Agenda - 03-24-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2. 10/25/82 Minutes 3. potential reservoir site for the County. Commissioner Gustaveson noted that this j ')w 4• action, if passed, would place the Board's policies in line with the Planning Board's 5• recommendation regarding this site. Several Commissioners, during the discussion 6. which followed, summarized the reasons why this site is considered unsuitable; 7. 1) the majority of the site is actually in Durham County; 2) it's more expensive 8• due to the long distance to Hillsborough and the water would have to be pumped 9• up-hill; 3) the poor quality of water expected; 4) and there are several sites 10. more suitable within Orange County. Commissioner Willhoit noted that the report 11. prepared by Planning Staff in response to the Boards request of August 23, 1982, 12. for research on the feasibility of this reservoir site summarized information 13* that had been presented to the Water Resource Task Force; however, he continued, 14• since the site was not included among those suitable for development, this 15* information was not included in the Task Force Report. Commissioner Willhoit 16. concluded that it was now appropriate for the reservoir site to be excluded. by 17• the Commissioners based on the information (i.e. the report prepared by the staff; 18* on file with this agenda). 19. Ms. Josephine Barbour, a citizen, said there had not been sufficient public 20, input regarding this question. Some Board members disagreed with her, saying 21. it was information that had been "thoroughly discussed." 22• Vote: Ayes, 4 (Commissioners Gustaveson, Marshall, Whitted and Willhoit); 230 noes, 1 (Commissioner Walker). 214.. Commissioner Willhoit asked that Staff prepare an addendum to the Water • 25. Resources Task Force Report citing the reasons the Eno River Reservoir site was 26. excluded as a potential reservoir site for the County. �7• E. BOARD DECISIONS 28. 1. Hud Management Review: The Manager told the Board that the Chapel Hill 29• Housing Authority, through its Chair, Mr. Tom Heffner, had asked for a two week 30• delay before action on this matter; Mr. Thompson said that HUD was agreeable to 31. a thirty day extension of the deadline. Commissioner Marshall suggested that the 32• Board consider this issue at the meeting on November 22, 1982. 33. 2. Water and Sewer Extension Policy: The Manager told the Board this policy had 340 been rewritten under the County Attorney's direction and two alternative methods of 354 financing were presented for the Board's consideration. (A copy of this draft water 36• and sewer extension policy is on file with the agenda attachments for this meeting.) 37. Mr. Thompson continued, saying that the method of financing seemed to be the major 38. point of disagreement; the two options presented are: 1) the tax credit approach; 39• 2) repayment of fund approach.