Agenda - 06-27-2006-9b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Based on the Board's action at the March 215f meeting, the Chair and Vice Chair worked with staff to develop additional sets of maps/plans that detailed potential seven-member configurations for the Board of Commissioners. Relevant statistical data and draft transitions plans were also developed, and the seven-member maps/plans and other materials were part of the Board's mast recent discussion on district elections during the April 18, 2006 regular meeting, At that same meeting, the Board also reviewed amap/plan and statistical data proposed by Commissioner Carey for aseven-member variation of Proposal 5 (the 5-member plan previously considered by the Board). Following discussion during the April 18, 2006 regular meeting, the Board: 1) Approved a motion to move forward with "Proposal B", aseven-member map/plan with one member from District 1 (all of the County except Chapel Hill Township), two members from District 2 (encompassing Chapel Hill Township); and four At- Large members; 2) Approved a motion that members elected from District 1 and District 2 must reside in their respective districts and would be nominated by the qualified voters in those respective districts, but that all seven members of the Board would be elected by the qualified voters of the entire County; and 3) Directed staff to develop a draft Resolution, as prescribed by the State statutes, for BOCC approval that includes a transition plan and incorporates the Board's decisions, and moves forward the process for a November 2006 referendum on "Proposal B", with implementation to begin with the 2008 Primary Election, subject to November 2006 approval by County voters. After the April 18, 2006 Board meeting and during the process of preparing a Resolution calling for a November 2006 referendum on the question of changing the stricture of the Board to "Proposal B," the County Attorney determined the Board structure contained in "Proposal B" does not meet a requirement of N.C. Gen, Stat. § 153A-58, That statute permits district/at large structures, subject to the following requirement: "no more than half the board may be apportioned to the county at large," "Proposal B" apportions 4 out of 7 board members to the County at large. "Proposal B" therefore cannot be the basis for a referendum pursuant to N.C, Gen. Stat. § 153A-58. In response to the County Attorney's May 1, 2006 letter concerning the statutory requirement not met by "Proposal B,"the Chair and the Vice Chair worked with staff to develop an additional map/plan for aseven-member board that meets all statutory requirements. "Proposal D" is that map/plan, Commissioner Carey's proposal is also aseven-member board proposal that meets all stattutory requirements. Copies of a map/plan, statistical data and alternative transition processes (residency only and residency and nomination by district) for each of "Proposal D" and the "Carey Proposal" are attached to this abstract, The County Attorney has also prepared draft resolutions for the Board's consideration. One of the resolutions calls for a referendum on "Proposal D" with the districts being residency only. The other resolution calls for a referendum, also on "Proposal D," with the districts being residency and nomination. Comparable resolutions can be prepared that would implement the "Carey Proposal" should the Board direct, FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the Bcard's consideration of next steps an district elections for the Board of County Commissioners for a November 2006