Orange County NC Website
22 <br /> Commissioner Halkiotis agreed with Commissioner Jacobs that this is misleading. He <br /> said that the issues brought up by James Carnahan and Allan Rosen are interesting because <br /> the Board has been talking about walkability, sustainability, and maximizing the resources. <br /> Somehow, there is no connection between the issues. He disagrees a little about what Shaping <br /> Orange County's Future actually did, but he thinks the County should be very careful about this <br /> and look at all of the pieces to see how they fit before people see one map and go ballistic. <br /> John Link said that, as an alternative to the public hearing, they could talk about each of <br /> these options that have been discussed in the smaller area groups or speak to the prospects of <br /> each of the options of the comprehensive plan. He said that the community meetings have <br /> their place, but to get people's attention there needs to be an advertisement with the options. <br /> Chair Carey asked if the Board would like to table this. <br /> Craig Benedict said that this was a semi-formal notification and it was not the legal <br /> formality that is suggested in November. As an alternative, the advertisement could indicate <br /> that the County is strongly considering sustainable matters in the County (i:e., air quality, water <br /> quality, rural activity nodes) and have a meeting - not a formal meeting - but a discussion item, <br /> to pull together the people that have participated in outreach. <br /> Commissioner Gordon suggested that Craig Benedict come back on May 5th with a <br /> more complete notice on the Orange County Land Use Element Update and Text Amendments, <br /> and leave out#3, the Orange County Zoning Text Amendments, and then a more complete <br /> description of the update of the Rural Enterprise Pro�ect. <br /> The staff will bring back an update on May 5' to the Board of County Commissioners. <br /> c. Orange County FY 2005 HOME Program Action Plan <br /> The Board considered adopting a resolution approving the proposed HOME Program <br /> Activities for 2005-2006 and to authorize the Manager to implement the HOME Program as <br /> approved by the BOCC including the ability to execute agreements with partnering non-profit <br /> organizations after consultation with the County Attorney. <br /> Tara Fikes made reference to the draft for the 2005-2006 HOME Program and said that <br /> they have a total of$978,896 available in HOME funding. The applications amounted to a little <br /> over$1.2 million. The proposed plan programs just the $978,896 that is available. The <br /> recommendation reduces a total of three applications for funding for The Chrysalis Foundation <br /> for$100,000; Habitat for Humanity for$100,000; and the Inter-Faith Council for Social Services <br /> for$75,000 as an initial investment. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to <br /> approve the proposed HOME Program Activities for 2005-2006 and to authorize the Manager to <br /> implement the HOME Program as approved by the BOCC including the ability to execute <br /> agreements with partnering non-profit organizations after consultation with the County Attorney. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> d. Implementation of 60-40 Capital Funding Policy <br /> The Board will determine which method will be used for implementing the Board's policy <br /> related to school and County capital funding. <br /> Commissioner Halkiotis asked for a quick summary of the letter from Lisa Stuckey from <br /> the CHCCS Board. <br /> Lisa Stuckey said that she wrote her letter on her own behalf. The school board has not <br /> had the opportunity to take up the question. She asked the County Commissioners to support <br /> option #2, which would eliminate the Cedar Ridge debt for OCS. She thinks that the 75/25 split <br /> for recurring capital matches up with the amount of square footage within both school districts <br /> and the County owned buildings. <br />