STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF HENDERSON DECEMBER 4, 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. This was the annual organizational meeting.
Those present were: Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chair Marilyn Gordon, Commissioner Grady Hawkins, Commissioner Don Ward, Commissioner-elect Charlie Messer, County Manager David E. Nicholson, County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present were: Interim Planning Director Karen C. Smith, Staff Attorney Jennifer O. Jackson, County Engineer Gary Tweed, Finance Director J. Carey McLelland, and Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Clerk to the Board Elizabeth Corn called the meeting to order (on behalf of the Henderson County Board of Commissioners) and welcomed all in attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Gordon led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
Evangelist Harold McKinnish, gave the invocation.
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
Mrs. Corn stated that the first order of business was the election of a Chairman who will serve in that position for one year. She opened the floor to nominations.
Commissioner Gordon nominated Commissioner Moyer. Commissioner Ward made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Mr. Moyer. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mrs. Corn then turned the meeting over to Chairman Moyer.
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
Chairman Moyer opened the floor to nominations for Vice-Chairman. Commissioner Elect Messer nominated Commissioner Gordon. Commissioner Ward made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Mrs. Gordon. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Grady Hawkins and Commissioner Elect Charlie Messer were sworn in as their spouses held the Bibles for them. Clerk of Superior Court Tommy Thompson administered the oaths of office.
REVIEW OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL=S BONDS
Pursuant to NCGS 58-72-20 and the Board=s Rules of Procedure, after the Chairman and Vice-Chairman have been elected, the next order of business at the organizational meeting is the annual review and approval of the bonds for county public officials. The following are the county officials required to be bonded and the current bond amounts:
George H. Erwin, Jr., Sheriff
Nedra Whitlock Moles, Register of Deeds
Terry F. Lyda, Tax Collector
Darlene B. Burgess, Deputy Tax Collector
J. Carey McLelland, Finance Director
Presented for the Board=s review were the respective bonds for the above-referenced officials. The Assistant County Attorney has reviewed these bonds and reported to the Board that they appear to be valid and in order. If the Board is satisfied with the bond amounts that are currently in place, approval was recommended by staff.
Chairman Moyer made the motion to approve the bonds as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Chairman Moyer asked the Board if there were any adjustments to the agenda.
Chairman Moyer asked for three things to be added to the agenda:
1. Planning Board and Mills River/Fletcher Land Use Study.
2. Iredell County Resolution regarding voter identification.
3. 2001 Goals & Objectives
Commissioner Hawkins asked for one addition regarding the Mud Creek Contract of Purchase and Interlocal Agreement that action be deferred until such time that the Board has had an opportunity to look through the exhibits. This will be a 30 year document for setting preferences of sewer extensions in the county. The document has been in the works for seven months, it evolved from a three page memorandum to a 21 page document. He asked for a workshop to be set for the Commissioners to review the document in detail and get some of their questions answered. Chairman Hawkins then made the motion to defer action until the Board had time to review the document in detail.
Commissioner Messer felt that he needed some time to research this document and get up to speed before taking action on it.
It had been planned for City Council to join our meeting at 6:30 for the discussion of this agenda item. Commissioner Moyer asked if a vote on this motion could be delayed until after that agenda item.
Chairman Moyer also preferred to have the discussion on the agenda item.
Commissioner Hawkins restated his motion Ato defer action on it until we=ve had a workshop@.
Chairman Moyer called for a vote on the motion which is without discussion, to defer this item until a workshop can be held. A vote was taken and the motion carried three to two with Commissioners Moyer and Gordon voting nay.
Staff was asked to notify City Council that action has been deferred on this item. Mr. Nicholson sent Selena Coffey up to the City Council meeting to notify them.
David Nicholson stated that he had a couple of additions to go under AImportant Dates@.
STATEMENT BY NEW COMMISSIONER CHARLIE MESSER
Commissioner Messer thanked everyone for coming to this swearing-in tonight. There were several people in the audience who had come particularly for that part of the meeting. He thanked the people of Henderson County for supporting him and stated that it made him feel real good. Mr. Messer stated that when he was elected to the Fletcher Council he followed a great lady, Mrs. Maude Hendrix, and today he once again follows another great lady, Mrs. Renee Kumor. He stated that Mrs. Kumor had been a role model and a hard worker and that her results are apparent all over Henderson County. He stated that it was an honor to be elected to this position. He thanked the people of the county for giving him the opportunity to serve them.
Commissioner Ward made the motion to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Ward made the motion to approve the consent agenda with the exception of item B (review of public official=s bonds). All voted in favor and the motion carried. The CONSENT AGENDA consisted of the following:
Minutes had been presented for the Board=s review and approval of the following meetings:
August 21, 1996 regular meeting
August 7, 2000 regular meeting
September 25, 2000 special called meeting
October 30, 2000 special called meeting
November 6, 2000 regular meeting
November 7, 2000 special called meeting
November 21, 2000 special called meeting
Approval of Closed Session Minutes
The Board was requested to adopt the following motion:
Motion: The following closed session minutes are hereby approved and shall be deemed sealed as provided by Section 11-6 of the Henderson County Code:
1. Minutes for the closed sessions held on February 7, 2000, July 3, 2000, July 26, 2000, October 2, 2000, and October 18, 2000 as presented during the closed session of November 15, 2000.
Henderson County Financial Report - October 2000
The Henderson County Financial Report for October 2000 was presented for information and consent approval.
During the month of August, the County received a significant amount ($5.74 million) of State reimbursements included in the October revenue totals that were actually recorded as accounts receivable at June 30th. These revenues will be adjusted from the current fiscal year=s totals in the month of December.
The year to date budget percentage used for Governing Body was higher than usual during October due to the capital outlay purchase of videotaping equipment for the Commissioners= Meeting Room.
Project to date expenditures on the New Balfour/Clear Creek and Etowah School Building Projects will be reimbursed from proceeds of the 2001 School COPs debt issue.
Henderson County Public Schools Financial Report - October 2000
This report was presented for information and consent approval.
Tax Collector=s Report
Terry F. Lyda, Tax Collector, had provided the Tax Collector=s Report to the Board dated through 11/28/00.
Darlene Burgess, Deputy Tax Collector, had provided the Deputy Tax Collector=s Report to the Board dated November 27, 2000.
Cliff=s Valley North - Proposed Private Water System
By way of a letter dated November 1, 2000, Henderson County had received notice that Blue Ridge Rural Water Company, Inc., a South Carolina corporation authorized to do business in North Carolina, intends to put in a private water system to serve the Henderson County side of the subdivision known as Cliff=s Valley North. The Board was reminded that this subdivision splits the North Carolina/South Carolina border.
Under South Carolina law, the Company is required to provide notice to Henderson County of its intentions and give the Board of Commissioners 90 days in which to approve the request or advise the Company of the County=s intention to provide public water service in that area.
In addition to complying with South Carolina law, the Company will also have to satisfy North Carolina laws and regulations with regard to the provision of water services and the County was advised that they have done so. If the County had adopted any ordinances addressing water service, those provisions would also apply; however, currently there are no such ordinances in place.
Staff was not aware of any plans by the County or by the City of Hendersonville to provide public water service in the area under construction. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Board to approve the Company=s request to serve the area by private water facilities.
County Manager=s Salary
The Board was requested to approve a 4% salary increase for the County Manager.
Road Petitions (for addition to the State Maintenance System):
The Board was presented with road petitions received to add two roads to the State Maintenance System: 1. Crestview Drive, and 2. Sherwood Drive. Lee King of the Property Addressing Department has reviewed the petitions and his recommendation was for adoption.
It has been the practice of this Board to accept road petitions and forward them to NC DOT 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.
Detention Center Project Report
The monthly Capital Improvements Project Report for the new Detention Center was presented for the Board=s review for the month of November 2000.
Records Retention Schedule for Pardee Hospital
The Board was requested to approve the Records Retention Schedule and the amendment proposed by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources. Every County Department has a Records Retention Schedule, and Pardee is no exception. The Schedule states how long records must be retained before they can be destroyed. The Schedule is primarily drafted by the State, with little room for the County to vary its terms.
As Pardee is considered a County Hospital by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, County approval of the Schedule and the proposed amendment is necessary. The Board has previously approved several different schedules for other Departments. Such approval is a routine matter. The Hospital has already approved them.
The County Manager recommended that the Board approve the Records Retention Schedule and the proposed amendment.
A copy of the Records Retention Schedule for County Hospital had been distributed to each Commissioner for their review.
Notification of Vacancies
The Board was notified of the following vacancies which will appear on the next agenda under ANominations@:
1. Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee - 6 vac.
Chairman Moyer asked Amy Brantley to update the Board on the status of the Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee. Ms. Brantley was present through ANominations@.
Amy Brantley informed the Board that the six vacancies listed under ANotification of Vacancies@ are vacancies that will be coming up on that Board in the year 2001. The way that procedure is set up, we make the Board aware of all those vacancies, alert the members and ask them to let us know at this time whether they will be able to fill the vacancy again for next year. Those letters will go out to the members soon.
Angela Beeker stated that the process provides that there is a membership drive that occurs now once the Board has been made aware of the up-coming vacancies, to try to get people interested in applying into a pool of applicants that appointments can be made from.
Amy Brantley explained that the three vacancies listed under ANominations@ can be filled right away if the Board sees fit, one is a designated position which must first be approved by the Nursing Homes before making the appointment, the other two are undesignated and do not have to be approved by the Nursing Homes.
Chairman Moyer reminded the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
1. Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee - 3 vac.
Commissioner Ward nominated Calvin Adams to fill position #10 (undesignated). Due to the fact that we have not heard back from the Chairman regarding this nominee, Chairman Moyer rolled this to the next meeting.
Amy Brantley explained that we notify the Chairman of all interested applicants or nominees for this particular Committee. His committee goes through a process of familiarizing nominees/applicants of what is involved in serving on this committee and then the Chairman contacts Ms. Brantley to let her know if the person is still interested and qualified to serve. At this time we have not heard back from the Chairman regarding Calvin Adams.
2. Mountain Area Workforce Development Board - 2 vac.
Commissioner Gordon nominated John Thornton as recommended by the Chamber of Commerce. Commissioner Ward made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Mr. Thornton. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
3. Child Fatality Prevention Team - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
4. Land-of-Sky Regional Council Advisory Council on Aging - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
5. Downtown Hendersonville, Inc. - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
6. Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
7. Fire and Rescue Advisory Committee - 7 vac.
Three recommendations had been made from the Fire & Rescue Association for appointment by this Board of Commissioners; William (Bill) Hill, Rick Livingston, and Jerry Pace. Rocky Hyder, Fire Marshal, came forward and informed the Board that all three candidates are subject to the Fire District Tax and have been residents of Henderson County for five years and therefore are eligible to serve in this capacity.
The three above names were placed in nominations at the November 15 Commission meeting along with Gary Brown, Chip Gould, Gary Jones and Lee Roy Nicholson.
Commissioner Ward made the motion to consider the block of three names from the Fire & Rescue Association separately from the three nominees from this Board of Commissioners. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Commissioner Ward then made the motion to appoint Bill Hill, Rick Livingston, and Jerry Pace at this time. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
It was determined that two of the Board=s nominees were not eligible to serve; Gary Brown and Gary Jones. Their names were removed from consideration. Commissioner Gordon nominated Charlie King making the Board=s three nominees Chip Gould, Lee Roy Nicholson, and Charlie King. Mrs. Beeker expressed her opinion that a paid employee of any of the County Fire Departments would have a financial conflict of interest.
There was some discussion regarding the by-laws and the need to work on the details regarding membership. Angela Beeker was directed to work on that for the future. The Board=s consensus at this time was to apply the interpretation that if you own a business (real or personal) or residential property in the tax district then you qualify for appointment.
Commissioner Ward made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Chip Gould, Lee Roy Nicholson, and Charlie King pending staff checking on Mr. King=s residency and it meeting requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
8. Apple Country Greenway Commission - 1 vac.
At the November 15 Commission meeting, Erica Thompson and Dan Gilbert were nominated. The Clerk polled the Board with each Commissioner having one vote. Dan Gilbert received three of the five votes. And was therefore appointed.
FY 2001-2003 WORK FIRST PLAN
The Commissioners had been presented earlier with the FY 2001-03 Work First Plan for their review. As the designated administrator of the Work First Block Grant, the Board of Social Services had reviewed and approved the Plan on November 16, 2000. The Plan has also been available for public review and comment. Before this Plan can be submitted to the State, the Board of Commissioners is required to formally approve it.
The County Manager stated that Henderson County has developed a very successful Work First Program. This updated Plan was developed by the staff of the Department of Social Services with the assistance of several community groups over the past several months. Based on the approval of the DSS Board, County Staff recommended that the FY 2001-03 Henderson County Work First Plan be approved by the Board of Commissioners and be submitted to the State of North Carolina.
Patti Leonard, Supervisor of the Work First Employment Program, presented the plan to the Board and answered their questions. If the Board chooses to approve the plan, she requested a letter signed by the Commission Chair to accompany the report to Raleigh.
She explained that:
$ The focus is on the original vision statement and the simple delivery of services to customers.
Vision Statement: To increase opportunities for people who want to work and to provide training, support, and incentives to move them from welfare to sustained employment.
$ The plan is a product of the generation of ideas from an extended group of community leaders and interested citizens. There is community Aownership@ of the plan.
$ The planning process has stretched over a year.
$ The Plan addresses all statewide Work First Goals (pages 12-13).
$ Innovative strategies have been implemented or will be put into place that provide support for the customer (pages 34-37).
$ The Plan suggests new eligibility criteria for public assistance (page 26).
Patti informed the Board that welfare roles have been reduced 70% since the start of the Work First Plan. She also informed the Board that Henderson County was the only county to receive straight A=s on the State Report Card so our plan is working.
Commissioner Hawkins stated that he enjoyed working on this committee and he highlighted the following:
We are not automatically an electing county. The plan has to be submitted to the State and we must be approved to remain electing or not. He discussed some reasons to remain an electing county. He also explained that the Work First Program is a children=s program, there has to be a child in the equation to qualify.
He explained a couple of things that Henderson County chose to make changes to that are different from the state-wide regulations:
1. Automatic benefit diversions which would give DSS (administrator of the program) a lot of latitude in furthering the mission that the Board set out on - to help people find work and be productive in society. A couple of months of benefit diversion amounts of $710 for a family which may keep them from ever being in the Work First Program.
2. In our eligibility requirements, the reasons for the changes, he expressed that he hoped we could beef that up on our justification.
He spoke briefly to maintenance of effort. We are currently serving fewer families and spending more per family. He raised a question about the savings in the maintenance of effort and how the Board might want to budget those savings.
Patti Leonard explained that they have found across the State that spending more money per family does make a difference. Guidelines on supported services have been loosened up and we can now help with transportation expenses above and beyond the limits that they used to set. We can help in several different areas of housing expenses where we couldn=t before.
Liston Smith, Director of DSS, emphasized again the straight A=s that Henderson County received on the State report card. He bragged about the community, the Board of Social Services, the County Manager, Grady and the County Commissioners and their dedication to this Work First Plan. He explained that the concept of having the community run the Work First Program is a novel and unique idea. Henderson County was the only electing county to make straight A=s. Mr. Smith stated that we are right at the cutting edge. We did well because the community got involved, the elected officials, the churches, a lot of involvement. Mr. Smith stated that his staff had diverted over 81 families last year that didn=t even have to come onto Work First and on welfare. They like that so much that they are trying to expand that program as a requirement for everyone, just to see how many more people they can keep from ever going on welfare in the first place. In child support we were ahead of the rest of the counties by around 20% in collections for our Work First families. We were suppose to put around 100 people to work and instead we put around 175 to work. This county is certainly doing a commendable job. He stated that we are working under the requirement that we have to spend the same amount of money this year and next year as we did last year, that was budgeted in the year 1995 and 1996. We have the challenge, regardless of how many people we are serving, we still have to spend the same amount of money, that is a requirement.
Mr. Smith explained that the State has made rules that you can use the Work First Block Grant monies for other things than the Work First Program, one of those is child protective services, the other is serving anybody under 200% of the poverty level. At this time Henderson County is not exercising that second option. Instead we take the funds and put them into targeted areas of service. Our reduction is largely in the 100% federal funds which they are keeping on the State level.
Mr. Smith stated that on the 10%, as far as anticipating what he would recommend to the Board of Social Services and to the Board of Commissioners - is any savings that we can take from the Work First Block Grant that we put that into child protective services and foster care type services in our community or at least consider those before we put them into other areas.
Commissioner Hawkins made the motion to approve the plan and authorize it to be filed with the State. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
INFORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Michael L. Hammed - Mr. Hammed contested a proposal to build an asphalt plant near the community of Grimesdale and Hickory Hills. This plant is proposed to be built near Balfour Elementary School. He requested the Board of Commissioners set a moratorium on the construction of asphalt plants in our county.
2. Eva Ritchey - Mrs. Ritchey spoke about the construction and development of schools in Henderson County and the spending of county tax monies for schools, stating that we are building second rate schools. She read a short article from the Associated Press, Statesville, (Iredell County) November 23, 2000. The article spoke about environmentally friendly schools, certified for their green design.
These schools are quoted to be a money saver for the system because of reduced energy consumption.
She asked why we can=t build those type schools here.
Mrs. Ritchey thanked Commissioner Messer for the kind words he had to say about former County Commissioner Renee Kumor, stating that he had very big slippers to fill.
3. Larry VanDerVwet - Mr. VanDerVwet spoke in opposition to the proposed asphalt plant along highway #25 north. He spoke on behalf of the Stoney Mountain Homeowners Association. Mr. VanDerVwet stated that he has a little bit of knowledge about asphalt as it was his bread and butter for about five years back in the 50's. He spoke about the toxic nature of asphalt and the detriment to the residents in the community.
4. Janet Stewart - Ms. Stewart distributed copies of her statement (2 pages typed) protesting the proposed asphalt plant to be built off Hwy. 25 north, just before Bildon by Tar Heel Paving, John L. Pace Enterprises, Inc. She stated that this proposed asphalt plant at this location would be a great negative impact on property values, public health, and future development.
5. Dennis Justice - Mr. Justice spoke about his opposition to Henderson County funding (public funding) a group called ADesigning Our Future@. He stated that citizens have a better impact coming to a Commission meeting and speaking before the Board of Commissioners, the cameras, and the Times News than going and speaking at a ADesigning Our Future@ meeting. He feels that groups like this diminish the results. He stated that he feels that the Informal Public Comment part of the Board=s agenda should be televised just as the rest of the meeting is. He also stated that he felt that all governmental meetings should be in the Commissioners= meeting room and be televised on Mediacom.
He also stated that Henderson County needs a shorter web address, stating that a shorter address could be gotten for about $200. How can one be expected to remember such a lengthy web address?
STATEMENT re: Asphalt Plant
Chairman Moyer asked the County Manager to address this issue at this time due to the informal public comments received today. Chairman Moyer stated that the Commissioners first learned of this last Thursday when they started receiving phone calls, e-mails, etc. with respect to it.
David Nicholson stated that the property in question is not in the county zoning area, it is just outside a county I-2 zoning area, it is therefore unzoned. It is not located in the City=s ETJ area. We have learned that the air quality section of DEHNR (Division of Environment, Health and Natural Resources) will hold a public hearing on the air quality permit. We have been informed that it will be a very strict hearing from the standpoint that it will only focus on air quality issues. The date has not been set for that public hearing at this time.
Henderson County will follow up on the information that solid waste is being buried on the site. Currently the site is snow covered. County Staff spoke to the owner of the land today who said they were doing some grading and seeding on the property. County Staff will check to see if they got their state permit for erosion control issues. Staff was also told that they are stock-piling some used asphalt on the site to reuse when the plant is operational. Mr. Nicholson stated that we have a copy of the letter from the Army Corp. of Engineers indicating there are no wet land issues on the property. It may very well be in the floodplain. Henderson County does not have a floodplain ordinance nor do they participate in the federal floodplain plan.
Mr. Nicholson stated that county staff would be happy to take their names and numbers and staff will call them when we hear that the public hearing has been scheduled.
The only alternative this Board would have is to direct staff to develop some type of asphalt plant ordinance. It would probably not affect this one because it likely would be grandfathered in. He encouraged citizens to look to DEHNR for answers to their air quality issues.
Chairman Moyer stated that we will continue to explore this issue, explore what options we have and later decide whether this needs to be an agenda item on a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - Short Street Extension
Commissioner Ward made the motion for the Board to go into public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Rocky Hyder introduced his new Property Addressing Coordinator, Mr. Curtis Griffin, to the Board. Mr. Hyder then updated the Board on the following:
Short Street Extension is a new road running East to West from Thompson Street to North Main Street (behind Home Depot). Approximately 20 percent of this street is located within the City of Hendersonville and 80 percent in Henderson County.
On September 22, 2000, eighteen property owners along newly constructed AShort Street Extension@ were notified of a proposal to name said road, Signal Hill Road. Along with the letter of notification, property owners were furnished a ballot, return envelope, and map of the area. Twelve ballots were returned by the October 18, 2000 deadline, nine in favor of Will Heaton By-pass and three in favor of Signal Hill Road (neither name demonstrating a majority). He stated that two additional ballots were returned well after the deadline, in favor of Will Heaton By-pass.
The Board of Commissioners designated December 4, 2000, 7:00 p.m. for a Public Hearing on the naming of Short Street Extension. Notices of the Public Hearing were posted at Winn Dixie, Home Depot, and along the road in question at three locations. A legal notice was placed in the Times News on Friday, November 17, 2000. In addition to the public notices, all property owners along the road in question were notified by letter (standard mail, not certified).
The NC DOT had given the road a project name only, Short Street Extension, they did not name the road nor did they assign a state road number to it.
Chairman Moyer pointed out that the responsibility for this got transferred from someone else to Mr. Hyder in the middle of this issue. He asked if Rocky knew whether the City of Hendersonville had tried in any way to coordinate with the addressing office with respect to the naming of the road. Mr. Hyder stated that according to a letter that he has from City Manager, Chris Carter, the City of Hendersonville did check with the addressing office to make sure that this was not a duplicate road name. Other than that, there was no other polling or balloting done on their behalf.
1. Richard Rhodes - Mr. Rhodes stated that it was at the suggestion of WHKP radio station that the name Signal Hill Road came about because the dominant landmark on this road is the radio tower from which their signal emanates and covers the county. This road would not have been possible at all without WHKP donating over $100,000 worth of property for the road. They only suggested that a good name for that road would be Signal Hill Road because of the tower being on the road. The City of Hendersonville agreed. He felt that it would be extremely confusing to have two names on one road. On behalf of WHKP and their 53 years of service to this county, he respectfully asked the Commissioners to consider agreeing with the City of Hendersonville that the best name for this road is Signal Hill Road.
2. Helen Stansell - Mrs. Stansell lives in the vicinity of the new road. She asked that the road be named Will Heaton Drive. She stated that a majority of the property owners and citizens of this old community have submitted ballots and letters (later) in favor of the name Will Heaton Drive. She stated that the largest portion of the road cuts right through the old Heaton property, through the middle of the late Haskell Heaton property. This property has been in the Heaton family since his father, Will Heaton purchased it the 1930's. She stated that the little community has a lot of heritage and a lot of pride. Mrs. Stansell stated that WHKP is to be commended for donating the property but she also stated that it would be of monetary value to them. She said she heard recently that they may even be dismantling the signal tower.
3. Charles W. Steadman - Mr. Steadman asked where the City/County boundary was on the road. Chairman Moyer asked Rocky Hyder to show Mr. Steadman on a map.
Mr. Steadman asked that the County consider naming the county portion of the road William Heaton Drive.
4. Jim Mead - Mr. Mead stated that on the original forms they were sent it stated that the City has submitted the name Signal Hill Road, it did not state that it was named that. It also stated that if they wished to have a different name, they needed 50% or more in agreement. He further stated that the Signal Tower isn=t in the City, it is in the County. He asked the Board to take into consideration the feelings of the people who have to live on that road and their desires for the road name.
5. Margaret Coleman - Mrs. Coleman stated that she married into the Heaton family in 1950, knowing the background of her Mother-in-law and Father-in-law. She and her husband had planned to build their retirement home up on the hill, right where the road came through. She spoke in favor of the road name Will Heaton Drive. She stated that the Heaton=s lost a son in World War II, William McNeal Heaton. He had already completed all his missions and was ready to come back home when they asked for volunteers and he volunteered and he got shot down on that mission. McNeal Heaton was named William after his father, William Heaton.
Commissioner Ward asked for a clarification on whether the City of Hendersonville had submitted the name or had actually named the road.
Rocky Hyder said that according to a letter from Chris Carter, City Manager, the City named their portion of the road Signal Hill Road. They submitted it to Henderson County to see if there was a duplicate name and there was not so then the City of Hendersonville named their portion (20%) of the road Signal Hill Road. According to the dates on letters, the City of Hendersonville had already named their portion of the road prior to the citizens receiving their ballots from the County.
In closing, Rocky Hyder stated that with all due respect to the history of the area and the people that support the Will Heaton name, and due to the fact that the City of Hendersonville has already named their portion of this road, it limits our options considerably. Also to be consistent with our mission to reduce confusion for our emergency responders and uniformity, Rocky stated that staff recommends naming this road Signal Hill Road.
Commissioner Ward made the motion for the Board to go out of public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Ward asked for a delay in taking action, asked staff to get clarification from the City of Hendersonville about when they actually took action on the road name and how they could do so without first contacting Rocky Hyder. He spoke about the confusion in many large cities of going down a street and suddenly it changes name.
Chairman Moyer stated that what we need to do is contact the City of Hendersonville and come up with a procedure for handling things like this in the future where there is joint jurisdiction. Henderson County further complicated the matter by sending out the ballots. He stated that it makes no sense sending out ballots if you=re not going to abide by them.
Commissioner Gordon made the motion to approve the naming of the road as Signal Hill Road in keeping with the action already taken by City Council and for reasons of consistency. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Ward suggested a letter to the Mayor from the Chairman to try to keep this type of confusion down in the future. Commissioner Gordon stated that this happened at an unfortunate point in time when the guidelines were not there to see that this doesn=t happen.
Chairman Moyer 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)(1) To prevent disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to the law of this State or of the United States, or not considered a public record within the meaning of Chapter 132 of the General Statutes, in accordance with and pursuant to NCGS 143-318.10(e) and Article II of Chapter 11 of the Henderson County Code.
2.(a)(3) To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged.
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.
FINANCING OF THE ETOWAH AND CLEAR CREEK/BALFOUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
David Nicholson reminded the Board that the Henderson County Board of Public Education is proceeding with the Etowah Elementary School Project and the Clear Creek/Balfour Elementary School Project. These two Projects are expected to require financing in the amount of $16,000,000. The Board of Education has requested the County=s assistance with that financing. The County proposes to finance these Projects through the issuance of Certificates of Participation (COPs).
The draft financing documents had been copied for the Board and distributed in an envelope with the agenda books. The Financing Calendar briefly described the events necessary to accomplish the COPs financing.
This type of financing requires an application to the Local Government Commission (LGC) and a public hearing prior to taking any action to approve the financing documents. Bond counsel has assisted the County with the preparation of a Resolution which sets a public hearing for the Board=s December 20, 2000 meeting and which authorizes the filing of the application with the LGC. The Resolution was shown within the proposed Extracts which were submitted to the Board. The Board also received a copy of the proposed Notice of Public Hearing.
The County Manager recommended that the Board use the extract as a script for adoption of the Resolution Setting Public Hearing on the Proposed Installment Financing of Public School Facilities and Authorizing the Filing of an Application with the Local Government Commission of North Carolina for Approval of Such Installment Financing.
Commissioner Grady Hawkins moved the adoption of the following resolution:
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
PROPOSED INSTALLMENT FINANCING OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES AND
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITH THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA FOR APPROVAL OF SUCH
WHEREAS, the Henderson County Board of Commissioners desires to hold a public hearing in connection with the installment financing by the County of certain public school facilities to be located in the county; and
WHEREAS, the County is required to file an application with the Local Government Commission of North Carolina (the ALGC@) requesting approval of the transactions contemplated by the proposed installment financing of such public school facilities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Henderson County Board of Commissioners as follows:
1. That a public hearing addressing the proposed installment financing of certain school facilities in the County shall be held on the 20th day of December, at ll:00 a.m. in the Meeting Room of the County Administration Building located at 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792.
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby directed to cause a notice of such hearing to be published in a qualified newspaper no fewer than ten (10) days prior to such public hearing.
3. That the County Manager and the Finance Director are hereby authorized and directed to file an application with the LGC for the LGC=s approval of the installment financing contract pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 160A-20 and Section 159-148, and to execute a sworn statement of debt of the County pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 159-150, in connection with the financing of the proposed public school facilities.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Don Ward and was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Moyer, Gordon, Hawkins, Ward, and Messer.
The County Manager stated that a Joint Facilities Meeting should probably take place in the next few weeks to make sure Henderson County clearly understands where the money will come from to finish up this project. Mr. Nicholson also reviewed the Financing Calendar with the Board. He also reviewed the Public Schools Capital Funding chart for Major and Recurring expenses.
Chairman Moyer stated that he would like to ask the Board of the Financing Corporation to increase the number of Directors to five, it is currently three (David Nicholson, Bill Blalock and Commissioner Moyer), and that the Board appoint two additional Directors. He suggested Commissioners Gordon and Ward be elected to that Board to fill the two new vacancies. Chairman Moyer moved the approval of expansion of that Board (after it=s recommended by the Board of the Financing Authority) to five and to appoint Commissioners Gordon and Ward to that Board.
Following discussion, it was recommended that the Financing Authority Board take the first step and then bring it back to the Board of Commissioners for approval.
REWRITE OF THE HENDERSON COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
Karen Smith reminded the Board that at a Special Called Meeting on October 30, 2000, the Henderson County Planning Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of sending the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation on a draft of the proposed new Zoning Ordinance. As part of its recommendation, the Planning Board stated that it would like to have the ability to send the Commissioners additional changes to the draft if they were needed to address issues that may arise between now and the time of a public hearing on the draft.
Julia Cogburn of Benchmark, Inc., has been making final changes to the draft ordinance based on the Planning Board=s review on October 30, 2000. Ms. Cogburn is also finalizing a list of the significant changes to the ordinance. She had delivered copies of both documents to the Planning Department and Staff distributed them to the Commissioners at this meeting.
The Board will need to determine how to proceed with reviewing the document. Staff felt that the Commissioners would need to hold several work sessions in order to gain a level of comfort with the new ordinance prior to scheduling a public hearing.
Staff recommended that the Commissioners set an initial work session that would involve Ms. Cogburn of Benchmark, Inc., and either the full Planning Board or representatives of the Planning Board (such as the Chairman and Vice-Chairman) to begin the review process. At the work session, Planning Staff and Ms. Cogburn could provide a detailed overview of the new ordinance, explain how it differs from the current ordinance and review how it relates to a list of objectives established for the project by the Board of Commissioners. At subsequent work sessions, staff could focus on certain sections of the ordinance and answer questions from Board members. At some point in the review process, Staff would like to obtain direction from the Commissioners regarding potential map amendments related to the new ordinance.
Copies of the ordinance will be available for public inspection at the Henderson County Library and at the Henderson County Planning Department. They will also try to get it on the County=s Web Site. The Planning Staff will also make copies for anyone wishing one.
It was the consensus of the Board to set a workshop on this item under AImportant Dates@ with representatives of the Planning Board and Ms. Cogburn of Benchmark, Inc.
Chairman Moyer expressed thanks to Karen Smith for her work on this project.
WATER POLICIES AND RATE SCHEDULE
The County Attorney distributed the proposed Water Policies that have been drafted as required by the ABHWA (Asheville Buncombe Henderson Water Authority) Regional Water Supply and Water Service Agreement adopted by the Board of Commissioners on November 11, 1995. A proposed rate schedule was also distributed.
Mrs. Beeker explained that this is actually an ordinance that would enact water policies for what is now currently the Cane Creek Water & Sewer District. These policies have been seen by the Board twice before. There were five small changes Mrs. Beeker pointed out to the Board:
1. Section 1.02 The last sentence is a change from what the Board has seen before and it says Athis ordinance seeks to obtain for Henderson County and those within the service district all of the benefits conferred by the Regional Water Agreement.@
2. Section 3.09 This is a provision to limit the liability for Henderson County and the City of Asheville. We have similar provisions in our sewer ordinance and it=s fairly standard. Basically it limits the liability to a citizen, a customer for not providing water. It is consistent with what is currently in the water policies for the Authority for the ABHWA. Mrs. Beeker had added a sentence at the end that says Anotwithstanding the foregoing@ which means it doesn=t matter what it just said in this paragraph, Athis provision shall not alter or diminish the Authority=s responsibility to provide water to Henderson County and those in the service district pursuant to the Regional Water Agreement@ so it just reinforces the Regional Water Agreement.
3. Section 10.03 Mrs. Beeker added the same sentence here. In the Water Agreement only certain sections of the water agreement are subject to arbitration. The introductory paragraph to 10.03 lists all those but also lists subsection 4.2 and section 10 which are not subject to arbitration so we didn=t want to make any confusion by lumping those all together in that paragraph in section 10.3 that it would automatically make those subject to arbitration as well. It=s just a clarification mainly for purposes of preserving the integrity of the interpretation of the Regional Water Agreement. That change is also made in 10.04.
4. Section 10.04 See above.
5. Page #16 In number 3 on page 16 - it said article 10 below but it should say article 10 above. This was just correction of a typographical error.
Angela Beeker explained that Henderson County entered into a Regional Water Agreement with the City of Asheville and the Asheville Buncombe Water Authority to provide water in the northern end of Henderson County. Right now that agreement applies to the Cane Creek Water and Sewer District as it is drawn. That area can be made larger by a vote of the Board but the Board has not done that yet so right now it=s just the Cane Creek Water & Sewer District. There are some things under that agreement that the County is responsible for and one of those is enacting some water policies so that when citizens want water and want to come forward and apply we have some policies that will control. The Agreement says that the policies that you enact as a Board have to substantially conform with those of the Authority. There can be some difference but that has to be substantial conformance. To the extent possible, Mrs. Beeker has incorporated a large portion of their=s by reference and then the only differences being things that are in that Regional Water Agreement. This is a combination of provisions of the Regional Water Agreement and their policies. Another thing that the Board must do under that Agreement is also to enact a schedule of fees, what it will cost someone to get water. The Board has not seen the fee schedule before.
Mrs. Beeker stated that she had taken the fee schedule for the Authority and retyped it, changing the name. The front page represents the latest rates adopted by ABHWA . The back two pages are other charges that they have for other things. The Board has the ability to impose some additional fees.
Mrs. Beeker asked the Board to take this fee schedule and review it. Mr. Tweed may help with deciphering the fees and charges at the next meeting. The Board may wish to add some small administrative fee to cover some staff costs for processing these applications as they come in.
Chairman Moyer stated that this will be put on the agenda for the December 20 meeting and he asked Gary Tweed if he could be present for that meeting. Mr. Tweed stated that he could.
David Nicholson stated that it is imperative to get rates in place as we will start to get requests for water service in that area.
UPDATE - WHERE PLANNING BOARD STANDS ON
MILLS RIVER/FLETCHER STUDY AREA
Public input sessions were going on at the time of the last Commission meeting. Chairman Moyer asked Karen Smith to update the Board.
Karen Smith explained that the Planning Board established a timeline for this Mills River/Fletcher Area Land Use Study. They had a retreat in August and they had intended to hold public input sessions in November and then spend some time going through the input and all of the information that staff has collected and has started mapping. Staff is close to completion on mapping.
In order to get the Board of Commissioners a final report some time in the spring - three public input sessions were held. Staff has compiled all of the comments from the input sessions and reviewed those some with the Planning Board last week. Since then staff has been reducing the comments into some common themes and will have a meeting with the subcommittee of the Planning Board that works on this study tomorrow afternoon to again go over these comments in detail and to try to integrate the comments and all of the data that has been collected and try to start making some recommendations. She expects the subcommittee to bring some recommendations to the full Planning Board in January and from there (if the full Planning Board agrees) would have a report to the Commissioners some time, perhaps as early as March, depending on the meeting schedule.
Karen had talked with the Planning Board last week trying to make sure what this Board has in mind for the study and what the Planning Board is actually doing are in sync. Her understanding of the study was that it is a land use study, it=s probably going to contain some recommendations from the Planning Board as to future actions in the Mills River area. Karen stated that she did not think the Planning Board is expecting to have to do a recommendation on specific zoning, she thinks they are looking at a variety of tools that are available. She asked if there was anything specific that the Commissioners are looking for that she could carry back to the subcommittee tomorrow or at future meetings.
Chairman Moyer made two points with respect to the public hearings. He and Commissioner Gordon both attended the second one. He stated that it was very effective and well done. He stated that we have an old Zoning Ordinance, a new Zoning Ordinance and how do you do a land use study while you=re changing over in the Zoning Ordinance. He has been advising them to come up with generalized categories of land use that they think would be appropriate for certain areas but not to put zoning classifications on it. The Board would then see where they are with respect to the zoning ordinance and would determine how those two get married together or what the Board wants the Planning Board to do with respect to marrying them. Also the Mills River Sewer Project - at some point all this has to be brought together. He suggested that the Planning Board continue to study the area, get familiar with it and start thinking about the kind of uses they think might be appropriate, get that far and the Board of Commissioners will see where they are with the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite, where they are with respect to the Sewer Project and then will give the Planning Board further direction.
Commissioner Hawkins stressed the importance of the Board looking at zoning that is contiguous to municipalities, looking at ETJ=s. He stated that he gets a lot of calls from people that run into zoning problems when municipalities throw their ETJ out, control their zoning with no representation.
Karen stated that it had been over a year since some residents of an area that was in the ETJ extension area for Laurel Park had come to the County asking for zoning. Their request didn=t get considered before the extension of ETJ took place. Laurel Park had indicated at that time that they would be interested in relinquishing ETJ if the County came up with compatible zoning. Since that time, Laurel Park has annexed the large subdivision called Somersby that was generating some of this interest in the ETJ area and staff has had conversations with Laurel Park. They are still interested in giving up the ETJ if we can do some zoning. The Planning Board has asked staff to look at a little bit larger area, going outside of the ETJ and trying to find some way to connect the pieces. Staff has done that and is having a public input session or a drop in information on Thursday night with some residents of the area.
Commissioner Gordon stressed that this is a land use study, not a zoning study.
IREDELL COUNTY RESOLUTION
Chairman Moyer had received a copy of a Resolution that Iredell County had adopted and copied it to each Commissioner. This resolution pertains to voter identification. Chairman Moyer read the Resolution and stated that he would love to see all counties get behind this Resolution and adopt/support it.
This will be put back on a future agenda for the Board=s consideration/adoption. It was the consensus of the Board for Staff to make the appropriate changes to the Resolution and that it be put on the Consent Agenda for the next meeting.
2001 GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Chairman Moyer voiced the need for the Board to set their goals and objectives for the coming year. There was some discussion of having either a work session or a retreat to discuss goals/objectives.
Commissioner Gordon was impressed with the way Dr. Burnham and the School Board had their last retreat and set their goals and objectives. He used an individual to help with the facilitation of the meeting and the School System will have the same gentleman return in January to work with their new Board and to re-evaluate their goals. Dr. Burnham has contacted him to let him know that the Board of Commissioners is interested and maybe we can piggy back with their meeting and share some of the travel costs. It was the consensus of the Board for Commissioner Gordon to follow through with this and report back to the Board at the next meeting.
Set Public Hearing - Rezoning Application # R-03-00 (C-4 to C-2P)
Preservation North Carolina, Applicant
Mr. Rex Todd of Regency Development Associates, Inc., had submitted an application on behalf of the Preservation Foundation of North Carolina (Preservation North Carolina) requesting that the County rezone a 1.70 acre parcel that is owned by Preservation North Carolina on Spartanburg Highway (US Hwy.#176) from a C-4 (Highway Commercial) district to a C-2P (Preservation Neighborhood Commercial) district. The parcel proposed for rezoning is the site of the old East Flat Rock Elementary School.
The Henderson County Planning Board reviewed the application at its meeting on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 and voted to send the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation on the request as submitted. Before taking action on the application, the Board of Commissioners must hold a public hearing.
Commissioner Ward made the motion to set this public hearing for Tuesday, January 2, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
David Nicholson stated that Rochelle Miller had contacted him about the need for a public hearing on the Community Transportation Program. She requested that it be set for December 20, 2000 at 11:00 a.m. David stated that this is for the on-going transportation projects, not for new ones.
Commissioner Ward made the motion to set this public hearing for Wednesday, December 20 at 11:00 a.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Chairman Moyer asked David to make sure that Rochelle Miller understands that if the Board is not comfortable with the information they receive to hold the public hearing on, they will pull it.
Chairman Moyer asked if anyone would be away between now and the end of the year. Commissioner Ward plans to be out of town the last week in December. Commissioner Hawkins plans to be out of town the last two weeks in January.
David confirmed the December 12 meeting at 3:00 at Advantage West with the Chamber of Commerce.
David reminded the Board of the Annual Employee Luncheon on Wednesday, December 13 from 11:00 to 2:00 and invited the Board to attend, stating that it is a great opportunity to meet your employees and have a nice meal.
Sheriff Erwin has his classification plan ready to present to the Board. It was the consensus of the Board to wait and set a special called meeting at the January 2 meeting.
David asked the Board if they wished to go ahead and set a time to meet with the Planning Board representatives regarding the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite. It was the consensus of the Board to set that meeting at the January 2 meeting.
The Board discussed setting a time for a Mud Creek Water and Sewer District Sewer Agreement workshop. The Board set a workshop for Monday, December 18 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
MUD CREEK WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
This item had been pulled from the agenda.
CANE CREEK WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
Commissioner Ward made the motion for the Board to adjourn as Henderson County Board of Commissioners and convene as Cane Creek Water and Sewer District. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Ward made the motion for the Board to adjourn as the Cane Creek Water and Sewer District and reconvene as the Henderson County Board of Commissioners. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Carolina Apparel Trading Building
Chairman Moyer stated that there are many rumors around and have been letters to the Editor with respect to the cost of the Carolina Apparel Trading Building. The citizens are questioning the decision making process the Commissioners went through. He asked the County Manager to create a fact sheet that can be distributed, a Adata sheet@ if you will. The Carolina Apparel Building will be on the December 20 agenda.
Legislative Goals Conference - January 11 & 12
Chairman Moyer stated that at the next meeting the Board will need to appoint a voting delegate for the Legislative Goals Conference. He plans to attend the conference and asked anyone else who plans to go to notify Mrs. Corn so she can make the necessary arrangements.
Cane Creek Sewer Rates
Commissioner Gordon made the motion for the Board of Commissioners to approve the revised and reduced rate schedule for the Cane Creek Water and Sewer District as presented, effective with the bills generated the first of February, 2001. Commissioner Messer seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
There being no further business to come before the Board, Commissioner Ward made the motion to adjourn the meeting at approx. 10:00 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board William L. Moyer, Chairman