Browse
Search
Minutes - 19730507
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
1970's
>
1973
>
Minutes - 19730507
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2014 11:53:41 AM
Creation date
8/13/2008 12:09:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/7/1973
Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
F~~K ~ ~~,cE 554 <br />"We are here today for your consideration of an Orange County <br />Council on Aging. Presently, the towr_ of Chapel H3,11 funds and administers <br />a Council on Aging. This Council, like the other local Councils an <br />Aging in the state, are funded ender Title IIT of the Older Americana <br />Act. Title III provides federal fur_ds matched locally for the <br />coordination of existing and new services for older adults. While the <br />Chapel Hill program is a good ono, we at the Region and the Governor's <br />Council on Aging are interested in developing a program serving all aging <br />in Orange County. <br />In terms of funding requirements, an Orange County program has much <br />to offer to both the County and to Chapel Hi11. First and foremost, a -' <br />county program, provided it were significantly different in scope from <br />the town..program, would qualify for 75 25~ matching funds, whereas <br />the current program is on a 50~ - 50~ match basis. The difference in <br />the proposed funding levels are as follows: <br />$6,300 for administration and $6,600 for direct services at a <br />50~ - 50~ match for a town program. <br />or <br />$9 000 for administration and $13,300 for direct services at a <br />75~ - 25~ match for a county program. <br />As you can see, the difference in the two approaches is an increased <br />amount of federal dollars for Orange County ($22,300 versus $12,900 <br />federal dollars) and a decreased level of funding for the town contribution. <br />Unfortunately, we are working under a major time constraint if it <br />is agreeable to the town of Chapel Hil]. to go county-wide. The budget for <br />a county or city program must be submitted to the state on May 15. We <br />have approached Chapel Hill about these matters and hope to have their <br />response to this proposal by your May 7 meeting." <br />Discussion ensued concerning the proposed program. <br />Unon motion of Commissioner Flora Garrett, seconded by Commissiener Richard <br />W. Whitted, it was moved, that the Board did agree with the concept and the <br />programs being sponsored by the County Council on Aging and that the Board <br />should plan a Point meeting with the Towns of Hillsborough, Carrboro and Chapel <br />Hill for the purpose of exploring fully the possibilities of sponsoring the <br />proposed programs for the entirety of Orange County. <br />Commissioner Henry S. Walker moved that Commissioner Flora Garrett's motion <br />be amended to read that the Board would explore the possibility of emoting the <br />proposed programs that are being presented by the Council for the Aging and that __ <br />a joint meeting between the city governmental units be scheduled for Thursday, <br />Map 10, 1973, at 8 P.M. in the District Courtroom. Cotamisaioner Flora Garrett <br />agreed to this amendment and the motion was unanimously adopted. <br />The Chairman recognized George Spransy, member of the Chapel Hi11 Planning <br />Board. Mr. Spransy introduced Donald We11s, Arthur Hurow and Philip Cooke. All <br />of these men are the County's appointees to the Flanning Board. Mr. Spransy <br />explained the P.I.T.C.H. Program being sponsored by the Chanel Hill Planning <br />Board. He stated that this project had involved student assistance, postage <br />and other related activity and that the coat of approximately $6,000.DO for the <br />project had been borne by the Town of Chapel Hill. Mr. Spransy said that he <br />and the other county members of the Board felt that the County should participate <br />in the program and should allocate in the 1973-1971!. budget a sum of $7,500.00 <br />for the continuance of the P.I.T.C.R, program. Discussion ensued. <br />Mr. Spransy requested that the Board consider scheduling a joint meeting <br />between representatives of the University of North. Carolina, the Towns of Chapel <br />Hill and Carrboro and the County Planning Board in order to establish a better <br />chain of communication between the planning agencies of the county, Mark <br />Burnham endorsed the suggestion. Donald Wells suggested that representatives <br />of adjoining counties should be included in the discussion as mutual problems <br />were beginning to arise due to the growth factor. <br />Commissioner Ira A. Ward suggested that a committee be appointed comprised <br />of the Chairman of eeah of the Planning Boards and a representative from the <br />University of North Carolina. <br />Chairman Walker recognized Mark Burnham and Mr. Burnham presented the <br />following Water/Sewer System FS:tenaion Policy for Orange County, North Carolina: <br />1. 'General Prinai lea <br />The planning, construction and payment for extension of water and <br />sewer systems in Orange County, North Carolina, and outside the <br />zoning jurisdictions of the to~~tns of Carrboro, Chapel Hi11, <br />Hillsborough, and Mebane, shall be accomplished in accordance with <br />the following general principles: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.