MINUTES
STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
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, Assistant County Manager
Justin B. Hembree, County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, and Clerk to the Board
Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present were: Planning Director Karen
Smith, Budget and Management Director Selena Coffey, Public Information Officer
Chris Coulson, Fire Marshal Rocky Hyder, CCP Project Coordinator Josh Freeman,
Planner Nippy Page and Finance Director J. Carey McLelland.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Hawkins called the meeting to
order and welcomed all in attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Young led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
David Nicholson gave the invocation.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Chairman Hawkins stated that a letter had
been received from the Board of Education which would be discussed with Staff
Report “D” – School System – Major Capital Projects.
David Nicholson requested discussion on
two agreements to be held after the CDBG Public Hearing.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to accept
the agenda as presented. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Hawkins stated that with regard
to Item “F” – Blue Ridge Fire and Rescue Department Refinancing of Fire
Station, the Resolution made reference to a second to a motion. He stated that
reference needed to be deleted as it was not needed.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to
approve the consent agenda as amended.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Minutes
Draft minutes were presented for the
Board’s review/approval of the following meeting(s):
April
1, 2004, special called meeting
April 22, 2004, special called
meeting
May 3, 2004, regular meeting
May 4, 2004, special called meeting
May 24, 2004, special called meeting
June 9, 2004, special called meeting
June 10, 2004, special called
meeting
June 14, 2004, special called
meeting
June 18, 2004, special called
meeting
Tax Collector’s Report
Terry F. Lyda had
submitted the Tax Collector’s Report dated June 30, 2004, for the Board’s
information.
Set
Public Hearing on Economic Development Incentives – Raflatac, Inc.
The
Board had been asked to consider granting economic development incentives to
Raflatac, Inc. which is a business having a manufacturing plant located in
Hendersonville, NC. Raflatac had recently announced its desire to expand its
manufacturing facility in the Hendersonville plant. The net taxable capital
investment for an approximately 20,000 square foot addition, and machinery and
equipment upgrade was expected to be $38.5 million and the creation of 70 new
jobs, by the end of 2008, with an average starting wage of $12.25 per hour
which is expected to increase to $16 to $17 per hour in three years.
Raflatac
was requesting economic development incentives from the County in the amount of
$1,078,000, to be paid over 7 years at $154,000 per year, for the cost
associated with its expansion plan.
NCGS
158-7.1 requires that the Board hold a duly advertised public hearing on the
proposed economic development incentives prior to approving the same. The Board
was therefore asked to schedule a public hearing for Monday, August 2, 2004 at
7:00 p.m. A draft Notice of Public Hearing was attached for the Board’s
review.
Nedra
Moles, Henderson County Register of Deeds, requested the Board of Commissioners
approve a request to close that office on July 23, 2004 for the purpose of
allowing her staff to re-arrange their records.
At
the May 17, 2004 Fire and Rescue Advisory Committee meeting, Mahlon Hudgins,
Chief of the Mountain Home Fire and Rescue Department presented the 2004/2005
budget including refinancing two fire apparatus. Mountain Home Fire and Rescue
planned to refinance Engine 1 and Rescue 1 and purchase a new Engine 2. The
loan package included two separated loans: one loan of $253,000 amortized over
five years with an annual payment of $56,770 and a second loan for $811,077
amortized over nine years with an annual payment of $110,230. A motion to
approve the 2004/2005 budget for Mountain Home Fire and Rescue was made by
Richard Barnwell and seconded by Bill Stepp. The motion passed with unanimous
approval. Mountain Home Fire and Rescue requested the Board of Commissioners
approve a resolution to facilitate refinancing of the fire apparatus.
At
the May 3, 2004 Fire and Rescue Advisory Committee, Gary Brown, Chief of the
Blue Ridge Fire and Rescue Department presented the 2004/2005 budget including
refinancing the main station. Blue Ridge Fire and Rescue plans to refinance two
building loans into one loan with a principle amount of $350,000amortized
over
seven
years with quarterly payments of $14,450. A motion to approve the 2004/2005
budget for Blue Ridge Fire and Rescue
was made by Rick Livingston and seconded by Chip Gould. The motion passed with
unanimous approval. Blue Ridge Fire and Rescue requested the Board of
Commissioners approve a resolution to facilitate refinancing of the fire
station.
Request
for Improvement Guarantee for The Old Orchard Subdivision (Land Resource
Orchards, LLC,
Developer)
On June 7, 2004, the Board of Commissioners
approved an application for an improvement guarantee submitted by Land Resource
Companies, LLC, for improvements in a proposed subdivision named Orchard Park.
Land Resource Companies, LLC, which intended to purchase Orchard Park following
approval of a final plat for the subdivision, was to provide a surety
performance bond to Henderson County in the amount of $849,852.50 to serve as
the improvement guarantee.
During
the last month, the name of the proposed subdivision had been changed to The
Old Orchard. In addition, while obtaining signatures for the Performance
Guarantee Agreement for the approved performance guarantee, the Planning
Department learned that Land Resource Orchards, LLC, a subsidiary of Land
Resource Companies, LLC, would actually purchase and assume responsibility for
developing The Old Orchard. Therefore, documents related to the improvement
guarantee needed to be revised and submitted to the Board of Commissioners for
approval. Mr. Douglass Talbot, of Land Resource Companies, LLC, and Land
Resource Orchards, LLC, had been designated as the agent for the current
property owner for matters related to the subdivision approval. Mr. Talbot, on
behalf of Land Resource Orchards, LLC, had submitted a new improvement
guarantee application that was intended to replace the one approved by the Board
of Commissioners in June. It was identical to the former application in terms
of the form and amount of the improvement guarantee, however the projected
completion date for the improvements had been changed from January 1, 2005 to
June 1, 2005. A new draft Performance Guarantee Agreement that reflected those
changes was presented for the Board’s consideration. If approved and executed,
the new Performance Guarantee Agreement would cause the Board’s approval of the
previous application to become null and void.
The
Office of Emergency Management, in cooperation with the Legal Department,
issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the purchase of Interoperable
Communications Equipment through the Homeland Security Grant Program. The RFP
was sent to nine companies within a 120-mile radius. A public bid opening was
held on Monday, June 28, 2004 with one responsive bidder providing one bid of
$191,091.00. They also submitted an alternative (best value) bid of $175,091.00.
Staff suggested the Board accept the alternate (best value) bid of $175,091.00
and provide staff authorization for change orders not to exceed 8 percent or a
total project cost of $189,098.00. David Nicholson recommended that the Board
approve the proposal to award the bids while allowing staff some flexibility in
dealing with the grant and the successful bidder.
Water
Line Extensions
The City of Hendersonville had requested
County comments on two proposed waterline extension projects within the Cummings
Cove Golf and Country Club Development. The first was for the Valley View
section and the second was for Mountain Crest 4 and 5.
Neither section fully conformed with the
County Land Use Plan (CLUP) because the Urban Services Area map in the 1993
Comprehensive Land Use Plan did not anticipate that public utilities would be
available to the subject property during the Plan’s 10-year span. However, the
Land Use Plan map in the CLUP designates land in the vicinity of the subject
property for “Agriculture,”
“Residential” and “Rural Conservation” uses and public water is already
available to other parts of Cummings Cove.
NOMINATIONS
Notification of Vacancies
The Board was notified of the following
vacancies which will appear on the next agenda for nominations:
1. Henderson County Transportation Advisory
Committee – 1 vac.
2. Juvenile Crime Prevention Program – 1 vac.
Nominations
Chairman Hawkins reminded the Board of the
following vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
1. Child Fatality Prevention Team – 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so
this item was rolled to the next meeting.
2.
Henderson
County Board of Health – 1 vac.
At the June 7, 2004 meeting, nominated for
Position #11 were Vollie Good and David Jones. There being no additional nominations,
Mrs. Corn polled the Board. The voting was as follows:
Commissioner Moyer – Jones
Commissioner Messer – Jones
Chairman Hawkins – Good
Commissioner Young – Good
Commissioner Baldwin - Good
As a result of the vote, Vollie Good was
appointed to the Board of Health.
3.
Henderson
County Historic Courthouse Corporation – 1 vac.
Commissioner Young nominated Virginia
Gamble. Commissioner Baldwin nominated Rosemary Pace. The Clerk will poll the
Board at the next meeting.
4.
Juvenile
Crime Prevention Council – 4 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so
this item was rolled to the next meeting.
5.
Land-of-Sky
Regional Advisory Council on Aging – 1 vac.
Chairman Hawkins nominated Bernard Brodsky
for appointment to Position #4. There were no other nominations. Chairman
Hawkins made the motion to accept Mr. Brodsky by acclamation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
6.
Mountain
Area Workforce Development Board – 4 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so
this item was rolled to the next meeting.
7.
Mountain
Valleys Resource Conservation and Development – 1 vac.
Nominated at the last meeting were
Meredith Galloway and J. B. Osteen. There being no additional nominations, Mrs.
Corn polled the Board. The voting was as follows:
Commissioner Moyer – Galloway
Commissioner Messer – Galloway
Chairman Hawkins – Osteen
Commissioner Young – Osteen
Commissioner Baldwin - Galloway
8.
Nursing/Adult
Care Home Community Advisory Committee – 3 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so
this item was rolled to the next meeting.
9.
Planning
for Older Adults Block Grant Advisory Committee – 3 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so
this item was rolled to the next meeting.
10. Senior Volunteer Services Advisory Council
– 1 vac.
Chairman Hawkins nominated David
Beardsley. There were no other nominations. Chairman Hawkins made the motion
to accept Mr. Beardsley by acclamation.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
11.
Solid
Waste Advisory Committee – 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so
this item was rolled to the next meeting.
County Comprehensive Plan
On June 18, 2004 the Board of Commissioners reviewed
the Revised Draft Henderson County 2020 Comprehensive Plan (CCP). At that
meeting the Board instructed Staff to prepare a document that consolidated and
summarized the various comments of the individual Board members with regard to
the CCP. Following is a summary of those comments and the discussion of each.
|
Page Number |
Detailed Reference |
Commissioner(s) |
Summary of Comment |
|
E-9 |
Relationships to other elements; Line 11 |
Moyer |
Comment: Make the following wording change: “…Zoning Ordinance, which should
contain…” to, “…Zoning Ordinance,[shall/will]should
contain…” |
|
Commissioner Moyer felt the change in wording would carry through the
intent of the section. It was the consensus of the Board to change the
wording to “…Zoning Ordinance shall contain…” |
|||
|
A-2 |
Public Input summary, 3rd paragraph, second bullet. |
Messer |
Comment: This point requires further definition / clarification. |
|
The point was “Farmers would like to protect farmland, but do not
want protection to occur through regulations, and cannot afford to “give
away” the development value of their land without proper compensation.”
Commissioner Messer stated that his main concern was where funding would come
from to protect farmland. Chairman Hawkins noted that the farmland protection
fund would be discussed next, and that most regulations were non-applicable
to farmland. It was the consensus of the Board to leave that statement in the
CCP as written. |
|||
|
A-3 |
A-01.A |
Hawkins |
Comment: Draft language locks County into implementing Action Strategy when
further consideration should be given before County is committed. Previous
language is more appropriate here. |
|
A-3 |
A-01.A |
Young |
|
|
A-3 |
A-01.A |
Moyer |
Comment: The County should consider the cost and practically of a farmland
protection fund. |
|
A-3 |
A-01.A |
Messer |
Comment: Note that due to recent economic conditions Federal and State money
for farmland preservation is limited. This could mean that the County will
end up with greater financial responsibility for this Action Strategy. How
much money the County puts into this will have to be determined in the
future. . Question: Have any other jurisdictions done this? |
|
The strategy read “Henderson County will work with area
municipalities and other agencies and organizations to establish a farmland
protection fund.” Given the comments, Chairman Hawkins suggested that might
better read “Henderson County will work with area municipalities and other
agencies and organizations to consider the cost and practically of a farmland
protection fund.” It was the
consensus of the Board to make the change to Chairman Hawkins’s suggested
wording. |
|||
|
A-4 |
A-01.C |
Messer |
Comment: This point requires further definition / clarification. |
|
The strategy read “Ensure that County-funded industrial development
projects support farmland preservation.” Chairman Hawkins suggested deleting
the last sentence, “In particular, where portions of publicly–supported
economic development sites lie within flood-prone areas, such flood-prone
area should be preserved for agriculture and made available for lease or
purchase by farmers.” Commissioner Baldwin suggested leaving the statement
in, but adding “where applicable” to it. Following much discussion, it was
the consensus of the Board to have the last sentence remain, reading
something like “For example, where portions of publicly–supported economic
development sites lie within flood-prone areas, such flood-prone area could
be preserved for agriculture and made available for lease or purchase by
farmers.” |
|||
|
Agriculture General |
Messer |
Comment: Agricultural public input does not support regulations to protect
agriculture. However, it should be noted that many regulatory changes
proposed in the Growth Management Strategy will affect agriculture. |
|
|
Commissioner Messer indicated that he had expressed most of his
concerns with the Agriculture Section. |
|||
|
A-4 |
A-01.C&D |
Young |
Comment: OK with language re: protection of farmland in floodplain. However,
incentives sounds like tax breaks. County already provides tax breaks
[Present Use Valuation Taxation Program]. Comment: County should work with municipalities to create incentives to entice
people to continue farming. |
|
A-01.C had already been discussed. With respect to A-01.D – “Explore
ways to make County economic development incentives more readily available to
agriculture and agriculture related businesses”, Commissioner Young quested
the types of incentives that would be used. It was the consensus of the Board
to have A-01.D read “Explore ways to make County economic development
incentives more readily available to agriculture related businesses” |
|||
|
A-4 |
A-01.E |
Messer |
Comment: This point requires further definition / clarification. |
|
Commissioner Messer questioned the statement “County governments are
authorized to tax forest, horticultural and agricultural land at rates that
reflect their present use.” Chairman Hawkins stated that a number of
restrictions are already placed on agriculture under either State or Federal
law. Additionally, the Board had already charged the Tax Assessor and
Agriculture Advisory Committee to look at that issue. He suggested leaving
that as worded. Following some discussion about the language reading “The
County will review the current status of its Present Use Valuation Taxation
program to maximize the benefits of that program to agriculture, forestry and
horticultural landowners.” Following much additional discussion, it was the
consensus of the Board to change that section to read “The County will review
the current status of it’s Present Use Valuation Taxation Program and explore
ways to modify that program to best protect agriculture, forestry and
horticultural land owners in Henderson County.” |
|||
|
A-5 |
A-01.F |
Hawkins |
Comment: Would like to know what/who “these programs and organizations” are.
Does not want to be locked into that decision without knowing who they are.
Previous language is more appropriate here. |
|
Josh Freeman suggested that section read “The County will work with
the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, the Cooperative Extension
Service and other similar organizations…”. It was the consensus of the Board
to accept that change. |
|||
|
A-6 |
A-01.G; second bullet from top of page; second sentence |
Moyer |
Question: What type of “retail facility” is suggested for consideration? |
|
Josh Freeman stated that the intent was a facility, such as a
farmer’s market, that focused in Henderson County and targeted an interstate
traffic audience. Chairman Hawkins suggested leaving that statement out.
Commissioner Baldwin suggested leaving it in, but modifying it to help local
farmers. The consensus of the Board was to change the second sentence to “For
example, consider aiding in the establishment of a retail facility in a high
visibility area.” |
|||
The Board broke from their discussion on the CCP at
this point to take informal public comments scheduled for 6:30 p.m.
INFORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
1.
Tammy Foster – Ms. Foster stated that there was a new fire department in the
Edneyville District on Gilliam Mountain Road. It had been there for about a
year, and there was no flagpole there. She was present to request a flagpole
and flag. Though there was no law requiring a flag be flown at a fire station,
the Board agreed it would be a good idea. David Nicholson directed Ms. Foster
to speak to Fire Marshal Rocky Hyder regarding this request.
2.
Martha Sachs – Ms. Sachs expressed concern over the cost and the delay in the
adoption of a CCP. She felt the Plan needs to be specific, and needs to have
implementation language. She stated that citizens want definitive actions, not
vague suggestions.
Chairman Hawkins addressed some of Ms. Sachs
comments, stating that he was trying to make the Plan better. Commissioner
Baldwin stated that in his opinion, the only legitimate research done was done
when the County went out and asked citizens for their input. There was
discussion about the community input Designing Our Future received, and its
connection with the CCP.
County Comprehensive Plan - continued
|
Page Number |
Detailed Reference |
Commissioner(s) |
Summary of Comment |
|
N-3 N-4 |
N-01.A, particularly paragraphs 5-7 |
Hawkins |
Comment: Draft language too specific…already
writing the ordinance. Concerned about overly restricting farmers. Issue
requires more information and consideration by BOC before being committed to
policy direction of these paragraphs. |
|
Chairman Hawkins expressed concern about stating that the County
would establish a flood hazard prevention ordinance meeting the minimum FEMA
NC Division of Emergency Management guidelines when he did not know what
those guidelines were. It was the consensus of the Board to leave that
statement in the CCP as written. |
|||
|
N-4 |
N-01.B; line 3 |
Moyer |
Comment: Make the following wording change (fix
apparent typo): “The County investigate…” to “The County will
investigate…” |
|
It was the consensus of the Board to make that wording change. |
|||
|
N-6 |
N-02.D |
Hawkins |
Comment: Draft language locks County into
implementing Action Strategy when further consideration should be given
before County is committed. |
|
N-7 |
N-02.E |
Hawkins |
|
|
Chairman Hawkins stated that with respect to the Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Standards, he was reluctant to state that the County would
incorporate those standards into the County Land Development Ordinances
without knowing what they would be. Josh Freeman stated the general
underlying intent was to look at other jurisdictions around the state, look
at the best management practices of the industry and incorporate those into
the ordinances. Angela Beeker confirmed that Staff was talking about a local
program. There followed discussion about the need for, and potential
effectiveness of a local program. It was the consensus of the Board to leave
the statements in N-02.D and N-02.E in the CCP as written. |
|||
|
H-6 |
H-01.A |
Young |
Comment: Re: “…County will ensure adequate
supply…”, the County may not be able to. How can County “ensure”…will County
enter into the property business? |
|
Josh Freeman clarified that the statement read “will ensure an
adequate supply of land zoned for dense housing.” The intent was to find ways
to increase the allowable density in certain portions of the County and make
sure that land is zoned appropriately to make that happen. Chairman Hawkins
questioned the rest of that statement which read “…and provide sewer and
water services to appropriate locations.” Commissioner Baldwin suggested the
language “…will explore ways in keeping with the master water and sewer
plan.” Josh Freeman suggested “and will work through the sewer and water
master planning process to ensure that sewer and water services are provided
to the appropriate locations.” It was the consensus of the Board to include
such language. |
|||
|
H-6 |
H-01.B |
Young |
Comment: While ok with modular homes, does not
favor further mixing of manufactured homes with other types of residential
structures because of effect upon property values…County should protect
property values |
|
Commissioner Young stated that he was opposed to allowing mobile
homes to devalue property, and would like to have manufactured housing
defined with modular homes and either on-frame or off-frame mobile homes.
With respect to language on page H-8 stating “New residential zoning
districts that are created by the County will treat equally manufactured,
modular and site built homes on individual lots…” Commissioner Moyer stated
that he would be in favor of striking that sentence. It was the consensus of
the Board to strike that sentence, and have Mr. Freeman clean up the
remainder of the language with that directive in mind. |
|||
PUBLIC HEARING ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to go into
public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Selena Coffey reminded
the Board that this Public Hearing was scheduled in accordance with Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) regulations. The CDBG process involves two
public hearings. The first Public Hearing on the Howard Gap-Brookside Camp
Waterline CDBG was held on March 8, 2004 and allowed citizens the opportunity
to express views and proposals prior to formation of an application. The public
hearing was being held after the application had been prepared, but prior to
the submission of the application to the Division of Community Assistance
(DCA).
The CDBG application was
in the amount of $399,000 to assist the City of Hendersonville in the
construction of new water lines in the Howard Gap-Brookside Camp area due to
contamination of wells from an underground storage tank leak. In order to
address the problem expeditiously, the City will construct the project in two
phases. Phase I, the installation of water lines from the hospital to ¼ mile
from Brookside Camp was currently underway. Phase II would be the installation
of lines in the project area, which was primarily where the CDBG funds were
being used.
Kate O’Hara was present
from Land-of-Sky Regional Council to answer any detailed questions on the
application or the project status. Chairman Hawkins questioned the anticipated
time schedule for completion, the actual hook-up of the water. Ms. O’Hara stated
that she was unable to give an exact date of when construction would start, but
funds had been set aside at the DCA for the grant pending submission of the
application. DCA had allowed them, as part of the application, to include some
of the paperwork generally required after the grant had been awarded to save
some time. Following the award of grant, it would be at least 30-45 days before
they could draw down funds because the environmental review still had to be
done. Ms. O’Hara had sent letters out to the environmental people so their 30
day period could start while the application was being reviewed by DCA.
Ms. O’Hara stated that
the project map had been put together based on a DCA requirement to survey the
income of residents on both sides of the proposed line. The yellow parcels
represented the CDBG eligible households, the grant would pay for the laterals
from the street to the household and the meter on those properties. The
Underground Storage Tank (UST) would pay for the green parcels. She noted that
the UST fund was about $135,000. Based on the CDBG application, several
additional parcels would need to be addressed that were outside of the CDBG
project area. Several properties, notated in blue, were vacant at the time of
the survey. Because most of the properties in the area were considered at risk
for contamination, the UST fund would pay for the laterals on those vacant
properties.
Chairman Hawkins
questioned the number of houses included thus far. Ms. O’Hara answered that she
had 91 so far, not including some located outside the project area. Chairman
Hawkins then asked about tap fees. Ms. O’Hara stated that the applicant was
required to provide a 5% match, and based on the $400,000 grant application the
match would be $20,000. The City had identified $43,000 in tap fees they would
be waiving as part of the match.
Commissioner Young
questioned why the household income level mattered, he felt that to be fair
everybody’s costs should be covered. Ms. O’Hara explained that the City would
be paying the contractor as part of the construction contract, and they would
request reimbursement from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Underground Storage Tank fund. David Nicholson explained that federal money was
being used, which had a lot of rules and regulations, one of which was an
income requirement.
Diane Eskenasy, from the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, explained that anyone who had
contaminated water would receive the opportunity to get City water, and have it
paid for by the Underground Storage Tank fund. If people don’t want water, and
refuse to sign an agreement, then the fund won’t pay for them. However, most
people they’ve spoken with are interested in getting water.
Public Input
There was none.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to go out of
public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Chairman Hawkins
made the motion to approve the filing of the application with the Division of
Community Assistance. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Ms. Coffey then presented two agreements associated
with the program for the Board’s consideration. The first was an Infrastructure
Project Agreement, which was basically the Interlocal Agreement between
Henderson County and the City of Hendersonville. The second agreement was a
Technical Services Contract with Land of Sky Regional Council which will help
the City of Hendersonville with the grant’s administrative requirements. Angela
Beeker noted one typo on the Infrastructure Project Agreement, Page 3, Part C
(F).
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to approve the two
agreements as presented with the exception of the one typo. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
County Comprehensive Plan – continued
|
H-6 |
H-01.C |
Hawkins Young |
Comment: Draft language locks County into
implementing Action Strategy when further consideration should be given
before County is committed. |
|
H-10 |
H-01.D |
||
|
H-01.C called for the County to “Develop a Henderson County Strategic
Affordable Housing Plan”. Chairman Hawkins expressed concern about the
Affordable Housing Fund, stating that it looked like it had been implemented
before the Board had looked at it. Selena Coffey stated that this part came
about based on a Housing Consortium program that provides funding for units
of government to look at their housing. Commissioner Baldwin confirmed that
this was just a call to do a plan in cooperation with jurisdictions within
Henderson County. It was the consensus of the Board to leave that statement in
the CCP as written. |
|||
|
H-10 |
H-01.D |
Young |
Comment: Idea of Fair Housing Ordinance ok, but
thought we already had one to some extent. |
|
Chairman Hawkins questioned whether this would involve hiring
additional personnel. Angela Beeker stated that there are protections at the
Federal level if someone feels they are being denied housing. This would just
provide a local contact if someone felt a landlord was discriminating against
them based on race, age, gender, etc. Currently if there is a dispute, it must
be referred to the State level. There was much discussion about the need for
such a program and number of calls the County currently receives. The
Planning Department indicated that they occasionally receive calls, though
the County Manager receives few. Commissioner Baldwin suggested developing a
Fair Housing Complaint procedure, where the Planning Department communicates
with the County Manager, who passes the information on to the State in
accordance with State law. It was the consensus of the Board to have Mr.
Freeman change the section to read that the County will develop a Fair
Housing Complaint procedure. |
|||
|
H-12 |
H-01.E |
Moyer |
Comment: Make the following wording change: “Consider
developing a Minimum Housing Code” to, “Adopt a Minimum Housing
Code”. |
|
Chairman Hawkins questioned who would enforce such a code. Josh
Freeman answered that some jurisdictions place enforcement with Building
Inspections, some with the Fire Marshal’s Office, and other with Planning.
There was a lot of discussion about the details of such a code. It was the
consensus of the Board to make that wording change. |
|||
|
H-14 |
H-01.G |
Young |
Comment: Supports this idea if funded through
grants rather than tax dollars. |
|
There is already a housing information website, www.socialserve.com, with a lot of
necessary information. This could better be worded “develop or support
existing” housing information center. |
|||
|
H-14 |
H-01.H |
Hawkins |
Comment: Board wanted language from 06/01/04
Recommended Draft changed to recommend looking at establishing a fund modeled
upon Buncombe County’s. However, 06/15/04 Revised Draft language goes too
far… locks County into implementing Action Strategy when further
consideration should be given before County is committed. |
|
Chairman Hawkins was reluctant to commit tax dollars without first
studying the Buncombe County Program, and felt there were a lot of programs
already in place. Following much discussion about the problems with
providing/enabling affordable housing in the County, it was the consensus of
the Board to delete the first few sentences of H-01.H, leaving everything
after “While the details of such a fund require..” |
|||
|
Housing General |
Young |
Comment: County needs to look at affordable housing.
At the same time County should protect the investment of homeowners. |
|
|
Commissioner Young had expressed most of his concerns with the
Housing Section. |
|||
|
Housing General |
Messer |
Comment: Housing should be one of the highest
priorities of this plan. County must define affordable housing, and devote
funds to the issue if possible. |
|
|
Commissioner Messer indicated that the previous discussion had
covered these concerns. |
|||
|
Transportation General |
Young |
Comment: Has several ideas for funding
transportation initiatives. For example, County should consider a vehicle tax
to pay for public transit (i.e. $1.00 per $1,000 value). |
|
|
Commissioner Young stated that he had no problem supporting the
transit system in place, but the County needs to find ways to do that such as
a tax per vehicle. He was not in favor of using Ad Valorem property taxes to
fund that transit system. David Nicholson stated that would have to go to the
general assembly, because currently only cities had that authority. |
|||
|
T-2 |
T-01.A |
Moyer |
Comment: Make following wording change: (title)
“Adopt and implement the Henderson County Multi-Modal Transportation
Plan” to, “Adopt and implement a Henderson County Multi-Modal
Transportation Plan” It is important to be clear that the County will adopt a
Plan, but not necessarily the plan that is prepared by NCDOT. |
|
As written, the County would have to adopt the Multi-Modal
Transportation Plan being prepared by the NCDOT. It was the consensus of the
Board to make that change to the title, and to add the following sentence to
the end of the second paragraph; “It is important to be clear that the County
will adopt a Plan, but not necessarily the Plan as prepared by the NCDOT”. |
|||
|
T-3 |
T-01.C |
Young |
Comment: Draft language too precise. County needs
more wiggle room, especially for future Boards. |
|
It was the consensus of the Board to cover this topic once they get
into the Plan. |
|||
|
WS-3 |
SW-01.A; 2nd paragraph, line 6 |
Moyer |
Comment: Make the following wording change: “The
County will encourage the utilization of this…” to, “The County will
utilize this…” |
|
Commissioner Moyer stated that if the concept adopted by the Board is
of core development in high density areas, then that is the concept that
should be utilized in developing that Water and Sewer Master Plan. Chairman
Hawkins expressed concern about automatically adopting anything that came out
of the LGCCA, though if the Board does adopt a Resolution, they should then
utilize it. It was the consensus of the Board to make that suggested wording
change. It was also the consensus of the Board to change the previous
sentence to read “The Board of Commissioners will adopt a resolution
endorsing the development of the plan; continue to offer staff and other
support; and will adopt a Master Plan”. |
|||
|
WS-3 |
SW-01.A; 2nd paragraph |
Hawkins |
Comment: Draft language locks County into
implementing Action Strategy when further consideration should be given
before County is committed. Also, County must be cautious about relinquishing
authority to the LGCCA. Previous language is more appropriate here. 1.
|
|
WS-4 WS-5 |
SW-01.B, 3rd and 4th paragraphs |
||
|
Chairman Hawkins stated that the previous discussion had taken care
of his concerns with WS-3, 4 and 5. |
|||
|
WS-6 |
SW-01.G |
Moyer |
Comment: Make the following wording change: “Consider
establishing a 10-year capital improvement …fund…” to, “Establish and
fund a 10-year capital improvement…fund…” |
|
Commissioner Moyer stated that he would like to see the development
of such funding so that when needs come along monies have already been
identified for particular areas, especially with respect to water and sewer.
It was the consensus of the Board to make that wording change. |
|||
|
PS-4 |
PS-01&02.C 2nd paragraph, 7 bulleted statements |
Hawkins |
Comment: Good idea but draft language is too
defined, leaves too little latitude. Previous language is more appropriate
here. |
|
Chairman Hawkins expressed particular concern with the 6th
bullet dealing with schools that would: “Require connecting to public
transportation, public water, and public sewer systems. While this is a good
idea, there may come a time when a school needs to be built where there is
not infrastructure in place for it. Commissioner Moyer expressed concern
about several of the other bulleted points as well. It was the consensus of
the Board to change the language in PS-01.C to read something like “The
following things should be taken into consideration when selecting a new
school site”, and then list the items that appear in the bulleted
section. |
|||
|
Growth Management Strategy
General |
Messer |
Comment: Future changes in zoning should be based
upon this plan. |
|
|
Commissioner Messer stated that his comment was just a policy
statement. |
|||
|
Growth Management Strategy
General |
Moyer |
Comment: Add the following language somewhere
within this element: “Study the use and application of impact fees as an
alternative revenue source in order to support service provision and to
reduce the impact upon the property tax rate.” This language is taken from
the Strategic Plan. |
|
|
Commissioner Moyer expressed concern that the CCP and the Strategic
Plan are not more closely tied together. He felt that this language should be
included in both documents. Commissioner Baldwin stated that he would support
the general statement that any concept, idea or statement in the Strategic
Plan that addresses any of the issues in the CCP should be echoed in the CCP.
Chairman Hawkins pointed out that the CCP was a part of the Strategic Plan,
but agreed that they should be compatible. Commissioner Moyer suggested the
need for the Board to have a planning session to study how the documents work
together, and how to make them an integrated part of what the Board wants to
accomplish. |
|||
|
General |
Messer |
Comment: Cooperation with municipalities is
necessary to implement CCP. In particular it is necessary for County and
municipalities to work towards coordinated land development codes…more
consistency between municipal and County rules would ease the impact of
annexations and ETJ extensions upon landowners. |
|
Baldwin Moyer Messer |
*Comment: In early reviews of the
Table of Contents, BOC overlooked the absence of the following issues in
Section 03: Libraries, Solid Waste/Waste Management, Emergency
Services/Public Safety, Health Care, and Aging Population. Would like to see
the Implementation Schedule include specific steps (with FY assigned) to
supplement the Adopted CCP with new or revised elements that address these
issues. (*This summary comment is a combination of three different statements
made by each of the referenced Commissioners.) |
|
|
Commissioner Messer indicated that the previous discussion had
covered his concerns. Commissioner Moyer stated that the Board did need to recognize and
have a specific mechanism with respect to how to deal with input from the
municipalities. Chairman Hawkins felt the LGCCA would be a conversation
avenue. As things come up, whether from other municipalities, schools or
NCDOT, the plan may need to be reviewed and changed as data comes in.
Commissioner Baldwin felt the commitment to work with the municipalities and
adjacent governmental entities was already in place, and the LGCCA was the
forum to do that work. |
||
Chairman Hawkins stated that there would be some
additions to the Plan as we move along in the following areas: Libraries, Solid
Waste/Waste Management, Emergency Services/Public Safety, Health Care, and
Aging Population. Commissioner Baldwin stated that he would like to see those
items worked into the implementation schedule, and would have no problems
putting those items into the implementation schedule as part of the motion to
adopt the Plan. Chairman Hawkins asked if Commissioner Baldwin was making a
motion to adopt the Plan with the provision that the items listed above be
included in the implementation plan as staff develops them. Commissioner
Baldwin stated yes, and felt the Board needed to have the implementation
schedule brought back for review prior to implementation. Commissioner Moyer
stated that he would like to see the presentation to the LGCCA also reflected
in the implementation schedule. Karen Smith questioned whether as part of the
motion, the Board was adopting the implementation schedule that was provided.
Chairman Hawkins answered they were adopting the Plan. Karen Smith questioned
whether as part of that, they would have a fiscal year breakout of how things
might happen as well as some financial resources. Commissioner Baldwin stated
that the implementation schedule had to be part of the Plan as they adopt it.
Karen Smith confirmed that there was an implementation schedule and was also an
estimated resources and funding table. Commissioner Moyer stated that would
have to be revised based on some of the decisions made at this meeting. Karen
Smith suggested making a provision for that in the motion. Karen Smith also
confirmed that for items where staff had gone back and added language that had
been deleted, if the Board did not change it tonight to go with Josh’s
language.
Commissioner Baldwin made the motion to adopt the
Plan, and with the items discussed and mentioned in the last box of the memo,
for those items to be included in the implementation. He suggested leaving it
up to staff to plug those into the implementation schedule. If there is a
problem with the implementation or the assignments made, then the Board can
change that. Commissioner
Moyer confirmed the motion was to approve the Plan, and bring the
implementation schedule back. Commissioner Baldwin stated that the
implementation schedule was part of the plan. Josh Freeman stated that most of
the changes made at this meeting would not dramatically impact the implementation
schedule.
Following additional discussion, Chairman Hawkins
asked Commissioner Baldwin to restate his motion. Commissioner Baldwin made
the motion to adopt the Plan amended this evening based on the June 28th
memo and consensus reached this evening by the Board on these particular items
and that we include the items listed in the last paragraph on page 4 of 4 which
include Libraries, Solid Waste/Waste Management, Emergency Services/Public
Safety, Health Care, and Aging Population in the Implementation Schedule. Commissioner
Moyer asked about the presentation to the LGCCA. Commissioner Baldwin
included as a part of his motion a presentation of the adopted Plan to the
LGCCA. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Proposal for Litigation Expenses Associated with
Enforcement of Various County Ordinances Within the Town of Mills River
Angela Beeker had distributed for the Board’s
consideration a revised proposal to address the litigation expenses associated
with enforcement of various County ordinances within the Town of Mills River
pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement entered between Henderson County and the
Town of Mills River. Mrs. Beeker referred to the Interlocal Agreement, and the
list of the ordinances at issue.
She stated that with regard to Chapter 66 - Animals –
she did not know that Mills River needed to be charged anything with regard to
the Animal Control Ordinance, because the County is doing that on a County-wide
basis for all the municipalities anyway. With regard to Cable Television – Mrs.
Beeker did not feel that would be an issue because the County regulates the
Cable provider, and the County receives the franchise fees. The ordinances that
she was really talking about were Noise – though it is enforced by the
Sheriff’s Department, and Solid Waste for things like incinerators and illegal
dumping. She did not feel that Massage Parlors were an issue. She did feel that
Signs could be an issue. She did not feel that Vehicles, Abandoned or Junked
were an issue. She stated though that Watershed Protection had the greatest
potential to generate any litigation.
The County received a proposal from the Town of
Mills River in January, which basically stated that if the County handled the
litigation in house, the County would have to absorb that with the exception of
out-of-pocket expenses for things like experts, travel, document preparation,
etc. If outside council were to be hired, the Town and the County would each
pay half of all reasonable expenses incurred. She expressed concern over what
was considered reasonable, and suggested that each pay half of the expense. The
Town wanted input into the process of selecting any outside council hired
before the Board even made the decision to hire outside council. They wanted
the right to have the Town’s attorney represent the Town and the County in any
litigation. Finally, if an insurance company provided the defense the Town
would pay half of the deductible.
The County and the Town had met on two occasions,
and the issues came down to control over litigation and funding. At the first
meeting, Mills River stated that they heard the County’s concerns and would
take it back to their full council to see if an agreement could be reached. The
response from the Mills River Council was that they would rather have something
that came from the full Board, rather than one Commissioner and the County
Attorney.
Based on that, Mrs. Beeker had put together the
following proposal for the Board’s consideration, and explained the various
points of the proposed agreement.:
1. Henderson County
reserves the ultimate right to determine if outside counsel will be hired, and
to determine who will be hired.
a.
If
Henderson County handles the litigation in-house, Mills River will not pay for
any attorney time spent on the case. However, Mills River will pay for 100% of
the litigation expenses associated including attorney travel, depositions and
court reporters, expert witness fees, exhibit preparation, etc.
b.
If
the County determines that outside counsel will be used, Mills River will pay
only the first $5,000 of attorney’s fees billed to the County by the outside
counsel. However, Mills River will pay 100% of the litigation expenses
associated including attorney travel, depositions and court reporters, expert
witness fees, exhibit preparation, etc.
c.
If
the County’s insurance company provides legal representation on a matter, Mills
River will pay the County’s deductible, if any, and no more.
d.
Henderson
County agrees that for any enforcement action, in-house counsel will be used
unless the County Attorney determines, and the Board of Commissioners agrees,
that the matter is of a magnitude that it cannot be adequately handled with
existing staff resources or the legal issues to be addressed require expertise
beyond that available with existing staff.
2. Henderson County agrees
to keep Mills River informed of the status of any litigation to the extent that
the attorney-client privilege would not be waived. This information would be
provided through communications between the County Attorney and the Town
Attorney.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to correspond with
Mills River in accordance with the proposal concerning responsibility for
litigation expenses. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Implementation of Strategic Plan – Infrastructure
Development
With the adoption of the Henderson County Strategic
Plan, the Board of Commissioners agreed that growth management was a strategic
issue that must be addressed as the County looks to its future. Goal 1.1 of the
Strategic Plan was “To develop a growth plan.” One strategy in relation to that
overall goal was to “Evaluate and determine the impact of infrastructure
placement on County growth” with an action step of “Determine the issues to be
addressed in regards to infrastructure development.” It is important to
determine how growth should be approached in terms of the way Commissioners
look at it in an overall manner and in how staff looks at how specific planning
issues are handled on a day-to-day basis.
In order to proceed with the implementation of the
Strategic Plan, staff needed input on the following two broad questions:
§
Identification
of the types of infrastructure to be considered in the Growth Plan (i.e. roads,
water, sewer, other public utilities)
§
Assignment of infrastructure portion of the
Growth Plan to an appropriate body (i.e. advisory committee, new committee,
staff committee, joint committee, etc.)
David Nicholson stated that he felt the Board had
just addressed some of questions when they adopted the CCP. He noted that if
the Board wished to discuss them further at this meeting that would be fine,
but that he had scheduled a management team meeting for later in the week at
which staff could discuss and propose some amendments to the Strategic Plan to
clarify what the Board might want added to the CCP in the future.
Commissioner Moyer felt that economic development
was the key, infrastructure was the tail – not the place to start in developing
a growth strategy. David Nicholson stated that he would have staff work to
determine how the Plans would compliment each other. Commissioner Moyer also
stated that they needed to reach the point of having one implementation
schedule rather than two. David Nicholson agreed that was a part of what staff
would work on. It was the consensus of the Board to have Staff review these
matters and bring ideas back to the Board.
School System – Major Capital Projects
Chairman Hawkins stated that a Joint School
Facilities Committee meeting had been held on June 29th, at which the Board of
Education (BOE) wanted to confirm the Board’s plans. David Nicholson had
provided the BOE with a “Schools Major Capital Project Chart” which was a
timing chart based on the CIP. That chart had listed the Dana project in Phase
I and II, as the Board had fully endorsed that project and planned for Phase I
to be bid out in FY 04-05. Mr. Nicholson stated that the BOE had now come up
with an additional Phase III for Dana, which the Board had not previously seen.
The chart also listed a separate list of projects
that the Board had talked about. Mr. Nicholson explained that with regard to
Hillandale, at a previous meeting the BOE had stated that it was off the
calendar because they were having problems with the land and other issues.
However, at the June 29th meeting, Hillandale was put back on the
table. The BOE also proposed that the New Elementary School Building,
Edneyville and Mills River Phase I projects be moved from FY 05-06 back to FY
04-05, and Mills River Phase II from FY 06-07 to FY 05-06. Following discussion
at that meeting however, the consensus was to have the schedule remain as
presented by Mr. Nicholson in the “Schools Major Capital Project Chart”.
Also presented by Mr. Nicholson at that meeting was
a “Schools Major Capital Financing Chart” based on the CIP. In that chart he
showed the instrument to finance the Dana project as an Installment Contract,
and the instrument for all additional projects as Bonding, though that decision
had not yet been made by the Board. He also showed in that chart the additional
tax needed to fund the various projects. Finally at that meeting, Mr. Nicholson
had presented the “Five-Year Capital Improvements Plan Summary” for the BOE’s
information.
Following the June 29th meeting, the BOE
had a meeting from which came some correspondence and two resolutions. In one
resolution the BOE requested permission from the Board of Commissioners to
begin two projects, Dana and Hillandale. Mr. Nicholson stated that Board would
need to consider whether they wished to proceed with the Hillandale project, an
almost $4.8 million dollar project. The second resolution had to do with
acquisition of property and the need for money to buy that land.
There was some discussion about what the project at
Hillandale would entail given the problems with land and soil issues. There was
also discussion about how the financing would work, and the effect of the
amount of money being discussed on the rate. Chairman Hawkins confirmed that if
the Board wished to proceed with both the Dana and Hillandale projects, they
would need to do a COPS rather than an Installment Purchase Contract. Mr.
Nicholson then explained the various financing instrument options.
Commissioner Young made the motion to give the
County Manager and the School Board the authority to do the Hillandale Project
and the Dana Project. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Update on Pending Issues
Voting
Delegate – NCACC Annual Conference
Since no Board members were certain they would be able to attend the Conference,
Chairman Hawkins made the motion that David Nicholson be the Board’s
delegate for voting purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
IMPORTANT DATES
Rocky Hyder stated that Staff had received State
Road Abandonment Petitions from the property owners along State Road 1518
(Lakewood Road Extension) and State Road 1900 (East Prince Road). Comments were
requested from agencies providing emergency services to that area of the County
(i.e. Sheriff, EMS, Dana Fire and Rescue). No objection had been received
regarding either proposed abandonment.
Chairman
Hawkins made the motion to hold a public input session on State Road
Abandonment Petitions on East Prince Road Lakewood Road Extension on July 21,
2004 at 11:00 a.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ADJOURN
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to adjourn the
meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Attest:
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk
to the Board
Grady Hawkins, Chairman