MINUTES
STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY
OF HENDERSON DECEMBER 4, 2000
The Henderson
County Board of Commissioners met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30
p.m. in the Commissioners' Conference Room of the Henderson County Office
Building. This was the annual organizational meeting.
Those present
were: Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chair
Marilyn Gordon, Commissioner Grady Hawkins, Commissioner Don Ward, Commissioner-elect Charlie Messer, County
Manager David E. Nicholson, County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, and Clerk to the
Board Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present were:
Interim Planning Director Karen C. Smith, Staff Attorney Jennifer O.
Jackson, County Engineer Gary Tweed, Finance
Director J. Carey McLelland, and Public
Information Officer Chris S. Coulson.
CALL TO
ORDER/WELCOME
Clerk to the Board
Elizabeth Corn called the meeting to order (on behalf of the Henderson County
Board of Commissioners) and welcomed all in attendance.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner
Gordon led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
Evangelist Harold
McKinnish, gave the invocation.
ELECTION OF
CHAIRMAN
Mrs. Corn stated
that the first order of business was the election of a Chairman who will serve
in that position for one year. She
opened the floor to nominations.
Commissioner
Gordon nominated Commissioner Moyer. Commissioner Ward made the motion to
suspend the rules and appoint Mr. Moyer.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mrs. Corn then
turned the meeting over to Chairman Moyer.
ELECTION OF
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Chairman Moyer
opened the floor to nominations for Vice-Chairman. Commissioner Elect Messer nominated Commissioner Gordon. Commissioner Ward made the motion to suspend
the rules and appoint Mrs. Gordon. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
SWEARING-IN
Commissioner Grady
Hawkins and Commissioner Elect Charlie Messer were sworn in as their spouses
held the Bibles for them. Clerk of
Superior Court Tommy Thompson administered the oaths of office.
REVIEW OF PUBLIC
OFFICIAL=S BONDS
Pursuant to NCGS
58-72-20 and the Board=s Rules of Procedure, after the Chairman and
Vice-Chairman have been elected, the next order of business at the
organizational meeting is 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 |
|
George H. Erwin,
Jr., Sheriff |
$100,000.00 |
|
Nedra Whitlock
Moles, Register of Deeds |
$200,000.00 |
|
Terry F. Lyda,
Tax Collector |
$1,000,000.00 |
|
Darlene B.
Burgess, Deputy Tax Collector |
$500,000.00 |
|
J. Carey
McLelland, Finance Director |
$200,000.00 |
Presented for the
Board=s review were the
respective bonds for the above-referenced officials. The Assistant County Attorney has reviewed these bonds and
reported to the Board that they appear to be valid and in order. If the Board is satisfied with the bond
amounts that are currently in place, approval was recommended by staff.
Chairman Moyer
made the motion to approve the bonds as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT
OF AGENDA
Chairman Moyer
asked the Board if there were any adjustments to the agenda.
Chairman Moyer
asked for three things to be added to the agenda:
1. Planning Board and Mills River/Fletcher
Land Use Study.
2. Iredell County Resolution regarding voter
identification.
3.
2001 Goals & Objectives
Commissioner
Hawkins asked for one addition regarding the Mud Creek Contract of Purchase and
Interlocal Agreement that action be deferred until such time that the Board has
had an opportunity to look through the exhibits. This will be a 30 year document for setting preferences of sewer
extensions in the county. The document
has been in the works for seven months, it evolved from a three page memorandum
to a 21 page document. He asked for a workshop to be set for the Commissioners
to review the document in detail and get some of their questions answered.
Chairman Hawkins then made the motion to defer action until the Board had time
to review the document in detail.
Commissioner Messer
felt that he needed some time to research this document and get up to speed
before taking action on it.
It had been planned
for City Council to join our meeting at 6:30 for the discussion of this agenda
item. Commissioner Moyer asked if a
vote on this motion could be delayed until after that agenda item.
Chairman Moyer also
preferred to have the discussion on the agenda item.
Commissioner
Hawkins restated his motion Ato defer action on
it until we=ve had a workshop@.
Chairman Moyer
called for a vote on the motion which is without discussion, to defer this item
until a workshop can be held. A vote
was taken and the motion carried three to two with Commissioners Moyer and
Gordon voting nay.
Staff was asked to
notify City Council that action has been deferred on this item. Mr. Nicholson sent Selena Coffey up to the
City Council meeting to notify them.
David Nicholson
stated that he had a couple of additions to go under AImportant Dates@.
STATEMENT BY NEW
COMMISSIONER CHARLIE MESSER
Commissioner Messer
thanked everyone for coming to this swearing-in tonight. There were several people in the audience
who had come particularly for that part of the meeting. He thanked the people of Henderson County
for supporting him and stated that it made him feel real good. Mr. Messer stated that when he was elected
to the Fletcher Council he followed a great lady, Mrs. Maude Hendrix, and today
he once again follows another great lady, Mrs. Renee Kumor. He stated that Mrs. Kumor had been a role
model and a hard worker and that her results are apparent all over Henderson
County. He stated that it was an honor
to be elected to this position. He thanked the people of the county for giving
him the opportunity to serve them.
Applause followed.
Commissioner Ward
made the motion to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Ward
made the motion to approve the consent agenda with the exception of item B
(review of public official=s bonds). All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The CONSENT AGENDA consisted
of the following:
Minutes
Minutes had been
presented for the Board=s review and
approval of the following meetings:
August 21, 1996 regular meeting
August 7, 2000 regular meeting
September 25, 2000 special called meeting
October 30, 2000 special called meeting
November 6, 2000 regular meeting
November 7, 2000 special called meeting
November 21, 2000 special called meeting
Approval of Closed
Session Minutes
The Board was
requested to adopt the following motion:
Motion:
The following closed session minutes are hereby approved and shall be deemed
sealed as provided by Section 11-6 of the Henderson County Code:
1.
Minutes for the closed sessions held on February 7, 2000, July 3, 2000,
July 26, 2000, October 2, 2000, and October 18, 2000 as presented during the
closed session of November 15, 2000.
Henderson County
Financial Report - October 2000
The Henderson
County Financial Report for October 2000 was presented for information and
consent approval.
During the month of
August, the County received a significant amount ($5.74 million) of State
reimbursements included in the October revenue totals that were actually
recorded as accounts receivable at June 30th. These revenues will be adjusted from the
current fiscal year=s totals in the month of December.
The year to date
budget percentage used for Governing Body was higher than usual during October
due to the capital outlay purchase of videotaping equipment for the
Commissioners= Meeting Room.
Project to date
expenditures on the New Balfour/Clear Creek and Etowah School Building Projects
will be reimbursed from proceeds of the 2001 School COPs debt issue.
Henderson County
Public Schools Financial Report - October 2000
This report was
presented for information and consent approval.
Tax Collector=s Report
Terry F. Lyda, Tax
Collector, had provided the Tax Collector=s Report to the
Board dated through 11/28/00.
Darlene Burgess,
Deputy Tax Collector, had provided the Deputy Tax Collector=s Report to the
Board dated November 27, 2000.
Cliff=s Valley North -
Proposed Private Water System
By way of a letter
dated November 1, 2000, Henderson County had received notice that Blue Ridge
Rural Water Company, Inc., a South Carolina corporation authorized to do
business in North Carolina, intends to put in a private water system to serve
the Henderson County side of the subdivision known as Cliff=s Valley
North. The Board was reminded that this
subdivision splits the North Carolina/South Carolina border.
Under South
Carolina law, the Company is required to provide notice to Henderson County of
its intentions and give the Board of Commissioners 90 days in which to approve
the request or advise the Company of the County=s intention to
provide public water service in that area.
In addition to
complying with South Carolina law, the Company will also have to satisfy North
Carolina laws and regulations with regard to the provision of water services
and the County was advised that they have done so. If the County had adopted any ordinances addressing water
service, those provisions would also apply; however, currently there are no
such ordinances in place.
Staff was not aware
of any plans by the County or by the City of Hendersonville to provide public
water service in the area under construction.
Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Board to approve the Company=s request to serve
the area by private water facilities.
County Manager=s Salary
The Board was
requested to approve a 4% salary increase for the County Manager.
Road Petitions (for
addition to the State Maintenance System):
The Board was
presented with road petitions received to add two roads to the State
Maintenance System: 1. Crestview Drive, and 2. Sherwood Drive. Lee King of the Property Addressing
Department has reviewed the petitions and his recommendation was for adoption.
It has been the
practice of this Board to accept road petitions and forward them to NC DOT for
their review. It has also been the
practice of the Board not to ask NC DOT to change the priority for roads on the
paving priority list.
Detention Center
Project Report
The monthly Capital
Improvements Project Report for the new Detention Center was presented for the
Board=s review for the month of November 2000.
Records Retention
Schedule for Pardee Hospital
The Board was
requested to approve the Records Retention Schedule and the amendment proposed
by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources. Every County Department has a Records
Retention Schedule, and Pardee is no exception. The Schedule states how long records must be retained before they
can be destroyed. The Schedule is
primarily drafted by the State, with little room for the County to vary its
terms.
As Pardee is
considered a County Hospital by the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, County approval of the Schedule and the proposed amendment is
necessary. The Board has previously
approved several different schedules for other Departments. Such approval is a routine matter. The Hospital has already approved them.
The County Manager
recommended that the Board approve the Records Retention Schedule and the
proposed amendment.
A copy of the
Records Retention Schedule for County Hospital had been distributed to each
Commissioner for their review.
NOMINATIONS
Notification of
Vacancies
The Board was
notified of the following vacancies which will appear on the next agenda under ANominations@:
1. Nursing/Adult
Care Home Community Advisory Committee - 6 vac.
Chairman Moyer
asked Amy Brantley to update the Board on the status of the Nursing/Adult Care
Home Community Advisory Committee. Ms. Brantley was present through ANominations@.
Amy Brantley
informed the Board that the six vacancies listed under ANotification of
Vacancies@ are vacancies that will be coming up on that
Board in the year 2001. The way that
procedure is set up, we make the Board aware of all those vacancies, alert the
members and ask them to let us know at this time whether they will be able to
fill the vacancy again for next year.
Those letters will go out to the members soon.
Angela Beeker
stated that the process provides that there is a membership drive that occurs
now once the Board has been made aware of the up-coming vacancies, to try to
get people interested in applying into a pool of applicants that appointments
can be made from.
Amy Brantley
explained that the three vacancies listed under ANominations@ can be filled
right away if the Board sees fit, one is a designated position which must first
be approved by the Nursing Homes before making the appointment, the other two
are undesignated and do not have to be approved by the Nursing Homes.
Nominations
Chairman Moyer reminded the Board of the following
vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
1. Nursing/Adult
Care Home Community Advisory Committee - 3 vac.
Commissioner Ward
nominated Calvin Adams to fill position #10 (undesignated). Due to the fact
that we have not heard back from the Chairman regarding this nominee, Chairman
Moyer rolled this to the next meeting.
Amy Brantley
explained that we notify the Chairman of all interested applicants or nominees
for this particular Committee. His
committee goes through a process of familiarizing nominees/applicants of what
is involved in serving on this committee and then the Chairman contacts Ms.
Brantley to let her know if the person is still interested and qualified to
serve. At this time we have not heard
back from the Chairman regarding Calvin Adams.
2. Mountain
Area Workforce Development Board - 2 vac.
Commissioner Gordon
nominated John Thornton as recommended by the Chamber of Commerce. Commissioner
Ward made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Mr. Thornton. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
3.
Child Fatality Prevention Team - 1 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
4.
Land-of-Sky Regional Council Advisory Council on Aging - 1 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
5.
Downtown Hendersonville, Inc. - 1 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
6.
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 1 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
7.
Fire and Rescue Advisory Committee - 7 vac.
Three
recommendations had been made from the Fire & Rescue Association for
appointment by this Board of Commissioners; William (Bill) Hill, Rick
Livingston, and Jerry Pace. Rocky
Hyder, Fire Marshal, came forward and informed the Board that all three
candidates are subject to the Fire District Tax and have been residents of
Henderson County for five years and therefore are eligible to serve in this
capacity.
The three above
names were placed in nominations at the November 15 Commission meeting along
with Gary Brown, Chip Gould, Gary Jones and Lee Roy Nicholson.
Commissioner Ward
made the motion to consider the block of three names from the Fire & Rescue
Association separately from the three nominees from this Board of
Commissioners. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. Commissioner Ward
then made the motion to appoint Bill Hill, Rick Livingston, and Jerry Pace at
this time. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
It was determined
that two of the Board=s nominees were not eligible to serve; Gary
Brown and Gary Jones. Their names were
removed from consideration.
Commissioner Gordon nominated Charlie King making the Board=s three nominees
Chip Gould, Lee Roy Nicholson, and Charlie King. Mrs. Beeker expressed her
opinion that a paid employee of any of the County Fire Departments would have a
financial conflict of interest.
There was some
discussion regarding the by-laws and the need to work on the details regarding
membership. Angela Beeker was directed
to work on that for the future. The
Board=s consensus at this time was to apply the
interpretation that if you own a business (real or personal) or residential
property in the tax district then you qualify for appointment.
Commissioner Ward
made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Chip Gould, Lee Roy Nicholson,
and Charlie King pending staff checking on Mr. King=s residency and it
meeting requirements. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
8.
Apple Country Greenway Commission - 1 vac.
At the November 15
Commission meeting, Erica Thompson and Dan Gilbert were nominated. The Clerk
polled the Board with each Commissioner having one vote. Dan Gilbert received three of the five
votes. And was therefore appointed.
FY 2001-2003 WORK
FIRST PLAN
The Commissioners
had been presented earlier with the FY 2001-03 Work First Plan for their
review. As the designated administrator of the Work First Block Grant, the
Board of Social Services had reviewed and approved the Plan on November 16,
2000. The Plan has also been available
for public review and comment. Before
this Plan can be submitted to the State, the Board of Commissioners is required
to formally approve it.
The County Manager
stated that Henderson County has developed a very successful Work First
Program. This updated Plan was
developed by the staff of the Department of Social Services with the assistance
of several community groups over the past several months. Based on the approval of the DSS Board,
County Staff recommended that the FY 2001-03 Henderson County Work First Plan
be approved by the Board of Commissioners and be submitted to the State of
North Carolina.
Patti Leonard,
Supervisor of the Work First Employment Program, presented the plan to the
Board and answered their questions. If
the Board chooses to approve the plan, she requested a letter signed by the
Commission Chair to accompany the report to Raleigh.
She explained that:
$
The focus is on the original vision statement and the simple delivery
of services to customers.
Vision Statement:
To increase opportunities for people who want to work and to provide training,
support, and incentives to move them from welfare to sustained employment.
$
The plan is a product of the generation of ideas from an extended group
of community leaders and interested citizens.
There is community Aownership@ of the plan.
$
The planning process has stretched over a year.
$
The Plan addresses all statewide Work First Goals (pages 12-13).
$
Innovative strategies have been implemented or will be put into place
that provide support for the customer (pages 34-37).
$
The Plan suggests new eligibility criteria for public assistance (page
26).
Patti informed the
Board that welfare roles have been reduced 70% since the start of the Work
First Plan. She also informed the Board
that Henderson County was the only county to receive straight A=s on the State
Report Card so our plan is working.
Commissioner
Hawkins stated that he enjoyed working on this committee and he highlighted the
following:
We
are not automatically an electing county.
The plan has to be submitted to the State and we must be approved to
remain electing or not. He discussed some reasons to remain an electing county. He also explained that the Work First
Program is a children=s program, there has to be a child in the
equation to qualify.
He explained a
couple of things that Henderson County chose to make changes to that are
different from the state-wide regulations:
1. Automatic
benefit diversions which would give DSS (administrator of the program) a lot of
latitude in furthering the mission that the Board set out on - to help people
find work and be productive in society.
A couple of months of benefit diversion amounts of $710 for a family
which may keep them from ever being in the Work First Program.
2.
In our eligibility requirements, the reasons for the changes, he
expressed that he hoped we could beef that up on our justification.
He spoke briefly to
maintenance of effort. We are currently
serving fewer families and spending more per family. He raised a question about
the savings in the maintenance of effort and how the Board might want to budget
those savings.
Patti Leonard
explained that they have found across the State that spending more money per
family does make a difference.
Guidelines on supported services have been loosened up and we can now
help with transportation expenses above and beyond the limits that they used to
set. We can help in several different
areas of housing expenses where we couldn=t before.
Liston Smith,
Director of DSS, emphasized again the straight A=s that Henderson
County received on the State report card.
He bragged about the community, the Board of Social Services, the County
Manager, Grady and the County Commissioners and their dedication to this Work
First Plan. He explained that the
concept of having the community run the Work First Program is a novel and
unique idea. Henderson County was the
only electing county to make straight A=s. Mr. Smith stated that we are right at the
cutting edge. We did well because the
community got involved, the elected officials, the churches, a lot of
involvement. Mr. Smith stated that his
staff had diverted over 81 families last year that didn=t even have to come
onto Work First and on welfare. They
like that so much that they are trying to expand that program as a requirement
for everyone, just to see how many more people they can keep from ever going on
welfare in the first place. In child
support we were ahead of the rest of the counties by around 20% in collections
for our Work First families. We were
suppose to put around 100 people to work and instead we put around 175 to work. This county is certainly doing a commendable
job. He stated that we are working
under the requirement that we have to spend the same amount of money this year
and next year as we did last year, that was budgeted in the year 1995 and 1996. We have the challenge, regardless of how
many people we are serving, we still have to spend the same amount of money,
that is a requirement.
Mr. Smith explained
that the State has made rules that you can use the Work First Block Grant
monies for other things than the Work First Program, one of those is child
protective services, the other is serving anybody under 200% of the poverty
level. At this time Henderson County is
not exercising that second option.
Instead we take the funds and put them into targeted areas of
service. Our reduction is largely in
the 100% federal funds which they are keeping on the State level.
Mr. Smith stated
that on the 10%, as far as anticipating what he would recommend to the Board of
Social Services and to the Board of Commissioners - is any savings that we can
take from the Work First Block Grant that we put that into child protective
services and foster care type services in our community or at least consider
those before we put them into other areas.
Commissioner
Hawkins made the motion to approve the plan and authorize it to be filed with
the State. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
INFORMAL PUBLIC
COMMENTS
1. Michael L.
Hammed - Mr. Hammed contested a proposal to build an asphalt plant near the
community of Grimesdale and Hickory Hills. This plant is proposed to be built
near Balfour Elementary School. He
requested the Board of Commissioners set a moratorium on the construction of
asphalt plants in our county.
2. Eva Ritchey - Mrs. Ritchey
spoke about the construction and development of schools in Henderson County and
the spending of county tax monies for schools, stating that we are building
second rate schools. She read a short article from the Associated Press,
Statesville, (Iredell County) November 23, 2000. The article spoke about
environmentally friendly schools, certified for their green design.
These schools are
quoted to be a money saver for the system because of reduced energy
consumption.
She asked why we
can=t build those type schools here.
Mrs. Ritchey
thanked Commissioner Messer for the kind words he had to say about former
County Commissioner Renee Kumor, stating that he had very big slippers to fill.
3. Larry VanDerVwet - Mr. VanDerVwet
spoke in opposition to the proposed asphalt plant along highway #25 north. He spoke on behalf of the Stoney Mountain
Homeowners Association. Mr. VanDerVwet
stated that he has a little bit of knowledge about asphalt as it was his bread
and butter for about five years back in the 50's. He spoke about the toxic nature of asphalt and the detriment to
the residents in the community.
4. Janet Stewart - Ms. Stewart
distributed copies of her statement (2 pages typed) protesting the proposed
asphalt plant to be built off Hwy. 25 north, just before Bildon by Tar Heel
Paving, John L. Pace Enterprises, Inc.
She stated that this proposed asphalt plant at this location would be a
great negative impact on property values, public health, and future
development.
5. Dennis Justice - Mr. Justice
spoke about his opposition to Henderson County funding (public funding) a group
called ADesigning Our Future@. He stated that citizens have a better impact
coming to a Commission meeting and speaking before the Board of Commissioners,
the cameras, and the Times News than going and speaking at a ADesigning Our
Future@ meeting. He feels that groups like this
diminish the results. He stated that he
feels that the Informal Public Comment part of the Board=s agenda should be
televised just as the rest of the meeting is.
He also stated that he felt that all governmental meetings should be in the
Commissioners= meeting room and be televised on Mediacom.
He also stated that
Henderson County needs a shorter web address, stating that a shorter address
could be gotten for about $200. How can one be expected to remember such a
lengthy web address?
STATEMENT re:
Asphalt Plant
Chairman Moyer
asked the County Manager to address this issue at this time due to the informal
public comments received today. Chairman Moyer stated that the Commissioners
first learned of this last Thursday when they started receiving phone calls,
e-mails, etc. with respect to it.
David Nicholson
stated that the property in question is not in the county zoning area, it is
just outside a county I-2 zoning area, it is therefore unzoned. It is not
located in the City=s ETJ area. We have learned that the air
quality section of DEHNR (Division of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources) will hold a public hearing on the air quality permit. We have been informed that it will be a very
strict hearing from the standpoint that it will only focus on air quality
issues. The date has not been set for
that public hearing at this time.
Henderson County
will follow up on the information that solid waste is being buried on the
site. Currently the site is snow
covered. County Staff spoke to the owner of the land today who said they were
doing some grading and seeding on the property. County Staff will check to see if they got their state permit for
erosion control issues. Staff was also
told that they are stock-piling some used asphalt on the site to reuse when the
plant is operational. Mr. Nicholson
stated that we have a copy of the letter from the Army Corp. of Engineers
indicating there are no wet land issues on the property. It may very well be in the floodplain. Henderson County does not have a floodplain
ordinance nor do they participate in
the federal floodplain plan.
Mr. Nicholson
stated that county staff would be happy to take their names and numbers and
staff will call them when we hear that the public hearing has been scheduled.
The only
alternative this Board would have is to direct staff to develop some type of
asphalt plant ordinance. It would
probably not affect this one because it likely would be grandfathered in. He
encouraged citizens to look to DEHNR for answers to their air quality issues.
Chairman Moyer
stated that we will continue to explore this issue, explore what options we
have and later decide whether this needs to be an agenda item on a future
meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING -
Short Street Extension
Commissioner Ward
made the motion for the Board to go into public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Rocky Hyder
introduced his new Property Addressing Coordinator, Mr. Curtis Griffin, to the
Board. Mr. Hyder then updated the Board
on the following:
Short Street
Extension is a new road running East to West from Thompson Street to North Main
Street (behind Home Depot).
Approximately 20 percent of this street is located within the City of
Hendersonville and 80 percent in Henderson County.
On September 22,
2000, eighteen property owners along newly constructed AShort Street
Extension@ were notified of a proposal to name said
road, Signal Hill Road. Along with the
letter of notification, property owners were furnished a ballot, return
envelope, and map of the area. Twelve
ballots were returned by the October 18, 2000 deadline, nine in favor of Will
Heaton By-pass and three in favor of Signal Hill Road (neither name
demonstrating a majority). He stated
that two additional ballots were returned well after the deadline, in favor of
Will Heaton By-pass.
The Board of
Commissioners designated December 4, 2000, 7:00 p.m. for a Public Hearing on
the naming of Short Street Extension.
Notices of the Public Hearing were posted at Winn Dixie, Home Depot, and
along the road in question at three locations.
A legal notice was placed in the Times News on Friday, November 17,
2000. In addition to the public
notices, all property owners along the road in question were notified by letter
(standard mail, not certified).
The NC DOT had
given the road a project name only, Short Street Extension, they did not name
the road nor did they assign a state road number to it.
Chairman Moyer
pointed out that the responsibility for this got transferred from someone else
to Mr. Hyder in the middle of this issue.
He asked if Rocky knew whether the City of Hendersonville had tried in
any way to coordinate with the addressing office with respect to the naming of
the road. Mr. Hyder stated that
according to a letter that he has from City Manager, Chris Carter, the City of
Hendersonville did check with the addressing office to make sure that this was
not a duplicate road name. Other than
that, there was no other polling or balloting done on their behalf.
Public Input
1. Richard Rhodes - Mr. Rhodes
stated that it was at the suggestion of WHKP radio station that the name Signal
Hill Road came about because the dominant landmark on this road is the radio
tower from which their signal emanates and covers the county. This road would not have been possible at
all without WHKP donating over $100,000 worth of property for the road. They only suggested that a good name for
that road would be Signal Hill Road because of the tower being on the
road. The City of Hendersonville agreed. He felt that it would be extremely confusing
to have two names on one road. On
behalf of WHKP and their 53 years of service to this county, he respectfully
asked the Commissioners to consider agreeing with the City of Hendersonville
that the best name for this road is Signal Hill Road.
2. Helen Stansell - Mrs. Stansell
lives in the vicinity of the new road.
She asked that the road be named Will Heaton Drive. She stated that a majority of the property
owners and citizens of this old community have submitted ballots and letters
(later) in favor of the name Will Heaton Drive. She stated that the largest portion of the road cuts right
through the old Heaton property, through the middle of the late Haskell Heaton
property. This property has been in the
Heaton family since his father, Will Heaton purchased it the 1930's. She stated that the little community has a
lot of heritage and a lot of pride. Mrs. Stansell stated that WHKP is to be
commended for donating the property but she also stated that it would be of
monetary value to them. She said she
heard recently that they may even be dismantling the signal tower.
3. Charles W.
Steadman - Mr. Steadman asked where the City/County boundary was on the
road. Chairman Moyer asked Rocky Hyder
to show Mr. Steadman on a map.
Mr. Steadman asked
that the County consider naming the county portion of the road William Heaton
Drive.
4. Jim Mead - Mr. Mead stated
that on the original forms they were sent it stated that the City has submitted
the name Signal Hill Road, it did not state that it was named that. It also stated that if they wished to have a
different name, they needed 50% or more in agreement. He further stated that the Signal Tower isn=t in the City, it
is in the County. He asked the Board to
take into consideration the feelings of the people who have to live on that
road and their desires for the road name.
5. Margaret Coleman - Mrs. Coleman
stated that she married into the Heaton family in 1950, knowing the background
of her Mother-in-law and Father-in-law.
She and her husband had planned to build their retirement home up on the
hill, right where the road came through.
She spoke in favor of the road name Will Heaton Drive. She stated that the Heaton=s lost a son in
World War II, William McNeal Heaton. He had already completed all his missions
and was ready to come back home when they asked for volunteers and he
volunteered and he got shot down on that mission. McNeal Heaton was named William after his father, William Heaton.
Commissioner Ward
asked for a clarification on whether the City of Hendersonville had submitted
the name or had actually named the road.
Rocky Hyder said
that according to a letter from Chris Carter, City Manager, the City named
their portion of the road Signal Hill Road.
They submitted it to Henderson County to see if there was a duplicate
name and there was not so then the City of Hendersonville named their portion
(20%) of the road Signal Hill Road.
According to the dates on letters, the City of Hendersonville had
already named their portion of the road prior to the citizens receiving their
ballots from the County.
In closing, Rocky
Hyder stated that with all due respect to the history of the area and the
people that support the Will Heaton name, and due to the fact that the City of
Hendersonville has already named their portion of this road, it limits our
options considerably. Also to be
consistent with our mission to reduce confusion for our emergency responders
and uniformity, Rocky stated that staff recommends naming this road Signal Hill
Road.
Commissioner Ward
made the motion for the Board to go out of public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Ward
asked for a delay in taking action, asked staff to get clarification from the
City of Hendersonville about when they actually took action on the road name
and how they could do so without first contacting Rocky Hyder. He spoke about
the confusion in many large cities of going down a street and suddenly it
changes name.
Chairman Moyer
stated that what we need to do is contact the City of Hendersonville and come
up with a procedure for handling things like this in the future where there is
joint jurisdiction. Henderson County further complicated the matter by sending
out the ballots. He stated that it
makes no sense sending out ballots if you=re not going to
abide by them.
Commissioner Gordon
made the motion to approve the naming of the road as Signal Hill Road in
keeping with the action already taken by City Council and for reasons of
consistency. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Ward
suggested a letter to the Mayor from the Chairman to try to keep this type of
confusion down in the future.
Commissioner Gordon stated that this happened at an unfortunate point in
time when the guidelines were not there to see that this doesn=t happen.
CLOSED SESSION
Chairman Moyer made
the motion for the Board to go into Closed Session as allowed pursuant to NCGS
143-318.11 for the following reasons:
1.(a)(1) To
prevent disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant
to the law of this State or of the United States, or not considered a public
record within the meaning of Chapter 132 of the General Statutes, in accordance
with and pursuant to NCGS 143-318.10(e) and Article II of Chapter 11 of the
Henderson County Code.
2.(a)(3) To
consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to
preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public
body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged.
All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Commissioner Gordon
made the motion for the Board to go out of closed session. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
FINANCING OF THE
ETOWAH AND CLEAR CREEK/BALFOUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
David Nicholson
reminded the Board that the Henderson County Board of Public Education is
proceeding with the Etowah Elementary School Project and the Clear
Creek/Balfour Elementary School Project. These two Projects are expected to require
financing in the amount of $16,000,000. The Board of Education has requested
the County=s assistance with that financing. The County proposes to finance these
Projects through the issuance of Certificates of Participation (COPs).
The draft financing
documents had been copied for the Board and distributed in an envelope with the
agenda books. The Financing Calendar
briefly described the events necessary to accomplish the COPs financing.
This type of
financing requires an application to the Local Government Commission (LGC) and
a public hearing prior to taking any action to approve the financing
documents. Bond counsel has assisted
the County with the preparation of a Resolution which sets a public hearing for
the Board=s December 20, 2000 meeting and which
authorizes the filing of the application with the LGC. The Resolution was shown within the proposed
Extracts which were submitted to the Board.
The Board also received a copy of the proposed Notice of Public Hearing.
The County Manager
recommended that the Board use the extract as a script for adoption of the
Resolution Setting Public Hearing on the Proposed Installment Financing of
Public School Facilities and Authorizing the Filing of an Application with the
Local Government Commission of North Carolina for Approval of Such Installment
Financing.
Commissioner Grady
Hawkins moved the adoption of the following resolution:
RESOLUTION SETTING
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
PROPOSED
INSTALLMENT FINANCING OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES AND
AUTHORIZING THE FILING
OF AN APPLICATION WITH THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA FOR APPROVAL OF SUCH
INSTALLMENT
FINANCING
WHEREAS, the Henderson
County Board of Commissioners desires to hold a public hearing in connection
with the installment financing by the County of certain public school
facilities to be located in the county; and
WHEREAS, the County is
required to file an application with the Local Government Commission of North
Carolina (the ALGC@) requesting
approval of the transactions contemplated by the proposed installment financing
of such public school facilities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE
IT RESOLVED by the Henderson County Board of Commissioners as follows:
1.
That a public hearing addressing the proposed installment financing of
certain school facilities in the County shall be held on the 20th
day of December, at ll:00 a.m. in the Meeting Room of the County Administration
Building located at 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, North Carolina
28792.
2.
That the Clerk to the Board is hereby directed to cause a notice of
such hearing to be published in a qualified newspaper no fewer than ten (10)
days prior to such public hearing.
3.
That the County Manager and the Finance Director are hereby authorized
and directed to file an application with the LGC for the LGC=s approval of the
installment financing contract pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 160A-20 and Section
159-148, and to execute a sworn statement of debt of the County pursuant to
N.C.G.S. Section 159-150, in connection with the financing of the proposed
public school facilities.
The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Don Ward and was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners
Moyer, Gordon, Hawkins, Ward, and Messer.
NAYS: None.
The County Manager stated that a Joint
Facilities Meeting should probably take place in the next few weeks to make
sure Henderson County clearly understands where the money will come from to
finish up this project. Mr. Nicholson
also reviewed the Financing Calendar with the Board. He also reviewed the
Public Schools Capital Funding chart for Major and Recurring expenses.
Chairman Moyer stated that he would like to
ask the Board of the Financing Corporation to increase the number of Directors
to five, it is currently three (David Nicholson, Bill Blalock and Commissioner
Moyer), and that the Board appoint two additional Directors. He suggested Commissioners Gordon and Ward
be elected to that Board to fill the two new vacancies. Chairman Moyer moved the approval of
expansion of that Board (after it=s recommended by
the Board of the Financing Authority)
to five and to appoint Commissioners Gordon and Ward to that Board.
Following discussion, it was recommended that
the Financing Authority Board take the first step and then bring it back to the
Board of Commissioners for approval.
REWRITE OF THE
HENDERSON COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
Karen Smith reminded the Board that at a
Special Called Meeting on October 30, 2000, the Henderson County Planning Board
voted 5 to 0 in favor of sending the Board of Commissioners a favorable
recommendation on a draft of the proposed new Zoning Ordinance. As part of its recommendation, the Planning
Board stated that it would like to have the ability to send the Commissioners
additional changes to the draft if they were needed to address issues that may
arise between now and the time of a public hearing on the draft.
Julia Cogburn of Benchmark, Inc., has been
making final changes to the draft ordinance based on the Planning Board=s review on October
30, 2000. Ms. Cogburn is also finalizing
a list of the significant changes to the ordinance. She had delivered copies of both documents to the Planning
Department and Staff distributed them to the Commissioners at this meeting.
The Board will need to determine how to
proceed with reviewing the document.
Staff felt that the Commissioners would need to hold several work
sessions in order to gain a level of comfort with the new ordinance prior to
scheduling a public hearing.
Staff recommended that the Commissioners set
an initial work session that would involve Ms. Cogburn of Benchmark, Inc., and
either the full Planning Board or representatives of the Planning Board (such
as the Chairman and Vice-Chairman) to begin the review process. At the work session, Planning Staff and Ms.
Cogburn could provide a detailed overview of the new ordinance, explain how it
differs from the current ordinance and review how it relates to a list of
objectives established for the project by the Board of Commissioners. At subsequent work sessions, staff could focus
on certain sections of the ordinance and answer questions from Board
members. At some point in the review
process, Staff would like to obtain direction from the Commissioners regarding
potential map amendments related to the new ordinance.
Copies of the ordinance will be available for
public inspection at the Henderson County Library and at the Henderson County
Planning Department. They will also try
to get it on the County=s Web Site. The Planning Staff will also make copies for
anyone wishing one.
It was the consensus of the Board to set a
workshop on this item under AImportant Dates@ with
representatives of the Planning Board and Ms. Cogburn of Benchmark, Inc.
Chairman Moyer expressed thanks to Karen
Smith for her work on this project.
WATER POLICIES AND
RATE SCHEDULE
The County Attorney distributed the proposed
Water Policies that have been drafted as required by the ABHWA (Asheville
Buncombe Henderson Water Authority) Regional Water Supply and Water Service
Agreement adopted by the Board of Commissioners on November 11, 1995. A proposed rate schedule was also
distributed.
Mrs. Beeker explained that this is actually
an ordinance that would enact water policies for what is now currently the Cane
Creek Water & Sewer District. These
policies have been seen by the Board twice before. There were five small changes Mrs. Beeker pointed out to the
Board:
1.
Section 1.02 The last sentence
is a change from what the Board has seen before and it says Athis ordinance
seeks to obtain for Henderson County and those within the service district all
of the benefits conferred by the Regional Water Agreement.@
2.
Section 3.09 This is a
provision to limit the liability for Henderson County and the City of
Asheville. We have similar provisions
in our sewer ordinance and it=s fairly
standard. Basically it limits the
liability to a citizen, a customer for not providing water. It is consistent with what is currently in
the water policies for the Authority for the ABHWA. Mrs. Beeker had added a sentence at the end that says Anotwithstanding the
foregoing@ which means it doesn=t matter what it
just said in this paragraph, Athis provision
shall not alter or diminish the Authority=s responsibility to
provide water to Henderson County and those in the service district pursuant to
the Regional Water Agreement@ so it just
reinforces the Regional Water Agreement.
3.
Section 10.03 Mrs. Beeker added
the same sentence here. In the Water Agreement only certain sections of the
water agreement are subject to arbitration.
The introductory paragraph to 10.03 lists all those but also lists
subsection 4.2 and section 10 which are not subject to arbitration so we didn=t want to make any
confusion by lumping those all together in that paragraph in section 10.3 that
it would automatically make those subject to arbitration as well. It=s just a
clarification mainly for purposes of preserving the integrity of the
interpretation of the Regional Water Agreement. That change is also made in
10.04.
4.
Section 10.04 See above.
5.
Page #16 In number 3 on
page 16 - it said article 10 below but it should say article 10 above. This was just correction of a typographical
error.
Angela Beeker explained that Henderson County
entered into a Regional Water Agreement with the City of Asheville and the Asheville
Buncombe Water Authority to provide water in the northern end of Henderson
County. Right now that agreement
applies to the Cane Creek Water and Sewer District as it is drawn. That area can be made larger by a vote of
the Board but the Board has not done that yet so right now it=s just the Cane
Creek Water & Sewer District. There
are some things under that agreement that the County is responsible for and one
of those is enacting some water policies so that when citizens want water and want
to come forward and apply we have some policies that will control. The Agreement says that the policies that
you enact as a Board have to substantially conform with those of the
Authority. There can be some difference
but that has to be substantial conformance. To the extent possible, Mrs. Beeker
has incorporated a large portion of their=s by reference and
then the only differences being things that are in that Regional Water
Agreement. This is a combination of
provisions of the Regional Water Agreement and their policies. Another thing that the Board must do under
that Agreement is also to enact a schedule of fees, what it will cost someone
to get water. The Board has not seen
the fee schedule before.
Mrs. Beeker stated that she had taken the fee
schedule for the Authority and retyped it, changing the name. The front page represents the latest rates
adopted by ABHWA . The back two pages
are other charges that they have for other things. The Board has the ability to impose some additional fees.
Mrs. Beeker asked the Board to take this fee
schedule and review it. Mr. Tweed may
help with deciphering the fees and charges at the next meeting. The Board may wish to add some small
administrative fee to cover some staff costs for processing these applications as
they come in.
Chairman Moyer stated that this will be put
on the agenda for the December 20 meeting and he asked Gary Tweed if he could
be present for that meeting. Mr. Tweed
stated that he could.
David Nicholson stated that it is imperative
to get rates in place as we will start to get requests for water service in
that area.
UPDATE - WHERE
PLANNING BOARD STANDS ON
MILLS
RIVER/FLETCHER STUDY AREA
Public input sessions were going on at the
time of the last Commission meeting.
Chairman Moyer asked Karen Smith to update the Board.
Karen Smith explained that the Planning Board
established a timeline for this Mills River/Fletcher Area Land Use Study. They had a retreat in August and they had
intended to hold public input sessions in November and then spend some time
going through the input and all of the information that staff has collected and
has started mapping. Staff is close to
completion on mapping.
In order to get the Board of Commissioners a
final report some time in the spring - three public input sessions were
held. Staff has compiled all of the
comments from the input sessions and reviewed those some with the Planning
Board last week. Since then staff has
been reducing the comments into some common themes and will have a meeting with
the subcommittee of the Planning Board that works on this study tomorrow
afternoon to again go over these comments in detail and to try to integrate the
comments and all of the data that has been collected and try to start making
some recommendations. She expects the
subcommittee to bring some recommendations to the full Planning Board in
January and from there (if the full Planning Board agrees) would have a report
to the Commissioners some time, perhaps as early as March, depending on the
meeting schedule.
Karen had talked with the Planning Board last
week trying to make sure what this Board has in mind for the study and what the
Planning Board is actually doing are in sync.
Her understanding of the study was that it is a land use study, it=s probably going to
contain some recommendations from the Planning Board as to future actions in
the Mills River area. Karen stated that
she did not think the Planning Board is expecting to have to do a
recommendation on specific zoning, she thinks they are looking at a variety of
tools that are available. She asked if
there was anything specific that the Commissioners are looking for that she
could carry back to the subcommittee tomorrow or at future meetings.
Chairman Moyer made two points with respect
to the public hearings. He and
Commissioner Gordon both attended the second one. He stated that it was very effective and well done. He stated that we have an old Zoning
Ordinance, a new Zoning Ordinance and how do you do a land use study while you=re changing over in
the Zoning Ordinance. He has been
advising them to come up with generalized categories of land use that they
think would be appropriate for certain areas but not to put zoning
classifications on it. The Board would
then see where they are with respect to the zoning ordinance and would
determine how those two get married together or what the Board wants the
Planning Board to do with respect to marrying them. Also the Mills River Sewer Project - at some point all this has
to be brought together. He suggested
that the Planning Board continue to study the area, get familiar with it and
start thinking about the kind of uses they think might be appropriate, get that
far and the Board of Commissioners will see where they are with the Zoning
Ordinance Rewrite, where they are with respect to the Sewer Project and then
will give the Planning Board further direction.
Commissioner Hawkins stressed the importance
of the Board looking at zoning that is contiguous to municipalities, looking at
ETJ=s. He
stated that he gets a lot of calls from people that run into zoning problems
when municipalities throw their ETJ out, control their zoning with no
representation.
Karen stated that it had been over a year
since some residents of an area that was in the ETJ extension area for Laurel
Park had come to the County asking for zoning.
Their request didn=t get considered
before the extension of ETJ took place.
Laurel Park had indicated at that time that they would be interested in
relinquishing ETJ if the County came up with compatible zoning. Since that time, Laurel Park has annexed the
large subdivision called Somersby that was generating some of this interest in
the ETJ area and staff has had conversations with Laurel Park. They are still interested in giving up the
ETJ if we can do some zoning. The
Planning Board has asked staff to look at a little bit larger area, going
outside of the ETJ and trying to find some way to connect the pieces. Staff has done that and is having a public
input session or a drop in information on Thursday night with some residents of
the area.
Commissioner Gordon stressed that this is a
land use study, not a zoning study.
IREDELL COUNTY
RESOLUTION
Chairman Moyer had received a copy of a
Resolution that Iredell County had adopted and copied it to each Commissioner.
This resolution pertains to voter identification. Chairman Moyer read the Resolution and stated that he would love
to see all counties get behind this Resolution and adopt/support it.
This will be put back on a future agenda for
the Board=s consideration/adoption. It was the
consensus of the Board for Staff to make the appropriate changes to the
Resolution and that it be put on the Consent Agenda for the next meeting.
2001 GOALS &
OBJECTIVES
Chairman Moyer voiced the need for the Board
to set their goals and objectives for the coming year. There was some discussion of having either a
work session or a retreat to discuss goals/objectives.
Commissioner Gordon was impressed with the
way Dr. Burnham and the School Board had their last retreat and set their goals
and objectives. He used an individual
to help with the facilitation of the meeting and the School System will have
the same gentleman return in January to work with their new Board and to
re-evaluate their goals. Dr. Burnham
has contacted him to let him know that the Board of Commissioners is interested
and maybe we can piggy back with their meeting and share some of the travel
costs. It was the consensus of the
Board for Commissioner Gordon to follow through with this and report back to
the Board at the next meeting.
IMPORTANT DATES
Set Public Hearing
- Rezoning Application # R-03-00 (C-4 to C-2P)
Preservation North
Carolina, Applicant
Mr. Rex Todd of Regency Development
Associates, Inc., had submitted an application on behalf of the Preservation
Foundation of North Carolina (Preservation North Carolina) requesting that the
County rezone a 1.70 acre parcel that is owned by Preservation North Carolina
on Spartanburg Highway (US Hwy.#176) from a C-4 (Highway Commercial) district
to a C-2P (Preservation Neighborhood Commercial) district. The parcel proposed for rezoning is the site
of the old East Flat Rock Elementary School.
The Henderson County Planning Board reviewed
the application at its meeting on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 and voted to send
the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation on the request as
submitted. Before taking action on the
application, the Board of Commissioners must hold a public hearing.
Commissioner Ward made the motion to set this
public hearing for Tuesday, January 2, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
David Nicholson stated that Rochelle Miller
had contacted him about the need for a public hearing on the Community
Transportation Program. She requested
that it be set for December 20, 2000 at 11:00 a.m. David stated that this is for the on-going transportation
projects, not for new ones.
Commissioner Ward made the motion to set this
public hearing for Wednesday, December 20 at 11:00 a.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer asked David to make sure that Rochelle Miller understands that
if the Board is not comfortable with the information they receive to hold the
public hearing on, they will pull it.
Chairman Moyer asked if anyone would be away
between now and the end of the year.
Commissioner Ward plans to be out of town the last week in
December. Commissioner Hawkins plans to
be out of town the last two weeks in January.
David confirmed the December 12 meeting at 3:00
at Advantage West with the Chamber of Commerce.
David reminded the Board of the Annual
Employee Luncheon on Wednesday, December 13 from 11:00 to 2:00 and invited the
Board to attend, stating that it is a great opportunity to meet your employees
and have a nice meal.
Sheriff Erwin has his classification plan
ready to present to the Board. It was
the consensus of the Board to wait and set a special called meeting at the
January 2 meeting.
David asked the Board if they wished to go
ahead and set a time to meet with the Planning Board representatives regarding
the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite. It was
the consensus of the Board to set that meeting at the January 2 meeting.
The Board discussed setting a time for a Mud
Creek Water and Sewer District Sewer Agreement workshop. The Board set a workshop for Monday,
December 18 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
MUD CREEK WATER AND
SEWER DISTRICT
This item had been pulled from the agenda.
CANE CREEK WATER
AND SEWER DISTRICT
Commissioner Ward made the motion for the
Board to adjourn as Henderson County Board of Commissioners and convene as Cane
Creek Water and Sewer District. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Ward made the motion for the
Board to adjourn as the Cane Creek Water and Sewer District and reconvene as
the Henderson County Board of Commissioners.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Carolina Apparel
Trading Building
Chairman Moyer stated that there are many
rumors around and have been letters to the Editor with respect to the cost of
the Carolina Apparel Trading Building. The citizens are questioning the
decision making process the Commissioners went through. He asked the County Manager to create a fact
sheet that can be distributed, a Adata sheet@ if you will. The Carolina Apparel Building will be on
the December 20 agenda.
Legislative Goals
Conference - January 11 & 12
Chairman Moyer stated that at the next
meeting the Board will need to appoint a voting delegate for the Legislative
Goals Conference. He plans to attend
the conference and asked anyone else who plans to go to notify Mrs. Corn so she
can make the necessary arrangements.
Cane Creek Sewer
Rates
Commissioner Gordon made the motion for the
Board of Commissioners to approve the revised and reduced rate schedule for the
Cane Creek Water and Sewer District as presented, effective with the bills
generated the first of February, 2001. Commissioner Messer seconded the motion.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
There being no further business to come
before the Board, Commissioner Ward made the motion to adjourn the meeting at
approx. 10:00 p.m. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Attest:
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board William L. Moyer,
Chairman