MINUTES
STATE OF
The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a
regularly scheduled meeting at
Those present were:
Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chairman Charlie Messer, Commissioner Larry
Young, Commissioner Shannon Baldwin, Commissioner Chuck McGrady, County Manager
David E. Nicholson, Assistant County Manager
Also present were: Planning Director Karen C. Smith,
Budget and Management Director
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called the meeting to order and
welcomed all in attendance.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Baldwin led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the American Flag.
INVOCATION
INFORMAL
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Jay
Jackson – Mr. Jackson stated that
the Cemetery Advisory Committee had held three official meetings, and had
learned a lot about what the Committee could and could not do. They had
determined that a section of
Following some discussion, it was the consensus of the
Board to have this topic placed on their next agenda.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT
OF AGENDA
David Nicholson requested the
addition of Consent Agent Item “K” - One North Carolina Fund and Item “L” - Juvenile
Justice & Delinquency Prevention Grants. Commissioner McGrady made the motion to approve the agenda with the two
modifications to the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT
AGENDA
Commissioner McGrady made the motion
to approve the Consent Agenda. David Nicholson stated
that Staff requested that Item J be pulled for discussion. Commissioner McGrady amended the motion to approve Items A through I
and K through L. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Karen
Smith stated that with respect to Item “J” - Improvement Guarantee for White Oak Village, Phases 1
through 4, the application indicated
that they wished to do a surety performance bond.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion
to approve Item “J” with the change requested by the applicant. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
The
Consent Agenda items were:
Minutes
Draft minutes were presented of the
following meetings for the Board’s review and approval:
·
March
23, 2005, regular meeting
·
March
31, 2005, special called meeting
Terry F. Lyda, Henderson County Tax Collector,
presented the Tax Collectors’ Report dated
Financial Report – March 2005
Cash Balance Report – March 2005
These reports were presented
for the Board’s information and consent approval.
The YTD cost in the General
Fund Non-Departmental line item is the annual property/liability insurance
premiums paid to the NCACC Insurance Risk Pools for FY2005. The remaining costs will be allocated out to
departmental budgets in April of this current fiscal year.
The YTD deficits in the
CDBG-Scattered Site Housing Project, the Mills River Watershed Protection
Project, the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Fund and the Mills River Sewer
Capital Project are all temporary due to timing differences in the expenditure
of funds and the subsequent requisition of Federal and State grant funds to
reimburse these expenditures.
The Human Services Building Project
deficit is due to architectural fees, demolition/abatement and utilities
relocation work completed for this new facility. It is anticipated that these costs will be
recouped from financing proceeds for the project in May of this current fiscal
year.
Henderson County
Public Schools Financial Report - March 2005
The Schools Financial Report was provided for March
for information and consent approval.
Adoption of Order on Variance Request of
Pinnacle Falls, L.L.C.
On
Attached was a proposed order
which, if approved by the Board of Commissioners, makes findings of fact and
conclusions from the hearing, and grants the variance request.
Petition for addition to
Staff recommended approval of
a petition to add
Register of Deeds – Request to use ROD
Restricted Funds for Automation, Enhancement and Document Preservation
Beginning in January 2002,
the General Assembly enacted legislation that required counties to place 10
percent of certain revenues generated by the Register of Deeds Office into a
fund to pay for automation enhancements and document preservation. This fund which is a portion of the County’s
Restricted General Fund Balance has in excess of $150,000 currently. Only the Board of Commissioners may authorize
the use and release of these restricted funds.
Presented for the Board’s
consideration was a budget amendment requesting to use the Register of Deeds
Restricted General Fund Balance to cover the cost of reproducing CDs of indexed
data from the old vendor, Cott Systems, Inc., that can be utilized by the
current vendor, IKON Office Solutions, during the changeover of information systems
in the Register of Deeds Office. Also
included in this total cost is a support agreement and training provided by
IKON. The total proposed cost to obtain
the indexed data along with the necessary training and support is $33,378.
The
Improvement Guarantee for
Mr. Bob Scheiderich, of
Southern Pride of WNC, Inc., had submitted an application for an improvement
guarantee for a subdivision to be known as
Pursuant to Sections
170-38 and 170-39 of the Henderson County Code (the Subdivision Ordinance), a
developer may, in lieu of completing all of the required improvements prior to
Final Plat approval, post a performance guarantee to secure the County’s
interest in seeing that satisfactory construction of incomplete improvements
occurs. One type of permitted guarantee
is an irrevocable letter of credit. The
developer intends to post with the County an irrevocable letter of credit in
the amount of at least $379,300.00 to cover the cost of the improvements
($303,440.00) as well as the required twenty-five percent (25%) contingency
($75,860.00). The proposed completion
date for the improvements is
A draft Performance
Guarantee Agreement was presented for the Board’s consideration. If the application is approved, the developer
must submit an irrevocable letter of credit in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement. Once the County receives a
letter of credit in proper form, the relevant parties must execute the
Agreement.
The
Request for Extension of Improvement
Guarantee for Mountain
The
Planning Department had received a letter from Gary Benjamin of Pavilion
Development Corporation requesting that the County extend the deadline for
completing the improvements. Mr.
Benjamin estimated the developer would need another 60 days to do so. Section 170-39 of the Subdivision Ordinance
allows the Board of Commissioners to grant extensions to completion dates for
improvement guarantees for a maximum of one additional year, provided the time
between initiation and completion of the improvements does not exceed two
years.
If the Board of Commissioners agrees to extend the
completion date for the improvement guarantee for Mountain Vista, staff had
provided for the Board’s consideration a draft Performance Guarantee Agreement
which reflects a new improvements completion date of July 31, 2005, and
requires submittal of amendments to the previously filed letters of credit
showing an expiration date not earlier
than 60 days after such new improvements completion date. The
new Performance Guarantee Agreement must be executed by the relevant parties if
the Board approves the extension request.
Improvement Guarantee for
VGC Properties, LLC,
developer of
Pursuant to Sections
170-38 and 170-39 of the Henderson County Code (the Subdivision Ordinance), a
developer may, in lieu of completing all of the required improvements prior to
Final Plat approval, post a performance guarantee to secure the County’s interest
in seeing that satisfactory construction of incomplete improvements
occurs. One type of permitted guarantee
is a surety performance bond. The
developer intends to post with the County a surety performance bond in the
amount of at least $535,375.00 to cover the cost of the improvements
($428,300.00) as well as the required twenty-five percent (25%) contingency
($107,075.00). The proposed completion
date for the improvements is
A draft Performance
Guarantee Agreement was provided for the Board’s consideration. If the application is approved, the developer
must submit a surety performance bond in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement. Once the County receives a
bond in proper form, the relevant parties must execute the Agreement.
The
One
The Partnership for Economic
Development requested that
Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Grants
The Henderson County Juvenile
Crime Prevention Council (J.C.P.C) had approved funding for local juvenile
crime prevention programs. The funds for
Fiscal Year 2005-06, in the amount of $208,354, were available for this purpose
through the State of
The programs approved by the
J.C.P.C. were as follows:
1. J.C.P.C. Administrative Expenses $7,500
2. DJJDP/29th
3. DJJDP/29th
4. Henderson County Public Schools/C-Stop Counselor $32,075
5. Project Challenge (Restitution) $63,623
6.
7.
The grant applications were
recommended for approval to the Board of Commissioners by the J.C.P.C. They will then be forwarded to
NOMINATIONS
Notification of Vacancies
The Board was notified of the following vacancies and
these will appear on the next agenda for nominations:
1.
2.
3.
Cane Creek Water & Sewer District Advisory Committee – 5 vac.
4.
Environmental Advisory Committee – 4 vac.
5.
6.
Jury Commission – 1 vac.
7.
Land-of-Sky Regional Advisory Council on Aging – 1 vac.
8.
Library Board of Trustees – 2 vac.
9.
Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee – 1 vac.
10.
Planning For Older Adults Block Grant Advisory Committee – 1 vac.
11.
Social Services Board – 1 vac.
Nominations
Chairman Moyer reminded the Board of the following
vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
1.
Apple
Country Greenways Commission – 1 vac.
On
2.
Juvenile Crime
Prevention Council – 2 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
3.
Nursing/Adult Care
Home Community Advisory Committee – 3 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
Historic
Courthouse Timeline
The following time line had
been established based on
May 1- 31, 2005 Begin Programming and Schematic Design
Define
Demolition area.
Define
Building Program
Provide
schematic lay-out for the new Annex
Elevations
and Building Perspectives
Identify
Occupants and Department space allocations
Outline
specifications
Schematic
Phase Cost Estimate
Develop
systems and cut sheets
Identify
materials and methods
Finishes and equipments
Specifications
Design Development Cost Estimate
July 1-
Develop
Sections and Elevations
Details
Equipment
Finishes
Schedules
Specifications
Construction
Document Cost Estimate
Prepare
Bid Documents and Advertisement
Pre
Bid Conference
Bid
opening
Award
Contract
David Nicholson stated that to meet the timeline, the Board would need
to adopt a Resolution exempting the County from the architectural
qualification-based selection process. Freeman White had developed a full set
of plans for the Courthouse renovation in 1996. In 2001, they also worked on
schematic designs to add a service annex on the back of the Courthouse. When
Freeman White closed their governmental unit, they transferred those plans to
the Kohan Group.
David Nicholson stated that the Kohan Group was a Limited Partnership
of another company that probably should be listed in the Resolution. Chairman
Moyer clarified that if the Board approved the Resolution exempting the Board
from the requirement, Mr. Nicholson would then negotiate with the Kohan Group
with respect to a fee. It was assumed that since they had the drawings already,
their fee would be significantly less.
Commissioner Baldwin questioned whether any space need parameters had
changed since the last set of plans were drawn. David Nicholson answered that
he would need to bring a new program back to the Board. He anticipated bringing
a new schematic design and program back to the Board at the June 6th
meeting. Following some discussion about specific space and technology needs
for the building, Chairman Moyer requested Mr. Nicholson compile a list of
policy questions that he required Board direction on, and bring that list back
for discussion at the Board’s next meeting.
Commissioner McGrady had some concerns about the wording in the
existing resolution, and requested that the legal name of the architectural
firm or the name of the architect be listed correctly prior to its approval by
the Board, specifically, the entity or person needed to hold a N.C. license to
practice architecture. Following discussion of the available options, it was
the consensus of the Board to defer action on the Resolution until the name
issue was corrected.
Animal Shelter
– Bids
On
Mr. Nicholson had asked Morgan
Woodward, our new Animal Services Director, to review the plans. He was
considering suggesting several changes to the plans that will reduce the cost.
He had also asked Cooper Construction Company, as the lowest responsible
bidder, to value engineer the building. They had indicated they can suggest
several cost saving alternatives.
Alternate #1 called for an
additional 14 runs at a cost of $165,000. Currently, we have 11 runs and the
base design calls for 25 runs. Staff would like for the Board to consider
funding approximately one-half of the additional runs. Staff believed that would
allow the County to increase the number of adoptable animals at the Shelter.
Chairman Moyer pointed out that with an aggressive spay/neuter program, the
number of animals waiting to be adopted would drop. There followed additional
discussion about the cost to add the runs now versus later.
Mr. Nicholson recommended that
the Board award the bid to Cooper Construction Company and authorize staff to
negotiate with them to lower the base price. He also requested that the Board
authorize staff to work with the architect and contractor on reducing the cost,
and providing approximately seven additional runs. Following these
negotiations, staff would report back to the Board a final contract price for
Board approval.
David Nicholson reminded the
Board that Staff was also looking at areas that we can utilize as community
fund raising. Some examples of this effort would be to fund the landscaping
around the building and courtyard and equip the public education room. A
donation of $30,000 from a citizen had been received toward the project.
Following some additional
discussion, Commissioner McGrady made the
motion to award the bid to Cooper Construction Company, authorize staff to
negotiate with them to lower the base price, and work with the architect and
contractor on the cost of providing approximately 7 additional runs. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Sugarloaf Road
real estate
Russ Burrell discussed the following with the Board:
- The Henderson County Board of Education had
executed an assignment of its interest in the option to purchase certain
real estate, approximately 43.45 acres, more or less (“the real estate”),
located on Sugarloaf Road, to Henderson County. The acceptance of the
option was subject to approval and acceptance by the Henderson County
Board of Commissioners.
- The Board of Education also approved a Resolution
seeking the Board’s approval of the selection of and payment of fees for
services from an architect to design a new school to be located on the
real estate.
- In past financed school construction projects,
the Board and the Henderson County Board of Education have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding regarding each boards’ responsibilities
regarding his matter.
The Board was presented with an “Assignment of Option to Purchase” as a
part of the agenda packet for their consideration. There was discussion about
whether the Board wished to deed a portion of the property to the Board of
Education, or lease a portion. If the Board chose to lease the property, the
County would not be required to buy the property back at some point in the
future. It was the consensus of the Board to lease the property to the Board of
Education.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion
that the Board accept the assignment of the option, as indicated in the
“Assignment of Option to Purchase” as included in the Board’s agenda packet.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion
that the Board authorize the Henderson County Board of Education to select an
architect for the design of a new elementary school on the real estate
described in the “Assignment of Option to Purchase” as included in the Board’s
agenda packet, and further to pay reasonable fees for the services of an
architect for the design of the school. Following
some additional discussion about the schools design and the site of the school,
Chairman Moyer stated that the County would approach the Board of Education
concerning which 20 acres they were interested in so it would not present
future problems. A vote was then taken on the motion. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion
that the Board agree to the terms of the draft Memorandum of Understanding
presented in the agenda packet with the addition that we clarify that it will
be a lease arrangement of buildings located on 20 acres or less. Chairman Moyer confirmed that would be an ongoing
lease arrangement between the parties at the end of the financing. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion
that the Board set a public hearing on the land purchase financing proposal to
be held at 11:00 a.m. on May 18, 2005. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Cane Creek
Extension Policy - Update
The Board of Commissioners
requested that staff work with the Cane Creek Water and Sewer District Advisory
Committee to update the extension policy. The policy which was approved by the
Board in October of 1996 contained several sections that pertained to the
former system – the Mud Creek Water and Sewer District.
The Advisory Committee met on
several occasions to review a draft provided by staff. Comments were solicited
from the Town of
DRAFT
For
the Cane Creek Water & Sewer District
I.
The Board of Commissioners will consider installing
sewer lines in the unincorporated areas of the District for economic
development purposes that will assist with the recruitment or retention of
industrial firms or for public health and safety reasons. Such sewer projects should conform to the
guidelines of the
II.
When making decisions concerning the County’s
financial participation in sewer projects, the Board will expect total project
payback within a ten-year time frame.
However, the Board may consider longer paybacks for the types of
projects listed in Policy Statement I.
III.
The Board may consider extending sewer lines within
incorporated areas of the District for those reasons listed in Policy
Statements I and II.
IV.
The County may consider installing sewer lines inside
the corporate limits of municipalities, if the County has plans to serve areas
beyond the municipal borders with such sewer lines.
V.
When considering extending sewer lines within the
corporate limits of municipalities, the Board will solicit comments from the
governing body of the affected municipality.
The County will consider these comments, as early as possible in the
process, before approving sewer lines.
VI.
It is the responsibility of the municipalities within
the District to construct collector lines inside their corporate boundaries for
reasons other than industrial recruitment/retention and/or for public
health/safety. Any sewer lines
constructed by municipalities must be built to District standards. Following construction, municipalities must
offer to donate the lines to the District.
Municipalities may contract with the County to provide construction
services.
VII.
The County may consider assisting municipalities with
financial support for sizing sewer lines for future needs. In any case, proper flow calculations for
future extensions shall be taken into consideration.
VIII.
The Cane Creek Water and Sewer District which is
operated by the County shall be self-supporting. The Board of Commissioners will consider all
available funding sources including, but not limited to, the levying of a
property tax, the charging of availability and other appropriate fees, and the
adjustment of sewer rate schedules.
Commissioner
Messer made the motion to pass the new Cane Creek Water & Sewer District
Extension Policy. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
IMPORTANT DATES
David Nicholson proposed the
following dates for the Board’s review of the FY 05-06 Budget:
Commissioner’s
questions
Department of Social
Services
Public Health
Department
Board of Public
Education
Fire Departments
Rescue Squad
Commissioner Messer
questioned the time for the Monday evening meetings. Commissioner Young
suggested beginning the meetings at
Commissioner Baldwin made the motion to accept the
dates as proposed with the exception of the first three, changing those dates
to this calendar year, at
Commissioner Young discussed
the need to hold Public Hearings that were expected to be lengthy during a time
when the Board could allow more time for those hearings. Chairman Moyer
suggested that unless a Public Hearing was clearly non-controversial, Staff
suggest special meeting dates for them to be held. Based on that direction,
David Nicholson questioned the Board’s opinion on holding the Public Hearing on
the Budget scheduled for the first Monday night in June. It was the consensus
of the Board to ask Mr. Nicholson to find a separate date for the Public
Hearing. Since that Hearing had been set with the previous motion, David
Nicholson stated the date would be set at the next meeting.
CLOSED SESSION
Chairman Moyer made the motion to go into Closed
Session as allowed pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11 for the following reasons:
1.
(a)(3) To consult with an attorney employed or
retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege
between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby
acknowledged. To consult with an
attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to consider and give
instructions to the attorney with respect to a claim.
2.
(a)(5) To
establish, or to instruct the public body’s staff or negotiating agents
concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the public body in
negotiating (I) the price and other material terms of a contract or proposed
contract for the acquisition of real property by purchase, option, exchange or
lease; or (II) the amount of compensation and other material terms of an
employment contract or proposed employment contract.
3.
(a)(6) To
consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness,
conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual
public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee; or to
hear or investigate a complaint, charge, or grievance by or against an
individual public officer or employee.
All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Historic Courthouse Timeline –
revisited
David
Nicholson distributed an updated Resolution for the Boards consideration. With
respect to the legal name of the entity in the Resolution, it read “by contract
with the Kohan Group in association with Antoine Architects, LLC, a Licensed
North Carolina Architectural Firm.” Commissioner McGrady made the motion to
approve the Resolution. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Action Following closed session
Commissioner Young made the motion
to make Russell Burrell the
PUBLIC
Commissioner
Messer made the motion to go into Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Rocky Hyder reminded the Board that on
Proposed Name
LONE RIDGE TRAIL
Public Input
There was none.
Commissioner
Young made the motion to go out of Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to adopt the road names as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING ON Property
Address Changes
Chairman Moyer
made the motion to go into Public Hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
On
Public Input
There was none.
Commissioner
Baldwin made the motion to go out of Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to approve the property address changes as presented. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING ON Rural
Operating Assistance Program Grant Application
Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to go into Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
The purpose of this public hearing was to allow for
citizen comments concerning applying for the upcoming fiscal year’s Rural
Operating Assistance Program grant through the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. The Board received a
copy of the grant application for the FY 2005/06 Rural Operating Assistance
Program. This grant had been one of the
major funding sources for Apple Country Transit. The application calls for a match from
There was some discussion
among the Board with respect to the ability to transfer funds between EDTAP,
WorkFirst and RGP. Bill Crisp answered that there was now some flexibility to
move monies within funds.
Public Input
There was none.
Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to go out of Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to approve the grant application and certified statement
Resolution, and commit to the required matching funds. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING ON
Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to go into Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Rocky Hyder presented the
following presentation regarding the “Flood Ordinance”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Ordinance was drafted to
further the goals stated in the Henderson County 2020 Comprehensive Plan and
the Henderson County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Those plans stated the following:
CCP
·
Recommendation N-01:
Minimize the potential for damage to personal property, infrastructure,
and life due to flooding.
·
Action Strategy A:
Adopt a Flood Hazard Prevention Ordinance.
Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan
·
Mitigation Goal 3:
Minimize the potential for damage to personal property, infrastructure,
and life due to flooding.
·
Implementation measures stated for achieving this
goal are:
1.
Encourage County participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program and subsequent
participation in the Community Rating System
Program.
2.
Develop a
According to the Board of
Commissioners’ 2005 Strategic Plan, the Board intends to adopt a Flood
Ordinance during Fiscal Year 2004-2005 and to begin enforcing it in Fiscal Year
2005-2006. In addition, the Board also indicated
in the 2005 Strategic Plan that it planned to consider participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in Fiscal Year 2005-2006.
Staff presented a draft of
the Flood Ordinance to the Board of Commissioners during its
The draft Flood Ordinance was
presented to the Environmental Advisory Committee at its
The draft Flood Ordinance was
reviewed with the Planning Board at its
The draft Flood Ordinance was
presented to the Agriculture Advisory Board on
During the course of the
presentations mentioned above and continued review of the draft Flood
Ordinance, there had been minor administrative revisions to the ordinance. In addition, the (Acting) County Attorney has
reviewed the draft ordinance and his proposed revisions, including a draft
resolution, as well as proposed revisions based on preliminary review by State
of North Carolina staff, were highlighted in the attached draft ordinance (see
Attachment 10). These revisions do not
affect the intent or permitted activities of the ordinance; they are simply
clarifications and required legal language.
In accordance with State Law,
notices of the
Mr. Nicholson recommended the
ordinance have an effective date of
Mr. Hyder clarified that the
Ordinance would only be effective for the area within
Public Input
- Bob Williford – Generally spoke in favor of the
Ordinance, but stated that additional time would be necessary for review
and comment.
- Drew Brannon – Generally spoke in favor of the
Ordinance, but requested the Board allow additional time for review and
comment.
- Fred Pittillo – Mr. Pittillo stated that he was a
farmer growing sod in both
- John Fadok – Mr. Fadok stated that he was the
owner/operator of the
- Stu MacRoberts – Requested the Board reconsider
the Ordinance as proposed, making it less restrictive. He expressed
particular concern regarding the effect of the Ordinance on the airport.
- Danny Williams – Requested the Board reconsider
the Ordinance as proposed, making it less restrictive. He expressed
particular concern regarding the effect of the Ordinance on the airport.
- Mark Williams – Asked the Board to reconsider the
Ordinance as proposed, making it less restrictive especially with respect
to the effect it would have on farmers. He requested additional time for
review and comment from the public.
- Kenny Barnwell – Mr. Barnwell requested
additional time for review and comment, stating that particular attention
needed to be paid to some of the definitions.
- Tim Culberson – Mr. Culberson spoke in general
opposition to the Ordinance because of the effect it would have on the
airport.
- James Beddingfield – Mr. Beddingfield did not
wish to speak at this time.
- William Patterson – Mr. Patterson spoke in
opposition to the Ordinance. He addressed several points contained within
the Ordinance including items such as: the definition of a floodplain, the
type of fencing allowed, addressing the floodplain versus the floodway,
and the problem within the existing flood maps.
- Philip Correll – Mr. Correll spoke in general
opposition to the Ordinance because of the effect it would have on the
airport.
- Angela Beeker – Ms. Beeker had been retained to
ask the Board to reconsider the no-build approach taken currently in the
proposed draft ordinance for the following reasons: 1) A substantial
number of property owners will be negatively affected more than is
necessary to carry out the stated objectives of the Ordinance, 2) A substantial portion of those areas
shown as recommended Industrial Zones by the Chamber of Commerce is in the
100 and 500 year floodplain. A no-build approach to floodplain management
eliminates a substantial amount of this acreage for industrial
development, 3) The County Comprehensive Plan does not go so far as to
recommend a no-build approach to flood plain management, 4) Other
municipalities in Henderson County having flood plains within their
borders either have no regulation of flood plains, or allow construction
within certain limits. Development occurring in these jurisdictions will
push the flood waters back onto acreage in the unincorporated areas,
thereby potentially increasing the floodplain areas subject to the
no-build policy.
- Sam Fritschner – Mr. Fritschner was also present
representing a client. He noted that there were several legal issues that
should be considered. The Supreme Court had ruled that a lot of
governmental actions changing uses in property do not constitute a 5th
or 14th Amendment taking. But in many cases it had also been
ruled that depriving property of all reasonable economic use does
constitute taking. He felt that as proposed, the Ordinance would
constitute the taking of a substantial number of parcels within
- Theron Maybin – Mr. Maybin generally spoke in
opposition to the Ordinance, and asked the Board to reconsider the
Ordinance as proposed, making it less restrictive. He stated that to write
an effective Ordinance, the Board needed to get input from those affected
by flooding.
- Bert Browning – Mr. Browning spoke in general
opposition to the Ordinance because of the effect it would have on the
airport.
- Jeff Young – Mr. Young is an engineer, and
familiar with issuing no-rise permits. He felt that an Ordinance could be
written that achieved the County’s objectives to protect life and
property, without being so restrictive. He questioned the effectiveness of
the existing flood plain maps, noting that they were out of date and
ineffective.
- Scott Jarvis – Mr. Jarvis stated that the
- Katie Breckheimer – Ms. Breckheimer spoke in
support of the Ordinance, stating that she wished to see the 100 and 500
year flood plains protected. She requested the Board help farming and
tourism stay alive in
- Ken Allison – Mr. Allison stated that he was not
opposed to an Ordinance, but felt that as proposed it was far too
restrictive. He requested the Board study the proposal making it less
restrictive. He also expressed concern with implementing an Ordinance
based on maps that were far out of date.
- Kirby Johnson – Mr. Johnson did not wish to speak
at this time.
- Leon Allison - Mr. Allison stated that he was
supportive of local farmers, and that as proposed the Ordinance would take
too much from local farmers.
Commissioner McGrady stated
that his opinion was that there were a lot of questions that needed to be
answered and suggested the Board take the time necessary to answer those
questions.
Commissioner Young made the motion to table the
Ordinance until the receipt of the proper information and the new maps, with a
lot more study being done on the Ordinance. Commissioner Baldwin requested staff comprise a list of the concerns
brought to the Boards attention. Commissioner Messer thanked the people in
attendance, stating that an Ordinance needs to be written to protect the
community with the help of the community. Chairman Moyer suggested that the
Board revisit the issue in approximately a month, allowing Staff and various
other groups to submit comments and suggestions for consideration. Following
discussion, Commissioner Young restated his motion stating “that due to lack of information, not having the new floodplain maps,
that we table this until we get the new floodplain maps, and get more vital
information on this”. A vote was taken on the motion, with the motion failing 1
– 4 with Commissioner Young voting in favor.
CANE CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT
- no business
ADJOURN
Commissioner
Messer made the motion to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Attest
Amy R. Brantley, Deputy Clerk to the Board William L. Moyer, Chairman