Laserfiche WebLink
June 21, 2010 (Regular Meeting) <br />Pa ge 3 <br />have gained the support of over a thousand citizens from Cabarrus <br />County, twenty -four hundred citizens from Charlotte Mecklenburg <br />and another two thousand from other counties in North Carolina. <br />And thousands of other people from different states across this <br />country. And that was accomplished alone by social networking. <br />As we launch our website and campaign this week and work with our <br />board of directors and advisory committee consisting of former <br />county commissioners, local business leaders, concerned citizens, <br />animal welfare experts and animal law attorneys, that support <br />continues to grow at a record pace. This is an election issue. <br />We will continue to make it an important campaign issue. A lot <br />can happen between now and November. But what you do from this <br />day forward will determine not only how this county is perceived <br />but how the citizens of this county will vote in November. <br />Telling the truth and doing the right thing is always the easiest <br />and best thing to do. It is much harder to cover up failures <br />than it is to address them. As the opportunities that they are, <br />opportunities to improve the welfare of the people of Cabarrus <br />County and the animals that they love. What we cannot do <br />however, is count on the very people that have created this <br />problem to be the ones to fix it. The Animal Protection and <br />Preservation Advisory Committee that has been charged with these <br />issues did not even meet in 2009. They are not committed to <br />saving lives or finding solutions. There are independent experts <br />like the No -kill Advocacy Center, Humane Society of the United <br />States and Professor William Reppy of the Duke Animal Law Center <br />right here in North Carolina. They must be the ones to review <br />animal control operations and make recommendations. Anything <br />else is truly an outrage. The citizens of Cabarrus County want <br />change and that change must include the review and <br />recommendations of experts that have achieved great success with <br />counties just like ours. Something good can come from this. <br />There is a lesson for all of us here. <br />Melissa Fassett, resident of 3597 Odell School Road in Concord, stated <br />she is a volunteer for World Transport, which transports animals out of high <br />kill counties into no kill facilities. She said spending tax dollars on a <br />kill shelter is not beneficial and prefers to have the animals saved. She <br />said she prefers to spend more on a "no kill" facility to reduce the number <br />of transports she has to make. <br />Traci Dusenbury, representative of Douglas Company, LLC, urged the <br />Board to approve the Reservation of Capacity Certificate for the Forest Park <br />Crossing apartment project. She stated this is a $7.8 million project and <br />there is a proven demand for the units. <br />With there being no one else to address the Board, Chairman White <br />closed that portion of the meeting. <br />(E) OLD BUSINESS <br />None. <br />(F) CONSENT AGENDA <br />(F -1) Cabarrus County Tourism Authority - FY 2010/2011 Budget <br />On May 19th the Cabarrus County Tourism Authority Board of Directors <br />approved the FY 2010/2011 budget. The FY 2010/2011 budget is $3,371,116.00 <br />which represents an eight (8) percent increase over the forecasted year end <br />FY 2009/2010. <br />UPON MOTION of Commissioner Carruth, seconded by Vice Chairman Poole <br />and unanimously carried, the Board approved the Cabarrus County Tourism <br />Authority FY 2010/2011 budget as presented. <br />(F -2) Commerce - Amendment to Chapter 14 Code of Ordinances <br />The proposed amendment to Chapter 14 of the Code of Ordinances "Permits <br />and Inspections" eliminates the requirement for an unlicensed homeowner to <br />take a proficiency test before obtaining a trade permit. These tests have <br />been required for electrical permits only and information from the Department <br />of Insurance brings into question the legality of this requirement. The work <br />performed by the homeowners will be inspected to ensure compliance with code. <br />