Browse
Search
Minutes - 20021202
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
2000's
>
2002
>
Minutes - 20021202
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2008 4:26:21 PM
Creation date
8/13/2008 2:06:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/2/2002
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda - 12-02-2002-
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-5a
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-5b
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-6a
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-6b
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8a
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8b1
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8b2
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8b3
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8c
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8d
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8e
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8f
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8g
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8h
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8i
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8j
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8k
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8l
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8m
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8n
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8o
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8p
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8q
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-8r
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-9a
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-9b
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-9c
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-9d
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-9e
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-9f
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
Agenda - 12-02-2002-9g
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2002\Agenda - 12-02-2002
NS ORD-2002-033 Telecommunications Tower Ordinance Amendments
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2000-2009\2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Geoff Gledhill said that he sees it taking a long time to work out. If the County wants to <br />change the condition of approval to not require the paving of the road, but to secure the paving of the <br />road for same future time when DOT gets everything worked out for the paving of the entirety of the road, <br />he thinks it could be done. He is hesitant because he does not know how long in the future it would be <br />before the entire road could be paved. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis said that he is supportive of what Commissioner Jacobs said <br />regarding paving the entire road. <br />Commissioner Carey asked Geoff Gledhill what would happen if the County requires the <br />developer to pay for this and the cost escalates beyond what is in escrow. Geoff Gledhill said that DOT <br />would pay for 100% of the road. No cost would be borne by the County. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that he is sympathetic to the residents that donot want this road <br />paved. He thinks that the trend is to get the road paved because it is a connector road in the County. <br />He does not want to jeopardize the relationship that the County has with DOT. <br />Geoff Gledhill said that he recommends that he bring back a revised resolution of approval <br />that is similar to what Commissioner Jacobs is suggesting. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that if we take this approach, she would like to see something that <br />takes everyone's concerns into consideration. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked to defer the motion until the County Attorney comes back with a <br />revised resolution. <br />This item will be brought back in January. <br />PUBLIC COMMENT: <br />Jahn Ingersoll re-emphasized the safety issue on where the pavement will end. He said that <br />paving the 800 feet would make the pavement end at a corner. The speed limit is 55 mph and this would <br />not be safe for this corner. He asked that the revised resolutions be made available to the public for <br />review. <br />b. Business System Software Award of Praposal(Contract <br />The Board received information concerning the replacement of the County's business system <br />software in anticipation of considering a bid at its December 10, 2002 meeting. <br />Jahn Link said that for 30 years the County has had the same operating system and now it is <br />time to change the system in order to pull information together for the Board of County Commissioners. <br />Finance Director Ken Chavious presented information on the proposed replacement of <br />business system software. The system has been modified over and over for the past 20 years. The <br />replacement of this system is a part of the replacement of all Legacy systems in the IT Strategic Plan. <br />The Legacy systems have already been replaced in the Register of Deeds, Sheriff's Department, <br />Planning and Inspections, and Board of Elections. The process for this replacement began in 1998. The <br />needs assessment was completed in late 2001 and an RFP was done in early 2002. The County <br />received eight responses to the RFP. The pool was narrowed to three firms. The selection team is <br />recommending the MUMS system. MUNIS has 52 successful North Carolina installations. MUNIS also <br />had the overall lowest cost. He spoke about the advantages of the MUNIS system. The implementation <br />of the system would take approximately six months. If this is begun in mid-December, it will not interfere <br />with the budget and CIP processes. Regarding project management, the team proposes a project <br />manager similar to what the County had far Y2K. This is needed with the constraints on the current staff. <br />The project manager is included in the MUMS contract and the cost is $57,200. The total cost of the <br />contract will not exceed $480,000. The proposal is that the system be financed through an existing loan <br />that the Board has already approved for some landfill equipment that has a 3.75°lo interest rate. The <br />casts of this contract are currently in the IT plan. <br />Commissioner Carey verified that the $480,000 includes all of the training necessary for all of <br />the County staff. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis said that we pay a significant price for technology and that it is a <br />shame that counties cannot come together and get a package deal an a consistent project. He supports <br />this, but it is so expensive. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.