Orange County NC Website
65'~ <br />Chairman Garrett referred to Item #1' on the Agenda: Persons not <br />on the Agenda having business to conduct with the Commissioners should <br />make their presence known. No one came forth. <br />Chairman Garrett referred to Item TI: Appointments <br />A. The term of Ms. Elizabeth Martin an the Chapel Hill Planning <br />Board expired June 30, 1976. The Chapel Hill Planning Board has recom- <br />mended Ms. Martin for reappointment to a term expiring June 30, 1981. <br />T7pon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner <br />Pinney, it was moved and adopted that Elizabeth Martin be reappointed <br />- as a member of the Chapel Hill Planning Board. <br />The Chairman referred to Item III: The Orange County Board of <br />Education has requested the Orange County Board of Commissioners amend <br />its Capital Outlay budget by providing them an additional appropriation <br />of $50,000. in the new Buildings and Grounds category. <br />George Williams, Superintendent of the County School Administration, <br />H. G. Coleman, Jr., and Emma Sue Loftin, members of the School Board <br />were present. <br />Chairman Garrett referred the Board to Agenda Attachment #2, a <br />letter from Mr. Williams to Mrs. Garrett. <br />George Williams stated he felt the request of $50,000 was left <br />out of the County School Budget by mistake. He stated that the County <br />School Board could not plan for new schools unless the land was avail- <br />: able. Discussion ensued concerning Capital Outlay funds that were <br />being brought forward by the school unit. Mr. Williams stated his <br />Board had trimmed the Capital Outlay Budget closely and that they had - <br />not anticipated the purchase of new sites or the improvement of sites <br />being removed. He stated the amount of land that was needed for the <br />Efland-Cheeks School could run as high as $50,000. and the Scnool~ <br />Board is negotiating now with two different groups on two different <br />tracts of land and one will definitely be needed and at least a part <br />of the other tract. He reminded the Board that the School Board had <br />not been called back to discuss their requested budget and that the <br />Board was not aware of the deletion of this request. <br />Further discussion ensued. The Board asked Mr. Williams to con- <br />fer with the County Manager and the Finance Officer as they have no <br />knowledge of the situation until receipt of the School Board's letter. <br />The Board agreed to place the matter on the August 2nd Agenda. <br />Further discussion ensued. <br />Commissioner Walker moved that the matter be tabled until the <br />first Monday in August. Commissioner Pinney seconded the motion. <br />Chairman Garrett called for the vote. Commissioners Garrett, <br />Gustaveson, Finney, Walker and Whitted voted aye, and the motion <br />was declared passed. <br />Commissioner Pinney requested the School Board .to secure proper <br />energy checks on any buildings that are planned in order that the most <br />efficient type of fuel can be used for the buildings. <br />Chairman Garrett requested the Superintendent of Schools to <br />stay and hear the report of Al Rimer because it dealt with waste <br />disposal and she felt the report addressed itself to the Efland- <br />- Cheeks disposal problem. <br />Item VI on the Agenda: Mr. Al Rimer from the Engineering Firm <br />of Wiggins and Rimer will review his firms proposal to develop a <br />wastewater disposal plan for Orange County. <br />Mr. Rimer gave a background report on how the Efland-Cheeks area <br />came to be studied during the 201 Study of the Hillsborough area. <br />He stated that Efland had a real problem. "Not that they have a phyci- <br />cal problem of the wastewater running out over the ground like in <br />many other areas of the County, but rather Efland is growing. Efland <br />is one of those ripe areas for growth. One of the troubles is that <br />Efland cannot get aid to do anything unless they are an incorporated <br />community if they want to approach their problems of waste treatment <br />and so we studied how Efland could solve their problem in a very <br />cursory way as that was not the intent of the 201 Study for Hillsborough." <br />