STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA                                                        BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

COUNTY OF HENDERSON                                                                                                   May 21, 2008


The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 9:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Conference Room of the Historic Courthouse.


Those present were:  Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice Chairman Charlie Messer, Commissioner Larry Young, Commissioner Chuck McGrady, Commissioner Mark Williams, County Manager Steve Wyatt, Assistant County Manager Selena Coffey, County Attorney Russell Burrell, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.


Also present were: Deputy Clerk Terry Wilson, Finance Director J. Carey McLelland, Communications Officer Pam Brice, Associate County Attorney Sarah Zambon, Planning Director Anthony Starr, Engineering and Facility Services Director Marcus Jones,  Recycling Coordinator Adrienne Outcalt, and Research/Budget Analyst Amy Brantley.



Chairman Moyer called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance.   



Representatives from the Mountain View 4-H Club led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.



County Manager Steve Wyatt gave the invocation.



1.      Richard DeSimone – Mr. DeSimone has been a Henderson County resident for almost five years.  He is a retired chemist and serves on the Recycling Committee of the Environmental and Conservation Organization.  Mr. Desimone stated that Henderson County is among the fastest growing counties in the state and with more people comes more garbage; the future holds some real challenges in this area such as a shortage of nearby landfill space, dramatically higher tipping fees than we now enjoy, increasing costs to truck waste longer distances, and several new state mandates that we must comply with.  The opportunities have never been greater for local governments to provide more efficient and effective recycling services to their citizens, and we need to see an effort on the part of many communities to be better.

2.      Tara Ledbetter – Ms. Ledbetter spoke in regards to the need for more school nurses.  School personnel are not equipped to handle the medical situations.  Ms. Ledbetter’s daughter Kaitlyn has been diagnosed with ITP (Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura).  Kaitlyn also has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.  Both meaning that if she gets cut or injured she has the risk to bleed to death.  Her blood platelets do not clot properly.  If she gets cut the Ehlers-Danlos skin disorder causes her skin to rip or tear and she needs immediate stitches.  On the days that there is not a school nurse at her school she drops off her daughter and worries how fast she can make it from her work place to the school to see that Kaitlyns care is handled.  

3.      Isabel W. Taylor – Ms. Taylor operates a child development center in Fletcher.  She is concerned with the finding of the United Agenda for Children.   She asked that the Board make it a priority to add more school nurses.

4.      Angie Reid – Ms. Reid stated that in the last school year Bruce Drysdale was fortunate enough to have a school nurse.  The grant monies that paid her to be there 5 days a week will run out at the end of the school year.  Without a school nurse teachers will not only have to teach students but would have to assume the responsibility for their physical needs as well.  It has been documented that the Bruce Drysdale school nurse treats an average of 30 students a day.  She asked the Board to prioritize funding for school nurses in our county.


Chairman Moyer stated that two (2) items needed to be added.  Under Important Dates add item C – public hearing for economic development and under Closed Session add 2 – for a personnel matter. 


Commissioner McGrady made a motion that the Board adopts the agenda as amended.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.



Commissioner McGrady had not had time to read the draft minutes for March 6 and requested that they be pulled from the consent agenda.   He also requested that Consent Agenda Item J – Agreement with Volunteer Fire Departments and Consent Agenda Item K – Sale of Pardee Care Center be pulled for further discussion. 


Commissioner McGrady made the motion to adopt Items B – I on the Consent Agenda.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Agreement with Volunteer Fire Departments (J)

Commissioner McGrady questioned what the statement meant on page 3 of 8 in the first paragraph when it comes into the statement of agreement, “the county shall not adjust the property rates within the fire departments based on the county’s election of the ad valorem method”. 


Chairman Moyer stated that the concern here was that if the Board chose the ad valorem method they would adjust the fire departments rate to reflect the amount of sales tax.  It does not mean that they won’t be adjusted based on their needs or based on what they prove to the Fire and Rescue Advisory Committee.  The statement was that if we went to ad valorem there would be an immediate drop in their rates based on the sales tax money they would get.   He stated that as a result of the work of Fire Marshal Rocky Hyder and his department all of the fire departments have signed the agreements. 


Commissioner McGrady made the motion that the Board enter into the proposed agreement with Henderson County Volunteer Fire Departments as presented.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Sale of Pardee Care Center (final approval) (K)

Commissioner McGrady stated in just the last couple of days a meeting was held of the Pardee Board and that they are recommending this to the Board of Commissioners unanimously.  From the newspaper he received the impression that the Board of Commissioners had received an upset bid from another party.  He asked the Chairman to explain just what had been received.


Chairman Moyer stated that the Board had received a document within the time period from the Lutheran Group.  The Board had thorough discussion of the document and the County Attorney reviewed it at the Board’s request.  The first issue was whether the document received qualified under law as an upset bid. 


County Attorney Russ Burrell stated if this were solely as sale of real estate the answer would be yes.  The contract that you first gave preliminary agreement to with the Hendersonville Physicians and Associates, cross references another document that also is made a part of it, which is the sale of the other assets that make up Pardee Care Center; from the beds and the facilities to the certificate of need.  It requires that there be an agreement on that contract between third party, Henderson County Hospital Corporation, and whoever the new bidder is.  He noted that the purported upset bid, which he would not call an upset bid because it does not match all the other terms and increase the price, would lower the amount of money to Pardee by about $1 million.  Given that this Board is a public body serving the entire public and not just needs of a given non-for profit corporation, it clearly does not meet the requirements of an upset bid that matches all the other terms and increase in price.  The only options are to wipe everything away or approve the bid presented. 


Chairman Moyer said that the Board was advised by council at the meeting that the Lutheran Group added three conditions, two environmental ones, and one which was of concern stating that their Board had not approved this letter that was sent, and any agreement going forward would have to be approved by the Board.  At most this is an agreement to agree.  After considering this at great length, the Board took advice of council and based on that advice said that the document received did not qualify under law as an upset bid so they rejected the offer from the Lutheran Group and authorized going forward with the Physicians Group.  This must be sold as a going concern; you can’t separate the real estate, the beds and the people, etc. 

Commissioner Young made the motion that the Board give final approval of the bid and offer presented by the Trustees of Henderson County Hospital Corporation for the sale of Pardee Care Canter.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Commissioner McGrady questioned that the agreement has some notice provisions and with respect to notice to the County itself, would we be allowed to substitute County Attorney Russ Burrell, Chairman Moyer, and our address, and the County Manager in there for the CEO of the Hospital and the Hospital Corporations attorney.


County Attorney Russ Burrell stated that he could not imagine that this would be a problem. 


Chairman Moyer mentioned that he had been involved as a non-voting member through this process and he felt that the Hospital Board has tried to give this tremendous due diligence.  It is never an easy decision when you are choosing between very qualified competing groups.   


Tax Collector’s Report

Terry F. Lyda, Tax Collector, provided the Tax Collector’s Report for information only dated May 9, 2008.


Tax Refunds

A list of three (3) refund requests was presented for approval by the Board of Commissioners.


Tax Releases

A list of thirty-four (34) release requests was presented for approval by the Board of Commissioners.


Tax Refund Denial

One (1) refund request was submitted for like affirmation by the Henderson County Board of Commissioners.


Western Highlands Area Authority – Quarterly Fiscal Monitoring (FMR) for the period ended March 31, 2008

G.S. 122C-117(c) requires the staff of the local area mental health authority to provide the County Finance Officer with the quarterly Fiscal Monitoring Report (FMR) within 30 days of the end of the quarter.  The County Finance Officer is then required to provide the FMR to the Board of Commissioners at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board.  The FMR for Western Highlands Area Authority was presented for the Board’s information and consent approval.  The report was received by the County Finance Officer on April 30, 2008.


Suggested Motion:  I move that the Board approve the Western Highlands Area Authority Fiscal Monitoring report for the period ended March 31, 2008 as presented.


Home and Community Care Block Grant for Older Adults County Funding Plan

Each year the Board of Commissioners is required to adopt a Funding Plan for the Home and Community Care Block Grant for Older Adults and identify the lead office or agency responsible for coordinating the County Funding Plan.  At this time, the Funding Plan for Fiscal Year 2009 is estimated to be $699,215, which is an increase of $12,353 over the amount received in FY 2008.  This is a State / Federal program administered at the local level.  The proposed Funding Plan Supports the service priorities identified for the current planning cycle.


Suggested Motion:  I move that the Board appoints the County Manager’s Office as the Lead Agency and approve the proposed FY 2009 Funding Plan.


Recombination Deed for Four Parcels Edneyville Park Project

The County Attorney provided the deed and plat which would recombine four of the five parcels of the new Edneyville Park.  The recombination is required as part of the septic system permit for the Community Center building.  The septic system (tank, lines and drain fields) must be setback from property lines even if the property on either side of the line is owned by the same entity.


Suggested Motion:  I move that the Board of Commissioners approve the recombination of the four lots as described in the Henderson County plat dated March 26, 2008 by Hill and Associates Surveyors, P.A. and authorize the Chairman to sign the deed.


Review Special Intensity Allocation application WS-2008-05-01 (Village Green at Mills River)

LeRoy Brown, Buyer, submitted an application on property owned by E K S Morley, for approval of a proposed warehouse and office building (9,600 square feet) with associated parking and driveway access (10,334 square feet) on February 13, 2008.  The application has a proposed impervious surface of 46.0 percent.  This exceeds the 24 percent allowed by right.  A Special Intensity Allocation permit would be required.  The PIN for the property is 9631-31-8953 and is approximately 1.00 acre in size.  The property is currently a vacant parcel of land.  This parcel of land is located in the Town of Mills River.


Normally these types of application would be under staff review using category 1 allocation for Lower Mills River (Asheville) Balance of Watershed (WS-III).  On November 2, 2006, category 1 was exhausted of allocation. The Henderson County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 200A-322.D (Special Intensity Allocation staff/formal review) required applicants submit is reviewed by the Henderson County Board of Commissioners for any proposed nonresidential development once Category 1 has been exhausted.  On December 10, 2007, the Board of Commissioners approved criteria for each applicant to meet.


Category 3 has a total of 30.736 acres, this application removes 1.00 acre from the total is approved.  This would leave 29.736 acres for future projects located in the SW-III Balance of Watershed district.


Suggested Motion:  I move that the Board approve the application for Carolina Flooring Contractors Special Intensity Allocation (WS-III Balance of Watershed) subject to the applicant satisfying all recommendations of the Watershed Administrator, Senior Planner, Mills River staff and the Board.


Notification of Vacancies

The Board was notified of the following vacancies which will appear on the next agenda for nominations:


1.                Alliance for Human Services – 1 vac.

2.                Community Child Protection Team (CCPT) – 1 vac.

3.                Environmental Advisory Committee – 5 vac.

4.                Henderson County Board of Health – 4 vac.

5.                Henderson County Historic Courthouse Corporation – 3 vac.

6.                Historic Resources Commission – 3 vac.

7.                Juvenile Crime Prevention Council – 5 vac.

8.                Mountain Area Workforce Development Board – 4 vac.

9.                Social Services Board – 1 vac.



Chairman Moyer 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.


  1. EMS Quality Management Committee – 3 vac.

Commissioner McGrady nominated for reappointment Larry Russell for position #19.   Chairman Moyer made the motion to accept Larry Russell to position #19 by acclamation.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


  1. Equalization and Review, Henderson County Board of – 2 vac.

There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.


  1. Hendersonville City Zoning Board of Adjustment – 1 vac.

There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.


  1. Juvenile Crime Prevention Council – 11 vac.

Chairman Moyer nominated Stephen Teel for position #10.  Chairman Moyer made the motion to accept Stephen Teel to position #10 by acclamation.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


  1. Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee – 1 vac.

Commissioner McGrady nominated for reappointment Perry Robinson for position #5 and Joyce Mazzachi for position #19.   He further nominated Julianne Kilcullen for position #2 and Dauna Donato for position #7.  Chairman Moyer made the motion to accept Perry Robinson, Joyce Mazzachi, Julianne Kilcullen, and Dauna Donato by acclamation.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


  1. Senior Volunteer Services Advisory Council – 1 vac.

There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.



County Manager Steve Wyatt stated that on Friday, May 16, 2008 the Board received a copy of the budget recommendation.  It was released to the public on May 19, 2008.  It is a budget that totals $115,890,727, and based on the Board direction, it is a very conservative budget and does not require a property tax increase.  Crafting the budget without a property tax increase was a tremendous challenge because not only does it not require a property tax increase, it also fulfills the commitments that the Board has made on several fronts.  To get to the point where there is no property tax increase and those commitments are fulfilled, County Government spending is actually going to go down.  The recommendation is a decrease of about 1% in the coming year from $80.8 million currently to about $80.1 million.  This budget does follow through with the Board’s commitment to increase public education funding by about 6%.  That budget total goes from about $29.9 million to about $31.7 million.  It also increases Community College spending more than 8%; that’s a very small portion of the budget but still significant.  That budget has risen from about $3.75 million to $4 million; again without a property tax increase. 


The Board is very aware of the challenges in this budget.  At the retreat in January we were looking at about an additional $3.67 million in new educational funding, most of which is in the public school sector; the debt service for the construction for the coming year for Mills River, Hillandale, and Dana Elementary Schools.  There are also new, ongoing operational costs per county costs associated with running Sugarloaf Elementary, about $500,000 of new costs.  Mr. Wyatt reminded the Board that Sugarloaf does not replace the school or take a school off line, it is an additional school.  The Blue Ridge Community College Technology Center will be up and running shortly with an estimated cost of about $200,000.  When you look at the $3.67 million commitment that the Board made to improve education and the opportunities for education for the citizens of the county, it would roughly equate to about a three cent (.03) increase on the property tax.  The Board however directed at the January retreat that staff development a scenario where there would be no property tax increase in the coming year’s budget proposal and we have achieved that directive. 


Since January things have changed and fuel prices and grocery prices for tax paying families are going through the roof.  We use a lot of fuel in the County Government operations primarily for the Sheriff’s Department but also for code regulations and inspections.   We use diesel and the price has far exceeded those cost. 


Over the past year, the Board of Commissioners has offered the voters opportunities to weigh in on tax referendum; one was the land transfer tax and the other sales tax.  Both were soundly defeated and the options are off the table.  Folks need to understand that the Board of Commissioners can only implement funding that’s approved by the State of North Carolina.  He feels that the Board has a strong interest in an impact fee.  They however have no authority from the State of North Carolina for an impact fee.  At this point and time the Board has basically one substantial source…property taxes for income.  There are a few fees that the board can levy and those do measure up to some money, but as far as substantial numbers it is the property tax. 


The Commissioners have mandated a no tax increase budget and the consensus was to get to the target there would be a 2.7% ceiling of budget growth for all departments.  That was based on January CPI (Consumer Price Index) projections.  If we had that meeting again we would have to raise that figure to probably 4.1% – 4.2% depending on when the meeting was set.  The cost of living and the CPI are exceeding 2.7% at this time. 


To meet the commands we have postponed a number of initiatives.  We have a capital improvement plan and those capital projects (other than the school projects) have basically been put on hold.  We are drawing down reserves for operating costs by about $1.2 million.  We are preserving the 12% fund balance policy the Board has and they did not authorize going below 12%, so our projection is that we will be right down to that 12%. 


School funding remains a challenge.  There is a $21.3 million operating budget, which is 10% above the spending cap.  Recommended budget to the schools is $19.1 million and is not earmarked.  This money can be used at their discretion.  This is the highest amount that the County has budgeted.  When you look at the total school budget, it exceeds $30 million for the first time in County history.  Over the last several months the Board has been approached by folks that he feels have questioned the County’s commitment to education, therefore there are facts that the citizens need to be aware of. 


Since the fiscal year 2004/2005 the County has increased spending for school debt service, at the request of the school system, for school construction and renovation by nearly 90%.  When you look at the budget document that was provided there are photographs on the front.  (He held it up for the public to see)  Shown were four (4) school buildings that are under construction; multi-million dollar school facilities that are under construction.  The Board of Commissioners is responsible for paying for those facilities.  When you look at over all commitment to education, there are 100 counties in North Carolina, Henderson County ranks 28th in statewide and local funding according to the latest statistics.   When you look at school systems about the size of Henderson County the County ranks 2nd in funding among those like size school districts. 


The projections received from the schools systems show that school enrollment will actually be going down.  When we base those statistics on school enrollment it is likely with the increase and about $1.75 million being put into education, that the County will increase it’s standing relative to the other counties.   


Property taxes are expected to generate about $57.7 million which represents about half of the general fund revenue for the county.  Sales tax revenues are expected to decline significantly; we are expecting a decline of about $3 million in sales tax.  Sales tax is about 17% of the revenue stream for the county, and the current sales tax (subject to the rejection of a ¼% increase) remains at 6.75% in Henderson County.  This is a $3 million loss in sales tax revenue; about $2 million of that is due to the trade off with the Medicaid situation with the state.  Effective July 1, the State has mandated an additional $2 per ton solid waste fee that will go to the Sate of North Carolina however Henderson County is in charge of collecting the fee.  The County is also mandated to fund the closure of the C&D Construction and Demolition Landfill, and Solid Waste is asking for a $2 per ton tipping fee to cover that closure cost.


Commissioner Williams stated that one thing that all citizens can do to help the sales tax is to make sure that any purchases made are made in Henderson County as much as possible; particularly big ticket items.   


County Manager Steve Wyatt stated one of the huge challenges County Government is faced with is with fuel costs rising to $4 and $5 a gallon, this budget does propose that the Board of Commissioners set aside $500,000 in an emergency energy reserve fund.  The budget also makes other suggestions, some of which apparently have generated more public interest than others.  The County is working on ideas and ways to save energy.  These ideas go from setting the thermostats at 75 degrees in the summer to 65 degrees in the winter, combining trips, and the possibility on condensing work weeks and saving energy and utility costs on building and fleet consumption.  All departments are being required to find ways to achieve a 10% across the board energy reduction.


This budget funds priorities.  This community is fortunate to have a Board of Commissioners that is dedicated to doing what is in the best interest of all the people of the County.  Henderson County staff is also willing and dedicated to following the Board’s leadership as you move forward into what is a very uncertain period of time for the whole nation in the next several months. 


Chairman Moyer stated that in respect to the budget he had one matter that he would like to discuss.  The County is in a very challenging time.  The efforts with energy conservation are extremely commendable.   He believed that interjecting discussion of a four day work week would be confusing during the budget process and it should be an entirely separate issue.  The four day work week needs a very thoughtful, planned discussion from the Board with the pros and cons of looking at it; what the costs will be, and what actual departments will benefit.  He suggested to the Board that they direct the County Manager to put off any further discussion of the four day work week until the budget is concluded and the Board can have a thoughtful session to weigh all the pros and cons. 


Chairman Moyer made the motion that the Board defers discussion of the four day work week until after the Board has completed the budget, and that they are very much interested in reducing energy cost and that they will take this matter up in a very thoughtful and deliberative matter after the budget is finished.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Commissioner Williams made the motion that the Board schedules a public hearing on the FY 2008-2009 Budget for Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 7:00 pm.  He further moved that the Board schedule a budget workshop for Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 8:00 am. 


Chairman Moyer stated that the Board would start at 8:00 am on the May 27, and the Board would be meeting all day until they get through the budget.  The County Manager and Assistant County Manager would be scheduling departments and they intend to work through the budget until they are done. 


Commissioner McGrady said that it was his understanding that it is more likely than not that these two meetings followed by a meeting at which the Board approves the budget is all that is now expected in terms of the Boards consideration of budget.  His view is that the amount of time is inadequate to the task.  He understood that an all day meeting would get the Board someplace but there is not much time built in there for others to respond as it moves forward.  He also felt that it suggested that the budget “is what the budget is” and is going to be adopted very quickly without a lot of consideration.  Obviously another meeting can be added if needed and he was supportive of that.  This budget is somewhat difficult to understand as a range of changes on the expense side; expenses have gone down but you can’t tell from the budget documents how the numbers have changed and why. 


Assistant County Manager Selena Coffey addressed the issue of the amount of detail in the budget booklet.  She stated that possibly by the end of the day the Board would have information that staff had begun preparing.  One of which is a summary sheet of all the county departments showing basically last years budget, the revenue received in that budget, and the amount of county funding for each of those budgets.  Additionally that same summary will show this year’s budget, percentage changes, dollar changes, and those types of items.  The fuel cost and how it has impacted each department will also be provided in several days.  It has not been provided in recent past however if the Board desires line item by department it can be provided. 


Chairman Moyer stated that in terms of operating expenses, the Board would diffidently need to see the detail of how they are reducing the operating expenses by seeing where they are and where they are making the cuts. 


Chairman Moyer reminded the Board of the motion on the table.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.



The County’s Strategic Plan in Strategy 4.4 (Address solid waste management issues including recycling and upcoming pertinent solid waste legislation) and under the leadership of Katie Breckheimer, chairperson, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and staff have developed the twenty year plan for Henderson County Solid Waste.  The plan details the importance of investing and developing recycling in Henderson County and developing the partnership with the County’s permitted private haulers.  While the challenges ahead for Solid Waste are significant, the plan provides a path that meets the challenges and maintains Solid Waste operations as an enterprise fund separate from the general fund.


Katie Breckheimer made introductions of several members of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee including Emily Anderson, Joe McGuth, and Stan Kumor.  Members of the ECO recycling committee were recognized.  Ms. Breckheimer also introduced Adrienne Outcalt the Recycling Coordinator for Henderson County. 


Ms. Breckheimer gave overview of the following:


Solid Waste Team

  • Henderson County Citizens
  • County Officials, SWAC and Staff
  • Municipalities
  • Private Haulers
  • Land of Sky Regional Council & Regional Solid Waste Group
  • DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) Solid Waste Management Division
  • Consultants
  • Enerdyne (Landfill Gas Contractor)
  • Contractors
  • Recycling Markets


Ms. Breckheimer stated that we now have our own recycling process and we are making money on it.  She shared pictures with the Board of the current process at the landfill including recycling.




We rely on our private waste haulers to collect from our citizens.  Some citizens bring their refuse and recycling to our transfer station.  It is an enterprise fund and no funds are drawn from the general fund or add any taxes to our citizens.  All monies are generated at the transfer station and they pay for the solid waste programs.



We are a transfer station and we operate a closed land fill at our transfer station.  All of our garbage is shipped to upstate South Carolina.  We contract with Waste Management Incorporated for both the transportation and landfill of our materials.  



We have one (not so convenient) center.  It is a dual stream process and we collect mixed containers, mixed paper fiber, and several other items. 


(HHW) Household Hazard Waste/Electronics

Last year we had our very first single event of HHW collection and it was very successful.  It was combined with our second electronics recycling event and thanks to the Board, Marcus Jones is now working on a permanent site at our transfer station where we can more than a yearly event, possibly up to four per year. 



We have both an aluminum ban and a cardboard ban and we need to make sure that we are trying to keep those out of our waste stream.  The State of North Carolina is also saying that we need to do a better job in the future.  They are asking us to look out for plastic bottles, oil filters, and electronics.



  • Pre FY08 Landfill Bans on Aluminum & Cardboard
  • Escalating Fuel Costs
  • FY 09 Construction & Demo Landfill Closure
  • FY09 Senate Bill 1492

·  Solid Waste Disposal Tax

·  Significant Increase in Permit Fees

·  State Ban on Plastic Bottles, Oil Filters, Electronics, etc.

  • FY10 Contract for Transportation/Disposal



·        Currently no “Silver Bullet”

- Landfill: expensive & location

- Incinerator: expensive & environmental challenges

·        Need New Perspective on Current Processes: Recycling & Collections


Recycling Coordinator Adrienne Outcalt presented the following information:


Solution: Recycling – (less transportation costs, no investment)

·        Solid Waste Transfer Expense: $34/Ton

·        Recycling Revenue: $100/Ton for Fiber - $30/Ton for Mixed Containers


-   Landfill Bans on Aluminum, Cardboard, Plastic Bottles, Oil Filters and Pallets

-   Implementation of Bans

·    Internal Operations

·    Permitted Partners

·    Environmental Stewardship

·    Recycling Coordinator

-   Maximize Recycling Revenue

-   Education/Outreach

-   Operational Efficiencies

-   Developing Markets


County Engineer Marcus Jones shared the following information:

Solution: Collections

Expansion of Collections for Solid Waste and Recycling

  • Develop more convenience Sites and/or
  • Develop Partnership with Haulers


Solution: Details

-   FY08 Hauler’s Forum

  • Success partially depends on Haulers
  • What can HCSW do to help?


-   FY09 Feasibility Study

  • Recycling Technology
  • Collection Options



  • FY08: Complete 10 year Capital Improvement Plan

-   Remain Enterprise Fund

-   Finance Planned Site Improvements

  • FY08: Twenty Year Vision
  • FY08: Establish Forum with Permitted Haulers
  • FY09 Feasibility Study

·        Recycling Technology

·        Collection Options

  • FY09 to FY12 Implementation of Collection Option(s)

·        Develop more Convenience Sites and/or

·        Develop Partnership with Haulers

·        FY09 Implement HHW/Electronics Recycling Center

·        FY10 Implement Feasible Recycling Technology and Site Improvements

·        School Bus Garage

·        Stoney Mountain Recreation Center

·        FY10 Rebid MSW Transportation/Disposal Contract for Transfer Station



-       Waste to Energy Technology

-       C&D Reclamation

-       Composting Operations

-       Continue to Survey industry for alternative technology for recycling and disposal




Twenty Year Vision for Henderson County Solid Waste


Executive Summary

An effective Solid Waster Department is essential to providing a quality standard of living to the Citizens of Henderson County.  Without it, we risk health challenges, unmanageable costs, and harm to our environment.  Effective Solid Waster Management is a very important part of Growth Management.  Henderson County Solid Waste is providing this effectiveness through a focus on the following:  Value, Compliance and Environmental Stewardship.  The 2008 Twenty Year Vision for Solid Waste outlines the solutions to continue and improve on the Department’s focus.


The solution to moving forward over the next twenty years is not a new revolutionary process, but is our current process with a new perspective.  Our current operation needs to be refined to create greater efficiencies and cost savings.  There is no new technology on the solid waste horizon that is both feasible and proven.  Furthermore, the challenges grow every year.  We face increasing costs in operation from skyrocketing fuel costs to more aggressive regulation from the State.  However, we must still provide excellent customer service and value to our rate payers and the Citizens of Henderson County.  The two aspects of our Solid Waste efforts that provide the most potential are the County’s private haulers and recycling. 


Henderson County Solid Waste is an enterprise fund separate from the general fund and property taxes.  The Solid Waste Capital Improvement Plan developed this year indicates that is possible to continue into the future as a self-supported County function.  This is not the case for many solid waste operations and the significant difference between Henderson County and the others is our partnership with the existing network of private haulers.  The County’s solid waste collection is done largely by private enterprise available to residents as an alternative to transporting their waste to the County facility.  Collection of solid waste is expensive and private enterprise and the laws of supply and demand are a potential way to control costs.  We need to continue this partnership and help the collection network when possible. 


In addition to the private haulers, the most potential for overcoming increasing cost and achieving compliance is recycling. Recycling is no longer just an environmental stewardship opportunity, it is a process that removes material from our waste stream, reduces disposal costs and generates revenue.  While the recycling markets fluctuate, there is notable indication recycling will continue to provide an effective means of reducing disposal costs and generating revenue.  The recycling markets and number of end uses for recycled products disposal have grown into a strong industry.  Furthermore, effective recycling efforts are continuing to be a necessary tool in maintaining compliance with current and new State regulations.


After lengthy discussion by the Board, Commissioner McGrady made the motion that the Board of Commissioners approves the 2008 Twenty Year Vision for Solid Waste.  All voted in favor and the motion carried. 



County Attorney Russ Burrell stated tv he County has received an offer from Boyd Hyder to purchase the former Department of Public Health building, located on Spartanburg Highway.  The offer is for $1,070,000.00.


The appraised value as of 27 December 2006 for the property was $1,457,000.00 (a copy was provided to the Board).  The tax value assessed for the two parcels involved are $1,284,100.00 (parcel 9904885), which includes the main building) and $521,600.00 (parcel 9904886, including parking lot and other area), for a total of $1,805,700.00.


If the Board chooses to accept this offer, the process is as follows:


1)               Offer made, and prospective purchaser deposits 5% of the offer price with the County.  (This has been done).

2)               The Board determines whether to give preliminary approval of the offer.  If so, then

3)               Notice of the offer, and of the right to make an upset bid is made in The Times-News.  If they wish to do so, any person or entity can make an “upset bid” (higher bid) on the property, which must be at least 10% of the first $1,000.00 and 5% of the remainder higher than the existing bid, and must make a deposit of 5% of the new bid.  The new bid must then be re-advertised for further upset bids.  At the expiration of the last (or only) upset bid period without further upset bids, the offer is then given

4)               Final consideration and decision by the Board of Commissioners.


The Board may at any time up until final approval reject any and all offers.


Commissioner Williams stated that staff had been directed to do a feasibility study to see how the building could be utilized for county use.  The results of the study have not been received in order to know what recommendations there might be.  He was not inclined to sell property below the appraised value as this is unfair to the Henderson County citizens.  Commissioner Williams made the motion that the Board decline the acceptance of this offer as made and wait before entertaining other offers until the results of the feasibility study are available.  After further discussion all voted in favor and the motion carried.


County Manager Steve Wyatt updated the Board in regards to the feasibility study stating that the County had contracted with the same company that did a similar study for the county previously on the old Tuxedo school.  We are probably within 2-3 weeks before having the preliminary report and at that time he would ask the company to come in and explain their findings.  One thing that was a specific request to the company was for them to look at the potentials for reuse for other Henderson County operations. 



Planning Director Anthony Starr stated the 2006 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Housing Development project will assist Henderson County Habitat for Humanity in increasing the amount of affordable housing available to county residents.  The CDBG funds will provide for 1,200 linear feet of water lines, road and drainage allowing for the construction of up to fourteen (14) homes.  As part of the procurement requirements associated with the grant, a request for Proposals (RFP) for Engineering Services was advertised.  After review of the engineering proposals received by the Project Scoring Committee, it was determined that the proposal submitted by William Lapsley & Associates, P.A. will most effectively meet the project requirements.  Lapsley & Associates received the highest ranking and appears to be the most qualified firm to complete the project.  Their strong reputation for quality work, extensive experience with civil engineering, CDBG grant projects, and familiarity with the project area stand out among the other firms. 


The Board has previously reviewed this project and approved the grant application.  Staff is now implementing the grant.  No County matching funds are associated with the grant.


Planning Staff requested that the Board accept the recommendation of the Project Scoring Committee and authorize staff to contract with Lapsley & Associates, P.A., for engineering services pursuant to CDBG #06-C-1600.  No County matching funds are associated with the grant.


Commissioner Messer made the motion that the Board select Lapsley & Associates, P.A. for the project and authorize staff to enter into a contract for engineering services with Lapsley & Associates, P.A. regarding infrastructure improvements pursuant to CDBG #06-C-1600.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.



Chairman Moyer stated that during the 2007 Session, the NC General Assembly passed House Bill 1513, which allow counties to voluntarily participate in the costs of transportation projects.  Additionally, the 21st Century Transportation Committee and the Transportation Oversight Committee are considering diverting all Secondary Road Program funding to the Primary Road Program, which will leave no funding to pave or improve secondary road.  During the joint meeting with the NCDOT, in regards to secondary roads, NCDOT made it very clear that we are going to have substantially reduced funding for secondary road paving and repair.  If the State Legislature took money from the highway trust fund or affected their budget, it might even be reduced; so you take a completely inadequate amount, substantially reduced from previous years, and take away even more and it becomes a completely unsatisfactory situation.  Chairman Moyer’s opinion was that it was part of a program that NCDOT has had to pass secondary road responsibility back to the Counties without any funding at all to help the local governments take care of these roads.  It became clear in the hearing, along with other comments that this is the direction in which things are moving.  It is important, in his opinion, that the local Governments (representing their citizens) get on board and take a strong position that it is not fair or appropriate for NCDOT to pass secondary road responsibilities back to the counties without any funding or any help with respect to this area. 


The Board is requested to adopt the Resolution opposing House Bill 1513 which would allow counties to voluntarily participate in the cost of transportation projects.  A copy of the resolution is attached hereto and incorporated as a part of the minutes.


The emphasis of the resolution is to get the point across that there is a highway trust fund that is supposed to fund programs like this.  The State Legislature and the Governor have regularly raided that fund and used it for other purposes instead of highways and now they are claiming they don’t have the money for roads.  This would be a major additional funding load on the county which would drive up our local property taxes very significantly. 


Chairman Moyer made the motion that the Board adopts the resolution with the change in paragraph #5 of adding the word state transportation program and take the ‘s’ off of programs.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.



County Attorney Russ Burrell requested that a public hearing be scheduled for an economic development matter “ project performance plus”, for the June 2, 2008 regular board meeting at 7:00 pm when the Board got to Important Dates.



There was nothing further at this time.



Edneyville Park Community Center Groundbreaking

Chair Moyer noted that the groundbreaking would be May 30, 2008 at 11:00 am.  Chairman Moyer made the motion that the Board set a special meeting for May 30, 2008 at 11:00 am for the Edneyville Park Community Center groundbreaking and related affairs.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Set public hearing on 2008 Community Development Block Grant Application

Commissioner McGrady made the motion that the Board schedules a public hearing for the 2008 Community Development Block Grant presentation for Monday, June 2, 2008 at 7:00 pm.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Request for special meeting regarding Henderson County Hospital Corporation revenue bond refinancing

Chairman Moyer made the motion that the Board schedules a special meeting for Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 10:00 am to give final approval of the revenue bond refinancing in connection with Pardee Hospital bonds.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Set public hearing for economic development

Commissioner McGrady made the motion that the Board schedules a public hearing on economic development incentive for project performance plus for Monday, June 2, 2008 at 7:00 pm following the CDBG application.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.





Commissioner McGrady made the motion for the Board to go into closed session as allowed pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11 for the following reasons:



1.                (a)(4) To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by the public body.


2.                (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.



Commissioner McGrady made the motion to adjourn.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.






______________________________________                                        ________________________

   Teresa L. Wilson, Deputy Clerk to the Board                          William L. Moyer, Chairman