Unsatisfied with Orange/Alamance line
By Susan Dickson
Staff Writer
The Orange County Board of Commissioners voted on Tuesday to approve the county’s legislative package for the 2011 North Carolina General Assembly Session, requesting approval of bills that would prohibit deer hunting with dogs in Orange County and establish 91 percent of the disputed Orange County/Alamance County line.
The counties have been working to resolve the disputed boundary since 2008, when the line was resurveyed.
The commissioners also voted to send a letter to Alamance County officials requesting their cooperation in resolving concerns involving the Morrow Mill Road and Mill Creek neighborhoods in Mebane. Residents of the Morrow Mill Road area want to remain in Orange County, while residents of the Mill Creek neighborhood have expressed a desire to move to Alamance County. However, the agreed-upon portion of the line leaves Mill Creek in Orange County and moves Morrow Mill Road to Alamance County.
“People in the Morrow Mill neighborhood continue to be concerned about this,†said Carol Ann McCormick, a Morrow Mill Road resident. “We continue to want to remain part of Orange County, and I’m disappointed that we haven’t been able to convince anyone that we should remain.â€
County Manager Frank Clifton said the portion of the county line that affects the Morrow Mill and Mill Creek areas could be addressed in a separate bill in a future legislative session.
“One side wants to be in Alamance, one side wants to be in Orange – you’d think it would be simple,†he said.
Commissioners said they hoped to find a way to resolve the residents’ concerns.
“I just do not feel that we have upheld our commitment to the Morrow Mill Road people,†Vice Chair Steve Yuhasz said.
The package also presents the county’s position on various statewide issues, including:
• support for legislation that would authorize any local government to enact any revenue source that is available to one or more local governments in the state, such as the land-transfer tax or sales tax;
• opposition to legislation that would shift the state’s responsibility for funding road construction and maintenance projects to county governments, with a request that counties be granted the authority to levy fees or tolls if that responsibility is shifted;
• support for legislation that would allow county governments to regulate and/or have input into bio-solids application activities;
• support for legislation that would allow local governments to include standards for energy efficiency in local building codes that are higher than those in the State Building Code;
• support for legislation and funding to expand broadband capability to the un-served and underserved areas of the state; and
• support for legislation that would exempt counties, cities, school boards, community colleges and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority from payment of state and local sales taxes on purchases within the state.
Commissioners Earl McKee and Yuhasz voted against the provision about enacting revenue sources that are available to other local governments, pointing out that voters rejected both the land-transfer and sales-tax referendums on recent ballots.
“I do not think that it is appropriate for the Orange County Board of Commissioners to enact any source of revenue that may have been approved by any county in this state,†Yuhasz said. “I am just concerned that Orange County might decide that it needed to impose one of those revenue options that was available to another county that was inappropriate for this county.â€
Other commissioners said they felt that the board would act responsibly given the option to enact revenue sources.
“I have confidence in our boards here in Orange County that if we had options we wouldn’t make foolish decisions, that we would tailor it to the needs of the citizens,†board Chair Bernadette Pelissier said.