Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
13 <br /> 1 can address this issue. He said the EDD maps are 30 years old, and may need to be <br /> 2 reconfigured. He said it is important to be mindful of these issues like sprawl, the rural buffer, <br /> 3 what makes Orange County unique and attractive, etc. <br /> 4 Chair Dorosin said there are controls in place like the rural buffer to prevent sprawl, and <br /> 5 he has confidence in them. He said there seems to be consensus to look into the EDDs, and <br /> 6 the areas immediately around them, while being open to other marketable sites that staff may <br /> 7 uncover. He said the Board can move forward with the pre-zoning and site readiness capacity <br /> 8 study. <br /> 9 Commissioner Jacobs said this is good summary, but there is not consensus. <br /> 10 Chair Dorosin said there is consensus on doing all that he mentioned within the EDDs <br /> 11 specifically, and a majority of the Board that is willing to look immediately beyond the EDDs. <br /> 12 Bonnie Hammersley asked if the Board wants to limit this evening's agenda, given the <br /> 13 hour. <br /> 14 Chair Dorosin said to do the election item, and defer items 3 and 4 to another agenda. <br /> 15 The Board agreed by consensus. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 2. Additional Discussion Regarding the Election Method for Members of the Orange <br /> 18 County Board of Commissioners <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Greg Wilder, Assistant to the County Manager, reviewed the following background <br /> 21 information: <br /> 22 <br /> 23 BACKGROUND: <br /> 24 In late 2016 and early 2017, some members of the Board of Commissioners expressed an <br /> 25 interest in discussing and possibly amending the current election method for seats on the Board <br /> 26 of Commissioners. Several related topics were voiced regarding potentially amending the <br /> 27 method. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 At the Board's March 28, 2017 work session, staff addressed those topics and others in the <br /> 30 agenda abstract for the meeting (See Attachment A— March 28, 2017 Work Session Agenda <br /> 31 Abstract). <br /> 32 <br /> 33 During the March 28th discussion, the Board asked for additional information on several items. <br /> 34 Those items are addressed below and/or in concert with Attachments B through I. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 1) Keeping all other aspects of the current Commissioner election method intact, <br /> 37 what is the approval process for a change from the current district <br /> 38 residency/district nomination/countywide election method for Commissioners — <br /> 39 to a district residency/district nomination/district election method? <br /> 40 <br /> 41 A change from the current district residency/district nomination/countywide election method for <br /> 42 Commissioners —to a district residency/district nomination/district election method —would <br /> 43 require Board approval of a resolution detailing the change and authorizing a countywide voter <br /> 44 referendum on the proposed change. If the voters approved the proposed change, the Board of <br /> 45 Commissioners could then consider a resolution implementing the change. If voters did not <br /> 46 approve the change, no further action on the matter would occur. At no time would this potential <br /> 47 change require review or approval by the North Carolina General Assembly. <br /> 48 <br /> 49 2) What is the party affiliation for current voter registration countywide and by the <br /> 50 two current Commissioner electoral districts? <br />