MINUTES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF HENDERSON DECEMBER 17, 2003
The Henderson County Board of Commissioners
met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 9:00 a.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, Budget and Management Director
Selena Coffey, Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson, Fire Marshal Rocky
Hyder, and Finance Director J. Carey McLelland. Deputy Clerk to the Board Amy
Brantley was present through nominations.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman
Hawkins called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner
Moyer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
County
Manager David Nicholson gave the invocation.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Chairman
Hawkins stated that this would be the last meeting before Christmas, and wished
everyone a Merry Christmas. This is also the 100th anniversary of flight in
North Carolina, and the anniversary of the first diesel engine. Later on in the
meeting there will be discussion about some train service, and Mr. Hawkins
presented Commissioner Baldwin with an engineer’s hat to use during this train
service discussion.
Chairman
Hawkins asked that item “D” under Nominations – Environmental Advisory
Committee be pulled from the agenda at this time.
David
Nicholson stated that he had placed some information in the Board’s boxes
dealing with the Trend Resolution, as well as an easement agreement with
Parkside Commons. He asked that the Board deal with both these items when they
deal with the housing issues.
There
were no other adjustment requests. Chairman Hawkins made the motion to accept
the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to
accept the consent agenda as presented.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Minutes
Draft
minutes were presented for the Board’s review and approval of the following
meetings:
November 7, 2003, special called
meeting
November 14, 2003, special called
meeting
December 1, 2003, regular meeting
Economic Incentives Agreement Spearman Food
Distributors, Inc.
A “Draft Incentives Agreement - Food Packing
Facility” was presented for the Board’s consideration. The agreement had
already been signed by the company.
Economic Incentives Agreement Spearman
Food Distributors, Inc.
A “Draft Incentives Agreement - Food Distribution
Facility” was presented for the Board’s consideration. The agreement had
already been signed by the company.
Tax Collector’s Report
Terry
F. Lyda, Henderson County Tax Collector, presented the Tax Collector’s Report
dated December 12, 2003, for the Board’s review.
Tax Refunds
A
list of 2 tax refund requests was submitted for Board approval.
Tax Releases
A
list of 130 tax release requests was submitted for Board approval.
Elected Officials Salaries
During December of each year, the Board traditionally increases the salaries of the Sheriff, Tax Collector and Register of Deeds. Below were their current salaries and the amount of the cost of living increase (2%) granted to employees during the current fiscal year.
Position Current Proposed
Sheriff $64,089 $65,371
Tax
Collector $58,435 $59,604
Register
of Deeds $50,859 $51,876
Referral of Special Use Permit Application and Related Variance Application for a Motocross Racing Facility [Applications #SU-03-01 and #BOCV-03-01 by J. Michael Edney for George Andrew Bennett]
Mr.
J. Michael Edney, on behalf of Mr. George Andrew Bennett, had submitted an
application (#SU-03-01) for a Special Use Permit to operate a motocross racing
facility in a County I-2 General Industrial zoning district. The I-2 district
allows “motor sports facilities” as a special use and the Henderson County
Zoning Ordinance provides specific site standards for motor sports facilities
in the I-2 district as well as general site standards applicable to all special
uses. The motor sports facility is proposed for a tract of land (parcel
identification number of 00-9660-09-8902-55) that Mr. Bennett owns at 198 North
Egerton Road, behind Mountain Home Industrial Park. The subject property
contains approximately 15.36 acres.
The
Board of Commissioners is the approval authority for Special Use Permits.
Sections 200-56 and 200-70 of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance require
that the Board of Commissioners refer applications for Special Use Permits to
the Planning Board for review and recommendations prior to the Board of
Commissioners holding a public hearing. The full application packet was not
included with this agenda item, however a copy of the application was on file
with the Clerk to the Board and the materials will be provided to the Board
prior to the public hearing.
In
addition to the application for the Special Use Permit, Mr. Edney also
submitted an application (#BOCV-03-01) requesting variances related to the
Special Use Permit. Section 200-70A(7) of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance
allows the Board of Commissioners to consider variances associated with special
uses. The Zoning Ordinance does not specifically require that the Planning
Board make recommendations on such variance requests, although consideration by
the Planning Board may be necessary to fully assess the Special Use Permit
application.
Staff
requested that the Board of Commissioners refer Special Use Permit application
#SU-03-01 (with related variance application #BOCV-03-01) to the Planning Board
for review and recommendations as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Since April of 1997 the Board has annually approved a lease to Carland Farms, Inc. of approximately 28 acres of property located adjacent to Broadpointe Center. A map of the area was presented for the Board’s information. The most recent lease was effective from February 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 and allowed Carland Farms, Inc. to continue to farm land it had farmed for years.
Wayne Carland had requested that the Board consider
leasing the tillable land to Carland Farms, Inc. from January 1, 2004 through
December 31, 2004 for a rental amount of $1,834.00. As the plans for the park
areas on this property had not yet been finalized to the point that development
of the park areas on the property would begin during calendar year 2004, Staff
recommended that the Board lease the property to the Carlands as was outlined
in a proposed lease. The lease agreement that was proposed was substantially
similar to the current lease executed by the County and Carland Farms, Inc.
Pursuant to NCGS 160A-272 (made applicable to
counties by NCGS 153A-176) the County may adopt a resolution authorizing the
execution of a lease agreement, such as the one proposed, without public
notice. A draft resolution was attached for the Board’s consideration.
NOMINATIONS
Notification of Vacancies
The
Board was notified of the following vacancies which will appear for nominations
on the next agenda:
1. Henderson
County Transportation Advisory Committee – 18 vac.
2.
Henderson County Zoning Board of Adjustment – 1 vac.
3.
Mud Creek District Advisory Council – 3 vac.
4.
Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee –
8 vac.
Nominations
Chairman
Hawkins reminded the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to
nominations:
1.
Apple Country Greenway Commission - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
2.
Downtown Hendersonville, Inc. – 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
3.
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council – 3 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
4.
Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee –
5 vac.
There
were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to
the next meeting.
5.
Planning for Older Adults Block Grant Advisory
Committee – 15 vac.
There
were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to
the next meeting.
6.
Senior Volunteer Services Advisory Council – 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
7.
Solid Waste Advisory Committee – 1 vac.
Chairman Hawkins reminded the Board that at their
last meeting, Charles Garrett and Katie Breckheimer had been nominated but Ms.
Breckheimer was already serving on that Board. There being no other
nominations, Chairman Hawkins made the motion that Mr. Garrett be accepted
by acclamation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
8.
Travel and Tourism Committee – Appointment of a
Chairman
Commissioner Young nominated Scott Surrette to serve
as the chairman of the Travel and Tourism Committee. Chairman Hawkins made
the motion that Mr. Surrette be accepted by acclamation. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
The Transportation Advisory Committee was created by the Board of Commissioners for a two year period on February 17, 2000. At the January 7, 2002 meeting, the Board voted to extend the charter for the Transportation Advisory Committee indefinitely, and appointed members for two year terms as required by the charter. Subsequently, the expiration date of all committee members will be February 1, 2004.
Staff requested the Board consider staggering the
expiration dates of the Committee members, that not all the member’s terms
would expire at the same time. Staff also requested that to accomplish this
staggering of terms, the Board consider one-time appointments of three year
terms for Positions #2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18. Such appointment would
cause those positions to have an expiration date of February 1, 2007. Positions
#1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17 would continue with two-year appointments,
and have an expiration date of February 1, 2006. Each year thereafter, half of
the Committee members would experience an expiring term.
It was the consensus of the Board to accept the
recommendation for the staggering of terms, have Staff revise the Charter
accordingly, and bring the revised charter back to the Board at their next
meeting.
HENDERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 2003
Carey
McLelland stated that he was pleased to present the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003. Mr. McLelland
stated that he would have liked to have had the report to the Board sooner,
however this was the year that the County had to implement the new financial
reporting model, Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement Number 34
(GASB 34). It took some additional time to complete the CAFR, get it reviewed,
and make sure they had a good report for the first year of implementation.
Mr.
McLelland stated that in addition to the CAFR, the Board had a copy of the
auditor’s report to the Board as well as the Government Finance Officer’s
Association’s guide to fund balance and net assets using the new reporting
model. The most important aspect of this year’s report is that the County
received the highest unqualified clean opinion for the fiscal year report
ending June 30, 2003. This meant that the statement was presented fairly in all
material respects. This is the financial condition of the county at that period
of time, and Henderson County was in compliance with all major federal and
state programs for the fiscal year.
As
mentioned earlier, FY 2003 was the year the County had to implement GASB 34,
which included new basic financial statements as well as Management’s
Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). Depending on the size of the local
government, everyone had to implement GASB 34 either last year, this year or
next year. The implementation of GASB 34 means that the financial condition of
the county is reported in a totally new way. In addition to the fund financial
statements, the balance sheet and statements of revenues and expenses, that the
Board has been used to seeing in the past, the Board will now see the MD&A
and basic government wide statements which provide both short and long term
information about the county’s financial status.
The
MD&A is a narrative introduction, and an overview and analysis of the facts
of what took place during the fiscal year that accompanies the basic financial
statements. It tells what happened, what increased, and what decreased during
the year. It includes definitions of all the basic statements, and what goes
into making up those statements. It includes information on long term debt and
capital assets of the County as well as a brief summary of how the Board put
together and considered preparing the 2004 budget.
The
basic financial statements include two new statements this year, a statement of
net assets and a statement of activities. The statement of activities rolls
into the statement of net assets, which is basically assets minus liabilities
of the County at the end of the fiscal year. The difference between the net
assets statement and the familiar fund financial statement reporting, is that
the net assets statement includes capital assets, net of depreciation as well as
long term debt.
Mr.
McLelland introduced Brian Broom, of Crisp, Hughes, Evans, LLP for presentation
of his report. Mr. Broom thanked the Board for allowing Crisp, Hughes, Evans,
LLP to serve as the auditors for the County for another year. Since the County
is the recipient of federal and state funding, they also have to perform their
audit in accordance with government auditing standards. Those standards require
that the communications made to the County be made in writing, which has been
accomplished in the CAFR. Mr. Broom stated that they had issued an unqualified
opinion on the financial statements, which was the highest opinion that can be
offered on a set of financial statements. In addition, a single audit must be
performed in which the County’s compliance with laws, regulations and the
administration of major federal and state programs is tested. Those reports are
included in the Compliance Section of the CAFR. In those reports no instances
of non-compliance with respect to laws, regulations or the administration of
federal and state programs were noted. Nor did they note any material
weaknesses or reportable conditions in internal controls that they are required
to report.
Mr.
Broom stated that he wished to discuss some of the more significant changes the
Board would see as a result of GASB 34. He briefly discussed the MD&A, two
additional statements from an entity wide perspective, the new statement of
assets and the statement of activities. He noted that these new statements were in addition to fund perspective method
of reporting, so all the reports the Board was accustomed to seeing could still
be found in the CAFR. Since knowing what fund balance is, and how the County is
doing on collecting taxes is important information, that information was still
included in the CARF as well as being summarized for the Board’s convenience.
That summary contained information on the fund balance, which Mr. Broom
discussed in detail, noting that the available fund balance was about $7.5
million or 10.5%. The Local Government Commission prefers that counties have at
least 8% fund balance. Last year’s average for other counties about our size
was 18.36%. Mr. Broom also stated that the tax levy percentage collected was
96.79% of the property tax compared to other counties our size which was
95.42%.
Mr.
Broom answered several addition questions from the Board and discussed
additional items included in the CAFR. Mr. McLelland also discussed some
measures the County had already taken to correct problems noted in the CAFR and
answered questions from the Board. There followed much discussion among the
Board and Mr. Nicholson regarding the CAFR and GASB34.
UPDATE ON MENTAL HEALTH
David Nicholson reminded the
Board that the Mental Health Reform project in our region would take effect on
January 1, 2004. He had been working on this project for over two years, and
our region was really ahead of the game. This region had taken the law and
tried to address what the law required us to do. Specifically that involved
combining three current area authorities: Trend – Henderson and Transylvania
County, Blue Ridge – Buncombe, Madison, Mitchell and Yancey County, and the
Rutherford and Polk County authority. Mr. Nicholson briefly discussed the
difficulties and processes involved with Mental Health Reform.
Mr. Nicholson explained that
Trend will continue to exist until at least June 30, 2004 because the law says
an area authority can only be dissolved at the end of a fiscal year. The three
area authorities have been asked to pass a resolution basically giving their
authority and power over to the Western Highlands LME Board to operate those
authorities. Future LME meetings will actually have four agendas, consisting of
the LME agenda and the three area authorities. Mr. Nicholson stated that
recently the Trend Board held a meeting at which they turned their authority
over to the LME.
Mr. Nicholson then addressed
how services would be provided. Two important aspects of the project deal with
how access happens and how services are provided. Because of what is happening
across the region, the LME Board will be asked to approve a contract to
continue services with the current contractors that Trend already had contracts
with. They will be looking for at least four or five months of continuation of
those contracts which will allow time to complete all the issues involved in
the transition. In January we should receive the updated service standards,
which outlines services the state will authorize to be provided to individuals,
and the new Medicaid payment chart which will be used to develop a full
provider network.
Mr. Nicholson then explained
how services would continue to be provided for current clients, and the process
for new clients. He stated that they are currently in the process of hiring
employees for the LME, and expect to have about 70 employees following the
transition. They are looking for a new location for the LME, and hope to
centrally locate that facility between Yancey County and Rutherfordton. Mr.
Nicholson also discussed some upcoming opportunities for people to serve on
public committees such as a Consumer Family Advisory Committee, Quality
Improvement, Strategic Planning and Human Rights.
Commissioner Moyer thanked
David Nicholson, Commissioner Messer and Renee Kumor for the work they had done
throughout the transition. Commissioner Messer stated that the staff we have
working at the LME is ahead of the state in everything, and had done an
outstanding job. Chairman Hawkins agreed that it had been a difficult process,
and he thanked Ms. Kumor for her work.
Ms. Kumor addressed the
Board, thanked them for their assistance throughout the transition, and
requested that they pass a resolution on the agenda with respect to a group
home property. Mr. Nicholson stated that the property in question had gone
through the upset bid process, so it was not being given away even to a
non-profit. He explained that basically, the resolution states that the Board
of Commissioners supports the sale of the property to Mountain Laurel so they
may continue to provide services to folks that have lived and received services
there for many years. Commissioner Hawkins made a motion stating “I would
move then that we approve the resolution that you got on the update that David
handed out”. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Selena
Coffey updated the Board on housing programs that have been completed or are
currently underway. She discussed the following projects, their funding
sources, gave a description of the project and it’s current status.
|
Project |
Funding/Source |
Project
Description |
Status |
|
Highlander
Woods (Habitat
for Humanity) |
$50,000/HOME
2002 $97,000/HOME
2003 $140,000/CDBG
2002 |
Subdivision
project to build 16 homes on the 32 acre site. |
Phase
I currently underway; Water infrastructure and road grading completed (CDBG
funded); 3 lots cleared to date (HOME funded); 3 lots scheduled to be cleared
and foundations completed by year end. |
|
Village
at King Creek (Habitat
for Humanity) |
$50,000/HOME
2001 |
Partnership
with Housing Assistance Corporation to build 3 homes. |
Lots
purchased from HAC; 1 home recently finished and occupied; Remaining 2 homes
scheduled for completion within 4-6 weeks. |
|
Kay
Thomas Drive (Habitat
for Humanity) |
$74,000/HOME
1999 |
Affordable
housing |
Completion
of project in September 2003, which provided 12 homes 40 20 adults and 45
children. |
|
Parkside
Commons (Land
of Sky, Administration; Regency Associates, Development) |
$112,500/CDBG |
Adaptive
reuse of East Flat Rock School to provide 25 senior housing units |
Environmental
review complete; Construction documents 50% complete; Anticipate advertising
for bids in mid-December, contract(s) awarded by the end of December and
pre-construction conferences held in January. |
|
Scattered
Site Housing Program |
$400,000/CDBG |
Rehabilitation
of existing housing stock. |
Change
in administration of the grant; 5 homeowners qualified for the first phase of
rehab work; Currently performing work write-ups and lead based reports;
Scheduled to begin actual rehab activities early 2004; Project funds must be
expended by December 2004. |
Ms.
Coffey noted that the Village at King Creek did not show funding from the
Housing Assistance Corporation because the contract was just recently signed.
There is actually another $97,942 of HOME Program funds for last year that is
new, and is for down payment assistance through the Village at King Creek or
other down payment assistance for folks that need it. She also discussed the Scattered Site Housing Program, and the
change in administration of the grant. The county originally contracted with a
company called Benchmark, LLC, but that company had recently terminated
operations. Another company called CMR had purchased the assets and liabilities
of Benchmark, LLC and have assumed some of the contracts. Ms. Coffey stated
that the county had worked with CMR to come up with a new plan of action for
completing the grant by December, 2004 which is the deadline for expending
these funds.
Ms.
Coffey requested the Board consent to authorize the County Manager to write a
letter to Benchmark terminating that contract. She also requested the Board
consent to signing a new contract with CMR and authorizing that through
resolution. A draft contract and resolution were presented to the Board for their
consideration. Chairman Hawkins asked what happened to the money paid to
Benchmark, and if those were county dollars. Ms. Coffey answered that none of
the funds were county dollars, but they had determined that Benchmark did spend
all the administration fund. We can use $18,000 out of the rehab service
delivery fund, which will pay for the individuals to go out and do the work
write-ups that they are in the process of doing, as well as other service
delivery portions of the project. Regarding the administration, CMR has agreed
to continue on with the project and continue to do the administration and the
county will not have to pay them for administrative services.
Ms.
Coffey explained that the state and federal government were pursuing Benchmark
to determine how those administrative funds would fall out. Chairman Hawkins
questioned, and Ms. Coffey confirmed that the state and federal government were
pursuing any compensation due from the breach of contract. Chairman Hawkins
asked if the County Manager sending the letter requesting termination of the
contract with Benchmark would jeopardize any of those negotiations. Ms. Beeker
stated that she did not believe it would jeopardize those negotiations, and
that it was just a formality to protect the County. There followed some
additional discussion regarding the situation with Benchmark, LLC, and
specifics of language contained in the contract.
Commissioner
Moyer stated that he was not comfortable with terminating the contract with
Benchmark for many of the reasons already discussed. He felt it would be far
more appropriate to indicate that Benchmark was in substantial violation and
they were not able to complete the project. He stated that looking ahead to
further action, he did not feel the County should be the one to terminate the
agreement. He felt the only benefit to terminating the contract would be to
Benchmark and/or CMR. Chairman Hawkins questioned whether the County would be
able to enter into a new agreement with CMR if we did not terminate the contract
with Benchmark. Ms. Beeker answered that CMR had not made termination of the
contract with Benchmark a condition of entering into a contract with them. Ms.
Beeker answered several additional questions from the Board, and explained that
the way CMR acquired Benchmark, LLC was a foreclosure of assets.
David
Nicholson asked if the Board was comfortable proceeding with the contract with
CMR. He reminded the Board that Henderson County had until the end of December
to expend these monies or Henderson County would be in violation of a contract
with the State. He asked Ms. Beeker “if we sent a letter to Benchmark saying we
have found you in violation of the contract, and we consider that you have…”.
Ms Beeker stated that she thought they could still send a letter to Benchmark
saying that we considered them in breach and they could not perform the
contract. That would allow the County three years to sue for breach of
contract.
Commissioner
Moyer questioned a portion of the resolution which stated that CMR proposed to
complete the administration for the $18,000. He thought CMR was going to waive
the administration and not re-bill the County for that administration. Ms.
Beeker stated that CMR would complete the administration plus they would
complete the rehab services. The billing would be for the re-hab services only.
Commissioner Moyer asked that the resolution clearly state that, and that the
procedure be in place so that they would only bill re-hab services as they are
performed. Ms. Beeker explained the elements involved in the re-hab services.
Commissioner Moyer questioned if the resolution would read that CMR had
proposed to complete the administration at no additional cost, but will bill
this amount for the re-hab services. Ms. Beeker agreed. Chairman Hawkins
made the motion to direct the County Manager to notify Benchmark that they were
in breach of contract and that they approve the resolution as amended with the
verbiage discussed by Commissioner Moyer and Ms. Beeker. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
1.
Dick
Baird – Mr. Baird stated that he had asked for a copy of the auditor’s report,
but was not provided with one. Mr. Baird discussed a recent incident involving
two sheriff’s deputies firing their weapons at a dog which was charging them.
The dog was in it’s own yard, and children were present. During the same
incident, the deputy’s tried, but were unable to communicate with a dispatcher.
Mr. Baird felt the incident should be looked into.
Mr. Baird discussed the upcoming budget cycle, and
the direction he felt the Board should give to staff. He discussed the costs
for schools, and the number of illegal immigrants possibly being educated in
our schools. Finally he discussed the strategic plan, stating that he was concerned
that the plan might be growing county government rather than just the
county.
ARTICLES
OF INCORPORATION HENDERSON COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE CORPORATION
Angela
Beeker reminded the Board that at the November 19, 2003 meeting, the Board of
Commissioners considered both draft Articles of Incorporation and draft Bylaws
for the Henderson County Historic Courthouse Corporation. At that meeting,
changes were discussed by the Board for both documents. The Board directed that
the Articles of Incorporation be brought back for approval by the Board of
Commissioners, but that the Bylaws be brought before the Board sitting as the
Initial Board of Directors for the Corporation once the Articles had been
filed.
Staff
had made the changes requested by the Board to the Articles of Incorporation,
and presented them to the Board. Those changes included modifying the
appointment of the successor Board of Director provisions to provide that the
successor Directors serve at the pleasure of the Board of Commissioners. Directors
may be removed with or without cause by the Board of Commissioners, and without
regard to any recommendations which may be received from any third parties. All
vacancies would be filled by the Board of Commissioners by election, and any
vacancies occurring prior to the expiration of the term would be filled for the
remainder of the term. An additional change requires the approval of the Board
of Commissioners before either the Articles of Incorporation or the Bylaws may
be amended. These changes were allowed by the North Carolina Nonprofit
Corporations Act.
Chairman
Hawkins made the motion to approve the Articles of Incorporation as presented
and have the County Attorney file them with the North Carolina Secretary of
State. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mr. Nicholson presented to the Board a preliminary draft of the Strategic
Plan, as opposed to the working draft the Board had seen earlier. He noted that
on the front page, staff had added back to the Mission Statement the following
statement added by the Board at their retreat: “To provide services required by
Federal and State mandates.” As a part of this process, when the Board is ready
to adopt the strategic plan, they will also need to adopt the new mission
statement associated with that.
He
reminded the Board that they had developed three issues they wished to talk
about: Growth Management, Fiscal Priorities, and County Economy. Under each of
those issues the Board developed goals and related strategies, and staff
developed action steps on how to address those issues. Issue 3: County Economy
was discussed at the last meeting, at which four goals and their associated
strategies and action steps were devised. Mr. Nicholson requested that the
Board bring up any questions, changes or comments they might have prior to
formal adoption of the Plan for the next year. He stated that the Strategic
Plan was only a document, but the planning and how we go about implementing it
over the next several years is the most important part of the process.
The
Board took a brief technical recess to change tapes.
PUBLIC HEARING – Rate Modification
Agreement Proposed to Refinance Fletcher Elementary School Installment Contract
Financing Debt with Branch Banking and Trust Company
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to go
into public hearing. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Carey
McLelland reminded the Board that a public hearing had been scheduled to hear
comments on a rate modification agreement proposed to refinance Fletcher
Elementary School installment debt that the County currently has with Branch
Banking and Trust company. The public hearing was duly advertised in the
Times-News on Wednesday, December 3, 2003. The agreement would lower the rate
on the current loan from 5.61% down to 4.19% over the 17 years remaining
outstanding on the loan saving the county approximately $641,000 in interest.
At
the close of the public hearing, the Board was asked to consider approving a
Draft Resolution which authorizes the Board Chairman and Staff to execute the
Rate Modification Agreement.
Public Input
1.
Dick Baird – Mr. Baird stated that he had appointed himself spokesman for the
tax payers of the County, and stated that they would be remiss if they didn’t
compliment Mr. McLelland, Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Young for looking into getting
a better rate. He asked Mr. McLelland to accept his congratulations and thanks.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to go
out of public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to
authorize the execution of the Rate Modification Agreement presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING – Hazard Mitigation
Plan
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to go
into public hearing. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
The Henderson
County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan had been submitted for
comment from the public and the Board of Commissioners. The plan contained
input from each governmental unit within Henderson County regarding strategies
to: protect human life and health, minimize damage to existing buildings,
protect infrastructure, and protect the environment from effects of natural or
technological hazards. Rocky Hyder stated
there was about 400 pages of information in the draft Hazard Mitigation Plan,
but in summary the group identified 11 hazard mitigation goals they would like
to work on as part of the County’s hazard mitigation efforts. Some of those
goals involved public awareness, reduction of damage from flooding, securing
emergency infrastructure, landslides and wildfires.
Mr. Hyder
pointed out that the Hazard Mitigation Plan was very closely structured to the
Strategic Plan discussed earlier. The Hazard Mitigation Plan contains
identified areas of concerns, objectives and strategies by which to mitigate
those areas, and then action steps necessary to address those items. He pointed
out that the Plan includes the National Flood Insurance Program element, as it
would be necessary to address flooding, and states that the County will look at
that situation.
At
the close of the public hearing, the Board was asked to consider approving a
Draft Resolution adopting the Henderson County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Mr. Hyder
answered a question from the Board concerning the CRS (Community Ratings
System) program. That program is an element of the National Flood Insurance
Program, which reduces insurance premiums for participants in that program if
the community is structured such that it is eligible for those benefits.
Chairman Hawkins questioned whether Hendersonville or Fletcher participates in
the CRS Program. Mr. Hyder answered that at this time, neither currently
participate, though Hendersonville would be eligible and as part of this plan are
encouraged to participate.
Public Input
There
was none.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the
Board to go out of public hearing. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mr. Hyder thanked
L. Gina White, the contractor that provided a lot of the work and
documentation. He stated that she had done an exceptional job in providing the
background information in this plan, and in pulling together all the different
governmental entities together to produce the plan. He also stated that Mills
River was not part of this plan, because the funding for the plan was secured
before Mills River was a Town and therefore they were not eligible to become
part of it. Mills River will be required to do a plan at some point in the
future, and their options are to pay to become part of this plan, or do their
own plan.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to adopt the plan as
presented. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
This item had been
added to the agenda during Discussion/Adjustment of Agenda. Mr. Nicholson had
distributed to the Board a note regarding a requested easement on property
located beside and behind the old East Flat Rock School, which is now being
called Parkside Commons. They wish to have the ability to cross county property.
People would come in on the north driveway, and exit out on the county’s
driveway in the park. In the back, they would need to be able to get to where
the dumpsters will be located and where deliveries would happen. The easement
would allow Parkside Commons to use all of the paved area behind the school and
between the school and the park. The easement also goes down to the corner of
Blue Ridge and Spartanburg Highway, so they could use the water hydrant. This
easement however, would just be for ingress and egress.
Chairman Hawkins confirmed that the easement was for
ingress and egress, and asked if they could put a motion to that effect on the
floor. Ms. Beeker answered yes. Chairman Hawkins made that motion, and stated
that Ms. Beeker would come back with the verbiage for a waterline easement at a
separate meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner
Baldwin questioned how far the County would go in seeking outside help to
implement this plan. He felt that cost was a big issue, and referenced the
Lockwood Greene study which only covered one leg of the economy. If the plan is
adopted, there may be some issues the Board will have to deal with concerning
cost and the service provider. He stated that he would like to find resolution
on the cost issue, because in the end he felt the Board wished to adopt this
plan and implement it.
Mr.
Nicholson suggested a wording change on “Strategy 1.1.1 Action Step #4. Hire a
consultant to draft a growth plan”. He felt they could change the terminology
there to determine the best way to draft the growth plan. That way the Board
would not be locking themselves into anything, since it will take some time to
get to this segment of the strategic plan. Commissioner Baldwin felt that was
important, because in adopting this plan the Board is using this as a tool to
communicate with staff as we move into the budget cycle. Mr. Nicholson thanked
Commissioner Baldwin for mentioning that, stating that one of the first times
the strategic plan would be used would be by departments and other agencies as
their guiding document during their budget preparation. The management team
will also use the strategic plan to prioritize the budget before presentation
to the Board of Commissioners.
Commissioner
Baldwin discussed historic preservation as being a natural resource of the
County, and specifically graveyards located throughout the county linking
current generations with our heritage and preserving our history. Following some addition discussion, Chairman
Hawkins asked that “Strategy 1.1.1 Action Step #4” be changed to a statement
indicating that the Board would explore the best ways to do the growth plan.
Mr. Nicholson stated that he felt he understood the Board’s direction on this
issue, and Staff would devise the correct terminology. Commissioner Baldwin
stated that regarding graveyards, an addition to “Strategy 1.1.3” addressing
preservation of natural resources and protection of historic properties would
suffice.
Chairman
Hawkins made the motion to adopt the Strategic Plan as presented with the
revisions on two areas. Selena Coffey questioned whether the change to the
mission statement was included in the motion. Chairman Hawkins amended his
motion to specifically include the Mission Statement. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
OFFER
TO PURCHASE FORECLOSED PROPERTY – MULTIPLE LOTS IN ROCKY GORGE LODGE
SUBDIVISION
Angela
Beeker informed the Board that the County had received an Offer to Purchase in
the amount of $9,400 for the following lots located in Rocky Gorge Lodge
Subdivision which total to +/- 9 acres (recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 151of the
Henderson County Registry):
Block
1: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Block
2: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Lots
13,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22
Block
3: Lot 5 and Lots 24, 25, 26
and 27
Block
5: Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11,12,13,14 and 15
Block
6: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and
12
Block
9: Lots 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32
Block
14: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
and 8
Block 15: Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and Lots
38, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 72, 73, 74
and 75
Mrs.
Beeker reminded the Board that they had seen this offer previously. At that
time the Board had decided to hold off on the offer until some investigative
work could be done on whether this property could be suitable for development
as a community park. Commissioner Messer stated that he, along with the County
Engineer and Recreation Director, had looked at the property. It is a great
piece of property, but is not feasible for recreation due to road access to and
from the property.
Chairman
Hawkins stated that though the property may not be appropriate for a
traditional recreation area, it might be feasible at some point for the County
to look at providing some kind of alternative recreation at the site. He did
not wish to see the County let the property go without considering other types
of use at the site. There followed some additional discussion regarding all
options available to the Board and issues with the title, Chairman Hawkins
made the motion to reject the bid. Commissioner Messer added that when he
stated the property was not feasible for recreation, he just meant from a
tradition park perspective. Commissioner Moyer stated that he did not feel that
stockpiling a piece of land on the idea that may or may not be used in the
future was the thing to do. Chairman Hawkins stated that he did not feel this
was stockpiling land since the County had had it since the 1930’s, and that not
all possible uses of the property had been explored.
Commissioner
Messer asked Chairman Hawkins to restate his motion. Chairman Hawkins stated
that his motion was to reject the bid. Such action would cause this specific
offer to be rejected, but any future offers on the property could still be
made. Chairman Hawkins asked for a vote on the motion on the floor to reject
the bid. The motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Moyer voting in opposition.
Ms. Beeker stated that a quit-claim deed was filed on this property to a
third party, which included some of the lots in question. She requested
direction from the Board to allow her to work on this property so that it could
not be taken by adverse posession. It was the consensus of the Board to grant
that direction.
UPDATE ON PENDING
ISSUES
Commissioner
Baldwin reported to the Board that there seemed to be a lot of interest in
trying to develop a regional economic consciousness. One of the things that
plays into that is tourism, and one of the concepts that has been explored is
the possibility of running an excursion train from Spartanburg to Asheville. He
had attended a meeting with representatives from Buncombe, Polk and Spartanburg
County, several non-profits, the Carolina Heritage Line and the Palmetto
Conservation Foundation.
Because
this will be a multi-state, county, municipal type organization they are doing
some planning on the front end to pull it all together. He informed the Board
of an upcoming meeting, and invited anyone interested to attend. Currently, it
is in the hands of the managers of these jurisdictions to get together and pull
together a plan to act on, to see if this is a possibility. There had been some
federal and state interest in developing this project for this region. There
are a number of issues that need to be worked out, such as rights-of-way, but
the group is looking at all the options they can.
David
Nicholson stated that they had just finished the final draft of Henderson
County’s first E-Newsletter. It will contain articles such as the mountain
bikes for EMS, Mental Health reform, debt re-financing, the Toy Run and its
relationship to DSS, the 25N Land Use study and flu shot clinics. The way
people get this will be via e-mail. To receive the newsletter, individuals will
need to access the County website where they will find a link to a page where
they can supply the information necessary to receive the newsletter.
County
Services Building
Mr.
Nicholson informed the Board that he had invited all the department heads that
might end up going to the facility to sit through a process of hearing a
presentation and having question and answer time with three architectural
firms. The County had received four proposals, and had chosen to interview
three of those firms. He felt each of the firms was quite capable, but it was
the consensus of the presentation participants that Calloway, Johnson, Moore
and West of Asheville was the most qualified firm to recommend to the Board.
There
is a two step process necessary to select an architect. Basically, you do it
first on a qualification basis which was why they went through the formal
process of doing the interviews. The second step is to then actually negotiate
a contract and a fee. While there are still some procedural questions to deal
with, Calloway, Johnson, Moore and West had the best knowledge across different
fields ranging from health clinics to general county government facilities.
They also have a real knowledge of projects using a pre-engineered type of
construction.
Mr.
Nicholson stated he was seeking the Board’s approval to start the next phase of
the process. If they were unable to negotiate a contract and the fees, he would
come back to the Board with the very close second firm. He asked for permission
to start that second phase of architect selection. It was the consensus of the
Board to grant that permission.
Trend Resolution
This item was covered earlier in the
meeting.
Set Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing on Vested
Rights Application #VR-03-01 for Glade Land Fund, LLC
Karen
Smith reminded the Board that they had an agenda item which noted the last
possible date on which they could have a public hearing would be January 21,
2004. Representatives from Glade Holdings were present, and Ms. Smith noted
that they would be unavailable from the 19th through the 22nd.
She had discussed the option of setting a special called meeting, though
technically they could make the January 5th meeting but it would be
tight with the holiday advertising deadlines. These take a while to hold, and
she questioned whether the Board would wish to hold that during an evening
meeting.
Chairman
Hawkins agreed those do take a lot of time, and the Board might be better
served to look for a date for a special called meeting to be able to handle
that by itself. He asked if Wednesday, January 14th at 5:00 would
work on everyone’s calendar. Everyone being in agreement, Chairman Hawkins
made the motion to set the meeting for January 14th at 5:00. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Selena
Coffey presented a proposed Budget Calendar for the FY 2004-2005 budget cycle.
The calendar established the dates when Ms. Coffey would start meeting with
department heads, and when budget requests were due for county departments as
well as schools and non-profit agencies. The calendar was laid out generally
according to the way the county is required to do it by law. May 19th
was the scheduled date for the County Manager to present his recommended budget
to the Board. On that date the Board can set a public hearing on the budget,
and schedule workshop dates. Adoption of the budget was scheduled for June 16,
2004.
Commissioner
Moyer stated that missing from the calendar was a discussion regarding what the
Board’s approach was going to be to budgeting. The assumption might be that the
county would be using outcome based budgeting, but the Board had never
identified it or agreed that would be the approach for this year. Chairman
Hawkins stated that he did not think that other than the strategic plan, any
guidance had been given to staff. Commissioner Moyer felt then that the Board
needed to have discussion and decide what their guidance was going to be well
before May. Chairman Hawkins asked the County Manager to put that discussion on
the Board’s agenda for their January 5th meeting.
Chairman Hawkins stated that there were two points the Board needed to look at on the 2004 schedule. First is the first meeting in March, which conflicted with an upcoming NACo meeting in Washington. Mr. Nicholson suggested setting the first meeting in March for March 8th. It was the consensus of the Board to change that date. There followed some discussion of the NACo meeting scheduled for July, but no change was made to that date.
Chairman
Hawkins made the motion to adopt the Schedule of Regular Meeting Dates as
presented except for the March meeting from March 1st to March 8th.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CLOSED SESSION
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the
Board to go into closed session as allowed pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11 for the
following reasons:
1. NCGS 143-318.11(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. NCGS 143-318.11(a)(3): To consult with an attorney employed or
retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege
between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby
acknowledged. To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public
body in order to consider and give instructions to the attorney with respect to
a claim.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
There being no further business
to come before the Board, Commissioner Moyer made the motion to adjourn the
meeting at approximately 1:14 p.m. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Attest:
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to
the Board Grady
Hawkins, Chairman