STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF HENDERSON JULY 25, 2001
The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 9:00 a.m. in the Commissioners= Conference Room of the Henderson County Office Building at 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, North Carolina.
Those present were: Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chair Marilyn Gordon, Commissioner Grady Hawkins, Commissioner Don Ward, Commissioner Charlie Messer, County Manager David E. Nicholson, County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present were: Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson, Assistant County Attorney Jennifer O. Jackson, Planning Director Karen C. Smith, and Finance Director J. Carey McLelland. Amy Brantley, Volunteer Coordinator, was present through the Nominations.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Gordon led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
Rev. Gus Martschink, from the Hospital Chaplaincy Program, gave the invocation.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Chairman Moyer asked for the following to be added to Discussion Items:
AC@ - Discussion of RPOs, Transportation Planning, Vehicles.
AD@ - Environmental Advisory Committee and Air Quality
AE@ - South Hwy. #25 Study
AF@ - County Comprehensive Plan
Chairman Moyer also stated that he may have to move some of the items around for the courtesy of some of the people who are coming to the meeting for specific items.
David Nicholson asked that item AB@ - MSD Rate Study be deleted from Cane Creek Water and Sewer District Agenda.
Chairman Moyer made the motion for the Board to approve the adjusted agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer made the motion to pull the June 13 minutes for comments, as well as the following items:
AJ@ - Plaque Presentation by the American Cancer Society
AK@ - Employee Recognitions/Awards
AL@ - Trend Resolution
Commissioner Hawkins also wished to comment on the June 13 minutes. He made a minor correction to the July 2 minutes. He also asked that the following items be pulled for some discussion:
AD@ - Detention Facility Monthly Report
AG@ - Saluda Fire and Rescue Tax-Exempt Loan
AI@ - Waterline Extension Requests (2)
Discussion on June 13 minutes
The June 13 minutes were formerly approved at the July 2, 2001 meeting. Since that time, Chairman Moyer suggested a change to one of his motions. He also directed the Clerk to the Board to submit her draft minutes to the County Attorney for review of all motions. He then asked the County Attorney to review all motions for legal implications as well as to make sure the motions reflect the intent of the Board. Ms. Beeker had reviewed and rewritten the motion in question. The revised June 13 minutes were distributed to the Board for review and approval at this meeting.
Chairman Moyer stated that this set of minutes was prepared almost as a verbatim discussion of the meeting. He expressed that wasn=t necessary or appropriate. He stated that he felt the minutes should reflect the general discussion of the salient issues and then should reflect the actions clearly that are taken. Normally our minutes are not verbatim unless they are quasi-judicial hearings. He felt that time could be saved by not having verbatim minutes but clearly set out the actions that are taken at the meeting. He also had a problem with the Board getting draft minutes for approval without having a resolution attached that is referred to in the minutes.
Commissioner Hawkins took exception to the procedure rather than the intent. He reminded the Board that Ms. Corn has been the Clerk to the Board going on 13 years now and in most cases she accomplishes in the minutes what the Board is looking for. There are occasions when there are disputes and the Clerk has been asked to do a verbatim transcript of that section of the meeting. In his opinion that is the right way to handle any disputes. His biggest problem with the procedure was that after the minutes were approved, he didn=t think it was the prerogative of the Chairman or the County Attorney to go back and rewrite the minutes, in particular when it is already a verbatim account. He felt that this questions the integrity of the Board if that is the policy. Commissioner Hawkins felt that if corrections need to be made, they should be made at the meeting with the full Board voting on the correction.
There was much discussion back and forth. Chairman Moyer felt that all minutes should be approved by the County Attorney from a legal standpoint. There was some discussion regarding having a procedure/policy written to follow in transcribing minutes.
Commissioner Ward felt that both Commissioners made good points regarding the minutes. He did express a need for some detail in the minutes.
The Clerk to the Board asked to be allowed to speak and made the following points:
1. As a rule a verbatim transcript is not done of minutes. The June 13 meeting was a very heated political discussion. The Clerk did parts of the meeting verbatim in order to cover herself so that no one individual could say that their words had been twisted.
2. We do not have a written procedure for minutes and never have had in the years the Clerk has been with Henderson County (12+ years) and therefore each Board has wanted the minutes done a little different from the previous Board. The Clerk expressed that she felt it would be a good idea to have a written procedure or policy for doing minutes.
3. The Clerk expressed that she does not know that the Board wants Aattachments@ when they receive their draft minutes unless she is told that they do. The Aattachments@ get with the minutes as they are printed in the Minute Docket but they have not been given out with draft minutes in the past.
Chairman Moyer asked to move the meeting along and asked that the Clerk, the County Manager, and the County Attorney work together on getting a procedure written.
Item AD@ - Detention Facility Monthly Report
Commissioner Hawkins wanted to confirm that the Jail Project was well on track and coming in under budget. Mr. Nicholson confirmed that was correct and will report back to the Board on the amount under budget when the Finance Director gets back in town.
Chairman Moyer had expressed earlier concern over some blacktop that was not curing that was part of the detention center project. Mr. Nicholson up-dated the Board, stating that a consulting engineer examined the parking lot and drilled some holes and did some testing. Parts of the blacktop in the parking lot were fine while others were not. A section of the Avisitors@ parking lot on First Avenue had a problem. Next Monday, a contractor will take up a section of the parking lot and resurface it at no cost to the County.
Detention Center Announcement
September 5 at 4:00 p.m. is the official opening of the Detention Center. Following the opening ceremony will be a tour of the facility. Mr. Nicholson has encouraged staff to offer a week-end opportunity tour for the public also. Mr. Nicholson has actually received the Certificate of Substantial Completion for the facility. He stated the facility is under budget and on time.
Mr. Nicholson also informed those in attendance as well as those watching on television, there will be an opportunity for persons to spend a night in the new facility on August 25 with proceeds going to the Dare Camp. There is a $50.00 contribution fee for finger-printing, eating, and sleeping over in the jail. This also gives staff a chance to work through the process in the facility and make sure everything is working well.
Item AG@ - Saluda Fire and Rescue Tax-Exempt Loan
Commissioner Hawkins questioned the Resolution the Board was being asked to approve, the Resolution indicates that the Board of Commissioners was approving a tax-exempt loan to Saluda for $30,000. The Board does not approve loans. He had asked that the wording be changed in the Resolution to state that the Board consents to the loan. A revised copy will be given to the Clerk for execution.
Item AI@ - Waterline Extension Requests (2)
Commissioner Hawkins raised a question regarding the requests, stating that where sewer and/or waterlines are extended, construction will follow. In one of these cases, the request is 7 2 miles outside of the City Limits.
Item AJ@ - Plaque Presentation by the American Cancer Society
Lettie Herbert, a volunteer with the American Cancer Society, presented a plaque on behalf of the Committee for the Relay for Life to the Board of Commissioners with pleasure and thanks in recognition of the Board=s continuing support of the Relay that was held this year on June 8th and 9th.
Chairman Moyer commented that several of the Commissioners were at the Relay for Life. He acknowledged the work done by Planning Director Karen Smith who was very involved [co-Chairman] in running the project. Senator Bob Carpenter was the speaker for the event and has been very active in situations involving cancer and getting appropriate legislation done.
Item AK@ - Employee Recognitions/Awards
David congratulated two Cooperative Extension employees who have received awards. Please see the following agenda item for details. The employees were not in attendance at this meeting.
Mr. Nicholson was saddened to tell the Board that one of those employees, Bill Skelton, has accepted a Director position in Haywood County and will be leaving us. He has been a fine employee.
Item AL@ - Trend Resolution
Chairman Moyer asked Dr. Jeffery Grimm to come forward for this item. Dr. Grimm informed the Board that Trend Mental Health received the 2001 Negley Award for excellence in Risk Management which was accompanied by a cash prize for the agency. This is a National Award used to recognize outstanding achievements in risk management by Community Mental Health Centers.
They received the award for their AViolence Abatement@ program which is designed to limit workplace violence through personnel organization, law enforcement consultation, environmental controls, and staff training. The principal result of that program was a permanent reduction in staff injuries due to client violence by 68%. They assisted seven other area Mental Health Authorities and one Community Hospital in designing similar programs.
Dr. Grimm informed the Board that Trend had been accredited by an organization called the Council on Accreditation for Children and Family Services, also known as COA. The COA Accreditation process involves a rigorous examination of Trend=s total operations and Accreditation attests that Trend Community Mental Health Service is meeting the highest national standards and is providing needed and quality services to individuals, families, and it=s constituent communities. Previously Trend was accredited by the State of North Carolina. The State=s standards are substantially less rigorous than the COA national standards. COA maintains that Accreditation does three separate things:
1. Provides evidence to the community that the organization providing service has met
accepted standards of operation.
2. Identifies for public funders the organizations that are worthy of financial support.
3. It is a central means for assuring that funds are spent in efficient and effective ways which are consistent with the cannons of good practice and management.
Trend was one of only ten area mental health authorities in the State with performance that merited a special category that is termed Aexpedited accreditation@. Trend was the only area mental health authority in Western North Carolina that merited that distinction.
Chairman Moyer offered congratulations on behalf of the Board and moved adoption of the prepared resolution (reading the resolution aloud) commending Trend for their service to the County=s citizens and their achievement of national recognition. A copy of the resolution is attached as a part of these minutes. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the changes discussed:
July 2 minutes, make it Aregularly scheduled meeting@ rather than Aspecial called meeting@ and the change discussed in the resolution for Saluda Fire and Rescue changing the wording from Aapproves@ to Aconsents to@.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The CONSENT AGENDA consisted of the following:
Minutes were presented for the Board=s review and approval of the following meetings:
July 6, 1999, regular meeting
August 18, 1999, regular meeting
June 13, 2001, special called meeting (revised, formerly approved on July 2)
June 14, 2001, special called meeting
June 21, 2001, special called meeting
July 2, 2001, regular meeting
July 10, 2001, special called meeting
July 11, 2001, special called meeting
Tax Collector=s Report
Terry F. Lyda, Tax Collector, had provided the Tax Collector=s Report for the Board=s information, dated July 19, 2001.
Darlene Burgess, Deputy Tax Collector also submitted her report for the Board=s information, dated July 17, 2001.
Revisions to Fee Schedules
During budget deliberations, the wrong Environmental Health Fee Schedule was provided to the Board of Commissioners. Although the budget reflected the correct fees, this schedule listed a previous year=s fees, which were less than what were already being charged. The correct fee structure, with increases as approved by the Board, was presented for the Board=s information. This has no influence on the budget as approved and is for information purposes only.
The Board approved the implementation of an Ain-county@ patient loaded mile fee of $7.50 for the new fiscal year. After the budget was adopted, our EMS staff was informed that Medicare will not accept increase requests for Aout-of-county@ mileage after October 1, 2001. Therefore, EMS staff requested, and the County Manager recommended, that the out-of-county patient loaded mileage fee be increased from $4.00 per mile to $7.50 to match the recently approved in-county mileage fee.
David Nicholson recommended that the Board of Commissioners approve the increase from $4.00 to $7.50 per out-of-county patient-loaded mile to be effective October 1, 2001, which is the date recommended by Medicare.
Detention Facility Monthly Report
Bill Byrnes had submitted the monthly detention facility report for June for the Board=s review.
A list of 34 tax release requests was submitted by the County Assessor for approval by the Board.
A list of 2 tax refund requests was submitted by the County Assessor for approval by the Board.
Saluda Fire and Rescue Tax-Exempt Loan
The Saluda Volunteer Fire & Rescue is planning to purchase 25 new sets of turnout gear and 4 new Mintor III Pagers. The turnout gear will be purchased from NAFECO of North Carolina in Morganton, North Carolina and the Pagers from Kimball Communications in Hendersonville, North Carolina. The cost of the turnout gear will be $27,705.72 and the total for the pagers will be $1,640.00 for a total cost of $29,345.72.
The amount of the loan is $29,345.72 for a term of 5 years, with an annual interest rate of 5.95%, an annual payment of $6,964.67 and a total payback of $34,823.35.
The Fire and Rescue Advisory Committee approved this request at its July 16, 2001 meeting.
David Nicholson recommended Board approval of this request.
Request for Improvement Guarantee for Meadow Woods, Phase II - The Housing Assistance Corporation, Applicant
Mr. Steve Bond, on behalf of The Housing Assistance Corporation (HAC) had submitted an application for a subdivision improvement guarantee. HAC would like to post a surety performance bond to cover the cost of remaining road improvements in Phase II of Meadow Woods, a subdivision located off Brannon Road. The Planning Department issued conditional approval of the Development Plan for Phase II of Meadow Woods on June 27, 2001.
Pursuant to Section 170-38 of the Henderson County Code, a developer may, in lieu of completing all of the required improvements prior to Final Plat approval, post a performance guarantee to secure the County=s interest in seeing that satisfactory construction of incomplete improvements occurs. One type of permitted guarantee is a surety performance bond. The applicant intends to secure such a performance bond from CNA Surety in the amount of $23,500.00, which includes the cost of the road improvements as well as the required contingency amount of 25%. The minimum amount that must be secured by the performance bond is $23,482.75 (cost estimate of $18,786.20 multiplied by 1.25). The proposed completion date for the improvements is September 30, 2001. HAC currently has a surety performance bond posted with the County as an improvement guarantee for Phase I of Meadow Woods. The Phase I performance bond is in the amount of $25,000.00 and the completion date for the improvements in that phase is also September 30, 2001.
A draft Performance Guarantee Agreement was submitted for the Board=s consideration. If the application is approved, the applicant must submit a performance bond in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The Assistant County Attorney must review the performance bond and certify the Agreement as to form prior to its execution by the Chairman and the applicant.
Mr. Nicholson recommended that the Board approve the application for an improvement guarantee for Meadow Woods, Phase II, subject to the applicant submitting a surety performance bond in accordance with the terms of the draft Performance Guarantee Agreement and subject to the Assistance County Attorney reviewing the performance bond.
Waterline Extension Requests (2)
The City of Hendersonville has requested any County comments on proposed waterline extensions.
#1 Pack Mobile Home park extension
1,250 lineal feet of 6 inch pvc, C900, DR-18 water line to be installed along Clark Road for a Pack Mobile Home Park extension. This is a project to bring water service to a piece of property located approx. 2.9 miles east of the Hendersonville Corporate Limits off Clark Road near Edneyville Elementary School. The owner has indicated that the Pack Mobile Home Park name may only be temporary as the owner has not finalized his thoughts of how the property will be developed. The owner may decide to subdivide the property rather than to develop a mobile home park as indicated by the design engineer, Mr. Jon H. Laughter of Laughter-Austin & Associates, P.A.
Fire protection will be provided via the installation of two fire hydrants located on Clark Road.
Water pressure and flow in this area is as follows:
Static pressure = 60 psi.
Residual = 30 psi.
Flow = 740 GPM
The entire cost of the proposed water line extension is to be paid for by the owner/developer James M. Pack of Edneyville, North Carolina.
Based on the above information, the City Water Department can support the additional connections and recommended approval of the project contingent upon approval of the final plans and specifications.
It does not fully conform with the County Land Use Plan because the 1993 Land Use Plan did not anticipate the extension of public water to the subject area (see Figure 17, Urban Services Area, in the Land Use Plan), however it also did not anticipate the extension of a waterline to the WNC Justice Academy, nor to Pace Road (to serve other development activity). The Manufactured Home Park and Subdivision Ordinances require connections to a public water system if a project is located within a certain distance of an existing waterline. Based on the distance from the existing waterline (approx. 1,250 ft), it is possible that connection would be required. The subject area is designated as AAgriculture@ on the future land use map in the Land Use Plan. A manufactured home park or subdivision would not necessarily conflict with this designation.
A couple of unknowns were mentioned.
Staff recommended eliminating the requirement for tamper proof tops on hydrants. Tamper proof tops require a special hydrant wrench not normally carried by County fire departments.
#2 Shamrock Crossing - Etowah
This is a project to bring water to a piece of property located approximately 7 miles west of the Hendersonville Corporate Limits off U.S. Highway #64 West in Etowah.
The project requires approximately 4,750 lineal feet of water lines sized as follows:
2" PVC, SDR-21= 800 feet
6" PVC, C900, DR18 = 2,750 feet
8" DIP, CL-350= 1,200 feet
Fire protection will be provided via the installation of three fire hydrants located inside the subdivision.
Water pressure and flow in this area is as follows:
Static pressure = 70 psi.
Residual = 25 psi.
Flow = 740 GPM
The intended use of this property is residential with 40 single-family lots proposed.
The entire cost of the proposed water line extension is to be paid for by the owner/developer, Shamrock Ventures, Inc.
Based on the above information, the City Water Department can support the additional connections and recommended approval of the project contingent upon approval of the final plan and specifications from the Water and Sewer Department.
Staff reminded the Board that a Development Plan has not been approved for Phase II of the project and Sections 170-6 and 170-16C(4) of the Subdivision Ordinance prohibit land disturbing, improvement or construction activity in conjunction with development of a subdivision until a Development Plan has been approved. They also recommended eliminating the requirement for tamper proof tops on hydrants; County fire departments do not normally carry the special wrench for tamper proof tops.
Plaque Presentation by the American Cancer Society
During its Relay for Life on June 8 and 9 of 2001, the American Cancer Society presented Chairman Moyer with a plaque to thank the citizens of Henderson County for their support. Chairman Moyer asked that the plaque be presented to the full Board of Commissioners during a meeting and local representatives of the American Cancer Society be present at the meeting to do so.
Two Cooperative Extension employees have recently received awards from the North Carolina Association of County Agricultural Agents as follows:
Bill Skelton - Awarded the Distinguished Service Award (State winner)
Marvin Owings - Awarded the Communications Award (Video/TV State winner)
The Board of Commissioners was requested to approve a draft resolution for Trend Community Health Services concerning their accreditation. A copy of the resolution is attached as a part of these minutes.
Chairman Moyer reminded the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
1. Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee - 1 vac.
Upon questioning, Amy Brantley informed the Board that Elaine Seiden has resigned her position on this Board. Her resignation was not received in time to make it to ANotification of Vacancies@ for this meeting. The Board had also received a letter from Barbara Sherman, wishing to serve on this Board. Commissioner Hawkins placed Ms. Sherman=s name in nomination and made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint her to position #12. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
2. Mountain Area Workforce Development Board - 2 vac.
Chairman Moyer placed Wanda McFadden=s name in nomination as a Chamber of Commerce recommendation for position #1 (a Chamber of Commerce position). Chairman Moyer called for a vote and the vote was unanimous for Ms. McFadden.
3. Equalization & Review - 3 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
There was some discussion of the Board accelerating their efforts in getting nominations for this Board. It was suggested that letters be written to the Board of Realtors, Banks, Car Dealerships and the Chamber of Commerce soliciting some qualified persons with appraisal experience for this committee.
Chairman Moyer has asked Ms. Brantley to contact Cater Leland who serves as an alternate to see if he would be interested in moving up to a regular position.
4. Retired Senior Volunteer Program Advisory Council - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
5. Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 3 vac.
Commissioner Messer stated that the Board currently has four applications for service on this Council. Chairman Moyer nominated Christine Smith and Alice Allen. Chairman Moyer made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint both nominees to the Council to positions #19 and # 21 respectively. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
6. Henderson County Zoning Board of Adjustment - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
7. Community Child Protection Team - 1 vac.
Chairman Moyer nominated Ms. Savie Underhill to this position. Commissioner Ward made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Ms. Underhill. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
8. Western Carolina Community Action (WCCA) - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
QUARTERLY REPORT - Property Addressing
Rocky Hyder informed the Board that his staff anticipates completing this project by the end of this year. Installation of Arc View in the 911 dispatch center on one station will take place within the next 2 weeks for testing purposes. They have completed Rural Route 2, 3, and 7 in Fletcher. The residents on Rural Route 2 and 3 have been notified, just over 1,600 residents. Rural Route 7 is at the Western District Office in Charlotte at this time going through the approval process before the residents are notified.
Mr. Hyder informed the Board of the Post Office Procedures (a lengthy process) for changing Rural Routes:
$ Address and resolve road names along the Rural Route.
$ Send new addresses and roads to Charlotte for approval by Western NC Postal District.
$ Approved changes are sent to California for entry into postal system database.
$ Residents are notified by the California office.
$ Approximate elapsed time for above: 30 days.
This will insure that the residents are getting the proper service and that they will not be caused to change addresses again.
Mr. Hyder=s staff are currently working on attention areas, attempting to maintain current addresses in all cases. He and his staff take that job very seriously. On Rural Route 2 they changed 270 of 513 street addresses or 53% and on Rural Route 3 they changed 267 of 515 street addresses or 52%. This does not include the rural routes in either case. These are existing street addresses and most of the changes are due to the fact that the road name changed in front of their house.
Mr. Hyder explained that the contractor, 3DI, has a very good approach to this project. They not only drive down the road and work out the address range but they stop along the way and talk to residents, taking time to explain to people why the change is necessary. His staff is still learning as they go, building a foundation for the GIS system and coming up with a usable product that will work well for everyone involved. His staff have to range some roads segment by segment to maintain some addresses and as they go they also do structure location cleanup.
His staff continue to receive requests for addresses across the county at an average of 30 per week. They still have to address new developments for the engineers at Bell South and other utilities and they maintain the street database for Intraldo (formerly SCC), and rectify addressing problems with them as well as continuously update and correct the centerline database.
Mr. Hyder thanked the Board for their understanding and support of this project, stating that completion of this project requires change. A common reaction to change is to resist that change. They have received about 30 phone calls in their office due to the changes in Rural Route 2 and 3 alone, equating that to 1,600 address is about 2% and that tells him that they are doing a pretty good job. This project has many more elements to it than just simply assigning a property address. They feel that they are building a foundation that the 911 system will work with now and in the future. They are also building a foundation for the GIS system and the foundation is important enough to take the time to make sure the foundation is of quality and sound advice.
Rocky Hyder answered some questions from the Board.
Chairman Moyer thanked Rocky and his staff for their work on this project and stressed that the Board wanted to see this project completed this year, stating that if there are any problems to please get back to the Board before the next quarter so problems can be addressed quickly.
Rocky Hyder stated that his staff all know the importance of finishing this project by the end of this year and they plan to sit down with the contractor soon and evaluate whether any additional staff is necessary to expedite this.
David Nicholson again stated that he pledges whatever resources Mr. Hyder needs to get this project complete, stating that this project has been hanging around too long.
David Nicholson introduced Mike Gibbs, who was in the audience. Mr. Gibbs was Captain at the Sheriff=s Department in communications for a number of years. He is now with our contractor on the property addressing project. He is the primary person on the property addressing project in our county, he is very familiar with our community. Having worked in communications previously he realizes the issues with trying to locate people.
Commissioner Gordon expressed appreciation for the quarterly report, stating that it clearly shows the amount of detail that it takes to get these addresses in place. She stated the Board has to be patient and let staff work through the process and she feels comfortable with what staff is doing and appreciates it.
Mr. Hyder stated AIf it=s physically possible for us to accomplish this by the end of the year, we will do that, thank you.@
Hospital Revenue Bonds
Chairman Moyer asked to move this item up in the agenda, as Bill Dunn has been patiently waiting for this item.
Chairman Moyer mentioned a letter from Bill Dunn to himself, which was a part of the agenda packet. The letter was in respect to an issue that has arisen regarding the Articles of Incorporation. The County=s Bond Council has expressed concern as to the certainty of the revenue bonds and their tax-exempt status. This arises because of a term in Article 9 of the Hospital=s Articles regarding what happens to the Corporation=s assets upon dissolution. There are two alternatives in the present Articles which gave them some pause for concern. The Executive Committee for the Hospital Board has approved a modification to the Articles that would apparently satisfy the concern that was raised by the IRS. The members of the Hospital Board of Directors have not been notified of this request, other thanby the members of the Executive Committee which had a meeting last Friday. Mr. Dunn expects to ask the Board of Directors for the Hospital Corporation to approve the amendment at the meeting which was scheduled for the afternoon of July 25.
Once this amendment is approved and filed with the appropriate authority in Raleigh, the hospital=s tax counsel will seek to obtain an expedited private letter ruling pertaining to the hospital corporation=s tax status. They have been informed that this will likely be forthcoming before the bond application is considered by the Local Government Commission (LGC) in September. This process and the timing are acceptable to the county=s bond counsel and will enable the county and the hospital to move forward with the bond issue on the timetable which has been established.
The Executive Committee of the Hospital has asked the Board to approve an amendment to Article 9 of the Articles of Amendment which basically say that the trustees shall transfer, deliver, and convey all of the corporation=s monies, properties, and other assets to the County of Henderson or a governmental entity described under section 115 of the Code created by the County of Henderson for exclusively public purposes.
Chairman Moyer explained that this eliminates the option which said they could be transferred to a successor corporation at the discretion of the hospital. He felt this amendment would give the county better protection than we had before upon any kind of dissolution. There is a need to get this cleared up quickly so the hospital can get a clean opinion with respect to the tax-exempt status of the bonds.
Chairman Moyer made the motion that the Board approve the AResolution Approving Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of Henderson County Hospital Corporation@ as set forth at this meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer stated that this issue actually arises from the set of June 14 minutes which the Board approved earlier today. When the Board had the presentation on June 14, comment was made by the folks from BB&T and was picked up in the minutes that their choice was to probably go with a variable rate for the reasons mentioned but then there was discussion about the ability to fix a portion of that debt service. This led the Board to believe that was an option that was cast in stone. The June 14 minutes clearly state APardee can fix a portion of this if they wish.@ Chairman Moyer stated that the reality of the situation is that this is an option, a possible option. There is no guarantee that the hospital will get the permission to do this or that they may even want to do it at a later date. He stated that this deal must be looked at as a variable rate with a possibility, if the hospital elects and LGC clears it and all the legal issues are worked out, a possibility to fix a portion of the debt service in the future but there is no guarantee or assurance of that.
Update from County Manager on LGC meeting
Mr. Nicholson stated that he met Monday in Raleigh with the staff of the Local Government Commission (LGC). Mr. Dunn, Chairman of the Hospital Board, was at that meeting as was the hospital=s attorney Sharon Alexander, Mr. Nicholson and Jennifer Jackson. At the end of the day they all came away with the understanding that this is a county building. There may be some additional lease issues to be dealt with regarding this. The Commissioners have the ultimate authority to refund those bonds and issue fixed rate bonds if they wish. He told the Board that they could expect to see a lot of this hospital bond issue over the next two months of meetings.
Bill Dunn expressed that he too thought the meeting on Monday went very well. Mark Hyde, the representative from LGC, seemed very receptive to what Henderson County wanted to do and very receptive to moving it along as quickly as possible.
Commissioner Hawkins stated that the bottom line of this issue is that we get to borrow whatever the LGC says we can. Eventually the LGC will give us some options and the Board will have to choose from those.
INFORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Robert Wilson - Mr. Wilson had attended the July 2 Commissioners= meeting and had brought a letter with him concerning a public safety issue on Hwy. #25 North. He did not get to the July 2 meeting in time to be recognized and speak under AInformal Public Comments@ so he gave the Clerk to the Board a copy of his letter and asked her to give a copy to each Commissioner, stating he would be at this meeting to address his letter. Mr. Wilson is a Grimesdale resident.
Mr. Wilson spoke about the asphalt plant being built on Hwy. #25 North and the mess from the plant and the traffic that it would create along that stretch of road. He asked the Board to request NC DOT to erect three signs along that road approaching the asphalt plant from each direction:
1. AAsphalt Plant Ahead@
2. ALoose Gravel Ahead@
3. and a flashing sign reading ATrucks Entering Highway@.
He stated that the public needs to be forewarned of these hazardous conditions.
Chairman Moyer explained that the Board has a Transportation Advisory Committee which has a Safety Subcommittee which looks at issues like this. He has referred Mr. Wilson=s letter to that subcommittee for action. The subcommittee has a number of such requests but will be taking a look at it in due time.
UPDATE REGARDING PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF MACEDONIA CHURCH ROAD
Bobby Jones and L.D. Pace, Deacons of Macedonia Baptist Church, recently submitted a petition requesting that the Henderson County Board of Commissioners request the North Carolina Board of Transportation to abandon from the secondary road system a portion of Macedonia Church Road (SR #1835), which is located north of Saluda. A public input session regarding the petition was held on Monday, July 2, 2001. Following the public input session the Board tabled the petition until a number of issues could be resolved.
David Nicholson reminded the Board that at the Board of Commissioners= meeting on Monday, July 2, 2001, the Commissioners addressed the matter of the proposed abandonment of the southernmost 365 feet of the State-maintained portion of Macedonia Church Road, which was requested by the Deacons of Macedonia Baptist Church. Following public input and discussion among the Commissioners, it was determined that there are a number of issues that must be addressed by Staff, the Petitioners and adjacent owners before the Commissioners could make a recommendation on the matter.
The issues and their current resolution status follow:
1. Have all adjacent landowners been notified of the proposed abandonment, and what are their positions?
All landowners potentially affected by the proposed abandonment as requested by the Petitioners were contacted via mail prior to the public input session on Monday, July 2, 2001. While such landowners were not informed that an additional 210 feet (suggested by NC DOT and Planning Staff) would be considered, adding 210 feet to the proposed abandonment would impact on Mr. Douglas Marshall, who attended the input session. Following the public input session, Staff has worked to reach via telephone those landowners who did not respond to the initial communication, and who did not submit comments at the public input session. To date, Staff had not heard from any other landowners.
2. What concerns have Sheriff George Erwin and EMS Director Thomas Edmundson regarding the proposed abandonment?
In a telephone interview on Tuesday, July 17, 2001, EMS Director Thomas Edmundson stated that while he A...generally opposes the abandonment of any road, but [he has] absolutely no objections to this abandonment because it poses absolutely no public safety or emergency vehicle concerns whatsoever.@ Sheriff Erwin has not yet responded to follow-up inquiries.
3. What implications would the proposed abandonment have upon Mr. Ronald Beach=s access to his property, which is adjacent to Macedonia Baptist Church and which is accessed via Macedonia Church Road?
At the Monday, July 2, 2001 meeting, the Commissioners suggested that the Macedonia Baptist Church take the leadership in developing a document that would set forth an agreement among the parties with regard to this issue. Staff met with Mr. Beach, Mr. Marshall and Deacon Bentley Thomas in the hallway following the public input session and discussed this issue and the one that follows. Based on that meeting and telephone conversations that have followed, it was Staff=s understanding that such an agreement is currently being developed, but does not exist at this time. Staff had scheduled a meeting with the church Deacons, Mr. Beach and Mr. Marshall for Thursday, July 19, 2001 to facilitate the Commissioners= information at such time as one is finalized.
4. What action should be taken upon the suggestion that an additional 210 feet be recommended for abandonment, and what effect would this have on Mr. Doug Marshall=s property, which is adjacent to Macedonia Baptist Church and which is accessed via Macedonia Church road?
When Staff, the Petitioners, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Beach met in the hallway immediately following the July 2, 2001 public input session, the Petitioners stated that abandonment of this additional area would not serve their interests in any way, and Mr. Marshall expressly requested that it not be abandoned. Staff will encourage both parties to communicate their respective positions to the Commissioners in writing. Therefore, it was Staff=s position that this additional 210 feet be dropped from consideration for abandonment altogether, and that the Board of Commissioners consider only the original petition for abandonment (southernmost 365 feet of the State-maintained portion of Macedonia Church Road).
5. Finally, the Commissioners sought further consideration of the question as to whether or not it is in the good of the community to abandon the portion of Macedonia Church Road as proposed by the Petitioners.
The purpose of the proposed abandonment is to avoid the grading and paving, by NC DOT, of the majority of the area into which Macedonia Baptist Church plans to expand its cemetery. It is the position of the Planning Department Staff that, pending resolution of the aforementioned access issues, the proposed abandonment should in no way harm the good of the community. Rather, Staff feels that the proposed abandonment will in fact be of benefit to the community. Churches and their cemeteries are an important spiritual, social, cultural and historical element of life in Henderson County. Church cemeteries in particular provide an important cultural and historical link between Henderson County=s past, present and future, and offer a point of geographic continuity in a time when families and communities are increasingly spatially fragmented. The proposed abandonment would protect the Church=s ability to expand its cemetery, thereby insuring that the community and families that utilize Macedonia Baptist Church and its cemetery can continue to utilize that property as a gathering place both in life and in death.
Staff will keep the Board of Commissioners informed as this matter continues to evolve. Staff suggested that the Commissioners continue to withhold a recommendation on the proposed abandonment until such time as the remaining issues and concerns can be resolved to the Board=s satisfaction, including the presentation of a document clarifying the access to Mr. Beach=s property.
Mr. Nicholson recommended that the Board of Commissioners wait to make a recommendation to the North Carolina Board of Transportation on the proposed abandonment of a portion of Macedonia Church Road until the Board of Commissioners is satisfied that the issues have been resolved and that the Board of Commissioners directed staff to bring the matter back when it is ready for action.
Planner Josh Freeman had spoken to the Sheriff who said there were no concerns from his standpoint.
No action was requested, this was just an update for the Board.
UPDATE ON PENDING ISSUES
This is an effort to keep the lines of communication open. It gives the Chairman an opportunity to bring the Board up to date on issues that occur between meetings. It is also the time to ask for direction so that the Board can develop a public position on current and upcoming topics.
This will also be an opportunity for Commissioners to report on related committee work and assignments.
The topics for discussion at this meeting are as follows:
Based on accounting rules and the opinion of Mr. Greg Allison with the Institute of Government, the release of the Inventory Tax Reimbursement held by the Governor would be considered a Fiscal Year 2002 budgetary event. Therefore, this revenue is considered available for appropriation in the current fiscal year. Since the State=s budget is on a cash basis and its Fiscal Year 2001 Budget was completed on June 30th, this additional revenue would not be recorded as a receivable on the County=s books at June 30, 2001.
Mr. Nicholson informed the Board that we have received the $608,660 that was due Henderson County from the loss of inventory reimbursements from this past April. This was part of the attempt of the State of North Carolina to balance their budget this year. Mr. Nicholson stated that to keep last year=s budget in balance, they actually didn=t pay the reimbursements out of last year=s State Budget. They paid them out of this year=s budget. They are on an interim budget process in Raleigh until they finally adopt the budget. The $93 million from across the entire state, that deficit will show from last year=s state budget to this year=s state budget which increases the amount of revenues that are available. Based on the information Carey McLelland has received from the Local Government Commission as well as the Institute of Government, these funds are actually Fiscal Year 2001-2002 revenue. He reminded the Board that the House and the Senate have both passed a budget, both of which included our reimbursements, however last week when the budget conferees met for the first time to start working on trying to put the budget together they were told they were an additional $176 million in the hole, over and above their original request. The idea was discussed of taking the reimbursements out with a 2 cent sales tax and the Board may wish to take a position on that issue.
Mr. Nicholson stated that the latest Legislative Bulletin from the County Commissioners= Association has the headlines AWindow of Opportunity Closing@ and that=s on the 2 cent sales tax.
Mr. Nicholson posed to the Board that they start the process of looking at the animal shelter. That was a discussion the Board had during the budget process, some monies were put aside toward the building of a new animal shelter. He asked the Board=s approval to start the engineering and architectural work. He would like to start discussions for some consulting assistance. Mr. Tweed has been running that project and working with the staff at the Health Department and the Animal Shelter. Commissioner Hawkins felt that we shouldn=t act until the State adopts their budget.
Chairman Moyer asked the County Manager to get some preliminary data for the Board on building of a new animal shelter, funds needed, etc. He also felt the Board should have a good discussion of the reimbursements and the 2 cent sales tax, a public discussion and take a position as a Board. He asked the County Manager to have these two topics ready for the August 6 meeting.
Hospital Revenue Bonds
As discussed above. This item had been moved out of sequence.
Three of our Commissioners attended the NACo Conference in Philadelphia and were given an opportunity to update the Board regarding that conference.
Commissioner Hawkins stated that it was quite educational to go to Philadelphia, the Cradle of Freedom and see some of the historic sites there. He brought back some information regarding a couple of sessions he attended and had supplied some of the information in the agenda packet. He discussed briefly ADebt Collection@ and a NACo sponsored collection program from a company called Lockheed Martin. This is a company that has been contracted by NACo to deal specifically in collecting governmental debts. A couple of areas he found to be particularly interesting dealt with child support, court fines, and emergency medical services, library fees, tax collection and hospital fees. Property tax is an on-going debt collection program. What they offer to counties is a program of no up-front expense and a percentage of whatever bad debt they collect.
Our Tax Collector=s Office has contracted with an independent firm to try to locate people who owe taxes.
Commissioner Hawkins requested that the County Manager research this and bring back a recommendation to the Board.
Chairman Moyer called a 10 minute technical recess at 10:50 a.m.
Chairman Moyer reconvened the meeting at 11:00 a.m.
QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - Application for a Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Highland Golf Villas
Application #SP-01-03 by Glade Holdings, Inc.
Commissioner Ward made the motion for the Board to go into the Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing (as above). All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer stated that this is an application for a special use permit for a planned unit development for Highland Golf Villas. It is a quasi-judicial proceeding and is much like a court proceeding.
Chairman Moyer explained AWe will have testimony by the applicant petitioner and any other party that has an interest in this can ask to become a party. Only people that have an interest in this will be recognized as a party. So first we=ll identify all parties to the proceeding and the Board acknowledges the petitioner, Mr. Campano ... and Luther Smith. Are there any other persons present who can demonstrate that they will be affected by the outcome and would like to be a party to this proceeding?@
Karen C. Smith, Planning Director asked to be a party to the proceeding as county staff.
L.C. James Kingsberry, owns property adjacent to the golf course, just across the creek from the fourth green. He asked to be a party to the proceeding. He lives at 319 Mockingbird Drive.
Kerry Lindsey, adjoining property owner, asked to be a party to the proceeding.
All parties to the proceeding came forward and were sworn in by the Clerk to the Board (above five parties listed).
Chairman Moyer asked Karen Smith to begin with staff=s overview of the project.
Karen Smith - AGood morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. Today=s hearing is on Highland Golf Villas Planned Unit Development. The project is proposed for property located on the north side of Highland Lake Road between the Northfolk Southern Railroad Line and Highland Lake Golf Club. The subject property contains approximately 20.31 acres and is comprised of parcels owned by Course Doctors Incorporated, Split Rail Investments, and Home & Golf Builders, L.L.C. which all together those properties encompass approx. 81 acres. The property is currently zoned R-20 by the county, on the monitor right now. The large blue area in the center of the light blue is the R-20 district and this property would be along the railroad line on the east - let me try to point that out on the monitor. The planned unit development as proposed consists of 44 single family dwellings, detached units on individual lots and the lots are approximately 6,000 square feet in size. The applicant is using a zero lot line or >patio home= concept for the development. There will be approx. 13.47 acres of open space provided. This open space does include roadways. A private road will serve the project. The project will also be served by public water and public sewer from the City of Hendersonville systems. The Board of Commissioners referred this application to the Planning Board on June 4, 2001 for review and the Planning Board met on June 26, 2001 and voted to send the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation which I=ll present later as evidence. The Planning Staff followed the procedures for public notice for this hearing. We published legal ads in the Times News on July 10 and July 17, 2001. We sent notices of the hearing via certified mail to the applicant, the owners of the subject properties, the owners of adjacent properties and then also to several other owners in the vicinity. We also posted the property with signs advertising the hearing on July 10, 2001 and as I said I will raise the Planning Board comments a little later. And I am gonna give Mr. Kingsberry and Mr. Lindsey a copy of this packet that you have for reference.@
Chairman Moyer - AThank you, Karen, we will now - the way this will work in the quasi-judicial we will now receive evidence starting with the petitioner, then we=ll go to staff as Karen indicated where she=ll put additional evidence on the record and then we=ll go to the additional parties, in this case Mr. Kingsberry, to put any evidence on that he would like to present. After the petitioner, staff and Mr. Kingsberry in each case gives their evidence the other parties - first the Board then the other parties have the right to ask them questions. That=s not the time to make statements, that=s only the time to ask questions of the other party with respect to things they=ve said. When you give your evidence that=s the time to make your statements and your arguments with respect to the issues. We will start with the petitioner and that=s Mr. Campano from Glade Holdings and Luther Smith, their agent. So who=s gonna start, Gus or Luther?@
Luther Smith - AMy name is Luther Smith, I=m a landscape architect and planner here in Hendersonville and we represent Glade Holdings and Development of Highland Golf Villas. If I could instead of the blueprint@ C he placed a Master Plan on the easel for the Board to see. AWhat the applicant has requested is a planned unit development or special use permit for a planned unit development on approximately 20.3 acres. This land is a portion, as Karen indicated, of approximately 80 acres that is currently known as Highland Lake Golf Club. For those of you that are familiar with the area, you=re coming from 176/Upward Road intersection down this way, crossing the railroad tracts and the entrance to the golf club there is right as you cross the tracts. A wooded area as you can see to the north of the golf course, bounded by the golf course and the railroad tracks is the proposed development area. We=re requesting approval for 44 single family lots, approximately 6,000 square feet, zero lot line concept and that allows us to leave about 13 acres of the property or roughly 55 or 60% as undisturbed open area. You can see by the plan that the, of course all the lots are pushed towards the golf course to take advantage of the golf course view. The first tier of lots against the golf course are for the most part low and relatively flat. The second tier - there are several, two or three ridges that go up towards the railroad track so in order for those homes to be able to view the golf course what we=ve done in terms of - or what we=re proposing in terms of parking - you see a second street that sorta parallels the main street, that=s an alley. So cars will be able to come up there, park in their garages from the back side basically of the house so when you come out the living space still looks out over the golf course. The main road is set up as a collector road under the county=s subdivision ordinance, the alley is set up to be about 16 feet wide and it does have, of course, emergency turn-arounds at the end. The project will be served by city water and city sewer and the blow up that you see in the upper part of the drawing - when we were talking to the Planning Board there was some question about our request for set backs - the lots. We=re requesting two foot on the front, two foot on the rears, zero on one side, and ten foot on the other side. That allows, as you can see in the little blow up there, for the units to be pushed all the way to one side and have a yard space to the other side that=s a minimum of ten feet in width. These units represent what would occur on the downhill side of the street so the garages do come off the main street whereas off the alley you can see all the garages coming from the back of the unit. The other thing in addition to the parking that=s associated with the garages and the driveways, along the main road we=ve allowed for on-street parking as well, parallel on-street parking for guests and so forth. One of the questions that again was of interest to the Planning Board and that we began to address early on with the Department of Transportation is the entrance. I know if any of you are real familiar with the area you know that the existing entrance is a little difficult, particularly as you come across the tracks, it sorta drops off to the right. I was out there again this morning as a matter of fact with Ed Green, D.O.T., looking at exactly what we need to do to get good visibility so - of the entire entrance. What is planned at this point is we=re going to split the entrance so that you have an incoming lane or inbound lane close to the railroad in approximately the same area that the existing road is except the grade will be brought up level with the - with Highland Lake Road and then tapered down so you won=t have that drop-off and then further down towards the #1 tee as you start around the curve, there=s a clump of large trees there, the exit lane will come between those large oak trees in the road. That gives us fairly good visibility. One of the other issues that they suggested we try to address is how to cut down the sumac and stuff that=s growing up on the railroad track way on the other side to obviously increase the visibility but they feel that at this point until we get the working drawings that this particular entrance layout will create a much better situation than what we currently have there. I=ll be happy to answer any specific questions members of the Board have. Mr. Campano is here as well and he can address any particular questions you may have.@
Chairman Moyer - AMr. Hawkins@
Commissioner Hawkins - AI had just a couple as I was trying to go through all your paperwork here. The first one was I had a difficulty determining what lot 44 looked like. It looked like it kinda got chopped off on the end down in - what does that look like and does it meet the 6,000.@
Luther Smith - AIt meets the 6,000 square feet. The line that=s the back of lot 44 - you can also see lot 28 I guess it is also kinda cut off - that=s railroad right-of-way coming through there. So we don=t want to extend ... into their right-of-way. Yes that lot does meet the 6,000 square feet - it goes into this wooded area up near the creek. It will take in a little - I mean - they have several different kinds of house plans for different lots and it may take a little variation on one plan to get it to work on that particular lot but.@
Commissioner Hawkins - AThe other question I had dealt with really your entrance over the railroad track and I know we have a lot of trouble with - not trouble but a lot of conversation with the railroad in the Naples area for crossing. Is there a plan to be lights, signals, what is going to occur there? Is it just everybody will come across the railroad track or?@
Luther Smith - AWell now, we don=t - our entrance doesn=t actually cross the railroad track.@
Commissioner Hawkins - AIt doesn=t actually cross it?@
Luther Smith - ANo, the railroad track is coming along here as you come from the Spartanburg Highway you cross the railroad track and right as you cross it the entrance to the golf course and this development would be on your right.@
Commissioner Hawkins - ASo that would be just right on the top of the hill there where Highland Lake crosses the railroad track.@
Luther Smith - ARight@
Commissioner Hawkins - AAnd, then you won=t be crossing it any at all?@
Luther Smith - AWe won=t be crossing the tracks or modifying that area at all.@
Commissioner Hawkins - AThank you.@
Commissioner Messer - AYou have approximately 13 2 acres of open space that=s pretty much around the proposed development. Is this open space going to be public access? Is it going to be walking trails or is it gonna be - you know how=s it gonna be pertaining to these people living in here.@
Luther Smith - ANow Mr. Campano will be able to address that in more detail but generally I can say it probably won=t be for public access if you mean the general public. It will be available to the people that live here, live in the development. Generally, their developments do include some trail systems and so forth through the property. In addition to the perimeter, we=ve tried to break the lots up into some groups so that you have little park areas, you know, between blocks of lots as well. In terms of specific amenities, I don=t believe there are any planned at this point simply because it=s in association with the golf course amenity. I think they have some long-term plans but Mr. Campano can answer that probably in a little more detail.@
Commissioner Hawkins - AI had one other question.@
Commissioner Messer - AWhat kind of a, I guess ballpark price range are these, is this development going to be?@
Luther Smith - AI=ll defer that because ...@
Chairman Moyer - AMr. Hawkins@
Commissioner Hawkins - AAnd I, Luther you may have this or someone else but I went through here and I tried to find out just because of our recent experiences with PUDs on the parameters that were set up for transferring common areas to Homeowners. I was unclear when I finished here. Is somebody going to cover that or can you cover it as to how that or what that lashup is.@
Luther Smith - AWell I believe the draft of the homeowners documents cover that but again I=d defer that to Mr. Campano.@
Commissioner Hawkins - AIf he would cover that, I read through them and I wasn=t sure when I finished reading them what I had read.@
Luther Smith - AGenerally they are transferred towards the end of the project but I=m sure he can address that in more detail.
Commissioner Hawkins - AOK@
Chairman Moyer - AAre there any of the charts that=s you=ve used that are now part of the record that have not be made available to everybody else. Is this part of the - these are different than the package?@
Luther Smith - ANo these are the same - this one the blow up you have in your package, the 11" x 17" and I believe you have an 11" x 17" of the blow up of@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright, so they=re the same. There=s no change in them.@
Luther Smith - AYes, and this one should have been a part of the information.@
Chairman Moyer - ASo the road entrance as shown there is what we have?@
Luther Smith - AYes, we sent a package over a week or two ago that had additional plans in it that represent these three plans.@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright, Mr. Kingsberry or Mr. Lindsey, do you have any questions for Mr. Smith? Come up and direct your questions to Mr. Smith.@
Mr. Kingsberry - AI had a couple of questions. I noticed in your project conditions you state that there=s no set back on the side of the house. Does this mean that if I own a house here and I have windows on that side, I have to stand on my neighbor=s property to wash my windows or do any service on that side of the house, number one question. Number two question, I notice in your open space you=ve included land that goes to the center of the railroad tracks. Does your company own that land? Do you have rights to the land? And do you consider it safe for people to use that as open space? Those are the first two questions that I have.@
Luther Smith - AI=ll try to address those. With regards to the house, the side of the house that sits on the property line doesn=t have any windows in it at all. That=s part of the building code requirements that it has to be without windows because it is right on the property line.@
Mr. Kingsberry - ABut it still requires painting and service, correct.@
Luther Smith - AThat=s correct and they generally and Mr. Campano can probably address this specifically in the documents but generally there=s an easement that you have the right to maintain your house and that sort of stuff on that lot.@
Mr. Kingsberry - AWill that be written in every contract?@
Luther Smith - AWell, I=ll let you defer your question to him when he comes up. With regard to your question on the open space. The property goes to the center of the railroad track and the way the county zoning ordinance looks at open space its basically land that=s not sold to somebody is considered open space. No the center of the railroad track is probably not going to be a good walking - you know walking path and place for people but it is part of the general open space of the property that homes are not being built on. Any other questions?@
Chairman Moyer - AMr. Lindsey, do you have any questions at this time?@
Mr. Lindsey - ANo thank you.
Chairman Moyer - AAny other questions from any of the Board, if not we=ll hear from Mr. Campano.@
Luther Smith - AThank you@
Mr. Campano - AHello, thank you, I=m Gus Campano, President of Glade Holdings and I=m not going to - I think Luther did a good job of explaining it so I=m not going to repeat any of it. What I=m going to do is just kinda sum up what some of the - try to answer some of the questions that came up. A common area, we do allow - the way this property is situated you actually have golf course around all the sides except where the railroad track is at and then at the entrance so all the common areas are accessible to everybody in the community. They are not public areas but they are accessible to the entire community. The common areas as far as it being turned over, we do deed the property, all the common areas over to the homeowners association. There is a legal homeowners association that is set up similar to our other communities and at a certain number of sales the entire property does get deeded over the common areas and is owned by the homeowners association so it=s not a case where the developer - you know- tries to keep it and deals with lease holds or anything else of the sort. It=s owned by them, they will take care of it, they have the access to it. They=ll actually put together their own rules and regulations as to how it=s used. And to give you a feel for the pricing, it=s gonna be a price similar to Duncraggon, if you=re familiar with one of our other projects. They=ll generally start off in the $120s and the standard units will go from the $120s into the low $150s and then basically options and upgrades will vary a little bit obviously and depending on the location, golf frontage and views, and everything else. But that=s the general price range of the standard homes out there. Regarding the windows on the sides of the house. Again it=s zero lot line concept, it=s not a new concept, it=s been in use for a couple of decades now in a lot of other communities and has been in use in Hendersonville and Henderson County quite a bit as well. We have several other projects with it and it functions very well. You do have a - property on the zero lot line side is a solid wall. You have windows on the other house opening to it so that you do have privacy between the units to a very large degree despite the small lot concept. There are easements which are put in place, they are part of the association documents and they are part of the deed that goes over as refers to them that gives access in maintenance and drainage easement for the house next door to be able to maintain their unit and to have drainage on that side and everything else. So it=s all covered in the legalities of it again. It=s a very tested and proven concept and then regarding the land. Yes we do own to the center of the tract, obviously it=s included in that area. No we don=t expect to put anything on the center of the tract but we do own to that property line and the common area nonetheless I think with or without it is we have an extensive amount of common area that were included with this concept. One of the nice things about this small lot concept that we have used is that you are able to preserve a lot of green open common area and in fact - you know- this property does follow through with that. If you=ve got any other questions for me?@
Chairman Moyer - AJust stay there for a minute. Does the Board have questions for Mr. Campano? Mr. Kingsberry, do you have any questions? Mr. Lindsey, do you have any questions for Mr. Campano at this time? We can always address something later if something comes up. Thank you Mr. Campano.@
Mr. Campano - AThank you.@
Chairman Moyer - AWe=ll now move to staff=s presentation of their evidence.@
Karen Smith distributed copies of the Planning Board=s recommendation from it=s June 26, 2001 meeting. Karen Smith - AWhile this seems like it=s a long list of conditions that are being proposed, a lot of these are very standard conditions that would be in our subdivision . . . ordinance. The Planning Board met on June 26, 2001 as I said and reviewed the plans for Highland Golf Villas and heard from myself as well as the representatives of the applicants and voted eight to zero to send the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation subject to certain recommended conditions. What I was going to do is just read you what the proposed condition is - below each of those stated conditions is some additional information that may have explained why the Planning Board got to that point or that refers to some information that was included in the application materials. Attached to this document is a set of minutes and they are draft minutes because the Planning Board meeting isn=t until next Tuesday so I have included the draft set of minutes with the memo that the Planning Board had in hand, if you need to refer to that.
The first recommended condition has to do with ownership - The Planning Board recommends that the subject parcel should be under single ownership or management by the applicant before project construction begins or proper assurances such as legal title or execution of a binding sales agreement should be provided to the Henderson County Planning Department that the developer can successfully complete the project. And this is a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance.@
The second condition has to do with density - There was a question about the preliminary survey that was included with the application materials and the amount of acreage shown for the project compared to other application materials. The application requests 44 units and depending on which materials you=re looking at it could be 43 or 44. The applicant has asked that we allow this to await a final survey of the property and so the Planning Board recommended a maximum number of units allowed 43 or 44 be based on the acreage of the property as determined by final survey.
The next condition has to do with the distance between buildings - The Planning Board recommended that the minimum separation between buildings be reduced to ten feet as long as the construction of adjacent walls conforms with the N.C. Building Codes and that the area between buildings remains open and unobstructed. This is also a condition that the developer requested and the ordinance gives the Planning Board the authority to recommend that it be reduced to ten feet.
Condition number four has to do with perimeter requirements - The Planning Board recommended that all residential units, accessory structures and property owners association primary amenity and service structures be no closer than twenty feet from the outside boundary of the property. In addition, all structures shall meet the thirty foot setback from . . . streams required by the subdivision ordinance.
Fifth is a standard condition that the applicant submit documentation regarding water and sewer systems, that they have been designed by a professional engineer and that such systems have been approved by the appropriate local and state authorities.
Parking is also something the Planning Board raised and I think this comes up in another condition a little later - if there is going to be a temporary sales office and or a temporary construction office built, sufficient parking in accordance with section 200-40 of the Zoning Ordinance would need to be provided and the same would apply for any future structures for recreation, they would have to also comply with section 200-40 and I believe at the Planning Board level the applicant did indicate that they would like to do a temporary sales office and a construction office.
The entrance/exit should be designed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Board and explained by Luther Smith at the June 26, 2001 Planning Board meeting. That is the same plan that Mr. Smith presented to you a few moments ago, the blow-up of the entrance.
Regarding maintenance - and this is right out of the Zoning Ordinance - the County Attorney or Assistant County Attorney must approve the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Highland Golf Villas, the Articles of Incorporation of Highland Golf Villas and Homeowners Association Inc. and the By-laws of Highland Golf Villas Homeowners Association as to form and the Board of Commissioners also under the Zoning Ordinance has to approve those same documents. You did have those included in your packet.
Number nine is emergency services - The HUD section of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the applicant provide documentation from Henderson County Emergency Medical Services Department and the Fire Chief of Blue Ridge Fire and Rescue regarding the adequacy of the proposed facilities for emergency medical and fire services.
Pertaining to erosion control - The applicant must submit documentation of approval of the erosion control plans for the project.
Number eleven is listed as a condition but it was really something that the Planning Board had authority over because this project was also reviewed as a subdivision before the Planning Board on June 26 and the condition is that as a planned unit development the project shall be reviewed as a non-standard subdivision.
Number twelve has to do with the setbacks and those are the setbacks that were requested by the applicant and so the Planning Board recommends that the setbacks for the project be established at 27 feet from the center of the right-of-way for front, 2 feet for the rear, 10 feet for the side and zero feet for the side.
The applicant did request the ability to construct model homes and the Planning Board discussed this issue with the applicant in order to learn what different types of homes - the applicant wanted to do six and the Planning Board asked them to confirm that there would be six different styles. The applicant said that there would be so the Planning Board recommended a condition that construction of up to six different model homes is allowed on unplatted lots concurrent with the development of project infrastructure provided that the applicant informs the Planning Department of the locations of the model homes, demonstrates that the infrastructure to serve each model has been completed or bonded in accordance with the plans for the special use permit, and obtains zoning permits for each model from the Zoning Administrator prior to obtaining building permits for the units.
Number fourteen regarding a sales office and number fifteen regarding a construction office are very similar to number thirteen. Applicant requested the ability to do a sales office and the Planning Board recommended that a sales office be allowed until 95% of all units in the project have been sold and again provided that we know where the location is and that they get their zoning permit and that they provide temporary parking spaces for such sales office.
Construction office - again if the applicant intends to do a temporary construction office the Planning Board recommended that be allowed again for the same conditions that the Planning Department be notified of the location and that they obtain zoning permits and they provide necessary temporary parking.
And the final condition recommended by the Planning Board has to do with recreational structures and I think that this is something that Mr. Smith kind of addressed a moment ago that they don=t necessarily know if they=re going to do any specific recreational amenities but if they do plan such amenities the Planning Board recommended that the location and construction of the structures to be owned by the Property Owners Association be approved by the Planning Department, provided the applicant notifies us of the location of the structures and obtains the appropriate zoning permits.
Staff did just have a few additional comments to add to that - the Planning Board did not indicate and I failed to ask them to indicate a timeframe for when some of these conditions should be satisfied and we have or I have provided you with a suggested condition if you would like to consider it that they satisfy the conditions on: 1. ownership,
2. density requirements
9. emergency services, and
10. erosion control
prior to beginning construction of the project and that any improvements related to the project before they construct and shall satisfy conditions:
5. water and sewer plans and
prior to recording the final plats for lots in the project.
And some of these relate to their subdivision approval and when they would be allowed to record a final plat anyway but this basically ties the sets of plans together. And finally, this is just a reminder as a result of the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that were adopted on May 16, 2001 related to Open Use, there were some additional general site standards added to the special use permit review, they=re in your packet on those green pages but I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of them because your order will have to address those. And finally, I would just add that if - while there seem to be a number of outstanding issues the applicant should be able to satisfy most of these through their subdivision application as well for their special use permit.
Any questions of me?@
Chairman Moyer - AIn the staff comment # 1- the timeframes, have you discussed those with the petitioner. Are they satisfactory?@
Karen Smith - AI have not, I have not discussed. This is the first time - I=m presenting them as evidence so. That would be something that the applicant would agree to them or . . . A
Chairman Moyer - AWell, I=ll say to the petitioner we=ll be asking or I=ll be asking you to respond to those in a few moments. Do we have any additional comments for Karen?@
Angela Beeker - AKaren, on your review of the application, except as stated in this memo, does the application meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?@
Karen Smith - AI believe it does, yes.@
Chairman Moyer - ADoes the petitioner have any questions for staff at this time?@
Petitioner - Indicated that they did not.
Chairman Moyer - AMr. Kingsberry, do you have any questions for staff?@
Mr. Kingsberry - AYes. I guess the only other concern I have, has anybody done an impact study about the traffic on Highland Lake Road. I understand there=s been talk of widening it because of excess traffic already and now we=re adding 44 more families in this area. Has there been any kind of impact study concerning the use of that road?@
Chairman Moyer - AI=ll let Karen respond and then I=ll respond.@
Karen Smith - AThe Planning Department has not done any impact study. We do ask the NC Department of Transportation for comments whenever we do special use permits in subdivisions and at the time the only comments we received and I do have a copy of that letter if you=d like it or the memo from DOT is that they need to apply to DOT for a driveway permit and the other is also a standard condition . . . but they did not address traffic or any type of traffic analysis. I was told by DOT, this was verbally and you can consider this or not, that at one time when the Highland Lakes project was under development or at the beginning of the Highland Lakes project that there was some discussion about a need for a turn lane on Highland Lake Road but I believe there was a traffic engineer who was brought in who was able to demonstrate that there was not a need for one and so DOT did not raise that in this instance.@
Chairman Moyer - AI will also add that a specific traffic impact study was not done on this road but the county now is in the midst of a thoroughfare plan study for all of its roads which involve traffic counts and a study of which roads are overcrowded, which ones are not, and we will be in the process of the remainder of this year of evaluating that data and working with the state to come up with the thoroughfare plan to see where our problems are and where they are not and what we should do about that but the answer to your question on this particular application, no specific study to my knowledge has been done. I would note I asked the County Attorney for - I believe Mr. Lindsey has left. I don=t see him so I - do I need to show for the record that as a party I believe he left at the beginning of staff=s testimony and is not now here to ask questions or respond or to present additional evidence so I=ll ask that the record so indicate.@
One of the parties to the proceeding - Mr. Kerry Lindsey had left the meeting (see above).
Chairman Moyer - AThe next, the only other party remaining then is Mr. Kingsberry. Mr. Kingsberry you=ve had an opportunity to ask questions. Do you have any evidence, now this is, do you have any evidence that you want to put on the record, not ask questions but present evidence?@
Mr. Kingsberry - ANo sir.@
Chairman Moyer - AOK. I=ll go back to the. You can have rebuttal evidence by petitioner and I would like the petitioner to specifically address any of these comments from staff that were made if they so desire and the time table if that would work. Mr. Campano.@
Mr. Campano - AThe only comment I have is looking at the time table, we have no objections to the times that staff has placed on here or for us to meet those time table requirements.@
Chairman Moyer - AOK. Do you have any other evidence that you would like to put on now based on anything you=ve heard at this hearing?@
Mr. Campano - ANo, I have no new evidence.@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright. Does the Board have any, before we go to closing comments, does the Board have any additional questions for anybody? County Attorney, do you have any?@
Angela Beeker - ANo sir, I don=t have any questions.@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright. Then appropriate to move and as part of again the quasi-judicial proceeding all parties now have a petition, have an opportunity to make closing remarks. It is not necessary if you=re satisfied with the record, everything can sit as it stands right now and I=ll ask each of the parties. Petitioner, do you have any closing remarks that you would like to make, either you or Luther at this time?@
The petitioner indicated that he did not.
Chairman Moyer - AStaff, do you have any closing remarks?@
Staff indicated that they did not.
Chairman Moyer - AMr. Kingsberry, the only additional party that remains, do you have any closing remarks that you would like to make at this time?@
Mr. Kingsberry started to speak.
Chairman Moyer - APlease come to the microphone.@
Mr. Kingsberry - AAre these just personal comments that I can make concerning this?@
Chairman Moyer - AYou go ahead and I=ll see, I=ll give you as much liberty as I can.@
Mr. Kingsberry - AOK. Well obviously the concern that I have is owning property near this area. I=m concerned about my property value but beyond that I also moved here from California because I wanted property that had surrounding area and I have lived in places where the distance between houses was ten feet and fortunately in California I think they were smart enough to have ten feet on both sides but I find - certainly I would ask that when you build the model homes you space them ten feet so the people looking at the models get an idea of what they=re really going to live in instead of having a model on a half acre and the house that they buy ten foot from their neighbor and no easement or no property on one side of the house. To me that means the neighbor can put anything that he wants to on that property basically up against your house almost, plant any kind of plants or shrubs or whatever and I=ve been through that in California where I had my neighbors trees dropping olives and all kinds of stuff on my property which plainly I had to clean up and there=s nothing I could do about it except chop off half of his tree and make it look ridiculous so. My only concern is the value of these properties, I haven=t heard what size they=re going to be, if they=re going to have basements, if there=s any construction facilitation for the vibration that=s gonna take place because of the tracks. I=m also aware of cracked concrete and things like that. In California we have these problems and I don=t know if there=s any onus on the builder to do any compacting of the soil or slab protection, extra reinforcement to protect against the vibration that=s gonna happen but I guess that=s a caveat loop door for whoever buys the property, certainly it would be a concern if I were gonna buy a property there. But my main concern is I think you are deluding the property values of all the people who have homes on .08 and .09 acres in that area to see a tract go in like this with homes sitting so close to each other you can almost reach out the window and touch your neighbor. That was my concern when I came and I understand that obviously I=m a minority in my residential area >cause none of my neighbors are here but it=s still a concern that I have and if anything can be done to not make this look like a bunch of tract homes that are stacked on top of each other like a deck of cards, then I=m all for it and I realize legally that I probably don=t have any leg to stand on but I=ve had my day in court and I thank you for that.@
Chairman Moyer - AWell we appreciate having you here. Mr. Kingsberry, we have a question for you from Commissioner Messer.@
Commissioner Messer - AIn location to where you=re at, I know you know about the golf course and everything because I have played it quite a few times. You say you live on the fourth hole, you=re across the creek, am I right?@
Mr. Kingsberry - ARight across the creek from the fourth green.@
Commissioner Messer - ASo all those houses on that borderline have the creek, then the golf course, then the housing development that they=re proposing to build, am I right. In other words you have the houses, the creek, then the golf course, then their property?@
Mr. Kingsberry - ABut I=m buying the lot next to me which backs up to the creek and if I look out the back of that lot, I=m gonna look right straight across the golf course at a whole row of houses, the back end of a whole row of houses so all I=ve got is whatever is the fifth hole and the sixth hole greens or fairways and then I=m gonna see rows of houses that I call them stacked like cordwood so.@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright, thank you. Mr. Campano or Mr. Smith, do you wish to make any comments in response to that or not?@
Mr. Campano - AYeh. I=ll try to make it real quick for the sake of brevity. We=ve done very similar products in the community. The market has responded very well to them. They have not dropped any values anywhere, in fact, most of the neighborhoods have actually gotten better as we do these products. It works well. It=s not a lifestyle for everybody but not everybody wants to own an acre on their property. There are those people who like the community and who like having a small lot that they can use but at the same time have a maintenance-free lifestyle and this is what this is targeted for. Like I said, I think you just need to take a look at our past history and our past record and see the other things we=ve done in the community to recognize the fact that this will become a positive and not a negative in the neighborhood. That=s basically it, thank you.@
Chairman Moyer - AThank you.@
Commissioner Messer - AI=ve got one question.@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright, Mr. Campano.@
Commissioner Messer - AFrom number two all the way down to number six green I guess it is, there is a lot of big trees and vegetation. Those things, none of that stuff will be interfered with will it? You know, down that creek side between the golf course and these people=s homes?@
Mr. Campano - AWe are not gonna be touching anything that is not on this property and there is golf course around the entire property except where the railroad track is at and where Highland Lake Boulevard is at so anything on the golf course we=re not doing, I mean the golf course, we=re working this in cooperation with the golf course, they=re involved with us. You know, it=s a community, it=s a golf front community. We=re doing the entrance together and everything else but we=re not actually involved with doing anything else out of the golf course at all, that=s strictly Golf Course Doctors, you know and as far as I=m aware of they have no intent to touch any large trees on the golf course, quite to the contrary. I think they=ve been adding a whole lot of trees on the golf course and have been doing a lot of improvements on the golf course and this is really intended to spur that. Again, it=s related in many ways. It=s two separate deals but it is related. They are involved with us and they=re gonna be doing a lot of improvements in the front area with us. I think they were here recently for some of those improvements in the front end with us as part of this whole concept of what we=re trying to do to improve the community with the golf course.@
There was some informal discussion concerning the golf course and how it plays, etc.
Chairman Moyer - AAlright, County Attorney, do you have anything that we need to get on the record before we close the record?@
Angela Beeker - AI was just going to say if you have any questions, Mr. Nicholson is very familiar with the golf course and with the creeks and with taking a dip in the creek.@
Chairman Moyer - AI=m sure he is. Alright, now that the evidence has been presented and closing remarks concluded, it would be appropriate for the Commissioners to discuss the issues that have been presented. We can either vote today and direct staff to bring back findings of fact and conclusions consistent with a decision and the Board=s discussion or we can continue our discussion and decision until a later day; however, the Board must make a written decision within 45 days of the conclusion of this hearing. So I=ll open it for discussion among the Commissioners.@
Commissioner Ward - AMr. Chair, the only thing I have to say on this is it=s pretty clearcut. I think the petitioner has met all the legal requirements of the County Ordinances. I think he=s also met the requirements of public health and safety on the State and County level and he=s also consented to the Planning Board=s time table of construction so I=ll yield my time to the rest of the Commissioners.@
Chairman Moyer - AMr. Messer.@
Commissioner Messer - AI also agree with Commissioner Ward. Personally I think that I really can=t see why this property hasn=t been in some kind of development like this a long time ago >cause this, I mean it=s been a valuable piece of property for a long time. I know the lawyers and stuff can go back and I really think you know the set backs and so forth but I also understand that that=s the way a lot of development is done in certain situations such as golf courses etc. and just like you said you present it to the Planning Board, they made a unanimous decision and like Mr. Ward stated everything is up and I think it would be just another step for Henderson County.@
Chairman Moyer - ACommissioner Gordon, do you have any comments at this time?@
Commissioner Gordon - AWell, interestingly enough I lived at, I believe the address was 310 Mockingbird Drive once upon a time so I=m very familiar with the area and the way the subdivision sits in relationship to this and I truly think with the vegetation that=s there, I don=t see this as being a problem. I think we have to note that water and sewer now is available where it had not previously been available and I think in order to get the benefit of that sewer we have to look at developments such as this. I think it=s consistent with what is being done around there. So I see this as really a cut and dry kind of decision and I think we should follow the Planning Board=s recommendation.@
Chairman Moyer - AMr. Hawkins, do you have any additional comments?@
Commissioner Hawkins - AReally just a couple. I think one of the - certainly one of the things that was part of the Zoning Ordinance in the PUD part of it was the intent by the Board was to allow some flexibility in how you go about developing land and I think that - I think that this application is doing some of that, a little different than the normal cookie cutter and so that part=s fine. I guess the only area that I really had any concern about and I don=t know if the County Attorney picks this up in form approval but having had the difficulty that we had with a previous PUD on the open area, I would hope that that=s adequately addressed in here. I looked for it in laymen=s term and I came up a little short but aside from that aspect of it and I don=t know if that=s part of your review process and uh because we got into Register of Deeds and a whole bunch of legal recording that caused us some trouble and I hope that=s been adequately addressed in here. Again, I couldn=t find it.@
Angela Beeker - AI have not reviewed them yet but.@
Commissioner Hawkins - AThat would be something and that is part of the conditions here so I think that would be my only concern.@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright, then I would move that we approve the special use permit application for Highland Golf Villas Planned Unit Development and that we have findings of fact consistent therewith brought back by the County Attorney and conclu - findings and conclusions that incorporate the recommendations suggested by staff and approved by the Planning Board and in addition that we add the time frame and the general site standards, particularly the time frames that were suggested by staff and approved by the petitioner. Do you need anything else in there, County Attorney?@
Angela Beeker - AI don=t think so.@
Chairman Moyer - AAny further discussion? All in favor of that motion say aye. Alright, it passes unanimously. And I will move that we go out of the quasi-judicial public hearing. All in favor say aye. OK, we=re out of.@
Mr. Nicholson requested the Board go into Cane Creek at this time.
CANE CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT (CCWSD)
Commissioner Hawkins made the motion for the Board to adjourn as Henderson County Board of Commissioners and convene as Cane Creek Water & Sewer District Board. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer made the motion for the Board to adjourn as Cane Creek Water & Sewer District Board and to reconvene as the Henderson County Board of Commissioners. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
HUMAN SERVICES BUILDING - Architect=s Contract
As directed by the Board, the County Manager and County Attorney have been working with Freeman-White Architects in negotiating a contract for the work that is to be done on the Human Services Building. That contract is currently under final revision with the draft to be available prior to the Board=s meeting on July 25, 2001.
Angela Beeker has been working on a new AIA contract. We assumed that Freeman-White would just accept our old contract with everything that had been worked out before but they took this as an opportunity to renegotiate this whole agreement. Hours have been spent renegotiating this contract that is about ten years old. Staff will continue with the project and hopefully give the Board an update at the next meeting.
Angela Beeker distributed the contract to the Board, stating that she literally got the last draft off the fax machine about an hour ago. She did not ask for Board action at this meeting. Even though it is a complete renegotiation, it is based on the contract that we have had with Freeman-White. The contract we originally had with them had been changed so that it was very one-sided pro Henderson County and they wanted to equalize the balance some to make it more fair to both sides. She particularly asked the Board to look at the description of the project on the first page that is based on a facilities plan that was prepared in December of 2000 that is quite specific. She asked the Board to review that between now and the next meeting to make sure the Board is comfortable with it. Another item concerns budget. They wanted to state what the owner=s budget for the project is currently because what happens is in a typical architect=s agreement the fee is based on the cost of the construction and until you get the bids, billing occurs based on the owner=s budget and then appropriate adjustments are made later. The number is what she wanted the Board to be comfortable with and it is stated in 4.2 of the contract. The budget that has been presented to them thus far, again in that December report is $5,400,000. They do feel that the work that the county wants to be done can be done within that budget figure at this time. It reflects the $65 per square foot and $40 per square foot figures that were used previously. The last thing Ms. Beeker wanted to point out to the Board was the method of calculation for the fee. This is really one of the issues that took so long to arrive at something that was mutually acceptable. One of her main goals with respect to the contract is to avoid having the same thing happen on this project that happened on the jail and that is with the bids coming in substantially over what the budget was and therefore the architect basically getting a bonus, based on market, because they get 8.5% of the cost of the construction. She was trying to avoid that happening with this project so what is proposed and is totally up to the Board=s discretion is that something called a construction document estimate be prepared and that is where right before you put the project out to bid, after the construction documents have been finalized and approved by the owner, that they would be sent to a professional estimator and that professional estimate would serve as the basis for the fee. That should represent the truest anticipated costs before going out to bid. If the bids then come in over that amount, the fee would not go up, it would still be based on that estimate. She asked the Board to think about that also between now and the next meeting.
Ms. Beeker presented the documents for the Board=s review. This will be back on the agenda for the August 6 meeting for Board action. Bill Byrnes will be the owner=s liaison with the architectural firm. However, his presence on site does not relieve the architect of any of their obligations and it states that in the agreement.
REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY ISSUES
There were several issues that the Board wanted to discuss concerning the Regional Water Authority of Asheville, Buncombe and Henderson. Those issues include the following:
1. Water Policies
2. The Authority=s desire to contract with Henderson County for the design, construction, and administration of a regional water line to serve American Freightways
3. The engineering proposals for that work.
Because of the resistance of Asheville to build a waterline to American Freightways, even at the direction of the Water Authority Board, the Water Authority Board, based on advice of Council, has decided that they will enter into a contract with someone else to construct that waterline. They have agreed to enter into a contract with Henderson County to engineer, construct, administer, do the accounting work for and everything associated with the development of the line and the construction of the line to American Freightways.
At the last Board meeting when this was done their meeting was continued to August 7 at 8:45 at which time they want to be able to sign an agreement with Henderson County with respect to construction of that line. This was over the objection of the Asheville staff people who were there but it was a unanimous decision of the Board to move ahead in that direction.
When he returned from the meeting, Chairman Moyer met with Angela Beeker, Gary Tweed and Jim Erwin and asked that Angela develop a contract that would serve this purpose.
Angela Beeker distributed a draft agreement for the Board=s review and discussion. Chairman Moyer stressed that time is of the essence. He didn=t expect approval of the agreement today but at the end of this meeting he would like to continue the meeting until the Solid Waste meeting tomorrow and try to take action at that time. It is extremely important that Angela get the agreement to Council for the Authority and that the Authority Board be ready to move on this at the continued meeting on August 7.
She reviewed the five page agreement as follows. The agreement:
$ Provides that Henderson County will contract for engineering services.
$ Provides that Henderson County will cause the line to be constructed.
$ Provides that Henderson County will secure all required permits.
$ The County has the discretion to install the Line in up to 3 phases.
$ At completion of the construction of the line, Henderson County will deed the line to the City of Asheville for the benefit of the Authority.
$ The Authority must take any and all action necessary to cause connection to the transmission line to occur, up to and including legal action.
$ For so long as Asheville maintains title to the line (under the terms of the Regional Water Agreement) the County will maintain the line.
$ Upon request of the Authority, the County will provide billing and collection services.
The County will keep the billing charge as payment for billing services. The Authority will reimburse the County for anything associated with providing collection services.
$ Upon request of the Authority, the County will track expenses associated with the construction, and track expenses associated with the operation and maintenance of the line. There is no charge to the Authority for these services.
$ The Authority will reimburse the County for all expenses associated with the construction of the line in an amount of their required contribution.
$ The Authority will reimburse the County for all expenses associated with the maintenance of the line.
$ The Agreement lasts until 9 years passes, or the Authority has been reimbursed for its contribution through the net revenues, whichever occurs first. The Agreement may be terminated by either party after completion of the line with 30 days advanced notice.
She pointed out a couple of changes to the draft agreement to the Board, one on page 2 and one on page 3 of the agreement. Angela stated that neither Jennifer nor herself will be available for the meeting tomorrow. She can send the draft agreement to Craig Justus, Council for the Authority, today to get his comments. It was the consensus of the Board to authorize the County Attorney to send the draft agreement to Craig Justus for comments before tomorrow=s meeting. Mr. Justus can contact Chairman Moyer if he has any comments on this draft agreement.
Chairman Moyer stated that he could not stress enough how much the Authority Board, the Council is working with us in a cooperative fashion on this project.
Ms. Beeker stated that there was a related issue with respect to the engineering services the Board also needs to consider. She distributed a proposal from Bill Lapsley and Associates to do the engineering for this as well as some other services that would be in the Board=s discretion. Under the General Statutes, the Board can exempt themselves from having to go out for request for qualification on engineering services for a couple of reasons, one of which is that the engineering fee is less than $30,000, which in this case is clearly substantially less than $30,000 so staff had prepared a resolution that would exempt the Board from the requirement of having to out for request for qualifications for engineers. Tomorrow the Board would need to consider adopting the resolution and then consider which pieces of Lapsley=s proposal the Board would want to accept.
Chairman Moyer stated that one thing he committed to the Authority Board was that with us taking over this project, the cost to the Authority would not exceed in any case the quotes that we were given by McGill Associates as to what it would cost to do this line.
Gary Tweed briefly reviewed the engineering proposal with the Board. He had asked Bill Lapsley to give us proposals on three things:
1. The regional waterline.
2. This short section to get them temporary service.
3. The installation of a well. If we run into difficulty in tapping that existing 24" line for whatever reason, the only way we can get quick service to American Freightways is to install a well so we want to be prepared to do that.
If we put the well down and get them service that way then this temporary piece is not necessary. We just wait until we get the line approved, get authorization to connect, and we go put the line in. If we get permission to do the tap and the temporary piece then the well becomes moot. We don=t need to do the well. Mr. Tweed stated that he needed all three of those covered to make sure that we=ve got a way to get water to American Freightways.
Chairman Moyer stated that he has had several discussions with the person at American Freightways with respect to this line. They obviously will have probably $2 million invested in this project and are very concerned with getting water. They were very interested in hearing about the action taken by the Authority Board and will wait and see whether that=s resolved before they take any further action. They are starting to run out of patience. They definitely feel a need to get water to their project.
WORLD TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
The Board has discussed this before on a number of issues. It is an area that the State is trying to stress the importance of various counties working together in rural transportation planning organizations. We have expressed an interest when Mr. Hawkins was Chairman to participate in these. What always happened was that there was no funding available. The State now has allocated funding for six RPOs. Jack Lynch has done a lot of work for Chairman Moyer and the Board in this area which has been very helpful.
Chairman Moyer suggested that the Board pursue looking in the RPO concept and that we contact Buncombe, Transylvania and ourselves, you need at least three counties to be involved, to see if the counties want to work with us and possibly form an RPO, weigh the advantages and disadvantages and see whether it makes sense to use from that standpoint. Chairman Moyer felt there had been some discussion in the paper about Land of Sky serving as the RPO. He expressed concerns about that and felt Henderson County should talk to the other counties first and see what their interests are. He will bring back all the information to this Board and then the Board can make a decision as to what way to go.
Chairman Moyer requested permission to talk to Buncombe and Transylvania counties to see whether they have an interest. It was the consensus of the Board for him to pursue this issue.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman Moyer stated that the Committee has had their first meeting directed toward air quality. Chairman Moyer had given them the Board of Health resolution, the Canary Coalition resolution, and the Clean Smokestacks Bill and asked them to come back to this Board with a recommendation.
SOUTH Hwy # 25
Chairman Moyer stated that he had a letter from Mayor Nieoff indicating their support of the concept of working together and will work with Henderson County. They are looking to Henderson County to head this so we will need to set up a meeting to get this issue of the South Hwy. # 25 and the working with Hendersonville and Flat Rock resolved as quickly as possible.
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CCP)
Chairman Moyer stated that we are not ready to make a recommendation today with respect to the consultant. It is being worked on and information gathered. He felt that by the next meeting they will be able to make a recommendation to the full Board with respect to that.
Set Worksession on Zoning Ordinance Rewrite
On July 11, 2001, the Board of Commissioners held its second worksession on the rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance. During that meeting, the Board directed Staff to work on several issues in order to bring material and suggestions back for another worksession. In order to give adequate time for Staff to research the items discussed by the Board, staff requested the Commissioners to consider setting the date for the next worksession for sometime not earlier than the first part of September. In the meantime, Staff will be researching those various items and looks forward to discussing those matters with the Board in the future.
Chairman Moyer asked that this be put off until the next meeting.
Set Public Hearing on Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
On July 10, 2001, the Board of Commissioners held a worksession at which time the Board was asked whether it wished to consider certain text amendments related to the recent adoption of Open Use Zoning. Those proposed amendments were submitted to the Board and involve amendments to the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance: Zoning Board of Adjustment (S 200-65), Temporary Use (S 200-57), Expansion and Alteration of Certain Uses in the Open Use District (S 200-32.1(H)), and Subsequent Events (S 200-32.1(l)). It is necessary for the Board to set a public hearing on these proposed amendments and to receive Planning Board comments prior to taking any action to approve them.
In order to expedite the Planning Board review process, Staff has forwarded a copy of this agenda item to the Planning Board. It is expected that the Planning Board will be placing the items on their next available agenda so that their comments and recommendation can be received by the Board of Commissioners in a timely fashion.
In order to meet the required notice procedures, Staff recommended that the Board schedule the public hearing of these proposed amendments for Wednesday, August 15, 2001 at 11:00 a.m.
Commissioner Ward made the motion to set the public hearing on the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for August 15 at 11:00 a.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Annual Volunteer Appreciation Banquet
Chairman Moyer explained to the Board that he and Ms. Corn have been working on the Banquet plans and have secured a date of October 4. This is the first Thursday in October. He asked the Board to check their calendars as we would like to go ahead and book The Chariot and get the date set. It was the consensus of the Board to go with the date of October 4.
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. To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to consider and give instructions to the attorney with respect to a claim.
3.(a)(6) To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee; or to hear or investigate a complaint, charge, or grievance by or against an individual public officer or employee.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Hawkins made the motion for the Board to go out of closed session and to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board William L. Moyer, Chairman