MINUTES
STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY
OF HENDERSON OCTOBER 30, 2000
The Henderson County Board
of Commissioners met for a special called meeting at 2:00 p.m. in the Commissioners'
Conference Room of the Henderson County Office Building.
Those present were: Chairman Grady Hawkins, Vice-Chair Bill
Moyer, Commissioner Renee Kumor, Commissioner Don Ward, Commissioner Marilyn
Gordon, County Manager David E. Nicholson, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W.
Corn.
Also present were: Planning
Director Karen C. Smith, Assistant County Attorney Jennifer O. Jackson, Finance
Director J. Carey McLelland, and Project Manager Bill Blalock.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Hawkins called the
meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance. He stated that the purpose of
this meeting was to get some information on the County Services Building and
take a look at the draft recommendations from the Transportation Advisory
Committee (TAC) in preparation for visiting with the LGCCA tomorrow.
COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING
Bob Niedzwicki from Harley
Ellis/Asheville briefly reviewed the AProgram Phase Manual@ with the Board for the Henderson County
Service Building. A preliminary draft copy had been distributed to the Board
for their review. On August 24 the
Board authorized Harley Ellis to proceed with preparation of the program
manual. Since that time,
representatives from Harley Ellis have visited the departments involved to
learn of their spatial needs.
He requested an approval on
this program manual and/or revisions.
They hope to have authorization to proceed no later than November 6, one
week from today, to allow them to stay on schedule.
The daily average of people
in the building was estimated at 172.
The building is planned for occupancy in mid-May of 2003. The entire
project is expected to span a thirty-three month timeframe.
Bill Blalock came forward
to answer questions on numbers, estimated growth in departments.
Option A with a total of
119,700 square feet of space and Option B with a total of 127,100 square feet,
both of which are studied with two and three-story additions, were presented in
four schemes in the manual. For a total
area of 119,700 sq .ft. (Option A) the minimum required parking per City zoning
is 300 spaces. For 127,100 sq. ft.
(Option B), the minimum is 318 spaces.
Schemes 2, 3, and 4, each
of which means acquiring additional properties, will meet the minimum parking
requirement for either Options A or B.
Of course, Scheme 4 yields the greatest parking potential for staff as
well as visitors while providing a reasonable amount of green space. Scheme 4 was recommended in order to give
the greatest flexibility now and in the future.
The cost estimate for two
options offered:
Option A: $20,550,000
Option B: $20,980,000
Figures include the
following estimated costs: site acquisition, construction, site improvements,
furnishings and equipment, transition (moving), designer fees and testing. The figures also include a contingency for
cost escalation to bid time.
Building Construction
The existing building is
one-story in height and contains 62,600 sq. ft. gross area. It is a steel-framed structure with exterior
walls of masonry construction (brick veneer with clay tile backing). The floor is concrete slab-on-grade and the
low-slop roof drains to exterior gutters.
Improvements to the appearance, the addition of new windows, increase in
the terminal efficiency of the walls and roof and replacement of roofing will all
be part of the renovations to the existing building.
The new building addition
will contain a total of 57,000 sq. ft. to meet the programmed spaces. This
addition must be two or three-stories in height since the site is not large
enough to accommodate the expansion on one floor and meet the parking
requirements. This is referred to as Option
A.
The Space Plan contained in
the Project Handbook calls for 127,100 sq. ft. of required area while this
program identifies 119,700 sq. ft. of required area, a difference of 7,400 sq.
ft. If the new building addition is
made 64,500 sq. ft. instead of 57,100 sq. ft., this extra space can be used for
future development beyond the seven-year projection. This is referred to as Option B.
Because the building exceeds
50,000 sq. ft. and because of the type of building it will be, we must go
before City Council with an application for Planned Institutional District
(PID) for the site and a special use permit.
Chairman Hawkins thanked
Mr. Niedzwicki for the summary of the report.
Discussion/Questions
There was much discussion.
71% of the space is assigned
space. 7,400 sq. ft. of shelled-in space.
$90 per sq. ft. =
renovation costs
$117 per sq. ft.= new
construction costs
The costs are based on two
recent renovation projects, one of them in Asheville.
The Board of Commissioners
was unhappy with the projected costs given.
The costs have almost doubled since the beginning of this project. Of course, in the beginning we were working
with a different architect. Now renovation costs are $90 per sq. ft. now and
when we began they were $48 per sq. ft.
The Board has not decided
how much space to build. The costs are
based on the size of the building. The Board has considered phasing in. The discussions on renovation of the
Historic Courthouse may come into play again here, utilizing some of that space
for County Administration. There was
some discussion of just putting DSS and the Health Dept. into the County
Service Building vs. all the departments listed in this manual. If the Board
only put DSS and the Health Dept. into the building, work with just renovation
costs and no addition. Amount of growth was discussed in personnel and space.
David Nicholson was
directed to look at the alternatives. The Board would like to revisit this
issue at the first regular scheduled meeting in November.
DRAFT T.I.P.
Chairman Hawkins mentioned
a letter dated October 20 from David McCoy concerning public comments and they
are looking at input before the TIP final approval in July of 2001. They have scheduled a meeting for our
division on Wed., November 15 at Sylva .
Chairman Hawkins suggested forwarding a letter to NC DOT asking if there
is a time later in the afternoon that they could hold the meeting to help
people from our area be able to get to the meeting.
Commissioner Moyer stated
that City Council member Mary Jo Padgett had tried to get a change in the
location and time and was turned down.
Chairman Hawkins still planned to send a letter.
At a previous Board
meeting, the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) had submitted a list of
T.I.P. recommendations. Chairman
Hawkins stated that there is only one item on that list that is actually on the
TIP, the widening of Hwy. # 191. Mr. McCoy has asked for the Board=s comments on the TIP.
Public Input - Update from
Commissioner Bill Moyer
At their regularly
scheduled meeting on October 26, the TAC received public comment on their list
of T.I.P. proposed projects. The
hearing was well attended but unfortunately the 3-5 p.m. time of the meeting
prohibited most working people from attending.
Most of the comments were directed to the proposals concerning NC Hwy. #
191 and Stoney Mountain Road. Most
proposed doing nothing, but some recognized the need for turning lanes, better
signs, speed limits, etc. The Stoney
Mountain Road residents suggested that closing or moving the transfer station
would solve the traffic problems on that road.
There was no opposition to doing something to Upward Road or US # 64
West, but the Citizens for Transportation Planning had a somewhat different
plan for Upward Road.
The TAC did not have an
opportunity to reconsider its recommendations after receiving the public input
and there was no time to do that prior to this meeting today and the meeting of
the LGCCA. One option the Board of
Commissioners has is to direct the TAC to reconsider its recommendations in
light of the public input, but timing is a problem with the DOT hearing on
November 15. Another option is to take
no action until after the LGCCA meeting.
Yet another option would be to take the recommendations of the TAC and
develop a new list of recommendations for the LGCCA.
Commissioner Moyer felt the
Board should discuss the TAC recommendations, make some modifications and
propose a slightly different list to the LGCCA. He proposed the following (which he distributed to the Board at
this time). He stressed that this list
is solely from him:
1. We
should support the Upward Road and US # 64 West projects, as proposed by the
TAC, as the two projects that should receive top priority by DOT in the
T.I.P. We should recommend that a Adesign forum@ be used to define the
scope of the Upward Road project.
2. We
should recommend that NC # 191 remain a T.I.P. project, but that final scoping
of the project be done after the County=s and City=s thoroughfare plans are completed and
approved. We should recommend a design
forum for this project if it proves worthwhile for the Upward Road project.
3. The
proposal to widen Stoney Mountain Road should not be submitted as a T.I.P.
project at this time, but we should ask that this proposal be considered in
developing the County=s thoroughfare plan.
4. We
should recommend that the proposal concerning US # 25 South be added to the
T.I.P. but that the proposal be
modified to provide that turning and entering and exit lanes be added from
White Street to the intersection of Erkwood and Shepherd Streets. In addition, the intersection of Erkwood,
Shepherd and US 25 South be straightened.
We should recommend that a design forum be used to scope this project,
again assuming this approach has proven to be of value.
5. We
should recommend that the proposal to widen the NC # 225/US # 25 & I-26
Connector be added as a T.I.P. project.
Very much discussion
followed. It was the consensus of the Board that these recommendations pretty
much mirror the Board=s concerns.
Chairman Hawkins asked for
some more detail on how #4 came about.
Commissioner Moyer stated that this project originated with the City of
Hendersonville. The Board agreed with
Commissioners Hawkins and Moyer taking this list to the LGCCA tomorrow and get
their recommendation.
The next TAC meeting is
scheduled for November 9, 2000, when they will review the revised list. The
Board will receive the list and any recommendations from LGCCA and TAC at the
November 15 meeting.
There being no further
business to come before the Board, Chairman Hawkins adjourned the meeting.
_____________________________________
______________________________________
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board
Grady Hawkins, Chairman