Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch_5_2013_Regular_MinutesIREDELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MINUTES MARCH 5, 2013 The Iredell County Board of Commissioners met on Tuesday, March 5, 2013, at 7:00 PM, in the Iredell County Government Center (Commissioners' Meeting Room), 200 South Center Street, Statesville, NC. Board Members Present Chairman Steve Johnson Vice Chairman Marvin Norman David Boone Renee Griffith Ken Robertson Staff present: County Manager Ron Smith, County Attorney Bill Pope, Finance Director Susan Blumenstein, Planner Matthew Todd, Planning/Development and Transportation Director Joey Raczkowski, Human Resources Director Sandra Gregory, and Clerk to the Board Jean Moore. CALL TO ORDER by Chairman Johnson INVOCATION by Chairman Johnson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADJUSTMENTS OF THE AGENDA: MOTION by Chairman Johnson to approve the agenda with the following adjustments. Deletion: • Request from the Facility Services Department for Permission to Raze a Structure (former Youth Home) and Storage Shed located at 232 Twin Oaks Road, Statesville, NC, along with the Waiver of $4,958 in Associated Landfill Tipping Fees Additions: • Request for Approval of Budget Amendment #27 for the Appropriation of Fund Balance ($57,200) to General Governmental — Buildings/Building Improvements Associated with the Purchase of Property at 321 Harrill Street, Statesville, NC, and the Demolition of a Structure on the Site • Closed Session Pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11 (a) (3) — Attorney/Client VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Johnson declared the meeting to be in a public hearing for the following three subject matters. (Mr. Todd presented all of the amendments at one time, and public comments were received during the marinas/boat repair segment. Each item was separately voted upon.) Consideration of Land Development Code Text Amendments Regarding: Private Aircraft Hangers, Marinas & Boat Repairs and Solar Farms: Planner Matthew Todd presented the staff reports for the three subject matters beginning with private aircraft hangers as follows: Private Aircraft Hanaers I EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST I The following staff -initiated text amendment to the Land Development Code is being presented for approval. Text in red and underlined is new text to be added. STAFF COMMENTS Before the Land Development Code was developed, the zoning regulations allowed an exemption for airplane hangars as accessory structures. Inadvertently, this exemption was omitted from the accessory building section when the LDC was adopted. Based on that omission, the staff is proposing the following amendment to the Land Development Code. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the amendment on December 5, 2012. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Chapter 3 Performance Requirements Accessory Buildings and Structures For the purposes of determining square footage for this section, measure from the outermost structural support members of any portion of the building that is under roof (including all covered porches, open storage areas, etc). Accessory buildings and structures shall meet the following requirements: A. In residential zoning districts, accessory buildings and structures: I . Shall NOT be erected in front of the front building line of the principal structure, except as provided for in B. below; 2. Shall NOT be erected within twenty-five (25) feet of any side street on a corner lot; 3. Shall NOT be erected within ten (10) feet of any property line NOT a street line or within ten (10) feet of any other building on the same lot; 4. Accessory buildings and structures greater than 1,200 square feet shall be setback a minimum of fifty (50) feet from any property line (the fifty (50) foot setback will NOT apply if the adjacent property is either zoned commercially or is a legal non -conforming commercial use); 5. Shall NOT exceed the height limitation for the principal structure; b. Shall NOT be permitted except as accessory to a principal building either existing or under construction on the same lot. 7. Shall NOT be used for human habitation except as provided for in Rb, Accessory Dwelling Unit. B. Notwithstanding A (1) above, in residential districts on lots of one (1) acre or larger, an accessory building or structure may be located in the front yard provided it is NOT located within 150 feet of the frontage street right-of-way line. In addition, in any residential district, one gazebo -type accessory building may be located in the front yard provided it is set back at least one-half ('/2) the required setback for the principal building. A special use permit may be granted by the Board of Adjustment to allow accessory buildings and structures in front of the front building line provided the front setback is maintained. C. In non-residential zoning districts, accessory buildings and structures: 1. May be located in front of the front building line of the principal building, but shall follow the same front yard setback as the principal building; 2. Shall comply with A (2), (3) and (5) above. D. Use of mobile homes for storage prohibited in residential and 0&1 districts. The use of mobile homes, travel trailers, tractor trailers and similar vehicles for storage purposes shall be expressly prohibited in all Residential and Office and Institutional Districts. E. Privately owned aircraft hangars are exempt from size limitations, but shall meet the accessory building setback requirements as described in A (1), (2) and (3) above. Commissioner Boone said it was understood that aircraft hangars would have the same setback requirements as other accessory buildings that were less than 1,200 square feet in size. Todd said correct, and when exceeded (1,200 square feet), the code required a 50 -foot setback, and this was unrealistic for the Lake Norman Airpark lots. No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Johnson adjourned the hearing. 2 OTION by Commissioner Robertson to approve the private aircraft hangar amendments. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST The following staff -initiated text amendment to the Land Development Code is being presented for approval. Existing text that is is text to be removed. Text in red and underlined is new text to be added. STAFF COMMENTS The purpose of this amendment is clarify what constitutes a marina and identify uses that may be permitted as part of a marina. This is being done as a result of a staff interpretation that a restaurant could be an accessory use to a marina. On December 16, 2010, based on the staff interpretation, the Board of Adjustment approved a Special Use Permit request that included additional piers and a restaurant for Stuffs Marina on Stuffs Road in Mooresville. The decision was appealed to Superior Court based on the fact that restaurants were not allowed in the RR zoning district. The judge overturned the decision by the Board, stating that restaurants were not allowed in the RR district and were not an accessory use as defined in our ordinance. After the ruling, which was filed on March 20, 2012, the Planning staff began reviewing the marina regulations to see how we could improve upon the definition of a marina. Boat repairs and service stations are currently permitted in the RA and RR districts with a special use permit. This was allowed because marinas were allowed in those districts with a special use permit, although anyone in the RA and RR district could apply for a special use permit for a boat repair business without it being part of a marina. The proposed changes to the marina section include boat repair, therefore the staff would like to take boat repair out of the RA and RR districts unless it is associated with a marina. The use would still be permitted in the GB, M-1, and M-2 districts. Also, the Performance Requirements that are associated with boat repair in R43 are intended more for the use if it is permitted in the RA and RR districts. The staff does not feel that these should apply in the GB, M-1, and M-2 districts, therefore we would like to delete this Performance Requirement from the LDC and leave it open for future use. The staff is proposing the following amendments to the Land Development Code to address issues with marinas and boat repairs. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the amendment on December 5th, 2012. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT R 33 Marinas, Commercial In the RA and RR Districts Marinas permitted as Special Uses shall meet the following minimum standards: A. Minimum lot size - four (4) contiguous acres B. Minimum frontage on a public street - 200 feet C. Minimum shoreline frontage - 200 feet D. Minimum yard requirements - as required for the zoning district in which located provided that water dependent structures shall be exempt from setbacks from the shoreline. E. No outdoor storage of new or used parts, items for salvage, items for retail sale or similar items. Boats and/or boat trailers may be stored outdoors. Section 16.4 Definitions MarinaA facility containing moorings and boat slips available for the use of the general public and which rnay also offer supplies and servines for boaters including .dry doc and repair services including structures and activities normally integral to the operation of a marina such as but not limited to dry dock, repair services, fueling, pumping -out, chartering, launching, boat and let ski rentals, the sale of supplies and convenience goods for use in recreational boating and boat maintenance, and recreational concession stands. This does not include community piers or other non-commercial boat docking and storage facilities. (See Chapter 3, R 33) Recreational Concession Stand. A structure devoted to the sale of snacks, beverages, or other light meals, whether prepared in the structure or pre -prepared, and providing no inside seating or drive-thru service. This use shall be operated in conjunction with a use permitted in the district. Section 2.21.3 Commercial Uses USES AC RA RUR RR R20 R12 R8 RO OI NB HB GB M1 M2 R Boat service stations, no major g g X X X 43 repair R43 Reserved for future use Chairman Johnson mentioned that the amendment would allow consumption of food, but there would be no tables where patrons could sit. Todd said correct. Chairman Johnson said that in regards to the Stutts Marina, people had complained to him about activities occurring around the restaurant at all hours of the night, including noise and traffic, rather than actually complaining about the eating establishment. He asked if the code adequately addressed the referenced problems. Todd said, "The same as before, the same process will apply. It is still a special use permit in the RA and RR districts. It has to go back through the board of adjustment for approval. This is clarifying what would be permitted versus what is not with the definition. It would still be up to the board of adjustment members. They could place specific conditions and be more stringent than the ordinance." Commissioner Griffith asked if this would preclude picnic tables outside of a concession stand. Todd said the code did not get that specific. He said, however, the language probably would not prohibit picnic tables. Commissioner Boone asked the reason behind the deletion of free standing boat repair facilities. He said it was understood that with the current language, someone could build such a facility in the RA or RR districts with a special use permit. Boone said that if the amendments were approved, a person would need to have the property rezoned in order to have the boat repair facilities. Todd said this was correct. He said free standing boat repair facilities did not fit in RA or RR if they were not associated with a marina. Todd said the staff felt the matter was being taken care of through the marina definition. James DeYounZ, 309 Shoreline Loop, Mooresville, NC, submitted and read the following prepared statement: "The newly proposed recreational concession stand definition states: this use shall be operated in conjunction with a use permitted in the district. Since neither a restaurant nor a bar is listed as a permitted use under the RR designation, and since this is a new entity that appears to be a combination of both, does this mean that Starts Marina may not have a recreational concession stand? On October 3, 2012, when discussing the new text amendments, the planning board was concerned that alcohol sales would increase and cause greater danger. Mr. Todd stated that an ABC permit would be issued and regulated by the state of North Carolina. He stated that alcohol sales would be permitted only if the use was permitted by zoning. Sadly, no one appears to be regulating Stints Marina because they are currently 4 serving alcoholic drinks on premises. Stutts is surrounded by R-20 residential homes. Why would the commission allow a restaurant, a bar, or any entity that combines the two in an area they have designated resort residential? The regulations of this district are intended to insure that the principal use of the land is for low-to-medium density, recreational purposes. This type of commercial business does not belong among our homes. When 1 moved into my, home more than thirty years ago, Stutts was zoned R-20 just like my home. It remained that way until 2001 when the board of commissioners changed the designation to RR. It was Stutts Bait and Tackle Shop, and it serviced the local fishermen. These proposed amendments would change the entire environment of our neighborhood. They would add the possibility of a restaurant/bar, by whatever name they are masquerading, being in our residential neighborhood despite the county's own ruling that restaurants and bars are not allowed in RR zones ... a rose by any other name. The residential resort district is defined in the Iredell County Land Use Plan and Codes by two basic things: residential and low density. These text amendments violate both basic tenets as well as the Superior Court ruling of no restaurant. The construction and operation of a restaurant at Stutts is not among the uses listed as eligible for an RR district. It is also not in harmony with the area and would not be in conformity with the plan of development for the Counts. My request is that the term recreational concession stand not be entered anywhere in the zoning ordinances or marina description. However, if you are inclined to include this designation, I would like to offer this definition as a compromise: Recreational Concession Stand - A structure in which the sale of beverages, snacks and packaged snack foods is permitted. The beverages, snacks and packaged snack foods shall be prepared off-site and not prepared in the structure. There shall be no inside seating or drive-thru service in the Recreational Concession Stand. The Recreational Concession Stand may be operated in conjunction with another use or uses permitted in the district." Connie Kirsch, a resident of 291 Shoreline Loop, Mooresville, NC, submitted and read the following prepared remarks: `I am concerned about the new definition of a marina. The zoning on all the marinas in Iredell County, is not the same. Some marinas are listed GB, some CUD, some RR, and because of the various zonings some marinas already have restaurants. How could one definition of a marina work when the marinas are in varying zoning districts? In the past, the Iredell County BOA ruled against any sales or leasing of boats at Stutts. Now the definition includes boat and jet-ski rentals that should not apply to Resort Residential. See 2-44 and 2-47 of the Iredell County Land Development Code. Both prohibit recreational vehicle sales and service recreational concession stands --not allowed in RR --just another name for restaurant/bar with four or more acres of outdoor seating. How large can these structures be? Are there no concerns about pollution to the lake? If the patrons of the concession stands eat on their boats and jet skis, the possibility of debris goes way up. The Iredell County definition of a restaurant says nothing about where the food is consumed. It has been ruled that a restaurant is not allowed in an RR zone. Yet according to this new definition every marina can have a recreation concession stand... another name for a restaurant. If all the components of the new definition of marina are applied to a marina in an RR district, the result would be commercial and high density. A marina owner who desires to expand to that degree should purchase land in a commercial or business district --not a resort residential zone. The county sets our land value per linear shoreline foot approximately four times higher than the land at Stutts' marina, and we can't sell gas or rent slips to offset our costs. Ours is a modest neighborhood built in the 1970s. We understand there will be boats, and we love to see people enjoying the lake. However in the end, proportionately, we have a lot more skin in the game than the marina does. If Stutts were allowed to expand to the full extent of this definition, and not be held to the appropriate guidelines for a commercial marina as stated in the SMG, it would not diminish our property value. It would destroy our property value. I respectfully submit that the definition of marina be left as it is so that each marina can be considered on a case-by-case basis in order to comply with the County zoning laws and the Shoreline Management Guidelines. Please deny these amendments. " John Kerhoulas, 294 Shoreline Loop, Mooresville, NC, submitted and read the following prepared remarks: "What is a recreational concession stand? I looked up recreational concession stand in the Webster's dictionary, and online, and I found nothing! This term was conceived by the planning staff as part of their staff initiated text amendments to the Land Development Code concerning marinas and boat repair. Staff comments state: The purpose of this amendment is to clarify what constitutes a marina and identify uses that may be permitted as part of a marina. This is being done as a result of a staff interpretation that a restaurant could be an accessory use to a marina. On December 16, 2010, based on the staff interpretation, the board of adjustment approved a special use permit request that included additional piers and a k, restaurant for Stutts Marina on Stutts Road in Mooresville. The decision was appealed to Superior Court based on the fact that restaurants were not allowed in the RR zoning district. The judge overturned the decision by the board, stating that restaurants were not allowed in the RR district and were not an accessory use as defined in our ordinance. After the ruling, which was filed on March 20, 2012, the Planning staff began reviewing the marina regulations to see how we could improve upon the definition of a marina. Mr. Todd stated that the amendment would specify the definitionluse of a marina and recreational concession stand. The board was concerned that alcohol sales would increase and cause greater danger. So evidently alcohol is a big part of the recreational concession stand. Of course, Stutts already has an on premise alcohol permit, but it seems no one on the board was aware of it. Here is a copy of that license. (Copy is included in the March 5 agenda packet.) So how did the staff improve upon the definition of a marina? They added: `recreational concession stand, a place that can prepare and serve food' to the definition of a marina. A place that can prepare and serve food is a restaurant. A restaurant is not allowed in the RR zone. Alcohol consumption on premises is also not allowed in the RR zone. Why would the Planning Board go against the Iredell County Zoning and try to place restaurant/bars in resort residential? Zoning restrictions exist to protect homeowners like us from these high density commercial ventures. What kind of permits would be necessary for a recreational concession stand? I would bet they would be similar to a restaurant. Why, because it's a place that prepares food to sell to other people for consumption. The health department, fire department, and all the other agencies involved in the operation (Y'a restaurant would need to oversee the recreational concession stand. So picture this: The County, which prohibits restaurants/bars in the RR zone, would have to issue permits to a restaurant/bar in an RR zone. A recreational concession stand is another word for restaurantlbar--that is clear. The Superior Court said no restaurants in the RR zone. That seems very clear. Does the term recreational concession stand improve on the definition of a marina, or does it defy the Superior Court ruling and the zoning laws of Iredell County?" Commissioner Griffith asked if convenience stores were allowed in RR districts. Raczkowski said they were not allowed. Griffith asked if a convenience store was located at the Stutts Marina. Todd said some convenience type items were sold, but mostly, the goods were fish and tackle related. Robertson said he primarily thought of soft drinks and chips when someone mentioned a concession stand. Griffith said the items might be similar to those seen at a Little League ball field. Robertson said permits would be needed if hot dogs were cooked at the concession stand. He mentioned that Stutts had no capacity for on-site wastewater to handle the cooking. Raczkowski said that if the text amendments were approved, it didn't mean the Stunts marina, or any marina, could open a recreational concession stand tomorrow. He said there were many approvals that would be needed, with one being from the health department, and another from the board of adjustment. Raczkowski said the board of adjustment would review the size of the property and its relationship with the neighborhood. Commissioner Boone said one concern he knew about was the possibility of a bar in the zones and the associated problems, such as unruly conduct and noise. He asked if the concession stand definition could be amended to say that on -premise alcohol sales would not be allowed. Raczkowski said it was his understanding that a blanket stipulation of this type (no consumption of alcohol on site) could not be included in a definition for a particular use. He said this was controlled through the state level by the ABC licensing process. Raczkowski said also, he didn't feel that alcohol consumption was viewed as a use. Boone said there were on -premises and off -premises permits. Raczkowski said correct. 6 Chairman Johnson said it appeared the staff was trying to give marina owners an opportunity to engage in other types of business, such as concession stands, restaurants, or whatever, but the marina itself was the primary destination. Todd said this was correct, and it would apply across the board. He said these were ancillary uses, but based on the court case, the staff felt clarity was needed, especially with the terms ancillary and accessory. Todd said, "That was the intent of trying to list a few things specifically." County Manager Ron Smith pointed out that since the definition had been "tightened up," the county might be subject to several cases of non -conforming uses. He said if the definition remained "tight," and a business wanted to expand, there could be some difficulties. Penny Kerhoulis, 294 Shoreline Loop, Mooresville, NC, said that in regards to concession stands, she had read they were never open 24/7, and they were always linked to an event. Mrs. Kerhoulis asked: "If a restaurant/bar is not allowed in an RR district, and if alcohol consumption is not allowed in RR districts, how can they (concession stands) be allowed in RR districts?" Commissioner Robertson said marinas sold items, and they engaged in commerce. He said the county was trying to clarify the issue. Robertson said that when a person looked at all of the marinas in the county, Struts was probably the least developed. He said that due to the lack of sewer, there would be no restaurant option for the Stutts marina. Mrs. Kerhoulis asked why alcohol was allowed in an RR district. She said, "Why is alcohol allowed when it doesn't have a check mark?" Raczkowski said, "On the restaurant/bar portion, yes, it might be indicated that it is not allowed, but this is not a restaurant and bar. We are dealing with a marina which is the primary use of the property. Again, through the special use process, a person might be able to have a recreational concession stand." Commissioner Griffith said it appeared Mrs. Kerhoulis was concerned that alcohol was already being sold on the property. Todd said the ABC licensing board asked the planning staff if the use was permitted for the zoning. He said for a marina, the staff would look to see if this type use was permitted in the RR district. Todd said the staff would answer, yes, on the ABC form. He said the ABC board was actually the agency approving the alcohol sales. Todd said the planning department was only approving the underlying use. Johnson said the ABC board was merely asking the planning department if the designated use of the property was in compliance with the ordinance. He said if the applicant desired to sell alcohol that was an issue for the ABC board. Todd said correct. Griffith mentioned that if the amendments did not occur, the marina would continue to operate as it does now. Raczkowski said correct. Johnson referred to Mr. DeYoung's suggestion about no food preparation. Robertson said DeYoung had requested no preparation of food inside the structure. Johnson said that if the board disallowed food preparation in a structure, and later an applicant wanted to have this capability, the individual would need a special use permit. VA Raczkowski said this could be amended, but a recreational concession stand might be at a concert, or on school grounds where the concessionaires wanted to boil hot dogs in accordance with health department rules. He said on-site food would be something of this nature. Griffith said if the county was too constraining in the definition of a concession stand that many groups would be adversely affected, such as Little League groups. She said the text amendments would not fix or change the problems that residents were experiencing near the Stutts marina. No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Johnson declared the public hearing adjourned. OTION by Commissioner Griffith to approve the marinas and boat repair text amendment. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Solar Farms EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST The following staff -initiated text amendment to the Land Development Code is being presented for approval. Text in red and underlined is new text to be added. STAFF COMMENTS In the past couple of years, the Planning office has received several inquiries regarding the development of solar power generation facilities or solar farms. This use has also been the topic of a lot of talk and questions in the Planning community. The addition of this regulation in the code also works towards achieving sustainability efforts that the County is trying to initiate. The staff developed this amendment using sources such as the Renewable Energy Task Force in Kent County, Maryland, the "Municipal Guide to Planning for and Regulating Alternative Energy Systems" from Lancaster County Planning Commission, and other jurisdictions throughout the State. One regulation was intentionally left out was screening requirements. This was done because developments in the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts are automatically required to provide screening from adjoining residentially zoned properties. Also, in the AC and RA districts, screening can be added as a condition as deemed necessary by the Board of Adjustment. Based on the research, the staff is proposing the following amendments to the Land Development Code. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the amendment on December 5, 2012. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT R65 Solar Farms A. Solar collection devices shall be designed and located to avoid glare or reflection onto adjacent properties and adjacent roadways and shall not interfere with traffic or create a safety hazard. B. Solar farms shall not be located within an airport primary approach zone as described in Section 4.6.1. C. Solar devices within a solar farm must be enclosed by a fence at least six (6) feet in height and must have clearly visible warning signage concerning voltage. D. An emergency shut-off mechanism is required and notice of its location should be submitted to Iredell County Emergency Management. The mechanism shall be clearly identified and unobstructed and shall be noted clearly on the site plan. E. No business signs, billboards, or other advertising shall be installed on a solar device. F. The property owner shall have six (6) months to complete decommissioning of the solar facility if no electricity is generated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months. A project is properly decommissioned when all structures and equipment are removed and the site is re -vegetated. 8 Applicant must submit decommissioning plans that describe the anticipated life of the solar project, the party responsible for decommissioning, the estimated decommissioning costs in current dollars, and the method for ensuring that funds will be available for decommissioning and restoration. G. The applicant shall be required to provide written documentation stating that the facility is in compliance with all applicable Federal and State regulations. H. Setbacks 1. A solar device within a solar farm may not be closer than 500 feet to any existing residential dwelling, excluding any dwellings on the same parcel of land as the device. 2. Solar collection devices must beset back fifty (50) feet from any property line. I. Solar collection devices attached to rooftops or buildings are exempt from requirements C and H above. J. This section does not pertain to solar devices generating energy solely for on-site use. Section 16.4 Definitions Solar Farm. An array of solar collection devices to generate energy for off-site use. Section 2.21.5 Public works Facilities, Utilities, & Infrastructure Uses USES JACI RAI RURI RR R20 R121 R81 110 1011 NB1 HB GB Ml M21 R Solar farm I S S R R 1 65 Commissioner Robertson asked about Section 16.4. He said that if one electron was sent off-site it was sent for off-site use. Planning, Development and Transportation Director Joey Raczkowski said the word "predominately" might add clarify to the sentence. Robertson asked if the language was similar to what was being used in Catawba County and Shelby, NC. Todd said it was similar. No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Johnson adjourned the hearing. MOTIO by Vice Chairman Norman to approve the amendments but to add the word "predominately" in Section 16.4 Definitions as follows: Solar Farm. An array of solar collection devices to generate energy for predominately off-site use. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Request from the Iredell Statesville School System for Approval of Budget Amendment #24 to Accept and Appropriate Funds in Conjunction with an Application for NC Education Lottery Funds for (1) West Iredell High School Student Restrooms & Concession Area, along with a Storage Building Project, and (2) a Career Academy & Technical School Digital Production Classroom Upfit: Dr. Kenny Miller, with the Iredell- Statesville Schools, said $267,397.29 had been spent for public restrooms, a concession area, and a storage building for West Iredell High School. Additionally, he said a digital media project costing $155,646.84 had been completed for the Career Tech School in Troutman. Miller said a reimbursement from the State (NC Education Lottery Funds) was now being requested. MOTIO by Vice Chairman Norman to approve Budget Amendment #24 for the acceptance and appropriation of the lottery proceeds for the referenced projects. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. 9 Request from the Mooresville Graded School District for Approval of an Application for Public School Building Capital Fund Proceeds: Finance Director Susan Blumenstein said the Mooresville Graded School District planned to request the release of $915,922 from the North Carolina Public School Building Capital Fund (ADM fund balance). She said the district would reimburse itself for school technology costs, and pay $915,922 to Iredell County to support debt service on Certificates of Participation. Blumenstein said the amount was included as revenue in the county's current year's budget, but the application was requesting Public School Building Capital Funds (ADM) instead of lottery proceeds. She said $1,254,863 was available, and the Mooresville Board of Education had approved the request. Blumenstein said the funds needed to be used due to the possibility the General Assembly might confiscate the funding from the State Treasurer. OTIO by Vice Chairman Norman to approve the Public School Building Capital Fund application for the Mooresville Graded School District. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Request from the Finance Department for Approval of Budget Amendment #25 for the Workers Compensation Self -Insurance Fund: Finance Director Blumenstein said "exorbitant" costs had occurred in the workers comp self-insurance fund. She said the claims this year had been more than twice the five-year average, but the fund balance was sufficient to cover the needed amount. Blumenstein requested $450,000. She said the county was self funded, and this had saved over $4 million since 2004-05. Commissioner Boone asked the reasons for the increase. Blumenstein said there were three large claims (one occurred in 2010; one in 2011; and the other in January 2012). OTION by Commissioner Griffith to approve Budget Amendment #25 for the Workers Compensation Self -Insurance Fund. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. To appropriate funds to be received from Lottery proceeds for Iredell-Statesville Schools project at West Iredell High School and Career Academy - Digital Production Classroom Upfit BA#24 BA#25 3/5/2013 Account# Current Chane Amended 104700 457101 Lottery Proceeds - Iredell-Statesville (663,360) (423,045) (1,086,405) 105700 560004 Iredell-Statesville - Lottery Projects 937,580 423,045 1,360,625 Request from the Mooresville Graded School District for Approval of an Application for Public School Building Capital Fund Proceeds: Finance Director Susan Blumenstein said the Mooresville Graded School District planned to request the release of $915,922 from the North Carolina Public School Building Capital Fund (ADM fund balance). She said the district would reimburse itself for school technology costs, and pay $915,922 to Iredell County to support debt service on Certificates of Participation. Blumenstein said the amount was included as revenue in the county's current year's budget, but the application was requesting Public School Building Capital Funds (ADM) instead of lottery proceeds. She said $1,254,863 was available, and the Mooresville Board of Education had approved the request. Blumenstein said the funds needed to be used due to the possibility the General Assembly might confiscate the funding from the State Treasurer. OTIO by Vice Chairman Norman to approve the Public School Building Capital Fund application for the Mooresville Graded School District. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Request from the Finance Department for Approval of Budget Amendment #25 for the Workers Compensation Self -Insurance Fund: Finance Director Blumenstein said "exorbitant" costs had occurred in the workers comp self-insurance fund. She said the claims this year had been more than twice the five-year average, but the fund balance was sufficient to cover the needed amount. Blumenstein requested $450,000. She said the county was self funded, and this had saved over $4 million since 2004-05. Commissioner Boone asked the reasons for the increase. Blumenstein said there were three large claims (one occurred in 2010; one in 2011; and the other in January 2012). OTION by Commissioner Griffith to approve Budget Amendment #25 for the Workers Compensation Self -Insurance Fund. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Request for the Approval of a Renewal Agreement to Continue Renting Cooperative Extension Building Office Space to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Farm Service Agency: Finance Director Blumenstein said space had been rented to the Department of Agriculture/Farm Service Agency since October 1, 2005. She said the USDA desired to renew the lease through July 31, 2015, with annual rent payments of $27,074. Blumenstein said the cost was less than market value, but the only agencies housed at the 10 To appropriate additional fund balance from the Workers Compensation Self -Insurance Fund to cover estimated claims costs in excess of the amount budgeted for FY 2013. BA#25 3/5/2013 Account # Current Chane Amended 684880 4995.00 Appropriated Fund Balance (62,135) (415,000) (477,135) 685415 5462.00 Workers Compensation Claims 328,190 176,000 504,190 685415 5463.00 Workers Compensation Settlements 125,000 239,000 364,000 Request for the Approval of a Renewal Agreement to Continue Renting Cooperative Extension Building Office Space to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Farm Service Agency: Finance Director Blumenstein said space had been rented to the Department of Agriculture/Farm Service Agency since October 1, 2005. She said the USDA desired to renew the lease through July 31, 2015, with annual rent payments of $27,074. Blumenstein said the cost was less than market value, but the only agencies housed at the 10 Agricultural Resource Center were those of benefit to local farmers such as cooperative extension, forestry, or soil and water conservation. Commissioner Boone asked if the county could negotiate for a higher rate. Blumenstein said she didn't think so. OTION by Commissioner Robertson to approve the renewal agreement with the USDA for the Farm Service Agency. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Request for the Declaration of Surplus Vehicles and Authorization for the County Purchasing & Contracts Manager to Conduct an Online Auction, Sale, or Other Best Disposal Method Allowable by the NC General Statutes: Finance Director Blumenstein said the purchasing agent recommended that 18 vehicles be declared surplus. She said the purchasing agent also desired permission to auction the vehicles online at GovDeals, or through the method most beneficial to the county. Blumenstein said Vehicle Services Director John Williams was in attendance to answer questions regarding the vehicles. She said due to accidents, two of the vehicles were declared total losses, and several of the EMS vehicles had been remounted leaving only the cabs --no boxes. Commissioner Robertson asked about the low mileage on some of the vehicles. Vehicle Services Director John Williams said these particular vehicles had paint problems. He said that in the next batch of surplus vehicles, probably all of them would have over 150,000 miles. OT10N by Vice Chairman Norman to approve the resolution to declare the vehicles surplus and to authorize the purchasing agent to sell the vehicles as requested. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. 2012 Surplus Vehicle List NOTE: NUMBERS 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18 & ARE EMS REMOUNTS. THEY ARE CAB ONLY; NO BOX. MAKE/ TURN IN YEAR MODEL COLOR VIN MILEAGE DEPT COND TAG DATE IC# DK. 1 2001 GMC/G1500 BLUE IGTGG25RXIII13320 208842 SHERIFF POOR 39557-T 5/17/2012 14657 CODE 2 2000 FORD/F150 WHITE 1FTRF17W2YNA97691 76551 ENT. LOSS 18875-S 10/24/2012 10544 3 2001 FORD/E350 WHITE IFDXE45F71HB33616 207778 EMS POOR 35272-S 6/6/2012 11035 4 2001 FORD/E350 WHITE 1FDXE45F71HA88337 220813 EMS POOR 33826-S 8/9/2012 11029 5 2000 FORD/E350 WHITE IFDXP45F3YHB96836 234693 EMS POOR 28354-S 6/6/2012 10871 6 2004 FORD/CVV WHITE 2FAHP7 I W64X 151481 144529 SHERIFF POOR 55727-S 10/24/2012 11529 7 2004 FORD/C\V WHITE 2FAFP71W74X106217 195952 SHERIFF POOR 51378-S 10/24/2012 11389 PXA- 8 2002 FORD/C\V GOLD 2FAFP71 W 82X 144603 164603 SHERIFF POOR 2094 5/7/2012 11082 W PT - 9 2004 FORD/C\V WHITE 2FAHP7 I W44X 151494 154836 SHERIFF POOR 3931 5/7/2012 11531 10 2005 FORD/C\V WHITE 2FAHP71W75X154908 139197 SHERIFF POOR 65278-S 10/24/2012 11738 11 2004 FORD/CVV WHITE 2FAFP7 I W04X 106219 169853 SHERIFF POOR 51379-S 10/24/2012 11388 12 2004 FORD/C\V WHITE 2FAHP71W94X15149I 125545 SHERIFF POOR 55728-S 10/24/2012 11528 13 2002 FORD/C\V WHITE 2FAFP7 I W42X 142315 165003 SHERIFF POOR 37628-S 10/24/2012 11069 14 2004 FORD/E450 WHITE 1FDXE45P44HA88616 EMS 60936-S 9/12/2012 11596 15 2005 FORD/E450 WHITE 1FDXF45P25HA14760 EMS 68127-S 10/30/2012 11766 16 2005 FORD/E450 WHITE IFDXE45P45HA14761 EMS 68128-S 9/12/2012 11767 SOLID 17 1993 JEEP/CHER GOLD IJ4FJ68S9PL548937 WASTE POOR 24039-R 1/4/2013 8673 18 1979 FORD/ WHITE R902VEA6686 FACILITY 85620-R 11/5/2012 9787 NOTE: NUMBERS 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18 & ARE EMS REMOUNTS. THEY ARE CAB ONLY; NO BOX. Resolution Authorizing the Disposition of Certain County Owned Vehicles WHEREAS, the County of Iredell has possession of an inventory of vehicles that are surplus to its needs and desires to dispose of same. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Iredell County that Dean A. Lail, Purchasing & Contracts Manager, pursuant to the provisions of N.C.G.S. 160A-266, is hereby authorized to dispose of the listed vehicles by on-line surplus auction through the GovDeals site or other appropriate method allowed by the North Carolina General Statutes and most advantageous to the County for cash or good check, and that said Purchasing & Contracts Manager is hereby authorized to schedule, conduct and execute any actions required to convey title to this property. Request from the Human Resources Department for Approval of Revisions to the Iredell County Substance Abuse Policy: Human Resources Director Sandra Gregory said that on December 18, 2012, the board reviewed changes to the Substance Abuse Policy and requested additional research on some of the language. Gregory reviewed the following recommended changes (shown in bold and grey lettering). IREDELL COUNTY ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY SECTION 7. CONSEQUENCES OF A POSITIVE TEST RESULT An applicant shall be denied employment with Iredell County if his/her drug test is positive. Such an applicant may be considered for future employment after three (3) years. In its effort to provide a safe and healthy work environment and protect the County from economic losses that can occur due to drug abuse, the use of illegal Controlled Substances will not be tolerated by the County. An employee who has a positive drug test result that indicates the use of an illegal, Controlled Substance will be subject to termination. Except as otherwise provided in this policy, an employee who has a positive drug test result that indicates misuse of a legal or prescribed Controlled Substance will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. When making recommendations for disciplinary action, Supervisors and Department Heads, in conjunction with the HR Director, should consider factors which include: (a) The employee's work history; (b) Job assignment; (c) Length of service; (d) Current job performance; (e) Existence of past disciplinary actions. (f) The nature of the substance abused. An employee who voluntarily, without reasonable suspicion of a supervisor, who is permitted to continue employment after positive test results, or prior to being notified of being selected as a random drug testing recipient identifies him/herself as a drug user may be referred to EAP and subject to provisions of this policy. Employee may also participate in the Last Chance Assistance Program as outlined in section 15 of this policy. An employee permitted to continue employment and receive assistance under the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and/or the Last Chance Assistance Program will be required to utilize approved compensatory time, sick time, annual leave, or leave without pay respectively for all time away from work after the initial EAP assessment/appointment. (See sections 14 & 15 for detailed information on each program offered). Any employee who questions the results of a required drug test under this policy may request that the split sample be tested. This shall be performed in accordance with the North Carolina Controlled Substance Examination Regulations Act, Chapter 95, Article 20 of the North Carolina General Statutes. The method of collecting, storing, and testing the split sample will be consistent with the procedures set forth in 49 CFR Part 40, as amended. 12 SECTION 10. PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES When drug screening is required under the provisions of this program, a test will be conducted to detect the presence of a controlled substance as defined in North Carolina General Statute 90- 87(5) or metabolite thereof. A legally prescribed drug means that an individual has a prescription or other written approval from a physician for the use of that drug in the course of medical treatment. Prescription must include the patient's name, the name of the substance, quantity/amount to be taken, and the period of authorization. Any employee found to have used prescription drugs contrary to the medical prescription will be subject to the terms and conditions of this program. The use of any substance, which carries a warning label that indicates mental functioning, motor skills, or judgment may be adversely affected, should be reported to the Department Head. This information must be treated as private medical information. Employee should obtain a written release from the attending physician releasing the person to perform their job duties any time they obtain a performance -altering prescription. Department Heads overseeing employees in safety -sensitive positions, as defined in Section 9 of this policy, may require these employees to report the use of any substance, which is performance -altering, where the employee's position affects public safety. Furthermore, the Department Head may require an employee in a safety -sensitive position to obtain a release from the attending physician releasing the person to perform their job duties at any time they obtain a performance -altering prescription. SECTION 12. APPLICANT TESTING All applicants for employment with Iredell County are subject to the testing provisions of this program. Drug testing of applicants will be done as part of a post -offer requirement. The Human Resources Department will normally schedule drug testing for only the applicant tentatively selected for employment. Applicants scheduled for a drug test will be asked to sign a consent form authorizing a drug test and permitting release of the test results to County officials with a need to know. A job applicant who refuses to consent to a drug test will be denied employment with Iredell County. Employees who are transferred or promoted to a safety -sensitive position will be required to pass a pre -placement drug test. (End of Policy) Mrs. Gregory said that at the December 18 board meeting, a discussion occurred about having a no tolerance policy for employees who tested positive for the use of illegal drugs and the misuse of legal drugs. She said, "Another point of discussion by the board was to potentially break this up into two sections, with one being no tolerance for the use of illegal drugs, and the other section allowing some discretion for the misuse of legal drugs, or prescribed medications. In response to that, you have two choices. We can have the no tolerance policy and say any tests that are positive for any illegal drug use, or misuse, is an automatic termination. There is some caution needed; however, because we could run into some ADA violations as relating to prescription medications, if you use the no tolerance policy. The alternative method that was added would be to use a no tolerance policy for the use of illegal drugs and allowing discretion for those that might misuse prescribed medication." Commissioner Robertson asked if the drug test could tell the difference between heroin and hydrocodone. Gregory said that if anything came back positive, it would go to the medical review officer. She said the medical review officer would request the employee to provide a physician's prescription. Gregory said the medical review officer would make the determination about the outcome. Continuing, Gregory said, "If the board does elect that method --no tolerance for the illegal use of drugs and discretion for prescribed drugs --I would Like to include that when the department head is considering disciplinary action they consult with me so I can ensure we are 13 not laying the groundwork for an ADA charge. At the last meeting, a question was asked if Section 10 — Prohibited Substances was a violation of HIPAA, and it is not. One thing I would like to reiterate to the board is that we do have the right to require physicians' medical releases for employees who serve in safety positions. I would recommend that we change this in order to provide some added protection as the department heads try to administer the policy in requiring those in safety positions to notify us if they are taking any mind altering medications. Our policy currently says that they should report any mind altering or performance medications. In Section 12 -Applicant Testing, the policy currently states that employees transferred or promoted to safety sensitive positions should be required to pass a pre -placement drug test. I had initially recommended for this to be removed because it is a violation of the employees' Fourth Amendment Rights. Mr. Robertson had requested that we keep this in the policy. I think the ultimate question is: `Where does the liability risk lieT Does the board want to risk violating the employees' Fourth Amendment Rights versus something happening, and it becoming a huge liability issue, especially if drug issues are found? I think it is ultimately the question as to the risk the board wants to take. Mr. Pope and I had some conversations, and he recommends that it remain in the policy. He feels it is the less risky of the two." Commissioner Griffith asked, "What would happen under our policy, if an employee applied for a safety -sensitive position, but failed the drug test? Would the employee lose their currentjob?" Gregory said a recommendation would be to not terminate, or promote, the employee. She said situations, such as these, might need legal consultation. Griffith asked if the employee hadn't violated the policy if they tested positive. Gregory said it depended upon what position they were originally in and what they were being promoted to. She said that if a person working in a non -safety position was trying for a safety -sensitive job, and he or she tested positive, the county might be violating his or her rights if the employee was not allowed to remain in the non -safety position. Gregory added, however, legal counsel might be requested. Commissioner Robertson asked why the following language couldn't be added to the policy: "and will be subject to the consequences of the county, policy, if they test positive." Attorney Pope said the argument is that they do not have to apply --it is voluntary on their part. He said, "The other argument we've been concerned about is that public employees, unlike common law employees, have what's called a property right in their job. This entitles them to a due process hearing before they can be terminated. They have a measure of Constitutional protection greater than the rest of us. This is what the experts have been telling us. It would likely be found by the courts that we had violated their Fourth Amendment Rights if we terminated them. Even though we had warned them upfront, and it was voluntary on their part to apply for the job. Don't ask me to defend that position or the logic. It defies my understanding of logic, but it's what we have been advised." Patrick Flanagan, the county's labor attorney, said he agreed with Attorney Pope's statements. Flanagan said, "It does come down to balancing the liability. Normally, you would have to have probable cause, or they would have to be in safety -sensitive position to require the drug testing. I hear what you are saying, but it's a decision you will have to make. Balancing whether or not you potentially are violating Fourth Amendment Rights by terminating them essentially for testing positive on the drug test, or letting them go back to that position." Commissioner Robertson said he was willing to take the risk. He said, "I would rather go down fighting on that side of the equation. I say let the coke addict get their attorney, and we'll see them in court." Robertson added that many people would like to have a county job, especially with its pension plan, which had just about been abolished in the private sector. Human Resources Director Gregory said the question was on what the county wanted to take in regards to the risk. Attorney Pope agreed. 14 Chairman Johnson asked the odds of winning a court case. Pope said, "It depends a lot on the draw of the judge and other things. Lawyers like to hear clients say, `It's the principle of the matter."' Chairman Johnson asked if the county was likely to lose. Pope said, "I think there's better than a fifty -percent chance we would lose, but not significantly greater. If we do a good job of warning people upfront in bold print, such as: If you apply for this job and you flunk the test, you will lose the job you've got now. In my mind, this is a significant factor that should substantially improve our chances of prevailing. Whether it will or not, I'm not sure." Commissioner Boone asked the likelihood of someone applying for the position while using drugs. Commissioner Robertson said there were two problems whenever a county employee was using that kind of drug. He said, "Number one: they could be under the influence while at work, and number two: the person was showing a tremendous lack of good judgment. In a period of high unemployment, why would the county keep the person employed when there are people who are demonstrating good judgment wanting ajob?" Attorney Flanagan said the language, if stated upfront, would be strengthened, if the employees were told that if they failed a test they might be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the personnel policy. Commissioner Robertson read the policy as follows: Employees who are transferred or promoted to a safety sensitive position will be required to pass a pre -placement drug test. He asked about adding the following language at the end of the sentence: "and will be subject to the county policy if they fail or test positive." He said Attorney Pope could fine-tune the language as needed. Griffith asked if the county's case might be strengthened if the language was in bold. Pope said, "To some extent it will be fact specific. Bad facts make bad laws sometimes. It may depend upon the recentness of the drug, the amount of drug, and the type of drug that was taken. Whether it was double-blind tested or a single incident which could have been a false positive --I think the facts will be significant in the outcome." Gregory said the county could present the information on the position's advertisement for internal job postings. She said employees would then be aware of the stipulation. Chairman Johnson said he agreed with Commissioner Boone. He said, "In all likelihood, if they have to take a drug test they probably will not apply. If you do it on the front end, it will probably insulate you should litigation occur. I think if you advise them on the front end, you've further diminished the possibility that they may apply for the position. If this is stated on the front end, I would concur with Commissioner Robertson. Where I may differ with Mr. Robertson; however, is that I agree with Mrs. Gregory in making a distinction between illegal and legal drugs." Commissioner Robertson said he had no problems in being more tolerant on legal or prescription medication misuse. Commissioner Boone said, "I agree with Mr. Johnson about the distinction between legal and illegal drugs. I can see a case where somebody's back might start hurting, which can be extremely painful. They borrow some hydrocodone from a family member, and the next day they are selected for a random drug test. We have to make a distinction between that situation and people who are using illegal drugs." Mrs. Gregory requested for the policy amendments to be effective May 1, 2013. 15 OTION by Commissioner Robertson to approve the Substance Abuse Policy Revisions effective May 1, 2013, but to include the following wording in Section 12. Applicant Testing (last sentence): "and will be subject to county policy if they test positive." The entire sentence will now read as follows: Employees who are transferred or promoted to a safety -sensitive position will be required to pass a pre -placement drug test and will be subject to county policy if they test positive. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Note: Commissioner Robertson said Mrs. Gregory and Attorney Pope would be given leeway in writing the sentence. Attorney Pope said the intent of the added wording would be that if an employee "flunked the test, they were out of here." Request for Approval of the February 15, 16, & 19, 2013 Minutes: OTION by Commissioner Griffith to approve the minutes as presented. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Request for Approval of Budget Amendment #27 for the Appropriation of Fund Balance ($57,200) to General Governmental—Buildings/Building Improvements Associated with the Purchase of Property at 321 Harrill Street, Statesville, NC, and the Demolition of a Structure on the Site: County Manager Smith requested approval of Budget Amendment #27 for the purchase of property on Harrill Street and the demolishment of a house on the site. OTION by Commissioner Robertson to approve Budget Amendment #27 for the property purchase. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. BA#27 3/5/2013 104880 4995.00 105480 6010.00 Fund Balance Appropriated New Jail $ 4,000,000 SICDC 337,500 321 Harrill St. 57.200 $ 4,394,700 To appropriate Fund Balance to General Governmental - Buildings & Building Improvements for the purchase and demolition of 321 Harrill Street General Fund Appropriated Fund Balance Land & Land Improvements (4,337,500) 1 (57,200) 1 (4,394,700) 32,000 1 57,200 1 89,200 Property 50,000 Title Fee 650 11Mral, 11Ir; Survey 500 Other closing costs 100 2013 Taxes (est) 500 Demolition 5,000 Unknown 150 57 ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES OCCURRING ON BOARDS & COMMISSIONS Centralina Economic Development Commission Board of Directors (1 announcement) 16 APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND Animal Grievance Committee (I appointment): Commissioner Boone nominated D.J. Loyd -Fuller. No other nominations were submitted, and Chairman Johnson made a motion to appoint Loyd -Fuller by acclamation. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Adult Care Home were submitted, and Chairman Johnson made a VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Committee (1 appointment): No nominations otion to postpone this appointment. REMINDER LIST Nursing Home Advisory Committee: OTION by Chairman Johnson to appoint Addie Walker by acclamation. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Schools and Firearms: Commissioner Boone said the board previously passed a resolution about permitting concealed handgun permit holders to carry firearms in schools. He said, "There have been two bills introduced in the General Assembly since that time, and they both apply to private schools. Senate Bill 146 would allow persons who have concealed handgun permits and who undergo additional training to carry firearms in private schools if the authorities in charge of the schools give permission. It also clarifies something that I've wondered about. There are cases where private or parochial schools are in a church building, and it would exempt people just attending church services, or church -related services, from all of the restrictions of firearms in schools. Those churches would be treated as any other church. One of the co-sponsors of this bill is Senator Andrew Brock who represents part of Iredell County. A bill has been introduced in the House that would really be a little broader in its application. Basically, it would allow any permit holder to carry firearms in a private school with permission of the school authorities. This is a local bill that applies to only Forsyth County, but of course, other counties could be added. Ijust wanted to inform the board about these bills. They will be considered by the General Assembly, and both are in a committee at the current time. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT: County Manager Smith distributed information on the following two items, but no formal action was requested. 1. Request from Centralina Council of Governments for Nominees to the Connect Our Future Initiative/Reality Check 2050: A meeting will be held on June 4, 2013, and Centralina is requesting nominees from member counties to participate. Iredell County does not have to participate, but there are slots for 24 people. Names of nominees need to be submitted by March 11, 2013. 2. Information from the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) in Regards to General Assembly Legislation: The NCACC has requested commissioners across the state to meet with their General Assembly representatives to advocate on behalf of the association's legislative goals. CLOSED SESSION: Pursuant to Property Acquisition — G.S. 143-318.11 (a) (5) and Attorney -Client — G.S. 143-318.11 (a) (3), Chairman Johnson at 8:45 PM, made a motion to enter into closed session. (RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AT 9:05 PM) 17 ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, Chairman Johnson made a otion to adjourn the meeting. (NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, March 19, 2013, 7:00 PM, in the Iredell County Government Center, 200 South Center Street, Statesville, NC.) VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Approval: 18 Clerk to the Board