Minutes 12-14-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• The local bill, SOCC administrative criteria or the letter (see letter Section 1.7) does not require a petition to be submitted to be considered for a boundary line adjustment. • The local bill (Sections 4-11) refers to property owners and not just homeowners, so undeveloped properties can be included legislatively. • The 150' buffer is not mentioned in the local bill so, consistent with the local bill, a legislative determination can be made to, as noted in Section 7 [for properties] "to remain in the county to which they were previously assigned" [Le. taxed]. These local bill criteria apply to the Howard/Miller subdivision and other areas east of Morrow Mill Road. • Approving only some of the petitionable properties (i.e. only 14%) by default, splits other properties, which would be inconsistent with the local bill that states "in the case of bisection to be assigned to one county or the other". • Orange County or Alamance County have not jointly adopted the NCGS preliminary survey, so there is no default provision that automatically puts the straight line into effect. Portions of the NCGS and "all mutually agreed upon modifications thereto" (Section 9) are incorporated by virtue of a 2011 local bill for ratification before the NC General Assembly. If boundary line portions are yet unresolved by the 2011 local bill submittal deadline, then these portions may still remain "Uncertain or disputed boundary" as described in NC 153A-18. The County Attorney's will reconcile this aspect. • Forwarding a 100% solution to the General Assembly to adopt a new line for January 1, 2012 brings finite clarity to the boundary line location thereby reducing the effects of boundary and property disputes. John Roberts said that the local act that was passed is clear about students remaining in their current school system and they shall be residents of Orange County for all public school purposes, and that includes buses. He said that he is recommending an Option 4, which says, "We recommend that our BOCC adopt the 91% of the line exactly as Alamance adopted it in its motion. Both counties will, through a separate local bill, ask the general assembly to leave existing tax, elections, etc., processes in place while the counties solicit input from the 9% property owners through an administrative process similar to that in which we have just engaged for the whole line. Once the process is completed the counties will submit a local bill to the general assembly asking for adoption of the agreed upon final 9% of the line." This option was stated on the blue sheet. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Board could adopt the 9% in principle and then add the caveat that it would be added later. John Roberts said that, in conversations with the Alamance County Attorney, they thought it was best to have the protection of the General Assembly for this 9%. Commissioner Jacobs said that it was unfortunate that the Alamance County Attorney did not bring up the issue of indemnification at their joint meeting and instead waited until it appeared before his board. He said that Alamance County was basically sidestepping the indemnification issue. Discussion ensued about the 9% and the timeframe. Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the likelihood that Alamance County might accept the 69% in Option 2. He said that this is the only option that recognizes the concerns of the Morrow Mill area. John Roberts said that the chance that Alamance County would accept that is zero.