Minutes - 19770502 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

$~s Land Classification Map which goes with the narrative statement at~e~pted to show the intention of connecting the green belt area. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, it was moved and approved to adopt the Resolution as related to Land Use Planning in Orange County with the recommended additions. (See Page 193 of this book) The Clerk was instructed to sent copies of the Resolution to the Chapel Hill and Carrboro Boards of Aldermen, Region J Councils of Governments, and copies to the press. Chairman Whitted referred to Item 11: The City of Durham is requesting release of certain Drange County Tax Bills. _..... The Agenda attachment stated that in 1972, the City of Durham com- menced acquiring land in Orange County to construct a reservoir and per- haps a park. Land acquired by the City to be used for a governmental purpose is exempt from local property tax. rn late 1973, the City abandoned its efforts to construct a reservoir on the Eno and announced its intentien to sell the alnd acquired to the State. In 1975, the City did convey this land to the State. The Orange County Tax Supervisor placed this property on the tax records in 1975. The City of Durham is petitioning the County to release the 1975 taxes on this property that amounts to $440. The Chairman recognized the Tax Supervisor, Williams Laws who intro- duced to the Board Mr. Doug Johnston, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Durham. Mr. Johnston stated that the problem is in regard to certain tracts of land which the City of Durham bought in Orange County for the lake/park reservoir on the Eno. These parcels have subsequently been sold to the State, with a Warranty Deed on record, so now the City either has.ta pay the taxes or have a determination that they are exempted from taxes. Mr. Johnston stated that the Commissioners would have to determine if the City of Durham bought and held these property under a plan for public use thereof. Properties of cities and municipalities are exempted from taxes, according to the General Statutes, if they are used wholly and exclusively for muni- cipal purposes. Mr. Johnston stated that the Supreme .Court had held that as long as .the property is purchased and held under a plan for public use, that the requirements were met. He stated that he contended that the City of Durham did by and held this property under a plan for public use. Mr. Johnston introduced Ms. Parker from the staff of the Durham City Planning Office. Ms. Parker reviewed for the Board an application which was submitted to HUD September 18, 1972. The purpose of the application was to show the City of Durham's commitment to a plan far open space, recreation/reservoir use of the property. Ms. Parker also referred to a letter from Dexter Smith, Director of Planning for the City o£ Durham, which spoke of the recreation plan for Durham. Mr. Johnston stated that the plan was submitted to the Gity Council and approved September 18, 1972. On January 11, 1973, the Gity of Durham was notified that federal funds for the project were unlikely, and the Gity began to acquire the properties using their own monies. On July 12, 1973, the State of North Carolina presented a proposed Eno agreement to the City. The agreement expressed the State's interest in the Eno and stated that "the City of Durham should be responsible far acquisition of property in Durham County and the State of North Carolina should be res- ponsible for acquisition in Orange County. On October 25, 1973, the State, in a second proposal, expressed their interest in purchasing the pro- perties owned by the City of Durham along the Eno, west of Guess Road to establish a State park from Guess Road westward, and on•November 5, 1973, the City of Durham accepted the State's offer to purchase the Gity's park property and to proceed with further park development. Mr. Johnston pointed out that under North Carolina law, the property, which had been dedicated by the City of Durham for use as a park, cannot be changed from that use. The Tax Supervisor, William Laws, stated that one deed was conveyed to the State for tract numbers 2307,2309,2863,2865, and 2925 in October of 1975.