HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-03-1991 ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 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 your signing the pad ahead
of time so that you are not overlooked. )
B. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of
Orange County its respect. The Board asks its
citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful,
courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow
citizens. At any time should any member of the Board
or any citizen fail to observe this public charge,
the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the
meeting until that individual regains personal
control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the
Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a
genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
III. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA
(Any item may be removed for separate consideration)
A. Petition for Road Additions--The Highlands
Subdivision
B. Petition for Road Addition--Oak Hollow Road
IV. RESOLUTIONS PROCLAMATIONS
V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. I Presentation--Certificate of Achievement for
Excellence in Financial Reporting .
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
VII. REPORTS
A. Report and Mapping of Acquifer Yields and Soil
Suitability in Orange County
B. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
VIII., ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA
A. Triangle Transit Authority Vehicle Tax
B. Bid Award--Communications Control Center
C. Vacation and Sick Leave Revisions to the
Personnel Ordinance
D. Spirit Hill Subdivision--Preliminary Plan
E. Proposed Ordinance Amendments--Water/Sewer
Policy, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations
F. Advertisement--October 10, 1991 JPA Public
Hearing
G. Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreement
H. Approval of Contract--Design Services for
Northern Human Services Building Roof
I. Contract Approval--Environmental Assessment of
Proposed Southern Human Services Site
J. Appointments--Community Child Protection Team
IX. HOARD COMMENTS
X. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
XI. APPOINTMENTS
XII. MINUTES
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
(*) Indicates items that need immediate attention.
s _
APPROVED 9-17-91
1
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 3, 1991
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session
on Tuesday, September 3, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of. the Old
County Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Stephen Halkiotis,
Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit.
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr.
ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Assistant
County Manager Rod Visser, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Finance
Director Ken Chavious, Housing and Community Development Director Tara
Fikes, Accountant Howard Fitts, Human Resources Director Elaine Holmes,
Accounting Technician Deborah Jeff eries, Purchasing and Central Services
Director Pam Jones, Public Works Director Wilbur McAdoo, Social Services
Director Marti Pryor-Cook, Senior Accounting Technician Debbie Smith,
Soil Scientist Jerry Stimpson, County Engineer Paul Thames, EMS Director
Nick Waters, Planners Emily Cameron, Eddie Kirk, Mary Scearbo and David
Stancil.
NOTE: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS IS IN THE PERMANENT
AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
I. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Vice-Chair Halkiotis added to the agenda an Executive Session for
the discussion of a personnel matter. Commissioner Willhoit added to
the agenda an appointment to the Southern Human Services Planning
Committee.
II. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA - NONE
B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA
Gordon Brown, Attorney representing a group of citizens in
the Efland community, presented to the Board a petition. In summary the
petition made reference to the Efland sewer line and the contracts
signed for the construction and provision of sewer service to 191
parcels in the Efland area. He stated that for approximately half of
the 191 potential users who originally signed contracts with the County,
sewer service is not yet available. The conditions which created the
emergency in 1984 still exist today. He stated that many have
inadequate or failing septic systems. Many have made significant out-
of-pocket expenditures to repair or replace their systems with little
prospect that they will function properly or adequately in the long
term. In several areas, raw sewage flows to the surface or runs in the
ditches. The 161 citizens who signed the petition asked that the Board
of County Commissioners:
L
2
1. complete Phase I as defined in this Board's November 20, 1984
resolution in an expeditious manner, to fulfill the County's
obligations under the Sewer Easement and Agreements entered
into in late 1984 and early 1985, to ensure a low cost
structure to all users, the long-term economic self--
sufficiency of the system, and the repayment of all loans made
by the County; and to remediate the existing threat to the
public health, safety and welfare caused by inadequate and
failing septic systems which are prevalent in the Efland
community,
2. provide one or more programs for users needing financial
assistance in order to connect to the sewer system, whether
by grant, subsidy or low-interest loan,
3. consult with the Steering Committee and its counsel to
accomplish the foregoing, and
4. authorize the County Attorney to enter into an agreement to
maintain the status quo of all interested parties pending
efforts to accomplish the foregoing.
Vice-Chair Halkiotis asked that County Manager John Link give the
Board an update on the status of the Efland sewer line at the next
Hillsborough meeting scheduled for October 7, 1991.
PUBLIC CHARGE
Vice-Chair Halkiotis read the public charge.
III. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA
Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner
Willhoit to approve those items on the Consent Agenda as listed below:
A. PETITION FOR ROAD ADDITIONS - THE HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION
The Board approved a petition from NCDOT for the addition of
Sterling Bridge Road, Skye Drive, Balmoral Place, and Burns Place in
Chapel Hill Township to the State-maintained Secondary Road System.
B. PETITION FOR ROAD ADDITION - OAK HOLLOW ROAD
The Board approved a petition from NCDOT for approval of the
addition of Oak Hollow Road in Bingham Township to the State-maintained
Secondary Road System
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
IV. RESOLUTIONSIPROCLAMATIONS - NONE
NOTE: Vice-Chair Halkiotis was excused from the meeting. Commissioner
Willhoit chaired the meeting from this point through the reports at
which time Vice-Chair Halkiotis returned.
V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. PRESENTATION - CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN
FINANCIAL REPORTING
3
John Link stated that the Certificate of Achievement for
Excellence in Financial Reporting is generally acknowledged as the
highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and
financial reporting. Its attainment represents a significant
accomplishment by an entity and its management. Orange County has been
awarded the Certificate of Achievement each year since 1982 . Each year
the eligibility standards for the award become more stringent. He
commended Finance Director Ken Chavious and his staff for their ability
to consistently meet the high standards reflected by this award. On
behalf of the Board, Commissioner Willhoit presented the Certificate of
Achievement to Ken Chavious and the plaque to the Finance Department
thanking them for their dedication and hard work.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE
VII. REPORTS
A. REPORT AND MAPPING OF AQUIFER YIELDS AND SOIL SUITABILITY IN
ORANGE COUNTY
Planner David Stancil and Soil Scientist Jerry Stimpson
presented this report to be received as information by the Board. In
summary this report outlined a process for achieving the Commissioners'
goal for overall protection of the County's water resources. Planner
David Stancil stated that the data collected for this report includes
identifying the availability of drinking-water quality ground waters
which is contained in the Counties aquifers and the capacity of the
soils present in the County to absorb, in an environmentally safe
manner, land-applied sanitary waste water from on-site waste treatment
systems.
David Stancil answered various questions from the members of
the Board. He noted that after meeting with some experts in the field,
they should be able to determine if the data they have -- both general
and specific -- is adequate to be able to produce a hydrogeologic map
of the county that can be used to target areas that have available
groundwater resources. This information will identify those areas where
there is a potential for high yields as well as those areas where there
is a potential for community wells.
Commissioner Gordon noted that this information could give the
County a basis for directing development.
Jerry Stimpson used a county map and showed the various soil
types in Orange County and the suitability or assimilative capacity of
those soils for on-site sanitary waste treatment. He emphasized that
the soil mapping, in its present form, is far too general to make
predictions of the suitability of soils on a specific site or in a
specific area for any particular type of waste treatment technology.
John Link clarified that this information on aquifer and soil
types is accurate in that it shows areas where there are sufficient
groundwater and sufficient soil types for ground absorption. Although
this information would be helpful to anyone who might want to develop
property in any area of the County, there is still not precise data
whereby land use guidelines should be guided by this.
Commissioner Willhoit stated he feels that these reports can
be used as general guidelines for the Land Use Plan.
4
R. COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY
Tara Fikes, Housing and Community Development Director, gave
an overview of a plan to develop a Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy for Orange County along with the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro
and Hillsborough. She explained that the new National Affordable
Housing Act of 1990 replaces many of the old HUD housing assistance
programs and provides new opportunities for local governments to provide
housing assistance to their low/moderate income residents. In order to
participate, a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy which
assesses housing needs in a jurisdiction and outlines future
plans/strategies to address these identified needs must be developed.
Housing staff from Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough
has begun developing a Consolidated Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy which would address the entire County. They expect to have a
draft plan available for public comment by September 15, 1991.
Various questions from the members of the Board were answered
by Tara Fikes. The report was received by the Board as information.
VIII. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA
A. TRIANGLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY VEHICLE TAX
Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by
Commissioner Insko to adopt the resolution as stated below approving
the levying of a $5 vehicle registration tax.
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION WHEREBY, DURHAM, ORANGE AND WAKE COUNTIES
APPROVE THE LEVY OF A VEHICLE REGISTRATION TAX BY THE RESEARCH
TRIANGLE REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, on December 1, 1989, the Research Triangle Regional Public
Transportation Authority was chartered pursuant to General Statute 160A-
602 after concurrent resolution by Durham, Orange, and Wake Counties;
and,
WHEREAS, on July 13, 1991, the General Assembly of North Carolina
ratified and enacted House Bill 80 as Chapter 666, which shall be known
and may be cited as "an Act to Authorize a Regional Public
Transportation Authority to Levy a Vehicle Registration Tax, " and
referred to herein as the "Tax Act"; and,
WHEREAS, Durham, Orange, and Wake Counties, respective major
municipalities, the general public, and other interested parties, both
public and private, have actively and consequentially participated in
the regional issue and consensus development process fundamental to the
establishment of the Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation
Authority and the ratification of the Tax Act; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Research Triangle Regional Public
Transportation Authority is to finance, provide, operate, and maintain
a safe, clean, reliable, and economically and environmentally sound
public transportation system for Durham, Orange, and Wake Counties in
order to enhance mobility in the Research Triangle region and to
encourage sound growth patterns; and,
5
WHEREAS, after proper public notice, the Research Triangle Regional
Public Transportation Authority Board of Trustees conducted a public
hearing on August 15, 1991, as required by the Tax Act; and,
WHEREAS, the Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority
Special Tax Board approved a tax rate of $5 per motor vehicle on August
28, 1991; and,
WHEREAS, General Statute 160A-623 (j) requires that the Board of County
Commissioners of each county organizing the Authority pass a resolution
approving the levy of the tax; and
WHEREAS, it is understood that this concurrent resolution shall not be
considered fully adopted until such time, if any, as its three
counterparts are adopted by the Boards of Commissioners of durham,
Orange and Wake Counties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners that the vehicle registration tax of $ 5 per motor vehicle
is approved.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
B. BID AWARD - COMMUNICATIONS CONTROL CENTER
Pam Jones stated that Motorola Communications and Electronics,
Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid. Their cost for the system
delivered and installed is $141,776. The system will be functional and
ready for training to begin on November 3, 1991. For the record, three
other bids were received. They are as stated below:
Console Systems, Inc. $ 257, 122.00
Communications Specialists of Raleigh $ 209,440.00
Radio Communications of Cary $ 159,773 . 00
Pam Jones explained that Reid Whitten of RF Projects, a radio
consulting firm, was contracted by the County to evaluate the
communications system and together with the EMS staff prepared the
specifications. Pam Jones noted that Motorola has indicated they will
comply with the specifications and she feels confident that they will
deliver that which they have promised. She has no knowledge that the
County will have to pay any additional beyond which is on paper at this
time.
Commissioner Insko questioned if the bid from Motorola was based
on meeting all of the specifications. She understands there were some
items that did not meet these specifications and that in the process of
negotiating with them, they have reviewed every one of these items and
said they will meet the specifications for the same amount of money.
Pam Jones explained that from a technical point of view, that
anytime a specification is all such a technical nature, a specification
cannot be written that indicates one vendor and one vendor only will be
able to meet it. The specifications outline the performance, what is
expected from the consoles, and evaluation is based on that.
Reid Whitten stated that the specification was prepared so that
it would permit bids from various console manufacturers with the idea
6
that each may do a certain task a slightly different way and the
specifications had to permit all of them to bid. He gave several
examples. He explained that the low bid complied with the requirement
of the specifications and that they indicated on a paragraph by
paragraph basis whether or not they comply. He gave an example with
the load that a console can hold. In his opinion this is not a
significant deviation from the specifications to require the County to
spend additional money for providing. No one can meet all the exact
features of a good specification.
Commissioner Insko clarified that when a bidder makes a bid on
a specification where they are making their bid on something that does
not meet the specifications, then they are required to identify those
by paragraph and describe how they don't meet the specification. Reid
Whitten indicated that the specification requires that they give the
County in their bid response a paragraph by paragraph statement. If
they say they comply, then when the time comes to inspect the equipment
they have installed they must comply because they stated in their bid
that they complied. Everyone who bids understands that they can modify
the specification as long as they explain and identify the modification.
Pam Jones explained that the bid is evaluated on the price, the
intent of the specifications, and if it is in the best interest of the
County. From a functional perspective it is evaluated in terms of doing
the job but still meeting the intent of the evaluation. Motorola did
not change their response but clarified items paragraph by paragraph
that they met the specifications.
Reid Whitten gave another example of how Motorola met the
specifications regarding program buttons. Motorola could expand to 127
instead of 128. That is considered to be acceptable. No one can be
expected to meet all aspects of the specifications. He further
explained that the patch channels were part of the specifications but
that the EMS matrix was not part of the specifications.
Pam Jones explained the process that was followed prior to
preparing the final specifications. She emphasized the specification
was not changed, but there is a tolerance to any specification.
It was the consensus of the Board to delay approval of this
contract for additional information on those items that did not meet the
specifications. This will be placed on an upcoming agenda.
C. VACATION AND SICK LEAVE REVISIONS TO THE PERSONNEL ORDINANCE
Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by
Commissioner Halkiotis to approved those revisions to Article IV,
Section 5. 0 for vacation leave and Article IV, Section 6 for sick leave
as presented by the Personnel Director and as recommended by the County
Manager, effective October 1, 1991.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
D. SPIRIT HILL SUBDIVISION
This 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. Ten new
lots are proposed out of 11.85 acres. Each lot will have an individual
well and septic tank.
7
Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by
Commissioner Willhoit to approve the Preliminary Plan for Spirit Hill
Subdivision subject to the Resolution of Approval on pages
of these minutes.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
E. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS - WATER SUER POLICY ZONING
ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
In early April, a landowner in the Protected Watershed portion
of the University Lake Watershed in the Rural Buffer visited the
Planning Department to inquire about developing an 18-acre parcel. He
brought with him a copy of an agreement which he and his wife had signed
with OWASA in 1983 for the purpose of conveying a parcel of land as a
pump station location in exchange for five water and five sewer taps.
The pump station and taps were installed by OWASA. The landowners would
now like to use the taps and develop their property. These proposed
amendments would allow water and/or sewer agreements which predated the
County's Water and Sewer Policy to be carried out in the Rural Buffer
and Water Quality Critical Areas. OWASA officials have stated that they
have no knowledge of other similar agreements for water and/or sewer
service.
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Insko to approve the proposed amendments to the Water and
Sewer Policy, the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations as
recommended by the Administration.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
F. ADVERTISEMENT - OCTOBER 101 1991 JPA PUBLIC HEARING
Mary Scearbo explained that there are two items to be
considered at this public hearing. The first involves American Stone
Company and the second involves New Hope Corridor Open Space Master
Plan.
Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by
Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the legal notice and items for
discussion at the Joint Planning Public Hearing scheduled for October
10, 1991, 7:30 p.m. in the auditorium of Carrboro Elementary School.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
G. HILLSBOROUGH COOPERATIVE PLANNING AGREEMENT
Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by
Commissioner Willhoit to approve a revised time schedule for adoption
of a proposed Cooperative Planning Agreement between Orange County and
the Town of Hillsborough as presented by the Administration.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
H. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT - DESIGN SERVICES FOR NORTHERN HUM2_T
SERVICES BUILDING ROOF
Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by
Commissioner Gordon to approve and authorize the Chair to sign a
contract with RTD Associates, PA, for $7,440 to provide engineering
services associated with roof replacement at Northern Human Services
Center in Cedar Grove. The County received one other proposal from
8
Michael Hining Architects at a cost of $12,000.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
I. CONTRACT APPROVAL - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED
SOUTHERN HUMAN SERVICES SITE
Pam Jones explained that two bids were received. Following
evaluation of each proposal, it is recommended that a contract be
executed with Alliance Technology, Inc. for the following reasons:
1. The scope of work appears to be broader. For example four
items do not appear to be addressed or are specifically excluded in the
Sirrine proposal, but are included in the Alliance proposal.
2. Alliance provides general liability insurance with limits
of $1, 000,000. Sirrine does not provide such coverage in their
proposal.
3. From a budgetary point of view, a local consultant would
present advantages on reimbursable items such as long distance phone
calls and travel to the site.
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Gordon to approve and authorize the Chair to sign a
contract with Alliance Technologies, Inc. to conduct a Phase I
Environmental Assessment of the proposed Southern Human Services site
at a cost of $2,987. The County received one other proposal from
Sirrine Environmental Consultants at a cost of $2900.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
J. APPOINTMENTS - COMMUNITY CHILD PROTECTION TEAM
Social Services Director Martha Pryor-Cook explained that the
Community Child Protection Team is being established in accordance with
Executive Order #142. The team is composed of community and human
service representatives who will meet at least quarterly to promote the
development of a community-wide approach to the problem of child abuse
and neglect. In addition to specified agency representatives, the
Executive Order provides the option for the Board to designate up to
five representatives of agencies in the community to be invited by the
DSS Director to serve on the team.
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Insko to approve the appointments as listed below:
1. John Turner, Dean, School of Social Work, UNC-Chapel Hill
2 . Don Hargroves, Chief Juvenile Court Counselor
3. Hillsborough Exchange Club Member (National and State focus
is on child abuse and neglect)
4. Chris Nutter, Dairy Farmer
5. Bonnie Davis, Retired Agricultural Extension Agent
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
IS. BOARD COMMENTS
Vice-Chair Halkiotis announced that Chair Carey is in Chicago on
business.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the status of the bicycle study
and John Link indicated that report would be forthcoming.
9
X. COMY MANAGER'S REPORT
John Link announced that Eurosport, Inc. , a sports equipment
distributor will be locating in Hillsborough in a building on Business
70 formerly occupied by White Furniture Company.
XI. APPOINTMENTS
SOUTHERN RPM SERVICES PLANNING COMMITTEE
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Insko to appoint Anne Maddry to this committee.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
YOUTH SERVICES NEEDS TASK FORCE
Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by
Commissioner Willhoit to appoint Pamela Rigg to this Task Force.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
XII. MINUTES
Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner
Halkiotis to approve the minutes for the August 20, 1991 meeting as
amended.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner
Gordon to go into Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by
Commissioner Willhoit to adjourn the Executive Session and to reconvene
into Regular Session.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
With no further items for consideration, Vice-Chair Halkiotis
adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on
Tuesday, September 17 at 7: 30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the old Post
Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
O R A N G E C O U N T Y 1
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 3 1991
Action Agenda
Item #
SUBJECT: PETITION FOR ADDITION - STERLING BRIDGE ROAD, SKYE DRIVE,
BALMORAL PLACE, AND BURNS PLACE IN CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC REARING Yes x No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
E.M. Cowan Letter of 8/9/91 Extension 2582
Secondary Road Addition Report
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - .732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider a petition from NCDOT for approval
addition of Sterling Bridge Road, Skye Drive, Balmoral
Place, and Burns Place in Chapel Hill Township to the
State-maintained Secondary Road System.
BACKGROUND: The N.C. Department of Transportation has submitted a
Petition for the addition of Sterling Bridge Road,
Skye Drive, Balmoral Place, and Burns Place in the
Highlands Subdivision to the Board of Commissioners
for review.
The Board's decision will be forwarded to the N.C.
Board of Transportation for their deliberation on
acceptance of the roads to the State-maintained
Secondary Road System.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the addition
of Sterling Bridge Road, Skye Drive, Balmoral Place,
and Burns Place in Chapel Hill Township to the State-
maintained Secondary Road System.
_ 2 A
41
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
-DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. Box 766
Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766
JAMES G. MARTIN August 9, 1991 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON WILLIAM G. MARLEY,JR., P.E.
SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Orange County
Mr. John M. Link, Jr. , Manager
Orange County
106 E. Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Subject: Petition for Addition - Sterling Bridge Road,
Skye Drive, Balmoral Place, and Burns Place .in the
Highlands Subdivision in Chapel Hill Township
Dear Mr. Link:
Attached is Form SR-4, Secondary Road Addition
Investigation Report for the above subject roads.
This is being forwarded to you for review by your
Board of commissioners.
Yours ver trul ,
E. M. Cowan, P.E.
DISTRICT ENGINEER
/acr
Atta.
cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
3
ROAD LIST FOR ROADS PETITIONED FOR ADDITION
IN THE HIGHLANDS SUBDIVISION
NUMBER DATE
ROAD NAME LENGTH OF HOMES RECORDED BOOK PAGE
STERLING BRIDGE ROAD 0 . 20 10 08-27-87 48 54
02-24-87 47 6
SKYE DRIVE 0 . 13 9 02-24-87 47
6
BALMORAL PLACE 0 . 04 6 02-24-87 47
6
BURNS PLACE 0 . 09 9 08-07-89 53 86
FILE: 0-89-23
4
NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS •
SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT
County orange Co. File No. Date
Township Chapel Hill Div. File No.
Local Name See Attached Subdivision Name The Highlands
Length See Atta. Width 18' Type 1-2 Condition GQod
Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for such
streets? Yes Recording Date See Atta. Book See Atta. Page See Atta.
Number of homes having entrances into road See Atta.
Other uses having entrances into road None
Right-of-Way Width If right-of-way is below the desired width,
give reasons under "Remarks and Recommendations."
Is petition (SR-1 ) attached? Yes
Is the County Commissioners Approval (SR-2) attached?
If not, why?
Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locating road by the
Planning Department? Yes
Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $ -
Grade, drain, stabilize $ - , Drainage $ - Other $ -
Remarks and Recommendations Meets minimum requirements, recommend addition.
Reviewed and Approved
BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION MEMBER
Reviewed and Approved J. W. Watkins M. Cowan
DIVISION ENGINEER DISTRICT ENGINEER
(Do not write in this space
For use of Secondary Roads Dept. )
Petition No.
(Do not write in this space
For use of Planning Dept. )
Form SR-4 (4/89) ' 61-03395
J �
�C 5
IC� I�L�,NDS
— -- .I.. —$ITt—
• _~ Ch.pel Ilill
� n 5ehoW
BuRnls PL4G� I
LO�N I AVC� 'F7ernen,arr Sc I
O
o r �
•1p,�, Fib
Q• �S VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
GLl�YMO�� ROAD
�KJ\JaRNcSS
B ALN10 F�,aL PI...A CC
SKYE- DRIyE -�-- �
O
O �
• p�
0.07
N
' r
m
Ll
o
0
STERLING BRIDGE Rp. ---e
5 ��
r
O R A N G E C O U N T Y 1
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: Se tembgr 3 1991
Action Agenda
Item8
SUBJECT: PETITION FOR ADDITION - OAK HOLLOW ROAD IN BINGHAM TOWNSHIP
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x—No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
E.M. Cowan Letter of 8/15/91 Extension 2582
Secondary Road Addition Report
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider a petition from NCDOT for approval of the
addition of Oak Hollow Road in Bingham Township to the
State-maintained Secondary Road System.
BACKGROUND: The N.C. Department of Transportation has submitted a
petition for the addition of Oak Hollow Road in Oak
Hollow Subdivision to the Board of Commissioners for
review.
The Board's decision will be forwarded to the N.C.
Board of Transportation for their deliberation on
acceptance of the road to the State-maintained
Secondary Road System.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the addition
of Oak Hollow Road in Bingham Township to the State-
maintained Secondary Road System.
2
r
AU619
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
'DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. Box 766
Graham, North Carolina 27253--0766
JAMES G. MARTIN August 15, 1991 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON WILLIAM G. MARLEY,JR., P.E.
SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Orange County
Mr. John M. Link, Jr. , Manager
Orange County
106 E. Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Subject: Petition for Addition
Oak Hollow Road in Oak Hollow Subdivision
Bingham Township
Dear Mr. Link:
Attached is Form SR-4, Secondary Road Addition
Investigation Report for the above subject roads.
This is being forwarded to you for review by your
Board of Commissioners.
Yours ve y tr ly,
E. M. Cowan, P.E.
DISTRICT ENGINEER
/acr
Atta.
cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer
File: 0-91-06 -----
t 3
NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS :
SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT
County Orange Co. File No. Date
Township Bingham Div. File No.
Local Name Oak Hollow Road Subdivision Name oak Hollow
Length 0.17 Width 18 Type I-2 Condition Good
Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for such
streets? Yes Recording Date 7-21-89 Book 53 Page 57
Number of homes having entrances into road four
Other uses having entrances into road none
Right-of-Way Width 50' If right-of-way is below the desired width,
give reasons under "Remarks and Recommendations."
Is petition (SR-1 ) attached? Yes
Is the County Commissioners Approval (SR-2)—attached?
If not, why?
Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locating road by the
Planning Department? Yes
Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $ - 0 -
Grade, drain, stabilize $ - Drainage $ - Other $ -
Remarks and Recommendations Meets minimum requirement, recommend addition.
Reviewed and Approved
BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION MEMBER
Reviewed and Approved J. W. Watkins
DIVISION ENGINEER DISTRICT ENGINEER
(Do not write in this space -
For use of Secondary Roads Dept. )
Petition No.
(Do not write in this space
For use of Planning Dept. )
Form SR-4 (4/89) - 61-03395
,�1 "�' � 1:9,x• '`�:. - �' -�-::'�:.
• � �{M S�Yw•4.-��!.' .1 t 13 �r a• t� �,�.V+`�ii.Ri.
I�
? •y 9 -7�' r.+7•i. �p�.• •.:iY K• 'r t't �lr '''•'f�a_�'i:r'�:.::.. }n,Y�•• - - r.4
:Ki ��; nt.t.t Sr,r�., r'-W'4•'�:r++�i "�..�?, ..�'y \-:t :.!'' � �. .'X:,:. '-✓.y -
:F p� 1723
,r„ G•• .-.j• ;;f: ::1':� ::('4$'_;F�r - 04 4 _:�::•Ni•::;•9•..,f''-•�,5'�, i.i-..•..('' +.A, -
\...tom ..�}.i: .,y.•, ts�,.� .y;,s;51.„r'• - - s;);.;•
may`, .Z:y r•.�d: •x3r•�°7' �c !��'`:r:�w. `•+5... h.;. .k'�-".=!..'�w',.�� _r+ - -
;3.;: ^4 n"e:
P `
..Orange . . /..... o
SIG I N ITS 1113 �.9
177 0-
_
0^� .o- 121 '.:;.;:•:
r a`
1179
1212�� 172 K
nAv, O FED ns
rossroo ds `?
1860 c`r'
7 1 179 71 .
'=
1 175 A '
1861
2.2 1 11 3 s T-
1101 1111
1009
r
1103 s
�P Al ZI
FAP
.. 1207
CA!
�;' 0..17 . •1 9 S4 r r..•.: ��.. "�
F>RQ 2.2
White Cross
52
c 1951
1952 I p
A 1950
1953 1947
1 2029 2024
.a: t
.F�.;
a«r
.r.. ar:a.�r. ♦:
.•� ^, ..+Z•-,• ;,•3��....?,=.�:"• ':'':;, _ 2x00 •�:Y
:r+ •
_ , •95.1• Yw ,,..,.�.w.`��,,,,�.•.
2023 -
'�`;`r;•' 'ad'Sc . �� ti cr".!. ' ' ti,sa. �»yx
%{• �-`y::
.L4"Y1•w�J .;�u'S'.r�1 ,MrT7:'�'-Y.K..;�.Y�.. .i^a;: �:•:':�,.''y a'5.4•' ;i.. :r'::e'`,:_�• '.V - -•.'�
:��'1Y�• rh'�: -L• N'r ���"r�Fyy�S!�_,.\f:5 r4.w•w �.G�`]�.••. f:'r�1yYi:.w�,, _ I7;ti:L� _ - - .1� _
�i..}.J�i:J- •�' .rr ..ti •;dam r,ti� W�'F�.iT!.jr•: -,�^ !-ie. .c"i.-•.
•.i-``�f'L zC`,j"',".3�v-�`.:fi.7.r.'+.�•a.:r•ti r^'..-r niH-7•'.S,}.•: ^°!tea•y J� •2 :,.•..V^..•:r . r I•�1
R 2 ,�<
�
RyN 02tJ t 5°
Y� -
-
r :ti'Wq .�F y_g .r i,¢Y-` .1R.:••�._, - - :^4 s:=!.i`.::�.r=+f :1.' •_�°:.�y�'ti,'�':•' .,Y.•.
�:'+stii' r, -ZrJ.- —^.n e., �•+ R t•�'d�:y..a.}.. ,'����... ,.-S:�':, =
'+ rr>' �' ..t:. '„n,-« t"ti. J:` 'i:+; �ic:ti..r.r;i.�.•;_-..`•�:,, s y. a..«-•-i _
��•r!.•. .:a. -•>�:,, .�� *fir .� +n' ,.�.':: t±r :�: .-rt - .
;wr ':r7:4r,K r;�VLxia.:: •3rc pp .•�� .n:y.,.yr:[••:: •�, �•�.;.".''�:4�"
..�.J •(S. 'k7:�r. .1''•r' - rr.. _ s.c :r✓ +-r:r':r}t'-��:- -
? C SFr :a �rs,.K err. `rte 7 1 '1� r
<r�' "w x' � ..rw�ti++�.°.' �?M`•.:-��..rr ;�,K-;::•. r' -X-���e`7� _ - 7:c-v
�{wh.c• �'� Y'.r. '�1J:,a •YrY'S•r d;S;l,',�•r <? < •"7 •�� 7rk• _ r��
r:r. y.. �' .f., %.�Cy!.iY.,� 1! :Y,r 5, ..o-. *•�"r3.r„+ti,.� _.
i~ .,�..',r..K+..e ..3•,''rw?;.: •air' .k. y..� •,,,,rr� ., `- ..
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. \ -A
Meeting Date: August 20, 1991
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION -- CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN
FINANCIAL REPORTING
-------- ----------------------------------
DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
-------- ----------------------------------
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
PLAQUE & CERTIFICATE (to be
presented) TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-5401
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
PURPOSE: To acknowledge receipt of this Certificate-of-Achievement-and
recognize the individuals responsible for this achievement.
BACKGROUND: The Certificate of Achievement recognizes excellence in
government financial reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is
generally acknowledged as the highest form of recognition in the area of
governmental accounting and financial reporting and its attainment
represents a significant accomplishment by an entity and its management.
Orange County has been awarded the Certificate of Achievement each year
since 1982. Each year the eligibility standards for the award become more
stringent. The finance staff is to be commended for their ability to
consistently meet the high standards reflected by this award.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : The Manager recommends that Ken Chavious and his
Finance staff be recognized for their accomplishments in being awarded the
GFOA Certificate of Achievement for the year ending 1990.
The Government Finance Officers Association
of the United States and Canada
presents this
AWARD OF FINANCIAL REPORTING ACHIEVEMENT
to:
Kenneth T. Chavious
Finance Director
Orange County, North Carolina
The Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is presented by the Govern ment Finance
Officers Association to those individuals who have been instrumental in their govern ment
unit achieving a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. A
Certificate of Achievement is presented to those government units whose annual Financial
reports are judged to adhere to program standards and represents the highest award in
government financial reporting.
Executive Director
Date June 7, 1991
N
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.A=-A
Meeting Date: September 3, 1991
SUBJECT: Report and mapping of
acquifer yields and soil
suitability in Orange County
DEPARTMENT:-Planning and Health -PUBLIC-HEARING- YES:-----NO:-x--
ES. -- - _ X--
------------------ -------------------- - - --
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:- -- - --
Soils-Jerry Stinson, Health
Report on Acquifers Acquifers-David Stancil, Planning
Report on Soils (Under Separate TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Cover) Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227--2031
Durham - 688-7331
-
PURPOSE: To present two reports and associated mapping to-the Board in
compliance with that part of the Commissioner's goal on water
resource protection dealing with collection of data on the
County's acquifer or groundwater yields and the assimilative
capacity of County soils for on-site sanitary waste water
disposal.
BACKGROUND: County Staff have outlined process for achieving the
Commissioner's a goal for overall protection of the County's
water resources which involves the collection of data on the
County's existing water resources. These resources include
the availability of drinking water quality ground waters which
is contained in the Counties acquifers and the capacity of the
soils present in the County to absorb, in an environmentally
safe manner, land-applied sanitary waste water from on-site
waste treatment systems.
There is a large body of information available on the subject
of drinking water yields of the County's acquifers, though the
information applies more generally to the state's large
surface water drainage basins than to Orange County.
Although the information regarding the situation in orange
County can be culled from the larger body of information, the
process is time consuming and is further complicated by the
fact that the sources of information are widely dispersed
among state and federal environmental agencies and university
environmental research departments. A map and a report on the
ground water yields of the Orange County portion of the Cape
Fear Basin was presented to the Rural Character Study Group by
the Planning Department in October, 1990. The information to
be presented to the Board of Commissioners on the Cape Fear
2
i
Basin, which has been challanged by some local water resource
experts, represents the bulk of the material assembled to this
point, on the County's potential ground water yields.
The mapping and information to be presented to the Board
showing the various soil types of orange County and the
suitability or assimilative capacity of those soils for on-
site sanitary waste treatment was prepared and first presented
to the Board of Health by the County Health Department' s soil
scientist. This information is very general in nature in that
it tends to focus on broad soil trends in large areas of the
County. The soil mapping, in its present form, is far too
general to make predictions of the suitability of soils on a
specific site or in a specific area for any particular type of
waste treatment technology.
RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report
as information.
3
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: PAUL THAMES
County Engineer
From: DAVE STANCIL, AICP
Comprehensive Planner
Date: JUNE 24, 1991
Subject: STATUS OF GROUNDWATER RESEARCH/HYDROGEOLOGIC MAP
The purpose of this memo is to update our progress since the April
26 Groundwater Conference and our subsequent meeting.
As you know, in accordance with the adopted Commissioners ' goal,
Comprehensive Planning is pursuing a) researching all relevant
groundwater data and studies, b) assessing the completeness of
these studies, and c) developing a hydrogeologic map of Orange
County as a resource for future groundwater work.
This work is being done by intern Meg Scully, a recent UNC planning
graduate (specializing in Land Use and Environmental Issues) , and
myself. We have been fortunate, thanks to Meg's diligence, to
uncover six additional sources on groundwater in this region beyond
the three which I found in my Brief Overview, paper of October
1990 (attached) .
We are still in the process of assessing this data. One difficulty
has been converting some of the quantitative work from different
studies into a common denominator. We plan to continue looking at
the available resources over the next few months before attempting
to draw any conclusions .
However, a few things can be reported at this time. First, there
are three studies which appear to stand out as potentially
significant resources for our work. These can be found on the
attached source sheet, and are 1) G.L Bain's 1966 work in the
Durham area, 2) Charles C. Daniel ' s 1987 report (and 1990
followup) , and 3) Floyd and Peace' s 1974 study of the Upper Cape
Fear basin.
These studies are significant because each contains a form of a
hydrogeologic map of the county or region. Meg has worked with
these different sources to create a panel of maps from the three
sources. This has involved grouping similar hydrogeologic units
into common categories to make all three maps on the panel of a
common type.
As you can see from the panel, there appears to be some discrepancy
between the 1966 Bain report and the latter two studies which were
4 i
referenced in my 1990 overview. I am hesitant to draw any
conclusions from these maps pending further work, but it can
certainly be said that the Daniel and Floyd/Peace studies, when
converted to common denominators, have very strong positive
correlation. The 1966 Bain work, however, has some significant
differences with the other data. Further research may shed a light
on this possible discrepancy among our resources .
Finally, as you know, Meg and I spoke in late May with Charles
Daniel, the author of the two works above - which have been
commended to us by several knowledgeable sources in groundwater
research. In talking to Mr. Daniel, we learned that he is an Orange
County resident. On May 30 we met with Mr. Daniel to discuss his
and other related work in groundwater research in our area. In
summary, Daniel indicated that there is substantial data available
for non-detailed generalizations about groundwater, but that
further detailed work - in the form of a local groundwater study -
might be needed to accomplish the goals set out by the Board of
Commissioners . It is my understanding that you will also be
scheduling a similar meeting with Dave Moreau to receive his
thoughts on this project. Mr. Daniel has indicated his interest in
possibly providing us technical assistance in our research through
USGS .
In summary, our work plan at this time is to continue to assess the
new resources that have been discovered, and solicit the comment of
area "experts" in groundwater issues to determine what questions
can be answered from existing data, and what will need further
study. Meg and I will be available to provide a status report to
the Board on this subject when appropriate.
Attachments
copies : Marvin Collins, Planning Director
Gene Bell, Comprehensive Planner III
Meg Scully, Comprehensive Planning Intern
S
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF GROUNDWATER RESOURCES IN THE NEW HOPE AND
SOUTHERN TRIANGLE SECTIONS OF THE RURAL BUFFER.
The purpose of this document is to provide a brief overview
of groundwater supply in the portions of the Rural Buffer
where open space development options have been proposed.
This overview draws on three sources, shown on page 3 .
Groundwater is critical to the availability of potable
drinking water for many citizens - in the form of individual
well water, and as a partial or complete supply for many
small towns. Almost 1/2 of the state's population and 102 of
the state's municipalities rely in total or in part on
groundwater supplies (Milton Heath, 1980) .
Groundwater is found in the form of aquifers, which may best
be visualized as an underground grid of regolith (soils) or
rock stratum (bedrock formations) that contain and transmit.
water. An important consideration is the interconnectedness
of the aquifer.
In our region, the overall aquifer is fairly well connected
in the Piedmont formation known as the Carolina Slate Belt.
This geologic formation has a low-moderate average yield of
water compared to other formations, but adequate potential as
a groundwater source. This particular type of formation is
found in most of the Rural Buffer with the exception of the
eastern fringe along the Durham County line.
This eastern fringe of the buffer has very different
characteristics. This area, known as the Triassic Basin, has
more restricted groundwater availability. The Triassic basin
soils are found in southern Durham County and eastern Chapel
Hill Township. Therefore, in terms of the Rural Buffer, this
would include the "Southern Triangle" and the portion of the
buffer along Erwin Road and easternmost Whitfield Road.
Therefore, the two subareas of the Rural Buffer under
consideration for open-space development options (the New
Hope basin and the "Southern Triangle" ) have different
groundwater potentials.
The remainder of the New Hope basin does have a hydrogeologic
unit that likely will transmit water adequately for a
development pattern such as that found (or proposed) in the
Rural Buffer. In contrast, the "Southern Triangle" has
the considerably-poorer Triassic basin aquifer. The locations
of these hydrogeologic areas can be seen on the attached map.
1
f
6
The relatively-poor potential of Triassic soils for
groundwater does not indicate that these soils cannot be used
for wells (individual or community) . It does indicate that
the yield in these areas will be less than average, and that
most of the available groundwater will be found in the upper
layers of regolith.
One question relating to groundwater and the Rural Character
development proposals stands out: What is the potential for
significant "drawdown" on the groundwater supply from open-
space developments with community wells?
Although the answer cannot be definitively stated, it is
possible to draw limited, qualified conclusions .
1. in 95% of the New Hope Creek basin, the use of
appropriately permitted and designed community wells
should not cause significant depletion of groundwater
beyond that which would occur under the current
development pattern. The adequate availability of
groundwater resources in this area, coupled with the
ease of replenishment in interconnected rock strata,
should provide adequate groundwater as long as the
overall low density of development is maintained and
regional drawdown does not increase significantly.
2. In the "Southern Triangle" and in the area near Erwin
Road, the Triassic soils and their shallow groundwater
availability will require that well-siting be more
precise as to location. In these areas, community wells
could have a localized effect on groundwater supplies,
although this would likely be short-term until aquifers
are recharged. Protection of recharge areas, while
important in all areas, takes on increased importance in
the Triassic areas.
It terms of the open-space development options proposed, it
should be noted that these Triassic areas are:
1) in areas which are largely "undevelopable" (Corps of
Engineer land, flood-prone soils) ; and
2) not in corridors which would appear to be suitable for the
potential development of Rural Villages (as per the Rural
Character Study Committee's recommendations) .
In summary, this brief report does not attempt to assess the
long-term and regional implications of the increased use of
2
P
T
7
groundwater on a comprehensive scale. Certainly, the
depletion of this critical resource is and will continue to
be affected by development across the Piedmont, and the
nation as well.
On a local scale however, the overall low-density in the
Rural Buffer should ensure groundwater supplies are not
unduly depleted. As mentioned earlier, this is more
problematic when dealing with the areas in Triassic soils in
the Southern Triangle and Erwin Road. However, since many of
these areas are not developable, effects should be minimal.
For the remainder of the buffer, even the most-dense
development option (the Rural village) is less than one unit
per acre. Based on calculations from available sources, this
would mean that, for any given square mile in the New Hope
basin (outside of the Triassic "corner" ) , maximum consumption
would be less than 50% of the available groundwater supply on
a per day average.
Further evaluation into groundwater availability across the
County is being pursued by staff. With further work, it may
be possible to more definitively evaluate availability and
potential for pollution_of our groundwater resources .
SOURCES:
Telephone Conversations with Groundwater Specialists, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater
and Water Resources Sections, November 1989, October 1990 .
Groundwater Su 1 Potential and Procedures for Well-Site
Se ecti U er Cg Fear, Cape Fear Basin Study, 1983 .
An A aisal of the Groundwater Resources of the Upper Ca e
Fear Basin Groundwater Bu letin Number
Survey, 1974. 20, U.S. Geological
Statisti a 1 Ana sis Relatin We11 Yield to Co st uction
P acti e a ad Siti of Wells in the Piedmont and B ue Rid e
P ovinces o Nor h Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey and State
of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, 1987 .
Related Work by Milton Heath, Institute of Government, 1980.
pds/101790/dsll
3
Wa
JO
os .
Al
Ko
9
Relevant Sourc s for- Orancze Countv Groundwater Analysis
Allen E.P. and Wilson W.F. . 1968. Geolo and Mineral Resources of
Orange County_, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of
Conservation and Development, Division of Mineral Resources,
Bulletin 81. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Bain G.L. . 1966. geology and Ground-Water in the D-2u ham Area North
Carolina. Ground-Water Bulletin Number 7. U.S. Geological Survey,
North Carolina Department of Water Resources.
Daniel C.C. III. 1987. Statistical Analysis Relating Well Yield to
Construction Practices and Siting of Wells in the Piedmont and Blue
Ridge Provinces of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Water
Resources Investigation Report 86-4132.
Daniel C.C. III. 1990. Evaluation of Site--Selection Criteria Well
Design Monitoring Techni ues and Cost Analysis for a Ground-Water
Su 1 in Piedmont Cr stalline Rocks North Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2341-B.
Daniel C.C. III. and Payne R.A. . 1990. Hydrogeologic Unit Man of
the Piedmont and Blue Rid a Provinces of North Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4035.
Prepared in cooperation with the NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina.
DiNovo F. and Jaffe M. . 1984. Local Groundwater Protection Midwest
Regign. American Planning Association. Washington, D.C. , Chicago,
Illinois.
Floyd E.O. and Peace R.R. . 1974. An APRraisal of the Groundwater
Resources of the U er Ca a Fear River Basin North Carolina.
Groundwater Bulletin Number 20. U.S. Geological Survey and the
North Carolina Office of Water and Air Resources.
LeGrand H.E. . 1984. Ground Water and its Contamination in North
Carolina with Reference to Waste Management. An Instructional
Handbook.
Moreau D.H. and Danielson L.E. . 1990. Agricultural Pesticides and
Groundwater in North Carolina: Identification of the Most
vulnerable Areas. Water Resources Research Institute of the
University of North Carolina.
Office of Water Resources, North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development. February 1983 . Upper Neuse
River BA-Sin Studv. Phase I Report. Raleigh, North Carolina.
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item
Date: September 31
SUBJECT: ComprehensivenHousing AffordabilitylStrategy
DEPARTMENT: Housin /Comm` - -------HEAR-----------------------
------------------------ --Dev PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION_ _____________________
Brief Summary RMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732_8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
--------------------------------- Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To inform the BOCC of-- ---------------------------'
Housing Affordability Strategy foreOrangeC County ealong with
the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough. g th
BACKGROUND: The new National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 replaces
many of the new old HUD housing assistance programs and
provides new opportunities for local governments to provide
housing assistance to their low/moderate income residents.
In order to participate in the new housin
developed as a result of this Housing Bill,pthe U.S.being
Department of Housing and Urban Development requires local
jurisdictions to prepare a Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) which assesses housing needs
in a jurisdiction and outlines future plans/strategies to
address these identified needs.
Staff from Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and
Hillsborough have been meeting to discuss the implications
of the new Housing Act for Orange County housing
initiatives. It was concluded that in order to receive
maximum benefit from the potential new housin
Orange County should develop a CHAS which wouldpincl de,the
housing needs and strategies for all localities in the
County. Thus, staff has begun developing a Consolidated
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy for Orange
County.
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
The Manager recommends receiving this report as information.
2
gIIMMARY OF THE NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT OF 1990 NAHA
The main objective of the National Affordable Housing
Act of 1990 (NAHA) is "to reaffirm the long-established
national commitment to decent, safe, and sanitary housing for
every American by strengthening a nationwide partnership of
public and private institutions." It replaces many of the old
HUD housing assistance programs and provides new
opportunities for local governments to provide housing
assistance to their low/moderate income families.
What' s new about MEM-
There are four new concepts that p broad
changes in the way the federal government will approach the
provision of affordable housing.
* Local matching funds required for participation in all
new programs. This matching requirement ranges from
1 local dollar for each 2 federal dollars in new
construction programs to 1 local dollar for each 4
federal dollars for rental assistance and moderate
rehabilitation. Grant local
funds match m
by may be the value community
Development Block of
land or public improvements included in a project.
Decentralization of funding to local areas. Each local
government desiring funds under the NAHA must adopt its
own set of policies and design its own programs through
preparation of a Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS) .
* on
Emphasis homeownership opportunities. There are three
p in NAHA, each with
separate homeownership programs
slightly different rules and qu alifications. In
addition, NAHA encourages social forms of ownership,
especially through Community Housing Development
Organizations (CHDO) ,
like Orange Community Housing
Corporation. An example would be the sale of p ublic
housing to eligible tenants.
* Empowerment of recipients of housing assistance, meaning
that housing assistance alone cannot meet the needs of
low income individuals and families. NAHA encourages
programs that link housing with social cservices, such as
job training, child care, counseling,
and other ways to improve the lives of residents in
assisted housing.
R
3
What housia Or o rams will be available?
* HOME Program
* HOPE I (Public Housing Homeownership) Program
* HOPE II (Homeownership of Multifamily Units) Program
* HOPE III (Homeownership of Single Family Units)
Program
* Low-Income Housing Preservation Program
* Shelter Plus Care Program
* Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program (Old
Section 202 Elderly Program)
* Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
(Section all) Program
* Emergency Shelter Grant Program
* Supplemental Assistance for Facilities to Assist the
Homeless (SAFAH) Program
* Transitional Housing Program
When will funds be available?
Congress is expected to provide funds to implement the
Act in October, 1991.
What local lannia is re fired?
In order to direct funding for any of the above
programs, local jurisdictions must prepare a Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) . The CHAS is a
comprehensive planning document that identifies a
jurisdiction's overall needs for affordable and supportive
housing and outlines a five year strategy to address those
needs. The five parts of the CHAS are: 1) the Needs
Assessment, 2) Market and Inventory Conditions, 3)Strategies,
4)Resources, and 5) Implementation.
Specifically, the CHAS must include the following
statutory elements:
1. A description of housing needs;
2. The nature and extent of homelessness;
3. Market characteristics;
4 . The effect of public policies on housing affordability
and availability;
5. The public and private structures that will be used to
implement proposed strategies;
6. Plans for cooperation between state and local bodies;
7. A description of public housing inventory;
S. Available resources;
9. Plans for leveraging local resources with federal
dollars;
10. State coordination of Tax Credits;
11. Tenant management/ownership of public housing;
12. Local monitoring of authorized activities and ensuring
long term compliance with provisions of NAHA;
4
13 . Plans for affirmatively furthering fair housing;
14. Anti-displacement/Relocation certification;
15. An estimate of the number of families who will benefit
from housing initiatives.
Housing staff in Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro
and Hillsborough have been meeting to discuss the feasibility
of preparing a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
which would address the entire County. We are proceeding with
this approach and expect to have a draft CHAS available for
public comment by September 15, 1991. Information for this
document is being taken from available housing task force
studies and census data.
r
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No
Meeting Date: September 3, 1991
SUBJECT: Triangle Transit Authority Vehicle Tax
-------------------------------
DEPARTMENT County Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X
-------------------------------
ATTACHMENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT
Triangle Transit Authority Letter Rod Visser, ext 2300
Proposed Resolution TELEPHONE NUMBER
House Bill 80 Hillsborough 732-8181
Vehicle Tax Implementation Schedule Chapel Hill 968-4501
Triangle Transit Budget Memo Mebane 227-2031
Triangle Transit Public Hearing Minutes Durham 688-7331
PURPOSE: To consider adopting a resolution approving the levying of a
$5 tax per vehicle with proceeds supporting the Triangle Transit
Authority.
BACKGROUND: During the 1991 Session, the General Assembly ratified
House Bill 80, which authorized the Triangle Transit Authority to levy
a vehicle registration tax of up to $5 per vehicle. The provisions of
the legislation require that the Boards of Commissioners of Orange,
Wake, and Durham Counties approve a certain tax rate before the
Triangle Transit Authority can legally impose the tax. The proposed
resolution would secure Orange County's required approval for a $5 tax.
The letter from the Triangle Transit Authority requesting the $5 tax
rate also outlines the Authority's request for $100, 000 in additional
contributions from local governments within the jurisdiction of the
authority.- These funds are needed, along with DOT grant funds and
operating revenues, to support the Authority's 1991-92 budget. Because
of anticipated lags that would delay receipt of revenues from the
proposed $5 tax until the end of FY 1991-92, the Authority believes
that it would need the funding from local governments to finance its
operations this year. The Orange County share of this funding is
proposed at $13,500. No action on this aspect of the Authority's
request is proposed at this time. However, an agenda item in the near
future will address the Authority's request for additional funding.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : The Manager recommends that the Board adopt the
attached resolution approving the levying of a $5 vehicle registration
tax.
2
TRIANGLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY
August 22 , 1991
The Honorable Moses Carey
Chairman
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Dear Mr . Carey:
Following a public hearing on August 15 , the Triangle Transit
Authority Board of Trustees decided to recommend a $ 5 tax rate for
the vehicle registration tax. As required ty the legislation
passed earlier this year by the General Assembly, the regional
transit authority cannot levy a tax until that tax has been
approved by the Special Tax Board and by each of the Boards of
County Commissioners .
Enclosed for your review are the proposed joint resolution by the
County Commissioners adopting the tax; a copy of the tax
legislation; a schedule of implementation of the tax; the General
Manager' s tax rate recommendation; and the minutes of the August
15 public hearing. The Board of Trustees requests your
consideration of the joint resolution during September .
At the August 15 meeting, the board of Trustees also approved an
amended FY 1991-1992 budget . The budget plan ( copy enclosed)
requires a total of $ 416 , 700 in public funds . These funds will
come from $ 171 , 750 in carry over NCDOT grant funds not used in FY
1990-1991 ; $ 144 , 950 in additional NCDOT funds ; and $ 100 , 000 in
funds from local governments. This request is necessary because of
the legislative restrictions as well as the timing of receipt of
vehicle registration tax funds .
The Authority proposed that the $ 100 , 000 in local funds be
requested from each of the three counties in proportion to 1990
population estimates . The Orange County share is $13 , 500 . The
Board of Trustees envisioned that the County and the Town of Chapel
Hill would share the contribution by mutual agreement . The Board
of Trustees requests a decision by November I .
Suite 206,50 Park Offices
P.O.Box 13787,Research Triangle Park,NC 27709 (919)549-9999
3
The Board of Trustees and I would be glad to discuss our tax rate
recommendation and funding request with the County Commissioners.
If you have any questions, please call Jim Ritchey at ( 919) 549-
9999.
Thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
l0-"
Wilbur P. Gulley
Chair
Enclosures
cc: The Honorable Jonathan Howes
Mr. Calvin Horton
Mr. John Link
4
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION WHEREBY, DURHAM, ORANGE AND WAKE COUNTIES
APPROVE THE LEVY OF A VEHICLE REGISTRATION TAX BY THE RESEARCH
TRIANGLE REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, on December 1, 1989, the Research Triangle Regional
Public Transportation Authority was chartered pursuant to General
Statute 160A-602 after concurrent resolution by Durham, Orange, and
Wake Counties; and,
WHEREAS, on July 13, 1991, the General Assembly of North Carolina
ratified and enacted House Bill 80 as Chapter 666, which shall be
known and may be cited as "an Act to Authorize a Regional Public
Transportation Authority to Levy a vehicle Registration Tax," and
referred to herein as the "Tax Act" ; and,
WHEREAS, Durham, Orange, and Wake Counties, respective major
municipalities, the general public, and other interested parties,
both public and private, have actively and consequentially
participated in the regional issue and consensus development
process fundamental to the establishment of the Research Triangle
Regional Public Transportation Authority and the ratification of
the Tax Act; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Research Triangle Regional Public
Transportation Authority is to finance, provide, operate, and
maintain a safe, clean, reliable, and economically and
environmentally sound public transportation system for Durham,
Orange, and Wake Counties in order to enhance mobility in the
Research Triangle region and to encourage sound growth patterns;
and,
WHEREAS, after proper public notice, the Research Triangle Regional
Public Transportation Authority Board of Trustees conducted a
public hearing on August 15, 1991, as required by the Tax Act; and,
WHEREAS, the Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation
Authority Board of Trustees and General Manager recommended a tax
rate of $ 5 per motor vehicle; and,
WHEREAS, the Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation
Authority Special Tax Board approved a tax rate of $ 5 per motor
vehicle on August 28, 1991; and,
WHEREAS, General Statute 160A-623(j ) requires that the Board of
County Commissioners of each county organizing the Authority pass
a resolution approving the levy of the tax; and
WHEREAS, it is understood that this concurrent resolution shall not
be considered fully adopted until such time, if any, as its three
counterparts are adopted by the Boards of Commissioners of Durham,
Orange, and Wake Counties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners that the vehicle registration tax of $ 5 per motor
vehicle is approved.
4
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
1991 SESSION
RATIFIED BILL
CHAPTER 666
HOUSE BILL 80
AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
TO LEVY A VEHICLE REGISTRATION TAX.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
Section 1. G.S. 160A-613 reads as rewritten:
"§ 160A-613. Funds.
(a) The establishment and operation of an Authority are governmental functions
and constitute a public purpose, and the State of North Carolina and any unit of local
government may appropriate funds to support the establishment and operation of the
Authority. The State of North Carolina and any unit of local government may also
dedicate, sell, convey, donate or lease any of their interests in any property to the
Authority.
(b) The Authority may levy an annual vehicle registration tax not to exceed rive
dollars($5 00) per vehicle in accordance with G.S. 160A-6223_"
Sec. 2. Chapter 160A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a
new section to read:
160A-623. Regional Transportation Authority registration tax.
(a) Tax Authorized In accordance with this section, an Authority organized
under this Article may levy an annual license tax upon any motor vehicle with a tax
situs within its territorial jurisdiction as defined by G.S._160A-602.
(b) Purpose. The purpose of the tax levied under this section is to raise revenue for
capital and operating expenses of an Authority in providing a public transportation
system.
c Amount of Tax. The annual levy under this section must be a full dollar
amount but may not exceed five dollars 5.00 per year.
(d) Procedure for Lew. The Board of Trustees of an Authority may levy the tax
provided by this section by passage of a resolution, after not less than 10 days'_public
notice and after a 12ublic hearing- Collection of the tax, and-liability therefor, shall
begin and continue only on and after the first day of a calendar month set by the
Board of Trustees in the resolution levying the tax, which shall in no case be earlier
than the first day of the third calendar month after the adoption of the resolution.
The Board ,Trustees upon adoption of the resolution, shall cause a certified copy__
of the resolution to be delivered immediately to the Division of Motor Vehicles.
(e) Collection of Tax. Upon receipt of the resolutions under Subsections (d) and
(j). Division of Motor Vehicles shall proceed to collect and administer the tax.
The tax is due at the same time and subject to the same restrictions as in G.S. 20-87
(1). (2)_(4). (^ SL_(6) and (7) and G.S. 20-88. The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
may adopt such rules as are necessary and proper to implement this section.
(f Modification or Repeal of Tax. The Board of Trustees may, by resolution
terminate the levy of the tax under this section, or increase or decrease the amount of
5
the tax. under the yams )rocedures as i)roviil(:d in subsection d of this section and
sub ect to the limitations provided in subsections and of this section, I, '
Collection of the increased or decreased tax. and liability therefor. shall begin and
continue only on and after_ the first duty of a calendar month set by the Board of
Trustees in the resolution increasing- or -reducing the tax which shall in no case be
earlier than the first day of the third. calendar month after the adoption of the
resolution. The effective elate of the termination of the tax shall be only on and after
the first day of a calendar month set by the Board of Trustees in the resolution
term
inatingthe tax which shall in no case he earlier than the first day of the third
calendar month after the adol2tion of the resolution. No liability_. for any tax levied
under this section which shall have attached prior to the effective date on which a
levv is terminated or reduced shall be discharized as a result of such termination or
reduction and no right to a refund of tax or otherwise which shall have accrued
prior to the effective date on which a levv is terminated or reduced shall be denied as
a result of such termination.
Vehicles Sub•ect to Tax. Only vehicles required to pay a tax under G.S.-20-
87 1 2 4 5 6 and 7 and G.S. 20-88 shall be subject to the tax provided by
this section. Taxes shall be prorated in accordance with G.S. 20-66 or G.S. 20-95 as
applicable. -
h Tax Situs. The fact that the county listed b • the owner under G.S. 105-314 as
the county where the vehicle is subject to ad valorem taxation is within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Authority shall be prinia facie evidence that the vehicle has a tax
situs within the territorial jurisdiction of the Authority-.
i Distribution of Proceeds. Taxes aid under this section shall be credited to a
special fund and the net proceeds disbursed Quarterly to the appropriate Authorit .
Interest credited to the fund shall be disbursed quarterly to the Highway Fund to
reimburse the Division of Motor Vehicles for the cost-of collecting and administering,
the tax,
6-1) Limitation on Expenditures. Of the proceeds of the tax the Authority may
not expend more than two percent„(,211/0 on_ administrative expenses.
When Special Tax Board and Board of County Commissioners Authorization
Necessarv, No Authority may adopt a resolution to levy_ any tax under this section, or
to increase the amount of the ley , unless the special tax board of that Authority and
the board of county commissioners of each county organizing the Authority have first
passed a resolution approving the levy or increase except where the ley or increase
in tax is necessary for debt service on bonds or notes that special tax board and each
of the boards of county commissioners had previously approved- under G.S. 159-51.
The Special Tax Board and Board of Count Commissioners u on ado tion of the
resolution shall cause a certified copy of the resolution to be delivered immediate)
to the Authority and to the Division of Motor Vehicles,."
Sec. 3. G.S. 105-314(a) reads as rewritten:
"(a) Every motor vehicle owner applying to the State Division of Motor Vehicles
for motor .vehicle license tags, or for renewal of such. shall specify in the application
the county in which each such motor vehicle is subject to ad valorem taxation. If any
such vehicle is not subject to ad valorem taxation in this State, that fact, with the
reason therefor, shall be stated in the application. No State license tags shall be issued
to any applicant, or renewed for such applicant until the requirements of this
subsection have been met. It shall be a misdemeanor to knowingly make a false
statement in the application as to the information required to be supplied by this
section."
Sec. 4. Chapter 160A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a
new section to read:
" 160.E-624. Recommendation of additi»gal revenue sources.
2 House Bill 80
The Authoritv may make recommerdittions to the General Assembly concerninL9 6
additional revenue sources, including, but not limited to:
H Annual vehicle registration fees•
Ad valorem taxes:
3 Local land transfer taxes-,
4 Drivers license fees:
5 Sales taxes on automobile parts and accessories, and
6 Motor fuels taxes.
Anv additional revenue sources for an Authority must be Oproved by the General
Assemblv."
Sec. 5. G.S. 160A-617 is rewritten to read:
"§ 160A-617. Bonds and notes authorized.
In addition &f to the powers granted by this Article, the authority may issue bonds
and notes pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Bond Act and the
Local Government Revenue Bond Act for the purpose of financing public
transportation systems or any part thereof and to refund such bonds and notes,
whether or not in advance of their maturity or earliest redemption date. Any bond
order must be approved by resolution adopted by the special tax board of the
Authority and in the case of a bond order under the Local Government Bond Act
also_bv the board of county commissioners_of each county organizing the authority.
To pay any bond or note issued under the Local Government Bond Act, the
Authority may not pledge the levy of any ad valorem tax, but only a tax or taxes it is
authorized to levy."
Sec. 6. G.S. 159-51 as amended by Chapter 325, Session Laws of 1991,
reads as rewritten:
"§ 159-51. Application to Commission for approval of bond issue; preliminary
conference; acceptance of application.
No bonds may be issued under this Article unless the issue is approved by the
Local Government Commission. The governing board of the issuing unit shall file an
application for Commission approval of the issue with the secretary of the
Commission. If the issuing unit is a regional public transportation authority, the
application must be accompanied by Et Feselatieff resolutions of the special tax board
of that authority and of each of the boards of county commissioners of the counties
organizing the he authority approving of the application. The application shall state such
facts and have attached to it such documents concerning the proposed bonds and the
financial condition of the issuing unit as the secretary may require. The Commission
may prescribe the form of the application.
Before he accepts the application, the secretary may require the governing board
or its representatives to attend a preliminary conference to consider the proposed
bond issue. If the issuing unit is a merged school administrative unit described in G.S.
115C-513, each county in which the merged unit is located may attend the
preliminary conference.
After an application in proper form has been filed, and after a preliminary
conference if one is required, the secretary shall notify the unit in writing that the
application has been filed and accepted for submission to the Commission. The
secretary's statement shall be conclusive evidence that the unit has complied with this
section."
House Bill 80 3
7
See. 7. TTis a6t is affective upon ratification. _
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 13th day of
July, 1991.
JAWS C !aARDNER
James C. Gardner
president of the Senate
DANIEL $l.UE. AC
Daniel Blue, Jr.
Speaker °dt 1ht douse of kepresentativds
4 Rouse Bill 80
VEHICLE REGISTRATION TAX
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
August 9, 1991 General Manager Tax Rate Recommendation
August 15, 1991 Public Hearing Conducted by
Board of Trustees
August 15, 1991 Board of Trustees Tax Rate Recommendation
August 28, 1991 Special Tax Board Approval of Tax Rate
September, 1991 Boards of County Commissioners Approval
September, 1991 Board of Trustees Approval
October 1, 1991 Notify Division of Motor Vehicles of
Tax Implementation and Rate
January 1, 1992 Vehicle Registration Tax Starts
June, 1992 TTA Receipt of Tax Funds from
Division of Motor Vehicles
1
TRIANGLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY 9
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Jim Ritchey
General Man er
DATE: August 8 , 1991
SUBJECT: Recommended Tax Rate
The attached three charts compare our expenditures over the -next
four years with anticipated revenues. They contrast tax rate
levels of $5, $4, or $4 for the first year and $5 thereafter.
In completing this analysis, I have assumed that the regional bus
service will start in December, 1992; that we will lease/purchase-
20 buses and an operating facility; that for FY 1994 and FY 1995
the base level of bus service will increase ten percent each year;
that city and county governments will- contribute $ 100 ,000 each
year; that vehicle registrations grow by 2% each year; and that the
required fund balance for operations is 10% of total annual
expenses.
The analysis demonstrates that a $4 tax rate will not generate
suf f icient funds. The plan of having the tax rate of $4 in FY 1993
and $5 in later years provides adequate operating funds but the
fund balance is approximately 6% of total expenses. The $4/$5 plan
will reduce tax revenues in FY 1993 by $ 554,715. The $5 generates
adequate funds and larger fund balance. Over the 1993-1995 period,
the fund balance should average $ 800,000 or. approximately 20% of
total expenses.
I recommend the $5 tax rate. This recommendation is based upon the
budget information and the uncertainty of actual cash collections.
Our estimate of tax collections is based upon NCDOT registrations
as of June, 1991; however, we are uncertain as to the number of
vehicles which may be exempted because of public ownership or other
provisions of the law. My tax recommendation is also based upon a
concern for flexibility in allowing the ridesharing program and
planning function to grow with demands. The budgets only provide
for three ridesharing staff persons and one planner. If the
ridesharing program grows as it should and we embark on planning a
fixed guideway system, these staffing levels are far too low.
I look forward to discussing this analysis with you.
Suite 206,50 Park Offices
P.O.Box 13787,Research Triangle Park,NC 27709 (919)549-9999
10
Triangle Transit Authority
Budget and Cash Flow Analysis
$4 Tax Rate
Service Costs FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94
FY 95
Regional Bus Service $0
Planning $0 $1,033 ,300 $1,782,442 $2;049,80
$47 663
Ridesharing $528$0 $576,079 $578,962 $82,87
,
Vanpool Operations $144,417 $150,268 $156,386 $164,20
$79,499 $186,580 $205,240 $225,760 $237,04
Total Service Costs $132,385 $378, 660 $1,964,887 $2,743,551 $2,533,93
Administration
Governing Board $15,567 $15,600 600
General Admin $81,732 $220,093 $240,363 $267,759 $281,147
$22,680 $23 ,81,
Total Administration $97,299
$235,693 $261,963 $290,439 $304,96"
Capital
Transit Coaches $0
Vanpool Vans $0 $427,133 $707,616 $777,383
Operating Facility $139,766 $58, 500 $185,000 $194,250 $203 ,96=
Equipment $0 $0 $250,000 $125 $50, OOC�OOp � $164, 69
Total Capital $139,766 $58,500 $1,026,824
$1,191,558 $1,196,03E
TOTAL EXPENSES $369 450 -------------------------------------
$672,853 $3,253,674 $4,225,548 $4,034,933
Operating Revenue
Bus Passengers $0
Vanpool Passengers $79,4$0 $186,580$135,621 $356,489 $512,45:
$205,240 $225,760 $237,04E
Total Operating Revenue $79,499 $186,580
$340,861 $582,249 $749,500
Grant and Tax Revenue
NCDOT Demonstration $97,299
NCDOT Ridesharing $52,886 $144,417 $0 $0 $�
NCDOT Capital $144,417 $75,134 $78,193 $82,10-,
UMTA Planning $139,7fi6 - $0. . $227,682 $244,156 $119,604
City/County $0 $0 $375,000 $375,000 $C
Vehicle Registration $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,00C
$0
Vanpool Fund Balance $0 $.2,218,860 $2,263,237 $2,308,502
$58,500 $92,500 $97,125 $101,981
Total Grants and Taxes $289,951 $486,273 $3,089,176 $3, 3
___ _______ _ -------- 157,711 $2,712.,18
TOTAL REVENUES $369,450- - $672 853 `---------- ----------------------
$3,430,037 ..$3,739,960 $3, 461,690
Change in Fund Balance $0
$0 $176,363 ($485,588) ( $573,241
Year End Fund Balance $0
$0 $176,363 ($309,225) ( $882,467
Required Fund Balance $0
$0 $325,367 $422,555 $403,493
Excess Fund Balance $0
$0 ($149,005) ($731,780) ( $1,285,960
11
Triangle Transit Authority
Budget and Cash Flow Analysis
$4 Tax Rate FY 93 and $5 Tax Rate FY 94
FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 FY 95
Service Costs
Regional Bus Service $0 $0 $1,033,300 $1,782,442 $2,049,8(
Planning $0 $47 ,663 $576,079 $578,962 $82,8"
Ridesharing $52,886 $144, 417 $150,268 $156,386 $164,2(
Vanpool Operations $79,499 $186,580 $205,240 $225,760 $237,0
Total Service Costs $132,385 $378,660 $1,964,887 $2,743,551 $2,533 ,9=
Administration
Governing Board $15,567 $15,600 $21,600 $22,680 $23 ,81-
General Admin $81,732 $220,093 $240,363 $267,759 $281,11L
Total Administration $97,299 $235,693 $261,963 $290,439 $304,9E
Capital
Transit Coaches $0 $0 $427 ,133 $707,616 $777,3F
Vanpool Vans $139,766 $58,500 $185,000 $194,250 $203 ,9(
Operating Facility $0 $0 $164,692 $164,692 $164,61
Equipment $0 $0 $250,000 $125,000-" $50 ,0(
Total Capital $139,766 $58,500 $1,'026,824 $1,191,558 $1,196,0:
TOTAL EXPENSES $369,450 $672,853 $3 ,253,674 $4,225,548 $4,034,9:
Operating Revenue
Bus Passengers $0 $0 $135,621 $356,489 $512, 41_
Vanpool Passengers $79,499 $186,580 $205,240 $225,760 $237 ,0L
Total Operating Revenue $79,499 $186,580 $340,861 $582,249 $749,5(
Grant and Tax Revenue
NCDOT Demonstration $97,299 $183 ,356 $0 $0 a
NCDOT Ridesharing $52,886 $144,417 $75,134 $78,193 $82,1C
NCDOT Capital $139,766 $0 - $227,682 $244,156 - $1.19,60
UMTA Planning $0 $0 $375,000 $375,000 $
City/County $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,00
Vehicle Registration $0 $0 $2,218,860 $2,829,047 $2,885,62
Vanpool Fund Balance $58,500 $92,500 $97,125 $101,98
Total Grants and Taxes $289,951 $486,273 $3,089,176 $3,723,520 $3, 289,31
TOTAL REVENUES w ^$369,450 $672,853 $3,430,037 $4,305,769 $4,038 ,81
Change in Fund Balance $0 $0 $176,363 $80,221 $3,8(
Year End Fund Balance $0 $0 $176,363 $256,584 $260,4E
Required Fund Balance $0 $0 $325,367 $422,555 $403 ,45
Excess Fund Balance $0 $0 ($149,005) ( $165,971) ( $143,0
1
12
riangle Transit Authority
Budget and Cash Flow Analysis
$5 Tax Rate
Service Costs FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 FY 95
Regional Bus Service $0
Planning $0 $47,663$0 $1,033,300 $1,782,442 $2,049,806
Ridesharing $52,8$0 $576 079
$144,417 $150,268 $578,962 $82,87-
Vanpool operations $79,499 $186,580 $205,240 $225,760 $2377,04Ec
Total Service Costs $132,385 $378,660 $1,964,887 $2,743,551 $2,533 ,934
Administration
Governing Board $15,567 $15,600 $21,600
General Admin $81,732 $220,093 0 $23,814
$240,363 $267267,,75759 $281,141
Total Administration $97,299 $235,693 $261,963 $290,439 $304,961
Capital
Transit Coaches $0 $0 $427,133
Vanpool Vans $139,766 $58,500 $707,616 $777,381
Operating Facility $0 $185,692 $194,250 $203,96,
Equipment $0 $0 $164,692 $164,692 $164,69
$0 $250,000 $125,000 $50,00C
Total Capital Y--$139,766 $5$,500 $1,026,824 $1,191,5.58 $1,196,03E
TOTAL EXPENSES $369 450- ----------------------------------------------
$672,853 $3,253,674 $4,225,548 $4,034,931
Operating Revenue
Bus Passengers $0 $0 $135,621
Vanpool Passengers $79,499 $356,489 $512,452
$186,580 $205,240 $225,760 $237,04E
Total Operating Revenue $79,499 $186,580 $340,861
$582,249 $749,50C
Grant and Tax Revenue
NCDOT Demonstration $97,299 $183,355
NCDOT Ridesharing $52,886 $0 $0 $0
NCDOT Capital $144,417 $75,134 $78,193 $82,103
UMTA Planning $139,766 $0 $227,682 $244,156 $119,604
City/County $0 $0 $375,000 $375,000 $0
Vehicle Registration $00 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Vanpool Fund Balance $0 $2,773,575 $2,829,047 $2,885,627
$58,500 $92,500 $97,125 $101,981
Total Grants and Taxes `-y$289,951--`-$486,273--$3,643,891 $3,723,520 $3,289,315
TOTAL REVENUES $369,450 $672,853 $3 ,984,752-$4,305,769 -$4,038,815
Change in Fund Balance $0
$0 $731,078 $80,221 $3,884
Year End Fund Balance $0
$0 $731,078 $811,299 $815,183
Required Fund Balance $0
$0 $325,367 $422,555 $403 ,493
Excess Fund Balance $0
,, $0 $405,710 $388,744 $411,69C
13
i
PUBLIC HEARING
ON
VEHICLE REGISTRATION TAX
TRIANGLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING
AUGUST 15, 1991
DREYFUS AUDITORIUM
Triangle Transit Authority Board of Trustees Chair Wib Gulley
opened the public hearing at 4:10 p.m.
Mr. Gulley recognized General Manager Jim Ritchey to present the
tax implementation schedule and tax rate options. Mr. Ritchey
recommended that the Board of Trustees consider levying the full $
5 tax rate available to them in order to cover estimated
expenditures and provide for an adequate fund balance.
Mr. Gulley then requested comments from the public regarding the
vehicle registration tax.
Mr. Gulley recognized Mr. Bill Holman, lobbyist for the North
Carolina Public Transportation Association, the Conservation
Council of North Carolina, and the North Carolina Chapter of the
Sierra Club. Mr. Holman stated his appreciation to the staff and
the Board of the Authority for allowing him to assist in the
passage of House Bill 80 and expressed his support for the vehicle
registration tax. Mr. Gulley thanked Mr. Holman for his hard work
and support of the Authority and House Bill 80.
Mr. Gulley recognized Mr. Frank Smiley, chair of the Transportation
Committee of the Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Smiley
stated that in December of 1990, the Durham Chamber of Commerce and
their transportation committee expressed support of the Triangle
Transit Authority and regional public transportation. In
addition, he conveyed his support of the vehicle registration tax.
Mr. Gulley thanked Mr. Smiley for his support and comments.
Mr. Gulley recognized Ms. Virginia Forrest from Hillsborough. Ms.
Forrest expressed her concern that the public cannot get to
Hillsborough by public transportation. She asked where
Hillsborough fit into the Triangle Transit Authority' s overall
service plan of regional public transportation. Mr. Gulley then
asked Ms. Marshall and Mr. Ritchey to provide Ms. Forrest with
information about the Authority' s service plan once the public
hearing concluded. Mr. Gulley thanked Ms. Forrest for her concern
and ideas.
i
Mr. Gulley then recognized Mr. Roger Hart from Chapel Hill. Mr. 14
Hart stated that, as a taxpayer, he was delighted to pay the
vehicle registration tax and would pay transportation for the area. Mr. Gulleyrthanked Mr.t Hart for ubls
support of the Authority.
Mr. Gulley asked for further comments from the public. There being
none, the Public Hearing was closed.
TRIANGLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY
15
s
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Jim Ritchey ?
General Man er
DATE: August 8, 1991
SUBJECT: FY 1992 Budget Revisited and Local Contributions
when you approved the 1992 Budget, we required a total of $ 390,000
in additional state and local funds to balance the budget. The
attached budget analysis compares the approved 1992 budget with a
revised budget.
During the past few days, I have worked with the Public
Transportation and Rail Division staff and closely reviewed our
planned expenditures. State staff has indicated a desire to reduce
our proposed expenses by $ 72,000.
I have accomplished this reduction by reducing travel expenditures
for the General Manager, the Ridesharing Program, and the Board of
Trustees; by reducing the proposed salary of the Transportation
Planner from $ 55 ,000 to $40 ,000 ; by reducing- the amount for
computer equipment from $12,500 to $ 5,000; and by delaying the
hiring of the Transportation Planner and Administrative Assistant.
This plan requires $ 186,337 in NCDOT funds and $ 100,000 in
city/county funds.
For the city and county funds, I propose that we request funds from
each of the three counties based upon 1990 population estimates.
The cities and the counties would then share the payment of these
funds by mutual agreement. The breakout of the $100,000 would be
as follows:
Wake County $ 60,700
Durham County $ 25,800
Orange County $ 13 ,500
I request Board approval of this plan.
Suite 206,50 Park Offices
P.O.Box 13787,Research Triangle Park,NC 27709 (919)549-9999
16
TRIANGLE TRANSIT AU'T'HORITY
REVISED FY 1992 BUDGET
EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM AND FUND Budget Actual Budget Revised
General Fund ML 1991 FY 1991 pry x992 Fy 1992
Governing Board 25,400 15,567 21, 600 15,600
General Administration 159, 894 81,-732 230,211
Planning 60,500 - 0 - 212,593
General Fund Total: 44, 099
2 90, 540 45,794 97,299 342,351 272,292
Ridesharing Fund
Marketing 57,969 52,886 146, 420 144, 417
Vanpool Operations 33 ,046 17 , 845 109, 390 109,390
Vanpool Maintenance 10, 450 5,806 18,320
Ridesharing Fund Total; 18, 320
101,465 76,537 274,130 272,127
Regional Bus Service Fund
Operations - 0 - - 0 - 123 , 160 123 ,160
Regional Bus Service Fund Total: - 0 - - 0 - 123,160 123,160
Capital Projects Fund
Capital Vehicles 161,228 139,766 58, 500 58_,500
pital Projects Fund Total: 161,228 139,766 58,500 58,500
TOTAL EXPENDITURES: 508,487 313,602 798,141 726,079
REVENUES BY PROGRAM AND FUND
General Fund
NCDOT
City/County 245 ,794 97,299 141, 450 172,292
- 0 - - 0 -
Other 0 - - 0 - 100,000
General Fund Total: 245,794 97,299 342,351 272,292
Ridesharing Fund
NCDOT 57,969 52,886 146,420 144,417
Vanpool. Fares 77,709 79,499 186, 580 186,580
Fund Balance ( 34,213) ( 55,848) ( 58, 870) ( 58,870)
Ridesharing Fund Total: 101,465 76,537 274,130 272,127
Regional Bus Service Fund,
Rider Fares _ 0
N.C. DOA _ - 0 - 23 ,000 23,000
Town of Cary _ 0 _ - 0 - 39, 000 39,000
NCDOT 0 r - 0 - 6,000 6,Q00
UMTA 0 - 0 - 43, 040 43,040
Regional Bus Service Fund Total: - 0 0 12,120 12,120
' 0 - 0 - 123,160 123,160
Capital Projects Fund
Ridesharing Fund Balance - 0
NCDOT - 0 - 58,500 58,500
Capital Projects Fund Total: 161,228 139,766 - 0 - - 0 --
161,228 139,766 58,500 58,500
TOTAL REVENUES: 508,487 313,602 798,141 726,079
17
FUND RESP OBJECT CD ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 91 ACTUAL 92 BUDGET 93 BUDGET 94 BUDGET
11 4110 GOVERNING BODY r
PERSONNEL SERVICES
170 Board Compensation $6,350 $6,600 $6,600 $6,600
Board Travel $6,323 $6,000 $12,000 $12,000
Meeting Expenses $2,894 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES $15,567 $15,600 $21,600 $21,600
TOTAL GOVERNING BODY $15,567 $15,600 $21,600 $21,600
1
FUND REsp OBJECT CD ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 91 ACTUAL 92 BUDGET 93 BUDGET 94 BUDGET 18
11 4120 GENERAL ADKOOTRATION
100 PERSONNEL SERVICES
120 Salaries and wages
121 Salaries and wages $35,000 $94,670 $117,710 $128,330
130 Special Payments(Car allowanc $2,600 $3,900 $6,900 $6,900
180 Fringe benefits
181 FICA $2,678 $7,242 $9,005 $9,817
182 Pension $3,850 $10,414 $12,948 $14,116
183 Medical _insurance $935 $6,050 $9,075 $9,900
185 Unemployment $1,050 $2,840 $3,531 $3,850
186 Worker's Compensation $140 $379 $471 $513
189 Other fringe benefits $257 $5,348 $433 $472
190 Professional. Services
191 Accounting $2,700 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000
192 Legal $2,944 $5,000 $5,000 $7,500
195 Consultants $876 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500
199 Other Professional Services $0 $0 $0•_ $0
TOTAL PERSONNEL $53,030 $153,343 $187,573 $208,899
200 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS
210 Household and cleaning suppli
220 Food and provisions
260 Office supplies and materials $1,516 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000
265 Office Equipment(non-cap) $1,291 $500 $750 $1,000
290 Other supplies and materials $345 $500 $750 $1,000
TOTAL SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS $3,151 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
300 CURRENT OBLIGATIONS AHD SERVICES
310 Travel $3,987 $5,000 $6,000 $8,000
320 Communications
321 Telephone service $1,996 $7,100 $7,500 $8,000
325 Postage $1,797 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000
340 Printing and binding $1,148 $1,000 $1,250 $11500
350 Repairs and maintenance
355 Office equipment repair $0 $100 $100 $100
359 Other repairs
360 Freight
380 Data processing services $375 $720 $1,200 $1,500
390 Other services
391 Legal advertising ' $230 $700 $700 $700
393 Temporary help $6,549 $3,000 $1,000 $1,000
395 Employee training $100 $500 $500 $500
399 Other services
TOTAL CURRERT OBLIGATIONS AND $16,182 $20,120 $20,750 $24,300
400 FIXED CHARGES AND OTHER SERVICES
i
19
410 Rental of real property $5,146 $15,820 $16,890 $17,560
430 Rental of other equipment
440 Service and maintenance contr $50 $750 $800 $850
450 Insurance and bonding
451 Property and geu liability $538 $31300 $3,500 $3,700
452 Vehicles $0 $300 $300 $300
Public Officials $0 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000
453 Fidelity bonds $0 $1,210 $1,300 $1,400
460 Depreciation.
461 Depreciation office equipmen
462 Depreciation EDP equipment
465 Depreciation other equipment
490 Other fixed charges
491 Dues and subscriptions $270 $750 $750 $750
492 Bad debt '
499 Miscellaneous
TOTAL FIXED CHARGES AND OTHER $6,004 $25,130 $27,040 $28,560
500 CAPITAL OUTLAY
510 Office furniture and equipmen $3,365 $5,000
520 Data processing equipment $5,000 $75,000
550 Other equipment
570 Land
580 Buildings
590 Other structures and improvements
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $3,365 $10,000 $75,000 $0
$315,363 $267,759
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $81,732 $212,593
�JND RESP OBJECT CD ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 91 ACTUAL 92 BUDGET 93 BUDGET
94 BUDGET 20
' 11 4190 PLANNING
100 PERSONNEL SERVICES
120 Salaries and wages
121 Salaries and wages $73,330
180 Fringe benefits $47,250 $49,613
181 FICA $1,785 $3,615
182 Pension $3,795
183 Medical insurance $2,566 $5,148 $5,457
185 Unemployment $1'925 $3,300 $3,300
$700 $1,418 $1,488
186 Worker's compensation $93 $189
189 Otber fringe benefits $198
$260 $260
TOTAL PERSONNEL $0 $30,399 $61,229 $64,112
200 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS
260 Office supplies and materials
290 Other supplies and materials $1,000
$1,000 $1,000
TOTAL SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS $0 $1,000 $1,000 � $1,000
300 CURRENT OBLIGATIONS AND SERVICES
310 Travel $2,500 $3,500
W Printing and binding $3.500
370 $5'� $5,000 $5,000
Advertising and marketing
380 Data processing services $1,500
$1,500 $1,500
390
Other services
393 Temporary help $1,500
395 Employee training $1,500 $1,500
ra
$500 $500 $500
399 Other services (graphics) $1,500 $1,500
$1,500
TOTAL CDUUM OBLIGATIONS AND $0 $12,500 $13,500 $13,500
400 FIXED CHARGES AND OTHER SERVICES
490 Other fixed charges
491 Dues and subscripums $200 $350
499 Miscellaneous $350
TOTAL FMD CHARGES AND OTHER $0 $200 $350 $350
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $0 $441099 $76,079 $78,962
i
21
FUND RESP OBJECT CD ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 91 ACTUAL 92 BUDGET 93 BUDGET 94 BUDGET
66 4521 RIDESHARING ADMINISTRATION
100 PERSONNEL SERVICES
120 Salaries and wages
121 Salaries and wages $41,756 $87,675 $92,059 $96,662
181 FICA $3,239 $6,707 $7,042 $7,395
182 Pension $4,410 $9,644 $10,126 $10,6333
183 Medical insurance $2,151 $5,400 $5,400 $5,400
185 Unemployment $898 $2,630 $2,762 $2,900
186 Worker's compensation $154 $351 $368 $387
189 Other fringe benefits $258 $260 $260 $260
TOTAL PERSONNEL $52,866 $112,667 $118,018 $123,636
200 SUPPLIES AND MATERIM S
260 Office supplies and materials
290 Other supplies and materials
TOTAL SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS $0 $0 $0 $0
300 CURRENT OBLIGATIONS AND SERVICES
310 Travel $6,000 $6,500 $7,000
325 Postage $4,150 $4,150 $4,150
340 Printing and binding $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
370 Advertising and marketing $3,000 $3,000 $3,000
380 Data processing services $500 $500 $500
390 Other services
393 Temporary help $4,750 $4,750 $4,750
395 Employee training $500 $500 $500
399 Other services (graphics) $2,500 $2,500 $2,500
TOTAL CURRENT OBLIGATIONS AND $0 $31,400 $31,900 $32,400
400 FIXED CHARGES AND OTHER SERVICES
490 Other fixed charges
491 Dues and subscriptions $350 $350 $350
499 Miscellaneous
TOTAL FIXED CHARGES AND OTHER $0 $350 $350 $350
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $52,866 $144,417 $150,268 $156,386
FUND RESP OBJECT CD ACCOUNT DESCRUMON 2 2
91 ACTUAL 92 BUDGET 93 BUDGET 94 BUDGET
6b 4523 VMWL OPERATIONS
200 SUPPLIES AMID MATERIALS
250 Vehicle
applies and materials
251 Fuels and lubricants $15,583
252 Tires and tubes $42,950 $47,245 $51,970
254 Licenses, tags, and fees $%9 $2,� $2,750 $3,025
255 Vehicle cleaning 12 $6,050 $6,655 $7,321
259 ean�.ng supplies $90 $250 $2"/5
290 � vehicle supplies (MVR) $178 $500 $550 $303
supplies and materials $164 7 $605
TOTAL SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS $1~ I$52,250 $,57
$63,223
`0 FIXED CHARGES AND OTHER SERVICES
450 Insurance and bonding
452 Vehicles
460 452 $150 $57,140 $57,140 $57,1.40
464 Depreciation motor vehicles
490 Otber fixed charges
492 Bad debt
499 Miscellaneous
TOTAL FIXED CHARGES AND OTHER �$ $5
$57,140 $57,140
500 CAPITAL OUTLAY
540 Motor vehicles
$58,500 $93,750 $93,750
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY ~ � ---1
$58,500 $93,750 $93,750
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $17,845 --
$167,890 $208,365 $214,113
23
FUND RESP OBJECT CD ACCOUNT DESC=ON
91 ACTUAL 92 BUDGET 93 BUDGET 94 BUDGET
66 4524 VANPOOL VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
200 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS
250 Vehicle supplies and materials $2,853 $5,000 $6,600 $7 260
253 Parts
255 Vehicle cleaning supplies
259 other vehicle•supPlies $892 $2,000 $2,200 $2,
290 Other supplies and materials
'TOTAL SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS $3,745 $8,000 $8,800 $9,680
300 CURRENT OBLIGATIONS AND SERVICES
350 Repairs and maintenance
353 Vehicles - outside repairs $2,061 $6,000 $6,600 $7,260
360 Freight
TOTAL CURRENT OBLIGATIONS AND $2,061 $6,000 $6,600 $7,260
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $5,805 $14,000 $15,400 $16,940
$173,817 $554,500 $710,996 $676,797
1
24
FUND RESP OBJECT CD ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
91 ACTU9I, 92 BUDGET 93 BUDGET 94 BUDGET
66 4523 REGIONAL BUS SERVICE
300 CURRENT OBLIGATIONS AND SERVICES
399 Other Services (Cary Express) $123,160 $1,033,300
$1,782,442
TOTAL CURRENT OBLIGATIONS AND $0 $123,160 $1,033,300 $1,782,442
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $0 $123,160 $1,033,300 $1,782,442
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. V=.8
MEETING DATE SEPTEMBER 3, 1991
SUBJECT: BID AWARD; COMMUNICATIONS CONTROL CENTER
DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING AND CENTRAL SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING YES X NO
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: DAVID CANNELL
TABULATION EXT: 2651
PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181
HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361
CHAPEL HILL 967-9251
MEBANE 227-2031
***** ********************3*33733 *******73*** *******3DURHAM
*******688*7331
PURPOSE: To authorize the purchase of a Communications Control Center
consisting of five ( 5) consoles for Enhanced 911.
BACKGROUND: Funds have been generated through subscriber fees and held in
the Enhanced 911 gund for the purchase of a Communications
Control Center. Specifications were developed for a system
that would meet Orange County's needs and a pre-bid
conference was held on July 11, 1991. Six vendors attended
the pre-bid conference. The pre-bid conference was conducted
by Reid Whitten of RF Projects, a radio consulting firm with
whom the County has recently contracted to evaluate the
communications system. On August 16, 1991 bids were received
from four bidders. Attached is a tabulation of that bid
opening.
MOTOROLA Communications and Electronics, Inc. submitted the
lowest responsible bid. Their cost for the system delivered
and installed is $141,776.00. The system will be functional
and ready for training to begin on November 3, 1991.
RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends the purchase of one Communications
Control Center at a cost of $141,776.00 from MOTOROLA
Communications and Electronics, Inc.
2
BID TABULATION
FOR OFFICE USE:
BID FOR: 6MM✓nrc 6�} Co�f�a� Ceh�r� BID AWARDED TO:
CLOSING DATE: �"��' �� BID PRICE:
CLOSING TIME: -3• O0 pM/ BUDGETED AMOUNT:
I I I ToFd! CCUr I
Qt,�r✓rr t of
VENDOR i jgrM-s i �errvtr�. i �n
I /-2O Q1"1
So t.3 0 tRu
I 257 oa.oaco� t ` . I I
I I I I
cc,,,*%w,A"cpii,--j sp�G; �t.,+s I I nos,,, Y
eS Qa l ei 1 Nc-t 3 0 /99/ ��A#.I "o 00 l
,a G,,,.,,.in ; �a t;o� I I N ov. w I
o� Caf i h�ef.30 i l q `t l i.d'/5-9 773 aui j I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I
I
I I I
I
1
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 3, 1991
Action Agenda
Item #
SUBJECT: Vacation and Sick Leave
Revisions to the Personnel Ordinance
DEPARTMENT: Personnel PUBLIC HEARING: Yes R No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
1 - Draft revised Article IV, Elaine Holmes, Personnel Director
Section 5 . 0 "Vacation Leave"
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
2 - Draft revised Article IV, Hillsborough - 732-8181
Section 6.0 "Sick Leave" Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
3 - Current Article IV, Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
Section 5. 0 "Vacation Leave"
4 - Current Article IV,
Section 6 . 0 "Sick Leave"
PURPOSE: To propose revisions to the Vacation Leave and Sick
Leave sections of the Orange County Personnel
Ordinance.
BACKGROUND: At the Board of Commissioners August 20, 1991 meeting,
Personnel reported on proposed revisions to the
Vacation and Sick Leave Sections of Article IV of the
Personnel Ordinance. Draft revised Vacation Leave and
Sick Leave sections' of Article IV of the Personnel
Ordinance are included as Attachments 1 and 2
respectively. Shown on Attachments 1 and 2 in the left
hand column (in boldface and parentheses) is a cross
reference to the affected provision in the current
Personnel Ordinance. The current Vacation Leave and
Sick Leave sections of the Personnel Ordinance are
provided as Attachments 3 and 4 respectively.
At the August 20 meeting the Board requested additional
information in relation to two of the policy
Provisions . Those provisions and the information
requested are outlined below.
Z ..
J
VACATION LEAVE
New Section 5 .4 - Accumulatinci Vacation Leave
Currently Vacation Leave may not accumulate beyond 240
hours . On a monthly basis, any leave in excess of 240
hours is canceled. This revision provides that
Vacation Leave may accumulate without maximum until
January 31 of each calendar year. On that date any
accumulated Vacation Leave in excess of 240 hours is
canceled. As stated in new Section 5 . 8 . 1, the maximum
amount of Vacation Leave paid out on termination
continues to be 240 hours .
The effect of the change is to provide more flexibility
to employees and departments in scheduling Vacation
Leave.
The Board asked the number of employees with Vacation
Leave balances of 240 hours . As of July 1991, 23
employees had balances of 240 hours . During Fiscal
Year 1991-92, the number of employees at month' s end
with Vacation Leave balances of 240 hours has averaged
52 .
These employees represent a range of occupational
groups . The chart below shows the distribution of
these employees by occupation for December 1990 and
July 1991 .
Category Dec. 1990 July 1991
Administrative 9% 13%
Support
Officials and 9% 4%
Administrators
Paraprofessional 0% 9%
Professional 24% 4%
Protective Services 43% 44%
Service/ 0% 22%
Maintenance
Skilled Craft 6% 0%
Technicians 9% 4%
The Board asked the financial impact of the proposed
policy change. Because the policy stipulates that
payment on termination will not be made in excess of
240 hours, there is no direct financial impact on the
County. Such leave over 240 hours is not reported as a
liability on the County' s financial statement.
An indirect impact is that of scheduling and permitting
employees to take leave that heretofore might have been
cancelled because it could not be scheduled and taken
3
during the current month. However, .even with the
change to the one year accumulation period, there still
will be leave-' which is cancelled because it cannot be
taken. The policy provides in new Section 5 .5 .2 that
the scheduling of Vacation Leave must take the
department's operating requirements into account.
Because this policy revision provides employees more
flexibility to use Vacation Leave, it should reduce
demand for the Vacation Leave selling option which
has been provided in past fiscal years . For Fiscal
Year 1992-93, we will be recommending that the dollar
cap on Vacation Leave selling be reduced.
State government provides for the same Vacation Leave
maximum accumulation policy as that proposed to the
Board except that leave in excess of 240 hours is
canceled as of December 31 rather than January 31 .
SICK LEAVE
New Section 6 .5 - Transferring Sick Leave
Currently a new employee with proper approval may
transfer up to 15 days Sick Leave from another local
government or State agency in North Carolina. This
revised section removes the 15 day limit. It provides
that Sick Leave may be transferred if such transfer
occurs within 12 months of employment with the local
government unit or State agency.
Employees are motivated to accumulate and retain such
Sick Leave because it is creditable for retirement
purposes.
For equity reasons, it is recommended that this
transfer provision be applied retroactively for current
employees to July 1, 1985 (the date the Personnel
Ordinance first permitted transfer of Sick Leave) .
The Board asked the number of employees affected. Data
currently available in Personnel covering the period
January 1, 1987 to the present indicates about 20
employees would be affected. Data is not available for
the period July 1, 1985 through December 31, 1986 .
Exact data would require an employee survey and
research of personnel records .
The Board asked the amount of Sick Leave such employees
would transfer. Data available as to the 20 employees
indicates an average Sick Leave amount of about 216
hours per employee would transfer under the revised
provision.
4
The Board asked the financial impact- of the change.
There is no direct "financial impact and Sick Leave is
not reported as a liability on the County' s financial
statement.
There are. two indirect impacts . One is that if the
employee became sick the time could be used as Sick
Leave like any other Sick Leave. The other is that the
time may be used to qualify for a service retirement
under the N. C. Local Government Employees Retirement
System and may be used in calculating creditable
service under that system. There is no pre-funding by
the County for such Sick Leave credit and no direct
charge back to the County for such credit. Ultimately
the cost of retirement is shared on a system-wide basis
through the employer and employee contributions . (The
Retirement System advises that increasingly employers
are accepting transfer of such leave because it is
creditable for retirement purposes . )
The Board asked what other employers do as to Sick
Leave transfer. In a February 1991 survey of 18 North
Carolina governmental employers, 13 provided for
transfer of Sick Leave. (Two of these are school
systems who only accept transfer from school systems
and state government. )
Of the 13 employers, 10 had no limit on transfer.
These included Durham County and Wake County. Two of
the 10 provided transfer with no limit for retirement
purposes only. (We have been advised by the N. C. to
Local Government Employees Retirement System that,
be creditable for retirement purposes, the County must
treat Sick Leave transferred as any other Sick Leave. )
Of the 13, three set a limit on transfer. The limits
ranged from 7 days (unless an exception was granted) to
20 days.
Recommendation: The Manager recommends the Board adopt the proposed
revisions to the Vacation and Sick Leave Sections of
the Personnel Ordinance effective October 1, 1991 .
5
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT REVISED ARTICLE IV SECTION 5 . 0 "VACATION LEAVE"
5 . 0 VACATION LEAVE-*
5 . 1 General
The County provides Vacation Leave with pay for
Permanent employees, both Full Time and Part Time
(OLD (regularly, scheduled at least 20 hours each
5.0 workweek) . This includes an employee appointed to
REVISED a permanent position serving a probationary
& NEW) period. Temporary employees do not earn Vacation
Leave.
5 .2 Using Vacation Leave
Vacation Leave may be used for:
(NEW) - Vacation or other personal reasons;
(OLD - Sick Leave with the approval of the
5.4 supervisor;
REVISED)
- Absences due to adverse weather conditions
(OLD 5.5 if the County Manager does not authorize
REVISED) the use of Administrative Leave;
of it - Funeral Leave for relatives not covered by the
Funeral Leave provision of the Personnel
Ordinance;
(NEW) - Religious observance.
5 . 3 Earning Vacation Leave
5.3 . 1 Each Permanent employee earns Vacation
(OLD 5.0 Leave based on the regular work schedule
REVISED) and the total years of Orange County
service as a Permanent employee.
(OLD 5.0 5.3.2 The earning rate for a Permanent Full Time
REVISED) employee regularly scheduled to work 40
hours each workweek is as follows :
*Effective 10-01-91
.. 6
Total Years Of Vacation Hours Earned
Oran a Count
Service Per Month Per Year
Less than 2 8 .0 96 . 0
2, but less than 5 9 . 6 115 . 2
5 but less than 10 12 .0 144 . 0
10 but less than 15 14 .4 172 . 8
15 but less than 20 16 . 8 201 . 6
20 or more 19 .2 230 .4
5 . 3 . 3 Vacation Leave earning is prorated for a
Permanent employee working a regular work
schedule other than 40 hours . The
Personnel Department calculates such a
prorated leave earning rate and provides it
to the operating department involved.
5 . 3 . 4 Vacation Leave is earned in any month
('OLD 5.1 during which the employee works or is on
REVISED) paid leave one-half or more of the work
days in the month.
5 .4 Accumulating Vacation Leave
Earned Vacation Leave may be accumulated without a
(OLD maximum until January 31 of each year. On that
5.6 date, any accumulated Vacation Leave in excess of
REVISED) 240 hours is cancelled. The maximum amount of
Vacation Leave that can be carried forward to
February 1 is 240 hours .
5.5 Approving Vacation Leave
5 .5 . 1 Vacation Leave may be taken only with the
(OLD 5.7 approval of the employee's supervisor. The
REVISED) department head may require his or her
approval for any Vacation Leave.
5 .5 .2 The scheduling of Vacation Leave must
(NEW) take the department' s operating
requirements into account.
(OLD 5 .5.3 Vacation Leave is taken in increments of
5.7 one-half hour (30 minutes) .
REVISED)
5 .5 .4 A holiday is not charged as Vacation Leave
(NEW) when it occurs during a period of scheduled
Vacation Leave.
5 . 6 Responsibility
The department head is responsible for maintaining
(NEW) accurate Vacation Leave records, including the
7
verification of the Orange County "Leave Register"
provided monthly, and for the application of the
Vacation Leave provisions of the Personnel
Ordinance.
5.. 7 Advancing Vacation Leave
(OLD Vacation Leave may not be advanced before it is
5.2 earned unless approved in advance by the County
REVISED) Manager.
5 . 8 Effect of Separation on Vacation Leave
5 . 8 . 1 Resignation, Layoff, Probationary
Termination or Dismissal
The employee is paid in a lump sum for
(OLD 5.8 & Vacation Leave accumulated to the date of
5.9 REVISED) separation, not to exceed a maximum of 240
hours . If the employee has taken more
Vacation Leave than earned, the employee
reimburses the County for all such leave
taken.
5 . 8 .2 Death
A payment for accumulated Vacation Leave is
(OLD 5.11 made in a lump sum, not to exceed 240
REVISED) hours, to the estate of a deceased
employee.
(DELETED PROVISIONS)
(5.0 CHART)
(5.2 FIRST AND LAST SENTENCE)
(5.3)
(5.10 SEE NEW 5.8.1)
(5.12)
s
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT REVISED ARTICLE IV SECTION 6 . 0 "SICK LEAVE"
6 . 0 SICK LEAVE*
6 . 1 General
The County provides Sick Leave with pay for
Permanent employees, both Full Time and Part Time
(regularly, scheduled at least 20 hours each
(NEW) workweek) . This includes an employee appointed to
a permanent position serving a probationary
period. Temporary employees do not earn Sick
Leave.
6 .2 Using Sick Leave
Sick Leave may be used for:
Physical or mental illness or injury which
(OLD prevents the employee from performing the usual
6.1 duties, including a pregnancy-related
REVISED) disability.
Care of an ill member of the employee' s
to " immediate family. For this purpose, immediate
family is defined as the employee's spouse,
parent or child.
Medical or dental appointments, including those
of necessary for the care of a member of the
employee' s immediate family.
(NEW) - Appointments with the Employee Assistance
Program provider.
6 . 3 Earning Sick Leave
(OLD 6 . 3 . 1 Each Permanent employee earns Sick Leave
6.6 based on the regular work schedule.
REVISED)
6 .3.2 A Permanent Full Time employee regularly
it if scheduled to work 40 hours each workweek
earns Sick Leave at a rate of eight hours
each month or 96 hours each year.
*Effective 10--01-91
9
6 . 3. 3 Sick Leave earning is prorated for
Permanent employee working a regular work
schedule other than 40 hours . The
Personnel Department calculates such a
prorated leave earning rate and provides it
to the operating department involved.
(OLD 6 . 3 .4 Sick Leave is earned during any month in
6.7 which the employee works or is on paid
REVISED) leave one--half or more of the work days in
the month.
6 . 4 Accumulating Sick Leave
(OLD
6.12 Unused Sick Leave is cumulative and there is no
REVISED) maximum amount which may be accumulated.
6.5 Transferring Sick Leave
(OLD 6 . 5 . 1 A new Permanent employee may transfer
6.10 earned, unused Sick Leave from another
REVISED) local government unit in North Carolina or
from a North Carolina State agency if the
transfer occurs within 12 months of
employment with that unit or agency.
6.5 .2 Any Sick Leave transfer requires proper
(NEW) verification of accumulated Sick Leave by
the unit or agency which the employee is
leaving. The employee is responsible for
obtaining such verification.
6.5 . 3 For Permanent employees as of October 1,
1991 this transfer provision is retroactive
(NEW) to July 1, 1985 (the date the Personnel
Ordinance first permitted transfer of Sick
Leave) .
6 . 6 Reinstating Sick Leave
(OLD A former Permanent Orange County employee who is
6.8 reinstated as a Permanent employee within one year
REVISED) after separation is credited with previously
accumulated Sick Leave, upon reinstatement.
6. 7 Approving Sick Leave
(NEW) 6. 7 . 1 A request for Sick Leave requires the
approval of the employee's supervisor.
The department head may require his or her
approval for any Sick Leave.
(NEW) 6. 7 .2 The employee gives the supervisor
reasonable advance notice of any absence
10
y
Z
for which Sick Leave is requested such as
scheduled appointments or anticipated
hospitalization. In this way, the
supervisor may arrange for coverage during
the employee's absence.
6 . 7 . 3 In the case of unexpected absence for which
(OLD Sick Leave is requested, the employee is
6.2 responsible for notifying the supervisor of
REVISED) the absence no later than during the first
half-hour of work on the day of the
absence. Employees in the Sheriff's
Department, Emergency Management Services,
Public Works, or others as necessary notify
the supervisor prior to the time scheduled
to go on duty in accordance with
departmental operating procedures .
6 . 7 .4 The supervisor may require a physician' s
(OLD statement regarding the nature of the
6.3 illness and the employee' s capacity to
REVISED) resume work.
(OLD 6 . 7 .5 Failure to notify the supervisor of absence
6.4 or improper use of Sick Leave may result in
REVISED) loss of pay and/or disciplinary action.
(OLD 6 .7 . 6 Sick leave is taken in increments of one-
6.11 half hour (30 minutes) .
REVISED)
6 .7 .7 A holiday is not charged as Sick Leave when
(OLD it occurs during the period the employee is
6.13 on Sick Leave.
REVISED)
6 . 8 Responsibility
6 . 8 . 1 The department head is responsible for
(OLD maintaining accurate Sick Leave records,
6.14 including the verification of the Orange
REVISED) County "Leave Register" provided monthly,
and for the application of these Sick Leave
provisions.
6.8 .2 The department head assures that:
- An employee is not on duty when he or she
might endanger his or her health or the
health of other employees;
- An employee is not on duty when due to
temporary disability or illness the
employee cannot perform essential duties
required of the job;
11
- There is no abuse of Sick Leave
privileges .
6 . 8 . 3 The department head consults with Personnel
(NEW) as appropriate in applying Section 6 . 8 .2 .
6 . 9 Advancing Sick Leave
(OLD With the approval of the County Manager, Sick
6.15 Leave may be advanced up to a maximum of 12 days .
REVISED) Such advance of Sick Leave is granted under
extraordinary circumstances for reasons indicated
in Section 6.2 .
6. 10 Effect of Separation on Sick Leave
At separation, the employee receives no pay for
(OLD accumulated, unused Sick Leave. If the employee
6.9 has taken more Sick Leave than earned, or if Sick
REVISED) Leave has been advanced as in Section 6.9, the
employee reimburses the County for all such leave
taken.
(DELETED PROVISIONS)
(6.0 FIRST PARAGRAPH)
(6.5)
From Orange County Ordinance Published 9-6-90 ATTACHMENT 3 i
• 12
-
CURRENT ARTICLE IV, SECTION 5.0 VACATION LEAVE
5.0 VACATION LEAVE
All employees in the County' s service, except part-time
hourly and temporary employees appointed nor six months
or less shall earn vacation leave according to their
regular work week schedule and the number of years of County
service:
Hours Worked --
Per Week: 20 40 42 48
- Years of
Service Hrs/Mo. Hrs/Yr. Mo. Yr. Mo. Yr. Mo. Yr.
under
2 4 . 0 48 . 0 8 . 0 96 . 0 8 . 4 100 . 8 9 . 6 115 . 2
5 4 . 8 57 . 6 9 . 6 .115 .2 . 10 .2 120 . 0 11..5 138 . 0
10 6 . 0 72 . 0 12 . 0144.. 0 .12 . 6 151.2 14 . 4 172 . 8
15 7 . 2 86 . 4 14 . 4 172 . 8 15 . 1 181 . 2 17 . 2 206 . 4
20 8 . 4 100 . 8 16 . 8 201 . 6 17 . 6 211 . 2 20 . 1 241 . 2
over
20 9 . 6 115 . 2 19 . 2 230 . 4 19 . 2 241 . 2 23 . 0 276 . 0
5 . 1 Vacation leave is earned during any month in which
the employee works at least one-half the work days
within that month .
43
13
5 .2 All vacation leave is leave with pay- Vacation leave
will not be advanced before it is earned. Cash
payments in lieu of taking vacation will not be
permitted.
5 .3 Vacation leave that will exceed three consecutive work
days, shall be requested by the employee at least two
weeks prior to the date the vacation is to begin.
5 .4 Vacation -leave may be used for -A ck leave -purposes upon
the approval of the department head.
5 . 5 Vacation leave should be used for absences due to
adverse weather conditions if the County Manager does
not authorize the use--of administrative leave; and for
funeral leave of distant relatives .
5 . 6 Vacation leave may accumulate to a maximum of thirty
( 30 ) days or 240 hours . when the maximum has been
accumulated, no additional vacation leave will be
earned until some of the accrued leave is taken.
5 .7 Vacation leave may be taken with the approval of the
department head, and must be taken in increments of
one-half hour (30 minutes ) .
5 . 8 Upon submission of an employee' s resignation, the
employee will be paid for vacation leave accumulated to
the date of separation. Vacation pay will not exceed a
maximum of thirty ( 30 ) days or 240 hours .
5 .9 At the time of separation, if an employee has taken
more vacation leave than earned, the employee must pay
the County for all extra leave taken.
5 . 10 For involuntary separation due to failure in
performance of duties, or personal conduct, accumulated
annual leave may be paid, given the circumstances of
each employee' s case at the discretion of the County
Manager.
5 . 11 Accumulated vacation leave payments will be made to the
estate of a deceased employee for all accumulated
.vacation leave, not to exceed thirty (30) days or 240
hours .
5 . 12 Vacation leave for a Probationary Employee. A new
employee will not be permitted to take vacation leave
during probationary period. If denial of such leave
will create an unusual hardship, only with the
Manager' s approval will such leave be granted; or in
the sheriff and Register- of Deeds Office, with the
approval of the Sheriff and Register of Deeds
respectively. r
44
From Orange County Ordinance Published 9-6-90
ATTACHMENT 4
CURRENT ARTICLE IV SECTION 6.0 SICK LEAVE 14
F
6 . 0 SICK LEAVE
Sick leave is a p:;vilege granted by the .Euard of County
Commissioners; it is not a right which an employee may
demand. Sick-- leave should not be abused . 7t is to be used
as insurance for salary continuation in the event an
employee is sick.
6 . 1 Sick leave with pay may be granted to an employee for
F ended :�bsences..sue .to.. physical or mental illness or injury
3/5/90 which prevents an employee from' perfowming 'the •-usual
duties . This includes disabilities resulting from
pregnancy. Sick leave may also be used for absences
due to medical and dental appointments or to care for
an ill family member. For the latter purpose, a family
member is defined .as spouses parents or children .
6.2 P_n employee unable to attend work due to any of the
reasons listed above, must inform the immediate
supervisor during the first half-hour of work on the
day of illness . Sheriff Deputies , Emergency Medical
Services employees, and Sanitation Denartme=t
employees , or other County employees as necessary, must
.notify the supervisor of illness prior to the time
scheduled to go on duty. in accordance with departmental
operating procedures .
6 . 3 The County may require a physician' s certificate
concerning the nature of the illness and the employee ' s
physical capacity to resume duties for each occasion on
which an employee uses sick leave . The employee ' s
department head will be responsible for the application
of this Drovision so that there will be no abuse of
sick leave privileges .
6 .4 Failure to report illness and imDroDer use of sick
leave will result in loss cf pay and/or other
discinlinary action .
6 . 5 For sickness in the employee' s immediate family
requiring more than three ( 3) days absence, special
permission must be obtained from the County Manager,
considering the department head' s recommendations .
6. 6 cull -time permanent and part-time permanent employees
wi11 earn sick leave according to their regular work
week schedule:
Hours Worked Per Week: 20 40 42 48
Hours yarned Per-Month -~ 4 . 0 8 . 0 8 . 4 9 . 6
Hours Earned Per Year: X8 . 0 96 . 0 100 . 8 115 . 2
6.7 Sick leave is earned during env month in which the
emnlovee works at least one-half the work days within
45
5
. . the mo::t::.
6..8 An employee with permanent status , who terminated
employment on good terms with the County may be
reinstated .and -returned the unused portion of accrued
sick leave if reinstated within one year of termination
date. This is contingent upon the County Manager' s
approval .
6.9 No employee shall be .paid for any accrued sick leave at
separation; however, if the employee has taken more
sick leave than earned, payment must be made to the
County for all extra leave advanced. ( See Article IX
Section 7 . 3 ) .
6 . 10 A new employee may transfer up to 15 days of sick
leave from another local government or state agency
*within the State of.- North Carolina, upon the
recommendation of the department head and with the
approval -of the County Manager .
6 . 11 Absences for a fraction or part of a day that are
chargeable to sick leave in accordance with these
provisions shall be charged proportionately in amounts
not smaller than one--hale hour increments (30 minutes ) .
6 . 12 Sick leave will be cumulative for an indefirite period,
and there will be no maximum amount of sick leave *,hick
may be accumulated.
6 . 13 Holidays or regularly scheduled days off which occur
during an employee' s sick leave shall not be charged as
sick leave for such days off .
6. 14 Each department head is responsible for maintaining
supporting records, and shall be responsible for the
application of these provisions to the end that,
( 1 ) employees shall not be on duty when they might
endanger their health or the health of other, employees,
(2 ) when due to temporary disability or illness the
employee cannot perform duties recuired of the job, and
(3 ) there shall be no abuse of sick leave m ivileces .
G- 15 Extended- Sick Leave . In addition 'to that earned may be
granted .up. to a .maximum. of twelve ('12 ) days with the
approval of the County Manager. Extended sick leave
will be granted for the same reasons as indicated in
Section 6 . 1 due to extraordinary circumstances . Sick
leave nay not be advanced during a leave without pay
status .
O R A N G E C O U N T Y 1
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: Se tember 3 1991
Action Agenda
Item
SUBJECT: SPIRIT HILL - PRELIMINARY PLAN
ACTION BY: October 3, 1991
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Resolution of A pproval Extension 2582
Application
Preliminary Plat Certification TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Vicinity Map Hillsborough - 732-8181
Agency Comments Durham - 688-7331
Preliminary Plan Mebane - 227-2031
8/19/91 Draft Planning Chapel Hill - 967-9251
Board Minutes
PURPOSE: Consideration of the preliminary plan for Spirit Hill
Subdivision.
BACKGROUND: 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 Concept Plan was approved by the Orange County
Planning Board on May 20, 1991 with the following
condition:
1. Lots 1 and 10 shall receive access from the
subdivision road.
This condition is included in the Resolution of
Approval.
The proposal was sent to the following review agencies
and individuals. Responses are summarized.
2 ;
Review Aggncy Response-Received
NCDOT 7-29-91
Soil Conservation Service 7-18-91
Erosion Control 7-19-91
Orange County Schools no response
County Attorney no response
Emergency Services no response
Construction plans for Spirit Hill Drive have been
approved by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. Sight distance triangles must be
indicated and the wording for the 50' public right-of-
way must be relocated inside the actual right-of-way.
The Soil Conservation Service indicates Georgeville
silt loam soil on the site. Georgeville has moderate
limitations for building site development and septic
tank absorption fields.
The Orange County Erosion Control officer indicates
that, due to the amount of land disturbance, an
erosion control plan will be required prior to the
start of any timbering, clearing, or construction.
At its August 19, 1991 meeting, the Planning Board
recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan subject
to the attached Resolution of Approval.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plan subject to the attached Resolution of
Approval.
3
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date: September 2, 1991
Name of Subdivision: Spirit Hill
Owner/Applicant: R. Terry woods
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Spirit Hill
subdivision preliminary plat, dated June 3 , 1991 'and containing 10
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 Spirit Hill. Drive.
This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general
public of Spirit Hill Drive shall be without maintenance
responsibility. This road shall be maintained by the owner/applicant
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 Spirit Hill can be recorded:
A. Sewage Disposal
I. 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.
B. Roads and Access
1. Spirit Hill Drive shall be constructed 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
4
A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be
submitted to secure construction of Spirit Hill Drive 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 construction
has been inspected and approved by NCDOT.
2 . A 10' by 70 ' sight triangle shall be shown at the entrance of
the subdivision.
3 . Lots 1 and 10 shall access onto Spirit Hill Drive. All lots
shall access onto the new subdivision road. 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. Submit an erosion control plan for construction of the road.
The plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the start
of any timbering, clearing or construction.
C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping
1. 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.
OR
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.
2. 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.
_ 5
OF
D. Parkland
I. Cash in the amount of $942. 00 shall be paid to Orange
County as payment in lieu of parkland dedication (1/35 x
3 ,300/acre = $94 . 28/lot x 10 lots = $942 . 00) .
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.
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 . 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 Spirit Hill Drive 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.
r
APPLICATION FOR RRE'LIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL 6
MAJOR SUBDIVIS1014 2190
D RANGE COUNTY
DATE: V�M Q
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY)
1% A/I
SUBDIV:SION
LOCATION: a/� a rov �r a � Penc
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
ADDRESS: k . TELEPHONE NO.: 6
AGENT/CONTACT: • O Q TELEPHONE NO.:
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION:
Orange County lax Map NG5�* 1 �eock 2 Lc-(s) Township EYz2
Zoning District(s):
Total Number of Acres: L. Pneses:
Total Number of Lots: /0 Averaoe Lot Size: 14 O dinimum Lot Size: I LrJ G
t+umger/type of Structures: (existina7 n"- _ (proDosed) d OAS•^ ��vdf4 e
Lineal Fee: in Streets:
Acres in Open Space:
idater SupDL y: 11��`a e c Public (specify) �� Com�un:'y S .ndi:ic
Wastewater Di Public (specify) Community L�5 e A t--Indivicual
SLhpDL DiS:rig:. Fire Di6.rict. K:N
General Land Uses in Area: A +
Cri-ical Areas: stream/drainaoewars A/ `'icod ❑rage dregs
watershed (specify) P+1+� historic sites
other (explain)
Is the property to be subdivided currently under "farm use value taxation"? Yes— Ncf "yes", please
contact the Orange County Tax Office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of eeferred taxes unce-
"farm use value taxation
B. All plats must be subnitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two-hundred fee: (1"=2001) and no larger
tnan one inch equals twenty fee, (1"=20') and must ccon Tai inn the follouin? inforFation:
G subdivision name '� zom nc of tract anc adjacent orgpe--les
C ✓ ';'•i/i' name $ address of ovner(s) _ •• building setaack lines by notation or typical Lo:
name $ address of subdivider layout
• ;>?':
(if other than owner) mow% location and width of existing and proposed
N U ','' easements (drainage, utilities, roads, etc.)
►� ? ::: name of surveyor, engineer,
F_ v m�fr:::•;:
J':`'' '
existing, proposed
and adjoining rights-of-way
a landscape architect or architect, 5. pg
address, registration X and sealy1s including dimensions and street names and state
d f (tit Le) Preliminary Plan road numaers. Lineal fee: of road centerLines and
c� ✓ s w le, north arrrow approxicate acreage.0 new scree: rights-of-way
Jyr: ':
W m tilities, including type,
date (including revision dates) j existing and proposed u `
0 re township, tax map-block-lot ,•"51"`'' sizes, hydrants, valves, manholes
y' ' ' 'l' existing and proposed curbs, gutters and culverts,
.0 "``'''''' references
Parent Parcel lden;ifica:ion : including sizes and grades
: deed book and page ti Of property � :
Location and width of alleys, sidewalks, bike lanes,
to be subdivided transit systems, and bus stops
(please complete reverse side)
boundary described with bearings
—:f<21--,
: 2:-2.'2�•.�, typical street cross-sections and intersection
and distances oetaiLs including design and width of travelway end
total acreage the tract and
�---= e of
.`r����-�-`'` shoulders
?: acreage of lots, including and - ='> horizontal alignment and
.� .•' � -� :_ 9 general curve data (public
excluding area within rights-of-way roads)
control corner f centerline radius on all proposed streets
proposed lot lines with dimensions f' permanent features such as buildings, cemeteries;
' ' lot & block numbers "` historic lanomarks
i. lei phasing lines ''` adjoining lot layout names of adjoining property
l" topography at ten foot (10) intervals owners. If subdivided, subdivision plat name, plat
Gwater bodies, streams, flood.+ay and book & page number, and perimeter lot numoers.
- floodplains landscaping and buffer requirements
stream buffers township, corporate and extra-territorial tannin
P g
ro location and size of parcels dedicated =::`s:< jurisdiction lines which cross the property
E ti bli
for public use, recreational use or �`'' '
" +�• location and size of lots of restricted development
`0 . reserved in common with
1✓ •''-'��`' , purpose noted potential and Horatian on plat regarding same
x impervious surface data (if located in
---- ` � stormwater detention and/or retention sites and
U water s u pP t y ra;ershed)
u:tdisturbet areas or inf i t tratiar purpose;C r
U vicinity map showing general location located in water supply watershed)
o' subdivision with streets and roaas
identified by State road nwmoer and
name
C. OTHER 5UBM.7TTAL REQUIREMENTS
I. Twerty-five (25) copies of the preliminary plat.
2. one full size copy of an Oranoe County Tax map (with tax parcels .involved clearly narked in pencil).
3. Uhere municipal or OwASA sever is no; available, a copy of the Freliminary Plat indicating hes an
Dtpartment 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).
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 pertaininc toe homeowner's association. These oocuments ray ee 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.DD fee (subdivisions of 1-5 lots), $210.00 fee (subdivisions of 6-9 lots), 5315.00 fee (subdivisions of 10-25
Lots) or a 5.420.00 fee (subdivisions of 26 lots or more) is due at the time of application. A 55.DD per lot tee is
due at the time the final plat is presented for recordation.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE OwNCR S SIGNATUR=
ATE E
FEES: Amount ...20 Date Paid �0 - 14 -S Receipt -
<::Y-* 1 9
8
SPIRIT HILL
ORANGE COUNTY
CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS PRELIMINARY PLAT
STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Eddie Kirk
CONCEPT PLAN: Received 4 8 9 Reviewed 5/20/91
PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received ^,6/14J91 Reviewed G L ii�
REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed
NCDOT: DATE: 7/29/91 CERTIFICATION: E.M. Cowan
SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill-Carrboro) : DATE: 7 1 91
CERTIFICATION: NLA_
UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/orange Alamance/Durham) :
DATE: U 14/91�
CERTIFICATION: David Hecht
Environmental Health
OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council (Date)
Carrboro Fire Department (Date)
Chapel Hill (Date)
Carrboro (Date)
Hillsborough (Date)
Durham (Date)
Other - Soil Conservation 7 18 91 (Date)
- Erosion Control 6119 91 (Date)
PLANNING BOARD: Date: — 81_19/91� Approval x
Approval with Conditions) Denial
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date: Approval
Approval with Conditions) Denial
1
20 ssc�
3.83 AC CAL
�
4960
11.7 AC.
.14 I 842
400 EASEMENT
C"90 p 1`�— — -- — - - --- — -- — — —
SO 1`D SPIRIT HILL
z1
N1` r APPLICANT: R. TERRY WOODS a 65
1.5 194, $ ; -1 ZONING: AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL AC.AC. • 37
S- • `I m LUP: AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 0.214 AC.
Fu m SCALE: 1"=400'
� 106$
I9 �•~� �acx
II �� ,FRANKLIN r �`
!' D PRIVATE
—� 7.58 AC`
27 7761
7546 54 IB•
347 QC• �] 489 - AC. SEE MAP 11.2
1 �1 / -- • -• 208
� / 17H 7315.
l 44c
8145 -94 6028 s :�� _ -•
WOODS M& yoge- J i r/ 22 AC• 17F . h � 29 Y =
1 �QssBr. -
6.82 AC.. '
/ 1
17 7867. �. : -- __ r.1.. .- -- r ._.^'-'-- - - -- --
�ATc'S_ h I.If Q
zx OF
a.. 44321
_Q �'�,R 1.47 �, i _ r _ 1.09 _. ��s�s4 31 _ •._. - y_:
.92 AC4 �o. 3H
r t'.1;-6058 ;� f' '—.• 8r:7• ° ps5�-;�: t==> �.;: . :
Was-
1 !
640 AC. T 60 /jam r
4 AC
5.09 AC-
13-
• cw+� rrre+r `�
., . - . . .' '..._' _ _ _ •. �_•txc•��r. fur
i� -- .. ...-. __ .� _ • `.''�_—_ _-,;y.z�=new.•• ��.:
10
d
y
'STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
,jAI,AES G_ KIIAR-i IN North Carol ine 27253-0766 DWIS�ON CF HHGf-,'.:AYS
tSOVERNIOH
lulu 2C) . 1991
TiiQV,AS J HARFIFLSON WILLIAL' G. P.E.
SEC,RETARY STATE FiIr;-iVVAY .-1DMi; S-R ATOR
ORANGE COUNTY
M
Al o J 1,; Cal
N - C h ti r L o r. S t
sboi,-ough , NC 27278
SubJ ect spirit Hill Subdivision off SR 1562 ( Palmer ' s Grovri
Church Rd . )
Dear -Mr . Callemyn :
c; i s to adviS(- that the ronstruction plans for Spirit
Hill dated June 24 . ] qgi have been approved by this off ire .
Sight distance triangies, shall be shown and labeled on both
the construction plans and the plat . 501 public R/W on the
plat shall be rearranged and the distance shall be shown .
st will for the owner or contractor to notify
__ _ 1 be ' necessary
Mir . J . R . Hopkins . Assistant District Engineer to schedule a
preco.nstruCtion conference oriur ro beginning ANY work .
Please be advised that A coDv of the ap-2roved vlans MUST be
pt i,-e C()rlsl-ruc Li on site at g times . Also , revisions to
The. approved plans may be made by this office if field
cond-itions warrant .
If you have any questions , please advise .
Yours very truly ,
C',
E . M . Cowan . P ' P
DISTRICT ENGINEER
EMC/JRH/jrh
" vl_� County Planning Department
uc : Mr . Eddie Kirk , Orange
/
" &WATER SOIL
C 0 N u c // v A / / 0N
Draw Soil and WNntemComsmNtion District
306 Revere Road ^ P.O. Box 8181
|
Hillsborough, NC 27278 ^ Phone: 919-732'8181 ^ Ext. 275D `
Date : Ju ) y l8, 1991 '
To 2ddie Kirk , P | anner
From: 8ai | ~��- ---
�u8hes , �o / / Conservation / st
RE: Bpirit Hi | |
Accurdin8 to the Oran8e Co So / / S
s» i | ( m ) are | ocatod on thi ^ site :
ur«ey" the fu / ( owinQ
Geor8evi ) / e si / t |
oam (6-10% s / ope > -
-Lou i | din8 mita deve /
uPmm»t: (w | th or w | tout m»derate / imitat basements ) -
ony due
�o steepmr, s / opes
-septic tank absorP,tior, fie | d : moderate | im / t ti
to staePer s / upes anu possibie s / ow perco / ation , a o»y due
'
'
12
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
V•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eddie Kirk, Current Planning
FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor
SUBJECT: Spirit Hill Subdivision
DATE: June 19 , 1991
It appears that construction of the public road will disturb
considerably more than 20, 000 square feet, which will require
submission and approval of an erosion control plan prior to the
start of any timbering, clearing, or construction.
'31LI&jA -
xc: Baity
Callemyn Land Surveyors
6-19-91.JWF
Post office Box 8181
Carrboro/Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 FAX 919-6443002
13
$/19/91 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
responded that NCDOT did not regulate individual
driveways but did for commercial and subdivisions
roads. Reid continued that he felt this was not
the case and asked that Cameron please verify
this with NCDOT. Cameron agreed.
MOTION: Hamilton moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Eddleman.
VOTE: Unanimous.
b. Preliminary Plats
(1) Spirit Hill
(10 Lots - Eno Township)
Presentation by Eddie Kirk.
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 Concept Plan was approved by the orange
County Planning Board on May 20, 1991 with the
condition that Lots 1 and 10 shall receive access
from the subdivision road. This condition is
included in the Resolution of Approval which is
an attachment to these minutes on pages
Construction plans for Spirit Hill Drive have
been approved by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. Sight distance triangles must
be indicated and the wording for the 50' public
right-of-way must be relocated inside the actual
right-of-way.
The Soil Conservation Service indicates
Georgeville silt loam soil on the site.
Georgeville has moderate limitations for building
site development and septic tank absorption
fields.
The Orange County Erosion Control Officer
indicates that, due to the amount of land
disturbance, an erosion control plan will be
14
r
required prior to the start of any timbering,
clearing, or construction.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plan subject to the Resolution of
Approval.
MOTION; Reid moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Scott.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT 8/5/91 PUBLIC HEARING
a. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
(1) Water and Sewer Policy
Goal 3 .B.3 Service/Capability/
Capacity/Extension Policies
(2) Zoning Ordinance
Article 6. 15.2 .a.2a
(Interim Development Standards)
(3) Subdivision Regulations
Section IV-C-2 .a.2a
(Interim Development Standards)
Presentation by Emily Cameron.
This agenda item is to consider proposed
amendments to the Water and Sewer Policy, Zoning
Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations which
would allow water and/or sewer agreements which
predated the County's Water and Sewer Policy to
be carried out in the Rural Buffer and Water
Quality Critical Area.
In early April, a land owner in the Protected
Watershed portion of the University Lake
Watershed in the Rural Buffer visited the
Planning Department to inquire about developing
an 18-acre parcel. He brought with him a copy of
an agreement which he and his wife had signed
with OWASA in 1983 for the purpose of conveying a
parcel of land as a pump station location in
exchange for five water and five sewer taps. The
pump station and taps were installed by OWASA.
The land owners would now like to use the taps
and develop their property.
OWASA officials have stated that they have no
knowledge of other similar agreements for water
and/or sewer service.
.:r
1
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date SeRtember 3 , 1991
Action Agenda
Item ,#
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
(WATER AND SEWER POLICY - GOAL 3 .B.3 SERVICE CAPABILITY/
CAPACITY/EXTENSION POLICIES
ZONING ORDINANCE - ARTICLE 6. 15. 2 .a.2a
INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - SECTION IV-C-2 .a.2a
INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron
Proposed Amendments Extension 2580
Agency Comments
8/5/91 Public Hearing Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
8/19/91 Draft Planning Board Hillsborough - 732-8181
Minutes Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the Water and Sewer
Policy, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations
which would allow water and/or sewer agreements which
predated the County's Water and Sewer Policy to be
carried out in the Rural Buffer and Water Quality
Critical Areas.
BACKGROUND: In early April, a land owner in the Protected
Watershed portion of the University Lake Watershed in
the Rural Buffer visited the Planning Department to
inquire about developing an 18-acre parcel. He brought
with him a copy of an agreement which he and his wife
had signed with OWASA in 1983 for the purpose of
conveying a parcel of land as a pump station location
in exchange for five water and five sewer taps. The
pump station and taps were installed by OWASA. The
land owners would now like to use the taps and develop
their property.
OWASA officials have stated that they have no
knowledge of other similar agreements for water and/or
sewer service.
Currently, the use of existing water and sewer taps
2
in the Rural Buffer would be in conflict with the
County's Water and Sewer Policy, since it prohibits
extensions outside Transition Areas with only a few
specific exceptions (i.e. , public health emergency,
necessary public facility) .
The proposed amendment would add language to the Water
and Sewer Policy to allow pre--existing written service
agreements to be honored. The second part of the
amendment would make the Interim Development Standards
in the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations
consistent with the amendment to the Water and Sewer
Policy.
The proposed amendments were presented at public
hearing on August 5, 1991. No citizen comments were
received. Commissioner Insko asked if OWASA's Board
of Directors had been advised of the proposed
amendments.
Following the hearing, the Planning Staff contacted
OWASA. OWASA Staff responded that all proper
procedures were followed regarding courtesy review of
the proposed revisions to Orange County' s regulations.
OWASA staff and the Chair of the OWASA Board of
Directors determined that the amendments would be
consistent with OWASA's current policy (see
attachments) for extension of water and sewer service
into the University Lake Watershed. Therefore, action
by the OWASA Board was not necessary.
The Staff correspondence regarding their analysis of
the proposed amendments was sent to the Board of
Directors as an informational item on a meeting
agenda. Before the land owners could actually use the
taps provided via the 1983 written service agreement,
they would have to obtain formal approval from OWASA
after the Board of Directors conducts a public
hearing.
On August 19, the Planning Board recommended approval
of the proposed amendments.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
amendments to the Water and Sewer Policy, the Zoning
Ordinance, and the Subdivision Regulations.
Orange Water and Sewer Authority 3
400 Janes Ferry Road
OWASA P.O. Box 366
Carrboro, NC 27510
(919) 968-4421 �, J
July 10, 1991
Ms. Emily Cameron
Orange County Planning Department
306 Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Ms. Cameron:
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY WATER AND SEWER EXTENSION
POLICY, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REGARDING
PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE IN UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED
I have reviewed the proposed text changes to allow public water and/or sewer
connections to property in University Lake watershed in cases where a valid
service agreement existed with a public entity prior to April 3, 1989. Your
background information indicates that these changes are needed to accommodate
a 1983 OWASA agreement to provide five water and sewer taps in exchange for
0.4 acres of property acquired for the Rangewood pump station.
That agreement and the County' s proposed policy and regulatory changes appear
to be consistent with OWASA' s adopted Policy for Extending Water and Sewer
Lines Into University Lake Watershed (copy attached). Item 4 on page 2
provides for service to Rangewood lots that were benefitted by our previous
assessment project. Although the 18 acre parcel in question was not formally
included in the Final Assessment Roll, it would appear to be "benefitted
property" eligible for service under the intent of our adopted policy. The
property owner should note, however, that formal OWASA approval will require a
positive finding by the Board of Directors after conducting a public hearing.
As your background information indicates, we are aware of no other outstanding
agreements to provide OWASA service in University Lake watershed or any other
portion of the County' s planning and zoning jurisdiction. Have you inquired
about any similar agreements that might exist between property owners and the
Town of Hillsborough?
Please let ■e know if you need any further OWASA information.
Yours very truly,
W (�,(
Edward A. Holland, AICP
Research and Planning Administrator
eah
Enc.
cc: Everett Billingsley
An Equal Opportunity Employer
4 t .
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
400 Jones Ferry Road
OWASA P.O. Box 366
Carrboro, NC 27510 D r D
919) 968-4421
July 17, 1991
Mr. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Dear Moses:
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY WATER AND SEWER POLICY, ZONING
ORDINANCE, AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
In response to your letter of July 5, 1991, I am attaching a copy of recent staff
correspondence regarding the subject topic along with a copy of OWASA's water and
sewer extension policy for University Lake watershed. These documents address
the three questions in your July 5 letter. To summarize:
1 . OWASA is party to a 1983 agreement to provide 5 water and sewer taps to an
18 acre tract adjacent to the Rangewood Subdivision in exchange for a 0.4
acre parcel on which the Rangewood pump station was constructed.
2. As noted in the attached correspondence, OWASA considers the 1983 agreement
to be consistent with its adopted policy for extending water and sewer
service into University Lake watershed. Formal approval will require a
positive finding by the Board of Directors after they conduct a public
hearing. To my knowledge, no such request has been filed with OWASA by the
property owners.
3. We are aware of no other outstanding agreements to provide OWASA service in
University Lake watershed or any other portion of the County's planning and
zoning jurisdiction.
I trust that this satisfactorily answers your questions. Please let me know if
we can provide any further information.
Yours very truly,
67�
Lois T. Herring, Chair
Board of Directors
e ah
Encs. /
cc: (w/encs.) Mr. John Link, Jr. /
(w/encs.) Mr. Marvin Collins
(w/encs.) Ms. Betty Eidenier '
(w/encs.) Everett Billingsley
(w/encs.) Robert Epting, Esquire
An Equal Opportunity Employer
5
ORANGE {,LATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
POLICY FOR EXTENDING WATER AND SEWER LINES
INTO UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED
Purpose
This policy sets forth principles and guidelines for the extension of the
Authority's water and sewer facilities and services into the University Lake
watershed.
Background
In 1987 Orange Water and Sewer Authority commissioned the Camp Dresser & McKee
University Lake Watershed Study to provide the Board of Directors and local
governing bodies with a reliable basis for implementing land management controls
to help assure short and long term protection of the University - Lake water
supply. While the study was being conducted and its recommendations were being
considered by the local governing bodies, the Authority maintained a moratorium
on water and sewer extensions into the watershed.
The study, which was completed in March 1989, evaluated a range of development
scenarios and utility service options, and determined that low density
residential development served by individual wells and septic systems would
present the least overall risk to University Lake water quality. Many of the
CDM findings and recommendations were incorporated into local land management
plans, development ordinances, and regulations amended by the Orange Country Board
Of Commissioners and Carrboro Board of Aldermen in April and May, 1990. Among
the standards for new development were 5- and 2-acre minimum lot requirements,
impervious surface limits, and revised stream buffer setbacks.
Additionally, Carrboro* and Orange County prohibited community alternative
wastewater treatment and disposal systems, as well as public water and sewer
service, except to correct officially declared health hazards. The County
adopted additional language allowing reconsideration of its utility restrictions
after special studies that the County expected to be completed by April 30, 1991 .
Although Chapel Hill has no planning and zoning jurisdiction in University Lake
watershed, the Town Council has maintained a consistent policy against the
extension of public water and sewer service into the watershed.
Orange Water and Sewer Authority's Mission and Goals Statement (December, 1988)
includes a commitment "to be guided by the land management plans approved by the
government units in the area the Authority serves."
Policy
Consistent with findings of the Camp Dresser & McKee University Lake Watershed
Study, and in accordance with recent positions adopted by Carrboro, Chapel Hill,
Certain Carrboro regulations had not been enacted as of the April 25,
1990 effective date of this OWASA policy, but were proposed for public hearing
on May 15, 1990.
1
6 E
Policy For Extending -Water And Sewer Lines
Into University Lake Watershed
Page 2
and orange County, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority will not permit the
extension of water and sewer facilities and services under its control into the
University Lake watershed, except on a site by site basis as described below.
The utility service limitations imposed by this policy are intended to apply
primarily to new, rather than existing, development in the watershed.
The decision to approve or disapprove any requests for water and/or sewer
extensions into University Lake watershed shall be made by the Authority's Board
of Directors after conducting a public hearing. Conclusions of the Board shall
state the findings upon which the decision was based.
Service extensions may be granted under the following conditions:
1 . To alleviate an existing or imminently impending health hazard, as declared
by the Orange County Health Department; or,
2. To alleviate or prevent a situation that will significantly jeopardize
University Lake water quality; or,
3. To respond to such other hardship that is materially adverse or
catastrophic to the health, safety and welfare of the general public.
r•
4. Any lots in the Rangewood subdivision that were benefitted by the
Authority's previous water and sewer extension project, and which appear
on OWASA's Final Assessment Role for that project, may be connected to the
Authority's water and/or sewer lines as long as all assessments, fees, and
charges have been paid. or are up to date. Such connections may be made
without meeting the conditions of 1, 2, or 3 above.
5. Structures that existed before April 23, 1987 and located on lots that .
existed before April 23, 1987 which are adjacent to OWASA water or sewer
lines installed before April 23, 1987, may be connected to those lines
without meeting the conditions of 1, 2, or 3 above. A legal change in
property use shall not impede the approval of such connections unless the
structure is increased in size by more than 50 percent, or unless the
proposed use constitutes an increased hazard to the watershed.
Authorization
The Executive Director is authorized and empowered to formulate any application,
notification, or other administrative procedures needed to implement this policy.
Reviewed by General Counsel:
Date General Cou el
Adopted by the Board: f
Date r,Clerk to the Boa d
{
n7 - ee
MEMORANDUM
To: W. Calvin Morton, Town Manager
From: Roger Waldon, Planning Directo
Subject: Proposed Amendment to Orange County Water/Sewer-Policy
and Development Regulations
Date: July 17, 1991
Orange County is proposing an amendment to existing policies and
regulations on providing water and sewer in the Rural Buffer. The
amendment would allow OWASA to fulfill a 1983 recorded agreement
in which a property owner gave OWASA lend for a pump station in
exchange for the right to have five water and sewer taps .
The property is located in the Rural Buffer, adjacent to the
Rangewood subdivision off N.C. 54 (see map attached) .
The amendment would recognize agreements which existed before the
date of the adoption of the Water and Sewer Policy, April 3 , 1989 .
The agreements are limited to those in which a municipality, the
County or a water/sewer authority are a party. A copy of the
proposal is attached.
The County will hold a public hearing on August 5th.
We understand from OWASA and the County that no other pre-existing
agreements are known. OWASA staff has had input into developing
the language and we understand that OWASA will be comfortable with
the language .
Our staff comment to the County is that this amendment appears to
be a narrow change to accommodate a specific situation. The
location of the property is next to a subdivision now served by
water and sewer, so the proposal has few impacts on possible future
extensions elsewhere in the Rural Buffer.
The amendment could be drawn more narrowly by applying it only to
a water and sewer authority, rather than also including Orange
County and municipalities. However, we understand the County
desires to have the language cover any future (now unknown)
agreements which may come to light.
Under Section 2 . 6B of the 'Joint Planning Agreement, the County may
change its zoning and subdivision ordinances in accordance with its
own procedures .
V/0,00c: Marvin Collins, -Orange County Planning Director
.� 8
D7 r--,� ,.'
. _
' ..
5.1 1 �; + P.O. Box 337
D
arrboro n r, 8 r��:_.J 301 west Main Street
(�).V(� Carrborp, North Carolma 27510
T ,. 1 �i . __... .. ... .� - - •-• _ --..._. (919)968.7700 (919)942-8541
July 17 , 1991
Ms. Emily Cameron
Orange County Planning Department
106 E. Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Emily,
Thank you for providing Carrboro the opportunity to comment
the County' s proposed amendments to allow valid water and/or sewer
agreements which predated the County's Water and sewer Policy to be
carried out in the Rural Buffer and Water Quality Critical Areas.
This matter was brought to the Board of Aldermen' s attention
at their July 16, 1991 meeting. The planning and zoning staff
discussed the amendments and agreed that pre-existing valid written
service agreements should be honored, even in the Rural Buffer or
Water Quality Critical Areas. We also agree with the county' s
proposed requirement that such agreements must involve a
municipality, the county, or a water/sewer authority as a service
provider in order to be considered valid.
If you have any questions concerning our comments, please do
not hesitate to call me at 968-7714 . If any substantive changes
are made to the proposed amendments, please send me a copy.
Best regards,
17ulis A. Trevarthen
Senior Planner
9
Thomas E. Warren, Chief Warrant Officer, US -Army
P. Troop, 4th Squadron
3 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment r
I Fort Bliss, Texas
October 1, 1990 - April 1991
3 V. 629CIAL FRESENTATZONS - N014E
VI.
&L RROXOSER--MENDMENTS O WAT UN ER ROLICy, Z_0NjpG
AND-SUDDIYISTON REGULtTjoa
7 Bill Waddell chaired this portion of the meeting since this
5 public hearing involved the Planning Board.
7 The purpose of this item was to receive citizen comment on the
3 proposed amendments to the Water and Sewer Policy, Zoning Ordinance, and
Subdivision Regulations which would allow water and/or sewer agreements
which predated the County's Water and Sewer Policy to be carried out in
i the Rural Buffer and Water Quality Critical , Areas. More specific, in
2 ' early April, a landowner in the Protected Watershed portion of the
3 University Lake Watershed in the Rural Suffer inquired about developing
I an X8-acre parcel. He presented an agreement which he and his wife had
signed with OWASA in 1983 for the purpose of conveying a parcel of land
5 as a pump station location in exchange for 'five water and five sewer
7 taps. The landowners would now like to use :the taps and develop their
9 property. OWASA officials have stated that they have no knowledge of
9 other similar agreements for water and/or sewer service. The proposed
a amendment would add language to the Water and Sewer Policy to allow pre-
1 existing written service agreements to be honored. The second part of
2 the amendment would make the Interim Development Standards in the Zoning
3 Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations consistent with the amendment to
4 the Water and Sewer Policy. The 'Planning Staff recommends approval of
5 the proposed amendments. There were no citizen comments.
6 Motion was made , by , Commissioner Gordon, seconded by
7 Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for a
3 recommendation to be considered by the County Commissioners no sooner
9 than September 3, 1991 .
0 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
1
2
3 VII. REPORTS
4
5 &L. LUTE_WATERSRED PROT&0T_XQN UQCEDURES AN2 IMP,L=ZONS FOR
6 12RAN 23 COVNTY
7 The County Commissioners received a report from Planner David
8 Stancil on the implications of istate watershed protection rules and
9 classifications on current County policies/procedures. The
0, Environmental Management CommisFion (EMC) has proposed preliminary
1 classifications - for each of Orange County's 11 water supply watersheds.
2. The report prepared by the Planning Staff (1) explains the mandate
i
_.y
'an.
10
required prior to the start of any timbering,
clearing, or construction.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plan subject to the Resolution of
Approval.
MOTION; Reid moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Scott.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT 8/5/91 PUBLIC HEARING
a. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
(1) Water and Sewer Policy
Goal 3 .B. 3 Service/Capability/
Capacity/Extension Policies
(2) Zoning ordinance
Article 6.15.2.a.2a
(Interim Development Standards)
(3) Subdivision Regulations
Section IV-C-2.a.2a
(Interim Development Standards)
Presentation by Emily Cameron.
This agenda item is to consider proposed
amendments to the Water and Sewer Policy, Zoning
ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations which
would allow water and/or sewer agreements which
predated the County's Water and Sewer Policy to
be carried out in the Rural Buffer and Water
Quality Critical Area.
In early April, a land owner in the Protected
Watershed portion of the University Lake
Watershed in the Rural Buffer visited the
Planning Department to inquire about developing
an 18-acre parcel. He brought with him a copy of
an agreement which he and his wife had signed
with OWASA in 1983 for the purpose of conveying a
parcel of land as a pump station location in
exchange for five water and five sewer taps. The
pump station and taps were installed by OWASA.
The land owners would now like to use the taps
and develop their property.
OWASA officials have stated that they have no
knowledge of other similar agreements for water
and/or sewer service.
r 11
Currently, the use of existing water and sewer
taps in the Rural Buffer would be in conflict
with the County's Water and Sewer Policy, since
it prohibits extensions outside Transition Areas
with only a few specific exceptions such as
public health emergency or a necessary public
facility.
The proposed amendment would add language to the
Water and Sewer Policy to allow pre-existing
written service agreements to be honored. The
second part of the amendment would make the
Interim Development Standards in the Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations consistent
with the amendment to the Water and Sewer Policy.
The proposed amendments were presented at public
hearing on August 5, 1991. No citizen comments
were received. Commissioner Insko asked if
OWASA's Board of Directors had been advised of
the proposed amendments.
Following the hearing, the Planning Staff
contacted OWASA. All proper procedures were
followed regarding courtesy review of the
proposed revisions to Orange County's
regulations. OWASA staff and the Chair of the
OWASA Board determined that the amendments would
be consistent with OWASA's current policy for
extension of water and sewer service into the
University Lake Watershed. Therefore, action by
the OWASA Board was not necessary. Before the
land owners could actually use the taps provided
via the 1983 written service agreement, they
would have to obtain formal approval from OWASA
after the Board of Directors conducts a public
hearing.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
proposed amendments to the Water and Sewer
Policy, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Subdivision
Regulations.
Reid questioned whether or not the owner could
develop his property at the density allowed at
the time of the service agreement, or whether
current regulations must be followed.
Cameron responded that she did not know whether
the taps were installed prior to the Rural Buffer
regulations. The agreement was signed prior to
Rural Buffer regulations. She continued that the
applicant would be able to develop almost as he
would like to do. He would like to have five
12
duplexes; instead, he may have four duplexes and
one single-family residence.
MOTION: Reid moved approval as recommended by Planning
Staff. Seconded by Hoecke.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS TO BE HEARD AT 8/26/91 PUBLIC HEARING
a. Special Use Permit Application
(1) SUP -1-91 Green Hill Bed & Breakfast
Presentation by Eddie Kirk.
This agenda item is for review/comment prior to
August 26 public hearing on a request for a Class
A Special Use Permit for the non-residential use
of the historic "Green Hill" residence.
William Thomas Proctor, III and Evelyn D.
Proctor, have requested a Class A Special
Use Permit for a Non-Residential Reuse/Mixed Use
of an historic structure for the property
commonly known as the Green Hill residence. The
property is located at the southwestern corner of
the intersection of US 70 and Lawrence Road (SR
1561) . The property contains 6.46 acres. The
proposed request would allow for the house to be
used as a bed and breakfast. Three out of the
four existing bedrooms would be used for the bed
and breakfast. There are no proposed changes or
additions to the existing house or changes to the
property.
The property is specifically described as Lots 66
and 67 of Tax Map 20 in Eno township. The
current zoning of the property is Rural
Residential (R-1) and the Comprehensive Plan
designation is is Rural Residential. The use of
the property, as proposed, requires the issuance
of a Class A Special Use Permit. Certain
development standards must be met and a Special
Use Permit must be obtained for the proposal to
proceed. Approval of the request would allow for
the use of "Green Hill" as a bed and breakfast
facility for a maximum of 6 adults.
No motion was needed. This item is scheduled for
the August . 26, 1991 public hearing.
Hamilton noted that the land is for sale and
t
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: Se tember 3 1991
Agenda Abstract
Item # V . 11 - r
SUBJECT: ADVERTISEMENT - OCTOBER 10, 1991 JPA PUBLIC HEARING
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes,X_No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Legal Notice Planning Director X2592
Proposed Public Hearing Items
PHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Mebane 227-2031
Durham 688-7331
Chanel Sill 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider the legal notice and items for
discussion at the Joint Planning public hearing
scheduled for October 10, 1991 .
BACKGROUND: A Joint Planning public rearing was scheduled for
October 10, 1991 , involving Orange County and the
Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Although
originally scheduled for consideration of items in
the Joint Planning Area, the proposals involve
amendments to both the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan and Map, and the Orange County Comprehensive
Plan and Map.
The Board of Commissioners reviews proposals to be
considered at public hearing for consistency with
general County policy and presentation format.
Items to be considered at the October 10, 1991
public hearing include the following:
1 . Proposed Amendments to the Joint Planning Area
Land..Use Plan and Map
a. JPA-1-91 American Stone Company
b. JPA-2-91 New Hope Corridor Open Space
Master Plan
2 . Proposed Amendments to the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Element) and Mao
a. CP-3-91 American Stone Company
b. CP-4-91 New Hope Corridor Open Space
Master Plan
'11RgRRIRYIMI�IIMARIpRRr�
2
i
Approval of the notice will permit advertisement on
September 25 and October 2, 1991 as required by
the N.C. General Statutes . The proposed amendments
will require notification of individual property
owners . The notice must be mailed on or before
September 25, 1991 .
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the
Notice of Public Hearing for October 10, 1991 .
3
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2727$
v,
� L
1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY/CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO
JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN AND MAP
FIND
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North
Carolina, Chapter 153A, 240, 323, and 343; Article 20, Sections
20 .5 and 20 . 6, and Article 2, Sections 2 . 2 . 12 and 2 . 2 . 13, of the-
Orange County Zoning Ordinance; and Article 2 of a Joint Planning
Agreement between Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and
Carrboro, notice is hereby giver_ that a public hearing will be
held in the Carrboro Elementary School Auditorium on Shelton Street
in Carrboro, N.C. on October 10, 1991, at 7 : 30 p.m. for the purpose
of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for cr
against the following items :
JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN
The proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan and Map are as follows:
1 . JPA-1-91 American Stone Company
The property in question is located on the north side of N.C.
Highway 54 on either side of Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road
( SR 1104) . The property contains 207 . 64 acres and is
specifically described as Lots BA (Part) , 9B, 9C, and 9E of
Tax Map 28 in Bingham Township, and Lot 31A of Tax Mao 112 of
Chapel Hill Township. The property fronts on N.C. Highway 5i
for a distance of 2,240 feet, on the west side of SR 1104 for
• distance of 3 . 600 feet, and on the east side of SR 1104 for
• distance of 2,920 feet.
The property is currently designated as Extractive Use,
Resource Protection, Public/Private Open Space, and Rural
Residential on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Map. The
applicant is requesting that the Extractive Use desigr_aticn ;e
extended to all of the properties described above.
4
r
2 . JPA-2-91 New Hope Corridor Open S ace Master Plan
In 1989, the governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill,
Durham, and Durham County recognized the value of an open
space corridor linking the Eno River State Park, lands along
New Hope Creek, and U. S. Corps of Engineers ' land at Lake
Jordan. The four jurisdictions contracted with Coulter
Associates, Landscape Architects & Land Planners, to prepare a
master plan for the corridor. Prepared with the assistance of
a multi-jurisdictional Advisory Committee, the New Hope
Corridor Open Space Master Plan was presented to elected
officials of the four jurisdictions on April 30, 1991 .
The Plan includes recommendations for acquiring critical
environmental areas such as stream beds, floodplains, steep
slopes, and larger tracts of historic, educational or
recreational value. Acquisition could be through donation,
purchase in fee simple or purchase of development rights . The
purpose of the proposed amendment is to incorporate the
recommendations of the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master
Plan into the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Map.
Amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Map
require the unanimous approval of Orange County and the Towns of
Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and Map of the
Orange County Comprehensive Plan are as follows :
1 . CP-3-91 American Stone Company
The property in question is located on the north side of N.C.
Highway 54 on either side of Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road
(SR 1104) . The property contains 207 . 64 acres and is
specifically described as Lots 8A (Part) , 9B, , 9C, and 9E of
Tax Map 28 in Bingham Township, and Lot 31A of Tax Map 112 of
Chapel Hill Township. The property fronts on N.C. Highway 54
for a distance of 2, 240 feet, on the west side of SR 1104 for
• distance of 3 . 600 feet, and on the east side of SR 1104 for
• distance of 2, 920 feet.
The property is currently designated as Public Interest Area
and Rural Buffer on the Land Use Element Map. The applicant is
requesting that a Rural Industrial Activity Node be
established on N.C. Highway 54 to encompass the properties
described above.
2 . CP-4-91 New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan
In 1989, the governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill,
Durham, and Durham County recognized the value of an open
space corridor linking the Eno River State Park, lands along
New Hope Creek, and U.S. Corps of Engineers ' land at Lake
b
Jordan. The four .jurisdictions contracted with Coulter
Associates, Landscape Architects & Land Planners, to prepare a
master plan for the corridor. Prepared with the assistance of
a multi-jurisdictional Advisory Committee, the New Hope
Corridor Open Space Master Plan was presented to elected
officials of the four jurisdictions on April 30, 1991 .
The Plan includes recommendations for acquiring critical
environmental areas such as stream beds, floodplains, steep
slopes, and larger tracts of historic, educational or
recreational value. Acquisition could be through donation,
purchase in fee simple or purchase of development rights . The
purpose of the proposed amendment is to incorporate the
recommendations of the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master
Plan into the Land Use Element and Map of the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan.
Amendments to the Land Use Element and Map require only the
approval of Orange County.
All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing CL
be heard. Public comment will be received during the public
hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence
received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting
following the public hearing will be considered by the Board of
Commissioners for decision.
Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect
debate, objections and discussion at the hearing.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the
Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning &
Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North
Carolina. Office hours are from 8 : 00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. , Monday
through Friday. You may also call 732-8181 (Hillsborough) , 688-7331
(Durham) or 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) . Please ask for
Extension 2585 or 2575. You will be directed to a staff member who
will answer your questions .
Marvin Collins, Planning Director
PUBLISH: September 25, 1991
October 2, 1991
NORTHEN, BLUE, LITTLE, AOOHS, TmBAITT & ANDERSON
ATT43tNEYs AT LAw
100 EUROPA DRIVE
SUITE 550
JOHN A. NORTHEN CKAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514 . MAILING ADDRESS:
J. WILLIAM BLUE,JR.
P. O. BOX 2208
J. ANDERSON LITTLE
DAVID M. ROOKS,III CHAPEL HILL,NC Z'7515-2208 51 5-220fi
CHARLES H.THIBAUT
CHARLES T.L.ANDERSON
E(919) 96$-4441
JO ANN RAGAZZO WOODS August 19 1991
CAROL J. 14OLCOMIB g / ELK 191 942-6603 AS
JAMES C.STANFORD -
A ,
Mr. R. Eugene Bell, AICP
Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, N. C. 27278
Re: Application of American Stone Company, Orange Water & Sewer
Authority and Philip and Alice Durham to amend the Joint
Area Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mr. Bell:
Thank you for your letter of August 13 , 1991. Please treat
this letter as an amendment to the application filed on August 5,
1991.
The "Specific Data" section of the application should be
amended to show the following:
Township Tax Map/Block)Lot
Bingham 28. .8A (approximately 5 acres)
28 . .9B
28 . .9C
28. .9E
Chapel Hill 112. .31A
The total acreage is 207. 64 and the total square footage is
9 , 044,798.44. The project has a total. frontage on N. C. 54 of
2 , 240 feet with a frontage on S. R. 1104 of 3, 600 feet on the
west side and 2,920 feet on the east side.
Under the "Request" section of the application, the Land Use
Plan Category Designations requested should be amended to add
"Extractive Use" to the Rural Industrial Activity Node already
requested. I understand this is necessary for the purpose of
amending the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan.
I have attached a revised legal description which takes the
i revised tax map designations into account. Please note that the
description for TM 6.28. . 8A includes only that portion of the lot
which will be part of the project.
f
NORTHEN, BLUE, LITTLE. ROOxS, THIBAUT & ANDERSON
R. Eugene Bell
August 19 , 1991
Page 2
The section of the letter attached to the application
entitled "Special conditions making the Proposal Reasonably
Necessary" was an attempt to address the issue of what changing
conditions in the area and in the County generally make the
proposed amendment reasonably necessary. The critical point is
that the continued growth in southern Orange County has placed, a
premium on the location and development of sources of drinking
water and this is the principal changing condition which makes
the proposed amendment reasonably necessary.
I have advised American Stone Company of the application fee
which I believe would be $1, 198 . 20. American Stone will send a
check in this amount directly to you.
Please call me if you have any questions.
sincerely,
av oks
DMR/tjh
Enclosures
cc: Mr. R. Paxton Badham, Jr.
Mr. W. Everett Billingsley
Mr. H. Wayne Phears
- _ 8
s
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
TM: 7 . 112 . . 31A
BEGINNING at rock and pointers on the Old Bethel Church Road,
small road, the Northeast corner of the Church property; running
thence with the Church property and others South 22 Deg. East 22
chains to a stake in a branch; running thence down the said branch
the following courses and distances; South 70 Deg. West 7 of a
chain; South 87 Deg. West 2 chains, South 74 Deg. West 2 chains;
South 42 Deg. West 1. 50 chains; South 45 Deg. West 1. 60 chains;
South 36 Deg. West 2 . 60 chains and South 20 Deg. West 1 chain to
an ash; thence along a branch South 41 Deg. 30 ' West 8 . 60 chains
running thence up a gully the following courses and distances;
North 29 Deg. West 2 . 50 chains; North 13 Deg. West 1. 70 chains;
North 29 Deg. East 1. 50 chains; North 3 Deg. East 1. 5 chains; North
7 Deg. West 3 chains to the head of the gully; running thence North
26 Deg. West 7 chains to the center of the old road the following
courses and distances; North 60 Deg. East 2 . 40 chains, North-56
Deg. East 2 . 50 chains; North 37 Deg. East 3 chains; North 21 Deg.
East 5 chains; North 10 Deg. East 3 . 50 chains; North 35 Deg. East
I chain; North 50 Deg. East 2 chains and North 45 Deg. East 4 . 80
chains to the beginning, containing 40 acres.
TM: 6. 28 . . 9C
BEGINNING at an iron stake on the Southern margin of Bethel
Church Road (SR 1104) , said stake being in the northeast corner of
the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Property; running thence North
56 Deg. 20 ' 15" East 951. 32 feet to an iron stake; running thence
South 22 Deg. 26 ' 45" East 713 . 12 feet to a stake; running thence
South 47 Deg. 48 ' West 88 . 68 feet to a stake; running thence South
47 Deg. 00 ' West 197 . 87 feet to a stake; running thence South 59
Deg. 14 ' West 165. 00 feet to a stake; running thence South 70 Deg.
22 ' West 158 . 38 feet to a stake; being a control corner; running
thence North 77 Deg. 04 ' 30" West 316. 69 feet to a stake; running
thence North 31 Deg. 41 ' 45" West 527 . 15 feet to the point and
place of BEGINNING, being 12. 166 acres, more or less, and being all
of the PROPERTY OF SAMUEL DAVID DURHAM as per plat and survey
thereof by Robert J. Ayers, R.L.S. , dated October 29 , 1982 , revised
March 16, 1983 , and recorded in Plat Book 36 at Page 189 , Orange
County Registry, to which reference is hereby made for a more
particular description of same.
TM: 6. 28 . . 9E
BEGINNING in the property line on the southeast side of Bethel
Church Road at the northwest corner of a 5. 919 acre tract indicated
on the map hereinafter referred to as S. David Durham, et ux, said
point of beginning being 303 .21 feet from a marker in the northern
line of the right-of-way of N.C. Highway 54 and the eastern or
9
southeastern line of the right-of-way in the Bethel Church Road,
and running thence from said point of beginning along the South and
East line of the Bethel Church Road North 56 Deg. 20 ' 15" East
1999 . 33 feet to an iron stake which is located at the southwest
corner of a 15.238 acre tract shown on the map as S. David Durham,
et ux; thence along and with the southwest line of the property of
S. David Durham, et ux, South 31 Deg. 41 ' 45" East 527 . 15 feet to
an iron stake; thence continuing along and with the southern line
of the property of S. David Durham, et ux. , South 77 Deg. 04 ' 30"
East 316. 69 feet to a control corner; thence the following courses
and distances: South 20 Deg. 54 ' East 259 . 43 feet to an iron stake;
South 21 Deg. 42 ' 30" East 196. 06 feet to an iron stake; South 0
Deg. 19 ' East 175. 93 feet to an iron stake; South 02 Deg. 18 ' East
159 . 15 feet to an iron stake; South 26 Deg. 46 ' West 147 . 32 feet
to an iron stake; South 09 Deg. 50 ' East 113 . 25 feet to an iron
stake; South 23 Deg. 25 ' West 188 . 17 feet to an iron stake; South
53 Deg. 21 ' West 276 . 68 feet to an iron stake; and South 22 Deg.
41 ' West 82 . 02 feet to an iron stake in the northern right-of-way
of N.C. Highway 54 ; thence along and with the northern right-of-
way of N.C. Highway 54 North 76 Deg. 37 ' 45" West 1420. 00 feet to
an iron stake, the southeast corner of the 5. 919 acre S. David
Durham Tract as shown on the map hereinafter referred to; thence
along and with the eastern line of said 5 . 919 acre tract North 0
Deg. 06 ' East 326. 67 feet to an iron stake, the northeast corner
of said 5. 919 acre tract; thence along and with the northern line
of said 5. 919 acre tract North 75 Deg. 30 ' West 687 . 70 feet to an
iron stake in the right-of-way of the east and south side of Bethel
Church Road, the place and point of BEGINNING, and being parcels
A and B, ,containing 60 acres as shown on a map entitled "ORANGE
WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY QUARRY RESERVOIR SITE" prepared by
Ballentine-Ayers, Registered Land Surveyors and Engineers, dated
March 16, 1979, revised March 27, 1979 and again revised May 7 ,
1979, and being filed and recorded in the office of the Register
of Deeds of Orange County in Plat Book 30, page 168 , to which said
map and record reference is hereby made for a more accurate and
complete description.
TM: 6. 28 . . 9B
BEGINNING at a concrete monument at the northwest corner of
the intersection between N.C. Highway 54 and State Road 1104
(Bethel Church Road) ; thence along the right of way of Highway 54
a curve to the left with a radius of 5752 . 32 an arc distance of
185. 32 feet to an iron stake; thence North 06 Deg. 38 ' 39" West
626.73 feet to an iron stake; thence North 12 Deg. 38 ' 16" East to
the centerline of Phils Creek (an iron stake along Phils Creek
being located 1685. 75 feet in said direction) ; thence along and
with the centerline of Phils Creek approximately the following
courses and distances: South 85 Deg. 27 ' 54" East 125. 07 feet to
an iron stake; South 69 Deg. 52 ' 57" East 73 . 75 feet to an iron
stake; South 38 Deg. 26 ' 33" East 176. 56 feet to an iron stake;
South 63 Deg. 36 ' 24" East 49. 57 feet to an iron stake; South 19
Deg. 14 ' 15" East 150. 13 feet to an iron stake; South 58 Deg. 06 '
i 1
10
30" East 139.38 feet to an iron stake; North 31 Deg. 09 ' 26" East
83 . 69 feet to an iron stake; thence along the property line of
American Stone Company North 04 Deg. 14 ' 08" East 923 . 62 feet to
an iron stake; thence along the property now or formerly owned by
George Tate, Jr. South 87 Deg. 11 ' 23" East 1650 . 00 feet to an iron
stake; thence along and with the property now or formerly owned by
Alfred Cotten Perry south 26 Deg. 59 ' 56" East 688 . 92 feet to an
iron pin in the right of way of State Road 1104 ; thence along said
right of way South 51 Deg. 08 ' 49" West 3467 . 55 feet to a concrete
monument, being the point and place of BEGINNING, and being
approximately 100. 00 acres according to a survey by Southeastern
Surveys, Inc. , James R. Hudson, R.L.S. , entitled "Property of
Philip O'Day Durham and wife, Alice G. Durham and Mrs. Ivah J.
Fanning Durham" , dated July 1, 1976.
TM: 6 . 28 . . 8A
BEGINNING at a point in Phil ' s Creek, the northeast corner of
the property of Philip and Alice Durham, thence in a northeasterly
direction approximately 480 feet to a point thence in an easterly
direction approximate 280 feet to a point in the western line of
the property of Philip Durham and Alice Durham, thence along the
western line of the Durham property South 2 Deg. 48 ' 10" West
approximately 447 . 99 feet to a stake; thence South 6 Deg. 35 ' 55"
West 196.78 feet to an iron stake; thence South 30 Deg. 32 ' 10"
West 83 . 71 feet to an iron stake in the northern margin of Phil ' s
Creek; thence with the center line of Phil ' s Creek in a northwest
direction a distance of approximately 720 feet to the point and
place of beginning and being approximately 5 acres and being a
portion of the 18 . 679 acre tract conveyed to American Stone Company
by W. Erwin Yates and Nancy Yates.
SEE MAP 298 MAC . 1103
9 JR.)'
,
(GEORGE TALE sE
9A 867 �12� REQUEST TO AMEND ,7PA LAND USE` PLAN TO
32p EXTRACTIVE USE AND ORANGE COUNTY
3440 ESTER DRIVE 22Ac 1 75 T COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO RURAL INDUSTRIAL
`r J — — — 9 9443 1
I• 39- 3 :
qC
} ';- !4.l5 j ACTIVITY NODE.
X16,5 AG APPLICANTS: American Stone Company,
9J 4f 121P ��I Orange Water and Sewer Authority, and
n0 9L all-A Philip and Alice Durham.
' —— gx gM G PUBLIC- HEARING DATE: October 10, 1991
r ISA79 AC. 94
��eo a lac. // �� 5001 1000
AMERICAN '
an / 32 7. SCALE:
STONE /CQMN
IT 977 AC.
PHILIP S ALICE DURH?IM //, �., C Ipg2
04097 ;;-
",AMERICAN STONE ♦ ' ` ` _
6
84.77A
15.2 AC.
LO 42.6.7AC"
31A •
AMERICAN
STONE CRC}SS
� ,�..
•32, +' orMNcE '
ORANG• ATER & SEWER AUTHORITY 3! 78Tf
8.
I 60 AC. ,Z. fi 96gC-
' `I 0473
5 919 AC,
�-
EC
9 AP 112 A
� Pay'' !t ' ! ,i. r '+f:i.•.:�,��t', .�r''y
BINGHAM TOWNSIIIP f C'IAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP F ° ': �? r��� . r'?' • Y
TAX MAP 28 I + TAX MAP 112
1 p r
/00�Q Ll EI( ItATL 1ARK) now.
U.s.L, -
�1 j , � r•r
�� `RI •ADD w'
"Z a
\\ '.I `� I.'.•• Q', ••�� DUKE 11111T.
00 W G / •,�
+`` u
�: �y'�' • %1 �� ' ',.rte• I '..,fir.
' ~ ,
/ 1�1� �Ag �ICk.Ii Ka. .>1 DURHAM
1 r
Whit 11•Ip IIC � ��.—��
1 �
\ CHAPEL N`� c '� 'f•r;,,r.�,lts c
CIV YQ °ma y
LEGEND.
bUK[Ib/l[fT \\ • r•�� T
�- 7b0 7lAR ILOODtLAIN-►110►OiLD D►[N ihACi ,,y► O
[IILDLIF[PROT[CT10N ANNA
ANGNOR/TRAIL ACGR[i
s �
•
11-3 WL Mr.N•11 NNr•N.• '
•+� CORPS OE
D Rl
2-7 M..O...M A. .r.M.r GOR�WDD N
•
11-1 Oy G.r.t Agr.r A+..AI I-AD l 4010 wt. F„ F+ \ •.,,,.y-
s "We?Croak Part
M...MI A.P./O►M 009" CS C)
Vlu
0000 C p CI IROPOacb&VIC&ARb rnnTRiAR TRwa
W
PROPO✓IRS MATURE:TRAJL tUrPP..i)
vJ OLO/li T6
at PO TROTtb
JORDAN RELERYOIN
NEW HOPE CORRIDOR OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN MAP
CITY DF OURNAIt.N.C.
E CITY 011 CNAILL HILL.N-G.
_ DUNNAM CDUNTT
ONANO[ DOUNTT -
1.
':.
'Durha
COULTER ASSOCIATES - Landscape Architects Land Planners
m, N.C.
i
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 3 1991
Agenda Abstract
Item #
SUBJECT: HILLSBOROUGH COOPERATIVE PLANNING AGREEMENT
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC SEARING: Yes S No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Planning Director X2592
7/5/91 Carey Memorandum
8/21/91 Draft Hillsborough PHONE NUMBERS:
Cooperative Planning Hillsborough 732-8181
Agreement Mebane 227-2031
Durham 688-7331 -
Chapel Hill 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider a revised time schedule for adoption of
a proposed Cooperative Planning Agreement between
Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough.
BACKGROUND: During recent months, two representatives from the
governing boards of Orange County and the Town of
Hillsborough met to discuss issues and objectives
inherent in a cooperative planning and land use
agreement. On June 4, 1991, the governing boards
met to review a proposal drafted by the work group.
The two governing boards agreed to the proposal
except for two locations in the Transition Area.
These included:
1 . The area bounded generally by I-40, Old Chapel
Hill-Hillsborough Road (South Churton Street
Extension) , N.C. Highway 86, and the current
Transition Area boundary; and
2 . The area bounded generally by U.S. 70 Bypass,
U. S. 70 Business, and Lawrence Road.
The two boards agreed to resolve these differences,
and the Board of Commissioners indicated it would
ask the County Attorney to draw an agreement
consistent with the concepts and policies included
in the proposal. The Planning Boards of the two
jurisdictions would be asked develop appropriate
land use plans and development standards for the
area.
2
On July 5, 1991, Chairman Carey outlined a time
schedule for activities related to the completion of
a Cooperative Planning Agreement with Hillsborough
(copy attached) . At its August 5, 1991 meeting, the
Board of Commissioners received the recommendation_
of the Planning. Board regarding the inclusion_ of the
two areas mentioned above in the Transition Area. It
was the concensus of the Board to adhere to the time
schedule outlined in Chairman Carey' s July 5
memorandum. A decision regarding the two Transition
Area locations was scheduled for the Board' s August
20, 1991 meeting.
On August 14, 1991, the County Attorney completed
the first draft of the proposed Cooperative Planning
Agreement. The draft was forwarded to the Board of
Commissioners, the County Manager., and the Planning
Director. The Planning Board considered the draft
Agreement at its August 19, 1991 meeting.
On August 20, the Board considered the two
locations . However, Commissioner Bob Rose of the
Hillsborough Town Board questioned provisions within
the draft Agreement which identified a "Rural
Character District" and proposed strategies
applicable therein. Another concern voiced by the
Board of Commissioners was whether an Agreement was
in effect if the two jurisdictions did not carry out
the main provisions, including joint adoption of the
Land Use Plan for the area. The Board of
Commissioners asked the County Attorney to revise
the draft Agreement to address these concerns . It
also asked that a revised time schedule be orepa-ed
to reflect the additional time needed to review the
proposal with the Town of Hillsborough.
On August 21, 1991, the County Attorney revised t:-e
draft Agreement (copy attached) . The Agreement was
forwarded to the elected representatives of the Town
of Hillsborough and Orange County on August 22, 1991
by Chairman Carey.
The proposed schedule for consideration of the draft
Agreement is as follows :
Activity Date of Completion
Joint meeting of 9/10/91
Hillsborough/Orange County
governing boards to review
draft Agreement
3
Planning Board prepares 9/16/91
recommendation on draft
Agreement
Planning Board recommendation 10/7/91
on draft Agreement presented
to Board of Commissioners
Hillsborough/Orange County 10/22/91
governing boards sign CPZ
Agreement
At its August 5, 1991 meeting, the Board of
Commissioners considered the recommendation of the
Planning Board. It was the concensus of the Board to
adhere to the time schedule outlined in Chairman
Carey' s July 5, 1991 memorandum. At its August 20,
1991 meeting, the Board will decide on whether or
not to include the two areas mentioned above in the
Transition Area.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the
revised schedule for consideration of the
Cooperative Planning Agreement between Orange
County and the Town of Hillsborough.
4
r
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 I. Insko 227-2031
Don Willhoit 644.3004 (Fax)
MEMORANDIIM
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
Mayor Horace Johnson and Hillsborough Town Commissioners
FROM: Moses Carey, Jr.
DATE: July 5, 1991
RE: Hillsborough/Orange County CPZ Meeting Follow--up
This is simply. to confirm the results of our meeting which
focused on a CPZ proposal ' developed' by a joint subcommittee of
these boards.
Overall, there was general agreement by both Boards with the
concepts and key elements presented in the proposal. There also
was general agreement'.; with-the• maps presented with two exceptions
raised by the Town of ,Hillsborough. - These included the Northeast
corner of the intersection of I-40 and Old Chapel Hill Hillsborough
Road and the area east of Hillsborough- bounded by US 70 Business,
US 70 Bypass and Lawrence .Road., _.-Hillsborough wished these to be
included in its transition area.,,_' While.-the Orange County Board of
County Commissloners, -.could not agree at the meeting to include
these areas in the ransition area, there was consensus to study
the request and notify Hillsborough of the Board' s decision prior
to approval of the formal agreement.
The joint boards agreed to instruct the County attorney to
begin drafting language for an agreement consistent with the
concepts and policies included in the proposal. They also agreed
to refer the concept proposal to the planning boards and staffs of
both jurisdictions to begin drafting of an ordinance, policies, and
land use plan revisions necessary to implement the agreement.
While the work of the planning staffs and boards will
continue after the agreement is executed, I have asked the County
Attorney to present a draft agreement for consideration by the
boards by mid August. I suggest we try to revise as necessary for
signing in mid September. I have also asked the Orange County
5
Page 2
July 5, 1991
Planning Board to make a recommendation to the Commissioners on
whether to include the areas requested by Hillsborough into the
transition area. This recommendation will come to us by early
August for a decision by the board soon thereafter. Therefore, the
timeline for formal agreement is as follows:
ACTIVITY DATE OF COMPLETION
I. Planning Boards/Staff drafting Ongoing
ordinance, policies and land use
revisions to implement agreement
2 . Planning Board recommendation August 5, 1991
on transition areas requested _
by Hillsborough
3 . Attorney drafting of formal August 14 , 1991
CPZ Agreement
4 . Orange County Board of County August 20, 1991
Commissioners decision on
addition of areas requested
by Hillsborough in transition
area
5. Planning Board review of Draft September 3 , 1991
agreement completed with
recommendations to Board of
County Commissioners
6. Hillsborough/Orange County September 3 , 1991
Boards review draft agreement
7. Hillsborough/Orange County September--17, 1991
Boards sign CPZ agreement
cc: John Link
Marvin Collins
Geoff. Gledhill
Betty Eidenier
6
ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS '
P.O. Box 8181
HILLSBOROUGH, N.C.
Moses Carey.Jr. 2727$
Alice M. Gordon 732.8181
Stephen H. Halkiotis 88-4501
6
Verla 1. Insko 688-
Don Willhoit 227.220031
31
August 22, 19 91 644-3004 (Fax)
MS. Alice Gordon
Dr. Stephen Halkiotis
Ms . Verla Insko
Mr. Don Willhoit
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Post Office Box 8181 -'
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Mr. Horace Johnson
Mr. Allen L. Lloyd
Ms. Carol Lorenz
Mr. Bobby Riley
Mr. Robert Rose !
Mr. Remus SmithT
Mayor and Hillsborough Town; Commissioners
Town Hall i r :., :, _
- t. F------_--
101 East Orange y
Hillsborough, North C ar o 11 na'-,, 272.78 -
Dear Board Members and'�Mayor Johnson:-=
Enclosed is a revised±draft ofd-the:.Cooperative Planning
Agreement between Orange County and==7the Town of Hillsborough. It
is different from an7'Au9 ust'`•14,. 1991:' draft in Rthat it divides the
Cooperative Planningg"AFea into-a�;transition ,area and an open
space area doing away with any reference,'%'even for illustrative
purposes, of the Orange County Rural Character Committee
development options. It also expressly states that the
transition area contains land likely to be annexed by
Hillsborough in the foreseeable future. Finally, it clarifies
that either party may withdraw from the agreement upon 30 days ,
written notice to the other party at any time before adoption by
Orange County and Hillsborough of the Cooperative Planning Area
Land Use Plan and the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map. No
public hearing is required for withdrawal before those two key
documents are adopted. Thereafter, the withdrawal period is one
year after written notice from the withdrawing party to the other
which notice follows a public hearing on the proposed withdrawal.
The Board of County Commissioners appreciates the
observations made by Bob Rose at the August 21, 1991 County
YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY !
7
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Mayor Johnson
Hillsborough Town Commissioners
Page 2
August 22, 1991
Commissioners meeting concerning the August 14, 1991 draft of the
agreement and further appreciates the consideration of the Mayor
of Hillsborough and the members of the Town Board of
Commissioners of this Cooperative Planning Agreement.
Very t ly yours,
Moses Carey, Jr.
Chairm
Orange County Board of
Commissioners
MCjr/GEG/lsg
Enclosure
xc: Marvin Collins
Geoffrey E. Gledhill, Esquire
John M. Link, Jr.
s
r
August 14, 1991
Revised August 21, 1991
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
199_, by and between the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision
of the State of North Carolina (hereinafter sometimes referred to
as "the County" or "County" ) and THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, a
municipal corporation duly created and existing under the laws of
North Carolina (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "the Town" or
"Town" ) .
W I T N E S S E T H:
In consideration of the public benefits expected to flow from the
cooperative efforts of Orange County and Hillsborough in
establishing a coordinated and comprehensive system . of planning
within their area of joint public concern, County and Town hereby
agree as follows :
ARTICLE I . PURPOSE, DEFINITIONS, EFFECTIVE DATE
Section 1 . 1 Purpose of the Agreement.
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a method of
coordinated and comprehensive planning in the Orange County--
Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Area (hereinafter referred to as
"Cooperative Planning Area" ) , as defined herein.
Section 1.2 . Definitions. .
A. Cooperative Planning Area. The- area designated on the
Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map lying outside the
extraterritorial planning jurisdiction of Hillsborough.
The perimeter boundaries, the transition area boundaries
1
9
and the open space area boundaries -of the Cooperative
Planning Area are shown on Exhibit A to this Agreement.
B. Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Cooperative
Planning Area Land Use Plan to be developed jointly by
Orange County and Hillsborough and to be adopted by
Orange County and as it may be amended from time to time.
C. Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map. The Cooperative
Planning Area Land Use Map, to be developed jointly by
Orange County and Hillsborough and to be adopted by
Orange County and as it may be amended from time to time.
D. Open Space Area. That portion of the Cooperative
Planning Area designated on the Cooperative Planning Area
Land Use Map as such and containing development options
as may be approved by Orange County from time to time.
The Open Space Area is further defined as land which,
although adjacent to an urban or transition area, is
generally rural and which will generally remain rural and
generally contain low density residential uses . This
area may be served by public water and sewer but solely
for the purpose of the development of large developments
or a combination of small developments with significant
preserved open space and that therefore tend to preserve
the rural nature of the area.
E. Transition Area. That portion of the Cooperative
Planning Area designated on the Cooperative Planning Area
Land Use Map as such. This area is further defined as
2
10
i
being in transition from rural to urban or already urban
in density. Urban services (public water and sewer and
other town services) are now provided to this area or are
projected to be provided to this area. This area is
further defined as likely to be annexed by Hillsborough
in the foreseeable future.
F. Development Permit. Major subdivision preliminary plat
approval and any discretionary permit (whether called
conditional or special use permit or some other term)
issued by the Orange County Board of Commissioners or
the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners . i-
G. Involuntary Annexation. Annexation authorized or
undertaken pursuant to Parts 2 . and 3 of Article 4A of
Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes .
H. Voluntary Annexation. Annexation authorized or
undertaken pursuant to Parts 1 and 4 of Article 4A of
Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes .
Section 1 . 3 Effective Date and Duration.
A. Articles 1 and 2 of this Agreement shall become effective
on the effective date of an Orange County ordinance or
ordinances: ( 1) adopting this Agreement (after it has
been approved by Hillsborough) ; and (2) amending Orange
County's Zoning Ordinance (including Zoning Atlas) and
Subdivision Regulations as prescribed in Section 2 . 1 of
this Agreement; and (3) adopting the Cooperative Planning
Area Land Use Plan; and (4) adopting the Cooperative
3
11
Planning Area -L-and Use Map. Articles-. 3 and 4 of 'this
Agreement shall become effective upon the execution of
this Agreement.
B. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated
by mutual agreement or by withdrawal of either party.
A party may withdraw from this Agreement at any time
before the adoption of the Cooperative Planning Area Land
Use Plan and the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use. Map
thirty ( 30) days following written notice to the other
party. Any such withdrawal shall be effective thirty
(30) days following receipt by the party not withdrawing
of the notice of withdrawal . After the adoption of the
Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan and Cooperative
Planning Area Land Use Map, a party may not withdraw
until it holds a public hearing on the proposed
withdrawal followed by written notice to the other party
within thirty (30) days of the public hearing. Any such
withdrawal shall be effective one ( 1) year following
receipt by the party not withdrawing of the written
notice. Subject to termination provisions of this
Agreement, annexation provisions of this Agreement shall
be valid for not more than 20 years and may thereafter
be renewed.
C. Upon execution of this Agreement, the parties agree that
each will take,r in a timely manner and without
unnecessary delay, all steps (including but not limited
4
12
r
to preparation and adoption of the Cooperative Planning
Area Land Use Plan, the Cooperative Planning Area Land
Use Map, Zoning Maps, appointments of Transition Area
representatives to the Hillsborough Planning Board and
Board of Adjustment and all required land use ordinance
amendments) required to cause this Agreement to become
effective. Each party will notify the other party when
each step has been taken. Orange County will notify
Hillsborough by resolution when Articles 1 and 2 of this
Agreement become effective.
ARTICLE 2 . ADOPTION, ADMINISTRATION AND
AMENDMENT OF STANDARDS .
Section 2 . 1 Standards Within the Transition Area.
A. Hillsborough shall prepare a Zoning Map for the
Transition Area and shall recommend its adoption by
Orange County which, upon approval and adoption as
prescribed in Subsection B of this Section, shall become
part of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning
Map shall be prepared using zoning districts which
correspond to the text of the Hillsborough Zoning
Ordinance and which correspond with the density
designations - and plan classifications as prescribed in
the adopted Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan and
the adopted Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map.
B. Upon completion of the Zoning Map referred to in Section
2 . 1A, Orange County shall amend its Zoning Atlas in
5
13
accordance with_said Map. Orange County shall also adopt
by reference the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance and the
Hillsborough Subdivision Regulations and make their
provisions applicable to the Transition Area.
Section 2 . 2 Standards Within the Open Space Area.
within the Open Space Area, the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
(including Zoning Atlas) and Subdivision Regulations that are
in effect on the effective date of this Agreement shall remain
in effect until amended in accordance with Section 2 . 6 of this
Agreement.
Section 2 . 3 Permit Administration Within the Transition Area.
A. Except as otherwise provided in Sections 2 . 5 and 2 . 6,
Hillsborough shall perform all functions related to the
administration of the ordinances referenced in Section
2 . 1B. Subject to the remainder of this Section,
Hillsborough shall administer the referenced ordinances
just as if the land were located within Hillsborough's
planning jurisdiction. Administration shall include but
not be limited to the following:
1. Receipt and processing of development applications;
2 . Issuance of any required permits and certifications;
3. Review and approval of required site/construction
plans;
4 . Conducting necessary site inspections;
5. Enforcement of all standards;
6
14
6 . Any other -acts or things necessary to administer
the Ordinances;
and shall be carried out in a manner so as to insure that
a developer complies with all applicable ordinance
requirements and the terms and conditions of any permit
issued by the Town. The Town may charge fees for
processing applications, conducting site/construction
plan reviews, and carrying out site inspections in
accordance with fee schedules applicable within the
planning jurisdiction of the Town.
B. Whenever Hillsborough receives an application for.- a
development permit as defined in this Agreement relating
to land within the Transition Area it shall forward a
copy of the application to Orange County for review. The
Town shall establish timetables to insure that Orange
County has an opportunity to make recommendations
regarding such- applications within the framework of the
County's regularly scheduled meeting dates . To the
extent possible, the timetables of the County and the
Town shall provide for simultaneous review to expedite
application processing; provided, however, the Town may
not vote to issue or deny a permit until it has received
the recommendations of Orange County or until the
expiration of forty--five (45) days after- Orange County
= .. has received the. application, whichever occurs first.
7
15
Section 2 .4 Permit Administration in the Open Space Area.
A. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2 . 6 and the
remaining provisions of this Section, Orange County shall
perform all functions related to the administration of
the ordinances referenced in Section 2 . 2 in the same
manner as if the land were located outside the
Cooperative Planning Area.
B. Whenever - Orange County receives an application for a
development permit as defined in this Agreement relating
to land located within the Open Space Area, it shall
forward a copy of the application to Hillsborough for
review. The County shall establish,timetables to insure
that the Town has an opportunity to make recommendations
regarding such applications within the framework of 'the
Town's regularly scheduled meeting dates . To the extent
possible, the timetable of the Town and the County shall
provide for simultaneous review to expedite application
processing; provided, however, Orange County may not vote
to issue or deny a permit until it has received the
recommendation of the Town or until the expiration of
forty--five (45) days after Hillsborough has received the
application, whichever occurs first.
Section 2 .5 Enforcement Remedies .
A. Permit revocation, if necessary and authorized by
ordinance, shall be handled by the same individual or
board authorized to issue the original permit.
8
16
a
B. Within -those portions of the Cooperative Planning Area
where the ordinances specified in Section 2 . 1B are
administered by the Town, enforcement efforts through
the use of civil penalties, criminal penalties or
injunctive relief shall be initiated by the Town. The
Town shall have the duty to defend at its own expense
and shall indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent it
can legally do so, Orange County, its Board of
Commissioners, its advisory boards, its staff and all
members of its boards and staffs, in their official and
individual capacities, from any and all claims, actions ,
proceedings, expenses, damages or liabilities, including
attorneys ' fees and court costs, resulting from the
Town's administration of the ordinances specified in
Section 2 . 1B.
C. Orange County shall notify Hillsborough and Hillsborough
-. shall notify Orange County as soon as practicable
thereafter of any such claim, action or proceeding.
Section 2 . 6 Text and Map Amendments .
A. Proposed amendments to the Cooperative Planning Area Land
Use Plan and/or the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use
Map may be initiated by (i) Orange County or (ii)
Hillsborough or (iii) any other person by filing a
request for such an amendment with Orange County. Any
petition or request to amend the Cooperative Planning
Area Land Use Plan received by the County shall be
9
17
referred to Hillsborough. No such -amendment may become
effective until after it has been adopted by Hillsborough
and Orange County following a joint public hearing by
both governing bodies . Orange County and Hillsborough
agree to periodically review the Cooperative Planning
Area Land Use Plan and the Cooperative Planning Area Land
Use Map to consider changing conditions and
circumstances . This review will take place at five, (5)
year intervals unless some lesser or greater interval is
agreed by the County and the Town.
S. Except as provided herein, proposed amendments to the
text of the Orange County Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances that are applicable within the Open Space Area
as well as proposed changes in zoning district
classifications (i.e. , zoning map changes) that affect
property within the Open Space Area shall be initiated
and adopted in accordance with the procedures set forth
in those County ordinances . All such proposals shall be
referred to Hillsborough for review and recommendation.
Orange County may not adopt such proposed amendments
until Hillsborough has made its recommendations, or until
the expiration of thirty (30) days following such
referral, whichever occurs first.
C. Whenever Hillsborough proposes to amend the text of its
Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations, it shall
deliver a copy of the full text of the proposed amendment
10
+ is
to Orange County not later than thirty ( 30) days before
the date of the public hearing on any such amendment.
However, with the written consent of the Orange County
Manager or his designate, this thirty ( 30) day period may
be reduced to not less than ten ( 10) days . Unless Orange
County files with Hillsborough a written objection on or
before the date of the public hearing on the proposed
ordinance amendment, then adoption of the amendment by
Hillsborough shall automatically effect a corresponding
amendment to the applicable ordinance adopted by
reference by Orange County as provided in Section 2 . 1.B.
Any such objection shall be based on a determination by
Orange County that the proposed amendment is inconsistent
with the adopted Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan.
If Hillsborough adopts an amendment despite Orange
County's objection, then it shall refer such amendment
to Orange County with a request that the County make
corresponding changes as expeditiously as reasonably
possible so that Hillsborough may continue to enforce
within the Transition Area the same standards that it
enforces within its own planning jurisdiction. in the
event., of, objection by. Orange County as provided herein,
no such amendment_ shall _ be . effective within the
Cooperative Planning Area until it is adopted by Orange
County.
11
19
D. Orange County may not unilaterally amend the text of its
zoning or subdivision ordinances applicable to the
Transition Area (i.e. , those ordinances adopted by .
reference pursuant to Section 2 . 1B) . Amendments to the
ordinances referenced in Section 2 . 1B by Orange County
may be accomplished only pursuant to Section 2 . 6C
(including adoption by Orange County following a request
to do so by the Town) . Any petition or request to amend
these ordinances received by the County or initiated by
the County shall be referred to Hillsborough.
E. Within the Transition Area, changes in zoning
classifications may not be made unless and until an
ordinance approving a zoning map amendment making the
changes has been approved both by Hillsborough and Orange
County following a joint public hearing by the two
governing bodies . Requests for changes in zoning within
the Transition Area that are filed with the County shall
be referred to Hillsborough to initiate the amendment
process .
F. Proposed amendments to the text of this Agreement shall
not become effective until approved by Hillsborough and
until adopted by Orange County ordinance.
Section 2 . 7 Representation of Transition Area Residents .
Hillsborough shall revise its Zoning Ordinance to provide that
at least one resident of the Transition Area shall be
appointed to Hillsborough's respective planning board and
12
20
board of adjustment,-. 'in the same manner- as. representation of
extraterritorial planning area residents is provided for in
the Town's zoning ordinance.
ARTICLE 3 . LIMITATIONS ON ANNEXATIONS
Section 3 . 1 No Annexation Into Open Space Area.
Except pursuant to the written consent of Orange County,
Hillsborough agrees that it will not annex into the Open Space
Area (whether by voluntary or involuntary annexation or by any
other method authorized by law) nor shall Hillsborough seek
special legislation accomplishing such annexation.
ARTICLE 4 . LIMITATIONS ON THE EXTENSION
OF PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER.
Section 4 . 1 Extensions of Public Water and Sewer.
Except pursuant to the written consent of Orange County,
Hillsborough agrees that it will not extend its public water
and sewer into the Open Space Area of the Orange County/Chapel
Hill/Carrboro Joint Planning Area or into the Upper Eno
Watershed. Except pursuant to the written consent of Orange
County, Hillsborough agrees that it will not extend its public
water and sewer into the Open Space Area of the Cooperative
Planning Area except consistent with the development options
for the Open Space Area adopted by Orange County from time to
time.
13
21
THIS AGREEMENT entered into this day- of -
199
Chair, Orange County Board of
Commissioners
ATTEST:
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
Mayor, Town of Hillsborough
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
14
OMW
4 i ° COO pea ter ve P1a�rn� rg0ne
au
Ir
L7
H-llshorough Corporate.LzmIt.
& EJ
;'_ : . 1
" r rtat7 sit!on A I
cic
■■■■ RuIBufferBouda�y
H `� _ v; "�_ rr F�^ ,ti 4tlpperEqo watershed
, +'�� rr' �:�' it � � E. 4' �'"X�r.- .!r- fr;rri`' iy•.!
- Bolu idart'
1. •'--rfFyc+fl.Y�t:r� _s� _ 'c��'�`war.�r�• � _:- :�{-t�. �',',f� _fi ���,''..
f' V?`r,f¢��5-,'. F�.� ��►~`�' ia.'iF',-3C ��. � V t� � r I.�.f•r�.�p .t
'� `:f �'Y•:^r r',.�. �" -.. k�Z` �:rvs� .,k .h iF'`V ,c' �•:?.��= _.�x��3
[ i ?•{ i,'�Yfd�nk�.}•Ei iT{t1si�'f>S •'� r:.: - rt-`. r - •'F� •r -�:
����.j/' s'r f.r? .1 ��iY � 'tti`' ^..�' t�'. ..� f..
SFr- rr-• r
1 :• i
Now
CAMP
SCALE: 1
.y.
+ N
N
r
x
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. Vffi—L{
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 3 , 1991
SUBJECT: Approval of contract ; Design services for Northern Human
Services Building Roof
----------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SRVS. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO:XX
---------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Jones
or Wilbert McAdoo
Proposal/RTD Associates, Inc. Telephone Number--
Hillsborough -732-8181
Chapel Hill -967-9251
Mebane -227-2031
Durham -688--7331
PURPOSE: To consider approving a contract with RTD Associates, PA
for engineering services associated with roof replacement at Northern
Human Services Center, Cedar Grove, NC.
BACKGROUND: The Northern Human Services Building has a roof area of
approximately 31 , 000 square feet . The existing roof is a
combination of built up roofing and a foam application installed in
1984. The roof has blistered and is deteriorated beyond repair. The
funds for this project are included in the CIP.
The two firms submitting proposals for the work and their respective
cost quotes are as follows:
RTD Associates $ 7,440.00
Michael Hining Architects $12, 000 .00
The scope of the contract includes all work from determining the most
suitable roof system for this facility through design and construction
of the system specified. A more specific breakdown of tasks and
timetable is listed in the attached proposal .
RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends approval of a contract with RTD
Associates, PA for a cost of $7,440; and authorization for the Chair to
sign on behalf of the Board.
or
i
1a
Roof Engineering Technology
RTD Diagnostics and Design
5500 Executive Center Dr., Suite 117
Associates, PA. Charlotte, NC 28212 704-536-3322,
August 5, 1991 -
Mr. Wilbert J. McAdoo PROJECT: Northern Center
orange County Public Works Cedar Grove, NC
P. 0. Hoc 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Ms. McAdoo:
As a Professional Engineering Firm, specializing in the specific area of Roof
Diagnostics, Engineering, Design, and Project Management, we respectfully
request your consideration of the following proposal:
We propose to provide our specialized Roof Engineering expertise as listed
below, for the above referenced project.
ENGIIIKKR NG DESIGN AM 922MWE ALMIIJIS�RATICN SERVICES
Phase # 1: Project Plannin g an
A Staffin
A Project. Manager shall be selected within our firm to work closely
with the owner's representative from inception to successful
completion of the project.
Phase # 2: Project Reguirements Review
A careful and methodical study of the previously prepared Roof
Diagnostic Report (as prepared by our firm) shall be performed to
correlate the existing conditions, problems and viable solutions
for corrective action.
Phase # 3: Project Scheduling
We shall prepare a tentative work sequence schedule for the Owner's
representative, to establish time frames for all phases of
Engineering, Design, and Construction work to be performed.
Phase # 4: Performance Criteria Analysis
Due to the sensitive and reactive nature of the roofing systems
available today, a Performance Criteria Analysis shall be developed
in order to determine the actual requirements of the roof membrane,
insulation, attachment procedure, drainage, customized details,
etc.
This Performance Criteria shall consist of a site visit to evaluate
all conditions which must be considered during the roof system
selection process, in regard to building and owner requirements.
commy NAME: ornage County Public Works 2
PROJECT' NAME: Northern Center
LOCATION: Cedar Grove, NC
Phase # 5: Roof pys-tem nraluation and Selection
once the Performance Criteria has been established, research shall
be performed to determine which of the many systems available have
technical capabilities which are strictly compatible with this
criteria. The significance and importance of this phase is to
properly select the right system, which will provide our client a
successful roof system with maximum longevity, minimum annual
maintenance costs, and max3immi return on investment.
Phase # 6: Schematic EW:Lmci&cdneeri e and Des'
A preliminary engineering and design shall be performed to
establish the requirements for the various coamponents of the
roofing system, such as membrane, insulation, attachment procedure,
associated details, etc., and to organize the content and format of
the technical portion of the design specifications, which will
become an integral part of the Contract Documents.
This technical section dictates the standard of quality in
materials and workmanship. It also outlines the existing
conditions, scope of work, materials to be used, and execution of
work to be performed.
Phase # 7: S erratic Draw' and Custcamized Detail Design Dom mentation
During the site visit referred to in Phase #4, the Project Manager
will evaluate each and every different detail requirement such as
base flashings, edge flashing, vent pipes, equipment curbs, etc.,
for customized detail development and illustration. Also, a
cmiprehensive roof plan will be developed to show local placement
of equipment, drainage dimensions and other pertinent data for
final working drawings development.
Phase # 8: Front-end Portion of the Bid n MMgnt Development
In the best interest of the Owner, it is imperative that the total
bid document package contain legalities pertaining to general
conditions of the project, insurance requirements, jobsite use and
behavior by Contractor, time of cm pletion, liquidated damages,
quality control statements, Performance and Payment Bonds, etc., to
ensure all parties have a clear understanding of who is responsible
for what.
An interview with the owner's representative will be conducted by
the Project Manager, to discuss the various items necessary for the
front-end documents, in order to oomply with professional
contracting practices and your organizational policies. Also,
certain times, dates and places will be established within these
front-end documents for the bid advertisement, pre-bid meeting, bid
receipt and contract award, etc.
�E� �
Diognostics and Design
RTC
5500 Executive Center Dr..Suke 117
Assocbres.P.. Chance.HC 26212 704.506.9322
1
OOWAW NAME: Orange County Public Works 3
PROJECr NAME: Northern Center
LOCATION: Cedar Grove, Nc
Phase # 9:, Final Engineering, Desi Draw' '1s and ification
Develo t B'd Packa
Under this phase, the completion, correlation and merging of all
comprehensive =rponents of the bid documents shall be completed
and submitted to the Owner's representative for approval.
The Bid Package shall include:
(1) Invitation to Bid
(2) Statement re General Conditions (AIA - A201)
(3) Supplementary General Conditions
(4) Statement re Instructions to Bidders (AIA - A701)
(5) Supplementary Instructions to Bidders
(6) Form Of Proposal
(7) Bid Bond
(8) Statement re Form of Agreement (AIA - A101)
(9) Performance Bond
(10) Payment Bond
(11) Division 7 - Roofing Technical Specifications
(12) Working Drawings and Custamniaed Details
Note: 10 sets of Contract Documents shall be provided for
Owner and Contractor use.
Phase #10: Pre-bid Conference
On the pre-established date, the Pre-bid Conference will be
conducted by the Project Manager at the project site. This meeting
shall be attended by the Owner's representative and invited
contractors. The Pre-bid Meeting shall be divided into two
sessions:
1st Session: Inside the facility, preferably a Conference Room.
During this session, the contents of the Bid
Documents shall be discussed and any questions
answered, ' in order to thoroughly explain and
clarify the full scope of work to ensure cmparable
bidding understanding.
2nd Session: On the roof.
All parties shall be given the opportunity to tour
the roof to verify existing conditions and scope of
work involved.
Minutes of the meeting shall be recorded and will beaxm an
integral part of the Project Manual.
Roof Engineering naiogy
Diagnostics and Design
RTC
5500 ExeciAve Centor Or-Suite 117
Associates.PA. Choflwe.NC 26212 704-53&8322
COMPANY NAME: Orange County Public Works 4
PROJECT NAME: Northern Center
LIOCP,TION: Cedar Grove, NC
Phase #11: Receipt and Tabulation of Bids
on the pre-established time, date and place, the Project Manager
shall assist the Owner's representative in receiving, opening, and
tabulating the contractors' bids.
A careful review of each bid shall be performed to verify the
completeness, and extent of each bid as required by the bid
package. The bids shall be tabulated to determine the apparent low
bidder.
pRQ7ECT SERVICES
Phase #12: Pre-Construction Conference
on the pre--established time, date and place, the Pre--construction
Conference shall be conducted by the Project Manager. During this
meeting, the full scope of work shall be reviewed by all parties
present. other pertinent project requirements shall be discussed
and agreed upon such as: staging areas, schedules, pay requests,
cmumudcation channels, use of facilities, submittals, etc.
Minutes of this meeting shall be recorded and will begone an
integral part of the Project Manual.
Phase #13: Submittal Review and royal
Upon receipt of the submittal package, as provided by the
Contractor, the Project Manager shall carefully review all material
samples, material technical data, etc., to confirm o❑mpliance with
the requirements of.the Specifications and Bid Documents.
Phase #14: Verification of Material Delivery and Proper Storage
The Project Manager shall visit the project site to inspect and
verify the type, condition and quantities of materials stored are
in compliance with the material requirements as specified.
The type and quality of storage facility, covers, etc. shall be
inspected to verify Proper Protection from damage and weather as
specified.
RTC Fko&E� Te&*x0oW
Diggnostirs oW Design
5500 Executive Center Dr..Suite 177
Asxxkues.P.. C xAme,NC 26212 704.596.3.722
p `
1;
C3APANY NAM: Orange_County Public Works 5
PROJECT NAME: Northern Center
LOCATION: Cedar Grove, NC
Phase #15: On-site Ins ction
The Project Manager shall visit the project site at such intervals
as stipulated by the agreement between RTD Associates and the
owner. During the on-site inspection, the quantities and quality
of application shall be carefully inspected to verify strict
ocnpliance with the contract specifications.
Progress update reports shall be provided to the owner as required
and shall consist of written and photographic documentation of work
performed to date.
Phase #16: pay Egguest Review Verificat' and
upon receipt of the Contractors Pay Request, the Project manager
shall review, verify, and approve properly substantiated payments
due and forward to the Owner for payment.
Phase #17: Substantial Caanpletion Verification and Punch-list Development
At the point of substantial coupletion (90% to 95%) the Project
Manager shall visit the job-site to inspect the work performed to
date and establish a list of items which need to be corrected or
ccopleted prior to project close-out.
Phase #18: Final_I 'on and Pro'ect Hance V 'f'cation
upon notification by the Contractor that all work has been
caanpleted, the Project manager shall perform a final inspection to
verify that all project and contract document requirements have
been successfully satisfied and cmpleted.
Phase #19: Assembly and Submission of Project Close-out Documents
The Project Manager shall co-ordinate and assemble all project
close-out documents, such as Warranties, Certificates of
Cmpliance, etc., to be forwarded to the Owner, along with the
approved final Contractor pay request.
RTC Roof Engineering noiog,r
Diagnostic and Design
5500 Exeaxwe Cenw Dr.,Suave IV
Assodaies.PA. Charlotte,NC 28212 704.536.3322
t
M
COMPANY NAME: Orange County Public works 6
PROJECT NAME: Northern Center
LOCATION: Cedar Grove, NC
SCOPE OF WC tR AREA FM THE SLIM OF•
Engineering, Design & 31,000 SF
Contract Administration
Phases 1 - 11
Project Management Services Same as Above
Phases 12 - 19
(Phase #15: 1 site visit/wk.)
(8 Hours)
TOTAL --- $7,440.00
includes
Travel & Per diem
Time Frame:
Phases #1 - 7 - 1 1/2 wks.
Phases #8 & 9 - 1 week
Phases #10 & 11 - 3 wks.
Phases #12 - 19 - 6 wks.
All services provided by RTD Associates shall be performed by our staff of
professional, experienced and qualified individuals, in order to provide you
(our client) with not only a successfully conpleted project, but an
opportunity of joining our valued list of satisfied clients.
on behalf of our entire staff, we thank you for the opportunity of presenting
this proposal, and your consideration of allowing us to beccne a vital part of
this project.
Respectfully submitted,
RTD ASSOCIATES P.A.
Bob 0. Bryan,
President
BOB/San
Accepted by:
Title:
Date:
�` ,
Diognostits and Design
RTC
5500 Executive Center Dr..Suite 117
Aswdores,PA. Chodwe.NC 28212 704.506.9322
t
7 M
TERMS OF PAYMMU-& GENERAL CC�IDI7TIQVS
1. Roof Analysis: 50% upon initiation of contract,
50% upon delivery of report.
Mcafications: 50% upon initiation of contract,
50% upon completion of specification
page
.On-Site Ins ion: 50% upon initiation of contract.
Balance paid in proportion to progress of
work.
2. Finance charges of 1 1/2% per month will be assessed on all unpaid
balances beyond the terms outlined above.
3. The owner shall be responsible for providing: (A) Access to the
jobsite and the roof; (B) Removal of any ponding water on the roof
surf ace.
4. We require a letter of acceptance, a signed copy of this proposal or a
written purchase order frcan your company, prior to performing this
work.
5. RTD Associates, P.A. reserves the riot to invoice for any additional
area, over and above the specified area and any services performed that
are not included in this proposal such as warranty enforcement
($52/Hr.) consultations ($52/Hr.), per diem ($75/Day), travel expenses
($.35/Mi.), or any other related costs above and beyond the herein
listed scope of work. Duplicated copies of diagnostic report - $150;
photocopies of diagnostic report -- $25-$50 (depending on size and
nature of report); extra copies of specs, plans & contract documents
- $50.
6. Please note that this proposal may be withdrawn if not accepted within
thirty (30) days frm the date on the proposal.
7. A Certificate of Insurance will be furnished upon request.
8. Delay Clause: Should the work be delayed of no fault of RTD
Associates, the additional tame shall be invoiced at the rate of
$52.00/hour.
9. Should the roof be under warranty, all core cuts and moisture probes
shall be performed by the warranty issuer or contractor. Any charges
for core cuts or probes shall be the responsibility of the owner or
contractor.
10. The drawings, specifications and other docwnents furnished by RTD are
instruments of service and shall not become the property of the owner
whether or not the Project for which they are made is cemimenced.
Drawings, specifications and other docents furnished by RTD shall not
be used by the Owner on other projects, for additions to this Project,
for completion of this Project by others, except by written agreement
relating to use, liability & cm%nnsation.
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. y
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 3, 1991
SUBJECT: CONTRACT APPROVAL; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF
PROPOSED SOUTHERN HUMAN SERVICES SITE
DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SRVC. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO:=
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES
CONTRACT Telephone Number-
Hillsborough -732-8181
Chapel Hill -967-9251
Mebane -227-2031
Durham -688-7331
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PURPOSE: To approve a contract with Alliance Technologies, Inc. for
Phase I Environmental Assessment of the proposed Southern Human
services site.
BACKGROUND: In cooperation with the County Attorney, proposals for
the environmental assessment were received from two consulting firms.
The costs quoted by each firm are as follows:
Sirrine Environmental Consultants, Raleigh $2900
Alliance Technology Inc. , Chapel Hill $2987
Following evaluation of each proposal , it is recommended that a
contract be executed with Alliance Technology, Inc. for the following
reasons:
1 . The scope of work appears to be broader. For example these
items do not appear to be addressed or are specifically excluded in the
Sirrine proposal , but are included in the Alliance proposal :
a. Evaluate the possibility of wetlands or endangered species
on the site.
b. They will consult an inventory of stationary sources of
air pollution emissions to determine if there are significant emittors
within one mile of the property. This is relevant information due to
the close proximity of Horace Williams Airport .
ti
2
c. Alliance will investigate the building structures and
their contents.
d. Alliance proposes to cite in their report the location of
on-site wells and septic systems. This could be useful information to
us later in the planning process.
2. The, County is protected better from a insurance perspective a
well . Alliance provides general liability insurance with limits of
$1 , 000, 000/ Sirrine does not provide such coverage in their proposal .
3 . From a budgetary point of view, a local consultant would
Present advantages on reimbursable items such as long distance phone
calls and travel to the site.
The findings of the assessment will alert the County to any potential
environmental problems on the site and will allow us to plan from an
informed base.
RECOMMENDATION: Manager recommends approval of a contract with
Alliance Technology, Inc. , Chapel Hill , NC for a sum of $2987 to
conduct a Phase I environmental assessment for the proposed Southern
Human Services site; and authorization for the Chair to sign on behalf
of the Board.
3
FeChrKbg"COMOMOon
June 24, 1 M
Mr. C3edhw OWN
C;oW =v8 n hck Law Firm
P.O. orawrar 150
1-11I1aboragh, NC 272
Subject: Ish m I site Assamrrem Hbumalbo d Road Property (Amanca 44M 04XM
Dear Mr. Gk&&-
Thank you for*orar;derinp ABlm=Tedv wWgm Corpwoon fob ft dwm rsferenoed project. This
submittal indudea a scope of work for a Phase I Site Asset Mxhl*A), a braslcdown of{aDar
Imurm re lve to various portions d to soaps ar worts ( B), Api WWO rates Mxl,W C),
and an aprrrrtt for pralaakaia-mW awry v As we died, a Phw I InwedgWon is focused on
kderrtllyinq all patetKial I dAtias mamland with a property. Should arty be found, a
Phase ti brv.aigetlan mad d be rrwcorntim in artier to i0e Wy and qu■Wfy the rwaxa and oaaant
of cantumirmdan which mmV be premarkt M required, caUnirmW remedtation acOv bee would be
m -du under a Phis IN study.
The W OW ttlbW be perftamted on a dials arty i O ark& bmmK vdh a spaoilied riotmac waxed
om*M moutt d J,967 which is 4■rwrd in Extftk d. This art om Is ba ml an to scope of
warp far this pmom
Should you*0 rAwythirtp in order, pleat aarak m the amache0 agi men artt for pr bmWonW services
and return. Aires wN then emu p and larward a aaq far your fft& If you hoer arty questior+e,
phme f"*"1v carrta,I M&
We look fai m rd to wafting wM ire!a►tats prajrat and fup,.e pr►ajrrrra. Should ray have arty
k�lwatiatw, pier foal ire m swigs#uL
a}nv.reyr,
�.i
zalk
0. CJA.Az
hl-- me tr, PWmm�mebrim
i
i
I
Cr.AMW& Yltinasr I ins 9s► 1W
Vkae f tofu Obiion
i
I
i
f
W-FaMa Drive. Suitla 150. Chao Mill, North Caroline 27514 919.9%9=
4 e
I:XHW A
8001%OF WORK, PHASE I SITE ASAESiMENT
HOMIiSTEAD ROAD PROPRIM
CHAPEL NIU, NORTH CAROUNA
Oranpe Counter Is in the process of purcha ft a 3+acm tract d land south of Homestead now in
Q111" Mill, NO, This ao4pe Of wax Caner■sass the BCWVlee AY wxw peraa,rwl wM ursArtakrr in aie
conduct of a Phase 130 ammai used at this property. Any poterttlwl Phase 11 odes cannot be
detailed until a Phsiss I aaarserrrent has bsen corriphod (La, urd potential ernirormW" cormwm
nave been lasrtdfisd.) However, "ecops of work also ldemr"evens pvtentiai lambiwim tlwd L ould
be associated with famiing operations, and describes the gsrtsrai actlorw-Allianae would take in
confinrning acid ds*mdV the no"and eMent of eontamirtabon at the site,
As the ir*W slop of a Phase I envirorimenMal aaesarrtent, Aftm will conduct a thorough
eraarnlnMfon d the property 1,ovior and saterior. Items to be evaktatsd Wwkx s the fotowirrg:
• At bulldtng Muotvrss and their corrtentw, with spoil atisnlw paid to pssft:k s,
Irerbicidea► and oltw rvntaharmW O micals and wastes which could be present
• LocOm d on-eft wells aril peptic systems
• underground stomps canal sbavaWoamd storap tarf, ano asaoclaiad plp*yj
• PCs-OWa*rirtp Uarwormers as in d by labels v
• 911@lrir11 ct sail► strsr■grdsad vop m*n, dwaloration d surba wow dshictabte odors
A1110 We will nals propwrly uses in the inYtrsdlsls Vow of Me avg w xK" all dal tatty be pall to
atgson 4 papa We which msy harbor kxk*rMl operations or involve the rianagemsnf of
atslNrlsls.
N irrtanrabi on preriolw alt awrlws Is arrNhft,Aftwe pomp will sysltrsle do owrwahip and
wi rswea d arty polwrrll■1 Nola Orr'IWIW Ards Wolla rind by Pi'm u l Mtrs propaty Loops or owrreroW
Wer1!#icdian d pMWA pcap M4 owi s Is ruoss+ry in aFaw to Ommly eery pat smuivrian g
relaaase or incidsrlb whiaA MW Mores amounted al the propsny undwr pr Am s ownwsflip,
-- i
Arable will ells+wall Me pawvws nyrr WgIc, and sim bgaly a aarrosrrpnp sew aft a wssttrr
of irwtofrrl�pn/aiai�M t1rlllil ire the Reaesrah Trisrlpllr aroma Tha tIm major
tinMre 400ft NOW M itli M$AN CarOU SM UrtlMMr*, dtis W*wdly,wd re
Unwed*41�00"al C20pol Nil all hwrrs sraOSN/r11 Rirraly reMe rMfiital AkftiGe
6squ0 nsl m inidw. A rllr eft d prdaltlom lnduft LW L&
vow slap ■M� torts, artd prglMwMarrr pspwrM, p+oMdv s�MnwM eiwewrl
Cana--- udff SWO I I so ila Aft=will orb 0 D NO Roost p1aro0 era
a gli aA ig aMelrs to dsltrr10 0 wt 100 OV wedmft or wrrdwgpW apapitra we talown to actor in
the vWtty of ft OL
Aft- rIM=WA tM tlM~Mwrsre ery d Mwdarlrwy sainM ails air pottrdwt MrrriMft a b daewrrtine
l�arlce OOnsult� er�sw!a daaarrrrinw whvttlMr pc>wawwrtflal hsverdocw waea,
>l��1�'1 a OrtA�t�ta�M e>f thM prOpMrtjl. Ar>tria psrMlxnal yl►w kMA111aW Ivaai arts
MIS rsQtii p> irtXlr OOw>lOwRlk1�ti�d0lai wadq1 and alas ouxv loop wil atomise at peed
riser ft sib �'nsraaMaMy►llttsrivs psrsorinsf wr visit rspohlary omorM to coraua tltw roesarch
ALLIANCE
Techndogia Corporator
5
«rninp v#rw aildt�rr, K the title scorch indiaa�ve any paow#el aral�anlrwrwt!impairrrrent due to
part prapsr1v -0 ON op a Lmg% these wo be n modlsd as wall.
Aq irtrpvctiarl arM�rrss w�l be dootxn�rrid � a Phare i Sys Assaaemvnt report. Ths rspart is
artdcipsta�d tv M�krae irlfamtarorr an utie toMawirg aub)scea:
Sts la�atbn
• oa tt grid p vft a as aperaftu
• BWWQ and propwty Wmpo=m mid dm wvatiais
• 8uffouro rq properties and urea •
. - Oeab& tydrolaplc, and aft k*nnmftn
• Fntsrgw y mopmu irlciclsi w in the vkMity oil try x"
• Any rpt40" agency inspfecdom carmc"aCtlarK/txmprrancs mom in pie vicar* Of
tfw PMPWY
TM apart wR In k4a si w a st"rd t oWq me need for a Phaas n invostlpatl % bmd an
pasrbep SVWVOrlr NMGI NsbIfts Orwawrsd durirp Plaa @ 1 acuvoos, or wil stag that a Phrr b
as r�arCdQ-` doAnratinp cwtWM made, po lams W*w*iarM 4 Nd dooc&Nn la mWwwod
- i
a
s � -
Tb�rbbpies Corporaaon
r
i
6 `
Exhibit A
Cost [stints, homestead Road Phase l Site Assessawn
Hours
Itas� PS P3 Clerical Cost
A. Site iialkowr and Inspection 8 $Gw
R. Canvas of Surrounding Prgwrtiec 1 s9i
C. Evaluation of Site History 4 $300
D. ftplatory Review 8 3600
E. Topographic, Geologic, 4 $300
ro*ologic, and Soils Assesseent
F. Report Preparation 6 4 $752
G. Technical Wow 2 2 $946
Trawl to site. regulatory awnCies $14
(approximately 60 miles I $0.24/wiI@)
R.
tt
Total: �•�7
I
i
i
f :.
� III
2
7
A'ITACHHENT
ALLIANCE T 4HNOLDGIES CORPORATION
Swat Mills South
Foot of John Street
Lowell, Massachusetts 01852
CALENDAR YEAR 1991 COMMERCIAL TIME A MATERIALS BILLING RATES
BRANCH OFFICES
(Effective 1 January 1991)
LABOR .
(+AI&GORY AESCRIrTION HOURLY RATE
--- Corporate Officer 1 $200
PS Corporate Scientist/Engineer $135
P4 Group Scientist/Engineer $100
P3 Principal Scientist/Engineer $ 75
P2 Senior ScientistAngineer $ 55
P1 Associate/Sclentist Znglneer $ 40
T3 Technician III $ 40
T2 Technician II $ 35
Ti Tecb�t isn I- $ 25
--- AduLnistratioa $ 75
-- TecbrAcal Publications $ 38
Dimt NMop-.sdw dma r will be billed at actual cost
plots e 1 It,admisistrstivs rp-
i .
_ - i
i
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This AGREEMENT is made by and between Alliance Technologies Corporation (ALLIANCE)with an
Office In f3rff�
(CLIENT)with an office in
CLIENT employe ALLIANCE to perform professional services,and consultation for the compensation
(as set forth in Exhibit A) in connection with
("Services').
�. gEAt immrrdimaiy reft CLIENT ana OW 68=00ns n 0".
awnt w ww an arty otdr ao" of acdon ngwnd ID
1.1 AL LANCE dW PwWm ft Wbwfrp' make the mb"rAkpn sum"for we on 1M swv=s.
1.1.1 Consuh wib+ CLEW to coly and chitin* ALLIANCE'S 33 Arrange fm Gams 10 WW mUoa aI pre+wtM for ALLIANCE
rggwwNrn far thr scalar and ro+riaw wmObW dm. io antr um pum ano wmm prmmi at mcprw to
ALLIANCE 0 Parbrm b SaMM
P Ad~CLIENT m ti dM naeWAY of CLIENT'S rr+oMM Or
aWNno harm Wsm WM10 lorric" Wd dm mKNOW m 314 Pefilem such ow 1lavoW of era final WW M ParaW 2
Gan edwI WO the So%A and aGhat CUNT In obla NV of E00t A'SOW Of Wank'
9ugh dam and aw"ll aa.
3.9 Onr aA twa111 Kldidlr'4 b apmpllalga 600r Ole raquuanrra
1.13 Prarida ---11 al d CLIEKPS nNW with #wWusdam and of th11a seem I
w 1praara"Aft of proapretivr aaludarr. 4. P14O=OF PRNPOIIbAMM
1.14 P"r row wrnifh up to 10 mmin of a Rarest on
ALLM21*Pvk a. 4.1 ALLWIM SPAata 61111 be 411144"N" =IM* at ft
dalr titian tr.ttrpat i.aae11plyd w Q.@(f. Aaatldt+ea
12 The srMaalt d ALLIANCE Idrnraad aboa+Iirr daaerbad in by MW a►a rdt to ww*6ORW and wa not emm
Eah"A wwdlrr •flmw d YIInrN.' 6hjdt it SUdW W w dta aW mft bale AL LMM MW w dtna.
Gilt n�adr a part d tlra ANaarrrala ALLMNCn 80Maaa wd In pnaunt■r D w=08111M.
L RAMMUM1111FA1W 42 a and as PRO elm 0o aftr d ALL Nen
swwraa eta s 1*0 offi 11lad i Immo d 1lawah no taus of
W It atlMU11r" IV aw, SNOW rlllalyd alrvim we to ALLWWL aA mw etaaanrw.. and anrews co
pMArIIrW IV ANWIM wit adflrorO WMPP W as aenormlon ad w M# iw artlpaarn of parlalrrlmroa
GPM afhfil to aeM11a�tr attAlsla ayl11aa�
L 1 43 ALLW W IN-"No Is•nww sm to davrar of
-Oil wd aa>t11 tMi11M 1a in a0mW w 00 80 014 OMMOd
r�� 46 M in a""m*m r as mt PONN W awl pl m6m rb wana+rpr a in lau
d ail am W 001101111114111111116 abfaar araararrrd w
WNW& s 1a11arl m aq ar+llwa Aa mm"um
f t PMW d soft mw u mmmosn aw t LC1. M's t+la abanr■E►ps11Wa fowl Ilan now NAM"# VA
br �. >rartliaw and datiM+rl� laatat+tilb Iwwail11: tirsl�lt •d�a ar dUwl�aq► tlrraaR
+� ON na low than a P w ally aarlpd e"of tr sarvkm
r� arla ltlM*an Ct lEFrrlltl,brd,rl► 1Nr +r1 ft" a No Era aor. 7116- go ONO" d
ALL mn aft soft wl d ft Aawwtrer tr aw
L! MirMaM•M111MN"S alp aldrrrd rafdaa. nptrM alld atltw itltdd al afna11ip, the ow at6rarl M til11ftl attttpartaarwi
air
do pwwmm m me b ormpm cow a 4unodaa rarairad AUaI/IAM.
AUAM b don w MOO SAN"" rtpwn and dad L MY�119ALWIM�
mWAmj and Arrirh w ALL#MZ aarilaaa d oataht
b pwlaenlatMa of Ai11AlICk"= $MrivMa U C ENT +yw8 pW AIL OMM. ltar air ltl�' M Alnda+ad
ALL>ow 00 to WON ev nM and r" Wa' i auCh p1r asw+ra as bbewd in Uft A.
irAnrlraa11l! and Mt1A011a parbad by sXr� w ova in
wrfMllrA:: ALL.f1AWn sale "A U Wied
Mdtfn11mm in owl w 11nam+m. allwl
i
I .
(� 9
ALLIANCE " submit more ty motes ky SaNko3 6.6 ALLWYCE shall be and
nrxkww. CLIENT small make �� of an indepv^aen;
prompt payments m reapon3e COhtractD•' in the pertarmanae d this Agreen+ent.
to ALLIANCES bivocn. ALLIANCE *W have Complete drerge of its emplovees
WVO* in the perlamianca Of the WorK wd sich
6.4 10 CLEW fails to make ary payment due ALLIANCE wW,-n employ*"shop not be c"WOred omptoysts of Lhe CLIENT
30 days aft recaip; of a 9 a-ent, the "mount duo in any respect.
ALLIANCE shag indude a chaW at the wme of 1.o Dow,
Per monde from sad M day. In addlmn. ALLIANCE mey, 6.7 ALLIANCE shall wmpty with a1 apo%abie larva. Federal.
after g&WV 7 dWs' writer no6w a CLIENT. suspend im Stew. and any subdMoon meraoi, and the ru*s.
Serwes wd ALLIANCE has bon paid in Nit all amounts regulimons. and codes of any iaattut mgwatory bpdy gang
due. thereunder. w+aud'atp amendm" and Chang" as they
shat 0M..
6. GENERAL CONSIDERATi(M
64 Ali Swvloes by ALLIANCE Shall be subjod to ft rspocc-
6.1 All downwrrt5 prepared w hrnr ,,W by ALLIANCE (and and apprawl of the CLIENT at alt thanes, and the cLIEM"S
ALIA, -9 im" WWW-t prei"srienal a"nr rte¢. duly authwmed raorernMve" afrtdt haw am@"s at i1
subrnne<acdra. and wnsuhanm) wxsuan. to this Agreecnern rrarena7M ernes eo ALLIANCE'S to Idw where dre
art ImstrUments of somme and CLIENT shau retain an ureic"We patio •
Ownership and progeny i=to.dst tt wein. ALLIANCE msrtr
make and reWn to "+&?"attar and r feu 89 ►hither ALLIANCE, nor its speru. xA=rT=-S,
tvt+.ve projects. . a emp!WI7 shag be"able m the CLIENT W I
oorrttgwntad damapaa, iidUdino, but het iNnlmd to, bas o' t trs
6.2 CLIFW and ALLIANCE each is hereby baurd and ft use and Mr. of profit. due to bmach of ootltru-t, brealr o-
pwvweo, euccomem. NMPdtora. "d"kr Waws "ro WON itri'rutty, or any MW amse. whww arch ll(
represanw16voa of CLIENT and ALLIi WM land to the habdrlY wises IM AffasnisnL 'ftkXMO braadt of warrrty.
atttent parnetted by paragraph 6.3 the aw"a of CLIENT or cony,ina driq nepllpnioe. p
and ALLIANCE) are he" bpwW m die odW patty to I"
AQre"We WW is ft p0Mwe, erm"MMn*. ow where, 6.i0 ALLIANCE 90 my or ewn a be mid dl taaws and
administrators and kgW rapresenwws (and said aeaiphs) fr OWW Oa 4w&-lona IRiPc+ted by pi' and Nwo
Of avdt other panty, in nsapac. Of an arralartti. Mpresn O Federal and titre MM Trial respW 10 Mnuartemdor CO
acid abli herons of Tie Agreerwrt w n*vm d ALLA MCE and aw autarOr"cIar rd all
IrlUMM and oera eft IN lk-e irr4ar acid larva as a n"utt of
63 Naidler CLIENT nor ALLlANOE sfraft =Mr. sublet w nwwwnpearta"tf*sps h.
trum"r sty ftft WNW or NaNfto in (kKk dtnp, bx
WNW W&VIIah. ffAf@p /rat ?tap beMprn* dw w a.t i The CLIENT " have fie rt K at any wa dump tier
n mays due ono_drip) ere Aa+ear"re wo%+A me w+iluen lawbrnrenrw at ft 5 arvfel1 10 imwiiis or dwasiss the
ct7rlm d fn arwr. wtotivt to are MUM thatt any an wR at or male af>•mMm in, ft tlerwaaa to be
aaetpnnWI WAIW q or Uamdar is ata1M*by No or ft parfrf11 arrd the mrwial;. equiprrleru, and etpparafto ro
efleot Of rtes Uuytaiarr Trey w rarpkaad br 1W. Lsdes be LP aw+ar trifler fHla AW=MMt by gulag tb ALLIANCE
aI 'a'iy OMM in the "rimy irr any "A" a nes" w free Of ifir CLIEM iftibi a ntMe sum dwggs w
am aeeiprreWL n0 4a w rnrlt affil release or dat 1 -g the aferabw As auan fti rftwllsr as p'aolaabte, ALLIANCE
aaipt'w► 6" any dug err Me"W" w"Mr pie MW 0 ups I add lei 40 a on cUW a ptapow am"
Apoeffi nil Na1MrN a M&W A title OPIPM 1 dO "ft penis Of amttpatesllten w IWA awe wwk NM any
prerern ALLMiNM 1rer+rr owOMVWQ atilt irdoerowo aNllawratt in 00 d wMfhwntM d fie AW061m'4. The
pfeieedorral aaNWAMa. wrraretm m am MOMLftla ar CLIENT veld boo ne 4pht is amp err now rch
AUkw= MR dram arrerrlm a 40M in the NapaaM• Ur apfaatWR Now ft OANT a"
pe+b IWW d tier.rna hMONa►. or IiMprrfw++t i Al.LW10E 4a • OR Noma ar ftii as d Mbdt. the
ALLIAMW Pof i s of � tearvim ae err AMR Ti, CL(EMT"ttabntk 10 mum= a CwQw Chrwe form
CUNT up"r no dohnow d aele ere 46+wet of sum Mrw by der CLONT, ditico I ?rat the &mpe or
awEratettTlalrie, stltwrrlan is ms"4"apaeityelp any rranaae or daorMr"rs
th the averts d ft ftlM rajH' br aen Oft t d tTe
ere tlearrq nMe� a!i Itptawwt MrtM M *rrwre/ r rr0 1lrark M a Nerd 46 OMM ON wlai AL.LIAIMM
ww dfpa w w1ft rN 11a AAnerR a 4tM1 M atlwr 7iwrwpwt4 AIM= Ad aaawiw ear "*hart a the
Ow gMw 4w AI,LM1iE very di dtttlfaa " CLEMy are am of aa11 Arta w OANP bna avid Suede
raoviii1=111iiii tarlMM1111111t iMaamilliw a ill of IN 0 11 on dip* Maud a wI*h► so fa =a any 11 mdse
be err atte 4w aril oral " barrsla M+: &off aM ttM1 domparo rtNltln rtlatAad mow
AUJUM d rltlttb fur mead vl ow pow.
a.1A p a dilly►is ether*by all w of parr be,ArrbM tlestf.
U ALL"M Ow tatew d M0 40"Now MWO IV GOMMena, aft ro= or apwr am dww Or by
M of radiU/wr. M •N**%O%a A— " ••rw eqow d ft r a"* of wry► d Nr QEM wwr
and ttrtin tiaf11a1*b di11■wae: err r a1 tt♦wrMOM fN atpllMft or 40a
h i
"do. IN so gwAw d fa aDW.am fat lama been
lti tNant lMa aa+nrtrwdeti
ad ap■IpIM" die lltl bvwen so pwaw d,alfslt dit wow«Nh
kr, 0 f in MMUM a Macy am IM; a an www o err on ad a aerw eporrerq
iraaare IN ft 00 eat d this AV Is 1rf,rAtidi shall be
G4 &~ ftdlf inafrtaflta in tai atelalrtt of --- 1w fa CLINK by w%M CpifrwI Change in
itrllfplrlpraatrsnnak j arwtdmap theft 6.11. AL Oh, Od WVMh am m
t� Maid its► Irwna�sr tr 10 " dtyw d Nr eat rmfttlMOV d t do*.a�
to tun d.lM' 1at1111fi Itolar ttrarad
irtutwtlw, daari a Mee of or dempa:fa ropry of Will tie WAMOa /mar 0 the d ft.
#*d /mangy in ft mrtinw wf+ew+t of ft AWWWAr
per a0al+raw.
i
10 '
6,13 Curler sre GLIENT er ALLLq= chap V* ADM to 6.14 TN9 Ago*,wt together with xe EOA%'m rfuuanra 00
tomwrnrs they Aroemert a, ov eaie for any roawn bY WOV Apraarrnrn 106111-1 CLIENT and ALWICE and
Qiv" " ow tan (10) days prier writtrn noo ti to such supersede as P14Y wntten of VW WrtdersWtdnV, and any
oflem Lin nsawpt of swo nods, ALLIANCE simlt pachaae order unw that RW be iasusd by ft CLIENT,
kwedietely dtee-&us al' Serviom in pepreee which can This Apnamant and ks f Aitiolfa may only be er"endad,
be 64mrttmued wit W r uft a hW rdous wndtior., and auPphnte Od. mOtftfted Or taraseed by a duy executed
am, ali euwAndins owmi!•nwo whip+ may be oaneelled wrath" ins"Mertf.
wrf+tout undus ant. ALLIANCE shelf notify In CLIENT d
any calawneurlant whla+ awAot be arwltod'wWmKx undue 7. SPSML PROM HOW
tort or without oopWrftm the Svoc" oonlPlrm to
date. Subjevt V aompeerm with 7+e tvngninQ and Wry Speieal Pmvtmns Wn Q are net❑Molh d to and
other eppli AM# pfovWmn vt t* Apreenysrt; fits CLIENT "*W a Part d this ApreamaM in EkHW B.
.Hall pay to ALUM M all amouns 9" to ALLIAFICC
under this AwtietrhnL ALLkNCE :half aWbrrfs m the
CLIENT ft atseement for the abnsWid crokm in such
nowrAbe deWl ar the CLEW shalt reposer w1v thi►ty
(ap) doya at4r 8Wh dtas Of terrninaden, arw the Ct-10M,
sW;pa V roritisaion ft W, Shs i And SU& IMMM tt
w&on "Iy (312) days aW ma*Wt d aueh ISWMer: by
the CLIENT,
y
This AOMOMent i$~V@ on the IM deY signed.
ALLMCE TECHNOLOOM 00MORIATKM GENT:
my By
NWO Non
l
Till! ' 71
p _ Do
j
j
it ....
2a
r�
,a
I ,
f
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF C0jMSSI0NERS
Action Agenda
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. VTTE-1
Meeting Date: September 3, 1991
SUBJECT: Appointments - Community Child Protection Team
-
DEPARTKKN -
T_+Social-Services---- PUBLIC HEARING YES:---4 NO:-X-
INFORMATION CONTACT: ---
Executive Order #142 Martha Pryor-Cook, ext. 2802
Community Child Protection
Team Policies and Procedures TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
------------------------------------
----------------
PURPOSE To designate five (5) community and/or agency
representatives to serve on the Community Child
Protection Team.
BACKGROUND:
The Community Child Protection Team is being established by the
Director of the Orange County Department of Social Services (DSS) , in
accordance with Executive Order #142. The team is composed of community
and human service representatives who will meet at least
quarterly to promote the development of a community-wide approach
to the problem of child abuse and neglect. The specific responsibilities
of the team are outlined in section two of the Executive Order.
In addition to specified agency representatives, the Executive Order
provides the option for the Board to designate up to five
representatives of agencies or of the community to be invited by
the DSS Director to serve on the team.
RECOMNENDATION(S) :
The manager recommends the following for the Board to consider for
membership on the Community Child Protection Team:
1. John Turner, Dean, School of Social Work, UNC-Chapel Hill
2. Don Hargroves, Chief Juvenile Court Counselor
3. Hillsborough Exchange Club Member (National and State focus
is on child abuse and neglect)
4. Chris Nutter, Dairy Farmer
5. Bonnie Davis, Retired, Agricultural Extension Agent
a .
J��1FS G. \f H"1'I?�
A
C;O�'FR O]i
EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 142.
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
WHEREAS , the future of North Carolina depends or,
children ; and its
�•'}'E}?EA.S , the number of abuse and neglect � �,
Skyrocketed in recent g_ect. ca„e. ,
the lives of our J'ears , in tao man gave
Youngest citizens ; and
instances crtting short
WHEREAS , county departments of social services received
36 , 000 resorts of child abuse and »e • elved
I involving more that, 52,000 children; and
state fiscal
� year
_ .� WHEREAS , reports of abuse and neglect are increasing
dramati.call Y at a time when both the state and co'untes
serious revenge shortfalls , leaving them unable to
fends necessary for L are �'a, wn�7
the number of social services Workerseth qd
to inVe3ti�et� abuse/nec �
children and their families; andor`•s and Pr'ollide treatr;ent fo;.
WHEREAS ) it is the duty
Division of Social Sery of the Department of Human Resow,'ces '
Services �'eCYssar ; vases to assist r_ountie.
tua ions to DJ.Otect children from abusive/r+homing try
NOW, "HEREFUhE, by the authority vested in
the Constitution and laws of North Carolina IT me as Gover•na: k;y
1S ORDERExi :
Secti�r7 1 . The Secretary of
r•espunsible for ennuri.ng that the UivH�nran Resources is
ztrengther, it;; ZU'Pe a _ 4on of Social Service.:
Services (Cps ) f rvi .�aon c:f county administered Child ProLecti , e
the programs through such arect,anisms and p,ethoas as :
procedures for division review Of chi ,
establishrt,ent of Cortymunity Child Protection Teams , the r
feC1 ve
t
3
monitoring of CPS screening decisions improvements to ttt
e Central
Registry for Child Abuse and decisions
sect
community awareness , enhancement of then ChildeMedicaliEvvaluati and
Program and proposed legislative actions . on
Section 2. The Secretary of Human Resources is hereby
directed to request the Social Services Commission to enact
emergency rules , id accordance with Chapter 1503 of the North
Carolina General Statutes , requiring each County Department of",
Social Services to establish a Community Child Protection Team,
to review defined cases of child abuse or neglect , including child
fatalities . It is my recommendation that the membership of each
team include , but- not be limited to , the following individuals :
the director of Social Services and a member of tr,eir staff, local
law enforcement , the District Attorney ' s office , the medical
profession , community action agency , school
social 5ervices board member and , at their option , '[threeo to t five
members appointed by the county board of commissioners . The
county board of comrr,issionerz may by action within 30 days
designate the chairmar7 of the review team. Otherwise , the
director of Social Services will chair the tears .
In cases of abuse/neglect, the focus of the team shall be to
ensure appropriate community involvement in the
children and to assist the county department of so-ialtse _vic the
evaluating allegations e. � icea
g e ations of maltreatment and in planning and
providing services to prevent further abuse/neglect . In the
review of child fatalities resulting from maltreatment , the focus
Of' the review team will be to identify
the local child }protection system andh�aps and deficiencies in
remedies tP put into place needed
and to assist the county department of sccial services
in the protectiun of surviving siblings .
The teams shall conduct their reviews in compliance with all
laws and regulations governing confidentiality of abuse/neglect
records .
Section 3 . it shall be the re.•ponsibility of the
Department of Human Resources Division of Social Services , in
accordance with the lawz and through the adoption of emergence
rules by the Social Services Commission , to :
1 . -Develop pr•ccedures to gu:.de the operation of community
child protection teams and to define tr,e cases w;- 4 c
wi7. 1 be subject to review by the county teams. t;
2. Standardize among counties the interpretation of
"caretaker" so all counties investigate allegations of
abuse and neglect involving non-traditional family
members , such as boyfriends .
Require each county department of social services to
have a two level review prior to makin a decision nut.Lo investigate a report of all g eged rt,use or- neglect .
Such review would , at a u►iniojum 4
receiving involve the worker
could include review n'by tthe county rd su
pervlsor and
Y irector .
4 . Monitor closely county cases
made not to investigae a es in which the decision was
5 • Require each county department to establish a process by
which the reporting person ma y
review of the decision not toinvestigate,j anda will
require that such persons be informed
obtaining such a review. of the process for
6 . Require that all county Child Protectiv e
attend basic training courses devel'oped by the i staff
Of Social Services after consultati
S
visin
tate Personnel . on with the Officeoof
Make improvements to the Central Re istr
Abuse and Neglect by amendin 10 8 y for Child
These improvements will allow county departmenOsOof
social services to identify whether children who are the
subject of abuse/neglect investigations have been
Previously reported as abused or n
the child is a member of a family inlwhich ,aochildther
fatality due to maltreatment has occurred in any count
in the state . These improvements shall allow law y
enforcement and medical professionals to have all
pertinent information from the State Central Registry.
which legally may be disclosed . Further , these
improvements shall allow the Department of Human
Resources and the division to
by law, to the Central Registry yrovide access , 2s a'. 1c►:�,d
L, Chief Medical Examiner ' s offieelin the oevent r�ofaao
child fatality to determine whether abuse or neglect
should be evaluated as a cause of death ,
8 . Provide qu�ar•teriy re orts tO fatalities that occur due to maltreatment. child
Section 4 , Funds from the Community Services Block Grant
administered by local Community Action Agencies shall be allocated
for- Community Awz!rene.ss Conferences across
Conferences will seek t. the state . xt1e
;.ncreaze citzzen and agency
in a�,�,ro�,riaLe rer,ort.ing Of child% abuse/neglect and faLalities ,
and,.in family preservation and child protection activities .
Section S . The terms and conditions of this Executive
Order which may conflict with the terms and conditions of previcus
Executive Orders oil this subject shall control .
Section 6 . This Order shall become effective immediately .
. Done in the Ca S
1st day of May , 1991 .. City of Raleigh , North Carolina , this the
J �
s G. Martin
G ernor
ATTEST:
Rufus Edmjsten
.arcre ary of State
r
6
COMMUNITY CHILD PROTECTION TEAM
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE TEAM
The Community Child Protection Team is established by the
Director of the Orange County Department of Social Services
in accordance with Executive Order # 142. The team is
composed of community representatives who will meet on a
regular basis to promote the development of a community—wide
approach to the problem of child abuse and neglect . Team
members will work together to identify gaps in services for
abused and neglected children and advocate for necessary
services to enhance the protection of children in Orange
County.
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TEAM
The duties and responsibilities of the Community Child
Protection Team include the following:
1 . To review cases in which —
a . a child died as a result of suspected abuse or
neglect and a report of suspected abuse or neglect
had been made about the child or his family to the
county department of social services within the
previous twelve ( 12) months ; the purpose of such
review shall be to identify whether gaps and
deficiencies exist in the community child protection
system and to assist the county director in the
protection of surviving siblings.
b. abuse and/or sexual abuse has been substantiated for
a child under the age of five .
C . there is substantiated neglect of a child under the
age of 1 .
d . Department of Social Services requests a review.
e, a team member requests a review which is consistent
with the review priorities established by the team.
2. To recommend and advocate for system improvements and
needed resources where gaps and deficiencies exist.
7
r
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL SERVICES
The County Director of Social Services or her designee shall :
1 . serve as chair for the team.
2. appoint Community Child Protection Team members and fill
vacancies as they occur , with the exception of members
designated by the Board of County Commissioners .
3. assure the development of written procedures for the team
to include composition of membership , frequency of
meetings, confidentiality policies, training of members ,
and duties and responsibilities of members .
4. distribute copies of the written procedures to the
administrator of all agencies represented on the team as
well as to each team member .
5 . assure the team defines the categories of cases that will
be subject to review by the team and , to identify from
among those cases subject to review, which ones will be
presented .
6. determine the cases in these categories on which she will
initiate a review and bring for review any case requested
by a team member .
7. report quarterly to the County Board of Social Services ,
or as required by the board , on the activities of the
team.
COMPOSITION OF THE TEAM
The Director of the Orange County Department of Social
Services and designated members of her staff shall
participate as members of the team. The Director will invite
representatives from the following organizations to
participate:
1 . Local law enforcement
2. The District Attorney ' s Office
3. The medical profession
4. The local community action agency
5. School personnel
6 . A county social services board member
7. A local mental health professional
8. At their option , county commissioners may designate up to
five representatives to be invited by the County Director
of Social Services .
1
TRAINING
The Division of Social Services shall develop and make
available for the team members on an on-going basis training
materials which address the role and function of the Child
Protection Team, confidentiality requirements , an overview of
child protective services law and policy , and team record
keeping. The Director will assure that training materials
are made available to team members . .
CONFIDENTIALITY
The Director is authorized to share with the Community Child
Protection Team any information available to him that is
needed by the team in the execution of their duties as
defined in the Duties and Responsibilities Section of this
policy. Each team member and invited participant shall sign
a statement indicating their understanding of and adherence
to confidentiality requirements including the possible civil
or criminal consequences of any breach of confidentiality.
Members of the team who have access to client information and
fail to comply with the rules in this section shall be denied
access to confidential information and subject to dismissal
from the team. Any invited participant who is given access
to client information during the team review and fails to
comply with the rules in this section shall be denied future
participation in team reviews . The Director shall not share
any information which discloses the identity of individuals
who have reported suspected abuse or neglect to the County
Department of Social Services.
RECORD KEEPING
The Director is required to maintain lists of participants
for each meeting of the Community Child Protection Team and
confidentiality statements signed by the team members and
any invited participants . These records will be maintained
according to the standard record retention schedule . Cases
receiving child protective services at the time of the review
shall have an entry in the child or family record to indicate
that the case was reviewed by the team and the date of the
review. Additional documentation is , not prohibited . No
Community Child Protection Team member will retain or
maintain any records pertaining to individual clients.
Full and accurate minutes will be kept of the meetings ,
excluding any executive sessions, and will become public
records. No information which would identify specific cases
will be included in the minutes . All case discussion will
occur in executive session .
9
FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS
The Community Child Protection Team will meet at least once
per quarter . Because the Community Child Protection Teams
are established by administrative rules adopted by the North
Carolina Social Services Commission , it is the opinion of the
staff of the Attorney General that meetings of teams are
subject to the open meetings law. In order to comply with
this law, a meeting schedule for the team should be
transmitted to the clerk of the county commissioners. With
the exception of unavoidable emergency meetings , the
previously agreed upon schedule should be followed .
LIABILITY OF TEAM MEMBERS
Team members have no case decision or service provision
responsibility; therefore , it is the opinion of the Attorney
General that as individuals , or as a group, the team would
not have liability in a child protective services case .
cpsteam.doc
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
�(�
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.
Meeting Date: September 3, 1991
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS
-------------------------------
DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S) : YES - UNDER SEPARATE CINFORMATION CONTACT BEVERLY BLYTHE
COVER EXT. 2130
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
.Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
- - - -
PURPOSE: The attached recommendations are being presented for the Board of
Commissioners consideration. The individual appointments are listed on
page two.
BACKGROUND:
YOUTH SERVICES NEEDS TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATION(S) :