STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA                                         BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

COUNTY OF HENDERSON                                                                      OCTOBER 30, 2000


The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a special called meeting at 2:00 p.m. in the Commissioners' Conference Room of the Henderson County Office Building.


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


Also present were: Planning Director Karen C. Smith, Assistant County Attorney Jennifer O. Jackson, Finance Director J. Carey McLelland, and Project Manager Bill Blalock.



Chairman Hawkins called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance. He stated that the purpose of this meeting was to get some information on the County Services Building and take a look at the draft recommendations from the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) in preparation for visiting with the LGCCA tomorrow.



Bob Niedzwicki from Harley Ellis/Asheville briefly reviewed the AProgram Phase Manual@ with the Board for the Henderson County Service Building. A preliminary draft copy had been distributed to the Board for their review.  On August 24 the Board authorized Harley Ellis to proceed with preparation of the program manual.  Since that time, representatives from Harley Ellis have visited the departments involved to learn of their spatial needs.


He requested an approval on this program manual and/or revisions.  They hope to have authorization to proceed no later than November 6, one week from today, to allow them to stay on schedule.


The daily average of people in the building was estimated at 172.  The building is planned for occupancy in mid-May of 2003. The entire project is expected to span a thirty-three month timeframe.


Bill Blalock came forward to answer questions on numbers, estimated growth in departments.


Option A with a total of 119,700 square feet of space and Option B with a total of 127,100 square feet, both of which are studied with two and three-story additions, were presented in four schemes in the manual.  For a total area of 119,700 sq .ft. (Option A) the minimum required parking per City zoning is 300 spaces.  For 127,100 sq. ft. (Option B), the minimum is 318 spaces.


Schemes 2, 3, and 4, each of which means acquiring additional properties, will meet the minimum parking requirement for either Options A or B.  Of course, Scheme 4 yields the greatest parking potential for staff as well as visitors while providing a reasonable amount of green space.  Scheme 4 was recommended in order to give the greatest flexibility now and in the future. 


The cost estimate for two options offered:

Option A:       $20,550,000

Option B:        $20,980,000

Figures include the following estimated costs: site acquisition, construction, site improvements, furnishings and equipment, transition (moving), designer fees and testing.  The figures also include a contingency for cost escalation to bid time.


Building Construction

The existing building is one-story in height and contains 62,600 sq. ft. gross area.  It is a steel-framed structure with exterior walls of masonry construction (brick veneer with clay tile backing).  The floor is concrete slab-on-grade and the low-slop roof drains to exterior gutters.  Improvements to the appearance, the addition of new windows, increase in the terminal efficiency of the walls and roof and replacement of roofing will all be part of the renovations to the existing building.


The new building addition will contain a total of 57,000 sq. ft. to meet the programmed spaces. This addition must be two or three-stories in height since the site is not large enough to accommodate the expansion on one floor and meet the parking requirements.  This is referred to as Option A.


The Space Plan contained in the Project Handbook calls for 127,100 sq. ft. of required area while this program identifies 119,700 sq. ft. of required area, a difference of 7,400 sq. ft.  If the new building addition is made 64,500 sq. ft. instead of 57,100 sq. ft., this extra space can be used for future development beyond the seven-year projection.  This is referred to as Option B.


Because the building exceeds 50,000 sq. ft. and because of the type of building it will be, we must go before City Council with an application for Planned Institutional District (PID) for the site and a special use permit. 


Chairman Hawkins thanked Mr. Niedzwicki for the summary of the report. 



There was much discussion.


71% of the space is assigned space. 7,400 sq. ft. of shelled-in space.


$90 per sq. ft. = renovation costs

$117 per sq. ft.= new construction costs


The costs are based on two recent renovation projects, one of them in Asheville.


The Board of Commissioners was unhappy with the projected costs given.  The costs have almost doubled since the beginning of this project.  Of course, in the beginning we were working with a different architect. Now renovation costs are $90 per sq. ft. now and when we began they were $48 per sq. ft.


The Board has not decided how much space to build.  The costs are based on the size of the building. The Board has considered phasing in.  The discussions on renovation of the Historic Courthouse may come into play again here, utilizing some of that space for County Administration.  There was some discussion of just putting DSS and the Health Dept. into the County Service Building vs. all the departments listed in this manual. If the Board only put DSS and the Health Dept. into the building, work with just renovation costs and no addition. Amount of growth was discussed in personnel and space.


David Nicholson was directed to look at the alternatives. The Board would like to revisit this issue at the first regular scheduled meeting in November.



Chairman Hawkins mentioned a letter dated October 20 from David McCoy concerning public comments and they are looking at input before the TIP final approval in July of 2001.  They have scheduled a meeting for our division on Wed., November 15 at Sylva .  Chairman Hawkins suggested forwarding a letter to NC DOT asking if there is a time later in the afternoon that they could hold the meeting to help people from our area be able to get to the meeting. 


Commissioner Moyer stated that City Council member Mary Jo Padgett had tried to get a change in the location and time and was turned down.  Chairman Hawkins still planned to send a letter.


At a previous Board meeting, the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) had submitted a list of T.I.P. recommendations.  Chairman Hawkins stated that there is only one item on that list that is actually on the TIP, the widening of Hwy. # 191. Mr. McCoy has asked for the Board=s comments on the TIP. 


Public Input - Update from Commissioner Bill Moyer

At their regularly scheduled meeting on October 26, the TAC received public comment on their list of T.I.P. proposed projects.  The hearing was well attended but unfortunately the 3-5 p.m. time of the meeting prohibited most working people from attending.  Most of the comments were directed to the proposals concerning NC Hwy. # 191 and Stoney Mountain Road.  Most proposed doing nothing, but some recognized the need for turning lanes, better signs, speed limits, etc.  The Stoney Mountain Road residents suggested that closing or moving the transfer station would solve the traffic problems on that road.  There was no opposition to doing something to Upward Road or US # 64 West, but the Citizens for Transportation Planning had a somewhat different plan for Upward Road.


The TAC did not have an opportunity to reconsider its recommendations after receiving the public input and there was no time to do that prior to this meeting today and the meeting of the LGCCA.  One option the Board of Commissioners has is to direct the TAC to reconsider its recommendations in light of the public input, but timing is a problem with the DOT hearing on November 15.  Another option is to take no action until after the LGCCA meeting.  Yet another option would be to take the recommendations of the TAC and develop a new list of recommendations for the LGCCA.


Commissioner Moyer felt the Board should discuss the TAC recommendations, make some modifications and propose a slightly different list to the LGCCA.  He proposed the following (which he distributed to the Board at this time).  He stressed that this list is solely from him:


1. We should support the Upward Road and US # 64 West projects, as proposed by the TAC, as the two projects that should receive top priority by DOT in the T.I.P.  We should recommend that a Adesign forum@ be used to define the scope of the Upward Road project.

2. We should recommend that NC # 191 remain a T.I.P. project, but that final scoping of the project be done after the County=s and City=s thoroughfare plans are completed and approved.  We should recommend a design forum for this project if it proves worthwhile for the Upward Road project.

3. The proposal to widen Stoney Mountain Road should not be submitted as a T.I.P. project at this time, but we should ask that this proposal be considered in developing the County=s thoroughfare plan.

4. We should recommend that the proposal concerning US # 25 South be added to the T.I.P.  but that the proposal be modified to provide that turning and entering and exit lanes be added from White Street to the intersection of Erkwood and Shepherd Streets.  In addition, the intersection of Erkwood, Shepherd and US 25 South be straightened.  We should recommend that a design forum be used to scope this project, again assuming this approach has proven to be of value.

5. We should recommend that the proposal to widen the NC # 225/US # 25 & I-26 Connector be added as a T.I.P. project.


Very much discussion followed. It was the consensus of the Board that these recommendations pretty much mirror the Board=s concerns. 


Chairman Hawkins asked for some more detail on how #4 came about.  Commissioner Moyer stated that this project originated with the City of Hendersonville.  The Board agreed with Commissioners Hawkins and Moyer taking this list to the LGCCA tomorrow and get their recommendation.


The next TAC meeting is scheduled for November 9, 2000, when they will review the revised list. The Board will receive the list and any recommendations from LGCCA and TAC at the November 15 meeting.  


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