MINUTES
STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY
OF HENDERSON SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
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.
Those present were: Chairman Grady Hawkins, Vice-Chairman Larry
Young, Commissioner Bill Moyer, Commissioner Charlie Messer, Commissioner Shannon
Baldwin, County Manager David E. Nicholson, County Attorney Angela S. Beeker,
and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present were:
Planning Director Karen C. Smith, Subdivision Administrator Derrick Cook,
Budget and Management Director Selena Coffey, Fire Marshal/Emergency Management
Coordinator Rocky Hyder, Paralegal
Connie Rayfield, EMS Director Terry Layne, Risk Management Director Bill
Byrnes, Finance Director J. Carey McLelland and Deputy Clerk to the Board Amy
Brantley.
Absent was: Public
Information Officer Chris S. Coulson.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Hawkins called
the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Bill Moyer led
the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
Dr. George Jones gave
the invocation.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF
AGENDA
Chairman Hawkins asked
that one item be added to the consent agenda, it was in the packet but not
listed on the agenda – as item “G – Taylor Forest Subdivision Improvement
Guarantee”.
Chairman Hawkins added
under Staff Reports as the first item – we will receive a proclamation and an
update on “Big Sweep” from Mr. Bill Ramsey, Chairman of the Solid Waste
Advisory Committee.
Chairman Hawkins asked
that the first reason for going into closed session be deleted.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to approve the revised
agenda. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Moyer asked
to pull one consent agenda item for some discussion – Item “E – Update on
County Comprehensive Plan and Other Major Planning Initiatives”.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to approve the consent
agenda as amended except for item “E”.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Minutes
Draft minutes were
presented for the Board’s review and approval of the following meeting(s):
August 4, 2003, regular meeting
Tax Collector’s Report
Terry F. Lyda, Henderson
County Tax Collector, had provided the Tax Collector’s report dated August 28,
2003 for the Board’s information.
Financial Report – July 2003
Cash Balance Report – July 2003
These reports were
presented for information only, consent approval.
Non-departmental expense
includes annual property/liability and worker’s compensation insurance premiums
paid to the NCACC Risk Management Pools.
This expense will be allocated out to all departments prior to fiscal
year end.
The Revaluation Reserve
Fund reported a year-to-date deficit primarily due to $13,000 in travel,
professional services and vehicle lease expense incurred in the first month of
the new fiscal year.
The deficit reported in
the CDBG-Scattered Site Housing is temporary due to a timing difference in the
expenditure of funds and the subsequent requisition of funds to reimburse these
expenditures.
The Human Services
Building Project deficit is due to architectural fees and demolition/abatement
work performed at the former Carolina Apparel Building. It is anticipated that these costs will be
recouped from financing proceeds for the project.
Henderson County Public Schools Financial Report – July 2003
This School Report was
present for information and consent approval.
Update on County Comprehensive Plan and Other Major Planning
Initiatives (this
item was pulled for some discussion)
Staff had provided an
issue update which summarized the tasks related to the CCP and the other major
planning initiatives that occurred over the past month. The update also included anticipated actions
for the coming month. No action was required.
Ambulance Franchise – Medical Emergency Ambulance Transport,
Inc.
Included in the agenda
packet was a draft franchise being granted to Medical Emergency Ambulance
Transport, Inc. The franchise
application was presented and approved at the last regular Board of
Commissioners meeting. The franchise
itself must be approved at two regular meetings of the Board before it is
effective.
Request for Extension of Improvement Guarantee for Taylor
Forest Subdivision
LAM Investments, Inc., Developer
On February 19, 2003 the
Board of Commissioners approved an application by LAM Investments, Inc. for an
improvement guarantee for a portion of Taylor Forest subdivision. As required by the Performance Guarantee
Agreement for the improvement guarantee, the developer posted with Henderson
County a letter of credit in the amount of $48,399.00 to cover the cost of
completing improvements including clearing, grading, drainage structure
installation, seeding, placement of stone and paving the first 1,000 linear
feet of a road serving the subdivision.
The Agreement also required that the improvements be completed by August
31, 2003.
Through its agent,
Luther E. Smith, LAM Investments, Inc. had submitted a letter requesting that
the County extend the deadline for completing the improvements by four
months. The letter states that
contracts for paving in Phase I of Taylor Forest are in place but that adverse
weather conditions have not allowed the stone base to be conditioned properly
for paving. Section 170-39 of the
Subdivision Ordinance allows the Board of Commissioners “upon proof of
difficulty” to grant extensions to completion dates for improvement guarantees
for a maximum of one additional year, provided that the time between initiation
and completion of the required improvements does not exceed two years.
If the Board agrees to
extend the completion date for the improvements, staff had prepared for the
Board’s consideration a draft Performance Guarantee Agreement which reflects
the new completion date of December 31, 2003 and requires that the letter of
credit previously posted with the County be amended to reflect a new expiration
date that is at least 60 days after the proposed new completion date. The
developer has already provided such amended letter of credit. If the Board approves the extension request,
the County Attorney must review the amended letter of credit as to form and the
relevant parties must execute the new Agreement.
Mr. Nicholson stated
that the extension would not cause the developer to exceed the two-year maximum
time period for completion of the required improvements. He recommended that the Board approve the
request to extend the completion date for the improvement guarantee for a
portion of Taylor Forest subdivision to December 31, 2003, subject to the developer
providing an irrevocable letter of credit in accordance with the terms of the
new draft Performance Guarantee Agreement.
Update on County Comprehensive Plan and Other Major Planning
Initiatives (this
item was pulled for some discussion)
Staff had provided an
issue update which summarized the tasks related to the CCP and the other major
planning initiatives that occurred over the past month. The update also included anticipated actions
for the coming month. No action was required.
Commissioner Moyer
addressed the schedule for community meetings on the CCP. He recommended adding three additional
community meetings: Flat Rock, East
Flat Rock, and Laurel Park. Much
discussion followed including the fact that we are not holding meetings in
every community but rather were holding them by fire districts. Every community we have is in one of the
fire districts. The first scheduled CCP
meeting in December is a make-up meeting, for anyone who might have been
missed. Clear Creek community was another one mentioned that is not
specifically slated for their own community meeting. Commissioner Baldwin stated that no community was being excluded
from the process.
Karen Smith stated that
the input gathered at these community meetings is designed to be used as a
first step to the development of small area plans.
Staff was asked to look
at the possibility of holding additional community meetings and report back to
the Board about the possibility of a compromise.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to accept the consent
agenda with item “E” as discussed. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
NOMINATIONS
Nominations
Chairman Hawkins
reminded the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to
nominations:
Chairman Hawkins
nominated Gwenn Rice for position # 14.
There were no other nominations. Chairman Hawkins made the motion to accept
Ms. Rice by acclamation.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
Bill Lapsley’s name had
been placed in nomination at an earlier meeting.
Commissioner Moyer felt
that one of the two on the Board should be a County Commissioner.
Commissioner Messer
nominated Commissioner Moyer to fill that position.
The Clerk was asked to
poll the Board. Each Commissioner had
one vote. Bill Lapsley received three
votes to Bill Moyer’s two. Mr. Lapsley
will be our second representative on the Regional Water Authority. Jack Tate (Attorney) is our other
representative on the Water Authority Board.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
Chairman Hawkins
nominated Jonathan Parce. There were no
other nominations. Chairman Hawkins made the motion to accept
Mr. Parce by acclamation. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Cane Creek Advisory Board
David Nicholson had
placed in the agenda packet three drafts of the amendments to the charter of
this Board. Mr. Nicholson discussed the
different drafts with the main difference being the make-up of the board.
Following discussion, Chairman Hawkins made the motion for
the Board to accept Draft #3. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The make-up of the Board in draft #3 – of the
two members that the Board of Commissioners currently appoint, one is within
the boundaries of Mills River. By
rights he would have to come off the Board as it currently stands. Draft # 3 gives the Board of Commissioners
the flexibility to appoint a Commissioner and two people living wherever you
want and the Town Council could appoint two members, one which may be a member
of the Council (if they wish).
RESOLUTION – Big Sweep Day
Bill Ramsey, Chairman of
the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), stated that the SWAC continues to
meet at least quarterly on three basic priorities which were established by the
County Commissioners. The long-term
project is on waste to energy technology answers that might one day see us not
have landfill as the principal disposal mechanism. Another longer term on-going
effort is in the area of public education because we find a lot of the general
public does not understand the needs of the county as it relates to the whole
issue of solid waste. The issue he
wished to address at this time was the issue of litter. One contributor to our litter problem was
the loss of our prison in Henderson County as the prisoners would pick up
litter on the roadsides. Another is the
diminishment of participation in the “Adopt a Highway Program” in the last
year. There are approx. 65 contracts but with no mailing list and no active
communication with the groups who have adopted highways. There is an apparent loss of energy and
commitment on the part of many of them as demonstrated by the fact that very
few supplies for pick-up are being requested from the Stoney Mountain
Department of Transportation facility.
He proposed that a letter be sent once a mailing list is established to
the leaders of those Adopt-A-Highway groups to try to see if they can’t
re-energize once they understand the need the county has to see a more
effective job of litter pick-up happening.
Mr. Ramsey called the
Sheriff’s Department to find that the enforcement of litter laws has resulted
in the issuance of no tickets in the last several months. The public needs to be re-energized through
education and participation in the statewide litter sweep.
He requested that the
Board of Commissioners adopt a resolution declaring September 20, 2003 as “Big
Sweep Day”. A draft resolution had been
prepared and presented for the Board’s review.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to adopt the prepared
resolution declaring September 20 as “Big Sweep Day” and encouraging every
citizen to help clean up lakes and streams in particular during this
program. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
PRESENTATION OF ANNUAL REPORT
David Nicholson
presented the “2003 Annual Report” to the Board of Commissioners. This is an annual report to the citizens of
our county. He reviewed the items
contained in the report.
HISTORIC COURTHOUSE COMMITTEE PRESENTATION
Chairman Hawkins stated
that about six months ago the Board of Commissioners charged about 21 citizens
with a seemingly impossible task; however, they accomplished it with great
skill. He introduced Spence Campbell,
Chairman of the Committee, who gave the Board a report on the Committee and
what they had done in six months time. Mr. Nicholson had provided a separate
notebook to the Board detailing the information presented.
Mr. Campbell reviewed
the Charter given to the Committee before giving his Power Point presentation.
The Board had requested the Committee to tell the Board what should happen to
the courthouse itself, what should be done with the jail and other annexes, and
to come up with a funding scenario as well as an implementation schedule.
The recommendation to
the Board from the Committee was unanimous and included renovating the main
structure preserving it as a historic building, tearing down the present
annexes including the old jail, adding a new service annex to the back of the
building including an elevator and rest room facilities, to build an
underground parking garage, and to have a green park area above the garage as
well as in front of the courthouse. The
building would be inhabited by non-profits and a non-profit management corporation
would run the site. They recommended creating a public/private partnership for
funding the project. They recommended
keeping the military monuments on the site.
They also recommended celebrating the Centennial of the building in 2005
and finishing the renovation in 2007. Mr. Campbell showed a rendering of the
concept of the building from Main Street as well as other views. The estimated cost for the project was $7.5
million. They recommended that the
county pay $3.5 million with the rest coming from Federal, State,
Municipal Funds and private grants as well as a capital campaign conducted
locally. They also estimated that the
operation costs would be $125,000 yearly.
They suggested the need for a maintenance reserve of about $100,000 per
year to be funded through 1/8th of a cent property tax increase or
$1.25 per $100,000 evaluation as well as a ½ cent increase in the room
tax. Together these would generate
about $225,000 yearly. He touched on the seven phases of the project and showed
a graph of the recommended timeline. He briefly touched on the formation of a
501 (c)(3) non-profit management corporation.
Mr. Campbell stated that this plan is a concept, nothing in the plan is
set in concrete. Everything in the plan
needs further refinement.
Following Spence
Campbell, Dr. George Jones briefly addressed the Board. He was a member of the Historic Courthouse
Committee. On behalf of the Committee
members, Dr. Jones presented a framed picture of the Historic Courthouse to
Chairman Spence Campbell and thanked him for his service. Theron Maybin, another Committee member,
also briefly addressed the Board. They both asked the Commissioners to approve
the idea and to vow to not allow the historic building to be demolished but to
move forward with this recommendation.
The Board was asked to
adopt the concept and to appoint a Steering Committee or Board of Trustees to
work with county staff to accomplish the detailed planning.
Chairman Hawkins thanked
Spence Campbell and the Committee for their fine work and completing it on
task. He commended the Committee for
increasing community awareness of the historic courthouse. He stated that the Board, of course, wished
to move forward as quickly as possible.
He did state that if you take down the annexes then you have to find a
place to house the employees who work in those areas and that will have a
domino effect at some point. There is a
time capsule buried on the site and that has to be taken into consideration as
well as the placement of the monuments on the site. He mentioned that the 9-1-1 communication tower that is currently
at the courthouse may have to be relocated.
Following discussion, it
was the consensus of the Board to proceed with phase II of this project,
particularly the establishment of a 501(c)(3) for governance of the building
and to proceed from here by asking staff to look at the recommendations and to
come back to the Board within 30-60 days with staff suggestions on how to
proceed.
Mr. Campbell explained
that the purpose of the Steering Committee was a temporary purpose. The body would be in existence until the
doors open on the renovated courthouse.
Their mission would be to work with county staff to keep the project
moving in a direction that is compatible with what the Board wants and also to
continue to provide a way for the public to have input into the process. At the same time, it might have a sub-element
on a temporary basis which would be the fund-raising arm of the Steering
Committee or a non-profit body directly working with the Steering Committee or
part of it to begin the public fund-raising aspect of the project. The 501(c)(3) which will have been around
since day one of phase two will assume it’s total responsibility to manage the
site when the doors open at the end of the renovation project.
Chairman Hawkins stated
that one of the things the Board will have to do now that the ball is back in
their court is to take a look at our total county funding needs and see how to
integrate this particular program into that.
He has done a little bit of research on the additional monies that
should come into the county over a period of years which will grow out of the
Article 44 sales tax. The first numbers
he looked at would indicate that the county could probably fund their part of
the public/private venture out of that growth in sales tax which would mean it
wouldn’t be a burden on the property tax.
Commissioner Baldwin made the motion that the Board adopt
the report as a guide in principle and concept and to direct staff to begin
phase II as outlined in the document.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Applause followed.
Recess
Chairman Hawkins called
a brief technical recess.
Chairman Hawkins called the meeting back
to order and asked for any informal public comments at this time.
INFORMAL
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Steve Caraker - Mr. Caraker is a county employee who did
not wish to address the Board as an employee.
As the current Chairman and on behalf of the Henderson Historic
Preservation Commission he made a request for the Board to renovate and
rehabilitate the old county courthouse.
He read a letter he had written to the Board dated September 2,
2003.
He thanked the Board for
taking such action to start this ball rolling.
He offered his services and that of any of the Historic Preservation
Commission members, if needed, to help the project move forward.
Marian Lowry – Ms. Lowry is
co-President of the League of Women Voters.
She commended the Board for the action just taken today. The League had sent the Board a letter
showing their support of the project.
Eva Ritchey – Ms. Ritchey had
already left the meeting; therefore, she did not speak. She wrote beside her
name “Dr. Jones said it.”
Mary L. Singleton – Ms. Singleton is a
retired educator. She spoke about
litter in our county, mentioning the litter summit that was held in our county
earlier this year. She had been noticing
the increase of litter on our roads and decided to try to find out a little
more about litter. By talking with someone from the Health Department she found
out that the two main places that litter come from are from trucks carrying
things that are uncovered and from fast food restaurants. She investigated and found that the fast
food restaurants aren’t required to provide receptacles outside for trash. Most
of them used to have trash receptacles outside but now they do not. She found them currently at McDonalds, even
with extensions on them so you don’t have to get out of your car to put your
trash in them. The rest of them have
taken their receptacles inside. The
reason she gave for this is a loophole in our North Carolina law. Not just fast food but all the restaurants
are inspected every three months by people from the Environmental Division of
the Health Department. When they go to
the fast food restaurants, they have certain things to look for. But the N.C. law does not say that there
have to be any receptacles outside for trash.
So that is not part of their inspection. Ms. Singleton stated that one thing we can do as citizens is to
talk to our Legislators and/or write them and make people aware of this to try
to get that law put in to change that loophole so that there will have to be
outside trash receptacles.
PUBLIC
HEARING on Proposed Amendments to the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance
Chairman
Hawkins made the motion to go into public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Karen Smith reminded the Board that the
subject of this public hearing was a set of proposed amendments to Chapter 170
of the Henderson County Code, the Subdivision Ordinance for Henderson County,
North Carolina (the “Subdivision Ordinance” or “Ordinance”).
In March of 2003, the Planning Board
amended Appendices 4 through 7 of the Subdivision Ordinance as allowed by
Section 170-50C of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Such amendments were primarily intended to clarify for users of the
Ordinance the application and plan/plat detail requirements for subdivisions
and to rectify any discrepancies between the Ordinance text and the
Appendices. The amendments to the
Appendices generated discussion by the Planning Board and its Subdivision
Issues Subcommittee regarding some related amendments to the text of the
Subdivision Ordinance itself as well as some other amendments that have been
under consideration by the Planning Board.
The Subdivisions Issues Subcommittee
presented recommended Subdivision Ordinance amendments to the full Planning
Board on July 15, 2003, and the Planning Board voted unanimously to send a
favorable recommendation on the amendments to the Board of Commissioners. The recommended amendments, which were part
of the agenda packet, were in two formats.
Attachment 2 presents the amendments in the form of an ordinance for
action by the Board of Commissioners.
Attachment 3 presents the amendments in the format used when the
amendments were submitted to the Board of Commissioners on August 4, 2003, in
order for the Board to set the public hearing.
The wording of the two sets of amendments was intended to be identical.
The proposed amendments were summarized
as follows: Amendment 1 requires curve
radii to be noted on development plans; Amendments 2 and 3 provide flexibility
for the scale of master and development plans; Amendment 4 updates terminology
used to refer to “professional land surveyors;” Amendment 5 removes the requirement for submission of restrictive
covenants; Amendment 6 clarifies that “future development” areas noted on plans
will require review under the Subdivision Ordinance when developed; Amendment 7
requires applicable perennial stream setbacks to be noted on development plans
and final plats; Amendment 8 allows for the collection of family subdivision
fees; and Amendment 9 adds a new section to the Ordinance informing applicants
of their responsibility to meet all Subdivision Ordinance requirements.
In accordance with State law and the
Subdivision Ordinance, notices of the public hearing were published as legal advertisements
in the August 20, 2003 and August 27, 2003 editions of the Times-News. As a courtesy,
Staff also sent notices of the hearing and copies of the proposed amendments to
area surveyors, engineers, landscape architects, and other land development professionals.
Ms. Smith reviewed the proposed
amendments in more detail. She recognized Derrick Cook, Subdivision
Administrator, stating either of them would be glad to answer any
questions.
Public
Input
William Patterson – Mr. Patterson was
okay with amendment number one. Number
two – he didn’t like the request for 40 copies, stating that was a waste of
time and money. Number three – also
asks for at least 40 copies. Number four – he had no problem with that
one. Number five – he was okay with
also. Number six – he had no complaints
about. Number seven – he stated “that’s
a joke”. Number eight – he asked what
the $25.00 was for, someone’s signature?
Bill Bradley – Mr. Bradley
questioned why there would be a $25 fee for family subdivisions when all that’s
needed is a signature.
Chairman Hawkins asked
Ms. Smith or Mr. Cook to address the number of copies we need and what the
Planning Board’s rationale was for the filing fee for family subdivision
plats. Ms. Smith stated that the number
of copies was questioned by staff when the Planning Board discussed it. She stated that staff does use at least 30
copies in the course of the review of the subdivision. They supply to the review agencies. They do two mailings to the Planning Board
one of which is a pre-agenda packet so they have the directions and a map and
the plan so they can visit it ahead of time.
A number of staff copies are needed as well as press copies and others. She estimated the need for somewhere between
30 and 40. The subcommittee decided to
go with 40 copies. This is if someone
gives them a reduced copy that is of a size that they cannot easily
duplicate. If they provide an 11” x 17”
copy the 40 copies is not necessary as staff can duplicate. If a larger size is used, staff does not
have the means to copy. Ms. Smith
stated that the fee schedule was proposed for family subdivisions when the
subdivision ordinance changed or soon thereafter. Family subdivisions used to be exempt from the Subdivision
Ordinance entirely, now they do require an affidavit of understanding. The subdivision ordinance also requires that
there be a right-of-way so staff checks for that. Staff also checks for zoning compliance and watershed
compliance. The Planning Board doesn’t
look at them, they are reviewed by staff.
There are still a lot of requirements that a family subdivision is
exempt from. Ms. Smith addressed the
need for noting the set-backs on the perennial streams. She stated that it is less for staff and the
Planning Board, more for when the plats are on record so that buyers of lots
are aware that the set-back may apply.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to go out of
public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion that the Board accept the Sections
of Chapter 170 with the nine provisions presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
RESOLUTION TO ENFORCE ORDINANCES WITHIN TOWN OF
MILLS RIVER THROUGH 9/30/03
At the last Board
meeting, a Resolution was adopted by motion to allow the County to continue to
enforce the County’s police power and land use ordinances within the Town
boundaries through September 30, 2003, to enable the proposed contract with the
Town to be discussed further.
The resolution was
placed on this agenda for the Board to ratify the specific wording of the
resolution adopted at the last meeting.
Chairman Hawkins stated
that the Board needs to have some communication back to the Town of Mills River
regarding the costs and fees. Staff had put together a sheet showing the
estimated net expenses to the County associated with the Mills River
Incorporation.
Mr. Nicholson reviewed
the sheet of estimated expenses with the Board. It was the consensus of the
Board to not charge them for the Assessor fees or Environmental Health but to
add 15% overhead. Following much
discussion, it was the consensus for the Chairman and County Manager to draft a
letter to the Town of Mills River about getting together for a joint meeting to
discuss these issues.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to adopt the Resolution as
presented. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
UPDATE
ON PENDING ISSUES
Event to welcome local M.P. units return
home
Chairman Hawkins stated that in a few
days we would move into the second anniversary of the attack on America on
September 11, 2001. The county held a
ceremony and recognition on the first anniversary. The September 11th incident has affected all our
lives. Locally we have had two military
police units deployed and we don’t as yet know when they will return home. He asked the Board if they would consider
being involved in some kind of recognition for those units when they return
home. Chairman Hawkins felt that we
should welcome them home and let them know that they were missed while they
were gone. He requested that we take
that on as a county project. The Board
was in agreement.
IMPORTANT
DATES
The Board reviewed the Commissioners’
Calendar. Commissioner Moyer stated
that he would be out of town September 4 through September 17.
There was some discussion about setting a
date for a fall retreat. It was decided
to try to have the retreat on two consecutive Fridays. If we get finished on the first Friday we
could cancel the second date.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS – none
CANE CREEK
WATER & SEWER DISTRICT – no business
CLOSED
SESSION
Chairman
Hawkins made the motion that the Board go into closed session as allowed
pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11 for the following reason(s):
1. (a)(6) To consider the qualifications,
competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or
conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or
prospective public officer or employee; or to hear or investigate a complaint,
charge, or grievance by or against an individual public officer or employee.
All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
There being no further business to come
before the Board, Chairman Hawkins made
the motion to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board Grady Hawkins, Chairman