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 Bill Moyer, Vice-Chairman
Also present were: Fire
Marshal’s Administrative Assistant
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called
the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner McGrady led
the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
County Manager
INFORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Chairman Moyer requested
the addition of a discussion item A – North American Police Work Dog
Association Meeting.
Commissioner Messer made the motion to approve the agenda as
revised above. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to approve the consent
agenda. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Minutes
Draft minutes were
presented for the Board’s review and approval for the following meeting:
April 18, 2007
Tax Collector’s Report
Terry F. Lyda, Henderson
County Tax Collector, had provided the Tax Collector’s Report dated May 4,
2007, for the Board’s review and consent approval.
Collections information
was included through May 3rd for the 2006 bills mailed out on August 18th,
as well as vehicle bills.
Annual Bills G01 Only:
2006 Total Charge: $49,390,710.20
Payments & Releases: 47,925,894.83
Unpaid Taxes: 1,464,815.37
Percentage collected:
97.03%
Motor Vehicle Bills G01
Only:
2006 Total Charge: $4,938,775.81
Payments & Releases: 3,686,683.24
Unpaid Taxes:
1,252,092.57
Percentage collected:
74.65%
Fire Districts All
Bills:
2006 Total Charge: $5,276,766.56
Payments & Releases: 4,976,691.52
Unpaid Taxes: 300,075.04
Percentage collected:
94.44%
Tax Refunds
A list of 7 tax refund
requests was presented for the Board’s review and consent approval.
Tax Releases
A list of 35 tax release
requests was presented for the Board’s review and consent approval.
Capital Projects Update
The Board of Commissioners
receives a monthly update on the 2006 Strategic Plan and Capital Improvements
Projects. Because there had been no
changes to the status of the Strategic Plan projects, this update was not
provided this month.
Home and Community Care Block Grant for Older
Each year the Board of
Commissioners is required to adopt a Funding Plan for the Home and Community
Care Block Grant for Older Adults and identify the lead office or agency
responsible for coordinating the County Funding Plan. At this time, the Funding Plan for Fiscal
Year 2008 is estimated to be $686,862, which is the same amount received in FY
2007. This is a State/Federal program
administered at the local level. The
proposed Funding Plan supports the service priorities identified for the
current planning cycle.
If the Board is so
inclined, the following motion was suggested:
I move that the Board appoint the
State Lottery Fund Application
The current fiscal year
budget includes a revenue source of $900,000 from the State Lottery Fund which
the County has programmed to pay for school capital needs. A total of $617,412 which represents three
quarters had been allocated to this fund for
Staff requested that the
Board consider approving the Lottery Fund Application for $617,412 to pay for
current fiscal year debt service on the new
If the Board is so
inclined, the following motion was suggested:
I move that the Board of Commissioners approve the Lottery
Fund application as presented.
For the past several
months,
It had been estimated
that the cost for the project would be in the range of $100,000. To assist with the cost, BRCC had by
resolution and through a letter to Senator Tom Apodaca, requested NCDOT
Contingency Funding in the amount of $70,000 be allocated for the project.
NOMINATIONS
Notification of Vacancies
The Board was notified
of the following vacancies which will appear for nominations on the next
agenda:
1.
2.
3.
Cane Creek Water and
Sewer District Advisory Committee – 5 vac.
4.
Environmental Advisory
Committee – 3 vac.
5.
6.
7.
Historic Resources
Commission – 4 vac.
8.
Jury Commission – 1 vac.
9.
Juvenile Crime
Prevention Council – 16 vac.
10.
Library Board of
Trustees – 4 vac.
11.
Mountain Area Workforce
Development Board – 2 vac.
12.
Social Services Board –
1 vac.
Nominations
Chairman Moyer reminded
the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to nominations.
1.
Child Fatality
Prevention Team – 1 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
2.
Commissioner McGrady
nominated Dr. Tom Lacey for position #5.
Chairman Moyer made the motion to
accept the nomination by acclamation.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
3.
Environmental Advisory
Committee – 1 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
4.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
5.
Juvenile Crime
Prevention Council – 5 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this
item was rolled to the next meeting.
6.
Nursing/Adult Care Home
Communtiy Advisory Committee – 3 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
7.
Planning for Older
Adults Block Grant Advisory Committee – 2 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this
item was rolled to the next meeting.
8.
Senior Volunteer
Services Advisory Council – 1 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
9.
Solid Waste Advisory
Council – 1 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
North American Police Work Dog Association Meeting
Chairman Moyer noted
that the previous year Officer Stepp had put together and hosted the North
American Police Work Dog Association meeting which represents people from the
whole country; Canada, England. It was
held on a Friday evening and very well attended. The event allowed you to see what the dogs
and the trainers were capable of doing.
Officer Randy Stepp
stated that in 2005 they had hosted a national workshop. They are the smallest town to ever overtake
this type of event. Once per year the
North American Policy Work Dog Association hosts a national certification
somewhere in the
The executive board
committee was approached at the end of last year and informed that the City of
Commissioner Young said
that Mr. Stepp had gone before the Travel and Tourism Board approximately one
month prior and presented this to their Board.
Travel and Tourism monies must be used for advertisement. They did commit to funding the
advertisement. He feels that this will
bring a lot of economic value to the county and will be a big success.
Chairman Moyer stated
that there was a commitment from the city of
Chairman Moyer made the motion that the Board of
Commissioners support this effort and commit $5,000.00 toward it. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Quarterly Schools Maintenance Report
This item was skipped
and will be placed on a future agenda.
David Whitson informed
the Board that he was hired to manage the assets of
College
In addition they have
almost $50,000 of increase in “other cost” which includes supplies and
materials for maintenance department, custodial department and the grounds
department. Mr. Whitson addressed some
needed maintenance issues as follows:
Chairman Moyer stated
that there had been a feeling that
Mr. Whitson responded
that no money was allotted in these figures for the ballfield.
Chairman Moyer asked
about the line item “professional development and travel” which reflected a 26%
increase. He pointed out to Mr. Whitson
that all areas which there were not to be adjustments reflected substantial
increases.
Mr. Whitson responded
when you look at professional development and travel at 26%, it sounds
significant and is a $5,000 increase.
This particular line item includes the president’s allowances. The $5,000 increase is for the training and
development of their custodial people, maintenance people and grounds.
Chairman Moyer stated
that in respect to the president’s salary he assumed that the same or similar
supplement to his salary was included.
Mr. Whitson responded
that it was not adjusted and continued at the same level.
County Manager
Mr. Whitson informed the
Board that the Board of Trustees hoped to have a new president on board by
July-August of this year.
Chairman Moyer made the
motion to approve the budget as submitted at $2,058,821.45 and eliminate the
$50,000 for capital. The motion passed 4
to 1 with Commissioner Young voting nay.
There was discussion in
regards to the salary range for the president.
Amended Noise Ordinance
Henderson County Sheriff
Rick Davis and his office proposed the following changes.
While maintaining a
complaint-driven enforcement mechanism the new ordinance would remove the
requirement of noise metering equipment for proof of violation, in favor of a
system more common for criminal violations, where individual citizens may be
complainants, and testify as to the disturbing character of the offending
noise.
Mr. Alan Leonard
explained that even under the best of circumstances a noise ordinance could be
difficult to enforce in court and the results can be spotty. Mr. Leonard, at one time, had prosecuted in
thirteen western counties. He was
particularly interested in the comments the gentlemen had made in regards to
noise on Highway 64 west and Mr. Leonard assumed that the gentleman was talking
about an area within the county. Noise
on Highway 64 west would be the typical problem that the Commissioners confront.
Highway 64 west is a public highway and
there is going to be noise emanated from the public highway. In the proposed amended ordinance Mr. Leonard
could count as many as five provisions which could apply to noises on the
highway; jake brakes in particular.
The objective in
drafting the amendment is first of all constitutional and second of all enforceable. As the amendment was drafted, Mr. Leonard
consulted with the
There is only so much
that the Commissioners and Sheriff’s Office can do. The Commissioners have the task of
considering and tailoring a constitutional ordinance for
Discussion Followed.
Chairman Moyer stated
that the Board should accept the amended ordinance and once the amended draft
has been circulated and the budget is finished, set up a public hearing to get
public input, get feedback from the District Attorney and then decide how to
move forward.
Storm Water Management Presentation
Mr. Jones presented a
power point presentation that outlined the following:
Stormwater runoff is
water from rain or melting snow that “runs off” across the land instead of
seeping into the ground. This runoff
usually flows into the nearest stream, creek, river, lake or ocean. The runoff is not treated in any way.
Polluted runoff consists
of water on its way to creeks, rivers and lakes which can pick up and carry
many substances such as pesticides, fertilizers, oil, soaps, sedimentation from
construction, bare soil, pet waste, grass clippings and leaves that pollute
water.
Polluted storm water
runoff is the number one cause of water pollution in
The federal Clean Water
Act requires large and medium sized towns across the
These laws require
chosen cities and counties to do six things:
The large impact is
going to be North Carolina General Assembly Session Law 2006-246. This law requires the Water Quality Section
of NCDENR to manage storm water in the unincorporated parts of
These will be managed
out of
North Carolina Clean
Water Management Trust Fund has available out of cycle grants for stormwater
master plans. This allows the county to model
storm water in the county. Modeling is
an engineering function that looks at the hydrology (how the water falls under
the ground and flows to the creeks and rivers) and hydraulics (where it flows
through pipes and culverts). This would
allow you to identify existing problems with the watersheds and potentially
develop projects that could have a possible effect on existing conditions. The grant would give the county the ability
to develop a storm water management ordinance which would obviously be tailored
from the state laws.
There are many options
when it comes to funding a storm water management program. The state will be implementing permit fees,
which is the most popular option, where the developers pay fees for review and
inspection of their development in regards to storm water management. After the construction process, the
subsequent owner of that device would apply for renewals to the permits in which
a fee is also associated. It can be tied
into the general fund with property taxes.
A fee can be charged on a parcel’s impervious surface (rain tax). The State program will be funded by permit
fees.
Implementation of the
storm water program includes the following:
Ø Apply for Clear Water
Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) Grant
Ø Model storm water
Ø Develop Ordinance
Ø Develop revision to
planning code (proposed LDC)
Ø Estimate and budget for
program cost
Ø State review of our
program to see if it qualifies
Ø Begin program
RECESS
Chairman
Moyer called a 5 minute recess, to change videotapes.
PUBLIC HEARING – Rezoning Application #R-2007-03
Commissioner Messer made the motion to go into public
hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Planner Matt Cable
stated that Rezoning Application #R-2007-03, which was submitted on February
14, 2007, requests that the County rezone approximately 2.41 acres of land,
located off Naples Road (SR 1534), from an I-1 (Light Industrial) zoning
district to a C-4 (Highway Commercial) zoning district. The Subject Area appears to be parcels
9651-77-5124 and 9651-77-3029, which are owned by the applicant, Walter M.
Rowland Jr. The Applicant’s Agent is
B.L. Hyder.
In accordance with
Section 200-76 of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and State Law, notices
of the May 16, 2007, public hearing regarding rezoning application #R-2007-03
were published in the Hendersonville Times-News on April 25, 3007 and May 2,
2007. The Planning Department sent
notices of the hearing via first class mail to the owners of properties
adjacent to the Subject Area and Expanded Subject Area and the applicant on May
2, 2007, and posted signs advertising the hearing on the Subject Area and
Expanded Subject Area on May 2, 2007.
The Subject Area
initially applied for is located at the intersection of I-26 and
The Subject Area is
currently zoned I-1 (Light Industrial), which was applied on May 9, 2005, as
part of the US Highway 25 North Zoning Study.
The Subject Area is surrounded by I-1 zoning district. To the west is a C-4 (Highway Commercial)
zoning district, and to the south is R-20 (Low Density Residential) zoning
district.
I-1 is a light
industrial zoning district permitting most light industrial uses and some
commercial uses, but excluding all residential uses. Permitted uses include: retail businesses, offices, personal service
businesses, tire recapping, automobile sales/service, gas stations,
warehouses/mini-storage and junkyards, among other uses.
C-4 is a highway
commercial zoning district permitting, by right, commercial uses at various
scales and is intended to serve persons traveling by automobiles and local
residences.
When staff posted the
property it was noted that the single family structures had been removed from
the site and grading had occurred to level out the site. A foundation had been placed across the two
parcels of the Subject Area. As a
result, a stop work order has been issued to the applicant because they had not
obtained necessary permits from the county including zoning permits and
building permits. They may also need to
acquire NCDENR permits for sedimentation and erosion control. Based on the location of the building, in
order for them to actually acquire a zoning permit under either of the existing
or requested zoning, they will need to recombine the lots.
Staff’s position at this
time, under the guidelines of current plans, policies and studies, is it does
not support the rezoning of the property to be zoned for commercial uses. This is based on the following:
Staff had not identified
plans or policies, changes in existing conditions, undue hardship to the
Applicant, or overriding community interest that would justify supporting the
proposed rezoning. Staff supports the
recommendations of the US Highway 25 North Zoning Study and Industrial Study
and also recognizes a spot zoning concern related to the parcels that the
applicant requested.
The Henderson County
Planning Board did consider rezoning application #R-2007-03 at its regularly
scheduled meeting on March 15, 2007.
During that meeting, the Board voted 7 to 0 to send the Board of
Commissioners a favorable recommendation for rezoning application #R-2007-03 to
rezone the Subject Area from existing I-1 zoning district to a C-4 zoning
district. The Planning Board recommended
that the rezoning also include all eight (8) adjacent parcels owned by Mr.
Scott Jarvis which appeared to be parcels 9651-77-1206, 9651-76-2953,
9651-77-3029, 9951-77-3278, 9651-67-9533, 9651-76-0981, 9651-67-8212,
9651-67-5473, 9651-77-5124 and 6951-66-8998 located adjacent to the Subject
Area property. A letter and a signed
document that the County had generated were received from Mr. Jarvis indicating
his support of the rezoning of his property.
The eight (8) properties
owned by Mr. Jarvis have been referred to as the Expanded Subject Area. Staff also does not support the rezoning of
the Expanded Subject Area from I-1 to C-4 zoning.
It is generally
incumbent upon the Applicant to demonstrate an overriding justification for
approving a given rezoning application.
Staff encourages the Applicant to present any information that would
inform the County’s consideration of the proposed rezoning.
Chairman Moyer stated
that the Board had the same issue, with respect to adding properties, as they
had the last time.
Public Input
1.
Angela Beeker – Ms. Beeker was speaking for the Applicant and
Mr. Jarvis. She stated that in regards
to adding the properties, it was noticed in the paper and mail notice was given
that these may be considered. She raised
the following issues:
·
All
of the uses that are allowed in the I-1 zoning district are also allowed in C-4
zoning district, just as conditional use.
·
The
special uses listed in I-1 are the same as in C-4.
·
As
far as the property still being available for the same industrial uses, it is
their position that it still would be.
·
The
property was designed in the CCP as urban service area. It is her understanding that the urban
service area is appropriate for commercial development, as well as, industrial
development.
·
The
Board of Commissioners has not yet approved the industrial study. The Planning Board had approved the study and
recommended it to the Board. Ms. Beeker
shared the map of the study with the Board.
The proposed area was not initially included in the drafts that were
presented to the Board and Ms. Beeker feels that this was because it was not
zoned as industrial as part of the US 25 North Zoning Study. This area was not in the area identified by
the Committee of 100 recommendations as being one of the primary industrial
sites. It is her understanding that the
reason it was zoned industrial is primarily due to some existing uses located
on the property.
·
The
factors that were used to identify the industrial sites, in the industrial
study, eliminated parcels of less than four (4) acres because the Chamber has
said that anything less than four (4) acres really isn’t suitable for
industrial use. Their two parcels
combined come to 2.41 acres.
There was no other
public input.
Matt Cable responded
that the intent and the purposes that were stated in the staff report were to
preserve as much of the industrial lands as they had identified as
possible.
Commissioner McGrady
supports the application and he felt that with the additional acreage it made
even more sense. The area is industrial
however, it is a really small piece and it could probably all be commercial and
he wouldn’t be upset with it. Given the
contiguous commercial acreage there, he didn’t see any particular spot zoning
issue that would bother him, particularly given the similarities of the I-1 and
C-4 zoning district classifications.
Commissioner Williams
supports the application. Commissioner Williams made the motion that
the Board favor the request for rezoning application #R-2007-03 to rezone the
Subject Area from an I-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district to a C-4 (Highway
Commercial) zoning district to include the parcels identified to the
southwestern boundary of the tract in which the property owners had agreed. 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.
PUBLIC HEARING – 2005 Community Development Block Grant
Amendment
Commissioner Messer made the motion to go into public
hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Planning Director
Anthony Starr stated that there was a need to amend the 2005 Community
Development Block Grant provided for the rehabilitation of up to 8 homes in
A public hearing is
required to change the scope of the grant to rehabilitate 5 homes instead of
8. The hearing was advertised in the
Times-News on Monday, April 30, 2007. No
action is required by the Board other than holding the public hearing.
Public Input
John Connell with
The following units were
provided assistance through the 2005 CDBG Scattered Site program. All units will be completed by June 30, 2007.
Rehabilitation (3)
Relocation on Existing
Property (2)
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to go out of public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION ITEMS
Employer Resource Guide
Sergeant Ben McKay
discussed employer support of the County employees who are members of the
National Guard and Reserve. The
Commissioners received, along with the agenda, a copy of the Employer Resource Guide,
which outlined various methods of providing such support. Staff proposed that to display employer
support for the National Guard and Reserve employees, the Board hold a ceremony
in the coming weeks to formally sign a Statement of Support for these employees. Mr. McKay read the following Statement of
Support.
“We recognize the
National Guard and Reserve as essential to the strength of our nation and the
well being of our communities. In the
highest American tradition the patriotic men and women of the guard and reserve
serve voluntarily in a honorable and vital profession. They train to respond to their community and
their country in their time of need.
They deserve the support of every segment of our society. If these volunteer forces are to continue to
serve our nation, increased public understanding is required of the essential
moral of the guard and reserve in preserving our national security. The members must have the cooperation of all
American employers in encouraging employee participation in guard and
reserve. Therefore, we join other
employers in pledging that:
Mr. McKay proposed that
Henderson County have, at the Board’s convenience, representatives from North
Carolina Committee for the Employee Support of the Guard and Reserve, as well
as, the Henderson County employees that are currently in the guard or reserve,
here for a signing ceremony so that the County can make a statement that they
do support our people who are protecting our country.
Chairman Moyer made the motion that the Board of
Commissioners support this process and direct the
Determination of Vested Rights, Biltmore Farms, LLC
Chairman Moyer excused
Commissioner Williams as he was not a part of the initial process. Chairman Moyer noted that this public
hearing was held and closed.
Instructions were given to the
Commissioner McGrady
noted that at the hearing the applicant was asked, regarding the trails,
whether the trails would be publicly accessible, and at that time the applicant
stated that they would only be accessible to the residents of the
community. He questioned if the
applicant had commented at all on the draft, with respect to the trail
provision. Commissioner McGrady stated
that at another public meeting the applicant’s representative came back, to a
large number of Etowah residents, and indicated that upon further consideration
they were willing to provide some level of public access.
Attorney Russ Burrell
responded that the applicant was not in favor of this.
Chairman Moyer stated
that the order was open for discussion for the Board, and the Board could
decide which way they wanted to go. He
had in front of him language, with respect to the storm water, which unless the
language prior to final plat approval added anything, was a restatement of the
law. He hoped that the Board would not
have to begin reciting the law that people have to follow in all of their
orders because it is “The Law”.
Planning Director
Anthony Starr stated that it was his understanding of the state law is that if
the applicant received vested rights for a site specific development plan,
prior to July 1, 2007, they will not be subject to storm water phase II
requirements. If this provision were not
added as a requirement it would not be considered a requirement.
Commissioner Young made the motion to add the storm water provision
as a requirement. No vote was taken.
Commissioner McGrady
felt that the Board should grant the vested rights application however, he was
in agreement with Commissioner Young in regards to the storm water issue and
stated that the storm water phase II should be a requirement for the
subdivision. We know today what the
state says is flood fridge area, but it appears likely that the flood fringe
area, as defined by the state, is very likely a moving target and new maps
could arrive at any given time. He
questioned how the map, if at all, would be affected or changed if the new
order were adopted as written today.
Attorney Russ Burrell
responded that the floodplain means whatever the floodplain is as given
“today”. If the floodplain turns out to
be something different than today’s maps, it means the floodplain, not what
today’s maps represent the floodplain to be.
It is his understanding, from discussion, that the Board meant for
whatever the maps later become to be the floodplain, whether its shrinks or
expands.
Commissioner McGrady
made the suggestion that the Board make this really clear in the draft
order.
Chairman Moyer suggested
the wording “currently or hereafter defined” be used.
Commissioner McGrady
made the suggestion that the Board add a provision similar to the finding the
Board is making in respect to the public interest, that addresses a very
specific issue that was raised by one of the parties, and make a specific
finding in case this is appealed, that the Board does not find any bad faith. Commissioner McGrady suggested allowing
public access to the trails as a provision to the draft order.
Chairman Moyer was
unaware if bringing the information in regards to trails at this point was
appropriate.
Commissioner McGrady
continued to suggest that the provision be included in the draft order and to
be shared with all parties to verify if it is technically correct. Commissioner McGrady commented in regards to
the duration; that section 189.5 of the statute related to duration basically
says “should be vested for a period of two years unless otherwise terminated or
unless specifically and unambiguously provided otherwise”. It then explains why the Board may provide it
otherwise. He suggested that the Board
include some findings if they are planning to go anywhere more than two years
to back up whenever the Board is going to go more than two years. In case they do grant vested rights for more
than two years he suggested that the Board go to statute 189.5B provision and
pick up some of the criteria and make some findings so that whatever the Board
decides again has findings of fact specific to them.
Attorney Burrell
suggested that in doing that, paragraph twelve which basically talks about the
applicants request for five years and their justification which does fit into
that ordinance in the statute, the size and the scope of the project. He feels that flushing that out, if the Board
determines some period in the excess of two years is the appropriate period, the
difficulties of having this intensive development in that short of period on
the surrounding area would be okay.
Commissioner McGrady
stated, with respect to buffering, the Board had received a fair number of
questions from the other parties regarding various buffering issues. After reviewing what was received along with
the maps, he is unsure if he is technically capable of determining whether if
the order does provide all of the buffering that had been suggested by other
parties.
Attorney Burrell
responded that it did not; it provided buffering that was recommended by
staff.
Discussion followed in
regards to the buffering requested by staff, other parties, and the applicant.
Commissioner McGrady
questioned the
Attorney Burrell
responded that with a development of this scale he had certainly seen a number
of developers provide studies to the Planning Board when they come for
subdivision approval to get an entrance approved.
Commissioner McGrady
suggested that since this applicant had provided a transportation study
voluntarily that it and any other studies being done voluntarily by the
applicant be included in the agreement. The
other question brought up was if there was any record of any biological issues
relating to the property as far as wildlife or endangered species. Is this something that is commonly dealt with
in the context of the development of a subdivision?
Attorney Burrell did not
recall this type of evidence ever being presented at a hearing. While the Board has the ability to make such
conditions as they see appropriate within certain limits, it is fair to say
that those limits are broadly defined by what happens in other subdivisions in
their approval processes. He did not
recall any situations exactly where you go unless you are incorporating by
reference compliance with some other law.
Commissioner McGrady
requested that the
Chairman Moyer noted
that with the changes that were brought forward it would be necessary to bring
this item back to the agenda at a future date.
He was not willing to vote without seeing the language change.
The consensus of the
Board for the length of vested rights was five years.
Chairman Moyer made the motion to continue the vested rights
public hearing for Biltmore Farms until Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 7:00 and
place it first on the agenda. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK
Human Resources Director
Jan Prichard presented the DRAFT Employee Handbook as developed by the Legal
Department, HR Department and the Personnel Policy Team designated by the
Attorney Russ Burrell
stated that one problem that had been perceived with the “Antique” Personnel
Resolution was the difficulty of getting it amended. It is one where it wasn’t really the subject
matter that really put people on the edge of their seats, what they wanted to
do with it, and it was put off. As a
result from time to time it would get substantially out of date and out of
compliance with other laws. What they
have tried to do is go with an approach that will be much more flexible and can
react much more quickly to changes in the law as they occur. With an employee handbook what you would be
doing is authorizing the county manager to essentially publish this
handbook. If and when the county manager
saw fit to modify this handbook in the future he would notify the Board of his
intent to do so and the Board would be free to bring it up at the next meeting
or any other meeting the Board chose. In
the absence of direction otherwise the county manager would be able to modify
this handbook in whatever way that the county manager views as appropriate with
notice to the Board. What the Board has
is a strong statement of the at will nature of county employment except to
those departments to which state personnel applies; primarily Health Department
and Department of Social Services. It
also includes a statement of various policies dealing with everything from
performance management to tobacco use.
This is a broad statement of the things that make up the employee –
employment relationship with
County Manager
Mental Health Update
County Manager
Chairman Moyer suggested
that County Manager
STAFF REPORTS
There was nothing
further to report at this time.
There was nothing
further to report at this time.
IMPORTANT DATES
Schedule Follow-Up LDC workshop for June
County Planner Anthony
Starr stated that the staff was close to finalizing language on the LDC. He expected that they would be able to
distribute the information requested by the Board including maps in an updated
form the following week.
Chairman Moyer made the motion that the Board set up a
special meeting for a workshop on the Land Development Code (LDC) at 7:00 pm on
Tuesday, June 12, 2007. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Cancellation of a Regularly Scheduled Meeting
Chairman Moyer made the motion that the Board of
Commissioners cancel the June 20th regularly scheduled meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
DISCUSSION ITEMS CONTINUED
FY 2008 Budget Discussions
Renee Kumor, Chair of
the
Chairman Moyer stated
that he did not understand why the
Ms. Kumor responded that
she did not know.
Chairman Moyer requested
more information in regards to the United Way 211 Program.
Commissioner McGrady
asked Ms. Kumor if she could give the Board any explanation as to why they
should consider the additional funding that the
Ms. Kumor responded that
the Board had looked at each agency’s request and placed them in the
recommendation. They gave every agency a
3% increase hoping that the Board would come out at about $245,000. Looking at $245,000 they do not feel that
they are holding any of the agencies to any kind of distress.
Commissioner McGrady
requested a copy of the
Ms. Coffey stated that
from her standpoint what was needed was to know whether or not
Referring to page 49, Economic
Development was the next item discussed.
Ms. Coffey noted that the request had come in much later than the other
requests and that the staff was well into preparing the budget recommendations
at that point. The recommendation is at
$220,000 for Partnership for Economic Development for activities that they
provide on behalf of the County. A 10%
late fee was included on the submission of the application.
Chairman Moyer stated
that the Partnership for Economic Development had came to him and one of the
things they had been working on for a while was to establish a greater
independence of the partnership. They
have actually began moving away, got their independence from the chamber, not
completely, but substantially. They
wanted to move into their own facility.
When the budget preparation began that had not been worked out, but did
work out later. Some of the additional
cost is associated with the move to their new facility.
Ms. Coffey noted that a
letter was received from the chairman of the group telling them basically that
the additional $25,000 request was for expenses related to the transition. She requested that the Board discuss the
option of the $25,000 increase.
County Manager
Chairman Moyer made the motion that the Board approve the
budget for Economic Development of the $527,586 plus $25,000 additional. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Ms. Coffey reminded the
Board of discussion necessary in regards to the Fire Districts.
Chairman Moyer stated
that the Board had received a sheet with the status of the Fire Departments and
what the Board needed to do was decide which Departments the Board wanted to
hear from. The general rule last year,
which was not an evaluation year, was that anyone asking for an increase came
to a second meeting and they presented their case to the Board.
Discussion followed.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion that the Board
specifically invite Dana, Etowah, Fletcher and
CANE CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT – no
business
CLOSED SESSION
Chairman Moyer made the motion that the Board go into closed
session pursuant as allowed to NCGS 143-318.11 (a)(3) To consult with an
attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the
attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body. (a)(4) To
discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other
businesses in the area served by the public body. (a)(6) To consider the
qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of
appointment, or conditions or initial employment of an individual public
officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee; or to hear or to
investigate a complaint, charge, or grievance by or against an individual
public officer or employee. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
ADJOURN
Chairman Moyer made the motion to adjourn. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Attest:
_________________________________ __________________________________