Browse
Search
Minutes - 10-02-2000
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
2000's
>
2000
>
Minutes - 10-02-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2008 2:06:29 PM
Creation date
8/13/2008 1:49:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/2/2000
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda - 10-02-2000-1
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2000\Agenda - 10-02-2000
Agenda - 10-02-2000-2
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2000\Agenda - 10-02-2000
Agenda - 10-02-2000-3
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2000\Agenda - 10-02-2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
work on the EDD and the utility goals in the Efland-Cheeks/Buckhorn area. He said that <br />there are some important policy decisions such as where the sewer system is extended and how <br />far it goes that will need to be made. <br />Geoffrey Gledhill said that it seems obvious that a solution would be to redefine the <br />Orange-Alamance System area to include everything east of the ridgeline, so the role the County <br />might want to play is to broker that in some fashion to make it passible for that to happen. By <br />partnering with Orange-Alamance to make that happen it would eliminate the interbasin transfer <br />and free up 80% of the water. This would make it possible for Orange-Alamance or their <br />successor to provide public water that the County Commissioners are talking about. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that the issue of groundwater needed to be addressed in other <br />areas as well. He made reference to a booklet from Huntersville about transferable development <br />rights and said that this discussion goes back to same fundamental planning questions. The first <br />step would be to define what we want to have happen in Efland and what the water and sewer <br />boundary area is for Efland. The way it is now, the County can not transfer density. He thinks that <br />this should precede what is done in the Upper Eno because a transferable development rights <br />program would be useful. <br />Commissioner Brown does not want to postpone the issue with the Upper Eno. She thinks <br />that the transition area could be reduced to not allow high density. She suggested having the staff <br />develop a list of requirements for developers for well systems. <br />John Link made reference to the next topic, the Schools Adequate Public Facilities <br />Ordinance. He said that same kind of criteria needed to be put in place that require that there be a <br />guarantee for requirements for any area that does not have adequate facilities in place. <br />Chair Carey verified that the County had ten years to spend the bond money from 1997. <br />The staff will come back with a response as to what the Board of County Commissioners is <br />asking for in relation to this issue. <br />2. SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE <br />Geoffrey Gledhill made reference to his letter that captures the important issues of the final <br />recommendation from the Schools and Land Use Council. The first issue is to what degree the <br />County's financial ability to respond to school needs can be factored into the Adequate Public <br />Facilities process. The objective of an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, particularly schools, <br />is that you can use that kind of program to pace development and not to limit it. This may cause <br />the County to increase the spending for public school facilities beyond what it otherwise would <br />spend. The ordinance paces the way in which facilities are provided, such as telling developers to <br />wait on subdivisions. The Constitutional standard for counties is that they must provide sufficient <br />facilities. <br />Commissioner Gordon made reference to a memo that she sent regarding questions about <br />the financial impact. She said that it was not clear what the Board of County Commissioners' <br />responsibility would be. Same of the questions deal with the capacity levels and the number of <br />seats. She thinks the Commissioners' responsibility is sketchy in the ordinance. She thinks the <br />financial obligations of the County, the towns, and the school boards should be spelled out. She <br />read some questions, and they are as follows: <br />1) Is the County expected to fund school construction at an unlimited rate to keep up with <br />whatever development is approved, or is the County allowed to set limits on the amount <br />of money to be allocated for school construction based on reasonable considerations <br />like debt service limits, competing needs, reasonable tax rate increases, etc.? <br />2) Is the County expected to fund school construction if a school bond referendum fails? <br />3} Have we caught up or are we already behind with our next wave of construction? <br />Chair Carey said that he was uncertain about the financial impact also. He asked about the <br />school capacity levels. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.