The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 05-05-2005-1bJanuary 24, 2005 Petition Cover Sheet APPENDIX A 50 Fair and Equal District Representation on the frame County Board of Commissioners Orange County is a diverse area comprised of identifiable communities which reflect the diversity of the county including farmers, blue collar workers, white collar workers, academics, professionals, and students, all of diverse racial and ethnic self identifications. It is important in our democracy that the diversity of the community be reflected in its chosen representatives. For this reason North Carolina Law permits the voters of counties to choose commissioners by electoral districts with each district being as nearly equal in population as practicable. Further, North Carolina Law permits the qualified voters of each district to nominate candidates and elect members who reside in the district for seats apportioned to that district, It is also permissible to have some commissioners allocated to the county as a whole, whom the qualified voters of the entire county nominate and elect. (NCGS §153- 58(3)b) Currently all Orange County Commissioners are elected countywide. Thus the large city and urban population in and around Chapel Hill and Carrboro control the electoral process while the more rural areas of the county lack the population to elect someone from their areas who would be able to represent their views in the deliberations and decisions of the Orange County Commissioners. The undersigned residents of Orange County petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to alter the method and manner by which Orange County Commissioners are elected to afford equal and fair representation to the residents of the county by adopting NCGS §153- 58(3)b, permitting the voters of Orange County to choose commissioners by electoral districts with each district being as nearly equal in population as practicable. Further, that the qualified voters of each district nominate candidates and elect members who reside in the district for seats apportioned to that district and that some commissioners, but not more than half of the board, be allocated to the county as a whole, to be nominated and voted upon by the qualified voters of the entire county. NCACC County Election Methods APPENDIX B Page I of '4 51 COUNTY ELECTION METHODS No. of Election Combined Terms of Manager Foot County Comms. Method Description Office Title Notes Alamance 5 al 4S Manager Alexander 5 al 4S Manager Alleghany 5 al 4S Manager Anson 7 d 4S Manager Ashe 5 al 2/4S Manager Avery 5 al 2/4S Manager' Beaufort 7 1 4S Manager 1 Bertie 5 dal 4S Manager Bladen 9 m 6d; 3al; 1 4S Manager 2 Brunswick 5 dal 4S Manager Buncombe 5 al 4 Manager 3 Burke 5 al 4S Manager Cabarrus 5 al 4S Manager Caldwell 5 at 4S Manager Camden 5 dal 3d; 2al 4S Manager Carteret 7 dal 4S Manager Caswell 7 cda 5d, 2al 4s Manager Catawba 5 al 4S Manager Chatham 5 dal 4S Manager Cherokee 3 dal 4 Manager Chowan 7 cda 6d; lal 4S Manager 4 Clay 3 al 4 Manager Cleveland 5 al 4S Manager Columbus 7 d 4S Manager Craven 7 d 4 Manager 5 Cumberland 7 cda 5d; 2al 4S Manager Currituck 5 cda lal; 4dal 4S Manager Dare 7 cda lal; 6d 4S Manager Davidson 7 at 4S Manager' Davie 5 al 4S Manager Duplin 6 d 4S Manager Durham 5 al 4 Manager Edgecombe 7 d 4S Manager Forsyth 7 cda lal; 6d 4S Manager 6 Franklin 7 cda 2a1; 5d 4S Manager Gaston 7 dal 4S Manager Gates 5 dal 4S Manager Graham 3 at 4 Manager 7 Granville 7 d 4S Manager Greene 5 al 4S Manager Page 2 of 4 52 COUNTY ELECTION METHODS No. of Election Combined Terms of Manager Foot County Comms. Method Description Office Title Notes Guilford 1 I cda 2al; 9d 4S Manager Halifax 6 cda 3d; 3a1 4S Manager Harnett 5 d 4S Manager Haywood 5 al 4S Manager Henderson 5 dal 4S Manager' Hertford 5 dal 4S Manager Hoke 5 al 4S Manager Hyde 5 al 4S Manager Iredell 5 al 2/4S Manager .Jackson 5 cda 4dal; Ial 4 Manager 3 Johnston 7 dal 4S Manager Jones 5 al 4 Manager Lee 7 cda .3al; 4d 4S Manager Lenoir 7 cda gal; 5d 4S Manager Lincoln 5 al 4S Manager Macon 5 dal 4S Manager Madison 5 al 4S Manager Martin 5 1 4S Manager 8 McDowell 5 al 4S Manager Mecklenburg 9 cda .3al; 6d 2 Manager Mitchell 5 al 4S Manager Montgomery 5 cda 2al; 3d 4S Manager Moore 5 dal 4S Manager Nash 7 d 4S Manager New Hanover 5 al 4S Manager Northampton 5 al 4S Manager Onslow 5 al 4 Manager Orange 5 al 4S Manager' Pamlico 7 cda gal; 5d 4S Manager Pasquotank 7 cda 3al; 4d 4S Manager Pender 5 d 4S Manager' Perquimans 6 al 4S Manager Person 5 al 4S Manager Pitt 9 d 4S Manager 9 Polk 5 al 2/4S Manager Randolph 5 dal 4S Manager Richmond 7 al 4S Manager Robeson 8 d 4S Manager Rockingham 5 al 4S Manager Page 3 of 4 53 COUNTY ELECTION METHODS No. of Election Combined Terms of Manager Foot County Comms. Method Description Office Title Notes Rowan 5 al 4S Manager Rutherford 5 dal 4S Manager' Sampson 5 d 4S Manager Scotland 7 d 4S Manager Stanly 5 al 4S Manager Stokes 5 al 4S Manager Surry 5 dal I 4S Manager Swain 5 al 4 Administrator 3 Transylvania 5 al 4S Manager Tyrrell 5 al 4S Manager Union 5 al 4S Manager Vance 7 d 4S Manager Wake 7 dal 4S Manager Warren 5 d 4S Manager Washington 5 cda 4d; Ial 4S Manager Watauga 5 dal 2/4S Manager Wayne 7 cda Ial; 6d 4 Manager Wilkes 5 al 4S Manager Wilson 7 d 4 Manager Yadkin 5 al 2/4S Manager Yancey 3 al 2 Manager 3 TABLE ABBREVIATIONS Election Method Description al All commissioners nominated and elected at large (pure at large). d All commissioners nominated and elected by district (pure district). dal Commissioners nominated by district but elected county -wide. 1 Limited voting plan. cda Combination of pure district and pure at large seats. cdal Combination of pure at large seats with some seats requiring residency in districts, but still nominated /elected at large. S If S appears beside length of tern, means that some seats are staggered or' not all up for election in the same year. Page 4 of 4 54 TABLE FOOTNOTES 1. Limited voting system. Candidates file as a group for open seats and voters may vote for only one candidate. Both primary and general election results are determined by plurality. 2. Six members elected to numbered seats from three two- member districts; three at- large members elected concurrently. Primary result is determined by plurality, with each voter limited to one vote. I Chair elected separately. 4. Six members elected to numbered seats from three two- member districts for staggered four - year terms; at -large member elected for four -year term.. 5. Two members nominated and elected by district; five nominated by district and elected at large across the five remaining districts. 6. One two - member district; one four - member district; one at -large member. T Member elected with highest number of votes serves as chair. 8. Limited voting plan. One two- member district; one three - member district. Voters in two member district may vote for only one candidate. Voters in three - member district may vote for two candidates. 9. Six single- member districts; three consolidated districts formed by combining single - member districts.. January 21, 1953 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes APPENDIX C The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in an adjourned meeting, at 2:30 o'clock P. M., in the Courtroom of the County Courthouse, on Wednesday, January 21, 1953• Members present: Chairman R. 0. Forrest; Sim L. Efland and R. J. M. Hobbs, Commissioners. This meeting was held for the purpose of having a hearing to consider the revocation of the 1952 -1953 Deer License issued to Brodie Powell, who operates a place of business on Church Street Extension, near the Town of Chapel Hill. A, IT. Graham, County Attorney, conducted the hearing for the County Com- missioners, and J. R. Farlow appeared for Brodie Powell. Sergeant Coy E. Durham of the Chapel hill Police Department; Deputy Sheriffs Albert Pendergrass and Prank Maddry; J. E. Crabtree, State Inspector with the Halt Beverage Division; Mildred Holeman and Connie Bynum appeared as witnesses in the hearing,. After listening to all the evidence, the Board advised that it would reserve its ,judgment in the matter until its next regular meeting on February 2, 1953 A delegation of eighteen members appeared and presented a petition rela- tive to legislation pertaining to increasim the membership of the Board of County Commissioners to five. John Hawkins, spokesmen for the delegation, stated thnt approximately 930 people had signed the petition. The petition was worded as follows: "We the undersigned petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to authorize our representative, John W. Dmstend, to present a bill to the General Assembly for legislation. "To increase our present three member Board of Commissioners and Board of Education to e Five member Board. No two members on either board shall come from the same township. The county commissioners will be elected by majority vote of the entire county. Their term of office shall be four years on a 2 -3 rotation basis every two years, thereby giving, the county experienced members on the board at all times. No commissioner can succeed himself in office for more than one term without missing a term.'' This meeting was adjourned, to meet again on January 27, 1953, at 7:30 o'clock P. M., at the County Courthouse. J. E. Laws -------- - - - --- Clerk to Board R. 0, Forrest ----------------- Chairman of Board CJ 55 A'rr➢ Excerpt from February 2, 1953 Commissioner's Meeting APPENDIX D Minutes 56 April, 1951, as to the depositing in escrow with State- Plnnbers Bank ,g Trust Compnny of Richmond, Virginia, bonds of the kinds sot; forth in said agreement of not less than 2500,000 par value. It is further ordered that Ira A. V %rd, County Accountant, and E, N. Lynd Clerk of the Superior Court, are hereby directed to deposit doily in the aforesaid Durham Bank & Trust Company, Hillsboro Breach, any and all funds or money belonging to the County of Ornnae, or any subdivision thereof, received or collected by them as required under the provisions of Section 153 035 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. A bill in the amount of 5200 was presented to the Board representing the remainder due Graham and Eskridge, County Attorneyr, for the balance due for services and expenses in connection with the issuance of ;250,000 Courthouse Bond Anticipation Note, and the 0250,000 Courthouse Bonds. It was duly moved, seconded and passed, that this bill be paid from the Courthouse Building fund. Miss Annie Strowd and bliss Gladys Talley, new case worker for the blind, appeared and dismissed the Aid to the Blind program in the county. The follow inn, changes in grants were made: James S. Blacknoll, I11, Now grant, %.7.00 per month, Lizzie ':'lhite, reduced from a monthly grant of 8,116,00 be 135,00, Charlie Robert White reduced from a monthly grant of 150,00 to $35.00. Mr. James R. Parlow, Attorney for Brodie Powell, appeared and requested the decision of the Board in the matter pertnininrc to the revocation of the 1952-1953 Boer License. Deputy Sheriff Prank P.laddry and Mr. Parlow informed the Board t:hn,t Brodie Powell .. had complied with the Boards suggestion in erecting additional lights outside his place of business, and was attempting to improve the situation at his establishment, In view of this, the Board advised Mr. Parlow that it was not revoking, the Beer License at this time. It was moved by Commissioner Hobbs, seconded by Commissioner P.fland and unanimously passed, that Mrs. Idabel Allison in the Clerk of Courts offic'b be advanced from her present salary to a salary of $210.00 per month, effective January 1, 1953, so long as she performs the duties formerly performed by Mrs. Iris l'1, Cates. PAr, A. 11. Graham and Mr. John T. !donning appeared and presented the ing resolution: RESOLVED, That the Orange County Bar Association be on record no favoring an additional one week special civil term of the Superior Court of Orange County to be hold the week: beginning the second Monday before the first Monday In March of each year hereafter, excluding the year 1953, and that the County Commissioners of Orange County be requested to approve such a term and request the Orange County representatives In the General Assembly to have adopted whatever legislation necessary to accomplish the establishment of this special term of Court, working with Air. John M. Strong, Special Administrative Assis- tant to Chief Justice Davin. It was moved by Commmi.ssionsr Hobbs, seconded by Commissioner Efland and unanimously passed, that the foregoing resolution be endorsed, and that a copy of the same be sent to the Orange County Legislative representative, At 2 o'clock P. H. on February 2, 1953, the Board met in the Courthouse for the purpose of hearing delegations pertaining to the proposed change in the number of members, of the Board of Commissioners. Mr C, W. Stanford, Chairman, and Air. K. S, Cabe, Member of the Orange County Board of IYducstion, and Hr. G. P. Carr, Superintendent, Orange County Schools, attended this session. A petition containing 330 signatures was presented to the Bonrd, This petition read as follows: WE, the undersigned citizens of Orange County, urge ghat the members of the County Board of Commissioners be elected from the county at large, rather than from any particular district or township, with no limitation on the number of commissioners to be elected from any township. Mr, Lee Brooks, Mrs. Harold Walters, Idrs, Everett Hush, Mr. P. W. 'Wager, Judge L. J, Phipps, Mrs. Wettach and Mr. Alex. Heard spoke in behalf of this petition. Nr. Reid Roberts and Hr. Raymond Weaver spoke in behalf of a petition, which was presented to the Board at a prior meeting„ and which stated No two members on either board shall cone from the same township°. After hearing considerable discussion In the Courtroom, the Board adjourned that portion of Its meeting and reconvened in the Conmissionerst Room. The following motion was submitted by Commissioner Hobbs: MOVED, that the Orange County Board oi' Commissioners be increased from three members to five members, and that such members be elected at large by 'i`1! 57 the voters of the county without regard to townships, and that our representa- tive in the legislature be asked to introduce legl.slntion to accomplish this purpose, Commissioner Hobbs further moved that at the next general election three members of said hoard be elected for four years, and that two members be elected for two years, and that all terms thereafter be four years. This motion was seconded by Chairman Forrest. A vote on this matter was as follows: Ayes: Commissioner Hobbs and Chairman Forrest. Nays: Commissioner Eflnnd. The following names were drawn to serve ns Jorors in the March 'Perm of the Superior Court: 1. firs. Ilene G. Crosby (CH) 31, Jesse Hopson (CH) 2, Paul Hagen, Sr, (11) 32. J, K. Tillman (CH) 3. Robert Y. Durand (CH) 33- Matthew Nunn (CH) b. Rainey R. Crabtree (CG) 31h. Walter McKee (LR) 5. Richard L. Wilkerson (CG) 35• Slilli.mn Wright. (Eno) 6. Carl H. Fussier (CH) 36. Billy Williams (CH) 7. Ira T. Puller MR) 37. Charlie B, Poole (Cks) 0. Claude J. Walker (11) 30. M, H. Jones (CH) 9. Lira. S. W. Crabtree (CFI) 7q, Eric Neville (CH) 10. Jesse S. Cole (CH) 110, W. S. Blackburn, Sr. (CH) 11. Mrs. R. M. Matheson (OH) 111. G. K. Hilliard (CIA) 12, W. J. -ykes (Cks) 62. H. B. Mc Adnms (Cks) 1j James hl. Tatta (Eno) 11 Charlie Tear (B) 11J. Joseph F. Rosemead (CH) V. Arthur James Pouches (CH) 15, Ed W. Cleaver (Eno) 115, J. IC, llarward (II) 16, 9. C. Dnniel (LR) 116. J. C. Smith (CC) 17. Daniel W. Campbell, Jr. (CH) 47• Christine C. Stilwell (CH) 10. Gary :7. Lloyd (H) 110. W. R. Sturdivent (CH) 19. C. D, Jones, Jr. (11) 119, Claude H. Edwards (CH) 20. Marshall Cates, Sr. (H) 50. John A. rancor (CG) 21, Poster Fitz- Simmons (CH) 51, Albert Qhitfiold (B) 22, Theodore El, Freeman (11) 52. Harold Rotelfing (CH) 23. Hart Colson (CH) 5g, Mrs. Gin d ys H. Groves (CH) 21i. John J. Keller, Jr. (CH) 511, C, T. Johnson (Eno) 25, H. B. Dew, Jr. (CH) 55, Peter Johnson (CH) 26. W. G. Wall MR) 56. W. C. Breeze (CG) 27. James T, Snipes (CH) 57• ',falter P. ';!illimns (CH) 20, John P, ',Jolters (CG) 50. 0, W. Slaughter (Cks) 29. Robert ii. Dodson (C11) 59• Charlie H. Mi.ncey MR) 30. John Wayne Lesley (CH) 60. Clora Styers (H) There being no further business, upon motion, the meeting adjourned to meat February 10, 19% at 1 o'clock P. M- Ira A. Ward _____ _____ ____ ___ __ __ Acting Clerk to Board R. 0. Forrest _________________ Chairman of Board irce and effect from and eit•r lot e times and ratified, this the 24A R 438 TO BE RECEIVED BY JUSTICF.d 1 NTY. no do enact, hail be paid as on assessed cart to A the institution of the action thr I Include any and all of the folbo- ng eontimmaces, order of rnmral, to peace, entering judgment, from. warrant of attachment In eject u (g1..o0) additiouaf. es of the peace at the time of W an of one dollar ($too). utes the fees in the mattero IrAI. office . . ........ ........$4.00 ime ....................... .26 s allowance ........... .. 2.60 Iloting the same, ;heels for 100 words ...., .60 ............ .............. .50 1.00 afridsvit included ....,,.,,. 1.60 ............................. .25 ......................... 1.60 .... ... .......... ..... ..._. LOU ...................._.... .50 .......................... .60 aden Cennty only, ms in conflict with this Act an 1953 State Statute Expanding Board Membership APPENDIX E 1953 — SESSION LAWS C.H. 438 -439 -440 Sec. 6. This Act shall be in full force and effect from and after its ra ti fica ticn. In tiyo r:. -c.cl ±c: c.-w�_ rcy,i t4.c� t;mcc a..! .,jicc,. 'H- day 'J lfa _... .... M 11.3;6 CHAPTER 439 AN ACT TO AMEND G. S. 1634 RELATING TO THE ELECTION IN NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. rAo Grnrral Assembler of North Carolina do enact: Si lion 1. From and after the first hlonday in December, 1964, the &card of County Commissioners of Orange County sball consist of five Irembers. In the general election to be held in the year 1954, there shall be elected in Orange County five members of the Board of County Com- adasioners, three members to be elected for terms of four years each, and I" members to be elected for terms of two years each. The tbree can- didates receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected for tiair four -year terms and the two candidates receiving the next highest num- ber of votes shall be declared elected for the two -year terms. In the event a tin rote makes it impossible to determine which candidate or candidates ban been elected the Clark of the Superior Court shall designate wtdch mandate or candidates, as the case may be, receiving such tie vote shall *rte. At the end of their respective fetus of office, their successors shall be elected for a term of four years, and until their successors are duty dotted and qualified. Ste. 2. All laws and clauses of laws in conflict with this Act are Mrtby, repealed. Sm. S, This Act shall be in fall force and effect from and after its eatllicatlon.. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified, this the 24th day of March, 1961 If. 1j. 372 CHAPTER 440 AN ACT AMENDING CHAPTER 634, SESSION LAWS OG 1961, FIX- ING THE COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS IN AVERY COUNTY. rte Genmaf Assembly of North Carolina do enact: 6 ctien 1. That Section 1 of Chapter 634, Session Latvs of 1951, is borsby rewritten to read as follows: 'The Sheriff of Avery County shall receive an annual salary of three Owasand dollars ($3,000.00) payable in twelve equal monthly installments, In addition to all fees and expenses as hereinafter set out. The fees and expenses to be charged by the Sheriff of Avery County fir aarricro rendered by him shall be as hereinafter set out; (aj Executing summons or any other writ or notice, one dollar and M7 conts ($!b0), for each defendant. 317 M Excerpt Prom June, 29 1992 ArP�IVnii� F' Commissioner's Meeting Minutes 59 APPROVED 8/3/92 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING JUNE 29, 1992 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, June 29, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in the OWASA Community Meeting Room in Carrboro, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Managers Albert Kittrell and Rod Visser, Economic Development Director Ted Abernathy, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Assistant Public Works Director Mary Barbour, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Finance Director Ken Chavious, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Captain Joe Dickey, Purchasing Director Pam Jones, Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes, Personnel Director Elaine Holmes, Public Works Director Wilbert McAdoo, Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass, Major Don Truelove, EMS Director Nick Waters, and Solid Waste Coordinator Beth Wickham. NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. I. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA An appointment to the Board of Health was added. An item addressing the Transportation Improvement Program issues was added as III -GG. Item VIII -C for the Wastewater Treatment Systems Management Monitoring and Maintenance Assurance Program was deleted from the agenda. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Gordon distributed township residence information for �► Orange County Commissioners. The first year that all five commissioners resided in Chapel Hill Township was 1990. Over the past 38 years there have been 18 years during which three commissioners resided in Chapel Hill Township. There have been ten years during which there were two Chapel Hill Township Commissioners and there have been four years when there have been four Chapel Hill Township Commissioners and another four years when only one commissioner resided in Chapel Hill Township. Chair Carey asked that a letter be sent to the two school boards requesting a copy of their final budget including how they allocated their fund balance. Chair Carey announced that this meeting tonight was scheduled so that the commissioners could have their questions answered about the landfill process and the four sites selected for testing. He announced that if members of the audience have questions that are not answered that they write them down and give to the Clerk or mail to the County Commissioners. �.. Memorandum Presented at June 29, 1992 Commissioner's APPENDIX G Meeting 60 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Alice Gordon DATE: June 24, 1992 RE: County Commissioners and Their Township Residence At my request, Sylvia Clements of the Clerk's office has completed a listing of the members of the Board of County Commissioners for the 38 year period from 1954 to the present, along with their, township residence. That listing is attached for your information. The cutoff date of 1954 was chosen because that was the first year that there were five commissioners on the Board. Prior to that date the Board had three members. Furthermore, the township residence of commissioners prior to 1954 was apparently not available for all commissioners. I thought this information might be of interest because of many recent questions concerning the number of commissioners who have resided in Chapel Hill Township. Note that the first year that all five commissioners resided in Chapel Hill Township was 1990. Coincidentally that was the first year that two women had ever served on the Board at the same time. Over the past 38 years, there have been 18 years during which 3 commissioners have resided in Chapel Hill Township. There have been 10 years during which there were two Chapel Hill Township Commissioners. Finally, there have been 4 years when there have been four Chapel Hill Township Commissioners and another four years when only one commissioner has resided in Chapel Hill Township. The current population in Chapel Hill Township is just under 70% of the total population of Orange County. A 61 (6/92) COMMISSIONERS' TOWNSHIP RESIDENCE ** NAME TOWNSHIP Moses Carey CH Alice Gordon CH Stephen Halkiotis CH Verla Insko CH Don Willhoit CH Shirley Marshall CH John Hartwell Eno Ben Lloyd Cheeks Norman Walker Little River Richard Whitted Hillsborough Anne Barnes CH Norman Gustaveson CH Jan Pinney CH Flora Garrett CH (Elected) Eno (Moved there after 2 years) Henry S. Walker Eno Ira Ward CH Melvin Whitfield CH Harvey Bennett CH William C. Ray Cedar Grove Carl Smith CH Gordon Cleveland CH Donald Stanford Bingham Clarence Jones Hillsborough Donald McDade Cedar Grove Claud Pope Cedar Grove R.J.M. Hobbs Chapel Hill Dwight M. Ray Chapel Hill Edwin S. Lanier Chapel Hill Sim L. Efland Cheeks ** This listing goes back to 1954 1 1980 -B2 Richard Whitted, Don Wil'lhoit (Reelected) CH: 3 Anne Barnes (served through Dec. 1981) H: 1 Shirley Marshall appointed Jan. 182) LR: 1 Norm Gustaveson, Norman Walker 1978 -80 Norm Gustaveson, Norman Walker (Reelected) CH: 3 Anne Barnes (Elected) H: 1 Richard Whitted, Don Willhoit LR: 1 1976 -78 ORANG= COUN -v BOARD OF C01,2,1TSSTONERS PER ELECTED PERIOD CH: 'sear Townshio - 1990 -92 Stephen Halkiotis (Reelected) CH: 62 5 LR: Alice Gordon, Verla Insko (Elected 1974 -76 Norman Walker (Reelected) CH: Moses Carey, Don Willhoit Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney (Elected) 1988 -90 Moses Carey, Don Willhoit (Reelected) CH: 4 H: Shirley Marshall, John Hartwell, Stephen Halkiotis E: 1 1986 -88 Shirley Marshall (Reelected) CH: 4 CH: John Hartwell, Stephen Halkiotis (Elected) E: 1 E: Moses Carey, Don Willhoit Ira Ward (Served until Sept. 1973) 1984 -86 Don Willhoit (Reelected) C: 1 LR: Moses Carey (Elected) CH: 3 CG: Shirley Marshall, Ben Lloyd, Norman Walker LR: 1 1982 -84 Norman Walker (Reelected) C: 1 E: Shirley Marshall, Ben Lloyd (Elected) CH: 2 LR : Richard Whitted, Don Willhoit H: 1 LR: 1 1980 -B2 Richard Whitted, Don Wil'lhoit (Reelected) CH: 3 Anne Barnes (served through Dec. 1981) H: 1 Shirley Marshall appointed Jan. 182) LR: 1 Norm Gustaveson, Norman Walker 1978 -80 Norm Gustaveson, Norman Walker (Reelected) CH: 3 Anne Barnes (Elected) H: 1 Richard Whitted, Don Willhoit LR: 1 1976 -78 Richard Whitted (Reelected) CH: 3 Don Willhoit (Elected) H: 1 Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, Norman Walker LR: 1 1974 -76 Norman Walker (Reelected) CH: 2 Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney (Elected) E: 1 Flora Garrett, Richard Whitted H: 1 LR: 1 1972 -74 Flora Garrett, Richard Whitted (Elected) CH: 2 Henry S. Walker, Norman Walker E: 1 Ira Ward (Served until Sept. 1973) H: 1 (Melvin Whitfield served 9/73 - 11/74) LR: 1 1970 -72 Henry S. Walker, Ira Ward (Reelected) CG: 1 Norman Walker (Elected) CH: 2 Harvey Bennett, William C. Ray E: 1 LR : 1 Township Legend: B = Bingham, C = Cheeks, CG = Cedar Grove, CH = Chapel Hill, E = Eno, H = Hillsborough, LR = Little River Year Townshio 1968 -70 Harvey Bennett, William C. Ray (Reelected) CG: 2. 63 Carl Smith, Henry S. Walker, Ira Ward CH: 3 E: 1 1966 -68 Carl Smith, Henry S. Walker Ira Ward (Elected) Harvey D. Bennett, William C. 1964 -66 Harvey D. Bennett (Reelected) William C. Ray (Elected) Gordon Cleveland, Carl Smith, Reelected) CG: 1 CH: 3 Ray E: 1 CG: 1 CH: 3 Henry S. Walker E: 1 1962 -64 Gordon Cleveland, Carl Smith (Elected) B: 1 Henry S. Walker (Nominated to serve in place of CH: 3 Donald McDade who was elected for 4 -year term, E: 1 but died on November 21, 1962) Harvey D. Bennett, Donald Stanford 1960 -62 Donald Stanford (Reelected) B: 1 Harvey D. Bennett (Elected) CG: 1 Clarence Jones, Donald McDade, Henry S. Walker CH: 1 E: 1 H: 1 1958 -60 Henry S. Walker B: 1 Clarence Jones, Donald McDade CG: 1 Donald Stanford, R.J.M. Hobbs CH: 1 E: 1 H: 1 1956 -58 R.J.M. Hobbs (Reelected) B: 1 Donald Stanford (Elected) CG: 1 Claud T. Pope (Died 8/57, replaced by Donald McDade)CH: 2 Dwight M. Ray, Henry S. Walker E: 1 1954 -56 Four -year terms: Henry Walker C: 1 D. M. Ray CH: 3 Edwin S. Lanier (Resigned 11/2/56) E: 1 Two -year terms: R.J.M. Hobbs Sim L. Efland (Resigned 12/3/56) Note: At the February 2, 1953 meeting, a group of citizens petitioned that the size of the Board of Commissioners be increased from three to five members. The Board agreed and recommended that enabling legislation be requested. It was decided that at the November, 1954 election three candidates would be elected for four -year terms and two would be elected for two -year terms and that in the future all candidates would be elected to serve four - year terms. APPENDIX H ORANGE COUNTY CONLMISSIONERS 64 P.O. Box 8181 IIILLSBOROUCII, N.C. 27278 Moses Carcy. Jr. 732 -6181 Alice M. Gordon 968 -4501 Stephen H. fWkiods 688 -7331 Verla C, Insko 227 -2031 Don willhoit 644.3004 (Fax) ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETINGS The following special meetings have been scheduled by the Orange County Board of Commissioners: SEPTEMBER 1, 1992- A work session will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Library Conference Room at 300 West Tryon Street in Hillsborough for the purpose of discussing the proposed orange County Civil Rights Ordinance. SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 A public hearing will be held at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse at 106 East Margaret Lane in Hillsborough for the purpose of receiving information on district representation and citizen comments on this topic. All County Commissioner meetings are open to the public and the public is invited to attend. Moses Carey, Jr. Board of Commiss YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY! 515. C; A! /O. I N14 M E clse. lor i� T o � J dy < <VpP ��j rya ,� D wiz- ✓_ /Ja. I,- ,rS T6 T Q.4 v- t c. ML, L. k-e . '/ -+evon L_ C20rio ,2, t \ Ito. (c lati. ll c7' 65 /11) T w, // ,1v � 66 METHODS FOR ESTABLISHING AND ALTERING THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. The general laws of North Carolina do not prescribe any one set plan for the number of members, term of office, or method of electing boards of county commissioners The structure of each of the 100 boards of county commissioners is determined from one or a combination of the following authoritative sources: (1) the provisions of G S 153-4 (a former statute repealed in 1973), (2) one or more local acts of the General Assembly; (3) a local redistricting plan adopted under G S. 153 -5.2 (a former statute also repealed in 1973), (4) a plan adopted locally under the Home Rule Act, or (5) a judgment of the federal court entered pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The structure of the Orange County Board of Commissioners is prescribed by Chapter 439 of the Session Laws of 1953 No changes in the structure of the board have been made since 1953. There are currently three possible routes for seeking a change in the structure of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. I Local act of the General Assembly The normal procedure for change by this method is for the board of commissioners of the affected county to petition its legislative delegation for introduction and passage of a local bill embodying a specific plan requested by the board The Orange County delegation's practice is to require that any such legislation have the unanimous support of the delegation. 2. Home Rule Act (G S. 153A -58 through 153A -64). The procedure for change under the county Home Rule Act is as follows. A. The board of county commissioners adopts a resolution modifying the structure of the board within the parameters allowed by the Act. B The resolution is submitted to a vote of the people at either a special election or at the same time as an already scheduled election. C If approved by the voters, the new plan takes effect for the next primary and general election cycle. 3 Litigation under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 This route for change could be successful if a litigant were able to show that the existing structure of the board has the effect of minimizing minority voting strength. Presentation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, September 28, 1992 Joseph S. Ferrell Institute of Government 67 Before the County Commission of Orange County Public hearing on Commission Electoral Districting 28 September 1492 TESTIMONY OF I.IGIITNING A. DROWN This has not been an easy issue to open for discussion, particularly in this electoral season for some of you. Discussions of syslematfe electoral change are never easy for those ultimately charged with decision of such matters, since you decisionmakers are, in the short nun, frequently the grcatost and most immediate beneficiaries of the system to be reformed, and thus forced to decide in conflict with your own personal interesls, And so I think it is important to thank you for this opportunity to discuss openly and meaningfully a ouustion so fundruncntel to the potiticat constitution of our oounty. I believe that your willingness to entertain this question now indicates your determinaiion not to solve it in the short run only. You know that fair representation of all Orange county citivens is and will be an electoral issue this year, and therefore that our discussions this evening will have long -terra Implications. I commend ytru all for not shying away from them. Get me also commend and personally thank candidate MA Marcoptrulos for succeeding after years of similar, failed efforts by other citiz=% including myself, to bring this issue to discussion. I believe that the success of Mark's campaign, at least in this ore respect, represents a significant contribution to progressive county government, for which all of us owe a debt of thanks. But as I express my appreciation, I feel I must also express some disappointment, in that the framing of the question of fair rcpresemalion as stated on your agenda this evening, is limited, by intention or inadvertence, to the issue of cleworal districts. I believe that electoral reform is urgently needed in Change, bui I am also firmly convinced that the district proposals which have been ropoatcdly rejected over the last 25 years wero rightly rejected be-mww they would promote neither the best quality of reptesentation nor the unity of our county. Therefore, I challenge you nil, should you decide once more that districts are not the way for Orange county to go, not to stop thee. Go on to look at other atternativm which can enhance our local dcmoaatic values without sacrificing the quality of government or the unity of our populace. My testimony tonight concerns some of theso alternatives. I ask you to hear it as a critique of the district plans and as an urgent plea for eorrrc'.iring better. We have been froquently reminded in this election you that nearly 72 °10 of tegistemd Orange voters are residents of Chapel Hill township, and that without some change, the residents of the other five townships cannot be assured of inclusion in determinations affecting their families, their dignity, and their livelihoods. In its simplest teems, this long- repeated complaint by rural residents asscrts, first, that a bloc representing most of our county's native -bom population and owning a substantial portion of the jurisdiction's land deserves de facto to be directly represented on the Gutty Commission, and second, that a bloc comprising 28% of the electorate cannot be assured of mprescrnation when the smallest majorities to win elections for a five - member board are 50% when two seats become vacant in presidential years like this one, and 33% when throe scats are open in off- Years, Some of you question this olaim, citing the unreliabilitY of voter rolls as counts of actual voters and predictors of voting strength. Others of you question whethOr a minority which can, with a little luck, elect its candidates in every second Election by gaining the support of an addition! 5% of the electorate is actually in such desperate straits that fairness should require a change in the rules But to those of you who believe the argument thus settled, I submit two additional sets of facts. first Is the duration and the degree of subjective frustration and alienation expressed by many of those testifying tonight: these people feel that county government is skewed against them, text that repmsentation is the key to improvement. i These subjective frustrations are potitir4l facts, engendering distrust and resentment around scorns of 10, issues ao0 chronically impeding ra:ionzl considered decisiorun<idng. On the positive side is the expcctation of these citizens that greater participation Will increase their trust in gwcmrnontal process and in the quality of decisionmakir g- a philosophy so fundamentally American that it deserves, in any case, the benefit of the doubt; trot I also believe that this philosophy is prociscly correct as applied to tonight's question. I will return 10 this point. M The second set of facia is contained in the 1990 U-S. Census statistics released this year, which categorize our county population as Go% Cuban and 40% rural. Free of possible inaccuracies of the voter rolls, and incursive of child and adult residents of the county who dunand services whether or not they are registered to vote, these data indicate the division of county lifestyles morn accurately than could township boundaries since they describe the availability of city services such as water and sewerage at the place of residence. Thcse statistical facts dramatize the remsrruation issue in a way the voter rolls do not, by showing that the underrepresentod' rural population is much larger than the 28% counted by voter registrations, and by suggesting further that long-term undemeprescntation may result in lowmed participation in the democratic process. in summary, ccosus statistics prove that a substantial and important rural population in our county does not sit at your tabla, either now or most of the Lima, By limiting rural representation, our county government has logt the rural perspective, the perspective of our native orange cotmtians, and of many of our local traditions; but I amt not oiltimistic that a district system providing one w two Couruy C,onunissioner's seats for rural areas can begin to restore the balance, ? xing the; system will not be accomplished by guarantceiT4 anwne a scat at the table merely on the basis of one's address. To create an entidemertt to representation based on where one owns or rents is a superficial, quota - oriented solution which will further, divide our txxtnty by casting cumn population patterns in stone, and limiting voters' choices in every part CptniVV. For example It is conceivable that a candidate living in downtown ChaPcl Hill could support the of the needs and positions of rural residents in an eloctiorr, and lose because a district plan mould mahe her hreligtble joy voter from raral Orange cound=. Similarly, an orange county balkanized into electoral districts of varying sizes nwnber of will, in the long ruA UMU 68 ce=as, pujods bchvtxa mandatory redisttictir'tg after' each federal. electable Worse Wan�ir possibilin during is the virtually 1 scenario that some CpmmiSSiorers under' a district system will feel no obligation to represent more than their own nelghborboods, and will lose sight of the needs of the cotutty as a whole and of their constant responsibility as political leaders to educate tvEns in this broader perspective. Unless Our eloctoml system Dan responsibility a n become more Sensitive to the variety and richy" of our county's culture and demographics, a noel sear ra the Commission might be »othing more than a perxa=t mtnortry, ultimately adding to the alienation and frustration rsrd possibly limiting tbo TWmsentation of minority residents within any particular district, of rural residents, t3 What rural votes and other undctreprtscnted €GPs in ° counts electoral m vas a is no more or ices than what err Coasdtution encourages: not an automatic entitlement to direct rcproscmation as a spee[a1 privilege, but rather the rfgW not to be acludsd a genuine, meaningful chance to compete and win elections unencunsbere3 by arbitrary Hiles and stmciurai barriers It is clear that tamers do cp stin �h °a�ction,icand the overwh"lrr ng ab'tl tyro£ the arbi� the limited number of vacant oomrrsissionerships Chapel Bill geographic bloc to Pt= its states of candidates inl� se v i�aU� both offtthese Problems musty candidates. In ord"r w fairly represent the variety of our Urartea Y quot eated district acheases, be edchcsscd I am convinced that both can be solved without resort to quota on There is txatainiy nothing sacred about the five- person membershlP of Your board. Indeed there have been few defenses oficmd for the present Commission's Size. For example, I recast Shirt Iviarshail describing five as "the p feet oumlxr", superlatively easy to work with during her last term as a Commissioner. Ftowever, I also recall of the board al for beginning of that tarn Ms, Marshall regularly 06mplained how hard that Prim to the malignmcnt representatives— of decisions declines for lack of Buff dem input, the savings cannot count for much. it was to hold a solid majority of three votes• It is even asserted, that it is cheaper to have fewer score but if the quality of govemm quo are arbitrary at bat• A more rational standard for seeing the siu of the These defenses for the status 4 mernbersbp can adequately n prescnt the variety of major cultural, racial Commis is whether the numbK r of your as we should that rural residents are such a group, and economic groups which comprise ow eourn} • Assumin(r for example, a Commission requiring a minimum of 33VO vote for cicCaon is e..Mern and to cl commission i when rural minority represents Only 28% of voters• Finally, the arbitrar nets of the embaembec Commission is des in off- with d simpiieitY which improvcmentS could be made; merely add riaro rntxnbsu o;t if four vacancies s will y the three in ptrsidentlat years, and rural candidates enjoying the solid support of their constituents will rugttiarly moot the 25% threshold for election But, sad to say, the simplest solution in this rasa is only part of the answer needed. The problem of fair W] representation for all citizens in orange county is complicated by the fact that we are traditionally a Democratic county and that our county government is almost always chosen by Democratic voters in our primary and runoff elections. Thus, a candidate who might win the support of a majority of voters in the November gen ral elections will not ordinarily appear on the ballot unless she is first Arc - approved by the voters of the Democratic Party in the May primary, As a Democrat, I cannot entirely deprecate this advantage; as a cibr)cn, however, I must question the strengthening of my patty when it means a weakening of democracy; but, both as a eitiren and as a Democrat, I do demand at least that my electoral system and my party invite the participation of the broadest segment of voters meaningfully possible. Because we have not done this in the past, we Democrats are faced this year with a situation which could recur to the detriment of our party, even if to Jhe benc[ft of our democracy -- the defection of one of our merabom willing to seek election without the benefit of patty nomination, Whether or not you as Democrats support this unpr„ccdcnted independent candidacy, I urge you to appreciate the idealistic motivation behind it, and to respond by expanding access to our primaries in order to protect their long -term viability. One Marie Marcopoulos may hc salutary, but a tradition of similar independont candidates could doom local primaries and parties to irrelevancy, and probably doom county 80vetnmemt to chaos. My proposal for reopening our county primary elections is one which I am certain you will not hear again this evening, and so I ask you to give one last ounce of patience to consider it It involves a procedure called focused voting, which permits the individual elector to votc for one less than ilea number of vacturo w to be filled— which requires, in other words, that the voter focus her choice on a more limited number of preferred candidates, simultaneously leaving a chance for other veers to give greater weight to their stronger e=at, T not of this simple technique is to make slate voting more difficult, and thus to create Opportunities groups within the clectarate to place a greater variety of individual t candidates nal independent offi�nInth 'dates that 0=0 is carnty in 1991, a focused voting scheme would offer an assuran PO ndepn a Welcome play for them witbin the political party system. In the same context, focused voting could assure rural ms,dcnts and othcr undompmscrrted groups that our government's and our poop lc's commitment is not to arbitrarily exclude, that our commitment is to offer every citizen a fair chance to participate, Do we have to make those changes? It is by my estimate unlilely that a oourt would foto expand the size entadve quality or our parry primaries. But we V411 all lose if we of our County Commission or improve the repres On Of ell do not change. Ultimately, the corrocmcss of our gavemmemal decisions depends �° Do we haven make these ralcvant points of view, ands govcmmc'rt which excludes governs blindly and wrongly, changes? can we affard to plzn for the development of our remaining rural land without assuring ourselves that we will understand tire history and traditions which it represents? Can we afford to pursue the economic developmtxd of air cocrvnunity without guaranteeing the utmost attention to the eiti=IS who most need its benefits? Cal we hope to work together as a county when any decision which disparately impacts any segment of Our jurisd etion, whether it be siting of dumps or watersheds+ funding of schools and other far liars or protection of agriegitnral prosperity, is grc t d with suspicion by large bloc¢ of citizens who be the field is skewed tasaiast the inm matte ands it Of Our I think we do have to change our system of'rcp csentation I think that the quality I think that vm deserve the best. I hope that your cfrorts as Comrnissioners in ta� of et attention and wyour flood In improventonts which assure us the best And in that spirit, 1 thank yet again Y�r wok Excerpt from April 20. 1993 Commissioner's Meeting APPENDIX I 70 Minutes Planner Emily Cameron presented for Board approval the Preliminary elan for Whitfield's Glen Subdivision. The property is located on the outheast corner of Whitfield Road and Sunrise Road in Chapel Hill Township. It is zoned Rural Buffer and designated as Rural Buffer on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The total acreage of the tract is 37.27 acres. Seven (7) lots are proposed which average 5.32 acres in size. New lots will be served by individual wells and septic tanks. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Preliminary Plan for Whitfield's Glen Subdivision with conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval attached to these minutes on pages VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. 1993 -98 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN John Link presented for Board confirmation the 1993 -98 CIP and for discussion the possible use of proceeds from impact fees for school capital needs. The Board asked that staff present scenarios by which they could demonstrate what the total expenditures would be for both school systems for pay -as- you -go as well as the costs of elementary schools and to demonstrate how the revenue side of the picture could be met including the addition of some capital facility fee. Sally Kost reviewed the financial information for capital improvements funding for both school systems. This information is in the Permanent Agenda File. Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to confirm the staff's understanding of the Board's decisions about the 1993 -98 CIP as presented in the agenda abstract and to approve the School Capital Facilities Fee Implementation Plan as presented by Chair Carey. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. CONTRACTING FOR TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH FIRE INSPECTIONS Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to table this item until additional information can be provided. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ORANGE COUNTY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to accept the Orange County Affirmative Action Plan and authorize the Chair to sign the memorandum to recipients of the Plan. VOTE: UNANIMOUS W* E. TASK FORCE ON THE PROCESS FOR ELECTING ORANG;; UUUCPI'x wraraiooiv. Chair Carey explained that the issue of fair representation was brought up during the last election of County Commissioners. In an attempt to address this issue outside of the election process, he recommends that a task force be formed on the process for electing Orange County Commissioners. He outlined the charge and composition of this group which is included in the agenda abstract. Steven Levine stated his opposition to the composition of the group. He also feels the proposed time frame is inadequate to do the job that is required. He asked the Board to follow its normal method of forming a task force where people can submit their names and the Board could then appoint citizens from those who have expressed an interest. IL Mark Marcoplos spoke on behalf of "The Coalition for Fair Representation ". He does not agree with the composition of the task force He feels that the major source of inequality in the current system is the lai of institutionalized representation for the minority rural population. He asked that the Board invite the broad range of community leaders involved in this issue to a meeting in order to agree on the composition of the task force. Dan Coleman, Orange County Greens, feels the proposal does not go far enough. He does not agree with limiting the task force to representatives from specific groups. He asked that there not be a limit on the At Large positions until the Board sees who applies. He feels the time frame is too short because the issue is complex and will require outreach into the citizenry. Helen Urquardt expressed concern with the composition of the task force and asked that the Coalition for Fair Representation have a representative on this committee as well as someone from agriculture and a senior citizen. Patrick Mulkey expressed concern about the composition. He feels a representative should be selected from each Township Advisory Council, three At Large, two from the County School System and one from the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School System. Lee Mortimer suggested keeping the composition as presented but adding more members. He noted that Davidson County recently embarked on a similar endeavor. Betty Ibrahim noted that none of the groups included in the composition seemed to be disenfranchised. She feels that landowners should be represented. The viewpoints need to be broader to include geograph diversity and the different perceptions of the population. The Board discussed at length the composition of the task force. It was decided that the composition would be expanded by two At Large members. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Insko to approve the charge as presented and the composition as presented adding two additional At Large members. VOTE: UNANIMOUS IX. BOARD COMMENTS - NONE X. COUNTY MANAGERS REPORT - NONE XI. APPOINTMENTS Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Carey to approve the following appointments: ARTS COMMISSION Donald Bergstrom - reappointment to expire 3 /30/96 Kathleen Buck - new appointment to expire 3/30/96 Marie Vargo Flynn - new appointment to expire 3/30/96 HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION Philip Cooke - reappointment to expire 3/30/96 Bev Foster - reappointment to expire 3/30/96 Jan Riordan - reappointment to expire 3/30/96 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Patricia Dickinson - reappointment to expire 3/30/96 Jean Anderson - reappointment to expire 3/30/96 72 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. y-zLr_E ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: APRIL 20, 1993 SUBJECT: TASK FORCE ON THE PROCESS FOR ELECTING ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS --------------------------------- --_------------------------------ DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X --- ------- ------ ----------- -- - - -- --------------------------------- ATTACHMENT(S): YES INFORMATION CONTACT: MOSES CAREY TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hilisborough - 732 -8181 Chapel, Hill - 968 -5401 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 --- °---- ------- -- ------------------------------------------ PURPOSE: To approve appointing a task force on the process for electing Orange County Commissioners BACKGROUND: A public information meeting was held in September, 1992. Since that time citizens have expressed an interest in looking at the different methods for electing County Commissioners. This task force will look at the present process to determine if it is fair and equitable and if not to recommend changes which are necessary in order to achieve fair and equitable representation. The charge, task force composition and process is attached to this agenda abstract. (S): Approve the charge, task force composition and process as presented. 73 TASK FORCE ON THE PROCESS FOR ELECTING ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHARGE: 1. To determine if the present process for electing Commissioners provides fair and equitable representation for the citizens of Orange County. 2. If the answer to #1 is no, then what changes are necessary to achieve fair and equitable representation'? 3. To report to the Orange County Board of Commissioners no later than June 30, 1993 on the subject of the charge. TASK FORCE COMPOSITION: 1. one member of the Northern Orange County NAACP 2. one member of the Southern Orange County NAACP 3. one member of the Orange County Commission For Women 4. one member of the local chapter of the National Organization For Women 5. one member of the Orange County Democratic Party recommended by the chair person 6. one member of the Orange County Republican Party recommended by the chair person 7 one at -large member All members will be appointed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Members must be registered to vote in Orange County. Staff support will be provided by the County Manager's office. PROCESS: 1. The Task Force would be expected to hold two public hearings in geographical convenient orange County locations to receive public comments on issues of fair and equitable representation. 2. The Task Force may consult with the staff of the Institute of Government for legal advice on election laws in the state and the U.S. 3. The Task Force will produce a written report of their findings for presentation to the BOCC by June 30, 1993. Excerpts from May 18, 1993 and June 7, 1993 APPENDIX J Commissioner's Mtg. Minutes 74 E. VOTING DELEGATE FOR THE NACO MEETING A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissione Halkiotis to appoint Don Willhoit as the voting delegate for the NA conference which will be held in Chicago, Illinois from July 16 through July 20. VOTE: UNANIMOUS F. SOLID WASTE INITIATIVES The Board agreed to proceed on these initiatives as previously submitted. IX. BOARD COMMENTS - listed above X. COUNTY MANAGERS REPORT John Link announced that County bonds were refinanced at a rate of 5.10 which will save $655,000 over the next 17 years. XI. APPOINTMENTS TASK FORCE ON THE PROCESS FOR ELECTING ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to appoint the following persons to this task force: LINDA CARVER COMMISSION FOR WOMEN KEITH COOK DEMOCRATIC PARTY RICHARD HAMMER REPUBLICAN PARTY GLORIA WILLIAMS SOUTHERN ORANGE NAACP RACHEL LYNCH -GAYA NORTHERN ORANGE NAACP PATRICK H. MULKEY AT LARGE VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to authorize Chair Carey to appoint the Chair for this task force. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Insko to appoint Karen Barrows to the Orange County Planning Board representing Little River Township. VOTE: UNANIMOUS BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to appoint Lightning Brown as a full member of this Board and to appoint Dorothy M. Wilson and Reginald H. Morgan as alternates. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XII. MINUTES - NONE XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commission Halkiotis to go into Executive Session with the Orange County Schoo, Board /staff to discuss the acquisition of property. 75 E. DISPOSAL OF COUNTY -OWNED PROPERTY In 1974, Orange County acquired by foreclosure a parcel of land, roughly one -half acre in size, on 10th Street in Mebane. Recently, the grandson of the previous owner approached the Revenue Director and expressed interest in acquiring the parcel. The County's financial interest in the property is approximately $3,000. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to convey the property to Habitat for Humanity, OCHC, or some other affordable housing organization, assuming that organization demonstrates interest and can produce a plan for the timely and effective use of the property. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to reconsider this item. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer this back to staff for additional background information on what interest in the property the grandson of the previous owner may have. VOTE: UNANIMOUS IX. BOARD COMMENTS - Listed above X. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT - NONE XI. APPOINTMENTS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to appoint Elizabeth Walters to the Orange County Planning Board for a three year term in an AT LARGE position. VOTE: UNANIMOUS TASK FORCE ON ELECTING COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Carey to appoint Sharon Worthington as the N.Q.W. representative and Robert Ferguson in an AT LARGE position. VOTE: UNANIMOUS HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION Motion was made by Chair Carey, seconded by Commissioner Insko to appoint Karen B. Taylor as a representative of the InterFaith Council. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XII. MINUTES - NONE XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION - REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION - Canceled XIV. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for the Board to consider, Chair Carey adjourned the meeting at 12:05 a.m. The next regular meeting will be held on June 8, 1993 at the Homestead Center in Chapel Hill for the purpose of hearing citizen Excerpt from August 4, 1993 Commissioner's Meeting APPENDIX K 76 Minutes and Agenda Materials presented with the understanding that the specific concerns stated above will be reviewed. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1= VII. REPORTS A. TASK FORCE ON THE PROCESS FOR ELECTING COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REPOP Keith Cook, Chair of the Task Force on the Process for Electir County Commissioners, summarized the final report and the minority report. Mr. Cook and the members of the task force were commended for the work they accomplished within a short period of time. Comments were received from several members of the task force and members of the public. Mr. Bob Ferguson, task force member, asked that the County Commissioners read the minutes of their meetings and that the task force be allowed to continue to find a way to help those who feel disenfranchised. Mr. Steven Levine feels it is time to examine the Orange County Board of Elections process. He feels the two public hearings were poorly advertised. He would like to see the Board increased from five up to nine to eleven members. Mr. Richard Hammer, task force member, noted that the opinions of the members of the task force did not change throughout the entire process. He noted that the final report was written by Mr. Cook. The task force members did not vote to approve the report. He feels the whole point of view was slanted and not presented as the majority stated. His first choice i cumulative voting. Ms. Madeline Levine expressed her concern that the vote came down racial lines. She told about the method of voting used in Cambridge, Massachusetts and will share that information with the Board at a later time. She hopes this is not the end of the process. Mr. Ben Lloyd stated that there are a lot of people who feel they are not represented on the County Commissioners. He asked that the Board consider district representation. Mr. Henry Whitfield noted that different segments of the community are not represented. For example there is not a representative from agriculture on the Board. He would like for the County Commissioners to extend the time for this task force until they come up with something that will do somgthing for the people in this county. Patrick Mulkey, task force member, urged the County Commissioners to read the minutes of the task force meetings. He feels the system is unfair to both the rural and urban citizens. Mr. Sim Efland noted he was a County Commissioner when the Board considered township representation. He commended the Board for what they have accomplished and stated that they need to get good people to run from the rural area. He suggested having township representation with an alternate in each township. He feels this would increase communications so that the people in the townships would know what is happening. Mr. Mark Marcoplos made reference to the report and stated he feels the racial division on the task force is not an issue. The main point is that no one spoke at the public hearing in favor of the current system. He hope the process will continue. The County Commissioners received the report. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIO Action Agenda Item No. Vii A ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 4, 1993 SUBJECT: PROCESS FOR ELECTING ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS --------------------------------- DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS --------------------- -------- -- -- ATTACHMENT(S): FINAL REPORT. MINORITY REPORT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 77 ---------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ---------------------------------- INFORMATION CONTACT: MOSES CAREY,JR. TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -5401 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To receive a report from the Task Force on the Process for Electing County Commissioners. BACKGROUND: On April 20, 1993, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the charge and composition for a task force on the Process for Electing Orange County Commissioners. Since that time, two public hearings and three meetings have been held by the task force. Keith Cook, Chair of the task force will give the report. RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive the report. TASK FORCE ON THE PROCESS FOR ELECTING ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHARGE: 1. To determine if the present process for electing Commissioners provides fair and equitable representation for the citizens of Orange County. 2. If the answer to #1 is no, then what changes are necessary to achieve fair and equitable representation? 3. To report to the Orange County Board of Commissioners no later than June 30, 1993 on the subject of the charge. TASK FORCE COMPOSITION: 1. one member of the Northern Orange County NAACP 2. one member of the Southern Orange County NAACP 3. one member of the Orange County Commission For Women - 4. one member of the local chapter of the National organization For Women 5. one member of the Orange County Democratic Party recommended by the chair person 6. one member of the orange County Republican Party recommended by the chair person 7 3 at- large member All members will be appointed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Members must be registered to vote in Orange County. Staff support will be provided by the County Manager's office. PROCESS 1. The Task. Force would be expected to hold two public hearings in geographical convenient Orange County locations to receive public comments on issues of fair and equitable representation. 2. The Task Force may consult with the staff of the Institute of Government for legal advice on election laws in the state and the U.S. 3. The Task Force will produce a written report of their findings for presentation to the BOCC by June 30, 1993. w ara: cask Force on Elecr.7na 60(u oS uF _t AuL 93 79 Number: y Term: Meetina: Function: John Link. ext. 2300 >escriotion: NAME /ADDRESS DAY -PHONE TERM EXPIRES RACE TOWNSHIP EVN -PHONE APPOINTED SEX REPRESENTATION X3.1 Linda Carver 732 -6138 W Chapel Hill 1315 Blackwood Mtn. Road 929 -3950 05/18/95 F Comm. for Women Chapel Hill. NO 27516 D3_2 Keith Cook 782 -0033 B Cedar Grove 419 Calvary Court 644 -1834 05/18/93 M Dem. Party Hillsborouah, NO 27278 D3.3 Rachel Lynch -Gaya 732 -6454 B Hillsborougn Route 6. Box 1060 732 -3289 05/18/93 F N.O_ NAACP Orange Grove Road Hillsborough_ NO 27278 73.4 Richard Hammer 732 -8366 W Hillsborouah 111 West Corbin Street 732 -8366 05/13/93 M Rep_ Party Hillsborough, NO 27278 D3.5 Patrick Mulkey 660 -2542 W Bingham 3812 Hiahwav 54 West 942-3814 05/18/93 M At- large Chapel Hill. NO 27516 03.6 Gloria Williams 929 -0494 8 Chapel Hill 436 Pinev Mountain Road 929 -3534 05/18/93 F S.O. NAACP' Chapel Hill. NO 27514 D3.7 Sharon. Worthington 929 -4000 W Chapel Hili 200 Barnes St_ #Dr6 942 -3791 06/07/93 F N.Q.W. Carrboro, NO 27510 D3.8 Robert D. Ferguson 682-3710 W Hillsborouar 1505 Hwv. 86 N 732 - 1983 06/07/93 M At -Large Hillsborough. NO 27278 D3.9 VACANT At -Larne Chapel Hill- NO 27514 F -101 • • 'x' I I iAkr�f w• ter • ORANGE COUNTY FINAL REPORT AUGUST 4, 1993 Committee Members Keith Cook, Chair, Orange County Democratic Party Linda Carver, Orange County Commission for Women Robert Ferguson, At -large Rachel Lynch -Gaya, Northern Orange NAACP Richard Hammer, Hillsborough Republican Party Patrick Mulkey, At -large Gloria Williams, Southern Orange NAACP Sharon Worthington, National Organization for Women Staff John M. Link, Jr., County Manager Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk to the Board BACKGROUND Ul In response to citizen questions regarding the fairness of the current process used to elect Orange County Board of Commissioners, the Board held a public, information meeting on September 28, 1992, Joseph S. Ferrell from the Institute of Government, UNC -CH, presented information on the general laws of North Carolina governing local elections; and three possible routes for seeking a change in the structure of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Since that time, some citizens have continued to express an interest in studying the present election process for Orange County Commissioners, On April 20, 1993, the Board of Commissioners unanimously approved appointing a nine (9) member task force to study the process for electing County Commissioners. Members of the Task Force were selected in order to achieve the following representation. 1, One member of the Northern Orange County NAACP 2. One member of the Southern Orange County NAACP 3. One member of the Orange County Commission for Women 4. One member of the local chapter of the National Organization for Women 5. One member of the Orange County Democratic Party recommended by the Party chairperson 6. One member of the Orange County Republican Parry recommended by the Party chairperson 7. Three At -Large Members The only criteria for membership was all appointees had to be registered to vote in Orange County. All Task Force members were appointed by the Board of Commissioners. CHARGE The specific charge to the task force was: 1. To determine if the present process for electing Commissioners provides fair and equitable representation for the citizens of Orange County. 2. If the Task Force determines that the present system is in some way unfair, then, In what way is it unfair and to whom is it unfair? (This charge was added at the organization meeting of the Task Force held on June 2, 1993 by Commissioner Chair Moses Carey, Jr..) 3. If the process does not provide for fair representation, then what changes are necessary to achieve fair and equitable representation? E 82 4. To report to the Orange County Board of Commissioners no later than June 30, 1993 on the subject of the charge. PROCESS The Task Force was instructed to, at a minimum, hold two public hearings in geographically convenient locations in the County to receive public comments on issues of fair and equitable representation. The public hearings were held June 16, 1993 at 7:00 pm at Guy B. Phillips Middle School in Chapel Hill and June 17, 1993 at 7:00 pm in the Superior Courtroom in Hillsborough. The hearings were attended by a total of thirty -five (35), ten (10) of whom were present at both hearings. In addition, the Task Force held meetings on June 2, 30, and July 8, 1993. The group also consulted with Joseph Ferrell of the Institute of Government and Lee Mortimer of the Center for Voting and Democracy, An informal survey was conducted at Hillsborough Hog Day Festival on June 19, 1993 and on Saturday, June 26, 1993 at the Carrboro Farmers Market. A copy of the survey instrument and the results are included as Attachment I. CONCLUSIONS /RECOMMENDATIONS CHARGE: DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRESENT PROCESS FOR ELECTING COMMISSIONERS PROVIDES FAIR AND EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION FOR THE CITIZENS OF ORANGE COUNTY. Response: The Task Force has determined that the current election system in Orange County does not provide for fair and equitable representation for all citizens in the county. This conclusion was reached by a five (5) to three (3) vote. This conclusion was based on the responses from the informal surveys; the comments received at the public hearings; and discussions among task force members. Concerns raised by those opposed to the current election system included: 1. Lack of rural representation on the Board of County Commissioners; 2. Present board is composed of only Chapel Hill township residents; 3. Rural and conservative residents feel alienated and disenfranchised. 4. Political parties excluding Democrats are frustrated by the perceived inability to participate on local elected bodies. A total of 171 Orange County citizens spoke at the public hearings and /or completed the surveys regarding this issue. Of these, 153 considered the present system unfair and /or unequitable, while 18 supported the current election system. It should be noted that as of January 8, 1993, there were 60,560 registered voters in Orange County. Thus, the 2 83 perceptions /opinions of 171 citizens regarding this issue represent less than one (1) percent of the voting population of Orange County. CHARGE: IF THE TASK FORCE DETERMINES THAT THE PRESENT SYSTEM IS IN SOME WAY UNFAIR, THEN IN WHAT WAY IS IT UNFAIR AND TO WHOM IS IT UNFAIR? Response: Although the Task Force determined that the current election system is not fair and equitable for all citizens in Orange County, it could not totally pinpoint those citizens for whom the system is unfair. The questions and issues that were raised and discussed included the following: Is the issue of fairness based on reality or is it one of perception? 2. Are the concerns geographical or are they philosophical? 3. Is the current system unfair to Democratics, Republicans, Independents, rural residents and /or farmers. 4. Is the system unfair to African - Americans and women? 5. Is it fair that Chapel Hill Township voters can determine the destiny of the county without any consideration of the needs and concerns of the remaining parts of the county (Le. the recent school bond referendum)? These serious questions and issues were difficult for the Task Force to address and resolve as noted by the five (5) to three (3) vote. Some members of the Task Force felt that the current system is unfair and other members felt that it is fair. (See Attachment II - Minority Report). However, it is a moot point to continue to ponder whether or not it is a perception or a reality that the current system is unfair to some of the citizens of Orange County. The fact is that many citizens do perceive it to be unfair, as reflected by the majority of citizens who participated in the public hearings and the informal surveys. It is also a fact that many citizens do feel alienated and frustrated by their perceptions that the current system is not responsive to their needs and concerns. Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that the following points be considered immediately by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The Board has a responsibility to reach out to all citizens, not just those who have the power to determine election results. The Task Force recommends that the current Board implement various strategies to insure input in policy decisions from rural citizens and communities in the County. 84 2. The continuing gap between the Chapel Hill Township and the rest of the County seems to be widening. The Task Force recommends that the Board study and implement ways to bridge this "us vs, them" mentality for the benefit of all our citizens, CHARGE: WHAT CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE FAIR AND EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION? Response: According to Joseph Ferrell of the Institute of Government, the present system of electing county commissioners is legal and therefore not in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended. Further, the general laws of North Carolina do not prescribe any the number of members, term of office, or method of electing boards of county commissioners. The structure of the Orange County Board of Commissioners is prescribed by Chapter 439 of the Session Laws of 1953. No changes in the structure of the board have been made since 1953. Ferrell also stated that if a new system is created, it will need to follow the law and the one - person, one -vote rule. Recommendation: Based on this information and the group discussion of all the issues, the following recommendations were made if the current system is changed. The Orange County Board of Commissioners should be expanded from five to seven members. According to Joseph Ferrell of the Institute of Government, this can be accomplished by one of the following methods. a, The County can petition its legislative delegation for introduction and passage of a local bill embodying a specific plan requested by the board. The Orange County delegation's practice is to require that any such legislation have the unanimous support of the delegation. b. The County Home Rule Act can be changed by using the following procedure: The Board of County Commissioners adopts a resolution modifying the structure of the board within the parameters allowed by the Act. ii. The resolution is submitted to a vote of the people at either a special election or at the same time as an already scheduled election, iii, If approved by the voters, the new plan takes effect for the next primary and general election cycle. 11 85 2. The election method should be changed to either combination of district /at -large system or cumulative voting which is a proportional election method, a. District /At -large System - If the size of the Board of Commissioners is increased to seven members, under this system, the Board would be elected at large, however, the county would be divided into five residential districts. Five candidates must meet residence requirements. The remaining two members would be elected at large with no residence requirement. An illustration of possible County residential districts is included as Attachment III. This system would require candidates to be nominated within the district with voting to take place in the district in the primary election and the primary winners would be placed on the ballot for the general election, All County residents would be eligible to vote for the district winners as well as the at -large candidates. This system can be adopted by a majority vote of the Board of Commissioners, b, Proportional Election Method - Cumulative voting: Under this system, voters would be allowed to cast as many votes as there were open seats on the board. For example, if the present Orange County Board of Commissioners was elected by cumulative voting, each voter would get five votes that he or she could cast among the candidates in any fashion. One vote could be cast for each of the candidates, or five votes for one candidate or any other possible combination. In order to utilize this system, Orange County must petition its legislative delegation for introduction and passage of a local bill seeking permission to adopt this system. 5 M. SUMMARY The Task Force on the Process for Electing County Commissioners has attempted to address the charge as instructed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Specific recommendations are presented in this report regarding how the current system can be changed or improved to address recurring issues of fairness. It is important for this issue to be dealt with in some manner, now, in order for us as a community to move on to other important issues facing the County, Hopefully, this report and the additional information provided in the Appendix to this report will enable the present Board to bring some resolution to this issue. This Task Force stands ready to assist the Board of Commissioners should the Board decide to implement any recommendation contained in this report. Respectfully Submitted: ith Cook, Chair Task Force on the Process for Electing County Commissioners in Orange County ATTACHMENT 87 THIS SURVEY IS BEING CONDUCTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE ON THE PROCESS FOR ELECTING ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1. Are you a citizen of Orange County? _Yes No 2. Address: *TOWNSHIP 3. Does the current system provide the opportunity for fair and equitable representation? YES NO (if you answered "no" please answer question #4 below) 4. If Not, to whom is the system unfair? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** M MINORITY REPORT TASK FORCE ON THE PROCESS FOR ELECTING COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The Task Force on The Process For Electing County Commissioners (Orange County, N.C.) met on June 30, 1993. During this meeting a five (5) to three (3) vote was registered stating that the current system was not fair and equitable to all Orange County citizens. The three (3) dissenting voters have chosen to file a minority report in opposition to this registered opinion. The following factors are cited: o Two public hearings were held: June 16 and 17, 1993, with a combined total turn -out of thirty - five persons. Of those thirty -five (35), ten (10) attendees were present at both the June 16th and 17th meetings. In addition to the Public Hearings, surveys were conducted at "HOG DAY" and at the FARMERS MARKET. The two public hearings plus the surveys provided a total of 161 responses stating that the current process for electing county commissioners is unfair. However, as of January B, 1993, there are 60,560 registered voters in Orange County. It is our considered opinion that 161 responses in no way justify and support the opinion that the current system to elect county commissioners is unfair. The ratio of responses to the total voting population is miniscule, and because the 161 responses did not represent a controlled random sampling of the Orange County voting population, no accurate or supportive conclusions can be drawn. o There is no evidence that there were sufficient African- Americans who voiced opposition to the current system to elect Orange County Commissioners. o The Voting Rights Act as established does not provide for redress or corrective measures based on perceived discrimination or unfairness in a situation of rural versus urban population. Minority Report Page Two (2) 89 o The 1992 Edition, FORMS OF GOVERNMENT OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTIES, compiled by Joseph S. Ferrell staff member, Institute of Government, UNC- Chapel Hill, clearly reveals that sixty -one (61), of North Carolina's one hundred (100) counties, use the election process currently in Orange County to elect county commissioners. Mr. Ferrell, stated in his presentation to the Task Force that the current system to elect County Commissioners used in Orange County is legal and does not fall under any category that would be in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Fairness is simply a political judgement. In the final analysis, endorsers of the "Minority Report ", believe that a recommendation has been made on perception and not on conclusive and supportive data and community responses provided to the Task Force on the Process For Electing County Commissioners. Therefore, it is requested that this report become a part of the official documents and recommendations to be submitted to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. SIGNATURE DATE �IGNATUR9 DATE IG�1 �YJa 7- ,97'-9.5 NATURE DATE 90 IS4V�N.Iu191iY ORANGE COUNTY VOTER INFORMATION Total Voters - 60;560 as of January 8,1993 Total Precincts - 39 Average precinct size - 1,553 % of voters who are minority 13.5% % of voters who are female 54.9 %, males 45.1% 5 District average - 12,112 SAMPLE DISTRICTS Dist. 1 - Orange Grove, White Cross, St. John, Dogwood Acres, Hillsborough, Submitted by, Patrick Mulkey 3812 Hwy. 54W Chapel Hill „N.C. 942 -3814 Cheeks, Efland, and West Hillsborough. total = 12,039; female = 54.8 %; male = 45.2 %; minority = 19.7% Dist. 2 - Carr, Cedar Grove, Tolars, Caldwell, St. Marys, Cameron Park, Coles Store, Grady Brown,Eno, and Patterson. total = 12,455; female = 53.7 %; male = 46.3 %; minority = 12.4% Dist. 3 - North Carrboro, Lions Club, Town Hall, OWASA, Westwood, Lincoln, and Northside. total = 12,083; female = 54 %; male = 46 %; minority = 16% Dist. 4 - Mason Farm, King Mill, Country Club, Glenwood, Greenwocd, Ridgefield, and East Franklin. total = 11,967; female = 56.1 %; male = 43.9 %; minority = 12.2% Dist. 5 - Battle Park, Coker Hills, Estes Hills, Weaver Dairy, Eastside, Colonial Heights, and Booker Creek. total = 12,026; female = 55.8 %; male = 44.2 %; minority = 7.2% Submitted by, Patrick Mulkey 3812 Hwy. 54W Chapel Hill „N.C. 942 -3814 91 Memo From Joseph S. Ferrell Institute of Government The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 238 Knapp Building CB # 3330 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599 -3330 (919)966 -4213 voice (919)962 -2706 fax To: Task Force on Electing Board of Commissioners Date: June 29, 1992 06:04 PM Subject: Status of counties of comparable population The following tabulation shows the form of government of North Carolina counties with a population within 10 %, plus or minus, of Orange County's County Population No. Members Election Method Terms Cabarrus 98,935 5 At Large 4S Cleveland 84,714 5 At Large 4S Iredell 92,931 5 At Large 2AS Orange 93,851 5 At Large 4S Rockingham 86,064 5 At Large 4S Union 84,211 5 At Large 4S AMYL' h-u " G 'copied from* Form of Government of HC Counties Compiled by: Joe Ferrell Summary Chief Administrative Officer Every county employs a manager or administrator except for the three following counties. where the elected chair is the county administrator: Haywood Jackson Eight boards have three members: Allegheny Cherokee Clay Graham Madison Number of Members Jackson Madison Sixty -one boards have five members: Gaston Alamance Davidson Macon Alexander Davie Martin Ashe Durham McDowell Avery Edgecombe Mitchell Bartle Franklin Montgomery Brunswick Gates Moore Buncombe Greene New Hanover Burke Harnett Northampton Cabarrus Haywood Onslow Caldwell Henderson Orange Camden Hertford Pander Carteret Hoke Person Catawba Hyde Polk Chatham Iredell Randolph Cleveland Jones Rockingham Currituck Lincoln Rowan Forty -five boards are elected at large: Alamance Davidson Madison Alexander Davie McDowell Allegheny Durham Mitchell Ashe Edgecombe New Hanover Avery Graham Onslow Buncombe Greene Orange Burke Haywood Perquimans Cabarrus Hoke Person Caldwell Iredell Polk Catawba Jackson Richmond Clay Jones Rockingham Cleveland Lincoln Rowan Swain Yancey Rutherford Sampson Stanly Stokes Surry Transylvania Tyrrell Union Warren Washingtori Watauga Wilkes Yadkin Stanly Stokes Swain Transylvania Tyrrell Union Wilkes Yadkin Yancey Twenty -two boards are elected at large, but the counties are divided into districts and two or more candidates must meet district residence requirements: Bertie Gaston Macon Surry Brunswick Gates Moore Wake Chatham Henderson Northampton Warren Cherokee Hertford Pander Watauga 92 Dl l 93 Wliliam Florar i , t. Ray �:- Garrett'• Cedar Grove Cfmpel Hill/Eo0 r L..d N� •- .• Norman Norman Norman Norman John Walker Walker Walker Walker Hartwell j Little River Little River Little Rver Little River Eno wet y Whitfield of Chapel Hill served from Sepi. 1973 to Nov 1974. "Garrett moved from Chapel Hill to Eno during her term. J'Wi11 �. 111 West Corbin St. Hillsborough, NC 27278 June 21, 1993 94 TO: Other Members of the Task Force on the Process for Electing Orange County Commissioners FROM: Rich Hammer SUBJECT: May 1990 voting data which shows a sharp division within Orange County, between city and rural parts In the spring of 1990 I got active in County politics, attempting to speak on behalf of rural property owners who dislike controls imposed by County government. After running in the Republican primary that May, I studied the votes and compared the trends in the two parts of the county. The contrast between the two parts can be seen most clearly in the votes cast in the Democratic primary, in which there were eight active candidates running for three seats. Attached you will find a copy of a column which I wrote at that time, and (should you be interested) a spreadsheet of the data. Also. in the table below I summarize the data in that vote. Clearly the people in the rural precincts would have elected other candidate, had they had the chance. City City Rural Rural vote place vote place finish finish Chapel Hill Candidates who won Gordon 4030 2 1006 8 Halkiotis 3681 3 1854 3 Insko 4515 1 1189 7 Rural candidates supported by landowners associations Carroll 1055 5 2220 2 Lloyd 1128 4 2898 1 Tripp 425 8 1208 6 Other candidates (rural) Gatewood 671 7 1334 5 Walters 802 6 1388 4 APPEHDI% 5 �i�P 6 / 7J 95 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Alice Gordon DATE: June 24, 1992 RE: County Commissioners and Their Township Residence At my request, Sylvia Clements of the Clerk's office has completed a listing of the members of the Board of County Commissioners for the 38 year period from 1954 to the present, along with their township residence. That listing is attached for your information. The cutoff date of 1954 was chosen because that was the first year that there were five commissioners on the Board. Prior to that date the Board had three members. Furthermore, the township residence of commissioners prior to 1954 was apparently not available for all commissioners. I thought this information might be of interest because of many recent questions concerning the number of commissioners who have resided in Chapel Hill Township. Note that the first year that all five commissioners resided in Chapel Hill Township was 1990. Coincidentally that was the first year that two women had ever served on the Board at the same time. Over the past 38 years, there have been 18 years during which 3 commissioners have resided in Chapel Hill Township. There have been 10 years during which there were two Chapel Hill Township Commissioners. Finally, there have been 4 years when there have been four Chapel Hill Township Commissioners and another four years when only one commissioner has resided in Chapel. Hill Township. The current population in Chapel Hill Township is just under 700 of the total population of Orange County. 96 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMM.ISSIONERS PER ELECTED PERIOD Year Township 1990 -92 Stephen Halkiotis (Reelected) CH: 5 Alice Gordon, Verla Insko (Elected Moses Carey, Don Willhoit 1988 -90 Moses Carey, Don Willhoit (Reelected) CH: 4 Shirley Marshall, John Hartwell, Stephen Halkiotis E: 1 1986 -88 Shirley Marshall (Reelected) CH: 4 John Hartwell, Stephen Halkiotis (Elected) E: 1 Moses Carey, Don Willhoit 1984 -86 Don Willhoit (Reelected) C: 1 Moses Carey (Elected) CH: 3 Shirley Marshall, Ben Lloyd, Norman Walker LR: 1 1982 -84 Norman Walker (Reelected) C: 1 Shirley Marshall, Ben Lloyd (Elected) CH: 2 Richard Whitted, Don Willhoit H: 1 LR, : 1 1980 -82 Richard Whitted, Don Wil'lhoit (Reelected) CH: 3 Anne Barnes (served through Dec. 1981) H: 1 Shirley Marshall appointed Jan. 182) LR: 1 Norm Gustaveson, Norman Walker 1978 -80 Norm Gustaveson, Norman Walker (Reelected) CH: 3 Anne Barnes (Elected) H: 1 Richard Whitted, Don Willhoit LR,: 1 1976 -78 Richard Whitted (Reelected) CH: 3 Don Willhoit (Elected) H: 1 Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, Norman Walker LR: 1 1974 -76 Norman Walker (Reelected) CH: 2 Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney (Elected) E: 1 Flora Garrett, Richard Whitted H: 1 LR: 1 1972 -74 Flora Garrett, Richard Whitted (Elected) CH: 2 Henry S. Walker, Norman Walker E: 1 Ira Ward (Served until Sept. 1973) H: 1 (Melvin Whitfield served 9/73 - 11/74) LR: 1 1970 -72 Henry S. Walker, Ira Ward (Reelected) CG: 1 Norman Walker (Elected) CH: 2 Harvey Bennett, William C. Ray E: 1 LR: 1 Township Legend: B = Bingham, C = Cheeks, CG = Cedar Grove, CH = Chapel Hill, E = Eno, H = Hillsborough, LR = Little River Year 1968 -70 Harvey Bennett, William C. Ray (Reelected) Carl Smith, Henry S. Walker, Ira Ward 1964 -66 Carl Smith, Henry Ira Ward (Elected) Harvey D. Bennett, S. Walker (Reelected) William C. Ray Harvey D. Bennett (Reelected) CG: 1 William C. Ray (Elected) CH: 3 Gordon Cleveland, Carl Smith, Henry S. Walker E: 1 1962 -64 Gordon Cleveland, Carl Smith (Elected) B: 1 Henry S. Walker (Nominated to serve in place of CH: 3 Donald McDade who was elected for 4 -year term, E: 1 but died on November 21, 1962) Harvey D. Bennett, Donald Stanford 1960 -62 Donald Stanford (Reelected) B: 1 Harvey D. Bennett (Elected) CG: 1 Clarence Jones, Donald McDade, Henry S. Walker CH: 1 E: 1 H: 1 1958 -60 Henry S. Walker B: 1 Clarence Jones, Donald McDade CG: 1 Donald Stanford, R.J.M. Hobbs CH: 1 E: 1 H: 1 1956 -58 R.J.M. Hobbs (Reelected) B: 1 Donald Stanford (Elected) CG: 1 Claud T. Pope (Died 8/57, replaced by Donald McDade)CH: 2 Dwight M. Ray, Henry S. Walker E: 1 1954 -56 Four -year terms: Henry Walker C: 1 D. M. Ray CH: 3 Edwin S. Lanier (Resigned 11/2/56) E: 1 Two -year terms: R.J.M. Hobbs Sim L. Efland (Resigned 12/3/56) Note: At the February 2, 1953 meeting, a group of citizens petitioned that the size of the Board of Commissioners be increased from three to five members. The Board agreed and recommended that enabling legislation be requested. It was decided that at the November, 1954 election three candidates would be elected for four -year terms and two would be elected for two -year terns and that in the future all candidates would be elected to serve four - year terms. 97 Township CG: 1 CH: 3 E: 1 CG: 1 CH: 3 E: 1 Harvey D. Bennett (Reelected) CG: 1 William C. Ray (Elected) CH: 3 Gordon Cleveland, Carl Smith, Henry S. Walker E: 1 1962 -64 Gordon Cleveland, Carl Smith (Elected) B: 1 Henry S. Walker (Nominated to serve in place of CH: 3 Donald McDade who was elected for 4 -year term, E: 1 but died on November 21, 1962) Harvey D. Bennett, Donald Stanford 1960 -62 Donald Stanford (Reelected) B: 1 Harvey D. Bennett (Elected) CG: 1 Clarence Jones, Donald McDade, Henry S. Walker CH: 1 E: 1 H: 1 1958 -60 Henry S. Walker B: 1 Clarence Jones, Donald McDade CG: 1 Donald Stanford, R.J.M. Hobbs CH: 1 E: 1 H: 1 1956 -58 R.J.M. Hobbs (Reelected) B: 1 Donald Stanford (Elected) CG: 1 Claud T. Pope (Died 8/57, replaced by Donald McDade)CH: 2 Dwight M. Ray, Henry S. Walker E: 1 1954 -56 Four -year terms: Henry Walker C: 1 D. M. Ray CH: 3 Edwin S. Lanier (Resigned 11/2/56) E: 1 Two -year terms: R.J.M. Hobbs Sim L. Efland (Resigned 12/3/56) Note: At the February 2, 1953 meeting, a group of citizens petitioned that the size of the Board of Commissioners be increased from three to five members. The Board agreed and recommended that enabling legislation be requested. It was decided that at the November, 1954 election three candidates would be elected for four -year terms and two would be elected for two -year terns and that in the future all candidates would be elected to serve four - year terms. (6/92) COMMISSIONERS' TOWNSHIP RESIDENCE ** NAME Moses Carey Alice Gordon Stephen Halkiotis Verla Insko Don Wil.lhoit Shirley Marshall John Hartwell Ben Lloyd Norman Walker Richard Whitted Anne Barnes Norman Gustaveson Jan Pinney Flora Garrett Henry S. Walker Ira Ward Harvey Bennett William C. Ray Carl Smith Gordon Cleveland Donald Stanford Clarence Jones Donald McDade TOWNSHIP CH CH CH CH CH CH Eno Cheeks Little River Hillsborough CH CH CH CH (Elected) Eno (Moved to) Eno CH CH Cedar Grove CH CH Bingham Hillsborough Cedar Grove Claud Pope Cedar Grove R.J.M. Hobbs Chapel Hill Dwight M. Ray Chapel Hill Edwin S. Lanier Chapel Hill Sim L. Efland Cheeks ** This listing goes back to 1954. V11 e JGuii11 ORANGE COUNTY, NC POPULATION DATA - BY TOWNSHIP (1990 CENSUS) HOUSE- HOLDS %AFRICAN AMERICAN % ASIAN AMERICAN POP > AGE 65 POP< AGE 18 TOWNSHIP POPULATION (1990) LITTLE RIVER, (S of total) 2,183 (2.33 %) 777 2.158 11.08 0.28 156 1.928 580 3.278 CEDAR. GROVE 3,691 (3.938) 1,345 3.738 34.28 0.18 460 5.658 868 4.898 CHEEKS 5,422 (5.778) 2,036 5.648 23.18 0.28 564 6.938 1,346 7.588 HILLSBOROUGH 10,136 (10.88) 3,811 10.568 27.78 0.48 1,171 14.398 2,572 14.498 ENO 5,262 (5.618) 2,037 5.648 8.38 0.48 472 5.808 1,286 7.258 BINGRAM 5,184 (5.528) 2,156 5.978 10.18 0.48 407 5.08 1,122 6.32% CHAPEL HILL 61,973 (66.038) 23,942 66.318 13.58 3.68 T 4,906 60.38 9,973 56.208 ICOUNTY TOTAL 93,851 (1008) 36,104 (1008) 15.98 2.59 8,136 (1008) 1.7,747 (1008) T Is t , e prove es a snaps of iFout Orange County by township. Each or the seven townships are portrayed with data from the 1990 Census. The categories have been selected because they illustrate data of common interest or significant change. POPULATION: This column shows the 1990 census population of the township. The percentage shown represents the township's proportion of the total county population, i.e., Little River contains 2.338 of the total County population, HOUSEHOLDS: This column lists the number of households in the township, with the percentage of total county households located within the Township. Persons of European - American descent constitute four - fifths (80.88) of the county's population. The next two columns illustrate the proportion of the County's two largest racial minorities, African - Americans and Asian - Americans. 8 AFRICAN- AMERICAN: African - Americans constitute the largest minority population in the County. This column expresses the percentage of the Township total population which is African - American. 8 ASIAN- AMERICAN: Asian - Americans are the County's fastest- growing racial minority. This column illustrates the percentage of Township residents who are Asian - American. This category includes Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Asian Indian, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Rmong, Laotian, Thai and other. Within the County are two age - related categories of special. interest. These are persons 65 years or more, and persons less than 18 years. 8 GREATER. THAN 65 YEARS: This column shows the number of persons in each township that are 65 years of age or more. Thepercentage shown reflects the Township's proportion of the total County 65+ population. For example, 5.658 of the all persons in orange County age 65 years or more live in Cedar Grove Township. 8 LESS THAN 1.8 YEARS: This column represents the number of persons in each township below the age of 18 years. The percentage shown reflects the Township's proportion of the total County population less than age 18. For example, 6.328 of all, persons less than 18 years in the county live in Bingham Township. ,a APPENDIX METHODS FOR ESTABLISHING AND ALTERING THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. The general laws of North Carolina do not prescribe any one set plan for the number of members, term of office, or method of electing boards of county commissioners. The structure of each of the 100 boards of county commissioners is determined from one or a combination of the following authoritative sources: (1) the provisions of G.S. 153 -4 (a former statute repealed in 1973); (2) one or more local acts of the General Assembly; (3) a local redistricting plan adopted under Cr S. 153 -5.2 (a former statute also repealed in 1973), (4) a plan adopted locally under the Home Rule Act, or (5) a judgment of the federal court entered pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. T`te structure of the Orange County Board of Commissioners is prescribed by Chapter 439 of the Session Laws of 1953. No changes in the structure of the board have been made since 1953. There are currently three possible routes for seeking a change in the structure of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. 1. Local act of the General Assembly. The normal procedure for change by this method is for the board of commissioners of the affected county to petition its legislative delegation for introduction and passage of local bill embodying a specific plan requested by the board. The Orange County delegation's practice is to require that any such legislation have the unanimous support of the delegation. 2. Home Rule Act (G.S. 153A -58 through 153A -64). The procedure for change under the county Home Rule Act is as follows: A. The board of county commissioners adopts a resolution modifying the structure of the board within the parameters allowed by the Act.. B. The resolution is submitted to a vote of the people at either a special election or at the same time as an already scheduled election. C. If approved by the voters, the new plan takes effect for the next primary and general election cycle. 3. Litigation under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This route for change could be successful if a litigant were able to show that the existing structure of the board has the effect of minimizing minority voting strength. Presentation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, September 28, 1992 Joseph S. Ferrell Institute of Government 100 Excerpt from August 20, 1996 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes APPENDIX L 101 The Board approved an agreement with Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc. for testing which will be done in association with the Jail /Courthouse construction project in an amount not -to- exceed $11,480 and authorized the Purchasing Director to execute the appropriate paperwork K. BUDGET APPROPRIATION TO HOME HEALTH AGENCY OF CHAPEL HILL This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and considered as a separate item. VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS E. LA MESA SUBDIVISION - PHASE 11 PRELIMINARY PLAN This property is located in the northeast corner of the county south of Bacon Road between NC Highway 57 and the Person County line. The total acreage of the tract is 72.65 acres. The applicant is seeking approval of Phase II which contains 45.38 acres to be divided into twenty new residential lots between 98 and 6.2 acres. Each lot will have an individual well and septic system. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the impact statement and the fact that the price of these homes will be approximately $90,000 The fiscal impact analysis shows that this development will require more expenditures by Orange County for County services than the residents will pay in County taxes, thereby resulting in a net loss for the County. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Preliminary Plan for La Mesa, Phase II as per the Resolution of Approval and the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS K. BUDGET APPROPRIATION TO HOME HEALTH AGENCY OF CHAPEL HILL Patrick Mulkey expressed a concern for those individuals who are presently receiving help from the $30,000 that the County contributes to this agency each year. Chair Carey noted that no one has accepted the role for taking care of the indigent. The State has not accepted responsibility and the County cannot afford to do it. Commissioner Willhoit asked for a report on how indigent care will be provided and if Home Health will be taking responsibility for their share of indigents. Chair Carey mentioned that a report will be available within the next month on the status of health care in Orange County and that this report will include recommendations to this Board. A motion was made by Chair Carey, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to rescind the FY 96 -97 appropriation to the Home Health Agency of Chapel Hill because of their change in tax status to a for - profit entity. VOTE: UNANIMOUS IX. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA A. ELECTION OF ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN DISTRICT ELECTIONS 4= Chair Carey presented this agenda item. He asked that the Board consider electing the County Commissioners using a Residential District Election Plan as described in the agenda. Patrick Mulkey read a prepared statement. He made reference to the task force report from August 4, 1993 and noted that the report offered two potential solutions to improve the current election process, proportional /cumulative voting or district representation. The report listed three basic forms of district representation. He favors the combination of district and at large representatives. He asked that the commissioners move forward on this item. Mark Marcoplos asked that this issue be continued as a citizens issue, He feels that the task force did not have an opportunity to finish their work, He asked that the Board explore all alternatives. He wants a system that insures fair representation like proportional representation would. Helen Urghart agreed with the two speakers above. She supports proportional representation She specifically said that she wants the process for consideration of any electoral reform to have wide inclusion from citizens throughout the County and not just be referred to the staff Chair Carey noted that when he drafted this recommendation, he certainly did not have the intent to appoint a committee because they have gone that route and he thinks if they are going to act on this, they should provide for input in ways that they usually provide opportunity for citizen input through public hearings and giving citizens an opportunity to comment on something specific rather than generate options 102 themselves. He feels they should move ahead and look at the options for districts and consider the legal process for making this happen. Commissioner Willhoit said that there are two issues here One is the district representation and the other is the cumulative voting and he is against the cumulative voting and not interested in pursuing that in any form, In North Carolina there has been a move among counties for district representation in the last number of years and in every case, that move has been the result of a court order or the threat of a court order related to racial balance on the board. That is simply not the case in Orange County. It would be difficult to draw a district that would be predominant black that would adhere to the principle of one person, one vote. Chair Carey made it clear that he did not propose this to try to insure black African American or minority representation. This proposal will not do that and that was not his objective. It also will not address those philosophical issues that were raised when there were five members of this Board from southern Orange County. It will address some of the concerns and perceptions people have about whether there is representation on this board from rural areas It will insure rural representation. Commissioner Crowther agreed that they need to look at this issue and come up with some recommendations that may be feasible and applicable to this county. He feels that at some point they will need the idea of townships being part of our system in having citizens represented from those townships. Commissioner Willhoit feels that district representation will become a hot topic when there is the proposal to merge the schools and that it makes sense to then have geographical representation on a merged school board and at that time perhaps it would be the appropriate time to look at Commissioner districts. Commissioner Gordon said that this has come up at the Board's goal setting retreat and she said at that time that she would be willing to at least discuss it but it was not discussed. She feels that discussion at one of their goal setting retreats is a more appropriate time. She said that a core piece of the proposal is to ensure rural representation from the more rural areas. She does not see how this goal can be achieved with five districts. She feels that, looking at the population, it is important to be sure that one person on this Board of Commissioners comes from outside Chapel Hill Township. It means that there must be at least one, perhaps two from outside Chapel Hill Township which also means that if you use the one person one vote logic, there would need to be three, perhaps four from within Chapel Hill Township. Dividing into five districts would mean that a number of them would have Chapel Hill population in them which might defeat the purpose of getting rural representatives She feels that to address this problem, they would need to think about fewer districts than five and maybe multiple memberships. She wants to give the staff the flexibility of considering multiple member districts. The easiest method might be for Chapel Hill Township to be a district and for the other townships to somehow be apportioned, while also allowing at large representation. If this is referred to staff, she wants to add to the recommendation that staff tell the Board about the legal requirements for the proportion of voters required in the districts. Also, she feels they should ask staff to consider other alternatives than just 5 residential districts, such as 2 -5 districts, multiple member districts, and at large representation to make the districts come out mathematically correct in terms of population. Five residential districts will not work. Commissioner Halkiotis feels that this is not urgent, but an opportunity to gather information and produce a report. This can be preliminary and can be enhanced, cut -back, added onto, etc with all the options in that report. He emphasized that he is an advocate for women's rights and feels that this Board has been environmentally sensitive to all issues brought before the Board A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to first look at all the options using a residential district election plan and then, if none of these are workable, to look at other forms of election. They asked that the County Attorney and the County Manager gather information and produce a report which details a plan to implement a Residential District Election Plan as soon as possible, The report should include, but not be limited to, the legal authority of the County to take this action, any state or electorate approval needed, costs associated with implementation, and a proposed process for establishing district lines. VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR 5011503 WEST FRANKLIN Purchasing Director Pam Jones summarized the information in the agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve and authorize the Chair to sign an agreement with ESM Associates for property management services at 501 West Franklin Street for an amount equal to 6% of gross monthly rental ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 103 Action Agenda Item No SX A ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 20, 1996 SUBJECT: ELECTION OF ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN DISTRICT ELECTIONS --------------- ------------ - - - - -- ------ --- ------- -------- -- - - - -- DEPARTMENT County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING YES NO x BUDGET AMENDMENT: _YES NO ATTACHMENT (S) NO INFORMATION CONTACT Moses Carey TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732 -81.81 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider the future election of orange County Commissioners in District Elections. BACKGROUND: The members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners are currently elected At -Large in partisan primary and general elections. Upon election, they serve in staggered four year terms which require two or three to run for re- election every two years. Two members are elected in Presidential election years and three members are elected in Non - Presidential years. Citizens in rural areas of the county have indicated a desire to have commissioners elected by district to insure that they will have a voice in county policy making. While district elections of commissioners will not in fact guarantee any particular group a voice in policy making, this system of electing commissioners could provide for geographical balance within Orange County among the elected county policy makers. This geographical balance could positively impact the perception of representativeness in policy making in Orange County. The proposal is that the County Commissioners be elected in the future by Residential District by countywide vote of the electorate. The current staggered terms will continue to apply. The current partisan nature of the election will continue to apply. The County will be subdivided into five Residential Districts. Each Residential District will be represented by one seat on the Board. All registered voters in the county will be eligible to vote on all candidates from a Residential District in the years they represent their party in the General election. Only voters in the particular party may vote on the candidates in their party in Primary elections. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners adopt the above indicated Residential District Election Plan in principle and instruct the County Attorney and County Manager to gather information and produce a report which details a plan to implement this Residential District Election Plan as soon as possible. The report should include, but not be limited to, the legal authority of the county to take this action, any state or electorate approval needed, costs associated with implementation, and a proposed process for establishing district lines. Excerpt from August 20, 1996 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes and Agenda Materials APPROVED 12/2/96 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20, 1996 APPENDIX M 104 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on August 20, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. in the OWASA Community Meeting Room at 400 Jones Ferry Road in Camboro, North Carolina,. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners William L., Crowther, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr, Assistant County Managers Rod Visser and Albert Kittrell and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ALL ITEMS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES IS IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. THE RECORDING TAPES ARE KEPT FOR FIVE YEARS, 1,_ ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA The Board added to the consent agenda appointments to the Youth Services Advisory Commission.. An appointment to the Hillsborough Planning Board was added to the regular appointment item XI. Item VIII -B " Retirement of Drug Dog" was removed from the Consent Agenda and item "K" Budget Appropriation to Home Health Agency of Chapel Hill was removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered at the end of that agenda. II. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Chair Carey said that citizens who want to speak to an item on the printed agenda will be recognized at the time that item is considered. B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Barry Jacobs, Chair of the OWASA Board of Directors, introduced the new Executive Director Mr. Ed. Kerwin. Mr. Kerwin asked that the County Commissioners contact him if he can be of assistance. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge, III. BOARD COMMENTS 4= Commissioner Gordon referred to the report on County Commissioner membership which is included as item X -F on the meeting agenda. The report summarizes the township residence of commissioners for over forty years, beginning at the time when the Board was increased from three to five members. The report shows that membership on the Board has usually included individuals from both Chapel Hill Township and the remainder of the County. The only exception was the two and one -half year period beginning in 1990, the first year that two women had ever served on the Board at the same time. Over the years the most frequently occurring Board composition has been three members from Chapel Hill ios Township and two from other townships. With reference to the Horace Williams report, she suggested that she work with staff and bring back to the next meeting the specific issues for the Board to address. Chair Carey noted he wrote to DOT about the intersection of NC70 and Efland Cedar Grove Road and NC86 and Coleman Loop Road where several accidents have occurred. He commended the EDC on their newsletter that just came out and encouraged citizens to pick up a copy in front. The Board discussed Carolina Springs' request for impact fee reimbursement and decided to wait until the Board considered a revised policy on impact fee reimbursements or waivers before making a decision on their request. IV. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT -.NONE V. RESOLUTIONS /PROCLAMATIONS A. LANDFILL REORGANIZATION WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the resolution as stated below to authorize the Chair to sign and to direct the Clerk to transmit the resolution to the governing boards of the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough. RESOLUTION ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TO BE THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND PROCESSING WHEREAS, it is in the interest of all citizens of Orange County to have a comprehensive solid waste management system to handle their solid waste, and WHEREAS, all municipalities, and the County have a stake in the operation and development of an efficient and effective solid waste management system in Orange County, and WHEREAS, the current landfill has approximately 8 years of disposal capacity and the process for electing, acquiring, financing, purchasing property, permitting, development and construction of a new landfill will take approximately 8 - 10 years, and WHEREAS, The towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough and Orange County have worked for years to develop a comprehensive solid waste management plan and identify a solid waste disposal facility, and WHEREAS, there is universal dissatisfaction with the pace the current process is taking for selecting a disposal facility, and development and implementation of a solid waste management plan, and WHEREAS, proper disposal of our community's solid waste is first and foremost a public health issue, and WHEREAS, Orange County is the only government entity in Orange County with statutory responsibility for public health, and WHEREAS, it will be incumbent upon Orange County to soon take action to fulfill its statutory obligation, to assure adequate provision of solid waste disposal and management prior to the closing of the current landfill, and ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No X -F ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 20, 1996 SUBJECT: COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEMBERSHIP DEPARTMENT County Commissioners ATTACHMENT (S) : Memo from Alice Gordon dated 8/15/96 and 6/24/92 Orange County Board of Commissioners per Elected Period Commissioners Township Residence PUBLIC HEARING YES— NO x BUDGET AMENDMENT: YES X NO INFORMATION CONTAC—T Alice Gordon PHONE NUMBER Hillsborough Chapel Hill Mebane Durham 732 -8181 968 -4501 227 -2031 688 -7331 106 PURPOSE: To report to the County Commissioners on Board membership and township residence for commissioners during the past 42 years. BACKGROUND: Periodically there have been questions concerning the number of commissioners who have resided in Chapel Hill Township compared with the number who have lived in the six more rural townships. Note that the first year that all five commissioners resided in Chapel Hill Township was 1990 and that continued for 2 -1/2 years (until July 1993) when Commissioner Halkiotis moved to Hillsborough. The attached information gives the statistics for the past 42 years. RECOMMENDATION: Receive this report as information 107 •-• � TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Alice Gordon DATE: August 15, 1996 RE: County Commissioners and Their Township Residence In 1992 1 sent the attached memorandum to the Board of County Commissioners, along with a tabulation of the township residence for all commissioners since 1954, a period of 38 years. Beverly Blythe has updated that information to the present time, as shown on the following pages. A chart summarizing township residence for County Commissioners for the past 42 years is given below. Number of year 2 1/2 5 1/2 20 10 4 Membership of the Board of County Commissioners, Given by Township Number in CH Tw 5 4 3 2 1 No. in More Rural TWps 0 1 2 3 4 Number of years all 5 commissioners resided in Chapel Hill Twp: 2 1/2 years Number of years 3 or 4 commissioners resided in Chapel Hill Twp: 25 1/2 years Number of years 1 or 2 commissioners resided in Chapel Hill Twp: 14 years 108 MEMORANDUM T0: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Alice Gordon DATE: June 24, 1992 RE: County Commissioners and Their Township Residence At my request, Sylvia Clements of the Clerk's office has completed a listing of the members of the Board of County Commissioners for the 38 yeat period from 1954 to the present, along with their township residence. That listing is attached for your information. The cutoff date of 1954 was chosen because that was the first year that there were five commissioners on the Board. Prior to that date the Board had three members. Furthermore, the township residence of commissioners prior to 1954 was apparently not available for all commissioners. I thought this information might be of interest because of many recent questions concerning the number of commissioners who have resided in Chapel Hill Township. Note that the first year that all five commissioners resided in Chapel Hill Township was 1990. Coincidentally that was the first year that two women had ever served on the Board at the same time. Over the past 38 years, there have been 18 years during which 3 commissioners have resided in Chapel Hill Township. There have been 10 years during which there were two Chapel Hill Township Commissioners. Finally, there have been 4 years when there have been four Chapel Hill Township Commissioners and another four years when only one commissioner has resided in Chapel Hill Township. The current population in Chapel Hill Township is just under 70% of the total population of Orange County. 109 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PER ELECTED PERIOD Year Township 1994 -6 William Crowther (Elected) CH: 3 Alice Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis (Reelected) H: 2 Moses Carey, Don Willhoit 1992 -4 Moses Carey, Don Willhoit (Reelected) CH: 4 Alice Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis, Verla Insko H: 1 ** 1990 -2 Stephen Halkiotis (Reelected) CH: 5 Alice Gordon, Verla Insko (Elected Moses Carey, Don Willhoit 1988 -90 Moses Carey, Don Willhoit (Reelected) CH: 4 Shirley Marshall, John Hartwell, Stephen Halkiotis E: 1 1986 -88 Shirley Marshall (Reelected) CH: 4 John Hartwell, Stephen Halkiotis (Elected) E: 1 Moses Carey, Don Willhoit 1984 -86 Don Willhoit (Reelected) C: 1 Moses Carey (Elected) CH: 3 Shirley Marshall, Ben Lloyd, Norman Walker LR,: 1 1982 -84 Norman Walker (Reelected) C: 1 Shirley Marshall, Ben Lloyd (Elected) CH: 2 Richard Whitted, Don Willhoit H: 1 LR: 1 1980 -82 Richard Whitted, Don Willhoit (Reelected) CH: 3 Anne Barnes (served through Dec. 1981) H: 1 Shirley Marshall appointed Jan. 182) LR: 1 Norm Gustaveson, Norman Walker 1978 -80 Norm Gustaveson, Norman Walker (Reelected) CH: 3 Anne Barnes (Elected) H: 1 Richard Whitted, Don Willhoit LR: 1 1976 -78 Richard Whitted (Reelected) CH: 3 Don Willhoit (Elected) H: 1 Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, Norman Walker LR: 1 1974 -76 Norman Walker (Reelected) CH: 2 Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney (Elected) E: 1 Flora Garrett, Richard Whitted H: 1 LR: 1 1972 -74 Flora Garrett, Richard Whitted (Elected) CH: 2 Henry S. Walker, Norman Walker E: 1 Ira Ward (Served until Sept. 1973) H: 1 (Melvin Whitfield served 9/73 - 11/74) LR: 1 1970 -72 Henry S. Walker, Ira Ward (Reelected) CG: 1 Norman Walker (Elected) CH: 2 Harvey Bennett, William C. Ray E: 1 LR. 1 Township Legend: B = Bingham, C = Cheeks, CG = Cedar Grove, CH = Chapel Hill, E = Eno, H = Hillsborough, LR = Little River 110 Year Township 1968 -70 Harvey Bennett, William C. Ray (Reelected) CG: 1 Carl Smith, Henry S. Walker, Ira Ward CH: 3 E: 1 1966 -68 Carl Smith, Henry S. Walker (Reelected) CG: 1 Ira Ward (Elected) CH: 3 Harvey D. Bennett, William C. Ray E: 1 1964 -66 Harvey D. Bennett (Reelected) CG: 1 William C. Ray (Elected) CH: 3 Gordon Cleveland, Carl Smith, Henry S. Walker E: 1 1962 -64 Gordon Cleveland, Carl Smith (Elected) B: 1 Henry S. Walker (Nominated to serve in place of CH: 3 Donald McDade who was elected for 4 -year term, E: 1 but died on November 21, 1962) Harvey D. Bennett, Donald Stanford 1960 -62 Donald Stanford (Reelected) B: 1 Harvey D. Bennett (Elected) CG: 1 Clarence Jones, Donald McDade, Henry S. Walker CH: 1 E: 1 H: 1 1958 -60 Henry S. Walker B: 1 Clarence Jones, Donald McDade CG: 1 Donald Stanford, R.J.M. Hobbs CH: 1 E: 1 H: 1 1956 -58 R.J.M. Hobbs (Reelected) B: 1 Donald Stanford (Elected) CG: 1 Claud T. Pope (Died 8/57, replaced by Donald McDade)CH: 2 Dwight M. Ray, Henry S. Walker E: 1 1954 -56 Four -year terms: Henry Walker C: 1 D. M. Ray CH: 3 Edwin S. Lanier (Resigned 11/2/56) E: 1 Two -year terms: R.J.M. Hobbs Sim L. Efland (Resigned 12/3/56) Note: At the February 2, 1953 meeting, a group of citizens petitioned that the size of the Board of Commissioners be increased from three to five members. The Board agreed and recommended that enabling legislation be requested. It was decided that at the November, 1954 election three candidates would be elected for four -year terms and two would be elected for two -year terms and that in the future all candidates would be elected to serve four - year terms. ** Stephen Halkiotis moved to Hillsborough in July, 1993. Thus he lived in Hillsborough Township for 1 1/2 years out of this two year period which extended from December 1992 to December 1994. Township Legend: B = Bingham, C = Cheeks, CG = Cedar Grove, CH = Chapel Hill, E = Eno, H = Hillsborough, LR = Little River III (8/96) COMMISSIONERS' TOWNSHIP RESIDENCE ** Moses Carey CH William Crowther Hillsborough Alice Gordon CH Stephen Halkiotis CH (Elected) Hillsborough (Moved to) Don Willhoit CH Verla Insko CH Shirley Marshall CH John Hartwell Eno Ben Lloyd Cheeks Norman Walker Little River Richard Whitted(D) Hillsborough Anne Barnes CH Norman Gustaveson CH Jan Pinney CH Flora Garrett CH (Elected) Eno (Moved there after 2 years) Henry S. Walker(D) Eno Ira Ward CH Melvin Whitfield CH Harvey Bennett(D) CH William C. Ray Cedar Grove Carl Smith (D) CH Gordon Cleveland (D) CH Donald Stanford (D) Bingham Clarence Jones (D) Hillsborough Donald McDade(D) Cedar Grove Claud Pope(D) Cedar Grove R.J.M. Hobbs(D) Chapel Hill Dwight M. Ray(D) Chapel Hill Edwin S. Lanier(D) Chapel Hill Sim L. Efland Cheeks ** This listing goes back to 1954 when number increased to five. (D) Deceased rxcerpt from October 1, 1996 APPENDIX N Commissioners' Meeting Minutes 112 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Chair Carey to reconsider the action that was taken on this item on September 3, 1996, VOTE: AYES, 3; NOS, 2 (Commissioners Gordon and Willhoit) Steve Yuhasz made comments on behalf of the owner and developer. He said that this proposal is in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. The arrangement of this property does maximize the area for septic systems which have been approved by the Orange County Health Department. The main reason he wants the plan approved is that this is how the family members want it developed. The family acknowledged that they do understand and will abide by the restrictions placed on this development. A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Planning Board recommendation as stated in the agenda and in the resolution of approval Commissioner Gordon noted that she favored the Planning Staff recommendation which included the condition adopted by the Commissioners on September 3, VOTE: AYES, 4; NOS, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) C. Community School for People Under Six Funding Request Anna Mercer- McLean made reference to the expansion of their facility and explained that because of zoning compliance requirements, the extra cost will range from $15,000 to $20,000. The County Commissioners asked for additional information and said that this item will be placed on the next agenda for further discussion. 10. REPORTS 40M a, Report: Potential Residential Districts for Commissioner Elections The Board considered a draft of potential Residential Districts for future election of County Commissioners.. Under this proposal, the current staggered terms and partisan primary process would continue to apply. The County would be divided into five Residential Districts of roughly -equal population with approximately 18,770 citizens and each district would be represented by one seat on the Board. All registered voters in the County would be eligible to vote on all candidates in the years they represent their party in a general election. Only registered voters of a particular party would vote on candidates in their party in the primary election. In creating Residential Districts, census data is the accepted standard for reliable information to ensure equally - proportioned districts. To create a draft of potential Residential Districts, Planning staff has utilized a demographic software program to configure five districts of roughly -equal population using 1990 Census data. Geoffrey Gledhill distributed copies of the General Statutes that are pertinent to this issue. He explained the process that must be followed in order to initiate such a change. It starts with developing districts which is what the Board has before it tonight. The County Commissioners would adopt a resolution outlining the specific districts and it would then be presented for voter approval. If it receives voter approval, then there are other procedural steps that would need to be followed. He said that the districts should be equal in population when first defined, however, when the Commissioners redefine the districts, they do not have to be equal in population. Commissioner Gordon said she feels that in this proposal the districts have no political coherence; who would a commissioner from any given district represent? She does not believe this is a step forward Chair Carey feels that this would increase the probability that citizens who live in rural areas will have a reasonable chance of being elected. Commissioner Halkiotis feels this is a good start. 113 Patrick Mulkey suggested not counting in the districts the citizens who cannot vote. Geoffrey Gledhill said that this could not legally be done. Bill Thorpe from Chapel Hill said that he feels drawing district lines will further divide the people in this County. He is particularly concerned that minorities might be under represented. He is against this plan. Commissioner Gordon noted that no current commissioner resides within the town limits of either Chapel Hill or Carrboro. Bob Strayhom feels that a seven member board may make a difference. Commissioner Crowther and Commissioner Halkiotis said that they may work on a plan that has seven districts. It was decided that this item will not again appear on an agenda unless it is requested by a County Commissioner. 11. APPOINTMENTS - NONE 12. MINUTES - NONE 13. CLOSED SESSION To consult with the County Attorney pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 143- 318.11(a)(3) in the matters of Nello Teer v, Orange County et al This item was postponed to the next meeting 14. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to consider, Chair Carey adjourned the meeting. The next meeting will be held on October 15, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. at the OWASA Operations Center in Carrboro, North Carolina.. Moses Carey, Jr,, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMNIISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October 1. 1996 114 Action Agenda Item # /0-Q SUBJECT: REPORT - POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR COMNIISSIONER ELECTIONS ACTION BY: DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes __X_No BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes -_.X—No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Stancil Eat 2590 • Map of Potential Districts • Summary Demographic Report TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham -688-7331 Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider a draft of potential Residential Districts for future election of County Commissioners. BACKGROUND: On August 20, the Board of Commissioners considered an item on future district election of County Commissioners. Currently, Commissioners are elected at -large in partisan primary and general elections and serve staggered four -year terms. In response to calls from some citizens to have Commissioners elected by district, the Board discussed the possibility that future elections be conducted by Residential District using countywide vote of the electorate. Under this proposal, the current staggered terms and partisan primary process would continue to apply. The County would be divided into five Residential Districts of roughly -equal population, and each district would be represented by one seat on the Board. All registered voters in the County would be eligible to 115 vote on all candidates in the years they represent their party in a general election. Only registered voters of a particular party may vote on candidates in their party in the primary election. In creating Residential Districts, census data is the accepted standard for reliable data to ensure equally- proportioned districts. To create a draft of potential Residential Districts, Planning staff has utilized a demographic software program to configure five districts of roughly -equal population using 1990 Census data. A map of these districts and summary data on each district is provided as an attachment. Using the 1990 Census, each district would ideally contain 18,770 persons. The five potential districts shown are within 5% of the 18,770 mean, and projections to the year 2001 show that each district would continue to contain generally the same proportion of the population. The limitation of Census geography is that the "building blocks" used to configure districts are 1990 Census Block Groups. The Block Groups do not conform to township lines or other political features, and instead use natural features as boundaries. Because of sparse population in some rural areas, many block groups are of substantial geographic size. As such, it is not currently possible to split these Block Groups in the district configuration. Legal issues related to Residential District election will be addressed by the County Attorney. Costs of implementation would need to be further explored, although costs are expected to be minimal since the only substantive change will involve Board of Elections verification of candidate residence. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. 1 2 =I M 5 W1 7 11mmm, IkAT: 10 A �B C lilt D E Potential Commissioners "r 77-- Residential Districts October 1, 1996 7 Orange County Planning Department x �Ie �� I . I k, I ORANGE COUNTY ROAD MAR • 116 Pff" Rol 116 PCensus for Windows Orange County Planning Department PCensus Project 1990 Census of Population and Housing POPULATION AND FAMILY Potential BOCC Potential SOCC Potential BOCC SUMMARY; District t District 2 District 3 (Northeast Orange) (Southwest Orange) (North Chapel Hill) Total Population (% base) 19,273 17,989 19,013 Population /square mile 96, 125 817 Land area (square miles) 20041 144.5 23.3 I By Sex: ! I I Total Male 9,536 49% 8,700. 48% 8,785 I 46 %1 Total Female 9,737 51% 9,289 52% 10,2281 54 %i By Age: Under 5years 1,4921 8% 1,2821 7% 9651 5% 5 to 17 years 3,347 17% 3,070 ' 17% 2,489 1 13% 18 to 24 years 1,743 ! 9% 1,484 1 8% 3,995 1 21 %! 25 to 34 years 3,864 ! 20% 3,245 18% 3,641 19% I 35 to 44 years 3,466' 18% 3,550 1 20% 2,880 1 15 %! 45 to 54 years 2,039 I 11% 1,886 10% 1,800 1 9% 55 to 64 years 1,589 � 8% 1,539. 9% 1,199 I 6 %1 65 years and over 1,7331 9% 1,933 11% 2,044 11 %j Mean age 34.15 35471 34.54 By Race /Hispanic Origin: I I White Black 15,5361 3,5401 81% 18% 13,6741 4,1101 76% 23% 15,675 ! 2,505 82 %J 13 %1 , I American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut 57 I 0% 49 0% 54 1 0 %I Asian or Pacific Islander 521 0% 971 1% 6971 4% Other race 88 0% 59 0% 821 0% I Hispanic origin (of any race) 224 ! 1% 176 I 1% 305 ! 2 %1 Persons living in households 19,015' 99% 17,885 ! 99% 18,132 ! 95% In family households 17,001 ! 88% 15,579 I 87% 12,019 1 63%1 In nonfamily households 2,014 10% 2,306 13% 6,113 32%1 Persons in group quarters 2581 1% 1041 1% 881 5% Institutionalized persons 2371 1% 101 1 1% 348 ! 2% Others 21 i 0% 3 ! 0% 5331 3%1 i ! October 1, 1996 117 4 PCensus for Windows Orange County Planning Department PCensus Project 1990 Census of Population and Housing PtlPIJLATION AND FAMILY t Potential 13OCC Potential'SOCC SUMMARY District 4. District (Carrboro /South) (SE Chapel Hill) Total Population (% base) 18,032 19,544 Population /square mile 1,0261 1,622 Land area (square miles) 176 120 1 i By Sex: I I Total Male 8,559 1 47% 8,891 1 45 %1 Total Female i I i 9,473 1 i 53% 10,6531 I 55% By Age: Under 5 years 936 5% 656 3% 5 to 17 years 18 to 24 years 1,960 4,751 11% 26% 1,530' 9,357 1 8% 48% 25 to 34 years 4,840 ' 27% 2,589 13% 35 to 44 years 2,651 15% 1,805 9% 45 to 54 years 1,267 7% 1,214 1 6% 55 to 64 years 691 1 4% 8831 5% 65 years and over 916 5% 1,510 8%1 Mean age 30441 I 29,92 I By Race /Hispanic Origin: I I White 14,4661 80% 16,5201 85% j Black American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut 2,808 I 16% 1,9301 10% Asian or Pacific Islander 601 5851 0% 3% 661 9301 0% 5% Otherrace 113 1% 98 1 1% Hispanic origin (of any race) 301 1 2% 273 1 1% Persons living in households 18,022 1 100% 11,573 59% In family households 10,123 1 56% 8,203 42% In nonfamily households I 7,899 I 44% 3,370 17% Persons in group quarters 101 0% 7,971 1 41% Institutionalized persons 01 0% 84 0% Others 10 0% 7,887 i 40% October 1, 1996 5 118 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Excerpt from June 22, 1998 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes and Agenda Materials 10 APPENDIX O ng Commissioner Halkiotis supports the proposal. He would like to see this move ahead. He would hope tr at the County Manager could find existing resources to put into resource conservation. He feels this concern goes far beyond what the state is supporting and he does not see this as a part of the Planning Department. Commissioner Gordon feels that people in Orange County are interested in environment and resource protection and that hardly any County money is directed toward these two areas. She feels the department is sorely needed. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chair Brown to establish a new Environment and Resource Conservation Department to include the four steps as outlined in the agenda abstract and incorporated here by reference. VOTE: Ayes, 3; Nos, 2 (Commissioners Carey and Crowther) e. Election of Orange County Commissioners in district elections 4= The Board considered approval of a proposal to elect County Commissioners from residential districts. Commissioner Carey made reference to the agenda abstract and said that this is the third time the Board has reviewed this information. He proposes that the number of County Commissioners be increased to seven (7) with five (5) elected from districts and two (2) at -large with all seven elected by all voters in the County. He said that he feels this is a good time to act on this because we do not have an election going on at this time. He asked the Board to adopt this plan Commissioner Crowther said that he supports this effort . He noted that this change would need local legislation or a referendum. Commissioner Carey feels that part of the implementation would include asking the manager to bring back information on how this could be accomplished. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he does not recall what the County Commissioners did in 1996 He asked for additional information on what happened the last time this was discussed. Commissioner Carey continued to explain how residential district elections would work. He note that the terms would be staggered with four (4) one year and three (3) the next term. Commissioner Gordon said that she supports keeping it at five members and not increasing to seven. She has not found that we can come up with a way that would be perceived as fair by rural residents She made reference to the report showing past information on County Commissioners and the township in which they reside. The report shows the number of Commissioners elected from each township over the years and is incorporated herein by reference A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to adopt a Residential District Election plan for the election of Commissioners and instruct the County Attorney and County Manager to develop a plan for implementation of this plan as soon as possible, The implementation plan must be consistent with all state and federal laws governing the electoral process and include a public hearing in Northern and Southern Orange County at the draft stage of the plan VOTE: AYES, Commissioners Carey and Crowther; NOS, (3) Chair Brown and Commissioners Gordon and Halkiotis. f. Disposition of Chapel Hill - Carrboro schools property This item was deleted from the agenda. 10. REPORTS A. Update on township residence of County Commissioners The Board received an updated report from Commissioner Gordon on the townships in which commissioners have resided since 1954. 11. APPOINTMENTS The Board considered appointments to the Orange County Planning Board and the Landfill Owner's Group Subcommittee on Extending Water Lines to the Landfill Community. PLANNING BOARD NOMINATIONS Keith Cook, Barry Katz, Jeffrey Schmitt and Runyon Woods were nominated Barry Katz received 3 votes and Runyon Woods received four votes and were appointed to a three year term on the Orange County Planning Board, LOG A motion was made by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to appoint Chair Brown and Commissioner Halkiotis to the Landfill Owners Group subcommittee on Extending Water Lines to the Landfill Community VOTE: UNANIMOUS 120 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No _9_ e, ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 22, 1998 SUBJECT: ELECTION OF ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN DISTRICT ELECTIONS ----- ----- -------- ----- --- - -- --- DEPARTMENT County Commissioners -------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARING YES-- -------- ----------- NO X ---- -- - -- - -- ----- ---- ---- °--- -------- -- - -- - -- BUDGET AMENDMENT: _YES X NO ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT YES Moses Carey, Jr. TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider the future election of Orange County Commissioners in Residential District Elections. BACKGROUND: The members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners are currently elected At -Large in partisan primary and general elections. Upon election they serve in staggered four -year terms with terms ending every two years. A Task force created by the Commissioners in 1993 to study the process of electing commissioners concluded that a change was needed to improve the perception of representation among rural citizens. In 1.996, the Board of Commissioners adopted a plan in principle to change the way Commissioners are elected but failed to follow through with implementation. More recently, the Shaping Orange County Future Task Force reported the improvement of geographical representation in Orange County policy making as one of its preliminary goals. Orange County is growing rapidly. As this growth occurs some groups within the county feel isolated and disenfranchised in the policy making process. Election of Commissioners from residential districts and possibly increasing the number of commissioners could effectively address the concerns of many citizens as the county continues to grow. RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Commissioners adopt the attached Residential District Election Plan for the election of Commissioners and instruct the County Attorney and County Manager to develop a plan for implementation of this plan as soon as possible. The implementation plan must be consistent with all state and federal laws governing the electoral process and include a public hearing in Northern and Southern Orange County at the draft stage of the plan. 121 PLAN FOR ELECTION OF ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 1. Five Orange County Commissioners will be elected from residential districts and two will be elected At- Large. Five will be required to live in designated districts while two may reside anywhere in the county. 2. The number of Commissioners will be increased from Five to Seven. 3. The current two year staggered election of Commissioners will be maintained with two District seats and one At -Large seat open for election in Presidential election years and three District seats and one At -Large seat open for election in non- Presidential election years. 4. All seats will be elected by a countywide vote in the primary and general elections of the year in which elections are held. The partisan nature of the elections will be maintained. mcjcwdec 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Excerpt from June 22, 1998 Commissioner's Meeting APPENDIX P 122 Minutes and Agenda Materials Commissioner Halkiotis supports the proposal He would like to see this move ahead. He would hope that the County Manager could find existing resources to put into resource conservation. He feels this concern goes far beyond what the state is supporting and he does not see this as a part of the Planning Department Commissioner Gordon feels that people in Orange County are interested in environment and resource protection and that hardly any County money is directed toward these two areas She feels the department is sorely needed A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chair Brown to establish a new Environment and Resource Conservation Department to include the four steps as outlined in the agenda abstract and incorporated here by reference. VOTE. Ayes, 3; Nos, 2 (Commissioners Carey and Crowther) e. Election of Orange County Commissioners in district elections The Board considered approval of a proposal to elect County Commissioners from residential districts Commissioner Carey made reference to the agenda abstract and said that this is the third time the Board has reviewed this information. He proposes that the number of County Commissioners be increased to seven (7) with five (5) elected from districts and two (2) at -large with all seven elected by all voters in the County. He said that he feels this is a good time to act on this because we do not have an election going on at this time He asked the Board to adopt this plan. Commissioner Crowther said that he supports this effort , Fie noted that this change would need local legislation or a referendum. Commissioner Carey feels that part of the implementation would include asking the manager to bring back information on how this could be accomplished. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he does not recall what the County Commissioners did in 1996 He asked for additional information on what happened the last time this was discussed. Commissioner Carey continued to explain how residential district elections would work. He note that the terms would be staggered with four (4) one year and three (3) the next term, Commissioner Gordon said that she supports keeping it at five members and not increasing to seven She has not found that we can come tip with a way that would be perceived as fair by rural residents, She made reference to the report showing past information on County Commissioners and the township in which they reside. The report shows the number of Commissioners elected from each township over the years and is incorporated herein by reference A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to adopt a Residential District Election plan for the election of Commissioners and instruct the County Attorney and County Manager to develop a plan for implementation of this plan as soon as possible. The implementation plan must be consistent with all state and federal laws governing the electoral process and include a public hearing in Northern and Southern Orange County at the draft stage of the plan VOTE: AYES, Commissioners Carey and Crowther; NOS, (3) Chair Brown and Commissioners Gordon and Halkiotis. f. Disposition of Chapel Hill - Carrboro schools property This item was deleted from the agenda. 10. REPORTS a. Update on township residence of County Commissioners The Board received an updated report from Commissioner Gordon on the townships in which commissioners have resided since 1954. 11. APPOINTMENTS The Board considered appointments to the Orange County Planning Board and the Landfill Owner's Group Subcommittee on Extending Water Lines to the Landfill Community. PLANNING BOARD NOMINATIONS Keith Cook, Barry Katz, Jeffrey Schmitt and Runyon Woods were nominated Barry Katz received 3 votes and Runyon Woods received four votes and were appointed to a three year term on the Orange County Planning Board. LOG A motion was made by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to appoint Chair Brown and Commissioner Halkiotis to the Landfill Owners Group subcommittee on Extending Water Lines to the Landfill Community VOTE: UNANIMOUS 123 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 22, 1998 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON TOWNSHIP RES -----------------------------_-- DEPARTMENT County Commissioners ---- I --------- I ------------------- Action Agenda Item No io-a OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES— NO —x- --------------------------------- BUDGET AMENDMENT: YES NO ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT Commissioner Alice M. Gordon Memo dated June 17, 1998 to BOCC TELEPHONE NUMBER Memo dated June 24, 1992 to BOCC Hillsborough 732-8181 Update on Township Residence of Chapel Hill 968-4501 County Commissioners, 1992-98 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PURPOSE: To present an update on township residence of County Commissioners. BACKGROUND: On June 24, 1992, the County Commissioners received a report on township residence information for the past 38 year period. This report is to update that information. Page 7 of this abstract reflects information for the years 1992-1998. In summary, over the past 44 years, there have been 22 years during which three commissioners resided in Chapel Hill Township. There have been ten years during which there were two Chapel Hill Township Commissioners and there have been six years when there have been four Chapel Hill Township Commissioners and another four years when only one commissioner resided in Chapel Hill Township. RECOMMENDATION: Receive this report as information. 124 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Alice M. Gordon DATE: June 17, 1998 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON TOWNSHIP RESIDENCE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS For your information I have asked Beverly A. Blythe to provide you with a memorandum concerning "County Commissioners and Their Township Residence," dated June 24, 1992. 1 have also asked Beverly to provide you with an update of that Information from 1992 to the present. 125 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Alice Gordon DATE: June 24, 1992 RE: County Commissioners and Their Township Residence At my request, Sylvia Clements of the Clerk's office has completed a listing of the members of the Board of County Commissioners for the 38 year period from 1954 to the present, along with their township residence. That listing is attached for your information. The cutoff date of 1954 was chosen because that was the first year that there were five commissioners on the Board. Prior to that date the Board had three member's. Furthermore, the township residence of commissioners prior to 1954 was apparently not available for all commissioners. I thought this information might be of interest because of many recent questions concerning the number of commissioners who have resided in Chapel Hill Township. Note that the first year that all five commissioners resided in Chapel Hill Township was 1990. Coincidentally that was the first year that two women had ever served on the Board at the same time. Over the past 38 years, there have been 18 years during which 3 commissioners have resided in Chapel Hill Township. There have been 10 years during which there were two Chapel Hill Township Commissioners. Finally, there have been 4 years when there have been four Chapel Hill Township Commissioners and another four years when only one commissioner has resided in Chapel Hill Township. The current population in Chapel Hill Township is just under 700 of the total population of orange County. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF C0*1Y.1SST_ONERS PER --LECT-D ?MOD 126 wear Townshio 1990 -92 Stephen Halkiotis (Reelected) CH: 5 Alice Gordon, Verla Insko (Elected H: I Moses Carey, Don Willhoit LR,: 1 1988 -90 Moses Carey, Don Willhoit (Reelected) CH: 4 Shirley Marshall, John Hartwell, Stephen Halkiotis E: 1 1986 -88 Shirley Marshall (Reelected) CH: 4 1974 -76 John Hartwell, Stephen Halkiotis (Elected) E: 1 Moses Carey, Don Willhoit E: 1 1984 -86 Don Willhoit (Reelected) C: 1 Moses Carey (Elected) CH: 3 1972 -74 Shirley Marshall, Ben Lloyd, Norman Walker LR: 1 1982 -84 Norman Walker (Reelected) C: 1 Shirley Marshall, Ben Lloyd (Elected) CH: 2 Richard Whitted, Don Willhoit H: 1 1970 -72 Henry S. Walker, Ira Ward (Reelected) LR: 1 1980 -62 Richard Whitted, Don Willhoit (Reelected) CH: 3 Anne Barnes (served through Dec. 1981) H: 1 Shirley Marshall appointed Jan. 182) LR: 1 Norm Gustaveson, Norman Walker 1978 -80 Norio Gustaveson, Norman Walker (Reelected) CH: 3 Anne Barnes (Elected) H: I Richard Whitted, Don Willhoit LR,: 1 1976 -78 Richard Whitted (Reelected) CH: 3 Don Willhoit (Elected) H: 1 Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, Norman Walker LR: 1 1974 -76 Norman Walker (Reelected) CH: 2 Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney (Elected) E: 1 Flora Garrett, Richard Whitted H: 1 LP: 1 1972 -74 Flora Garrett, Richard Whitted (Elected) CH: 2 Henry S. Walker, Norman Walker E: 1 Ira Ward (Served until Sept. 1973) H: 1 (Melvin Whitfield served 9/73 - 11/74) LR: 1 1970 -72 Henry S. Walker, Ira Ward (Reelected) CG: 1 Norman Walker (Elected) CH: 2 Harvey Bennett, William C. Ray E: 1 LR: 1 Township Legend: B = Bingham, C = Cheeks, CG = Cedar Grove, CH = Chapel Hill, E = Eno, H = Hillsborough, LR = Little River 1.27 Year Townshio 1968 -70 Harvey Bennett, William C. Ray (Reelected) CG: 1 Carl Smith, Henry S. Walker, Ira Ward CH: 3 E: 1 1966 -68 Carl Smith, Henry S. Walker (Reelected) CG: 1 Ira Ward (Elected) CH: 3 Harvey D. Bennett, William C. Ray E: 1 1964 -66 Harvey D. Bennett (Reelected) CG: 1 William C. Ray (Elected) CH: 3 Gordon Cleveland, Carl Smith, Henry S. Walker E: 1 1962 -64 Gordon Cleveland, Carl Smith (Elected) B: 1 Henry S. Walker (Nominated to serve in place of CH: 3 Donald McDade who was elected for 4 -year term, E: 1 but died on November 21, 1962) Harvey D. Bennett, Donald Stanford 1960 -62 Donald Stanford (Reelected) B: 1 Harvey D. Bennett (Elected) CG: 1 Clarence Jones, Donald McDade, Henry S. Walker CH: 1 E: 1 H: 1 1958 -60 Henry S. Walker B: 1 Clarence Jones, Donald McDade CG: 1 Donald Stanford, R.J.M. Hobbs CH: 1 E: 1 H: 1 1956 -58 R.J.M. Hobbs (Reelected) B: 1 Donald Stanford (Elected) CG: 1 Claud T. Pope (Died 8/57, replaced by Donald McDade)CH: 2 Dwight M. Ray, Henry S. Walker E: 1 1954 -56 Four -year terms: Henry Walker C: 1 D. M. Ray CH: 3 Edwin S. Lanier (Resigned 11/2/56) E: 1 Two -year terms: R.J.M. Hobbs Sim L. Efland (Resigned 12/3/56) Note: At the February 2, 1953 meeting, a group of citizens petitioned that the size of the Board of Commissioners be increased from three to five members. The Board agreed and recommended that enabling legislation be requested. It was decided that at the November, 1954 election three candidates would be elected for four -year terms and two would be elected for two -year terms and that in the future all candidates would be elected to serve four - year terms. 128 (6/92) COMMISSIONERS' TOWNSHIP RESIDENCE ** NAME Moses Carey Alice Gordon Stephen Halkiotis Verla Insko Don Willhoit Shirley Marshall John Hartwell Ben Lloyd Norman Walker Richard Whitted Anne Barnes Norman Gustaveson Jan Pinney Flora Garrett Henry S. Walker Ira Ward Harvey Bennett William C. Ray Carl Smith Gordon Cleveland Donald Stanford Clarence Jones Donald McDade TOWNSHIP CH CH CH CH CH CH Eno Cheeks Little River Hillsborough CH CH CH CH (Elected) Eno (Moved to) Eno CH CH Cedar Grove W CH Bingham Hillsborough Cedar Grove Claud Pope Cedar Grove R.J.M. Hobbs Chapel Hill Dwight M. Ray Chapel Hill Edwin S. Lanier Chanel Hill Sim L. Efland Cheeks ** This listing goes back to 1954. 129 Orange County Board of Commissioners Update on Township Residence of County Commissioners 1992 -1998 Orange County Board of Commissioners Per Elected Period since 1992 YEAR TOWNSHIP 199&98 Margaret Brown (elected) Chapel Hill: 3 Moses Carey (reelected) Hilsb: 2 Bill Crowther, Alice Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis 1994 -96 William Crowther (elected) Chapel Hill: 3 Alice Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis (reelected) Hilsb: 2 Moses Carey, Don Willhoit 1992 -94 Moses Carey, Don Willhoit (reelected) Chapel Hill: 4 Alice Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis, Vera Insko Hilsb: 1 Commissioners Township Residence (Since 1992 Margaret Brown Chapel Hill Moses Carey Chapel Hill Bill Crowther Hillsborough Alice Gordon Chapel Hill Stephen Halkiotis* Hillsborough Verla Insko Chapel Hill Don Willhoit Chapel Hill *Commissioner Halkiotis moved from Chapel Hill township to Hillsborough township NOTE: Commissioner Elect Barry Jacobs resides in Cheeks Township Follow -up Document to Commissioners January 16, APPENDIX Q 1999 Retreat (see 3rd page) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 130 RETREAT - JANUARY 16, 1999 Goals Discussion COMMUNICATIONS_ • Outreach • Facilitated response for citizens • Commissioners on T.V. • Communication - What does County Gov't. do? • Keep on getting the message out - tax bill information - steps to continue • Communication - make it a higher priority and develop more methods to implement this goal • Citizens guide to public process • Web page and intranet development • Orange Book • Three month projected agenda • Meetings INNOVATION & EFFICIENCY (including Construction Management) • Sustainable County govt. (new objective) • Efficiency - cost effectiveness (value engineering) • Budget process • County organization • Cost effective initiatives • Construction Management IMPACTS OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT (including adequate public facilities) • Analysis of impacts of growth and development - more emphasis • Roads, Schools, Trash • Total impact on County of Growth and Development and who should pay for this (1899 or 1999) • Adequate Public Facilities • University expansion • Growth costs on County gov't. • Adequate public facilities to serve growth in a timely manner • Developing new standard slordinances for erosion and sedimentation control • Smart Growth (SOCF) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 131 • Develop Entrance road design for 86 EDD - meeting with Hillsborough • Strategies for EDD infrastructure • Solid Waste facility • Agriculture • Develop Benchmarks • Sustainability in Economic Development • Financing for public utilities needed for EDD (Efland) PLANNING • Review cell tower ordinance • Flexible Development Ordinance • Review Staff Permits • BOA Permits decisions • Transition Zoning • Review with New Director all goals, then update • Review Subdivision regulations, Class B permits, time limits, flexible open space ordinance TRANSPORTATION • More efforts to promote alternative modes • Some local autonomy • TTA stations identified for LUP • Rural Transportation Plan OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION AND PARKS • One Recreation and Parks Department. for all the County? Consolidation with Chapel Hill and Carrboro, SAVE $ ? ?? • Secure Open Space to secure Rural Character to secure a nice place to live to reduce chance of urban sprawl, etc. • Transfer of Development Rights within County jurisdiction • Resource Protection°. * Range of options /strategies * Funding * ERG Department • Conservation easements and land trust • Protect/purchase open space, parks, etc. (Comprehensive resource conservation program) • One D + protect school /park sites and "concurrency" for school facilities (Schools and Land Use Council) • Environmental Protection /protect natural resources and 1 D tools for protection (Commission for the Environment) • Payment -in -lieu of park and recreation fees 132 RURAL CHARACTER PRESERVATION • Open space • Agriculture Preservation • Rural Buffer • RC Study • Bond referendum for purchase of development right by the County that would be perpetual FOREVER!!! • Preserve rural buffer EDUCATION: EQUITABLE AND EFFECTIVE SCHOOL FUNDING • Effective school funding -is equity just a "dream" Hasn't been achieved with two school systems • Substantial equivalency for school facilities • Impact fee equity study (different residential types) PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES CONCERNING NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AT SHEARON HARRIS • 911 - fire /rescue • Law Enforcement Training Facility (firing range) • Nuclear Waste Storage in a 1,000,000+ population area • Shearon Harris and public safety issues • Public health • Emergency preparedness plan including plan for environmental hazard DISTRICT (geographical residential) ELECTIONS FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1M • Representation * more diverse boards and commissions * primer for citizens • Demographic and diversity for Boards and Commissions • District elections -1 person -1 vote OTHER • Firearms • Review firearms discharge laws for residential areas or nearby • Discharge of firearms within 1/2 mile of a school • Alcohol and firearms • County support for Child Care for County employees • Pay and compensation * competitive, fair * pay- for - performance • Pay equity • Y2K • Y2K Readiness • Welfare Reform • Healthy Carolinians * comprehensive view of County services • Human Services • more focus on seniors /senior centers • ESL • Overt leadership role in Work First • Human Services • Year 2000 - benchmarks and events • Regional solutions * Chatham and Jordan Lake * Solid Waste * Impact Tax • Training yearly for Planning Board and BOA members with Carrboro and Hillsborough 1.33 Excerpt from February 15. 1999 Commissioner's Work Session Minutes APPENDIX R 134 PLANNING (additional comments) ♦ review cell tower regulations in concert with Board of Adjustment permit decisions and Class B Special Use Permits ♦ review flexible development regulations review and discuss time limits for development process ♦ look at a grid system for future location of cell towers ♦ review the future technology for cell towers TRANSPORTATION ♦ discuss the University's student expansion and transportation of students ♦ receive an update from the University on projected growth ♦ stress to the TTA our needs here in Orange County for transportation ♦ look at the benefits of Orange County being a part of another transportation district ♦ determine strategies to get what we need from regional groups like TTA, DOT, etc. ♦ promote park and ride lots OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION AND PARKS Commissioner Jacobs read a goal which he will share with the other Commissioners for their comments. This had to do with preserving rural character and re- examining the recommendations of the Rural Character study, ♦ look at TDR and the possibility of transferring within the County jurisdiction ♦ make a decision on TDR for Orange County Chair Gordon made reference to the Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force and asked Environment and Resource Conservation Director David Stancil to explain how managing growth and preserving open space in the rural areas, and exploring the cluster approach in the rural areas, may be addressed by this Task Force. He said that some of the Rural Character ideas have been identified time and time again by the Land Use and Growth Committee and the Environment, Resource and Conservation Committee. Although they will not have recommendations to the County Commissioners until September, based on what has happened so far, he feels these issues will be addressed. Chair Gordon said that a goal needs to be developed to include new initiatives for open space, agricultural preservation, rural buffer preservation, flexible development and open space acquisition. She would like to see the issues outside of the Joint Planning Area addressed first and noted that the JPA Rural Buffer should continue in its current form. The Board decided to carry forward the points listed under rural character preservation. They will react to the various proposals as this goal is articulated. PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to his meeting with area law enforcement officials about locating a firing range in Orange County. They hope to be able to raise outside funds to build this facility. John Link said that he plans to put funds for this item in the CIP — -- - -- --. - ---- -• . ,—"' r.r r 4M Commissioner Carey said that he feels the Board needs to have representation from all areas of the County. He asked that the County Commissioners consider a public hearing on this issue to hear what citizens have to say before making a decision. 135 Commissioner Halkiotis said that he does not support district elections. He feels that there is a segment of the population who will always feel that they are not represented. The County Commissioners discussed at length the advantages and disadvantages of district elections, Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Halkiotis said they were not interested in pursing this issue and Chair Gordon said that she did not know of a district election plan that could address the philosophical differences that are the major issue. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is not opposed to looking at this but he feels we can accomplish many of our same goals by looking at the composition of our boards and commissions to which the County Commissioners make appointments. FIREARMS The County Commissioners heard concerns about firearms from a citizen on ,January 19 and decided at that time to reactivate the Hunting Committee to look at this issue. They requested that this committee also look at discharge of firearms within a certain number of feet from a school and other issues involving alcohol and hunting. CHILDCARE FOR COUNTY EMP_ _ LOYEES Commissioner Carey said that he learned that there are County employees in need of subsidy for childcare, He feels we need to pay our employees enough to afford childcare or to subsidize those employees who meet subsidy criteria. He feels we also need to challenge both school systems and the municipalities to help solve this problem. Commissioner Jacobs said that the goal might be to seek adequate childcare for children, not only those of County employees. John Link said that there are two programs which offer subsidies for childcare. One program is offered by DSS which has a lower threshold of eligibility than the other program administered by Daycare Association, to which the income range can go as high as $30,000 to $35,000. He asked if he could come back with a report before the County Commissioners make a decision on this. Commissioner Halkiotis would like to know how other companies are providing day care for their employees or ensuring that employees can pay for adequate daycare. WELFARE REFORM Chair Gordon said that with welfare reform, she wants to be sure we are following through on these goals. She asked for an update on these goals. Commissioner ,Jacobs asked for a report on what the County is doing for Work First participants in locating /providing jobs within the County government. HEALTHY CAROLINIANS Commissioner Brown put this on because she is interested in understanding how the Healthy Carolinians Task Force is meeting its objectives for the needs of children, teen pregnancy and the use of preventive services. She would like to know what services we provide and what nonprofits we are giving money to that may address some of these objectives. She would like to have these objectives clarified and an update before we set new goals. Commissioner Carey said that the objective of the Healthy Carolinians is not for the County to provide all the services that would make this a healthy County. It is for the people who are involved in human health and in human services, and some who are not, to get involved and work together to make this a healthy County and achieve the goals in that report. This is an important area that needs a lot of work over the next few years. Excerpt from Shaping Orange County's Future Report APPENDIX S 136 GOAL 2: Address Citizen Concerns about Representation in Government Rationale Two issues have been raised concerning citizen representation in government, one in regard to lack of representation for residents living in town extra - territorial ,jurisdictions (ET.Js), and the other in regard to rural citizen representation on the Board of County Commissioners. Citizens in the Town ET7s have expressed concern about being regulated by the towns, without having a say in who is elected to town boards. This issue of regulation without representation is a difficult one without easy answers. Carrboro's institution of a "planning board" for the Northern Transition Area provides an example of a possible mechanism for addressing such citizens' concerns.. The issue of County Commission representation was first raised in the SOCF process during Community Forums held in the summer of 1997. Since then it has reappeared and been discussed on numerous occasions, and is unanimously considered by the Task Force as one of the most critical issues for the SOCF initiative to address. For many rural residents who have spoken with the Task Force, it is the primary issue that they feel needs to be addressed. Many residents feel their viewpoints are not represented adequately through the current process for electing County Commissioners. This has led to divisions within the county. Changing the system by which County Commissioners are elected so that all residents feel they have representation in the government could go a long way toward building community within the county. For a brief history of County efforts to address this issue including formation of a task force to study the issue in 1993 and drawing of a draft plan in 1996 please see Appendix N. This appendix also has information on methods of elections and parameters that new election plans must meet W. 137 N , i f Recommendation 1: Address issue of representation on the Board of County Commissioners. Action Strategies: A. Convene a short -term study committee with geographical representation and racial/gender /ethnic diversity with the specific task of analyzing options for making the Board of County Commissioners more representative of the county's rural citizens. The group should have a short (6 month) timeframe and be charged to come up with recommended options for changing the elective process, (including looking at increasing the size of the board if determined to be needed), for the County Commissioners to choose from and put on a referendum for a County-wide vote Any such options should not dilute minority voting and representation and be consistent with one person/one vote Federal mandate. The Committee should also explore the issues behind feelings of need for a change in method of election, to help address any needed policy changes B. Make sure that any development of new electoral system options addresses diversity and looks at previous work and other types of reform voting methods. Recommendation 2: Ensure adequate representation for citizens living outside municipal limits, but inside municipal planning jurisdictions (i.e. in Town Extra Territorial Jurisdictions (ETJs)). Action Strategy: A. Convene a short -term study committee for each ETJ made up of diverse representation (including citizens living in ETJs) to look at making Town elected boards more responsive to citizens residing in ETJ or transition areas. The study committee should consider options such as Town referendum/special legislation allowing limited voting authority for ETJ /transition residents and /or the establishment of a liaison -type seat on the elected board for those living in these areas. Recommendation 3: Continue to ensure that all Town and County advisory boards and commissions have broad -based representation, in terms of gender, race and ethnicity. Recommendation 4: Continue current (and ensure in the future) a public process that focuses efforts to make government an open process in full public view, using tools like public hearings and forums, televised meetings, the Internet, and future technologies to provide vehicles for citizen involvement. 29 House Bill 913 -First Edition H Representative Faisons uouse Bill 913 and Correspondence Between Representative Faison and Clair Carey GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2005 APPENDIX T 1 HOUSE BILL 913 Short Title: Orange Commissioners Election. (Local) Sponsors: Representative Faison. Referred to: Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. March 28, 2005 IAR A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO EXPAND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY AND PROVIDE FOR DISTRICT ELECTION OF MOST OF ITS MEMBERS. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: SECTION 1. Effective the first Monday in December of 2006, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County shall consist of seven members. SECTION 2. In 2006 and quadrennially thereafter, one member shall be nominated and elected by the qualified members of the entire county. SECTION 3. In 2006 and biennially thereafter, two members shall be elected from District A to serve four -year terms. SECTION 4. The two members elected at large in 2004 shall serve the remainder of their unexpired term. SECTION 5. In 2006, one member shall be elected from District B to serve a two -,year term. In 2008 and quadrennially thereafter, the District B member shall be elected to a four -year term. SECTION 6, In 2006 and quadrennially thereafter, one member shall be elected from District C to serve a four -year term. SECTION 7. District A consists of Chapel Hill Township. District B consists of Eno Township, Hillsborough Township, and Efland Precinct. District C consists of Bingham Township, Cheeks Precinct, Cedar Grove Township, and Little River Township, SECTION 8. The qualified voters of each district shall nominate candidates and elect members who reside in the district for seats apportioned to that district. SECTION 9. Sections 1 through 8 of this act shall become effective only if approved by the qualified voters of Orange County, The Orange County Board of Elections shall hold a referendum on the question on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November of 2005, The question on the ballot shall be: "[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST Expansion of the Orange County Board of Commissioners to seven members and election of six of the members from districts." The election shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 163 of the General littp: / /www.ncga.state,nc.us/ Sessions /2005Bills/Hotise /HTML /H91.3v I .html 4/25/2005 House Bill 913 -First Edition 139 Statutes, SECTION 10. Chapter 439, Session Laws of 1953 is repealed. SECTION 11. This act is effective when it becomes law. http: / /www, nega.state.nc.us/Sessioiis/2005/Bills/House/HTML/H913vl.litmI 4/25/2005 MOSES CAREY, JR., CHAIR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BARRYJACOES. VICECHAIR VALERIE P FOUSHEE POST OFFICE BOX 8181 . AuceM. GORDON 200 SOUTH CAMERON STREET .STEPHEN H HAU00n5 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 March 2, 2005 Representative Bill Faison House District # 50 P.O. Box 51729 Durham, NC 27717 Re: District Elections in Orange County Dear Representative Faison: I am writing at the request of the Orange County Board of Commissioners to acquaint you with the process normally followed when considering and acting upon maters of importance to our board and the residents we serve. The manner of election of county commissioners is a matter of serious concern for our board and many of the residents of Orange County. The board also believes the resolution of this matter is best left to the residents and elected officials at the local level. Introduction of this matter for state legislative action will only result in increased divisiveness within Orange County and possible disruption of the process the board envisions for its resolution. As I shared with you and the residents who participated in the Schley Listeninj session last week, the Board received the petition from our residents at our .January 24 meeting requesting that we consider the election of commissioners in district elections. I informed the group that our Board normally prefers to receive reports and hold public hearings to obtain public input prior to making significant public policy decisions. We plan to do that in this case in a reasonable period of time. The Board of Commissioners asked our staff at the January 24`n meeting to prepare a report including the history of commissioner elections and legal options available to the board for presentation at a subsequent meeting. I expect the report will be ready for consideration on our agenda in early April. The residents who submitted the petition and you will be notified in advance of the meeting at which it will be discussed, At that time the Board can discuss the timing for any public hearings we choose to hold on the subject. The public will be notified and invited to share their views at these hearings. www.co.oranoe.nc.us Protecting and preserving — People, Resources, Quality of Life Orange County, North Carolina — You Count! (919) 245 -2130 • FAX (919) 644 -0246 140 141 Subsequent to the hearings, the Board will study the results and make any decision in a timely manner that it deems to be in the long term best interest of the all residents of Orange County. You and any interested residents are invited to share your views at public hearings or directly to any member of our board during this process Page 2 I hope these answers your questions concerning the process and timing of the Board's actions related to the issues raised by our residents. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 6t Moses Carey, Jr. Chair Cc: Orange County Board of Commissioners John Link, Manager Representative Verla Inskq Representative Joe Hackney Senator Ellie Kinnaird I_ig],Il it �j 1112 R 3 (01 R'iL 142 North Carolina ZIouse of Representatives Representati ve Disriiet 50 — Caswell CT_ Orange Counties P.O. Box 163 Cedar Grove, -North Carolina 27231 (91.9) 606 -6700 or (336) 694 -1616 Fax (919) 439 -1439 BiU@neleg.net March 23, 2005 Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. Orange County Board of Commissioners 200 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: District Election for the Orange County Connnissioners Dear Chairman Carey; The residents of Orange County have for the second time in less than a decade again petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to put before the voters of the County a referendum on District Representation. When first presented, the Board set up a Study Commission to investigate the matter and report back to the Board with a recommendation. I am told both by a member of the Study Commission and a former County Commissioner Board member then serving that the Study Commission recorrunended District Representation. The demographics of the County certainly confirm the need for District Representation. The County has tluee very distinctly different communities. There is the urban connnunity of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, the small town communities of Hillsborough and Efland, and the very rural areas of White Cross, Orange Grove, Cheeks precinct, Cedar Grove, and Caldwell. Each community deserves a voice on the Board. It is not reasonable to assume that any group elected primarily by one of these areas would be able to both adequately and vigorously represent the interests of the other two and the people who reside in those areas. The County easily lends itself to division by districts. Yet, when the matter first came before the Board, I am told by a former Board member then Page 2 District Election for the Orange County Commissioners serving, that the Board could not figure out how to effectively draw districts. This is somewhat surprising since, at least today, the districts are very easy to draw. The Chapel Hill Township which includes the urban portion of the county makes up almost perfectly 66.66% of the county population (Chapel Hill Township 67.05 %). The Hillsborough and Efland small town areas of the county makes up almost perfectly 16.66% of the county population (Hillsborough and Eno Townships plus the Efland precinct 16.70 %). The more rural area of the county also makes up almost perfectly 16.66% of the county population (Bingham, Cedar (rove and Little River Townships plus the Cheeks precinct 16.25 %). The population division almost perfectly and very easily works out to a Board of seven (7) members with four (4) elected by and from the urban portion of the county, one (1) by and from the small town area of the county, and one (1) by and from the more rural part of the county, plus one (1) at large. When District Representation first carne before the Board, the Board did not bring closure to this matter by putting it before the county for a vote on District Representation, even after all the work and recommendation for District Representation by the Commission. The matter is now back before the Board yet again, brought forward by the petition of more than a thousand county residents. The petition was posted and available for signing at almost every crossroads grocery in the rural part of the county for months before it was presented to the Board. The issue was discussed with you by a number of county residents in your recent successful bid for re- election. Moreover, since the petition was filed and discussed with the Board, you have participated in a lengthy session with rural residents at the Schley Grange where the community, without exception, vigorously supported District Representation. I understand that the Board now wants to study this issue all over again, and to take the rest of this year and perhaps into next year before bringing the matter on for consideration by the Board. Even then action that would allow the residents of the county to vote on this issue seems remote. You have expressed to the community at the Schley Grange your opposition to District Representation. At least two other commissioners have expressed in one forum or another their resistance to the idea of allowing the community to decide this issue. While one commissioner supports a referendum on district 14.3 Page 3 District Election for the Orange Cotmty Conunissioners representation the remaining commissioner has given no indication of a position. Even so, the majority of the Board appears to be merely going through a process without any intent of allowing the voters of the county to decide whether or not to have District Representation. Since the Board has not in the past meaningfully dealt with this issue, and even now does not appear to be moving forward to timely deal with the matter, the community has asked me to introduce legislation that would present to the people of the county a referendum do the following: 1. Expand the Board to seven (7) members. 2. Provide that all current Board members serve out their current term. 3. Provide for six (6) of the members to be elected from and by identifiable districts. a. Four (4) from the Chapel Hill Township b. One (1) fiom the Hillsborough and Eno Townships and the Efland precinct. c. One (1) from the Bingham, Cedar Grove and Little River Townships and the Cheeks precinct. 4. Provide for one (1) member to be elected at large. S. Stagger the terms so that every two years county commissioners are elected with three (3) elected in one cycle and four (4) in the next. A copy of legislation to be introduced in the North Carolina House which calls for the referendum described above along with a map showing the Districts are attached. Sufficient copies of this letter, the legislation and the map are enclosed so that you may share these with the other commissioners if you choose. I encourage you and the other commissioners to join with the one thousand plus petitioners, other community leaders from across the county and me in supporting this legislation. I hope that you and the other commmissioners will contact the other legislators that are elected in whole or in part by Orange County and encourage them to support placing this issue before the people of the county in the form of a referendum so that we may 144 Page 4 District Election for the Orange County Commissioners all participate in the decision of the method and manner in which our county commissioners are elected. Best regards, Bill Faison Representative North Carolina House for Orange and Caswell Counties Attachments Via Hand Delivery and US Mail cc: Orange County Advisory Council Senator Ellie Kinnaird Representative Verla Insko Representative Joe Hackney 145 G /...,—Cedar aka.: a;u Or. G,. Bingham Nt5m G2c 0 D.5 1 2 3 A Mlles Tam I -- Little River �rurHamn rc sue /0 cmr� I 146 1 Townships r auxl wu � cnodu Hah 1 HlbbwwOh wm nro ••. •_...�•.•, — .- .Mru.rdnmvr•n wo.sa0.ssMOawmiam 1 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 147 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2005 H D BILL DRAFT 2005- LB -136A [v.1] (3/8) (THIS IS A DRAFT AND IS NOT READY FOR INTRODUCTION) 3/14/2005 11:33:38 AM Short Title: Orange Commissioners Election. (Local) Sponsors: Representative Faison, Referred to: A BILL, TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO EXPAND THE BOARD OF COMIvIISSIONER.S OF ORANGE COUNTY AND PROVIDE FOR DISTRICT ELECTION OF MOST OF ITS MEMBERS. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: SECTION 1. Effective the first Monday in December of 2006, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County shall consist of seven members. SECTION 2. In 2006 and quadrennially thereafter, one member shall be nominated and elected by the qualified members of the entire county. SECTION 3. In 2006 and biennially thereafter, two members shall be elected from District A to serve four -year terms. SECTION 4. The two members elected at -large in 2004 shall serve the remainder of their unexpired term. SECTION 5. In 2006, one member shall be elected from District B to serve a two -year term. In 2008 and quadrennially thereafter, the District B member shall be elected to a four -year term. SECTION 6. In 2006 and quadrennially thereafter, one member shall be elected from District C to serve a four -year term. SECTION 7. District A consists of Chapel Hill Township. District B consists of Eno Township, Hillsborough Township and Efland Precinct. District C consists of Bingham Township, Cheeks Precinct, Cedar Grove Township and Little River Township. SECTION 8. The qualified voters of each district shall nominate candidates and elect members who reside in the district for seats apportioned to that district. SECTION 9. Sections 1 through 8 of this act shall only become effective if approved by the qualified voters of Orange County. The Orange County Board of General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2005 ias 1 Elections shall hold a referendum on the question on the Tuesday after the first Monday 2 in November of 2005. The question on the ballot shall be: 3 "[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST 4 Expansion of the Orange County Board of Commissioners to seven members 5 and election of six of the members from districts" 6 The election shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 163 of the 7 General Statutes. 8 SECTION 10. Chapter 439, Session Laws of 1953 is repealed. Page 2 2005- LB -136A [v,1] (3/8) MOSES CARET JR., CHAIR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BARRY J VICE CHAIR POST OFFICE BOX 818 1 VALERIE P. P. Fou FOUSHEE AJCEM GORDON 200 SOUTH CAMERON STREET STEPHEN H HAL IOTIS HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 March 25, 2005 Representative Bill Faison House District #50 P O. Box 168 Cedar Grove, North Carolina 27231 Re: District Election of Orange County Commissioners Dear Representative Faison: In my March 3, 2005 letter to you on behalf of our Board I shared the process the Orange County Board of Commissioners follows in deliberating, seeking public input and making decisions on important public matters. I especially informed you that our Board would hear a report on the issue of District Election of Commissioners in early April in response to the petition that we received from many of our residents. This would be the next step in our board's consideration of the issues raised by our residents. I informed you and the residents present at the Schley Listening Session that the matter would be addressed as soon as possible and should be addressed by local officials and local residents rather than the State Legislature. I also encouraged you in my March letter not to introduce any legislation since introducing such local matters in the State Legislature would be unnecessarily divisive, disruptive and could adversely affect the process and timing long established in Orange County for addressing important public issues. Not only have you completely disregarded the wishes of our board of Commissioners in introducing a bill in the House to impose your specific version of District Elections on the residents of this county, you have also misrepresented in your letter to me, which was distributed widely, statements that I made at the Schley Community Listening Session in March. You state that I "oppose district representation of County Commissioners ". The truth is that I have publicly stated for many years, and did so again at the Schley meeting, that I support district election of county commissioners. However, the form that I support is different than the form you wish to impose, which translates in your mind that I oppose district elections. Your behavior in this matter represents poor service to the residents of Orange County and should raise concerns for local elected officials across the state who work hard to serve all of the residents in their districts. It also represents an arrogance that implies that State Legislators know more about local issues than local officials and can best resolve issues by imposing their views through state legislation regardless of local opinion, I do not think this behavior' or the underlying assumptions are shared or supported by most of our State Legislators and certainly not by those who represent portions of Orange County outside of your district. www.co.orange.nc.us Protecting and preserving —People, Resources, Quality of Life Orange County, North Carolina — You Count! (919) 245 -2130 • FAX (9 19) 644 -0246 149 350 Page 2 I repeat the fact that the Orange County Board of Commissioners will hear a report on the issue of'District Elections in April. We will subsequently hold at least two public hearings in different parts of the county and deliberate on the issue prior to making a decision. I call on you to withdraw the bill you introduced. If you do not withdraw the bill, I am expressly requesting the other members of the Orange County legislative delegation to actively work to defeat this bill. I will also request that our State Association of County Commissioners and every board of commissioners in the state actively resist this usurpation of local government authority, which will set a dangerous precedent if successful. Please let me know if you have questions related to this matter or our request. Cc: Members, Orange County Board of Commissioners Representative Joe Hackney Representative Verla Insko Senator Ellie Kinnaird John Link, County Manager Local Media