaluation of farms using the Soil Conservation Service's LESA system. The LESA system refers to the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment system developed by the Soil Conservation Service in the mid- 19801s. The two --part system for evaluating farmland has been used extensively and focuses on the quality or productivity of a given site; e.g., land evaluation, and its continued economic viability; e.g., site assessment. The major advantage to such a system is that the most productive and economically viable farmlands are preserved for future generations. Other benefits include the use of the system in identifying important farmlands and potential agricultural districts,' and preparing and updating comprehensive land use plans. (The development of a LESA system for Orange County is discussed in detail in Report #1.) Another basic question was - How would a PDR Program operate? Using the Forsyth County program as a model, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board identified the following major features: 1. The program would be voluntary, and the farmland owner would decide whether or not to participate. 2. The farmland owner would be compensated for the sale of the development rights and retain title and all other rights to his /her land. 5a 3. Farming activities would continue and be encouraged on the land. 4. Development rights purchased by the County would be held in trust, assuring that areas with good soils and active farms will remain in agricultural use. (A complete discussion of the program is provided in Report #2.) Other Concerns While the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board has completed the majority of its work, a continuing question has been has been - What is the primary goal of a PDR Program? The Advisory Board has focused almost exclusively on a program which promotes agricultural preservation. It is through the LESA system that watershed protection and natural areas preservation have been addressed. Another concern is the need for a full complement of members. Presently, only five of nine members have been appointed to the Advisory Board. A representative from the development community and three persons actively engaged in farming remain to be appointed. A final concern is the role of the Advisory Board after the completion of the PDR proposal. Should the Advisory Board pursue a Transfer of Development Rights proposal? Should it draft an ordinance implementing Article 61 and G.S. 106 (copy attached)? Should it identify potential agricultural districts using the LESA system and work with the farm community for designation of such districts? Should it pursue identification of active farms on the land records system of the County? RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends: 1. That the Board of Commissioners provide comments in reaction to the report from the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board with regard to the following points: a. The work completed to date, including the level of emphasis given to agricultural preservation in the PDR Program proposal; b. The Commissioners' view of the future role of the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board; and 5b C. The Commissioners, plans with regard to future appointments to the Advisory Board; and 2.. That the Board of Commissioners indicate its intent to take action, as appropriate, on .issues identified by the Advisory Board at a future meeting of the Commissioners to be determined. i J GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF... NORTH­ CAROLINA - 1985 SESSION (REGULAR SESSION, 1986) , RATIFIED BILL CHAPTER 1025 HOQSE BILL 1190 AN ACT TO ESTIBLISH POLICIES TO PRESERVE FARMLAND. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: Section 1.. Chapter 106 of the North Carolina General Statutes is amended by adding a new Article 61 to read as follows: "Article 61.. „Preservation of rarala.nd. 106 -735.. Short :�It1e and parpos e (a) This' Article shall be known as 'The Paraland Preservation Enablinq Act (b) The purpose of this Article is to authorize counties to undertake a series of programs to encourage the preservation of farmland as defined herein. programs authorized. - -A 106 106 -736. raraland reservation ,, armland preservation program county map by ordinance establish a f may authorize qualifying under this, Article. The ordinance farms, fatheebenefits authorized3by take Ofethis more . of 106-737.. uali in fara and. --In order for faraland to qualify under this Article, it Rust be real property that: (1) is participating - in the farm present - use -value taxation program established county7to meet all 105-277.7 or is all the otherwise qualifications othwA of this proq ran set forth in G.S.. 105 - 277.3: (2) Is certified by the Soil Conservation Service of the united States Department of Agriculture as being a tarn on which at least two - thirds of the land is composed of soils that W are best suited for providing food, seed, fiber, forage, timber, and oil seed crops, (ii) have good soil qualities, (iii) are favorable for all major crops common to the county where the land is located, (iv) have a favorable growing season, and (v) receive the available moisture needed to produce high yields an average of eight out of ten years; or on which at least two- thirds of the land has been actively used in agricultural, horticultural or forestry operations as defined in Qs.-,105-277.2(1), (2) , and (3) during each of the five previous rears, measured from the date on vhich the determination mast be made as to vhether the land in question qualifies; (3) Is managed in accordance •ith the Soil Conservation service defined erosion control practices that are addressed to highly erodable land; and (�) Is the subject of a conservation agreement, as defined in G. S. 121 -35, between the county and the owner of such land that prohibits nonfars use or development of such land fora period of t more than at least ten years, except for the creation cni n and subdivision three lots that meet applicable county zg regulations. 1 1 ` «� lOb- 737.1. Revocation 21 conservation a eeneat. - -BT _. written n ,7tice to the county, the landowner ■aT revoke this conservation agreement. , Such revocation shall result in loss of 7 qualif Ping fare status. !� "6 106-738. troluntaLl agricultural districts. --(a) In ordinance adopted under this lrticle shill provide, ( 1) for the establishment of voluntary agricultural districts consisting initiallT of at least the number of contiguous acres of qualifying f armland or the number of qualif ping Farms deemed appropriate by the board of county commissioners; (z) For the formation of such districts upon the execution by the owners of the requisite acreage of an agreement to sustain agriculture in the district; (3) That the farm of this agreement must be reviewed and approved by an agricultural advisory board established under G. s.. 106 -739 or some other county board or official; (4) That each such district have a representative on the agricultural advisory board established under G. S. 106 -739. (b) The purpose of such agricultural districts shall to to increase identity and pride in the agricultural community and its way of life and to increase protection from nuisance suits and other negative impacts on properly managed farms. The county may take such action as it deems appropriate to encourage the 4ormation of such districts and to further their purposes and objectives. 4 106 -739. Agricultural adviaorl board. - -An ordinance adopted ... under this Article shall provide for the establishment of an agricultnral. advisory board, organized and appointed as the county shall deem appropriate. The county may confer upon this advisory board authority to: (1) Review and make recommendations concerning the establishment and modification of agricultural districts; (2) Review and make recommendations concerning any ordinance or amendment adopted or proposed for adoption under this Article; (3) Hold public hearings on public projects likely to have an impact on agricultural operations, particularly if such projects- involve condemnation of all or part of any gualifpinq farm; (4) Advise the board of county commissioners on projects, programs, or issues aftectiug the agricultural economy or way of life within the county; (5) Perform other. related tasks or duties assigned by the board of county commissioners. "i 106 -7�5. Public bears on conde�ation of farmland. -�bn ordinance adopted under -this 6rti.cle may provide that no State or local public a9encp or governmental wait may formally initiate any action to condemn any interest in qualifying farmland within a voluLtary agricultural district until such agency has requested the local agricultural advisory board established under G. S. 106 - 739 to hold a public hearing an tL.e proposed condemnation.. (1) Following a public hearing held pursuant to this section, the board shall prepare and summit written findings and a 2 douse Bill 1190 D - 2 8 ' - -- recommenda t to ...the.- 3ecision- saki ng body of the agency proposing acquisition. (2) The board designated to, hold the bearing shall have 30 days after receiving a request under this section to hold the public hearing and submit its findings and recommendations to the agency. (3) The agency may not formally initiate a condemnation action whale the proposed condemnation is properly before the advisory board within these time limitations. "S 106-7141. Becord notice of ,proximity to farmlands.--(a) Any county that has a camp uterizeT land records system may require that such records include some form of notice reasonably calculated to alert a person researching the title of a particular tract that such tract is located within one -half mile Of a poultry, swine, or dairy qualifying farm or within 600 feet of any other qualifying farm or within one -half wile of a voluntary agricultural district. (b) In no event shall the county or any of its officers, employees, or agents be held liable in damages for any misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance occurring in good faith in connection with the duties or obligations imposed by any .ordinance adopted under subsection (a). (c) In no event shall any cause of action arise out of the failure of a person researching the title of a particular tract to report to any person the proximity of the tract to a qualifying farm or voluntary agricultural district as defined in this Article. 464 106 -742. Waiver of water and sewer assessments.--(a) A county may provide by ordinance that its water and sewer _-` assessments be held in abeyance, with or Without interest, for farms, whether inside or outside of a voluntary agricultural district, until improvements on such property are connected to the water or sewer system for which the assessment was made. (b) Tire ordinance may provide that, when the period of abeyance ends, the assessment is payable in accordance with the terms set out in the assessment resolution. (c) Statutes of limitations are suspended during the time that any assessment is held in abeyance without interest. (d) If an ordinance is adopted under this section, then the assess,aent procedures followed under Article 9 of chapter 153A shall conform to the terms of this ordinance with respect to qualifying farms that entered into conservation agreements while such ordinance was in effect. (e) Nothing in this- section is intended to diminish the authority of counties to hold assessments in abeyance under G. S. 153A -201. "s 106 -743: County ordinances. - -A county adopting an ordinance under this Article may consult with the North Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture or his staff before adoption, and shall record the .ordinance with the Commissioner's office after adoption. Thereafter, tae county shall submit to the Commissioner at least once a year, a written report including the status, progress and activities of the county's farmland preservation program under this Article." House Bill 1190 3 Sec. 2. This act is- effective -upon ratification. 9 In the General lsseably read. .three ._times and ratified,,. this the 16th day of July, 1986, 1 s. _ROBERT B. JORDAN 111 hobert B. Jordan III President of the Senate _ LISTON S. RAMSEY Liston B. Ramsey r. Speaker of the House of Representatives -� 4 House Bill 1190 1 z O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3, 1991 SUBJECT: Classification Study - Phase II Report DEPARTMENT: Personnel ATTACHMENT(S): Phase II Final Report and MAI Memorandum on Phase I Restudies (under separate cover) Attachment 1 - Phase II Classes and Salary Grades Attachment 2 - Phase I Restudies Classes and Salary Grades Action Agenda Item # aLD PUBLIC HEARING: Yes XNo INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine Holmes, Extension 2550 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967- 92511968 -4501 PURPOSE: To report on the completion of Phase II of the Classification and Pay Study. BACKGROUND: On November 21, 1989, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the comprehensive Classification and Pay Equity Study for Orange County and accepted the funding for this study from the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation. The study was divided into three phases. Phase I included a Classification and Pay Study of all County positions except those in the Health and Social Services departments. Phase II included a Classification and Pay Study for Health and Social Services positions. Phase III will include a county wide Pay Equity Study. Phase I and Phase II of the study have been carried out by the County's classification consultant, Municipal Advisors, Inc. (MAI). Effective January 7, 1991 Orange County implemented the Phase I Classification and Pay Study results with the exception of certain positions identified for restudy. This followed the Orange County Board of Commissioners approval of such implementation at its December 18, 1990 meeting. The Phase I Classification and Pay System currently is in place for all County departments except Health and Social Services. In October 1990, the County began Phase II of the Classification and Pay Study which included positions 1 2 6 in the Health and Social services Departments and certain Phase I restudies. Phase II of the study has now been completed. Under separate cover, the Board of Commissioners have been provided: - The Phase II Final Report for Health and Social Services Departments - MAI's memorandum dated May 15, 1991 reporting on results of the Phase I restudies Item A below summarizes the Phase II Health and Social Services results and Item B summarizes the results of the Phase I restudies. A. Health and Social Services De artments The Phase II Final Report details the study methodology, findings, proposed classes, proposed salary grades and salary survey analysis. During the budget process, we will be proposing adoption of the proposed Phase II classes and salary grades as shown on Attachment 1. The Attachment 1 list of classes includes a modification from the classes and salary grades recommended by the consultant. Based on the salary survey and job factor analysis, the consultant recommended Public Health Nurse and Family Nurse Practitioner classes be reduced one salary grade. After consideration and discussion with the Health Director, it is recommended that these classes be retained at the current salary grades and the new Family Nurse Practitioner II class be at Salary Grade 73. This is recommended in recognition of the shortage of trained nursing personnel in this area and the difficulty in recruiting and retaining such staff. The Attachment 1 list of classes affects approximately 177 positions. Of these positions, - 147 are moving to higher salary grades, - 1 is moving to a lower salary grade and 29 are staying at the same salary grades. Of those employees whose positions are recommended for salary grade increases, only those whose positions are moving to a higher salary grade as a result of a reclassification or those whose current salaries are below the minimum of the new grade, will receive a salary increase. This is the same salary handling applied in Phase I implementation. The Orange County Personnel Ordinance, Article V, 8.0 states "An employee whose position is reclassified to a class having a higher pay range shall receive a one -step salary increase or an increase to the minimum step of the new salary range, whichever is higher." As a result of the Phase II study and our interpretation of the Orange County Personnel Ordinance, there are two groups of employees whose salaries will be affected by this study. -- There are approximately 57 employees whose positions will move to a higher salary grade as a result of a reclassification. These 57 employees will receive a one step increase or an increase to the minimum of the proposed new range, whichever is higher. -- There are approximately 16 employees whose current salaries are below the minimum of the proposed salary range. These 16 employees' salaries will be raised to the minimum of the proposed range. No employee's salary will be reduced as a result of this study. B. Phase I Restudies Phase II also included a number of restudies from Phase I. During the budget process, we will be proposing adoption of the classes and salary grades resulting from the Phase I restudies as shown on Attachment 2. This list represents three additions (affecting eight positions) to the list provided by the consultant. It is recommended that the salary grades for the positions of Public Works Director and Director of Purchasing and Central Services be changed from Salary Grade 76 to Salary Grade 77. As a result of the final review of the pay plan combining Phase I and Phase II, the Manager recommends this realignment to better reflect the relative responsibility of the positions. This will result in no salary change. The third addition comprises the Code Enforcement Officer class series. 3 4 i orange County has restudied those classes and accepts the original Phase I classes and salary grades recommended by the consultant. Phase I restudies included 61 positions (53 completed by MAI and eight by Orange county). of these 61 positions, -- 24 are moving to higher salary grades, - 10 are moving to lower salary grades and - 27 are staying at the same salary grade. The salary handling for the Phase I restudies is the same as that detailed in this abstract for Health and Social Services departments with one exception. At the December 18, 1990 meeting, the Board of Commissioners agreed to provide that any salary increase resulting from restudy of the Phase I classes in.Phase II would be retroactive to January 7, 1991 (the Phase I implementation date) when implemented, unless the salary increase results from duty changes which occurred after the original Phase I Study beginning date. There are eight employees whose salary increases would be retroactive to January 7, 1991. There are two groups of employees whose salaries will be affected by these restudy results. -- There are approximately 11 employees whose positions will move to a higher salary grade as a result of a reclassification. These 11 employees will receive a one step increase or an increase to the minimum of the proposed new range, whichever is higher. -- There are approximately 13 employees whose current salaries are below the minimum of the proposed salary range. These 13 employees' salaries will be raised to the minimum of the proposed range. No employee's salary will be reduced as a result of this study. The estimated cost to implement Phase II (Health, Social Services and Phase I restudies) is approximately $110,000. Actual costs to the County for Phase II implementation should be lower than estimated here in that a portion of the estimated salary costs will be covered by State and Federal funds. The funds necessary to cover this implementation will be included in the recommended Fiscal Year 1991 -92 budget. During the budget process, as indicated earlier, we will be asking the Board of Commissioners to approve the adoption of the Phase II Classification and Pay Study changes as specified in Attachments 1 and 2, with the classification and salary changes to be effective July 8, 1991 except as otherwise provided for certain Phase I restudies. Phase III of this study is the Pay Equity Study. This study will be county wide and will begin in the summer of 1991. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board receive this report for information only at this time. The Manager further recommends that the Board formally approve the Classification and Pay Study changes as an element of the adopted 1991 -92 budget, when the Board completes action on the budget in June. 5 r� r Attachment 1 June 3, 1991 PHASE II CLASSES AND SALARY GRADES LIST Class Title Pro osed Grade Clerical, Administrative, and Related Accounting Technician 63 Senior Accounting Technician 64 Administrative Assistant I 61 Administrative Assistant II 62 Administrative Officer I 67 Administrative Officer II 69 Office Supervisor I 64 Office Supervisor II 65 Public Health and Related Animal Control Officer 62 Animal Control Director 68 Dental Assistant 55 Dental Program Coordinator 66 Environmental Health Specialist 67 Environmental Health Program Specialist 69 Environmental Health Supervisor 70 Environmental Health Director 72 Soil Scientist 70 Audio Visual Technician 60 Community Health Aide 57 Community Health Assistant 57 Medical Office Assistant 59 Medical Laboratory Technician 61 Community Disease Control Specialist 65 Nutritionist 67 Public Health Educator 66 Public Health Education Supervisor 70 7 Class Title Pro osed Grade Family Nurse Practitioner I 72 Family Nurse Practitioner II 73 Public Health Nurse I 69 Public Health Nurse II 71 Public Health Nurse Supervisor 73 Public Health Nursing Director 76 Health Director 80 Social Services and Related Community Social Service Assistant 57 Day Care Coordinator 69 Social worker I 65 Social Worker II 67 Social Worker III 69 Child Protective Services Social Worker 70 Social Work Clinical Specialist 70 Child Welfare Program Specialist 70 Social Work Supervisor 71 Child Protective Services Supervisor 72 Social.Work Program Director 75 Human Services Coordinator 67 Veterans Service Officer 64 Income Maintenance Caseworker I 62 Income Maintenance Caseworker II 64 Income Maintenance Caseworker III 66 Income Maintenance Leadworker 67 Income Maintenance Investigator 67 Income Maintenance Supervisor 69 Senior Income Maintenance Supervisor 70 Income Maintenance Director 75 Social Services Director 80 8 r Attachment 2 June 3, 1991 PHASE I RESTUDIES CLASSES MM-SALARY GRADES LIST Class Title Pro osed Grade Accounting Technician 63 Senior Accounting Technician 64 Administrative Assistant I 61 Administrative Assistant 11 62 Administrative Assistant III 65 Administrative Asst. to Asst. County Managers 65 Administrative Assistant to County Manager 65 Assistant to the Clerk 60 Assistant Register of Deeds 67 Automotive Mechanic 58 Senior Automotive Mechanic 64 Building Maintenance Mechanic 59 Senior Building Maintenance Mechanic 63 Budget Technician 63 CAT Clerk /Dispatcher 60 Code Enforcement Officer I 64 Code Enforcement Officer iI 66 Code Enforcement Officer III 68 Criminal Data Specialist 62 Custodial Supervisor 64 Director - Commission for Women 70 Director of Purchasing and Central Services 77 Domestic Violence Coordinator 67 Housing /Community Development.Director 76 Human Resources Technician 63 Human Resources Analyst I 67 Human Resources Analyst 11 69 Human Resources Director 77 Class Title Pro osed Grade Jail Cook 57 Jail Cook Supervisor 59 Programmer /Analyst 70 Public Works Director 77 Solid Waste Manager 69 r O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3, 1991 SUBJECT: Orange Regional Land -ill T_pping Fees DEPARTMENT: Public Works PUBLIC HEARING: ATTACHMENT(S): Recommendations of LOG - Orange Regional Recycling Program - Report to Orange County Board of Commissioners - Landfill Summary of Revenues - Summary of Expenditures - Division Summary - Operations - Division Summary - Recycling - Division Summary - Curbside Recycling Action Agenda �_�Item # A I'-'1 Yes INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbert McAdoo Ext. 2627 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill -- 967 - 9251/968 -4501 I PURPOSE: To consider a request from the Town of Chapel Hill, Administrator of the Orange Regional Landfill, to establish a new schedule of tipping fees beginning July 1, 1991. BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the joint partnership, the tipping fee has been used to finance the cost of landfill, maintenance operations, equipment, recycling and related services. The reserve from the tipping fee has been used to purchase land, equipment and related services or materials. The Landfill Owners Group recommended approval of the fees at their March 25, 1991 meeting. Current tip fees are: Mixed solid waste $20 /ton Construction waste $20 /ton Ash from the U.N.C. Power Plant $20 /ton Asbestos $100 /ton Pickup trucks or trailers $5 each Cars $3 each Tires $100 ton or $1 each The proposed 1991 -92 tip fees are: Mixed solid waste $21 /ton Construction waste $21 /ton Ash from the U. N. C. Power Plant $20 /ton Asbestos $100 /ton Pickup trucks or trailers $5 each Cars $3 each Tires $100 ton or $1 each RECOMMENDATION(S): Recommend adoption of new landfill fee schedule. E MEMORANDUM To: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager From: Bruce A. Heflin, Public Works Directo Date: April 3, 1991 Subject: Recommendations of Landfill Owners Group On March 25, the Landfill Owners Group met and decided upon a work program and associated fees for the landfill fund for Fiscal Year 1991 -92. This memorandum summarizes those recommendations. Landfill Operations The Landfill Owners Group accepted the staff's recommendation to continue the ongoing programs associated with the operations at the landfill and planning initiatives which are budgeted. within this division's budget. These include the following: 1. No changes to existing day -to --day operations. We continue to accept permitted wastes, bury them and cover them according to state regulations. We are continuing to work on the north side of Eubanks Road, mounding wastes per our approved plan. We anticipate continued operations on this site for the next two to three years. There are no major equipment purchases scheduled for next year. 2. Continued funding of engineering work related to the search for the new landfill and for the design for the upcoming fill area south of Eubanks Road (approx. $200,000). 3. Total requested budget for operations will be $811,000. Contributions to Reserves Recommended funding for next year includes the following contributions to reserve funds within the Landfill Fund: 1. Continued contribution to reserves for land acquisition ($160,000). 2 Continued contribution to reserves for future equipment purchases ($350,000). 3. Continued contribution to reserves for the construction of an engineered fill area south of Eubanks Road ($550,000). This fill area will have a composite liner system, leachate recovery system, sophisticated storm water runoff controls, Z ' 4, groundwater and surface water monitoring wells and collection stations and gas venting system (and possibly gas monitoring systems). Recycling The Landfill Owners Group recommends that we continue our existing recycling programs, expand some of those, and add certain other programs. The attached worksheet describes the marginal additions to recycling for next year, showing the proposed programs, their costs, estimated revenue (where applicable), and estimated tons to be captured by each. Total requested recycling budget is $646,000. Fees Adding the recycling programs described on the attached worksheet would require a tip fee of $21 /ton for most classes of wastes to be accepted by the landfill. In addition, we would use $300,000 of undesignated fund balance to meet all of the requirements, both for operating expenses and contributions to reserves. The Landfill Owners Group also recommends continuing the same fees for asbestos ($100 /ton), pickups ($5) and autos ($3) as before, and adding a differential fee for fly ash from the University's power plant ($20 /ton). The latter recommendation is based upon our attempt to work toward a long term commitment from the University for disposal of their wastes. The new power plant will be coming on line sometime next fiscal year, with resultant increases in the amounts of fly and bottom ash to be disposed. Total amounts could exceed 30,000 tons per year in the next ten years (compared to about 8,000 tons this year). The receipt of so much material could represent a significant source of revenue for the fund, while costs to dispose of the material should be significantly less than those for other categories of waste. This is due to the fact that we will not have to use our very expensive lined fill area for the ash; instead we -will be able to place it in borrow areas around the landfill. We also know that at some dollar per ton cost, it becomes cost effective for the University to send the ash back to the coal mines for land reclamation. We believe that that point is near. We are now talking with University officials to further define these points, but believe that some fee differential is appropriate given our lower costs of disposal and our need to maintain this source of revenue. Waste Volume We estimate that we will receive about 95,000 tons this year (as budgeted). We estimates that we will receive about 102,000 tons next year, including about 7,000 more tons of ash from the UNC power plant. 3 El I k I P�6 T T bd c Mg H C7 x C ^v w m so w -9 c43 cd C7 W C7 t" •"• T 4 oy o O ti K •v C C r• a G CP- K v 'd P N O •v v m S+ v P. e+• rn •• o D s GO R F w A 4 "v 17 is R' n W c- R R ON P a P •.4 .+• P y o er �•-' V ` o m h+ W m m C P 4 7 a r W Cf v a a 44 ca R do -M r• r• w aC J $0 r• n r• Ca r• o a �. Y b a R o ..- '-. e-r a R• - o a w+ a m m ►+- o r• a r• a s w• v a. c- +A a. o ar c+ e y o cr w a r a we o ep m to v r• P aq O v to G r• r r• w a Cr C� o c•r cr c+e •-+ m er x d f. �n rr �"� m a P a C7 ep Ca •v 4• m o H W P. e W h x r• C W r R P tv Ca CS- r [+ •P O p J V m m tr9 T •W... b7 G P h o m H a d. n N N a O W re W « e1 W cr r w R o K' P. C=p r• .v r•• o r+ go r W a- C- C- ° a r 4-- n w r••� m w w cca 4Y 4�+ • Cti i W n 6 m ~• Ca •"-a Cr Q C P AC vc aC �+• ems. 4 r• r4• Pte. •W e+ a• r w W as 4D Y a W e! r v H am+ 4 d p m 4 h r m x W ro o n C e °e � W ca w as r�. o w 7e ar a o ca Go ro � r m b •--1 ..w M N ..�• � W a7 G 4 Ci.. O P nq H O CT CS u r /T di •.L] N C+ R b v w w w m e .-• iv a .e vs vi o cm da m cr x G a o .,+. O O o ... D. o P. W N C7 G C v o O cm, o c � H b0 Ob r P• P. C •- C O o e � n- m o 7e Ca v a m a m oe] CS .mi w ur � v � rc7.- •Fr ma O P• H v4 � � b r .e a r a • A r �' m m C P r• .... a S+? •b H •� v• ro w a � a�a K 4 O G` a 4 m Fa O o 0 o C o d 7 •'V C.4 H d V P a � c ae 4T. rr •+b A } 4..? r N a.• m H h 4 4 y Ci W •o w O v C o c n v 0. m C7 aNi• r1 p a G O 44 p R erea ov •e so r. .� N •� W a v P. o e.c n n man x r. r• b - ry 1 O u Q a G S.+ o p• 04 o P m X r u c6 P 4!a LJ• cD w } r v a vo A v F } w ti7 '� D• } W m n o m ra v 4 O 4 M 0 0 _ 47 a G •Y w N V p r• +• O w �.s w o m .•�.. m e+ n a. n eev x o H O o v ua C7 r �. p m s a 4a ^r v p r• ea A- e•. v r �• a w p• a .. r. R P {Y W P r• A ti m R p r• C� m R A w P A o R R �'/� 0a ^Y Ca r• n cr W c6 •ea e o •d m o n ee r r a v+ to o •v cr W w - m T ^' !O R O •�7 w�+ a a V {i m epr r• C7 b •••h r• r. N m Ca r o m m p. aw e•F ` 4 �+ °+ m W A N n e+ a e N e•' C n R R v mz: W P- W- O ti cl O 7 } V m v h• P v R v be R P v P m G p n? a A a ti v m w G o cma o - v m is a pa b ed rrj cD ��•• m W W .{ G v w W ••4 0. fi 7 e-r vii a ro A -•r 'v 7 J d o m ra 4'a !�• Ca. n P C O m so e'f ^1 !7 a4 of a O O a-r r• N �"4 a as N m v P R Ci a• m r• v m m R H rq w r W R a� rD o-R-. o V p ea a+ A ea " r• M W " V a s .. F+ ` •b R O h P M W M. 4b a a w•. e•. ►y 4a + Ca Ca to r• aw c• 4r r• O P i+ t w- is G i" r .'r P. .� r v X W O 7 A W W •c7 v m am F ;;- F v 40 G H n r• M P P. G •-i �-•.. 8 P C ev o C m r6 ti r• cr D3 c» 0 4v a W V a I k I P�6 ON E RE LANDFILL ORANGE REGIONAL RECYCLING PROGRAM REPORT to ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS May 15, 1991 Drop -offf sites Program Description Fourteen drop -off sites are established county -wide: seven are located in rural Orange County. Newspapers, glass bottles and jars, aluminum beverage cans and plastics (PETE and HDPE) are collected at all sites. Corrugated cardboard is collected at one of those sites. Average collection is 145 tons per month for all 14 sites. The sites in the County total an estimated 14% of this or 20 tons per month. The Town of Chapel Hill is contracted to collect newspapers, cardboard and plastics from the sites; EGOS is contracted to provide collection and containers for other materials. Cost per Ton Cost per ton without revenue and administrative costs: $22.02 Volume increased by 41% from last year. Costs per ton including administrative cost and revenue for the first nine months of this year are = $36.70. Assuming that 95% of the recyclables collected at those sites are generated in rural orange County, tip fee savings to the County from July 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991 are $3,400. Plans for FY 91 -92 During FY 91 -92, a total of three additional sites may be added. These are slated for the existing or proposed consolidated green box sites. The proposed site at Frazier Road and I -85 is slated to have a salvage shed and waste oil collection. The proposed budget will allow addition of tin /steel cans at all drop off sites in October. Corrugated Cardboard ProgramDescriRtion Contracted by the Town of Chapel Hill, the program collects about 20 tons of cardboard per month from four of the drop -sites and a total of 50 businesses in Carrboro, Chapel Hill and southern Orange County. The recycling program leases collection containers, collects and sells the cardboard. Of the 35 containers, 5 are in rural Orange County. Estimated tip fee savings to the County during the first three quarters of this FY are $500. 306 North Columbia Street 1a Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 1� (919) 968 -2796 �� b Orange County Report page 2 May 15, 1991 Cost _.per Ton Cost per ton without revenue and without administrative/ advertising costs: $68.22 Cost per ton including revenue and administrative costs = $67.18. (Revenue exceeds admin costs) Plans for FY 91 -92 A major expansion of the corrugated program is planned under the proposed budget. Two new routes would be added beginning in November. One is planned primarily to serve small industrial and commercial generators the Hillsborough /central Orange County area. The other would be a hand - loaded route designed to serve small generators and hard -to- access places in the Towns. The routes would be established by the proposed commercial recycling coordinator. Used Motor oil Program Description A tank for collection of used motor oil for Orange County residents only, is situated at the landfill on Eubanks Road. Access to the tank is during landfill operation hours only. Approximately 300 gallons per month are brought to the site. The oil is collected by Noble Oil, cleaned and used as industrial fuel. Cost per Ton The cost of the tank and shed was approximately $3,000. There is no cost for collection of the oil. There is a small administrative cost from logging in the users of the tank. Approximately 10 tons has been recycled this FY. Plans for FY 91 -92 The oil collection program may be expanded to a staffed site at Frazier Road and I -85 once that site is complete. Future expansion may take place at other staffed rural drop -off sites but none is scheduled at this time. Educational Programs and Composting Demonstration Sites Program Description The Orange Regional Recycling Program has established composting demonstration sites at the Chapel Hall Community Center's Learning Garden, Culbreth Middle School and at the NC Cooperative Extension service in Hillsborough to encourage backyard composting by residents. Orange County Report page 3 May 15, 1991 Recycling staff and volunteers also present programs to classes, after school programs and clubs. The Cooperative Extension is training 80 Master Gardeners to teach backyard composting. Many helped build the site in Hillsborough. Cost per Ton There is no way to calculate the cost since the tonnage diverted to backyard composting is immeasurable. The three sites cost a total of about $3,000 to build including bins and signs. Plans for FY 91 -92 In addition to continuing workshops at the compost demonstration sites, a backyard composting demonstration program is planned. This program will offer for sale to the public one hundred of a variety of types of composting bins along with instructions on composting. Those who buy the bins will be urged to become "master composters" in order to promote the concept among their neighbors. This program will be run by the residential recycling program coordinator. The program will focus on both food and yard waste. Yard waste will be banned from the landfill beginning January 1, 1993. Business Involvement Program Description Information about commercial recycling programs has been mailed on request to approximately 100 businesses and churches. Businesses wanting to recycle may call the recycling office to receive a packet (enclosed). These packets are periodically updated to reflect changes in collectors and markets. Cost per Ton It is impossible to calculate the cost per ton. Many businesses have contracted with private haulers for collection of their recyclables. We estimate that about half of the available high grade paper in the commercial waste stream is now recycled through these efforts. Plans for FY 91 -92 The commercial recycling program coordinator will initiate solid waste audits targeted at businesses throughout Orange County. We estimate that a rigorous audit program can result in reduction or diversion of 150 tons the first year from the landfill waste stream. The commercial recycling coordinator will also be responsible for the glass and corrugated cardboard programs. 7 [:3 Orange County Report page 4 May 15, 1991 Rural Mobile Buyback Program Description This program does not presently exist. It will provide ready markets for rural garbage haulers who pick up recyclables. In addition, rural residents of the County will have opportunities to recycle. The program will be run on a contract basis and the contractor will be requested to accept newspaper, cardboard, office paper, glass containers, plastic containers, aluminum and other metals. We estimate that this has potential to divert at least 200 tons per year and more as the program matures. Household Hazardous Waste Program Description This program does not presently exist. If funded, it will provide opportunities for citizens of Orange County to better manage their hazardous materials. The effort will include a needs assessment and an effort to exchange, reuse, minimize, and divert materials from that which must actually be handled by a hazardous waste handler. progdesc.cch Town of Chapel Hill LANDFILL FUND Summary of Revenues Summary of Expenditures 1989 -90 1990 -91 1990 -91 1991 -92 Actual Bu_ dget Estimated Recommended From City of Durham 30,000 50,000 - - Landfill Fees 1,660,960 1,900,000 1,959,000 2,126,600 Interest on Investments 87,344 80,000 100,000- 100,000 Recycling 10,791 15,000 15,175 26,900 Other 831 - 40,300 45,000 Appropriated Fund Balance - 383.853 208.388 300-000 TOTAL 1,789,926 2,428,853 2,322,863 2,598,500 Summary of Expenditures 1989 -90 1990 -91 1990 -91 1991 -92 Actual Budget Estimated Recommended Operations 439,541 1,120,862 1,174,130 811,000 Recycling 243,714 487,896 422,898 646,000 Non - Departmental ll. _ 820.095 Z25,835 1:141,500 TOTAL 796,368 2,428,853 2,322,863 2,598,500 Town of Chapel Hill Jo DIVISION SUMMARY II Fund�DFILL I Department ERATIONS 1989 -90 Actual CATEGORY Expenditures ures 244 rR Personnel Services ' Operations Capital Outlay 2,004 Total I 552,654 Authorized Positions 8 Offsetting 1,660,960 Deuensune Division Account Code 35 q 1990 -91 1991 -92 Budgeted Estimated Thru June ?9 Manager Council - Re- ommends Approved 275,360 269,950 318,000 700,772 774,355 560,085 964,8251 855,660 1,074,415 1,940,957 8 1,900,000 1,899,965 8 1,959,000 1,952,500 8 2,126,600 Major Expenses: Vehicle supplies (63,000), maintenance and repair of equipment (48,000), administrative charges by the General Fund (35,000). Capital Outlay: Contribution to capital reserves (510,415), reserve for liner (550,000), straw blower (11,500), fax machine (2,500). Summary of Activities The Orange Regional Landfill (on Eubanks Road north of Chapel Hill) is used for disposal of refuse collected by the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough; Orange County; the University of North Carolina; and by private collection companies and individuals. Costs of Landfill operations and equipment are financed with tipping fees paid by users. The Orange Regional Landfill is co -owned by the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Orange County and is operated by the Town of Chapel Hill. In order to comply with State standards, the Landfill's work program must include the following pro- grams: refuse compaction, construction of erosion and sedimentation controls and provision of daily dirt covering over refuse. 81 tr: r: T� Town of Chapel Hill Ke Ob'ectives for 91 -92 11 To properly manage and dispose of an estimated 100,000 tons of refuse and bulk materials in compliance with State standards. To determine and implement the optimal tipping fee structure for disposal services. To manage auxiliary landfill services such as waste oil disposal, scrap tire disposal, scrap metal recycling, etc. To provide staff support for various Regional Solid Waste Task Force and Landfill Owners Group projects, including the regional volume reduction study and the land- fill site search. To provide a high level of equipment maintenance by safe and experienced operators, meeting or exceeding equipment service requirements. 1 i � 82 Town of Chapel Hill DIVISION SUMMARY 12 1 Fund Department Division Account Code LANDFILL RECYCLING Estimated Thru June 30 Manager Recommends CATEGORY 1989 -90 1990 -91 1 1991 -92 Actual Expenditures Budgeted Estimated Thru June 30 Manager Recommends Council Approved Personnel Services 69,815 94,900 100,938 142,800 Operations 59,109 193,296 151,661 304,900 Capital Outlay -11 21,0001 6,629 8 , 000 Total 128,92411 309,1961 259,22811 455,700 Authorized Positions 211 2 2 1 4 Offsetting 10,66411 15,0001 15 000 1 20,700 Major Expenses Charges to the General Fund (56,900), contract recycling service (169,650). Capital Outlay: Roll -out containers (5,000), computer /printer (3,000). Summate of Activities The Orange Regional Recycling Program has expanded its drop -off program to 14 sites and now takes two types of plastic bottles in addition to newspaper, glass bottles and aluminum beverage cans. All consolidated rural green box collection sites now have recycling for newspaper, glass, aluminum and plastic, and there is also a site at the landfill for waste oil collection. There is an ongoing commercial corrugated cardboard program which now serves 50 businesses at 30 sites.. Many other businesses take their corrugated material to the three public drop -off sites for corrugated cardboard. Commercial glass recycling collection serves about 50 bars and restaurants at 25 sites in Carrbo7•o and Chapel Hill. The multi- family recycling program now serves approximately 3,600 units in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. 83 0 Town of Chapel Hill 3-3 There are three compost demonstration sites to inform the public about proper methods for backyard composting, located at Culbreth Junior High School, the Chapel Hill Community Center, and the Agricultural Extension Office in Hillsborough. The recycling program continues to provide public education on solid waste and to support both volunteer and for - profit recycling activities through referrals, technical assistance, logistical support and publicity. Key Objectives for 1991 -92 To maintain and expand existing programs, including new drop -off sites, addition of tin can collections, expansion of commercial glass and cardboard, multi - family complexes and mixed paper at a central site (market permitting). To develop mobile buy -back program to serve rural haulers and residents in order to provide convenient monetary incentive to recycle, thereby increasing overall recycling. To provide periodic newsletters to the public to keep them informed on solid waste and recycling issues. To operate compost demonstration sites, conduct workshops and sell at least 100 backyard composting bins to public. To conduct a household hazardous waste program that includes identification of wastes in the community, education and collection. To conduct outreach and teacher training; continue to work with businesses, community organizations and over 400 recycling volunteers. To recycle 4,100 tons of paper, cardboard, glass, aluminum, plastic, steel and other materials. Town of Chapel Hill DIVISION SUMMARY Fund Department Division Account Code LANDFILL CURBSIDE CATEGORY tPersonnel Services Operations Capital Outlay Total Authorized Positions 1989 -90 Actual Expenditures 114,790 114.790 1990 -91 Budgeted Estimated Thru June 30 178,7001 163,6 Major Expenses: Curbside collection contract (178,505). Summary of Activities 1991 -92 Manager Council Recommends Approved 190,300 The Orange Regional Recycling Program has expanded its curbside program with the growth of the single - family housing within the corporate limits of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough. It presently serves 11,800 units, including several businesses located adjacent to residential areas. The collection from the curbside program is about 160 tons per month of newspaper, glass bottles and aluminum beverage cans. Monthly participation is estimated at 75% system wide, with a 41% weekly set -out rate. The program provides education and outreach on an onoing basis through public service announcements, newsletters to volunteers and news releases. Kev Obiectives for 1991 -92 To continue to provide contracted, weekly curbside recycling for all single - family residences in Hillsborough, Carrboro and Chapel Hill. To provide one outreach mailing to all households in the program. To collect at least 160 tons per month of newspaper, glass bottles, and aluminum cans from single - family residential waste stream. 14 W f 1� 1 � I r M r r r r r r M EXPENDITURES OPERATIONS T_..._ -i r4. - 1 u:11 LANDFILL FUND PROJECTED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES 1991 -92 - 1996 -97 1991.92 1992 -93 1993 -94 1994 -95 1995 -96 1996 -97 Recommended Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Personnel Services (a) 317,100 322,950 349,600 367,100 385,400 404,700 Operations (b) 543,400 550,000 605,000 665,500 652,300 717,500 Capital Outlay Equipment Purchases 15,500 20,000 380,000 390,500 1,129,500 0 Equipment Reserve (c) 350,400 350,400 350,400 350,400 350,400 350,400 Land Reserve 160,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 Liner Reserve 550,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 Cap /Liner InstalLation(d) 0 0 1,700,000 0 1,500,000 subtotal 1,075,900 980,400 3,040,400 1,350,900 3,589,900 960,400 RECYCLING(e) 646,000 680,000 748,000 822,800 905,100 995,600 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,582,400 2,533,350 4,743,000 3,206,300 5,532,700 3,078,200 REVENUES Fees Ash(f) 308,000 400,000 460,000 500,000 520,000 540,000 Other 1,818,600 1,955,000 2,076,000 2,112,000 2,148,000 2,300,000 Recycling 26,900 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 Interest i Other 145,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 Fund Balance(g) 300,000 0 2,000,000 390,500 2,629,500 0 TOTAL REVENUES 2,598,500 2,555,000 4,736,000 3,202,500 5,497,500 3,040,000 SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 16,100 - 21,650 7,000 3,800 35,200 38,200 Projected Tonnage 100,000 105,000 109,500 113,000 115,000 119,000 Tipping Fee 21.00 23.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 25.00 z5 118 _.AIL- 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date June 1991 SUBJECT: PINEY MOUNTAIN, PHASE II - AMENDED ACTION BY: July 18, 1991 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): Resolution of Approval Application Vicinity Map Amended Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plan Certification Letter from Applicant Agency Comments 5/20/91 Draft Planning Board Minutes Action Agenda Item # yz:r -13 PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron Extension 2580 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967- 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of the amended Preliminary Plan for Phase Two of Piney Mountain, a cluster subdivision. BACKGROUND: The property is located on the northeast side of Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718) approximately one half mile west of the Orange /Durham County line. The tract is zoned Rural Buffer and designated as Rural Residential on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. It is bordered on the east side by Piney Mountain Creek, and on the north by Duke Forest. Other adjacent land is either residential or undeveloped. The preliminary plan for Piney Mountain was approved by the Board of Commissioners on November 2, 1987. Phase One was approved in 1988 and included 24 lots. Phase Two was approved in April 1989 for 35 lots served-by public roads and by a community low pressure system for sewage disposal. The applicant is now requesting approval of an amendment to Phase Two which involves relocating one lot and adding additional area for nitrification field. Lot 45 will be relocated from its current position south of lot 44 about 500 feet southwest to the west side of lot 46. Orange County currently owns the portion of the stub out at Twin Pines Lane from the cul de sac to the western corner of lot 46. This ownership is on behalf of the public and without 2 r maintenance responsibility. The applicant will dedicate an additional 150 feet of right -of -way to the public to extend the stub out of Twin Pines Lane. Rather than rebuild the cul de sac 140 feet to the west to provide access for one lot, the applicant has requested that the County allow lot 45 to have a driveway within the stub out (public right -of -way) to access the existing cul de sac on Twin Pines Lane. The County would need to graant an easement for the driveway, again, with no maintenance responsibility. In the event the adjacent property to the west is developed, the stub out would be constructed to NCDOT standards by the developer. The area vacated by lot 45 will be added to the existing Phase Two nitrification field at the northwest corner of Twin Pines Lane and Taproot Lane. An additional six acres to the west will also be designated for nitrification field and buffers. This area will be owned and maintained by the utility company which operates the community sewage disposal system. The need for additional sewage treatment area is the result of two factors: 1. The nitrification fields are all wooded. This makes it difficult to efficiently use the entire field for sewage treatment, since lines must be installed to go around large trees. and 2. The NC Department of Health, Environment and Natural Resources adopted new buffer require- ments around low pressure nitrification fields, resulting in a larger gross field area required. Portions of the revised nitrification field have been previously permitted by the NC Division of Environmental Management. The engineering drawings for the remainder of the treatment area have been prepared and will soon be submitted to DEM for review and approval. Comments from the County Engineer are included in the attachments. His review confirmed that the need for additional field area is not unusual and that the utility contractor operating the system is reputable. The proposed amendment for Phase Two is in compliance with the standards of Section IV -B -10 of the Subdivi- sion Regulations pertaining to cluster developments. The total area required for sewage disposal is limited to fifty percent of the total open space preserved in Piney Mountain. Restrictive Covenants and Homeowners Association documents recorded with Phase One also apply to Phase Two including the proposed amendment. The Planning Board recommended approval of the amended Preliminary Plan for Phase Two of Piney Mountain on May 20, 1991. The Planning Board directed Staff to determine whether the monitoring well(s) are approved by the NC Division of Environmental Management or the Orange County Health Department. Since DEM is the agency which issues the permit for a monitoring well, the Resolution Approval was revised accordingly. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the amendment to the Preliminary Plat of Phase Two of Piney Mountain Subdivision subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. 4 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date: June 3 1991 Name of Subdivision: Piney Mountain - Phase Two Amended Owner /Applicant: Mark O'Neal for Piney Mountainj a NC General Partnership The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the amendment to Phase Two of Piney Mountain Subdivision preliminary plat, dated March 18, 1991 and containing 35 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. The right -of -way for the stub -out of Twin Pines Lane shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general public. The approval of this resolution authorizes and directs the Orange County Manager to accept for Orange County and on behalf of the public generally, the offer of dedication of the right -of -way for the stub -out of Twin Pines Lane. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of the right -of -way for the stub -out of Twin Pines Lane shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be maintained by the owner /applicant until such time as they are accepted for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. Before the Final Plat of amendment to Phase Two of Piney Mountain can be recorded: A. Sewage Disposal 1. The community low pressure system for sewage disposal shall be approved by the State Division of Environmental Management. 2. Obtain approval of the monitoring well(s) from the State Division of Environmental Management. 3. Lot Q is of restricted development potential because the lot is reserved for utility purposes. The restricted lot shall be identified in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 4. Submit an engineer's estimate for the cost of construction of the sewage disposal system and monitoring well(s). 5. Revise the current letter of credit, or obtain an additional financial guarantee for 110% of the estimate for installation of the community low pressure sewage disposal system and i 5 monitoring well(s). 6. Submit deed for property to be transferred to North State Utilities for review and approval by County Attorney. Include in the deed or in a separate document the greenway easement granted to the Piney Mountain Homeowners Association. B. Roads and Access 1. Label the stub -out "dedicated for public use ". 2. The intent for future extension of Twin Pines Lane shall be indicated on the Final Plat by the words "Subject to Future Extension ". 3. Driveway access only for lot 45 will be allowed within the stub -out of Twin Pines Lane dedicated to the public and accepted by Orange County. Orange County will provide an easement document for the purpose of granting access to lot 45. The easement document shall be recorded with the approved Final Plat. 4. At such time as the right -of -way for Twin Pines Lane is extended for further development, the entire road must be built to the standards of the NC Department of Transportation. 5. Provide a deed to Orange County for the stub -out at Twin Pines Lane. C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 1. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. D. Drainage 1. Indicate a 30 -foot drainage easement along the swale across the northern end of lot 45. If an Erosion Control Plan is required, locate any additional drainage easements shown on the plan. E. Miscellaneous 1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section V -D -2 and V -D -3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 2. The following easements shall be shown on the plat: 6 a. 50' community greenways across Lot Q; and b. 30' drainage easement across the northern end of lot 45. 3. A setback of 30 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right -of -way of Twin Pines Lane. Side yards shall be a minimum of 10 feet, and rear yards a minimum of 10 feet except on exterior boundaries of the subdivision where the setback shall be 20 feet. These setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. F. Certifications 1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. 2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section V -D -6 -b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. Acceptance of the public right -of -way dedication without maintenance responsibility signed by the County Manager. 4. Certification by the County Manager that the required improvements have been installed and approved OR that an approved financial guarantee has been posted with the County to insure completion of all improvements within 12 months. 5. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. Signature of Applicant Clerk to the Board I, , accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN AeeHUVAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION 2/90 ORANGE COUNTY 7 DATE: 3/18/91 PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) SUBDIVISION NAME: Piney Mountain - Phase II Revised LOCATION: Chapel Hill Tbwnship off Mt. Sinia Road OWNER/ DEVELOPER: Mark N. O'Neal - Partner in Piney Mountain Partnership ADDRESS: Route 3, Box Zero TELEPHONE NO.: ( 919) 477 -5585 Rau errant, N.C. 27572 919)740 -3435 AGENT /CONTACT; Mark O'Neal TELEPHONE NO.: (919)477-5585- 7.6..32 A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: 7.6..33 orange County Tax Map Block Lot(s) 7.15..18 Township Chapel Hill Zoning District(s); Ra-a-T buffer 5..3 Total Number of Acres: Phases: II revis6d Total Number of Lots: 36 Average Lot Size: 2 AC Minimum Lot. Size: 1 AC Number /Type of Structures: (existing) 6 homes (proposed) 36 homes Lineal Feet in Streets: * Acres in open Space:8.03 new 27.56 old 'Total: 35.59 water Supply: Public (specify) Community Individual Wastewater Disposal: Public (specify) t Community Individual School District: range Fire District: Eno General Land Uses in Area- Residential Critical Areas: stream /drainageways flood prone areas watershed (specify) historic sites other (explain) protected as conrunity greengRace is the property to be subdivided currently under "farm use value taxation "? Yes_ No1�. If "yes ", please contact the Orange County Tax Office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under "farm use value taxation ". B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two - hundred feet (1" =200') and no larger than one inch equals twenty feet (1 " =20') and must contain the following information: a. ry subdivision name V zoning of tract and adjacent properties v name & address of owners) �i building setback lines by notation or typical lo: name & address of subdivider layout Q) ;: (if other than owner) location and width of existing and proposed E r... (. name of surveyor, engineer, :... easements (drainage, utilities, roads, etc.) Q� W +-' �+ ;: landscape architect or architect,„; existing, proposed and adjoining rights -of -way address, registration N and seal _ - -: including dimensions end street names and state Q '': (title) Preliminary Plan =. road numbers. Lineal feet of road centerlines and scale, north arrrow = approximate acreage of new street rights -of -way utilities, including type, R+ '... date (including revision dates):`• existing and proposed s, -:: 0 tI township, tex map -block -lot = - sizes, hydrants, valves, manholes 'ti :? references existing and proposed curbs, gutters and culverts, U b '`J'f's: Parent Parcel Identification if Uk including sizes and grades of alleys, sidewalks, bike lanes, U = deed book and page p of property :A location and width - to be subdivided transit systems, and bus stops (please complete reverse side) *REFERENCE RECORDED PHASE II PLAT AND /OR ORIGINAL PHASE II PRELIMINARY PLAN. r~ fi G to U E •� mw 4-.1 LI-4 4J 4-4 v � v E N G M U .k N U `ti v ro U Lr boundary described with bearings and distances total acreage of the tract and acreage of lots, including and excluding area within rights -of -way control corner proposed lot lines with dimensions Lot & block numbers phasing lines topography at ten foot (10) intervals water bodies, streams, floodway and floodpLains stream buffers Location and size of parcels dedicated for public use, recreational use or reserved in common, with purpose noted `' impervious surface data (if located in /`A water supply watershed) vicinity map showing general location of subdivision with streets and roads identified by State road number and name C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Twenty -five (25) copies of the preliminary plat. typical street cross- sections and intersection 8 details including design and width of travelway and shoulders horizontal alignment and general curve data (public roads) centerline radius on all proposed streets permanent features such as buildings, cemeteries, historic landmarks adjoining lot layout names of adjoining property owners. If subdivided, subdivision plat name, plat book & page number, and perimeter Lot numbers. Landscaping and buffer requirements township, corporate and extra - territorial planning jurisdiction lines which cross the property Location and size of lots of restricted development potential and notation on plat regarding same stormwater detention and /or retention sites and undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes (if Located in water supply watershed) *REFERENCE REC RDED PHASE II PLAT AND /OR ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY PLAN. 2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tax map (with tax parcels involved clearLy marked in penciL). 3. , Where municipal or OWASA sewer is.not available, a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health Department soils analysis approval /denial for each lot shown thereon. 4. Where a private road is proposed a written statement by the applicant or his /her authorized representative which sets forth the justification for a private road (see Section IV- 8-3 -d -1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations). 5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Section VI of this Ordinance which assure completion and /or maintenance of improvements required by this ordinance. Such documents may include, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement, and articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants pertaining to a homeowner's association. These documents may be required as necessary as evidence that the ordinance requirements are being met. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. I understand that a 5105.00 fee (subdivisions of 1 -5 lots), S210.00 fee (subdivisions of 6-9 lots), 5315.00 fee (subdivisions of 10-25 Lots) or a 5420.00 fee (subdivisions of 26 lots or more) is due at the time of application. A 55.00 per lot fee is due at the time the final plat is press for recordation, A9,-v Q 5 I Al N� APPLICANT'S SIGNATUR WNER'S SIGNATURE 3 � DATE DATE FEES Amount 3 �5` • 00 Date Paid 3 - - - Receipt P a a P I !l1 EY M OUNTA I M _ 9 . 'ice.: 4v- • :•�+: ...c._ -. - - .�.� _ -IT =S = i'...c•' �' w A P P LI CdJUT : P I kl e %( H TN . �k. : -.. 9< - eP� . z = - �` - PA Iz r&I Eels 141 P ral �.... 6zlT j_ • °�.s... ,.....,,E,.v -• - - -- �g `� `�6'a �YsF '� 5 alp `i.•: _ SF ,- -� - -- -i NsC 6 s°w7��a .�• 5a265S 3069 \� F 2s SS 92 On� g740 p73 h rs 78 51769 !,t A? `} Sp OPEN x4,58 a L ® 5PaCE r r 2T c 7 41 0 ,13 9 / 63,6 �' \5 as r548rq 5p ,AA 27 132 d �IN / r p03 IG 71 �s 3a F 90 s� sc 52 w / B IF 87 = B4 9M3 v, ug1 7234 '/ / 0 F 4.e 95 Iii � 4.59 a /r I AC 4.69 AC • 5.193 ow6 5A,q sr 23 9 t 5\ I 5120 F a6 213 / . � IC 709 B7,72B5 Q � 2�' D. . SAC. ~ P '41 g83 595 /J 5.17 2 ¢I to m t rOr 2 AC P TS" D 0825 74 rum a ^R ° - N 4, m M 5 01 P REC. 7446 O 1D +T a 69 116,4795E ru A °� 1 U r • 52 AREA �p IM 0760 16 •° `y� 953 7.6..92 /0 4.74 AC. •9524 re Zr p518 3A 46,5E Sf I F 14 24. AC. \ °6 • 3 g 51 P3 ° yZ y � 6509 9366 . ® \ \5 A A, 50 SrS o \ 273,5.36. 64 \Z6 G+ 5 7123 9202 ° \ ` SF g� by 0 a2 r3 43 31 F 5.9, 5065 r' rs r Z 0 F�/ • pzy A 2�f 3�e 171 5ZO44 725 a SF 4 �M� O�G 9035 e. f gSi6yBSF d6r Y 4 707�F 5AC. �� 5 rj i6 4 ,9 a7 7001 tigJ� I K l ' • 1 r o y69 q\ rY % 78 js ° 2.pq /YQp /R �J 29 O \6� • \`� 5 5,23 0, 43,817 --IAC F RD C� • 1709 7 66p2 AO �7 \,8�� SF rIF F �/? e76e B,I 36 d7,39 45 A6 O 20 1 cT „�Sez 5p9 768 2- i1 /RF /B AC. O� ag6 5qg 5 3 s pgF 95F Sp,7D5 e500 �4+\ Q 50, 5 38 .3663 F r A c � 3-I •\'�5 y5,d995650 10.75 AC.CAL 65,5 �6a 55 _ \\�Z51NA1 B,PrISr cNURCp 1. \: 17719 H,& 11 AtoT To S CAA LF, / SEE MAP 156 i BEECH BLUFF / BEECHBLUFF 10 PINEY MOUNTAIN - PHASE TWO AMENDED 11/85 ORANGE COUNTY CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS = PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Emily Cameron CONCEPT PLAN: Received PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed Reviewed REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 4/1/91 Reviewed NCDOT: DATE: 4/10/91 CERTIFICATION: E.M. Cowan, District Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange /Chapel Hill - Carrboro): DATE: CERTIFICATION: UTILITIES (OWASA /Hillsborough /Mebane /Orange Alamance /Durham): DATE: CERTIFICATION: OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council Carrboro Fire Department Chapel Hill Carrboro Hillsborough Durham Other - DEM - Co. Engineer - Erosion Control (Date) (Date) D. Moseley 4130/91 (Date) W. Burgess 5/14/91 (Date) (Date) (Date) A.Mouberry 4/29/91 (Date) P. Thames 4/5/91 (Date) W. Faircloth _4130/91 (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date: 5/20/91 Approval Approval with Condition(s) Xx Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date: Approval Approval with Conditions) Denial 11 R D PINEY MOUNTAIN ROUTE 3, BOX ZERO ROUGEMONT, NORTH CAROLINA 27572 April 1, 1991 Ms. Emily Cameron Orange County Planning Department 306 -F Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Piney Mountain - Phase 11 Revision Dear Ms. Cameron: Because of my heavy involvement with the Orange County Rural Character Committee, T am aware of the sensitivity surrounding alternative sewer systems and the possible concern over Piney Mountain's latest preliminary plan revision of Phase II. Therefore, a brief review of the Piney Mountain concept and the Phase II revision may be helpful to the planning review process. Piney Mountain is a cluster subdivision located on Mt. Sinai Road in the Rural Buffer. Each homesite is a minimum of one acre, leaving over 60 acres of community greenspace. North State Utility owns and operates a community LPP septic system located within this greenspace. As a public utility, North. State is under the control and supervision of the North Carolina Public Utilities Commission and the Division of Environmental Management. For this service, North State earns a regulated rate of $18 /month which pays for the on -going maintenance of the system. The system operates under a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued to serve 59 Piney Mountain homesites. The Phase H preliminary plan revision relocates lot 45 and expands the amount of existing field area to treat effluent. Our need to expand our total septic treatment area results from two sources. First, most of our treatment area is wooded and therefore introduces an element of construction inefficiency as lines weave between the large trees. Thus, the total linear feet of line required by permit could 12 Ms. Emily Cameron April 1, 1991 Page 2 not be properly installed. The solution to this problem is to provide additional treatment area. Secondly, in requesting state approval for additional treatment area, we now fall under the new state guidelines which require additional linear footage per homesite as well as additional buffering around each field. Again, this results in the need for additional treatment area to meet the new state guidelines. The revisions to Phase II are designed to meet these requirements. In summary, Piney Mountain was created to serve as a model for quality development in Orange County. Our insistence on quality includes proper installation of our septic system. The Phase II revision represents additional conservatism being built into the system. We want Piney Mountain to always remain a .standard for quality development. After all, it is our homeplace! Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mark N. O'Neal Managing Partner 13Iftiln[•7 0 13 State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Raleigh Regional Office James G. Martin, Governor Edmond John Maguire William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Regional Manager D ;VISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT April 29, 1991 o F1'(�IU7FU Ms. Emily Cameron Orange County Planning Department 306 F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Agency Review - DEM Piney Mountain - Phase 2 Dear Ms. Cameron: Tony Withers of Withers Ravenel is in the process of upgrading the plans for the waste disposal system. The disposal area is to be on the newly acquired position of the property. These plans will be submitted to our office for review and permitting in the near future. No setback is shown for the Knut Schmidt property. The developer is in the process of acquiring this track. All other buffers and layout appear satisfactory at this time. If you have any questions, please contact Karl Shaffer at (919) 733 -2314. Sincerely, Arthur Mouberry, P.E. Regional Supervisor AM:KS:bas 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101 • Raleigh, N.C. 27609 Telephone (919) 733 -2314 • FAX Number (919) 733 -7072 An Equal Qpportuniry Affirmarive Acrion Employer 14 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM =j s TO: Emily Cameron, ASLA Planner II FROM: Paul K. Thames, County Engineer DATE: April 5, 1991 SUBJECT: Piney Mountain I have reviewed the site plan.and letter from the developer that you have submitted to me for the above referenced subdivision. I have no past experience with this development and I cannot make any comment based on past reviews. However. I do know Dennis.Osborne and North State Utilities and I can say that the individual and the company have a top notch reputation for expertise in the design, operation and maintenance of community size alternative (low pressure) waste treatment systems. In terms of the statements contained in the developer's letter. I do know that DEM has increased requirements for the extent of buffers around installations of low pressure line nitrification fields as the developer stated. I also know that it is very difficult to predict the final size, in terms of gross area. for a nitrification field when the field is not level. relatively even in terms of surface depressions. or contains large trees. The nitrification lines must often be distended around the trees, which results in an area, resembling a bulge, that cannot be counted in the net treatment area. The losses in the net field area are very difficult to predict prior to construction. The end result of routing lines around trees and irregularities in the land surface is an increase in the gross area of the nitrification field, while the net treatment area in the field remains the same. The developer's statement that the state has increased the length of nitrification or low pressure line required per household makes absolutely no sense to me. Generally, the line length is determined by the waste load to the system and the application rate to the land area. The waste loading rates are generally specified by DEM regulations which set a typical loading rate of 120 gallons per day per bedroom in the houses served by the system. K 15 !—� 7:7-1 An example for determining the net size of a nitrification field and length of line required by a treatment system would be as follows: A subdivision has 100 three bedroom houses; its nitrification field has a waste loading capacity of 0.10 gallons per square foot per day. The total waste load to the treatment system would be 100 houses x 3 bedrooms x 120 gallons per day per bedroom = 36,000 gallons per day total waste load. The size of the field is determined by calculating 36,000 d = 360.000 square feet of net 0.10 gpd per square foot nitrification field application rate treatment area The length of line required would be determined by calculating 360,000 sf 72,000 linear feet of 5 sf of field treated low pressure line by one linear foot of low pressure line The calculations shown above give only the net size of a nitrification field and the length of low pressure line to be used in that field. The gross size of the nitrification field is increased by requirements for a 100 percent repair area and buffers, and by encountering areas within the interior of the field that are unusable because of the need to avoid trees or other surface problems. If I may answer any other questions, please advise. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 16 306F REVERE ROAD , HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 „ 11, NA, [eI ;nil i I bill LTA TO: Emily Cameron, current Planning FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Piney Mountain, Phase 2 Revised DATE: April 30, 1991 I see no problems with this proposal. If the amount of disturbance for installing the filter field will exceed 20,000 square feet, then an erosion control plan must be submitted and approved before work begins. Regardless of the amount disturbed, the owner must take all reasonable measures to keep sediment on -site and permanently stabilize all disturbed areas. IN($ W1 FA Post office Box 8181 Carrboro/Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Durham 688 -7331 Hillsborough 732 -8181 Mebane 227 -2031 FAX 919 -644 -3002 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516 April 30, 1991 Ms. Emily C. Cameron, ASLA Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 17 Telephone (919) 968 -2700 Re: Courtesy review - Piney Mountain Phase 2 Revised - Preliminary Plan Dear Ms. Cameron: Thank you for providing an opportunity for the Chapel Hill Planning Department to review and comment on the Revised Preliminary Plan for Phase 2 of the Piney Mountain major subdivision. The only comment we have is that Lot 45 does not seem to have frontage on an improved street. Perhaps the Twin Pine Lane cul- de-sac could be extended to provide access from an improved street. Sincerely, De,, Dan Moseley Planner cc: J.B. Culpepper, Development Coordinator [arriboro N.C. May 14, 1991 -7J,r r r—1 � IU Ms. Emily Cameron, ASLA Orange County Planning department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Piney Mountain Courtesy Review Dear Ms. Cameron: 18 P.O. Box 337 301 West Main Street Carrbo,o. North Carolina 27510 (9191968.7700 (9191942 -8541 The Town of Carrboro Planning Department has received and reviewed the revised Phase 2 plan for Piney Mountain. As I mentioned to you during our telephone conversation on May 13th, we did not have any comments on this proposed revision. I apologize for the delay and if you should have any questions or require any further information please do not hesitate to call me at 9678 -7712. Since ely, ot C. 9VVV Willa C. Burgess az`� Zoning Development Specialist /wcb z 6 mmQ-ff 7 The property is located on the south side of Dairyland Road (SR 1177) approximately 800 feet west of the intersection with Dodsons Crossroads (SR 1102). The property is zoned Residential -1; the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan designates it as Rural Residential. Adjacent land uses are residential. The total acreage of the tract is 4.063 acres. Four (4) lots are proposed which will access Dairyland Road by Roy Road, to be upgraded to a public road. The lots will have individual wells and septic tanks. Access will be restricted to Roy Road. The Concept Plan for Garden View was approved by the Planning Board on August 19, 1990, with a public road built to State standards. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Garden View Subdivision with a public road built to State standards and subject to the Resolution of Approval (a copy an attachment to these minutes on pages ). MOTION: Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Boland. VOTE: Unanimous. (2) Piney Mountain, Phase II - Amended (35 lots - Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Emily Cameron. The property is located on the northeast side of Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718) approximately one half mile west of the Orange /Durham County line. The tract is zoned Rural Buffer and designated as Rural Residential on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. It is bordered on the east side by Piney Mountain Creek, and on the north by Duke Forest. Other adjacent land is either residential or undeveloped. The preliminary plan for Piney Mountain was approved by the Board of Commissioners on November 2, 1987. Phase One was approved in 1988 and included 24 lots. Phase Two was approved in April 1989 for 35 lots served by DG�pf�4 public roads and by a community low pressure system for sewage disposal. The applicant is now requesting approval of an amendment to Phase Two which involves relocating one lot and adding additional area for nitrification field. Lot 45 will be relocated from its current position south of lot 44 about 500 feet southwest to the west side of lot 46. Orange County currently owns the portion of the stub out at Twin Pines Lane from the cul -de -sac to the western corner of lot 46. This ownership is on behalf of the public and without maintenance responsibility. The applicant will dedicate an additional 150 feet of right -of -way to the public to extend the stub out of Twin Pines Lane. Rather than rebuild the cul -de -sac 140 feet to the west to provide access for one lot, the applicant has requested that the County allow lot 45 to have a driveway within the stub out (public right -of -way) to access the existing cul -de -sac on Twin Pines Lane. Again, the County has no maintenance responsibility for the stub out. In the event the adjacent property to the west is developed, the stub out would be constructed to NCDOT standards by the developer. The area vacated by lot 45 will be added to the existing Phase Two nitrification field at the northwest corner of Twin Pines Lane and Taproot Lane. An additional six acres to the west will also be designated for nitrification field and buffers. This area will be owned and maintained by the utility company which operates the community sewage disposal system. The.-need for additional sewage treatment area is the result of two factors: 1. The nitrification fields are all wooded. This makes it difficult to efficiently use the entire field for sewage treatment, since lines must be installed to go around large trees. 2. The NC Department of Health, Environment and Natural Resources adopted new buffer requirements around low pressure nitrification fields, resulting in a M M.� ��.v . 21 larger gross field area required. Portions of the revised nitrification field have been previously permitted by the NC Division of Environmental Management. The engineering drawings for the remainder of the treatment area have been prepared and will- soon be submitted to DEM for review and approval. The proposed amendment for Phase Two is in compliance with the standards of Section Iv- B-10 of the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to cluster developments. The total area required for sewage disposal is limited to fifty percent of the total open space preserved in Piney Mountain. Restrictive Covenants and Homeowners Association documents recorded with Phase One also apply to Phase Two including the proposed amendment. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Preliminary Plat of Phase Two of Piney Mountain Subdivision subject to the conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval (a copy is an attachment to these minutes on pages ). Mark O'Neal, developer, stated in reference to A (2) of the Resolution, that the permits for the monitoring wells would be issued by the State rather than the County Health Department. Cameron responded that this question could be verified prior to the Board of Commissioners meeting. She noted that A (2) could be changed to read: Obtain approval of the monitoring well(s) from the Orange County Health Department Divison of Environmental Health or State Division of Water Quality. ,MOTION: Burklin moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff with the additional wording as noted by Cameron. Seconded by Boland. VOTE: Unanimous. c. Final Plats (1) Habitat for Humanity (Letter of Credit Release) Presentation by Emily Cameron. A.t__ O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3, 1991 Action Agenda Item ## UKL__�. SUBJECT: GARDEN VIEW - PRELIMINARY PLAN (formerly "CK Properties") ACTION BY: July 18, 1991 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): Resolution of Approval Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan Certification Agency Comments 5/20/91 Draft Planning Board Minutes PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X —No INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron Extension 2580 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Garden View Subdivision, formerly called CK Properties. BACKGROUND: The property is located in Bingham Township on the south side of Dairyland Road (SR 1177) approximately 800 feet west of the intersection with Dodsons Crossroads (SR 1102). The property is zoned Residential -1; the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan designates it as Rural Residential. Adjacent land uses are residential. The total acreage of the tract is 4.063 (4) 1 -acre lots are proposed which will Dairyland Road by Roy Road, an existing which will be upgraded to a public road have individual wells and septic tanks. restricted to Roy Road. acres. Four access private road The lots will Access is The Planning Board recommended approval for the Preliminary Plan of Garden View on May 20, 1991, with a public road built to State standards, and according to the Resolution of Approval included in the attachments. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Prelimi- nary Plan for Garden View Subdivision with a public road built to State standards and subject to the attached Resolution of Approval. w �A RESOLUTION �0_ M91 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COAINRSSIONERS Date June 3, 1991 Name of Subdivision Garden View Owner /Applicant C K Properties _ The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Garden View subdivision preliminary plat, dated February 20, 1991 and containing 4 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. All roads shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general public and be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The approval of this resolution authorizes and directs the Orange County Manager to accept for Orange County and on behalf of the public generally, the offer of dedication of Roy Road. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of Roy Road shall be without maintenance responsibility. The road shall be maintained by the applicants as well as the parties to the Road Maintenance Agreement recorded at Deed Book 596, Page 424, 424.1 until such time as it is accepted for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. Before the Final Plat of any phase of Garden View can be recorded: A. Sewage Disposal 1. Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for septic disposal, and repair area, approved by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health. 2. Disclosure that the septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements. This disclosure shall be included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall also disclose. that information regarding the tentative location of septic systems is available from the Orange County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health. 4( 3 B. Roads and Access 1. Roy Road shall be upgraded to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, within a 50 -foot right -of -way, and the construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT. [on A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure upgrading Roy Road to the standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a certified /licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the road improvements have been inspected and approved by NCDOT. 2. Submit an erosion control plan for review and approval prior to any disturbance. 3. Lots 1 -4 shall access onto Roy Road. All lots shall access onto the new subdivision roads. This restriction shall be stated in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 4. Approved street name signs shall be erected at the intersection of streets as required in Section IV- B- 3-c -12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Evidence shall be submitted by the applicant that the sign is in place or a copy of the receipt for purchase of the sign shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 5. The right -of -way along Dairyland Road must be cleared to meet NCDOT sight distance requirement. 6. Submit a document signed by the owner of Roy Road for the purpose of dedicating the right -of -way for public use. 7. The owner of Roy Road shall also sign a certification included in the Declaration of Restrictions stating that the right -of -way is dedicated to the public. L 4 C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 1. Revise the landscape plan to provide eight (S) trees within the side /rear setback of Lot 1. 2. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the approved landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department. NA The applicant shall secure landscape requirement installation and preservation through a letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond. An estimate of the cost for required preservation, plantings and their installation must be provided. The financial guarantee shall reflect 110% of the estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. 3. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 4. A Type A Land Use Buffer shall be provided along Dairyland Road. The buffer shall be 30 feet in width and provide sufficient vegetation to meet the standards of Section IV -B -$ -e of the Subdivision Regulations. Said buffer shall be so noted on the plat, and described in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. D. Parkland I. Cash in the amount of $566.00 (4/35 acre x $4959 /acre ) shall be paid to Orange County as payment in lieu of parkland dedication. E. Miscellaneous 1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section V -D -2 and V -D -3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 2. A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right -of -way of Roy Road. Side yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet, and rear yards a minimum of 20 feet. These setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. F. Certifications 1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. 2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section V -D -b-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. The Department of Environmental Health shall certify that each lot contains a suitable area for septic disposal. 4. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that Roy Road has been constructed to State standards or that construction plans have been approved. 5. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. Signature of Applicant Clerk to the Board I, , accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. ArrLIk.HI IL N r r .rn=i - Ii iI'%4e,r,1 L+r -lot MAJOR SUBQI %VISION 2/90 ORANGE COUNTY 6 PID f? r LL _ - 4 DATE: Z PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) SUBDIVISION NAME: at4_Z � U I LW LOCATION: �CrD,SGT \� S SS1Z0�D5 OWNER /DEVELOPER: ADDRESS: 107 314 Ciaof,_Tml.1, 451 TELEPHONE NO.: - %3Z`CeQS� AGENT/CONTACT:.�N 1 JLA!V��S _ l CSI - TELEPHONE NO.: —732. (_c ..�Z- A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: _ ` Orange County Tax Map ZO Block LOT(s) �� Township 1 N C, 1 \,4AT- Zoning District(s): Total Number of Acres: Q .0'1 _ Phases: I Total Number of Lots: 4 __ Average Lot size: i.UD Qc Minimum Lot Size: I.(fL Number /Type of Structures: (existing) _ '.SuN\ �_ (proposed) S1)461 - Line la Feet in Streets: �i� Acres in Open Space: Water Supply: _ Public (specify) Community Individual Wastewater Disposal: Public (specify) Community Individual School District: Fire District: General Land Uses in Area: eX4 M1A L_ Critical Areas: stream /drainageways flood prone areas watershed (specify) historic sites other (explain) Is the property to be subdivided currently under "farm use value taxation "? Yes— No_. If "yes ", please contact the Orange County Tax office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under "farm use value taxation ". B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two - hundred feet (1 " =2DO') and no larger a than one inch equals twenty feet (1" =201) and must contain the following information: O :# subdivision name V :` zoning of tract and adjacent properties "name & address of owner($) �L building setback lines by notation or typical lc: )4 & address of subdivider y U �/ .-I location and width of existing and proposed (if other than owner) engineer, Q7 w ti name of surveyor, landscape architect or architect, including dimensions and street names and state address, registration k and seal U O > (title) Preliminary Plan s.+ w m existing and proposed utilities, including type, scale, north arrrow sizes, hydrants, valves, manholes ..._.-s: f date (including revision dates) including sizes and grades township, tax map -block -lot location and width of alleys, sidewalks, bike lanes, references U •` ' Parent Parcel Identification !! C+ m V 4 T ':i��< deed book and page k of property to be subdivided (please complete reverse side) Layout location and width of existing and proposed easements (drainage, utilities, roads, etc.) ✓ ^1c �. ^^ existing, proposed and adjoining rights -of -way including dimensions and street names and state road numbers. Lineal feet of road centerlines and approximate acreage of new street rights -of -way existing and proposed utilities, including type, 7 sizes, hydrants, valves, manholes ..._.-s: f existing and proposed curbs, gutters and culverts, including sizes and grades location and width of alleys, sidewalks, bike lanes, transit systems, and bus stops (please complete reverse side) 1: V boundary described with bearings / and distances ✓ total acreage of The Tract and acreage of lots, including and / excluding area within rights-of-way V control corner proposed lot lines with dimensions Lot Y block numbers phasing lines topography at ten foot (10) intervals U%M water bodies, streams, flooduay and floodplains "* stream buffers location and size of parcels dedicated for public use, recreational use or reserved in common, with purpose noted :i impervious surface date (if located in water supply watershed) vicinity map showing general location of subdivision with streets and roads identified by State road number and name C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS typical street cross - sections and intersection details including design and wieth of travelway and shoulders horizontal alignment and general curve data (public roads) centerline radius on all proposed streets permanent features such as buildings, cemeteries, historic landmarks ,. adjoining lot layout names of adjoining property owners. If subdivided, subdivision plat name, plat / book 8 page number, and perimeter lot numbers. landscaping and bu`fer requirements township, corporate and extra - territorial planning jurisdiction lines which cross the property Location and size of lots of restricted development potential and notation on plat regarding same stormwater detention and /or retention sites and undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes (if Located in water supply watershed) 1. Twenty -five (25) copies of the preliminary plat. 2. One full size copy of an orange County Tax map (with tax parcels involved clearly marked in pencil). 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health Department soils analysis approval /denial for each lot shown Thereon. 4. Where a private road is proposed a written statement by the applicant or his /her authorized representative which sets forth the justification for a private road (see Section IV- 6 -3 -d -1 of the orange County Subdivision Regulations). :. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Section VI of this Ordinance which assure completion and /or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may inclube, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement, and articles of incorporation and restrictive - covenants pertaining to a homeowner's association. These documents may be required as necessary as evidence that the ordinance requirements are being met. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. I understand that a 5105.00 fee (subdivisions of 1 -5 lots), 5210.0D fee (subdivisions of 6-9 lots), 5315.00 fee (subdivisions of 10-25 Lots) Or a $420.00 fee (subdivisions of 26 lots or more) is due at the time of application. A 55.D0 per lot fee is due at the time the final plat is resented for recordation. eta APPLICANT'S- -SIGN TORE OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE DATE FEES: Amount Date Paid L! A/ l I Receipt x Pau ptT- ?-.-r i fES - �erzvE� VIP-w $ = 7 otil t AJ C : C:ES ( peal TIA L. ( 12 417rL I C d T: L4Z2,{ C4.-;Z& LL 0 o' O O h m IJ i x,41 V,-`( L-dill 1177 ,tio 2.06AC 43 ' 1 2529 4645 � � 4 0699 ! E r 9.95 163 2 AC.. L v 17 2 n "^ r _ w v �i. iii n .. .2320 5.34A- �D12 6.527A C. a M���,� /i /, Oise, SEE A P 20A F4RMS) fl f ,r.,� r 25 2 - 9345r- us N ( AKA 'D IR O 52.74 AC. CA 7902 07 C21 I6G 1 16F 1 3.17 1 1 � A; -IA-4 A us N ( AKA 'D IR O 52.74 AC. CA 7902 07 C21 u GARDEN VIEW SUBDIVISION r1 11/85 ORANGE COUNTY CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS - PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Emily Cameron CONCEPT PLAN: Received 8/8Z90 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 3/11/91 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed 8/19/90 Reviewed Reviewed NCDOT: DATE: 3/15/91 CERTIFICATION: E.M. Cowan District Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange /Chapel Hill -- Carrboro): DATE: 31119.1 CERTIFICATION: N/A UTILITIES (OWASA /Hillsborough /Mebane /Orange Alamance /Durham): DATE: CERTIFICATION: OTHER: Soil & Water Environmental Health Erosion Control G. Hughes 3113.19.1 (Date) T. Konsler 3/11/91 (Date) K. Rosemond 3122/9.1 (Date) (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date: 5/20/91 Approval Approval with Condition(s) xx Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date: Approval Approval with Conditions) Denial JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR THOMAS J. HARRELSON SECRETARY ORANGE COUNTY �AIVty ARM STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION nraham, North Carolina 27253 -0766 March 15, 1991 Mrs. Emilv Cameron, ALSA Orange County Planning Department 3'06 -F Revere Road Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR- P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Subject: "Garden View" Subdivision off SR 1113 (Dairyland Road) Dear Mrs. Cameron: This is to advise that the subject preliminary plan has been reviewed by this office. Based upon this review, the preliminary plan is approved subject to the following: 1. R/W along SR 1113 shall be cleared to meet the 550' sight distance requirement. 2. Driveway permit will be required. 3. Any previously recorded plat shall be submitted to DOT for review and approval. This plat may require revisions if it does not meet DOT requirements or if the right -of -way was dedicated PRIVATE. If.you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. EMC /SPI /pi Yours very tru y, E. M. C w n, P. E. DISTRICT ENGINEER An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer t SOIL &WATER 11 CONS FRVATION Orange Soil and Water Conservation District 306 Revere Road • P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NG 27278 • Phone: 919 - 732 -8181 • Ext. 2750 ;. � v�- g March 13, 1991 �,. TO: Emily �C . Cameron, AS LA FROM: Gail Hughes, Soil Conservationist PROJECT NAME: Garden View Subdivision - Preliminary Plan According to the Orange County Soil Survey, the following soil is located on this site: - Georgeville silt loam (2 -6% slope) Septic tank absorption field - moderate limitations due to slow percolation Building site development - slight limitations GH:jw ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 12 t. HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Emily C. Cameron, Current Planning FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Proposed Garden View Subdivision DATE: April. 4, 1991 Upgrading Roy Road from private to public will require approval of an erosion control plan before work begins because the distur- bance will exceed 20,000 square feet. The applicant should consider if road construction can be con- fined to the existing right --of -way. A road to DOT standards will barely fit in a 50' ROW where cutting and filling are not re- quired; where additional grading is required the cut and fill slopes will extend beyond the ROW. There is some slope to this property, so I would expect that construction would extend beyond the ROW. Since the road must be centered in the ROW and the applicant owns only one side of the ROW, arrangements for con- struction easements on the west side should be made or a wider ROW provided. W,4111y /7j PA 1 13 as a second condition of approval. She continued that, if access is allowed, that a third condition be added to require a 30' pedestrian easement. MOTION: Hamilton moved approval with the condition as indicated by the Planning Staff and the 2 additional conditions as recommended. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. (2) Ruth Woods Baity (Spirit Ridge) (10 lots - Eno Township) Presentation by Mary Scearbo. The property is located on the northwest side of Palmer's Grove Church Road. The tract is zoned Agricultural Residential and designated Agricultural Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The total acreage of the tract is 11.85 acres. Ten (10) new lots are proposed with an average lot size of 1.08 acres. The lots all front on the subdivision road which is proposed to be public and constructed to State standards. Each lot will have an individual well and septic tank. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Concept Plan for Ruth Woods Baity (Spirit Ridge) with one condition: 1. Lots 1 and 10 shall receive access from the subdivision road. Burklin asked about the 50' right --of -way on lot 7. Scearbo responded that it was an existing easement for access to an adjacent estate division. MOTION: Burklin moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Preliminary Plats (39 lots) (1) Garden View (4 lots - Bingham township) Presentation by Emily Cameron. MOTION: WMEN DpG1Q4 14 The property is located on the south side of Dairyland Road (SR 1177) approximately 800 feet west of the intersection with Dodsons Crossroads (SR 1102). The property is zoned Residential -1; the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan designates it as Rural Residential. Adjacent land uses are residential. The total acreage of the tract is 4.063 acres. Four (4) lots are proposed which will access Dairyland Road by Roy Road, to be upgraded to a public road. The lots will have individual wells and septic tanks. Access will be restricted to Roy Road. The Concept Plan for Garden view was approved by the Planning Board on August 19, 1990, with a public road built to State standards. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Garden view Subdivision with a public road built to State standards and subject to the Resolution of Approval (a copy an attachment to these minutes on pages )• Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Boland. VOTE: Unanimous. (2) Piney Mountain, Phase II - P.mended (35 lots - Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Emily Cameron. The property is located on the northeast side of Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718) approximately one half mile west of the Orange /Durham County line. The tract is zoned Rural Buffer and designated as Rural Residential on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. It is bordered on the east side by Piney Mountain Creek, and on the north by Duke Forest. Other adjacent land is either residential or undeveloped. The preliminary plan for Piney Mountain was approved by the Board of Commissioners on November 2, 1987. Phase One was approved in 1988 and included 24 lots. Phase Two was approved in April 1989 for 35 lots served by Y T O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: _June 3 1991_ Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - LETTER OF CREDIT RELEASE DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes �X_No ATTACBMENT(S): Construction Estimate Village Bank Letter of Credit 5/20/91 Draft Planning Board Minutes 1 INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron Extension 2580 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To consider a request by the Planning Department for authorization to release a letter of credit submitted by Orange County Habitat for Humanity, Inc. if Community Development Block Grant funds are obtained. BACKGROUND: This item was discussed by the Commissioners on May 21, 1991, as part of the report presented by Tara Fikes, Housing and Community Development Director. Action on this request will carry out the decision made by the Board regarding the method of funding required improvements in Chestnut Oaks Subdivision. Habitat for Humanity has submitted its final plat application for the amended Phase Two of Chestnut Oaks Subdivision. The cost of required improvements in this phase (plus ten percent) is $80,410.00. Habitat proposes to use the $25,000 challenge grant awarded by the County last year to pay for a portion of the road construction and shared well installation. They have submitted a letter of credit from The Village Bank for the remainder, $55,410.00. Under normal circumstances, the County would not release funds from a letter of credit until a portion or all of the required improvements are installed and approved by the appropriate authority. However, the Planning Department would like to propose an alternative procedure for the Chestnut Oaks Subdivision. - ...,lk K In December 1990, the County received a preliminary award of $175,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the NC Department of Economic and Community Development. These funds have been earmarked for road construction in the Chestnut Oaks Subdivision. On May 21, Tara Fikes, Housing and Community Development Director, reported to the Board of Commissioners that the County can anticipate signing a final grant agreement with the State in June, and have the grant funds released by July 15, 1991. When the County has obtained the CDBG funds to be used for road construction, that money can be used to replace the letter of credit submitted by Habitat with their final plat application. This item was considered by the Planning Board on May 20, 1991. The Planning Board recommended that the Planning Department be authorized to release the letter of credit as requested. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Planning and Inspections Department be authorized to release the letter of credit submitted by Habitat for Humanity in the amount of $55,410.00 when the County obtains CDBG funding from the NC Department of Economic and Community Development in the amount of $175,000. i 1 4 Habitat for Humanity 15 March 1991 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for Letter of Credit /Bond Chestnut Oaks, Phase IIA 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. S. 9. Clearing and Grading 8" C.A.8.C, 2" 1 -2 30" RCP 30' FES Rip rap apron Erosion Control Seeding Private Well 3 range County NC Inc PO Box 3673 Chapel Hill NC 27515 UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL Lump sum $15,000 $15,000 4,500 sy 56.00 /sy 27,000 4.500 sy $4.50/Sy 20,500 25 If $35.00/If 900 2 each $700.00 1,400 1 ton 625.00 /ton 50 Lump sum 53,000 3,000 0.8 acres 54,000 /ac 3,200 1 each $2,500 2,500 wwwwwrrr Subtotal $73,100 Pius 10% of Subtotal 7,310 rrwwwwww TOTAL BOND REQUIRED $80,410 NOTES: 1. Landscaping requirements may be met with existing trees per approval of Orange County Planning Department. 2. This estimate has been prepared for the exclusive use of Habitat for Humanity of Orange County for their use In determining the amount of bond /letter of credit required for Phase IIA of Chestnut Oaks. Actual construction cost will vary. This is not a guarantee of the cost of construction of Infrastructure for the subject project. Prepared By: Kenon R. Blackwood. P.E. "Building Houses in Partnership with God's People in Need" Villoge The 4 Ban O F4, 15- 9l - " Past Office Box 2564- Chapel'HiN; North Carolina 27515 -2564' ` THE VILLAGE BANK CLEAN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT ISSUING BRANCH: Main ADDRESS: 77 S. Elliott Rd. Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 PHONE NUMBER: (919) 929- -0252 DATE OF ISSUE: April 15, 1991 CREDIT NUMBER 231 EXPIRATION DATE: DRAFT MUST BE PRESENTED April 15, 1992 BEFORE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THIS DATE) BENEFICIARY NAME AND ADDRESS: Orange County Hillsborough, NC APPLICANT NAME AND ADDRESS: Habitat for Humanity orange County NC, Inc MAXIMUM AMOUNT (in words): Fifty Five Thousand Four Hundred Ten & No /100 U.S. $55,410.00 . Gentlemen: We hereby establish our irrevocable clean Letter of Credit n 2-11 in your favor for the account of the above applicant to the extent of the face amount of this Letter of Credit which shall not exceed U.S. $55,410.00. We udertake to honor your drafts not excedding in the aggregate the amount of the Letter of Credit referenced above at sight on us at our office designated above. The total amount of this Letter of Credit is available from the date hereof against presentation of your sight draft (s) if presented to the issuing branch. It is agreed that the maximum amount of this Letter of Credit shall be reduced to $2,750.00 (to cover maximum cost of shared private well) once the County has received final approval of the $175,000.00 Community Development block Grant (CDBG) from the North Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development. Draft (s) drawn under this Letter of Credit must bear the clause: "Drawn under The Village Bank's main branch irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 231 _ , dated April 15, 1991.11 Partial drawings are permitted hereunder. All amounts drawn hereunder must be endorsed on the reverse hereof by the negotiating party. Kroger Plaza Cole Park Plaza 113 N. Columbia W. Main, Carrboro . South Square, Durham . Northgate Mau. Durham 929.0252 942 -0966 929 -1734 968 -0167 493.0059 .286 -5888 1 ,Y J 5 Except as otherwise expressly stated herin, this Letter of Credit is subject to the "Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credit" (International Chamber of Commerce Brochure No. 290, 1974 version). Cordially, The Village Bank By Tim Stratton Assistant Vice President mma ff-Y s larger gross field area required. Portions of the revised nitrification field have been previously permitted by the NC Division of Environmental Management. The engineering drawings for the remainder of the treatment area have been prepared and will soon be submitted to DEM for review and approval. The proposed amendment for Phase Two is in compliance with the standards of Section IV- B-10 of the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to cluster developments. The total area required for sewage disposal is limited to fifty percent of the total open space preserved in Piney Mountain. Restrictive Covenants and Homeowners Association documents recorded with Phase One also apply to Phase Two including the proposed amendment. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Preliminary Plat of Phase Two of Piney Mountain Subdivision subject to the conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval (a copy is an attachment to these minutes on pages ). Mark O'Neal, developer, stated in reference to A (2) of the Resolution, that the permits for the monitoring wells would be issued by the State rather than the County Health Department. Cameron responded that this question could be verified prior to the Board of Commissioners meeting. She noted that A (2) could be changed to read: Obtain approval of the monitoring well(s) from the Orange County Health Department Divison of Environmental Health or State Division of Water Quality. MOTION: Burklin moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff with the additional, wording as noted by Cameron. Seconded by Boland. VOTE: Unanimous. c. Final Plats 10 (1) Habitat for Humanity (Letter of Credit Release) Presentation by Emily Cameron. M@ � FV - 7 This item is to consider a request by the Planning Department for authorization to release a letter of credit submitted by Orange County Habitat for Humanity, Inc. if Community Development Block Grant funds are obtained. Habitat for Humanity has submitted its final plat application for the amended Phase Two of Chestnut Oaks Subdivision. The cost of required improvements in this phase (plus ten percent) is $80,410.00. Habitat proposes to use the $25,000.00 challenge grant awarded by the County last year to pay for a portion of the road construction and shared will installation. They have submitted a letter of credit from The Village Bank for the remainder, $55,410.00. Under normal circumstances, the County would not release funds from a letter of credit until a portion or all of the required improvements are installed and approved by the appropriate authority. However, the Planning Department would like to propose an alternative procedure for the Chestnut Oaks Subdivision. In Decemer 1990, the County received a preliminary award of $175,000.00 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the NC Department of Economic and Community Development. These funds have been earmarked for road construction in the Chestnut Oaks Subdivision. According to the Orange County Housing and Community Development Department, the County can anticipate signing a final grant agreement with the State in June, and have the funds released by July 15, 1991. when the County has obtained the CDBG funds to be used for road construction, that money can be used to replace the letter of credit submitted by Habitat with their final plat application. The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning and Inspections Department be authorized to release the letter of credit submitted by Habitat for Humanity in the amount of $55,410.00 when the County obtains CDBG funding from the NC Department of © 1J U Ln.1 8 Economic Community Development in the amount of $175,000.00. MOTION: Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Burklin. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLID HEARING (5/28/91) a. Zoning Atlas Amendments (1) Z -1 -91 James R. Sparrow (2) Z -2 -91 W. E. Blackwood b. New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Hamilton noted that one of the issues that will be emphasized in the report is that it is more appropriate for the wildlife corridors to be in private ownership. C. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Article 22 - Definitions (Large Day Care Homes) (2) Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table (Large Day Care Homes) (3) Article 6.27 - Application of Dimensional Requirements (Large Day Care Homes) (4) Article 14 - Site Plan Approval Procedures (Large Day Care Homes) Scearbo informed the Board that concerns regarding the private road had been discussed with the County Attorney. She noted that he felt there could be an equity issue because of the way maintenance responsibilities of private roads is distributed. She indicated that the Planning Department may change its recommendation to require that larege day care homes be on public roads rather than private roads. If the applicant desired a private rather than public road, there would be the option for the public hearing process. d. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Section III -D -2 - Action Subsequent to Approval (Preliminary Plats) Eidenier reminded members of the public hearing procedures. She noted that, once the items are referred to the Planning Board for recommendation I S` 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3, 1991 SUBJECT: CONTRACT APPROVAL; INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SRVS. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO:XX ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM -JONES EXT 2650 PROPOSED CONTRACT Telephone Number - Hillsborough --732 -8181 Chapel Hill -967 -9251 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham -688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider an agreement among the University, the County, the Town of Carrboro and the Town of Chapel Hill to conduct an Independence Day Celebration at Kenan Stadium on July 4, 1991. BACKGROUND: In the past, the Town of Carrboro has sponsored a fireworks display on July 4. The event has outgrown facility in Carrboro and therefore is being moved to Kenan Stadium with proposed co- sponsorship among the County, the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill and the University. Highlights of the proposed attached agreement among the sponsors include the following: The University will allow the use of Kenan Stadium for the event. The University will allow free parking in designated areas of the Bell Tower Parking Lot. The County and the Towns will jointly hire a licensed pyrotechnic firm to conduct the display. Each local government will pay one -third (1/3) of the cost, not to exceed $3,000. Operation plans will be developed by representatives from the University, the County and the Towns, with the lead responsibly to be assumed by the University. Format of the program will be determined by the Chancellor, Chair to the Board of Commissioners and Mayors of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. RECOMMENDATION: Manager recommends approval of the proposed agreement among the University, the County, the Town of Carrboro and the Town of Chapel Hill; and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. .. _oPOSEI� z ; Agreement among the University of North Carolina, the County of Orange, Town of Carrboro and Town of Chapel Dill regardinq the Tndependenc:e Day celebration at Kenan Stadium on July 4, 1991 This agreement is entered into by and among the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (hereinafter the University), the county of orange (the County), the Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of carrboro (the Towns). 1. Purpose of agreement The parties hereto desire to set forth arrangements for public fireworks displays and related activities at Kenan Stadium on the evening of July 4, 1991. 2. Facilities The University will allow use of Kenan Stadium for public attendance and a stationary fireworks display in Kenan Stadium, with mortar fireworks to be set off at a location within the Ramshead Parking Lot in accord with fire safety laws and regulations. There shall be no admission charges. The University will allow public parking at no charge in designated areas of the Bell Tower parking lot. 3. Fireworks displays: contract with pyrotechnic company The Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill and orange County will jointly hire a licensed pyrotechnic company and will require the ompany to indemnify and to name as ac?ditional named insured parties the University, the County and the Towns as part of the company's general liability coverage for the event, Each local government will pay one- third of the firaworks cost, with a maximum share of $3,000. 4. Security/ crowd control/ traffic control/ parking Representatives of the University, Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Orange county will develop operation planes with the University assuming lead responsibilities. The plans will include: temporary closing of Ridge Road between Manning rrive and Stadium Drive. establishing a police line to keep the public out of the mortar launching and stationary fireworks areas, and a fallout area in Bhringhaus field. a fire protection and safety plan for control of pyrotechnic accidents. RECEIVED FROM 9199678406 05.29.1991 14:28 --P-" 1 ._._._ A I 05 30, '31 17: 16 TGLJId OF- C HAFEL H i LL • P J. r coordination procedures. 5. Program The Chancellor., Chairman of the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Mayors of Carrboro and Chapel Hill will determine the format for the program at Kenan Stadium including recognition of those who served in the Persian Gulf and patriotic music performed by the Triancle Brass Band. 6. Sponsorship and publicity. The Independence Day Celebration at Kenan Stadium shall be Publicized as open to all citizens of the Orange County area including University staff and students, and citizens of the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. The University, Orange County, Town of Carrboro, Town of Chapel Hill, will be listed as co- sponsors. WCHL, Saturn of Chapel Hill and the Chapel Hill Herald have offered assistance and will be appropriately recognized. In witness whereof, this agreement is executed this day of June, lggl. for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for the County of Orange for the Town of Carrboro for the Town of Chapel Hill Attest: Attest: Attest: Attest: Approval as to form and authorization: 4 Approval as to form and authorization: Approval as to form and authorization: Approval as to form and authorization: This instrument Government nt pre-audited udget and Fiscal Control with the North Carolina Local Act This instrument yarn ant Budget and Fiscal control yAct the North been pre-audited in accord Carolina Local, Go This instrument with the North Carolina Local Government Budget and Fiscal control hot 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3, 1991 SUBJECT: CONTRACT APPROVAL; SOUTHERN INTERNATIONAL FIREWORKS, INC. ------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SRVS. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: XX -------------------------------------------- ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES EXT 2650 Telephone Number - DRAFT CONTRACT Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 Mebane -227 -2031 Durham -688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider entering into an agreement as drafted jointly with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro with Southern International Fireworks, Inc. to provide a fireworks display on July 4, 1991. BACKGROUND: Contingent upon the Board's approval of a contract among the University, the County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro to co- sponsor an Independence Day Celebration at Kenan Stadium, it is the intent to contract with Southern International Fireworks, Inc. to provide the fireworks display for the event. Southern International Fireworks has provided this service in the past to the Town of Carrboro at. their July 4 Celebration. Highlights of the attached draft contract between the County and the Towns with Southern International Fireworks, Inc. include the following: Southern will provide a fireworks display at the Ramshead Parking lot (mortar fireworks) and in Kenan Stadium (stationary fireworks). NOTE: Exact quantity and type of fireworks to be determined following a June 1 test shoot. Contract will be finalized after that date. Southern will provide all necessary equipment, as well as trained and competent personnel to conduct the display. Southern will provide all specified insurance coverages naming the County and the Towns as additional named insureds. Southern will provide a letter of credit for $50,000 to cover their insurance policy's deductible. Proof of insurance will be submitted to the local governments along with the executed contract. Southern agrees to hold harmless the County, Towns and University from all loss, liability and claims or expense caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Southern. M F 2 Fee for the fireworks display not to exceed $9,000; $3,000 per locality. Exact fee for display contingent upon final selection of fireworks following the June 1 test shoot. Southern may cancel the display due to inclement weather; Southern may be paid an amount not to exceed ten percent (10t) of the contract amount in such case. The County and the Towns are responsible for all permits, licenses and approvals required. The County and Towns shall be responsible for maintaining a "safe zone" (500' in all directions) around the display area. RECOMMENDATION: Manager recommends approval of the proposed contract jointly with the Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro with southern International Fireworks International, Inc.; County share not to exceed $3,000; and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. ` �T2 NORTH CAROLINA FIRE WORKS DISPLAY ORANGE COUNTY AGREEMENT �J This agreement is entered into by and between the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro, and Orange County, (hereinafter "the Localities ") and Southern International Fireworks, Inc., (hereinafter "Southern "). WHEREAS, the Localities desire to have a fireworks display as part of its Fourth of July celebration; and WHEREAS, Southern is in the business of providing materials and trained personnel to conduct such fireworks displays; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises set forth herein, the Localities and Southern agree as follows: SECTION 1. Subject to the remaining provisions of this agreement, Southern shall furnish for and on behalf of the Localities a fireworks display at the Ramshead Parking Lot (mortar fireworks) and in Kenan Stadium (stationary fireworks) on the University of North Carolina campus on July 4, 1991, beginning at approximately 9:20 p.m. (subject to adjustment by the Localities). a.) The amount and types of fireworks furnished by Southern for this display shall be as described in Attachment A, which attachment is incorporated herein by reference. b.) Southern shall provide all equipment necessary to conduct the fireworks display as well as trained and competent personnel necessary to conduct this display. c.) Southern shall comply with the following insurance requirements: 1. Workers' Compensation: Coverage to apply for all employees for statutory limits in compliance with the applicable state and federal laws. The coverage must include Employer's Liability with a minimum limit of $100,000 for each accident, $100,000 bodily injury be disease each employee and $500,000 bodily injury by disease policy limit. 2. Comprehensive General Liability: Coverage shall be minimum of $1,000,000 per occurrence, combined single limit for bodily injury liability and property damage liability. This shall include products and /or completed operations, fireworks display and shooting operations, and a contractual liability endorsement. yr A letter of credit in the amount of $50,000 shall be issued to the Town of cover the amount of the policy deductible. (The letter of credit shall be in a form and issued by institution satisfactory to the Town of Chapel Hill Attorney) 3. Business Auto Policy: Shall provide for not less than a combined single limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury liability and property damage liability. This shall apply to Code 1, any auto. 4. The Localities and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are to be named as additional insureds on the Comprehensive General Liability policy. A certified copy of endorsements naming the additional insureds shall be forwarded to each of the additional insureds immediately upon the signing of this agreement (endorsements must accompany the return of this contract to localities). 5. Certificates of insurance on an Accord 25 (8/84) Form meeting the required insurance provisions shall be forwarded to the Town of Chapel Hill's Purchasing Agent. Wording on the Certificate which states that no liability shall be imposed upon the company for failure to provide such notice is not acceptable. original policies or certified copies of policies may be required by the Town at any time. 6. Hold Harmless The Contractor agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Localities and the University from all loss, liability, claims or expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees) arising from bodily injury, including death or property damage to any person or persons caused in whole or in part by the negligence or willful misconduct of the contractor except to the extent same are caused by the negligence or misconduct of the Localities and University. Section 2. Subject to the remaining provisions of the Agreement, the Localities shall pay to Southern for the satisfactory performance of its obligations under this agreement the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500). a.) The Localities shall pay to Southern the contract amount upon receipt from Southern of an accurate invoice after the July 4 celebration display. b.) Southern may cancel the fireworks display because of inclement weather as long as this determination is made reasonably and in good faith at the UNC -CH campus site by Southern personnel no earlier than (a.m. /p.m.) on July 4th. As indicated above, if the display is cancelled pursuant to this subparagraph, Southern may be paid by the Entities and amount not to exceed ten S percent (10$) of the contract amount, but shall not be entitled to any further compensation. SECTION 3. The Localities shall also be responsible for providing: a.) All necessary permits, licenses, and approvals required for this display; and b. A "safe zone" for the fireworks display, within which no persons or personal property shall be allowed. The area of the "safe zone" shall; be not less than 600' (feet) in any direction. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed on this day of , 1 991 . (SIGNATURE LINES FOR ALL ENTITIES WILL BE PLACED HERE) 05. 16/131 14: 01 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL + h;. C. :,� &an*on COMPWW ONE AMERICAN PLAZA EVANSTON, ILLINOIS com DECLARATIONS — GENEW LIABILITY 2 J n NO. 717 POO", ID02 i' ** 3032 INCLUDING PRODUCTSS /� NAMED INSURED SOUTtif;RN' INTERNATIONAL FIREWORKS, INC. i* salon EHUS04SS ADDRESS OF THL IN$VRO Post Of f ice Box One Woodacock, GA 3018$ PO%, 'C'r PT RIOU Fro•, _ torch i1 1 .. . ._,2.y 3,-- ,�......�.__— ____�. --- To . Mar h 2 `1 G+ A N S!aPea+ 0 "in* p! 01 InSU ea NSh1G gbovSI c.OVEAAGt Ar.0 GEKERA1 LIABILITY INCLUDING PR0D1JCTS/COfVL1TED OMATICHA LIM"tSOF LIABII�J7 COWNID SINGLE LIMITS: Bodily Injury Rod Property 94"o Liability $1 00 each occurrdrlce, $.1,000,20L a at DEDUCTIBLE: AppliGCrL1 to each occurrence includin8 cl, lm `xp@m*s OPERATIONS AND PREMISE COVERED: Class D Fireworks a Ird I Hslloori RoUI1_48-2--531d and distributed by the Insured including displays and 400tinB operation. RETROACTIVE DATE; March 21e 1988 ., PREMIUM FOR EXTENrED DISCOVERY PERIOD: U0 of preaiumIas provided in ('AVERAGE 4 of the polidy to be paid only if the Inaured,meet■ the eiigi,h ity requirements and exercise* the option. RATE: AdJUSL iblo at per $11000 of Sales F"EmIVMPOOKXICT0".. ",00 (Annual Minimum) State Tax 4% R pus t) uni $ + cip&I Tax Z *oRIO NumaEAS AND IWXM MEI�S "OWING A PAPT 00 THIS K&ICY AT THE TOdE a/ $ 1. Clain Expenbes Endor"11L 2. Pollution Exclusion (OCL,I ) Ic i etc osly M ALL CLARA• TO Ne 011P "G ONCTLY 70 Woo r Ona Aaa�lasn 1a«ta. 1 { i 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. � —Cr ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3, 1991 SUBJECT: FIREWORKS PERMIT; INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SRVC. PUBLIC HEARING YES: -- NO: XX ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES EXT 2650 Telephone Number - Hillsborough -732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 Mebane -227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider approving a fireworks permit for the Independence Day Celebration to be held at Kenan Stadium, July 4, 1991. BACKGROUND: Contingent upon Board of Commissioner approval, the County will co- sponsor with the University and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, an Independence Day Celebration, to include a fireworks display by Southern Fireworks International, Inc. County representatives will participate with the University and the Towns in establishing an operations plan to ensure that all safety issues regarding police, fire, medical emergency and crowd control are met. The County, as a named insured on the insurance policies submitted by the fireworks contractor, will be assured that sufficient insurance polices are in farce at the time of the event. RECOMMENDATION: Approve a fireworks permit for the Independence Day Celebration at Kenan Stadium; and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. %r 1 7 ORANG: COUNTY BOARD OF C012:ISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Datc: June 3, 1991 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ` ATTACHMENT(S): UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT:- - BEVERLY BLYTHE EXT. x.125 TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -450- Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -73 --1 PURPOSE: The following recommendations are presented -for the-Board's- consideration. BACKGROUND: TRANSPORTATION BOARD: To consider appointment of a County Commissioner to participate in the preparation of recommendations for traffic management by the Transportation Board. BOARD OF HEALTH: To consider reappointing William Beel (optometrist) and Cleon Currie (At- Large) to their second complete terms on this Board. Also, to reappoint Richard J. Marinshaw (Engineer) and Fred Battle (At- Large) to their first, complete term on this Board. SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: To consider appointing the following people to this Committee: Ralph Warren, Chair, Orange County School Board Mary Bobbitt Cooke, Member, orange County School Board Sue Baker, Chair, Chapel Hill /Carrboro School Board Charles Foskey, Member, Chapel Hill /Carrboro School Board Gerry House, Superintendent, Chapel Hill /Carrboro Schools Andrew Overstreet, Superintendent, Orange County Schools David Taylor, Director, Chapel Hill /Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Guido DeMaere, Chairman, Orange County Economic Development Commission Trinia Holman, Chair, N.C. Association of Educators Linda Haac, President, Chapel Hill /Carrboro PTA Council Lee Black, Member, Chapel Hill /Carrboro PTA Council Judy Jones, President, CH /C NC Association of Educators Shannon Pace, Member, CH /C American Federation of Teachers Lionel Wells, Member, PTO Organization APPLICATIONS ARE EXPECTED FROM: Barbara Palmer, Director, Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce Dawn Formo, Co- Chair, American Federation of Teachers Diane Starrett, Co- Chair, American Federation of Teachers Martha Walker, Hillsborough Drange PTO CITIZEN APPLICANTS Sherry Gray Dorsett Michael R. Drowns Steven L. Medlin Susan J. Sexton Patricia Wynn Evelyn M. Poole -Kober RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides. 2 mrtoW COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGR.AVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 129 E. TRYoN STREET P.O. DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 919- 732 -2196 919 - 942 -8000 FAX 919 -732 -7997 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE May 7, 1991 SUITE 300, THE CENTER 1506 E. FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 919 -929 -7151 FAX 919 - 929 -3892 ALONZO B. COLEMAN, JR STEVEN A. BERNHOLZ ROGER B. BERNHOLZ Moses Carey, Jr . , Chairman GEOFFREY E..GLEDHILL Alice Gordon DOUGLAS HARGRAVE G. NICHOLAS HERMAN Stephen Halkiotis KIM K. STEFFAN Verla Insko JOE L. WEBSTER TERRY G. HARN Don Wlllholt JANET TIN Orange Count Board of Commissioners g y JOHN D. . LO FTIN Post Office Box 8181 Of Counsel Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 BONNER D. SAWYER (1902 -1972) Dear Board Members: Enclosed is a contract between our firm and Orange County for Child Support Enforcement services for the period July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992. No changes are proposed from the contract now existing which runs through June 30, 1992. Very ruly yours, offre E. edhill GEG /lsg / Enclosure xc: John M. Link, Jr.� Janet Sparks STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) THIS CONTRACT made and entered into this the 1st day of July, 1991, by and between Orange County, hereinafter County, and Coleman, Bernholz, Bernholz, Gledhill, Hargrave and Herman hereinafter Attorneys. W I T N E S S E T H: THAT WHEREAS, the County desires to employ Attorneys as its counselors at law for the County of Orange upon the following terms: 1. This Contract shall begin July 1, 1991 and unless sooner terminated by 30 days, notice of either party shall exist and continue through June 30, 1992. 2. Attorneys, upon reasonable notice, are to be available for consultation, legal advice, and for representation as requested by the Child Support Enforcement Agency on all legal matters arising from the duties of County under Article 9 of Chapter 110 of the North Carolina General Statutes, Title IV -D of the Social Security Act, and the federal regulations lawfully promulgated pursuant thereto. 3. Recognizing that from time to time representation of County by Attorneys may result in a conflict of interest for the Attorneys, it is agreed that when such a conflict arises, the Attorneys may refer cases requiring legal services to other lawyers in Orange County. Such referrals shall be with the 1 consent and approval of the County Manager. In all cases of referrals, the attorney to which the case is referred shall be compensated in the same manner as specified in paragraph 5 below, and shall keep an itemized record of work performed for County on a case -by -case basis, submitting a bill therefor showing a breakdown of services performed on a case -by -case basis as specified in paragraph 5. In the event such an attorney is awarded counsel fees by the Court in this regard, an accounting shall be made to County in the same manner as provided for in paragraph 5 below. 4. Attorneys agree to comply with all the requirements of Article 9 of Chapter 110 of the North Carolina General Statutes, Title IV -D of the Social Security Act, and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto relating to the performance of program legal services including, but not limited to, maintaining such records as are required by County, to make said reports available for federal or state audit, if required, and to make financial, statistical, and program progress reports as are required. 5. For their services under this Contract, County agrees to pay Attorneys Sixty and No /100 Dollars ($60.00) per hour for each hour spent by them providing legal services under the Child Support Enforcement Program. Such hourly rate shall encompass all expenses, including but not limited to, those for salary, supplies, office space, heating and maintenance for office space, telephone service, long - distance telephone calls, and travel. 2 Attorneys are not to be reimbursed for any extraordinary expense incident to performing the services included under this agreement; except, that County agrees to pay all court costs and filing fees which are required to be paid in conjunction with services provided by the Attorneys under this agreement. 5. Attorneys further agree to attend at least one regional training session on Child Support Enforcement per year conducted a by the State Child Support Enforcement Agency. Reimbursement F Shall be made based upon the hourly rate but not to exceed a w o maximum of $200.00 for the full two -day session or $100 for each a day attended or such amount as set by the State Child Support Enforcement Agency. With the prior approval of the Orange County Child Support Enforcement Director, Attorneys may attend training a functions other than those conducted by the State Child Support Enforcement Agency. If attendance is approved, Attorneys shall 0 9 be reimbursed for travel and per diem at the prevailing Orange N County rate. Attorneys shall not be reimbursed at the hourly 0 rate for attendance at any such non -State Child Support w ov Enforcement Agency training function. UIN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, said parties have executed this Contract in triplicate originals, one of which is to be retained by County, one of which is to be retained by Attorneys, and one of which is to be filed with the Child Support Enforcement Section, Division of Social Services of the Department of Human Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. 3 3 F ¢ da p 0 0 w CG N a 0 w as �d O U COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, BERNHOLZ , GLEDHILL, HAJRGRAVE & HERMAN By: By: ATTES Beverly h Clerk td the Board of Commissioners Gledhill IGE MONTY, NORTH CAROLINA This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Orange County Finance Officer 4 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) THIS CONTRACT made and entered into this the 1st day of July, 1991, by and between Orange County, hereinafter County, and Coleman, Bernholz, Bernholz -, Gledhill, Hargrave and Herman hereinafter Attorneys. W I T N E S S E T H: THAT WHEREAS, the County desires to employ Attorneys as its counselors at law for the County of Orange upon the following terms: 1. This Contract shall begin July 1, 1991 and unless sooner terminated by 30 days' notice of either party shall exist and continue through June 30, 1992. 2. Attorneys, upon reasonable notice, are to be available for consultation, legal advice, and for representation as requested by the Child Support Enforcement Agency on all legal matters arising from the duties of County under Article 9 of Chapter 110 of the North Carolina General Statutes, Title IV -D of the Social Security Act, and the federal regulations lawfully promulgated pursuant thereto. 3. Recognizing that from time to- time representation of County by Attorneys may result in a conflict of interest for the Attorneys, it is agreed that when such a conflict arises, the Attorneys may refer cases requiring legal services to other lawyers in Orange County. Such referrals shall be with the 1 consent and approval of the County Manager., In ail ca:::s of referrals, the attorney to which the case is referred shall be compensated in the same manner as specified in paragraph 5 below, and shall keep an itemized record of work performed for County on a case -by -case basis, submitting a bill therefor showing a breakdown of services performed on a case -by -case basis as specified in paragraph 5. In the event such an attorney is awarued counsel fees by the Court in this regard, an accounting shall be made to County in the same manner as provided for in paragraph 5 below. 4. Attorneys agree to comply with all the requirements of Article 9 of Chapter 110 of the North Carolina General Statutes, Title IV -D of the Social Security Act, and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto relating to the performance of program legal services including, but not limited to, maintaining such records as are required by County, to make said reports available for federal or state audit, if required, and to make financial, statistical, and program progress reports as are required. 5. For their services under this Contract, County agrees to pay Attorneys Sixty and N01100 Dollars ($60.00) per hour for each hour spent by them providing legal services under the Child Support Enforcement Program. Such hourly rate shall encompass all expenses, including but not limited to, those for salary, supplies, office space, heating and maintenance for office space, telephone service, Jong-distance telephone calls, and travel. 2 ti Attorneys are not to be.reimbursed for any extraordinary expense incident to performing the services included under this agreement; except, that County agrees to pay all court costs and filing fees which are required to be paid in conjunction with services provided by the Attorneys under this agreement. .6. Attorneys further agree to attend at least one regional training session on Child Support Enforcement per year conducted by the State Child Support Enforcement Agency. Reimbursement F shall be made based upon the hourly rate but not to exceed a w o maximum of $200.00 for the full two --day session or $100 for each day attended or such amount as set by the State Child Support Enforcement Agency. With the prior approval of the Orange County x Child Support Enforcement Director, Attorneys may attend training functions other than those conducted by the State Child Support Enforcement Agency. If attendance is approved, Attorneys shall 0 be reimbursed for travel and per diem at the prevailing Orange w N County rate. Attorneys shall not be reimbursed at the hourly a 0 rate for attendance at any such non -State Child Support w CC Q Enforcement Agency training function. uIN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, said parties have executed this Contract in triplicate originals, one of which is to be retained by County, one of which is to be retained by Attorneys, and one of which is to be filed with the Child Support Enforcement Section, Division of Social Services of the Department of Human Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. K3 t. :. a COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL, GRAVE & HERMAN By: By: ATTES . Beverly yth Clerk td the Board of Commissioners � eih (;lecihill IGE 0 7N7Y , NORTH CAROLINA This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Orange County Finance Officer 4 r ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 a•' � n June 4, 1991 Ms. Belinda D. Wells Chestnut Oaks Development Committee c/o Ballentine Associates, P.A. 221 Providence Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Re: Chestnut Oaks, Phase Two Amended - Final Plat Approval Dear Belinda: The Orange County Planning and Inspections Department has reviewed the application for final plat approval of Chestnut Oaks, Phase 2 Amended. The Final Plat is approved with the following conditions: 1. The revised easement document and draft deeds must be approved by the County Attorney. When approved, final copies including any necessary changes must be submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department; 2. On the Final Plat, revise the "sight distance easement" so that it is dedicated with the right -of -way of Gemena Road, consistent with the way it is shown on the plat for right -of -way dedication; and 3. On the right -of -way dedication plat for Phase 3, clarify note "C" by stating that the lot lines shown in Phase 3 were taken from the Preliminary Plat amended on June 4, 1990. The mylar must be accompanied by one copy for certification as an exempt plat. On June 3, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved a request by the Planning Department for authorization to substitute Community Development Block Grant funds when they are received in July for the $55,410 letter of credit submitted by Habitat as a guarantee of improvements. I have enclosed receipts for the application fee and the parkland payment. I will forward any comments from the County Attorney regarding his review of the deeds and the well easements. If you have questions or need assistance, please call me at the Planning and Inspections Department, 967 -9251 extension 2580. Sincerely, Emily Cameron, ASLA Planner II xc: Moses Carey, Chair, Board of Commissioners John M. Link, Jr., County Manager Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney Marvin Collins, Planning Director Tara L. Fikes, Housing /Community Development Director Enclosures NORTH CAROLINA SERVICE AGREEMENT ORANGE - COUNTY THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT entered into as of the ___!_ST day of July , 19 gi—, by and bewtween COST CONTAINMENT, INC. a corporation.incorporated under the laws of the State of North Carolina with a place of business in Wake County, North Carolina (308 -B Sherwee Dr., Post Office 1661, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602), hereafter referred to as Contractor, and ORANGE County a body corporate and politic, of _RANGE_ County, HILLSBOROUGH. NC. hereafter referred to as County shall be valid for 12 months commencing the effective dates hereof unless terminated pursuant to this agreement. FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF SERVICE PANTS and the mutual covenants and agreements herein set forth, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. SERVICE PAYMENTS: County agrees to pay to Contractor for service: METHOD ONE: DIRECT MAIL ISSUANCE OF REGULAR (NON- CERTIFIED) ENVEiAPES Cost Containment, Inc. bids _ Fifty five cents ($0.55) per regular mail issuance of food stamp, plus postal costs. CCI defines postal costs as First -Class postal rates for sending a non - cerfified envelope based on the weight by the U.S. Postal Service. METHOD TWO: DIRECT MAIL ISSUANCE OF CERTIFIED ENVELOPES. Cost Containment, Inc. bids _ cents per certified mail issuance of food stamps plus postal costs. CCI defines postal costs as First -Class postal rates for sending a certified envelope based on weight by the U.S. Postal Service.(Current Certified fee( $1.00) METHOD THREE: DIRECT MAIL ISSUANCE OF CERTIFIED ENVELOPES SUBSTITUTING CCI DELIVERY FOR POST OFFICE DELIVERY. Cost Containment, Inc. charges the same fee for delivering certified mail as the U.S. Post Office. The current certified postal fee is $1.00 in addition to the First Class postage fee based on the weight of the envelope. (See delivery, Para. VI. Items j & k). The postage amount includes the issuance fee; there is no other charge with this method. All calls to CCI are free on our toll free lines. The Contractor agrees to insure the mailings against any replacement losses that exceed the Federal Tolerance Level (0.5X) In the event the U.S. Postal Service increases the cost of the 1st Class postage during the contract period, the increased costs of postage (to the Contractor) will be borne by the county effective with the month such increase occurs. All monthly service payments shall be paid to Cost Containment, Inc. P.O. Box 850055, Charlotte,North Carolina 28289. Compensation at the rate set above to represent full and complete compensation for services rendered under the terms of this agree- ment with total annual cost to the County estimated not to exceed $ 10.000.00 plus postage. Actual cost is determined by application of Method 1 or 2 above. Page 2 NC SERVICE AGREEMENT I1. SERVICE PROVIDED: Contractor agrees to provide the following service to the County: (a) Contractor will correctly mail, by First -C lass mail, food stamp coupons to clients designated by the County at the addresses furnished to the Contractor by the State FSIS or by phone calls from the County. (b) Contractor will, within 24 hours of receipt of the same from the County, make any and all changes of the mailing lists to comply with the applicable changes submitted to ensure the correct mailing to clients at changed and corrected addresses. (c) The Contractor will complete and deliver, between the 15th -20th, a monthly FNS -250 report to the County for certification and forwarding to the State Office. The Contractor will complete a daily Cashier's Reconciliation Report (CDRR) and forward same to the County along with a copy of the issuance register. The Contractor shall also provide to the County monthly CCI -3 (DSS -8638) and such information needed by the County to complete reports as may be required. (d) In order to deter thefts'. Contractor will stagger the dates of mailing of coupons by date and zip code according to instructions from the County. (e) Performance of service will be conducted in a manner to ensure the confidentiality of information, data, instruments, documents, studies, and reports given to Contractor to use or prepared by the Contractor for the County. (f) Approved vault storage for coupons while in possession of Contractor. Vault equipped with electronic motion sensors which are monitored 24 hours per day when facility is closed. (g) Contractor will place one stuffer per quarter at no cost to County. Additional stuffers will be placed at a minor expense to County. III. LIABILITY: Inasmuch as the County is liable to the State of North Carolina for any unauthorized coupon issuances or coupon thefts and for any coupon shortages or losses for whatever cause, including, but not limited to, loss due to erroneous mailings, the Contractor agrees that it shall be liable to the County in like manner and amount and shall hold the County harmless from claims of the State arising from any such cause; the Contractor further agrees: (a) That it will maintain in full force and effect during the term of this contract, or any renewal or extension thereof, such insurance or bond, and in such amount, as the County may require to indemnify the County against any theft of coupons while they are in the actual or constructive possession of the Contactor, its agents and employees, and against any loss or shortage of coupons or other loss arising out of any act or omission of the Contractor, its agents and employees. Page 3 NC SERVICE AGREEMENT (b) That if the County suffers any loss or any shortage or reduction in coupons by reason of any act or omission of the Contractor, its agents or employees, the County, may recover the value of its losses by requiring that the Contractor pay the amount of such loss under the terms of this contract: but in no event shall the amount recovered by the County hereunder exceed its losses. IV. AUDITS AND PROCEDURES: As required the Contractor will allow onsite reviews, audits, and inspections by County, State, or Federal staff and comply with their procedural requirements. Any deviations from Federal or State guidelines and procedures by either Contractor or County must have both the State office and FNS PRIOR approval. V. DEFAULT AND TERMINATION: (a) Upon default by County, Contractor shall determine and receive from County the sum due for services rendered. In the event Contractor shall be required to institute a suit to collect any unpaid service Payments due under this service agreement, Contractor shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees set by the Court. (b) Upon default by Contractor, County shall be entitled to immediate termination of this agreement arid, further, to liquidated damage in an amount equal to the sum of service payments made by County to Contractor for the first month of service rendered under this agreement. County, however, is not limited to the amount of liqui- dated damages if the county suffers damages in excess of the amount of liquidated damages determined as herein set forth. In the event County shall be required to institute a suit to collect any damages for any amounts due under this agreement, County shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees set by the Court. (c) Either party may terminate this agreement by giving to the other party hereto a written notice of its intention to terminate this agreement. This agreement shall be considered terminated upon the date set forth for termination of the agreement which shall be not less than 60 days from the service and delivery of the notice. The parties hereto may agree to an earlier date of termination of the agreement. Contract may be terminated because of circumstances beyond control of Contractor' - such as war, strikes, riot and /or natural disaster. VI. SPECIAL PROVISIONS: (a) It is understood and agreed between the Contractor and the County that the payment of compensation specified in this agreement, its continuation or any renewal or extension thereof, is dependent upon and subject to the allocation of appropriation of necessary funds to the County by the Federal Government and the State of North Carolina for the purposes set forth in this agreement. Page 4 NC SERVICE AGREEMENT (b) County may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of the services of the Contractor to be performed under this agreement including but not limited to renewal or extensions shall be incorporated in written amendments to this agreement. (c) Neither this agreement nor any part hereof which involves the specialized skill or expertise of the Contractor shall be assigned, subcontracted, or in any way transferred without the prior approval of the Contract Administrator (project coordinator) and the State of North Carolina. (d) The authorized County official, Martha P or -Cook is designated as the Contract Administrator project coordinator) for the County with responsibility for all matters relating to this agreement including but not limited to invoice approval. However, any CHANGES in the scope of the agreement which will increase or decrease the contractor's compensation shall not be effective until they have been approved by the Contract Administrator and documented through a written amendment to this agreement. (e) Contractor shall comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246, entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity ", as amended by Executive Order 11375, and as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations (41 CFR Part 60). (f) County officials, State Officials, Contract Coordinator, the Federal Grantor Agency, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books, documents, papers and records which are in any way pertinent to this agreement for the purpose of making audit explanation, excerpts, and transcriptions. Contractor shall maintain all required records for three years after the County makes final payments and all pending matters are closed. Contractor assures the County that the County, with the other officials and agencies mentioned in this item (f), Section VI, of this agreement, shall have access to any and all books, documents, papers, and records of the Contractor for the purpose of audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions. (g) Contractor shall comply with mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the State Energy Conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94 -165). (h) The County is granted the right to renew this contract for two additional one -year periods upon mutual acceptance fo both parties All terms and conditions shall remain constant for the entire duration of the Contract. Price change in the second and consecutive years is permissable, if the need is documented through cost analysis by the provider and the increase is no more than ten per cent (10 %) of unit cost. (i) The Contractor will be responsible for all County losses under the U.S.D.A. regulations for replacements for any quarter as long as the Agency abides by the following conditions: Page 5 NC SERVICE AGREEMENT I. All allotments of $300.00 and over and known postal problem cases will be sent to the DSS for pickup or by certified mail. 2. The county agency will assign participating households for either mail-pickup at the DSS (or issuance office) or for certified mail issuance upon the event of one replacement loss. The agency may elect to use mail- pickup or certified issuance for reasons other than replacement losses. 3. The county agency agrees to log such households at risk as a code 3 or code 7 respectively, on the State Computer (FSIS). 4- When losses for any quarter approach or exceed the USDA tolerance level (now .5% of total quarterly issuance) all issuances of $200.00 and over will be sent certified mail. The County retains the option at all times to have such issuances sent to the agency for recipient pick -up. 5. Claims will be accepted by the Contractor at the time the loss is established-by the state based on written notice to the county agency. To file a claim, the county agency will forward to the Contractor copies of the letter of notice from the state and form FNS -259 for the appropriate period. Losses are not to be deducted from the service invoice. The county agency is protected against losses by private insurance, paid by Contractor. Losses will be filed with the insurance carrier and reimbursement will be sent to the county agency when received by CCI, usually within 90 days. (j) The monthly postage cost will be based on the amount of money the U. S. Postal Service charges for First Class postage. CCI weighs each envelope to the hundreth -of -an -ounce to ensure that the county is not charged for more that first class postage. (k) When directed by the county the certified, sealed envelopes are escorted from the CCI vault location to the city issuance center(s) by an idependent, armed -guard courier service. According to County needs authorized by the Agency Director, CCI will establish the location(s), hire, and train issuance personnel, and direct a mail delivery system according to the following guide lines. I- A completed issuance is the client presenting an approved I.D. signing register and receiving their sealed envelope containing their monthlylltmentlofuance food stamps. 2- An operational unit is the smallest segment for issuance. It has an armed guard for crowd control and for checking the I.D.(s), a clerk who checks the I.D. and presents the register for signing, and a second clerk who receives the order for release and presents the envelope to the client. This unit can issue up to 4 clients per minute on established performance but will issue in excess of 2 per minute. If need be the guard and clerk can be one in the same. .P page 6 3- Each city issuance center will use that many units as deemed necessary to promptly issue the clients scheduled to be served on any given day. The issuance schedule must eliminate serious lines at all times. 4- The issuance centers are open from 10:00 until 6 :00 P.M. This allows time for movement of the envelopes from local bank storage to the center(s) and allows for the working poor to come after normal working hours. One unit can issue 120 per hour based on 2 per minute or 960 issuances a day. 5- The last names of the client determines on which alpha day a client will be served: a client can come after their "day" but never before. The number of issuances will determine the number of issuance days. The code "C" will be used in the computer to identify all cases the agency wants to report to the center. One or two days will be added as "MAKEUP" days. Mail left over after the last issuance day will either be mailed to the clients or returned to the local agency for client pickup and review. Direct mail will be used for all daily issuances for the balance of the month after the center has closed. II. AUTHORITY OF COUNTY: The official executing this agreement covenants -that he or she has authority to execute this agreement on behalf of the County of OR ANG and approves the proprosal submitted by the C to ontracr for the services to be rendered as set forth in Section II of this agreement. VIII. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: Conformity with The Laws (a) For all purposes of this agreement, the Contractor shall be deemed an independent Contractor, and neither the Contractor nor its agents or employees are or shall be deemed to be agents or employees of the County Agency or the.State of North Carolina; and the Contractor shall hold and save harmless the County and the State of North Carolina from the claims of third parties arising out of any act or omission of the Contractor, its agents or employees, in performance of this agreement. (b) The Contractor shall pay all taxes, assessments, premiums and fees and shall file all reports and returns required by law and arising out of its operations under this agreement. (c) The Contractor shall perform its obligations under this agreement in conformity with all applicable laws and regulations, Federal, State, or local. r } � a Pane 7 INC SERVICE AGREIM1 1. T' Iti 1ti13NTSS MiERE F, the harti(�5 throiiPil their duly r311ii1U1 "17ed rei�rc�sc�ntatives, hav( caused this agre(,nient to b0 Oxecuted in their resfirst above written. ieet i v naneS on the (lay nd v(ar ATTEST : (CORPORATE :SEAL) %.rLftIKIVIN, bUARD OF COUN AUTHORIZED COUNTY OFFIC Sworn and subscribed to fare me this the —OC14� day of 19 j -' A r-- �� -, NOTARY ■ COST CONTAINMIM, INC. ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER -DORIS L. COINKEIN '. I ' 7 d�.Sr"R ORANGE COUNTY JUN 14 1991 ' '`�"" • SOCIAL. SERVICES North Carolina Department of Human Resources Division of Social Services 325 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 James G. Martin, Governor David T. Flaherty, Secretary June io, 1991 lls, PlaTtlta Ut'angr, Cc,unt }- bep:�rl -nlent of Sacia]. .Ser�•zceS -300 West 1't'3'011 11illsbor0U81j, Nr -,rtlt Car01 .i-na 27273 Dear Ms. Mary K. Deyampert, Director (919) 733 -3055 .1'lea.se rE'1`erF'nc'e }-r,u>.' recent correc , sP[�ru„ul or the cr,ntract I)r, - .P londc:rtce r:erluesting recicrt:al Irtc. for the clirect mail is °Luanrt_Or;tttge Gaunt ?' titrl cif fgo�:l Cost Cautaitr>,1e'rttr couP(,ns . The r_r,n[rE1ct Il is nglV I)nc'tt ev eirclr, sing a cC)PY Of [he cut ren�lencer1, Mid 31W. v 1 4 ec , :rrrrl we are �ratitirtg the Federal a I1_ }-uu h�I�-e trt r PProval. } questiorrs regar(lirtg this mallet', Stan Clresscn al (919) 733- 4�irU. Plea cnrrtacL Sincerely, Ccr�� Plar'Y' 1.. ite} alnP�'rt' l�'Sr Cn.clC,su re. CC: W:ayne S 1.:311iugs 'gill scarlett File m ORANGE COUNTY JUN 14 1991 SOCIAL SERVICES JUN 0 4 199-1 Mrs . Idary K. Deyampert, Director 125 Division of social Services Department of Human Resources 325 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, Dortli Carolina 27611 Dear Mrs. DeYampert.- This is in response to transmitted, Your letter of May 22, 1991, which Department for our approval, a contract between orange County pertaining to the Of Social Sery liver ices ivery and d Cost Containment, Inc., direct contract . is to becobecome effective Jul y 1, 1991. f USDA food coupons. The This letter constitutes Our approval of the members Of Your staff have contract. an Should Nora McMillan of ray Food y questions, Please have them contact Sta-W Program staff at (404) 730-2598. Sincerely, RGT -L L. cot RA6/ Regional Administrator cc' Kay Fields 65 Stan Chesson 651 Delores mcLaoi 65 JUN 7 Moses Carey, Jr. Alice M. Gordon Stephen H. Halkiotis Verla I. Insko Don Willhoit ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR ANN MCPHERSON WHEREAS, Ann McPherson has served Orange County's Commission for Women in an exemplary manner by serving as Chair of the Commission and chairing numerous committees; and, WHEREAS, Ann McPherson has given freely and generously of her time, talents and energy for the improvement of the quality..of life for all women in Orange County; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners, through its members Moses Carey, Jr., Alice Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis; Verla Insko and Don Willhoit; does express its sincere appreciation to.;Ann.McPherson for her efforts on behalf. .of..,the...women.of Orange.County. THIS, the 3rd day ofL Junc.'...1991. 732 -8181 968.4501 688 -7331 227 -2031 644 -3004 (Fax) Alice Gordon Stephen Halkiotis Verla Insko Don Willhoit YOU COUNT IN OFANGE COUNTY! ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. Moses Carey, Jr. 27278 Alice M. Gordon 732 -8181 Stephen H. Halkiotis 968 -4501 Verla I. Insko 688 -7331 Don Willhoit 227 -2031 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION 644 -3004 (Fax) FOR MIRIAM S. SAXON WHEREAS, Mariam S. Saxon has served Orange County's Commission for Women in an exemplary manner by serving as Chair of the Commission and chairing numerous committees; and, WHEREAS, Miriam S. Saxon has given freely and generously of her time, talents and energy for the improvement of the quality- of.life for all .women in Orange County; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board Of Commissioners, through.its members Moses Carey, Jr., Alice Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis, Verla Insko and Don Willhoit; does express its sincere appreciation to...Miriam S. Saxon for her efforts on behalf:of...the,women of Orange. County. THIS, the 3rd day of June, 1991. Moses Carey, Jr., Ch Alice Gordon Stephen Halkiotis Don willhoit YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY! ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. Moses Carey, Jr. 27278 Alice M. Gordon Stephen H. Halkiotis Verla 1. Insko Don Willhoit RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION 1aw7 ANNE NELSON LOEB WHEREAS, Anne Nelson Loeb has served Orange County's Commission for Women in an exemplary manner by serving as Chair of the Commission and chairing numerous committees; and, WHEREAS, Anne Nelson Loeb has given freely and generously of her time, talents.and energy for the improvement of the..quality of life for all women in Orange County; OfWCommissioners, through its member.seMosesgCarey, Jr., Don Don Willhoit, Stephen Halkiotis, Alice Gordon and Verla Insko; does express its sincere appreciation -µto Anne Nelson Loeb for her efforts on behalf..of the womefi: -'of Orange County. THIS, the 3rd day Of June;._:1991.. verla Insko UV f Don Willhoit YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY 1 732 -8181 968 -4501 688 -7331 227 -2031 644 -3004 (Fax) f 9-19 MMIff V A Purchase of Development Rights Program Proposal Prepared by the Orange County Agricultural Districts Advisory Board May, 1991 Report #2: 1 71-. Questions & Answers About A Purchase of Development Rights Program for orange county ,I, TABLE SECTION I: INTRODUCTION . . FARMLAND PRESERV, WATERSHED PROTEC' MAINTAINING RURA THE CHARGE . . . PLAN OF ACTION . SECTION II: QUESTION & ANSWERS ABOUT A PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM FOR ORANGE. _ 4 COUNTY . . . . . . . . I INTRODUCTION In recent years, renewed interest has been expressed in a purchase of development rights program for Orange County. This interest has originated from several diverse points involving farmland preservation efforts, watershed protection strategies, and performance standards to maintain rural character. FARMLAND PRESERVATION In 1986, the N.C. General Assembly passed enabling legislation which authorized counties to undertake programs to encourage the preservation of farmland. Under the provisions of the legislation, House Bill 1190, Agricultural Advisory Boards could be organized and appointed to: 1. Make recommendations concerning the establishment of voluntary agricultural districts; and 2. Hold public hearings on public projects likely to have an impact on agricultural operations. Counties were also permitted to require that computerized land records include a notice which would alert a person researching the title of a land tract that the property was within a prescribed distance of a livestock farm or agricultural district. Counties were also allowed to hold in abeyance water and sewer assessments for farms. In 1987, the Board of Commissioners appointed an Agricultural Districts Advisory Board for Orange County. The Advisory Board immediately set about the task of drafting a local ordinance to implement the provisions of House Bill 1190, and, in mid -1988, produced a draft ordinance as well as recommendations for addition farmland preservation efforts. Among them were the following: 1. Adopt policies for purchase of development rights in agricultural districts upon the request of the farmer. 2. Set up provisions for donation of and lease of development rights under the policies. 3. Request funds for the purchase of development rights on agricultural lands and natural areas in the county. 4. Recommend that Orange County adopt the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) point system as a means of evaluating where agricultural districts and purchase of development rights will be pursued. While action has yet to be taken on the draft ordinance, the recommendations of the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board contributed substantially to the renewal of interest in purchase of development rights. Page - 1 WATERSHED PROTECTION ik Watershed protection is not a new concern. Since the late 1970's, Orange County has been a leader in watershed protection efforts in North Carolina. In 1987, however, concern about the adequacy of existing protection standards emerged in response to a proposed development in the University Lake Watershed. Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro jointly requested that the Orange Water and Sewer Authority ( OWASA) commission a carrying capacity study of the watershed to determine what changes, if any, needed to be made in the existing standards. In late 1987, OWASA employed the consulting firm of Camp, Dresser, and McKee to undertake the study. The final report was submitted in March, 1989, and representatives of the three jurisdictions began meeting thereafter to formulate a coordinated watershed protection program. Strategies for protecting University Lake watershed were drafted in October, 1989, based principally on the recommendations of the OWASA consultant. In April, 1990, Orange County amended its development regulations to implement most of the strategies proposed by the Watershed Work Group. The basic strategy for protecting University Lake was to increase the minimum required lot size to five acres. This represented a substantial decrease in permitted densities and raised concern among farmers and property owners about losses in property values. To address this concern, the Watershed Work Group recommended the following: 1. That the jurisdictions develop strategies for dealing with special hardships that farmers might experience in order to further the public purpose of protecting farmland; 2. That OWASA be requested to create a watershed protection fund to acquire rights in sensitive lands; and 3. That the County conduct a study of the possible use of transferable development rights for purposes of watershed protection. Because of the number of watersheds in the county and the proportion of land (60 %) situated therein, Orange County opted to consider an approach similar to that recommended for OWASA - the acquisition of development rights. Another reason for this was the apparent reluctance of local municipalities to be receiving areas for transferred development rights. A purchase of development rights program would also serve a dual purpose - watershed protection and farmland preservation. MAINTAINING RURAL CHARACTER In January of 1987, as part of joint planning activities with Chapel Hill and Carrboro, Orange County incorporated a new district, the Rural Suffer, into its zoning regulations. Residents Page - 2 of the area around Chapel Hill and Carrboro were opposed to the new district, because permitted densities were lowered from one unit per acre to one unit per two acres. Although the intent of the Rural Buffer was to maintain the rural character of the area around the two municipalities, the Board of Commissioners viewed the zoning measures as an interim solution. In November of 1987, the Commissioners created a Rural Character Study Committee and charged it with the responsibility of developing alternative strategies for preserving rural character. In May of 1990, the Study Committee presented a set of strategies which offered density bonuses in return for greater amounts of open space in developments. As part of its recommendations, the Study Committee also suggested that a purchase of development rights program be instituted and used as a tool for agricultural preservation. THE CHARGE Each of these initiatives culminated in action by the Board of Commissioners in December of 1989. As part of its annual goal - setting retreat, the Board established a goal to develop a proposal for a purchase of development rights program. In August of 1990, after work had been completed on University Lake watershed protection measures and the annual budget cycle was finalized, the Board of Commissioners reconstituted the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board and charged it with the responsibility of achieving the goal. The Advisory Board initiated its work during the following month. PLAN OF ACTION As it began its work, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board focused on the successful program implemented by Forsyth County. Since the first purchases in 1987, Forsyth County had acquired development rights to 19 farms with a total of 1,192 acres. The County acquired these rights through purchases and leases for a total of $1.71 million or an average of approximately $1,500 per acre. Using Forsyth County as a model, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board elected to develop a proposal in two stages. First, a report was prepared which addressed the most basic question - how does one go about deciding which farms should have priority in terms of purchase of development rights? The recommended method of evaluation is the Soil Conservation Service's LESA system. The LESA system refers to the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment system developed by the Soil Conservation Service in the mid- 1980's. The two -part system for evaluating farmland has been used extensively and focuses on the quality or productivity of a given site; e.g., land evaluation, and its continued economic viability; e.g., site assessment. The major advantage to such a system is that the most productive and economically viable Page - 3 a farmlands are preserved for future generations. Other benefits include identifying important farmlands and potential agricultural districts, and preparing and updating comprehensive land use plans. This report represents the second step in achieving the croal established by the Board of Commissioners. It describes the "nuts and bolts" of -a purchase of development rights program, focusing sr)ecifically on administration and fundin . The format of the report is a series of questions and answers ex-plainincr how a Purchase of Development Rights Program would work in Orange County. II QUESTIONS &.ANSWERS ABOUT A PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM FOR ORANGE COUNTY The purchase of development rights has become a popular and effective tool for preserving farmland across the United States. By acquiring the rights to develop land for nonfarm purposes, many states and local jurisdictions have encouraged active farms to continue and assured that prime soils will remain available for future agricultural use. While purchase of development rights programs have grown in popularity elsewhere, local implementation is something entirely new for Orange County. Many questions will arise on the part of decisionmakers and landowners alike about how a program would operate, how much would it cost, how would it be funded, and what benefits would be derived. In the section that follows, answers are provided to these questions. 1. Why a Purchase of Development Rights Program? Zoning is one of the tools which local government can use to direct the growth and development of an area. Unless a net residential density of at least one dwelling unit per 20 acres is achieved, however, too much non -farm development will be allowed to encroach into rural areas. As a result, conflicts with agricultural operations - manure odors, chemical spraying, equipment vandalism, traffic congestion - are sure to occur. Proposals to limit development through large -lot zoning are opposed, primarily because such restrictions are viewed by landowners as depriving them of substantial value. A purchase of development rights program gives farmers a timely, financially competitive alternative to selling their land for development. Such programs address concerns about uncompensated restrictions, are voluntary, and permit landowners to decide whether or not to participate. The compensation paid to landowners for permanently relinquishing their development rights can enable them to expand their farming operations, pay off debts, distribute their assets equitably among children, and /or provide for a comfortable retirement while retaining title and all other rights to their land. Page - 4 2. What #re development rights? 3. Fee simple ownership (the full ownership) of land may be defi ed as a "bundle" or set of rights, including the following: The right to keep others off the land; The right to sell or bequeath an interest in or right to all or part of the land to someone else; The right to use the land for farming, forestry, and outdoor recreation; and - Thel right to build structures on or beneath the land. The latter constitutes the "development rights" attached to a parcel of land. The extent or amount of such rights is limited by restrictions embodied in health and building codes, and whatever zoning that may exist. As an example, a person may own a 100 -acre farm. If his /her property was zoned to allow one dwelling unit per acre, he /she would have development rights for 100 units. In rural areas without public utilities available, the actual number of units or development rights might be even lower, particularly where poor soils existed and insufficient area was available for septic fields for all 100 units. The o jectives of agricultural preservation may be served by removing the development rights from the bundle of rights which comprise full -fee ownership of farm property. The acquisition of development rights and their separation from the property is equivalent to the acquisition of an easement on thB property and is alternatively referred to as the acquisition of a development or conservation easement. Known as "negative" easements, they simply prevent the owner from oing something with his /her land; e.g., developing it. Each Basement can be tailored to the parcel to which it applies, specifying what type of development will and will not be al owed. Development rights apply to each specific parcel of property. There ore, their removal must be accomplished parcel -by- parcel and r corded with each deed. The resulting lien on the property typically "runs with the land," that is, it is bind* g on subsequent purchasers and can be enforced against them y the agency or organization which holds the development right . How is the value of development rights determined? One o the most difficult aspects of a PDR program is deter ining the value of development rights. For purposes of this report, only the valuation of development rights for Page - 5 agricultural preservation is considered. This qualification is necessary, since a PDR program may serve more than one purpose, differing in the rights that are removed from land and involving rights that are not valued the same. As an example, the cost of a development right purchase for agricultural preservation purposes is usually figured on a per acre basis as follows: Market Value - Agricultural Value = Development Rights Value Market value is determined by an appraisal and usually based on recent sales of comparable land. It represents the amount for which the property with all rights intact would be sold. Agricultural value is also based on an appraisal and based on the current and prospective net returns from agricultural production. It represents the amount for which the property would be sold based on its income potential. Shown graphically, the value relationship would look like Figure 1 below. Figure 1 RELATIONSHIP OF VALUE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO MARKET VALUE AND AGRICULTURAL VALUE Market Value High Low Development Development Pressure Pressure Land values another and if not unwi development the cost of per acre. vary widely from one part of even within a single county, Be, to draw conclusions about rights in other PDR programs. .purchasing development rights Page - 6 the country to making it difficult, the cost of Nationally, however, has averaged $1,500 Market Value : Value of . ; : Develop- : : Value of : meet : Develop- . Rights ment : • • Rights . . Agricul- : Agricul- . tural tural : . value . value High Low Development Development Pressure Pressure Land values another and if not unwi development the cost of per acre. vary widely from one part of even within a single county, Be, to draw conclusions about rights in other PDR programs. .purchasing development rights Page - 6 the country to making it difficult, the cost of Nationally, however, has averaged $1,500 In Montgomery County, Maryland, a jurisdiction noted for its agricultural preservation programs (including PDR), $1,500 to $4,000 per acre has been paid for development rights. The average of $3,200 per acre is competitive with appraised PDR values elsewhere in Maryland. As indicated previously, Forsyth County has had a PDR program in effect since 1987. The average price of development rights in that county has been $1,500 per acre. However, the former administrator of the Forsyth County program indicated that recent appraisals show an increase in the average price to $2,500 per acre. He predicted that similar values would be found in the Research Triangle area. Using recent sales and'tax appraisal data on land in Orange County, it is possible to make some assumptions about the value of (cost of purchasing) development rights. However, this information should be viewed as a generalization and should not be presumed to apply to any specific property. Shown on Table 1 is a sampling (14 properties) of land sales involving vacant parcels 25 acres or greater in size. The general location of the parcels is identified on Figure 2. Sales in southern Orange County were generally higher in per - acre price than sales in the northern portion of the county. The average price among the properties sampled was $2,826 per acre and establishes, at least for discussion purposes, an average market value for land in the county. One means of estimating the per -acre value of agricultural land is to use those values assessed to property under the Preferential Assessment /Deferred Taxation Program. The values are based on 10 -year production averages for corn and soybeans under a sound management program. Values are calculated for each of five major soil groups and applied to parcels based on the types of soils present. The values are similar to those derived by actual appraisals, since they are also based on the income potential of the land. Shown on Table 2 are the average agricultural and forestry use values per acre, by township, for parcels in the Preferential Assessment /Deferred Taxation Program. Agricultural use values vary from $495 per acre in Chapel Hill Township to $398 in Cheeks Township. The average agricultural use value for the county as a whole is $427. As indicated previously, the difference between market value and agricultural value is the value of development rights. Using the estimates derived above, the average cost of development rights in Orange County would be approximately $2,400 per acre ($2,826 - $427). Considerable variation could be expected, though, with values ranging from $1,000 to $2,600 in rural areas away from urban areas. Close to municipalities, values would be considerably higher, ranging from $4,500 to Page - 7 TABLE 1 n ORANGZ COUNT' Page - 7a r SAMPLE OF LAND SALES IN ORANGE COUNTY. 1989 -1991 Size Sales Price Lot # Township (Acresl Price Per Acre 1 Cedar Grove 237.51 $344,500 $1,450 2 135.43 $400,000 $2,954 3 Little River 29.17 $43,000 $1,474 4 .53.47 $80,500 $1,506 5 26.29 $18,500 $704 6 51.99 $50,000 $962 7 Cheeks 25.90 $121,500 $4,691 8 Bingham 50.05 $135,000 $2,697 9 26.57 $80,000 $3,011 10 53.32 $160,000 $3,001 11 50.84 $104,000 $2,046: 12 Chapel Hill 28.35 $281,000 $9,912 13 37.32 $187,000 $5,011' 14 108.67 $580,000 $5,337 Totals 914.88 $2,585,000 Averages 65.35 . $184,643 $2,826 Source: Orange County Land Records System. FIGURE 2 n ORANGZ COUNT' Page - 7a r Eno Agricultural Use 69 TABLE 2 59 $1,982,204 Forestry Use PARTICIPATION IN PREFERENTIAL 29% ASSESSMENT /DEFERRED TAXATION PROGRAM IN ORANGE COUNTY - BY TOWNSHIP 9692 9% 86 $3,574,572 Average Total Average % of Parcel Use Value # # Total Size Value Per TownshiQ Parcels Acres Acres* Acres (Land)_ Acre Little River $1,028,255 Total 364 24279 22% 67 Agricultural Use 269 15553 17% 58 $6,593,472 $424 Forestry Use 19 628 3% 33 $191,984 $306 Total 288 16181 15% 56 $6,785,456 $419 % of Township Area 24% 56% $1,587,107 Total 195 12851 Cedar Grove 66 $5,660,994 % of Township Area 28% Agricultural Use 439 29518 33% 67 $11,977,233 $406 Forestry Use 20 1173 6% 59 $364,290 $311 Total 459 30691 28% 67 $12,341,523 $402 % of Township Area 109607 59% 64 $43,813,255 % of County Area Cheeks Source: Orange County Land Records Agricultural Use 201 10948 125 54 $4,352,976 $398 Forestry Use 26 1196 6% 46 $386,019 $323 Total 227 12144 11% 53 $4,738,995 $390 % of Township Area 37% Hillsborough Agricultural Use 57 3355 4% 59 $1,471,937 $439 Forestry Use 4 414 2% 104 $85,383 $206 Total 61 3769 3% 62 $1,557,320 $413 % of Township Area 25% Eno Agricultural Use 69 4089 5% 59 $1,982,204 Forestry Use 44 5603 29% 127 $1,592,368 Total 113 9692 9% 86 $3,574,572 % of Township Area 40% Bingham Agricultural Use 305 18676 21% 61 $8,126,140 Forestry Use 59 5603 29% 95 $1,028,255 Total 364 24279 22% 67 $9,154,395 % of Township Area 50% Chapel Hill Agricultural Use 184 8234 9% 45 $4,073,887 Forestry Use 11 4617 24% 420 $1,587,107 Total 195 12851 12% 66 $5,660,994 % of Township Area 28% Totals -All Townships* Agricultural Use 1524 90373 82% 59 $38,577,849 Forestry Use 183 19234 18% 105 $5,235,406 Total 1707 109607 100% 64 $43,813,255 % of County Area 44% Source: Orange County Land Records System, February, 1991. Page - 7b $485 $284 $369 $435 $184 $377 $495 $344 $441 $427 $272 $400 $9,500 per acre. The overall average, however, is in line with the predictions of the Forsyth County program administrator. 4. How will the purchase of development rights be funded? Nationally, purchase of development rights programs have been funded from a variety of sources: State matching funds, real estate transfer taxes, sales taxes, general tax revenues, and bonds. In North Carolina, State matching funds are not available, and specific legislative authority must be granted to use real estate transfer and sales tax revenues. In the absence of such resources, general tax revenues and bonds appear to be the most likely source of local funding. Pay -As -You -Go Program: In Forsyth. County, the Board of Commissioners elected a pay -as- you -go or cash -first program. In the first year, the Board appropriated $1.0 million to fund the program but, in subsequent years, appropriations have not exceeded $500,000. Since the first purchases in 1987, Forsyth County has acquired development rights to 19 farms with a total of 1,192 acres. The County acquired these rights through purchases and leases for a total of $1.71 million. If Orange County were to employ a cash -first program, it might start "modestly" as Forsyth County has done. Given that the level of participation is unknown, one cent of the County tax rate might be earmarked for the PDR program. Based on the current assessed property value and assuming a 98 percent collection rate, the program would be funded during the first year at a level of $357,800. If the value of development rights averaged $2,400 per acre, this would mean that development rights could be purchased on 149 acres. This would be equivalent to one farm a year, based on the average farm size in Orange County in 1987. With property values appreciating over the last five years between three and seven percent annually, one might expect revenues from a one cent tax increase to rise as well. This would enable more development rights to be acquired. This situation would not occur, however, since the value of development rights would appreciate at the same rate as property values. Shown on Table 3 are the revenues to be received over a 20 -year period assuming an annual three percent appreciation rate. Almost $10.0 million would be received and expended to acquire 3,000 acres worth of development. rights. Over the same period, the total cost to a family with a home valued at $100,000 would be $269 or an average of $13 per year. Shown on Table 4 is the same scenario but with an annual appreciation rate of seven percent. Approximately $5.0 million more would be expended to acquire the same amount of development rights, and the cost to the homeowner would increase to $410 or an average of $20 per year. The examples provided in Tables 3 and 4 are indicative of the costs Page - 8 z OW H pi E-L U C4 U 1Z H W W axa a os4 QKCoO ma E-i c%4 x v V} U od 0 E4 dP Ei wm0 ].0 a Ei M Q W � W rw0 1-4 W (n H �❑WOd Ei ❑ GC P z U z gg z w AHa W O ❑HE4W W > U E W wz❑ Ix w u rn I W W H O z Ei z0H W z F:4 H W Cd A 0z Ri 4 W LH O ^O O x 4) 04 4-)14ro.xA WE f4 04 U W O (0 N4 rV)- W O x O -A O (o 0 d) O 9: 4-3 rA O A (a ro �Ory'•ri i 4 r4 . dP U COO M i-I 1~ >o 04 H r4 M+ 04 V)- F;4 0 O r-I E; U1 4-1 M 00almw r. r-i [31•ri U A O •ri � L� FC r• A �C 4.) a.J r'a I~ OU)0O N N O :j •ri W E+ U I- -N Ua s:(a �C o ro �C •r 1 -4 4-) U 1••I N 4 dP (D N > ZTM f4 a 4) •ri W ❑ 0x w 0 ro E� r0 ,-O w 0 4) • (a > V)- Ei 1-i N N O IZ F- (d G4 ow N w N r-1 rq 0 ro 0 •ri ro �ro � ►J'L Qi .ri O +) U E-I i4 dP N U m w aL a ow 04 S4 a w ro N o0 mkom - ronLoVVkommwU)mNv O OM1DmN Ln . MmLOOd•mNLO.- -Iu7OL1Om r- . 0 0 0 0 ri r-I rH N N M M m d' d' Ln Ln Lo Lo r- rte OD r 4 r-i r1 r-I r 4 r-I rl V} 0 0 0 M r•I r- Lo r- r- r- N m LO m 01 r- r-L m M r4 00Mr%0CN0Wrrr- MNr- Ln0MEW-9tLn O O O N Lo 41 d• LT w 4 1p M d• Ln OD N r• d• N N CO Den DomNLna%N�o0d'GDN\D- 4U)0Ln0 Lr) 0000r -4-4 lNNMmmd'd LnLn�-o%0r -r► r4 .-4 ri 1 r-) -4 r-•I r1 rl r1 rl -4 r-I r•1 r-I -4 r-I ri r1 r1 V} V} V} V} V }V}V}V}V�-V} vi- V}V}V}V}V }<rrV}V }V} 01 01 01 01L71 D1 � 01 Q1 01 O1 L71 d1 01 Q1 Ct 01 O1 Ol � -4 r-I 4 r-I r-L ­4 -4 r-I -4 r-I ri -4 -4 r1 r1 H r 4 -4 O N 1D M r-I N L o N O r4 M N N d• 0 m r•I r► LD = O r.- d' N O w %0 Ln d' m N N N N m M Ln LO w 0 d•d'LnLor- r•WmOrtNMd'M N N N N (N N N N N M M M M M M M M M rn d• d' V)- V} V} V} V? V }V}V }V}V)- V}V }V}V} VI- t/}V}V}V}V} od•Onnm.- 400r- mwtnr4I 0mwOd• O(• mr- O W mvLnd•Ln r- md•Od'Lowm0 w Ln o o) r- r- N O N w w N ri d• N d' r•I M r-com0cvd,r-omlooLnoLnrir-d•r-4 01r- Ln Lo r- m O r 4 N d' Ln LO m G1 •--I N d' Ln r- m O N d' d• d• d' d• Ln Ln Ln Ln Lo Ln %o LO V} V} Vi Vi V} V} VI- vi- V} Vi V} t/)• V} N r- LD w r- d• r- %0 01 N Ln r-1 N r- ri N C d• M m mw (ON 01NLON1oLnri QMr40mMr•Lo W r-I v LT M N N r- LD r- d• v co LO Ln LO O r- Lo 01 ri Ln LO 1O M d' ri W d' Ot CD O 0 O LO O O V C% M ri 01 r-I dr LO LO U•1 N O OD 01 d' Lo LO r► d' 0% vo 0 n rt r- oLomLnNLnLnNa%r�GOd'LO tr- IODLti1%.oO r- IQmQN01NchoNrmmDMLnr•INCo co d'LnN LnLDr- CDOMLnmNL00 Ln0LoNcoLnm r-I 0 Lo r• co M r-I N M d' LO r- LT O N M Ln LO CO 0 N v MMcnc nvvq;r;rd•d•d•LnLnLoLnLnLn%c�cm tr }thtrrvrv1-vrt/rt/rt-J'<rrV)-01 —Vl- t/rV3- v). c/)-u1.vr 0r4"M4gPMLbr -WM0 r-I N m d• Ln LO r- W M r•I ra r A r-1 r4 r•I rl r1 1-4 r-L N N m N 0 r-I N r-1 10 Ol {I"h m r-1 ro 41 O E-4 RR ro a4 44 O000riMr4%DwmCI- LON0mmNm0C— Ln O O W Onet�NHa00' -iMk00 LO r-Ir- U' LnLf)00r -I ON 1-I LC-1C❑ OOr- IfVM 0;r�N 0� O� 0 E W Pa H Hrir- Ir- IHr -Iri -4 r- i N N N N NNMMM 0 0 h V} V} V} V} 011- V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V1, V�. Vji V} Nr Ui H rg �4 O001-4O U N • 0 G4 rW O z i4 N LO OHNMV LOkOE�WM0 -1 QJ r- 4NMd 'LnLDi�O�riririririHHHr -IriN cd O E C:l Q) a Q1 0 0 0 d' 0 m M W m%o Ln Ln m Ln m M Lo N M m rg r-1 9 0omaWLor -rH'd. - 4wr- IMLn0 H00 asU) •,.A O M O OOd4 Lc) ONoL000CD[- d4NONGomNoocm%o 44 rte. O •rl . . . % . ► . % % % . . N O 0-W Ond4Nr•4OOOr- •IMLopLmor -Lo LnLnL - rH z fA O Fi (d 00r- INmdrLnko r�co0)r- iNd*Lnr-(MHm10 0 W td NO RZ'•rl HHHriNNNNNNmmm H 0.i O 0 O U V} V} V} V} V} 41} V} V} VI- VI- v)- V} (/} V} V} V} V} H U N r-1 + dP O H WI i� rQ� 04 r4 U 0,,, H W W v} rG A r4 A4 01a Ua0 +� rn o�rno,rns m 0) ON as as as m m m m m N O O O d' cr d' d' d' dl d• Nv d' d• d' d' d' d' d' v v d• d• %r Co d' Q1 •ri HHHHriririri.- 4- 4- 4- 4-4HHHHHH rn N E A; N (0 Pa 4-) -H N x O V)- 0 04 m 1-I 0 0 r-I b�•rl U zz OGrC0 4 >W 01� O U p (sA E in FC zr— ct) w 0 0 co co 0koLoNd'd4 NriNU)d' W 04 LC1r -I04 0 a4 E1 a1 a-1r -i 0�ovI;rv%C0 IINHNU)0wwNwwrgw d'0 Hcn 0 w 0 O d4Mr- 01r- 4MtOMO 4 le rI 0Itrr -H C0Lf1H�D 4 3E Q1N0 0 --1 - - - % . . W W X P E 0•I-) NNNNMmmm-;r- ;rvLoLnLn%0konnaoco a > W 0 U Pa r� ro Q-)- 0-1- trJ- Vi' V)- V)- �- V)- rh Vr V)-V} Vr ' rh yr v} yr v} vj� V} �04� � o�a 0 Ez❑IXE 0 5 O)n W aAaw04 �CZW H Z FC4 ❑ a O `J t0 0%0Ln0NNH W LD0LDMMN0M0CnM W N H HE-I W Ei"a 0vvN0mkovLD0 d r-4mRt m 0 WNm m r� W > U O Ix co co iDeno oD 01Lnr-coCOriCONl.nriNNMa1 H U E W 0 ri ,x ❑ . I % % . % % % . % ► % . . % % % % . . % W z 00 i4 C14 r-N0 wMr-ILod'C'LnmMLONNr LD0ONm Co w W N • CO LnCDOm%00ME�r -ILnc ILnokON W LnmcDm �o u 4 'iI}Eg w cnm .; 4' d'd'InLnLrlwkoc- r- ODco01010riNN LO En 1 4 W 94 O . . . . . °4 w ow IRr �zH ���� z0" N -C� w z w >94 " W O NLDNtD00U)mmd' W r-4%Pm W [►MOHd' 01d'W ONm0LoLni- Od'a1mm0LnM mW r- 0 z -+r-1 O d'tanr- IWLnNkoomoH�oWnLDLf) v%0 P-S 4 ca rd •r1 - - - % . . % % % % % - . . % ► - . . . W > O 4.) LDncoNI�O►Hd'to -4pNOm W mOOm WLocoH ri I~ (d HWd'LnMMmMN'd'Od'ODCOnLDat co co O co >1Q•-I oLn,oLCnnrinriNriCDnMNNM W Ho 4-3 4-)4 U . . . . . . . . . O i4 U ri%00NLn0471NmNNd'N W- ;rmwN0Rt E UdP S4 Ln0 co r- CD NL�LOI�r-I W co NL71ri[,L�Md'0 04 c-- Q4 Lo o% Hi v L- H d' co N L-- H LD N [► cr 0 [► Ln M N O CL . . . . . . . . . w cw4 mmd'd'CrLoLnLn" o%or- r- coco0%00riNm V} V} V'r V} V} V} V} V} ri H H H H V}<hV}V .V . i4 N LO OHNMV LOkOE�WM0 -1 QJ r- 4NMd 'LnLDi�O�riririririHHHr -IriN cd O E C:l Q) a d involved if development rights are acquired in the southwestern portion of the county. Tables 5 and 6 play out the same scenarios but assume a beginning development rights cost of $1,500 per acre, the national average and representative of values which might be found in the northern portion of the county. Regardless of the scenario, though, the central point to make of even a "modest" program is that substantial expenditures will be made, particularly if the program extends over a long period of time. Bond Program: When North Carolina local governments pay for programs and projects through bond financing today, the term of the bond is generally 20 years. The interest rate may vary with the jurisdiction's bond rating, but for Orange County, it is six and one -half percent with a one percent administrative fee. To show how a bond program for financing the purchase of development rights might work, it is best to use the examples provided in Tables 3 and 4 for comparative purposes. Table 3 indicated that a 20 -year pay -as- you -go program would cost $9,614,210, assuming a one cent tax increase, a three percent appreciation rate, and a development rights cost of $2,400 per acre. If the development rights on the entire 2,982 acres had been purchased in the first year at a per acre cost of $2,400, the total cost would have been $7,156,800 or $2,457,410 less. Using the example provided in Table 4, the savings would have amounted to $7,511,371. To finance the $7,156,800 cost of development rights in the first year, it would be necessary to seek the approval of a bond issue. If it passed, the annual debt service payments and long -term cost to the County would be as shown on Table 7. From the comparisons at the bottom of Table 7, it is apparent that a pay -as- you -go program at three percent appreciation would save money in the long term. The real disadvantage to any pay -as- you -go program is that land is being developed during the period, and valuable farmland will be lost. If property values were appreciating at an annual rate of seven percent during the period, bond financing would be more advantageous, both in terms of long -term program costs and cost to the taxpayer. The total cost for the bond program would be $14,040,524, including principal and interest payments. The total amount received and expended through a one cent tax increase would be $14,668,171 or $627,647 more. As shown in Table 8, the initial two cent tax rate needed to meet the annual debt service payment could be decreased, since the total property value would be appreciating. By the end of the 20 -year period, the tax rate would be equivalent to one -half cent. The long -term cost to the owner of a $100,000 home would be $392 under bond financing and $410 under pay -as- you -go. Page - 9 LH 00 r4Mlomv0r,- Lnd•erLoC,mMLnMNd' o O O N OMLDC1NLnmmM oo- 44w"%o.4LooLnaLn n 4-) W (dAW 0 0000r-I r4 r1NNMMM-;;P -;r Lf) Ln1D10nn co a) Ea i 4 M ra ri ri r"I r4 ri r-I rt r-I rf ri r-I ri rf ri r-I r-4 _4 r-I r-1 w 0 V)- V)- v} it)- V). V). yr V)- V). � yr v} rrr v} v} yr 4 rr v} r 000�4O Ua) cdw O x �4 O (d OriNMd'LnLD[►aOQtO r_4 0 r• 4NMd' Ln%DnWmrtri,- iriririr- I r-I rir -(N (d >4 4-J O E-i rd C1 a� a 000M r-I n0nnnNMLOMmn. -imm -I 0001nLoNOCDnnCINr- LoLnQlncD�4-Ln •rl O (d O 0 cq L (7% tdq m o -ct M d• Lf1 0D N n d, N N M 4-I x Z •r4 . . + . . . + . . . + �i O 04_) 0('n" OC) NLnC)NLDod4oD"ko�4Ln0Ln0u) O W N O I~ (d OOOOr- L r-I +4NNMMMd'd' Lf) Lnto10 n n N 0.! (d Q0 4 •r1 r4 r4rir- L r-I r4 r-I rir -Ir-4 r4 r4 r4r4 r4ririririr4 Ea U d) �J O U v} v} v} v} v} v} v} yr yr yr V)- v} v} v} yr 4y} yr yr yr yr Cl 9 �4 r 4 • dA G) W" U (daM w a 04 a a4 u C4 a 440 4-1 C 01C10�O1C1a1o101C1C10�O�o )LT0�01Q1o1o101 rI Ln O O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M n rn4 + a) H ---- NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN n 2 0 H W 0 r4 b)•rI U od O 0 4) 0 9 -f E-L dA E-4 (D L) z M V] ❑ gel,' W O zM:U 04 0Lnrgmcoo,,- iLnon�D�ornMrnnr-m qro O"V) 4J 4-) -4 A 0 V 0% rn cO M mgr 0Lnr r,-moLDM0n Lf) cn Ln F4 r$ Ei 0 m (d O LnLnLnLDLDnn co m(M a0rINNMv tnLD W x 0 (1C) O 0•_I + . . . . . . W> W i4 G U 04J r4r'I r-I r'4r -Lr-i - A r-I r- IriNNNNNNNNNN a W H U 04 A 0 v} yr crJ- v} v} v} y)- yr v} 4 r} v} v} v} yr v} yr yr 01- 4:� V)- ❑WW: rl; O�� U Ea ❑ W E-I 14 (1) r. duo a) CO 2w a�•� 44 U4 ~ a A x W ❑ � o �-4EiW ar 0 d1on[►aO,- I000nMCOn r-I d4OMaoOlr�p O W > Ei'd r-I UEi W (1) a)Ra' ao nnNONwwNr-iv wwrlMr -I­w N W Z A 0 r-L a4 Ca ► . . . + . . ► ► ► ► r IxW 00 X404 naoo ►0NVr%0M%0a Lf) 0Ln.rAnd•r4M( % IRt U� a► • (d Lf11Dn(7l0 1NvLnkocoa)r4 Nd'Lf1L -o1CN r'1 V) I iQi > ih Ey { 4 M M m M v v v v d' v d? v Lf) Ln Ln Ln II) Lf) ko %D %D W W " (L) W O v} vl- v} v} v} trr v} yr v} tr} oi- yr yr yr oi- yr yr yr yr yr DzH 04 R (d r34 01 2 0 1-4 O W v} W ,z is >04 �-q w W 04 z0 4) Nd'c)'(+1Q1 0z o10(A LNNWDN%0Lnr-I 0oMrLOMMntCC0rI G:4 (d O v0% f nNNnkond4dg00koLr)co0n%D01 r-I Lf) ri> ir' 4.) koLoen Vr- IODerm co 00 00�D00 grmM r-I m (d ♦w (d r-4 vko%oLnNOGD01d %DkOndlm%00r- -q r- 4-) >, .-I OLnMLnNLnLnNC1ntDc )ov%ovrgCOLolD0 O 4-) U . r . . . . . ► ► ► ► ► ► • Ei S-LdA a) ri0mCNmNCN0d'MLDMLn r-I Ncoco V LnN a)M S4 LnLc r- cDoMLnchNlooLooLoNcoLnen r-4 o 04 04 LDnCDCNr -INMvr Dr- a%oNMLnLOODONd' 0 (W I ► ► ► ► ► ► % % + % % % ► ► ► ► ► ► ► i4 MMenmRr v vRrvvrerLnLnLnLoLnLn%oLoLo a4 yr yr 0r yr yr yr v} v} v} yr yr err V)- yr yr v} yr v} 01r yr �4 O (d OriNMd'LnLD[►aOQtO r_4 0 r• 4NMd' Ln%DnWmrtri,- iriririr- I r-I rir -(N (d >4 4-J O E-i rd C1 a� a z OW H (4 E1 U Ix U1o~ H W W ❑xa as UaO 94 940 Ln ma E-1 4,4 = 0 v. 0 z H Cs4 pd O E-+ da E-4 Z r- vn W O z m u P4 Ea .n0HCl� ww x a > LD {� W [n H E-4 ❑ W zuz 4 z w ❑ a wxO F4 14 HE W Wza Ix W U 4 V� I � uzH zO� - i w z 7��-4 P4 W A C44 [4 44 O v O m N 04 +- CO x ❑ ro E-4 W a1 4-) U�� (dfb rV}w O x O -4 0 10 0 44 ".4" J •r1 4) O r-; 4-) ro Wo�•r1 O O O U Aka n 04 4-) a O N •r1 ^ r I W 4-) ro CO a+) -4 4) OO.0U)w Z r1 M-4 U L:Q•r4OF:4 N U ❑ �d ootnLn - imr- i%ommt- Ln "ommNmor- Ln 6 nd 'Nr4 OOor- 1M1oOor4 [- LnLnMM -4 (M 00 - 4NM11 LOLO[- CDmriNd'Lnr-o%r -qm+ o ON rlrIrIrAr4rIr4I 4- 4r•- Ir•- INNNNNNMMM O V} OOOd'0 LOMwm%OLn0m0mm�oC14mm o o rn a ao Ln n nr-i d• r-i w rq m Lo m r-i w m Ln 0 V LO0N0Ln0DCD[- d4NO%W MNOD0%W 0r� V NHOOOr- iMwOLnOnLnLnLnnr -1 O 0 r-I N M d' Ln %O n CO O1 ri N d• Ln n Ol ri M %D r-1 r^I r-) rH r-I ri r-a ri ri ri ri N N N N N N M M M VT{f} V} V} vi- V}V}[hVl)-V}V}V}{/)- V}V}V }V}V}lhV} v�rnrnO�rnrnrnO�O�rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn � N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r- d O to r- CO LO d' -4 M r- M r-1 n W Ln CD O% M CD O 0 4J4-1r• -1 0 00riMLOOL[ 0r -MLOLn r% T-1 YDmNMnN 0 U) ro O Ln %on00m-4NT•unnrnr- 1m%DCO d,no•V O N O S •ri . - . - - i4 E;U C.'4.1 r4 r-4 .4 -- 1r- INNNNNNMMMfhd'q;;rdlLnLt1 U A, A ro v} v} �irrr /rvr+/�srrt/rv}v}r/rr/}v}vrrn �o4d� w N4dA d Q1 W •1 n 04 ❑ 1x � w a f0 0 LOLn0NNr- 100 �OO CLf)MNM0(nM00N H Ea 'O 0 V VN0M%O -;PMDC V r-IM V CNM DNMM l� W 0 ce. CDwkomowmLnr - mmr- wNLnr -INNmm r-1 -4 -14 Q . . . . _ . . . . ► . . . . ► . . . . _ �0 W a r- NOtcoo� iLovd'[- MMLnN"r- %ooO)M CO m to Ln000M�ooMnriLnO Ls) omDNCOLnMOOn %0 >V}E+ w MMd'd'd'LnLnLnLD�On ncocoa)o)ariNN %O ro N O v} v} Vr trr V} t/} t/r t/} t/} v} v} r/} v} yr v} c/} ro 44 r-i r4 r-1 r-I dl O � V} w Q► N%ON\o0O LnM m -mrwrl -q- mw I -MOr1czr O A C� V WmU)CDkOL.^1L- OvrmmM0LnMMW r- r4r-1 O d' tO[- r- 1wLnNko0m0r- 1kowL- %oLnd'd'�o roro•r1 .... ..... > ::s 4-) Lo[- CDN[-O%r- 1d,tod•NOhcoM00%COLoco -1 A ro ricod'Lnrnc'na1mc%Qvo v cocO(- 1cG1cocoo 0 •r1 OLna%ol- nr-4r- qcN - 4 r- mNNMCOr1O 4-) 4-) Q U . . O w O r4%oONLnomNMNNd'NCDd mw No E"1 NdA W LnOCD[- CDN[►%0r -• 1CO00NM-4r[ l- MVo 04 r- CL Loa) rod '[►r- Id'CDNL- ri4Dcgr- vol�LnMN wauF4 MMq•vd'LnLmm oL7r- r- wwmoor -4NM W v} V} <rj- v} v} V} ih v} v} vi V} v!- Vr Vi V)r r4 , 4 r-1 r-I -4 �V).v}�vi- U3 ro or- INMd'm%Dtl- = m0 r1 W O> r4 r-1 r-1 ri r-1 ri r-1 r-1 4 r-1 N fC r�+ 4-1 O Ei X1 Or a) tD Id a I () A dP NO tOmLD LO 0 r iLO r- mmnIN(- Nr-ILnermnnMLnmkoN0 TJ4 0r-1 O%tn N(m(M v > nor - or%Q O r-I m •ri 04N c) c) c,4 aN no c%4 ep no o %o co or Ln or or no r- CD Ln Nri + r- 1 o n +J .,i . . . . . . . , . . . . N W ULnNmmm r- NLDri0000Cr0Dri%oonokomkD o or 00 no o O O no =LDopmmmm 0NNMrorm10noC)en(%0 Ln or n-t D off/} n v} NJ- O•rlr- IMLnn (M rHor r%0M�O0er00M00M00 Lori O �D40 riririNNNM(rlrlerd'LnLnLOn or C1 or (n U No TO V} to to to V} V} No No No No to to 05 ri to r•I %0 Do V} M �) ON � W W b W -P 0LnLnN0LnkoWor- ormm000rmLnLner -••U W > mLDNLD W 0komr- LnNMcm C•nroMCOOe1'N �i .,i )-I f0 C: C: -H (D r- r-I ri co N o) (m r- O N LO or CD r- ch 0) N N n n W O > •r•1 a 0 O -W >4 + + + + - 03 •r1 {4 0 •11 •rl rd a) LO noNG]Od'HCnnNMCnn%0mkcm0orm r-I +) O ZTW -P -P �a.JMLOr- koLnroLOmm000rr - oo ,orlNOd•Mm 0 ow a) U (d (a gf 0 Ln C) Ln cDLno- d- coN1oom10(m Nd'kO r%COLD C7 > W C Pi ••1 O p r H tJ} . ► . , , , , , , , , , , % ► . . ► % `zi i.) r1 4.) W ',9 -4 ­4 z no ri N N M M M d' or Lf) Ln Ln Ln to LD 10 LD %.D mD M U v} V} 0-r NJ- v . V" v� to v} No to to us vs V} Do to V} � U +� (0 W r0 W 0 ra 1-I A 04 E to W W 7Co o+JO O,(1) -erMnn(m cc) mco(mv)kc.oenmt- )Nvmo Zi 0400 044 =--I 4-)0 (00 A UMnm nL0o Ln�Oro�0or 0LnoriroMMd•v} H O E-4 no ❑ O f017ri iXno •r•1 0Lncoco Ln co c LnmM or- nocmmNmm%c n c) II a4 4-) 4-) OA 5C zrinomNn�cmor0LOWM - iMLn0roLn0m .I.) O O ❑ 0 �4-4 U•-I W 0 �4 W f0mriNri (m LnoMMrinririC•ormNLDLn (01 .,4 .,-j z -4 Q) W M W 4)C4 W E a) mm LDerriONnorri00orrinN00M00N%0 (1) 4-) -W O (d W a 9S ri .,..I ❑ a 04 . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . v} �4 (0 (d m -P W -- 0 -4 aO 04 3 --► �m �c ko �o �o Ln Ln Ln Ln or or or m m N N r-i r1 a) .f-I •,-I 0 0 0 0 ^O W No ON to +ototoNo No toustoNoAT us usN No 1? 41 U U 0 EiU gug I z H 4) N r-1 %0 no %lD O W r-I l0 Ln C1 Ln CN Ln co O t0 N co M LD 00 04 04 to 0kc%0Wn -I a ko Ln W or 0 no 40 " 0 W0rl -0 W -.44 W 0404 .7 04 N% DmMNN0nor�00k0r4 LOnoCDOLD. -4 or0 > Qi 94 E ULnnouion Lf) or or�00�0rnenorO NLnLnnM 4-) (1) a) M 0LOrC1oNMLf) r- O1r -4le%0 %NLnmN�DO Ln (0 ::$ C WO •'•Irino noC%4NNNNNMMMMV ' ca'V U) Lf) LDLO e-I r-Iri a U A v} v} v} v }v}No v}v}yryrV1V, yrv}v}v}Vrv} vi- VI- 0 (a to m a >~ (d > > E U O�� dP 0 OOoriN �00 4•J0LnC7 r% CD Lnnori CC) r -In-A 0TLD0or (M M0 0) + �4 �4 S4 O OLnN 0) NN M%D%0.44r1no• D V NN0koMNo•NorN V N a Q N Ix m rn 0 0nMO r- (y) r- a)fxoNnoorcomconoOMrn Lf) (m ra s]404 P. + r- no )•I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o 0 0 0 1D N a) LDerHLDrierLDnnLnroLncoconmkoLc v co O4 0 �o �4 Q' Ln O 4.JMNnoON00LDorN0 OD 1OMOnerrinMO)or •rl I aI 134 Q no n P:LnLnu)o'or V V V orMen MMNNNririv}+h U 0 p4 v} 11 v} to No to V} V} to to to v} to IT IT to IT to to v} 0 0 r H ri n •'•1 yA rd rd W to Fo 1 D O O a m z 9 4 P: I~ z 0 cD or m N r- m m m m m mt or- IMMnLnNorW W I O 1~ UOM NCONkoCD 040 no �0 or 0p U) 0 ri no M M V ^r >4 H •.-I 0 W Ln 00 C0 LO mo 0 Ln M �0 r no m CY) N M M LO Ln CD •11 M dA olo E p (d . . . . . . . . . . . . WMn ry' ari\ariMN r��0MofO Ln0pfAroO0Ln0r-jLnCDrn W I-� •-1 ro Ln m ri N ri ON Ln O M M no n ri H Cl or Lf) N%0 111 r4 ••,1~,5" `J O�W- 4mmtD rim r- ;r r-1 co Srri(- Nc0M0DNL0 O W 4-P U 1-I W . . . V). E +J -H . r-1 I-] +J (d W m nLDLOt0LoloLn LnIllLnd,erormMNNriri C m:3: 29: UN 0 v} V} v} v} Vrtov}v}v}v}totoofV,v)•Nov}v}to U � VI 1 W M $4 E: 4.) 0NmorLn�OnoO 0noNmormn D Wm0ri WriN 4-) N W W v~9 a.JMO�MMCrMC) MOO 0000000OrIr1 4.-3 r vc --'I z (0 04 -W (d (7 a (d C1 C)1 CT C1 C1 C1 CT C1 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 U) H M.-I W W a Oa ❑no no nog -IrIri --I no NNNNNNNNNNNN O +) C: �. �'o V 0 O •a r1 ri 4-1 U (d O +J M O (d +) +J 0 E -H j4 0 +J noNMerLn%DnmC,0riNr orLni 0r -000)0 (0 04 0404 •ri 0 ii �i 0 Z • iw 0 no ri no ri -4 no no no no no N }) �! O O W az F U Nd-P w dz I () A O fA O U C4 O W En A IX Ei H ,Z A W a� w w E W d U AA�G N +� w W E-1 0 m a w 04940 E A 1-1 W W O E-1 A z OA H E-4 04 14� Q U a d U 4-1 (1) O 'O U 0 O 04 --1 N4-) .0 > �P4 N 5 �4 U) 0 x w 0 a)(0 row+) OE� w � A O •r1 Oro0 4-1 2: O -r1 to 00 0 (d ro (D04-H a) =1 O V i4 ri - OP O U coon w > 0 04 � Q N d) O U (D w -1 4,J 4.) 5 1~ ro0'0s40 �xww� N Cl) ?, O 5C •'1 Ld � E%1 CP Q O 0 w ❑ U2 G O --A -P O > t~� 44-) 134 A w Q O ❑ rsa Q) ri r•i O Ld cd •r-I r-1 ' ro >4G•r1 +J -P r� U E-1 N dP ►4 04 n 04 O a a4 w ro O r-I riririr1r- Ir- IrA r-I r-I riririririr4riririri to %D ko �o Lo Lo �o 4, %D %0 LD LD Lo ko LD LD LD N Q% CNMCh G101mMONmChONcmma%ONC1Q%01Q1 N r-1 ri ri ri ri .--4 r-1 r4 ri ri r-I r1 ri ri H H ri ri P--I ri 01 v} {J} V)- v} V} V} <rj- M C/ 0 0 0 lqr O Ln M w m VD 0 0 M LO M M LD N m M O O M 0 W M n n —414t r-I M r-I W 0 0 ri M M Ln OOd' Ln0N0LOOD W r- vNON(MONN40M7 O Ond Nr1000 r-I M �D a Ln a n LO Ln Ln n r-1 00 r-I NMIr LnkonCOO1r- ICNet LnnONHCn1 O H H H H r� H+- -1 H-4 H-4 N N N N N N M M M V} v} v} V). v} V} V)- V} V} V} V} v} vk v} v} v} V} th v} V} �OMr1000riNd' nOM[ - ri�Dr koN W dt O1 W nko0vm"r- 1000\=w r- r- p�Olnln ����r -I r-4 - +�4 �4 �4r- +oo000o000 00000000000000000000 aoco0QOOO000C)ao00000 oi- v)- v} yr V/ - v} V). 01- v} vi- V} V�- V)- Vr V} V). {rr Orr Orr V)- Lo LD %0 %0 L0 %0 Lo %0 Lo %0 %D w �o to Lo to %D to ko to N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0000000000aoaa0000o0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 nnt~�nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn V} V} V} VJ- V} V} Vi V} V} rr} v} V} V} Vle 4A V} N LD N �o 0 0 Ln M m d' w r-I d' Ol w n M O r-I Tr 01 v w m Ln O %o In r- o d' Ch M M Q Ln M M CO n d' to n r-I w Ln N Lo O 01 a r-I to w n Lo Ln -:w v Lo LD n co N n O+ .-1 v to d• N ON a0 M a O1 co %0 07 r-1 r-1 07 d' Ln M M O1 M N d• O v CO CO n �o 0% co CO 0 0LnO%0 nn -ir% INr- ICOL - MNNM W r-i0 r-i to O N Ln O m N M N N d' N CO d• M w N 0 d' Ln o GU n co N (- LD n r-1 co c0 N O• r-I n n M v O 1D Oh r- 1drnr-i V CO Nnr -1loC4 V- V0[ -Ln(n N MCf)Nr V V LnLnLnkOLDt -n0O Co Oh 00r -iNM «cam u5- t/r t/} V)- </I- V1, V)- V} oi- vi- V)- vi- car r1 r-1 ri ri ri V} v} vi- v} v} 0 r4 NmVLn%0r-wm0 ri N M V Ln %0 n W M r-I r-I r-I r-1 r 4 r-I r-I r-1 r-I r-I N a N Ln O 0 ri r/r ca ro +) O E-1 0. a) >s cd 1P4 T By way of comparison, and to give some idea of what a combined pay -as- you -go /bond financing program would cost, Table 9 assumes that the two cent tax increase needed to meet debt service payment in the first year would be held constant throughout the 20 -year period. In subsequent years, funds remaining after the debt service payment was made would be used to purchase development rights. If such a combined program were implemented, the total cost of the program would be slightly more than $29.3 million, result in the acquisition of development rights on 5,630 acres of farmland, and cost the owner of a $100,000 home approximately $820 (average of $41 per year). Regardless of which funding method is chosen, the acquisition of development rights is expensive. The advantage of the program over purchase in fee simple is the land remains in the hands of the owner and is taxable. In contrast, even with expenditures on the order of $29.0 million, development rights could only be acquired on six percent of the 90,373 acres under agricultural use. This assumes an average cost of $2,400 per acre and a seven percent appreciation rate. If, however, the program focused on the acquisition of development rights in the northern and southwestern portions of the county with costs of $1,500 per acre, development rights could be acquired on approximately 14 percent of the acreage under agricultural use (See Table 10). 5. Where will the purchase of development rights most likely occur? Table 2 shows the distribution, by township, of parcels and acreage under the Preferential Assessment /Deferred Taxation Program in Orange County. In terms of acreage and number of parcels, participation is greatest in Cedar Grove, Bingham, and Little River Townships. In terms of the total amount of land area in each township, at least 50 percent or more is assessed on the basis of its agricultural or forestry use value. The purchase of development rights would most likely occur in these areas, because of the presence of active farms and good soils. The presence of a number of farms in close proximity to each other is also beneficial from an economic and management perspective. Farm equipment and products can be moved easier and less expensively than in areas where farm lots are scattered. There is also less opportunity for residential development and associated nuisances to occur. Another advantage is that development rights may cost less in these areas than close to urban centers. Based on the values presented in Table 1, the average market value per acre would be lower - $1,980 versus $2,826. With an average use value of $422 in these townships, development rights might be expected to cost $1,558 or close to the national average. This would mean more benefit derived for the expenditures made. Page - 10 0 rl rts 4. 44 0 0 0 0 N 0 - "N o - d'0d'O[- aovwom ri O 0d'MU)N00r 4IMr- Mr- I0N0-40r - DM Q1 O Q) � 4-) S4 ca -W 0 OrI N• c)'1DaoONd4koq)"Lr)coriLnasMI -N O) Q) Ei 6404 NNNNNNMMMMMvd -;;r Ln LnLn1 cD o t- rl C (a V}V}V}V}V}V}V}V}V}V>V- V}V}V}V}V } iI}V). V }V} �„ (�f1 N {-1 - U Q) (d LL 0 W O 0 w 0 a Q) A 0 0 0 d •0Lom00 CikOLnLnoNLf'1MMkDNMM Q + �.,r♦ O 00010 W Lnt- C- r4vrioorloo Lnorgcomur) 4 -HLH O (o•rl 0od'LnCJNOLnaoaord'NO1 W ON +1 o= :J 4-) . . a� 0 R of- vcNr-4OOO- Ir11o0Ln0L- LnLnLn r- -1 w m 0 C I~•rl 00ri"m - ;r01D[ -W mr -;p Ln(- mrImlo 0 (d a0 U r4 rlr- •1r•- Ir4 rlr4 riT-4V-4-1" NNNNMMM 4 O Vi VVj- [} V} V} V} V} V. V> Vl- V} V} V} z is a0 (d O w 0 a 4 C) H c rH - 4 � (-IU94 4-) •k W LnMONLn0rnkom(nONCTW nLnNCn1DNn 0 SN-I ❑ W W A I~ mNd•Lnn010rINMd10kor- omC0HrI M • 4 a x a 0 (1) o -- 0) ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri r-A ri N N N 1D 44 U W O f� m •rl co N LO �w0ad CO 044-) 4-) (1) M Q �= cr H •� Z U a W O F4 E4 "rt+ Z 0 co W 01D%DNd'd'NriCNLnd'00 NLnr4 N0 z ri zdpE a 01Od'd'd'1DOLnNr4 NM0 CO WN WCOri W U wl -wrT4 z N p N (C•rl d' LnnCn .�Mlocorid'nov'r- .-I1OOLnrjLo 0 $4 0 0 0 +J ► - + . ► . . . ► ► . . . . . ► . . . . 1:4 W U U FU 0 (d NNNNMmMMq'd'd'LnLoLn• o%0nr- m q O1 H rn p P4 p 'U r v)- v-)- vi- V} V} v)- v)- r} yr Vr Vr V} V} V} Vr V} V} •� 4i w > Q) 4) Z dp W 'd 0 m Q N 04 n qj (n u •� D 0 E❑W�5 Llpd�r.� A ZGdE"EO �Uz�H Zw I MLnvv mMLn0C- d'togr - riLl00riW cn A H -i rI O 1- 1D1Dr- IL- PMOIL- 0[- 1DOd'Lnl- MvNmLo Z (d ULN Ln1DN%DON%0co0LnLntONLoA:t"ImU) v 1D 0) O w w 4 :j r4 o 1D . . . . ► . . . . . . . . . . . >I+�0 G M1- MCNM�+ --q w E-I W 4 W4J0 Q) I- ,- kO- 4M0r grNr- I00idr _1M t/} V} 4-) U > GL - En Q)) rI rI N en M dr Ln ko r, w m 0 r4 N ;r m n co N . . . . . . . N Cd Z A ❑ co a•1 t O r� r•1 r� r-4 rl rl t-4 cry +r} V} V� V} ur V} � w 4Aa U WU4H 0 Z Z E•I co W HO to 10 ChrIOOlnLnr- IwcnONC?nrnnrl%0%Dner M m z E-4 00.i 010101v01DNmM001M1D W 01LD10d'[ -GO d' Ln1DN%001DM0 LnLD%0N Od•riML[•1 V OM M N i ❑ 0 Z N -14 ❑ t~0 )-(w . . . . ► . . . ► . . . ► ► . . . . . ► LnLn0 11DooMMmmLnL,- 1Or- Id'Lnd•N000r- . 1D W 0�F:4 • (o r- 11Dr4 (- MOC- -4'Nr- 4CD0riNd'[ -rIko -i W M O W >ViE i-I (-L-00 CD Oh00 r-I NMd'Ln 1D [-CO 01 r- 4Nd•Ln M Q) �4 O V} V)- V)- V} V} - . ► ► . . . . ► . . . ► ► 0 Ri a (d W .--I r-I ri .--I r-I r-I r-I ri .--I 1-1 -4 N N N N 0) Q 0 W V }V }V }V }V }tr}V }V }•hV}V }V }V }V }V} N H [rr V} 4-) H Q) CN%0N1D00mmONI;vWrid'O1W C►MOrld' Lo rl i. M qr C00%u)o%0Lnr-(Dd'01MMO Lc) MM cc) r- 4 r4 Q d'1D( -r-(W MN%00010r- I1Doo[- 10Lnvv10 Cf (d (d •rl 'J 04.1 ► . . . ► . . . ► . . . . . . . . . . . 10(- MNC- Mrid'10d'N01 W M0mM%o W rl U (d rI c: (d HWvLnMM01MNd•0vrww[ -1DO1W W0 (d :>4C1•rl 0001or- - rll -rlNri W C - MNNM W ri0 fA +.) 4] 94 U ► . . ► . . . ► . . ► ► ► . . . ► . ► Q1 O w Q) r11D0NLno01NMNCNd'NCOVM WNa qr E-+ Q)dp W mom r-WNl- 10[ -r-I W W N01,- •II- I-Md'o � Ol- a 1D 01r1v(- rid'CONC- r11ONI -v0 - LnMN r-I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % . U 41 MMd'd' -grLn nLnIO/Dnnaoco(ncorq"m C4 u} V). V} Vy V> or V} Vy V> V)- V} V} V} V} V). ri ri ri ri -4 H rr} v} v} Vr V} � r-I 0rlNrnNrLntOnW010 (d 4-) riNrnv u)Lbn W Mr•i ri ri r-I ri ri ri ri r-I riN 4-) 0 E z 0 rl rts 4. 4-I 0000N Ln ri N �D n d• O d, O l- od•wOM ri O O k N ovmL7NOO�mr- m- iONLo-ior -I OM O) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4J (0-4 A or- INd'LDOONv oc%NLnoo iLnO1ML-N 0) Q% Ei W 04 NNNNNNMMMMMd'd'd+LnLnLn1D14OL� r-I N0 N ( V} � <6 t/} vi- t/} V). t/} vi- in• t!} tn• rl} tit tn• t/} 01. trr vi- Vr co ID 000�4O >i r 0-j- W O O $4 x 04 N O OOOdgOLnen coo)4o n Ln01LnMMtONMM N A Errs q oo' 01000Lnnnri d•riooriccu)ori cc) O,Ln 10 oxZ+� - - - - - - - .. ... Lv z 0 0E�vN r-I 000r-I,M100Ln0r LM Un Ln nri 4-4 M 00 0 -f-I oo r-I NMvUl)Lorao0) r- iNd4LnnONrgMLo O O 00 L� U t-- l r-I r' Ir -I r-I r- Ir- Ir•4r- -lr4r- iNNNNNNMMM U r-1 o N tJ} trr iJ} or tJ} trr tJ} VIP tI} V). in- t/} v} v} V)- trr tr} 0j. tn• trr �4 O W U >or► 04 H C4 0 O Ra A E-1 U 1-i ri cw d, . W4LC4 -P NU R i .W k O O GO Ln O M Ln %0 LO N Q1 Ln 01 M LD n 01 01 ON CO r- iN-I �:) W W P: 1," 00vko M Ndt%0co0NM LO to co ON0rlNMd' O ri CxCd 04 t9 N O— L- rir- Ir1 r- 1NNNNNNNMMMMM 0 4H U 0 - 4rZM•rIU] d' 0, 4 a o 04 rd 044-) 4-) O N 40C4 = O4-el �4 .1 C/] Ln =-I Ulm U -P E-1 2 94 > W• :� z (D R v)• U A V Poi z N $ 4 O, 4 O KC 9 Ei z 0 OLnnwko vriML- MriL- W MMm0wOIn •r•I 'TrdP[W I•'•1 4..i4..ir•i O oOr- IM100oO-Ln LoLnL%riLDMNMr - N U W n(nN 4) L. m (d•r•I Ln% 0n CC) 0)r- INd'LnnON r-I MVDW r-I d•nov P: z 0 i4 (D C O O . . . . . co N = U ❑ U gU 0 rd I r-I rlrl r-I NNNNNNMMMMV;V zrLO Ln rl O 0 H O d o •VI- V} V)- v} u} v} v} Vr v} y r V)- v} V)' v} v} v} v} ty v} C/) m d U W 3: Ei m S4 r-I 4-) N W 7 x%%,. 0 0 4 dP W 'C3 L�WW0O C4 >Mn 04 � E-1 ❑ W D 04U2OMLn' Crvo) O\Lnor- d'LDd'•- 4r- rqu)00rico 0) ZW 1 ri N nLcLC r-I L�MO,ra CI- wod'LnnMleNLnLn O A Hzrn CO U44 Ln% GN LDONkoco0LnLn%DN%Od'r-q MLn td. �oM O W C4 4 :J -r-I 0%0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7�0 I , 5 N MM nd'Ln r-I rinnM Lnd'01NMNOLD%0Ln 1-4 i4 �-4 0 i 4 4) 0 rL tO ri n M a r� qW V ri 0 CO O N q;r n rl Ln r-I 00 J- , W E-L W 4 ry' N 0 % v} t/7• ri r-i N Cn M d• Ln LD n CO C1 0 rI N d' Ln C- co U > 14 fn 0) N tn•:I]• tJ} t!} tJ} tI} tJ} t!} {/} tJ} t/} + . . . ► . ► N W E-1 W M E» O r1 ri .--L ri ri ri ri N Gd W A W N n L th cnUaz a P4 W 1 4 I-I ❑ DOHm n w H � i0 0ri\DM0NOnMnHko%0r�d r- > ZU E-1 10 MMMdg0LoNO1M001M1000M%0LoT r% CO d d O O 04 Ln 1 D C%4 %0 o ko (3) o Lo Lo Lc cq ka 4 ro Ln V %001 M IRV pQ 0 N -,4 ❑ • . . . . . . . . . . ► �❑ 00 f4 04 LOLn01LD W MM ON C1 Ln L- LO r1IrIvLnd4N0 COn LD LH Q 7, U • Cd r1 10 ri L� M O L1 d' N ri O C rl N dq r% r l kD r-I CO M O ',r` V} r=: w LPL - CO COO10or- INM Ln1or- 0001riN -o,M M r:A Lv j,,,,1 O V}V}V}{/}V} . . ► % % ► . . . r. 04 r= (d r4 rl r•4 r-i r-I ri r-I r-L r4 r4 ri rI N N N N 01 O O W yr vlr V1. Vr v>- Vr v>• V). trr N H 4-J fri •rl t•A ty NLDNLD00MMM%;rwrld•01M L- M0riId, rl C. (n d•000%M0%0 LnN0d4MMM0LnMMCOn :j -1 r-I O d• 1DL- riCD1 .C']Nko0M0r- i�owr-4oLnd�d��D [� > :j -P LDL- CONn0 )r1dWLGd'N0%coM001(7D1o00ri Ld r-•L L- Lti ricogrLnMM01MNd•Od•000Dr% D W M0 0 `d' 1rry.-H OLno1D L- r- r-In rLN riwr-mNNMMri0 ca ^, Q i4 O r-I 100NM0MNMNNd'NMVMW"0V b Ei U dP W Ln 0 'CO r- co N r% 10 r% r-I CO co N 01 ri L� L� M d' 0 :j C. r- 04 LD 0) r-I d' L- T-1 v OD N I- ri LD N r% v 0 L- LO M N ri O CL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U f- Mi4 MMd•Mr KVM00%0LD n L% GOCDM00r•iNM � r1 ri r-I r-I —4 H m y„1 ri P..•i rd 0r-4 NMd'LnLor -CO010 Cd a-► rINmvLnLo r- 00)rirlri r-I rl r-I r-4 riririN H 0 ' O ri N rd a to FA 6. Which land owners would be eligible? Landowners with parcels at least 10 acres in size and in agricultural, forestry, and /or open space use would be eligible for participation in the program. Although not consistent with the minimum sized parcel needed for agricultural use (20 acres), this threshold is consistent with North Carolina legislation which exempts the division of land into parcels of greater than 10 acres from municipal and county subdivision regulations. Smaller parcels would be considered if they were contiguous to land on which development rights had already been acquired. 7. How would the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program operate and who would administer it? Six basic steps are proposed for the PDR Program. Based loosely on the Forsyth County model, the steps are described below and illustrated on Figure 3. Step 1 - Submission of Application: To initiate the PDR process, an advertisement would be published in all newspapers having general circulation in the county. Interested farmland owners would then have 60 days from the date of the advertisement in which to complete and submit a PDR application form to the Planning & Inspections Department. Interested landowners are not required to offer all their property to be considered for acquisition of development rights. They may offer all or a part of their property. Applications would be reviewed and any additions or corrections requested within 30 days following submission. Two application cycles would take place each year, so a property owner who missed one cycle would be able to take advantage of the next and not have to wait an entire year. Step 2 - Ranking of Applications: Upon receipt of all applications, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board would review and rank each of the agricultural land tracts for which an application has been submitted. Site visits would be conducted as part of the review procedure to insure familiarity with the property and its setting. The ranking method recommended by the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board is through evaluation of farms using the Soil Conservation Service's LESA system. The LESA system refers to the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment system developed by the Soil Conservation Service in the mid- 1980's. The system has been used extensively and focuses on the quality or productivity of a given site; e.g., land evaluation, and its continued economic viability; e.g., site assessment. The major advantage of such a system is that the most productive and economically viable farmlands are preserved. The LESA System is discussed in detail in Report #2 of this proposal, but a Page - 11 ;DAB - Agricultural Districts Advisory Board Boo, - board of County Commissioners LESA - Lana Evaluation /Site )assessment FIGURE 3 PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM 5L IBMISSION OF AFPLIGATION (Land owner has oV days from public notice dace to submit application) RANKING OF APPLICATIONS (Ranking by ARAB using LESA Bystem/recommenoed purchases sent to BOCC) ACQUISITION AUTHORIZATION (Acquisition approved by BOCCiappraisals conducted to establish value) OFFER TO PURCHASE /SELL (Appraisals sent to land owner/30 days for owner to submit offer to sell) ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER (BUM accepts offer to sell /authorizes closing) CL12ING (Title work conducted/ closing heldideveiopment rights conveyed) Page - Ila NOTE; Applications must de processed witnln Z4l1 oays of tree or,16.ina1 apoiftation Suom'sSIOn oeaoll'!e. STEP 1. STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP A STEP 5 STEP 6 I L"I J summary of the land evaluation and site assessment factors, and the maximum number of points awarded for each is presented below. Evaluation /Assessment Factor Maximum Points Possible Cropland Evaluation 100 Forest Land Evaluation 100 Site Assessment (400 Points) - % of Area in Agriculture /Forest Use 49 - % of Adjacent Land in Agriculture/ 44 Forest Use - Probability of Conversion 34 - Size of Farm 24 - On -site Investment 29 - Conservation Plan 44 - Compatibility with Comprehensive 44 Plan - Distance to Town or City 20 - Distance to Public Water /Sewer 20 Service - Location in Protected Watershed 49 - Presence of Natural Areas 24 - Presence of Historic Sites 20 Total Points Possible 600 Following completion of the Agricultural Advisory Board recommendation to the Board recommendation would specif: development rights from and acquisition. ranking of applications, the would prepare and forward a of Commissioners. The Y which properties to purchase the priority of each for Step 3 - Acquisition Authorization: Following receipt of the Advisory Board recommendation, the Board of Commissioners would authorize the Purchasing Director to obtain appraisals of the market and agricultural value of the properties selected for development rights acquisition. Upon receipt of the appraisals, the Purchasing Director would forward them to the County Attorney. All costs associated with the appraisals would be borne by the County. Step 4 - Offer to Purchase /Sell: Upon receipt of the appraisals, the County Attorney would prepare and send to the property owner an offer to purchase. The property owner would then have 30 days within which to submit a written offer to sell his /her development rights. The property owner could base his /her offer on the values as determined by the appraisals or could offer to sell for more or less than the appraisal values. Failure to respond within the required time could constitute a waiver of the opportunity. Page - 12 S. Step 5 - Acceptance of Offer: Upon receipt of an offer to sell, the County Attorney would present the offer to the Board of Commissioners to accept, reject or authorize further negotiation. Upon acceptance of an offer, the Board of Commissioners would authorize the County Attorney to conduct the necessary title examinations and close on the property. Step 6 - Closing: Upon preparation of the appropriate legal documents covering titles, deeds, surveys, and subordination agreements, a closing would be scheduled between the landowner and the County Attorney. At the closing, the owner would execute appropriate warranty documents conveying development rights to the County in perpetuity. After proper recordation of the necessary instruments, the landowner would be presented with a check. The County would bear all closing and related costs, and would be responsible for securely storing all pertinent records of the transaction. What restrictions would be placed on land in the Purchase of Development Rights Program? Since the purpose of a PDR Program is to preserve agricultural land, restrictions on property use after acquisition of development rights should be carefully crafted. Restrictions of the Forsyth County program include the following: a. Only pre - existing dwellings or their replacements are permitted on land from which development rights have been conveyed. However, a dwelling or dwellings intended for occupancy by an employee or tenant of the farm who earns a substantial part of his /her livelihood from the farm operation, or by a child or children of the landowner, are permitted. For employees, one dwelling per 100 acres may be constructed. For children, one dwelling per child up to a maximum of five dwellings is allowable. b. Where feasible, all permitted nonfarm structures must be located in the immediate vicinity of existing structures; e.g., the homestead or curtilege, or on the area(s) of the property of least productive capability. Such structures must utilize existing driveways, lanes or rights -of -way where feasible. C. The extraction of minerals by surface mining, and the extraction and removal of topsoil from the property are prohibited. The extraction of subsurface or deep -mined minerals is permitted, provided the removal activity does not significantly diminish the agricultural potential of the land. d. The dumping, storage, processing or landfill of non- agricultural solid waste generated off -site and hazardous or nuclear waste is prohibited. Page - 13 Cf e. Signs, billboards, and outdoor advertising structures cannot be displayed on the property except those which display the name and address of the property and occupant, those which advertise a permitted on -site activity, and those which advertise the property for sale or rent. f. Agricultural land must be managed in accordance with sound soil and water conservation practices in a manner which does not destroy or substantially or irretrievably diminish the productive capability of the property. To insure that these restrictions are being followed, Forsyth County officials have the right, at reasonable times, to enter the property and make compliance inspections. The restrictions may be enforced by injunction and all other appropriate proceedings allowable by law. All of the restrictions cited above are appropriate in view of the purpose of the PDR Program. However, particular care must be taken in the number of dwellings allowed on a farm tract. For example, if the farm were 100 acres in size and up to six additional dwellings were permitted in addition to the homestead, a net density of one dwelling per 14 acres would result. If the dwellings were clustered around the homestead on approximately 10 acres, there would still be 90 acres of undeveloped farmland remaining. If the dwellings were scattered over the farm, the net effect would be essentially the same as that of a subdivision of 10+ acre lots. For this reason, the application process becomes extremely important. It is the point at which the landowner's intentions must be considered and a decision made as to whether his /her plans depart from the Program goals. If development rights are acquired, and the restrictions are found to create extreme hardship or are clearly at odds with changing conditions in the area, provision may be made for a waiver of restrictions, but only with the approval of the Board of Commissioners. 9. What would happen if the landowner sold his /her development rights and then decided to change the type of farming or quit farming altogether? Nothing in a purchase of development rights program requires the landowner to farm his /her property. Selling development rights simply restricts the landowner or anyone else from developing the property for nonfarm purposes. If the landowner wished to change the type of farming, he /she would be perfectly free to do so. If he /she did not want to farm the property, he /she would be free to lease it or sell it to someone else to farm. The only restriction on the landowner or any subsequent owner is that the property cannot be developed for nonfarm purposes - the restriction against development continues with the land. Page - 14 10. What if the landowner didn't sell his /her development rights? Would the County stop him /her from developing the land? If the landowner did not sell his /her development rights, he /she would retain all the rights to development subject to the same zoning, subdivision, building, and health code restrictions as other landowners. 11. Could the County build on the acquired property or sell the development rights to someone else to build on the acquired property? No. Once the County paid for the development rights, the rights would be held in public trust and could not be used by anyone without the owner's consent. 12. Would this mean the public has a right to come on the land- owners property? No. Even though the landowner sells the development rights to his /her land, it does not become public property. It is still the landowner's private property and subject to the laws of trespass. The general public cannot enter the property without the landowner's permission. 13. Could the property owner elect to lease his /her development rights instead of selling them? Yes. As part of the application process, a landowner may offer to lease his /her development rights. Such offers would be handled in the same manner as offers to sell. However, compensation for development rights leases would be based on a determination of cash rent values of comparable land. The term of any lease should be consistent with the program objective of long -term farmland protection. In Forsyth County, this period is generally 25 years. The lease should also include an option to purchase the development rights at a future date. 14. Could the property owner re- purchase his /her development rights? Yes. The purchase of development rights is intended to create areas with sufficient amounts of contiguous agricultural land to facilitate the permanent agricultural use of the land. While program activity will be directed to that goal, success is dependent on the voluntary participation of landowners. If a landowner or several owners of small tracts are the only participants in an area, the goal may not be achieved. The landowners could become landlocked by development, and agricultural activity may become impractical. In such situations, it would be in the best interest of the landowner and the public to allow re- purchase of the development rights. However, repurchase of development rights Page - 15 n by a landowner would be considered as an unusual occurrence and would be in the sole discretion of the Board of Commissioners. To qualify for re- purchase, the original purchase must have occurred at least 25 years before the date of the re- purchase request. In addition, the development rights must have been purchased by and not donated to the County. Appraisals necessary to establish market and agricultural use values would be the responsibility of the landowner as well as all expenses associated with closing. 15. How would selling development rights affect the landowner's standing in the Preferential Assessment /Deferred Taxation Program? If the property is already enrolled in the Preferential Assessment /Deferred Taxation Program, selling the development rights will not affect the landowner's standing in the program. Neither would it change the tax assessment the landowner pays under that program, since he /she is already being taxed on what the State considers to be the "current use" or agricultural value of the property. If the landowner is not now in the program, selling the development rights would not change his /her ability to enter. If a landowner sold the development rights on his /her property and elected to leave the Preferential Assessment /Deferred Taxation Program, caution should be observed. Since the tax penalty for leaving the program is based on the current year taxes plus the three prior years, the landowner would wart to wait at least four years. In so doing, any penalty would be based on the market value of the property less its development rights and should be equivalent to the use value. 16. what taxes would a landowner have to pay on the money he /she received for the development rights? The sale of a landowner's development rights would be viewed as a normal capital gains transaction. However, arrangements could be made to spread the payments over time, thus reducing the impact of the capital gains tax. Because of its ability to accept gifts, grants, and bequests, the Board of Commissioners could also provide the opportunity for a landowner to tailor the sale to his /her specific tax situation. 17. If a landowner sold the development rights, could the land still be taken by eminent domain (condemnation) for something like a reservoir or landfill site? Yes. However, as part of its agricultural preservation efforts, Orange County could adopt an ordinance under G.S. 106 -740 which provided for a public hearing on the proposed condemnation and the opportunity to submit written findings and recommendations to the decision - making body. Page - 16 e 18. If development rights were sold, could the property still be annexed? Yes. The sale of development rights would not affect whether or not the property were annexed. However, if a number of adjoining farmland owners all joined the program, annexation would become less likely, since the statutory requirements in the annexation law would become difficult to meet. 19. If a landowner is buying his /her property on contract or has a mortgage, could he /she still enter the program? Yes. However, the type of contract or mortgage that the landowner holds would determine the terms of his /her transaction with the County. In any event, a subordination agreement or waiver would have to be secured from the mortgage or lien holder prior to closing on the property. 20. What has been the experience of farmers who try to obtain loans once the development rights have been sold? In other locations with PDR programs, this has not been a problem. Whether or not a bank makes a loan is based on the ability of the farm to pay off the loan and that, in turn, is based on the farm's income. If the value is there, the bank will make the loan. In many cases, the money acquired from the sale of development rights is used to improve the farming operation. This enhances the farm's value and thus the ability to obtain more loans. Page - 17 @MIA ff V A Purchase of Development Rights Program Proposal Prepared by the Orange County Agricultural Districts Advisory Board 4' May, 1991 Report #2: 1 1 Questions &. Answers About A Purchase of Development Rights Program for Orange county TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION I: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I FARMLAND PRESERVATION. . . . . . . . . . . I WATERSHED PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . 2 MAINTAINING RURAL CHARACTER. . . . . 3 THE CHARGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 PLAN OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . .. . 3 SECTION II: QUESTION & ANSWERS ABOUT A PURCHASE -OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM FOR ORANGE COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 I INTRODUCTION In recent years, renewed interest has been expressed in a purchase of development rights program for Orange County. This interest has originated from several diverse points involving farmland preservation efforts, watershed protection strategies, and performance standards to maintain rural character. FARMLAND PRESERVATION In 1986, the N.C. General Assembly passed enabling legislation which authorized counties to undertake programs to encourage the preservation of farmland. Under the provisions of the legislation, House Bill 1190, Agricultural Advisory Boards could be organized and appointed to: 1. Make recommendations concerning the establishment of voluntary agricultural districts; and 2. Hold public hearings on public projects likely to have an impact on agricultural operations. Counties were also permitted to require that computerized land records include a notice which would alert a person researching the title of a land tract that the property was within a prescribed distance of a livestock farm or agricultural district. Counties were also allowed to hold in abeyance water and sewer assessments for farms. In 1987, the Board of Commissioners appointed an Agricultural Districts Advisory Board for Orange County. The Advisory Board immediately set about the task of drafting a local ordinance to implement the provisions of House Bill 1190, and, in mid -1988, produced a draft ordinance as well as recommendations for addition farmland preservation efforts. Among them were the following: I. Adopt policies for purchase of development rights in agricultural districts upon the request of the farmer. 2. Set up provisions for donation of and lease of development rights under the policies. 3. Request funds for the purchase of development rights on agricultural lands and natural areas in the county. 4. Recommend that Orange County adopt the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) point system as a means of evaluating where agricultural districts and purchase of development rights will be, pursued. while action has yet recommendations of the contributed substantially development rights. to be taken on the draft ordinance, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board to the renewal of interest in purchase of Page - 1 i 1J .' V 40CIA-1 1-4 0m; i103 I # 90 4 F"• RI Watershed protection is not a new concern. Since the late 1970's, Orange County has been a leader in watershed protection efforts in North Carolina. In 1987, however, concern about the adequacy of existing protection standards emerged in response to a proposed development in the University Lake Watershed. Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro jointly requested that the Orange Water and Sewer Authority ( OWASA) commission a carrying capacity study of the watershed to determine what changes, if any, needed to be made in the existing standards. In late 1987, OWASA employed the consulting firm of Camp, Dresser, and McKee to undertake the study. The final, report was submitted in March, 1989, and representatives of t-he three jurisdictions began meeting thereafter to formulate a coordinated watershed protection program. Strategies for protecting University Lake watershed were drafted in October, 1989, based principally on the recommendations of the OWASA consultant. In April, 1990, Orange County amended its development regulations to implement most of the strategies proposed by the Watershed Work Group. The basic strategy for protecting University Lake was to increase the minimum required lot size to five acres. This represented a substantial decrease in permitted :densities and raised concern among farmers and property owners about losses in property values. To address this concern, the Watershed Work Group recommended the following: 1. That the jurisdictions develop strategies for dealing with special hardships that farmers might experience in order to further the public purpose of protecting farmland; 2. That OWASA be requested to create a watershed protection fund to acquire rights in sensitive lands; and 3. That the County conduct a study of the possible use of transferable development rights for purposes of watershed protection. Because of the number of watersheds in the county and the proportion of land (60 %) situated therein, Orange County opted to consider an approach similar to that recommended for OWASA - the acquisition of development rights. Another reason for this was the apparent reluctance of local municipalities to be receiving areas for transferred development rights. A purchase of development rights program would also serve a dual purpose - watershed protection and farmland preservation. MAINTAINING RURAL CHARACTER In January of 1987, as part of joint planning activities with Chapel Hill and Carrboro, Orange County incorporated a new district, the Rural Buffer, into its zoning regulations. Residents Page - 2 irq of the area around Chapel Hill and Carrboro were opposed to the new district, because permitted densities were lowered from one unit per acre to one unit per two acres. Although the intent of the Rural Buffer was to maintain the rural character of the area around the two municipalities, the Board of Commissioners viewed the zoning measures as an interim solution. In November of 1987, the Commissioners created a Rural Character Study Committee and charged it with the responsibility of developing alternative strategies for preserving rural character. In May of 1990, the Study Committee presented a set of strategies which offered density bonuses in return for greater amounts of- open space in developments. As part of its recommendations; the Study Committee also suggested that a purchase of development rights program be instituted and used as a tool for agricultural preservation. THE CHARGE Each of these initiatives culminated in action by the Board of Commissioners in December of 1989. As part of its annual goal - setting retreat, the Board established a goal to develop a proposal for a purchase of development rights program. In August of 1990, after work had been completed on University Lake watershed protection measures and the annual budget cycle was finalized, the Board of Commissioners reconstituted the Agricultural Districts Advisory -Board and charged it with the responsibility of achieving the goal. The Advisory Board initiated its work during the following month. PLAN OF ACTION As it began its work, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board focused on the successful program implemented by Forsyth County. Since the first purchases in 1987, Forsyth County had acquired development rights to 19 farms with a total of 1,192 acres. The County acquired these rights through purchases and leases for a total of $1.71 million or an average of approximately $1,500 per acre. Using Forsyth County as a model, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board elected to develop a proposal in two stages. First, a report was prepared which addressed the most basic question - how does one go about deciding .which farms should have priority in terms of purchase of development rights? The recommended method of evaluation is the Soil Conservation Service's LESA system. The LESA system refers to the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment system developed by the Soil Conservation Service in the mid- 19801s. The two -part system for evaluating farmland has been used extensively and focuses on the quality or productivity of a given site; e.g., land evaluation, and its continued economic viability; e.g., site assessment. The major advantage to such a system is that the most productive and economically viable Page - 3 farmlands are preserved. for future generations. Other benefits include identifying important farmlands and potential. agricultural districts, and preparing and updating comprehensive land use plans. This report represents the second step in achieving the Croal established b the Board of Commissioners. It describes the "nuts and bolts" of a purchase of develo ment rights program, focusing sr>ecifically on administration and funding. The format of the report is a series of questions and answers explaining how a Purchase of Development Rights Program would work in Orange County. II QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ABOUT A PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM. FOR ORANGE COUNTY 5 The purchase of development rights has become a popular and effective tool for preserving farmland across the United States. By acquiring the rights to develop land for nonfarm purposes, many states and local jurisdictions have encouraged active farms to continue and assured that prime soils will remain available for future agricultural use.. While purchase of development rights programs have grown in popularity elsewhere, local implementation is something entirely new for Orange County. Many questions will arise on the part of decisionmakers and landowners alike about how a program would operate, how much would it cost, how would it be funded, and what benefits would be derived. In the section that follows, answers are provided to these questions. I. Why a Purchase of Development Rights Program? Zoning is one of the tools which local government can use to direct the growth and development of an area. Unless a net residential density of at least one dwelling unit per 20 acres is achieved, however, too much non -farm development will be allowed to encroach into rural areas. As a result, conflicts with agricultural operations - manure odors, chemical spraying, equipment vandalism, traffic congestion - are sure to occur. Proposals to limit development through large -lot zoning are opposed, primarily because such restrictions are viewed by landowners as depriving them of substantial value. A purchase of development rights program gives farmers a timely, financially competitive alternative to selling their land for development. Such programs address concerns about uncompensated restrictions, are voluntary, and permit landowners to decide whether or not to participate. The compensation paid to landowners for permanently relinquishing their development rights can enable them to expand their farming operations, pay off debts, distribute their assets equitably among children, and /or provide for a comfortable retirement while retaining title and all other rights to their land. Page - 4 2. What are development rights? Fee simple ownership (the full ownership) of land may be defined as a "bundle" or set of rights, including the following: - The right to keep others off the land; - The right to sell or bequeath an interest in or right to all or part of the land to someone else; The right to use the land for farming, forestry, and outdoor recreation; and - The right to build structures on or beneath the laid. The latter constitutes the "development rights" attached to a parcel of land. The extent or amount of such rights is limited by restrictions embodied in health and building codes, and whatever zoning that may exist. As an example, a person may own a 100 -acre farm. If his /her property was zoned to allow one dwelling unit per acre, he /she would have development rights for 100 units. In rural areas without public utilities available, the actual number of units or development rights might be even lower, particularly where poor soils existed and insufficient area was available for septic fields for all 100 units. The objectives of agricultural preservation may be served by removing the development rights from the bundle of rights which comprise full -fee ownership of farm property. The acquisition of development rights and their separation from the property is equivalent to the acquisition of an easement on the property and is alternatively referred to as the acquisition of a development or conservation easement. Known as "negative" easements, they simply prevent the owner from doing something with his /her land; e.g., developing it. Each easement can be tailored to the parcel to which it applies, specifying what type of development will and will not be allowed. Development rights apply to each specific parcel of property. Therefore, their removal must be accomplished parcel -by- parcel and recorded with each deed. The resulting lien on the property typically "runs with the land," that is, it is binding on subsequent purchasers and can be enforced against them by the agency or organization which holds the development rights. 3. Sow is the value of development rights determined? One of the most difficult aspects of a PDR program is determining the value of development rights. For purposes of this report, only the valuation of development rights for Page - 5 agricultural preservation is considered. This qualification is necessary, since a PDR program may serve more than one purpose, differing in the rights that are removed from land and involving rights that are not valued the same. As an example, the cost of a development right purchase for agricultural preservation purposes is usually figured on a per acre basis as follows: Market Value - Agricultural Value = Development Rights Value Market value is determined by an appraisal and usually based on recent sales of comparable land. It represents the amount for which the property with all rights intact would be sold. Agricultural value is also based on an appraisal and based on the current and prospective net returns from agricultural production. It represents-the amount for which the property would be sold based on its income potential. Shown graphically, the value relationship would look like Figure 1 below. Figure 1 RELATIONSHIP OF VALUE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO MARKET VALUE AND AGRICULTURAL VALUE Market Value Value of Develop- . ment Rights Market Value Value of . : Develop- : ment Rights Agxicul- Agricul- tural tural Value Value High Development Pressure Land values another and if not unwi development the cost of per acre.. Low Development Pressure vary widely from one part of even within a single county, se, to draw conclusions about rights in other PDR programs. purchasing development rights Page - 6 the country to making it difficult, the cost of Nationally, however, has averaged $1,500 In Montgomery County, Maryland, a jurisdiction noted for its agricultural preservation programs (including PDR), $1,500 to $4,000 per acre has been paid for development rights. The average of $3,200 per acre is competitive with appraised PDR values elsewhere in Maryland. As indicated previously, Forsyth County has had a PDR program in effect since 1987. The average price of development rights in that county has been $1,500 per acre. However, the former administrator of the Forsyth County program indicated that recent appraisals show an increase in the average price to $2,500 per acre. He predicted that similar values would be found in the Research Triangle area. Using recent sales and tax appraisal data on land in.;Orange County, it is possible to'make some assumptions about the value of (cost of purchasing) development rights. However, this information should be viewed as a generalization and should not be presumed to apply to any specific property. Shown on Table 1 is a sampling (14 properties) of land sales involving vacant parcels 25 acres or greater in size. The general location of the parcels is identified on Figure 2. Sales in southern Orange County were generally higher in per - acre price than sales in the northern= portion of the county. The average price among the properties sampled was $2,826 per acre and establishes, at least for discussion purposes, an average market value for land in the county. One means of estimating the per -acre value of agricultural land is to use those values assessed to property under the Preferential Assessment /Deferred Taxation Program. The values are based on 10 -year production averages for corn and soybeans under a sound management program. Values are calculated for each of five major soil groups and applied to parcels based on the types of soils present. The values are similar to those derived by actual appraisals, since they are also based on the income potential of the land. Shown on Table 2 are the average agricultural and forestry use values per acre, by township, for parcels in the Preferential Assessment /Deferred Taxation Program. Agricultural use values vary from $495 per acre in Chapel Hill Township to $398 in Cheeks Township. The average agricultural use value for the county as a whole is $427. As indicated previously, the difference between market value and agricultural value is the value of development rights. Using the estimates derived above, the average cost of development rights in Orange County would be approximately $2,400 per acre ($2,826 - $427). Considerable variation could be expected, though, with values ranging from $1,000 to $2,600 in rural areas away from urban areas. Close to municipalities, values would be considerably higher, ranging from $4,500 to Page - 7 ORANGE, COUi,Y Page - 7a x V TABLE 1 SAMPLE OF LAND SALES IN ORANGE COUNTY, 1989 -1991 Size Sales Price Lot# Township (Acres) Price Per Acre 1 Cedar Grove 237.51 $344,500 $1,450 2 135.43 $400,000 $2,954 3 Little River 29.17 $43,000 $1,474 4. 53.47 $80,500 $1,506 5 26.29 $18,500 $704 6 51.99 $50,000 $962 7 Cheeks 25.90 $121,500 $4,691 8 Bingham 50.05 $135,000 $2,697 9 26.57 $80,000 $3,011 10 53.32 $160,000 $3,001 11 50.84 $104,000 $2,046; 12 Chapel Hill 28.3.5 $281,000 $9,911 13 37.32 $187,000 $5,011 14 108.67 $580,000 $5,337 Totals 914.88 $2,585,000 Averages 65.35 $184,643 $2,826 Source: Orange County Land Records System. FIGURE 2 ORANGE, COUi,Y Page - 7a x V TABLE 2 PARTICIPATION IN PREFERENTIAL ASSESSMENT /DEFERRED TAXATION PROGRAM IN ORANGE COUNTY -`'BY TOWNSHIP Average Total Average of Parcel Use Value # # Total Size Value Per TownshiR Parcels, Acres Acres* J&cresl (Land). Acre Little River Agricultural Use 269 15553 17% 58 $6,593,472 $424 Forestry Use 19 628 3% 33 $191,984 $306 Total 288 16181 15% 56 $6,785,456 $419 % of Township Area 56% Cedar Grove Agricultural Use 439 29518 33% 67 $11,9771233 $406 Forestry Use 20 1173 6% 59 $364,290 $311 Total 459 30691 28% 67 $12,341,523 $402 % of Township Area 59% Cheeks Agricultural Use 201 10948 12% 54 $4,352,976 $398 Forestry Use 26 1196 6% 46 $386,019 $323 Total 227 12144 11% 53 $4,738,995 $390 % of Township Area 37% Hillsborough Agricultural Use 57 3355 4% 59 $1,471,937 $439 Forestry Use 4 414 2% 104 $85,383 $206 Total 61 3769 3% 62 $1,557,320 $413 % of Township Area 25% Eno Agricultural Use 69 4089 5% 59 $1,982,204 $485 Forestry Use 44 5603 29% 127 $1,592,368 $284 Total 113 9692 9% 86 $3,574,572 $369 % of Township Area 40% Bingham Agricultural Use 305 18676 21% 61 $8,126,140 $435 Forestry Use 59 5603 29% 95 $1,028,255 $184 Total 364 24279 22% 67 $9,154,395 $377 % of Township Area 50% Chapel Hill Agricultural Use 184 8234 9% 45 $4,073,887 $495 Forestry Use 11 4617 24% 420 $1,587,107 $344 Total 195 12851 12% 66 $5,660,994 $441 % of Township Area 28% Totals -All Townships* Agricultural Use 1524 90373 82% 59 $38,577,849 $427 Forestry Use 183 19234 18% 105 $5,235,406 $272 Total 1707 109607 100% 64 $43,813,255 $400 % of County Area 44% Source: Orange County Land Records System, February, 1991. Page - 7b $9,500 per acre. The overall average, however, is in line with the predictions of the Forsyth County program administrator. 4. How will the purchase of development rights be funded? Nationally, purchase of development rights programs have been funded from a variety of sources: State matching funds, real estate transfer taxes, sales taxes, general tax revenues, and bonds. In North Carolina, State matching funds are not available, and specific legislative authority must be granted to use real estate transfer and sales tax revenues. In the absence of such resources, general tax revenues and bonds appear to be the most likely source of local funding. Pay -As- You -Go Program: In Forsyth County, the Board of Commissioners elected a- pay -as- you -go or cash -first program. In the first year, the Board appropriated $1.0 million to fund the program but, in subsequent years, appropriations have not exceeded $500,000. Since the first purchases in 1987, Forsyth County has acquired development rights to 19 farms with a total of 1,192 acres. The County acquired these rights through purchases and leases for a total of $1.71 million. If Orange County were to employ a cash -first program, it might start "modestly" as Forsyth County has done. Given that the level of participation is unknown, one cent of the County tax rate might be earmarked for the PDR program. Based on the current assessed property value and assuming a 98 percent collection rate, the program would be funded during the first year at a level of $357,800. If the value of development rights averaged $2,400 per acre, this would mean that development rights could be purchased an 149 acres. This would be equivalent to one farm a year, based on the average farm size in Orange County in 1987. With property values appreciating over the last five years between three and seven percent annually, one might expect revenues from a one cent tax increase to rise as well. This would enable more development rights to be acquired. This situation would not occur, however, since the value of development rights would appreciate at the same rate as property values. Shown on Table 3 are the revenues to be received over,a 20 -year period assuming an annual three percent appreciation rate. Almost $10.0 million would be received and expended to acquire 3,000 acres worth of development rights. Over the same period, the total cost to a family with a home valued at $100,000 would be $269 or an average of $13 per year. Shown on Table 4 is the same scenario but with an annual appreciation rate of seven percent. Approximately $5.0 million more would be expended to acquire the same amount of development rights, and the cost to the homeowner would increase to $410 or an average of $20 per year. The examples provided in Tables 3 and 4 are indicative of the costs Page - 8 4-1 00,-q m LDO)d•0r -0,;r gr1D01mM0mNv 0 O -d OMLDC)NLn01MLD0d ODC+)LPriLnCD Ln0Ln r O >C O J-) N 0.S4 A 0000 NNMMM r: 0; U Ei 1•.I 44 r1 r1 .-i . j r-r r-I •--L r-I r-4 r-I r1 r1 ri r-I r-4 r1 e-I r-I r1 r-I �o 4-,)C', (d (a 3 r-I e N � U�Qtof� Ei trr W O tb b 0rINMd4 LOLDt -wm0 r-1 O r-I N M d' Ln L0 r� W M •--I r-I r-I r-I ra r-I r1 r-I ri r i N to P-1 41 O E1 9 • 0) fo P4 CL) od(DMrl r,Mr- r- r- NMLDMMr- rILnMri F, r-I A doCrnnLnNOOnnQ`Nr- Lr) Lna%r -cod Ln •rl O CO O OOONLOm grC7%tDo Md LncoNr- d'(N N("h 'z, a) O 1~ 4.3 0M%0(MN LnO)NLDOd•OONLDr4Lf)0Lr) 0 Ln• 0 W co O r~ co 0000f- j -4-INN MMMd d'LnLn%D%0r -t- H PC (d O d Q •r1 ri r-I ri �-j r-I r-I rt r1 r-I ri r-1 r-1 r1 .-i r1 rl �4 r-I r-I r1 [-I U a) ::s O U {I} {rr {/r i/} v)- irr {/r rrr v)- v)- V? {rr {/} V)- yr N} V). V). ❑ oW 41 W F-1 U d M N W U ad 3 d LL ~WW ~� of w C) Fy" �0 4) O) N d 0 O d d' d d' er d' d d' d' d d' d d d' d• d• d• d• d' d' 00 co a N • r1 -- ri r-1 rt rf r-4 ri ri -q ri ri ri r-I r l rt rf ri r-I r-I ra ri m N r1 R N4.) N N x ❑ ir} (o CL 4j - -1 (1) Hz LL C. r4 U RS 94 O 0 4) •'-I 4 d > C; 01-- F4 de E I (1) U M ❑ (Si W O a [-IU rI0 '0r- Ir-\DM ONLDM _INLDNd d O1 0 r 4-)4-1r-I QL�d 'NOGDWDLn-- *-m"NNNMMlS1LCCO0 en I4" Ei O m ro O d d'Ln%Or- r- wm0r1NM d'mLDr�COmON W a) O O :� -H . . . . . . . . ► W > W C7 W F�U 04-) NNNNNNNNMMMMMMMMMMd d' a W (n �i U 04 c (o v} crr yr � </r V> V)- � cn � <f). ,r V> V). V> p] A Q ad � O N r� •,-1 r,C W r-I 4-) U E0 C4P W OOda O U z Q) y 0) M W KG z W W U •-1 CL F-I Z A a4 W CL w x 0 I> - iHw rd Od Or- r- OOrIODOr - M COr�r- rd4OMWOd O (_] •J [ I O M C1 r- 0 0O M d Ln d' Ln n M d' O d' LO W m CD r 4 UEi W O 4)pw wLnLnC)�L -r-N0 wwNr- i'd'Nd'+ -IMrld N Wz❑ �r-ISOQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ix W 1~0 i-I W t- a)m0Nd'r -OMLOO Lf)OLr) -1 r,d'r1ONr- d' Ua (D rd LnLOr,0)0- 1N¢YLnLDCOU1rINd Lnr -M0CN r1 > V} E i4 M M M M d' •e' q*' d• d• d' d' Ln U) Ln Ln Lr) Lf) %0 %0 LD W W H O )-I O Vr - yr [J} V). {rr v)- rrr crr v)- V)- V)- v> v)- yr V)r V). V> VI. c/r V), z o H O w w z u >Q� w w �'�❑ O Nr- k000r %d'r- LDO)NLnrLNr�r-'INd'd"MCT 0 z Or-4 G 0)CC)0)mNLDNLDLnr- 1LDm r-I 0MM r%D=r -I PC 4 r-I 0 O d'01MNNr- LDr- d'd'0DLDLn W0 r- LO(MriIn W to :3 -H . . . . . . . ► ► . . . . . . . ► . . . r-I •>' 1~4-3 1D%DMd'r4ODd CT Co Co00%000'grMMr-;(M O (~ O rid'1DLDLf)Nd0O0Td'1D%0r -d.M\ o 0 r - r-I r- 4) >4 •ri 0LnMU)NLnL()NO)r- L0OD'a'LDd ri00Ln%D0 O 4-) U • [-I Wdp d) r(0MONMN0T0d•MlDCV) Ln•- INCOCi7d'InN a)M w Lntor- COOMLnmNLD0 Lf) 0 mD N0O Lf)MrI0 04 !y LDr -OD0) _4 Md'LDr-010NMLnLDCOONId' O ev Oa )-I 4 M rn rn M d d d' d4 r -Cr q• Ln V) Ln Ln Ln Le) %0 Lo 10 W ur trr V). trr trr err trr vi- vl�- ur V>. err trr Vr . trr Vr . v yr trr trr tb b 0rINMd4 LOLDt -wm0 r-1 O r-I N M d' Ln L0 r� W M •--I r-I r-I r-I ra r-I r1 r-I ri r i N to P-1 41 O E1 9 • 0) fo P4 LH aOU)LO r-I M r-I tOmwr LnN0mmNm0r Ln O 10 On�Nr-I oao�MtD0U) - ininnLnm� m O x m x . . . . . . . . . a-) 44 CO-4 Q OOriNMd Ln'ta rcoolriNd' Lnr- mP -Imto m U Ei Wa r4 r- Ir4 -4r-I. I-4 -- 1r4r- 1riNNNNNNMMM O rd vi- vi- rn- yr -C } v} V)� v} V)- i)- trr VI- tn- yr crr try -Cr t)- v} v} d' rn 3 r� E~ w r�r O O o �i 0 U O its rT.4 E~ v} w O m �4 N td O .--I N m V Ln ID r- w M O r-I r-I Nmd' 01Dr •OMr- ir- Ir- Ir- Iri r-I r-I r-I rHriN ra O H r•: ] a� lfS G4 N 0 0 0 .41 00mwmkDm0MLOMMtDNMM (". . 4 I~ OomcDmmrrr- ld'r4wriOLno- 4wa•Ln rl O 0 0 0014,mnNOmwmr- d'Nmco0)Nco0,to. O r~+3 Ord'Nr c0c ao cn%ooLnOr LnLhrnr - r- z rh O 9 (a OOr-iNm.44U) UD rcomr-- cgIRVLnr-mr-im10 0 W 10 NO F:c-,i r- rir- ir- iririr- lririririNNNNNNMMM H p� U ::1 O U v} v} [} v} yr V). V)- V)- V)- v} V)- V)- V)- yr V). V')- V-)- V)- V)- v} H U i-I rl - dP Iv U far- W W H � > o a xUrx H Hww v} a ❑rxa as U a4 c) 1-) I~ Mmo) O)ONMM ONO) MO) ch ONO) 0110) CM(M m N d' tU •ri -•- r1 ri ri r-I -1 ri r-I r-i r-I r-I r-i r^1 ri -1 -4 1-1 r-I ri ri . m rn - E~ N 4-) N N H rSi N M 04 +3 --1 O U" z �+ r i •rl U C4 1C4 0 4 r7 Cl V — N U ❑ Z r- cnn w O Z =U -_ 0 m m C) %0 %0 N Ndl 194'N•- 4Ntnd1 CDNLn•'•IN0 r4 E-4 -P �� I~ OLOd d d kD0LON�NLn0 CC) 0ONmco --100 d'OHCn I~ UJ rd 0 d•Lnr - C r"qm+ DMrid•r0d rritDOLnr-lto a Ei (1)ai0::s•-i I I I I - - - - -- I I I I -- fs7 W X w E~U z4-3 NNNNmMm re) d';•d u)LnlnLDLDr rwco a > W 0 U a Z ro trr trr V)- v} yr yr yr yr yr V>� try trr yr Vi- {rr yr yr yr yr yr p] W U) I--I r< O U] 4 • ri �C ❑ rC Gr, ri 4-1 U E-1 W i 4 N 4 dP U QrxEi O >0) r�-4 Z U Z L4 Q) --1 W < Z W QGdC9)a ❑ a W x� 0 5C > a ns (Dko 0 0NNr-4mO o(DtoLnMNm(DmmON ri HE-I W E-' 9:5 Od d•N0m%D'41 QD O Id, rlmd m m m N m m r- > N U pr comtOmoOoatLnr- ODm- 4coNLr) -INNmm ri UEi W 7 r^I .x Q + + + + + + + . + + wzQ 1~0 W04 rN0)0001ri%D-ctr"d'rmmLr•1rV Nrtp00)Cn co pL'w U • 1a LncoaMtDOMrr- IIn0In0tDNODU)m0m to u ,7f/}r w mm J"d'd'LnlnLnt %Dr- r- m wCrnm0 r-I NN tD 0 V')- yr {/} i!} t/} yr t/} v} yr th {/� yr yr yr yr v} • + + • W W H C4 rd ❑ z Ei O w yr v} yr yr ri z 0 H w v} w z w W�~ NtoNtva0lnmm.144 Dr-Id mm r -m0r -1 d' (� �' ❑ Ot- :;pwmInptDLnrOd'OtmmO LnMm=r- 71 rIr-i 0 vtDrriwrnNtDOmO,- 1towr -10 LOd'd•tD f=i ' Z 4J VD r- mNrl- m -- gd'tDd"Nm W m00tCOtbccf -I r-1 rz rd r-I cov U)r)m0)mNC'od m W r�m0 cmw0 0 jy=•ri 0mOto r• r`ri riNrimr- mNNMMr•-10 4..1 4..1 Q U + . ► I . ► ► + ► + + + O w 0 r-I tD0NLn0mNm"N•d'Nm141m m NOd E'1 4) dP {4 m 0 = r- w N r- %0 r- t--4 wODNONrirrMd•O (I r- 04 tDMrid'r.- I MNr- %0Nr- d'OrLnMN O -04 + + + $4cgj I, mmgwd•d'LnLnLntDtot - r- w Dm00r -iNM �4 fd? i!} v} {/} {!� {I} v} i.�} iJ} {/� � {/� {I} {J} {/} rl r-I r-1 r-1 •" l �4 N td O .--I N m V Ln ID r- w M O r-I r-I Nmd' 01Dr •OMr- ir- Ir- Ir- Iri r-I r-I r-I rHriN ra O H r•: ] a� lfS G4 involved if development rights are,,,�cquired in the southwestern portion of the county. Tables 5 and 6 play out the same scenarios but assume a beginning development rights cost of $1,500 per acre, the national average and representative of values which might be found in the northern portion of the county. Regardless of the scenario, though, the central paint to make of even ,a "modest" program is that substantial expenditures will be made, particularly if the program extends over a long period of time. Bond Program: When North Carolina local governments pay for programs and projects through bond financing today, the term of the bond is generally 20 years. The interest rate may vary with the jurisdiction's.bond rating, but for Orange Bounty, it is six and one -half percent with a one percent administrative fee. To show how a bond program for financing the purchase,of development rights might work, it is best to use the examples provided in Tables 3 and 4 for comparative purposes. Table 3 indicated that a 20 --year pay -as- you -go program would cost $9,614,210, assuming a one cent tax increase, a three percent appreciation rate, and a development rights cost of $2,400 per acre. If the development rights on the entire 2,982 acres had been purchased in the first year at a per acre cost of $2,400, the total cost would have been $7,156,800 or $2,457,410 less. Using the example provided in Table 4, the savings would have amounted to $7,511,371. To finance the $7,156,800 cost of development rights in the first year, it would be necessary to seek the approval of a bond issue. If it passed, the annual debt service payments and long -term cost to the County would be as shown on Table 7. From the comparisons at the bottom of Table 7, it is apparent that a pay -as- you -go program at three percent appreciation would save money in the long term. The real disadvantage to any pay -as- you -go program is that land is being developed during the period, and valuable farmland will be lost. If property values were appreciating at an annual rate of seven percent during the period, bond financing would be more advantageous, both in terms of long -term program costs and cost to the taxpayer. The total cost for the bond program would be $14,040,524, including principal and interest payments. The total amount received and expended through a one cent tax increase would be $14,668,171 or $627,647 more. As shown in Table 8, the initial two cent tax rate needed to meet the annual debt service payment-could be decreased, since the total property value would be appreciating: By the end of the 20 --year period, the tax rate would be equivalent to one -half cent. The long -term cost to the owner of a $100,000 home would be $392 under bond financing and $410 under pay -as- you -go. Page - 9 44 00rIm%Dmd1 0 t-- V) :t lzrLDm M W LnMNd'. 0 O T1 0mUD0)"masMLD0 d'M"N o - 4M0Lo0U) CI- 0 >C N 1 is (0-%4❑ 0 O0 0 rir1r-- INNMenm.0,d'LnLnkO%0r -n W O h i 4 W r1 -i . -i , -1 -4 r1 r1 r1 r- ri r1 r1 -� ,� rl ,--I r1 rl 1--1 �D 4-) G fd ih {/} i/i i/} ih {!} VI- {/} V r {? v)- V). V). V/ - V5. {j} V)- V1- i/} V)- N D OOawO U O (d fM4 O x rd fy i N (d 04 O a00.me- InLnnnnNMIDMMr- -- �LS) f'r1.--, El --1 0 0 0)r,0"nWr-r- 01NnLo0mt- 00d'Ln rl O (d O 000NL1) 0ld 011Dd'Md'LnW Nnd NNm z O O g+J 0 (^ryL0 0) Lf)mN�DOd' 00 NLD•- 4Lf10Ln0Lr) O W U] a r. fd 0 a00 __I -j jNNMMM 44 d'LnLn�DL0rlrl H G� fd O O Fx, •rl rl r1 rl r-4 r( r1 r1 e--1 r1 r1 r1 ri r1 ri ri r1 r1 r-1 .--I r1 4 u i/} {/} {/} {/} {/} {/} V} U? i? {/} {!} i!}• {I} {/} y}, {/} {/} il} {I} {!} Q F �-1 " 1► dc° Q1 H W W H>a� 04 r� �+ r4 {/} Qi 01 w Uw0 K4 40 4J A 01 CF) 0101fTOlcnC7 31 C) m 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) ON 0) aN -4 Lf) 0 - O M M M M M M M M m M M M m m m M m M M M N G]a N ••i ^ NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN ON, N (- EH Rri rf r^-1 �i m 4J w U Z Z O r U) l4 Fi Z rM4 L+ ri t)) -,q U P. 0 O •,1 0 � EEdpH O U 2m(n n Q W O 04 F= 00_1MWM -4Ln0r- kDLoMMMr-r, 71d'C? C) C/) 4 -)4Jri 0 0- crmmmmfTd!00rInm0%0M0r- n Ln 0' G w (d O LnLnn1 oL Dr - r- mm )00r4NNMd d"Ln%JD wx N(u0::1•H ► ... ...... ► ..... Ir•IrIrIrINNNNNNNNNN W > W U f„1 EU r�+1 HH,- 1-4ri,-- E-4 A 04 E•'I i 4 O d° N m 2 W W 0) 04 ❑ CD Cd OHW �[�a[ai] Oa OnnaoracoOl� moon-- 1 14'0 mW0 .t O W ❑ E-4 'O am m n O m m d' Ln d' Ln l- Md•Od'LD WMa rf OF W N O a� wLnLnmr-r-N0 0000NrId'Nd rHMrid' N W Z ❑ r1 -x4 Q ► ■ ■ ■ . ► . . ► . ► ■ . . . ► mCt0Nd naMlballlaln - lnd'rl0N d IX W Ua r�O Wr-L4 47 • Ld r- Lo ID r- lOriNd - mn oWMriNd LnnOION rl CQ I F� >irrE~ 14 MmM re) d d'd d d d'd d'LnnLn LnLnu)%DlP LO W W H (v p O V> yr err �r ur tr} err yr �r yr +rr trr yr yr t� yr trr car - zo" owe w H >�Cz w Ridgy.❑ O NI�LDW [ �d'[%1DfTNLnr"4 Nl- .- "INd'd'mOl O r1 C.' fT000)a)NLDN1.D Ln -4 %o m 1--1 0 m m r� lo W r1 Mf rl fd O d'aIMNNI- LDn¢}'d w0 omW0nl0CNr -iLO ON 00W0 0 LD00 d'(71mr1Ol ,�> q41 co L+ to %D 10fn'r 1-100d rid'LDLOLf1Na W Old'LDkOL- d'mT o0 - rin d-) r74 -{ o Ln M Ln N Ln Ln N ON r- lD W d' LD d' -1 W Ln 1D 0 O4-3 U . . . . . . ► . . . . . . . . . )01NfT0d'MLDMLSIr-fN000D Id' LnN E-1 wdp N OM i4 rl0m0 LnLDn000m mmNLD0m0LDN Co LnMrf O 01 04 ion W fT� INM CEO[- OIONMn%o WON O(Vw . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . D%Dt0 $4 Q CL4 MMMMd't7"d'd'd'd'd'LriLnLnLriLnLn {r} {/} {/} V)- {I} {/} {/} {I} -C . -L } {C } {/} {J} {!} �4 Qr-q rlfn-04U)%Dn00M0 M 'H rINmC'LnlOh W Olr- Ir- lrirl,-- Irirtrir -IrIN � � O F rd fy i N (d 04 z �� Ei U A494 W H Lx U 04 co 4, UC4o 4 F4 O Ln En 1.4 Ei Q,' r-1 = A Vr 0 z R+ O H dP E4 Z n (n W O U W Ei �DOHV� a 3 H a >w� (�wC/]H �i ❑ �i rri H W Ati'Ei z U z 4zW w � ❑ w wx0 >F:4a wEiW W > U H W WzA P; w u 1 rn I Q W W H :nzE-1 z O w W z >�w W CC:� ❑ ❑j (=L 4-4 0 k d) 04 4-► {-1 CC x A W E-1 w a1 4-3 A to W3-4E;F4 U d) (a W R O W •ri O (d O 44 M :J •-I O O G +) U] O C cd fd W o 4 •r-1 W z 0 U �4 - dP W U rd on N 97o 04 w r-1 ez CL 4-) A O O W --i r-i E; M 4-) m CO w+) -r� W z0.aLnN � W •ri � Q Q > b" -- W U A � o0Ln0Hm.-Ako a W r-Lol. roo,o,NO 0r- Ln ana'Nr-- 100or -+m 14r0 lfj r-4 n In Ln W r-4 m aOr-iNMd'Ln1DnCOCT1- rN q'Lnn0; 141\ C\ r4 r- 4 r4 r 4r•-1-1r-4r-4�l�l�4NNNNNNMMM a V)- {/} Vr V> Vr V> {/)- V)- Vr V/ - ter Vr V)- Vr Vr Vr Vr Vr {/r Vr d' i� 0 0 0 N' O Ln M CD 01 LO 0 Ln m 0 m m LD N m M OomgwLn n nri ;r r-A m r-q tumo r-i w Ln 00qd'1n0N0LnODcor'a'NmcomNcoON.%0 . . . . ► . A Onv fvr- q(DCD0 --1 m" D0Lf 0r- LOLnLnr -r4 oor -1NMd Ln o r- com HNgw or- m -1mvo rH r-I ri r-4 r-4 -4 r1 r-1 r1 N N N N N N m m M Vr Vr V). ih Vr {/} {/} i/T {/T Vr Vr V} i? V} vj- V} V/ - i/)- V)- V)- rnrnrnrnrnrnrna�rnrrrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrna� � M M m M M M M m M m M M M M M M M M M M n N N CN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r- -d' O m n m w d' ,--1 m n m r•-1 n m m m m m m O m 4J-P-4 1~ 00r•4 MLDaLnot -- LnLnmr- -4LDmNmnN C m rd O LnkDnmm-- iNd'Lonm-4m1om�iet nod' W W O Z•ri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W E~U 04J r-- l r- 4r- 4r 4r- 4NNNNNNMMMMd'd'd MM U CL 0 Ld i/r yr yr ih yr rrr ih yr vj- Vr Vr Vr Vr Vr yr Q O m 4--1 -1 4-) U 1-I W C dP W W >bnnw a W •-1 04 ❑ r4 W CL Ld O ID Ln O N N --I CC) LD O�o Lf1 m N CT a M M Cp N r•-1 E-4 10 0 d'14'N0m%0 d'LpOd ' r-1md CT mmNmm r- (1) iX co cc) U?MOCOCTLnr - m Or- mNLnr-4 NNmm r4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AO S4 aL nN0)com­4%Dt1'd nmMLONNn�700)m CO W to Lnco0MLDO Cl) nr4L1lOLnC) oNCOLP1 re) 0m LD > E w f'l re) d d'd'Lr)V) nLOLOnr- mm m 0) 0 -'1 NN %D W W O yr yr trr t/r t/r t/r yr Vr Vr Vr trr trr trr {rr irr trr Ri Er fd W -4 4 -4 _q d' Ow N v} w W N►DN%DO00MCT%d'COrjqZr MWr-M0 •-I C' Z m - t:vmmLnOLOLn r-0-tr mmmoLommmr- r -ir -{ O d1%0nr• -1 COLnNwOm(D r•- LLOCOnLOLnd'd'LO fd rd •ri > 4-) LDncoNna%.4 LOd c,4 o) co rnc)a) cD %oco -i F--1 A it rHco -z Lf1MmLTmNq;i'Od'COCOr-%oa) oD COa CO r>rr- -''1 0Lno%Dnn r-i n r-i "�4conmNNmco --l0 -W4-)Q U O �4 W 4LO0 NLn0MNMNNd'NCOd MCONOd E1 CD dP i4 LnpconcONr— %o r- -- icOCONch - it - nmd'O 044- Cif �o0) r-i ern r-i am coNr- - 4%oNn-;2'onLnMN 0 pa 44a.) mMq'd'd'LnLnLn%DLrv- nr—mmON00riNen p.L Vr trr Vr t!r ih r/r yr t/r yr � v> tir trr t/� irr r-1 ,-� r-I ,--1 r-I trr trr trr trr t/} w N t ar -lNm IQ, Ln0r -w m 0 r•-1 W ri N m d' m 10 n m m r•-1 r-i r -1 r-i r-i r-L r-1 r-I r-i r-i N 0 O H «tl rn W W 11 41 IP4 do YD r- INnN� ILI1d Ol'd.mw 1 d' NO tDCDto tD otD CD d > �tDNHNMOr d'MCOMLn•-- id'C7�C70CDtdtDLIIO N Hl� ON LO N01CT l CL N� otD W d Ln'i'� No NmmcgONH Ln N = dtd O H cD LI'IHko Mko O d'00 tD N M ULI'I NM0)Mr,NtDriODCDd•Oriko o rl C: tD d'MMtl10�LC7NNMnd•M 'AD r-10M0"0u) d' to Ha o O O[I} n v} �•ri_4mLnn01Hd'nOMtOOd'COMCDM W LnH O 1e- I_4NNNMMMd'd u)Lntdv, C! m.4' r-1 rL4 r- Ln Vj- tD _ M a-) O Ln d' 4J O Lfj Ln N O t!"I tD o Ln n d Ln M o O'd' M 0 .-+U CU >4 .-. j mA oNtDoOtDMnLnNMOlrnnr-IMmo.rrN •� S„i � .,1 Onr 4V"1mN0�OMnONtOd"COnO�C71NNnn otoHNmo c:rrH m r-cq m m Of'r1tOMOd r1 0 •,.{ W 0 •,1 -H m O i7'N w ,- I4.3MtDntOLO- 4tommod' nCOtorIN0d MCD ,--i d-) •N N U ro m 0 LO (DU)CDU)0- ;1,mNtoCDm%MmNd'tDnmw Cry C0 co En ',7 Q) 0 R' •rl �s C7 E K/)- , . , , . . . . . , . . . . . ► N N M M M d• d' if 1 Ln Ln Ln to to tD l0 t0 to H r-I ro A � � � r'fd ro L) yr trr trr yr ter v} trr v} yr trr v} yr yr yr yr th yr V} cr} U >4 it � 0 ry op'. w C -��vi CD Xo O+Ja O�O�r ^�nnrnaoMaornLnto,�r�MnLnn�d+a xCD CD PO ',T a) N (x V.4 C» UML - q ntDoLn%o- 4%-od' W LnOrir- 4MMd'ur O II H O E-1 r-' A O 10 4 -H 1:4 r� ri � tYl CD CD In GD to Ln M t0 n ri Q\ M N M M tD In .. � � w a�,�a� yr �tt .,.,,, . . GriHMNntoOld'.OLoa)co - �aLnor4Lf'10M +J O O p, +J OQ X 1•-I fO � Lt] f(y Ot r i N r 1 M Lo O M M r-I n r-i ri M d' to N tD Ln L7 ri •r•I Im t. N .--i U •ri H N O rd N-PC4 N E-L O co 0) COtDd'rl0�nd'r- iCOd'rInNQ]MCON C� tDtowtowoU)0 nLnd'd•d•MMNNV- i �I U •rl ri W � W — r- -i'0 W `-'3►• o b 4J err yr ter r,} yr u} yr v} ur v} yr v} <rr yr vi- V} yr u u O 0 I~ EAU U4 1 z H �4 -4I OritD0MrI%DU)MMMLnCDOtoNCDMtoM 04 04 0404 H m oD .o C)3 H0%DLOm-gllLn r•itnNLC w0r-0M14, 41 r, Q4 N tO OI M n N C)-4 r- OD O ''-i tO r^I CD O t0 H 'c a > n.,1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ► . . ULI1noLnC)r_Lfld d tDOtDMM�T,a)LnLnL-M .. a-) (0 O CU � 0 E ptOnm0NMLor -mr�d'toO)NLnmN%DOLC1 � irir--IrINNNNNNMMMM ' d'd C'LnLr)tOkD rl r-iri it co a�I �!} i/} {/} {/} Vr {I} iJ} Vr [I} {/} (1} i!r {/} �J} {/} i!} {/} i�} {h iJ} D e •it m a u 0) >4 >, F O � +J (7 � pdP 1DO •10LO0r- OLOHrIwHnH0)UD0KVmcnC.M Ntokod t- �ritnn-ornnO�mr- KI,N.0N'tn + w p w 04 0) CU Q oLnN rn NN pM0roMCL7� C) 0r- M[- OCDNrHd' -4 04 C14 Pr CD . m O torf�'tDnnLnriLncoCOnMtotDd'CJ ro 04 O O O a) r-4 tr) p PmNr4mwko rg0mkoMOnd'r-i nMO\d" •ri 1 a 04 0 H n ruY LC) Ln•d d+•d'd'•c'd'MC+IMMNNNrirlihVr U QI ► {/r h i {%r t!r i/r {!} tJ} trr i/r {/r iJ} t/r Vr t/r iI} t/r ri iC n $-i 1 z yV)- �' p 9Ar- �UaMnmr- ko0m%Drlt0 .:tmLnOr^I. -4MMd' > •ri C»wLEICOCOLC m DLnMtonrimMNMMtDLna rl tdO)pd° mNntO d'0Lncoa) - iODLn0HLC'10M ro 04 M n a•rl rlko 11�Lf)MHNHOtLf10MM - InriHCTd LnNtOLn -4 z •• �'. M4-)-P a �71L�H0)00 tDd r101n•d'HOJd rlt- Nco MCfDNtD 4-) L) LnLC'I-;I,d'd'MCr7NNHrl 04 z CA mo%D%D%D%DLnm CA N 1J r VrJrVr V-).Vr{}V )- Vr VIP V)- if} VrV}Vr{/}{I}c!rilr U V I I CP a) .-. �) d) NM•d•LntDn00MC) INMd' LntD r- C�1rIN ?H � W N N �?I E 1J ON CT 0101010101010000000o0aHrl 4-) �- 04 -W ���Q� a � rIHHrINNNNNNNNNNNNN �•0 U � O O d �JI O b W •,•i •rl .,1 rl ,--i Z 4-) 4-3 U O � O HNMd' LntDnMChC) iCNC+1d'Llltpncarno LC �+lO+Q+ 0 • HiHrlHr- 4Hi4HrlN O r d 00 rz �•� �, i-i 0 0 04-) 0 O W Z E-I U 044HNEn a2 11 41 IP4 �4 w rd or1NMd'LlitonaDOrO � a1 ,1 N M d• II'1 tD C- ap 01 .--I r•-I r-I ,--1 r-I r-1 ,--I ,� .� .--I N Ri a H .9i a 4-I O eA rfr1r- 1r1r4,4,4r4. -r, 1 q.4r1.4r1rlrlr-1r1 to O tD 10 %D %D w tO tD tD tD to tD tD %D ko to to to tD tD to N O a) u; •U 4-) W 4.) -.4 ❑ > CT 0) 0) M M CT 0. 0• ON 0) 0% cN m ai 0 m m a) CT Or N 0 10 N a i4 rl 11 ri —4 r1 r1 .--4 1-4 11 1-4 r1 —4 . -1 .-i r1 rl r1 r--I r1 r-I d> 4-) C." a: fd 0 Lr tri. V)- VI- {/} tri- V)r V). V). VI. V). v} t/. c/> t/}. m LO 3 r �4 to t/} O O x w O U W CO M W 4-) E! [-I W ,Q O a) x A O Q) OOOdrCD M MMMO 0U'IMmU)MM�DNmm f=1 A r•-I t~ 00 mOmLor- r-- id'rlwr- 1wmOr1mmLn .H O 0 O 00 moNOlnwwr- -;rNmmo)Nmm%m W M O O C: 4.) 0r- vNric00r4MtDOLn0r►LnLnLnnrl Ix H v) O I~ co CaOrINMd, Ln4D r- aoorriN;tLn n(o1rIMt0 H z 0 4)04-4 r1 rir4 rlr1r1r1r1 -4 --I r1NNNNNNMMM ❑ WW U 0 O U WI U cd O n 14 a� I. ' O a, p, H r1 C4J 04 w � � Fw U H toMrlC7OO. -INd nOM n- 4to- 1%Drgco > i4 Q) MCOr- tDLnd'MNrlOOCTCOCO r - ntDtD 0 L m D� O U �4 r1r1r1 .irit- Ir1r1.- 4T- 4C)0 0 O0 0000 I[C W N f:, _•- 4-) 0 O O O O O O O a o o o o o O O O O O O w H En rf 4J ' r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 0 c0 'd �4 N OOOCD C7OOOOOOOOOOOOOCDCD W a W 0 w W 0 E 4F4 U G Nvn >1 C-1 n H G' x •r+l fo �E za 01Aa F:4 rn a A N4 O E- a) a) k to to to ko t0 to to ko to �o to �o %D �o �o �o �o 0 Z w U z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O❑ • -1 a--3 O 0CD0000 0 0 0 0 0 OOOO000 0 O LO H rl ' r. ❑ I I I - I I I - E-4 C 4 f D i- I (1) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O 4 ❑ N r R.' QCDooOOOOOO000C7OOOCOOO d 1-4 Pd In >4 c- nrn r- r`r— r— r- r- c- r- nnnnnnnnn 0 a ,a � rl a (1) O U A rZ4 Q1 NtDNtoO0LnMO v W r--1 d mm r-m0 --I d' 0 Ord'COmLncD%0Lnr -0vcO mMOLnmmmr- r-Hrl O v DnrlaoLnNtoOCTOrItpcontD Lnar rr%o `J 0a.) tonaoNnOrrld %Od NOrcOMOa%co%ooD 4 . � I~ cO . q cD -4' In M M Or M N d 0 d' CO CO r- to m co co 0 to >4r - -i OIno? cr- r- rinr- 1NrIC0 r- MNNMgrIO 4)J.)< U . . I . . . . . . O i4 a) rI%D0NLn0 0)NMNNd rq CD -:r MCDNOeM H OdP W Ln0ODnG7NntD f�rICD CC) N0rrlr- r- ce)d'O 04 t,- 04 tDOrrld'nr- 1d'CnN r- i%oNnd'OnLnMN O04 1 1 1 1 1 . . . . I I I I I I . . . . . lacw MMq;rIRrVLnLnLn%DtDnncomONOOr -1NM p, {/� t/r trr t/r th yr crr {/} {/i ih t/} {/] t/r trr {I} r-1 ,--i r•i r-1 rl �4 w rd or1NMd'LlitonaDOrO � a1 ,1 N M d• II'1 tD C- ap 01 .--I r•-I r-I ,--1 r-I r-1 ,--I ,� .� .--I N Ri a H .9i a By way of comparison, and to give some idea of what a combined pay -as- you -go /bond financing program would cost, Table 9 assumes that the two cent tax increase needed to meet debt service payment in the first year would be held constant throughout the 20 -year period. In subsequent years, funds remaining after the debt service payment was made would be used to purchase development rights. if such a combined program were implemented, the total cost of the program would be slightly more than .$29.3 million, result in the acquisition of development rights on 5,630 acres of farmland, and cost the owner of a $100,000 home approximately $820 (average of $41 per year). Regardless of which funding method is chosen, the acquisition of development rights is expensive. The advantage of the program over purchase in fee simple is the land remains in the hands of the owner and is taxable. In contrast, even with expenditures on the order of $29.0 million, development rights could only be acquired on six percent of the 90,373-acres under agricultural use. This assumes -an average cost of $2,400 per acre and a seven percent appreciation rate. If, however, the program focused on the acquisition of development rights in the northern and southwestern portions of the county with costs of $1,500 per acre, development rights could be acquired on approximately 14 percent of the acreage under agricultural use (See Table 10). 5. Where will the purchase of development rights most likely occur? Table 2 shows the distribution, by township, of parcels and acreage under the Preferential .Assessment /Deferred Taxation Program in Orange County. In terms of acreage and number of parcels, participation is greatest in Cedar Grove, Bingham, and Little River Townships. In terms of the total amount of land area in each township, at least 50 percent or more is assessed on the basis of its agricultural or forestry use value. The purchase of development rights would most likely occur in these areas; because of the presence of active farms and good soils-. The presence of a number of farms in close proximity to each other is also beneficial from an economic and management perspective. Farm equipment and products can be moved easier and less expensively than in areas where farm lots are scattered. There is also less opportunity for residential development and associated nuisances to occur. Another advantage is that development rights may cost less in these areas than close to urban - centers. Based on the values presented in Table 1, the average market value per acre would be lower - $1,980 versus $2,826. With an average use value of $422 in these townships, development rights might be expected to cost $1,558 or close to the national average. This would mean more benefit derived for the expenditures made. Page - 10 (n W a W Ei 44 0 0 0 0 N 0 -4 N YD r- Nr 0 q:r0r- w vm0M •--i 0 0 as Od4mmNOOr -4mr r r-g0NLn�o� ON l%0(Y) 4-1 i4 fa s4 A 0 r-I Nd' ko, 000NN-1D01NLf (C 11Ln(�MhCV 01 (1) H ida NNNNNNfnmmmmd -d -vm nLnL040[- ri •-) C: (0 Vi- {/} V). V)- t/r t/r VI- v} Vr V)- trr Vr V/ . Vr yr vlr Vr Vr VYv)- m m3NE{4 U 00 f� CO to w 0 x O a. (1) A OOOd oLnmwmO DLnLnm1nMMtD"mm N 0 Er ri O o o m O W Lf ) 1- r- r-i d ,-4 f)0 r-t oo Ln o,--I co m u) •x144 0 fa•ri Oo%r,LnoNpLnc000r- qr N01co01cV W 0\LD +1 o •w - - - Q) t~ fa O nd•N -4cDoq - iMLOOLnon LnLnLnnr - i 4-I fA Q)o o'-4 dor14 Nm -Q%nVD r- wO�r- l"Nr0r -m r-I M%D 0 ft) O O y' U rI ri r-1 r-i r1 ,4 ,--I -4 ,-I . ri N N N N N N m M m `�i i-I fa Q OP i-I {!}VrV}V}VrthV) -t/} Vr {/}il} Vr Vr Vr V)- V)- V)- V}V>{rr 1„I Ow r ' o n a �+ ❑ H U H r i (3v W F4 FC4 yr 4-) H V C4 4-) ->< W 0r1mLnOMLDCo0101mW C- LnNmLDNf- o w a w W 9 A W N d' Ln f- O) o ri N m w Ln ko r- a) 01 01 0 r 4 r-I M •r I 01 Ix a [7 Q) 0 0) -4 ,-1 ri ri ri ri r-i ri ,-I r-I ri N N N 1D 44 U 04 O -4 E~ m -ri U) N Ln Q a 0 IZ fo C6 4-) -P O Q) 94 0 04 W qt � � 0•N L)) 4-) Ei a -0 Z Q) •r-I -,-1 Q .X ry' N Z KC 5 W O v f� C7 D V} Fi fll tT1 .,1 "Z U ❑ U 0�zwz Q Q 0 4 Ei z C: C)00 D CD LD ko cq Iqw .41 r-INLnd wNnP4NCD •rl Z dPE -IH 4-) -1,-i 0 OIOd'd'd %0cD0Nr1NLn0w WNW Wri W U Wr-WFx1 Q) 0 m rt•r1 d• Lnnrnr- IMLDaarid'nOd'nri�00Lnr•+�D z 0 tit0O�� _ + + - - (a 44=u0 U E!U O fa NNNC14m(nmMd d' d'LnLnlnYDlD[ - l - W co O E-4 Z r>+ 04 r. • ri yr yr yr yr v} yr yr yr yr ur in- trr yr v)- v)- trr v)- vi. yr - yr . • ri i -aH(n0 o m4 U 41 W 5k Ei m tit ri +) 0 - w w 0 0 a> o+ f- a. I; A4 04 A Z�E10 Q u Z�-q M Ln d- d- m m Ln o C- d 1D d' ri f- ri Ln O 0 ri W 0) Z W I ri 0 l-L D %0r- iC- MOlnonloOd'Lnnf'nd'NLnLn 0 A H Z U) (d U 41 Lf) �O N LD 0� ko W O In In lD N %D t:t r1 M Ln d• WD m O > x O ' N cn en - d- Ulr -I,-I 1•f -M U) -Rd, mNM N0 co ID Ln 4 H d a C: W 4-) 0 ri LD -4 f- M O I- v N r-I O o o N d- r- r•i Ln ,-I w 4-3 W Ei W Q Q) A - Vr i/r ri ri N m M d- Ln �D f- m D1 o- N d- Ln N co U > a En Q) N trr V} t/} v} U} v} . m W E-1 W m Es O r-I r-I r-I -4 ,4 -4 (1) w z A ❑ m 4, >i r- irryryryrV}Vrtrr �4 W W N ,a fa V)- U co U4z a o a ro :D O H m N W Ei 1•i 0 10 M r-1 O O Ln Ln .-i %D M 0 N O [- M f- r-1 4a 4J f- d• M m H V E-4 TI 0 mm ;:'0%DNmm00)mkomm OLDd't - CD d' + W 4 fv W 04 LnLON%D0%0m0Ln%Dt4N4ad•rimLnq; %ocN M N C4 �•, :J N W m - ► `z Im 0 w44 Ln Ln 01%000 M M m m Ln t- LO ri d' Ln d'NO co I- LD 41 .0 Z Q) • fa - 4%0riC- MOI- d-Nri00riNd-C- rit0ri W M 0 044 >v)- [- [- W W moor -INMd u) %o -W m iN -- Ln M W a) W 0 v} trr yr r/r yr + + + + + - + + . - + + + r_: f1' Er to W r-1 ri ri ri r-I ri ri r-I ri r-1 ri N N N N m 0 0 w trr yr trr trr yr irr v} Vr yr yr yr crr trr Vr Vr N •rl N4 ri m Q) N %DNuD0c)Lnenrnercor- I�rncor-mo -iv 0 t� rnd- comLnoLDLnr- od- o)MrnoLnmmwr- r-I r-I 0 d- %D [- H W 0 N �D O 011 O ,--1 \D 00 [- YD Ln •C- v %D 0" fa it •rl 1 + + + + + + + + . U 7 Z 4 LDncONnoNr- Id•LDd•No%mmomcoLDcor -I r� r-I f. 10 ,--I W d- LncnM01cnNd- od'cDCo[- umfDco0 (a >40 --'1 OIn0%0 -[-r4 - riNriGol- MNNmcor -i0 W 4.1 a.) 4 U ► + ► - . . . . % + ► + Q) O i4 Q) r-♦ \O 0 N Ln 0 01 N M N cN o* cV oD q4, c'n W N o d- •t i Ei Q) dP w Ln 0 co r- W N 1• tO [- ri 00 (D N as r-I f- f- M d- O O ♦. r- QI %0 m ri d- L- .--I d- Co N [- ri %o N f- d 0 [- Ln M N r•1 {4(su + onr -4,—;r Ln LnLn��f- l- cococ)ccr -INM C a v} Vr Vr {rr trr trr tr} trr yr trr yr yr v} Vr Vr ri ri ri ri ri fi tr} yr v} irr yr m 0 0rgNrf)NrUt%0 - com 0 CO 4-) ri CV M d' Ln LD r- W m r-1 r-I r-1 r-I ,- 4 ri ri ri ri ri N 41 0 O z E-4 -x fa O rl fv QI .4 0 a� rd a 44 0000NLn -4"N or- "3'Od'On Wd'COOM r-I Q M n M r g 0 � O r-I ko M m 4-1 i-I `.-� ❑ Or- INd'LDW 0N1;1DC;NLn W r-ILr'101M�N 01 N H W C4 NNNNNNMMMMMd d'd'toLC' Ln%o%OCl- '-4 J-1 �', {b V} iJ} {/� V} (/} V} {/r {/r Vr V} ih {/r V} V)- V} i/r A/r V} {/} t,/} m3NE� �4 {I} ro �4 UCD Oi co w (1) 0 O � � W O a x d- 0 Ln m co 0) D Ln Ln 0l Ln M m tD N m m O G Sri O oo0 1oco1nr- r- -4-;r�aor-IODLnor-iWrntn � •.i4-4 O 0- -1 Cod'LnONOLnW Oond cgm00 m NMCNr D. 13 0 4 -3 . . . . . . . . ► . ► . Ln onLnLnLr)r • 4-4 t~ N UJ No C: -H Ond'Nr•i000•4cnto0 G70riNMd'LnLDn co 0)r- INdl Lx) r- m r-I mu] O �0 U rir•1r- lrirHrir- Iris4l l r-I NNNNNNmmm N ri 0 O H� >0 a W d r h-I --I Lv 4-) `' VI). VI). .N i 00W M0M01DMNmmmMLDnmmmC0 n f-1 r� W W �+ Q]C1'Lp�(y�lD W oNm Ln X00010 r-4 Nm d' O •'•I aCe.P4 O rlrlr- ir- INNNNNNNmMMMM 4I U P4 - ri N r- 0 Qw 0 rx co a -P � W "' w E-4 a-U a •�' � C7 A crr H Iv H Z U ❑ U V. QOZ F Z 9 0LnnW�o cr- 4mr -mr- it -mmWMW WOLn rl ZdPPlH 4J 4-� H O Oor- Im%ooln0r-LOultnn• -'I DmNmnN U Wnvnrm N A m Ld•rl Ln%onWrnr-INdWtn[ - rn HM�j000r4d'noNt . ► . . ► Ow axU ❑ 0 o ::s 41 U p Z Co . ► . . . . . . . . ► . . ► ► rH r4 rlr•1NNNNNNMmMMd d d"Lnv) �+ 0 0 4 04 C •U c/r trr yr err trr v} yr yr yr rrr t� yr yr tir err yr trr yr H co O O m r� 44 W H M W ri .W O '� O En H LD 04 Q 4 Ix I A a: G) F 'Q HAW ❑ ,� ZUZOMLn ,44 d'0)MMan d'lOd'rHr- -4ln00 W Q� 2 W I O r- kDkarir•Mrnr- or- LDOd'InnM•d"NLOm ❑HZ!ly]1 rd U44 Lf' o"%Omkom0mu) DNlOt1 r'ImLnd'U0) . ► . 0 [r7 Pa r 4 .3 •rl O w . . . . . . . . ► . . . ► . ► ► T'Lnrlr-i nnMLnd 01NMNOCO'DLr) .0 >''�j o I HFCt4 > N C: N4J o mMn- r'4 %10 r-H r- m 0 r- rlr Nr-100CD Nd'nrlLnr'1QO 4.) W H W y+ �' ( C"„ . V} V} -4 rl N m M d' Lo tO n W m 0 r-i N d' Lo n CO U > a W U N {/} {/r i!r {/r i<r t/r t/r i/i t/r U P, W ❑ W ri) iJ} c/r trr rh crr t/r u U O A Vr CAU14z �-1 Oa A ri OO�CO n WCp-IIE -100 0Lnln - q%0moNOnmrr- I�D�Dn�r m n `' z E-4 10 m 0101d OLONmm0mm%0wM%DLDd nCO d ► W FC4 H N C4 0 NLC0tDm0m LONIDd'raMMd 10 01 M d' R' N .s4 Cl . . . . ► . ► . . . NO W n lD 44 O Z C:0 4-1 a (1) - M LnLn01LDWMM0101LnntPrid'Lnd r- ILOr -I r-m0r►d'NriQO r-I Nd ' l-riUD r -ICO M 0 Cd 4 'W' {/}E W fn r►aomm00r4NCrld'Ln%Dn W ON tiNd' Ln m -4 ri r-1 ri r-1 4 r-I .-••1 r-1 r-I N N N N 01 a O W tlr -C r <rr 'r VP)- c/} vi- t%r V> V). v)- t/} ih Vr V� N .14 V)- 4-) .rl Li+ N (1) NLONtD00Lnm01d' W r- Id'Ohconcn0 4 •ri 1~ 01d co 01LnOLD Lnr►Od'01men 0LnMM co r- 0 d LDrr -1 cc) LnN%000)0r- 1LDCOrLDLnc3'd %C rr rtl to .r1 . . . . . . . . . ► . . ► . . r-I d'LDd'NO1 co rnC)mMtOCOri U f0 > j,) rI ra LO r►CpNr-0) r- icovLnmmmMNd'0 V m00 nLDm W GOO •ra 0Ln0kDnnr- Inric.q iwnMNNMW -10 . . . 4-) 4J Q U . . . . . . . . . . ► . . ► . .•. %D0NLn❑mNmNNd N W d'MCONOd' 'O 0 i4 O E'1 (PdP $•4 r-I Ln000nWNr,�o nrico W N41r4 r-I -Md 0 r 044' p4 LD01ri�'nrid GON n d'OnLnMN U Ln Ln M Vo %D n n dO W M 0 0 r-1 N m W C2J F4. W m m d' d' ,d V} V} V} t/} � i/r {/} {/} v)- V} Vr {/} V} {!} {/} r-I , 4 ri r•1 -1 H �4 � O r-I Ln LD n CD 01 O ri � a--) U riNMd' LnLDnCO 'O1rir-lrlr- lr- dr- IririririN �A O Z H •k .4 0 a� rd a 6. Which land owners would be eligible? Landowners with parcels at least 10 acres in size and in agricultural, forestry, and /or open space use would be eligible for participation in the program. Although not consistent with the minimum sized parcel needed for agricultural use (20 acres), this threshold is consistent with North Carolina legislation which exempts the division of land into parcels of greater than 10 acres from municipal and county subdivision regulations. Smaller parcels'-would be considered if they were contiguous to land on which development rights had already been acquired.- 7. How would the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program operate and who would administer it? Six basic steps are proposed for the PDR Program. Based loosely on the Forsyth County model, the'steps are described below and illustrated on Figure 3. Step 1 - Submission of Application: To initiate the PDR process, an advertisement would be published in all newspapers having general circulation in the county. Interested farmland owners would then have 60 days from the date of the advertisement in which to complete and submit a PDR application form to the Planning & Inspections Department. Interested landowners are not required to offer all their property to be considered for acquisition of development rights. They may offer all or a part of their property. Applications would be reviewed and any additions or corrections requested within 30 days following submission. Two application cycles would take place each year, so a property owner who missed one cycle would be able to take advantage of the next and not have to wait an entire year. Step 2 - Ranking of Applications: Upon receipt of all applications, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board would review and rank each of the agricultural land tracts for which an application has been submitted. Site visits would be conducted as part of the review procedure to insure familiarity with the property and its setting. The ranking method recommended by the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board is through evaluation of farms using the Soil Conservation Service's LESA system. The LESA system refers to the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment system developed by the Soil Conservation Service in the mid- 19801s. The system has been used extensively and focuses on the quality or productivity of a given site; e.g., land evaluation, and its continued economic viability; e.g., site assessment. The major advantage of such a system is that the most productive and economically viable farmlands are preserved. The LESA System is discussed in detail in Report #2 of this proposal, but a Page - 11 FIGURE 3 PURCHAK OF LEVEL NT kIBHT5 FFt06W NOTE: Applications must be processed Agricultural Districts Advisory within X40 days of the original Board application suom.ssion deadline. board of County Commissioners Land Evaluation /Site Assessment 5tjBMISSION OF WPLICkTi ION :Land owner has oG days STEP 1_ from public notice dace to submit application) 1 RANiING OF APPLICATIONS (Ranking by ADAb using STEP 2 ILE5A 5ystemirecommenued purchases sent to BOGC) r GWLIISITIDN AUTHORIZATION Acquisition approved by STEP 3 nCG /appraisals conducted to establish value) OFFER TO PURCKkSE /SELL I STEP (Appraisals sent to land owner /30 days for owner to submit offer to sell) I ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER (BOGC accepts offer to STEP 5 sell /authorizes closing) CLOSING (Title work conducted/ closing heldideveiopment rights conveyed) Page — Ila STEP 6 summary of the land evaluation and< ?'site assessment factors, and the maximum number of points awarded for each is presented below. Evaluation /Assessment Factor Maximum Points Possible Cropland Evaluation 100 Forest Land Evaluation 100 Site Assessment (400 Points) -- % of Area in Agriculture /Forest Use 49 - % of Adjacent Land in Agriculture/ 44 Forest Use - Probability of Conversion 34 - Size of Farm 24 - On -site Investment 29 - Conservation Plan' 44 - Compatibility with Comprehensive 44 Plan - Distance to Town or City 20 - Distance to Public Water /Sewer 20 Service - Location in Protected Watershed 49 - Presence of Natural Areas 24 - Presence of Historic Sites 20 Total Points Possible 600 Following completion of the Agricultural Advisory Board recommendation to the Board recommendation would specif: development rights from and acquisition. ranking of applications, the would prepare and forward a of Commissioners. The V which properties to purchase the priority of each for Step 3 - Acquisition Authorization: Following receipt of the Advisory Board recommendation, the Board of Commissioners would authorize the Purchasing Director to obtain appraisals of the market and agricultural value of the properties selected for development rights acquisition. Upon receipt of the appraisals, the Purchasing Director would forward them to the County Attorney. All costs associated with the appraisals would be borne by the County. Step 4 - offer to Purchase /Sell: Upon receipt of the appraisals, the County Attorney would prepare and send to the property owner an offer to purchase. The property owner would then have 30 days within which to submit a written offer to sell his /her development rights. The property owner could base his /her offer on the values as determined by the appraisals or could offer to sell for more or less than the appraisal values. Failure to respond within the required time could constitute a waiver of the opportunity. Page - 12 Step 5 -- Acceptance of Offer: upon receipt of an offer to sell, the County Attorney would present the offer to the Board of Commissioners to accept, reject or authorize further negotiation. Upon acceptance of an offer, the Board of Commissioners would authorize the County Attorney to conduct the necessary title examinations and close on the property. Step 6 - Closing: upon preparation of the appropriate legal documents covering titles, deeds, surveys, and subordination agreements, a closing would be scheduled between the landowner and the County Attorney. At the closing, the owner would execute appropriate warranty documents conveying development rights to the County in perpetuity. After proper recordation of the necessary instruments, the landowner would be presented with a check. The County would bear all closing and related costs, and would be responsible for securely storing.all pertinent records of the transaction. 8. , What restrictions would be placed on land in the.Purchase of Development Rights Program? Since the purpose of a PDR Program is to preserve agricultural land, restrictions on property use after acquisition of development rights should be carefully crafted. Restrictions of the Forsyth County program include the following: a. Only pre - existing dwellings or their replacements are permitted on land from which development rights have been conveyed. However, a dwelling or dwellings intended for occupancy by an employee or tenant of the farm who earns a substantial part of his /her livelihood from the farm operation, or by a child or children of the landowner, are permitted. For employees, one dwelling per 100 acres may be constructed. For children, one dwelling per child up to a maximum of five dwellings is allowable. b. Where feasible, all permitted nonfarm structures must be located in the immediate vicinity of existing structures; e.g., the homestead or curtilege, or on the area(s) of the property of least productive capability. Such structures must utilize existing driveways, lanes or rights -of -way where feasible. C. The extraction of minerals by surface mining, and the extraction and removal of topsoil from the property are prohibited. The extraction of subsurface or deep -mined minerals is permitted, provided the removal activity does not significantly diminish the agricultural potential of the land. d. The dumping, storage, processing or landfill of non- agricultural solid waste generated off -site and hazardous or nuclear waste is prohibited. Page - 13 e. Signs, billboards, and outd4e##�.advertising structures cannot be displayed on the property except those which display the name and address of the property and occupant, those which advertise a permitted on -site activity, and those which advertise the property for sale or rent. f. Agricultural land must be managed in accordance with sound soil and water conservation practices in a manner which does not destroy or substantially or irretrievably diminish the productive capability of the property. To insure that these restrictions are being followed, Forsyth County officials have the right, at reasonable times, to enter the property and make compliance inspections. The restrictions may be enforced by injunction and all other appropriate proceedings allowable by law. All of the restrictions cited above are appropriate in view of the purpose of the PDR Program. However, particular care must be taken in the number of dwellings allowed on a farm tract. For example, if the farm were 100 acres in size and up to six additional dwellings were permitted in addition to the homestead, a net density of one dwelling per 14 acres would result. If the dwellings were clustered around the homestead on approximately -10 acres, there would still be 90 acres of undeveloped farmland remaining. If the dwellings were scattered over the farm, the net effect would be essentially the same as that of a subdivision of 10+ acre lots. For this reason, the application process becomes extremely important. It is the point at which the landowner's intentions must be considered and a decision made as to whether his /her plans depart from the Program goals. If development rights are acquired, and the restrictions are found to create extreme hardship or are clearly at odds with changing conditions in the area, provision may be made for a waiver of restrictions, but only with the approval of the Board of Commissioners. 9. What would happen if the landowner sold his /her development rights and then decided to change the type of farming or quit farming altogether? Nothing in a purchase of development rights program requires the landowner to farm his /her property. Selling development rights simply restricts the landowner or anyone else from developing the property for nonfarm purposes. If the landowner wished to change the type of farming, he /she would be perfectly free to do so. If he /she did not want to farm the property, he /she would be free to lease it'or sell it to someone else to farm. The only restriction on the landowner or any subsequent owner is that the property cannot be developed for nonfarm purposes - the restriction against development continues with the land. Page - 14 10. what if the landowner didn't sell his /her development rights? Would the County stop him /her from developing the land? If the landowner did not sell his /her development rights, he /she would retain all the rights to development subject to the same zoning, subdivision, building, and health code restrictions as other landowners. 11. Could the County build on the acquired property or sell the development rights to someone else to build on the acquired property ?, No. Once the County paid for the development rights, the rights would be held in public trust and could not be used by anyone without the owner's consent. i 12. Would this mean the public has a right to come on the land- owners property? No. Even though the landowner sells the development rights to his /her land, it does not become public property. It is still the landowner's private property and subject to the laws of trespass. The general public cannot enter the property without the landowner's permission. 13. Could the property owner elect to lease his /her development rights instead of selling them? Yes. As part of the application process, a landowner may offer to lease his /her development rights. Such offers would be handled in the same manner as offers to sell. However, compensation for development rights leases would be based on a determination of cash rent values of comparable land. The term of any lease should be consistent with the program objective of long -term farmland protection. In Forsyth County, this period is generally 25 years. The lease should also include an option to purchase the development rights at a future date. 14. Could the property owner re- purchase his /her development rights? Yes. The purchase of development rights is intended to create areas with sufficient amounts of contiguous agricultural land to facilitate the permanent agricultural use of the land. While program activity will be directed to that goal, success is dependent on the voluntary participation of landowners. If a landowner or several owners of small tracts are the only participants in an area, the goal may not be achieved. The landowners could become landlocked by development, and agricultural activity may become impractical. In such situations, it would be in the best interest of the landowner and the public to allow re- purchase of the development rights. However, repurchase of development rights Page - 15 by a landowner would.be,considgF�s an unusual occurrence and would be in the sole discretion of the Board of Commissioners. To qualify for re- purchase, the original purchase must have occurred at least 25 years before the date of the re- purchase request. In addition, the development rights must have been purchased by and not donated to the County. Appraisals necessary to establish market and agricultural use values would be the responsibility of the landowner as well as all expenses associated with closing. 15. How would selling development rights affect the landowner's standing in the Preferential Assessment /Deferred Taxation Program? If the property is already enrolled in the Preferential Assessment /Deferred Taxation Program, selling the development rights will not affect the landowner's standing in the program. Neither would it change the tax assessment the landowner pays under that program, since he /she is already being taxed on what the State considers to be the "current use" or agricultural value of the property. If the landowner is not now in the program, selling the development rights would not change his /her ability to enter. If a landowner sold the development rights on his /her property and elected to leave the Preferential Assessment /Deferred Taxation Program, caution should be observed. Since the tax penalty for leaving the program is based on the current year taxes plus the three prior years, the landowner would wart to wait at least four years. In so doing, any penalty would be based on the market value of the property less its development rights and should be equivalent to the use value. 16. What taxes would a landowner have to pay on the money he /she received for the development rights? The sale of a landowner's development rights would be viewed as a normal capital gains transaction. However, arrangements could be made to spread the payments over time, thus reducing the impact of the capital gains tax. Because of its ability to accept gifts, grants, and bequests, the Board of Commissioners could also provide the opportunity for a landowner to tailor the sale to his /her specific tax situation. 17. If a landowner sold the development rights, could the land still be taken by eminent domain (condemnation) for something like a reservoir or landfill site? Yes. However, as part of its agricultural preservation efforts, Orange County could adopt an ordinance under G.S. 106 -740 which provided for a public hearing on the proposed condemnation and the opportunity to submit written findings and recommendations to the decision - making body. Page - 16 18. if development rights were sold, could the property still be annexed? Yes. The sale of development rights would not affect whether or not the property were annexed. However, if a number of adjoining farmland owners all joined the program, annexation would become less likely, since the statutory requirements in the annexation law would become difficult to meet. 19. if a landowner is buying his /her property on contract or has a mortgage, could he /she still enter the program? Yes. However, the type of contract or mortgage that the landowner holds would determine the terms of his /her transaction with the County. In any event, a subordination agreement or waiver would have to,be secured from the mortgage or lien holder prior to closing on the property. 20. What has been the experience of farmers who try to obtain loans once the development rights have been sold? In other locations with PDR programs, this has not been a problem. Whether or not a bank makes a loan is based on the ability of the farm to pay off the loan and that, in turn, is based on the farm's income. If the value is there, the bank will make the loan. In many cases, the money acquired from the sale of development rights is used to improve the farming operation. This enhances the farm's value and thus the ability to obtain more loans. . Page - 17 DpGIffV A Purchase of Development Rights Program Proposal Prepared by the Orange County Agricultural Districts Advisory Board November, 1990 Report #1: The Development and Application of A Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) System for Site Selection SECTION I: SECTION II: TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FARMLAND PRESERVATION . . . . . . . . . . WATERSHED PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . MAINTAINING RURAL CHARCATER . . . . . . . THECHARGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLANOF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LAND EVALUATION FOR CROPLAND . . . . . . . DEFINING AGRICULTURAL GROUPS . . . . . . . Land Capability Classification . . . Soil Productivity Index . . . . . . . Important Farmlands . . . . . . . Orange County Agricultural Groups CALCULATING RELATIVE VALUE . . . . . . . APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SECTION III: LAND EVALUATION FOR FOREST LAND RATING SOILS FOR FOREST LAND USE . . . . . Productivity Rating . . . . . . . . . Indicator Species Rating . . . . . . Steepness of Slope Rating . . . . . . Soil Limitations Rating . . . . . . . FOREST LAND RELATIVE VALUE RATING . . . . FOREST LAND GROUP VALUE RATING . . . . . . APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 1 2 3 3 3 �i 5 5 6 7 9 11 17 17 17 18 19 19 20 20 21 SECTION IV: SITE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 SITE ASSESSMENT FACTORS . . . . . . . . . 27 Percentage of Area in Agriculture /Forest Use . . . . . . 27 Land Use Adjacent to Site . . . . . . 27 Probability of Conversion . . . . . . 28 Size of Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 On -Site Investment . . . . . . 31 Conservation Plan Implementation 32 = -- Compatibility with Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . 33 Distance to Town or City 33 Distance to Public Water and Sewer Service . . . . . . . . . . 34 Location in Protected Watershed . . . 36 Presence of Natural Areas . . . . . . 36 Presence of Historic Sites . . . . . 40 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS . . . . . . 41 APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 SECTION V: CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 APPENDIX: TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page A. LAND CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION . . . 61 B. SOIL PRODUCTIVITY INDICES . . . . . . 62 C. IMPORTANT FARMLAND . . . . . . . . . 63 D. FOREST LAND PRODUCTIVITY . . . . . . 64 E. FOREST LAND LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . 65 F. ORANGE COUNTY AGRICULTURE — 1987 . . 67 s. 4 i 1 I INTRODUCTION In recent years, renewed interest has been expressed in a purchase of development rights program for Orange County. This interest has originated from several diverse points involving farmland preservation efforts, watershed protection strategies, and performance standards to maintain rural character. FARMLAND PRESERVATION In 1986, the N.C. General Assembly passed enabling legislation which authorized counties to undertake programs to encourage the preservation of farmland. Under the provisions of the legislation, House Bill 1190, Agricultural Advisory Boards could be organized and appointed to: 1. Make recommendations concerning the establishment of voluntary agricultural districts; and 2. Hold public hearings on public projects likely to have an impact on agricultural operations. Counties were also permitted to require that computerized land records include a notice which would alert a person researching the title of a land tract that the property was within a prescribed distance of a livestock farm or agricultural district. Counties were also allowed to hold in abeyance water and sewer assessments for farms. In 1987, the Board of Commissioners appointed an Agricultural Districts Advisory Board for Orange County. The Advisory Board immediately set about the task of drafting a local ordinance to implement the provisions of House Bill 1190, and, in mid -1988, produced a draft ordinance as well as recommendations for addition farmland preservation efforts. Among them were the following: 1. Adopt policies for purchase of development rights in agricultural districts upon the request of the farmer. 2. "yet: -up provisions for donation of and lease of = development rights under the policies. 3. Request funds for the purchase of development rights on agricultural lands and natural areas in the county. 4. Recommend that orange County adopt the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) point system as a means of evaluating where agricultural districts and purchase of development rights will be pursued. While action has yet to be taken on the draft ordinance, the recommendations of the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board 2 contributed substantially to the renewal of interest in purchase of development rights. WATERSHED PROTECTION Watershed protection is not a new concern. Since the late 1970's, Orange County has been a leader in watershed protection efforts in North Carolina. In 1987, however, concern about the adequacy of- existing protection standards emerged in response to a proposed development in the University Lake Watershed. Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro jointly requested that the Orange Water and Sewer Authority ( OWASA) commission a carrying capacity study of the watershed to determine what changes, if any, needed to be made in the existing standards. In late 1987, OWASA employed the consulting firm of Camp, Dresser, and McKee to undertake the study. The final report was submitted in March, 1989, and representatives of the three jurisdictions began meeting thereafter to formulate a coordinated watershed protection program. Strategies for protecting University Lake watershed were drafted in October, 1989, based principally on the recommendations of the OWASA consultant. In April, 1990, Orange County amended its development regulations to implement most of the strategies proposed by the watershed work Group. The basic strategy for protecting University Lake was to increase the minimum required lot size to five acres. This represented a substantial decrease in permitted densities and raised concern among farmers and property owners about losses in property values. To address this concern, the Watershed work Group recommended the following: 1. That the jurisdictions develop strategies for dealing with special hardships that farmers might experience in order to further the public purpose of protecting farmland; 2. That OWASA be requested to create a watershed protection fund to acquire rights in sensitive lands; and 3. That the County conduct a study of the possible use of transferable development rights for purposes of watershed protection. Because =of the number of watersheds in the county and the proportion of land (60 %) situated therein, Orange County opted to consider an approach similar to that recommended for OWASA - the acquisition of development rights. Another reason for this was the apparent reluctance of local municipalities to be receiving areas for transferred development rights. A purchase of development rights program would also serve a dual purpose - watershed protection and farmland preservation. 3 MAINTAINING RURAL CHARACTER In January of 1987, as part of joint planning activities with Chapel Hill and Carrboro, Orange County incorporated a new district, the Rural Buffer, into its zoning regulations. Residents of the area around Chapel Hill and Carrboro were opposed to the new district, because permitted densities were lowered from one unit per acre to one unit per two acres. Although the intent of the Rural Buffer was to maintain the rural character of the area around the two municipalities, the Board of Commissioners viewed the zoning measures as an interim solution. In November of 1987, the Commissioners created a Rural Character Study Committee and charged it with the responsibility of developing alternative strategies for preserving rural character. In May of 1990, the Study Committee presented a set of strategies which offered density bonuses in return for greater amounts of open space in developments. As part of its recommendations, the Study Committee also suggested that a purchase of development rights program be instituted and used as a tool for agricultural preservation. THE CHARGE Each of these initiatives culminated in action by the Board of Commissioners in December of 1989. As part of its annual goal - setting retreat, the Board established a goal to develop a proposal for a purchase of development rights program. In August of 1990, after work had been completed on University Lake watershed protection measures and the annual budget cycle was finalized, the Board of Commissioners reconstituted the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board and charged it with the responsibility of achieving the goal. The Advisory Board initiated its work during the following month. PLAN OF ACTION As it began its work, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board focused on the successful program implemented by Forsyth County. Since the first purchases in 1987, Forsyth County had acquired development rights to 19 farms with a total of 1,192 acres. The _. :County acquired these rights through purchases and leases for a1-total of $1.71 million or an average of approximately $1,500 per acre. As Forsyth County had done, Advisory Board started with the most go about deciding which farms should purchase of development rights? Two bid procedure and by evaluation Conservation Service's LESA system. successfully across the nation. the Agricultural Districts basic question - how does one have priority in terms of the methods were identified - by Df the farm using the Soil Both methods had been used 4 The bid procedure was initiated by a farmer submitting a sealed bid, indicating the price per acre that he would accept for his development rights; e.g., the difference between the market value of the property and its value for agricultural use. In programs using this procedure, development rights were usually acquired on those farms which had the lowest per acre value. The advantage to the procedure was that costs could be reduced over other programs by as much as 15 percent and larger amounts of land could be acquired. The major disadvantage was that localities usually ended up acquiring development rights on unproductive land characterized by floodplains, steep slopes, and other limitations. Such features accounted for the lower per acre cost. The LESA system refers to the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment system developed by the Soil Conservation Service in the mid- 19801s. The two -part system for evaluating farmland has been used extensively and focuses on the quality or productivity of a given site; e.g., land evaluation, and its continued economic viability; e.g., site assessment. The Soil Conservation Service has produced a guidebook for use in preparing a local LESA system, and, upon completion, the system can be used to assign priorities in acquiring development rights. The major advantage to such is system is that the most productive and economically viable farmlands are preserved for future generations. Other benefits include the use of the system in identifying important farmlands and potential agricultural districts, and preparing and updating comprehensive land use plans. Given these benefits, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board elected to develop a proposal in two stages. First, a report would be prepared which proposed a LESA system for Orange County. A second report would then be prepared which presented the "nuts and bolts" of a purchase of development rights program, focusing specifically on administration and funding. This report thus represents the first step in achieving the goal established by the Hoard of Commissioners. 61 II LAND EVALUATION FOR CROPLAND The first step in the preparation and use of the LESA system is to determine the quality of land for cropland use. To accomplish this, soils must be arrayed in order of importance in agricultural groups, and the value of each group relative to another must be calculated. DEFINING AGRICULTURAL GROUPS In designing a system for evaluating cropland, soils must be rated and placed in agricultural groups. ranging from the best to the worst suited for cropland use. The soils of most areas can be arranged in 10 groups, with agricultural group 1 containing the best soils available, and groups 2 -10 having successively lower values. Three land evaluation methods are used in developing the groups of soils: land capability classification, soil productivity index, and important farmland class. Ideally, each of the 10 groups should contain 10 percent of the total land of the county. However, groups containing 5 -15 percent are practical. In some cases, groups may contain more or less than 5 -15 percent, and fewer or more than 10 groups may be needed. The intent is to provide enough groups to adequately differentiate significant soil classes. Land Capability Classification Capability classes and subclasses show the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops. The soils are classed according to their limitations when used for field crops, the risk of damage when used, and the manner in which they respond to treatment. In the capability system, soils are grouped at two basic levels: capability class and subclass. Capability classes, the broadest groups, are designated by Roman numerals I through VIII. The numerals indicate progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical use. The classes are defined as follows: I. I -soils have.few limitations that restrict their use. (None in Orange County) 2. Class II soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of crops or require moderate conservation practices. 3. Class III soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of crops or require special conservation practices, or both. s 4. Class IV soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of crops or require very careful management, or both. 5. Class V soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that limit their use. (None in Orange County) 6. Class VI soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation. 7. Class VII soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation. 8. Class VIII soils have limitations that nearly preclude their use for commercial crop production. (None in orange County) Capability subclasses are soil groups within one class. They are designated by adding a small letter e, w, or s to the class numeral, for example, Ile. The letter a means that the main limitation is risk of erosion unless close- growing plant cover is maintained. W means that water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation. S means that the soil is limited mainly because of inherent soil qualities. Soils are placed in agricultural groups according to their land capability class. The lowest land capability class for the soils should occur in agricultural group 1, with subclass designations used to identify different groups; e.g., Ile in group 2. IIw in group 3, etc. It is acceptable, however, to have agricultural groups that have more than one capability class or subclass. The land capability classes and subclasses for Orange County soils are shown in Appendix A. In Column 4 of Table 2, soils have been placed in agricultural groups according to land capability classification. Soil Productivity Index Soil':_ptoductivity is the capacity of a soil to produce a specified_ rckp using the most recent soil. -- and crop management practices;- aiid is reflected in the estimated yield /acre that can be expected. Estimated yields are based on the records of farmers, conservationists, and extension agents. It is the differences in yields of a specific crop on different soils that provide a measure of comparison among soils. To derive the productivity index for a given soil or group of soils, an indicator crop, such as corn, is selected which represents the single most cultivated crop. Next, the estimated yields for corn on various soils are obtained from the local soil survey or the local or state Soil Conservation Service office. If the estimated yield exceeds 100 bushels /acre for any soil, it is converted to 100, and all other yields are converted to an index relative to 100. For example, the estimated yield for a corn crop on Altavista soil is 103 bushels /acre. Thus, the productivity index would be 100 (103/103 = 1 x 100). For Congaree soil, the estimated yield is 98 bushels /acre, and the productivity index would be 95 (98/103 = .95 x 100). Soils are placed in agricultural groups according to their productivity index. Each group should have fairly narrow limits; e.g., 90 -100, 80 -90, etc. Where groups have a range wider than 15 or 20, they should be regrouped to achieve a narrower range. In some of the lower groups, where soil productivity varies considerably, a wider range may be necessary. For each agricultural group, the limits in productivity index will decrease from the highest, shown in agricultural group 1, to a lower value or zero, in lower groups. Soils in some lower groups may have a relatively high productivity index, because of the high costs of overcoming soil limitations resulting from a class III, IV, or higher classification. The estimated yields and productivity index for Orange County soils are shown in Appendix B. In Column 6 of Table 2, soils have been placed in agricultural groups according to productivity index. Important Farmlands In 1.982, the USDA developed definitions of and criteria for classifying important farmlands as part of the Farmland Protection Policy Act. The most commonly used definitions for farmland preservation purposes are prime farmlands, state /locally important farmlands, and other farmlands. Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor. It may be cropland, pastureland, or forest land but not urban built -up land or water. State and locally important farmland is land, in addition to prime farml:a-Ad, that is of statewide and local importance for the production- 'b�f food,- feed, fiber,. forage, and oilseed crops. Criteria 6r`'-_defining and delineating such land are determined by the appropriate state and local agency or agencies. State and locally important farmlands include those that are nearly prime farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Other farmlands include those that are not classified as prime farmland or state and locally important farmland. Soils are placed in agricultural groups according to the assigned important farmland class; e.g., prime, state /local, or other. Agricultural group 1 should include the highest class of important farmland available. In fact, the first few agricultural groups may consist of prime farmlands. Different classes of important farmland should not be combined in any one group. For example, prime farmland soils should be in a group or groups by themselves, state /locally important farmlands should be in a group or groups by themselves, etc. The important farmland classes for Orange County soils are shown in Appendix C. In Column 5 of.Table 2, soils have been placed in agricultural groups according to important farmland class. Orange County Agricultural Groups Based on the above land evaluation methods, Orange County soils have been placed in agricultural groups. The groups are summarized below in Table 1 and are presented, by soil type, in Column 9 of Table 2. Table 1 Orange County Agricultural Groups As indicated above, soils are rated and placed into agricultural groups ranging from the best to the worst suited for cropland use.., Agricultural group 1 should contain the best soils available_- &:g., those with the highest relative value for cropland in terms bf-7 .productivity index and the least limitations to such use. The aoils-in agricultural groups 2 -1.0 should have successively lower relative values in terms of overall productivity index, higher costs to correct and maintain soil limitations, or both. To determine the relative values for each agricultural group, the following procedure is used: 1. List each soil type in the agricultural groups. 2. Obtain the acreage and adjusted yield for each soil type in the agricultural groups. Important Percent Agricultural Land Farmland Productivity of Group Capability Class Index Land Area 1 -T ---- - -- 2E -2W Prime 85 -100 38.5% 2 2E -3E Prime 66 -81 17.5% 3 2E -3E State /Local 71 -76 16.5% 4 2E -4W State /Local 61 -66 5.7% 5 3E -4E Other 42 -71 12.7% 6 6S -7S Other 51 -56 1.8% 7 4E -7S Other NA 4.7% 8 Urban Other NA 2.6% As indicated above, soils are rated and placed into agricultural groups ranging from the best to the worst suited for cropland use.., Agricultural group 1 should contain the best soils available_- &:g., those with the highest relative value for cropland in terms bf-7 .productivity index and the least limitations to such use. The aoils-in agricultural groups 2 -1.0 should have successively lower relative values in terms of overall productivity index, higher costs to correct and maintain soil limitations, or both. To determine the relative values for each agricultural group, the following procedure is used: 1. List each soil type in the agricultural groups. 2. Obtain the acreage and adjusted yield for each soil type in the agricultural groups. w] TABLE 2 SOILS ASSESSMENT AND RANKING CRITERIA - CORN ----------------------------------------------------------- Land Soil % of Map Soil Capability Farmland Productivity Total Agricultural Relative Symbol Series Slope Subclass Class Index Acres Area' Group Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ap8 Appling 2 -6 2E Prime 85 13350 5.2% 1 100 CfB Cecil 2 -6 2E Prime 85 850 0.3% 1 100 GeB Georgeville 2 -6 2E Prime 85 50200 19.7% 1 100 HrB Herndon 2 -6 2E Prime 85 29850 11.7% 1 100 HwB Hiwassee 2 -6 2E Prime 90 1460 0.6% 1 100 Aa Altavista 0 -3 2W Prime 100 300 0.1% 1 100 Cp Congaree 0 -2 2W Prime 95 2400 0.9% 1 100 HeB Helena 2 -8 2E Prime 71 13250 5.2% 2 84 HhA Helena- Sedgeville 0 -2 2W Prime 76 2500 1.0% 2 84 Lg Lignum 0 -3 2W Prime 81 10000 3.9% 2 84 ApC Appling 6 -10 3E Prime 66 7700 3.0% 2 84 EnS Enon 2 -6 3E Prime 71 10500 4.1% 2 84 VaB Vance 2 -8 3E Prime 66 670 0.3% 2 84 WsB White Store 2 -6 2E State /Local 71 1600 0.6% 3 83 CfC Cecil 6 -10 3E State /Local 76 750 0.3% 3 83 GeC Georgeville 6 -10 3E state /Local 71 19250 7.6% 3 83 HrC Herndon 6 -10 3E State /Local 71 19500 7.7% 3 83 HwC Hiwassee 6 -10 3E State /Local 76 600 0.2% 3 83 CrB Creedmoor 2 -8 2E State /Local 66 800 0.3% 4 72 Ch Chewacla 0 -1 3W state /Local 61 9800 3.8% 4 72 Or orange 0 -3 4W State /Local 61 3950 1.6% 4 72 TeD Tatum 8 -15 3E Other 71 15650 6.1% 5 70 EnC Enon 6 -12 4E other 56 6150 2.4% 5 70 WmD Wedowee 8 -15 4E Other 42 2100 0.8% 5 70 TaE Tatum 15 -25 4E Other 47 8600 3.4% 5 70 GLD Goldston 6-15 6S Other 51 1000 0.4% 6 64 IrB IredeLL 1-4 7S Other 56 3500 1.4% 6 64 WtC2 White_Stere•• 6-15 4E Other -- 1500 0.6% 7 0 LOC Louis wr-g{�_ . 6-15 6E Other -- 1900 0.7% 7 0 WmE Wedokee 15 -25 6E Other -- 2500 1.0% 7 0 WxD Wilkes 8-15 6S Other -- 450 0.2% 7 0 LoF Louisburg 15 -45 7E Other -- 2700 1.1% 7 0 WxF Wilkes 15-45 7S Other -- 850 0.3% 7 0 GLF Goldston 15-45 7S Other -- 1950 0.8% 7 0 1.() TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) SOILS ASSESSMENT AND RANKING CRITERIA - CORN Land Soil % of Map Soil Capability Farmland Productivity Total Agricultural Relative Symbol Series Slope Subclass Class Index Acres Area' Group Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pt Pits -- -- Other -- 110 0.0% 8 0 Ur Urban -- -- Other -- 1700 0.7% 8 0 WwC White store -Urban 2 -8 -- other -- 700 0.3% 8 0 IUB Iredell -Urban 1 -8 -- Other -- 500 0.2% 8 0 AUC Appling -Urban 2 -10 -- Other -- 950 0.4% 8 0 Ghc Georgeville -Urban 2 -10 -- Other -- 1650 0.6% 8 0 Water -- -- Other -- 980 0.4% 8 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals 254720 100.0% 11 3. Multiply the number of acres times the adjusted yield predicted for each soil type. 4. Add the products of the multiplication performed in step 3. S. Divide the total value obtained in step 4 by the total acreage for the agricultural group. The quotient will represent the adjusted weighted average yield for the agricultural group. 6. Convert the adjusted weighted average yield for agricultural group 1 to a relative value by dividing that yield by itself (88/88 x 100 = 100). The relative values of agricultural groups 2 -7 are then calculated by dividing the adjusted weighted average yield of each agricultural group by that of agricultural group 1 (Group 2 = 75/88 x 100 = 84). The relative values for the Orange County agricultural groups are shown in Table 3 and Column 10 of Table 2. APPLICATION When a decision is to be made about whether or not to acquire the development rights on a farm, the average relative value of a site must be calculated. To determine the average relative value, the following procedure is used: 1. Locate the site on a soil survey map and determine the kind of soils on the site. 2. Determine the acreage of each soil and the appropriate agricultural group for each soil. 3. Multiply the number of acres of soils in each agricultural group times the assigned relative value on Table 2. 4. Add the products of the multiplication performed in step 3. 5. - Ovine the total value obtained in step 4 by the total .- acreage on the site. The quotient will represent the average relative value of the site. To illustrate the application of this procedure, the relative values of the farms of each current member as well as one former member of the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board were calculated. Only open land (pasture and cropland) and only that portion of a farm contiguous to the homestead were considered in the calculations. Three of the farms are dairy operations (Nutter, Walters, and Hogan), one (Strayhorn) is a swine and beef operation, and one is CQ 04 O a C7 a .7 U H a x O W w M ,7 a� as �w E7 rI E W� a W O Z O r-1 dE a O U a a U w •r1 N -P :j CO r7i CO Qua b V 4) U IU 4) Cr '0 94 iA = �4 0 cA r-- CT 4) •rl r-1 •1- -i.-I > �- N � 3 w m U 0 'Q kO 0 w a 4) S4 Ln U 4 a� I � 0 4),04 CO U 4-) —4 " •r1 '� •rl .--I b C4•n �+ � I 1~ 0 "Ct 4 w I-1 N U CO �• I � I 4.) m •rl ca � •r•I r-1 aen II a� I U •r1 •rl N In 0 In ra r-1 0 0 I H 0000000 0aaaco00 CO O �D O n CT N d'd•C►10 LnOlr7 n L�r- INt'r1MM r-1 d' LC r I N T-1 14t N OOO0000 Ln Ln O Ln W 0 0 MMNWVMV M 0 ON N rI Ln N M mmmmMOLD wOOwmr•1m WG]Cs7Gc wmm N N N N N N N r� •rl 4J d to > o 0 w o r-1 •r1 w 0 b Cr 1 04 4) C) 0 •r1 r-1 0 4 u 0 = = 4 u 0.14••1 4 0 � 3 CUM guommg4 0 O 0 co co Ln CT %D co 0 r-I CO CT r-I ft: a E a 4 a d 000000 LnoLDOOa NLnLnLDOo N�oLnMLno LDLod•NCTM m n Ln r-1 co 000000 Lnor -a0a N Ln %D rN Ln O M O L� N O r-q r-I r-I mmcococDM L• n L0 LD n co WwWW33: N M m M N N mmmUl4 m: 4) Nr co Ln n M CO M n a W 10 r-I 1 00Ln00 I Ln m 1 wtnNLnm I m ~J 1 'LD Co Ln M LC! N N En I O '0 I v v a� M CQ I M I iT I I I 1 00000 � rz A Ci .r•I 1 a YD '1 O0O4HCP I r- 0%(7% mr� >94 xa mmmUl4 m: 4) Nr co Ln n M CO M n a 100000 10 ri 1 00Ln00 I Ln m 1 wtnNLnm I m L► 1 'LD Co Ln M LC! 1 a N I r-1 0 O N V I O M I v v 1 0 M I r-1 r4 I I M I 0 I I 1 00000 I 1 1 0 N 1 0LnLn00 1 a YD I LO C►Nm%0 I r- 0%(7% I r-I d� I ri r-I 1 er N a 0 C7 a a� a 5 4 a M CD M M CD n L► n r► rn w W W W W N M M rn M 4) d �4 rI •� Cl� > I~ sU r� 00 � li •�•U0$4 � m a>' ar' •r1 3 U O m'm im m 4 4 4 0 p 3 3:u0== M C4 I �I C7 a E a U Q I I I N I 1 I I 1 I •� O I I I I I n I I I l I I I I Id ri CO I I I I I � � I I I 1 I N � I I 1 I I � I I I I I I N I I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I •O 'O O U I I I I I I I 1 N d b1 'O 4 I I I I 1 I 1 0 0 0 I I I I I I I 1 0 I I I I I I I 1 0 0 Q 0 I I 1 I I I I I O I I I I I I I I O O I I I I I I I I Q O i >7�l Nn I LnOOo I Ln c°7 19c Nc� w I M 1 O 1 V NMW I m 1 00 I I d'L- W 1 O Fi 41 I MM I Lo Q I � U 1 •O � H I I LD N I m t�7 i a 1 N I N I I I I A O I cA W W 1 y 2 1 W Ln ca I U H W I I I C E-4 a I Ln I Lnlnoo t o 1 So I o I co co m I Ln 1 LO rI r-I Z 1 Ln I o Ln 1 Ln M> 1 O p V U I Ln LO N aD I N WE I (0UU--1� I-a I U •• Co O H I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E-I OC 1 0 O 'Cf I I I I I I MCDM co y4 CO 1 I I I I I Mco 1 I I 1 I I O I 3 v I O I y, H I 4.) to I I I I I I 1 W W W W •4 Cf) I I I I I I I V! W I b —I 1d N M d' I t~ •rl r-1 U1.4 I I I I I I LD C� I I I 1 (A0 4 I I I I I �' Q I (0 U) U I U I I _ I I I - 1 I to I I I#1-- 1 I •rl •'i N I I O i-1 I I I 1 I W I I U2 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I O I I rl I •O O c0 1 I I I V! I A I V1 I I I I I I 1 N I 1 I 1 0 I 1 I 1 d' I I I I I n I I I l I I I 1 t• I I I I I I I I LO I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I M I I 1 I I I I I N I I I I I I I I n I I I I I I I I I LO I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I LD I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I Ln I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 0 0 0 I I I I I I I 1 0 I I I I I I I 1 0 0 Q 0 I I 1 I I I I I O I I I I I I I I O O I I I I I I I I Q 1 00 Ln I Ln I LnOOo I Ln 1 00 1 0 I M 1 LG 1 V NMW I N 1 00 1 0 I d'L- W 1 O 1 NEO N I N I MM I Lo I Ln •-4 v I N I v Ln m rI 1 0 1 0 0 I Ln I LD N I m I r-1 M d' 1 0 1 N I N I I I 1 I 1 r-I I I CV I I I I I O O O I I I O 1 I I O Q 0 0 I I I O I I I O Q I I I C I ooLn I Ln I Lnlnoo t o 1 So I o I co co m I Ln 1 LO rI r-I Z 1 Ln I o Ln 1 Ln m M I d' I Ln LO N aD I N I r-I M I d� I i i I rI I I I I I I H I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I cofnm I I I I I I I I I I I I MCDM co I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I Mco 1 I I 1 I I Lo Lo La 1 I 1 I I I I n Ln d• NP I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I in Ln I I I I I I 1 I •I I I I I I W 3 3 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 W W W W I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V! W 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I N M d' I I I I I I M d' d• d� I I I I I I I I I I LD C� I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I �' I I I I I I I I 1 I Ln I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I to 1 1 I I#1-- 1 1 I I l a l I I 1 I W I 1 I I p.I I O c0 1 0 1 I O I A 1 0 1 O r4 I od I O I IYi 1 0� 1 O4 I U O I ED I O I [7 1 41 ,-i I (7 I Cc m I E Ad I I to O 1 1 N 3 1~ I a 1 A A O 0 1 a 1 v •O I o I O N co I 1� O '0 4J I I. -I O 1 1 W4 1.1 I 1 10 q y c0 I 1 0 w I g I U U O I l: I E-1 W 3 E C7 H I F i I E-I I 1 14 I 1 4 1 1 4 1 I U i I U I I U I Q u W I Ix I a1 1 p4 1 O G E b I U U 0 M E W 3 E I KC I t7 I-1 I rr: I 13 14 (Rogers) is a tobacco farm. Common to each farm are the same basic crops -corn, small grains, and sorghum -and pasture land. However, each farm is representative of a different portion of the county. The Walters and Rogers farms are representative of the northern portion of the county, being located in Cedar Grove Township. While the other three farms are located in the central and southern portions, they are different. The Nutter farm is located in dairy -rich Bingham Township. The Hogan farm is located to the north of Carrboro, directly in the path of that growing community. The Strayhorn farm is located midway between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, and is subject to more development pressure from I -40 than any of the other farms. Based on the calculations shown on Table 4, the Walters (97) farm ranked the highest for acquisition of development rights, followed by the Hogan (94), Nutter (90), Strayhorn (84), and Rogers (81) farms. Each of the three dairy farms consisted of predominantly group 1 soils, accounting for scores of 90 or higher. Percentage -wise, however, the Walters farm contained fewer soils in groups 2 -7 and rated the highest. The Strayhorn and Rogers farms rated lower, because of the greater proportion of group 2 and group 3 soils. The evaluation of cropland quality is not the only basis for ranking farmlands for acquisition of development rights. In the following sections, techniques for evaluating forest or woodland quality and assessing the economic viability of a site for agricultural use are presented. it is the combination of the three techniques which ultimately determine where a site falls on the rating scale. i5 TABLE 4 CALCULATION OF AVERAGE RELATIVE VALUES FOR SELECTED ORANGE COUNTY FARMS Acres x Average Farm Agricultural Relative Relative Relative Owner Group Value Acres Value Value Nutter 1 100 -T - 191 - - -- -19100 2 84 13 1092 3 83 58 4814 4 72 16 1152 5 70 35 2450 6 64 3 192 7 0 3 0 Totals 319 28800 90 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Walters 1 100 193 19300 2 84 1 84 3 83 23 1909 4 72 0 0 5 70 11 770 6 64 0 0 7 0 0 0 Totals - -- 228TT 22063 97 Strayhorn 1 ------------ 100 12 -- - - - - -- 1200 2 84 12 1008 3 83 30 2490 4 72 0 0 5 70 10 700 6 64 0 0 7 0 0 0 Totals --------------- 64 - - - - -- 5398 84 Hogan 1 100 153 15300 2 84 13 1092 3 83 39 3237 4 72 3 216 5 70 16 1120 _ 6 64 0 0 7 0 0 0 Totals 224 20965 94 16 TABLE 4 (CONTINUED) CALCULATION OF AVERAGE RELATIVE VALUES FOR SELECTED ORANGE COUNTY FARMS Acres x Average Farm Agricultural Relative Relative Relative Owner Group Value Acres Value Value Rodgers 1 100 0 0 2 84 197 16548 3 83 0 0 4 72 0 0 5 70 22 1540 6 64 0 0 7 0 5 0 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals 224 18088 81 17 III .LAND EVALUATION FOR FOREST LAND The second step in the preparation and use of the LESA system is to determine the quality of land for forest land use. This is done in a manner similar to that used for cropland evaluation. Soils are arrayed in order of importance in forest land groups, and the value of each group relative to another is calculated. RATING SOILS FOR FOREST LAND USE In designing a system for evaluating forest land, soils are rated according to four factors to determine which soils are the best and least suited for forest use. These factors include productivity, value of indicator tree species, steepness of slope, and other soil limitations. Productivity Rating The productivity rating is based on the productivity of the designated indicator tree species for each soil. An indicator species is defined in the SCS National Forestry Manual as "that species which is common in the area and is generally the most productive on the soil in question." The indicator species for each soil is determined from the woodland interpretation tables contained on the Orange County Soil Survey. The indicator species is the first species listed under the column heading "Productivity Potential." The indicator species for Orange County soils are shown in Appendix D. Productivity ratings for each soil are derived from site index values. Site index values are also determined from the woodland interpretation tables in the Soil Survey and refer to the average height an indicator tree species will reach by the age of 50 years. Productivity ratings are determined from the SCS National Forestry Manual according to the indicator tree species and site index value for each soil type. Site index values and productivity ratings for each Orange County soil are shown in Appendix D. Individual productivity ratings are then arranged in as many as 10 groups-_; The range of productivity ratings shown in Table 5 was derived - €rom the SCS National Forestry Manual. and recommended for use in North Carolina. The highest productivity class in the range is rated 1.00. The ratings assigned to the other classes are relative values derived by dividing the average productivity of each class by the highest average productivity. For example, the average for the second class (121 -166) is 144, and it is assigned a rating of 144/166 or 0.87. The average for the third class (79 -120) is 100, and it is assigned a rating of 100/166 or 0.60. M Table 5 Productivity Rating Productivity Range (Cubic Feet /Acre /Year) Rating 1 2 166+ 1.00 121 -165 0.87 79 -120 0.60 51 -78 0.39 21 -50 0.22 <20 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------- Notes: 1/ See Appendix D. Source: Soil Survey of Orange County, NC and National Forestry Manual USDA, Soil Conservation Service Indicator Species Rating This rating is based on the value of the indicator species that occur in the county. Table 6 below lists the various indicator species in order of decreasing value for.the major wood product in the area, building timber and firewood. Table 6 Indicator Species Rating --------------------------------------------------- Mill Indicator Tree Species Value Rating 1 2 3 Pine (Loblolly /Shortleaf) $150 1.00 Oak (Northern Red Oak) $135 0.90 Mixed Hardwood (Sweetgum) $85 0.57 Notes: 21 Value 11000 board feet of standing timber. Source.: Timbermart South, July, 1990. -.Soil Survey of Orange County, NC,. and -State (Raleigh) Office, USDA = 1 Conservation Service The most valuable indicator is always assigned a rating of 1.00. The ratings for other species are relative values determined by dividing mill value of the next indicator species by the mill value of the most important species. For example, the indicator species oak has a mill value of $135, and it is assigned a rating of 135/150 or 0.90. The indicator species mixed hardwood has a mill value of $85, and it is assigned a rating of 85/150 or 0.57. 19 Steepness of Slope Rating In many cases, slope steepness is one of the most important factors limiting forest management activities or making them more costly. Table 7 lists slope classes for Orange County in order of increasing limitation for forest management. A rating of 1.00 is assigned to the slope class (0 -6 %) with the least limitation to management. Ratings assigned to other slope classes are relative to the lowest slope class (15 -45 %) in terms of cost management. As an example, the 0 -15 percent slope class is rated 1.00. The 15 -45 percent slope class is rated 0.50, because it costs approximately 50 percent more to harvest trees on such slopes (1.00 x 0.50 = 0.50, and 1.00 - 0.50 = 0.50). Since there is roughly a "straight line" relationship between harvest cost and slope, the 6- 15 percent slope class is rated as 0.75. Table 7 Steepness of Slope Rating ------------------------------------------------------ Slope % Rating 1 z 0 -6 1.00 6 -15 0.75 15 -45 0.50 Source: Soil Survey of Orange County, NC USDA, Soil Conservation Service Appendix E lists Orange County soils from the flatest to the steepest according to slope. The list served as the basis for the slope ranges identified in Table 7 above. Soil Limitations Rating In this rating, soil features, other than slope, that limit management activities or make them more costly are evaluated. Soil characteristics that limit forest management activities were derived using a system of ordination symbols which identify woodland suitability. The first part of the ordination symbol, a. number, indicates the potent--"!---.,. productivity of the soils for. important trees. The number 1 indicates very high productivity; 2, high; 3, moderately high; 4, moderate; and 5, low. The second part of the symbol, a letter, indicates the major kind of soil limitation. For Orange County, the limitations are few but important. The letter w indicates excessive water in or on the soil; c, clay in the upper part of the soil; and r, steep slopes. The letter o indicates insignificant limitations or restrictions. Ordination symbols for Orange County soils are shown in Appendix E. The major limitations, other than slope, for forest land use are identified below. 20 Table 8 Soil Limitation Rating Soil Characteristic 1 Rating 2 No limitations 1.00 Clayey 0.40 Excessive wetness 0.10 ----------------------------------------------------- Notes: See Appendix E. Source: Soil Survey of orange County, NC USDA, Soil Conservation Service Where no limitations exist, a soil is assigned a rating of 1.00. Ratings for clayey and wet soils were based on similar ratings used in a county in the Piedmont section of Virginia. FOREST LAND RELATIVE VALUE RATING To develop relative values for Orange County soils, the ratings derived above are first displayed for each soil (see Table 9). Next, a composite value is obtained by adding the ratings for each soil series. As an example, the composite value for Appling (ApB) soil is 3.60, the sum of columns 3, 4, 6, and 8. The composite value for Herndon (HrC) soil is 3.35. Relative values are obtained by arranging the soils in descending order of composite value, dividing the composite value of each soils series by the highest composite value obtained, and multiplying the quotient by 100 to produce a whole number. For example, the relative value of Appling (ApB) soil is 100 (3.60/3.60 = 1.0 x 100 = 100). The relative value for Herndon (HrC) soil is 3.35/3.60 = 0.93 x 100 = 93). FOREST LAND GROUP VALUE RATING unlike- cropland, forest land soils are rated and placed into groups using -_a ;different technique. Group 1 still contains the best soils for - forest land use and is assigned a relative value of 100. .The relative ralue.for lower groups, however, is the average of the relative value range. Based on their relative values, soils are again grouped into approximately 10 groups. Less than 10 groups are permissible, though, depending upon the number of soil types present and their suitability for forest land use. A range in values for all of the soils in each group is then assigned, with no overlap occurring in the ranges of adjacent groups. The average of each relative value range is then calculated and becomes the relative value for that group. As an example, the relative value range for Group 3 is 83 to 88. The group relative value is the range average or 86. 21, It is the group relative values that are used to calculate the value of one site relative to another for forest land use. The assignment of relative value ranges and the calculation of group relative values is shown in detail on Table 10. APPLICATION As was the case with cropland, the average relative value of a forest site must be calculated before a decision is made about whether or not to acquire the development rights. To determine the average relative value, the following procedure is used: 1. Locate the site on a soil survey map and determine the kind of soils on the site. 2. Determine the acreage of each soil and the appropriate forest land group for each soil. 3. Multiply the number of acres of soils in each forest land group times the group relative value on Table 10. 4. Add the products of the multiplication performed in step 3. 5. Divide the total value obtained in step 4 by the total acreage on the site. The quotient will represent the average relative value of the site. To illustrate the application of this procedure, the relative values of the farms of each member of the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board were calculated. Only forest land and only that portion of a farm contiguous to the homestead were considered in the calculations. Based on the calculations shown on Table 11, the Walters (94) farm ranked the highest for acquisition of development rights, followed by the Hogan (91), Strayhorn (90), Nutter (89), and Rogers (76) farms. In the next section, a technique for assessing the economic viability of a site for agricultural use is presented. In combination. -Vith the techniques for evaluating cropland and forest land qualt;:.it will determine where a site falls on the overall rating scale -f-or development rights acquisition. OW O r-I r-I N w c� . w O dp dp dp t~ a� N w co [- N 0 U M N N w U a U W o 0 0 Z N co Ln 6n $4 r- M N w + U v7 n o 09 0% Ln In E z a 0 U O G] > C7 a•rl 4) d 4-) 0 0 r-I %0 O to ra Vo o C% oD � O 0 N� I f]� C7 z O IA IT o o Rr a Co o •� r4 ) In O O O W (a O +► .W 4-) m co to H a o a� o � x •r, m C9 +1 0 000000 dMMMMMMMMM M 1p 1ptD1p10dMMMM MM go-- q?' 000000 a►mmm0%01010 m01 01 CDCDCDCOCOCflCDw = w WW d r-I r-I ri ri ri ri H V) m Poi •H U D7 d N $ V) M N •rl N •rl 1 0 A 41 1 4-)� M > d O 0 0 '.+' A U O U > M O N O O W r-I r-1 (D r-I r-I . Cv U O to w O 0 O MA O m N VI +) WA CO +� r1 r-1 -rl U •rl .. •rl =r1 fT'd to O •• I' •--d �'� fA N $ N Oi •rl !~ a0 sE (Q U to U d N !~ > d O cn -41-4-A w I~ d O -.= DOQOw$0 O) r-4 •r1 w 0 to •r4 o-%4 p to r-4 to I~wUOw30•Or-1 OA 04A O -H -44 b 0 04-) rd b cd ra•'OOrir-- 14-3O- 4Q)OA4-34) d 3 .-: - am4)4)-Hd 0 0404) 0•H0 4) • -1 0W04W 0 0) 0 •rI0d04wwwr+.0 �UC7x�❑ u99u0M:sA330 4u rf O •rl A V) V CO CO CO CO CO CO UuuuuuAnU ❑ ❑ WCT4rT4rZlPMMMM W a4amw3d 04 04 440Ww l 0 R M A v r- 151 0 Xr400W 40 d4 a0 4uo==❑ u4uoxx43:30 UM4MOr-4W %H�A O r-I r-I N w c� . 23 a 04 w L c� W , o , n d 0 dP dP dP dP dP dP I dP I O ko n a d• I 4) I � I a , I I ri I O G7 O I � 1 N � O O Ln coo I n C% n r-+ CO I Nr U CO d• M r-I CT 1 I.n E-1 w + I w w U O O W CW7 CL •> 4) a 4J 7 O v Ln r-I O CO r 4 tO CD n r•^1 cO A OI 7 O C7 z O to ,eEi CO CCOO n n �d U f� •ri G>i' �W 4-)(D � � � 74) Ia-1 a> n .-1 p ..� W7 n n > a 0 :On, w rn u C7 -P O CO n 1a %0 %0 It1 Ln In In N .r1 Ca �v nnn nnn n kc Ism a Ei c' w w UOd m 44 4) O O is rw-I I -I N —4 v Cn 4-) 4-3 O r 4 w p rn W O I •r1 4) O CO �-i •-� ' 4) 4) A 'a 0 0 T Cn ■ O �' A4-) 4- ►O000010 r- O .0 $4 i4 O N 4) •-i i 1 qqr O rn E-1 w3M�)Ux=mo o CAM r-IO rf N C W UUU MM4 ,A 4J� -P � 03 C: 4J 3 w 4) 10 O' w sa •1•1 1O O O E•I w3: 3: u== 4 O ❑04 29 z rn a 04 w L c� 24 TABLE 11 CALCULATION OF AVERAGE RELATIVE VALUES FOR SELECTED ORANGE COUNTY FARMS Acres x Average Farm Forest Land Relative Relative Relative Owner Group Value Acres Value Value Nutter 1 100 86 8600 2 91 97 8827 3 86 116 9976 4 80 48 3840 5 74 14 1036 6 35 3 105 ----------------------------------------- Totals 364 32384 89 Walters - - -- - - -R ^1 100 33 3300 2 91 10 910 3 86 11 946 4 80 3 240 5 74 3 222 6 35 0 0 __________ Totals ___ ___ ____ __ ____________ _ _ _ _ _ __ 60 5618 94 T Strayhorn - - -- ^- 1 100 26 2600 2 91 23 2093 3 86 3 258 4 80 0 0 5 74 16 1184 6 35 0 0 - -------------------------------------------- Totals 68 6135 90 ---------------------------------- Hogan 1 100 100 10000 2 91 122 11102 3 86 75 6450 4 80 31 2480 _ 5 74 12 888 6 35 2 70 ------------------------ Totals --------__-r------------ 342 30990 91 25 TABLE 11 (CONTINUED) CALCULATION OF AVERAGE RELATIVE VALUES FOR SELECTED ORANGE COUNTY FARMS Acres x Average Farm Forest Land Relative Relative Relative Owner Group Value Acres Value Value Rogers 1 100 -------------- 3 - ----- _ - - - -- 300 2 91 1 91 3 86 9 774 4 80 0 0 5 74 93 6882 6 35 0 0 Totals 106 8047 76 26 27 Iv SITE ASSESSMENT The third step in the preparation and use of the LESA system is to develop a system for identifying important factors, other than soils, that affect the economic viability of a site for agricultural and /or forest land use. SITE ASSESSMENT FACTORS Listed below are those site assessment factors considered to be the most important in Orange County for comparing alternative sites for development rights acquisition. As recommended in the LESA Handbook, factors were stratified into conditions rated from 0 to 10, with maximum points (10) assigned when a condition supported the continuation of agricultural use. Zero (0) points were assigned when a condition supported the conversion of agricultural or forest land to an urban use. Percentage of Area in Agriculture /Forest Use Areas that are exclusively agriculture or forest are more viable for such uses than areas that are a mix of urban and agricultural uses. The LESA Handbook suggests that the area to be considered could range from one - fourth to 10 square miles. A proposed Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance for Orange County recommends threshholds for the amount of land needed to qualify as an agricultural district. A district may consist of several farms but must contain at least 350 contiguous acres. This is equivalent to approximately one --half square mile and is used as the standard by which to assign points for this factor. Percent of Area in A riculture Forest Use Points 80 to 100 percent 10.0 60 to 80 percent 7.5 40 to 60 percent 5.0 20 to 40 percent 2.5 0 to 20 percent 0.0 The ane =half mile standard is applied by measuring a distance of 2100 feet--from-.the tract boundary and calculating the amount of land in urban and agricultural use. The 2100 -foot distance is equivalent to the radius of a circle with a one -half square mile area. This method eliminates the tract proposed for development rights acquisition from the calculation. Land Use Adjacent to Site If all the land adjacent to a site is in agricultural use, the site is more viable for agriculture than if the land surrounding it is urban. For purposes of assigning points to such a factor, the LESA Handbook suggested the following: 28 Land Use Adjacent To ShtLe- Points All sides in agriculture /forest use 10.0 One side adjacent to nonagricultural land 7.5 Two sides adjacent to nonagricultural land 5.0 Three sides adjacent to nonagricultural land 2.5 Site surrounded by nonagricultural land 0.0 While the assignment of points is straightforward, determining whether or not an adjacent side is or is not in agricultural use may be difficult. Suppose, for example, a site is bounded on one side by a church, the church property line represents only 20 percent of the site boundary on that side, and all of the remaining land adjoining the site is in agricultural use. Is the site to be given 7.5 points, since one side is adjacent to nonagricultural land; e.g., the church, or is it to be given 10.0 points, since the vast majority of land (80 %) on that side is in agricultural use? Using a system similar to that used for "Percent of Area in Agriculture /Forest Use" will overcome this difficulty by basing the assignment of points on the percentage of land adjacent to a site in agriculture /forest use. Percent of Adjacent Land in Agriculture /Forest Use Points 80 to 100 percent 10.0 60 to 80 percent 7.5 40 to 60 percent 5.0 20 to 40 percent 2.5 0 to 20 percent 0.0 Another advantage in using this system is that the data used to assign points can be used to determine the percent of adjacent land in agriculture /forest use. This is done by calculating the distance that each adjoining agricultural use fronts on the site and converting the total distance to a percentage. Probability oi,Conversion If a ' -goal of the purchase of development rights program is to slow the, -.=--conversion of agricultural land to nonfarm purposes, points should be awarded to those farms which have the greatest probability of conversion. As shown below, 10 points' is to be awarded to the farm which is subject to potential forced sale. Examples of this situation may be a farmer who suffered a severe crop loss due to some natural occurrence such as a drought, has overextended credit, or is unable to work due to an accident or health rewasons, all of which require capital. The farmer may wish. to continue farming but cannot due to the lack of funds. The infusion of capital through purchase of development rights may be all that is needed to promote the continuation of the farm unit. Pal Closely related to the above situation is one in which the farmer is deceased, and the heirs wish to continue farming. The burden of estate and inheritance taxes on the heirs often causes farms to be sold or broken up into smaller parcels. This situation occurs because much of the farmer's land is tied up in land holdings whose value contributes significantly to estate and inheritance taxes. Purchasing the development rights may thus enable the heirs to pay the taxes and continue the farming operation. It may also help in those situations where one heir wishes to continue farming and his /her siblings do not. Development rights acquisition will allow the siblings to obtain their share of the inheritance without the necessity of selling the farm. Probability of Conversion Points Property subject to potential forced sale 10.0 Property subject to estate settlement sale 7.5 Property actively marketed for voluntary sale 5.0 Another situation may involve a farmer who simply wishes to retire, and he /she has no heirs or they do not wish to continue the farming operation. The farm may then be actively marketed, and the sale proceeds used as the farmer's retirement fund. This situation differs from the preceding two in that the farmer does not wish to continue farming. Acquisition of the development rights will enable the farmer to establish his /her retirement fund and sell the land for its agricultural use value. Size of Farm The LESA Handbook suggests that a feasible farm size be determined before assigning points on the basis of farm size. In Orange County, tobacco is the major cash crop, but corn for feed is. the largest crop in terms of quantity. In terms of feasible farm size, tobacco can be grown on 50 acres of land, and a farmer can make a decent living. For a dairy farmer to maintain a similar standard of living, 100 dairy cows would be needed, requiring 200 -300 acres of land for pasture and feed crops. Because of the variation in land area requirements', it is difficult to establish a feasible farm size. Anotlrerc , -. indicator of feasible farm size may be obtained from the 1987 C-enags of Agriculture. In 1987,, the average farm size in Orange County was 155 acres. This is considerably higher than Forsyth County (75 -acre average) where a purchase of development rights program was initiated in 1987. The high average farm size is further indicated in Figure 1 below. In 1987, approximately 56 percent of all farms in Orange County were less than 100 acres in size. In Forsyth County, nearly 80 percent of all farms were less than 100 acres in size. Orange County's high average farm size is also attributable to the greater proportion of farms over 100 acres in size. 30 w e O C m v m a Figure 1 FARMS BY SIZE Orange and Forsyth Counties - 1987 1 -49 50 -99 100 -179 180 -259 260 -499 5vvt Farm size in acres M Orange County ® Forsyth County - Even with an average farm size of 75 acres and a substantial proportion of farms less than 100 acres in size, Forsyth County adopted a strategy of awarding the greatest number of points to farm units with 100 acres or more. The rationale for this strategy was to encourage sizable tracts of land to be offered for development rights acquisition. Size of La-rm Pointa 100 acres or more 10.0 75 -99 acres 7.5 50 -74 acres 5.0 25- 44:-acres 2.5 Less `tii#an 25 acres 0.0 As indicated above, a similar strategy is proposed for Orange County. A farm unit at or above 100 acres in size has been assigned a value of 10 points, with values decreasing as the size of the farm unit decreases. Another reason for awarding points on this basis is that approximately half of all farms are larger or smaller than 100 acres in size, a feature which may be indicative of the most feasible farm size. 31 On -Site Investment The investment in real property improvements, such as barns and silos, is an indicator of the long -term expectations of farm operators; e.g., that there is a commitment to farming a specific property. A high level of such investments in farm facilities would indicate that owners anticipate farming for many years. A status quo level might suggest uncertainty, and a diminishing level of investment might suggest land conversion. e e m e a Figure 2 FARM VALUE, SIZE, AND NUMBER Percent Change, 1982 -1987 1 -49 50 -178 1bu-a v Ovv -aaa •�_.. Farm size in acres M Farm Value ($) Acres in Farms ® Number of Farms In terms of general trends, Figure 2 illustrates the change in farm value between 1982 and 1987. For small farms (1 -49 acres), the acreage increased significantly. However, an equally significant decline in the number of small farms occurred. The net effect was little change -in value of land and buildings. At the.:_6- pposite end of the spectrum, large farms of 1,000 or more acres not only increased in acreage and number but in the value of land and buildings. For the intervening categories, both the acreage and number of farms declined. In contrast, the general trend was for land and building value to increase as farm size increased. One means of determining the nature and level of investment taking place is by reviewing appraisals made for tax purposes from one revaluation period to another. Farm buildings and related structures, exclusive of dwellings other than those for employees, are normally built or improved or added to in successful farm 32 operations. If no. new construction takes place, but existing buildings are kept up, the values will remain at high but relatively constant levels. If buildings are neglected or removed, the values will decrease. On -Site Investment Greater than 15 percent increase assessed valuation 5 -15 percent increase in assessed No change in assessed valuation 5 percent increase or decrease 5 -15 percent decrease in assessed Greater than 15 percent decrease assessed valuation Points in 10.0 valuation 7.5 less than 5.0 valuation 2.5 in 0.0 The points assigned above were based on a survey of farms in each of the seven townships in Orange County. Changes in the assessed valuation of farm buildings from 1986 to the present ranged generally from a seven percent decrease to a 16 percent increase. The time period included a revaluation of all real property in 1987, and tax listings were checked to determine if new construction had been added in the last five years. Conservation Plan Implementation Loss of topsoil through erosion is a serious threat to the productivity of agricultural lands. Erosion, soil that washes or blows off the land, also pollutes adjacent waters, depositing sediments, nutrients, pesticides, and animal wastes into rivers and lakes. To reduce topsoil loss and pollution, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has provided conservation planning assistance to local farmers and landowners. In addition, the N.C. Agriculture Cost -Share Program provides incentive payments and cost - sharing funds to farmers who install Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as strip cropping, filter strips, water control structures, grassed waterways, and animal waste management systems. For many.years, SCS erosion control planning has focused on the goal bf reducing average annual erosion to established soil loss tolern ace or "T" levels. These levels indicate the maximum average annual-- erosion which can be allowed and still maintain the soil's long -term productivity. A farmer's success in reducing erosion to established T levels thus provides a basis for assigning points for implementation of a conservation plan. Conservation Plan Implementation Points More than 70% reduction in soil loss 10.0 50%-70% reduction in soil loss 7.5 30 % -50% reduction in soil loss 5.0 10 % -30% reduction in soil loss 2.5 Less than 10% reduction in soil loss 0.0 33 Awarding 10 points where soil loss has been reduced by more than 70 percent is based on local SCS experience. In determining the percent reduction, each farm would be evaluated to determine the existing soil loss and the T level to be achieved. For example, the T level for a given farm might be five tons /acre /year, and the actual soil loss might be 10 tons /acre /year. By reducing the soil loss to six tons /acre /year, the farmer would have achieved an 80 percent reduction and qualify for 10 points. Compatibility With Comprehensive Plan According to the LESA Handbook, an area designated on the comprehensive plan for agricultural use should be assigned a high value. The Land Use Element of the Orange C2unty Com rehensive Plan contains descriptions of land use plan categories and locational criteria which provide the basis for the assignment of points below. Compatibility with Comprehensiva Plan Points Located in Agricultural - Residential area 10.0 Located in Rural Residential /Buffer area 7.5 Located in Transition area 5.0 Located in Activity Node area 2.5 Located in Urban area 0.0 In the Land Use Element, land designated as Agricultural - Residential is located where the prevailing activity is agriculture or forestry. In both Rural Residential and Rural Buffer areas, there is still a mix of agricultural and residential uses. However, more land is used for low - density residential purposes than in an Agricultural - Residential area. Land designated as Transition is in the process of changing from rural to urban, is suitable for urban -type densities, and is expected to be provided with public utilities and services within the next 10 -20 years. Activity nodes are areas planned for commercial and /or industrial development. Urban land is located within the corporate limits of a town or in its planning jurisdiction. Urban densities and services are planned for these areas. Distance to Town or City Urban uses are generally considered to be incompatible with agricultural pursuits. Land on the fringes of a town or city is generally the first to be acquired for community expansion. As new development occurs, the most commonly encountered sources of conflict involve odor and flies; animal control; and noise and dust. Complaints from their urban neighbors as well as trespass, theft, and vandalism may then cause more farmers to sell, moving to rural locations or leaving farming altogether. Thus, a site adjacent to a town or city is less viable for agriculture than a site located many miles from the nearest municipality. 34 stance to Tow More than 3.0 2.0 -3.0 miles 1.0 -2.0 miles 0.5 -1.0 miles Less than 0.5 ri or City Points miles 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 miles 0.0 The point values assigned above are based on N.C. statutes governing the area within which municipalities may exercise authority over the planning and regulation of development. Any city or town may exercise these powers within an area extending not more than one mile beyond its corporate limits. A city or town of 10,000 or more population but less than 25,000 may exercise these powers over an area extending not more than two miles from its corporate limits, and a city or town of 25,000 or more population may exercise these powers over an area extending not more than three miles from its corporate limits. Where the county government has adopted zoning, subdivision, and building regulations in the affected area, the city or town may extend its jurisdiction only upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners. In Orange County, Chapel Hill is the only municipality which could extend its planning jurisdiction to the full three -mile limit. Adjacent to Chapel Hill is Carrboro which could extend its jurisdiction two miles from the corporate limits. To the east, Durham's city limits extend to the Orange County line. Because of its population size, Durham could extend its planning jurisdiction three miles into Orange County. In the center of the county is Hillsborough, the county seat, and to the west, Mebane straddles the Orange - Alamance county line. For both communities, their jurisdictions could be extended one mile from their corporate limits. For both Chapel Hill and Carrboro, requests to extend their planning jurisdiction have been denied by the Board of County Commissioners. As an alternative, these municipalities have entered into a Joint Planning Agreement with Orange County. Following approval of a land use plan by all three jurisdictions, the two municipalities have been given authority over a designated urban growth area.. -Discussions are underway between Orange County and Hillsborough - -£o establish a similar arrangement. Durham has elected not to request extension of its planning jurisdiction. It has adopted a land use plan which limits its growth to Durham County. Only a portion of Mebane's jurisdiction extends into Orange County. Mebane's current jurisdiction corresponds to the one -mile limit. Distance to Public Water and Sewer Service Land that has public water and /or sewer service available and land that has residential developments which utilize on -site sewage r 35 disposal systems and individual wells have important consequences for an agricultural area. As a general rule, when public sewer service is provided, the development of that land area for urban purposes is almost assured. Likewise, on -site sewage disposal systems commonly become inoperative or produce health hazards after a period of time, especially when the development utilizing these systems is on closely spaced lots. Public sewer service must then be built out to these developments. The availability of sewer for the intervening farm land commits that land to eventual additional development. While public sewer can accommodate greater increases in density, the availability of public water can create similar results. Where such service is available, maintaining a minimum distance of 100 feet between a well and septic tank/ nitrification field is not essential, and density increases of as much as 25 -30 percent can result. Just as sewage disposal systems can experience problems, groundwater contamination or depletion can result in the extension of public water service to correct such situations. Distance to Public Water Sewer Service Points Service more than 1.50 -1.99 miles 1.00 -1.49 miles 0.5 -0.99 miles 2.0 miles from site Service within 0.5 miles of site 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0 Assigning points based on the distance of a farm from public water and sewer service is complicated by the grange County Water and Sewer _Policy. That policy generally limits public water and sewer extensions to designated urban growth.areas except to provide service in an emergency situation; e.g., failing septic systems, or to an essential public service such as a school. Extensions may be sized according to the policies of the utility provider, but development must occur at permitted zoning densities. However, even if densities are not increased, the potential for rural subdivision development is greatly enhanced by the availability of such services. Thus, distance from public water and sewer service does become a factor in the conversion of agricultural land to nonfarm purposes.. The points assigned above and the distances associated with each were based on actual or contemplated extensions of public water and /or sewer service to rural developments. The highest number of points (10) were awarded to farms located more than one and one -half miles from existing service. No points were given to farms where service already existed at or was within one -half mile of the site. The developments considered in deriving the points system included Oak Rise Subdivision (0.5 miles), Woods Edge Mobile Home Park (0.75 miles), and University Station (1.75 miles). Lines to which property owners could not connect were not considered in awarding points. W Location in Protected Watershed One impetus for developing a purchase of development rights proposal was the desire to address the concerns of landowners in watershed areas. In April, 1990, permitted residential densities in the University Lake watershed were lowered to one dwelling unit per five acres. Prior to that time, land in a designated critical area could be developed at a density of one unit per two acres. Outside of a critical area, densities of one unit per acre were permitted.. By July 1, 1992, Orange County as well as other local governments across North Carolina must submit watershed protection ordinances to the N.C. Environmental Management Commission for approval. The State - mandated watershed protection programs will have a significant impact on Orange County, since nearly 60 percent of the county's land area is in one watershed or another. From the standpoint of watershed protection, retaining land in agriculture and forest use can be beneficial. Where development is limited, stormwater discharges and pollutants carried by the runoff are reduced. The basis for assigning points for this factor is thus to award higher scores in areas where watershed protection standards are more stringent, and few or none where such standards are limited or do not exist. Location in Protected Watershed Points Inside WS -II watershed 10.0 Inside critical area of WS -III watershed 7.5 Outside critical area of WS -III watershed 5.0 Inside WS -IV watershed 2.5 Outside protected watershed 0.0 The watershed classifications referenced above are those proposed by the N.C. Environmental Management Commission. Associated with each classification is a set of minimum watershed protection standards, summarized in graphic form on the following pages. Presence of Natural Areas Another.:_4—,4 for the preparation of this proposal was the desire to.pp6tect significant natural areas and wildlife habitats. In 1987 and 1988, the Triangle Land Conservancy conducted an inventory and identified 64 such sites in Orange County. These sites are potentially. threatened by agricultural as well as urban expansion. The assignment of points based on the significance of the site recognizes their importance. The acquisition of development rights will protect such sites from urban expansion, but it does not address cropland expansion and deforestation. These concerns may be addressed through the use of conservation easements which limit the disturbance and /or destruction of natural, areas. Classification WS -II Critical Area Watershed WS -III Critical Area Watershed WS -IV Critical Area ALLOWABLE WATERSHED DENSITY WS -II — WS -IV # of dwellings allowed based on 2 acre lot size 0 Watershed= -Or Protected Area Low density option no stormwater controls (% built -upon) i 37 High density option with stormwater controls (max. % built -upon) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 30% 12% 30% 12% 30% 24% 70% F- 7 Developed = Natural or Vegetative 2 • •1 • M DEFINITION OF CRITICAL AREA -WHOLE WATERSHED WITH INTAKE LOCATED WITHIN A RESERVOIR ,shed ge Line Critical Area (1/2 mile) !servoir Critical Area Size: Intake Location j/.2 mile or to the watershed ridge line, l Wchever is shorter, measured from the normal ypvol elevation of the reservoir in all directions draining to the reservoir. Applied in: WS-11, WS -III and WS -IV DEFINITION OF CRITICAL AREA -WHOLE WATERSHED WITH INTAKE LOCATED DIRECTLY INSTREAM ied Line tical Area I mile) Critical Area Size: O!ae mile or to the watershed ridge line, - _whever is shorter, measured from the intake location in all directions draining to the intake. Applied in: WS -II, WS -III and WS -IV ocation 39 40 Pre en e o Natural Areas Points Wildlife corridor system 10.0 Site(s) of State significance 7.5 Site(s) of regional significance 5.0 Site(s) of county significance 2.5 No significant natural areas 0.0 In the Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange Count -N.C., a wildlife corridor system was proposed to connect larger natural areas and wildlife habitats. Such a network Of undeveloped areas along stream corridors, inaccessible to the public, provides additional habitat and a means for animal populations to move between food sources, thus insuring their survival. Because wildlife corridors include significant individual sites, they are assigned the highest number of points - 10. "Significance" refers to the presence of an important biological or geomorphic element on a site and the rarity of that element. Three levels of significance - State, regional, and county - have been identified, based on the ranking system presented by the Triangle Land Conservancy. Sites of State significance have been recognized by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program as natural areas which possess outstanding natural features such as a very rare plant or animal, or one of the best examples of a community type or geomorphic feature in the state. Sites of regional significance possess outstanding natural features or rare plant or animal species, and are one of the best examples of such a site in the eastern Piedmont. Sites of county significance are the most significant sites within the county, although similar sites may occur in other counties. It may or may not contain a rare plant or animal species but is considered to be the best of its type in the county. It may also be an example of a habitat or community that is representative of the overall natural diversity of the county. Presence of Historic Sites In 1986, the Planning Department prepared An. of Site o ral Historic— Recreational. 'o10 ical and solo 'ca 'gni ante i the Unincorporated Portions Oran e ount , a.- Ii of .some. 350 sites and structures which embody the county's historic and cultural heritage. A number of these sites were surveyed again in greater detail and included in the Inventory -of -the atu al Areal and Wildlife Habitats of O a a Count N.C. Of the remaining sites, a number are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the nation's basic inventory of historic properties deemed to be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Such sites are noteworthy because they are: S 41 - Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or - Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or - Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values; or - Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. It should be noted that the majority of listings in the National Register qualify because of their significance to a particular community or state. Only a fraction, less than 10 percent, have been entered because of their significance to the nation. Among the sites listed in the National Register in the unincorporated portions of Orange County are the Paisley -Rice Log House, located northeast of Mebane in Cheeks Township; Moorefields, located southeast of Hillsborough in Cheeks Township; St. Mary's Chapel, located northeast of Hillsborough in Little River Township; and the Bingham School, located on N.C. Highway 54 near the Alamance County line. P sence of Historic Sites Points Site listed in National Register of 10.0 Historic Places Located adjacent to site listed in National 7.5 Register of Historic Places Site of County significance 5.0 Located adjacent to site of County significance 2.5 No significant historic sites located on or 0.0 adjacent to property Farms which contain a site or structure listed in the National Register have been assigned the highest number of points (10), while farms which abut National Register sites are assigned 7.5 points. Such farms are considered important because of the buffer they provide.. They may also represent part of a larger area which, together a: National Register site, forms an important rural landscape:war�hy of preservation. Farms which contain a site, other than a National Register site, identified in the 1986 Inventory and farms adjoining such sites are assigned progressively fewer points. Farms with no significant historic sites do not qualify for points. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS Following the selection of site assessment factors and the assignment of points to specific site conditions, the relative importance (weight) of each factor is considered. Weights ranging from one to 10 are assigned, with the most important factor being 42 assigned the highest weight, not to exceed 10. Other factors are then assigned weights depending upon their relative importance in relation to all factors selected. As shown in Table 12, Column 1 lists the site- assessment factors selected for use in the LESA system. Column 2 shows the maximum value assigned for each factor as determined in the preceding section. Column 3 indicates the weight assigned to each factor as determined by averaging the individual weights assigned by each member of the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board. In Table 12, the percent of area in agriculture or forest use and the location of a farm in a protected watershed were judged to be the most important factors. Column 4 shows the product of the points for each factor (Column 2) tames the weight assigned each factor (Column 3). The sum of these values is 820 or the total maximum points for site assessment. The maximum relative value for the land evaluation part of LESA, including both cropland and forest land, is 200. Thus, without adjustment, the ratio of maximum site - assessment points to maximum land - evaluation points would be 820:200 or approximately 4:1. This relationship would heavily emphasize site assessment at the expense of land evaluation. In LESA systems evaluated nationwide by the Soil Conservation Service, a ratio of 2 :1; e.g., 2 for site assessment and 1 for land evaluation, has provided the best results. A weight adjustment must therefore be made to obtain a 2:1 ratio in Table 12. Column 5 shows the adjusted weights needed to produce a maximum point total of 400 and achieve a ratio of 820:400 or 2:1. The adjusted weights are determined by dividing 400 by 820 to produce an adjustment factor of 0.49, then multiplying the original assigned weight for each site - assessment factor by 0.49; e.g., 0.49 x 10 = 4.9 for factors 1 and 10. The adjusted weight values retain the relative importance assigned to each factor, but limit the maximum points to 400 for the site - assessment part of the system. Column 6 shows the adjusted maximum points for each factor when the maximum number of points per factor (Column 2) is multiplied by the adjusted weight (Column 5). APPLICATION:: To - 1-13zstrate the application of the site - assessment procedure, the farms of the Agricultural Distracts Advisory Board members were evaluated. The results of the evaluations are shown on Tables 13A -13E. The calculations performed are similar to those required in Table 12. The points assigned for each factor (Column 5) are multiplied by the adjusted weight in Column 3. The total site points (Column 6) derived for each factor are then totaled to obtain a final site assessment score. Based on the calculations shown on Tables 13A -13E, the Rogers farm (302.5) ranked highest for acquisition of development rights, followed by the Walters (294.8), Nutter (281.5), Strayhorn (188.0) and Hogan (162.0) farms. 43 In the following section, cropland and forest land evaluation techniques are combined with those for site assessment to produce a composite rating system for development rights acquisition. 44 r I , 1 'O 1. 0 0 o► d� er � rn � � o o � �r o i o v-kr NN d'NN 1 0 I D •r1 •rl �O I 1 I a i I , I 1 � I 1 t7 1 a, sr �•�vl�a• ao viva 1 -P 4 I I w Cal d' d' M N N d' d' N N dr N N I Cn I I O •rl u1 I 1 , 1 z H I V I I FC I I O I I I a 1 1 i 1 a o 00000 ao 000 io 1 w o m 1 I A A 1 o rn n�.nvaaACN qr lw 0 ncr I N I bl rT A 1 r-I ,� 10 , F-I I •ri •r-I •rl d' I , 1 o m o I , F4 I � � i II II II II II II II II II II II II I Ei I b I o Ch t► to to a% m %r d' 0 In qr I cn 1 0 41 1 r-1 I h V! I 00, 1 I ❑ od I -H -r-I M 1 , 40 1 Ou F:g i i X k k x k k x x z44 fI i O 0 I I N Z i �Fw 10 o d I e to 41 1 O O 0 0 0 t) 0 00 000 1 aa M i -H a U N , 4 '-I ra r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I .••I r4 ra r-I 1 4acwn 1 0 Ei r.0 Co I C4 I U 4 I I is I I I O I 0 W I I I ! I 4J 0 •r1 w 0 I I 0 W I I U V O 0 p I I �" I 1 •ri 9 0 to 0 m I I W I I i-1 0 m 9 0 "-% 4J Co 0 1 I tn r-I :z O w >4 1•a 0 0 4 I I I I tCi •rl pl, .{.l 0 $ 0.r1 I I fsa I I 4J 4-) w -,., .N N w I I O 1 1 0 to >, O U 0 'd tp 1 1 1 1 •� O O O U 3 0 U I I E-1 I. 1 U p 5 i-I +J r-I -r-I I I z 1 O I 0 tdO0 4 0 r Utd>4 - �p I 0 -r-i44 0 0 r- 4-3 •,4 N $4 O 1 1 I::_ • td I to b w f~ r-I 3 3 A O 4J CO 1 +J 1 Cn I 1 O O O o 0 4-) 1 0 1 rn I I O S4 >+ y o ••-1 O O 94444 1 p4 1 di I I 0 W 0 0 4J 0 O •rl H a.J a.J •r♦ O o 1 1 I I Ol 0 tjl 4J •rl 4-I -H 4-) •r1 1 .-I 1 I I td 0 r-I r-I 0.0 000000 1 0 1 I 1 +J .,.J 4.3 O •r1 44 0>- -I U U U o U U 1 +J 1 1 I O M 0 U.0 O 4J W 4J 9 p •r1 •rl 9 Q 1 O 1 1 I 000•rlcd •r- 10(a 0 0 Id54.)00 14J I I I Us40i440 W Mo 04J��40M o I I I 1 P0wt7l0N 1 0 F --4ww0 0 0 0 1 rg 1 I 1 044 0 td i-1 -r-I 0 0 0 Q.,•rl •r1 W O E 14 1 0 1 I 1 a 14 P4CA0UU Cla 1-4 WW 1 r 1 I I 1 •rl I I I � �► �► I 9C I I I r-I N to v I.n 10 C- CD C1% r-I r-1 r4 I Z I r Uh E1 z H O P. E z 29 W Q [A W w 9c cn CA en ch od r•1 �i w E-1 wwa 4 E-13 E1 w w w� O Ei za OO 1-a W a d U I o 0 ooa�oo 00 coo I I I m 1 o 4)r ri 14 1; 1n 1f 0+ C'c' I 4)r 1 }.1 14) Q I d' �' N N f'•1 d' r--1 +--� C' I O� I •r•1 4J -H W I I N I cn00 I I I Ei 04 1 1 I I I I I •O 1 0 0 o o In 1n o 1n 1n O O o I I I I d to I d 0+P I o 0 C; C; c-r- oao 1 1 •r1 •r^1 •r1 Lo I I I (n fA 0 I I I ma 1 1 1 I I I •0 1 0+ 4)r 4)r 4)r 0% 'fir v cc a% O I I 1 0 1 d fa I 4)r d• m N N 4)r d' N N d' N N I O I -P 0.0 , I ep I m 0 0 1 I I 0 -H -r1 eN I 1 I •r1 M O I I I a I 1 I 1 I C1 4)r 0 I I I d +) 1 I 4-1A I e)r 4)r MNN4 4)r NN 4)rNN I m O• 1 I 0 -rl cn I 1 •n d I I � I 1 1 1 I 1 d 1 1 1~ Aa N I 1 0 0 1 1 rZ W a.3 1 O O 00000 O O 000 1 •r•I 4J U N I r-I r♦ r-4 r1 r-I r-I rl r4 r-I rl rl ri 1 x 0 0 1 1 •r1 w 1 1 00 i 1 I 1 � 1 0 1 1 I I I d 1 I id d 1 1 0 > b 1 -� • q I I 0 0 3 to I I V1 I U •o (D d ti4 1 I L7G 1 •rl A d .� W d W I I O I 4-I to 0 d +-) w 4) I I E-1 y+ 1 Cn r-1 0 o N 'r+ S4 10 CC 4J I I U E-4 I rl 04 4-) d 3 4) •r1 1 I µ' z 1 4-1 4-) CO E! -114-) w [A I I W O 1 0 0 m f4 0 U 10 b Id I I O I •r♦ d d d U 3 d (1 I I Ea U I U )-1 > r-I •rl 1 I Z- - f O (CO 0 4.) 4 OU 0101-1 I I w- w: -. a: d •n 4 0 I~ +~ 4-) •H d w O l a r0 U 4) O •rl 0 r•I .N 04-3 1 99 1 cn i 10 10 1 r•1 3 3 A 04-) i4 I Ei 044 4-) a O 0 1-1 10 •r1 1 I w 7 44 A rte 44 0 co , � 04 04 0 A I I En 1 O O d >= d 0+- 1 I I d N ?1 f-1 > 0.-1 O O s~ 44 44 1 Ea 1 d m d 0 4J 0 0 •r1 ri 4-) 4-) •r 10 0 1 z I O 1 bn 0 t714-) •rl 44 ••4 +3 •r•, 1 w I w W I ca 14)rlr-I 10.0 (D 0 4) 0 0 4) 1� I E4 I -P 4-) 4-1 0 -r1 44 G) 7 -H U U U O D U I U) I H-4 1 0 w 0 U A 0 4) W 4J 0 0 •r1 •ri 0 0 1 U! I W 1 d d d •rl to •r•I d 1tl 0 1d (d >4-) d d 1 w 1 I C.)WU�4Q4)W M 0404- )+)WCCmm Im I I W 0 W b1O N 1 O E:r- -I O 0 d U d d 1 V! 1 I d 44 4) M W •r1 0 0 0 a•ri -r1 CO 0 )-1 W I I 1 a W C4U)000 [7A aaa 1 I I W I I .. .-. r- .. -..-, .-.. -. .-... O r4 N 1 F•1 I 1 r-I N fn 4)r In �o C,- co 01 r1 r4 rl 1 W 45 46 vh Ei z N O a Ei z w CA �ww �gg w aHE-1'�7 CW I-I �i Ewx O Ei z Gd 00 1-i w E1 a U a U I o 0 oolnoo 00 000 I 1 Ln I to I 1 1 0r-1 +� 1 M e��ermM oo O� w O 1 r-1 M Nr-4 Men NN v I OD I r 14J -H LO 1 1 N 1 E0 1 - 04 I 1 � I 1 1 � I 0 to I Ln aooLnLO 0 0 Ln0 I 1 O I=mo 1 4-) M 0 1 0 n aOL499 00 do 0 I •rl •rl •r1 Ln I r-I 1 V! m O I , 0a 1 , d I I , I I •0 1 m O% mr v 0 a oh -q�r a , 1 0 1 Nr d' fncgNdws4, NN d'NN 1 0 I to 5 z I , •r1 N O 1 , I I , I I ON V vv(n V v 00 CA Nr0 , , 1 0 1-1 I .) 1 �' 4 MNNd'4 NN d'NN I -•-I rn I •r1 0 I I I i4 I , , 0 I , E~ a W 1 , 0 0 1 E~ 00 4-) 1 O O 00000 00 000 1 •� 4-) U N I r-I T--1 r-I r-I r-I r♦ r-I r-I r-I r-1 ,-I V-1 I 0 Id I , 0 •r1 w I x0 1 I 0 , 0 , I I f-I 0 I I r--1 •rl co 0 I I 3 ca I CJ? I U Cj 0 0 S4 I 1 O ►4 (0 W 0 d) -) CO N 1 E-1 I to r-1 0 o 3-1 ?+ i4 0 0 .W 1 U E-4 I 0 • 4 t1 -P 0 3 (D •r1 1 W z 1 4-3 a.) 0 E~ •r1 4-1 N to I w0 i Og 13 (d •rl wa0i0 0 1 Ei U I U w > S4 p r-I • 4 1 Z.. I 0 000 +) A 0U Urdu 1 -a. 0 •r'1LH 0 R= te •H 0 W 0 1 a "V'. -10 f-I .-1 f-1 '� U 4) ro •rl 0 r-I •I-► 0 � 1 4 c� grq 3a O+) m I Ei 044 4-1 a 0 0 p (0 .-1 1 O W r w 4-I O co >I 4-) a a 0 4 1 Ei W0 1 0 0 0 r O A+) 1 M I 0 W >r w> 0 •r1 0 0 0 44 44 1 E-I KC 94 1 0 N 0:j -P 0 0 -H —4 .N .N •r♦. 0 0 1 Z O 1 MO 0 4J •r1 44 •r1 4J •r1 I w W w 1 0 0 .-I .--I 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I z E o 1 4J 4-) 4J :3 -,1 44 (D > -r1 U U U O D U I cn F-I I 0 to 0 0.0 04-) W 4J 0 A "4 -r♦ R I ch V] 1 0 0 0 -rl td 'If 0 Id 1~ c0 0> -N 0 0 1 w U UW.00mm040+34- 1W0WGO 1W 1 I �4 0 f-1 V O N 1 14 1~ ra to to 0 0 0 0 1 W I 0 LH 010 f-1 •r1 0 0 0 04 -H -H M 0 f4 t4 1 rg I 1 w W WU)ODU AA AWC4 1 I 1 w 1 1 rr ^ ^ I Ei I I r-1 N M V Ln LO n co c1 r-I r-1 r-I I cn F U2 E z H O P. z �w CA W UU2O ma� 4HE "W EWW 44 OE z C4 E-1 w a O U a d U I 11.1 O CO L[100 00 000 I I 1 0 w I O r1 �J 1 d' N Q d• d' 4 14 Li O 0 1D 119 I co I 1d A I N N Cq r-4 d• M r-I c •rl 4.J •rl Lb I 1 1 VO 00 1 I 1 E a 1 I I I I I I I 0 0 O OLn Ln0 OU)111 I I Q) �A I I O r- 4-3 1 U; L[1 00Lf C; 4J V 0 I r-I I —4 •rl •rl Ln I I CA w O 1 I 1A a I I I 1 I V I d' d�+d'O�d'�' 00 as d'0 � I O 4) Sr w 1 d- d' en N v V NN d' NN I O 4J 0 4.J 1 I �' w Q 0 1 1 •rI •rl er I l •r+ x O I 1 b Oa I 1 ,y 2 I I 1 I I I 'O I m v q•q;rcm14, ' 00 01IRr0 1 I 4) 4-) 1 I 4-) 4 1 d• 4 14 C4 r 1; 4 N N 1n Ol I 1 •rl rn I 1 I 1 1 I id I I 1 4) I 1 I K CO 4-) 1 O O 00000 00 000 1 •rl 4J U N 1 r-I r) r--1 •--I rl r-I rl •--I r-I r-4 r-I r-I I k r. 1d I 1 co .-I w I E i 1 �0 1 I � I 1 O l 1 1 I 4) 1 I 40.1 1 r-1 •rl 0 4) co CA I U V 4) �4 1 pC I •rl O Q) ii w 4) [A I O 1 f 4 10 fA 0 4) 1�1 4J CO 0 1 E ;�-1 1 bn '1 O O S4 94 U-1 10 (a +J 1 U E I 1d -r1 w 4-1 0) 3 4).'1 1 Q Z I 4J 4-) CO •r1 41 $4 (0 1 f-,n 1 0 I~ to w O U(a V 10 I I O 1 •rl 4) 4) 4) U 3 O U 1 I E-1 U I U $4 > )4 4-1 r-1 •11 1 I 1 10 1000 4-J 0 UCO I I W: M -1: 4) •r-N4 O 0 s~ +J •r1 4) N O 1 a ._ I M o r-1= ;1 N b U (1 10 •rl s~ r1 41 04.) 1 d I iA• y 1d 1d i4 r -4 3 3 A O 4J CO I E I cA 11 044 +1 a O O 1'4 CO ••-1 1 O I W 1 44 44 O rA >4 41 04 Q 0 Ea I cA O 1 O 0 () F� 4) 0 4J I I GA I 4) w>4 b-1 > O -r1 O O 0 4a 44 I E 0 4) 0 4J 10 0 •rl rl 4-1 a.1 -r1 O O 1 `2+ I O 1 0) 0 t3+ }J •rl 44 •rl +J -,1 I W I W pk I 1d (o r-4 rl 0.0 O O Q) d 4) 4) 1 E I Ea I 4J 41 4J 0 •r1 44 0 .7 -rl U U U O D U I CA I F-1 I C: m 0 U ,Q O 4J y.1 4J q 0 -r1 •rl I~ r- I CA I cA 1 O (D 0 •r1 1d • 4 4) CO Ci 10 10 5 +J 4) (D I w I I U W U W .0 4) m 1A CL CO 4J 4-1 W (0 w W I cA I I N O N 01 O N 1 0 E r--4 fA O] () U 4) O I fA I 1 4) 44 4) 10 W •rl 0 O O 04-1 -ri to O 1.1 W 1 1 a a aCAODU as aaa 1 I I 1 w I I r-I N M d' Ln t0 1- f0 0% r--1 rl rl 1 M 47 CF rn H z H O P. E rn � CA w Acwn � 4 C7 ww� aE QCx E-1 w EE Ox 0 z 4 0 H I 0 U a a U ' I I I Ln O ootnoo ao coo I l a I O'- 4J 1 I4.) td t~ 1 d' (4 O N C; 0 000 I N I •rl 4.) •r, �O I N M N r-I v N 1 kp �EI 1 ri I a4 i I I I I 1 I I , 1 a to O O o o o 0 0 000 0 1 1 I 0 m I 1 O C: 4-) 1 +-) CP I~ I Ir1 [� 00tnou -) o0 000 I 1 I ca a I � I I rs 1 0 to I 0, d' a• a�ao��r� oo a�d•O i o er enNNerd• NN d'NN 1 O I ^J .r, •� d• I I •f-1 M O 1 1 I d�a i I I , I I N+► i O1 vvmI;r4r 00 ChVa 1 I 4.).= i �' 'd' (4r' C444 N N d'NN 1 I i •n 0 I it '0 3 1 j I I � I I � I 0 a I � 0 1 0 m4-) 1 O a O O o O o 00 (ZOO I •r1 4J Q N I r-I ri r-I r-I ri r-I r-I r-I r_4 r-I r-I r_4 I I I 1 •,I W i 0 1 a i s`I I I o I I I O I I I I I > b I I � 'm .rOi 0 1 A 3 co I I •rUi 0 .0 t0A 4) to M m 0 0 4J CO O I I E �-I I CT -•1 0 O i4 ' '.+Y I-I 0 td 4-) 1 1 U E I to •rl M 4..) 0 $ (y ­4 1 1 94 z I 4-) 4J M S • r-, +) w CA 1 1 W O I O 0cAw O U0 Vtd I I O I •rl O O 0 U 3 O U 1 I E U I U i-1 > �4 4J r-I •-I I I z..' r. td 0000 4-) oU Ufd -4 1 1 .4. 0 0 O iw a-) •H 0) I O I 4 l w V u •3 WA -:�.-I $4 0 - 3 .0 O � m i [4-1 _:.�. 044 4J C4 O d I4 Kf •r) 1 0 1 w r 44 44 o 0 �4 +► 04 04944 1 H I CA I 0 00 E004J I I cn 1 0 $4 >4 > 0 •r1 0 0 94444 1 E I od 1 0 to 0 a 41 to 0 •r1 r-I 4J 4-) •r1 0 0 1 z I 0 I 0) 0 b)+3 •'•1 44 •rl +) •11 1 w 1 Ww I td tdrir-I c0.0 O00000 1 "r"., 1 1 0w0UAO4JH-P 1E -I d •UjQRq i cCA cn 1 000•r1 90 •rl0(d0td0'y+)00 1 w I 1 U i4 U W .0 0 00 M 040 4-) 4 -) 40CAm I cn I I 6-I O f•4 b1 0 N 1 0 E r 4 M 0 0 0 0 0 1 V] I 1 044 0 td i4 •r1 0 O O Q.I•r1 •r1 ED O 1-I i-1 I Q I 1 a s D4000U racy I•aata 1 I 1 r-I N M * Ln %0 1• co tT r1 r1 rl I V] I cn E4 z F•i 0 III E1 14 (A W M w cn wcn9 cncA04 V4•ga 044302' A E1 ❑Hw QcAx E E•( W O rw O zw O N D u U 49 1 a o oolnoo 00 coo I I I In I r4 4J 1 C1 14 C e441r; O O 012tH I N I y td 0 1 d' M Nr•Id'd' N N d' I O I •rl .0 --•I %0 1 I (r•1 I w 0 0 1 1 I E•1 G4 I I 1 I I I I b 1 o Ln 00000 00 OC) n I I I I O to I I I 001nQ0 0a QON I I ♦". I r•� rl rl rl r-I r•1 r-I I 1 •r1 •'•I --I Ln I 1 I (A co O I 1 1 M 04 I 1 I 4 I I 'p 1 0, d• d•qr 01d'�r oo rnd'0 I I 1 o I 4) M w I d' It M N N d' d' N N d- N N I O I m O I I I ;3 -,i •rl d' I 1 I •n X 0 1 I I 'O (d QI I I I I I I I I -O , , I C1 dr v d' 01 d' d' 00 m d' a I I O -P I I -P I d� 4 t4C4C d4 d' NN C'NCV I co 01 I I O •'•1 M I I •n O I I i V 1 1 I I 1 I N I I I 1 O I 1 Cu i4 1 1 O 0 1 1 9 CC 4.) 1 0 0 00000 00 000 I --I 4J U N I r4 rI rl rl r-1 r4 r•I rl rI rl rI ri I x A (a I O I 1 W I 1 I �4 1 I I O I I I I I 4) I I i-1 O 1 I I p > b I 1 41 A •H $4 Q) 1 I I r-I •'•I cA N .� 1 I I O a $ rA I I GYi I •rl 0 (D r fA O rn I I 0 1 $4 (a w U O I I E �4 1 Cn rl O O $a >4 i4 (0 f0 4J I I U E•+ I O •••I G4 +3 O 3 N •^I I I a' z 1 4J 4J (A • 4 4J $4 M I 1 N ,'7 I q I~ (D $4 O U to 10 to I I O 1 •,i O N N U 3 N U I I Ei U I U w> $4 4J rj -rl I 1 z r to (000 -W 4 0U U(0 f-1 1 I W. ..1: O -r-N4 O 0 t~ +- r1 O 4•I O 1 a L7 r-1 i {-1 V U N (d -'•I I~ ra 4-) 0 4-1 1 I cn- - -i (a (tl � E! r-1 3 3 .0 0 4-) W I Ea 1 fA 1: 044 4-3 04 O=1 {-1 (a -4 1 O -_ I W T 44 44 O (D ?( 4-) a CL 0 1 E4 I W0 1 0 0 0 rg 0 0+- I (A I O > 4 �4 1•-I 9 0 •rl O 0 1~ 44 44 1 E-1 CO 4) =1 +a t0 O --1 r1 4J -P •r1 O 0 1 z 1 0 1 b1 O Ol 4J •'•I 4-4 -r1 43 •r1 1 I W W I (d 0 rl r-I 90.0 (D 4) N I~ O O 1 I Ei 1 -P 4J 4J 0 -rl 44 0> -r1 U U U O D U I CA I H I O (A O U A 0 4J W 41 0 R •r1 ­4 I~ A I CA I N1 I 4) 4)-I(a -40(d090(d >4-)4) 4) 1 W I I U w U W A 0 (A w C4 0 -P 41 i-1 0 m w I CA I I W O i•1 b1 0 N I AE! r1 CO M 4) U N 0 1 cn I 1 W 44 4) (0 W -r1 O O 0 04•r1 -r1 CO 0 W N I a' I I 14 C4 P4W000 ❑A I -]14C4 1 I I Iw I I ✓, ...-. 1 E-4 r•1 N I H I I rl N M d' In 14D n co ON rl rl rl 1 W 49 6.111 5J_ V CONCLUSION The final step in the preparation and use of the LESA system is to combine cropland and forest land evaluation scores with those for site assessment to produce a composite rating or score. On the following pages, Tables 14A -14E show the total points possible and total points actually accumulated by the farms of the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board members. As indicated in the previous section, a nationwide evaluation of LESA systems by the Soil Conservation Service indicated that a ratio of 2:1 (2 for site assessment and 1 for land evaluation) has provided the best results. With the weight adjustments made in the preceding section, the maximum number of points possible for site assessment factors is 400. The maximum number of points possible for land evaluation is 200, including 100 points for cropland evaluation and 100 points for forest land evaluation. This results in a 2:1 ratio and a maximum point total of 600. Based on the calculations shown on Tables 14A -14E, the Walters farm (485.5) would rank highest for acquisition of development rights, followed closely by the Nutter (460.5) and Rogers (459.5) farms. The Strayhorn (362.0) and Hogan (347.0) farms did not fare as well, primarily because of their proximity to urban areas or rural residential development and the availability of public water and /or sewer. TABLE 15 COMPARISON OF LESA RANKINGS FOR SELECTED ORANGE COUNTY FARMS Cropland Forest Land Site Farm Evaluation Evaluation Assessment Final Walters 1 1 2 1 Nutter 3 4 3 2 Strayhorn 4 3 4 4 Hogan 2 2 5 5 Rogers 5 5 1 3 Table 15 above provides further evidence of the importance of site assessment. Though many miles apart, the Walters and Hogan farms consist primarily of soils of the Georgeville- Herndon association. Such soils are among the best for raising the indicator crop, corn. In comparison, the Rogers farm in the northwest portion of the county is comprised principally of soils of the Appling- Helena association. Such soils are good for growing tobacco but are not well suited for corn. Thus, the Rogers farm ranked low in comparison to the Walters and Hogan farms. 52 C4 E z H °a d� aw �aa � &I Ei0r4 z E1 0 �x E-1 0 a U a V � I I I a a OaaoaO Oa 000 I aaa I coo 1 �,-i4J I I al 0 r I Q, od•r -IMF 1n C; I srn�r I InO v d• NNmv r-I r-I v I mmQ1 1 GOO I cn 00 1 I N I ova I E-1 C4 I I I I 1 I I I 0 ca I O o 1.n Ln o Ln Ln 000 I 1 0 0 W 1 m 0 I O 0 o C n n O 99 0 0 0 I I _P •H •,A •r1 In I 1 1 cnrD0 1 1 1 m I I I V 1 a► V le vC�d•qt 0 Q,Rr o i oaa 1 a 0 E i v d' f'!'1NN gr9t NN d'NN 1 000 1 a I d• r-I ri 1 �O O •rl •,-I d• I I I b Vi a° 1 1 I 1 I 1 I m41 i a' d• �'d'a+�a• as o+�o I I I I 4 1 d' 4 C4C4r d 1; NN d'N N I I I I O •ri r'�1 I I I •n 0 I I I 1 N I 1 I 1 I 0 I I I 1~ a i4 I I I S m.N 1 O a 00000 co 000 1 I •rl -P 0 N 1 r-I rl r-I ri r-I r4 r♦ r-1 r-I r-I r-I r-I I I I I •rq [4 1 I I 1 1 a 1 1 $4 I I I 1 O I 1 1 0 I I I I 1 4 0 I I .N 0 •� fa 0 i I I ­1 •H ca 0 4 I I 0 O co I I W 1 m 1.4 ad I •H � 0 0 . m N m I I O I $4 tdmm 0 *1- _P m0 1 Ei I E-I 7+ 1 to •-i O o w m mW 1 40 1 1 U E-1 I to •H C1, P O 3 0.-1 I a Ea 1 Q z I -P 4+ CO •rl 4J W m I E-4 W I WA I 1~ 0 m$4 O Ord v1d I OA I I O 1 •.4 0 0 0 0 3 O V 1 a E-1 M I A Ei U I G i-1 > w 4J r-1 • 1 I CO I w Z.• .. J' Id to O O 41 .4" O 0 U 0 w I Ei '� z I E-1 w =.••A i-I: k 0 1.1 •n440 OOH 'D •H 0w0 1 0 O I raw -0 In -. CA `_ r cd U (D (D •rl 0 >~ � ,-I 3 O 44 4-) p4 A r-I 294 o O 41 O - O +) CO $4 cd -H I H H I 1 m z Ei I 1 A o r7 1l m I 1 O +� CL CLs~� �H►A.7 rrb0 o O 0 � 4) O4J i USA w I 0 w ?1 1-I > O •H O O 0 44 44 I EH I U O 1 404 1 0m00 -W to O•Hr-1 4-) 4-) •-100 I z0 14pa 9 l 0 1 01 0 0, 4-) •r{ 44 -r1 y •r1 I w 4 w I I ww 1 0 rdr -Ir4 0.0 04)00(D 0 1 x0 1 ch w 1 E-1 I .6) a.) .61 p -H 44 0 9 •rl 0 0 0 0 0 0 I CA "•!^ A I EM E-1 l H I g m q 0.0 O 4-► 1-I 4J 0 0 •r♦ •rl O 1~ 1 0 w I z z 1 V! 1 000•rild "10 rd 0 0cdr4J00 I w I N H I 1 01-101-I400 mM0 -P -P $40mm I CAA 100 1 1 i4 O 14 V O N 1 0 91 r-1 m m 0 0 0 0 1 (a 1 a a 1 1 04400$4•rls:00M- H•Hm0$4W 1$4 E-1 I I N w a4moUU ©© laww I 1 waw 04 I H 0 E-4 -- -► rti -- -- -- -- --..- r•i N I Cd 1 0 1 1 r-I . N en tM In t0 r co Q1 H ri r-1 I W U W I H H I z W H "lam H 0 a� vii w w a ae+ m w �AE4 r1 g E WOZ A E �wx E O E z 00 Hw E P U A U I 1 O O 00 Ln00 00 000 I I If100 I I I,c10 co I 0 r-I 4J 01 M1 0 d 4; 4 00 41 0 0 1 er M Nrlent+1 N N Ar I wO1CO 1 %00 —1 4J •rl 10 1 I N I d' Ei Au 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I b I O X11 000It)Ln 00 OLn0 I I I I 0 to I • I I 0 r. 4-1 1 0 n C 0C;Lt�C� 00 ONO I I 4.J 01 O 1 r4 r-1 rl f-4 r 4 I I •ri -H •r1 6[1 1 1 I W W O 1 I 1 w a 1 1 1 I I I I V I ON 01RV mr 00 O1<r0 I 1 000 I 1 0 D e w I d' d• rY1NN wmr NN d'NN 1 000 1 O 41 O 4-) 1 1 d� r-I rl I 4J co S 93 1 I 1 I I I I I I •p 1 v1 �• d• O1 0 0 01 d• 0 ( 1 1 1 0 4J 1 I I 4.E 1 4 d• MC C N 44 NN NN 1 I o 171 1 I I p •rl r'1 I I I •n 0 1 I I I w I I I I I 0 1 I 1 Saw I I I 0 O I I I e CO a.J 1 0 0 00000 00 000 I I •r1 4J U N I r-I r1 1-1 . i r-1 r-1 -4 r-1 r-1 ri r-I .--1 1 I � •rl w 1 1 1 P4 I I I I w I I I 1 o 1 I 1 1 I sv I I 1 �4 0 I I I 0 > I a.J � •'.I w 0 I 1 1 r-I rl m 0 .l-r' I I co I V] 1 U 'p 4) w I cd 1 •ri f'.' 0 w O N 1 I O 1 w cO m q 0 ll-� +J to 0 I E4 I E y+ 1 cn r-I 0 O w ❑, w CO Id 4J 1 40 1 U E 1 0 1 .r-I 04 ;J 0 $ 0.'1 I 4 E I ry 2 I 4J 41 to E3 -11 41 p to 1 E-4 m 1 E4D I 1~ 9ccw O Urd Vro 1 Oa I •� U 3 m i W Ei U i 0 $4 > w 4J r 4 --1 1 4 T- I m 0004 4J 0 UIOw I E4aZ I E w w -: i s 0 •x-144 o 0 1~ 41 •r♦ O w o 1 0 w O 1 4 w Z -u i l: 1 w 'd U N (0•rl C: r-1 �J 0 4.1 1 E4 I-1 I a a vJ 1 IO to r-1 3 3 A o 1J W I W 2 E 1 IYl Vl r- l 014-4 41 M O O $4 to .-I I D O Qi I f-1 w 1 44 44 O to Jy +J CL A. r. I m H D I to W0 1 o O 0 E3 0 d� 1 E a 1 uCA co 1 0 w mo w' O.4 O O 1~4444 1 E Q I UO 4 Ly. 1 0 to 0 P 4 0 0 -H--4 +J 4J •-1 a O 1 T D> 1 Q' a 0 1 b1 O 01+1 -r-I 44 •r1 41 •,1 I a w 1 W W 1 IO IO r4 r-1 IO .0 0 0 0 0 0 4) I ?i Qi 1 CA CA E 1 4-) 4J 4J O .r1 44 0 9 •rl U U U O U U 1 !!J ❑ Q I Ei E I-r I {•. CO 9 U A O 4J w 4.J 0 0 -r-I .r1 9 C: 1 0 W I Z Z (a 1 0 0 0 -H Id -H a) 0 d CO b' 4.J 0 0 I W 1� 1 1-4 H 1 0 W 0 w.Q 0 M M Oj04J4J w 0 W M I w a 4 1 OO I w O w 01a N I a er4 to w 0 0 0 0 1 0 I wa I 044 0 Id w •r1 0 0 0 04 --1 •r1 to O w w 14 E-1 1 P4 a aCAODU Q aaa 1 1 wa0 dQ O -- -• r-. •-• •• •- -• •• ^• 0 r1 N 1 1-4 a 1 O O I r-I N en V Ln kO r- O 01 r1 ri r-1 1 w U 44 1 H E 53 54 H z I•-1 O cnw w a U r-1 C&I rk-4 MFM E- i 0 Z� O E-1 M E-1 IX 1444 0 U a v i 1 1 to 1 mw IlJ O oa111co . . do coo 1 Oad 1 Oa �1 fd I N N O d� CN d• Pr1 . 111 0 0 �c rn I 1 W d! d I I N o •rl J .� �D I N N, 4 M ri I d W m I tG O v�o0 I I ri 1cnko H a 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I b I 0) m I d d ocodrn fno ofnln I I N 0.0 0U1dr► LSO dNN I I •,•ri 111 I '--1 I 1 I Cn 0 O I I W W I I I 1 I I i Ts I (D t d' ON v vlwmd•C1' lw 00 Q1d'O I I d00 I I o 9 i mNNd'd• NN d'NN 1 000 1 O w g 0 I I -d' I ko 0 •-1 •r1 d• I I I I I I V Itd a I I 94 z I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 � +► i 01 d� ti' d' 01 +�' d' 00 Ch 0 I I 1 I I I m 1 d' 4 c4 rc4 N 4 1 I � •rl M I 1 I I 1 b 3 i 1 I I I I 1 I NI a I I R M4J 1 O d 00000 00 C7dd I I -A a.J U N 1 � �4 r1 r-1 r-I r-•1 r4 r-I r4 r-1 r-I r-1 r-I I I 1 I •� w � m 0 1 I I O I I I 1 (D I I I I 1 14 d I I 4J 0 •r�i $4 W 1 I 1 r-1 •rl W 0) r~ I I V! 1 U b O W 14 1 a I •i m O I I c0 93 0) 41 co O I F I E-1 r'++ I fT r-1 O O $4 >4 )a fd fd -1 1 40 1 U Ei I b •H CL -P 0 3 0 •rl I rg Ei I Z I +J co H y f-1 m I H m i 4414 1 a ,~wH O Ufa v(a 1 0=) I 0 I •'1 w 0) N U 3 O U 1 14 E-1 CA 1 0 H U I U w> sa +J 0.4 •-I 1 cQ I w Z -_ -r. Id a) O= - O U U 10 � 1 Ei 7 Z I Ei NF w:- .- ..b N •x144 0 0 0 4J •r1 0 I4 0 I o (n O I W �. ?'r7cJ w-1 .1 i-1 b U rd •r1 :. r-I 4-) 0-0 I Ei 1-1 I a �'' :. I c� J ' _ , Id 0 >w m 1 3 044 +J 04 3 .0 0 O o �J m 1-c fd •14 1 M Z E4 1 1 D 0 � I m S w r 44 4.1 O co 4J 01 CL t~ ,� I i/J H 1 m CA O I fn I O 0 () 0) = 4J I H 1 U fn 0) 14 >4 > 0 •rl 0 0 0 44 44 I H U 0 gg x I 0) M 0) O 4J fd q '-I r-I ,.J 4-) •rl O O I Z 5 r 1 404 1 o I v1 =1 rn� .,-I 44 -4 4.) -H I w a w I I w w 1 O fd r-I -q (d .0 0) 0) 0 0 4) 4) 1 x Q I cn cn I I d 0 U � H ED .0 0 4JJ 4J 0 A •ri O 0 0 1 ca w Z I Z Z w I 0) O) 0) •ri 0 •r1 4) go 0 O 0> 41 0 4) I W I N 1-I 1 I ci 4 US4400m CO4- )4JWCOM0 I I cn 100 1 1 I.10N0oN I r- Rr-1 wwo000 ICAZ law 1 I (D 44 0) fd i4 •r) 0 0 0 04 -H •r1 w 0 1••1 $4 1 4 Qi H I I I A+ Pa C4CA000 Q aura 1 1-3 cn 1 all 1 E o a i H El I .-. .-. .-..� .-.. -, .-.. -• o r•1 N 1 1.4 0 1 00 1 I r-I N M V 111 %0 n co 0% r-1 r-I r-I 1 W U w 1 H H I 55 I I I I �Pl o oau'IOO 00 ooa I I l Oo0 I I ao 1 0r-I4, I d- en Ol•d'd'N 00 000 I 1 NON. -4 1 V0 1 I -P co O 1 N m Nr-1 -it N 1 1b 0101 I -H 4-J •rl �0 I 1 w o o I I I E W I I I 1 V 1 O Ill 00000 0 0 000 1 1 1 I O f~ 4-) I Ir1 l� G O u1 0 1t1 0 0 a 0 0 I I 1 l 4-) M r- I I •r1 •r1 -4 Ln I I W W O 1 I I 1 1 m a I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 'C3 I 01 d- 4'd'01vd' OO cs -;r 0 I I 1 coo I I o f CnNNd•d• NN Rr CV N 1 000 1 O 1 1 4.1 a 4-) I w I '� •rl •rl� I 1 I I -mm 0 I I I I��da 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I V] I I I I I V I 01 dr yQ Rr 0% lw d• 00 01 V 0 I I I 1 E I O4.) I I I z 1 4.).0 I d' d• C4CNCV 1; NN d'NN I I H 1 m 01 I I I 0 1 O r4 cn I 1 I a 1 •r-, N 1 I I a44 Q I w 1 I 1 iO4 o E-10 ma.) 1 O O 0o000 00 OOa I I W O O 1 •rl 4.) U N 1 r-1 rl e-I r-I ri ri .-I ri r-1 r-1 r1 r 4 I I i ro a w Pm E-1 O M I a I I I E-1 I I La I I z 1 I O I I 0 P4 1 I I 1 H O 1 I O I I w I I O 9 F-I '�7 I I r-I •rl fA Q1 .Li I I U I I O t~ 3 1 1 0 I (A I U •O O O f-I I I.a l Q I P» 1 -rl U I O 1 w 1dmI~ 0 41m4) 1 E^1 I I E 01 r1 0 0 i4 fa Id 41 4J 1 1.40 1 I U E I O .-1 a 4-) m 3 m -A 1 %4 E-1 I I Q Z I 4J 4-) fA F! —1 4.) is m I E-1 m I I 64 0 1 9 m $4 O U (d b cd I O O I I O I •r1 O O IU U 3 O U 1 0 E W I❑ I E U I U w, w r� •r-1 1 gg m I W I z- - I 10 (0 O A 4-) O U U t0 w I E a Z I E-1 I W =.' _ 70 N •rn44 O I~ I~ 4J •H 0 N w O � O 1 O CA O 1 E H I W 1 a :� v� 1 I W ` w O v U 4) (a •r1 10 1`I 0 r-i 3 044 4J GL r4 3 .a O O 4a O 4a W f4 O •rl 1 w Z E I p O 4 1 m I 1-4 -1' 1 W 1 44 44 O m 74 4a a 049-0 1 to H p I CA 1 cA o 1 O O N E: m r. 4-1 I E-1 U m I V) 1 O p ?1w > 0 -r4 O O 44444 I E4r4; 1 U o I Qcd 1 m W m 04.) Id 0 "Ar-i 4-)4-) -•4 O O I T..'�7 I Q a I 0 1 01 O 014-) - 1 4a -H 4., .r, I I-a W I I W W 1 Id 10 r-1 r-I Id .0 O N O 0 N (D I� ry' 1 CA CA I E 1 4-) 4-1 4-) •r1 44 O .7 •rl U U U O D U I CA 'r7 0 I E E I 1--1 I I~ m O U A O 4-) 14 4-) O C •rl •rl 0 C 1 iA W 17 z I [A 1 O O O -pi CO •r1 0 10 i~ Id Id > 4-) O 0 1 W N I H 1-4 I I Ui4UWQ4)00 0 04 10 4- 1 4- 3W10mm I ca 1 00 I 1 f•1 O w O1 O N I z e r-I m m O U N O 1 fA 1 W 04 I 1 044 0 10 $4•r10 0 0 04•r1•11to0 $4i4 I QryE I 1 1 a, 04 NwoUV an aaa i 04 ; WaCA I I E-1 0 PC I E Ei I 1 �•► �-► r, .-+ .-... �-► �'► .-. a r-I N I H 0 1 00 I 1 r-I N M d, Ln 1P r- co 01 r-1 ri r4 1 W U DI 1 Ei E 55 56 rn x O a ca94 �H� aHa E0E ox E-1 N4 V u I 1 0 0 ool,noa 00 o0a I I Inca I 1 Ino I --I 4J 1 I +-) to 0 1 d• M 0* o 01oLrn I N r-I 10 I m0 •O N r-I vtP N N v 1 0wr� 1 too I V] O I I M I d• 1z I E-I W I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I v I a In 00000 0.o 001n I I Q) A� 1 4-) tn C: I 0 [► 00LL100 0.0 o0N I j •r1 •r1 -H Ln I r20o I I I I a I o I I 1 Qi m I V vvo+qry oo a+Vo i 0 00 I i o v MNNvv NN d'NN 1 000 1 O to 1~ C: 1 I I 0 •� -r-I d' I I roa 1 I I V 1 1 I FC E I 1 I I I I 1 1 4) +i o, er d•01�' 00 0+Cro I I .) i V' d' n CNC44 � NN d'NN I 1 I I O •r1 cr1 I I I •n O I 1 I I I I I I 1 �4 1 1 I I I O I I I � 04 tw I 1 ;j O 1 1~ to ..) 1 0 (D 00000 00 000 1 1 •-1 4-) U N I rA r-I 1-1 r-1 r-I r-I r-1 r-I r-I r-I ri r-I I I -I I 1 ro w • i I I z0 I 04 I 1 I 1 t4 1 o 1 O I I I ¢ I r-I •rl [o U �o I I O c 1 Q •o a� a� 1 04 1 C4 I •H O O .1~ co O to 1 I O I i-I 10 to N 4-) CO N I E I E-1 P-4 i =,o $4 9+ CC Ma-+ 1 4O I QI 4 d1 $ O ••-1 I 4 E-E I i aEQw •�R rrT4 r~ o bt 1 O� O I •rl O O 4) U $ O U 14 E rn 1 A I E U I. U p 9 f I a.] r-I •14 I Kt; m 1 w I Z-. I IdOC. +J 4 0 Ucd$ -I I EiOZ I E-1 I rsy-_w:., . F y •r-%44 O 0 Cl 4J .r1 O w O l 0 cA 0 1 rye w I "�" 0 r!...I $4 13 U U CO •rl Cw r-I 4J =1 4J 1 E H I a a 1 CA'- ' .... to Id 4-I F. r-I 3 3 4 O 4-1 CO I m T.� E -r G] I 44 044 4.) 04 4-4 O ~Jr 0 z N Io•r♦ I DOa' 1 04 1 co +-) 04 040.0 I to I.1 M0 I O O N r O 04-) 1 E4 1 UcA I C/I 1 (L) 14 >4 104 > O -4 O O 9 44 44 1 E 4 4 I U O 1 04 W O O 4J d C •r r1 4J y -r-I O O 1 z a> 14 04 I O I b1 P 014-) •r1 4-I •ri 4.J .r-1 1 W W I I PQ W I ro to r-4 r-1 (0 .0 O O O C: O O 1 x I CA CA I E I 4-) .W 41 � -r-I 44 d 5 •r1 U U U o U U I CA ^,r A I E E 1 1 A I 0 M 0 U .0 O 4J i-1 4-) 0 0 •-1 —4 9 0 I [A W 1 'z z I CA I O N d •r1 cd •r1 N Id 0 cd Id J4-) U N I W 1 R 1-4 1-4 1 W M I W M 1 00 1 I 1-1 O {-I m O N 11 0 Ey � [moo [moo O U O O 1 w Z 1 04 04 1 I IU 4-4 4) rd W ••-I C; O O 04•r4 •r1 M O W i4 1 1 1 1 aI w 04Ch0UU Ara 4 04 04 1 1 1 634 _Aft i H O owd i E EC+ I ra N en " In 4o n 000% r^I --I r♦ 1 0 U rsa 1 E E I r 57 The advantage that the Rogers farm and others in the northern portion of the county possess is location. By being situated in predominantly rural portions of the county away from urban areas and services, such farms will rank consistently higher in terms of site assessment. The Rogers farm is characteristic of this feature, having ranked first in site assessment. Although the final ranking of the Rogers farm was third, only two points separated it from the Nutter farm. In summary, the LESA system, as prepared and applied in this report, provides a guide in determining how and where to spend limited funds in acquiring development rights for farmland preservation. In very general terms, the LESA system gives priority to those farms which: 1. Have the best soils for growing crops and timber; 2. Are located in predominantly rural areas; 3. Are subject to conversion to non -farm use due to hardship or financial reasons; 4. Are large in size; 5. Have made significant investments in farm buildings; 6. Have successfully reduced topsoil loss from erosion; 7. Are located in areas designated for agricultural use on the Comprehensive Plan; 8. Are located well away from urban areas and services (water and sewer); 9. Are located in protected watersheds with limited development potential; and 10. Have significant natural areas, wildlife habitats, and historic sites located within their boundaries. In specific terms, priority would be given to acquiring the development, on the Walters farm first, then the Nutter or Rogers farms-; =: -_and finally, the Strayhorn and Hogan farms. How these families would go about participating in a purchase of development rights program is the subject of the companion report to this document. Specific recommendations are presented for the establishment and operation of a program, including sources of funding and who would administer the program. 58 59 Appendix M-1 61 APPENDIX A LAND CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION - ORANGE COUNTY, NC Soil Symbol Soil Series Land Capability Slope Class HwB Hiwassee 2 -6 2E ApB Appling 2 -6 2E CfB Cecil 2 -6 2E GeB Georgeville 2 -6 2E HrB Herndon 2 -6 2E HeB Helena 2 -8 2E WsB White Store 2 -6 2E CrB Creedmoor 2 -8 2E Aa Altavista 0 -3 2W Cp Congaree 0 -2 2W Lg Lignum 0 -3 2W HhA Helena - Sedgeville 0 -2 2W CfC Cecil 6 -10 3E HwC Hiwassee 6 -10 3E GeC Georgeville 6 -10 3E ApC Appling 6 -10 3E EnB Enon 2 -6 3E VaB Vance 2 -8 3E HrC Herndon 6 -10 3E TaD Tatum 8 -15 3E Ch Chewacla 0 -1 3W EnC Enon 6 -12 4E TaE Tatum 15 -25 4E WmD Wedowee 8 -15 4E WtC2 White Store 6 -15 4E Or Orange 0 -3 4W LoC Louisburg 6 -15 6E WmE Wedokee 15 -25 6E G1D Goldston 15 -45 6S WxD Wilkes 8 -15 6S LoF Louisburg 15 -45 7E IrB Iredell 1 -4 7S WxF Wilkes 15 -45 7S G1F -= Goldston 15-45 7S -ice= White Store -Urban 2 -8 NC Georgeville-Urban 2-10 NC AuB Appling -Urban 2 -10 NC IuB Iredell -Urban 1 -8 NC Note: NC indicates no capability class assigned. Source: Soil Survey of Orange County, NC USDA, Soil Conservation Service 62 APPENDIX B SOIL PRODUCTIVITY INDICES - ORANGE COUNTY, NC Land Soil Capability Estimated Productivity Symbol Soil Series Class Yield Index Aa Altavista 2W 103 100 Cp Congaree 2W 98 95 HwB Hiwassee 2E 93 90 ApB Appling 2E 88 85 CfB Cecil 2E 88 85 GeB Georgeville 2E 88 85 HrB Herndon 2E 88 85 Lg Lignum 2W 83 81 HhA Helena - Sedgeville 2W 78 76 CfC Cecil 3E 78 76 HwC Hiwassee 3E 78 76 GeC Georgeville 3E 73 71 HeB Helena 2E 73 71 EnB Enon 3E 73 71 WsB White Store 2E 73 71 HrC Herndon 3E 73 71 TaD Tatum 3E 73 71 WwC White Store -Urban NC 73 71 GhC Georgeville -Urban NC 73 71 CrB Creedmoor 2E 68 66 ApC Appling 3E 68 66 VaB Vance 3E 68 66 AuB Appling -Urban NC 68 66 Ch Chewacla 3W 63 61 Or Orange 4W 63 61 IrB Iredell 7S 58 56 EnC Enon 4E 58 56 IuB Iredell -Urban NC 58 56 G1D Goldston 6S 53 51 TaE Tatum 4E 48 47 WmD Wedowee 4E 43 42 Note: Estimated yields are presented in bushels /acre for the indicator crop, corn. Estimated yields are derived by subtracting an adjustment factor from the raw yields for `each soil series. Adjustment factors are based on the -so-il capability subclass and reflect costs of overcoming soil limitations such as erosion hazard, seasonal wetness, etc. Adjustment factors are: Class 2 - 7 bushels /acre; Class 3 - 12 bushels /acre; Class 4 - 17 bushels /acre; Class 6 - 27 bushels /acre; and Class 7 - 32 bushels /acre. Source: US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service - Raleigh Field Office 6.3 APPENDIX C IMPORTANT FARMLAND - ORANGE COUNTY, NC Soil Farmland Symbol Soil Series Slope Class HwB Hiwassee 2--6 Prime ApB Appling 2 -6 Prime CfB Cecil 2 -6 Prime GeB Georgeville 2 -6 Prime HrB Herndon 2 -6 Prime HeB Helena 2 -8 Prime Aa Altavista 0 -3 Prime Cp Congaree 0 -2 Prime Lg Lignum 0 -3 Prime HhA Helena - Sedgeville 0 -2 Prime ApC Appling 6--10 Prime VaB Vance 2 -8 Prime EnB Enon 2 -6 Prime CfC Cecil 6 -10 State /Local HwC Hiwassee 6 -10 State /Local GeC Georgeville 6 -10 State /Local WsB White Store 2 -6 State /Local CrB Creedmoor 2 -8 State /Local HrC Herndon 6 -10 State /Local Ch Chewacla 0 -1 State /Focal Or Orange 0 -3 State /Local TaD Tatum 8 -15 Other EnC Enon 6 -12 Other TaE Tatum 15 -25 Other WmD Wedowee 8 -15 Other WtC2 White Store 6--15 Other LoC Louisburg 6 -15 Other WmE Wedokee 15 -25 Other G1D Goldston 15 -45 Other WxD Wilkes 8 -15 Other LoF Louisburg 15 -45 Other IrB Iredell 1 -4 Other WxF Wilkes 15 -45 Other G1F Goldston 15 -45 Other WwC White Store -Urban 2 -8 Other -GhC.= Georgeville -Urban 2 -10 Other :Au$ - Appling -Urban 2 -10 Other !us----- Iredell -Urban 1 -8 Other Source: Important Farmlands of Orange County, NC USDA, Soil Conservation Service 64 APPENDIX D FOREST LAND PRODUCTIVITY - ORANGE COUNTY, NC Soil Indicator Site Productivity Symbol Soil Series Slope Species Index Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 HwB Hiwassee 2 -6 Loblolly Pine 75 101 ApB Appling 2-6 Loblolly Pine 81 112 CfB Cecil 2 -6 Shortleaf Pine 69 108 GeB Georgeville 2--6 Loblolly Pine 81 112 HrB Herndon 2 -6 Loblolly Pine 80 110 HeB Helena 2 -8 Loblolly Pine 80 110 Aa Altavista 0 -3 Loblolly Pine 91 133 Cp Congaree 0 -2 Sweetgum 100 138 Lg Lignum 0 -3 Shortleaf Pine 66 101 HhA Helena - Sedgeville 0 -2 Loblolly Pine 80 110 ApC Appling 6 -10 Loblolly Pine 80 110 VaB Vance 2 -8 Loblolly Pine 76 103 EnB Enon 2 -6 Loblolly Pine 71 95 CfC Cecil 6 -10 Shortleaf Pine 69 108 HwC Hiwassee 6 -10 Loblolly Pine 75 101 GeC Georgeville 6 -10 Loblolly Pine 81 112 WsB White Store 2 -6 Loblolly Pine 75 101 CrB Creedmoor 2 -8 Loblolly Pine 84 118 HrC Herndon 6 -10 Loblolly Pine 80 110 Ch Chewacla 0 -1 Loblolly Pine 96 145 Or Orange 0 -3 Northern Red Oak 60 43 TaD Tatum 8 -15 Northern Red Oak 72 54 EnC Enon 6 -12 Loblolly Pine 71 95 TaE Tatum 15 -25 Northern Red Oak 72 54 WmD Wedowee 8 -15 Loblolly Pine 80 110 WtC2 White Store 6 -15 Loblolly Pine 75 101 LoC Louisburg 6 -15 Loblolly Pine 80 110 WmE Wedokee 15 -25 Loblolly Pine 80 110 G1D Goldston 15 -45 Loblolly Pine 73 98 WxD Wilkes 8 -15 Loblolly Pine 75 101 LoF Louisburg 15 -45 Loblolly Pine 80 110 IrB Iredell 1 -4 Loblolly Pine 67 88 WxF Wilkes 15 -45 Loblolly Pine 75 101 G1F Goldston 15 -45 Loblolly Pine 73 98 WwC White Store -Urban 2--8 Loblolly Pine 75 101 GhC Georgeville -Urban 2 -10 Loblolly Pine 81 112 AuB Appling -Urban 2 -10 Loblolly Pine 81 112 IuB Iredel -1-4-i=ban 1--8 Loblolly Pine 67 88 Notes: 5/ Expressed as average height in feet at an age of 50 years. 6/ Expressed as cubic feet /acre /year. Source: Soil Survey of Orange County, NC, National Forestry Manual, and State (Raleigh) Office, USDA, Soil Conservation Service 65 APPENDIX E FOREST LAND LIMITATIONS - ORANGE COUNTY, NC Soil Ordination -Major Symbol Soil Series Slope Symbol Limitation Ch Chewacla 0 -1 1w Excessive water Cp Congaree 0 -2 10 None HhA Helena - Sedgeville 0 -2 3w Excessive water Aa Altavista 0 -3 2w Excessive water Lg Lignum 0 -3 3w Excessive water Or Orange 0 -3 4w Excessive water IrB Iredell 1 -4 4c Clay IuB Iredell -Urban 1 -8 4c Clay HwB Hiwassee 2 -6 3o None ApB Appling 2 -6 3o None CfB Cecil 2 -6 3o None GeB Georgeville 2 -6 3o None HrB Herndon 2 -6 3o None EnB Enon 2 -6 4c Clay WsB White Store 2 -6 4c Clay HeB Helena 2 -8 3w Excessive water VaB Vance 2 -8 3o None CrB Creedmoor 2 -8 3w Excessive water WwC White Store -Urban 2 -8 4c Clay GhC Georgeville -Urban 2 -10 3o None AuB Appling -Urban 2 -10 30 None ApC Appling 6 -10 3o None CfC Cecil 6 -10 3o None HwC Hiwassee 6 -10 3o None GeC Georgeville 6 -10 3o None HrC Herndon 6 -10 3o None EnC Enon 6 -12 4c Clay G1D Goldston 6 -15 4o None WtC2 White Store 6 -15 4c Clay LoC Louisburg 6 -15 3o None TaD Tatum 8 -15 3o None WmD Wedowee 8 -15 3o None WxD Wilkes 8 -15 4o None TaE Tatum 15 -25 3r None (Slope 1/) WmE Wedokee 15 -25 3r None (Slope 1/) LoF Louisburg 15 -45 3r None (Slope 1/) WxF Wilkes 15 -45 4r None (Slope 1/) GlF Goldston 15 -45 4r None (Slope 1/) Notes: 1/ Slope is a limiting factor in forest management; however, it has already been accounted for in the "Steepness of Slope Rating" - see Table 7. Source: Soil Survey of Orange County, NC USDA, Soil Conservation Service M 57 Appendix F Orange County Agriculture -19187 Cam: If 1 FARM SIZE: 1964 TO 1987 Orange County, NC 1964 1969 1974 1982 1987 CENSUS YEAR 0 Number of Farms ® Average Size(Acres) AGRICULTURAL LAND USE Orange County - 1987 Other (5.4 %) Pasture (5.7 %) Woodlark (34.6 %s) Cropland (54.3 %.) G• 70 w w 0 c m u m d CROPLAND Orange County - 1987 Other (9.9 %) Idle (10.3% Pastured (27.5 %) Harvested (52.3 %) FARMS BY VALUE OF PRODUCTS SOLD Orange County - 1987 <2.5 2.5 -9.9 10 -49.9 50 -99.9 100 -249.9 250+ Sales ($1000) a 1 SELECTED CROPS HARVESTED: 1987 (Thousands of Acres) 2 9.9 g.... .................................................................................................................................................. ............................... fi.... .................................................................................................................................................. ............................... 3.6 3 .... ............... ....................................................................................................... ............................... 1.8 1.5 1.3 0 may Wheat Soybeans Corn Tobacco VALUE OF LIVESTOCK /PRODUCTS SOLD: 1987 Orange County Total = $14,700,000 Other (1.3 %) Poultry (10.1 %) Cattle (15.7 %) Swine (12.2 %) uairy kou.7-/6) VAR 72 FARM PRODUCTION EXPENSES Orange County - 1987 Other (11.4 %) Livestock (7.6 %) Taxes (3.2' Rent (3.2 %) Repair (7.6 %) Interest (4.9 %) Labor (14.1 Energy (9.2 %) Feed (24.9 %) Seed (2.7 %) liter (8.1%) Chemicals (3.2%) FARMS BY ORGANIZATION TYPE Orange County - 1987 Corporate (3.6 %) Partners (8.8%) Other (0.6 %) Family (87.0 %) OPERATORS BY PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION Orange County - 1987 Other (49.0 %) Fanning (51.0 %) DAYS OPERATOR WORKED OFF FARM Orange County - 1987 No Report (5.7 %) None (38.3 %) 200+ (34.7X) 100 -199 (11.1%) 1 -99 (10.2%) 73 74 Part Owner (31.0%) OPERATOR BY TENURE Orange County - 1987 Tenant (6.5 %) Full Owner (82.5 %) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMLNT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) THIS CONTRACT made and entered into this the 1st day of July, 1991, by and between Orange County, hereinafter Countl , and Coleman, Bernholz, Bernholz, Gledhill, Hargrave and Herman hereinafter Attorneys. W I T N E S S E T H: THAT WHEREAS, the County desires to employ Attorneys as its counselors at law for the County of Orange.upon the following terms: 1. This Contract shall begin July 1, 1991 and unless sooner terminated by 30 days' notice of either party shall exist and continue through June 30, 1992. 2. Attorneys, upon reasonable notice, are to be available for consultation, legal advice, and for representation as requested by the Child Support Enforcement Agency on all legal matters arising from the duties of County under Article 9 of Chapter 110 of the North Carolina General Statutes, Title IV--D of the Social Security Act, and the federal regulations lawfully promulgated pursuant thereto. 3. Recognizing that from time to time representation of County by Attorneys may result in a conflict of interest for the Attorneys, it is agreed that when such a conflict arises, the Attorneys may refer cases requiring legal services to other lawyers in Orange County. Such referrals shall be with the 1 consent and approval of the County Manager. In all cases of referrals, the attorney to which the case is referred shall be compensated in the same manner as specified in paragraph 5 below, and shall keep an itemized record of work performed for County on a case -by -case basis, submitting a bill therefor showing a breakdown of services performed on a case -by -case basis as specified in paragraph 5. In the event such an attorney is awarded counsel fees by the Court in this regard, an accounting shall be made to County in the same manner as provided for in paragraph 5 below. 4. Attorneys agree to comply with all the requirements of Article 9 of Chapter 110 of the North Carolina General Statutes, Title IV -D of the Social Security Act, and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto relating to the performance of program legal services including, but not limited to, maintaining such records as are required by County, to make said reports available for federal or state audit, if required, and to make financial, statistical, and program progress reports as are required. 5. For their services under this Contract, County agrees to pay Attorneys Sixty and No /100 Dollars ($60.00) per hour for each hour spent by them providing legal services under the Child Support Enforcement Program. Such hourly rate shall encompass all expenses, including but not limited to, those for salary, supplies, office space, heating and maintenance for office space, telephone service, .long-distance telephone calls, and travel. 2 y � r Attorneys are not to be reimbursed for any extraordinary expense incident to performing the services included under this agreement; except, that County agrees to pay all court costs and filing fees which are required to be paid in conjunction with services provided by the Attorneys under this agreement. 6. Attorneys further agree to attend at least one regional training session on Child Support Enforcement per year conducted by the State Child Support Enforcement Agency. Reimbursement F shall be made based upon the hourly rate but not to exceed a 0 maximum of $200.00 for the full two --day session or $100 for each day attended or such amount as set by the State Child Support Enforcement Agency. With the prior approval of the Orange County Child Support Enforcement Director, Attorneys may attend training a functions other than those conducted by the State Child Support w a Enforcement Agency. If attendance is approved, Attorneys shall 0 be reimbursed for travel and per diem at the prevailing Orange w as a County rate. Attorneys shall not be reimbursed at the hourly 0 rate for attendance at any such non -State Child Support �a Enforcement Agency training function. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, said parties have executed this Contract in triplicate originals, one of which is to be retained by County, one of which is to be retained by Attorneys, and one of which is to be filed with the Child Support Enforcement Section, Division of Social Services of the Department of Human Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. 3 Y. � a ro COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL, HARGRAVE & HERMAN By: By: ATTES Beverly Plythee- Clerk td the Board of Comm4ssioners Gledhil IGE 90NNTY, NORTH CAROLINA This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. An� 7e5:X—� Orange County Finance Officer 4 1. �, I • RESOLUTION C•IAWN-; i ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date - June 3, 1991 Name- .of-Su - division Garden View Owner /Applicant C K Properties„ .� The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Garden View subdivision preliminary Plat, dated February 20, 1991 and containing 4 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. All roads shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general public and be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The approval of this resolution authorizes and directs the Orange County Manager to accept for Orange County and on behalf of the public generally, the offer of dedication of Roy Road. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of Roy Road shall be without maintenance responsibility. The road shall be maintained by the applicants as well as the parties to the Road Maintenance Agreement recorded at Deed Book 596, Page 424, 424.1 until such time as it is accepted for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. Before the Final Plat of any phase of Garden View can be recorded: A. Sewage Disposal Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for septic disposal, and repair area, approved by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health. 2. Disclosure that the septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements. This disclosure shall be included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall also disclose that information regarding the tentative location of septic systems is available from the Orange County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health. Roads and Access 1. Roy Road shall be upgraded to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, within a 50 -foot right -of -way, and the construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT. OR A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure upgrading Roy Road to the standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. An ' estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a certified /licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee must reflect. 110% of that estimate acid be issued 1ST an "'accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. The -document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the road improvements have been inspected and approved by NCDOT. 2. Submit an erosion control plan for review and approval prior to any disturbance. 3. Lots 1 -4 shall access onto Roy Road. All lots shall access onto the new subdivision roads. This restriction shall be stated in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 4. Approved street name signs shall be erected at the intersection of streets as required in Section IV- 13- 3 -c -12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Evidence shall be submitted by the applicant that the sign is in place or a copy of the receipt for purchase of the sign shall be submitted to the Planning - Depart- ent. 5. The right -of -way along Dairyland Road must be cleared to meet NCDOT sight distance requirement. 6. Submit a document signed by the owner of Roy Road for the purpose of dedicating the right -of -way for public use. 7. The owner of Roy Road shall also sign a certification included in the Declaration of Restrictions stating that the right -of -way is dedicated to the public. • C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 1. Revise the landscape plan to provide eight (8) trees within the side /rear setback Of Lot 1. 2. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the approved landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department. , Mq The applicant shall secure landscape requirement installation and preservation through a letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond. An estimate of the cost - for-required preservation, plantuigs...and their installation must be provided. The financial guarantee shall reflect 110% of the estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. 3. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 4. A Type A Land Use Buffer shall be provided along Dairyland Road. The buffer shall be 30 feet in width and provide sufficient vegetation to meet the standards of Section N -B -8 -e of the Subdivision Regulations. Said buffer shall be so noted on the plat, and described in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. D. Parkland 1. Cash in the amount of $566.00 (4/35 acre x $4959 /acres) shall be paid to Orange County as payment in lieu of parkland dedication. E. . Miscellaneous 1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section V -D -2 and V -D -3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 2. A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right -of -way of Roy Road. Side yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet, and rear yards a minimum of 20 feet. These setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. F. I, Certifications 1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. 2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section V -D -6 -b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. . 3. The Department of Environmental Health shall certify that each lot contains a ,it g�,_,a vble. area for sepfic di -... 4. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that Roy Road has been constructed to State standards or that construction plans have been approved. 5. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Ins ections Department. ture of A licant Clerk t hA�47 oa rd w ccept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, A14edgat&ea'ch­must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. . 1 is RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date: June 3, 1991 Name of Subdivision: Piney Mountain -- Phase Two Amended Owner /Applicant: Mark O'Neal for Piney Mountain, a NC General Partnership __.-The - Board -_of County Commissioners. hereby approves the «mendme-rt -to- Phase Two of Piney Mountain Subdivision preliminary plat, dated March 18, 1991 and containing 35 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. The right -of -way for the stub -out of Twin Pines Lane shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general public. The approval of this resolution authorizes and directs the Orange County Manager to accept for Orange County and on behalf of the public generally, the offer of dedication of the right -of -way for the stub -out of Twin Pines Lane. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of the right -of -way for the stub -out of Twin Pines Lane shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be maintained by the owner /applicant until such time as they are accepted for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. Before the Final Plat of amendment to Phase Two of Piney Mountain can be recorded: A. Sewage Disposal 1. The community low pressure system for sewage disposal shall be approved by the state Division of Environmental Management.. 2. Obtain approval of the monitoring well(s) from the state Division of Environmental Management. 3. Lot Q is of restricted development potential because the lot is reserved for utility purposes. The restricted lot shall be identified in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 4. Submit an engineer's estimate,for the cost of construction of the sewage disposal system and monitoring well(s). 5. Revise the current letter of credit, or obtain an additional financial guarantee for 110% of the estimate for installation of the community low pressure sewage disposal system and monitoring well(s). 6. Submit deed for property to be transferred to North State Utilities for review and approval by County Attorney. Include in the deed or in,a separate document the greenway easement.granted to the.Piney Mountain Homeowners Association.- B. Roads and Access 1. Label the stub -out "dedicated for public use ". 2. The intent for future extension of Twin Pines Lane shall be indicated on the Final Plat by the words "Subject to Future Extension ". 3. Driveway access only for lot 45 will be'allowed within the stub -out of Twin Pines Lane dedicated to the public and accepted by orange County. Orange County will provide an easement document for the purpose of granting access to lot 45. The easement document shall be recorded with the andrzved -- Final Plat. 4. At such time as the right -of -way for Twin Pines Lane is extended for further development, the entire road must be built to the standards of the NC Department of --� Transportation. 5. Provide a deed to Orange County for the stub -out at Twin Pines Lane. C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 1. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff -'an'd recorded con u entiy -with the curs Final Plat. D. Drainage 1. Indicate a 30 -foot drainage easement along the swale across the northern end of lot 45. If an Erosion Control Plan is required, locate any additional drainage easements shown on the plan. E. Miscellaneous 1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section V -D -2 and V -D -3 of the orange County Subdivision Regulations. 2. The following easements shall be shown on the plat: a. 50' community greenways- across-Lot Q; and----- b. 30' drainage easement across the northern end of lot 45. 3. A setback of 30 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right -of -way of Twin Pines Lane. Side yards shall be a minimum of 10 feet, and rear yards a minimum of 10 feet except on exterior boundaries of the subdivision where the setback shall be 20 feet. These setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. F. certifications 1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered _ - -_ - -- _ Land Surveyor shall -Ine .notari.zed.. on.- the...fa.ce -of,-the- .Fina -1 Plat. 2. A Certif ica- provided in Regulations the face of development Final Plat. to of Declaration and Maintenance in the form Section V -D -6 -b of the Orange County Subdivision signed by the landowner and developer shall be on the plat and included in a document describing restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the 3. Acceptance of the public right -of-way dedication without maintenance responsibility signed by the County Manager. 4. Certification by the County Manager that the required improvements have been installed and approved OR that an approved financial guarantee has been posted with the County to insure completion of all improvements within 12 months. - 5. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and inspections Department. Signature of Appli��nt Cle to t e Board I,/� 0 accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. 0 �� �J ITEMS FOR FOLLOWUP BOARD MEETING DATE: ITEM # TITLE TYPE OF FOLLOWUP FOLLOWUP COMPLETED NnTFC