STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA                                         BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

COUNTY OF HENDERSON                                                                          AUGUST 18, 1999


The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 9:00 a.m. on August 18, 1999 in the Commissioners' Conference Room of the Henderson County Office Building.


Those present were:  Chairman Grady Hawkins, Vice-Chairman Bill Moyer, Commissioner Renee Kumor, Commissioner Don Ward, Commissioner Marilyn Gordon, County Manager David E. Nicholson, Interim County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.


Also present were: Finance Director J. Carey McLelland, Interim Planning Director Karen C. Smith, County Engineer Gary Tweed, Public Information Officer Chris Coulson, and Staff Attorney Jennifer Jackson.



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



Chairman Hawkins led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.



David Nicholson reminded those in attendance that we had lost a good friend and community leader this past week in Glenn Marlow and he called for a minute of silence to remember Mr. Marlow. David then offered the invocation.



Commissioner Kumor asked to add one item ASchool Nurses@ to the agenda.  It was added as # 3 under Update on Pending Issues.


Commissioner Moyer asked to add  Aan update on the County Thoroughfare Plan@.  It was added as #4 under Update on Pending Issues - AF@ of Staff Reports.


Commissioner Ward asked to add as #5 under Update on Pending Issues - Aan update on Woodland Subdivision@.


It was the consensus of the Board to approve the above adjustments to the agenda. 



Chairman Hawkins made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.  Commissioner Ward asked that item AD@ be pulled - ASale of Surplus Vehicles@ for discussion.

Commissioner Ward stated that anytime we=re changing procedure on the way we=ve done things in the past then we need to get public relations out to the public so people can=t say well I didn=t know about it. 

Chairman Hawkins stated that the item Commissioner Ward is referring to is the ASale of Surplus Vehicles.@  Previously the Board had decided to try to sell our surplus vehicles in conjunction with the City of Hendersonville.  However, the Board does have the latitude of taking some of those items and offering them to our Volunteer Fire Departments of which they have selected four or five vehicles.  The best five vehicles were offered to the Fire Departments.  This was a change in how Henderson County has handled surplus vehicles in the past.


David Nicholson mentioned, since the meeting is shown on cable, that anyone wishing to see the surplus vehicles can go by the Maintenance Department on Williams Street, behind the Rescue Squad building.  Sept. 3 at 2:00 p.m. will be the bid opening.



Minutes were presented for review and approval of the July 29 special called meeting.


Notification of Vacancies

The Board was notified of the following vacancies which will appear under ANominations@ on the next agenda:


1. Industrial Facilities & Pollution Control Authority - 1 vac.

2. Hendersonville City Zoning Board of Adjustment - 3 vac.

3. Nursing/Adult Home Care Community Advisory Committee - 1 vac.


Beddingfield Variance - Draft Order

At the August 6, 1999 Commissioners= meeting the Board considered  the Application for Variance from Section 170-21(C) of the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance submitted by Diana Ruth Beddingfield, owner of a 9.52 acre tract off Andrews Road which is also known as Terry=s Creek Road in Henderson County.


The Board conducted a Quasi-Judicial Proceeding to consider the requested variance.  After hearing all of the testimony the Board discussed and voted to deny the variance.


The Board directed Staff to prepare proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the information presented and with the Board=s discussion and vote to deny the variance. 


The proposed order was submitted for the Board=s consideration.  The Board could adopt the Order as presented or revise as they wish.


Sale of Surplus Vehicles

Les Capps, Maintenance Director, requested that 19 vehicles owned by Henderson County be declared surplus this year.  A list was submitted of the 19 proposed vehicles and the proposed minimum bids:


SP-001            1992 Caprice              $1,200.00

SP-013            1987 Subaru                   500.00

SP-029            1990 Aerostar                800.00

SP-056            1993 Caprice              1,800.00*

SP-061            1993 Caprice              1,800.00

SP-070            1994 Caprice              2,000.00*

SP-074            1994 Caprice              1,800.00

SP-075            1994 Caprice              1,800.00

SP-077            1994    Caprice           2,000.00*

SP-031            1987 Dodge Pick up       700.00

SP-057            1991 Geo Tracker          900.00

SP-112            1986 LTD/Ford              500.00

SP-012            1990 E-350 Van          1,000.00*

SP-005            Unknown Military Dodge    50.00

SP-007            1992 Ford Cab/Chassie  3,000.00

SP-063            1993 Caprice              1,800.00

SP-008            1991 Crown Vic.            800.00*

SP-002            Ford Crown Vic. SW     600.00

SP-003            1989 Crown Vic.         1,000.00


It was felt that five of the surplus vehicles (those with asterisks) might be of interest to the volunteer fire departments operating in Henderson County.  As such, Commissioner Hawkins had requested that those five vehicles be offered to the volunteer fire departments and sold by private sale in accordance with NCGS 160A-279.


Staff suggested that the remaining 14 vehicles be sold through the taking of sealed bids pursuant to NCGS 160A-266 and 160A-268.  Commissioner Ward suggested during the budget process that Staff coordinate its sale of surplus vehicles with the City of Hendersonville.  Therefore, Staff proposed to coordinate the advertisement and bid opening date with the City of Hendersonville in order to foster more citizen interest in the sales.  Friday, September 3, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. was proposed for the bid opening for both Henderson County and the City of Hendersonville.


Two proposed resolutions were presented for the Board=s review - one pertaining to the private sale of the five vehicles to the volunteer fire departments and one pertaining to the sealed bid process for the remaining 14 vehicles.



Chairman Hawkins reminded the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:


1. Henderson County Board of Health - 1 vac.

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


2. Hendersonville City Zoning Board of Adjustment - 1 vac.

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


3. Land-of-Sky Regional Council - Advisory Council on Aging - 1 vac.

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


4. Henderson County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 2 vac.

There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting. We need a Minister to fill one of these vacancies.


5. Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee - 3 vac.

Positions, #11, #12, and #21 are vacant.   By statute there is a requirement for the nursing homes to have a certain number of representatives.   Commissioner Kumor nominated Marguerite Martin and Barry Clemo to positions #11 and # 12.  Chairman Hawkins made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Ms. Martin and Mr. Clemo.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


6. Henderson County Zoning Board of Adjustment - 1 vac.

There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting. This is an alternate vacancy for the Hooper=s Creek zoned area.



Mr. Frank Aaron, Chief Executive Officer for Margaret R. Pardee Memorial Hospital, presented Pardee=s Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Budget.  This presentation is required by the terms of the agreement forming the Henderson County Hospital Corporation.


Mr. Aaron introduced Mike Hanson from his Staff who has done a lot of work on the budget in the past 4 months.  He also mentioned that two Board members were present in the audience, Bill Blalock and Dick Shuffstall.


Mr. Aaron reviewed the Budget Summary with the Board in detail.  The total capital budget was $15,655,927. The budget summary is awaiting approval by the Hospital Board of Trustees at their meeting next week.  The Finance Committee of the Board did approve the budget for presentation purposes, meeting yesterday.   He briefly reviewed the budget timetable.  The Hospital=s fiscal year runs October 1 through September 30.  He then reviewed revenues and operating expenses.  He explained the need for a 3.5% rate increase this year.  Their net operating budget is $79,748,920.


Mr. Aaron explained that their bad debts, charity, managed care allowances, and other revenue deductions from the Medicare/Medicaid Program next year will total $60,744,000, an increase of almost $7,000,000.  The balanced budget act of 1997 will probably impact them to the tune of maybe $4,000,000 next year.  They=ll see a reduction in payment of close to $4 million. The American Medical Association (AMA) is working with Congress to try to reduce that impact. 





Carey McLelland presented two resolutions to the Board of Commissioners concerning the proposed installment financing of the Henderson County Detention Facility.


The first resolution declares Henderson County=s official intent to reimburse itself for expenditures that will be incurred to provide new detention facilities and to also reimburse itself for any expenditure paid prior to Henderson County=s receipt of proceeds from the borrowing.


The second resolution pertains to the setting of a public hearing which is required for the proposed installment financing.  Staff recommended that the public hearing be scheduled for the Board=s regularly scheduled meeting on September 15, 1999 at 11:00 a.m. and that the Clerk be directed to prepare an advertisement of such public hearing.  Both of these matters were addressed in the proposed resolution.


Staff requested that the Board consider approving both resolutions and reminded the Board that a second on any motion was required for the adoption of the proposed resolutions.  As the procedures that have to be taken with regard to the financing must be reviewed by the Local Government Commission, a proposed extract of minutes was also presented to guide the Board through the correct procedures with respect to these resolutions.


Following much discussion, Commissioner Kumor  moved the adoption of the following resolution:




WHEREAS, the Henderson County Board of Commissioners has authorized

Staff to file an application with the Local Government Commission for installment financing for the Henderson County detention facilities;


WHEREAS, Henderson County expects to incur expenditures to provide the detention facilities in Henderson County;


WHEREAS, Henderson County desires to receive reimbursement from the installment proceeds for any expenditures that the County pays regarding the detention facilities;


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Henderson County Board of Commissioners as follows:


1. Henderson County expects to incur expenditures (the AExpenditures@)to provide detention facilities in Henderson County;


2. Henderson County intends to finance costs of the foregoing detention facilities with proceeds of an installment financing obligation in an amount not exceeding $9,100,000 (the ABorrowing@);


3. Henderson County hereby declares its official intent to reimburse itself with the proceeds of the Borrowing for any of the Expenditures paid by it prior to the incurrence of the Borrowing.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and was adopted by the following vote:


Ayes:    all

Nays:    none


Commissioner Kumor moved the adoption of the following resolution:


                                       RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON



WHEREAS, the Henderson County Board of Commissioners desires to hold a public hearing in connection with the installment financing by the County of detention facilities;


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Henderson County Board of Commissioners as follows:


1. That a public hearing upon the proposed installment financing of the Henderson County detention facilities shall be held on the 15th day of September, 1999, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 140 of the County Administration Building located at 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, North Carolina, 28792;


2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby directed to cause a notice of such hearing to be published in a qualified newspaper no fewer than ten (10) days prior to such public hearing.


The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hawkins and was adopted by the following vote:


AYES:              all

NAYS:            none



Jennifer Jackson reminded the Board that each year before delivering the tax receipts to the Tax Collector, the Board of Commissioners must adopt and enter into its minutes an order directing that the Tax Collector collect the taxes.  This is required under NCGS 105-321, a copy of which was distributed for the Board=s review.  Staff had prepared a draft Order of Collection for consideration by the Board.  Delivery of the tax receipts must be accomplished prior to September 1st of each year.


There are prerequisites to the issuance of an Order for Collection and delivery of the tax receipts.  The Tax Collector, in accordance with NCGS 105-352 and 105-373, must (1) make his report to the Finance Director regarding prepayments; (2) make his preliminary report to the Board of Commissioners regarding the collection of the previous years taxes; and (3) make his annual settlement to the Board of Commissioners.  The Tax Collector has reported to the Finance Director that he has not collected any prepayments for 1999 taxes. 


The Tax Collector presented the Commissioners the preliminary report and annual settlement at its meeting on August 17, 1999.  Copies of the report and settlement were provided to the Clerk to the Board on or about July 6, 1999, and have been available for inspection since that date.

On December 7, 1998, the Board approved the Collector=s bond in the amount of $200,000, a copy of which was distributed for the Board=s information.  There is no statutorily required minimum or maximum bond amount.  It is suggested however, that the bond amount be set at or around the maximum daily deposit that the Tax Collector typically processes.  The Tax Collector=s busiest months of the year are December and January.


Staff felt that all prerequisites had been met which would allow the Board to enter the Order for Collection and deliver the tax receipts for 1999 to the Tax Collector.  A proposed Order was presented for the Board to execute.


The Board had much discussion, following discussions from a workshop with the Tax Collector held yesterday.  The Tax Collector is going to look into some options discussed at the workshop.  There was much discussion of the amount of bond needed for the Tax Collector.  The Board was comfortable with increasing the amount to $1 million for the Tax Collector.  The Board directed staff to increase the bond for the Tax Collector to $1,000,000.


Angela Beeker discussed in general the settlement.  There are two purposes of a settlement.  The settlement is an accounting for all the dollars that were included in the tax bills that went out for this tax year.  He will document in his accounting that he either collected those dollars and deposited them in the bank or that those dollars are secured through a lien on the real property or that those dollars have not yet been collected because those persons don=t own any real property.  In making his preliminary report to the Board, for the purposes of settlement, it is the Tax Collector=s duty to  comprise those three lists.  The law places the duty on the Board to determine the insolvents on that third list.  There is a presumption in the law that if the Tax Collector has done what he could to collect those taxes, that those people are insolvent, presumably that=s the only reason they wouldn=t have paid them because they were insolvent and had no property to pay them.  Ms. Beeker stated that for property tax purposes the word insolvent means Adoes not have sufficient property to satisfy the tax@.  That property could be in any form because in going after the money for those personal property taxes, you can attach any personal property that they have, not just the personal property for which the taxes are owed.  She stated that one thing to keep in mind is that you=re talking roughly about an eight month period for that third list.  They don=t become delinquent until the January 6, except for motor vehicles, but they are a special case.  Then the Tax Collector would only have from January 6 until right before September when he makes his settlement to collect those so AI do believe, it=s my opinion that yes the law places the duty on the Tax Collector to do everything he can including levy, attachment, garnishment, all of those remedies but to do what he can within those eight months, what is reasonable for him to have done in those eight months.@  That is part of what she believed the Board had to consider as a Board.  The effect of accepting the insolvents list - AWhat does that mean when you accept that list, you accepted every name on there.  The effect of accepting it is that he=s relieved of having to account for those dollars in the current year.  What happens is then you turn around and you recharge him for next year with those as delinquent taxes so he=s not relieved of any responsibility once he=s recharged for those delinquent taxes and every person on that list is still liable for the taxes, OK?  So I thought that information might be helpful to the Board in determining, you know, whether or not and how you=re going to proceed with regards to the settlement.@  The Board would not be writing those people off but rolling them to the next year. 


Ms. Beeker then addressed personal liability of the Commissioners - AIn my opinion you will only be liable to the extent that someone could prove that taxes were lost as a result of accepting the settlement, for civil liability purposes.  Now there is a provision in there that if either yourselves or the Tax Collector do not perform your duties, you could be criminally charges.  There are both criminal and civil penalties in there. . .  the statute of limitations cuts off the time that you could use those remedies that=s correct. But all that means is if somebody that owes taxes from 15 years came in and wanted to pay, you=d have to take the money. . .  effectively as a practical matter, once the statute of limitations has run you=re not going to get your money.@  


Following more discussion and questions Ms. Beeker said AFor your past years taxes, if you=re going to be liable for that, you=re already liable for that because this is done annually, OK, so those taxes have already been included in settlements in past years . . . I think that the law grants the Board a lot of discretion because there=s a separate statute that says that after five years you can in your discretion release anything over five years old and I think that, you know, unless there=s some fraud or collusion going on, you=ve got a wide amount of discretion there so I think the farther away you get, the more minuscule your chances of becoming liable are because you could today relatively release anything over five years within your discretion and pretty much with no questions asked.  In my opinion, recharging them back for next year is going to minimize any chance for personal liability for the Board.  I would go one step further though and I would, because this is kinda new, in other words this personal property thing hasn=t really been discussed this specifically before, I would require him to come back in six months and make another settlement with you to demonstrate what he=s done to collect those personal property taxes.  That way you don=t get, when it comes time to make your annual settlement, next September, there=s been like a checkpoint and I don=t know that you=d have to require it to be a formal settlement.  You can require it to be in any form that you want but at least have him report back to you as far as anything that=s been done to collect these taxes.@


There was then discussion about appointment of a delinquent tax collector.  Angela explained that person would have to be appointed by this Board and would have to be bonded.  


Terry Lyda came forward and stated that he felt that Darlene Burgess and himself had discussed the possibility of Darlene Burgess becoming our Delinquent Tax Collector.  She already does the real estate and does a great job on it.  Terry felt that with a little administrative help, Ms. Burgess could do a good job as Delinquent Tax Collector.  She is versed in the laws and understands what would be done.  He asked for (from the Board) a guideline as far as where to go on the garnishments, where to go on levies and attachments.  Another thing that needs to be considered is the mobile home situation.  Mr. Lyda stated that we have many mobile homes here that they=ve been getting returned bills from. They are not sure that the mobile home is really out there. 


Following much discussion, Commissioner Moyer made the motion to accept the settlement, recharge the Tax Collector for all prior open amounts, and to ask the Tax Collector and the County Attorney to develop a procedure that will employ the use of levy, attachment, and garnishment and to make a reasonable estimate as to what the procedure should be, what=s realistic, what makes sense.  What is a realistic way we can satisfy the law and let the Tax Collector continue to do the fine job he is doing.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Commissioner Kumor made the motion to adopt the revised Order of Collection, with the addition of Aboth current and delinquent@. All voted in favor and the motion carried.



There was no-one present from the Board of Elections.  Chairman Hawkins asked if it was the consent of the Board to pull this item at this time.  It was pulled from this agenda.



Karen Smith reminded the Board that on July 21, 1999, the Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding manufactured home parks and proposed companion amendments to the Manufactured Home Park Ordinance.  On July 27, 1999, the Board of Commissioners held a work session on both sets of proposed amendments and directed staff to revise the amendments and bring them back to the Board for possible action.  The revisions are summarized below:


1. Change the number of spaces/units that constitutes a manufactured home park from 5 to 3 in the Manufactured Home Park Ordinance and use the same definition in the Zoning Ordinance.


2.  Create a distinction between Amajor parks@ (those with more than 10 spaces/units) and Aminor parks@ (those with 10 or fewer spaces/units). Reduce the amount of gravel required in minor parks for parking areas, driveways and service roads.  Eliminate requirement for a park sign for minor parks.


3.  Change the proposed exemption for migrant housing so that only migrant housing developments with up to 10 units are exempt from the requirements for manufactured home parks.


4.  Remove proposed requirement of a Certificate of Completion for parks developed under the Zoning Ordinance because the Zoning Compliance Permit serves the same purpose.


5.  Clarify that once a tract of land has three or more units, it becomes a park and requirements of the Zoning and Manufactured Home Park Ordinances apply to the entire development, although no units would have to be relocated.


6.  Add language to state that if a minor park is expanded to a major park, the requirements for major parks apply to the entire development (that is, additional gravel is required on parking areas, driveways and roads and a park sign is required).  No units would have to be relocated.


7.  Allow an additional three months for park owners to submit inventory information.


During that work session, the Board of Commissioners also decided to keep the proposed amendment that limits the number of pre-1976 units (mobile homes) in new or expanding parks to 25%.  Also, as staff previously informed the Board, Zoning Amendment #2 has been changed to properly coincide with the recommendation of the Planning Board that parks in the R-T, T-15, T-20 and RM-1 districts be allowed as conditional uses.


Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance Regarding Manufactured Home Parks


I. Amendment #1 - Definitions

Redefines manufactured home, manufactured home park and mobile home, deletes the definition of mobile home park and adds definitions for major park and minor park to conform with definitions in the Manufactured Home Park Ordinance.


II. Amendment #2 - Standards for Manufactured Home Parks

Replaces the current standards for manufactured home parks in the  Zoning Ordinance with the standards in the Manufactured Home Park Ordinance so that the same standards apply to zoned and unzoned areas.  Exceptions and points of clarification are noted as necessary for compatibility between the two ordinances and for legal reasons.


III. Amendment #3 - Revising Site Conditions for Manufactured Home

Parks in the RM-1 District

Removes the note from the site conditions for manufactured home parks in the RM-1 district so that the standards in Section 200-34 will apply.


IV. Amendment #4 - Deleting Off-Street Parking Requirements

Removes the parking requirement for manufactured home parks from the off-street parking standards section of the Zoning Ordinance because parking is addressed in the Manufactured Home Park Ordinance.


Commissioner Gordon discussed the possibility of changing the 4" gravel to 3" for minor or major subdivisions for roadbeds.  


$                Following discussion, Commissioner Moyer made the motion to adopt the amendments with the proposed amendments to section 411, deleting the four inches of crushed stone on a well compact subbase and the amendment to section 412 the four inches of crushed stone on a well compacted subbase with the rest of the provisions as presented.  Chairman Hawkins asked AWould you also amend that to include that January 1, 2000 date that was suggested?@  Commissioner Moyer added that amendment to his motion.  Another amendment to the motion was to exclude amendment #3, #6, and #7 in the Manufactured Home Park Ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Blue Ridge Community College Deed

Chairman Hawkins stated that if there was no objection from the Board, he would like to proceed to the Blue Ridge Community College Deed at this time.  He hoped to work this in, call a recess, and then come back for Informal Public Comments.


Angela Beeker stated that at the last meeting, Staff updated the Board on the grant matching requirements for the auditorium and reported back that the Legislature had basically removed any grant matching requirements.  Also at that meeting, Dr. David Sink appeared and formally requested that the Board go on and turn over the 29 acres through a deed for the 29 acres remaining that was not used by Hospice and Pardee.  Since that time, Dr. Sink has put his request in writing in the form of a letter to the board dated August 6, 1999, and he has attached documentation to that letter that he referred to when he formally requested the deed.  Those things consist of a letter from former County Attorney Don Elkins and an agreement with Pardee whereby Pardee agreed to finance those 29 acres for the County.  After that, the Board asked that Staff research the facts regarding this 29 acres.  Staff has researched records, minutes, etc. and had compiled a summary of the events regarding the 29 acres in question.  The Board had been supplied a copy of that summary prior to the meeting. 


Ms. Beeker reviewed that summary:


$                On December 5, 1997 the county received the deed for 39 acres.  The County holds the deed for all of the Hospital=s property so therefore it was deeded to the County in one parcel.

$                In March of 1998, the Board actually approved a deed to deed the acreage to Blue Ridge Community College, subject to the correct legal description being attached for the 29 acres. We had not, at that point, received a final survey showing the dividing line so we had to wait on that before that final deed could be drawn.


In the meantime the Board had discussions regarding the auditorium, the expansion, and the county facility, and possibly using some of that 29 acres for the county facility. 


This pretty much brings the Board up to date.  The Board was given a copy of the Financing Agreement that did reference the use of that property for Blue Ridge Community College.  Ms. Beeker stated ABut I believe it=s within the Board=s discretion still to do whatever you would like with regards to that property, from a legal standpoint it=s simply a matter of what you wish to do.@


We now have a description, we actually have a deed that is ready to go. 


There was much discussion.  The Commissioners (three of the current Board) thought they were investing in land for the long-term for Blue Ridge Community College for which they had no immediate need and there should not be a request for some years to come.  Commissioner Kumor stated that the Board=s intention was to buy the land for Pardee and Hospice to do what they have done and for the Community College to have this piece of property for it=s long term growth. 


It was the consensus of this Board that they would like to know what the Blue Ridge Board=s perception would be for the future land use of that land.  There was a discussion of having a memorandum of understanding with Blue Ridge Community College. 


Angela Beeker informed the Board that a memorandum of understanding is a gentleman=s agreement, it is not legally binding. 


Chairman Hawkins stated that to enter into a memorandum of understanding with Blue Ridge Community College regarding this 29 acre parcel was the consensus of the Board.


Chairman Hawkins called a five minute recess.



1. Jack Reed - Mr. Reed stated that he had sent a fax to the Board in March, listing some people they recommended for appointment.  He could not find that Nancy Mitchell had been acted on.  He is working with some of his team to try to get a streamlined recommended approach and will get that to the Board shortly.  He particularly would like to get an update on Nancy Mitchell.


2. Terry Hicks - Mr. Hicks asked to be able to hold his comments until the discussion regarding Dr. Swing=s property, which has been added to the agenda. He would prefer to speak after hearing the discussions of that item.


Woodland Subdivision - add on by Commissioner Ward (Dr. Swing=s property)

Commissioner Ward stated that he added this to the agenda so the Staff could bring the Board an update on the Woodland Subdivision, which is Dr. Swing=s subdivision in Flat Rock.   He stated that some of our Board, some of the Board of Flat Rock, Dr. Swing, and some of the members of the Planning Board, as well as Matt Matteson and some of the Planning Board from Flat Rock had a gentleman=s agreement with Dr. Swing on what we were going to accomplish.  He asked Staff to get the documentation to the Board on anything that we have forwarded to Flat Rock on this item.


To Mr. Ward=s understanding, at the time that Dr. Swing submitted the application to the Henderson County Planning Board, he was unaware it was an R-10.  Dr. Swing came to Commissioner Ward as a citizen and said that he didn=t think that the gentleman=s agreement was going to be honored.  Commissioner Ward informed him that a gentleman=s agreement would not hold up in court.  He told him to see what the Flat Rock Board would do and then his recourse would be to come back to this Board of Commissioners and finally it would be settled in court. 


Commissioner Ward stated that he would like to see the date that he submitted his application to our Planning Staff and what dates that Flat Rock was going to take over their Subdivision Ordinance and any other dates concerned.  He would like to try to get this matter settled one way or the other.  He would like to see the facts. 


Angela Beeker stated that Staff would be happy to put that together for the Board. Basically the Board wanted a chronology of events leading up to when Flat Rock took over jurisdiction of their own Subdivision Ordinance.


Jennifer Jackson stated that the most recent activity on that matter was that the matter before the Planning Board has been continued to the January meeting at the request of the applicant, Dr. Swing. The next hearing on that will be January 25, 2000, regular Planning Board meeting.  She also pointed out to the Board that this Board has considered, at least the matter pertaining to the zoning and the district that was in that area and actually had directed that Staff - at least there was a letter outlining that the maps that are currently on the GIS are the official maps and therefore those will be the districts that will be enforced, as far as that is concerned.


Chairman Hawkins instructed Ms. Beeker that whenever Staff completes that chronology, just to put it in the Commissioners= mailboxes in the office.


Terry Hicks - Mr. Hicks is the Secretary of the Planning Board in Flat Rock.  He was present and a part of the meeting that is being referred to as a gentleman=s agreement and felt that each one present was subject to have a different interpretation for that meeting.  At the meeting, it was understood that under the present Flat Rock zoning, that Mr. Swing=s property allows 125 housing units on about 78.5 acres of land and this is based on Flat Rock zoning at the moment.  The general discussions that took place centered around that he would like to have about 150 - 155 units.  Mr. Hick=s understanding was that they would try to work with him and investigate to see whether they felt that could be accomplished.  He felt it was a meeting with a very positive attitude.  They were trying to be as accommodating to Dr. Swing as they could, hoping they could accomplish what he wanted.  Mr. Hicks did not remember any guarantee.  It was simply discussed.


Mr. Hicks - AI would share with you that since that time and if I=m getting where you don=t want to be, please just stop me, Dr. Swing made an application to the Flat Rock Planning Board or to the Flat Rock Council requesting that all of that property, all 80, all 77.5 acres be rezoned to R-20.  In good faith the Planning Board in Flat Rock is working on that application now.  We had a meeting on 7/20 and another one on 8/3, and one yesterday, trying to acquire all the public input that we could acquire. If the R-20 rezoning were permitted, that would probably permit 170 units on that property.  There are some major issues.  I don=t know that you care at all to hear any of those now.@


Chairman Hawkins - AI don=t know if those would be appropriate.  I guess for this ... I think what you=re talking about is some internal business of the zoning out in Flat Rock and ...@


Terry Hicks - AIt may be pertinent to this because they are your citizens.@

Chairman Hawkins - ABut they=re not in our jurisdiction now, I think.@


Angela Beeker - AAnd that=s one thing that I was gonna say is even if we provide the chronology, I=m not sure this Board would have any authority to do anything and just so that everybody understands that, because it=s out of the County=s hands at the moment.@


Terry Hicks - AWell, really what I wanted to say is that we would like for you to know that something like 200 citizens have signed a protest and left them in the Village office who are not in favor of this.  You probably want to be aware of this.@




Commissioner Kumor had asked that this item be placed on the agenda.  Commissioner Moyer had asked her some questions about what the Board=s role would be in developing this jail project.  She put down three issues that she felt are the Board=s responsibility. The Board will hear from the Sheriff=s staff on the responsibilities they have in the construction and the operations of the new jail.  The Board of Commissioners= have some responsibilities they owe to the Sheriff in helping him effectively manage the jail.


Staffing.  The Sheriff was clear that over time he would be back asking for more staff because of the way he would like to be managing his jail, because of the responsibilities for intake, responsibilities for direct supervision, responsibilities for classifying people as they come in.  We are building a jail that will be for medium, minimum, and maximum security prisoners and that involves the issue of classification.  Some of the things that the Board will have to be dealing with as the costs are reviewed are to start working with the rest of the criminal justice system. 


Commissioner Kumor - AI know that you=ve heard ever since we began this planning process that as you build a jail, people will fill it up and we have to understand that this is not the Sheriff who fills up our jail as much as it is the rest of the criminal justice system.  And we have to initiate, I feel, a cooperative effort with the Sheriff to help the rest of the system, the DA=s, the Magistrates, and the Judges, and the other arresting entities in the County from the wildlife people to the rest, and to include the rest of the municipalities as to what=s going to be happening with our detention center as to what kinds of policies they might like to work with us to instate so that on the first day of operation we don=t fill our 208 beds but that we take our time and we have a process to do it systematically and make sure that the staff is there and the processes are in place with regard to booking, classification, and just management of the program.  So that=s one of the issues that I think we have to consider and I=ve talked to Bill about this one and I do believe he has consented to help us work with the criminal justice policy group, simply because it is really going to involve a lot of attorneys and we thought, I thought he would be best to go into a den of other attorneys and understand when they=re talking trash and when they=re telling us the truth about what they can do through the criminal justice system.


The second issue is inventory management and the Sheriff, I=ve gone over this memo with the Sheriff.  I showed it to him before I put it in our agenda and his staff and in this planning process they are working on an inventory management system.  I think it=s very prudent for us to understand that that=s going to be in place and that there=s going to be a whole process that didn=t exist before because of the magnitude of increase in beds and in staffing and in the kinds of needs that will occur for this system, especially if we=re going to be doing laundry on a large scale and we=re going to be operating a kitchen on a larger scale and keeping things clean and we get into a whole system of buying cleaning chemicals as well as mattresses and sheets and anything else that will be there and I think it would be prudent for us to look at our purchasing responsibilities and see if we can=t blend those into the Sheriff=s inventory management system so that we help with his cost controls because we=re going to ultimately be paying those bills and if we aren=t working with him and helping him and his staff with this process, those bills are just going to escalate.


And the final one is information technology and I know you=ve heard me talk about this before but it=s a big piece that goes into helping with a unified booking for the, all the entities in our community including the municipalities and we=ve got a backbone already in place for information management but I think it becomes a piece that will also help support the Sheriff from the time of arrest through the time of managing people in a system through release and I think we should start looking at building some partnerships with the municipalities to make sure that this central records control that the Sheriff talks about starts to become a reality through our information technology.  Because again, the more responsibility we take for some of these auxiliary supports, the more the cost containment will be our responsibility and the more we can give the Sheriff in staffing needs and direct line services for his detention center system.  Those are things I just wanted you to know about and to see if you have any questions or if you understand where I=m going.  One of the final things we=ll be working on and you=ve heard us working on that is our pretrial program, we=re working on that.  Mack (Sheriff=s Attorney) has been working with us so that when their classification system starts we will already have a pretrial program operating to make sure that people aren=t spending time in our jail costing us money per day when because of their qualifications and their crime, they really should be back on their job and not and because they can=t make bail or for some other reason are not spending time at our expense in our detention center.  So we are already working on that and Marilyn has been working with me to start to understand the process as we work with the juvenile, I mean the Criminal Justice Partnership Program, to take some of that grant money that comes to us every year and start to develop a pretrial program.  So that=s where we are and do you all have any questions?@


Commissioner Moyer has looked at other detention centers that have opened and he has a concern that the operating costs for the jail could accelerate much more rapidly than we anticipate and would like if the Board doesn=t take these steps mentioned by Commissioner Kumor.  A lot of these things are almost outside of the Sheriff=s control or at least certainly need the cooperation of the Commissioners or other bodies in our County.  He even felt that the Board needs to consider only equipping so many of the cells at any one time, or rooms so that we don=t have 208 beds filled.


Commissioner Ward stated that he shares the same concerns and has spoken to the County Manager about it already. 


Commissioner Gordon stated that there needs to be coordination with the Sheriff on what the real needs are.  She also felt that phasing some of those needs in would help to ease the transition to operating a larger scale facility.


Chairman Hawkins expressed that probably the most difficult part of the plan to have an input on would be whatever the Judges, DA=s, and Magistrates do.  That may be a real challenge. He expressed the need to work with the municipalities on the booking. 


County Manager - update

David Nicholson informed the Board that the site work was finished as of last week.  The City of Hendersonville brought over a water truck and the site was compacted real well.  It is now ready to go.  Tomorrow is the meeting with the Hendersonville City Council on the zoning request.  Staff has attended the neighborhood compatibility meeting, two Planning Board meetings, a Tree Board meeting, and now is ready to go to the City Council.  Staff is working with the LGC on the financing part of the project as well as the bond rating agencies and bond council to get the package ready to go to hit the public market.  David will be in Raleigh, meeting with the Local Government Commission (LGC) and Staff next Tuesday. 


David asked the Board, under Important Dates, to consider some proposed dates for meeting with the Architects and seeing the plans and holding discussions with the Sheriff.


Sheriff=s Staff -

Captain Eddie Pruett of the Sheriff=s Department introduced Tom Rizozzi of the National Institute of Corrections. Mr. Rizozzi explained that he is here on contract from the National Institute of Corrections which is a Department of Justice Agency of the Federal Government, intended to provide technical assistance to communities.  Henderson County has taken advantage of some of the programs when designing the jail.  


Tom Rizozzi spoke about the transition plan and stated that he was impressed with the involvement of the County, not only the County Commissioners, but of the Jail Staff with the architect.  He has seen the plans and it looks to him like we have a very well thought out, very well planned facility. He was happy to find that this Board is involved in the detention center project.  He felt that we have a place that will work for us and a staff who knows how that place will and should work.  Mr. Rizozzi stated that there are many places across the country that have Criminal Justice Advisory Boards who are typically commissioned by the County Commissioners.  They routinely include such people as the District Attorney, public defenders, Sheriff, Police Chiefs, pre-release service folks, Social Service folks, whose mission is to try to use the jail as a precious resource. He also stated that a facility of 208 beds should probably only operate at about 190 capacity.  There should be vacant beds so they can be used for separation or classification of inmates.  He also stated the need for a classification officer. 

Mr. Rizozzi stated that things he felt the Board needs to look at now are:

C                  How to control the population.  You do that by instituting policy and getting those policy makers together so they won=t fill it up right away.

C                  Pretrial services

C                  Diversion programs from the jail are very successful in other Counties.


2. BRCC Deed

Please see above.  This has already been covered.


3. School Nurses - add-on by Commissioner Kumor

Commissioner Kumor distributed a memo to the Board only, asking them to think about the issue of school nurses and collect some more information before making a definitive answer as to what the school nurse issue really is.  She felt the Board had made a decision without a real fair hearing, quickly and during budget time.  She felt the Board should get more information about what a school nurse does, the statutory responsibilities of the schools and the health department regarding school children and look at the design of the grant that was proposed.  She also stated that over the next several months the Board will be hearing from Juvenile Justice and the impact those new laws will have on the community.  She stated that the schools are not adverse to having school nurses, they only wish to point out to the Commissioners that they don=t want to spend education money on nurses.  She felt that if the Board takes time to look at this issue in the more detailed way they normally do, they may find that school nurses are a preventive measure that we need in our community or may find that school nurses are something to leave unfunded because the State is going to fund them, or maybe find that the health needs of children in our community could be better served in some other ways, or the Board may find that addressing the needs of children in our community becomes so expensive that nobody can afford them. 


Commissioner Kumor requested that the Board examine their decision with regard to the grant issue and give some time to think about this and maybe communicate again with Pardee Hospital to ask Duke to reconsider our community grant proposal.


Chairman Hawkins stated that he had done a little research work on the Duke Endowment grant itself and felt that if the process is going to be readdressed anywhere it should be addressed back at the Pardee Hospital level who are the people that were working on the grant.  He stated that the Board of Commissioners got drawn into this at the eleventh hour with a position request for nurses in the Health Department. 


There was much discussion and much confusion.  It was felt that the Board of Commissioners did not have all the facts prior to making their decision. 


Commissioner Gordon wanted to make a clear distinction on what the Board had voted on.  The vote was on the grant itself.  It was not on whether or not school nurses are a benefit to the School System. 


Following much discussion, it was the consensus of the Board not to revisit the issue unless there was some new information or some misinformation presented to the Board earlier. Commissioner Moyer also questioned whether the Hospital would be willing to fund the remaining costs. 


Chairman Hawkins felt that it first needed to go back before the Pardee Hospital Board before coming back to this Board.  Mr. Hawkins stated that he would be happy to take this to the Hospital Board to be added to an agenda for the Hospital Board. 


4. Transportation -  add-on by Commissioner Moyer

Commissioner Moyer stated that Chip Gould was successful in getting a very wide representation from the Department of Transportation throughout the State to address a number of issues.  The Clear Creek Connector was certainly one of the major issues.  Mr. Moyer offered our facilities here for public meetings so they could be televised.  He got no commitment.  Small projects were discussed as well as bridges.  Mr. Moyer raised the issue of the intersection at Shepherd, Erkwood, and US #25 South.  Chairman Hawkins had written to Flat Rock and City of Hendersonville to get their support.  Flat Rock did endorse taking a look at the intersection. 


Commissioner Moyer stated with respect to the County Thoroughfare Plan, which may be the most interesting part of the meeting, Timothy Padgett (Transportation Engineer) is going to be doing the Thoroughfare Plan.  He is currently doing some initial planning.  His overall goal was 12 - 14 months. Mr. Moyer discussed with Chairman Hawkins having Mr. Padgett attend the mid September Commissioners= meeting and talk about the plans for the Thoroughfare Plan.


Chairman Hawkins thanked Commissioner Moyer for attending that meeting.  Chairman Hawkins had made a previous commitment to visit some of our Fire Departments.


Chairman Hawkins stated that he would be glad to work with staff to invite Mr. Padgett to the mid-September meeting to discuss the Thoroughfare Plan.  He also suggested setting the transportation committee up that the Board had discussed earlier. 



Chairman Hawkins reminded the Board that they have all been invited to the annual sponsors continental breakfast between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. on September 10 as part of the Apple Festival activities. 


Chairman Hawkins also informed the Board that they all had received an invitation to the United Way Kick-Off on September 10 at Kanuga Conferences.  He plans to attend that.


Chairman Hawkins asked the Board to set a meeting with the Volunteer Fire Departments.  They have a presentation to make to the Board.  The Board asked Mr. Nicholson to coordinate with Rocky Hyder but the Board suggested a tentative date of September 13 at 7:00 p.m. for the joint meeting.


Chairman Hawkins reminded the Board that they had scheduled a workshop for August 26 at 5:00 p.m. for the Legal Department/County Attorney position.  He asked the Commissioners how they wished that meeting to be formatted.  Following some discussion, it was the consensus of the Board  to look at the implementation of the Legal Department and how that department would work with and affect the other county departments.  Chairman Hawkins will send correspondence out to the Health Department, Sheriff=s Department, Tax Office, Department of Social Services as well as get input from David Nicholson regarding how much they feel they will interact with the Legal Department.  It was also suggested that the Chair of each relevant Board get the same correspondence.


Angie Beeker suggested that it would be helpful to the Board if each of the contracted attorneys prepares a list of what they=re doing.  The Board also asked that Ms. Beeker be prepared to discuss how the office of the County Attorney should be structured. 


Mr. Nicholson asked the Board to schedule a time for the Board to meet with the architects for the detention center.  The Board set this for September 8 at 3:00 p.m. 


There was some discussion regarding Safety Net Zoning and it was decided to place that item on the next agenda, September 7, 1999.


Annual Volunteer Appreciation Banquet

The Clerk was directed to check with the Chariot to see what dates are available for our Annual Banquet and bring that back to the Board.



Representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice=s National Institute of Corrections are here this week conducting a training program - AHow to Open a New Institution@. One session of this training is suggested for elected boards.  Commissioner Kumor had requested time on today=s agenda for this presentation.


Please see above under AJail@.  Much discussion took place during that agenda item.



David Nicholson presented the Annual Report to the Citizens of Henderson County, stating that he is required by State Law to provide an administrative report every year.  Since he became the County Manager he has presented that report as the annual Report to the Citizens.  The report will be available at the County Office Building, all the Public Libraries, and all the other departments that have large walk-in traffic.  They also will be mailed to many people.



Commissioner Kumor made the motion for the Board to go into Closed Session pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11 for the following reasons:


1. (a)(1) To prevent disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to the law of this State or of the United States, or not considered a public record within the meaning of Chapter 132 of the General Statutes, in accordance with and pursuant to NCGS 143-3218.10(e) and Article II of Chapter 11 of the Henderson County Code.


2. (a)(3) To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged.  To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to consider and give instructions to the attorney with respect to the following claim:


BellSouth Mobility DCS,LP d/b/a Bell South Mobility DCS

versus Henderson County (Hend.Co.File 98-CVS-639)


3.(a)(5) To establish, or to instruct the public body=s staff or negotiating agents concerning the amount of compensation and other material terms of an employment contract or proposed employment contract.


All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to go out of closed session at 1:37 p.m..  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Action following closed session

Commissioner Kumor made the motion for the Board to approve the following sets of closed session minutes: April 21, 1999; June 7, 1999; June 16, 1999; June 29, 1999; and July 21, 1999.   All voted in favor and the motion carried.


There being no further business to come before the Board, Chairman Hawkins made the motion to adjourn the meeting.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.






Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board                        Grady Hawkins, Chairman