MINUTES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF HENDERSON MARCH 17, 2004
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 Deputy Clerk to the Board Amy Brantley.
Also present were: Planning
Director Karen C. Smith, Budget and Management Director Selena Coffey, Public
Information Officer Chris S. Coulson, Fire Marshal Rocky Hyder, Finance
Director J. Carey McLelland and County Engineer Gary Tweed.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Hawkins called the
meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Baldwin led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
County Manager David
Nicholson gave the invocation.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Chairman Hawkins requested
that the following item be added to “Staff Reports – E - Update on Pending
Issues”: #3 – Economic Development
Meeting, Larry Young
#4 – Home Grants, Selena Coffey
#5 – NACo Conference, Charlie Messer
#6 – Regional Water Authority, Shannon Baldwin
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to accept the agenda
as presented and amended. 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. The Consent Agenda
consisted of the following:
Tax
Refunds
A list of ten (10) tax refund
requests was submitted by the County Assessor for approval by the Board of
Commissioners.
Tax
Releases
A list of fifteen (15) tax
release requests was submitted by the County Assessor for approval by the Board
of Commissioners.
Tax
Collector’s Report
Terry F. Lyda had submitted
the Tax Collector’s Report dated March 15, 2004, for the Board’s information.
Request
for Extension of Improvement Guarantee for Etowah Golf Villas Subdivision
On August 4, 2003,
the Board of Commissioners approved an application by Etowah Golf Villas, LLC,
for an improvement guarantee for the Etowah Golf Villas subdivision. As
required by the Performance Guarantee Agreement for the improvement guarantee,
the developer filed with Henderson County an irrevocable standby letter of
credit from RBC Centura (Number SB002377, as amended) in the amount of
$151,162.50 to cover the cost of completing road, drainage, water and sewer
improvements to serve the subdivision. The Agreement specified that the
required improvements were to be completed by March 31, 2004.
The Planning
Department had received a request from Luther E. Smith, on behalf of Etowah
Golf Villas, LLC, requesting that the County extend the deadline for completion
of the improvements specified in the original Agreement from March 31, 2004
until September 30, 2004. The letter cites the need to complete installation of
certain utilities, which was delayed due to weather conditions, prior to
completing final paving of the roads. 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.
Staff provided for
the Board’s consideration a draft Performance Guarantee Agreement which
reflected the new completion date of September 30, 2004 and required the
developer to file an amendment to the irrevocable standby letter of credit
referenced above, which indicated that the letter of credit would expire no
sooner than 60 days after the new completion date.
Fees for Copies
The
Board had requested that the County Manager do some research on what other
units charge for copies. The findings were that fees, if any, range from 5
cents to 25 cents. According to the law, we can only charge actual direct
costs. An average of our costs ran from 8 cents to 10 cents per copy. If
adopted, these fees would take effect across County government with the
exception of those departments which have special fees that are included in our
annual budget fee schedule or copies made in connection with official county
business such as advisory committees. Mr. Nicholson recommended that the charge
be 10 cents per copy after the first five copies.
Budget Amendment
David Nicholson presented a budget amendment to fund the position of Assistant County Manager and the associated expenses to establish the office. In order not to increase the County’s budget for the current year, he requested that funds be taken from the following already budgeted line items:
Code Account
Description Debit
(+) Credit (-)
115419-534001 Public
Buildings – Electricity $8,000
115420-525000 Garage – Automotive Supplies $6,000
115496-532100 Land Records – Telephone and Communications $1,000
115403-537108 County Manager – Employee Program $2,000
115435-535300 Inspections – M&R – Vehicles $1,000
115495-518900 Cooperative Extension – Other Personnel $2,000
115403-547200 County Manager – Rental of Equipment $2,420
115403-512100 County Manager – S&W – Regular $15,000
115403-518000 County Manager – FICA $1,200
115403-518100 County Manager – LGERS $750
115403-518300 County Manager – Medical Insurance $850
115403-518400 County Manager – Dental Insurance $120
115403-552000 County Manager – Capital Outlay – Equipment $2,000
115403-552000 County Manager – Capital Outlay – DP Equipment $2,500
TOTAL $22,420 $22,420
Request for Extension of Improvement Guarantee for The
Homestead at Mills River, Phase I
Mr. Scott E. McElrath, on behalf of The Homestead at Mills River, LLC, and River Oaks Joint Venture, LLC, developers, had submitted an application for an improvement guarantee for a proposed subdivision known as The Homestead at Mills River, Phase I. The subdivision was being constructed off Whitaker Lane in the Mills River area, but outside of the jurisdiction of the Town of Mills River. Phase I would contain 63 residential lots. The Planning Board granted conditional approval of the Master Plan and Phase I Development Plan for the project in October of 2003 and was expected to approve a revised Master Plan and revised Phase I Development Plan on March 16, 2004. The improvement guarantee was proposed to cover earthwork (including, but not limited to, clearing, grading and seeding), road conditions (including, but not limited to, installation of gravel, asphalt, curbing, etc.) installation of erosion control measures and storm drainage work (pipes, ponds, etc.), for Phase I of The Homestead at Mills River.
Pursuant to Sections 170-38 and 170-39 of the Henderson County Code, a developer may, in lieu of completing all of the required improvements prior to Final Plat approval, post a performance guarantee to secure the County’s interest in seeing that satisfactory construction of incomplete improvements occurs. One type of permitted guarantee is a performance or surety bond. The developers intend to post with the County a surety bond in the amount of at least $1,807,500.00 to cover the cost of the improvements ($1,446,000.00) as well as the required twenty-five percent (25%) contingency of $361,500.00. The proposed completion date for the improvements is October 31, 2004.
Staff provided for the Board’s consideration a draft Performance Guarantee Agreement. If the application is approved, the developers must submit the surety bond in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
CJPP Grant
Each fiscal year, the Criminal Justice Partnership
Program (CJPP) grant application is placed on the Board of Commissioners’
agenda for review. There are no County funds required for the grant. The grant
provides funding for substance abuse treatment to sentenced offenders and the
County’s Pre-Trial Release Program. The grant application had been approved by
the CJPP Advisory Board and must be submitted to the Division of Community
Corrections by March 31, 2004.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Commissioner Young requested
that an additional item be added to the agenda, a discussion item on
immigration in Henderson County. Chairman Hawkins asked if this could be added
as Discussion Item “B”. Commissioner Young agreed.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to adjust the
agenda. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
NOMINATIONS
Notification of Vacancies
The
Board was notified of the following vacancy which will appear on the next
agenda for nominations:
1. Solid Waste Advisory Committee – 1 vac.
Nominations
Chairman Hawkins reminded the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
1.
Downtown Hendersonville, Inc. – 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this
time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
2.
Equalization and Review - 2 vac.
Commissioner Young nominated
Vollie Good to position #7, an alternate position. Chairman Hawkins made the
motion to accept Mr. Good by acclamation. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
There was some discussion
of the appointment of a Chairman for this Board. Chairman Hawkins requested
that Amy Brantley correspond with the members of the Board to determine their
interest in serving as the Chairman.
3.
Fletcher Zoning Board of Adjustment - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
4.
Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control Authority – 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
5.
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
6.
Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee - 6 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
7.
Planning for Older Adults Block Grant Advisory Committee – 2 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
8.
Recreation Advisory Board – 1 vac.
Chairman Hawkins nominated
Bo Caldwell to fill the vacant position, #11. Chairman Hawkins made the
motion to accept Mr. Caldwell by acclamation. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
9.
Senior Volunteer Services Advisory Council - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
10.
Solid Waste Advisory Committee - 2 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
11.
Western Carolina Community Action Board of Directors - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
David
Nicholson introduced John Howell of Communication Consulting Associates to
present the results of the audit of Mediacom in accordance with the cable
franchise. Mr. Howell thanked staff for their assistance, gave some background
information and reviewed the work performed by his company for the county
relative to that contract. The original franchise was entered into in 1991, and
was set to expire in 2006. Mr. Howell had recently reviewed Mediacom’s
compliance with the terms and conditions of the franchise, their reporting
submissions, their customer service standards and initially reported that they
had substantially complied with all facets of the terms and conditions of the
franchise. He felt that was in large part due to the work of the County’s
Advisory Committee, who had held Mediacom to task on many issues. In that
report though, he had indicated that the franchise fee audit was not complete,
and that he was still working on that.
Henderson
County collects a 3% franchise fee. In 1984 the FCC approved municipalities and
franchising authorities to raise that percentage to 5% if desired. Henderson
County’s franchise agreement does allow the County to raise the franchise fee
to 5%, which is generally the industry standard across the state and nation.
Raising that fee would result in approximately $190,000 annually in increased
revenue. In March 2002, the County requested detailed accounting documents from
Mediacom, and it took until July 2002 for Mr. Howell to receive their first
submissions. Upon reviewing that financial data, on July 17th, 2003
they had asked for an explanation of many of the accounting entries. In
October, they received Mediacom’s explanations and then convened a conference
call between the County Finance Officer, the County Attorney, Mr. Howell and
Mediacom’s corporate staff in New York. During that conference call, detailed
concerns were voiced with respect to the report and potential under payments.
Mediacom requested those concerns be formalized in a letter. In that letter,
the County contended Mediacom had misinterpreted the definition of gross
receipts in the Cable Ordinance, Chapter 74, especially with regards to
advertising sales, home shopping, FCC user fees, copyright fees, and franchise
fees. Receipts from all of those categories had not been included in their calculation
of franchise fees.
Mediacom
responded in January with an offer for a settlement of approximately $59,000.
After meeting with the County Manager and Finance Officer, Mr. Howell
determined that Mediacom’s calculations were partially correct, but they had
failed to capture the first six months of 1998 and the last six months of 2003.
Additionally, they had failed to accrue any interest, provision of which is
included of Chapter 74 of the Ordinance at 1.5% per month. Mediacom has since
submitted a settlement offer for $101,379.39 which represents about $63,400 in
principal and nearly $38,000 in interest. If the County leaves the franchise
fee at 3%, these changes will result in an additional $5,000 annually in new
revenue.
Mr.
Howell then addressed the delay that had been experienced with the settlement
offer. County staff had been relentless in their requests to Mediacom for
information and for finalization of the calculations. However, one problem was
that Mediacom’s corporate office is in New York. An additional problem was due
to the fact that some documents that needed to be reviewed were from the
predecessor to Mediacom. Some of these files were located in basements and off
site storage facilities which created quite a bit of extra time. Mr. Howell noted
that these settlements always take a protracted amount of time, and discussed
the time lines of several additional cases he is working on. He also stated
that while this settlement was for over $100,000, he had done some research and
could find no other settlement in the State of North Carolina in recent years
that approached this figure.
Mr.
Howell answered some specific questions from the Board about internet revenues,
why revenues differ so much from quarter to quarter, the effects of future
changes in cable franchise regulations, and why it had taken so long for this
discrepancy to come to light. Mr. Nicholson stated that now, staff knows what
to look for, what type of detail to request, and will be tracking this
carefully in the future. Following some additional discussion, Chairman
Hawkins made the motion to accept the settlement agreement as presented. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
David Nicholson summarized the sales tax
distribution issue, explaining that North Carolina law allows a Board of
Commissioners to choose distribution either on a Per Capita basis or Ad Valorem
tax basis. Annually, Henderson County staff calculates each of these
distribution methods to determine the financial advantages for the County. The
impact such a change would have on the municipalities would vary from the City
of Hendersonville’s loss of $11,534 to the Town of Mills River’s loss of
$1,073,057. Also, because they levy no property tax, under the Ad Valorem distribution
method, the Village of Flat Rock would receive no distribution.
At the Board of Commissioners meeting on February
18, 2004, the Board discussed alternative solutions should the Board not choose
to change distribution methods. These discussions were based on a letter that
the Board received from the Village of Flat Rock which requested that the
County consider other alternatives such as an Interlocal Agreement. County staff had since met with
representatives from the Town of Mills River and the Village of Flat Rock and
discussed some alternatives. Representatives from both municipalities indicated
their support for an alternative. Flat Rock indicated their willingness to pay
for County services and Mills River indicated their desire to be a partner in
our economic development.
David Nicholson and Angela Beeker had discussed the variety of options
about what could be contained in an Interlocal Agreement. They came to an
understanding that it could be a very simple agreement, that the County agrees not
to change the allocation formulas if the cities agree to pay the County a
percentage, or a flat dollar amount to do that. The following were the ideas
for this framework:
An issue had also come up regarding the effect of a change on the fire
departments. There are a large number of contracts that the municipalities have
with the fire departments that are tied to the tax rate that the county levies,
with cities either matching that rate or providing even more. Mr. Nicholson
stated that there is an issue with giving those folks time to renegotiate those
contracts between the fire departments and municipalities. However, if the
Board were to agree to an Interlocal Agreement, there would be no effect on the
fire districts tax rates.
Mr. Nicholson discussed the scenario of the
municipalities raising their property taxes to make up the same amount as would
be lost if the distribution formula were changed. He distributed a chart to the
Board with the numbers for this scenario outlined. The bottom line in this
scenario was, if the municipalities raise their tax rates to make up the loss,
the net gain to the County would go from $1,855,464 to $1,253,908.
Mr. Nicholson then outlined the first draft of the
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) summary. He stressed that this was just a
draft, as the Board of Commissioners had not yet approved a CIP. He stated that
the following were where he saw capital needs over the next few years: Historic
Courthouse, County Services Building, EMS Main Office, Fletcher Library, Etowah
Library, Tuxedo Park/Library, Blue Ridge Community College, Schools (Part A),
Schools (Part B), Schools (Part C), Park Improvements, Sheriff’s Department,
Animal Shelter, Solid Waste.
There was much discussion during this summary about
the various projects and their estimated costs particularly with regards to
county parks. Commissioner Messer stated that the Recreation Advisory Committee
had recently held a workshop and are looking forward to presenting their 5-year
master plan to the Board. Commissioner Baldwin stated that he felt before the
County starts adding recreation facilities, we must be committed to maintaining
what we have. Mr. Nicholson addressed some of the ongoing maintenance issues at
the parks, and Selena Coffey discussed some of the related budget issues. There
followed discussion regarding whether there is enough money in the budget for
park maintenance, and if so why there are ongoing issues with maintenance at
the parks.
Mr. Nicholson stated that the estimated cost for
capital projects over the next five years was about $56,703,000. He then
discussed some possible revenue sources which included Grants, Capital Reserve,
Fees, Paid-Off Debt, Donations (Etowah Library), Previously Budgeted Revenue
and other sources. He then explained in detail how previously budgeted funds
work, and outlined how figures in several other revenue sources were defined.
Mr. Nicholson then outlined a proposal for sales tax
distribution agreement between Henderson County and the City of Hendersonville,
Town of Laurel Park, Town of Fletcher, Village of Flat Rock and the Town of
Mills River. This proposal had been distributed at a recent LGCCA meeting. In
addition to the ideas for an Interlocal agreement discussed earlier, Mr.
Nicholson provided the example of how payments might be distributed if the
County wished to stay with the Per Capita Method, but collect $500,000 from the
municipalities for agreeing to do so. He stated though, that the $500,000
figure used was just for the purpose of the example and had in no way been
directed by the Board of Commissioners. In that discussion, the following chart
was referenced:
|
|
Ad Valorem Method |
Per Capita Method |
||
|
|
Sales Tax Loss |
% of Loss |
Yearly Payment |
Net Savings |
|
Hendersonville |
$11,534 |
0.62% |
$3,100 |
$8,434 |
|
Fletcher |
$209,444 |
11.29% |
$56,450 |
$152,994 |
|
Flat Rock |
$509,298 |
27.45% |
$137,250 |
$372,048 |
|
Laurel Park |
$52,131 |
2.81% |
$14,050 |
$38,081 |
|
Mills River |
$1,073,057 |
57.83% |
$289,150 |
$783,907 |
|
|
$1,855,464 |
100% |
$500,000 |
$1,355,464 |
Chairman Hawkins asked for discussion from the Board
regarding their opinions on going with the Ad Valorem Method, or exploring the
Per Capita Method with some ramifications. Commissioner Baldwin stated that the
opinions among the municipalities are quite varied, from support of a change,
to opposition to indifference. Commissioner Moyer felt that there needed to be
a transition year, but that all the options should be explored. Chairman
Hawkins suggested the Board look at the Per Capita Method that David Nicholson
had outlined, and volunteered to correspond with the municipalities to see what
their response would be to such an agreement.
Commissioner Baldwin discussed some research he had
done on the amount of revenue the Village of Flat Rock was receiving versus
what their expenditures were. He stated that Flat Rock had a fund balance of
575%, when the state average was 37%. He did not feel that promoted efficiency
in government, and submitted to the Board that the excess money that Flat Rock
was not using was being put in a savings account. He noted that if the Board
does make the change in sales tax distribution, Flat Rock already has a $1.8
million dollar fund balance that could be used as a cushion during a
transition.
Chairman Hawkins agreed that a transition was what
the Board was considering, a transition into a different method of sales tax distribution.
Commissioner Moyer expressed concern that if the Board just allows one year for
a transition, the same issues will arise regarding advance notice. He thought
if the Board did a transition agreement it should be longer than one year so
everyone could know what was coming and plan for it. There was discussion about
the amount of the draw-down for the county, and the possibility of having a 30%
draw-down the first year with an increasing percentage in subsequent years.
Chairman Hawkins also stated that he would want as part of an agreement that
whenever the draw-down ended, in the process the cities would hold the fire
departments harmless at the end of the term.
There followed discussion about the most appropriate
time frame for the proposed draw-down, and what percentages should be
considered for each year. Chairman Hawkins felt if 30% were to be drawn down in
the first year, then he would look at a three year time frame. Commissioner
Young favored a three year draw-down with the percentages being 30%, 40% and
50% (30% the first year, 40% the second year and 50% the third year).
Chairman Hawkins called a brief technical recess.
INFORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
2.
Dick Baird
– Mr. Baird spoke regarding maintenance at the parks. He felt safety concerns
had been corrected and things were looking better. He stated that the Board
would receive a will-cost budget from the County Manager, but should be looking
for a should-cost budget. He felt the Mediacom discrepancy appeared to be
intentional, and it bothered him that they were getting off so easy. Regarding
the sales tax distribution issue, stating that $500,000 did not sound like a
fitting compromise but recommended $900,000. He did not feel the 60,000
residents of the county not in municipalities were being well represented.. He
then spoke to the capital projects list, stating that there was $500 million
dollars available, and the county should really try to get some of that money
to address the capital needs.
SALES
TAX DISTRIBUTION ISSUES - continued
Chairman
Hawkins asked the Board if they would consider he and staff communicating with
the municipalities on what the Board was considering in keeping the Per Capita
Method with a percentage payback for a three-year phase in. Commissioner
Baldwin stated that the County is losing $1.8 million, and $500,000 is only
about 1/3 of that. He felt 50% would be fair and he would like to move it to
two years rather than three.
David
Nicholson stated that he had run some numbers to correspond to the discussed
percentages. Commissioner Young had mentioned 30%, 40% and 50% for which 30%
would be about $556,000, 40% would be $742,000 and 50% would be $927,000.
Chairman Hawkins mentioned 30, 30 and 30 which would be $556,000, $1.1 million
and $1.6 million over three years. Under Commissioner Baldwin’s plan it would
be $927,000 the first year and the full amount for the next year. Chairman
Hawkins stated the real question was probably what the municipalities would be
left to operate with. Further discussion surrounded the Town of Mills River,
which would not have any real fund balance on which to fall back versus the
other municipalities who should have adequate fund balances on which to rely
during a transition.
There
followed much additional discussion about various possibilities of time frames
and percentages versus dollar amounts. David Nicholson stated that if
percentages are used the formula would have to be recalculated ever year. He
proposed the alternative of using the same percentages, but using a dollar
figure in the contract so the municipalities would know the dollar figure up
front and could better plan. Commissioner Baldwin made the motion to go with
a three year time frame and lock in the dollar amount of $500,000 the first
year, $750,000 the second year and $927,000 the third year. Chairman
Hawkins clarified that Commissioner Baldwin had a motion on the floor with a
dollar amount and time frame as a condition of remaining with the Per Capita
Method. The motion carried 4 – 1 with Commissioner Baldwin voting nay.
Commissioner Moyer questioned whether Commissioner Baldwin could vote against
his own motion. Angela Beeker stated that he could.
Chairman
Hawkins reminded the Board that there were a few things the Board needed to do
during this Organizational Meeting. One of those items was whether or not the
Board wished to elect a Chair. Chairman Hawkins stated that if it was the
pleasure of the Board, he would serve in that capacity. The Board would then
need to approve the organizational work done by the incorporators of HCHCC. The bylaws and
appointments of successor directors could then be considered.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to
recess as the Henderson County Board of Commissioners and reconvene as the
Historic Courthouse Corporation. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Hawkins made the
motion to appoint the seven persons already designated as candidates to the
Historic Courthouse Corporation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Hawkins then suggested that once the successor directors had a chance
to have a meeting, that they then make recommendation to the Board of
Commissioners regarding term length for the directors.
Angela Beeker requested direction from the Board on
how much, and for how long, Henderson County would provide staff support to the
new corporation. Chairman Hawkins stated that they would consider that question
following the first meeting, but that it was fine to provide support at least
for that meeting.
Selena
Coffey provided an update on the implementation of the new central permitting
and inspections software application as was approved within the budget. The
goal for the central permitting and inspections software was to have an
application that would work in all counties in North Carolina. The North
Carolina County Commissioner’s Association contracted with IIS (Integrated
Information Systems) to develop that software.
During
this process, the Committee of department heads defined the current business
procedures within the various departments. Those procedures were then modified
to best provide an efficient and effective process including the central
permitting software. Individual committee members continued to work with IIS to
refine these processes and customize the software to some degree to better suit
the individual department needs, and a go live date had been established for
April 5th.
The new software will provide a more efficient and
simplified, streamlined process with a lot less paperwork and quicker
processing time. It is a browser or internet based application, meaning that in
the future municipalities within the County would be able to utilize the
software. The application will also provide a historical record for all
improvements to a particular address which is helpful particularly in
Inspections and Planning when looking at individual building needs.
Ms. Coffey provided the Board a copy of a draft
brochure which would be provided to developers and the general public to give
an overall look at the process. She also provided a draft of a flowchart
describing what customers would do within the confines of the application.
Basically, the customer begins at the Property Addressing Office and Property
Addressing staff starts the process, which includes verification of the E911
property address, the physical address will be assigned and the parcel
information will be entered into the date base. Staff will then cover the basic
steps for each individual person according to their needs and inform them of
the appropriate course of action. The next steps would be the Planning/Zoning
Process and then the Environmental Health/Water-Sewer Process. Following these
steps, the building permit will be issued and the inspections process would
begin. After all inspections have been completed, the Certificate of Occupancy
would be issued which would typically be the end of the process.
Ms. Coffey stated that the County is in the PR phase
of the project, and wished to let the public know that the project is underway
and hopefully will go live April 5th. She asked for patience as
staff learns the project, and as the County continues to change business
procedures to accommodate it. Mr. Nicholson provided some additional
information on how this process would be a benefit to the community.
Commissioner Moyer questioned why such a generic brochure was being considered
which did not give a better outline of the process. Ms. Coffey explained that
more specific information would be available to customers when they go to begin
the process.
STRATEGIC PLAN RESPONSIBILITY CHARTING AND
CALENDARING
Mr. Nicholson reviewed the draft Responsibility
Chart and Calendar for the Strategic Plan as was discussed at a previous
meeting. He explained the various components included in the chart such as the
goal, strategies for completing the goal, the action steps, the responsible
parties, the resources required and the target date. He used the following
example in the discussion:
|
Goal |
Strategy |
Action Step |
Responsible Parties |
Resources Required |
Target Date |
Completion |
|
1.1 To develop a growth plan. |
1.1.1 Evaluate the major components of the County’s
growth. |
1.1.1.1 Determine the major driving forces affecting the
County to be studied within the growth plan. |
§ Commissioners § County Manager |
CCP Completion |
July 2004 |
o |
Chairman Hawkins stated this was a piece of work
that needed to be finished, and he felt this was a good start. Commissioner
Baldwin felt the document should be formally approved. Commissioner Moyer
stated that he had an issue with the target dates for the presentation of the
CCP draft to the Board in June 2004 and the adoption of the CCP draft in June
2004. He stated the Board needed to hear from the people of the County
regarding what they thought of the plan and what their comments were. Those
comments should be taken into consideration. There followed much discussion
about how much time needed to be allowed for citizens to review and consider
the document, and the number of meetings necessary to allow those comments to
be heard.
Commissioner Baldwin stated that he would like to
see the CCP come to the Board almost in a menu format, such that the Board
could pick and choose the elements they felt were important. Commissioner Moyer
questioned how that could work time wise, given that staff had already begun
their work on the CCP and it was scheduled to be before the Board on June 1st.
Karen Smith addressed the Board, stating that the technical team and County
Manager had discussed how to approach the issue because there will be some
items that staff may recommend that either the Planning Board or the CCP Board
or both may not agree with. Staff plans to try to reach consensus with those
Boards, and on items where they can’t, they will present to the Board both
elements.
Commissioner Moyer stated that he thought there
should be reasonable time for input, and that if at the end of July there is
still a lot of public comment that hasn’t been dealt with then the Board should
reconsider an end of July adoption date. David Nicholson stated that a change
in the adoption date would affect several other dates that are relying upon
that. He requested the flexibility to massage those affected dates.
Commissioner Baldwin made the motion that the Board adopt the strategic
plan as written with the exception of the date assigned to (CCP Action Step #)
1.2.2.6, and that that date be changed to the last day of July, and also that
the County Manager be given discretion to adjust the dates that are dependant
on the new date that goes in the strategic plan. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Architect Selection Process – Animal Shelter
Mr. Nicholson stated that he
had received six proposals on the animal shelter project. He reminded the Board
that they have to do a qualification based selection of an architect, that is
the first step of a two step process. Some of the six applicants had
experience, having built shelters in the past, while others would bring
experience in other areas. The way the law is written however, the people who
have experience in doing this type project are the ones the County must look at
first.
There are three firms who
have some experience, and they all have a relationship with shelter Planners of
America. Mr. Nicholson stated that in the next week, he would begin having
conference calls with these three firms because they are all out of state.
Staff is also speaking with other counties in North Carolina who have built
shelters in the past ten years, to determine what programs they are running and
how that corresponds with the size of their shelter.
Mental Health Update
Mr. Nicholson reminded the
Board that on January 1st, the LME stood up as the local mental
health provider. The LME Board had extended existing contracts that Trend had
in almost every case. Thus most of the services went to Mountain Laurel
Community Services. He explained that the LME had standing administrative
committees, such as the finance committee that Mr. Nicholson chairs. There are
also advisory committees: the Quality Improvement Council and the Strategic Planning
Council. They are taking applications from individuals who wish to serve on one
of those committees.
Starting in May, the LME
will begin to expand the provider network in this area. Several meetings had
been held in the County where the providers had been brought in and talked to
about services and programs. He hoped that there would be a lot of interest
among providers in Henderson County because under Medicaid regulations, which
provide the majority of the cost for this system, you have to give people a
choice.
Mr. Nicholson then discussed
how local dollars would be dealt with at the LME level. The State has said that
the maintenance of effort money that the County has in the budget is going to
have to go to the LME. The Finance Committee recommended to the full LME Board,
and the Board agreed, that they wish to be directed by the local government on
how those monies will be spent within the individual counties.
Mr. Nicholson stated that
they are still in the process of cleaning up the accounts receivable from
Trend, having already collected $850,000 in outstanding Medicaid receipts, with
another $300,000 they are getting ready to bill. He felt they were making great
progress in this area. There followed some discussion on some issues happening in
Michigan with regards to mental health.
Demolition Bids – Carolina Apparel Building
Mr. Nicholson distributed
the bid tabulation sheet for the project demolition. The County had three
bidders, and the low bidder was E. Luke Greene Co., Inc. They are licensed in
North Carolina, they submitted a bid bond, a waste management plan, the two
amendments, and a low bid of $146,500.00. Mr. Nicholson noted that price was
$100,000 less than when they had discussed taking that building down last year.
The difference in the price was due to the large amount of metal in the
building that could be recycled.
Mr. Nicholson recommended
that the County hire E. Luke Greene Co., Inc. to demolish the Carolina Apparel
Building. Commissioner Young made the motion to accept the County Manager’s
recommendation to hire E. Luke Greene Co. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Access Video Program
Chris Coulson informed the
Board that Access was a new program that the County had started taping. Ten
programs had been done so far, and were designed to give citizens in the County
a look into the daily operations of the departments. What the departments do,
what services they provide for citizens, how they can access those services,
where the departments are located, their hours and that sort of thing. All the
taping for these shows should be completed by the beginning of May.
Mrs. Coulson also updated
the Board on some ongoing programming such as County Connections. Three new
programs that had been implemented in the past few months were military
programs. One is from the Army, one from the Navy and Marine Corps. and one
from the Air Force. Additionally, they are getting ready to add some exercise
programs that had come from the City of Charlotte.
E-Newsletter
In January, the County had
begun an e-mail newsletter being sent out to citizens in the County who want
more information about County government and the things government does on a
regular basis. It includes information about the departments, events that are
going on, meetings that are coming up, and services that are being provided.
Two of those had been done thus far, and the March edition would go out within
the week. At this point 220 people are on the list to receive the newsletter,
which is really high number with three months. She noted too that the
newsletter was being sent to all staff members, to keep them up to date on
happenings in the community.
Economic Development Meeting
Commissioner Young reminded
the Board that he had recently attended Senator Elizabeth Dole’s Economic
Development Seminar held at Haywood Community College. He stated that they
talked about grants that are available to communities, and low interest loans.
The USDA Rural development has loans with guaranteed low interest rates for terms
of up to 40 years for things like affordable housing, renovations for low
income individuals. The grants are out there, put people aren’t necessarily
applying for them. He also spoke to some EPA and Brownfield’s information he
had received. He found it very informative, and requested the Deputy Clerk send
out copies of some information to local authorities.
Home Grants
Selena Coffey stated that she
had learned just last week that we had received $241,000 for affordable housing
in the County. Habitat for Humanity (Highlander Woods Subdivision) and Housing
Assistance Corporation (Highland View Apartments) had previously applied for
funds, and those applications totaled $435,000. Henderson County’s original
planning allocation was for $193,000. Because of some reversions of funds from
prior years, and other governments, as well as because they are very good
applications, we received full funding for those projects. She thanked Habitat
and Housing Assistance Corp. for submitting wonderful applications and
continuing their work on affordable housing in the community.
NACo Conference
Commissioner Moyer and
Commissioner Messer had attended the NACo Conference held in Washington DC in
late February. Commissioner Messer noted that the major theme at this year’s
NACo Conference was homeland security. They had heard from Secretary Tom Ridge,
Senator Alexander from Tennessee, and the EPA. He felt that we would see a big
change in communications in the next ten years because of homeland security.
They attended a North Carolina caucus, where they were updated on some possible
changes with County Health Departments such as what had recently happened with
mental health.
Commissioner Moyer stated
there was a major concern about the possible consolidation of the Health
Departments. Henderson County is in the process of building a building to house
the Health Department, while staff in the legislature is in the process of
really trying to drive this through. Mr. Nicholson stated there was a district
NCACC meeting scheduled for April 20th at 4:00. He felt that would
be an important meeting to learn more about this issue.
The consensus of the Board
was to have Tom Bridges address the Board on this issue, and following that
have some correspondence with our representative.
Regional Water Authority
Commissioner Baldwin stated
he had recently met with the regional water authority. With each meeting he
attends he picks up some additional intelligence, and what he learned yesterday
was that the bond rating for the Authority was so poor because of the strange
organizational structure which is written into the agreement. Additionally,
there appears to be a certain lack of civility, so the organization has a poor
reputation in the southeast, which makes it difficult to recruit a qualified
director to oversee the operation of the authority. This promotes inefficiency,
which translates to poor policy. For example two variances had recently come
before the Board, and both were in favor of granting the variance because the
policy was so poorly written.
Situations involving
economic development and affordable housing issues had come before the Board,
so there was a real need for cooperation. There are also a lot of capital needs
for repairs and refurbishments in the system, and the next step is to look at
the rate structure to raise the revenue to fund these repairs.
Commissioner
Moyer stated that at three of the NACo sessions he attended on Economic Development,
the speakers all stated that an aggressive anti-immigration policy was a major
negative in attracting Economic Development. Commissioner Young stated again
that he had no problem with legal immigrants, but illegal immigrants cannot be
accounted for and he had a problem with that.
Chairman Hawkins reminded
the Board that Staff had requested a workshop on budget issues. He questioned
whether March 31st would work for the Board. Chairman Hawkins
made the motion to set a special called meeting on budget issues for March 31st
at 5:00pm. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Messer stated that he had
scheduled a Cane Creek Water and Sewer District meeting for April 13, 2004 at
4:00 pm at Fletcher Town Hall.
David Nicholson informed the
Board that he had two items that could be taken off the Board’s calendar. The
attorney representing Glade Holdings had faxed the County a letter stating that
they wished to postpone the vested rights hearing which was scheduled for March
22nd because they are reconsidering their options. Commissioner
Moyer made the motion to cancel the March 22, 2004 special called hearing. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
David Nicholson also stated
that the Public Hearing on the CDBG Application needed to be cancelled because
the State had decided that they wanted to make a site visit. Chairman
Hawkins made the motion to cancel and reschedule the CDBG Grant Public Hearing
on April 5th. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ADJOURN
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to adjourn at 1:17 pm. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Attest:
Amy R. Brantley, Deputy Clerk
to the Board Grady Hawkins, Chairman