Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
6 <br />VI. PIIBLIC HEARINGS <br />A. SCHOOL BOND REFERENDUM AND RESOLIITION <br />Chair Carey announced that this was the date and the hour fixed by <br />the Board of Commissioners for the public hearing upon the order entitled: <br />"Order Authorizing $52,000,000 School Bonds" and that the Board of <br />Commissioners will hear at this time anyone who might wish to be heard on the <br />questions of the validity of said order or the advisability of issuing said <br />bonds. <br />No members of the public made comments. Motion was made by <br />Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to close the public <br />hearing and to adopt the bond order as it was read on August 3, 1992. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner <br />Halkiotis to approve the Bond Referendum Resolution as presented and authorize <br />the Clerk to meet all publishing requirements as suggested by Bond Counsel <br />with the addition of the Chapel Hill Newspaper. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />VII. REPORTS <br />A. EMS STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS <br />The Board received a report from the EMS Strategic Plan Steering <br />Committee. Bob Lockwood, a member of this committee, emphasized that the <br />purpose of this strategic planning process is to provide the best EMS service <br />in Orange County. The process began in January, 1992 with a series of <br />meetings involving service deliverers and citizens from all parts of the <br />County. These meetings involved an "environmental scan" of issues affecting <br />service delivery now and other issues which may have an impact in the future. <br />Following the environmental scan, seven subcommittees were established to <br />carry out the work of the strategic planning process. <br />Norm Gustaveson and Carol Lorenz made comments about the EMS <br />Strategic Planning Process and the 5 year Strategic Planning Team. One of the <br />goals is to define certain patient outcomes that will lead them to make better <br />decisions. They will also look at resource identification. The report was <br />accepted as presented. <br />B. UPDATING OF COIINTY FEE SCHEDULE - PHASE I <br />This report was presented for information only at this time. John <br />Link explained that these recommendations are based on a comprehensive review <br />of fees in five County departments: Planning, Environmental Health, Land <br />Records, Emergency Services and Recreation and Parks. No comprehensive update <br />to these fees has been made since 1989. After the discussion tonight, these <br />fees will go to the Board of Health for their consideration of approval before <br />coming back to the Board of County Commissioners. Budget Director Sally Kost <br />explained that they started with the David M. Griffith study done in 1989 and <br />took those fees and indexed them taking the total expenditures for <br />Environmental Health and the total indirect cost for Environmental Health over <br />those periods of time. The fees were indexed to 22.86 which is the <br />recommendation included in the report. The fees are 100 cost recovery with <br />two exceptions. One is the bacteria water sample and the other is initial <br />soil evaluation. These two fees, when set in 1989, were set at less than 100 <br />cost recovery. <br />