|
 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
REVISED Change the
?Manager?s Recommendation" for Item #6, ?Presentation of the Report for the
Durham County Justice Building Programming and Pre-Design Project No.
DC066-30." THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA Monday, October 7,
2002 9:00 A.M.
Worksession AGENDA 1. Citizen Comments?Jerry McClain Mr.
Jerry McClain has requested time on the agenda to speak to the Commissioners
regarding an incident concerning an ABC Police officer. 2. Child Support Follow-Up Program At the Board of
County Commissioners meeting on August 29, 2002, the Board heard citizens?
concerns regarding the Child Support unit at the Department of Social
Services. The Board requested that the
Director, Dan Hudgins, meet with those citizens and other representatives of
the Association for Children for Enforcement and Support (ACES) to discuss
their concerns. Mr. Hudgins is also
presenting a Child Support Enforcement Plan of Action that the DSS Board
approved at its meeting on September 25, 2002. Resource Person(s): Dan Hudgins, Director of Department of Social Services County
Manager's Recommendation:
The Manager recommends that the Board receive the presentation and ask
any questions it may have regarding child support services at the Department of
Social Services. 3. Draft of Work First Block Grant Plan for 2003-2005 Work
First is the primary program in North Carolina for administering the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program.
Since Work First is administered locally in each county, North Carolina
law (NCGS 108A-27) requires each county to submit a County Work First Block
Grant (WFBG) Plan every two years. This
fall, each county began the development of a new WFBG Plan to become effective
October 1, 2003. The
first stages of plan development include the appointment of a committee of
local leaders (a Work First Planning Committee) to assist in the development of
its WFBG plan, and a recommendation to the North Carolina Department of Health
& Human Services (DHHS) for the county to be either an electing or standard
county. On
August 12, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners approved the list of members
for Durham?s Work First Planning Committee and also voted to have Durham remain
a standard county. By
November 1, 2002, the BOCC must submit its new WFBG to DHHS. The Work First Planning Committee has
completed its first draft of the plan and received input and comments from
Durham?s Department of Social Services Board on September 25, 2002. The
committee is now submitting this draft to the Commissioners for review and
comments. The committee will be
prepared to discuss the plan at the BOCC Work Session on October 7, 2002. The plan will then be distributed for public
comments during October 8?13, followed by a public hearing on October 14, 2002.
Resource
Person(s): Jim Polk, Chair of the Work First Planning
Committee; Dan Hudgins, DSS Director County
Manager?s Recommendation: The Manager recommends that the Board
receive the report, provide comments and input to the Work First Planning
Committee, and schedule a public hearing for October 14, 2002. 4. Presentation of New Elementary School Design
Durham
Public Schools is designing a new elementary school in southwest Durham. When the purchase of land for this school
was approved, Commissioners asked that the design of the new school be
presented to them. Efforts have been
made to be efficient with the use of land and to seek opportunities to
co-locate with other public agencies. Resource
Person(s): Mr. Hugh Osteen, Assistant Superintendent for
Operational Services, Durham Public Schools, will be present to discuss the
request as needed. 5. Presentation on the Status of the Durham Comprehensive
Plan
Resource
Person(s): Frank M. Duke, AICP, Durham City-County Planning Director.
5a. Request
City of Durham to Initiate Rezoning of Neal Farm During the
September 30, 2002 Joint City-County Planning Committee (JCCPC) meeting,
residents of American Village, Greenway, and Lenox subdivisions expressed
concern about the zoning of the adjacent property known as Neal Farm. The property is zoned RM-12, which is
inconsistent with the ?Low Density Residential" designation of the property in
the West-Northwest
Durham Plan. Resource
Person(s): Commissioner Ellen Reckhow, Chairman, JCCPC; Frank Duke, Director, Durham City-County
Planning County
Manager's Recommendation:
Suspend the rules and consider a request that the Durham City Council
initiate an amendment to the Official Zoning Map to rezone the property to a
designation consistent with the West-Northwest Durham Plan. 6. Presentation
of the Report for the Durham County Justice Building Programming and Pre-Design
Project No: DC066-30 The Board is
requested to provide comments and direction based on the programming and
pre-design report for the proposed Durham County Justice Building. This facility was
recommended in the Justice Center Master Plan, completed in 1990, and was
identified in the Durham County Facility Master Plan, completed in 2000, as the
County?s highest priority building need. Based on the occupancy outlined in the
Master Plan, a building of approximately 255,000 S.F. was proposed along with a
parking deck containing 1200 spaces.
Both of these projects were included in the Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP). It was estimated that, depending
on how the building and parking deck are configured on the site adjacent to the
current Detention Facility, the building would be 4 to 6 stories in height. During the (CIP)
development and approval process in 2001, the Board directed that the size of
the building be evaluated and possibly reduced by locating some agencies
associated with the court system in other buildings. During programming, the
current and future space needs of each potential building occupant were
determined and used as the basis for the building design. This also allowed various occupancy
scenarios to be evaluated. On November 26,
2001, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the County Manager to enter
into a contract with O?Brien/Atkins Associates, P.A., to provide professional
services for programming and pre-design of the proposed Durham County Justice
Building. The report has been completed
and will be reviewed with the Board. Resource
Person(s): Wendell M. Davis, Deputy County
Manager; Glen Whisler, P.E., County Engineer, Engineering Department. Design Team: Kevin Montgomery,
O?Brien/Atkins; Doug Kleppin, HLM Design; Howard Geisler, GSA; Patricia Harris,
New Synergy
7. Adoption of Third One-Half Cent Local Option Sales Tax The
Board of Commissioners is requested to adopt the third one-half cent local
option sales tax in Durham County. The
County has lost $9,740,135 from the reimbursements that have been withheld this
fiscal year. The one-half cent sales
tax would replace approximately $3,964,648 of this amount; leaving a deficit of
$5,775,487. Fortunately, the County
only budgeted $2,900,000 for the Inventory Tax reimbursement, which was not
expected to be withheld. Notice of the intent to adopt this
resolution has been properly given at least 48 hours in advance of the
meeting. A copy of a proposed
resolution which would make the tax effective on December 1, 2002 in Durham
County is attached. Resource
Person(s): Chuck Kitchen, County Attorney; Mike
Ruffin, County Manager. County
Manager?s Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution in order to
replace a portion of the reimbursements from the State. 8. Quasi-Judicial Appeal-Helen Bass v. County of Durham The Sedimentation
and Erosion Control Division of the County Engineer?s Office has assessed a
civil penalty against Steven and Helen Bass, the registered owners of property
located at 4310 Bennett Memorial Road.
The amount of the civil penalty assessed is $67,041.50. Mrs. Bass filed a petition for a contested
case with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), challenging the penalty,
and then moved the OAH to dismiss the penalty assessed, on the grounds that she
was not personally served with the Notice of Civil Penalty Assessment
(Assessment). Durham County filed a
motion to dismiss Mrs. Bass? appeal on the grounds that it was untimely, having
been filed almost a year after service of the Assessment. Both of these pre-hearing motions before the
OAH were grounded in the fact that the Assessment sent to Mrs. Bass via
certified mail was signed for by her husband but differed as to the legal
effect of that fact. The OAH held it
was not legally sufficient to establish service of the Assessment on Mrs. Bass
and entered a recommended decision dismissing the civil penalty assessed. The OAH then forwarded its recommended
decision to the Board for entry of a final decision. The motions of both parties were supported by affidavits and the
deposition testimony of Mrs. Bass. Durham County has
filed exceptions and objections to the recommended decision asserting that the
OAH decision is not supported by the evidence in the record and is affected by
errors of law. It requests that you reverse the decisions of the OAH which (1)
granted Mrs. Bass? motion dismissing the civil penalty assessed and (2) denied
Durham County?s motion to dismiss Mrs. Bass? petition for a contested case on
the grounds it was untimely. Mrs. Bass
has filed a motion requesting you dismiss the exceptions and objections filed
by Durham County under the theory that the decision of the OAH was a final
decision over which you do not have authority.
Durham County filed a response to the motion asserting both that the
Board does have authority to render a final decision in this matter and that
Mrs. Bass? motion is an untimely exception and objection to the recommended
decision. Mrs. Bass has also filed a
document entitled ?Helen Bass Response and Plea for Justice," contending that
the decision of the OAH should be upheld. The Board is
required to review this matter based on the record produced at OAH. The Board must first make a determination on
Mrs. Bass? motion regarding whether or not it has jurisdiction to review this
matter. Should the Board decide that it
does have that authority, it must either (1) accept the decision of the OAH, or
(2) enter a decision rejecting the recommended decision and dismissing Mrs.
Bass?s petition for a contested case. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding in which the Board
sits as an appellate body and determines the matter without hearing additional
evidence. The entire record of the
proceedings, including all previously filed briefs, motions, affidavits and the
deposition of Mrs. Bass, is available to the Board, if desired, but was not
reproduced due to its size and the fact that the filings of both parties do not
appear to require a reading of the record.
The attachments to this Agenda Action Form are: (1) Recommended Decision of OAH (2) Respondent?s Submission of Exceptions and Objections to
the Decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings (3) Helen Bass Response and Plea for
Justice (4) Mrs. Bass? Motion to Dismiss (5) Response to Petitioner?s Motion to
Dismiss The
County Attorney cannot make a recommendation to the Board because one of the
Assistant County Attorneys represented the County in this matter before the
OAH. Resource
Person(s): Mike Ruffin, County Manager County
Manager?s Recommendation: Select from the above options based on the
Board?s review of the OAH?s Decision and filings of the parties. 9. Closed Session The
Board of Commissioners is requested to adjourn to closed session to consider
the performance of public officers
pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(6). |
|
