Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
application based an that presumption. After the County entered into the agreement with Empowerment, <br />Inc., they realized that they did not intend to be bound by that income range, but would like to be able to sell <br />the properties to families earning 70% of median income and below. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that she finds this troubling considering all of the circumstances. <br />Commissioner Jacobs expressed a concern that the bond criteria were not in the packet. Tara <br />Fikes will include this in future packets of information. <br />Commissioner Brown said that she was concerned about this coming back to the Board, <br />specifically that the 52-58% of median income was used to put this project in a higher priority list. <br />Chair Carey said that he fully understood that the homes would be available to the lowest of <br />incomes when the Board acted on this project. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked Mr. Presler to explain the justification of the change in their thinking. <br />Myles Presler said that there had been no change in the price of the units. He said that it was <br />affordable to a family of four earning between 52-58% of median income. He said that Empowerment, Inc. <br />did not want to limit to selling at this level. On the average, families in the program earn 55°~ of median <br />income. He said that they had priced the homes to be affordable at the 52-58% level, but did not want to limit <br />selling the houses to this level. He apologized for the misunderstanding. <br />Chair Carey encouraged the County Commissioners to approve this amendment tonight. <br />A motion was made by Chair Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the <br />amendment to the development agreement far the Pine Hill Drive project. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />i. Audit Contract for June 34, 2444 Fiscal Year <br />The Board considered awarding a contract with Deloitte and Touche, LLP, in the amount of <br />$66,500, for audit services for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2000. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked if the firm that does audits for the County was changed periodically. <br />John Link said that the County periodically seeks requests for proposals far audit services. Finance Director <br />Ken Chavious said that another request for proposal would be brought forward next year. The plans are to <br />continue putting out requests for proposals every three years. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to award a <br />contract with Deloitte and Touche, LLP, in the amount of $66,500, for audit services far the fiscal year ending <br />June 30. 2000. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />k. Lease Renewal for Suite 146, 541 W. Franklin St. The Board considered renewing a lease <br />with Jim Lilley Properties far a 552 square-foot office suite at 501 W. Franklin St. in the amount of $9,180 per <br />year. <br />Commissioner Jacobs would like to know if the County plans to use these properties far income <br />producing or to lease these properties to not-far-profits or non-profits. <br />John Link said that he would be delighted to produce some sort of announcement when a lease <br />comes up to see if there is anon-profit that wants to be located near the Skills Development Center. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to renew and <br />authorize the Chair to sign a lease with Jim Lilley Properties fora 552 square-foot office suite at 501 W. <br />Franklin Street in the amount of $9,180 per year. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />n. Fox Hill Farm East -Phase 2, Sections Aand B -Preliminary Plan <br />The Board considered a preliminary plan far Fox Hill Farm East, phase 2, sections A and B, <br />located near the intersection of St. Mary's and New Sharon Church roads in Eno Township. <br />Commissioner Gordan asked for an overview of the deannexation. Planning Director Craig <br />Benedict said that originally during the application, staff had requested that those properties that were in the <br />Hillsborough area be deannexed so that it would all be in the same jurisdiction. The staff decided that it <br />would be more prudent to clear up both sides of the road and not just this subdivision. The Planning Board <br />agreed to deannexing both sides of the road. It is not a mandate for Hillsborough, but a suggestion. This <br />item is only asking that the properties in this parcel only be deannexed. <br />Geoffrey Gledhill said that a bill has been introduced that would deannex the portion of the <br />property for sections A and B. If the County Commissioners have not taken a position on the deannexation <br />request of Hillsborough, but have requested separately that the entirety of the property be deannexed, there <br />