THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA

 

Monday, August 6, 2001

 

9:00 A.M. Worksession

 

AGENDA

 

 1.    Citizens Comments

 

The following citizens have requested time on the agenda to make comments:

 

Gerald L. Bowen

Nancy Cripps

Sheza Healey

Ralph McKinney

 

Please note their written requests.

 

2.     Sovereign Development Company, L.L.C.

 

        On July 26, 2001, Durham County received a request from Attorney Robert R. Chambers, pursuant to NCGS 105-228.37, for a refund of excise tax paid by his client, Sovereign Development Company, L.L.C. on a deed conveying property to a Coral Stone, L.L.C.  This request is made by Attorney Chambers who has indicated that this tax was paid in error because his client made this transfer for convenience to comply with a bank?s loan requirements.

 

        Resource Person(s): S.C. Kitchen, County Attorney

 

        County Manager's Recommendation: The Manager recommends that the Board of Commissioners conduct a hearing and determine whether a refund would be appropriate pursuant to the North Carolina General Statute.

 

 3.     Presentation: Durham Fitness Leadership Council?Capital Improvements

 

Commission Vice-Chairman Ellen W. Reckhow requested that the agenda include a presentation by James Emery, MPH, UNC School of Public Health.  The presentation regards capital improvement requests for the Durham Fitness Leadership Council.

 

Resource Person(s): Commission Vice-Chairman Ellen W. Reckhow

 

4.     Request for Approval of the Board of Elections to put Durham County?s Voter Registration Database on the BOE Web Site

 

        The Board of Elections is requesting permission to place the voter registration database on-line for public access.

 

        Resource Person(s): Ronald Gregory, Chairman of the Board of Elections, and Michael Ashe, Director of Elections

 

        County Manager's Recommendation: The Manager?s recommendation is that the Board receive the presentation and deliberate on the pros and cons of having the voter registration database available for public access.  Given that the State is ultimately going to make this data available on-line, the County?s efforts would be consistent with both the State and other jurisdictions within the region.

 

 5.    Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements (Option 5 Analysis)

 

Durham County is proceeding with the design of improvements to its wastewater treatment plant to improve operational efficiencies, provide greater treatment levels, and provide additional capacity for future customers.  During the development of the required Environmental Assessment for the project, various wastewater disposal alternatives were evaluated including pumping some or all flows from the County?s service area to the City?s South Durham Treatment Plant on Farrington Road.  The City has more recently proposed an alternative not originally considered by the County, and named it Option 5.  Staff will review the analysis of Option 5 and provide additional information as requested by the Board.

 

        Option 5 consists of the measurement of all county sewer basin flow inside of the City limits and the subsequent transfer of this quantity of flow to the City?s south treatment plant with a pump station and force main.

 

        The County would be responsible for the design and construction of the pumping facilities, would give them to the City, and would pay the City capital charges based on the quantity of flow transferred to the City plant.  The County would transfer ownership of the existing sewer lines in these areas to the City.

 

        The City would own and maintain the lines and pumping facilities for these areas and charge any capital charges needed in the future.  The City would treat the flows pumped to the south plant and charge the customers for the treatment.

 

        Staff review can be summarized as follows:

 

Option 5 would result in a plant upgrade and expansion to 6.9 MGD instead of  12 MGD.

·            The comparison of the Total Present Worth of Option 5 and the County?s current proposed improvements (to 12 MGD) show almost equal values.

·            Option 5 reduces the County?s billable flows by approximately 50%.

·            Option 5 would result in more significant rate increases for County sewer customers due to the reduced customer base.

 

        Based on this review, Option 5 does not appear to be feasible.  Staff recommends proceeding with the current improvement plan for the County?s wastewater treatment plant.

 

Resource Person(s): Wendell Davis, Deputy County Manager; Glen Whisler, County Engineer; Chuck Hill, Utility Division Manager; and Tim Baldwin, McKim & Creed

 

County Manager's Recommendation: The Manager?s recommendation is that the Board receive the update on Option 5 and provide guidance as necessary.

 

 6.    Adoption of Fiscal Years 2002-2011 Capital Improvement Plan

 

The 2002-2011 Durham County Manager's Recommended Capital Improvement Plan, including moving the County Courthouse project to G.O. Bonds per the Board of County Commissioners, is being presented for final approval by the BOCC. This CIP will be reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners on an annual basis.

 

        Resource Person(s): Mike Ruffin, County Manager, and Pam Meyer, Budget Director

 

        County Manager's Recommendation: The Manager recommends that the Board approve the 2002-2011 Durham County Capital Improvement Plan.

 

7.        Closed Session

 

The Board is requested to adjourn into closed session following the Worksession to confer with Tax Administrator Steve Crysel regarding tax issues.