September 15, 1999

A regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Henderson County was duly held on September 15, 1999 at 9 o=clock a.m. in the County Administration Building, 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, North Carolina.

Those present were: Chairman Grady Hawkins, Vice-Chair Bill Moyer, Commissioner Renee Kumor, Commissioner Don Ward, andCommissioner Marilyn Gordon.

Also present were: County Manager David E. Nicholson, Assistant County Manager/Interim County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn, Finance Director J. Carey McLelland, Staff Attorney Jennifer O. Jackson, Interim Planning Director Karen C. Smith, Planner Chris Timberlake and Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson.


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


Commissioner Kumor led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.


David E. Nicholson gave the invocation.


Chairman Hawkins moved the adoption of the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) Bylaws from Staff Reports AA@ to Consent Agenda.

Chairman Hawkins added one item as AA@ under Staff Reports - discussion on Interlocal Agreement on Greenways.

Chairman Hawkins added under Discussion Items AD@ - Fire Commission. A follow-up of Monday=s meeting.

Chairman Hawkins added under Discussion Items AE@ - Habitat Subdivision guarantee.

Chairman Hawkins added the need for a Closed Session for NCGS 143-318.11(a)(5).

Commissioner Gordon added under Discussion Items AF@ - Intensive Livestock Operations.

Commissioner Ward added under Staff Reports AE@ - Board of Elections update.

The Clerk asked that #5 under Nominations be changed from three to four vacancies. She will update the Board when they get to that item on the agenda.

Commissioner Moyer added under Discussion Items AG@ - Economic Development Guidelines.

It was the consensus of the Board to approve these adjustments.


Commissioner Kumor made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the addition of the Environmental Advisory Committee Bylaws. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

The CONSENT AGENDA consisted of the following:


Minutes were presented for the Board=s review and approval of these meetings:

June 24, 1999, special called meeting

August 2, 1999, regular meeting

Notification of Vacancies

The Board was notified of the following vacancies for information only, they will appear under ANominations@ on the next agenda:

1. Western Carolina Community Action Board of Directors - 1 vac.

2. Community Child Protection Team - 6 vac.

Road Petitions

A road petition had been received for addition to the state maintenance system for Mt. View Church Road. It has been the practice of this Board to accept road petitions and forward them to NC Department of Transportation for their review.

United Way Day Proclamation

The Henderson County Employees United Way Campaign Committee requested that the Board of Commissioners consider declaring Friday, September 17, 1999, as United Way Day for Henderson County employees.

Tax Collector=s Report

The Tax Collector=s Report was provided for the Board=s information, as of August 31, 1999.


Pursuant to the Henderson County Code, Sub-Section 6-20 Bylaws of boards or committees: Bylaws drafted by any board or committee must be presented for approval by the Henderson County Board of Commissioners prior to adoption, unless otherwise provided by law.

The Commissioners reviewed the draft bylaws at their last meeting and suggested one change. The change has been reviewed by the EAC and they were in agreement with the proposed change.


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

Henderson County Board of Health - 1 vac.

This is an M.D. designated position. There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.

Hendersonville City Zoning Board of Adjustment - 2 vac.

Applicants must live in City ETJ. 1 regular member and 1 alternate. There were no nominations at this time so the item was rolled to the next meeting.

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

Chairman Hawkins nominated Gerald Wright. Commissioner Kumor made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Mr. Wright. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Henderson County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 1 vac.

Commissioner Kumor nominated Rev. Rhonda Davis. Chairman Hawkins made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Rev. Davis. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee - 4 vac.

Two vacancies are due to resignations, positions #18 and #21. They are nondesignated, can appoint without a wait.

Third vacancy is a designated position, #15. Term expired 8/99. She does wish to continue to serve. Cannot appoint. First letter has gone out to the Nursing Homes.

Fourth vacancy is also designated, position #22. Nancy Mitchell was nominated. This has gone through the process and therefore she can now be appointed.

Commissioner Kumor made the motion to appoint Nancy Mitchell to pos. # 22. Chairman Hawkins nominated Lois Hoots to pos.# 18. Chairman Hawkins made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Ms. Hoots. All voted in favor and the motions carried.

Downtown Hendersonville - 1 vac.

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



Chairman Hawkins had added this item. He requested discussion on the proposed interlocal agreement for the Greenway Committee.

Chairman Hawkins discussed some history of the greenway initiative. ABegan in September of 1996 when the County Manager formed a committee to consider establishing greenways in Henderson County.@ He pointed that out because since 1996 the county has been interested in and really leading the way in the formation and application of greenways in the county. There was a presentation planned for the Board of Commissioners in January of 1997 which never occurred. The greenway initiative kept on moving though. He stated AI think as a result of that, the Board of Commissioners probably have not been as involved in guidance to our planning staff on that particular issue as we have become more involved recently. In June a group of interested citizens in the greenways presented the Board and some of the municipalities with the possibility - or asked us to investigate an interlocal agreement with municipalities and the county as a way to further move the greenway program along. You have received that and I=m sure had at least an opportunity to look at some of it. At that meeting the Board decided to fund about $4,000 worth of money into the greenway effort via our parks and recs. department and - to get that program off and moving. Subsequent to that the Board, at the request of Mayor Parrish from Fletcher, elected to utilize that portion of the monies with a professional grant writer from the Land-of-Sky and that I guess is where that particular amount of money ended up at this time. The question I think that we need to come back and ponder is whether or not the county - this Board of Commissioners feels like that it=s a necessity to enter into any interlocal agreement to further the cause of the greenways. One of the initiatives and one of the comments that was made on the early look at conforming with the land use plan which was back even prior to >96 was that there was some indication in that plan for the extension of greenways into areas in the county. Certainly since that time there have been numerous parks, walkways added. Laurel Park just finished one this week-end. The Town of Fletcher, of course, when they finish their park - has some walk and exercise area in it. To the south there is about 15 miles of greenway-type trails that ECO has established along with some other agencies and so these things have been occurring as we go along. And I think the county has led the way in that particular idea and concept and I think they=ll continue to do that in the future. In my opinion, the necessity for an interlocal agreement is one that=s - that is not necessarily an approach that the county needs to use to further support the greenways. That=s my opinion. I think there=s better vehicles to make that happen, specifically our environmental advisory committee along with our parks and recs. department would be, again in my opinion, the best place to work that and make it happen. There has been a master - semi-master plan developed that - I don=t know if you=ve had an opportunity to look at any of those but there=s three or four projects that are listed: Patton Park, Mud Creek, Nature Walk and some other items. I think we as a county could concentrate our efforts on one of those demonstration projects and really get the program going. He opened the floor to discussion.

Commissioner Moyer stated that he supports the establishment of the Greenways Commission. This was presented to the Board in May. The Board said they would move this along at that time. With respect to the interlocal agreement, he feels that it is a good vehicle and agrees that it is the next practical step and the group should be given an opportunity to carry forth in their plan to see if it would work. Ms. Beeker has reviewed the interlocal agreement and made some changes . Commissioner Moyer had some additional changes to suggest. He felt that at the end of Article IV or some similar place, the Board should add a provision that would basically state that the Commission shall not construct a greenways, obtain any easement or incur any financial liabilities exceeding the amount of it=s funding and awarded grants without the written approval of the participating political subdivisions. This provision would have the effect, in addition to the other provisions that Ms. Beeker has put in, this body would become a planning body, a vehicle to look at what is appropriate for the county, a vehicle to try to obtain funding and then would have to come back to the municipalities with a specific plan if it would want to go forward.

Commissioner Moyer felt that the membership should be changed. He felt it more appropriate for each of the municipalities to appoint three people which would make a 15 person commission and then list the type of entities that should have representation through one of the various municipalities and not designate any specific groups to have specific representation. It would be appropriate for our environmental advisory board to be one of our representatives on here, as should parks and recreation and maybe one of the community environmental groups.

Commissioner Moyer felt that the Board should proceed with the interlocal agreement, work out the changes suggested and proceed to enter into the agreement.

Commissioner Kumor agreed with Commissioner Moyer and felt that it is a good place to start demonstrating our interlocal government operability.

Commissioner Ward felt that it was a good document. He agreed with Commissioner Moyer=s thoughts. Commissioner Ward felt strongly that the requests should come to the Board at budget time rather than halfway through a budget year. Commissioner Moyer was in agreement.

Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification from the County Attorney on what the structure of an interlocal agreement will do for this commission. Would this allow them to pursue grants as an entity?

Angela Beeker was not sure that an interlocal agreement was absolutely necessary. She did feel that some sort of memorandum of understanding would be a good idea anytime a joint commission is set up. They are proceeding under a statute that would allow all the participating governments units to delegate certain powers and authorities to them. This interlocal agreement takes care of that.

Commissioner Gordon was in agreement that appointments to the commission should be made by the parties to the agreement. She would not support the agreement without that provision. She would like to have more time to look at how the appointments are decided. She spoke of the difference in populations between the entities. She stated that she would like to have a clean draft before her before voting on it.

Ms. Beeker asked the Board to look at section VIII, operating revenue, stating that someone has to be designated as a fiscal agent for the commission meaning that all the monies would be managed by and run through a participating governmental unit. It has been suggested that the County serve in that capacity.

Commissioner Moyer made the motion to direct staff to prepare a revised draft of the interlocal agreement in accordance with the comments made today and it be submitted to the Board to take action on it at the next meeting. If the Board has any additional comments they can forward them to Ms. Beeker so that the Board can have a clean draft to act on at the next meeting.

Following more discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was passed unanimously.

There was some continued discussion regarding whether or not the county wished to serve as the fiscal agent but no decision was made at this time.

CLEAR CREEK MEADOWS - Request for Release of Funds and Extension

As allowed by Chapter 170 of the Henderson County Code, the Commissioners approved the deposit of a certified check in the amount of $116,875.00 as an improvement guarantee for Clear Creek Meadows Subdivision. The Performance Guarantee Agreement required that the water and road improvements be completed by August 1, 1999.

Tony Riels of Jarco Development, LLC, the developer of Clear Creek Meadows, sent a letter to the Assistant County Manager dated August 24, 1999. The letter requested that the Board of Commissioners release a portion of the funds that the County is holding as security for the completion of the improvements. The release was requested due to completion of the majority of the improvements.

Based on an inspection of the site and a letter dated September 7, 1999 from the County Engineer, the road improvements appear to have been completed. Most, but not all, of the water improvements have been finished. In particular, the water tank has not yet been installed although installation was scheduled for September 8, 1999. Some documentation was reviewed related to the estimated cost of the completion of the water improvements, including the estimated cost of the water tank and its installation.

Staff advised that in the event that all of the improvements have been completed, it would be appropriate to authorize the release of all the funds that the County has been holding in accordance with the Agreement. If all of the improvements have not been completed then it would be appropriate for the Board to (1) consider granting an extension to allow the completion of the improvements, and (2) consider whether it wishes to release some portion of the security based upon the improvements that have been completed.

The Board has asked that this matter be put on today=s agenda in order to allow the Developer some extra time in which to complete the improvements. Board action on the Developer=s request would be appropriate.

Jennifer Jackson informed the Board that inspection staff inspected the subdivision yesterday and found that all improvements are now complete. She suggested that if the Board approved this request to release funds in the amount of $116,875, that it be contingent upon receipt of an engineering certificate saying that the water improvements have been completed. It appeared to county staff that they had been. That certification would come from David Smith, the developer=s engineer.

Chairman Hawkins made the motion to release the funds contingent on the engineer=s report that satisfies our legal department. All voted in favor and the motion carried.


The Board of Commissioners adopted a Resolution on August 18, 1990 authorizing the sale of 14 of Henderson County=s surplus vehicles by the taking of sealed bids. The taking of sealed bids was advertised on September 1, 1999. Bids were opened on September 3, 1999. The Bid Tabulation Sheet was reviewed. Twelve of the 14 surplus vehicles received at least one bid and all bids received exceeded the minimum bid specified by the Board.

Pursuant to the Board=s Resolution, a five percent (5%) bid deposit was required. There were two (2) bids that did not contain a bid deposit. Staff recommended that those two (2) bids be rejected as non-responsive. The bids that are highlighted in the right hand column on the Bid Tabulation Sheet are the bids that Staff recommended for award.

Jennifer Jackson informed the Board that the total bid amounts as recommended is $18,857.65. Where there was no bid deposit received, staff recommended going to the next bidder.

There was some discussion and review of the documents.There were a couple of vehicles that no bids were submitted on and it was suggested that the Board might look at using these vehicles in work first transportation needs at a future time.

David Nicholson stated that this was the first time that Henderson County has used sealed bids to dispose of vehicles. We have been utilizing an auction for many years. Henderson County received more money by using sealed bids than we have in a surplus sale. This time we combined our sealed bid program with the City of Hendersonville so we had a large pool of vehicles available to the public. The bidding was advertised in the local newspaper, it requires a 5% bid deposit to bid, and the vehicles are available for public inspection at our maintenance facility.

Chairman Hawkins made the motion to award the bids as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.


A representatives from Crisp, Hughes and Evans, CPAs (Brian Broom) presented their report on Henderson County=s Property Tax Systems. The Board had previously received copies for review.

Mr. Broom thanked the Board for the opportunity and summarized the report:

Crisp, Hughes and Evans was engaged by the Board of Commissioners to evaluate the counties system of assessing, collecting, and recording property taxes and also to help it resolve the problems in reconciling the current year tax level that the prior auditors noted in last year=s financial reports. The results of the work are in the report. He stated that they found no major problems in the county=s procedures that it uses in the area of property taxes. They did offer some suggestions to improve the process, outlined in the report.

As far as the reconciling problem from the prior year - they obtained an understanding of the current system and tried to compute or reconcile the county=s current year taxes. He referred to schedule #2. That was done as of April 30. It was put in the format prescribed by the Local Government Commission. They were able to reconcile the current year tax levy within $10,526 which accounts for over 99% of the current year levy. Generally in his experience, Mr. Broom stated that in the county audits that they have done they have never fully reconciled to the dollar any property tax levy and there are reasons for that. Using the format prescribed by the Local Government Commission, they take the levy and back off collections to get to a receivable. There are some things that are added to property tax receivables that do not show up in the schedule such as advertising. They felt comfortable with the current year reconciliation as is.

He reviewed briefly what was done last year, referring to schedule #3. They found some mistakes made in the reconciliation and recomputed (schedule #4). They felt that there was a mix up in what was current year and what was prior year. They totally agreed with the numbers in last year=s financial statements and traced them back to the supporting documentation. There were some changes in penalties and in discoveries and he discussed those changes.

Following discussion David Nicholson thanked Brian and his firm for all their work in this project and thanked Brian for coming today.




Chairman Hawkins reminded the Board that we had some public inquiries at our last meeting and had asked the County Attorney to look into a couple of items and report back to the Board.

Angela Beeker stated that the Board of Elections conducted a meeting on September 7, 1999, which was the meeting in question. She stated that her review was very general. The Board of Elections is an independent body with a wide latitude of discretion in the procedures that they use to appoint a supervisor. She had understood the primary concern of the Board to be the matter of Closed Meetings under the Open Meetings Law. Ms. Beeker met with a representative from the Board of Elections and the current Board of Elections Supervisor and Jennifer Jackson. Regarding the procedure they followed, it appears they did follow our hiring procedure, they worked with our Human Resource Director, Mrs. Quinn in advertising for the position and receiving applications. They received six applications and decided to interview all six candidates. They interviewed on two separate days. They interviewed two on one day and four on a second day. The second day of interviews was September 7, the same day as the meeting. They decided that they were ready to vote after completing their interviews. They did take their vote in closed session. This is in accordance with the Open Meetings Law. There is a narrow exception to the Open Meetings Law. Generally as a Board, if you were going to hire any position that you appoint you would have to take final action in open session because you are the final appointing authority. If you are not the final appointing authority, you may take a vote on what your recommendation to the final appointing authority would be. In the case of the Board of Elections, they are not the final appointing authority. They make a nomination to the State Board of Elections and actually the Executive Secretary Director of the State Board of Elections makes the appointment. Regarding removal authority, the State Board of Elections is also the removal authority for the Board of Elections Supervisor in every county. Therefore, because the Board of Elections is not that final appointing authority, they could take their vote in closed session as to what they were going to recommend to the State. In spite of that they decided that they would schedule another meeting to take that vote in open session in public. They scheduled that meeting for last Friday, matters came up and it was rescheduled the meeting for this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. Mrs. Beeker said AI do expect that that vote will occur this afternoon in open at 3:00.@


Chairman Hawkins informed the Board that Robert Baird will be present at the mid-month October meeting to give up an update on Property Addressing.

There was some discussion about the next pre-budget work session and it was the consensus of the Board to set one for September 21 @ 5:00 p.m. Procedures will be discussed at that meeting.

There was also discussion of meeting with Sheriff Erwin to discuss the implementation of the Legal Department. It was set for September 23 @ 3:00 p.m.

Chairman Hawkins stated that the Board had invited the Department of Transportation to become a part of some planning on a regional and on a county basis. They are going to be present at the first meeting in October, Tim Padgett.

Chairman Hawkins called a short recess.


R.L.Roper - Mr Roper distributed two hand-outs, one was a letter and the other a time line of items that had taken place regarding the Democratic Party. He spoke in opposition of how the Democratic Party has handled the vote on the new Board of Elections Supervisor.

He also read part of an article from the Times News regarding the appointment of Beverly Cunningham as the new Board of Elections Supervisor and Karen Hebb as a 13 year employee of the Elections Department. Mrs. Cunningham resigned from her legal job in August. She told people that Gov. Hunt wanted her to be the next Board of Elections Supervisor.

He requested that the Commissioners attend the meeting today at 3:00 at the Board of Elections.

Angela Beeker informed Mr. Roper that the Board of Commissioners has no jurisdiction over this item. The County is a funding source only. The local Board of Elections appoints the employees of that department, they do not report to the County Manager or to the Board of Commissioners.

Herb Drew - Mr. Drew also spoke about the Election Board. He stated that the Election Board has served him well and Karen Hebb has served him well. He is proud of the people over there. He stated that seeing what=s going on in the Democratic Party saddens him. He stated that he sees an ethical political abuse of power by Mr. Stepp and his colleagues. His main concern is that the Board of Elections remains a non-partisan Board.

He asked the Commissioners to attend the meeting at 3:00 today to show some concern about what=s going on here.

Tom Looby - Mr. Looby spoke about the recent vote for a new Board of Elections Director. He expressed feeling that this action was not taken in a nonpartisan atmosphere. He asked the Board of Commissioners to get word to the Board of Elections that the County Party Chairman of either party does not belong behind the counter with the staff when the public, the media and everyone else are kept in the entrance of the office.

Eva Ritchey - Ms. Ritchey put a plug in for public transportation in Henderson County. She also spoke in favor of the school nurses which could be funded through a Duke Endowment grant. She asked when that item would be back before the Board of Commissioners for decision. The Chairman did not know the date that would be back before the Board.

PUBLIC HEARING - To Consider the Proposed Detention Facilities Project and the Financing of Such Project by an Installment Financing Contract

As required by law, the Board of Commissioners had scheduled a public hearing for 11:00 a.m. this morning to receive public comments on the Detention Facilities Project and its financing by an installment financing contract (certificates of participation).

Just before 11:00 a.m. the Chairman stated that a purpose of the meeting was to hold a public hearing and take action on a resolution concerning the installment financing by the County of detention facilities to be located in Hendersonville, North Carolina.

The Chairman asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Chairman Hawkins moved that the public hearing be opened. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and was unanimously adopted. The public hearing was opened so that anyone who wished to be heard on the proposed project and the installment financing thereof could be heard. The Finance Director presented an affidavit of an officer of the Times News showing publication on September 1, 1999 of a Notice of Public Hearing. The Chairman directed that the affidavit of publication be attached to this extract as Exhibit A.

The Chairman inquired whether there were any persons who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one present wished to speak or submit a comment.

The Finance Director then introduced the following resolution:


WHEREAS, the County proposes to acquire, construct, install and equip detention facilities to be located in Hendersonville (the AProject@), and to finance costs thereof on an installment financing basis; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners, pursuant to public notice duly given, has held a public hearing on the advisability of the Project and the financing thereof on an installment basis and has considered the comments of persons who requested to be heard; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners desires to approve the Project and the financing thereof on an installment basis;

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

The Project is hereby approved.

The financing of the Project, pursuant to an installment financing agreement in the aggregate principal amount of approximately $9,100,000, is hereby approved.

This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

After 11:00 a.m. the Chairman again inquired whether there were any persons who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one present indicated a desire to speak during the public hearing or submit a comment and Chairman Hawkins moved that the public hearing be closed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and was unanimously adopted.

Chairman Hawkins moved the passage of the foregoing resolution and Commissioner Kumor seconded the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following vote:

AYES: all

NAYS: none

The Finance Director then introduced a resolution entitled, AResolution Making Certain Findings, Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Approval of an Installment Financing Contract in Connection with the Acquisition, Construction, Installation and Equipping of Detention Facilities and Appointing a Financing Team@, which was read by title and incorporated in the minutes of the meeting as Exhibit C.

There was Board discussion concerning Paragraph 5 of the resolution and whether the Board should indicate the dollar amount that is represented by the increased ad valorem tax rate of 2 cents per $100 that amount being $896,461.00.

Commissioner Moyer moved the passage of the foregoing resolution with the amendment of the specific dollar amount added to Paragraph 5 of the resolution and Commissioner Kumor seconded the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following vote:

AYES: all

NAYS: none



Chairman Hawkins stated that during informal public comments there were several comments relating to the actions at the Board of Elections. The Interim County Attorney has given the Board some advice on the Board=s limits of actions that they are able to take. He asked the Board if it was their desire to look at some kind of a letter to either the State Board of Election in Raleigh or our local Board of Elections indicating to them that we have received these concerns from citizens and the nature of them.

Angela Beeker, Interim County Attorney, discouraged the Board from doing so. She stated that the information that the Board has received is hearsay evidence. She felt it would be better for the individual Commissioners as Republican political persons to contact the State Board of Elections on their own behalf rather than as a political body. She cautioned the Board, as a Board, from taking any stance or position or doing anything. The citizens can petition the State Board, they can petition the Attorney General, there are avenues available.

Chairman Hawkins asked the County Manager to relate some of the actions that are being contemplated between Henderson and Buncombe county in reaction to Hurricane Floyd.

David Nicholson stated that we are directly in line up Interstate Highway #26 from the Charleston area. We are getting a number of people coming to our community who have found that our motel rooms are full. These people are needing a place to stay. Rocky Hyder, our emergency management coordinator, is in contact with Buncombe County about the possibility of setting up a shelter. It would be a basic shelter, just a place to sleep. There would be no medical care or food provided. The rest areas are packed with people trying to find a place to stay to weather out the storm..


The Mills River Partnership had requested that Henderson County contribute towards a challenge grant of $65,000 from a local charitable foundation. These funds would be used to fund a professional conservationist, under the supervision of the Henderson County Soil and Water Conservation District. This position was not funded by their $730,000 Clean Water Management Trust Fund.

John Humphrey, President of the Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy presented the request and was available to answer questions. He stated that the Mills River is rated a high quality water source and they would like to take protective measures to ensure that it remains a high quality water source.

Mr. Humphrey stated that some months ago, Mr. Eaker of Land-of-Sky Regional Council, made a presentation to the Board about the Mills River Partnership and the efforts underway to get a grant from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund the state has established to take some protective action in the Mills River Watershed. They have secured a $730,000 grant from the Trust Fund. They have a total match from various sources of $355,000 additional. Part of that comes from the regional water authority and part comes from the U.S. Forest Service. One thing left out was the funds to hire a professional conservationist for two years. They need additional funds as they have secured a matching grant tentatively of $65,000. The Foundation will grant funds that can be raised locally. Contributions have been solicited from all the political subdivisions drawing on the water source. They have received a positive response from the City of Hendersonville ($16,000) and the City of Asheville (no set amount yet). He requested a contribution from Henderson County.

There was discussion that the conservationist be located in the Soil & Water Conservation office in Henderson County. The Board asked about deadlines and determined that this could be considered an early budget request for next year.

Following discussion, Commissioner Kumor made the motion that the Board make a $10,000 commitment to this project to be in the county budget July of 2000. More discussion ensued. Commissioner Moyer suggested that the commitment be $8,000 but the Commissioners would review it at budget time to see if they could extend the amount at that time. It was agreeable with Commissioner Kumor to amend her motion to reflect this. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

VILLAGE OF FLAT ROCK - Subdivision Resolution

On August 12, 1999, the Village of Flat Rock, after holding a public hearing, adopted a subdivision ordinance. Related to the adoption of the subdivision ordinance the Village also adopted Resolution No. 45, which formally requested that Henderson County relinquish subdivision authority to the Village for those areas contained within the Flat Rock=s municipal boundaries. A similar process was undertaken when Flat Rock adopted its zoning ordinance in August of 1998.

Staff had drafted a resolution similar to the resolution that the Board of Commissioners adopted concerning relinquishment of zoning jurisdiction. That draft resolution was reviewed. The statute concerning a change in jurisdiction that is referenced in the draft resolution, NCGS 160A-360, was also reviewed.

The Board of Commissioners, at its September 7, 1999, meeting tabled this matter until today=s meeting in order to allow the Chairman to discuss with the Mayor of Flat Rock the possibility of the County maintaining jurisdiction over the major subdivision application for The Woodlands, a proposed project that is located within Flat Rock=s boundaries, which is currently pending before the Henderson County Planning Board.

Discussion follows:

Grady - On September 9, I sent Mayor Highlander a letter that conveyed the consensus of the Board=s last meeting. I had not heard back from Mayor Highlander prior to late last evening and he had given me a call back and indicated that although the Village would prefer to press on with their own authority, that they were - that they did favorably consider the Board=s request of the Woodland=s property and I told him at that time that I didn=t know that we=d been working on the updated resolution - that I=d asked the Board to table it until such time that the two staffs be able to write the resolution out in the amount of detail that was needed. I didn=t know Commissioner Moyer had been writing but I did make that commitment to Mayor Highlander and I would ask the Board to do that at this time. However, having said that, I think that the areas that we had concern with, particularly in the Woodlands, would be addressed in the resolution; however the verbage needs to be on that and I know Bill=s worked out some verbage that he thought covered all that but I don=t know that there - is there any other discussion on that at this time - rather than looking at.

Bill - Well I=d like to see us take action on a specific resolution and send it over to the Village and get it done today and out of our way. I think it can be done and if you have the resolution in front of you --- on paragraph three - and this would be the only change to the resolution as prepared by our council but paragraph three would read:

Henderson County acknowledges that from and after the effective date of this

resolution the Village of Flat Rock will be responsible for all new applications

and except for the specific application for a major subdivision for the Woodlands

that was filed with the Henderson County Planning Board on July 24, 1998 and

first considered by the Henderson County Planning Board at it=s meeting on

August 25, 1998, all other pending applications for subdivisions located within

the Village of Flat Rock=s municipal boundaries ------- and the remainder ---

So what it does, it carves out and carves out I think quite specifically, which is what we should do, the specific application that was filed for the Woodlands on July 24 and I would like to move that we adopt that resolution with that additional language.

Jennifer - It may be that paragraphs #1 and #2 need some slight modification in light of that because in those paragraphs you=re saying that all land will be regulated by the Village of Flat Rock and in paragraph #2 you=re relinquishing all of your jurisdiction when in fact you are maintaining some of your jurisdiction over that one project.

David - Something like - except for what is designed in paragraph #3. Need to stick that language in the first two paragraphs.

Jennifer - Right and I imagine the Board might also want to consider a time limit because the statute does provide a 2 year - maximum 2 year notice provision and I believe that the Village has given you notice and so that 2 year time period is running at this point. So you may wish to put until such time as the project is completed or no later than 2 years.

Renee - Just specifically to the Woodland piece.

Jennifer - It=s my understanding that that=s the only project you=re pulling out.

Renee - That=s what I mean cause I thought the resolution is relinquishing - we=re not putting that time period for the rest of the resolution.

Jennifer - Correct, that=s right.

Bill - Keep in mind the wording does not pull out the project, it pulls out the application and the associated which is a vested rights hearing.


Marilyn - How does this play out in the event that this is still tied up - which conceivably it could be in 2 years?

Bill - Well that=s the problem I have with what Jennifer was mentioning, if that gets into the courts and gets tied up, I don=t think the two year limitation would apply at all because it would be the associated legal steps resulting from this application and I can=t believe a court would say well sorry now we=ve waited two years and a day so we=re going to have to change the effect of that application. I just don=t think that would happen.

Jennifer - Something that the Board should also remember is that if a vested right is proven, then it doesn=t matter who is processing the application or overseeing the project, if they are granted a vested rights under the Henderson County ordinance, those provisions of the Henderson County ordinance will govern forever on that project, beyond the 2 years.

Marilyn - I guess I=m thinking that that issue may not have been decided in 2 years.

Jennifer - We don=t know.

Bill - Wouldn=t you agree Jennifer that if the vested rights decision is not finalized in 2 years, that would stay where - with whatever body it=s with.

Jennifer - I don=t know. I am certainly not prepared to make - render an opinion on that issue.

Grady - Well, I guess the question with the Board is you know the timing on it. Do you want to try to take Bill=s recommendation and send that back over to Flat Rock or do you want to wait until the Attorneys have a chance to get together and see if the wording is different - that=s essentially what I see.

Renee - I needed - now you threw something else in when you started talking about vested rights, why are you talking about that if the application is staying with us - is there still a question of vested rights?

Bill - There is a vested rights question.

Renee - If the question - if the application stays with Henderson County.

Bill - There is a vested rights question regardless of where it goes with respect to zoning.

more discussion

Bill - All we=re saying is that if this application stays on file, it will be heard in Henderson County.

Renee - So at the passage of this resolution it would return back to our planning board to start its normal process where it was interrupted.

Bill - That=s exactly right. And where it=s been interrupted was the applicant had filed a request to delay action on that application while these discussion were going on. That piece would have to be resolved. For instance - I think I=m right that that date is now not until January. So technically it could be put off until January or it could be accelerated or changed and we would be out of it except to where the planning board would go.

Bill - Well to bring it to a head Mr. Chairman, I=ll put that in the form of a motion. I move the resolution with the language that I have proposed to add and with the comparable adjustments to paragraph 1 or 2 as deemed appropriate by council.

Marilyn - Without a 2 year mention of that extension or limitations.

Bill - I don=t think it=s applicable with respect to this application.

Marilyn - OK, I just wanted to be sure we=re clear on that.

Grady - OK a motion=s on the floor and essentially what we=d do would be write that in and I=ll send it back over to the Village for their consideration and some response back. Any other discussion? All those in favor of that motion, say aye.

Unanimous Aye.

Grady - OK, we=ll amend those paragraphs Jennifer and I=ll forward that over to the Village and they can take a look at it.


At the Board=s meeting on August 23, 1999, staff provided the Board with information on developing a Capital Improvements Program for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 and beyond. The Board requested time to review this information and proposed budget development calendar. A document had been previously distributed to the Board for review - ACapital Improvements Program Overview & Guidelines Manual@.

David Nicholson stated that at that time the Board expressed some concerns about the fact of how the ranking and the weighting was done by the previous board. There was some discussion regarding the criteria, ranking, and the weighting of projects. He discussed the forms a little stating that they could be revised if the Board wants to do that. The previous Board opened it up to the entire community and anyone who had a Capital Project who wished to have it presented to the Board of Commissioners could do so through this process. The Board could confine it to those agencies which Henderson County has a legal responsibility to fund.

Commissioner Moyer stated that the County has a lot of substantial capital projects already on their plate, i.e. the jail, possible county office building, the historic courthouse, the schools. He stated that is already an ambitious list of capital projects and felt that the only capital projects that should be considered in addition would be those that come through department heads or the county manager.

Commissioner Kumor explained that there is another piece of the CIP process where David has the ability to lay out funding for these projects for a five year frame.

Commissioner Moyer stated that as part of the financing that the Chairman and the Board have been working on, once we identify all these projects, they=ll be able to put together a long-term capital need plan.

Following discussion, the Board was in agreement with Commissioner Moyer. Commissioner Kumor requested that the Board see a plan for an additional youth shelter. Whether the Board can afford to do it in the next year, she felt that it=s an issue that has to start coming before them because of the demands on the shelter. David said that he would be surprised if this does not show up as a need on that department=s budget this year.


Chairman Hawkins had added this item on.

Chairman Hawkins stated that we had a very positive work session Monday with representatives from the Fire Departments. Chairman Hawkins stated that because of Hurricane Floyd on the East Coast, the Fire Marshal may have to be out of town some during the next couple of weeks. The time schedule that was set for addressing the updated by-laws for the fire commission may be a week or two later coming back to the Board than originally intended. He felt that the Board made significant progress in planning for the future public safety needs, not only fire protection but in a wide variety of other areas that the fire commission is likely be involved in.

As soon as he receives the revised by-laws, Chairman Hawkins will share them with the Board for their comments.


Jennifer Jackson thanked the Board for adding this item onto the agenda. This is an application for an improvement guarantee that has been submitted by Habitat for Humanity as the developer of Grove Hills Subdivision which is a major subdivision located off Oak Grove Road which is in Henderson County. There is some urgency in this matter since they do have a family that they are trying to place on lot #6 of this subdivision. There was some confusion as to who could approve the bonding on this. Since the amount was lower than the $10,000 limit which is in the new ordinance it was originally thought that it could be approved administratively. Ms. Jackson stated that this plan falls under the old ordinance since the preliminary plan was approved under the old ordinance which does not allow staff to approve those, only up to $1,000. Ms. Jackson asked that the Board look at the application and attached quote which shows $5,400 estimate on a gravel road to lot #6. The water improvements have completed so the only improvement lacking for lot #6 is the road to the lot. They will be posting a surety performance bond that will guarantee the performance for the completion of that road prior to June 30, 2000. There was an agreement for the Board=s review and approval for the surety performance bond in the amount of $6,750 which is an amount which exceeds the cost estimate plus the 25% required by the ordinance.

Commissioner Moyer made the motion to approve the bond and the agreement in the amount of $6,750. All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Commissioner Gordon had added this item to the agenda. Tom Bridges, Director of Public Health had asked her to poll the Board and get some direction. When the Board discussed safety net zoning, one of the impacting uses that came up was intensive livestock operations. That was not included in the draft that is going to the planning department. She asked if that was a use that the Board felt needed to be included. She had shared with the Board copies of the state legislation that has been enacted that affects this. Does the Board feel that there should be something in addition to state legislation (regulations) and if so, should it come from the Health Department or through zoning?

Commissioner Gordon stated that HB 515 does put some guidelines in place for intensive livestock operations, hog farms that have over 600,000 pounds weight in one location. As she understands it, State regulations do apply but they do allow the Board to put regulations in the zoning ordinance. There is a moratorium at this time on new construction so that if you want to do something more locally you can.

Commissioner Moyer stated that what the Board of Commissioners sent to the Planning Board dealt with rendering and processing plants but not the raising of swine or chickens. That was left out of the safety net zoning.

Jennifer Jackson stated that the hog farm issue was not included in the ordinance since there is currently a moratorium. At some time in the future, the Board could readdress that.

Commissioner Gordon stated that when the moratorium is lifted, state regulations will be in place which were not available previously.

Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that state regulations are adequate for Henderson County at this time.




Chairman Hawkins asked if Commissioners Ward and Moyer could have a report ready to bring to the Board at the September 21 meeting on our county facilities.


Commissioner Moyer had added this item to the agenda. He stated that Mrs. Beeker and staff are working on revising the economic development guidelines discussed with the Chamber of Commerce. He asked that if any of the Commissions have specific comments, that they get them to Ms. Beeker for consideration so that they can be finalized and sent to the Chamber.


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)(5) To establish, or to instruct the public body=s staff or negotiating agents concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the public body in negotiating (I) the price and other material terms of a contract or proposed contract for the acquisition of real property by purchase, option, exchange or lease.

All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Commissioner Ward made the motion for the Board to go out of Closed Session. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

There was no action taken following closed session.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.




Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk Grady Hawkins, Chairman