MINUTES
STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY
OF HENDERSON APRIL 5, 2004
The Henderson County
Board of Commissioners met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. in
the Commissioners' Conference Room of the Henderson County Office Building.
Those present were: Chairman Grady Hawkins, Vice-Chairman Larry
Young, Commissioner Bill Moyer, Commissioner Charlie Messer, Commissioner
Shannon Baldwin, County Manager David E. Nicholson, County Attorney Angela S.
Beeker, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present were:
Planning Director Karen C. Smith, 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 Messer led
the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
David Nicholson gave the
invocation.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Chairman Hawkins asked
that reason #1 for going into closed session be deleted. More information will be coming later on
that case.
Commissioner Moyer asked
that one item be added to Pending Issues – some discussion of the Animal
Shelter Process. This was added as #2 under Pending Issues.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to accept the agenda as
revised. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to approve the consent
agenda as presented. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
The consent agenda
consisted of the following:
Minutes
Draft minutes were
presented of the following meeting(s) for the Board’s review and approval:
January 14, 2004 special
called meeting
March 31, 2004 special
called meeting
Financial Report – February 2004
Cash Balance Report – February 2004
These two reports were
presented for Board information and consent approval.
The $25,708 YTD deficit
in the Travel & Tourism Fund is due to February being one of the lower
performing months for travel/tourism and associated occupancy tax
collections. This negative position
will gradually change as tourists begin to travel from March through the end of
the fiscal year.
The $5,906 YTD deficit
in the CDBG-Scattered Site Housing Project, the $6,934 YTD deficit in the
CDBG-Highlander Woods Housing Project and the $7,880 YTD deficit reported in
the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Project are all temporary requisition of
funds to reimburse these expenditures.
The $25,811 YTD deficit
in the Mills River Sewer Project Fund is due to the expenditure of funds for
engineering fees that will subsequently be reimbursed from the Federal EPA Grant.
The County Services
Building Project deficit is due to architectural fees, demolition/abatement and
utility line relocation work performed at the former Carolina Apparel
Building. It is anticipated that these
costs will be recouped from financing proceeds for the project.
Henderson County Public Schools Financial Report – February
2004
The Schools Financial
Report for February was presented for information and consent approval.
Tax Collector’s Report
Terry F. Lyda, Tax
Collector, provided the Tax Collector’s Report dated March 31 for the Board’s
information.
Petition for addition to State Road System
A road petition had been
received to add Ward Drive to the State Maintenance System. Staff found that the petition met the
minimum requirements for addition to the State road maintenance system. It has been the practice of this Board to
accept road petitions and forward them to the NC Department of Transportation
for their review. It has also been the
practice of the Board not to ask NCDOT to change the priority for roads on the
paving priority list. Staff recommended that the Board approve this request.
Valley Hill Fire and Rescue Lease Purchase Agreement
Valley Hill Fire &
Rescue is in the process of building a maintenance facility adjacent to Station
One on Willow Road. During the process
of financing the maintenance facility, the department realized a substantial
savings could be incurred by refinancing outstanding debt on Station One and
apparatus. The fire department plans to
finance $1,043,748.03 over four years with eight semi-annual payments of
$135,174.05 and a final payment of $93,079.70.
The new interest rate will be five percent even (5%). The Fire & Rescue Advisory Committee
reviewed this proposal during the ’03-’04 budget process and approved the
request unanimously.
Valley Hill Fire &
Rescue requested the Chairman’s signature on a prepared letter to United
Financial of North Carolina. Staff
recommended that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the letter.
Mediacom Agreement
At the Board’s last
regular meeting, the Board approved a proposed settlement with Mediacom
Southeast, LLC, for payment of outstanding franchise fees owed for the period
of January 1, 1998 through March 17, 2004 in the amount of $101,379.29. At that time the Board also approved a
proposed settlement agreement.
Presented for the
Board’s consideration was a revised settlement agreement for consideration by
the Board. The revisions clarify the
date that the franchise was granted to Mediacom’s predecessor, Essex 1980-3
Operating Partnership and the date that permission was given to Mediacom to
acquire the franchise. The revisions
also clarify that with the payment of the $101,379.39, Mediacom is in full
compliance with the provisions of the franchise requiring the payment of
franchise fees to Henderson County for the period of January 1, 1998 through
March 17, 2004.
The County Manager
recommended that the Board approve the revised settlement agreement as
presented.
The new Animal Control Ordinance allows the department to perform micro chipping. In order to proceed with this effort, staff requested the Board of Commissioners approve the following fee schedule:
Cats
& Kittens:
Dogs: Females Males
Shelter Fee
$ 5.00 Shelter Fee
$ 5.00 Shelter Fee $ 5.00
Rabies Vaccine 6.00 Rabies
Vaccine 6.00 Rabies Vaccine 6.00
Micro chipping 9.00 Micro
chipping 9.00 Micro chipping 9.00
Spay/Neuter 45.00 Spay 45.00 Neuter 30.00
All-inclusive $65.00 All-inclusive
$65.00 All-inclusive $50.00
The County Manager and staff recommended that
the Board approve this fee schedule.
Update on County Comprehensive Plan and Other
Major Planning Initiatives
Staff had provided an issue update summarizing
the tasks related to the CCP and the other major planning initiatives that
occurred over the past month. The
update also included anticipated actions for the coming month. No action was required.
Order for Compromise of Tax Penalties for
Housing Assistance Corporation
On February 18, 2004, the Board of Commissioners
granted the request of Housing Assistance Corporation to compromise 100% of the
tax penalties applied against the Parkview Apartments property, located on
Powell Street, Hendersonville, NC, as part of the discovery of the property
from a tax-exempt to a taxable status for the 1998-2003 tax years.
Staff requested the Board adopt the prepared
order. A copy of that Order is attached
hereto and incorporated as a part of the minutes.
Employee Recognitions/Awards
The Board had asked that this item be included
on the agenda for special recognition of our departments’ and employees’
achievements.
The National Registry of Worker’s Compensation
Specialists recognized that Mary Alice Jackson had attained the
designation of Registered Workers’ Compensation Specialist and having agreed to
abide by the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice thereof, was authorized
to use RWCS and Registered Workers’ Compensation Specialist with rights and
privileges pertaining thereto.
The Board was notified of the following
vacancies which will appear on the next agenda for nominations:
1.
Henderson County Planning Board – 3 vac.
2.
Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory
Committee – 1 vac.
3.
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council – 1 vac.
The Chairman reminded the Board of the following
vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
There were no nominations at this time so this
item was rolled to the next meeting.
Chairman Hawkins informed the Board that they
needed to appoint a chairman. Mr.
William Farrell had indicated that he is willing to serve as Chairman. Chairman Hawkins placed Mr. Farrell’s name
in nomination for that position. There
were no other nominations. Chairman
Hawkins made the motion to accept Mr. Farrell by acclamation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
There were no nominations at this time so this
item was rolled to the next meeting.
There were no nominations at this time so this
item was rolled to the next meeting.
Commissioner Messer nominated Jason Hayes to
fill position #13 as the Juvenile Defense Attorney. There were no other nominations.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to accept Mr. Hayes by acclamation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Young nominated Pat Jurima for
reappointment to position # 22.
Commissioner Messer nominated Martha Sachs for reappointment to position
#1. Chairman Hawkins made the motion
to accept both these nominees by acclamation.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
There were no nominations at this time so this
item was rolled to the next meeting.
There were no nominations at this time so this
item was rolled to the next meeting.
There were no nominations at this time so this
item was rolled to the next meeting.
10. WCCA Board of Directors – 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this
item was rolled to the next meeting.
Chairman Hawkins informed the Board that we had
received four responses from the Sales Tax Proposal: Hendersonville, Mills
River, Flat Rock, and Laurel Park. We
had not received a response yet from the Town of Fletcher. Fletcher meets this evening and planned to
cover that issue.
Staff had provided a draft Proposal for a 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.
A three year term was recommended. Henderson County would agree to leave the
Per Capita method of sales tax distribution in place instead of changing it to
the Ad Valorem tax levy method. The
municipalities would agree to pay the County on a monthly basis based on a
formula for three fiscal years beginning in Fiscal Year 2004-05.
The Board reviewed and discussed the formula, as
presented, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated as a part of the
minutes. Chairman Hawkins suggested
that Ms. Beeker draw up a preliminary document that we would be able to use in
accordance with the schedule set down and to have that ready and available when
we hear a response from the Town of Fletcher.
Chairman Hawkins stated that Mills River asked
that the Board take a look at the possibility of creating an economic development fund with their resources.
Ms. Beeker advised that this was a policy
consideration for the Board as to whether they wished to involve everyone or
no-one or part of the municipalities.
It would be a contract the Board would be entering with whomever. She
suggested that the Board decide what dollar value they were looking for and
then if only three municipalities were to participate would the Board divide
the figure between the three or would they keep the three participants to the
same level of contribution as had already been discussed. She felt that the Board should decide on
this if the Board was considering allowing less than all the municipalities to
come to the table and the Board would still be willing to enter into an
agreement.
Chairman Hawkins stated that Flat Rock and Mills
River are really the biggest contributors, having the most to lose. If they are willing to go along with the
agreement as far as a pay back or dollar amount then he felt that the question
is whether or not the Board wishes to accept some of the municipalities
participating and others not participating. The Board would need to consider
the effect on those municipalities that choose to participate and those that
did not.
Commissioner
Baldwin made the motion that if at least three of the five municipalities agree
to the offer from the county, that the county extend the offer to those
three. If only two agree, that this
Board change the distribution based on the ad valorem method. A vote was taken and the motion failed four
to one with Commissioner Baldwin the only aye vote.
Chairman Hawkins then amended the motion that
Commissioner Baldwin had on the floor for negotiation to generate the $500,000
between the three of them the first year and the corresponding dollar amounts
from the original offer for years two and three between any of the remaining
municipalities.
Discussion followed about making it percentages
of the amount rather than holding two or three municipalities to pay for the
five, they would just pay their percentage of the pay back.
The Board rolled action on this item until later
in the meeting, hoping to hear from the Town of Fletcher regarding their
response to the Board’s proposal. Chairman Hawkins withdrew his motion pending an update from the Town of
Fletcher, prior to the end of the meeting.
If the Board doesn’t hear from Fletcher prior to the end of the
meeting, they’ll pick up this
discussion before adjourning.
BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY POSITION
Stan Duncan, County Assessor, requested
authorization from the Board to create a position to ensure compliance with
business personal property.
In the past, Henderson County has contracted
with Tax Management Associates to perform business personal property
audits. This firm worked on a
commission fee basis receiving 35% of any discovery that they found.
Mr. Duncan’s memo requesting this new position
stated:
In conjunction with the calculation of a
reliable estimate of the 2004 tax base, and as part of the preparation of the
assessor’s budget request, it has become quite apparent that Henderson County
would benefit greatly from the expertise an employee with auditing experience
would bring to the assessor’s office, specifically in regards to the listing
and appraisal of business-personal property.
In order to justify the salary necessary to
attract qualified applicants, he wrote the job description to 1, address the
specific responsibility of auditing business-personal listings and 2,
supervisory duties over the personal property division of the office. He believes that the hiring of someone as a
county employee to perform the auditing aspect of the position is far more
beneficial to the county than contracting with an outside auditing firm. Outside auditing firms rarely delve below
the top layer of accounts. An in-house
employee will review all business-personal accounts on record. A successful review will result in one of
three findings: 1, the taxpayer has either under-listed or not listed taxable
property and is subject to “discovery”, 2, the taxpayer has over-listed and is
entitled to a refund or release, or 3, the taxpayer has listed accurately and
no changes are necessary to their timely and accurate listings.
After observing the 2004 listing process, Mr.
Duncan concluded there is a great need for this type of expertise in our
program. The county has essentially
operated a “self-assessment” system based on taxpayer records prepared with an
eye towards Federal and State income tax codes. The requirements of the property tax do not always operate in
sync with the IRS Code. In addition, he found disparity among the valuations
from 2003 and the returns submitted for 2004 which can only be reconciled
through the efforts of someone with an auditing background.
David Nicholson stated that when he met with Mr.
Duncan to review the current tax levy, it became apparent that we need to have
a position that specifically deals with business personal property. He felt it best to deal with this important
issue before the development of next fiscal year’s budget. No additional funds are being requested for
the current fiscal year. Funds are
available already within the Assessor’s budget.
The purpose of this position is not to go after
one class of property owner, it is to make sure that we’re treating everyone
equitably.
Mr. Duncan stressed that they would not be able
to review all the accounts in one year.
It will take about three years to go through all the different
accounts. It will allow them to go
through in the same fashion that they do with real property. The appraisal would be more creditable.
Following discussion, Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to
approve this position as requested. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Hawkins called a short technical break,
to change audiotapes.
INFORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Dick Baird – Mr. Baird
discussed the fact that the County Assessor had informed the Board that the
property tax revenues would be flat this coming year. The County Manager had informed the Board that the sales tax
revenues that the state had anticipated had not materialized and that the
outlook is pretty much flat for next year.
Henderson County won’t see much revenue growth.
Mr. Baird stated that
we need revenue and we have a chance to get it by changing the sales tax
distribution method to ad valorem. That could net about $1.9 million. He stated that the Board is choosing to give
away $1.4 million of that, that’s about 2 cents worth of property tax that
93,000 citizens will have to pick up.
He doesn’t think that the 60,000 county residents that do not live in
municipalities are being adequately represented. He stated that the Board’s allegiance seems to be with the
municipalities. He doesn’t feel that
his interests are being looked out for.
Mr. Baird stated that
the revenues are flat. The School Board
is in the process of approving a $1.2 million growth in their operating budget,
that’s another 1.5 cent on the sales tax if you don’t have any growth in your
revenues. Wednesday night the County
Manager mentioned that he had $2 million worth of new hires that the staff
wants, certainly he will pare that.
Some of those are from the school system.
Within the past three
months the Board has increased next year’s budget. It was just done again when the Board approved Mr. Duncan’s
request for another person. That means
the budget goes up next year. The Board
approved the Assistant County Manager, that means the budget goes up next
year.
He stated the Board is
faced with some real problems and he’s not sure they’re dealing with them in a
manner that is going to solve them. He
is unhappy with the distribution of the sales tax. He feels the Board is not doing right by those who reside in the
county.
COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING
David Nicholson reviewed a report prepared by
Calloway Johnson Moore & West, PA of Asheville entitled “A Scope Evaluation
for Henderson County - County Services Building”. This was the study the Board approved to look at the feasibility
of consoliding several county departments into a central county services
facility at the Spartanburg Highway location.
Basically it would be a two-story office building. Several options were
offered for the actual building and site.
Mr. Nicholson had originally been concerned whether enough square
footage could be placed on that property with the kind of growth areas the
Board wanted, parking, etc. He felt
this report was well worth while to make sure the Board has good quality
information to make the decision. Mr.
Nicholson stated that it is a 120,000 square foot facility. The courthouse is a 100,000 square foot
facility so it is larger. There is
100,000 square feet of occupied space in the building and room for
expansion. He introduced Allen McQuinn
from Calloway Johnson Moore & West to present the options to the Board and
answer questions.
Mr. McQuinn
reminded the Board that his firm was tasked with evaluating the
feasibility of combining the considered departments in one location, 1220
Spartanburg Highway, evaluating the square footage requirements of those
departments and seeing if they would fit on the site with the required
parking. That’s what they did.
The intention was also to establish a scope for
the project and a preliminary budget once the square footage was
determined. They used information
provided from previous programming efforts as their basis and created a program
frame. They then returned and did some
select interviews with department staff to check and verify to be sure they had
everything covered and to be sure there weren’t changes that would be
necessary. They combined all that
information. Mr. McQuinn stated that
the departments included will take about 100,000 square feet of space. 20,000 square feet of space has been
included for future expansion.
Mr. McQuinn stated that it was determined from
this evaluation that the site would support 120,000 square feet on two floors
with 300 parking spaces (zoning requirement for the site). In some of the options there are more than
300 parking spaces.
Mr. McQuinn reviewed all four options or
schemes. Some were two separate
buildings, others were one L-shaped building with separate entrances. They had
also worked up a preliminary budget estimate and a preliminary schedule for the
project which he reviewed with the Board.
The project is estimated to take between 20 and 24 months. The project is estimated to cost
$12,567,000.
The structure would be a pre-engineered metal
building with a metal roof and a hard coat stucco and brick exterior.
Mr. Quinn stated that scheme D appears to be
more economical. The square footage
cost is $86 sq. ft. A 10% contingency
is built in.
There was some discussion concerning the fact
that the state legislature may take up the issue of counties not providing
public health departments in the future. Chairman Hawkins asked about our
options if that happens. It appears
that we would be able to locate everything else in one of the buildings and
still have the possibility of adding the second building sometime in the
future, if needed.
Mr. Nicholson reviewed preliminary estimated
costs for the project with the Board.
Base Construction $10,400,000
Contingencies
(10%) 1,040,000
Financing
Costs 172,000
Design
Costs (8%)
925,000
Testing 30,000
$12,567,000
Other:
Powerline 54,000
Fire
Pump 90,000
Sale
of Buildings -3,036,000
Health Dept – Medicaid Reserve
-1,126,000
CAT
Loan 2,120,000
Previous
Fees 725,441
FF&E 400,000
- 772,559
Net Loan Costs $11,794,441
Debt:
$940,135 Debt Service @5% for 20 years
-235,000 DSS Space –
Indirect Cost
-307,537 Current
Debt Payment on CAT Loan
- 45,000 Elimination
of Leases
$352,598 Short
Mr. Nicholson
requested the Board authorize staff to put numbers into the contract, then the
firm will go ahead and design the building. Mr. Nicholson favored scheme
D.
Commissioner Messer
stated that there is a definite need for this building, stating we need to do
something soon. This idea has been
discussed for three years or more.
Commissioner Moyer
expressed opposition to the project as is, stating it was much more
construction than we can afford at this time.
He stated that the Board has major capital obligations.
Commissioner Baldwin
stated that this is a project that the county has been needing to move on for
quite some time. He’d like to see the
design process continue.
Commissioner Young
favored scheme C. He felt it would make
a more attractive building. He also
liked the set up for the parking for the Board of Elections.
Chairman Hawkins made
the motion to authorize the design at a fixed fee as indicated for the design
portion of the project, $925,000. A
vote was taken and the motion carried four to one with Commissioner Moyer
voting nay.
Break
Chairman Hawkins called a short technical break to change videotapes.
Announcement
David Nicholson informed the Board that the phone call he just received
was from the Town of Fletcher and they had voted unanimously to support the
Board change to the Ad Valorem tax distribution method. He wanted the Board to
have this information before the break began.
Chairman Hawkins
called the meeting back to order, stating we would continue with the public
hearings then likely continue the discussions regarding sales tax distribution
method.
PUBLIC HEARING – Rezoning Application #R-04-01
(R-15 to C-2P)
Charles Pace, Applicant, Charlene Rogers,
Applicant’s Agent
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to go
into public hearing. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Autumn Radcliff, of
the Henderson County Planning Department, addressed the Board. She informed the Board that Charles Pace had
submitted an application requesting that the County rezone one parcel totaling
0.31 acres from an R-15 Medium-Density Residential zoning district to a C-2P
Preservation Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. The parcel proposed for rezoning is located at the intersection
of Resort Street (SR #1776) and Shepherd Street (SR #1779).
The Henderson County
Planning Board reviewed the application at its meeting on Tuesday, February 17,
2004, and voted to send the Board of Commissioners a split recommendation (3
favorable – 3 unfavorable) on rezoning the Subject Parcel from R-15 to C-2P.
In accordance with
Section 200-76 of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and State Law, notices
of the Public Hearing regarding Rezoning Application #R-04-01 were published in
the Hendersonville Times-News on March 16, 2004 and March 23, 2004. The Planning Department sent notices of the
hearing via first class mail to the applicant and the owners of properties
adjacent to the Subject Parcel on March 17, 2004. Planning Staff posted signs advertising the hearing on the
Subject Parcel on March 24, 2004.
Ms. Radcliff informed
the Board that staff does not feel this property should be commercial at this
time. She located the Subject Parcel on
a map for the Board. She also reviewed
the set-back requirements, etc. for the Subject Parcel. She reviewed the list of approved uses for
the property.
On January 7, 2002,
the Board of Commissioners accepted the US 25 South Corridor Study Plan. The study only looked at US 25 South, a 300
foot wide buffer strip on either side of the road which didn’t go up and
include the Subject Parcel but the plan did address areas that bordered the 300
foot wide strip which did take into consideration the Subject Parcel. The recommended zoning map for the US 25 South
Corridor Study supported the county R-15 residential zoning district on the
subject parcel and recommended that the area that is currently zoned RT on the
map from US 25 up to Resort Street which goes up to the Subject Parcel be zoned
to a C-2P Preservation Neighborhood Commercial District. It didn’t include the subject parcel
therefore this plan is inconsistent with the zoning recommendation.
Ms. Radcliff
referenced the 1993 Henderson County Comprehensive Land Use Map, stating that
both the future land use map and the text say that this area around the Subject
Parcel is suitable for residential growth.
A goal of the plan was to minimize conflicts between housing and other
land uses by using buffering although C-2P zoning district does not require any
buffering. There’s no buffering between the uses that would be allowed on the
Subject Parcel under C-2P and the surrounding neighborhood. Another goal was to
identify appropriate land area for residential development within the county. This area was recommended for R-15 on
it. The commercial development at any
scale was not intended for this community.
Another goal was to recommend that indiscriminate sprawl and haphazard
development should be avoided through county-wide zoning
The question was raised
whether or not this could be considered “spot zoning”.
On February 17, 2004,
the Henderson County Planning Board looked at this application. Two motions were made on it, both
failed. The first motion was made to
deny the application as submitted. The
second motion was to actually approve the application as submitted. It was then that the Planning Board decided
to vote and send to the Board of Commissioners a split recommendation, 3 –
3.
Ms. Radcliff referred
to some pictures that show the subject parcel, explaining each one to the Board
of Commissioners.
Mrs. Beeker reminded
the Board that they must consider all the uses that are listed as possible uses
when they consider the input and make their decision, not just a particular
proposed use.
Public Input
He also mentioned all the dips and rises in the road on Shepherd Street,
making it hard to see on-coming traffic for people entering and exiting this
small business on the Subject Parcel.
Mrs. Beeker reminded
the Board that for spot zoning to be legal there needs to be something about
that particular parcel that sets it apart from the surrounding parcels that
would justify it being zoned a different zone.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to go
out of public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Following discussion, Commissioner Young made the motion that the
Board deny the rezoning request. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING – Rural Operating Assistance
Program (ROAP)
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to go
into public hearing. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
David Nicholson
informed the Board of an application received for the Fiscal Year 2004-05 Rural
Operating Assistance Program. This
grant is one of the major funding sources for Apple Country Transit that we
have received for several years. The
purpose of this public hearing was to hear comments on applying for this
transportation grant. The application
calls for a match from Henderson County in the amount of $14,000 for the next
fiscal year.
The Transportation
Advisory Committee voted unanimously at their March 3, 2004 meeting to
recommend that the Board of Commissioners support a public transit system.
Mr. Nicholson
introduced David White from WCCA to answer any questions. Mr. White reminded the Board that they would
be applying to NC Department of Transportation for $126,566. The purposes of the funds – they provide
transportation. A lot of it goes to one
particular route that goes out into the northern and eastern parts of the
county and provides transportation for participants at the Sheltered
Workshop/SEEACO, Trend Mental Health’s CEO Program, and employment
transportation for other disabled individuals in that area. These funds are also used to supplement
medical transportation for disabled people and for folks over 60 years of age
that are Henderson County residents.
Mr. White stated that
originally in the public hearing notice it was mentioned that we would be
presenting the rural general public discretionary funds and the intercity
public transportation funds but that was incorrect. Those will be discussed at a later date.
The recommendation
from Mr. White’s staff was to use $5,044 of the Work First monies for fixed
route public transportation. Their
recommendation was also to use $37,956 of the rural general public funds
towards the fixed routes.
Mr. White has been in
contact with the NC Department of Transportation. He stated that if we’re going to take advantage of the other
$188,240 for rural general public discretionary and intercity public
transportation, they’re gonna need to know something by May 4.
Mr. White stated that
Miriam Perry is looking for a plan from Henderson County by December or a
commitment by the County to have a plan in place by December if we’re going to
accept the $188,240 (for FY 2004-05).
In other words they will give us until May 4 to decide whether or not we
will have a plan in place by December on how we will fund public transportation
in the next fiscal year, 2005-06.
Mr. Nicholson informed
the Board that he had tried to keep the two issues separate:
1.
Public Hearing on the
ROAP grant which is a legal requirement.
2.
A long term issue
associated with how to deal with the general public transportation program.
This evening all we’re
dealing with is the ROAP grant and the three pieces of that grant. We have
received this grant for the past 8-10 years. It is used for human services
transportation in the county. The ROAP funds go to Mr. McLelland’s office but
are designated for the designated human services transportation provider in our
county which is WCCA.
The other item will be
on a future agenda. The Board will have
to respond back to the State on how to handle the monies.
Public Input
Mr. Stepp stated that if we can get some of these older people off the
road and if we can provide the younger kids with transportation to get to the
YMCA, Patton Park, the mall, or to work, imagine how much traffic that will
alleviate as well as air pollution.
He suggested placing this on the ballot, beginning at maybe 50 cents or
even $1.00 so we could put some in reserve for future expansion.
Chairman Hawkins asked
Ms. Beeker if this was an item that could be put on referendum. She stated that there is a short list. She has not reviewed to see if that is on
the list but stated that probably it was one you would have to get special
legislation to put on the ballot.
Mrs. VanItalie stated that public transportation is needed in Henderson
County. There are people who are using
it for getting to work, getting to doctor’s offices, everywhere you can think
of that you want to go. “What we have
is wonderful and I just hope that we can keep it.”
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to go
out of public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Following some
discussion, Commissioner Moyer made the
motion that the Board approve the ROAP application for $126,566 for the 2004-05
budget. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mr. Nicholson briefly
discussed the next piece of the puzzle, which he plans to put on the Board’s
next agenda regarding if the State gives us this money, whether or not the
Board plans to have a plan in place by the end of December to deal with
transportation for the following fiscal year.
He informed the Board that in the total system there are 22 miles within
the City of Hendersonville, 12 miles in the Town of Fletcher, one mile in
Laurel Park, and 58 miles in the unincorporated area. He stated that the Board will need to determine whether or not
they want to accept the State monies with one stipulation, continue the same
transportation program we have today but work together (with all the parties)
to develop a plan to turn into the state by the end of the calendar year.
PUBLIC INPUT SESSION – State Road Abandonment
Petition
Rocky Hyder informed
the Board that staff had received a NC State Road Abandonment Petition from the
property owners along State Road #1784 (Case Road Extension). Per the Board’s instruction, comments were
requested from agencies providing emergency services to this area of the county
(i.e. Sheriff, EMS, Blue Ridge Fire & Rescue). Those departments responded with no objection to the proposed
abandonment.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion that the Board
forward the request to NC DOT for abandonment of SR #1784 (Case Road
Extension). All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The Board of Commissioners does not abandon
a road but rather asks the Department of Transportation to abandon it.
Continuation of discussion on Item “A” – Sales
Tax Proposal Responses
Please refer to this
item earlier in this same set of minutes for initial presentation and
discussions.
Chairman Hawkins
stated that the Board now has a response from the Town of Fletcher. He stated that the first thing the Board
needed to decide was whether they would consider portions of the offer made to
those municipalities wanting to participate excluding the others or is it “all
or none”.
Much discussion
followed. Part of the discussion was
whether to expect the two municipalities to pay the cost for the five or to
disregard the pay back from the three municipalities that don’t want to go this
route.
Chairman Hawkins
invited the two Mayors in attendance to come forward and make a comment on a
two-year agreement and it would be the money originally proposed by the county.
Flat Rock’s share
would be $137,243 the first year and the second year it would be $205,864. Mayor Shaw stated that he would take this
issue back to his Council.
The Board of
Commissioners is proposing that at the end of two years they would likely go to
the Ad Valorem Tax Distribution Method.
Chairman Hawkins
requested that Ms. Beeker draft a contract for each of the municipalities to
take back to their Councils.
Mills River’s share
would be $289,161 the first year and the second year it would be $433,742.
Mayor Snyder stated his Council would meet on Thursday night and wondered if
they could have a draft document by then.
Mayor Shaw stated they also would have a Council meeting on Thursday and
would like to have the document to review and approve.
Mayor Snyder stated
that economic development concerned him for the future. Chairman Hawkins stated that would have to
be a separate dialogue.
Commissioner Moyer made the motion that the Board of
Commissioners make the offer to all 5 of the municipalities but the agreement
will clearly provide that if only Flat Rock and Mills River sign on, we will
continue, this is our decision and we’re moving in this direction – 2 years
with the same dollars from the original agreement.
Angela Beeker
requested that the Board go into closed session to consult with her as provided
per NCGS 143-318.11(a)(3).
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to amend the agenda
to add (a)(3) back to the agenda. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
CLOSED SESSION
The Board went into a
brief closed session to consult with the County Attorney per her request.
The Board reconvened
in open session.
Commissioner
Moyer restated his motion on the floor --- “that we make the same offer to all
of the municipalities but with the clear understanding that we’re gonna proceed
even if only Flat Rock and Mills River accept the offer but it will be a
two-year deal, the same numbers that were in the initial letter.” All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
The County Attorney
was directed to get the document ready and out to everyone by Thursday.
UPDATE ON PENDING
ISSUES
Water Agreement update
Bill Lapsley reminded the Board that approx. nine months ago the Board of
Commissioners appointed him to be one of the two representatives the Board has
on the Regional Water Authority. In
January, after representative Jack Tate rolled off the Board, the Authority
members elected Mr. Lapsley as their Chairman.
The principle activity has been dealing with a consultant that the
Authority hired in early 2003. The
consultant hired was Brown & Caldwell.
They are a consulting engineering firm with offices all over the
country. Their office in Charlotte is
handling a very large project, multitasks some 14 or 16 various tasks for the
Authority. Among those they are doing
is a comprehensive look at the whole authority operation (the City of
Asheville’s Water operation). Among the
tasks they are looking at were:
1.
Water meters in this
system. The Asheville water system has
experienced for many years a very high unaccounted for water number, much
higher than the industry standard and they’ve been working diligently to try
and reduce that. That comes into play
in a number of ways such as leaks in the water system and accuracy of the
meters in their system. It has been
determined that there may be some room for improvement in their meter reading
and accuracy program. They are engaged
in a major overhaul of that program.
2.
Asset management plan.
The authority has under its pervue all of the assets of the City of Asheville
water system. That is a large
system. If all the water lines, pumping
stations, reservoirs, treatment plants, etc. that are listed in the assets of
the City of Asheville’s water system were to be replaced today the number that
they presented to Commissioner Baldwin and Mr. Lapsley about a month or so ago
was $ 750 million. Those assets have
come onto the system over a very long period of time, since about 1915 on
through the years as new facilities have been brought online. Those assets have a useful life and they are
going to wear out and will need to be replaced over a period of time. That’s also been a part of one of the
problems with the Asheville water system, they have aging water lines and aging
pumping stations that are in need of replacement. That is all part of the asset management plan – to come up with a
comprehensive program for replacing these assets over the number of years in
the future. Each year some of these
assets reach their useful life and it’s time to replace them. The useful life
on a pumping station may be 50 years and if it’s been in service for 52 years,
statistics say it’s gonna fail in the not too distant future and it’s not good
to wait until it breaks down to replace it. The asset management program leads
into what the authority has been presented with and that is a repair and
replacement program to deal with these aging assets. In order to replace these assets that start to meet their useful
life, it’s gonna take a significant amount of money every year to do the
replacement program and the number that the authority has been presented with
is approx. $5.5 million a year. That
will go up with inflation as time moves on.
If the system does not provide those funds in a timely manner every
year, then they are quickly falling behind.
That is a major item on the agenda for the authority, to discuss how to
fund this repair and replacement program in the coming years.
3.
One other task the
consultant has been looking at is the upgrade of the North Fork Water Treatment
Plant. That is the main water treatment
plant at Black Mountain that this system has and it provides about 25,000,000
gallons a day into the water system.
Under new EPA standards that plant has got to be upgraded, some new
technology and some improvements to that plant.
4.
One other task that
will be reviewed in the next few months is the Asheville water system has had a
water plant that’s located on the Bee Tree Reservoir. It’s recently been renamed the DeBruehl Water Plant. That water plant was constructed in the
early 1960’s and it draws its supply out of the Bee Tree Reservoir which is
also in the Swannanoa River Valley. In
the late 1990’s the spillway on the dam at the Bee Tree Reservoir was ruled to
be of inadequate size by the NC Dam Safety Officials. What that did was – that action by the State required the City of
Asheville, which owned the reservoir, to lower the reservoir and take the Bee
Tree plant off line. That water
treatment plant has been inactive for a number of years while the City of
Asheville replaced the spillway on that dam.
That project has recently been completed and one of the tasks that this
consulting firm has before it is to look at that treatment plant and determine
what expenses would be necessary to bring it back online. That water treatment plant is served by the
Bee Tree Reservoir which furnishes its water supply to the DeBruehl Water Plant
by gravity. This leads to the item that has been discussed recently in the
press and that is the Mills River Water Plant and the possibility that if the
consultant presents to the water authority a recommendation that it would be
cheaper for the authority to operate the DeBruehl Water Plant to furnish
supplemental water into the system rather than the Mills River Plant for
economic reasons, then there is a question about whether the Mills River
Regional Water Plant could be operated on a less frequent basis. That is the
item that will be presented and discussed by the authority in the next few
months.
Mr. Lapsley stated those are a few of the things that are included in the
consultant’s work and has been the main focus of the authority’s work in the
last nine months that he has been on the authority. In the next 30 – 60 days the authority will be reviewing budget
issues for the authority. It may not be
general public knowledge but the water authority budget this past year was $22
million. It is a sizeable operation, a
large staff, with a lot of assets. This
is a major operation. In the budget
sessions will be much discussion of how the authority will recommend funding
this $5.5 million effort to replace aging assets. Also included in the budget
are critical needs projects. Those are
waterlines that are in dire need of replacement, part of the asset
program. There are some $25 million
worth of known critical needs in their system that the authority needs to
seriously take a look at. In
conjunction with those two things and the authority’s budget, obviously the
issue of a water rate increase is on the table. There have been several options presented preliminarily to the
authority and those will be debated at an upcoming meeting on April 16. Mr. Lapsley stated that it was clear to him
that the authority will be looking at the budget of the system very carefully,
not only at the issue of a water rate increase but at what areas of the
existing budget can be used to come into play to fund these needs of the water
system.
Mr. Lapsley stated that a number of the members of the authority had
spoken to him personally and indicated a strong interest to get issues that
Henderson County has with the agreement and the other parties to the authority
(the City of Asheville and Buncombe County) - any issues that the Commissioners
have with regard to the agreement they want to get settled.
He informed the Board that he was available to convey the Board of
Commissioners’ thoughts to the authority and the other members as the Board of
Commissioners sees fit.
Mr. Lapsley answered some questions from the Board.
This was an update. No action was
required.
Commissioner Baldwin felt that it was time that the Board decides whether
to try to negotiate a true authority or to continue just to play along, or
maybe get out or even to try to partner with some other municipalities to come
up with our own regional water authority.
He would like to have some direction from this Board to take to the
Regional Water Authority meetings. What does this Board want to do?
Chairman Hawkins stated that the economics of the situation and the
gravity of it is something that Asheville and Buncombe County are certainly
going to have to recognize.
The City of Asheville gets 5% of the total gross revenues of the water
system. Buncombe County gets 2.5% of
the gross revenues. Henderson County
gets nothing. The City of Asheville and
Buncombe County have a significant financial interest in what the gross
revenues are for the water system. If
there is a water rate increase, whatever percent it goes up, 7.5% comes off the
top to go to those two parties. That
issue Mr. Lapsley has informally discussed with the parties and there doesn’t
seem to be any interest in changing that condition of the agreement. To amend that out of the agreement would
take approval from all three parties.
Chairman Hawkins stated that there were some provisions in our agreement
to have some revenue off of the sale of water that comes back to Henderson
County. He stated that he didn’t think
we had ever seen any of that. He
further stated that our municipalities in our county and Henderson County will
always have an issue of water. He
stated that for the first time in a decade the City of Asheville and the City
of Hendersonville are having some dialogue on exchanging water. It’s a good opportunity for Henderson County
and Hendersonville and/or other counties to enter into some dialogue and see if
the City of Asheville would like to enter into some kind of agreement on the
water plant possibly for the county and/or other municipalities to purchase the
water plant. It’s an asset in Henderson
County that Chairman Hawkins feels someone in the county should own. If the City of Hendersonville is looking at
a need for future water capacity, it seems that would be a match that we should
take a look at. The current
Hendersonville Plant’s only intake is on the Mills River whereas this Mills
River Plant with ABW has an intake both on the Mills River and the French Broad
which has a considerable amount of some of the best quality water in western
North Carolina. He stated it is a
financial concern that everybody ought to be interested in. He feels that the timing is right now.
Commissioner Moyer reminded the Board that we have a Water & Sewer
Advisory Committee that has spent a lot of time looking at this issue. He stated that the City of Hendersonville
does not feel that they need additional water capacity. The City of Hendersonville
is talking to the City of Asheville about buying some water. The issue has been that the City wants to
buy raw water and Asheville wants to sell them treated water.
It was suggested that the Board of Commissioners have Mayor Niehoff come
address the Board about the City of Hendersonville’s projected water
needs. There was also a mention of
having Mayor Worley come address this Board from the City of Asheville as well
as the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners.
Mr. Nicholson will work on a date initially for this Board to meet with
the City of Hendersonville Mayor and Council.
Animal Shelter update
Commissioner Moyer asked that this be added on to give Mr. Nicholson a
chance to comment on a letter received from O’Cain Design Group, PA raising
questions regarding the bidding on the new animal shelter facility.
Mr. Nicholson reminded the Board that
NCGS 143-64.31(a) says select firms qualified to provide such services
on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualification of the type of
professional services required without regard to fee other than unit price
information at this stage and then when negotiating contract at a fair and
reasonable fee with the best qualified firm.
He stated that NC law requires you to go through a two stage process, one
is to take requests for qualifications to find out what someone’s
qualifications are. We did that. Mr. Nicholson brought to the Board a list of
the six names of the six firms that submitted a proposal to us. A staff team took those names and went
through each one of the six proposals.
There were two firms who had constructed animal shelters in the past,
one had done four and one had done three. The others have never designed an
animal shelter. They were eliminated
because of the fact that they did not meet the demonstrated competence and
qualifications to design a facility.
Mr. Nicholson stated that the Board could exempt themselves from that if
they so choose to.
Mr. Nicholson received phone calls from a couple of the firms that asked
where we were in the process. He
informed them that we had a short list of two firms. He got a call back wanting to know who the two firms were. He told them. That is the reason for the letter from O’Cain.
Mr. Nicholson explained that the State Law does hurt small local
firms. He doesn’t particularly like the
law but we must abide by it, unless the Board exempts themselves from it.
IMPORTANT DATES
NC DOT Secondary Road Program
The NC DOT had contacted
Henderson County to schedule our annual spring public hearing on the “North
Carolina Department of Transportation 2004-2005 Secondary Road Improvement
Program.” Typically NC DOT tries to do
two public hearings a day, and will be in Polk County on May 24 in the
afternoon.
NC DOT suggested a date
for Henderson County’s hearing of May 24, 2004 at 10:00 a.m.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to set the requested public
hearing for Monday, May 24 at 10:00 a.m.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Continuation of Quasi-Judicial Proceeding
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to reconvene the
Quasi-Judicial proceeding continued from Thursday, April 1 @ WHHS regarding the
Motocross issue. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to continue the proceeding
to April 22 at 6:00 p.m. at West Henderson High School auditorium. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to adjourn
the Quasi-Judicial proceeding and reconvene their regularly scheduled
meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mr. Nicholson reminded
the Board that registration forms are now available for the County
Commissioners’ Association District meetings.
Our district meeting is Tuesday, April 20 beginning at 4:00 p.m. in
Jackson County, just outside Sylva, in Webster, NC. This is the same date as the LGCCA meeting.
Mr. Nicholson also
reminded the Board that April 19-23 is County Government Week. The Board’s meeting is mid-week, on April
21. He informed the Board of some of
the activities scheduled for that week.
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
reason(s):
1. (a)(6) To consider the qualifications, competence,
performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of
initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective
public officer or employee; or to hear or investigate a complaint, charge, or
grievance by or against an individual public officer or employee.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to go out of
closed session. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Adjourn
Commissioner Messer made the motion for the Board to adjourn
at 10:10 p.m. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Attest:
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk
to the Board
Grady Hawkins, Chairman