MINUTES
STATE
OF
The Henderson County
Board of Commissioners met for a regularly scheduled meeting at
Those present were:
Commissioners Bill Moyer,
Also present were:
Planning Director
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Ms. Corn led the Pledge
of Allegiance to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
SWEARING-IN
Kim Gasperson-Justice,
Clerk of Superior Court, administered the oaths of office individually for the
following and in this order:
Commissioner William
L. Moyer
Commissioner
Commissioner Elect
Family members were in
attendance and some held the Bible as their family member took the oath of
office. Congratulations were offered.
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
Commissioner Young
nominated
Congratulations
followed. Ms. Corn turned the meeting over to Chairman Moyer.
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
Chairman Moyer opened
the floor for nominations for the Vice-Chairman of the Board for the coming
year.
Chairman Moyer nominated
Commissioner Messer. Commissioner
McGrady nominated Commissioner Young.
A vote was taken and
results follow:
|
|
C. Messer |
L. Young |
|
Commissioner McGrady |
|
√ |
|
Commissioner Williams |
√ |
|
|
Chairman Moyer |
√ |
|
|
Commissioner Messer |
√ |
|
|
Commissioner Young |
|
√ |
Commissioner Messer was
elected as Vice-Chairman of the Board for the coming year. Congratulations
followed.
REVIEW OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL’S BONDS
Chairman Moyer stated
that the next item on the agenda was the review of Public Official’s
Bonds. He called on Russell Burrell to
address the item.
Russ explained that
pursuant to NCGS 58-72-20 and the Board’s Rules of Procedure, the next item of
business at this organizational meeting was the annual review and approval of
the bonds for county public officials. The following are the county officials
required to be bonded and the current bond amounts:
|
Public
Official |
Bond Amount |
Bond Company |
|
Richard W. Davis,
Sheriff |
$25,000 |
The Insurance Company |
|
Nedra Whitlock Moles,
Register of Deeds |
$50,000 |
The Insurance Company |
|
Terry F. Lyda, Tax
Collector |
$1,000,000 |
The Insurance Company |
|
Lee King, Deputy Tax
Collector |
$250,000 |
The Insurance Company |
|
J. |
$200,000 |
The Insurance Company |
The respective bonds and
related endorsements and riders were included in the agenda packet for Board
review. Mr. Burrell had reviewed the bonds and reported to the Board that they
appear to be valid and in order.
Commissioner Young made the motion to approve the public
officials’ bonds in the amounts shown in this agenda item. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
INFORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
There was none.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Chairman Moyer asked
that Discussion item E-2 be moved up to A-2 – Edneyville PARTF Grant Update.
There were no other
adjustments. Commissioner McGrady made
the motion to approve the revised agenda. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to approve the Consent
Agenda, items A through M. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to approve item “N –
Approval of Order from Quasi-Judicial Hearing “Vistas at Champion Hills” and
moved to recuse Commissioner Williams from voting on this item since he was not
yet a Commissioner when this item was discussed. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Item N – Approval of
Order from quasi-judicial hearing “Vistas at Champion Hills”
The draft order was in
the agenda book from the
The Other Consent Agenda
Items – A-M are as follows:
Minutes
Draft minutes were
presented for the Board’s review and approval of the following meetings:
Tax Collector’s Report
Terry F. Lyda,
Tax Refunds
A list of 10 tax refund
requests was presented for the Board’s review and consent approval.
Tax Releases
A list of 57 tax release
requests was presented for the Board’s review and consent approval.
County Financial Report/Cash Balance Report – October 2006
These two reports were
presented for the Board’s review and consent approval.
The high percentage of
budget used in Elections is due to the payment of invoices for the new voting
equipment in the current fiscal year.
This budget will be increased by a budget amendment approved by the
Board of Commissioners in November which will appropriate fund balance for the
$560,000 in financing proceeds received in the previous fiscal year.
The current YTD deficit
in the Emergency 911 Communications Fund is due to the purchase of new
technology and equipment during the first quarter that was budgeted in the
current fiscal year.
The YTD deficit in the
CDBG-Scattered Site Housing Project, the Crisis Housing Assistance Program, the
Mills River Watershed Protection Project and the Lewis Creek Restoration
Project is temporary due to timing differences in the expenditure of funds and
the subsequent requisition of Federal and State grant funds to reimburse
project expenditures. Reimbursement
requests are normally done on a quarterly basis.
The YTD deficit in the
new Etowah Branch Library Project will be covered by funds to be received from
the Friends of the Library and the Community Foundation, $300,000 total, until
bank financing is in place for this project.
The YTD deficit in the
Mills River Elementary School Project includes architectural fees that have
been paid on the project to date that will be reimbursed from the issuance of
general obligation bonds in the future.
The YTD deficit in the
Solid Waste Landfill Fund is due to construction expenditures incurred on the
new transfer station project. The total
cost of this project is being paid out of retained earnings in the Fund.
Henderson County Public Schools Financial Report – October
2006
This October report was
presented for the Board’s review and consent approval.
This report was provided
for the Board’s review and consent approval.
Renewal of Lease with McCallister (Sheriff’s Investigation
Division building)
This document would
renew the existing lease on the property located at
If the Board is so
inclined, the following motion was suggested:
I move that the Board approve the lease with McCallister for
the parcel located at
Extension Request for the River Stone Improvement Guarantee
On
On
Action is needed by the
Board of Commissioners to either grant or deny the request to extend the
completion date to
If the Board is so
inclined, the following motion was suggested:
I move that the Board of Commissioners find and conclude
that the extension, if granted, would not cause the developer to exceed the
two-year maximum time period for completion of the required improvements and
therefore approve the requested extension.
Extension Request for the River Stone Improvement Guarantee
On
On
Action is needed by the
Board of Commissioners to either grant or deny the request to extend the
completion date to
If the Board is so
inclined, the following motion was suggested:
I move that the Board of Commissioners find and conclude
that the extension, if granted, would not cause the developer to exceed the
two-year maximum time period for completion of the required improvements and
therefore approve the requested extension.
Improvement Guarantee for
According to Sections
170-38 and 170-39 of the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance, where the
required improvements have not been completed or in lieu of completing all of
the required improvement sin order to submit a Final Plat and prior to Final
Plat approval, the developer may post a performance guarantee for the
improvements. Section 170-38 of the
Henderson County Subdivision Ordinances states that the installation of the
improvements must be completed within two years of the date of approval of the
original improvement guarantee application.
The developers intend to deposit with the County an irrevocable letter
of credit in the amount of at least $134,425.00 to cover the cost of the
improvements ($26,885.00). The proposed
completion date for the improvements is
A draft Performance
Guarantee Agreement is attached for the Board’s consideration. If the
application is approved, the developers 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.
Action by the Board of
Commissioners is needed to either grant or deny the application for an
improvement guarantee. Staff recommended
that the Board approve the improvement guarantee application pursuant to
Sections 170-38 and 170-39 of the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance.
If the Board is so
inclined, the following motion was suggested:
I move that the Board of Commissioners find and conclude
that the request for an improvement guarantee complies with the provisions of
the Subdivision Ordinance and be approved.
Extension Request for the Blacksmith Run Improvement
Guarantee
On
On
Action is needed by the
Board of Commissioners to either grant or deny the request to extend the
completion date to
If the Board is so
inclined, the following motion was suggested:
I move that the Board of Commissioners find and conclude
that the extension, if granted, would not cause the developer to exceed the
two-year maximum time period for completion of the required improvements and
therefore be approved.
Resolution in Support of
The North Carolina
Hospital Association (NCHA) is opposing an effort by the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services (CMS) to reduce federal Medicaid Expenditures by changing
the administrative rules for qualifying hospitals to receive supplemental
funding through the
A draft resolution was
attached for the Board’s review and adoption and staff recommended adoption of
that resolution.
If the Board is so
inclined, the following motion was suggested:
I move adoption of the attached resolution and direction to
staff to forward the executed resolution to the Office of the President of the
NOMINATIONS
Notification of Vacancies
The Board was notified
of the following vacancies which will appear for nominations on the next
agenda:
1.
Commissioner McGrady
notified the Board of two more vacancies:
1 – Commissioner
Williams has resigned from his position on the Planning Board.
2 – One vacancy on the
Community Child Protection Team. Their
Chair will make a recommendation for filling that position at a later time.
Chairman Moyer explained
that both items will be listed for nominations on the next Board agenda.
Nominations
Chairman Moyer reminded
the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
1.
Apple Country Greenway
Commission – 1 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
2.
Child Fatality
Prevention Team – 6 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
3.
Criminal Justice
Partnership Program – 1 vac.
Chairman Moyer nominated
Dinette Butler. Dinette
There were no other
nominations. Chairman Moyer made the motion to accept Ms. Butler by acclamation. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
4.
Commissioner McGrady
nominated Dean Bonessi for position #3.
There were no other nominations. Chairman
Moyer made the motion to accept Mr. Bonessi by acclamation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
5.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
6.
Juvenile Crime
Prevention Council – 4 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
7.
Library Board of
Trustees – 1 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
8.
Planning Board for Older
Adults Block Grant Advisory Committee – 5 vac.
Commissioner McGrady
nominated Joe Connolly to position #6 and Linda Lauzon to position #12. There
were no other nominations. Chairman Moyer made the motion to accept
both nominees by acclamation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
9. Travel
& Tourism Committee – 1 vac.
Commissioner Young
nominated Dale Bartlett. There were no
other nominations. Chairman Moyer made
the motion to accept Mr. Bartlett by acclamation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REAPPRAISAL REPORT
Chairman Moyer explained
that at the last Board meeting there was lengthy discussion regarding a
software issue in the Assessor’s office and how it would affect the next
reappraisal. The Board asked Stan Duncan
to come back to this meeting to explain what would be needed to move forward
with a 2007 reappraisal.
Stan Duncan distributed
copies of the reappraisal report and explained that as directed by the Board of
Commissioners at their
Mr. Duncan explained
that they are awaiting final deployment and development from
Stan Duncan touched
briefly on the issue of the Schedule for Present-Use Value and explained that
there were several people in the audience that could discuss this part of the
process: Theron Maybin, Carey Pace, and Fred Pittillo, all three who are
involved in agriculture in our county and are members of the Agriculture
Advisory Board.
Furthermore, in compliance
with the Board directive, representatives from the software developer, IIS,
were in attendance, David Smith and Jeff McDonald.
A representative from
the NCACC (North Carolina Association of County Commissioners) was also in
attendance, David F. Thompson, Executive Director of NCACC. NCACC is the owner
of the software product in question.
Mr. Duncan distributed a
“Calendar for the Presentation and Adoption of the 2007 Schedules of Values,
Standards, and Rules” and discussed the same at length, explaining the pros and
cons for each scenario. He explained that a decision will need to be made
regarding the general reappraisal; reschedule to become effective
Mr. Duncan also
distributed a Report – Prepared at the Direction of the Henderson County Board
of Commissioners regarding the General Reappraisal. He set forth a detailed
plan of action and associated costs that if enacted, would greatly aid the
Assessor’s Office toward completing the 2007 General Reappraisal as originally
scheduled.
The plan is not geared
to simply produce new appraisal values. Rather it considers what is essential
in the short term to facilitate the going forward of the reappraisal to be
effective as of January 1, 2007, as well as for the long term by considering
what will most benefit the county in yearly maintenance of new construction and
future reappraisals. The plan recognizes the shortcomings that exist in the
current software and in order to overcome such shortcomings (as previously
identified in the Report submitted at the November 15 meeting), relies heavily
on the professional expertise and past reappraisal experience of the current
real property appraisal staff. The goal remains unchanged – to produce
valuations synonymous with the highest assessment standards. While the charge
to complete the 2007 General Reappraisal is not without its challenges, should
the Board of Commissioners so desire, the best option available to is adhere to
the plan as presented herein.
The real property staff
is comprised of one assistant assessor, one real property supervisor, six real
property appraisers, one sales analyst, and one data entry project
employee. Presently, they combine for a
total of 39 years of fee appraisal experience and 65 years of real property, ad
valorem appraisal experience. In addition, three are North Carolina State
Certified Residential Appraisers. All
real property appraisers are either certified by the North Carolina Department
of Revenue’s Property Tax Division as Real Property Appraisers or are in
process of attaining such recognition in a timely manner. The importance and value of such staff cannot
be overstated.
Recap:
The software code for
the North Carolina Property Tax System’s Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal
Module (hereinafter NCPTS CAMA), remains in development and is not expected to
be fully completed, tested, and signed off by Wake County until March/April
2007. Consequently, it is not possible to fully utilize the software as
originally intended for
As originally presented
in late 2003, the LR/CAMA product was projected to be completed by the fourth
quarter 2004. Mr. Duncan and members of his staff were excited at the prospect
of what was being developed jointly by
It was for the above
reason that, at the November 15 meeting, he recommended the County reschedule
the 2007 reappraisal to be effective
Advantages of a 2007 Reappraisal
Challenges posed by a 2007 Reappraisal
1. There will be
significant costs associated with completing the reappraisal; costs that were
not funded as part of the current budget for the 2006-07 fiscal year. The costs are identified as part of the plan
to complete the reappraisal and divided between costs attributable to expanded
County efforts versus contracted assistance.
2.
Tax
base projections for the 2007-08 budget year will be delayed until after the
reappraisal notices are mailed to property owners. This will be especially
problematic for municipalities and fire districts which have traditionally
relied on estimates provided by the Assessor’s Office much earlier in the
year. As stated in the November 15
Report, Fire Districts, in particular, have requested projections as early as
late December 2006 for their upcoming 2007-08 budget preparations. Were the
reappraisal rescheduled to 2009, this request could be possible. However, a
2007 reappraisal, under the present set of facts, negates this request. This
will simply not be possible. Again, the
earliest possible date for communicating the initial tax base estimates will
coincide with the mailing of reappraisal notices. Subsequent updates to the tax
base will take into consideration allowances for value lost from the
investigation of appeals.
3.
There
will likely be a significant increase in the number of appeals. This will be
attributable to two major factors: the increase in assessed values and the
public attention focused on this particular reappraisal. While the volume of appeals will require a
pronounced response from the real property staff to process the appeals in as
expeditious a manner as possible, there are other considerations resulting from
appeals that will impact the tax base for the upcoming fiscal year.
·
In
a “worst case scenario”, once the window for filing appeals to the Board of
Equalization & Review has closed, the amount of valuation under challenge
will be determined and an estimate made and subtracted from the unchallenged
tax base.
·
G.S.
105-321(d) requires that any appeal pending before the North Carolina Property
Tax Commission be withheld from the charge given the Tax Collector by the Board
of Commissioners, until such appeal has been finally adjudicated.
4.
The
most significant impact of mailing reappraisal notices in mid-March is how it
affects the appeal process and budget process.
Though separate functions, they are forever linked as the demands of
budget are applied against the amount of tax base available in order to
determine a tax rate. The appeal process
is tightly structured by stature. Of the utmost importance is that the budget
process be given appropriate time for the proper determination of the tax rate.
Mr. Duncan explained the
Plan (5 pages) in full. He stated that if the Board decides to go ahead with
the 2007 reappraisal, the schedules would be presented. He had those schedules prepared and ready for
distribution at this meeting. Mr. Duncan
explained that an integral part of moving forward would be having individuals
from IIS on-site. He has requested that
two individuals be on-site December 15 through February 2 and one individual
present from February 2 through to the end of June. Mr. Duncan stated that it
was most important that those individuals be seasoned, knowledgeable
individuals.
Due to the plan, there
are additional adjustments to the current FY budget:
1. Consider permanent reassignment of
Database Administrator, $27,850
Ed Parker, from the County’s IT Department to the
Assessor’s
Office and provide adequate funding for overtime hours.
The details
of this personnel change will need to be worked out
through the County
Manager’s Office and IT Department to insure there is no
interruption
in the delivery of IT services to other county
departments.
2. With the approval of Henderson County
Tax Collector, Terry Lyda, $10,000
consider an arrangement whereby Delinquent Tax Collector,
Lee
King, can be assigned, or otherwise allocated, hours
necessary to
Assist the Assessor’s Office in the listing, appraisal,
and assessment
of parcels approved for Present-Use Value.
3. Approve overtime request for real
property appraisal staff. $92,000
4. Purchase five copies of Adobe Acrobat
Pro software for use in the $ 1,075
Assessor’s Office.
5. Possible
Additional Tasks Contingent upon Program Functionality: $94,502
DBA Server Support: 7,500
Data Fixes; 8,500
Project Management & Consulting; 33,750 Expenses
– upper limit on actual expenses; 25,022
*** Contingency on certain tasks set out above; 19,730
(The above items are estimates based on a worst-case
scenario. Every
attempt will be made to reduce dependency on these
items.)
Funds attributed to IIS for services and enhancements
rendered: 324,752
Funds attributed to increase in County personnel hours and
product
(Adobe
Acrobat, Farragut IPM, etc.,): 239,755
TOTAL FUNDING REQUESTED: $564,507
CRITICAL PORTION OF THE TOTAL: $378,205
NON-CRITICAL PORTION OF TOTAL: $186,302
Mr. Duncan reviewed the
most critical areas of the plan and the monies associated with those:
* DB Synch-up (new version to be installed $
17,800
* On-site presence by IIS
105,000
* Issue #1088 – Mass Valuation to re-calculate everything
(This is part of the basic software code – no charge)
* Remove all (rate) overrides on land, outbuildings, and
additions
(part of the BD Synch-up process)
* Issue #1761 – Ability to hard key entry of square footage
for commercial/industrial
sketches 3,600
* Issue #1016 – An enhancement specified by
to
allow three decimal places for acreage
* Re-migration of commercial mezzanines
* Load new PUB Schedules in CAMA 1,800
* Issue #1309 – VCS Mass Valuation not working on some
neighborhoods
(This is a part of the basic software code – no charge)
* Issue #1114 – VCS Mass Valuation Response Time Improvement
(this is a part of the basic software code – no charge)
* Issue #1729 – Synching building information to printed
PRC’s
(This is a part of the basic software code
– no charge)
* Issue #503 – Improvements to the processing of deed splits
(This is a part of the basic software code
– no charge)
* Web-site enhancements ($11,900
of this was critical) 30,600
* Develop Appeals Module
(This is an absolute requirement) 17,000
* Issue #1734 – Enhanced Calculation & Printing Options 34,500
* Develop & install link between P & I and LR/CAMA 4,500
* Develop Manufactured Housing module 15,450
* DBA Server Support 7,500
* Data Fixes 8,500
* Contingency on certain tasks set out above 19,730
Overtime hours for the
Real Property Appraisal Staff is a large part of the budget as well as new
Acrobat software.
Jeff McDonald from IIS
stated that there are nine repair issues that must be completed but he feels
they can do so by the end of the month.
He stated there are seven additional service issues to be addressed. When asked if the software company has
capacity to meet our current needs, Mr. McDonald answered yes.
David F. Thompson stated
that he wanted to hear the commitments IIS made to our Board for himself. Mr.
Thompson is the Executive Director of NCACC (North Carolina Association of
County Commissioners). The Association (NCACC) entered into the venture with
IIS and
Chairman Moyer asked the
Board if they wanted to move ahead with a 2007 reappraising, knowing the costs
as outlined at this meeting. Discussion followed with Chairman Moyer
recommending going ahead with the 2007 reappraisal explaining that Stan Duncan
and his staff are committed to get this done.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to direct the next
general reappraisal of real property become effective as of January 1,
2007. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Stan Duncan explained
that the projected date to send notices would be
Chairman Moyer stated
now that we have a motion to move forward, let’s move forward with the
schedules.
Presentation of Schedules
Stan Duncan was prepared
to present the two following Schedules:
2007 Schedule of Rules, Standards and Values
for Market Value
2007 Schedule of Rules, Standards and Values
for Present-Use Value
Mr. Duncan outlined what
will follow this presentation:
Some time after Christmas, December 27 or 28 – Meeting to
adopt the Schedules
Follow up with one notice a week for four weeks.
He proposed that the
notices go in the main body of the paper, not in the legal section.
Chairman Moyer explained
that the Board would deal with these dates during the Important Dates part of
the meeting.
Mr. Duncan physically
distributed the Schedules. While he
distributed the two schedules to those in attendance, Theron Maybin came
forward. Mr. Maybin explained that
during the last reappraisal we had problems with the Present-Use Schedule as it
relates to agriculture uses. He explained that Mr. Duncan had spent
considerable time with the Agriculture Advisory Committee discussing farmland
and other agriculture uses. Mr. Maybin
stated that the Agriculture Advisory Board accepted the Plan 100%.
EDNEYVILLE PARTF GRANT UPDATE
Staff recommended the
Board consider approving the PARTF Grant Contract for this project and directing
staff to prepare a budget amendment to appropriate the required matching funds.
Chairman Moyer
recognized Margaret Davidson to come forward and address the Board. She has worked hard as part of the Edneyville
community to raise money and get this project going.
Margaret Davidson
thanked the Board for allowing them to apply for this PARTF Grant. They were thrilled when it came through. She
also thanked the Board for striving to get the matching funds required. She
explained that the community is behind this project 100%. They have just finished paying $50,000
additional dollars for four more lots, purchased from the Habitat for Humanity,
where they feel the building should be placed.
They will continue to work in the community to raise funds. Mrs.
Davidson recognized Fred Pittillo, who is their site Chairman. She asked to be notified if there was
anything that she needed to do.
Fred Pittillo stated
that in a couple of years their community has been able to raise in the
neighborhood of $200,000 and purchase 15.5 acres with a little money left
over. The community as a whole has
worked hard to get this done. Mr.
Pittillo explained that most people have parental guidance, people who are
there to nurture them and bring them along until they are able to get out on
their own. Everyone does not have that
opportunity. One of those areas that
sometimes do not have that nurturing is a group of people in our county that
are being helped by the Habitat for Humanity. Right next door to where this
building will be built is a Habitat for Humanity project. That will also give the community the chance
to do something for people who may be less fortunate than some of us but who
have shown that they are willing to work and pay for their homes as they are
able. He feels that is an exciting opportunity.
He stated that there is some growing room for the future. He said that they are concerned for the young
people in the community. They want the
park project to be used by both the young and the old in the community.
Margaret Davidson stated
that they need to get this project underway.
Now that they have the money (grant), they want to get things going.
Several of the Commissioners
commented on the community and how well the members of the community had worked
together on this project and thanked them for all their hard work.
Commissioner Messer made the motion that the NC Parks &
Recreation Trust Fund Grant for the Edneyville Community Center Project be
approved, granted the authority to the Chairman to execute an agreement and
directing staff to prepare a budget amendment that requires matching funds for
this grant and this park project. Commissioner Messer amended his motion,
authorizing the
The
Recess
Chairman Moyer called a
5 minutes recess, to change videotapes.
PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) Special Use
Permit Amendment Application SP-04-01-A1 for the Planned Unit Development known
as Leoni’s Mountain Lake Homes
Commissioner McGrady made the motion for the Board to go
into public hearing. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer explained
that a quasi-judicial proceeding is somewhat like a court proceeding and that anyone
who wished to speak should come forward to explain how this project would
affect them. The following were named as
parties to the proceeding:
Brenda Coates
Don & Pat Garland,
Lot.# 13 Devonwood –
Todd Leoni
Matthew Card
Matthew Cable
Those individuals came
forward and were sworn in by the Clerk to the Board.
Matthew Cable informed
the Board that Mr. Todd Leoni, agent and owner of Camp Riley, Inc., property
owner and applicant, has submitted an application to amend the special use
permit SP-04-01 for the planned unit development (PUD) known as Leoni’s
Mountain Lake Homes. The PUD is located in an R-20 (Low-Density Residential)
zoning district along South Lakeside Drive, with the intersection of South
Lakeside Drive and Old South Carolina Avenue to the north (See Attachments 2
and 3, Site/Current Zoning Map and Aerial Photo Map). The PUD, as proposed, is
to contain 12.01 acres of land, 26 single-family detached dwellings on
individual lots, and approximately 4.65 acres of open space (See Attachment 1,
Special Use Permit Order SP-04-01). The amendment request would not change the
acreage, density, or open space proposed for the PUD, but would change group
septic systems to public sewer service.
Pursuant to Section 200-33.A of the Henderson County Code, before the
Board of Commissioners may act on such a request, this matter requires “the
advice and recommendation” of the Henderson County Planning Board. On
In accordance with
Sections 200-56D and 200-70A(6) of the Zoning Ordinance (See Attachment 5,
Required Findings of Fact), the Board of Commissioners must make findings of
fact regarding compliance with the ordinance in order to grant a Special Use
Permit Amendment and may impose conditions on the permit to assure that a
proposed use will meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 200-56D lists the general site
standards that apply to all special uses.
If a general site standard cannot be met and, based on evidence provided
during the hearing, the Board finds that imposing conditions (such as
increasing minimum specific site standards), will allow such general site
standards to be met, then the Board may impose the conditions. However, the
applicant does not bear the burden of demonstrating that all of the general
site standards have been met. Section
200-70A(6) requires that the Board of Commissioners also make findings to demonstrate
that the proposed use complies with any specific requirements for the use and
that provisions have been made for the following, if applicable:
ingress/egress; parking and loading; utilities; buffering; playgrounds; open
spaces; yards; access ways and pedestrian ways and building and structure
location, size and use.
In accordance with the
Henderson County Zoning Ordinance, notices of the hearing on the Special Use
Permit Amendment Application (SP-04-01-A1) were published in the Times-News on
Since the matter
requires a quasi-judicial public hearing, the Board of Commissioners must
consider the evidence presented at the hearing and make findings of fact based
on that evidence in order to take action on the Special Use Permit Amendment
Application. The Board must issue a written decision within 45 days of the
conclusion of the hearing.
Matthew Cable – “The
applicant is proposing a sewer extension to run from the Mud Creek Outfall just
north of the intersection of Kanuga and Erkwood Drive and would follow Shepherd
Street all the all the way to Lakeside Drive and then would follow Lakeside
Drive to the development itself. The
proposed line is shown there in the brown on the slide. The green is what’s
existing with the city and that’s information that the city has provided. The applicant has indicated that he is
attempting to acquire the easements and letters to this effect have been
provided in Exhibit C, attachment 4. That’s the letter showing the effort
between the applicant and the city to get those easements. The City of
If the Board would refer
to Exhibit D, which I’m going to get Matt to pass out for me.”
Chairman Moyer – “Did
you move Exhibit C into evidence. I’m
not sure I heard you.”
Matthew Cable – “Yes.”
Matthew Card distributed
copies of Exhibit D.
Matthew Cable – “Exhibit
D, it includes Planning Board and Staff recommendations regarding the
application. On
1.
Group
septic continue to be permitted for the development. That is not to change it,
just to public sewer but that it continue to be permitted.
2.
That
public sewer should be permitted within the PUD, should that become available,
that is if the applicant is able to acquire the easements.
3.
And
in the event that sewer is available and installed, that the group septic
option no longer be available to them. So that is to say that if they are able
to acquire the easements and have the public sewer, the group septic option
would no longer exist for them.
Staff has an additional
recommended condition, and this was based on those requirements in the
Subdivision Ordinance and it also relates to the plans and documentation for
sewer systems. Staff is recommending
that the applicant – that should the applicant provide public sewer, that the
infrastructure to serve the development should be bonded in accordance with the
Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance, prior to construction. That is to ensure that those systems are put
in place on an off-site.
I would also like to
enter Exhibit E, which includes (if Matt would pass that out for you). This
includes additional staff comments which did not result in any additional proposed
conditions because this was a fairly straight forward change. It didn’t affect
many of the other original findings. And I would be happy to answer any
questions that you might have of me.”
Chairman Moyer – “Any
questions at this time? Alright, thank you. Mr. Leoni, do you wish to make some
comments at this time?”
Todd Leoni – “Yes
sir. The only comment I have here is
it’s really important to me that I’m dealing with five different people, I
think it’s five, maybe four different people as to easement issues. And if I can’t get through those easements, I
certainly don’t want to have to go through- you know – getting my drainfields
approved again. I’ve spent, you know –
thousands of dollars doing that and I don’t want to lose that designation. If you guys approve the sewer, it’s gonna
cost me a lot of money to do the sewer as well but – you know – people that –
you know – there are some trust issues I think with some of the properties and
I don’t know that I’m gonna be able to get through the ease – get easements
through so we’re still working on them.
I do have a meeting with – you know – the City sewer tomorrow, with the
department and we’re gonna try and work everything out but – you know – a lot
of this stuff takes time and I really don’t – I don’t want to stop anyone from
building. I have served several lots and
– you know – at this point it is my intention to bring sewer to this area which
I think is greatly needed but um I have to say – you know – that if – if I
cannot get this. If I cannot get the
approval without the other – you know – I would rather just hold off until I
have all the easements to bring the sewer in.
That’s all I have to say.”
Commissioner McGrady –
“If I can ask a question. I’m just wanting to know what then are you asking us
for? Are you asking us for conditional approval of this thing to either allow
you to continue under the present plan or proceed to this?”
Todd Leoni – “I’m asking
you”
Commissioner McGrady –
“Or are you asking us to delay a decision on this until such time as you work
out your easement issue?”
Todd Leoni – “Um, well I
would like to have both, if I can – you know – if – if its – you know I’d like
to be able to provide both you know and why should I lose the other. It’s not
gonna hurt anyone – I mean the other part is already”
Commissioner McGrady –
“Well that’s sorta the other point – I mean the – as I understand it, the
Planning Board recommendation here was to allow you to continue to provide, in
some cases, the septic system if you’re not able to get sewer to
everybody. If that’s what I understand
the Planning recommended.”
Chairman Moyer – “That’s
what I understand.”
Commissioner McGrady –
“And so I guess that’s why I’m trying to figure out what exactly you’re
asking. Are you then saying you’re right
– the Planning Board is right, give me this approval but allow me to, if I
can’t work out the easements on every lot, have a mixture of sewer”
Todd Leoni – “It’s not
easements within my development, it’s easements outside of my development so
it’s not like just one or two people are gonna get it. It’s either everyone is gonna get it or no one
is gonna get it and that’s because we’re – you know where the dam is on the
other side of the lake is where the issues are so if I can’t get them through
over there because – you know – some property owner doesn’t want sewer going
down – you know their path and I can’t it through then that’s where my problem
is and I certainly don’t want to lose my – my drainfield designation. So I – I’m asking you – what I’m asking you
is if you can give me both that would be great.
If I can’t have both, then you know with-hold your you know your
decision”
Commissioner McGrady –
“Until sometime later.”
Todd Leoni – “Right”
Chairman Moyer – “I
think the Planning Department recommendation gives them the ability.”
Commissioner McGrady –
“Yeah, I was trying to – that’s what I was trying to figure out, Bill, was what
the Planning Board recommendation did. I
sorta misinterpreted it I guess. Is that the issue the Planning Board is trying
to address or some”
Chairman Moyer – “I
think so too.”
Todd Leoni – “So I –
then I’m certain covered, right, I mean if – if that’s what”
Commissioner McGrady –
“That’s what I was trying to find out.”
Todd Leoni – “OK, well
no because you know what – I wasn’t here at the last meeting. I had someone
come and I – and they told – they did tell me that I would but I wanted to be clear
that I am covered and that – you know I won’t have a problem.”
Chairman Moyer – “Well
the condition as read by the staff clearly is group septic continue to be
permitted”
Todd Leoni – “But it
doesn’t read that further down. In
number three it says in the event public sewer is available and installed the
group septic option would no longer be available so the way that reads to me is
that if you guys approve it, you know no more”
Chairman Moyer – “No no,
if you get the easements and the ability to install it – see in the event
public sewer is available, not whether we approve it, if its available at your
site then you’ve got to use the – the public sewer rather than the group is
what this says.”
Todd Leoni – “OK”
Commissioner Young – “I
mean we’re not going to allow him to mix.”
Chairman Moyer – “Yeah,
we’re not going to let you mix once you get public sewer there.”
Todd Leoni – “Right and
that’s – that’s certainly fine but if I get it I’m good.”
Chairman Moyer – “Yeah. Now there’s an additional condition by
staff – you understand the additional condition that staff read?”
Todd Leoni – “For the
bonding? What was that?”
Chairman Moyer – “Plans
and accompanying documentation to ensure that the water and sewer system
proposed for the planned unit development had been designed by a professional
engineer, had been approved by the appropriate local and state agencies, shall
be submitted as part of the application and should the applicant provide sewer
service, infrastructure to serve should be bonded in accordance with
requirements of the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance.”
Todd Leoni – “Yeah,
yes.”
Chairman Moyer – “OK,
not a problem with that?
Todd Leoni – “No.”
Chairman Moyer –
“Alright. Any questions for Mr. Leoni? Now do any of the – the people that were
recognized as potential parties, have a question, not a statement but a
question at this time? Ms. Coates, do you have any questions with respect to
what you’ve heard so far?”
Brenda Coates – “I think
for clarification that when the septic line is put in that all property owners
will obviously if they make arrangements with the City be permitted to – to tap
on to it?”
Chairman Moyer – “When
the public sewer line.”
Brenda Coates – “Correct,
correct..”
Chairman Moyer – “OK.
Are there any other questions. Steve.”
Chairman Moyer – “Are
there any other questions for – from anybody here, not – no – those people
recognized as parties, that were sworn, etc., do any of you have questions for
either staff or Mr. Leoni with respect to the sewer issue? Alright.”
Commissioner Young –
“The question that she asked about the citizens being able to tap on to it.
That would be strictly up to the Hendersonville Water and Sewer Department,
wouldn’t it over what they’re gonna allow”
Two or three people were
talking at the same time and I couldn’t make out what they were saying.
Commissioner Young – “I’m
sure they would let em probably if they pay the tap fee or whatever.”
Chairman Moyer –
“Alright, now we’ll start with you Ms. Coates. Do any of the people that are
parties wish to make – ask any other questions at this time?”
? Someone – “I haven’t
been sworn in but I just wanted to ask – does this.”
Chairman Moyer – “You’re
not a party mam, I – you’ll have to ask Ms. Coates to ask your question cause
she’s a party or somebody else that’s a party. Do you have a question? No.”
Brenda Coates – “If I
can just make a statement that you know I think – I have spoken with several of
the adjoining property owners and we all obviously are quite in favor of this
project.”
Chairman Moyer – “Great”
Brenda Coates – “It to
us is much more favorable, obviously environmentally and many other ways to
have the septic tank – I mean the sewer line as opposed to septic tanks so I
don’t think that’s an issue and I think Todd is to be commended for taking this
extra effort to bring this, if he possibly can so I think we’re very pleased
with that.”
Chairman Moyer –
“Alright. Mr. Leoni.”
Todd Leoni – “And I just
want to make one more statement. I – I
think everyone in the path will be able to tap in is the way I understand it,
they’ll have to pay a tap fee and anyone and I don’t even know about the people
in Devonwood, if they can find their way down I think that”
Chairman Moyer – “You
don’t want to go there”
Todd Leoni – “Right,
OK. I was telling you know I want to
ease everyone’s mind that’s here so. Alright”
Chairman Moyer – “Do –
does staff wish to make any closing comments?”
Matthew Cable – “We
would just like to point out to the Board that a suggested motion is provided
in Exhibit D. We weren’t able to provide
that previously because of the quasi-judicial hearing.”
Chairman Moyer – “It’s
the last paragraph on Exhibit D.”
Matthew Cable – “Yes
sir.”
Chairman Moyer – “Does
the applicant, Mr. Leoni, wish to make any further statements? Do any of the other parties – parties now,
wish to make any further statements? Sir, you didn’t have a chance. Do you have anything you need to get clarified
before we close this hearing?”
Don
Chairman Moyer – “Thank
you, appreciate it very much. Alright we’ve heard all the evidence. We’ve had
closing remarks by all the parties involved. Now that the evidence has been
presented, the closing remarks and everything concluded, it’s appropriate for
the Board of Commissioners to discuss the issues presented. We can either vote today directing staff to
bring back findings of fact and conclusions consistent with the decision to a
future meeting of the Board for review or we can continue our discussion and
decision until a later date, which I don’t think would be a good idea. I remind the however that the Board must
issue a written decision within 45 days of the conclusion of this hearing.”
Commissioner McGrady –
“Mr. Chairman I – we don’t get no-brainers often but this one to me is a
no-brainer. I think we ought to support the application and the recommendations
and if everybody is in agreement I’ll move the motion as drafted “(I move that the Board approve the special
use permit amendment request subject to the conditions suggested by Staff and
the Planning Board and any additional conditions that have been discussed
during the hearing which the Board wishes to impose). All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Commissioner Messer made the motion for the Board to go out
of public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer mentioned
the need for a public hearing on the Schedules, budget amendments, and the Land
Development Code workshop.
Commissioner McGrady
expressed concern over calling the next meeting on the Land Development Code a
workshop. What he suggested was having
the document delivered to the Board, have a staff presentation of the document
as well as overview from staff. He felt the workshops should be delayed until
after the first of the year.
Chairman Moyer made the motion to set a special called
meeting for
BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Chairman Moyer had one
caller who said that if you look at the make-up of the committee, it is
overwhelmingly composed of people who have a vested interest in preserving it
rather than dealing with the issue and stated that we should have more balance
on the committee between taxpayers who have to pay this additional freight and
those that shorthand have a vested interest in it. Chairman Moyer felt that the caller made
sense.
Chairman Moyer made the motion to adopt the Charter and direct
the
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) AND STRATEGIC
PLAN PRESENTATION
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Strategic Plan
She also distributed a
strategic planning process timeline and spoke from it. She started by giving the Board some
background. In August of this year in
responding to the
Ms. Coffey stated that
now staff is presenting:
The Workbook – as you go
through it pages 1 through 69 will give you individual worksheets which list the
issues as heard from the input sessions and the surveys. Staff asks the Board to answer some questions
about those issues. The final goal is the last four pages, answering the final
survey of what are the important issues that the Board members feel we need to
address in this strategic plan. Staff
also asked the Board members to prioritize those issues. The Board was asked to number priorities one
through ten with one being high priority and ten being low priority.
She explained that the
next step in the process is to hold a two-day retreat at which time the Board
will hear detailed presentations on the capital improvements plan and the
strategic plan, have some discussion, and hopefully make some decisions
directing staff to move forward on specific issues. Then from February to April
staff would start developing some final strategies which would go into the
small document (the Strategic Plan) and develop some narrative information and
strategies and also some action plans.
Part of this would be to calendar those action plans, determine when we
need to achieve those goals, when we need to undertake those action plans and
also determine what the costs would be.
Ms. Coffey explained
that from May to June the Board will, during it’s budget process, discuss those
previously discussed strategies and action plans and determine how that fits
into the budget. In July the actual
implementation would begin of the strategic plan, based on the earlier
discussions.
There was some
discussion regarding the dates for the 2-day retreat. Staff suggested holding the retreat at the
UPDATE ON PENDING ISSUES
Mental Health Update
Mr. Wyatt stated that we
have a request from Parkway Behavioral, the folks that are providing that
service here, for some maintenance of effort money. The Board has a current balance of
$137,342. What the Board has done up to
this point is to award “start-up” or “seed” money. Based upon that Parkway Behaviorial has
originally made a proposal for $4500 per month.
Mr. Wyatt talked with them about getting that amount down to a number
that still provides the Board’s ability to begin maximizing it’s
investment. He talked with Parkway
Behavioral about looking at an investment for seven months of $3,000/month to
help them with start-up issues for a total of $21,000 (through the end of the
fiscal year).
Two representatives were
present from Parkway Behavioral who came forward and answered questions from
the Board.
Challenges of Maintaining Adequate Medicaid/IRPS
Reimbursement for Emergency Services
Unpredictable Consumer
Flow and Flexible Service Schedule
Emergency Service (ES)
for mental health is like any community emergency service…the service must be
staffed to respond immediately to the crisis situation regardless of when the
crisis occurs or even if any crisis occurs…like the fire department. However,
given the economic realities of community mental health funding, having trained
and experienced staff merely ‘on-standby’ for a possible emergency is not
feasible; ES staff must help generate revenue by maintaining a caseload of
active clients for providing reimbursable activities. Due to the unpredictability of urgent and
emergency occurrences, ES staff cannot maintain a fully productive schedule
with their assigned clients and simultaneously provide timely ES service. The national standard for staff reimbursable
activity in community mental health is 25 hours per week. To adequately respond to crisis events, the
expected scheduled activity for an ES worker would be about 12.5 hours per
week…leaving 12.5 hours for emergency service, of which an estimated 50% (or
6.25 hrs) may be billable. The net result is approximately 18.75 billable hours
compared to 25 billable hours in a non-emergency setting. Even by building in daily ES time, additional
time for each ES event is often necessary as many crisis consume an inordinate
amount of time for satisfactory resolution; for example, an involuntary
commitment may take up to 6 hours for placement. With new (and lower) Medicaid and IPRS
definitions and rates, one FTE (full time equivalent) position can generate
approximately $97,500 in annual charges.
Just considering the above figures, one ES FTE position would generate
only $73,125 in annual charges…a decrease, or loss, of $24,375 due to ES
activity, and this assumes no additional ES time is needed beyond the allotted
percent. Obviously, additional ES time
required for adequately resolving emergency situations would further diminish
the capacity of the ES worker to provide reimbursable services.
Psychiatric Services
A salient component of
any ES system is adequate psychiatric coverage and consultation on a 24/7
basis. It has been well chronicled over the past few years that the
Medicaid/IPRS rates for physician services are inadequate to fully cover
physician services, and especially when including 24/7 on-call coverage. Larger service entities offering primarily
Community Support activities can utilize excess CS funds to assist with paying
for physician services; smaller service units that now exist in
Limited PRPS Funds
State/IPRS funds
historically have been depleted prior to the end of the fiscal year. During funding shortfalls, non-emergency
services can be reduced or eliminated. However, reducing emergency services
would pose potential substantial negative consequences both for Parkway
Behavioral Health and
Non-Target Pop Residents
Individuals who do not
meet the criteria for receiving Medicaid or State-funded mental
health/substance abuse services must be offered services by Parkway if they present
in a condition of crisis or emergency. For other agencies offering
public-funded, non-emergency outpatient services, this is not the case. Projecting at least three ES events per week
in
Costs of No or
Inadequate ES system
Perhaps the most
relevant costs of having no emergency services or inadequate emergency services
will be the costs experienced by the residents and community service entities
of
Summary
Like other community
emergency services, mental health crisis services require available and
responsive qualified staff regardless of the time or frequency of crisis
events. Due to the required staffing model and to the low Medicaid/IPRS
reimbursement rate for physician services, financial self-sufficiency of
emergency mental health services is not achievable. Without a viable mental health ES system in
the community, the consequential financial and emotional costs are shared by
the community’s infrastructure and residents.
Following discussion, Chairman Moyer made the motion to support
the
STAFF REPORTS
IMPORTANT DATES
Chairman Moyer explained
that the Clerk to the Board had prepared a draft schedule of meeting dates for
2007, following the same pattern of the first Monday at
Chairman Moyer asked
Chairman Moyer reminded
the Board of the Legislative Goals Conference on January 11 and 12. Several Commissioners have already signed up
to attend. As part of the process, the
Board has to appoint a voting delegate.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to appoint the Chairman
as the voting delegate, alternatively the Vice-Chair and alternatively any
other Commissioner that might be there.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CANE CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT – no
business
CLOSED SESSION – none
Commissioner McGrady made the motion that the Board go into
closed session as allowed pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11 for the following
reasons:
1.(a)(5.1) To Discuss and give instruction on the
county’s negotiating position concerning the purchase of real estate.
2.(a)(5.2) To Discuss and give instruction on the
county’s negotiating posture concerning an employment contract.
3.(a)(6) To
discuss issues concerning personnel.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to adjourn the meeting
at
Attest:
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk
to the Board
William L. Moyer, Chairman