HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 4 2006 Regular MinutesIREDELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MINUTES
APRIL 4, 2006
The Iredell County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on
Tuesday, April 4, 2006, at 7:00 P.M., in the Iredell County Government Center
(Commissioners' Meeting Room), 200 South Center Street, Statesville, NC.
Present were:
Chairman Sara Haire Tice
Vice Chairman Godfrey Williams
Steve D. Johnson
Marvin Norman
Ken Robertson
Staff present: County Manager Joel Mashburn, County Attorney Bill Pope,
Deputy County Manager Susan Blumenstein, Planning & Code Enforcement Director
Lynn Niblock, Planning Supervisor Steve Warren, and Clerk to the Board Jean
Moore.
CALL TO ORDER by Chairman Tice
INVOCATION by Commissioner Norman
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ADJUSTMENTS OF THE AGENDA: MOTION by Chairman Tice to
approve the following agenda revision.
Deletion: Presentation from Mr. R.B. Sloan Regarding a Request for Adoption of
a Resolution Calling for a Study to Determine a Method to Maximize
Economic Opportunities As Measured by Jobs and Capital Investment.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
APPOINTMENTS BEFORE THE BOARD
Presentation from Melanie O'Connell Underwood Regarding a
Memorandum of Understanding Pertaining to the Endorsement of the
AngelouEeonomics Study: Economic Developer Melanie O'Connell Underwood
asked for endorsement of the study presented at the March 14 meeting. She said a
similar request would be made to the other entities involved in the study.
OTION by Commissioner Robertson to endorse the memorandum of
understanding as requested.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE TOWN OF MOORESVILLE, IREDELL COUNTY, THE MOORESVILLE-
SOUTH IREDELL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND THE SOUTH IREDELL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the South Iredell Community realized the value and importance of continuing a
strong economic development program; and
WHEREAS, Mooresville and South Iredell are considered leaders in the economic
development field; and
WHEREAS, in order to maintain our economic development health, the community realized
that a strategic vision, complete with target industries, future site locations, and a market and
organizational study were required; and
WHEREAS, in order to further their vision of the future, a strategic plan for the community
needed to be completed, and AngelouEconomics, an Austin, Texas-based company, was hired
to study and recommend a strategic plan for our community; and
WHEREAS, in order to complete this study, funding was contributed by the Town of
Mooresville, Iredell County, the Mooresville -South Iredell Chamber of Commerce, and the
South Iredell Community Development Corporation; and
WHEREAS, that upon reviewing the results of the comprehensive economic development
study, the undersigned unanimously support the work of the Mooresville -South Iredell
Chamber of Commerce in leading the efforts to accomplish the goals set forth in said report.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Iredell County, the Town of Mooresville, South
Iredell Community Development Corporation and the Mooresville -South Iredell Chamber of
Commerce hereby endorse the AngelouEconomics study and its findings.
Presentation from Mr. Dennis Clary, with the Iredell County Marine
Corp League, Regarding the July 4, 2006 Parade: Clary said last year's July 4
parade had over 100 entries, and the Troutman Police Chief had estimated that
between 8,000 to 9,000 citizens attended. He said the 2006 parade would be on
Saturday, July I beginning at 10 a.m. Clary requested $7,500 from the county to be
used primarily for advertising.
MOTION by Commissioner Johnson to approve Budget Amendment #33A for
the purpose of using $7,500 from contingency for the July parade.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Tice declared the meeting to be in a public hearing.
Consideration of an Economic Development Incentive for Riley
Technologies/deBotech: Economic Developer Melanie O'Connell Underwood said
Riley Technologies was an Indianapolis, Indiana based company that was working with
deBotech in Mooresville in an expansion project. She said both companies would
expand, and Riley would relocate and employ 35 employees (some will be from
Indiana). Underwood said two buildings would be purchased in the Talbert Pointe
Business Park in Mooresville, NC. She said the total investment (both companies)
would be between $3 million and $4.5 million. (The incentive at $3 million would be
$52,200 over a five-year period, and the $4.5 million would yield a $78,300 incentive
over a five-year period.)
Mr. Fred Coggins spoke in opposition. He questioned whether the companies
would hire anyone older than 35 years old. Coggins said that just a few jobs would be
brought into the community, and they would be geared towards the younger
population. He said it wasn't fair because the older citizens were paying the taxes.
No one else spoke, and Chairman Tice adjourned the hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Robertson to grant the economic development
incentive request of between $52,200 to $78,300 (over a five-year period) based on an
investment by the two companies of between $3 million to $4.5 million.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Commissioner Johnson told the audience that the two companies were not
leaving with a check, and instead, they were entering into a contract with the county.
He said the companies would not receive any county funding until the terms of the
contract were fulfilled -- employment opportunities and increased tax base.
19
Chairman Tice declared the meeting to be in a public hearing.
Proposed Text Amendment; SR50, Wireless Telecommunication Towers,
Requested by the Berkley Group: Planning Supervisor Steve Warren said the
planning board and staff recommended approval of this amendment that would revise
ordinance text by adding a provision regarding cell towers. Warren said the revision
would allow a decreased setback upon an engineer's certification of the fall zone
surrounding the tower. He said the current text required a one-to-one ratio (one foot
setback per one foot in vertical height), plus 25 feet, and the proposed text would
eliminate the additional 25 -foot requirement. Warren said the amendment would aid
cell tower companies in finding site locations while at the same time providing
protection for the public.
In addition, Warren read the following consistency statement:
This Amendment is consistent with the Land -Use Plan's purpose of serving as a
policy guide in making future recommendations dealing with the growth and
development of the County; specifically, this Amendment recognizes the changing
patterns of available land for infrastructure while balancing this need with the public
health, safety, and welfare.
Ron Smith, a representative for the Berkley Group, said the proposal primarily
came about by interest in southern Iredell County. He said it was difficult to locate
sites in this area, and the amendment would offer more options. Smith said there
would still be a 500 separation from any residential ground structures. He said several
adjoining counties were already using the option.
No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Tice adjourned the hearing.
OTION by Commissioner Norman to approve the text amendment for SR50,
Wireless Telecommunication Towers, as presented.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
The revisions are as follows:
SR 50. Wireless Telecommunication Towers and Facilities
A. A site plan shall be submitted containing the name of the tower owner, property owner,
scale, north arrow, and latitude/longitude coordinates. Existing site conditions, including contours, any
unique natural or man-made features such as vegetation and ground cover. Exact boundary lines of
the property containing the proposed tower construction, fall radius and any associated guide wires.
Description of adjacent land use and all property owners(s) and their addresses. A front and side
elevation profile, drawn to scale, of all existing and proposed towers and their antennas to be located
on the property.
B. Towers shall be sited to contain all ice -fall or debris from tower failure within the setback
area. The minimum distance from the tower's base to the property line shall be one foot to each
vertical foot of the tower's height. However, a lesser setback shall be permitted upon certification
from ground leyeL
C. Towers shall not be located within a one-half (1/2) mile radius of any other wireless
telecommunication tower, unless concealed in a church steeple, farm silo, or other architecturally
designed encasement. Furthermore, towers located beyond a one-half (1/2) mile radius and not
exceeding three (3) mile radius from any other wireless telecommunication tower shall not be
permitted, unless the applicant can prove that collocation is not a viable option and no stealth location
is possible.
D. Towers shall be no closer than five hundred (500) feet from any existing residential dwelling,
excluding any dwellings located on the same parcel of land as the tower.
E. Towers with a height of two hundred and fifty (250) feet or greater shall be subject to Board
of Adjustment approval as a Special Use Permit.
3
F. Towers shall not exceed three hundred and fifty (350) feet in height as measured from
ground level.
G. Towers with a height greater than one hundred -fifty (150) feet shall be constructed to permit
the capability for the co -location of additional provider antennas as follows:
151 feet to 200 feet - two additional antennas
201 feet to 250 feet - three additional antennas
251 feet to 300 feet - four additional antennas
301 feet to 350 feet - five additional antennas
H. The applicant shall be required to provide written documentation showing that no proposed
tower lies within a thirty (30) foot to one (1) foot run to rise ratio from the nearest point of the
nearest runway of a private airstrip or airport registered with the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA).
1. No business signs, billboards, or other advertising shall be installed on a tower, nor shall any
tower be painted or have a color considered obnoxious or offensive.
J_ No offices or outdoor storage of equipment or materials are permitted on tower sites
located in a residential district.
K. Accessory or component buildings shall be setback fifty (50) feet from all property lines and
rights-of-way. However, if the required setback of the primary tower is less than fifty (501
feet the required setback for accessory structures shall be the same as that of the tower.
L. All structures shall be enclosed by a chain link fence at least eight (8) feet in height and
screened subject to Section 12.1.
M. The applicant shall be required to provide written documentation stating that the tower is in
compliance with all applicable Federal and State regulations.
N. Notice shall be provided to the planning department when any telecommunication tower is
placed out of service. Towers not used for a period of six (6) months or more shall be removed by
the owner within one hundred and twenty (120) days of receipt of notification to that effect. The
applicant shall also provide the County with written documentation substantiating that the applicant
has and will sustain the financial ability to disassemble and remove the tower, once no longer in
operation.
O. Additional provider antennas and equipment shelters associated with an approved
telecommunication tower site are permitted, provided said changes do not increase the setback
requirement beyond the allowable limit according to tower height.
P. Tower lighting shall not exceed the minimum for red obstruction lighting as administered by
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Q. All permits for the construction of a wireless telecommunication tower are issued in reliance
upon a presumption that the tower will in fact conform to the plans which are submitted as the basis
for the permit. Once constructed, the tower must continue to be maintained in compliance with the
provisions of this ordinance.
R. The applicant shall be required to notify all property owners within a one-half (1/2) mile
radius of a proposed tower with a height greater than two hundred -fifty (250) feet. The notice shall
be by certified mail and shall include tower height and design type and date, time and location of the
proposed meeting.
S. The applicant shall be required to provide written documentation stating that it is not viable
to co -locate on existing facilities within the coverage area. Facilities includes other towers, elevated
tanks, electrical transmission lines, or other structures.
T. The applicant shall provide the County with proof of liability insurance which protects against
losses due to personal injury or property damage resulting from the construction or collapse of the
tower, antenna, or accessory equipment. Such proof shall be supplied to the County by the applicant
at the time of application.
U. The applicant shall provide to the planning department an inventory of its existing antennas
and towers that are either within the jurisdiction of the County or within three (3) miles of the
border thereof, including specific information about the location, height, and design type of each
tower and antenna. The applicant shall also provide an inventory of potential future tower sites within
the jurisdiction of the County. The planning department may share such information with other
applicants; however, that by sharing this information, it is not in any way representing or warranting
that such sites are available or suitable.
4
Chairman Tice declared the meeting to be in a public hearing
Case No. 0603-1; Applicant Greg Palmer, for Pinecrest Land Developers,
Requests to Rezone Properties from Single Family Residential Conditional Use
District (R-20 CUD) to Single Family Residential District (R-20): Planning
Supervisor Steve Warren presented the following staff report for this case.
OWNER: Pinecrest Land Developers, Inc. APPLICANT: Greg Palmer
191 Clearview Road (same)
Statesville, NC 28625
(704)902-6033
LOCATION: Pinecrest Subdivision at the corner of East Monbo and
Hudspeth Roads in Troutman, NC; more specifically identified as PIN#s
4720-49-4555; 4720-49-3580; 4720-49-3415; 4720-49-2421; 4720-49-1307;
4720-39-9288; 4720-39-8291; 4720-39-7198; 4720-49-0145; 4720-49-1157;
4720-49-2138; 4720-49-3146; 4720-49-4106. Directions: From Troutman
at Hwy 21/Old Mountain Road intersection, travel west on Old Mountain
Road. Turn left onto E. Monbo Road and travel approximately 3 miles to
intersection with Hudspeth Road; property will be on the left, immediately
before Hudspeth Road.
REQUESTED ACTION: Rezone subject parcels from R20 -CUD to R20.
PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential.
SIZE: 8.245 total acres.
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant.
SURROUNDING LAND USE: Residential and Agricultural.
WATERSHED REGULATIONS: The subject parcel is located within both
the WSIV-Protected Area and WSIV-Critical Area. Minimum lot sizes are as
follows: WSIV-PA — 21,780 square feet; WSIV-CA — 25,000 square feet.
TRAFFIC: In 2004, East Monbo Road had an average daily traffic count of
1,800 vehicles per day. According to the Iredell County Thoroughfare Plan,
this road has a carrying capacity of 9,000 vehicles per day.
ZONING HISTORY: In 1997 these parcels were one large tract of land that
was included in a Non -Owner Petition rezoning request. This rezoning was
approved by the County Commissioners; the property was rezoned from RA
to R20 -Conditional Use District, with the condition that the minimum lot size
shall be 40,000 square feet. This request stemmed from the property owners'
collective desire to maintain the rural and agricultural nature of the
community.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Background: In the fall of 2005, Pinecrest Land Developers, Inc. submitted a
single-family residential subdivision plat with lots that were drawn subject to
the standards of the Watershed Districts within the project area. This plat
was approved and the lots recorded (this involved a total of 13 lots). As part
of this process, the applicant was advised by Subdivision staff that the area
was zoned R-20; the applicant had thus drawn their lots according to these
applicable standards (see Watershed Regulations above). Upon approval of
the subdivision, the developer proceeded to stake out the lots. A complaint
was then registered with the Planning Department; the complainant
questioned the lot sizes, thinking that the larger lot size (40,000 square feet)
was required. Upon research into the 1997 case file, it was continued that
the rezoning was indeed conditioned with the greater minimum lot size
requirement. Upon notifying the developer of this mistake, the developer
decided to submit the present request for rezoning which, in effect, seeks the
elimination of the larger lot size condition from the R-20 designation. *The
Subdivision Department computer was not activated with the GIS layer that
indicated the existence of Conditional Use Districts; therefore, it was believed
that the zoning on the property was a straight R20 without conditions. The
mistake was not realized until the complaint was issued.
Present request: The applicant requests a rezoning to eliminate the 40,000
square foot minimum lot size requirement. Again, there are presently a total
of 13 lots recorded on 8.245 acres. Should the larger lot size be enforced on
the project, the plat will need to be redrawn in which case the project would
only be allowed a maximum of eight (8) lots.
Summary & Recommendation: Because of the unique nature of this
application, staff has put considerable thought into this case. Staff
understands that this property is located on the outer edge of the R20 -CUD
district while also being located adjacent to RA property. Additionally, there
are watershed regulations applicable to this property that, in and of
themselves, require larger lot sizes than those within the standard R20
classification. At the present time with the approved subdivision plat, the
applicant is indeed meeting these requirements. However, the fact remains
that a non -owner rezoning petition was submitted several years ago in which
the majority of property owners made a conscious and collective decision to
maintain the rural, low-density nature of the surrounding community.
Although the Pinecrest subdivision is relatively small in scope, an approval of
rezoning could set a precedent that is contrary to the intent of the
Conditional -Use District and thus open the door for future requests that seek
higher densities. In this context, it is important to realize that the rural
character of the community has remained so since the rezoning of 1997.
There has been little subsequent construction within this CUD area; therefore
from a public -policy standpoint, there appears to be little pressure to rezone
the property to allow for additional housing beyond that which would be
allowed under the CUD requirements. For these reasons, and after due
consideration of all facets of this case, staff recommends against this request.
Statement of Land -Use Plan Consistency: This case does not hinge on the
County Land Use Plan per se; therefore, denial of the rezoning would be
neither consistent nor inconsistent with the Plan. However, denial of the
rezoning would be consistent with the goals of the surrounding community in
terms of the existence of the nonowner-petitioned R20 -Conditional Use
District that specifically requires larger minimum lot sizes.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION: On March 1, 2006 the Planning Board
voted I 1-0 to recommend denial of the rezoning request.
Commissioner Williams mentioned the tract was especially large to be rezoned
as R-20 CUD.
Steve Warren said this was correct, and it could be largest nonowner rezoning
in the county's history. He said, however, that everything was in compliance, with 55
out of 68 landowners (81%) originally requesting the zoning.
Commissioner Johnson said that in 1997, the ordinance requirement was 80%.
Chairman Tice said she also recalled that 80% was the needed percentage.
Attorney Mark Childers, representing Pinecrest Land Developers, then spoke
and made the following remarks:
"This will be a friendly, quick, and cost effective way for everybody to resolve
a substantial error in regards to the planning staff. The staff has been absolutely
forthright in acknowledging that a staff error has led to the problem. The staff is to be
commended for their integrity and professionalism in acknowledging the error. Given
the volume of work the planning staff handles, it's unusual this type of situation
hasn't come up before. In August of 2005, Pinecrest entered into a contract to
purchase eight acres at a cost of $140,000.00, contingent -- expressly in the contract --
it was required as a precondition of Pinecrest's obligation to buy the property that
Pinecrest be able to put 14 buildable lots on the property. That was set as a
precondition of closing, and Pinecrest set about conducting its due diligence before it
6
closed by participating in the ordinary course as it is required by law to do -- to
consult with the planning department, engage their expertise and their knowledge of
the zoning rules and regulations, and to gather from them through the review and
comment process, their approval on behalf of the county for Pinecrest's proposed use
of the property. In September, the Department of Transportation was contacted
regarding their approval. In September 21, 2005 under the new business agenda for
the Iredell County Subdivision Committee, we submitted our preliminary plat. On
October 19, 2005, in the ordinary course of the required legal procedure, we submitted
to the Iredell County Subdivision Review Committee our final plat which was in fact
approved at that time to construct 13 lots -- not 14 -- but 13. The reason for the
difference was because of the heightened acreage requirements brought about by the
watershed regulations, which you all are familiar with. Based upon our having gone
through that process and obtaining the county's approval, Pinecrest bought this
property. On November 16, 2005, two separate closings occurred at $70,000 each.
They spent $140,000 that, quite honestly, and under the terms of the contract they
would not have spent, but for the approval of the county planning staff acknowledging
that what they proposed to do was in fact lawful and could be done. Since that time,
Pinecrest has marketed lots, and it has continued to engage in its site design work. It
has in fact, entered into three contracts, started building a house -- put down a slab for
a house -- and was bringing it out of the ground and moving on with the contract. It
had to buy one of these lots, when it became aware of the fact that this was an issue,
and the work has now stopped. It has lost three buyers because of what has happened.
With that said, we are not in the controversy business. We are in the business of
building homes and trying to seek an appropriate business -like -way to resolve
problems. We are not here to rattle swords and talk about what we are going to do —
or what if. But, what we want to try to do, and we believe this is a perfect scenario to
really create the proverbial, but so hard to find, win-win situation for everybody
involved here. By simply giving us the benefit of what we thought we had -- what we
spent a large sum of capital believing we had -- by giving us the straight R-20 zoning
on a small, eight -point -some -odd -acre of property. Less than one percent, I might
add, of the entire R-20 CUD District, on the very edge of that R-20 CUD District, so it
is a very minimal way to resolve the problem. It won't reconfigure in any drastic way
that conditional use district. It's right on the edge and adjacent to other RA property
and we believe that if the commission were to allow our rezoning petition, this is a
respectful, graceful, and friendly way to resolve a serious problem. We are required
by law to go to the planning department when we do things with our land in this
county, and we are entitled, I would submit, to rely on what they tell us. Now, I don't
know whether you all have seen or whether it's a part of your packet of information
regarding the planning staff report. On this (staff report), they indicate that what
happened was the subdivision department's computer was not activated in some
manner with the GIS layer that indicates the existence of the conditional use in this
area. It was believed by the zoning and planning folks, and my clients, that the zoning
was a straight R-20 without conditions. Now that's a mistake -- nobody meant for
that to happen. Nobody is a bad person for having this to happen, but this is the real
world. I think it's appropriate that folks have to own up to their mistakes and accept
responsibility for things. They are only human, they're very busy, and it's
commendable what they've acknowledged to this point. I think that it's appropriate
for the county to be good stewards of the county's funds, as well as to create some
ability for the public to trust what the zoning staff says. When we go there and rely
on what they say -- that we be able to do what they've said we could do. I
respectfully request that the commission grant this petition, rezone this small parcel of
property to straight R-20 -- without condition. That will leave untouched the vast
majority of the property and will be the right thing to do. As a procedural matter, 1
would respectfully submit some documents that I would like to be made a part of the
record. That being the planning staff report to which I just referred to, as well as a
copy of the purchase contract that my client entered into, a copy of a letter
communicated to the Department of Transportation about their subdivision plans, a
copy of the agendas for September 21 and 19 for the Subdivision Review Committees,
two settlement statements wherein its reflected that they purchased this property, two
deeds that reflect that they purchased this property, a map recorded at the Iredell
Register of Deeds, Book 48, Page 63 of the plat which the planning and zoning office
7
approved, and an inspections job card indicating there were at least three different
inspections done on improvements which were made on this property before we were
told that we had to stop."
Brent Warren (opposition) said he resided in the East Monbo community and
had participated in the original petition to have the property rezoned with the 40,000
lot size. He said the community took the action in 1997, and the proactive approach
was taken to preserve the rural integrity of the community. Warren said it was a
"huge" undertaking -- maybe the largest nonowner petition in the county -- and it was
not an easy, or simple thing to do. He said, however, the residents thought it was
important enough at that time to look ahead, and it was something that needed to be
addressed. He said the purpose was to prevent a high-density development and to
maintain lower -density developments. Mr. Warren said the residents did everything
needing to be done, and the process was "by the book." He said the current situation
was regrettable, but it wasn't the community's fault. Warren said the property was on
the edge, as Mr. Palmer's attorney had indicated, but it wouldn't be fair to the
residents near the development. (He said his property was actually in the upper
section of the area, and he wouldn't be as affected as the others on the edge.) Warren
said Mr. Palmer's attorney had mentioned the public's trust and following procedure,
but he noted that in 1997, the residents had also followed the procedure and that
public trust went both ways. Mr. Warren said he felt the commissioners should rule in
favor of the community, and this would be a truer measure of upholding the public's
trust. He said it was hoped the board of commissioners would vote the same as the
planning board, and deny the request. (Mr. Warren noted that he was not related to
Planning Supervisor Steve Warren.)
Jane Jennings Getsinger (opposition) said she was a part of the 1997 group
involved in the nonowner petition. She said that even now, the community was
looking towards the future due to an effort to obtain a "scenic route designation" for
their road. In addition, she said covenants were being reviewed with the Land Trust
organization, and they were taking the approach that the four -mile stretch to the lake
and Duke Power State Park was an amenity for the area. She said it was known that
high-density developments would occur in Troutman, especially at Exit 45, and the
this neighborhood was looking towards the future for everyone.
No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Tice adjourned the hearing.
Commissioner Robertson asked Attorney Pope about land purchases and who
had the responsibility to find out the zoning designation for the property.
Attorney Pope said the buyer would have some obligation to find out what
could be done on the property. He said the question was, "Can you rely on the public
record?" He said that when a person was told by public officials what could be done
and money was spent relying on that information, then the question was, "Should you
be able to rely on that?"
Robertson asked if the seller was required to find out if the property would be
suitable for the purchaser's intended purpose.
Pope said he was not sure if the seller had the affirmative duty to warn a
person about the zoning, but if asked, and the seller lied, then that was fraud. Pope
said that he wasn't sure that an omission, or failure to disclose, rose to the level of
fraud -- it depended on the circumstance. He said it depended upon the dialogue.
Commissioner Johnson asked if vested rights should be considered in the
situation.
Pope said vested rights usually occurred when public officials were asked
about the zoning designation for a piece of property, then money was spent on a
project based on the information, but then later, the officials changed the zoning.
8
Commissioner Johnson asked Pope, assuming the board voted against the
request, if he would be optimistic about how the situation might fare in court.
Pope said there was the possibility the county might have immunity; however,
he didn't know for sure in this particular case.
MOTTO by Commissioner Williams to deny the rezoning request of Case
No. 0603-1 (Applicant Greg Palmer/Pinecrest Land Developers) from Single Family
Residential Conditional Use District (R-20 CUD) to Single Family Residential
District (R-20).
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Commissioner Williams asked the planning staff if measures had been taken to
prevent the problem from occurring in the future.
Planning and Code Enforcement Director Lynn Niblock said measures had
been taken to update all of the computers.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Update on the Duke Power/Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Project &
Request for Endorsement of the Draft Agreement -in -Principle: Planning
Supervisor Steve Warren said the hydro -relicensing process had been occurring for
the past three years. He said the county was now being asked to agree on a draft
agreement -in -principle that stipulated the terms of the hydro -electric facilities along
the Catawba River basin for the next 50 years. Warren said the final agreement had to
be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission later this year. He said
some amendments might need to be made to the zoning ordinance, due to shoreline
management components, but these would be minor.
Commissioner Robertson said the contents of the agreement -in -principle (AIP)
were a significant change in the way business had previously been conducted. He
said there was a proposal to establish a Water Management Group (WMG), and it
would be comprised of users that withdrew a million gallons of water a day from the
Catawba River Basin. Robertson said the AIP stipulated that the members of the
WMG would pay a fee based upon the amount of withdrawn water and a surcharge, if
the water was not returned to the basin. He said an example would be the City of
Statesville and the Town of Mooresville -- they both obtained drinking water from
the basin, but the treated wastewater did not return to the same basin. Robertson said
the two municipalities would pay higher fees. Mr. Robertson said that after reading
the AIP, he began having concerns about the usage of the money. He said that unless
changes were made to the language, he had concerns the money might not be used for
the intended purposes. He mentioned the state gas tax and the state lottery funds, and
how these were created for particular needs, but then they wound up going towards
something else. Robertson offered the following agreement revisions in an effort to
curtail the possibility of individuals using the money for other purposes.
Attachment P — Catawba-Wateree Basin Water Management Group (WMG)
2.3 Change to "The Group's objectives are limited to the following:"
2.4 Change to "The Group's activities will be limited to:"
3.7 Add "or any extension or renewal of same" to the end of the sentence.
3.8 Replace "other" with "members and".
4.1 Delete the sentence allowing for unidentified credits since said credits are not
defined.
9
4.5 Insert the sentence "It is not within the authority of the convening committee
to modify the Group Purpose (2.2), the Group Objectives (2.3), the Group
Activities (2.4), or Decisions (8.2) as defined in the AIP."
5.5 Delete "or solicited from interested third parties. Third parties may also
present project recommendations to the group for consideration."
8.2.3 Change to "The Group will require a super majority (greater than two-thirds)
for approving projects. Other topics for super majority voting include:"
OTION by Commissioner Robertson to approve the agreement -in -principle
with major reservations, or Category 4, and to request that Attorney Pope, using the
appropriate format, include the aforementioned items in a statement. (Attorney Pope
was given latitude to revise the wording as necessary but to retain the board's intent or
purpose for the changes.)
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
(The motion will also allow the Planning Supervisor to sign the agreement.)
Commissioner Johnson suggested that Commissioner Robertson establish
"some common ground" or a consensus on the changes with the other counties
involved in the relicensing. Johnson said that while the county was involved in the
relicensing process, that Statesville and Mooresville were not, and these were the
entities that would bear the greatest financial burden.
Commissioner Robertson said Commissioner Johnson's suggestion would be
taken as an implied task, and it would be done.
Note: The AIP signature form had a f ve-point consensus scale written as follows:
I ... ,mll endorsement, no reservations
2 ... some concerns, willing to sign (will work toward final agreement)
3... minor reservations, willing to sign (will work toward.final agreement)
4... major reservations, willing to sign (submit statement why)
5 ... cannot agree with AIP (submit objections)
MOTION by Commissioner Norman to approve the following 15 consent
agenda items.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
1. Request for Adoption of a Resolution of Intent Allowing the Farmland
Preservation Board to Pursue Special Legislation Authorizing the Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR): Planning Supervisor Steve Warren said at the briefing
session that the TDR initiative would be another tool the Farmland Preservation
Board could use to assist the agricultural community.
Cooperative Extension Director Ken Vaughn said at the briefing session that
support from the local legislative delegation would be needed to obtain the land use
initiative, and an endorsement from the board of commissioners was also needed.
(The following resolution was approved through the consent agenda.)
Transfer of Development Rights Program Resolution
WHEREAS, the county commissioners are in support of the preservation and
protection of Iredell County's rural agricultural farmland; and
WHEREAS, the agricultural farmland in Iredell County contributes to the county by
consistently ranking high in production of many agricultural commodities in North Carolina;
and
10
WHEREAS, Iredell County already has a well-established Voluntary Farmland
Preservation Program; and
WHEREAS, Iredell County has recently established a Purchase of Development
Rights Program; and
WHEREAS, a transfer of development rights program would serve as an additional
tool for the protection and preservation of agricultural farmland in Iredell County; and
WHEREAS,, funding for the conservation of agricultural farmland would come from
private developers.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners
of Iredell County, North Carolina, supports the Farmland Preservation Board pursuing
special legislation to establish a Transfer of Development Rights Program.
2. Request from Ms. Linda Parker (148 Ervin Road, Mooresville, NC) &
Mr. Willis Stotts (152 Ervin Road, Mooresville, NC) for the Release of Zoning
Jurisdiction to the Town of Mooresville for Approximately 1.68 Acres off River
Highway, northwest of Mooresville, NC: At the five o'clock briefing, Planning
Supervisor Steve Warren said the two property owners desired the release of zoning
jurisdiction for their properties. He said Ms. Parker's land was adjacent to the Town's
jurisdictional boundary, and it was designated in the Highway 150 Future Land Use
Plan as commercial; while Mr. Stutts' property was planned for low-density
residential development. Warren said the Town approved the extension of utilities to
the properties (PIN#s 4647-18-9269 & 4647-18-7295) on March 6, 2006.
3. Request for Approval of a Restructuring Plan for the Emergency
Communications Operations Management Office and the Office of Emergency
Management & the Resulting Reclassifications/Grade Changes: Assistant County
Manager Tracy Jackson said there was a vacant Deputy Emergency Management
(EM) Coordinator position, and discussions had recently occurred about the most
effective organizational structure for the department. He requested that the Office of
Emergency Management be merged into the Emergency Communications Operations
Management (ECOM) Department and for the ECOM Director to assume the
responsibilities of the EM Coordinator. In addition, he requested that a current
Telecommunicator II position be reclassified as a Deputy ECOM Coordinator and that
an existing EM Program Assistant IV position be transferred to ECOM. The
recommended reclassifications/grade changes that will occur effective May 1, 2006,
are as follows:
• ECOM Director (Grade 73) to ECOMDirector/EM Coordinator (Grade 76)
• Change one ECOM Telecommunicator H (Grade 65) to Deputy ECOM
Coordinator/Telecommunicator H (Grade 70)
• Move Deputy EM Coordinator and Program Assistant 1 V positions under ECOM
and place under ECOMDirector/EM Coordinator (no grade change)
4. Request for Approval of Budget Amendment #34 for the EMS
Department to Recognize $1,025 in Donated Funds: Assistant County Manager
Tracy Jackson said at the agenda briefing that $1,000 had been donated to EMS from
the Kiwanis Club and $25 had been donated from a private citizen. He said the
department wanted to use $500 for an EMS Week celebration and a staff meeting
event. Jackson said the remainder ($525) would be used for public education and
outreach materials.
5. Request for Approval of Budget Amendment #35 for the Sheriffs
Department to Transfer $65,000 from Commissary Sales to Commissary
Supplies: During the five o'clock meeting, Chief Deputy Rick Dowdle requested a
budget amendment to recognize a $65,000 commissary sales increase and to transfer
the same amount of funds to commissary supplies for purchases.
6. Request for Approval of Budget Amendment #36 for the Sheriff's
Department to Transfer $5,000 in Seized Funds for the Restructuring of the
Crime Stoppers Program: Chief Deputy Rick Dowdle requested permission, during
the agenda briefing, to transfer $5,000 in seized funds to the Crime Stoppers Program.
Dowdle said the Statesville Chamber of Commerce assisted with the program, and a
restructuring was needed to become more effective.
7. Request for Approval of Budget Amendment #37 for the Sheriff's
Department to Transfer $17,100 in Seized Funds for the Purchase of a Four
Stroke Boat Engine: Chief Deputy Rick Dowdle said his department had two boats,
and one already utilized a four-stroke engine. He said that because of propeller
differences, the four-stroke engine already owned by the department could not be used
in the boat needing a replacement. He requested permission to use $17,100 for an
additional four-stroke engine.
8. Presentation of FY 2006-07 Health Insurance Recommendations & Request
for Concurrence: Human Resources Director Carolyn Harris said at the agenda
briefing that a recommendation was being made to remain with the North Carolina
Association of County Commissioners' pool for health insurance. She said, however,
there would be an increase in some co -pays. A listing of the cost changes are as
follows:
PCP
Specialist
Co -Pa v
Co-Pav
Current $20
$30
Recommended $20
$40
Eye
ER
Exam
Co -pa v RX
$10
$100 $10-20-30
$20
$150 $10-35-50*
*Mail order— 90 day supply with savings to member is available. Also, a limited
number of over the counter medicines are covered with prescription.
Total Expected Cost: $5,476,837 Total Expected Cost Increase: 11.1%
Based on 811 employees
9. Request to Call for a Public Hearing on April 18, 2006 Regarding the FY
06-07 North Carolina Department of Transportation Rural Operating Assistance
Program Grant: (The grant application is due May 12, 2006, and state law requires
the transit system to hold a public hearing for citizen comment.)
10. Request for Approval of Reimbursements to Fire & Rescue Squad
Departments Due to the July 7, 2005 Tornado in North Iredell: During the five
o'clock meeting, Fire Marshal Lloyd Ramsey requested permission to reimburse the
fire/rescue organizations that provided service and assistance in conjunction with the
July 7, 2005 storm in northern Iredell County. (The county -wide service district fund
has sufficient funds to cover the reimbursements totaling $1,602.34.)
11. Request for Approval of a Landfill Service Corporation Lease/License
Agreement: Solid Waste Director David Lambert requested renewal of an agreement
for Posi-Shell equipment and materials that are used for daily landfill cover. He said
at the briefing session that an addendum had been added in case any regulatory
agencies deemed the Posi-Shell Cover System to be an inappropriate daily cover
method. (The lease is for a 24 -month period with a per ton increase from $37.50
(2004) to $43.00 per ton.)
12. Request for Approval to Apply for a North Carolina Division of Pollution
Prevention & Environmental Assistance Grant for Recycling Storage
Containers: Recycling Coordinator Carla Parks requested permission at the briefing
session to apply for a $23,355 grant to be used for the purchase of storage containers.
She said a ten percent match was needed, but the funds were already budgeted. Parks
said the roll -off containers would be used to store cardboard, glass, and electronics.
12
13. Request from the Recreation Department for Approval of an Environmental
Education Fee Schedule: Recreation Director Robert Woody said that due to
increased participation, it would be necessary to implement fees to cover the costs
associated with the environmental education program. The price list will be as
follows:
Program Type/Length
Full Instruction Group
Size Minimum 15
2 hour program
$3.00
4 hour program
$5.00
Full da — 8 hour program
$10.00
Program Type/Length
With Wild Education Site Instructors in Group
Size Minimum 15
2 hour program
$1.50
4 hour program
$3.00
Full day, 8 hour program
$6.00
14. Request for Approval of a Centralina Service Agreement for the Usage of
"Membership Hours" to Update the Greater Statesville Development
Corporation's 2006 Statistical Profile: County Manager Mashburn said at the
briefing session that for the past few years, the Greater Statesville Development
Corporation had utilized unused county Centralina Council of Governments
membership hours (7.5 hrs. _ $652.50) to update existing statistical profiles.
15. Request for Approval of the Minutes for February 24, 25, 2006 &
March 14, 2006
----------------------------------END OF CONSENT AGENDA -------------------------------
Request from the Covenant House of Statesville, a 501C-3 Organization,
for Waste Disposal Exemptions: Mr. Darryl McIntyre, Covenant House Executive
Director, requested a waste disposal exemption. McIntyre said the Covenant House
previously was located in downtown Statesville, but it recently relocated to 117
McElwee Street. He said the McElwee site had been an eyesore, but it had now been
fully renovated. McIntyre said contractors had estimated a cost of $340,000 for the
renovation, but by using the labor of the Covenant House participants, the structure
was improved and restored for $100,000. He said the Covenant House was no
different from the Salvation Army or Fifth Street Ministries, but the agency had a
structured program. McIntyre said $300 was spent at the solid waste facility last year,
and 80% of the trash disposal fees were due to the facility's renovations. He said it
cost $240,000 a year to operate the program, and only 20% of this came from the
United Way. Mr. McIntyre said the remaining 80% came from the Covenant House
men working in the community. He said the program primarily worked with
individuals from Iredell County. McIntyre said a "cap" could be placed on the
exemption.
Commissioner Norman asked the criteria used in the past for organizations to
be exempted from the waste disposal fees.
County Manager Mashburn said the only example he could recall was for the
Salvation Army. He said the exemption rationale centered on the fact that had the
goods not been donated, the donor would have disposed of them anyway at the
landfill, and they would have been covered under the standard household fee imposed
on county residents.
Deputy County Manager Blumenstein said Fifth Street was exempted when
furniture or items of this nature were discarded. She said the agency utilized a private
company for daily waste pickup.
Commissioner Williams said the county had hundreds of nonprofits, some of
which were the volunteer fire departments. He suggested that the staff review the
13
exemption criteria used in the past. Williams said that if the county didn't have
criteria already established, that something might need to be created to treat everyone
fairly.
MOTION by Commissioner Norman to request that the staff review the past
policy or criteria used in allowing trash disposal exemptions at the solid waste facility.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Request for Approval of a Resolution Approving the Sale of Certificates
of Participation: Chairman Tice introduced the following resolution, a copy of
which had been provided to each Commissioner, which was read by title and
summarized by the Director of Finance and Administrative Services:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SALE BY
IREDELL COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES
CORPORATION OF CERTIFICATES OF
PARTICIPATION IN CERTAIN INSTALLMENT
PAYMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE COUNTY OF
IREDELL, NORTH CAROLINA, APPROVING A
PROPOSED INSTALLMENT FINANCING
AGREEMENT TO FINANCE CERTAIN SCHOOL
FACILITIES, APPROVING CERTAIN OTHER
DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS RELATING
THERETO AND AUTHORIZING OTHER OFFICIAL
ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, the County of Iredell, North Carolina (the "County") has
determined that it is necessary and expedient to finance (i) the expansion of North
Iredell High School, including the construction and equipping of additional
classrooms and a new gymnasium and locker room, (ii) the expansion of West Iredell
High School, including the construction and equipping of additional classrooms, a
new science wing, an auditorium, a new gymnasium and locker rooms, and expanded
cafeteria and kitchen facilities, (iii) the expansion of Statesville High School,
including the construction and equipping of a Freshman Academy, an auxiliary
gymnasium, a ROTC room, a science wing and additional performing arts and general
classrooms and the acquisition of land to expand practice fields and parking lots, (iv)
the expansion of Sharon Elementary School, including the construction and equipping
of additional classrooms and resource rooms, a new cafeteria/kitchen, a new
administration area and a new media center and the acquisition of land for the
expansion of the sewer septic system, and (v) the construction and equipping of a new
Mooresville Intermediate School (collectively, the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, in order to effectuate such plans to finance the Project, the
County and Iredell County Public Facilities Corporation (the "Corporation") have
been negotiating certain financing documents and arranging for the negotiated sale of
Certificates of Participation in certain Installment Payments (as defined in the
hereinafter defined Installment Financing Agreement) to be made by the County
pursuant to an installment financing agreement, to be dated as of May 1, 2006 (the
"Installment Financing Agreement"), between the Corporation and the County,
pursuant to the authority granted to the County under Section 160A-20 of the General
Statutes of North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, the County has determined that it is in the best interests of the
County that the County and the Corporation enter into the Installment Financing
Agreement to make available to the County funds with which to finance the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the County and the Corporation have retained investment bankers
for the purpose of underwriting said Certificates of Participation; and
WHEREAS, said Certificates of Participation are expected to be marketed in
the expectation of executing a Certificate Purchase Agreement with respect thereto on
or about April 27, 2006 and delivering said Certificates of Participation on or about
May 11, 2006; and
14
WHEREAS, in connection with such financing, it is necessary for the County
to approve the sale of said Certificates of Participation by the Corporation, to approve
certain other documents relating thereto and to authorize certain action in connection
therewith; and
WHEREAS, there have been presented at this meeting copies of the following
documents relating to the delivery of the 2006 Certificates (as hereinafter defined):
(a) a draft of the proposed Certificate Purchase Agreement for the
2006 Certificates (the "Purchase Agreement"), to be dated on or about April 27, 2006,
among the Corporation and Wachovia Bank, National Association and Banc of
America Securities LLC, as underwriters (the "Underwriters"), relating to the
purchase and sale by the Underwriters of the 2006 Certificates;
(b) a draft of the proposed Installment Financing Agreement, pursuant to
which the Corporation will make available to the County funds to be derived from the
sale of the 2006 Certificates with which to finance the Project, and the County will be
obligated to make Installment Payments (as defined in the Installment Financing
Agreement) and certain other payments, among other requirements;
(c) a draft of the proposed Trust Agreement, to be dated as of May 1, 2006
(the "Trust Agreement'), by and between the Corporation and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee (the "Trustee"),
under which the Trustee will make available to the County the
proceeds of Certificates of Participation (Iredell County School
Projects), Series 2006 evidencing proportionate and undivided
ownership interests in the Installment Payments to be made by the
County under the Installment Financing Agreement (the
"2006 Certificates") to pay the cost of financing the Project;
(d) a draft of the proposed Deed of Trust, to be dated as of the date of May
1, 2006 (the "Deed of Trust'), from the County to a deed of trust trustee for the
benefit of the Corporation;
(e) a draft of the Preliminary Official Statement, to be dated on or about
April 18, 2006 (the "Preliminary Official Statement'), relating to the offering of the
2006 Certificates;
(f) drafts of the Construction and Acquisition Agreements, each to be
dated as of May 1, 2006 (each a "Construction Agreement'), between the County and
Iredell-Statesville Schools Board of Education and Mooresville Graded School
District Board of Education (each a "Board of Education"), respectively, pursuant to
which each Board of Education will use its best efforts to cause the construction of the
portion of the Project for which it is responsible; and
(g) drafts of the Lease Agreements, each to be dated as of May 1, 2006
(each a "Lease Agreement'), between the County and each Board of Education,
respectively; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners for the County of Iredell,
North Carolina:
Section 1. Capitalized words and terms used in this resolution and not defined
herein shall have the same meanings in this resolution as such words and terms are
given in the Trust Agreement and the Installment Financing Agreement.
Section 2. The County hereby approves the sale of the 2006 Certificates by
the Corporation. The 2006 Certificates shall mature in such amounts and at such
times and shall bear interest at such rates as shall be determined by the President, any
Vice President or the Treasurer of the Corporation; provided, however, that the
aggregate principal amount of the 2006 Certificates shall not exceed $47,000,000, the
final maturity of the 2006 Certificates shall not extend beyond December 31, 2027,
and the true interest cost of the 2006 Certificates shall not exceed 5.25% per annum.
The 2006 Certificates shall be issued in fully registered form in denominations
of $5,000 or any whole multiple thereof. Interest with respect to the 2006 Certificates
shall be payable on December 1, 2006 and thereafter semiannually on each June 1 and
December 1 until the 2006 Certificates are fully paid. Payments of principal and
interest with respect to the 2006 Certificates shall be made by the Trustee to the
registered owners of the 2006 Certificates in the manner set forth in the Trust
Agreement.
15
Section 3. The 2006 Certificates shall be subject to prepayment at the times,
upon the terms and conditions, and at the prices set forth in the Trust Agreement;
provided, however, that no prepayment premium shall exceed 2%.
Section 4. The proceeds of the 2006 Certificates shall be applied as provided
in Section 2.05 of the Trust Agreement.
Section 5. The forms, terms and provisions of the Installment Financing
Agreement, the Trust Agreement, the Deed of Trust, the Purchase Agreement, the
Construction Agreements and the Lease Agreements are hereby approved in all
respects, and the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board of Commissioners or the
County Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the
Installment Financing Agreement, the Deed of Trust, the Purchase Agreement, the
Construction Agreements and the Lease Agreements, in substantially the forms
presented to this meeting, together with such changes, modifications and deletions as
she or he, with the advice of counsel, may deem necessary and appropriate, including,
but not limited to, changes, modifications and deletions necessary to incorporate the
final terms of the 2006 Certificates as shall be set forth in the Purchase Agreement;
such execution and delivery shall be conclusive evidence of the approval and
authorization thereof by the County.
Section 6. The County hereby approves the award of the 2006 Certificates to
the Underwriters pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, subject, however, to the
limitation on true interest cost contained in Section 2.
Section 7. The County hereby authorizes the use and distribution of the
Preliminary Official Statement in connection with the public offering of the
2006 Certificates, and the Official Statement, in substantially the form of the
Preliminary Official Statement, with such changes as are necessary to reflect the
maturities, interest rates, prepayment premiums and initial offering prices of the
2006 Certificates, is hereby approved, and the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the
Board of Commissioners, the County Manager or the Director of Finance and
Administrative Services is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the County, the
Official Statement in substantially such form, together with such changes,
modifications and deletions as she or he, with the advice of counsel, may deem
necessary or appropriate; such execution shall be conclusive evidence of the approval
thereof by the County. The County hereby also approves and authorizes the
distribution and use of copies of the Official Statement, the Trust Agreement, the
Installment Financing Agreement, the Deed of Trust, the Purchase Agreement, the
Construction Agreements and the Lease Agreements by the Underwriters in
connection with the sale of the 2006 Certificates.
Section 8. The Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board of Commissioners,
the County Manager, the Director of Finance and Administrative Services, counsel to
the County and the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners are authorized and directed
(without limitation except as may be expressly set forth herein) to take such actions
and to execute and deliver such documents, certificates, undertakings, agreements and
other instruments as they, with the advice of counsel, may deem necessary or
appropriate to effectuate the transactions contemplated by the Trust Agreement, the
Installment Financing Agreement, the Deed of Trust, the Purchase Agreement, the
Construction Agreements and the Lease Agreements.
Section 9. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
After consideration of the foregoing resolution, Commissioner Norman moved
the passage thereof, and the foregoing resolution entitled: "RESOLUTION
APPROVING THE SALE BY IREDELL COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES
CORPORATION OF CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION IN CERTAIN
INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE COUNTY OF IREDELL,
NORTH CAROLINA, APPROVING A PROPOSED INSTALLMENT FINANCING
AGREEMENT TO FINANCE CERTAIN SCHOOL FACILITIES, APPROVING
CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS RELATING THERETO AND
AUTHORIZING OTHER OFFICIAL ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH"
was passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Sara Haire Tice, Godfrey Williams, Steve Johnson,
Marvin Norman, and Ken Robertson.
Noes: 0.
16
ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES OCCURRING ON BOARDS &
COMMISSIONS
• Criminal Justice Partnership Program (1 announcement)
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (I appointment): MOTION by
Commissioner Norman to postpone this appointment until the April 18 meeting.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee (6 appointments):
Commissioner Williams nominated Bill Todd and Rev. James Henderson.
MOTION by Commissioner Johnson to appoint Todd and Henderson by
acclamation and to postpone the remaining four appointments until the April 18
meeting.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Nursing Home Advisory Committee (3 appointments): Commissioner Norman
nominated Saundra Smith.
MOTION by Chairman Tice to close the nominations, appoint Smith by
acclamation, and to postpone the remaining two appointments until the April 18
meeting.
VOTING: Ayes- 5; Nays — 0.
Statesville Planning Board (ETJ) (1 appointment): Chairman Tice
nominated Bob Stamey.
OTION by Chairman Tice to close the nominations and appoint Stamey by
acclamation.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Historic Properties Commission (4 appointments): Commissioner Norman
nominated Lewis Alexander and Gene White.
Commissioner Johnson nominated Stan Clardy.
OTIO by Chairman Tice to appoint Alexander, White, and Clardy by
acclamation, and to postpone the remaining appointment until the April 18 meeting.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Lake Norman Transportation Advisory Committee (1 appointment for
an alternate position): Chairman Tice nominated Commissioner Ken Robertson.
MOTION by Chairman Tice to appoint Robertson by acclamation as the
alternate appointment to the Lake Norman Transportation Advisory Committee.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
WATER TANKS/STORMWATER: Commissioner Robertson said that at
the Winter Planning Session, stormwater and noise ordinance issues were discussed.
He said water tank regulations in residential subdivisions also needed study, and he
17
desired for the staff to research the matter. Robertson said Planning Board Member
Jerry Santoni already had much information about the issue.
MOTION by Commissioner Robertson to ask the planning department to
study the water tank matter and to seek input and information from Jerry Santoni
about this issue as well as stormwater problems.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
U.S. MOTTO: Commissioner Johnson said several months ago,
Mr. Rick Lanier had sent a letter requesting an appearance before the board regarding
the placement of the U.S. Motto on the old courthouse. Mr. Johnson requested
permission to extend an invitation to Mr. Lanier, since the Supreme Court had made a
ruling on the issue. (There was consensus to allow Mr. Lanier to appear at an
upcoming meeting.)
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT: County Manager Mashburn said a
Medicaid Relief bill had been drafted that was different from the March 28 proposal.
He said the newer legislation would be more beneficial to the county, and he requested a
resolution stating the county's preference.
OTION by Chairman Tice to adopt a Medicaid resolution based on the
manager's information and to allow the document to be signed.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
CLOSED SESSION: Citing G.S. 143-318.11 (a) (5) - Property Acquisition
and G.S. 143-318.11 (a) (6) - Personnel, Chairman Tice at 9:00 P.M., made a motio
to enter into closed session.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
(RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AT 9:29 P.M.)
PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR MITCHELL COMMUNITY
COLLEGE: MOTION by Chairman Tice to approve Budget Amendment #38 in the
amount of $244,900 to be taken from unappropriated fund balance and moved to the
General Fund for appropriation to Mitchell Community College's Capital Outlay Fund
for land acquisition.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Chairman Tice made a
motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:31 P.M. (NEXT MEETING: April 18, 2006,
5:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. in the Iredell County Government Center, 200 South Center
Street, Statesville, NC.
Approval:
18
Clerk to the Board