MINUTES
STATE
OF
The Henderson County
Board of Commissioners met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 9:00 a.m. in
the Commissioners' Conference Room of the
Those present were: Chairman
Also present were: Public
Information Officer Chris S. Coulson, Planner
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called
the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Messer led
the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
Commissioner Baldwin gave
the invocation.
INFORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Jim Phelps – Mr. Phelps spoke to the issue of voting
machines. He felt that the amount of money that was planned to be spent was
excessive. He reviewed the history of the decision on the voting machines. He
listed several questions that he felt the Board should consider before making
their decision: Is the proposed solution the most cost effective, is the system
easier to use, is it easier to verify if something goes wrong, is it easier to
control, and will the cost maximize the investment? Mr. Phelps stated the
answer for each question, was no.
2. Douglas Coggins – Mr. Coggins spoke to the
3. Debra Stierwalt – Ms. Stierwalt requested that the Board have an
appraisal done on the
4. Eva Ritchey – Ms. Ritchey stated these were perilous times
for many
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Chairman Moyer pulled Discussion Item “L” –
Lease with Henderson County Historic Courthouse Corporation, stating that it
was not yet ready for consideration. He also added a Closed Item with respect
to personnel matters. Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to adopt the agenda with the revisions as suggested.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to adopt the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
The Consent Agenda
consisted of the following:
Minutes
Draft
minutes were presented of the following meetings for the Board’s review and
approval:
·
November
16, 2005 – Regular
·
December
5, 2005 – Regular
·
December
15, 2005 – Regular
Tax
Collector’s Report
Terry F. Lyda, Henderson
County Tax Collector, had provided the Tax Collectors Report dated November 14,
2005 for the Board’s information.
Tax
Releases
A list of 151 tax
release requests was presented by the
Tax
Refunds
A list of 10 tax refund
requests was presented by the
Non-Profit
Semi-Annual Performance Reports
During the most recent budget process,
The Board of Commissioners requested that staff step-up its efforts to measure
the success of County-funded non-profits in achieving their objectives as
presented within their County funding applications. In addition to requiring
funded non-profits to complete an extensive application, execute a formal
performance agreement with the County, and provide an annual performance
report, staff is now requiring these organizations to complete semi-annual
performance reports as well. Semi-annual performance reports were provided for
the following organizations:
Ø The
Ø Blue Ridge Literacy
Council, Inc.
Ø Boys and Girls Club of
Ø Children and
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø Environmental and
Conservation Organization
Ø The Free Clinics
Ø The Housing Assistance
Corporation
Ø The Healing Place, Inc.
Ø
Ø Interfaith Assistance
Ministry
Ø Mainstay, Inc.
Ø Partnership for Health,
Inc.
Ø Pisgah Legal Services
Ø WCCA/Apple Country
Transportation
Resolution
Requesting an Increase in State Funding for
Several months ago the Board
discussed the need for additional State funding for
The Carolina Mountain Land
Conservancy and the
Vaccine
Supply Resolution
On
January 4, 2006, the Henderson County Board of Health passed a resolution, in
support of a resolution, that was being considered by local Boards of Health
and
Water Line
Extension
The
City of
NOMINATIONS
Notification of Vacancies
The Board was notified
of the following vacancies and these will appear on the next agenda for
nominations:
Nominations
Chairman Moyer reminded
the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
1.
Animal Services
Committee – 3 vac.
Commissioner McGrady
nominated for reappointment Vicki Audia – #1, Walter Kidd – #4, and Meg Paton –
#7. Commissioner Young nominated Kimberly Osborne to Position #4. Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to reappoint Vicki Audia to Position #1. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. Commissioner McGrady made the motion to reappoint
Meg Paton to Position #7. The motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Baldwin
voting in opposition. Appointment to Position #4 was rolled to the next
meeting.
2.
Child Fatality
Prevention Team – 1 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
3.
Ms. Brantley reminded
the Board that there were 18 members on this Board, and that each February,
half the terms expire. She had heard back from the following members that they
wished to be reappointed: Renee Kumor – #1, Matt Matteson - #3, William Crisp -
#5, Virgil McClure - #7, Eddie Henderson - #15, Keith Maddox - #17. John
Antrim, Paul Stepp and Ron Swartzel had indicated that they did not wish to be
reappointed. Commissioner Baldwin nominated for reappointment Renee Kumor – #1,
Matt Matteson - #3, William Crisp - #5, Virgil McClure - #7, Eddie Henderson -
#15 and Keith Maddox - #17. Chairman
Moyer made the motion to accept those nominations by acclamation. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. Commissioner Baldwin then nominated Lee King
to Position #9. Commissioner Young nominated Bruce Benton to Position #11.
Commissioner McGrady nominated Terry Hicks to Position #11 and Tedd Pearce to
Position #13. Chairman Moyer made the
motion to accept Lee King to Position #9 and Tedd Pearce to Position #13 by
acclamation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
4.
There were no nominations at this time so
this item was rolled to the next meeting.
5.
Industrial Facilities
and Pollution Control Authority – 1 vac.
Commissioner McGrady
nominated Hall Waddell for reappointment. Chairman
Moyer made the motion to accept Mr. Waddell by acclamation. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
6.
Juvenile Crime
Prevention Council – 3 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so
this item was rolled to the next meeting.
7.
Nursing/Adult Care Home
Community Advisory Committee – 9 vac.
Ms. Brantley stated that
the Chairman of the Committee recommended Elizabeth Tait for appointment to
Position #12. Commissioner McGrady nominated Ms. Tait for appointment to
Position #12. Chairman Moyer made the
motion to accept Ms. Tait by acclamation. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
2006 HOME Applications
Habitat for Humanity and Housing
Assistance Corporation (HAC) were requesting funding application approval for
HOME funds. HOME funds are administered through the Asheville Regional Housing
Consortium. HAC was requesting $65,000 for their Down Payment Assistance
Program and $266,850 for construction of 18 homes for low-income households in
a development named Summit Springs. Habitat for Humanity was requesting
$120,100 for infrastructure for 20 homes for low-income households in the Shuey
Knolls Subdivision. Shuey Knolls was located in Edneyville, consisted of 46
acres, and 80 homes were planned for construction over the next several years.
The Asheville Regional Housing Consortium
had been told to expect an 11% reduction in the entitlement amount for its
members for 2006
A representative from HAC briefly
discussed the Down Payment Assistance Program, which offers $5,000 to $10,000
worth of assistance per client. Those clients obtain their primary lending on
their own. Funds from the Program can be used toward the down payment itself,
closing costs, or to defray the cost of the loan to make it more affordable.
They also discussed the Summit Springs project, which was planned to have 18
single-family homes. 10 of which would be built through a program called
self-help housing, where groups of families help each other build their own
homes. The funds requested would be used for site work, and infrastructure
development for those homes.
Doug Watson was present representing
Habitat for Humanity. In the past 17 years, 83 Habitat Homes had been built in
Commissioner McGrady questioned whether
sending both applications in requesting full funding would put them at risk.
Selena Coffey stated that typically, all applications would be put into a pot
of projects. Not all municipalities use their full planning level allocation.
When those allocations are opened and placed back into the mix, some of those
allocations can be used to fund additional projects. Ms. Coffey was not of the
opinion that the Board sending all of the applications through would jeopardize
them, but would show that
Commissioner
McGrady made the motion that the Board approve the HOME funding applications at
their full amount. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Sugarloaf School Site
Chairman Moyer reminded the Board that at
the last meeting, there had been some discussion with respect to the school
site. There were some concerns about the placement of the school on that site.
Chairman of the Board of Education Ervin Bazzle, Superintendent Stephen Page,
Bo Caldwell and Jack Robertson were present to provide information and answer
questions.
Ervin Bazzle stated that by nature, the
property was divided into four tracts. There was a wooded area, an open area,
and two additional wooded areas divided by creeks. The proposed school building
plan was the same plan used for Clear Creek, and almost the same plan used for
Fletcher. When the architects locate the site for a school, they look at
several things: the layout of the land, minimizing costs as much as possible,
safety issues, and environmental impact. Consideration of those issues led to
the school being located centrally on the property. They elected to not
completely strip the front of the property of all trees, nor place things right
next to the road for safety reasons, and to control access and entry.
Mr. Bazzle stated that if all the
property were laid out the same way, the back of the property would be the
ideal school site. However, subsurface investigations had shown that ground
water was most excessive in the area of the creeks, and the geotechnical
engineers further clarified that the ground water dissipated as one moved up
toward Sugarloaf. Mr. Bazzle stated that the site they had selected was the
best site for the school, and was the least costly site. Building on the back
would require a lot more pavement, and more construction with multiple
culverts.
Dr. Page discussed the safety issues
related to the location of the ball fields. The State has to approve the site
plan and how the school is arranged. One of the State’s requirements is that
students not have to cross a parking lot or road to get to playing fields
around a school. Given the nature of this site, that requires that the parking
lots be on one side and the ball fields on the other. He felt it made the most
sense to have the parking lots in the front and ball fields in the back.
Mr. Bazzle, answered several questions
from the Board about the prototype school, and the cost difference for building
Fletcher versus Clear Creek. Commissioner Baldwin questioned whether they could
put a ball field on the front of the property, and still comply with State law.
Mr. Bazzle stated that he did not believe it could be done. However, the County
could put in a park with a full size ball field, which would be separate from
the school. The County can use the back of the property for a County use.
Commissioner Baldwin stated that master planning could accommodate both sides,
and that the County and School Board should jointly work on such a plan. Commissioner
Baldwin and Commissioner Messer both requested that the School Board provide
the cost difference for building Fletcher versus Clear Creek.
There followed additional discussion about the
potential uses for the back of the property. The Board of Education requested
that the Board of Commissioners approve the site plan, and that both Boards
would work together on a joint plan for the front and back of the site so
building could move forward. Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to approve the site plan for the
Dr. Page stated that it was important that there
not be a delay to the beginning of construction for the school. They would need
to be able to get into that school when it opens in 2007. He felt that July was
a critical date to begin construction. He requested they devise a way to work
together, while allowing the project to stay on schedule. This was a new school
that would be drawing students from Clear Creek, Dana and Upward Elementary. If
the school were not ready in time for the beginning of school, it created any
number of problems for the School system.
Chairman Moyer stated that a discussion of
capital project financing was scheduled for later on the agenda, during which
time financing of the school would be discussed. It was the consensus of the
Board to move Discussion Item “G” - Capital Projects Financing, up to this
point on the agenda.
Capital Projects Financing
Carey McLelland reminded the Board that
four major capital projects were being contemplated for financing by the County
during the current fiscal year. The Joint Schools Facilities Committee and the
Joint Community College Facilities Committee had both met within the last month
to discuss their respective projects, costs and timeframes. County staff had
been working closely with the staff of the public schools and the college to
obtain the most current cost estimates from their architects and timetables for
bidding, contracting and starting the projects. The total estimated cost for
all four major capital projects was currently $49.5 million.
County staff had a preliminary meeting
with the staff of the Local Government Commission on Friday, January 6th to
discuss the four capital projects, the need for financing, including possible interim
financing for one of the projects and the issuance of Certificates of
Participation (COPs), which is the type of financing instrument being
contemplated by staff to recommend to the Board to use. The Local Government Commission
did not express any concerns about the necessity of the projects or the use of
COPs to finance these projects long-term since it has been a financing
instrument the County had used successfully for three major debt issuances in previous
fiscal years. The LGC had provided staff an application to begin the financing approval
process.
The Capital Projects Timetable for FY2006
was:
|
Project |
Projected Cost |
Open Bidding |
Contract |
Begin Project |
|
Historic Courthouse |
$9.3 million |
April 2006 |
May 2006 |
June 2006 |
|
New Elementary School |
$14.3 million |
March 2006 |
April 2006 |
May 2006 |
|
|
$16.2 million |
May 2006 |
June 2006 |
July 2006 |
|
|
$9.7 million |
June 2006 |
June 2006 |
July 2006 |
|
Total |
$49.5 million |
|
|
|
Mr. McLelland pointed out that the
|
Projects |
Annual Projected Debt Service |
|
New Elementary School |
$1,365,425 |
|
|
$929,750 |
|
|
$1,549,400 |
|
Historic |
$413,363 |
|
Total Projected Debt
Service |
$4,257,938 |
|
Less: Debt Service in
FY06 Budget |
($742,636) |
|
Net Projected FY07
Debt Service |
$3,515,302* |
|
Debt
Policy Thresholds: |
|
|
Total Outstanding Debt
to Total Assessed Value |
1.24% |
|
Total Debt Service to
Total GF Expenditures |
12.31% |
*The net projected debt service number
might be reduced further by using a conservative estimate of $500,000 from
lottery proceeds that may be received in FY2007
Outstanding debt was currently at $63
million, and total debt service was slightly less than $8 million. The addition
of these projects would bring the total debt to about $112 million.
Commissioner Young expressed doubt that the monies from the lottery would cover
the increased cost for construction. He pointed out that one cent of property
tax generated about $880,000, and we would therefore need a four cent tax
increase. Chairman Moyer noted that there are a lot of items in the budget, and
while the cost of these projects may equate to four cents, that did not
necessarily mean there would be a tax increase in that amount.
Mr. McLelland needed authorization to
develop financing plans for the Historic Courthouse,
Commissioner McGrady questioned whether
funding for Balfour could potentially be freed up to allow Sugarloaf to
proceed. Justin Hembree stated that at a recent meeting with the School
representatives, one issue discussed was how to bridge the gap between when the
contract needed to be signed, to the other COPs rolling in, in mid-June. One
idea considered was the possibility of having a separate, stand alone contract
for site preparation on the site. That would allow that portion of the project
to move forward, with an interim financing for the cost of site preparation,
which would be rolled into the COPs issues. Dr. Page stated that the
Chairman
Moyer made the motion to authorize Mr. McLelland to move forward with the
financing plan, and to work with Mr. Hembree, the Board of Education and the
School System to develop a means of bridging the gap on Sugarloaf so it could
begin on schedule with the ability to roll it into a bigger financing package. Following some additional
discussion, a vote was taken on the motion.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Presented for the Board’s review and
approval was a draft copy of the Community Foundation’s Donor Advised Fund
Agreement with the Henderson County Board of Commissioners to create a fund for
Hancock County, Mississippi to collect donations and remit them to Hancock
County to be used for Hurricane Katrina relief and recovery efforts. This
specific action to create a fund for this purpose was approved by the Board in
their resolution adopting Hancock County as a Sister Community at the December
5, 2005 Board meeting.
Mr. McLelland had spoken with Mr. McCray
Benson, President and CEO of the Community Foundation of Henderson County,
about setting up the fund. He noted that the
Mr. Benson stated that the Foundation was
privileged to represent the independent sector and be a partner in
participating with the community on this fund. He explained how citizens could
contribute to such a fund, and how it would be sent on to the
Commissioner
Baldwin made the motion to approve the agreement presented and to move forward
with the project as outlined. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Western Highlands Network Presentation
Larry Thompson, past CEO of Western
Highlands, presented Western Highland’s semi-annual report. He highlighted the
following points of interest for
·
Total individuals served in FY 2005 were 2,715.
·
Mountain Laurel served 1,785 clients.
·
The total amount of state and Medicaid money that passed through
Western Highlands for
·
The recently approved Medicaid plan would change the categories of
services provided, the biggest impact of which would be on Community Based Services
(CBS). In
·
The Mental Health Oversight Committee was working to try to get
resources allocated to help with crisis services, particularly operational
money.
·
They were also working with the State to provide some resources
that are physician managed. The reimbursement rates for that service had been
reduced, and it no longer paid for itself.
·
When studies pertaining to mental health reform were published in
the late 1990’s, they talked about 8-12 LMEs. There are currently 29. In
October, Secretary Owen introduced a reorganization proposal that was based on
12 regional hubs for key services the LME’s would provide. The State had
recommended a 20 County LME for the western counties. Western Highlands had
proposed that they be allowed to continue as an 8 County LME. No final decision
had been made on that proposal.
Mr. Thompson answered questions from
the Board regarding the future of mental health. He also introduced Arthur D.
Carder, Jr., the new CEO of Western Highlands Network.
PUBLIC
HEARING – Rezoning Application #R-2005-06 (R-15 proposed) County Planning Staff
Initiated
Commissioner
Messer made the motion to go into Public Hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Autumn Radcliff stated that in early
November, 2005, Planning Staff had learned that three parcels split zoned by a
County R-15 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning district and a City of
Hendersonville R-15 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district, had been
requested to be removed from City of Hendersonville's Extra Territorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ). These three parcels, totaling approximately 40.27 acres, were
located adjacent to Stoney Mountain Estates off of US Highway 25 North, and had
access off
According to the City of
·
CR
Wilkes Inc. - PIN 9660113349
·
Thomas
L. Tatham Farm Inc. - PIN 9660009720
·
Deborah
Cobb Baldwin - PIN 9660105646
The Henderson County Planning Board first
considered rezoning application #R-2005-06 at its regularly scheduled meeting
on Tuesday, December 20, 2005, at which time the Board voted unanimously (7-0)
on a motion to send the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation on
rezoning the Subject Area to an R-15 zoning district. The Hendersonville City
Council held a public hearing on relinquishing the Subject Area from the City
of
The subject area was approximately 4/10
of a mile east of the Henderson County Landfill, and approximately 2/10 of a
mile north of
County R-15 is a medium-density
residential zoning district allowing no commercial activities by right.
Site-built and modular residential dwellings are permitted by right, while
manufactured homes are not permitted. The standard lot size is a minimum of
15,000 square feet (.34 acres), with a minimum lot size per dwelling unit of
7,500 square feet for buildings with two or more dwelling units. Unless
otherwise allowed through a Special Use Permit, setbacks are as follows: 75
feet from the centerline of major streets and 50 feet from the centerline of
all others; 15 feet from the side and rear property lines; and a maximum
building height of 35 feet for principal structures.
In comparison,
Looking at the surrounding area, most
uses within the vicinity of the Subject Area are residential or undeveloped. It
does not have access to public water or sewer, but there is a water line
approximately 290 feet south, and another one approximately 400 feet east.
There was a public sewer line less than ½ mile south west of the subject area. The
County Comprehensive Plan (CCP) identified the area as being in an Urban
Services Area, and in an area identified for conservation. The conservation
designation was due to the steep slopes located in the area.
Based on Staff’s review, they supported
the R-15 zoning which was already on part of the area.
Public
Input
Ms. Radcliff stated that future plans
could not be taken into account during a zoning. However, in the event that the
property was developed into a subdivision, it would have to comply with the
R-15 zoning and would be dependent upon septic systems.
Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to approve the rezoning application R-2005-06, zoning
the land R-15 as requested, finding that zoning classification to be consistent
with the CCP. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to go out of Public Hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Presentation of HSMM Building Assessment for the
In November of 2005, the Board of
Commissioners authorized the firm of Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern (HSMM)
to conduct a building assessment of the
Mr. Ladson noted that HSMM had been
asked to look at the building, make some recommendations on what it could be
used for and what it might cost, and what its current state was. To do that,
they took an architect, a structural engineer, a mechanical engineer, an electrical
engineer, and an asbestos inspector to examine the building. Mr. Ultiz stated
that their review of the project was for an as yet undetermined use, to
determine the feasibility of renovation. He discussed the following
observations from the assessment:
·
The site was terraced on three levels, and the views to and from
the site were very good
·
Public water and sewer were not available at this time
·
The kindergarten building was block and brick construction, and
generally in good condition
·
The canopy connecting the buildings was not in good condition, and
would likely not be maintained
·
The main building was a classic two story structure
from 1924, with an addition from the early 1950’s
·
The main building was in good condition, with no significant
structural problems in evidence
·
Air conditioning was not present in either structure
·
Plumbing fixtures would have to be replaced
·
There was no fire protection system or sprinklers in the building
·
Regarding electrical conditions, there were minimal outlets,
suspended fluorescent lighting was in various states of repair, and computer
cabling would have to be readdressed
·
There were problems with walkways, and linoleum in the single
story building
·
Other materials would have to be tested, but there was likely lead
paint, PCB’s in light fixtures
Mr. Ultiz stated that something that
had happened at the beginning of the year, that could have a great effect on
the building, was the adoption of the North Carolina Rehabilitation Code
statewide. The intent of the code was to try to save buildings that otherwise
might have fallen into disrepair or been torn down. Two main principals of the
Code were that first, undertaking a rehabilitation project does not require
that all components of the building be affected, and no building should be made
less safe than it was when the project began. Any addition that might be added
to the building would fall under the
Developing a budget for the project
had been difficult since the final configuration of the project had not been
determined. Therefore, HSMM had provided some options, included in the
following categories:
·
Category 1 – The most basic of renovations so that the building
meets the bare minimum code requirements. This building would have a very low
intensity of use such as storage, polling place or law enforcement training. Basically,
to continue the buildings current use with renovations intended to preserve the
building.
§
Construction costs - $770,275
§
Soft costs - $292,705
§
Total project cost $1,062,980
§
$52 per square foot
·
Category 2 – This level of renovation would be intended to bring
the building up to modern standards so that the building could be reused in a
manner similar to the former use as a school. Potential uses would be county
offices, community building, or light retail.
§
Construction costs - $1,331,275
§
Soft costs - $545,823
§
Total project cost $1,877,098
§
$93 per square foot
·
Category 3 – This would be the most extensive renovation so the
building would be brought to modern standards and adapted for a more intensive
use. Potential uses would be a healthcare, residential or assisted living
facility.
§
Construction costs - $2,144,775
§
Soft costs - $943,701
§
Total project cost $3,088,476
§
$153 per square foot
Ted Alexander, Southwest Regional
Director of Preservation North Carolina, thanked the Board for the cooperation shown
by the County on this project. He stated that the information found in HSMM’s
was quite informative, and that they had done a good job in laying out the
various scenarios. He was concerned that some of the estimates might be on the
high side, but understood the need to proceed cautiously. He continued with
some additional discussion about the cost estimates. Mr. Alexander understood
that the building was currently owned by the School Board rather than the
County, but that if the County were to pursue acquisition of the building,
Preservation North Carolina would be pleased to work with the County. They
would also welcome working with the School Board, stating that their main
desire was to see the building put back into productive reuse, and preserved as
an important part of
Tuxedo Community Library and Recreation Projects
Chairman Moyer updated the Board on the most recent events
surrounding these projects. First, Nancy Green, owner of the property
containing the existing library, had indicated a willingness to have a 99 year
lease on the current library site. She had also indicated a willingness to
extend the site to accommodate a bigger library, or community room. Additionally, Dr. John Bell had contacted
the Chairman and stated that he was interested in helping the County acquire
property for a park. He suggested that he would be willing to lease a five to
six acre park located on the river, exchange it for some properties that the
County already owned, or sell the property to the County. His strong preference
though, was an exchange of property. Following additional discussions about
terms and pricing, Dr. Bell had suggested the County get an appraisal on the
property and determine whether moving forward was a viable option.
Justin Hembree reminded Staff and the community that there had
been a longstanding desire, by both citizens and the County, to develop a
recreation facility in the Tuxedo area.
Likewise, there had been an interest in finding a new home for the Green
River Branch Library. These projects had
been formally placed on the County’s “to do” list through the current Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) and County Strategic Plan (CSP). The County’s current CIP included a “place
setting” of $1 million for a library and park project in the Tuxedo
community. It was evident through the
capital and strategic planning processes that the Board of Commissioners had
determined that the Tuxedo library and park project is one of the County’s
priorities.
During
the preliminary planning stages of this project, staff developed a conceptual
plan that proposed the use of the
Based on information gathered by staff, information provided by
professionals, and citizen input, staff recommended the following actions:
1) Amend the County Strategic Plan to
address the Tuxedo library and recreation projects separately, not as a
combined project.
2) Pursue the long term lease for the library’s
current site, and expand that facility to meet the needs of the community.
3) Request that the Board direct Staff to
proceed with getting an appraisal of the
4) Inform the Board of Education that the
County has no interest in purchasing the
It was generally the consensus of
the Board to pursue an appraisal of the
Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to amend the
Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to direct staff to pursue a long term lease of the
current library property, and ask the library staff and Library Advisory Board
to come back to the Board with a plan for improvements and/or expansion of the
current library based on the need there. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to authorize staff to get an appraisal of the
approximately six acre tract currently owned by Dr. Bell or his family for
potential use as a county park in the Tuxedo area. Chairman Moyer asked
Commissioner McGrady to expand his motion to cover a possible exchange of
property. Commissioner McGrady expanded
the motion accordingly. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner
McGrady made the motion to inform the Board of Education that the County had no
interest in purchasing the
The Board took a brief technical
recess.
Elections Equipment
Selena Coffey reminded the Board that at the last meeting,
they had requested that Staff bring back a more firm recommendation on the
direction the County should go on this matter, as well as financing proposals
for the equipment being sold by ES&S. Presented for the Board’s review was
the Board of Election’s Resolution recommending the purchase of Direct Voting
Electronic (DRE) equipment. Also presented were the equipment costs/financing
estimates for the DRE equipment and Optical Scan equipment.
Ms.
Coffey noted that staff had hoped to have more information from the legislature
regarding where discussions were going, and whether the General Assembly
planned to convene to discuss this issue. However, they had not and in two days
the County was expected to have at least signed a contract to purchase
equipment. She stated that Staff was uncomfortable with the short time frame
provided to handle the situation, and the lack of a formal bid process.
Elections
Director Beverly Cunningham thanked the Board and Staff for all the work that
had gone into this equipment purchase. The County had tested three different
DRE systems, in 2000, 2002 and 2004 during one-stop voting. In the 2004 election,
7,135 early voters had voted using the DRE equipment. When the machines were
totaled on election day, she was happy to report that the machines had totaled
up to 7,135 voters, coming out exactly as Elections staff showed they should.
Voters had seemed happy with the DRE equipment. Ms. Cunningham also informed
that Board that a committee appointed by the Chairman of the Democratic Party
had studied the voting machines and what recommendation should be made.
Following several meetings, in December that Committee had recommended to the
Board of Elections that the County purchase the DRE equipment.
Staff
had attended demonstrations of the DRE and Optical Scan equipment systems.
Shortly before Christmas, the State informed counties that Diebold was pulling
out of the certification process, which left ES&S as the only vendor. The
Board of Elections had looked at ES&S’ equipment, had held a public input
forum, and on January 10th had passed a resolution to recommend the
purchase of the Direct Record Equipment. The Board of Commissioners’ had until
January 20th to approve purchase of the recommended equipment.
Ms.
Cunningham answered several questions from the Board. She stated that
Transylvania, Haywood and
There
followed much additional discussion on the options available to the Board.
Carey
McLelland explained that the financial information presented to the Board were
estimates based on the purchase of 250 or 350 DREs or Optical Scan equipment.
Based on the latest information, he had requested some bank bids based on the
total maximum cost the County would need to purchase 259 machines, which was
$625,000. Bank of America was the lowest responsive bid at 3.70%, which was
good through March 9th.
It
was the consensus of the Board to roll this item to the beginning of a meeting
already scheduled for 4:00 the following day, January 19, 2006.
Flu Pandemic Preparations
Rocky Hyder reminded the Board that Staff had been working on
preparations in the event of a flu pandemic. Emergency Management, the Health
Department,
Pursuant
to the ordinance passed by the Board in September, 2005 adopting the National
Incident Management System, Staff had prepared an incident action plan to
outline the objectives to be met in a pandemic situation, as well as the more
detailed activities which would be implemented to control a pandemic. The major
objectives were prevention, detection, disease control treatment, and mass care
and support services that might be required for the community. The incident
action plan was designed to pull multiple agencies together, identify the
priorities and address tactical operations to achieve those priorities and
assign the resources necessary to achieve the mission.
Mr.
Hyder stated that while there is a very good detection system established at
the State level, there were not good communications at the local level with
regard to flu. There are certain diseases that are required to be reported to
the Health Department, but the flu is not one of those diseases. He requested
the Board’s support in encouraging local medical care facilities to cooperate
in the establishment of a local flu reporting system. There followed much
additional discussion about the need to establish reporting protocols within
the County to identify a potential flu pandemic as quickly as possible.
Mr.
Hyder also discussed possible issues related to the availability of resources
during a pandemic, such as vaccines and ventilators. Also discussed were the
Communications Plan, Medical Plan, Incident Intelligence Summary, Outlook and
Operational Planning Worksheet. He answered several questions from the Board
regarding personal protective equipment, the use of flu medications for health
care workers, and what steps could be taken at the state and local level to
mandate communications.
CLOSED
SESSION
Chairman Moyer made the motion to go into Closed Session pursuant to NCGS
143.318.11(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 a public officer or employee. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC
HEARING – Quasi-judicial hearing for assigned address appeal
Commissioner
Messer made the motion to go into Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Chairman Moyer – “I
think as you know and, Mr. Feldmann I, I uh, will mention just so you’re, are
sure, this, we have to do this as a quasi-judicial proceeding in the matter of
the appeal of uh, Clement Peter Feldmannn where Mr. Feldmann is the applicant.
A quasi-judicial proceeding is much like a court proceeding, it’s one in which
one’s individual rights are being determined under specific rules of procedure.
So we can’t be as flexible as you have well noticed we are on many occasions.
As such not every person has a right to give evidence in a quasi-judicial
proceeding or to participate. Under the Rules of Procedure for Quasi-Judicial
Proceedings, only persons who can demonstrate that they will be affected by the
outcome of the decision are allowed to participate in the proceedings.
All persons who are
allowed to speak and participate in the hearing, including all witnesses that
will be called, must be placed under oath. Proceedings will be as follows, the
Board will ask any persons other than the petitioner and the
The Board of
Commissioners obviously has the right to ask questions at any time as they deem
appropriate. After the evidence is presented the Board will discuss the issues
raised and will make a decision. The Board’s decision must be made in writing
within 45 days of the hearing, and at this time we will now identify the
parties. The Board acknowledges the petitioner, Peter Clement Feldmann. If
you’ll come forward Mr. Feldmann. And the Enforcement Staff, Toby is that gonna
be you?
Elizabeth Corn – “No
sir.”
Chairman Moyer – “Okay.
Persons uh, please come forward, state your name address, um, to the Clerk and
she will, now then swear in all parties and witnesses. Mr. Feldmann if you’ll
step over here to be sworn in, as Mr. Linville will. You can do it, you can do
it together.”
Elizabeth Corn – “Each
of you needs to put your left hand on the bible, raise your right hand, left
hand on the bible, raise your right hand. Do you swear, or affirm, that the
testimony you shall give to the County Board of Commissioners shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?”
In unison – “Aye.”
Chairman Moyer –
“Alright Mr. Feldmann if you’ll have a seat we will begin with the presentation
of the staff overview of the matter. And then you’ll have a, a chance a little
later. Toby, you wanna go ahead?”
Chairman Moyer – “Why
was he given that address as part of the uh, process we went through?”
Chairman Moyer – “So,
when there’s more than two on a uh, road, you have to designate it as a private
road or drive, and then you name it.”
Chairman Moyer – “And
then the people on there, you change their address to uh, whatever the new name
of that street is. But they can no longer be identified if their drive used to
enter off
Chairman Moyer – “Having
lived through that I understand that very well as you can see. Alright, any
questions for Mr. Linville at this time? Mr. Feldmann, this will be your chance
to present uh, your case to the Board.”
Clement Feldmann – “I
thank you and uh, to a degree I apologize for the rather parochial nature of
this appeal, it seems to apply to me. However, I’ve been stewing over it for
some five or six years, discussed it with many, many people, and have come to
the conclusion that it affects many other people than me. It affects the
integrity of uh,
Chairman Moyer – “Go to
the, give those to the Clerk and admit, and uh. Does Mr. Linville have a copy of
that? Yeah he needs a copy and he will have the right to object to any of this
if he so chooses.”
Clement Feldmann – “I
met with Mr. Linville yesterday and attempted to discuss some of these things
but we just didn’t seem to be able to have a meeting of the minds. Okay, with
that material in front of us, and uh, the first page of the presentation is for
my information not yours. I think you know who these gentlemen are. Uh, up
until this morning I did not and I must confess my lack of participation in civic
affairs the last 12 years. I moved here because of my wife’s ill health. And
that will be further evidenced in the, paging through. The next few pages are
your law as passed regarding emergency 911 addressing. We can refer to it if
needed as part of the discussion. The following page from Black’s Law
Dictionary. I in no way propose to be an attorney, that’s what son does. He’s a
trial attorney. But by force of circumstance and the fact that uh NAFTA retired
me by destroying my apparel business I have found myself necessary to be my own
attorney and have appeared in several probate cases, one that lasted three
years in
The next page is the
road name petition form which I executed back in about 1991 I believe it was
when the 911 commission was just being formed. I think I was one of the first
persons through the door at the courthouse when um, Susan Sneed was in charge
of that division. We came up with the name
The next is a map
showing the curved road, that is all my property frontage. There’s 3 ½ acres
with about 700 feet on
Photos of my home from
There are two neighbors
above me that have a right-of-way over my driveway and accordingly, they have
to have a name for their right of way, and they elected, or one of them elected
contrary to the law that specifies that at least two thirds must name a street.
Only one person signed that petition to the best of my knowledge. And the uh,
they have been unable to find any records to refute that. So this whole dispute
is really, is my address legally Forge Crest Drive or Spring Blossom Lane. And
the … says Spring Blossom Lane because my drive runs into it. But by definition
my drive, by lawful definition, a driveway is, what a right-of-way is, my
driveway goes to
Uh, my sole asset is now
this piece of property. To be identified on Spring Blossom Lane as against
Forge Crest Drive where I have three and a half acres and 780 feet looking out
over the mountains is not only distasteful to me by I have run it by many, many
people and they thoroughly agree, uh, that I would be damaged if and when I
need to sell my property if it’s identified as Spring Blossom Lane. That’s a secondary
question, that’s not the. The main thing is here you’ll see the next page more
photos of my driveway. By law I do not have a right-of-way. A right-of-way can
only be on somebody else’s property. So I maintain that is my driveway to
Um, next is a devise
which was being produced in Fletcher at the very time 911 was being
established. And I was thrilled to find it. And establish it, and it is on that
second level eave of my home and can be seen probably a quarter of a mile down
the road. And when I dial 911, if it’s fire, red flashes, if it’s medical,
white flashes and if it’s police blue flashes. So there is absolutely no
difficulty in identifying my property. By the time you get to Spring Blossom
Lane you’ve gone by that and you wouldn’t see it anymore. So from a practical
standpoint, and again respecting the necessity for 911, believe me I do, I made
that investment.
From here on out you’re
just going to see a compilation and again in rereading the law and I’ve read it
many times, it states that the 911 address does not have to be the same as your
mailing address. But some how or other it has absorbed my mailing address which
I consider
I have discussed this
matter with the new postmaster at the mass distribution center in the mail
distribution center in
We followed then with
numerous phone book listings with mail that I received.
Uh, the result of all of
this is I frequently do not get mail delivered although I frequently do if it
carries a proviso that uh, the address has to be such and so then it goes back.
Which would include my bank checks if I order bank checks they can’t deliver
them to my address. I discussed this with my bank and they said you ever have
this problem with anybody else and she said it’s a nightmare. That’s not a
direct quote but she just rolled her eyes and said addressing is a significant
problem.
I talked to my propane
gas company. They have two addresses on my bill. One where they send to bill,
which is the 33 Spring Blossom Lane but another one where they deliver the gas
which is
Um, I don’t know what
I’m asking for other than help and guidance and how do I deal with this
problem. Uh, it’s, if the mail address doesn’t have to be the same as the 911
address even though I believe my
Chairman Moyer – “Um,
we’ll ask Mr. Linville.”
Clement Feldmann – “I
will, I would, I had just one more thing. There were a pile of new phone books
if you noticed, at the foot of the stairs downstairs. I picked one up just
within the last half hour. My address is different in that phone book than it
was in the year before. It’s Spring Blossom Lane in there. It was
Chairman Moyer – “Mr.
Linville, do you have any objection to any of the information in the packet
that was given to us by Mr. Feldmann?”
Toby Linville – “No
sir.”
Chairman Moyer –
“Alright. Do you have any questions for Mr. Feldmann?”
Toby Linville – “No
sir.”
Chairman Moyer – “Uh, Mr.
Feldmann and the Board, I have some questions if you’ll look in your packet of
information. I wanna be sure I understand this.”
Clement Feldmann – “Okay.”
Chairman Moyer – “First dry, diagram.”
Clement Feldmann – “I’m sorry, once
more.”
Chairman Moyer – “The first uh diagram if
you will or map, or whatever you wanna call it following the petition for you
address. This one.”
Clement Feldmann – “Yeah, okay.”
Chairman Moyer – “I want you to work me
through, you live on lot 6 is that correct?”
Clement Feldmann – “I, lot 6, right. And
if you look at it in this manner I am right here.”
Chairman Moyer – “Right. And the name of
the road in question runs between lot 6 and 4 and 5.”
Clement Feldmann – “Runs along the border
there.”
Chairman Moyer – “And that’s Spring
Blossom Lane?”
Clement Feldmann – “It runs to lot 8. It
runs the right-of-way, there’s a right-of-way across lot 7 and actually that
stops at the border of lot 8. So it only runs across the two lots. And in the
case of my lot it’s not a right-of-way by definition of what a right-of-way is.
It’s a right-of-way to lot 7 and 8, but not to me. It is a driveway to me.”
Chairman Moyer – “What is the, what
addresses do lots 4 and 5 have?”
Clement Feldmann – “Um, I’m not sure.
Good question. I don’t know why I didn’t uh, raise it. I think uh, one of those
lots was um, lot, lot 5 definitely enters off of
Chairman Moyer – “On this same diagram
that we have where is your driveway, enter off of the wherever that…”
Clement Feldmann – “We’re looking at the
same drive, the same we just looked at? Right at the top, right where uh, the
curved
Chairman Moyer – “Well I have to admit
I’m confused. Maybe the rest of, I understand that but uh that, I don’t, where
is his access off of uh. Maybe I better ask, where is his access off of Spring
Blossom Lane. I don’t see that. No, stand.”
Clement Feldmann – “Well, Spring Blossom
Lane and my driveway cover the same piece of pavement if you will. But I’m
saying by legal definition that is not a right-of-way to me.”
Chairman Moyer – “Well let me hear from,
let us hear from Mr. Linville with respect to this.”
Clement Feldmann – “Okay.”
Toby Linville – “Mr. Chairman I can, I
can show you or I can describe it. I’ve got a, I’ve got one of our clear GIS
aerials here.”
Chairman Moyer – “Do you have copies for
everybody?”
Toby Linville – “I’m afraid I don’t.
Would you like to?”
Commissioner Baldwin- “Pass it down.”
Chairman Moyer – “Yeah. Explain it to us
then pass it down because I have to admit this is not clear to me.”
Toby Linville – “Okay. This is
Chairman Moyer – “Well, me get it in, in
sync here. Now I got it the same way right, or not.”
Toby Linville – “Correct.”
Chairman Moyer – “No, here’s Hunter View
down, oh, Hunter’s Ridge. Okay.”
Toby Linville – “Yeah there, there’s the
curve.”
Chairman Moyer – “Right.”
Toby Linville – “Forge Crest. Spring
Blossom is the private road that comes off.”
Chairman Moyer – “Off here. But his
driveways way up here. That’s.”
Commissioner McGrady – “Well actually
this is backwards.”
Commissioner
Commissioner McGrady – “That way. See.”
Clement Feldmann – “I repaved.”
Toby Linville – “Run, runs along here.
That’s where Spring Blossom runs. But that’s his house there. See where his
drive cuts into the road coming out there.”
Chairman Moyer – “Oh. See well that’s
what I was asking. It does not cut into here. That’s what see, we were.”
Commissioner McGrady – “No. It’s, here’s
the driveway. In here.”
Commissioner Messer – “Comes out and goes
in right here.”
Chairman Moyer – “Yeah. Yeah, okay now
that makes sense.”
Clement Feldmann – “…photo I think you
can see that clearly.”
Chairman Moyer – “I could not I, cause I
couldn’t figure.”
Commissioner McGrady – “I had it
backwards.”
Chairman Moyer – “I had it backwards too
and it wasn’t making any.
Toby Linville – “…Spring Blossom Drive
and that’s his driveway.”
Clement Feldmann – “Now what’s deceptive
about this is that, while this is all my driveway and on my property and by
legal definition not a right-of-way to me, I repaved this. I will. It’s
necessary for…blacktop. The rest of my drive is two… because it’s all my
driveway. This is all my driveway.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Is there a state
maintained road on this map? On this map?”
Toby Linville – “Yes.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Which one is it?”
Clement Feldmann – “Forge Crest.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “That’s state
maintained?”
Clement Feldmann – “Yes.”
Commissioner Messer – “Spring Blossom is
not? It’s a private drive?”
Chairman Moyer – “And the problem is
created by this house and this house?”
Toby Linville – “Correct.”
Chairman Moyer – “And they have addresses
on Spring Blossom.”
Toby Linville – “Correct.”
Chairman Moyer – “And here’s the third
one and that was moved from, when these other two were added that became now an
access road or right-of-way or etcetera, but, instead of a driveway.”
Clement Feldmann – “Right-of-way to them,
that’s my petition, my position.”
Chairman Moyer - “Anybody else need to?”
Clement Feldmann – “And I gotta go by
Black’s law dictionary for…”
Chairman Moyer – “I think I finally
understand at least now I got the maps right. You wanna see that
Commissioner Baldwin – “Let me see Toby.
Here’s a state maintained road. This is, this is Spring Blossom, and his
driveway is, is coming off of Spring Blossom.”
Toby Linville – “That’s right.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “His driveway is
coming off Spring Blossom.”
Toby Linville – “Yes.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Or is connected
to Spring Blossom.”
Toby Linville – “Yes.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “And, and so
basically what, what you’re asking for is to have a separate addr, address
other than Spring Blo, Blossom Lane.”
Clement Feldmann – “I’m asking to have
the original address…”
Commissioner McGrady – “He wants to stay
on, where his frontage is along Forge Crest, which is running all the way
here.”
Chairman Moyer – “I have exactly the same
situation Mr. Feldmann so I can.”
Clement Feldmann – “Well you can ride
right along with me.”
Chairman Moyer – “Maybe I shouldn’t
vote.”
Someone speaking away from the
microphone.
Chairman Moyer – “Alright, uh,
Commissioner Baldwin do you have any more questions?”
Commissioner Baldwin – “I don’t guess so.
I just.”
Chairman Moyer – “Yeah, be sure you
understand it, because it’s, it’s, I had it backwards.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “…deliberation. I
think out loud.”
Several people speaking at once.
Chairman Moyer – “No that’s not the
issue. The issue under our law is the two homes that are on Spring Blossom are
past you, that now you, getting the legal issue you’re claiming that’s your
driveway, they’re claiming it’s a road that now serves, since it serves more
than two homes, whether it’s by right-of-way or whatever that now becomes a
road under the uh, our uh, 911 ordinance. Right Mr. Linville?”
Toby Linville – “Correct.”
Clement Feldmann – “But again I raise the
question is the wording of the ordinance, comply with law. What the meaning of
words are. I often use the phrase you can call a chicken a cow, but you aren’t
gonna get it to give milk.”
Chairman Moyer – “Well just so we’re
clear we have now into evidence the booklet that was put together by uh, Mr.
Feldmann dated January 18 with respect to this application. Uh, we have a map
from Toby which we’ll have to get a copy of for the uh, record. Um, are there
additional questions for Mr. Feldmann at this time?”
Clement Feldmann – “May I present, and
again I just did this over the lunch hour … phone book. To show that within the
last year my address has changed in the phone book. But the inner play between
911 and the post office eludes my understanding. Uh, why and how I have five
addresses eludes my understanding.”
Chairman Moyer – “Well if you have Duke
Power and Mediacom you may have more than, uh, that so uh, it is an issue
there’s no question.”
Clement Feldmann – “I see, if I may make
just one more statement, I see no loss to 911 or the security of my family, or
any endangerment to anyone to grant me the address I was originally given, and
that by definition is the address I’m entitled to.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “I, I’m just. I’m
just gonna think out just for a second. If, if the result is that you’re,
you’re granted um, your old address or another address other than Spring
Blossom Lane, then there’s gonna be two signs posted there close together that,
that one says Spring Blossom Lane and the other says some other name.”
Clement Feldmann – “No.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Is that?”
Clement Feldmann – “No. Cause I,
Commissioner Baldwin – “The, the, and the
reason.”
Clement Feldmann – “…in terms of any
rules of engagement if you will but uh.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “The reason I
raise the issue is, if, I’m in, I’m trying to put myself in the seat of an
ambulance driver who’s cruising that street and um, he sees Spring Blossom and
uh, uh, can he find your house.”
Clement Feldmann – “He will see that
green mailbox with
Chairman Moyer – “But in your case, as
opposed to many of the others we have, and going to Commissioner Baldwin’s
point, you’re so close that is true, but in other cases an ambulance driver
coming down instead of seeing this sign to go back to your home, would see
Spring Blossom Lane, and if he didn’t turn to Spring Blossom Lane he’d never
find the house if he didn’t know the area. That, that’s.”
Clement Feldmann – “Well he would see my
mailbox which is every bit as big as Spring Blossom lane and the numbers on it
are every bit as big and he would see that before he saw Spring Blossom.”
Chairman Moyer – “Well he would be
looking for a road sign. Not a um, not a mailbox, which can be knocked down or
destroyed or taken or.”
Clement Feldmann – “Well if he’s coming
up one, if he’s coming up any road, he’s not gonna see a street sign for every
house, he’s gonna see a mailbox.”
Commissioner McGrady – “Toby if this uh,
driveway did not enter onto Blossom whatever, um, and actually came off of
Forge Crest, we would have numbered it Forge Crest?”
Toby Linville – “Correct.”
Chairman Moyer – “Absolutely.”
Commissioner McGrady – “The whole issue.”
Clement Feldmann – “Well I’m almost
tempted to do that but it’s ridiculous. I can carve a new.”
Commissioner McGrady – “I know.”
Clement Feldmann – “Driveway in but
it’s.”
Commissioner McGrady – “I mean it,
that’s, that’s where it is, uh, the ir, the irony here is that if the, the
driveway was curved a different way, and not that big a thing actually, you’d
end up with the opposite address under the addressing system we’ve got in
place.”
Toby Linville – “This would have never
been an issue, that’s correct.”
Commissioner McGrady – “Or if the two
lots in the back just had never been developed you would have ended up with
Forge Crest.”
Chairman Moyer – “That’s correct.”
Commissioner McGrady – “Yeah. I’ve got
the same issue by the way.”
Several people talking at once.
Chairman Moyer – “Go ahead Commissioner
Young.”
Commissioner Young – “Mr. Feldmann, um,
on this map uh, Forge Crest goes all the way through right.”
Commissioner Baldwin- “Is this your
understanding?”
Commissioner Young – “
Clement Feldmann – “Yes.”
Commissioner Young – “Is that right?”
Clement Feldmann – “Yes it comes down
here to the Fullam property.”
Commissioner Young – “Can, and Spring
Blossom Lane is a side street off of that, another street off of that.”
Several people speaking at once.
Commissioner Young – “But it could be
developed on through there.”
Clement Feldmann – “Well…couldn’t go
anywhere. There’s no right of way to it. There’s no right-of-way
across…property. The only right-of-way is across his property and my property.”
Commissioner Young – “And your driveway
comes out on Spring Blossom.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Toby.”
Clement Feldmann – “I’d say my driveway
comes out on…”
Chairman Moyer – “That’s the legal
issue.”
Clement Feldmann – “my driveway comes out
on
Commissioner Young – “Well that’s your
driveway right there isn’t it?”
Clement Feldmann – “It’s my driveway all
the way down to here. It’s my property. It’s not a right-of-way to me by legal
definition. I can not have a right-of-way.”
Chairman Moyer – “We need you to get
back, you’re not being picked up.”
Commissioner Young – “But is, is Spring
Blossom Lane a ma, a state maintained road?”
Clement Feldmann – “No.”
Chairman Moyer – “No, it’s private.”
Commissioner Young – “A private drive.
Okay.”
Chairman Moyer – “Alright. Are there
additional questions for Mr. Feldmann? Toby uh.”
Commissioner Baldwin- “I’d like to pass
an illustration down across the Board to, I’ll put a star by it just to make
sure that we all.”
Chairman Moyer – “You want this in the
record?”
Commissioner Baldwin – “No.”
Chairman Moyer – “Then we can’t consider
it.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Alright, put it
in the record. We’ll call it Exhibit A. But that’s what we’re dealing with. Is
that your understanding?”
Chairman Moyer – “I think you have to.
The way I look at the map, you have to swirl it in. I mean it’s not da, I mean
you’re showing actually the beginning of his driveway starting almost at the
intersection. Unfortunately it doesn’t it starts.”
Commissioner Messer – “Even though he
owns the property it still starts way up.”
Chairman Moyer – “It doesn’t start till
up here, yeah.”
Commissioner Messer – “Spring, Spring
Blo,
Chairman Moyer – “That’s, but that’s the
problem.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “That’s the
problem.”
Chairman Moyer – “Okay um Mr.”
Clement Feldmann – “May I make one more comment.”
Chairman Moyer – “Certainly sir.”
Clement Feldmann – “At uh, at some
reservation because I may be wrong. I may not know how to read properly. But if
we are to worship the letter of the law, the law being 911, I think you’re
going to find that you need to change almost every address in the City of
Chairman Moyer – “Well we don’t have
jurisdiction in the City of
Clement Feldmann – “…that you do
because...”
Toby Linville – “Actually we do issue
permits for all the municipalities in the County.”
Clement Feldmann – “So there are some
questions in terms of…that law and the court of law, of a couple of things that
are being interpreted. I prefer not to be involved in that kind of thing. I
would like very much to know how to resolve the conflict between a mailing
address and a 911 address.”
Chairman Moyer – “Well this as I said has
come up a number of times in the past. Toby I don’t know if you have any
indication of the number of those we have. Apparently you have at least two
people sitting up here who the same uh, uh situation and we’ve had a test case
before. And we supported this under the ordinance. I tell you that’s the precedent
we have in un, in this County and I forget the name of the case but it’s been
within the last two or three years that we’ve had a case and I bet you we have
a number of these uh, situations that we’ve already resolved and made them
change their addresses. Or, as was suggested, you curve your drive a little
more and you come in off of uh, the other road.”
Clement Feldmann – “Well my drive does
come off.”
Chairman Moyer – “Well.”
Clement Feldmann – “You know.”
Chairman Moyer – “That, that’s your legal
position. That’s, may not be mine.”
Commissioner Young – “Mr. Linville do you
want this entered into the record?”
Commissioner Baldwin – “…his, if he gets
the sign down here. Spring sign is moved down here that’s confusing.”
Chairman Moyer – “Is there any uh, any
other questions for uh, any of the parties? Let do it that way. Mr. Linville
or, Mr. Feldmann do you have any questions for Mr. Linville?”
Clement Feldmann – “I have attempt to
address questions…in terms of how do I separate 911, which I am not concerned
about. I know they’re gonna find me even though they have to ask me when I call
in. Uh, I’m concerned about my mailing address and that I be able to get bills
and that I be able to get packages delivered. Uh, and nobody can tell me how to
do that. The postmaster at the distribution center in.”
Chairman Moyer – “The, the postmaster,
when you changed these addresses did not the postal service agree that this
would now be identified as Spring Blossom Lane.”
Toby Linville – “Yes. I’ve got the um,
the lists from, I, I just printed those off after I talked to Mr. Feldmann
yesterday to double check them to make sure they were correct but, our Entrato
system, the 911 system, shows his address to be 33 Spring Blossom. Um, the
postal service has his address as that. We get, we get a print off from them.”
Clement Feldmann – “Also may I ask what
post is this, Wa, are we talking
Toby Linville – “No, no, this is the
local post office.”
Clement Feldmann – “The local.”
Toby Linville – “Horse Shoe.”
Clement Feldmann – “Horse Shoe.”
Toby Linville – “Um hum.”
Clement Feldmann – “Horse Shoe says they
deliver to me at any address they get.”
Chairman Moyer – “Well they may do that
but you’re.”
Toby Linville – “That doesn’t make it
correct and some of them.”
Commissioner Young – “His address,
according to record at the Horse Shoe Post Office is Spring Blossom?”
Toby Linville – “Correct.”
Clement Feldmann – “But then that is
because you changed it is that correct?”
Toby Linville – “That’s correct. It was
changed…”
Clement Feldmann – “And where in the code
does it give you the right.”
Chairman Moyer – “Mr. Feldmann would you
move around below the microphone, apparently we’re not picking you up.”
Clement Feldmann – “I guess…would ask
where in the code, or your law, does it give you the power to change a postal
address. I don’t find that in there.”
Chairman Moyer – “We sit down with the
post off, our procedure has been now for years we, after we change the
addresses we sit down with the postal off, postal service, get their agreement
and then they change the address. But this is worked out in conjunction with
the postal service. Now I wanna make it very clear that all the utilities do
not automatically change their addresses. That’s a painful process and it’s
taking a while to get ‘em corrected, but this is a combined operation between
the county and the postal service and then they change the address. And they do
not, until there’s an agreement, they do not change it. But once they change it
they make the change. We don’t change it. So the postal service takes the
information from us, and when they’re satisfied that it’s worked then they make
the change. And they have done that apparently according to Mr. Linville in
your case.”
Clement Feldmann – “Okay. Again I guess
my petition is that the law be applied by the definition of the terms.”
Chairman Moyer – “Alright.”
Clement Feldmann – “And uh, we analyze it.”
Chairman Moyer – “I understand your legal
position. Any other questions for Mr. Linville?”
Clement Feldmann – “No.”
Chairman Moyer – “Mr. Linville, do you
have something you wish to add?”
Toby Linville – “I would just like to
add, whatever address you appoint to him, if he’ll change his driver’s license,
change his deed, and correct any mail that comes in improperly addressed, it,
these will clear up. But mistakes happen. I mean I get mail to the wrong
address and, and I’ve been here seven months.”
Chairman Moyer – “Alright.”
Toby Linville – “Just human error.”
Chairman Moyer – “Board have any other
questions for any of the parties. Anybody wish to make a closing statement? I
think you’ve articulated your position and well, but you have an opportunity to
make a closing statement of you’d like.”
Clement Feldmann – “Again I appreciate
your consideration, indulgence. It seems like a small matter in person,
personal and I view it as far more than that. I view it as a court case. This
is quasi-judicial. It has a right to go before a judge. I certainly hope that
does not need to occur. But I think uh, for some reason or other there doesn’t
seem to be as much reliance on legal definition of terms as I, acting in a
court environment, feel is merited. And I ask you again to give that due and
serious consideration. And I do appreciate your time and consideration, and uh,
look forward to your decision.”
Chairman Moyer – “Thank you. Mr. Linville
do you wish to make a, any kind of final statement?”
Toby Linville – “No sir.”
Chairman Moyer - “Alright, thank you.
All, all the uh, evidence is in and the closing uh, remarks have been made. Now
it’s time for uh, for Board discussion. I think as I indicated before we have
45 days uh, from the close of this hearing to render a decision. So I’ll throw
it open and say what is the uh, the Board’s pleasure. Everyone’s rushing in to
speak huh? I think as painful uh, as it is for some of us involved here too,
uh, that is the precedent that we’ve had. That is the rule that the prior
Board’s have enforced. I don’t know of a single exception that has been
approved by the Board in this situation. As, as difficult as uh, as these have
been. And they are difficult. Uh, and I know a lot of people have, have allowed
access off their land, and additional homes and have never contemplated that this
would cause them a change of address and that’s uh, that’s very, very
unfortunate. But I, I think uh, we would be taking a uh, a major uh, step, and
a problem step for us if we deviate from the precedents that, the precedent
that we have followed in all of these cases so far.”
Commissioner Young – “If there wasn’t
other homes on this Spring Blossom Lane I could understand his request. I, I,
whether it’s a private road or a state maintained road you’ve got other
residences on this drive. And I, I think that uh, it needs to be uh, what the
911 established it to be. So that there wouldn’t be duplications in, in the
county. And I know where
Commissioner McGrady – “I tend to agree
with Commissioner Young. I mean if the um, driveway exited on Forge Crest, you
know, just looped a different way uh, obviously in my mind you’d get a
different result. But it doesn’t do that. And you’ve got two other driveways
somewhere past this house. And it’s not just the issue of, of the address here
but the other addresses. I mean it’s a, it’s a close call but um, I’m inclined
to uh, I don’t see any particular basis to, to switch the address.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Couple of, couple
of things. I’d like to note in the photograph that was provided by Mr.
Feldmann, one the Spring Blossom Lane sign is posted at the area where this
particular road, which is per the sign, Spring Blossom Lane intersects with
Forge Crest and number two that the servicing goes, it’s very clear that the
surfing, surfacing goes from uh, Forge Crest past uh, Mr. Feldmann’s driveway
so I think it would be reasonable to, to uh, say that what you have there from
Forge Crest is Spring Blossom Lane. And his driveway um, intersects Spring
Blossom Lane and not Forge Crest.”
Chairman Moyer – “Any other statements?
Is anybody prepared to make a motion?”
Commissioner McGrady – “Well um, we would
normally come back with a written order and findings and all of that is that
right?”
Chairman Moyer – “Yeah we would direct
the uh, findings and the order to come back, but we’d make, we can make the
decision. And I think we’re gonna have to…”
Commissioner McGrady – “Well and that’s
what I was, I guess I’m prepared to make
a motion to direct staff to um, uh, draft an a, motion reflecting our decision
that the uh, property addressing petition uh, be denied and that the address
remain as.”
Chairman Moyer – “33 Spring Blossom
Lane.”
Commissioner McGrady – “33 Spring Blossom Lane.”
Chairman Moyer – “Any further discussion?
All in favor of that motion say aye.”
“Aye” in unison.
Chairman Moyer – “Opposed? Alright, the
appeal fails unanimously.”
Clement Feldmann – “…a trial by a judge…”
Chairman Moyer – “Alright. That will up
to you Mr. Feldmann.”
Mr. Feldmann spoke to the Board, but was
away from the microphone.
Chairman Moyer – “This order will
probably be brought back to us if the
Mr. Feldmann spoke to the Board, but was
away from the microphone.
Chairman Moyer – “I do not, I have not
looked at that and I will not comment on that. I don’t know that that’s the
case. That’ll be up to the decision for you and your attorney to make and.”
Mr. Feldmann spoke to the Board, but was
away from the microphone.
Chairman Moyer – “Alright well then
you’ll not need my opinion. I can’t give legal opinions anymore.”
Draft Request for Proposals for Audio Broadcasting
At a recent meeting, the Board discussed
issues surrounding WHKP and Channel 11, and directed Staff to develop a Request
For Proposals (RFP) regarding the issue. Selena Coffey reviewed with the Board
the draft RFP, which included: an ad that would be used to inform the public of
the RFP process, and the draft RFP for Audio Broadcasting on HCTV-11 outlining
topics such as background and issues, and the scope of services. She pointed
out that while the county’s current broadcast policies did not explicitly
address religious programming, one of the broadcasting restrictions dealt with
“Programs advocating a personal viewpoint.” Ms. Coffey requested the Board make
any necessary revisions to the draft RFP, direct staff to distribute the RFP to
any interested parties, and set a deadline for receiving the proposals.
Chairman Moyer expressed doubts that the
County would receive any responses to the RFP, due to what the stations would
be required to do. Commissioner McGrady stated that the question would then become
what the County would do if no responses were received. Despite that question,
it was the consensus of the Board to send out the RFP with a 30 day deadline.
It was also the consensus of the Board to specifically reference a restriction
dealing with religious programming.
Curb Market parking lease
Provided to the Board for their
consideration was a draft lease agreement for parking space at the “Curb
Market”. The draft had been agreed to by the Henderson County Mutual Farmers
Curb Market, which was an unincorporated association of farmers in
Following some discussion regarding the
beginning date on the lease, Chairman
Moyer made the motion to approve the lease with the Curb Market, and move
forward with its execution and delivery. The motion carried 3-2 with
Commissioner Young and Commissioner Baldwin voting in opposition.
Increase in
Terry
Layne explained that as approved by Medicare, effective January 1, 2006
eligible organizations can increase their ambulance mileage rate from $8.94 to
$9.17 per mile.
There
was some discussion about what Medicare actually paid, and what portion of that
any supplemental insurance would pay. There was also some discussion about
whether the County should raise the fee, given the current billing situation. Commissioner Messer made the motion to deny
the rate increase until the
2006 Strategic Plan Draft
Selena Coffey presented to the Board the
Management Team draft of the 2006 Strategic Plan. She reviewed the Plan
briefly, discussing the following elements which had been added and were in
keeping with the Board’s guidance over the past year:
·
Goal
1 – This was the CCP and growth management strategies related to the CCP
·
Strategy
1.24 – To address a formal annual review process for the CCP.
·
Strategy
2.4 – To improve customer service within County departments.
·
Strategy
2.5 – To examine the roles of advisory Boards and Committees.
·
Strategy
3.1 and 3.2 – Review county billing procedures and internal controls, and
continued monitoring of the debt issuance policy.
·
Goal
4 – Discussion of the Compensation and Classification Study to readdress how
that was implemented and to determine whether the Board wished to implement it
in a different way.
·
Strategy
4.2 – Update the County’s Personnel Resolution.
·
Strategy
4.6 – To include recycling and waste management policies within county
facilities.
Ms. Coffey requested that
the Board schedule a workshop on the Strategic Plan, so the Board and Staff
could have more detailed discussion of each of the action plans. It was the
consensus of the Board to schedule that workshop when it reached Important
Dates.
The
·
Historic
Courthouse – On schedule. The architects were in town working on the plans.
·
Animal
Shelter – The project was progressing. There had been a change order for about
$1,100 to change the electrical breaker system. Mr. Nicholson anticipated the
building would be completed in March, with the department moving in April.
·
Update on Pending Issues
Carey
McLelland updated the Board on the
IMPORTANT DATES
2006 Strategic Plan
Workshop
Ms. Coffey had requested the Board schedule a
workshop to review the 2006 Strategic Plan. Chairman
Moyer made the motion to schedule a workshop for Thursday, February 2, 2006 at
6:00pm. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Set Date
and Time for Cable Franchise Renewal Workshop
During its meeting on December 15,
2005, the Board of Commissioners discussed holding a workshop concerning the
renewal of the County’s franchise with Mediacom and other issues associated
with this renewal process. It was
determined that the workshop should be scheduled for a date after the League of
Women Voters’ cable franchise renewal community forum, which was to be held February
20, 2006. Chairman Moyer made the motion to schedule a workshop to discuss
Mediacom franchise renewal issues for March 9, 2006 at 4:00 pm. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Adjourn
Commissioner
Messer made the motion to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Attest:
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk
to the Board William L. Moyer, Chairman