STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA                                           BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

COUNTY OF HENDERSON                                                                                    MAY 1, 2000


The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. in the Commissioners= Conference Room of the Henderson County Office Building at 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, North Carolina.


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


Also present were: Finance Director J. Carey McLelland,  Planning Director Karen C. Smith, Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson, Staff Attorney Jennifer O. Jackson, and Budget Analyst Selena Coffey.



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



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



David Nicholson gave the invocation.



Chairman Hawkins asked for an addition to the agenda - an additional reason for going into Closed Session as NCGS 143-318.11(a)(5) to discuss acquisition of property and (a)(3) to consult with an Attorney in order to preserve the Attorney-Client privilege to discuss the case of Henderson County v. City of Hendersonville.


There were no other adjustments.  It was the consensus of the Board to approve the change to the agenda.



Chairman Hawkins asked for an item to be pulled from the Consent Agenda - item AD@ Tax Collector=s Report.  He asked that Darlene Burgess be at the next meeting to address his questions.


Commissioner Moyer asked for an item to be pulled from the Consent Agenda also - item AH@ Fire Investigation Procedure - Request for Attorney General=s Opinion.  Following some discussion of the item, he questioned whether the Board would want to get the Attorney General=s Opinion because if it differed from the Board=s then the Board should probably go along with the Attorney General=s opinion, because they requested it.   He felt that the Board should talk with Rocky Hyder about this and possibly some of the Fire Chiefs or their Attorney before requesting the Attorney General=s Opinion.  We might be able to work out an amicable solution on our own, within the county.


Commissioner Kumor made the motion to approve the amended Consent Agenda.  The CONSENT AGENDA included the following:



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

April 11, 2000, special called meeting

April 19, 2000, regular meeting


Tax Refunds

A list of 10 tax refund requests was presented by County Assessor, Robert Baird, for the Board=s review and approval.


Tax Releases

A list of 312 tax release requests was presented by County Assessor, Robert Baird, for the Board=s review and approval.  Note: The Releases included $9,061.07 as a result of the delinquent tax process (195) releases.  These releases were determined to be noncollectible because of the noted reasons as indicated on the submitted report.


Henderson County Financial Report - March 2000

The Henderson County Financial Report for March 2000 was submitted for the Board=s approval.


Henderson County Public Schools Financial Report - March 2000

The Public Schools Financial Report for March 2000 was submitted for the Board=s approval.


Road Petitions (for addition to State Maintenance System):

Petitions had been received for addition to the State Maintenance System for the following roads:

1. Fresh Spring Drive

2. Spring Place Drive


It has been the practice of this Board to accept road petitions and forward them to NC Department of Transportation for their review.  It has also been the practice of the Board not to ask NC DOT to change the priority for roads on the paving priority list.


Extension of Improvement Guarantee for Grove Hills Subdivision

As allowed by Section 170-39 of the Henderson County Code, the Board of Commissioners on September 15, 1999, approved the posting of a surety performance bond as an improvement guarantee for Grove Hills Subdivision, Lot 6.  The Agreement that related to the improvement guarantee required the road improvements for Grove Hills Drive to Lot 6 to be completed by June 30, 2000.  Those improvements are not expected to be completed by the June 30th deadline.


The Planning Director received a letter from Jack Houtman, VP-Site Development of Henderson County Habitat for Humanity, on April 19, 2002 and it was submitted to the Board.  The letter requested that the Board of Commissioners extend the improvement completion date for Grove Hills Drive to January 31, 2001.  The reason for the extension request, as indicated in the letter, was a delay in receiving an environmental review from North Carolina.  Habitat for Humanity is willing to post a revised surety performance bond which will reflect the change in the improvement completion deadline.


The January 31, 2001 deadline is consistent with an improvement guarantee agreement that the Board entered into with Habitat for Humanity on March 14, 2000 for road improvements for Pleasant Court to Lots 7, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 in Grove Hills Subdivision.


In case the Board wished to grant such an extension, Staff had prepared a draft agreement for the Board=s consideration.


All voted in favor and the motion carried.



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


1. Hendersonville City Zoning Board of Adjustment - 1 vac. (alternate)

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


2. Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee - 2 vac., 4 additional vacancies for the year 2000.

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


3. Henderson County Industrial Facilities & Pollution Control Authority - 1 vac.

There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.  Chairman Hawkins suggested some correspondence to the Chamber of Commerce to see if they might have a suggested nominee. 


4. Solid Waste Advisory Committee - 1 vac.

There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.  There was some discussion regarding rolling this Board in with the Environmental Advisory Committee. 


5. Henderson County Regional Water Forum - 1 vac.

There was some discussion as to whether or not this Board was still in operation.  Staff was asked to research the genesis of this one. 


6. Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 5 vac.

Commissioner Kumor nominated Tim Hopkin, Jim Rasmussen, Melissa Maurer with Ken Butcher as the backup for that spot, and Ben Bentley.    Chairman Hawkins made the motion to suspend the rules and make these appointments.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


7. EMS Council - 2 vac.

Commissioner Kumor nominated Aaron Edney for reappointment.  Commissioner Moyer nominated Terry Layne for reappointment.  Commissioner Ward made the motion to suspend the rules and reappoint both Mr. Edney and Mr. Layne.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


8. Mountain Area Workforce Development Board - 2 vac.

Chairman Hawkins nominated Letcher Beatty for reappointment.  Chairman Hawkins made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Mr. Beatty.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.  One vacancy was rolled to the next meeting.


9. Henderson County Board of Health - 3 vac.

Chairman Hawkins nominated Argie Taylor for reappointment.  Commissioner Moyer nominated Larry Baber for reappointment.  Chairman Hawkins made the motion to suspend the rules and reappoint both Mr. Taylor and Mr. Baber.   Commissioner Gordon requested that someone get in touch with Dr. Karen Davis before reappointing her as she has a pretty full plate.


10. Henderson County Hospital Corporation Board of Directors - 1 vac.

Chairman Hawkins nominated John Swanson.  Commissioner Ward nominated Dr. John Bell.  A vote will be taken at the next meeting. 


11. Child Fatality Prevention Team

There were no nominations at this time so the item was rolled to the next meeting.  Staff was asked to contact Tom Bridges to get an updated roster of this Team, Mr. Nicholson stated he would do so.


It was discovered recently that the Board only has to appoint four members to this Team.  The Board can appoint more than four if they chose to do so.   The Board will discuss this one again after receiving a more current roster.



Annual Plan for Intervention/Prevention Services

The Henderson County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council had recommended approval of the allocation of $199,314 in Office of Juvenile Justice Funds to the submitted list of non-profit and public agencies in Henderson County.  Each applicant is required to provide a 30% local match and has agreed to do so.  The applications were presented to the Board of Commissioners for final approval. 


Also presented for approval, as required by the State, was the Annual Plan for Intervention/Prevention Services for Henderson County Juveniles for FY 2000-2001.


Larry Harmon explained that eleven applications were received for funding for juvenile services for prevention and intervention in Henderson County, totaling $323,816.  Henderson County will receive $199,314 from the State Office of Juvenile Justice.  The recommendations for these funds were as follows:        


1.         Trend Mental Health                 $45,448.00

2.         Henderson County

  Dispute Settlement Center         20,000.00

3.                  Henderson County

  Spectrum Youth Shelter          85,000.00

4.         Project Challenge                      38,866.00

5.                  Y.M.C.A. of

   Henderson County                   5,000.00

6.                  Operation Expenses of

            Juvenile Crime Prevention

   Council (J.C.P.C.)                    5,000.00

Total Approved        $199,314.00


Commissioner Kumor made the motion to approve the recommendations of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.



Angela Beeker reminded the Board that Metromont Materials Corporation is desirous of expanding their operations.  They have indicated that if assistance with public sewer were provided by the County, they would be interested in developing a new manufacturing facility in Henderson County.  The total capital investment associated with this facility would be $11.0 million.  The proposed facility would result in the creation of 6-12 new jobs, paying $11.00 - $16.00 per hour, with full benefits.  The estimated cost to provide the public sewer is $128,600.  Pursuant to the Board=s Guidelines for economic development incentives, Metromont should qualify for annual incentives in the amount of $36,800.  The Board has previously indicated that it would be willing to consider reimbursement to Metromont Materials for a partial reimbursement of the costs for public sewer in the form of three Annual Incentives Payments of $36,800 each, totaling to a reimbursement of $110,400.


Mrs. Beeker stated that if the Board were desirous of proceeding with the consideration of providing economic development incentives to Metromont Materials Corporation for the reimbursement for costs to install public sewer in the amount of $110,400, to be paid in three annual incentives payments of $36,800 each, it would be appropriate to schedule a public hearing for Wednesday, May 17, 2000 at 11:00 a.m.  A special order setting the public hearing was submitted for the Board=s consideration.


This would be a Cane Creek customer.


Following discussion, Commissioner Kumor made the motion to set the Public Hearing to consider proposed economic development incentives for Metromont Materials for May 17 at 11:00 a.m., here.  All voted in favor and the motion carried. 



Jennifer Jackson reminded the Board that on May 1, 1995, the Board of Commissioners granted to Odin Corporation d/b/a Arc= Angel Trans= Support Services an ambulance franchise which allowed Arc= Angel to operate a non-emergency transport service in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Henderson County.  That franchise agreement is due to expire on May 1, 2000. 


Arc= Angel intends to reapply for a franchise under Henderson County=s Ambulance Ordinance which is now codified as Chapter 87 of the Henderson County Code.  Pursuant to NCGS 153A-46, all franchise agreements must be passed as ordinances and may not be effective until they have been passed at two regular meetings of the Board.  Therefore, as soon as the application for the franchise agreement is submitted Staff will present the same for the Board=s review and consideration. 


In the meantime, the Board was asked to consider contracting with Arc= Angel to continue the services that it is currently providing in Henderson County.  A proposed contract was submitted for the Board=s review and merely incorporates the substantive provisions of the soon to be expired franchise agreement.  The contract would be authorized by NCGS 153A-250(b).  EMS Director, Tom Edmundson, recommended that the Board enter into the contract with Arc= Angel so that the ambulance service level in Henderson County is not adversely affected.


Jennifer Jackson discussed some revision to the contract because there was an amendment to the Ambulance Ordinance that did not get into the Henderson County Code.  Therefore, staff will also be bringing forward some amendments to fix the problem with the County Code.  The amendments have to do with the rates that Arc= Angel can charge it=s customers.  She discussed the changes in the charges with the Board.


Chairman Hawkins made the motion to direct staff to revise the contract as discussed and prepare it for execution.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.



1. Historic Courthouse

Angela Beeker reminded the Board that a couple of meetings ago the Board asked staff to bring back  RFPs  (request for proposals) in accordance with the plan that was outlined by Mr. Ron Morgan earlier to the Board. 


Mrs. Beeker stated that it was her opinion that the way the county must dispose of real property is not suited for the type of arrangement that Mr. Morgan proposed.  If the County is disposing of real property to someone who is non-profit there are three methods you can use:

1.         Auction

2.                  Negotiated offer and upset bid

3.                  Sealed bids


Her suggestion was to look for alternative ways to accomplish this project which might allow a little more creativity to be used in the approach. 


Following much discussion, it was the consensus of the Board for Commissioners Kumor, Gordon and Mrs. Beeker to research and bring back a proposal to the Board of Commissioners. 


Commissioner Moyer asked for a report on the condition of the building also. 



Special Order Setting a Public Hearing

The Board had been notified of the need for a Quasi-Judicial public hearing pursuant to Section 170-14 of the Henderson County Code to hear the appeal of Kenneth Swing, DDS, and wife, Winnie Swing, of the Order Dismissing Petitioner=s Claim of Vested Rights, entered by the Henderson County Planning Board on March 28, 2000.


Angela Beeker suggested that the Board give them a time period within which to file a document that would say what their basis of appeal is, what errors they say were made, and then allow the respondent a chance to respond.


Commissioner Moyer asked to be excused from this when it does come up.  He was sitting on the Planning Board, and heard this and has been in private meetings with respect to this also.  Commissioner Ward also asked to be excused as he has met privately with both parties and he has sat in on the Planning Board meetings. 


Following discussion, Chairman Hawkins made the motion, on the advice of the County Attorney,  to excuse Commissioners Moyer and Ward when the time comes to hear this case since they have indicated that they have prior knowledge and some communications with the parties.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.

It was recommended to allow four weeks notification to collect data (till May 29) and then an additional four weeks (till June 26), then set the hearing for mid July. 


Chairman Hawkins made the motion to set May 29 and June 26 as noted above and set the Public Hearing for July 19 at 11:00 a.m.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Special Order Setting a Public Hearing

Angela Beeker informed the Board of a need to set a public hearing to consider the Proposed Solid Waste Management Plan.    Staff recommended the hearing be set for June 5, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.


Commissioner Kumor made the motion to set the Public Hearing to consider the Proposed Solid Waste Management Plan for June 5 at 7:00 p.m.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Set a Public Hearing on the Budget

David Nicholson asked the Board to set a public hearing on the FY 2000-2001 budget for the May 17 meeting at 11:00 a.m.


Commissioner Ward made the motion to set the Public Hearing on the FY 2000-2001 Budget for May 17 at 11:00 a.m.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.



There were none.



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


1. (a)(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 (l) the price and other material terms of a contract or proposed contract for the acquisition of real property by purchase, option, exchange, or lease; or (ll) the amount of compensation and other material terms of an employment contract or proposed employment contract.


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.

Henderson County v. City of Hendersonville


All voted in favor and the motion carried.


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


PUBLIC INPUT SESSION - Abandonment of Portion of Williamson Road (SR#1337)

Public Input

There was none.


Jennifer Jackson reminded the Board that the County has received a petition asking that the County request NCDOT to abandon and remove from the State maintenance system the last 755 feet of Williamson Road (SR #1337).  This petition, along with letters from the Petitioners, was submitted  for the Board=s review. An Impact Study conducted by the Planning Department was also submitted with several maps of the vicinity and site area.


NCGS 136-63 sets out the procedure by which a road may be abandoned. This statute requires that before NCDOT abandons a road in the manner requested, the Board of Commissioners must take action to request that the road be abandoned.  Such Board action must be based upon a finding that Athe best interest of the people of the County will be served thereby.@  At its April 3, 2000 meeting, the Board scheduled public input for today in order to receive public comments on the proposed abandonment of a portion of Williamson Road.


Staff had contacted petitioners and property owners within the immediate vicinity to notify them of the public input session scheduled for tonight and notice of such session was advertised in the Times-News on April 25, 2000.  One written comment has been received from a nearby property owner, Jean Roeder Reese, a copy of which was submitted.  The Sheriff, Fire Marshal and EMS Director have also been contacted concerning this matter and encouraged to submit comments to the Board prior to or at this meeting.  EMS has indicated that they do not believe the abandonment will affect emergency service.  No other comments from safety official have been received.


If the Board finds that the best interest of the citizens of Henderson County will be served by the abandonment, appropriate action could be taken by the Board by the adoption of the proposed resolution which requests that the North Carolina Department of Transportation abandon the last 755 feet of Williamson Road (SR #1337). 


Commissioner Moyer made the motion to adopt the proposed resolution requesting review for abandonment for the 755 feet of Williamson Road.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.



Chairman Hawkins had received a letter from William Lapsley, Chairman of the DSS Board.  In December 1999 the Joint Task Force on the Mental Health Needs for Children presented its report to the Board of Commissioners for consideration.


Mr. Lapsley explained that it was their understanding that the Board would hold a workshop to review the recommended course of action to improve the assistance program for the children of our county.  The Board of ASocial Services@ would like to make every effort to not let this report Agather dust on the shelf.@ 


David asked the Board to continue this item to a future meeting as no one could be present from DSS at this meeting to discuss this with the Board. 


Commissioner Kumor explained that we are in a crisis situation.  She questioned what to do with the crisis while getting the long-term planning process going. 


It was the consensus of the Board to wait until the budget is adopted and then study this situation in detail and coordinate those meetings with William Lapsley and others.



Mr. Ed Bell from BRCC was present to discuss the energy savings proposal from CP&L.  The Board had received the Executive Summary of the proposal.  Greg Eaton was also present from CP&L.


Carolina Power and Light has made a guaranteed energy savings proposal to Blue Ridge Community College as authorized by General Statute 143-64.17.  This statute allows agencies to enter contracts under which a supplier, CP&L, will install energy savings equipment and will be repaid through the achieved savings over a period of up to twelve years.  CP&L will guarantee these savings so the repayment stream is not at risk. 


Mr. Bell stated that this program will allow the repayment to be made in 10 years.  The involvement he requested from the Board is a Resolution that states that the Board approves of the program and that the Board intends to continue to fund the College during this period at a level that would allow them to achieve the savings and repay the capital investment but the resolution does not bind the Board to do so.


Chairman Hawkins asked about any correspondence from the College Board of Trustees.  Mr. Bell explained that the Board of Trustees had given a preliminary approval of the program so that it could be brought to the Board of Commissioners but the Board of Trustees will address it again for final  approval.  They will have to hold a public finance hearing prior to approval since it involves the issuance of public debt. It was anticipated that it would be on the College agenda for July.   Mr. Bell stated that CP&L will not fund this program.  They expect either BB&T or CitiCorp or Mountain Bank to do the financing.


Mr. Bell asked for the approval of the Resolution in order to get the financing needed to do the project.  It is not a binding resolution but rather a statement of intent.


If the College spends the money and does not get the energy savings, CP&L will pay for it, they guarantee the savings.


Angela Beeker explained that the money the Board normally appropriates for energy costs would be used to pay for the program.  There is no additional appropriation necessary.


Following discussion, Commissioner Moyer made the motion to adopt the resolution with the specific statement in the minutes as quoted that it is a statement of intent of the current Board but it is not binding with respect to future appropriation decisions.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.



Chairman Hawkins stated that at the last meeting the Board took a look at a previous purchase offer that Staff had been working on.  Staff came back with a good bit of information for the Board to consider.  There was discussion on the cost.  At that time the Board declined to pursue the option at that stated price.  Subsequent to that, the Board wanted to bring the package back for another look at this time at more detail, particularly in reference to the purchase price and the status of the property behind the Carolina Apparel Building.  In addition, the owner was unable to be at the last meeting but a representative was present at this meeting to update the Board on current offers. Each member of the Board received a letter from the Investor Realty Group.  There are indications that the Investor Realty Group was willing to meet the initial price that was offered in the original resolution at $2.65 million and insure that the necessary property would be available in the back of the building. 


Mr. Jim Hall, a representative of the Investor Realty Group, came forward to answer any questions the Board might have of him.  He first clarified that the price of the Carolina Apparel Trading Building has never changed.  It was always been $1,950,000 and he did not come prepared to change the price.  The purpose of the letter delivered to the Board last was to eliminate any uncertainty as to what the ultimate purchase price would be for the CAT property and sufficient parcels to the rear for the purpose of parking.  There were certain projections in the number the Board was given at the last meeting because that was all they had to work with at that time.  Investor Realty Group=s number was a fixed number as were the three contracts immediately behind the property where monies had already been placed at risk.  Beyond that, Investor Realty Group pursued the other four parcels within the seven parcel package on a best efforts basis on the County=s behalf.  Investor Realty Group guaranteed that the cost of five of the parcels plus the cost of the CAT building would be the same as what was approved on March 15, 2000.  If there was any difference, it would be deducted from the purchase price of the CAT building.  Mr. Hall listed two conditions from the letter as follows:

1.         Henderson County give Investor Realty Group the freedom to move around with the seven

            parcels and pick five out of the seven that were contiguous, any of the five out of the seven to meet the parking requirements.

2.                  The partners of Investor Realty Group would like an answer from the County since they are playing the guarantee position. 


When asked about options on the properties behind the CAT property, Mr. Hall explained that the Investor Realty Group owns one of the properties, has contracts on four others and of the four they have money at risk on two of them and the other two they are in inspection with no money at risk as yet.  They have offers out on the two remaining parcels and as of yesterday afternoon have received a response back on one of them.  The last parcel (to the far end) - they received a fax from a family member saying they would have a response after Mother=s Day. Everyone has been pursued, they pursued all four properties without any priority.  The mission was to be sure to have five contiguous parcels so that the package could be delivered. 


Following additional discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that any five contiguous parcels would be appropriate, some more favorable than others but any five would be satisfactory.


Chairman Hawkins called a short technical recess, for changing of videotapes.


Angela Beeker discussed the indemnity clause with the Board.  The decision of whether or not to have a liquidated damages clause is completely within the Board=s discretion.  Once the contract is signed, the only way that the County might have to get out of the contract is if the Local Government Commission (LGC) did not approve the financing package (once that is put together).  Does the Board want to be obligated to pay $140,000 if the reason they couldn=t go forward was beyond the Board=s control.  Discussion followed regarding financing.


Chairman Hawkins made the motion to direct staff to proceed with negotiations with Investor Realty Group to purchase the CAT building and the property at 2.65 million dollars.


Angela Beeker discussed the terms as outlined in the drafted resolution, as follows:


1.         That the Chairman enter into negotiations with Investors Realty Group for the purchase of the Carolina Apparel Trading property and five of the adjacent properties as outlined in the Proposal (Exhibit 1) and incorporated herein by reference, provided that the following conditions are met.        


(a)        the five adjacent properties must include Hill, Seabaugh and Campbell and all five adjacent properties must be contiguous;


(b)        the aggregate purchase price for the Carolina Apparel Trading property and the five adjacent and contiguous properties must not exceed $2.65 million, inclusive of all

costs and expenses (including specifically brokers= fees and IRG=s cost in acquiring any of the properties);

(c)        the earnest money deposit on Carolina Apparel Trading property must not exceed $10,000; and


(d)        the closing on the Carolina Apparel Trading property must occur not later than June 1, 2001 and possession of said property should be delivered at closing;


(e)        in the event the County fails to close on the Carolina Apparel Trading property by the closing date, the Seller shall not be entitled to seek any remedies available in law or in equity but shall be limited only to liquidated damages not to exceed a total of $140,000;


(f)         possession of the five adjacent and contiguous properties should be delivered to the County by December 31, 2000, but in no event later than June 1, 2001


2.         That the Chairman execute a Purchase Contract(s) consistent with this Resolution and deliver the same to the Seller;


3.                  That the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Clerk to the Board, County Manager, Interim County Attorney, County Engineer, Finance Director and Staff Attorney are authorized to take whatever action is necessary as long as such action is not inconsistent with this Resolution and the intent therein.


4.                  This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.


 Following additional discussion, Chairman Hawkins withdrew his motion.  Chairman Hawkins then made the motion to adopt the newly drafted resolution which outlines the terms and conditions that would be acceptable in the contract.   The resolution would authorize the Chairman to execute the Offer To Purchase and Contract as long as it were consistent with the terms of this resolution. All voted in favor and the motion carried.



David Nicholson presented the Manager=s proposed budget for FY 2000-2001.  It was a total budget of $67.2 million and did not recommend a tax increase (50 cent per $100 tax evaluation). It has 3.9% increase over the current fiscal budget.  The budget was created this year with a strong emphasis on departmental goals and objectives.


C                     Funds are in this budget to set up the legal services department which was presented

to the Board at an earlier budget workshop


C                     The Board established a delinquent tax collection program this year - funds are in

this budget to fund this new program.  We have seen substantial growth in our

collection of past years delinquent property taxes.


C                     Two years ago the Board started a maintenance plan.  A substantial amount of resources

went into that plan this past year.  All the maintenance projects are either substantially

complete or are scheduled to be completed by the end of this fiscal year.  Funds for the

second phase are included in this budget.


C                     Funds for the second phase of the technology plan are included in this budget.


C                     Funds are included for the second year of the orthophotograhy program.


C                     Funds are included for some capital projects:

Animal shelter

EMS station


C                     Funds are included for additional playground equipment for Jackson Park as well as to

continue the Etowah Park project.


Mr. Nicholson stated that the last four years we have been financially hampered causing the number one goal of the Commissioners to be to increase and improve the County=s financial position.  Therefore, we have had very conservative budgets so that we could increase our fund balance. At the end of the previous fiscal year we were at 9.9% of our fiscal year 1999 fund balance. 


Now it is time to address some of the issues that have not been these last few years.  Mr. Nicholson held a Department Head retreat this past year and asked his Department Heads to discuss what their values were as county government leaders.  Mr. Nicholson read the employee statement that was a product of that retreat:


                                     Aiming for Excellence


We are committed to our role as public servants, and in furtherance of that commitment, we pledge to:


C                     Provide top-notch customer service to the citizens of Henderson County;


C                     Perform our duties with integrity, respect, and professionalism;


C                     Be wise stewards of the public=s money and trust;


C                     Be accountable for our actions


C                     Seek innovative methods to continually improve our service delivery.


In fulfilling our pledge we will work together as a team by encouraging, supporting, and respecting one another and celebrating the contributions of ourselves and others.


Mr. Nicholson broke down those goals/objections in presenting the rest of the proposed budget.


Objective: Provide top notch customer service to the citizens of Henderson County


1.         Enforcement Division:

The FY 2001 budget includes funds for the establishment of an Enforcement Division to

coordinate and enforce some of the County=s ordinances.


2.                New Positions:

This budget includes funds for several new positions.  This year, in addition to the public safety and human services department, Mr. Nicholson recommended positions for our other County departments to improve service delivery within these functions.  Many of these positions will not require additional county funding, but are simply a reallocation of our resources.


Objective: Be wise stewards of the public=s money and trust


3.                Contingency:

This budget includes funds for a true contingency, which has not been able to be budgeted in the past because of the goal to improve the County=s financial position.


4.                Fee increases:

The Recommended Budget includes fee increases in several departments, of which

Environmental Health fee increases are the most substantial.


Objective: Be accountable for our actions


5.                Pay-for-Performance System:

Included in the FY 2001 Recommended Budget are funds for the initial phasing in of

Pay-for-Performance System as previously presented to the Board of Commissioners.


Objective: Seek innovative methods to continually improve our service delivery


6.                JWAN Improvements:

The FY 2001 Recommended Budget includes funds for improvement to the Justice Wide

Area Network (JWAN) to better serve law enforcement agencies.

7.                GIS Software:

This budget includes funds for replacing our current Geographical Information System (GIS)

software in order to make our land records available to every county department and the general public.


8.                Tax Software:

The Recommended Budget includes funds for updating the County=s tax software in the

Assessor=s office.


9.                New Detention Facility:

The FY 2001 Recommended Budget includes funding for transition to the new detention

facility, which opens in July of 2001.


Additional Provisions of the FY 2001 Recommended Budget


Over the last couple of years, the Board of Commissioners has assisted the Henderson County Public School System by increasing current expense funding and planning for major capital needs by establishing reserves and increasing capital allocations.  The Board of Commissioners and Board of Education have made major strides in improving and maintaining our County=s school facilities, while scheduling for the construction of new schools.


In continued efforts toward improving our School=s current expense fund, the Recommended Budget includes additional funding (over the current year budget) for uncontrollable expenses requested in the amount of $639,051 and full funding for the requested program enhancements, which include a number of additional positions, totaling $915,501.  Mr. Nicholson did not recommend funding for salary adjustments over normal cost of living adjustments for the Public School System although he felt that our Public Schools= employees merit salary adjustments, as he did not recommend salary adjustments for Henderson County employees.


Mr. Nicholson thanked Selena Coffey and Carey McLelland for their work on an ever-changing budget. He then distributed his Budget Message & Executive Summary as well as the Budget Notebooks which are the department presentations.  Mr. Nicholson explained that Staff looked forward to meeting with the Commissioners on Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. for the first budget workshop.


Commissioner Kumor asked what had happened to a Purchasing Agent.  Her question met with opposition.  She also expressed the need for building another Youth Shelter.


Commissioner Gordon reminded the Board that the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for an Architect for the CAT building had not been discussed.  It was the consensus of the Board to have that item on the agenda for the next meeting.

Angela Beeker explained to the Board that Staff would have to bring the RFQ back for the next meeting as well as the financing resolution and a budget amendment.


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






                                                                           Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board                  


 Grady Hawkins, Chairman