• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

THE ANSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS convened for their regular monthly meeting on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 beginning at 6:00 P.M. in Courtroom #1 located in the Anson County Courthouse.

Commissioners present: Jarvis Woodburn, Chair Bobby Sikes, Vice Chair Neil Jones Steve Lear Dr. Jim Sims Ross Streater Harold C. Smith

Staff members present: Andy Lucas, County Manager Bonnie M. Huntley, CMC, Clerk to the Board George C. Bower, Jr., County Attorney Holly Berry, Finance Officer Rita James, Data Processing Vance Gulledge, Utilities Administrator Scott Rowell, ACTS Director Tommy Allen, Sheriff

Chairman Woodburn called the meeting to Order, welcoming those present. Chairman Woodburn delivered the Invocation.

Approval of the Agenda by Commissioners: Commissioner Jones asked where we got item 6d-Resolution-Child Protection with County Manager Lucas answering that it came to us from another county seeking our support. County Manager Lucas shared that Mr. Crandell had taken a look at the Resolution and saw no reason to not support. Commissioner Jones asked that this item be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Administrative Matters as item 7f. Commissioner Smith questioned the Lease Agreement for Probation and Parole with Commissioner Sims stating it was the lease for their office space in the Belk Building. County Manager Lucas stated that they pay us for a couple of offices they lease in that building. County Manager Lucas asked the Board to pull item 6j-Continuation of Implementation Funding for CJPP as we received a letter that the funding would change. County Manager Lucas stated that the item would be placed on the May Agenda. Commissioner Jones asked for an explanation of HRSA with County Manager Lucas answering that it deals with Homeland Security. Commissioner Jones asked to add under Commissioner Concerns Pee Dee Preservation explaining this was the committee appointed last time. Commissioner Jones also asked to add jail overcrowding and courthouse usage. These were added as items 9d and 9e. Commissioner Smith asked to be heard in reference to the Scattered Housing Grant stating that information received from the County Manager was not acceptable. Commissioner Smith voiced that he wanted to know all the details of the grant such as what it was being used for and where it was being used. Commissioner Lear asked to add a discussion of county ordinances. Commissioner Sims voiced that he was interested in the same topic and was of the impression this situation was well underhand but seems we may have left an open spot. Chairman Woodburn referred to information from the health department shared at the beginning of the meeting and asked Board members to review and added this to Commissioner Concerns. Commissioner Smith asked to add a closed session for personnel. Motion by Commissioner Lear, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously.

Public Hearing: Chairman Woodburn noted this was acceptance of the Rural Operating Assistance Program from NCDOT for ACTS. Chairman Woodburn shared that funds are received each year and used to offset the operational cost for transporting Anson County citizens who meet the guidelines of the grant. Commissioner Sims asked if this was our main source of funding with Chairman Woodburn answering yes. Commissioner Sims was of the opinion this required no county funding with Chairman Woodburn feeling that was correct. Scott Rowell, ACTS Director, noted there was a county match that is covered by passenger fees. Mr. Rowell explained that the ROAP grant covers those sixty and over and disabled either mentally or physically as they get to ride free. Mr. Rowell explained that the Work First Grant was just over $5,000 and received according to population. Commissioner Smith asked if we require drivers to assist all passengers on and off all vans with Mr. Rowell stating that they give door to door service. Commissioner Smith shared that he noticed a time when one of the buses waited approximately fifteen minutes for a passenger in a wheelchair and the passenger did not receive help from the driver. Mr. Rowell stated he would call Commissioner Smith for further information and would look into the situation. Mr. Rowell stated that the third part of the grant was the general public funds where they charge a fare for passengers to ride anywhere in the county. Motion by Commissioner Sims, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

In the public hearing, Chairman Woodburn called for questions from Board members. Commissioner Jones asked what action was needed with County Manager Lucas stating that upon closure of the public hearing, a motion would be needed to authorize signatures. Chairman Woodburn then called for comments from the public. Hearing none, motion by Commissioner Sims, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

In regular session, motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Vice Chair Sikes, that we take such action necessary to approve this matter and give the Chairman and the County Manager such authority to affix signatures as required. Motion carried unanimously. CERTIFIED STATEMENT FY 2006-2007 RURAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Whereas Article 2B of Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General Statutes and the Governor of North Carolina have designated the North Carolina Department of Transportation as the agency responsible for administering all federal and/or state programs related to public transportation, and grants the department authority to do all things required in applicable federal and/or state legislation to properly administer the public transportation programs within the State of North Carolina; WHEREAS, G.S. 136-4427 established the Elderly and Disabled Transportation Assistance Program; WHEREAS, funds will be used for transportation related expenditures as specified in the FY 2006-2007 Rural Operating Assistance Program (ROAP) application; WHEREAS, information regarding use of the funds will be provided at such time and in such a manner as the department may require; WHEREAS, ROAP funds will be used to provide eligible services during the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007; WHEREAS, any interest earned on ROAP funds will be expended for eligible program uses as specified in the ROAP application; and WHEREAS, the County will include ROAP funds received and expended in its annual independent audit on the schedule of federal and state financial assistance. Funds passed through to other agencies will be identified as such. This is to certify that the undersigned is duly elected, qualified and acting chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Anson North Carolina , and that the following statements are true and accurate: Elderly and Disabled Transportation Assistance Program: 1. The funds received from G.S. 136-44.27 will be used to provide additional transportation services for the elderly and disabled, exceeding the quantity of trips provided prior to receipt of the funds. 2. The funds will not be used to supplant or replace existing federal, state or local funds designated to provide elderly and disabled transportation services in the county. 3. The funds received will be used in a manner consistent with the local Transportation Development Plan (TDP) or Community Transportation Services Plan (CTSP) and application approved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Board of Commissioners. Work First Transitional/Employment Transportation Assistance Program 1. The purpose of these transportation funds is to support transitional transportation needs of Work First participants after eligibility for ash assistance has concluded and/or other specified general public employment transportation needs. The funds may be transferred to the Elderly and Disabled Transportation Assistance Program or the Rural General Public Program if not needed for Work First transportation. 2. The funds are limited to use by the designated local entity(s) specified in the ROAP application, or any revisions or amendments thereto. Rural General Public Program 1. The funds will be used in a manner consistent with the Rural General Public Transportation Project Description. 2. The funds will not be used to provide human service agency’s trips. WITNESS my hand and official seal this 4th day of April 2006.

Presentation of Pretreatment Awards: Chairman Woodburn noted this was to recognize industries receiving the Pretreatment Award of Excellence. Mr. Leon Gatewood, Supervisor of the Anson County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, offered that the plant treats all the wastewater in the county except for the Town of Ansonville. Mr. Gatewood stated that the pretreatment program was implemented by the Federal Government in the 80’s then passed down to the states. Mr. Gatewood offered that the States then passed it down to each individual county or municipality to enforce. Mr. Gatewood shared that this was important to them since their compliance depends on the compliance of the industries. Misty Harris, pretreatment coordinator, designed an incentive program to encourage industries to comply with their discharge permits. Ms. Harris explained that the State of North Carolina mandated the pretreatment program. Ms. Harris offered that they currently have six significant industrial users in the program and awards are based on a six months period. Ms. Harris shared that the current winners are based on the period from July to December 2005. Ms. Harris stated that they are evaluated on criteria passed by the county and on rules from the State. Ms. Harris stated that the previous six months had only one winner. Ms. Harris announced the winners as Hornwood, Wade Manufacturing and Seaboard Railcar Repair & Cleaning. Hornwood was unable to attend but accepting on behalf of Wade Manufacturing was Mr. Ralph Terry and accepting on behalf of Seaboard Railcar Repair & Cleaning was Mr. Mike Haynes. Ms. Harris presented each industry winner with a plaque. Board members shook hands with the winners with Commissioner Sims stating this was good for the entire county. Winners also received a round of applause from those in attendance. Chairman Woodburn commended the industries for a job well done.

Appearance: James Dunlap a resident of Crump Road appealed to the Board for a waterline. Mr. Dunlap shared that their water smells, has a color and is undrinkable. Commissioner Sims shared that residents of 1003 in White Store have the same problem and it’s so bad their pets can’t drink the water. Chairman Woodburn asked if Crump Road was on the priority list with County Manager Lucas answering it was not. County Manager Lucas stated that currently water goes up Highway 52N to the Cedar Hill intersection and it is about three miles from there to Crump Road. County Manager Lucas shared that it is only about 1.5 miles from Ansonville’s nearest line on Plank Road to Crump Road. Commissioner Smith asked the number of residents in the area with Mr. Dunlap answering fourteen not counting Murphy and the houses beyond them. Commissioner Smith then asked the number of residents on 1003 with Commissioner Sims feeling about a dozen. Chairman Woodburn offered that there may be more plus there is a poultry business in the area. Commissioner Smith asked where we were currently with installing waterlines. Commissioner Smith felt that both requests should be placed at the top of the priority list and work should begin tomorrow. Chairman Woodburn felt that the list might need to be re-prioritized. Vice Chair Sikes noted there were other residents on Plank Road interested in water. Commissioner Smith voiced that he wanted the water to the people. Commissioner Smith favored looking at the list and making changes. Chairman Woodburn felt that Mr. Gulledge should first bring all the necessary information on the cost of the line, etc. Chairman Woodburn was hopeful that the Board would be prepared to do what it would take to do the wishes of Commissioner Smith. At this point, Mr. Gulledge shared copies of the priority list with Board members. Mr. Gulledge stated that his department was completing construction of the Blewett Falls Road project. Mr. Gulledge shared that he currently has 240 customers waiting for water and Crump Road was not counted among those waiting. Mr. Gulledge stated that our nearest waterline is 4.8 miles from the site and the project has a total cost of $193,067 to serve approximately 20 customers. Mr. Gulledge shared that the project has a 22.3-year payback with the potential of serving 25 customers. Mr. Gulledge stated that when they originally studied the project a while back the cost was $153,000 but the rise in material cost has increased the cost to $193,067. Mr. Gulledge shared that he does not have the money to purchase material needed for construction. Vice Chair Sikes asked if Murphy Farms had ever shown an interest in wanting water with Mr. Gulledge answering no. Mr. Gulledge stated that Ansonville water has the rights to this area and from Crump Road their line is approximately nine tenths of a mile but to where Mr. Dunlap lives is about a mile and one-half. Mr. Dunlap stated that he went to a Town meeting in Ansonville and was told they could not afford to run the line. Commissioner Lear asked if it was possible to reach an agreement with the Town of Ansonville to make residents of Crump Road customers of the town. Commissioner Sims mentioned the 204 customers waiting on water and noted there was a great deal more in the same situation with their water and voiced that he would like the Board to consider water bonds and let the people vote and do all the lines. Commissioner Lear agreed that we needed to expedite getting water to folks. Mr. Gulledge shared that approximately one-third of the people that have access to county water do not use it. Mr. Gulledge stated that we are now in a drought situation and he had already had two calls wanting water installed tomorrow. Mr. Gulledge shared that it takes his department two to three weeks to install a service. Mr. Gulledge explained that other counties and most cities require everyone along a new line to hook on and use the water or pay for it. Mr. Gulledge feels this is something we need to consider. Commissioner Smith thought we had this in place prior to now. Mr. Gulledge stated that this was a requirement for a sewer line but not for a water line.

*Commissioner Streater arrived at the meeting at approximately 6:40 P.M.

Mr. Gulledge noted that this was one reason they were asking for the twenty-year capital needs study. Commissioner Smith asked for the number of people having a waterline by their residence that were not using the water with Mr. Gulledge answering between 1,000 and 1,500 homes. Commissioner Jones asked if this would be the most expensive project if we elected to complete the project with Mr. Gulledge answering that based on current numbers it might be the most expensive. Mr. Gulledge pointed to the priority list just given Board members noting the numbers on there were real low. Mr. Gulledge stated that typically the priority list is done just to see if a project pays back within ten years, sharing that this is not a true payback but rather a method to determine if the project would be profitable. Commissioner Smith questioned the one customer with a project cost of $147,250 with Mr. Gulledge answering this was for the power plant on Blewett Falls Road. County Manager Lucas voiced that while this was a reasonable request, the Board just approved using grant funds for a capital improvement plan and suggested waiting on these results before doing a bond. Commissioner Smith was of the opinion that we could not run water lines all over the county to the people and them not accept the benefits of the line. Commissioner Smith favored putting a policy in place to help generate revenue. Commissioner Jones voiced agreement with Commissioner Smith. Board members agreed by consensus to call for a policy recommendation from the County Manager. County Manager Lucas felt it important to return with all information relative to this and to note where the users are in order to make an informed decision. County Manager Lucas hopes to return with a policy within sixty days. Chairman Woodburn thanked Mr. Dunlap for coming and asked the County Manager and staff to contact Ansonville on this issue. Commissioner Smith asked that the Commissioner representative from this area work on the project.

Public Addresses: Chairman Woodburn shared that any public body has to provide a time frame for this at a regular scheduled meeting and asked if anyone was present to speak at this time. Chairman Woodburn reminded Board members that according to Board rules they cannot discuss or take action during this time. Carlos Melton explained that he plays on an adult baseball team and for the last five or six years they have had to travel to Cheraw, South Carolina to play baseball. Mr. Melton shared that his teammates, in looking for a place closer to home, met with the Director of Parks and Recreation and got his permission to practice at Little Park. Mr. Melton shared that this past weekend while practicing at the Park, there was a disturbance at the Park that resulted in the police being called but that none of his teammates were involved. Mr. Melton explained that on Monday, a teammate received a call from Mr. Waisner saying that due to the weekend disturbance they would no longer be allowed to play at the park. Mr. Melton does not understand why they are not allowed to use a public park. Commissioner Streater stated that he heard something over the scanner concerning this and wondered if the Sheriff could address the issue. Commissioner Sims voiced that Mr. Melton was a former student and a fine young man. Sheriff Allen was not familiar with the situation. Mr. Melton shared that the disturbance was two girls fighting on the softball field and they were on the baseball field. County Manager Lucas will check into this and get back with Mr. Melton. Commissioner Smith felt it unfair for Mr. Melton and his teammates to not be allowed to use a public park paid for by taxpayers. Commissioner Smith commented that he would give Board members the opportunity have the program director appear to discuss this issue but he would not let him mistreat these folks out there. Commissioner Sims was of the opinion it was a matter of miscommunication.

Consent Agenda: Chairman Woodburn reminded Board members that items 6j Continuation of Implementation Funding for CJPP and 6d Resolution-Child Protection Amendment had been removed from the Consent Agenda. Motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Vice Chair Sikes, to adopt the Consent Agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously.

Minutes: Approval of both regular and closed session minutes of March 7, 2006. Tax Releases: Vehicle Tax Releases-Apr 06: Release # Name Year Amount Reason Bill # 16825 Bennett, Patricia 2005 183.70 Proration 509-134 16804 Benton, Wade Jr. 2005 11.67 Proration 508-129 16822 Burch, Roderick 2005 11.46 Proration 507-204 16807 Burnette, Curtis 2005 112.74 Proration 509-416 17244 Burns, Laquita 2005 26.90 Proration 602-238 16803 Capel, Harold Jr. 2005 93.30 Proration 602-281 16808 Caudle, Jack 2005 51.28 Proration 512-244 16820 Crowder, Fulton Jr. 2005 17.36 Proration 507-405 16813 Davis, France 2005 25.45 Proration 508-434 17237 Deese, Rebecca 2005 43.65 Proration 508-461 16812 Diggs, Albert Jr. 2004 11.04 Proration 502-481 16988 Edwards, Alan 2005 37.00 Error 602-521 17240 Ellerbe, Lorraine 2004 1.58 Proration 504-531 17006 Forbis, Michael 2005 39.31 Situs 601-387 17242 Lowe, Mark 2003 147.07 Proration 403-1612 16800 More, Acquirneta 2004 38.04 Proration 505-2447 17236 Moore, Tammy 2004 35.12 Proration 506-1408 16989 Morris, Angela 2005 18.68 Situs 602-1651 16824 Peques, Marinetta 2004 11.10 Proration 407-1355 17239 Peyton, Paul 2004 45.40 Proration 511-1231 17012 Reinheimer, Paul 2005 83.01 Value 506-2273 16826 Salgado, Thomas 2005 11.14 Proration 512-1286 16817 Simmons, Dustin 2005 4.20 Proration 505-1973 16811 Simmons, Dustin 2005 5.20 Proration 505-1974 16814 Sturdivant, Debra 2005 126.50 Proration 509-1580 16993 Thacker, Timothy 2005 15.28 Error 512-1431 17247 Thomas, Richard 2004 9.91 Proration 501-1296 17001 Watkins, Thomas 2005 51.62 Situs 510-1877 17243 Whichard, Joseph 2005 167.23 Proration 511-1720 16991 Williams, Braxton 2005 97.16 Situs 602-2292 17249 Williams, Robert 2005 61.66 Proration 512-1593 16823 Williams, Willie 2005 9.92 Proration 512-1603 17241 Wright, Jan 2005 52.47 Proration 601-1444 1,657.09

Vehicle Tax Adjustments – Apr-06: 17006 Forbis, Michael 2005 4.10 Situs 601-387 16989 Morris, Angela 2005 1.61 Situs 602-1651 17001 Watkins, Thomas 2005 8.08 Situs 510-1877 16991 Williams, Braxton 2005 19.43 Situs 602-2292 33.22

Vehicle Tax Refunds - Apr -06 : 16802 Alligood, Jonathan 2005 1.95 Proration 505-333 17245 Allen, Gary 2005 23.40 Proration 510-030 16806 Berry, Carol 2005 25.50 Proration 506-135 17235 Crump, Henry 2005 8.52 Proration 508-404 16819 Hailey, Curtis 2005 9.90 Proration 509-648 16805 Horton, Joe 2005 36.08 Proration 601-647 16815 Kelly, Teah 2005 14.64 Proration 508-935 16801 Morton, Bobby 2005 21.20 Proration 601-949 16809 Morton, Viola 2005 17.92 Proration 507-1290 16821 Smith, Roy 2005 29.16 Proration 509-1536 17238 Moss, Robert 2005 20.13 Proration 508-1249 17248 Walter, William 2005 61.76 Proration 601-1392 16810 Wright, Johnatha 2005 8.49 Proration 508-1947 278.65

Property Tax Releases – Apr-06: 17000 Allen, Mary Beth 2005 83.02 Error 054-185 17002 Griggs, Henry 2005 279.00 Error 053-DF25263 17003 Griggs, Henry 2004 308.55 Error 053-DF25264 17004 Griggs, Henry 2003 297.43 Error 053-DF25265 17005 Griggs, Henry 2002 319.02 Error 053-DF25266 16987 Horne, C. W. 2005 247.90 Error 061-AL25355 16990 Rivers Laundromat 2005 18.97 Error 057-14453 17009 Ross, Stephen 2005 106.13 Error 067-DF25403 17010 Ross, Stephen 2005 115.36 Error 067-DF25404 17011 Ross, Stephen 2005 109.56 Error 067-DF25405 17008 Wall, Patti Heirs 2005 13.08 Error 055-17612 1,898.02

Property Tax Refunds – Apr-06: 16995 Dixon Jackson Heirs 2001 64.40 Error 015-4337 16995 Dixon Jackson Heirs 2002 59.47 Error 025-4413 16997 Dixon Jackson Heirs 2003 51.21 Error 035-4460 16998 Dixon Jackson Heirs 2004 57.35 Error 045-4514 16999 Dixon Jackson Heirs 2005 57.35 Error 055-4588 289.78

Resolution – Nationwide Retirement Plan: Known as the 457 plan, this retirement plan is available to public employees only. This is to replace Mr. Bennett with Ms. Carr. RESOLUTION APPOINTING TRUSTEE RESOLVED, that the Anson County Board of Commissioners hereby amends and restates the Anson County Government Money Purchase Plan set forth in the Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc. Model Government Defined Contribution Plan and Trust, effective as of March 28 2006. The plan was originally effective January 1,1999; FURTHER RESOLVED, that Patrice Carr, Human Resource/Veterans Service Officer is hereby authorized and directed to perform all acts, sign all documents necessary to put said plan into operation, and to secure the approval of said plan by the Internal Revenue Service so that said plan may qualify under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; FURTHER RESOLVED, that Patrice Carr, Human Resource/Veterans Service Office is hereby appointed as Trustee and, upon acceptance by executing the Adoption Agreement of said plan, is directed to assume ownership of all trust assets. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand the 28th day of March, 2006.

Proclamation-Protecting Our Communities: Presented in observance of National Government week to raise the public’s awareness of the mission, purpose and activities of county government. PROCLAMATION Protecting Our Communities American’s counties provide a variety of essential services. Many of these services work to protect our communities. Counties protect residents from natural disasters, terrorist attacks, crime and drug abuse. Counties are the first to respond to emergency situations and are primarily responsible for planning for disasters. Counties also work to protect families, children and youth. There are 3,066 counties in the United States, collectively responsible for the well being of more than 250 million residents. Counties provide services that make America’s communities stronger, safer places to live and raise families. Counties police our streets, fight fires, save lives in hospitals, keep families healthy, repair bridges, plow snow, help troubled youth, train laid-off workers and perform countless other jobs. Counties have a long history of providing critical services. County governments are the citizen’s local government voice, providing solutions that bring communities together. In recognition of the leadership, innovation and valuable service provided by our nation’s counties: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Anson County Board of Commissioners that we hereby proclaim April 23-29, 2006 as National County Government Week. Adopted this 4th day of April, 2006.

Budget Expense Report and Fund Balance Update: Accepted as presented. A copy of said report is on file in the Clerk’s office and by reference made a part of these minutes.

DSS Budget Amendment: To receive and appropriate general fund revenue for Crisis Intervention Program from the Division of Social Services. AMENDMENT Anson County Budget Ordinance FY 2005/06 BE IT ORDAINED by the Anson County Board of Commissioners that the FY 2005/06 Budget Ordinance be amended as follows: Section 1. General Fund Expenditures: Increase: 11-5310-5580 $ 202 Total Increase $ 202 Section 2. General Fund Revenues: Increase: 11-5310 $ 202 Total Increase $ 202 Adopted this 4th day of April, 2006

Sheriff Department Budget Amendment: Receive and appropriate insurance recovery money for replacement of totaled vehicle. AMENDMENT Anson County Budget Ordinance FY 2005/06 BE IT ORDAINED by the Anson County Board of Commissioners that the FY 2005/06 Budget Ordinance be amended as follows: Section 1. General Fund Expenditures: Increase: 11-4310 $ 22,643 Total Increase: $ 22,643 Section 2. General Fund Revenues: Increase: 11-4310 $ 22,643 Total Increase: $ 22,643 Adopted this 4th day of April, 2006.

Probation & Parole Lease Agreement: Approved a three-year lease with a one-time CPI adjustment of 4.04%. Copy of said lease is on file in the Clerk’s office and by reference made a part of these minutes.

Emergency Management Budget Amendment: This is to amend the Budget Ordinance to allocate funding for the HRSA grant award. AMENDMENT Anson County Budget Ordinance FY 2005/06 BE IT ORDAINED by the Anson County Board of Commissioners that the FY 2005/06 Budget Ordinance be amended as follows: Section 1. General Fund Expenditures: Increase: 11-4330 $ 11,457 Total Increase $ 11,457 Section 2. General Fund Revenues: Increase: 11-4330 $ 11,457 Total Increase: $ 11,457 Adopted this 4th day of April, 2006.

Building Maintenance Budget Amendment: This is to amend the Budget Ordinance to allocate funding in building maintenance for unanticipated cost increases for repairs and natural gas. AMENDMENT Anson County Budget Ordinance FY 2005/06 BE IT ORDAINED by the Anson County Board of Commissioners that the FY 2005/06 Budget Ordinance be amended as follows: Section 1. General Fund Expenditures: Increase: 11-4165 $ 3,638 Increase: 11-4265 $ 5,000 Total Increase: $ 8,638 Section 2. General Fund Revenues: Increase: 11-4130 $ 8,638 Total Increase: $ 8,638 Adopted this 4th day of April, 2006.

Administrative Matters: Wrecker Service Rotation Ordinance-Revised: Chairman Woodburn called on Sheriff Allen to speak to this issue. Sheriff Allen shared that the committee met a week ago to clarify several points in the Ordinance. Commissioner Smith asked if this included private wrecker services with Commissioner Jones answering it does. Chairman Woodburn noted the two changes as follows: 4.17 was changed to give a more specific time individuals could request their vehicles and wrecker owners must comply to release vehicles. 6.0 changed the daily storage fee from $20 per day to $1 per hour. Motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Streater, to adopt. Motion carried unanimously. COUNTY OF ANSON WRECKER SERVICE ROTATION ORDINANCE 1.0 Purpose

1.1 The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate on-call wrecker services in Anson County so that the public is served in a uniform, fair and reasonable manner. It is also the purpose of this ordinance to allow on-call wrecker services the opportunity to respond to calls for service from law enforcement or other emergency agencies in a uniform, fair and reasonable manner across the board.

This ordinance governs wrecker services summoned by law enforcement, fire, rescue or other emergency agencies in Anson County and requires the registration and application of the wrecker service to be put on the on-call list; establishes a system of administration; sets minimum standards for equipping an on-call wrecker; and sets conditions of operations, fee structure and revocation of privileges to be on rotation call. Placement on the Rotation list shall be a privilege granted by Anson County Government and is revocable upon failure to comply with any requirements contained herein.

2.0 Definitions

Wrecker Service: A business or firm providing vehicle towing services for hire.

Rotation Wrecker List: A list of wrecker services, which have applied and been approved by the County, for the purpose of towing vehicles at the direction of law enforcement or other emergency organizations. The County shall utilize rotation wrecker services in those instances in which the owner or person in control of the vehicle is unable or not permitted to determine the disposition or custody of the vehicle.

Day Towing: Tow service during the local hours of 8:00am until 5:00pm on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

Night, weekend and holiday towing: Tow service at all time other than day towing.

Contract Period: Wrecker services will be contracted for one calendar year beginning January 1 of each year. Current on-call list of wrecker companies will be notified by mail on November 1 of each year of the upcoming contract period and their desire to continue on the list. New wrecker companies will be considered during that same time to be added to the on-call list beginning January 1 of each year. Changes during the calendar year will be made only on an emergency bases.

Secure Storage Area: An outside fenced in area of secure chain link fence, at least six foot in height.

Wrecker Service Committee: A committee appointed by the County Manager to review annually wrecker service operations; on-call list updates; and any other issues regarding the county’s on-call wrecker service operations.

Large Vehicle: Tractor Trailer or Step Van type vehicle.

3.0 Application to be on Wrecker Rotation

3.1 SEE ATTACHED APPLICATION FOR ON-CALL WRECKER SERVICES.

4.0 Requirements for Wrecker Rotation Wrecker services desiring entry on the rotation wrecker list will apply in writing and will be placed on this list provided that the following requirements are met:

4.1 All wreckers must be a minimum of one ton chassis with dual rear wheels, equipped with three-eight inch cables, and must be capable of moving and towing vehicles under normal conditions with the exceptions of large truck rotation. Wrecker firm desiring to use a roll-back type of wrecker may do so if they have a minimum of a one ton vehicle and equipped as and have adequate storage space for the equipment listed in Section 4.13 of this Ordinance.

4.2 Equipment must be kept in good working conditions and is subject to inspection by a designated member of the Anson County Sheriff’s Office or Wadesboro Police Department at any time.

4.3 Wreckers must be properly registered in NC by the Department of Motor Vehicles. No dealer tags will be allowed.

4.4 Wreckers must have a valid safety inspection certificate and all times covered in GS 20- 183.3 and be in proper working conditions at all times.

4.5 Wreckers will be equipped with amber lights in compliance with GS 20-130.2.

4.6 The wrecker service must be located in Anson County and have a permanent office for the purpose of conducting business. The business office shall be staffed with adequate personnel during normal business hours to assist the public, insurance adjusters, owners, etc…with any business needs that they may have.

4.7 The wrecker service must have access to a secured, fenced in area for the purpose of storing and keeping vehicles. Towed vehicles must be stored in the enclosed area until claimed by the owner.

4.8 Only one wrecker service owned by the same person will be allowed on rotation.

4.9 The wrecker firm shall have in force liability insurance for each wrecker unit as required by GS 20-313(a).

4.10 The wrecker service may have one daytime and one nighttime number. The wrecker operator must have a cell phone with him/her anytime during a service call.

4.11 The name of the wrecker service and the business telephone must be easily seen and marked on each door of the wrecker. No magnetic signs will be allowed.

4.12 At the scene of the accident the wrecker driver will be responsible for clearing the streets or highway of debris caused by the accident before leaving the scene. (Except hazardous materials)

4.13 Wreckers must be equipped with approved tow-slings, dollies, emergency revolving amber lights, dual wheels on the rear of the wrecker and the following additional items of equipment on each wrecker: Ax Fire Extinguisher Broom(s) for clearing street debris Shovel Bucket for debris Flares or Reflectors Snatch Blocks Two scotch blocks Wrecking bar or auto power machine Recovery lights or spots lights on rear of wrecker

4.14 Wreckers must be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week when on call and must be available at one of two numbers listed on the Rotation List at 911 Communications.

4.15 Wrecker firms must arrive at the scene requested within thirty minutes (30) after the initial contact is made by the 911 Communication Center. If the wrecker has not arrived at the scene within thirty minutes (30), after being dispatched, the requesting agency has the right to dispatch another rotation wrecker and send back the first wrecker called when it arrives, without compensation.

4.16 A wrecker service shall not proceed to the scene of an accident without being dispatched by the 911 Communications Center. In this instance “running wrecks” or soliciting business at the scene of an accident is prohibited.

4.17 The wrecker service shall be available during regular business to release vehicles to the rightful owners Monday through Saturday, and from 2:00pm to 5:00pm on Sunday, when the wrecker service is on rotation.

4.18 The wrecker service shall secure all personal property at the scene of a collision and preserve personal property in the stored vehicle. The wrecker service must return any personal property (not the towed vehicle) upon request of the owner, regardless of whether the tow bill or storage fee on the vehicle has been paid.

4.19 All wrecker drivers must possess a valid class “C” NC Drivers’ License for regular rotation wreckers and a valid class “A” NC Drivers’ License for the large wreckers.

4.20 All wrecker drivers must observe all traffic laws while responding to an incident.

4.21 All wrecker drivers must be experienced and knowledgeable of the proper and safe operation of the wrecker and towing vehicles whereby dependable service can be obtained with no additional damage caused to the vehicle being towed.

4.22 A wrecker service that is found in non-compliance with any of the provisions that are set forth herein may be removed from the rotation list. An employee of any law enforcement agency or emergency services who views a violation of the provisions stated in this Ordinance shall notify the County Manager in writing. The County Manager shall notify the wrecker service in writing of the violation and any corrective actions to be taken in the matter. 4.23 A wrecker service who is dissatisfied in any way with the administration of the rotation on- call wrecker system or the wrecker requirements shall file a written statement with the County Manager. If the County Manager cannot satisfy the complaint, a statement shall be filed with the full Wrecker Service Committee. If the Wrecker Service Committee cannot satisfy the complainant, a statement shall be filed with the County Commissioners for consideration by them and they may grant a hearing in the matter.

5.0 Insurance Requirements

5.1 A wrecker service must be fully insured and bonded against claim of liability for loss or damage resulting from the removal and/or storage of vehicles. Such coverage shall be in the minimum amount as required by the NC Department of Motor Vehicles. In addition, the wrecker service shall have “garage-keeper’s” insurance covering damages from fire, theft, windstorm and explosions in the amount of not less than $ 100,000.

6.0 Fee Schedule

6.1 The citizens shall be entitled to a fair and competitive price when entrusting their vehicles to a wrecker service. The fees listed below should be considered uniform maximum amounts to be charged when engaged as a rotation wrecker for Anson County. Fees will be reviewed annually prior to the beginning of the calendar year:

Rotation Tow or Accident Tow (7am –5pm) $ 100.00

Rotation Tow or Accident Tow (5pm – 7am) $ 125.00

Large Vehicle Tow or Accident Tow $ 200.00

Large Vehicle Tow or Accident Tow (non-day) $ 250.00

Large Vehicle Storage Fee per Day $ 25.00

Anytime extensive vehicle damage required extra time, dollies, lengthy cable pull or vehicle roll over ADD $ 40.00

Storage Fee $ 1.00 PER HOUR

Extra time required at the scene in excess of one hour $ 60.00 (Does not include travel to and from scene)

6.2 INVOICING

Wrecker services shall provide vehicle owner/insurance company with an itemized invoice showing the time and date of service, initial tow fee and daily storage fee charges.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

The provisions of this Ordinance become effective on April 5, 2006.

Adopted by the Anson County Board of Commissioners this the 4th day of April, 2006.

WRECKER SERVICE ROTATION APPLICATION COUNTY OF ANSON

I have read and I fully understand the Anson County Ordinance for On-Call Wrecker Service that covers on-call wrecker rotation for Anson County.

I hereby apply to be placed on the “On-Call” rotation and agree that I have a wrecker service operation that meets all the conditions and responsibilities described in the County Ordinance. By my signature below, I agree that I will be in compliance with all conditions and responsibilities as described in the County Ordinance.

I further agree to furnish the following information with this application: 1. Name of Towing Company: 2. Owner of Towing Company: 3. Address of Towing Company: 4. Location of Storage Lot: 5. Day time telephone #: Night time telephone #:

6. Wrecker operator/driver’s cell phone number: 7. Attach to this application a copy of the insurance for the storage lot which covers stored and towed vehicles. 8. Attach to this application a copy of any City or County Business license. 9. Towing rates and storage fees will be posted in a visible and obvious location at the site of the storage lot and listed on all invoices.

Towing rates as established by the Towing Committee: Monday – Friday, 8am to 5pm $ 100 All other times $ 125 Hourly rates after first hour $ 60 Storage rates $ 1 PER HOUR Large vehicle tow fee $ 200 Large vehicle tow fee (non-day) $ 250 Large vehicle storage fee $ 25 Extensive vehicle damage requiring extra time, dollies, cable, etc… $ 40

I understand that any false information furnished on this application/agreement will cause me to be ineligible for placement on the county’s on-call wrecker service and any violation of any section of this ordinance will be cause for suspension and/or removal from the on-call list.

Signed: Date: Wrecker Service Owner

------Approved Disapproved Comment: ______

FY 2007 Insurance Broker/Consultant: FY 2007 Insurance Broker/Consultant: County Manager Lucas explained that on an annual basis the county has an insurance broker/consultant. At this point, Commissioner Smith interrupted stating that he did not know that the Sheriff had a death in his family and apologized for not attending the service. Commissioner Smith voiced that he thought a lot of the Sheriff’s mother and he did not know of her death and had called to apologize and talked with his father. Commissioner Smith asked the Board to give a moment of silence in memory of the Sheriff’s mother. After the moment of silence, County Manager Lucas voiced that on an annual basis the county utilizes an insurance/broker consultant to go out to the market and obtain quotes for medical insurance. County Manager Lucas voiced that this was in no way the actual medical insurance that we will have but rather the broker that we will utilize to assist us with obtaining the insurance. County Manager Lucas noted that he issued an RFP and three groups submitted bids. County Manager Lucas shared the three groups that submitted bids were Lacy West of Elizabethtown in Bladen County, Ross Hendley and Christie Gupton as a team and Anson Real Estate and Life. County Manager Lucas shared that an employee committee consisting of the County Manager, the Finance Officer, Data Processing Manager, Mrs. Joanne Huntley, Mr. Leon Gatewood of WWTP and Ms. Patrice Carr of HR, reviewed the bids. County Manager Lucas noted they were objectively assessed based on criteria developed by committee members. County Manager Lucas stated that when ranked out, the highest scoring agency was Lacy West of Elizabethtown. County Manager Lucas shared that the second highest was Anson Real Estate & Life with the third being the Hendley/Gupton group. County Manager Lucas stated that because the number 1 and number 2 choice were very close the group unanimously decided to make the recommendation to the Board to enter into a contract with Anson Real Estate & Life. County Manager Lucas stated that the group feels the expectations have never been expressed to them on what we want from a broker/consultant and they’ve never been held accountable. County Manager Lucas voiced that we’ve never had a contract with this company and that he was in the process of developing a contract. County Manager Lucas shared that the committee felt since it was so close we needed to give the local vendor an opportunity to meet our higher expectations. County Manager Lucas stated that it was the recommendation of the County Manager on behalf of staff to go with Anson Real Estate & Life for FY 2007. County Manager Lucas noted this was the group that would go out to the market and get both a self insured and a fully insured plan bringing back two of each in order for the board to assess the pros and cons of the different packages. County Manager Lucas explained that all three companies were comparable in terms of the depth of the market they can go into to get bids. Commissioner Smith asked if Anson Real Estate & Life was our current company with County Manager Lucas answering yes. Commissioner Smith voiced that he had had poor service from that group. County Manager Lucas shared that part of that is that the insurance broker/consultant is different from the current insurance. County Manager Lucas reminded Board members that this has nothing to do with Aetna, as this is only the insurance broker/consultant. County Manager Lucas explained that this group would go into the market and bring back what the Board had asked for, both self insured plans and fully insured plans in order that we can decide on our medical carrier for FY 07. County Manager Lucas noted that there has been a lot of miscommunication in the past between HR and the broker and he wants to make sure the broker earns their money and the expectations will be higher in terms of what they need to do for the level of service. Commissioner Streater asked how the bids were ranked. County Manager Lucas shared that they were ranked on experience, reputation, quality of the RFP, integrity of the organization in terms of finances and their cost. County Manager Lucas explained there was no county cost as it is based on their commission. County Manager Lucas stated they were all consistent with the exception of Hendley/Gupton and they could not give a firm amount but until they obtained more information. Commissioner Smith felt there was not enough information for him to give an objective vote on the matter and stated he wanted to see figures with County Manager Lucas stating that he would be glad to share copies of information with Board members. Commissioner Smith asked if employees had complained about the current carrier noting that every time he uses them they don’t pay. County Manager Lucas stated that we’ve had complaints of Aetna but stated that it was important to understand the difference between Anson Real Estate & Life and Aetna. County Manager Lucas stressed that Anson Real Estate & Life was not our insurance carrier but our broker and their responsibility is to come back to the Board with an insurance benefit package to be approved by the Board. County Manager Lucas reminded Board members that they are the ones that approved Aetna. County Manager Lucas voiced that he is hopeful that Anson Real Estate & Life would return with a benefit package that would meet our needs. Commissioner Streater voiced that Aetna was chosen based on the recommendation from the insurance committee. Chairman Woodburn felt that putting forth clear-cut expectations for everyone to meet would be beneficial. Chairman Woodburn stated that Commissioner Streater was right that the Board went with the recommendation brought to the Board. County Manager Lucas was of the opinion that the recommendation brought to the Board at that time was not a unanimous decision of the employee committee but rather a decision made by one or two individuals. Commissioner Jones stated that it was opposite of what the committee wanted and it was not the feeling of the committee at the time to use Aetna. Commissioner Jones voiced that it was important to understand that tonight the Board was not buying an insurance policy but rather buying a broker that would return with what they feel is our best choice. Commissioner Jones voiced that it may be Aetna or it could be Ross Hendley’s crowd. Commissioner Jones then asked the County Manager the one thing that made the third place group come in third place. County Manager Lucas answered that one was a lack of experience in insurance brokering. County Manager Lucas shared that they received feed back from some of their references that the timeliness of their service at some point has been questionable. County Manager Lucas shared that this was not expressed from the references from the other groups and this was a factor in their decision. Commissioner Jones asked if the committee was aware that this was a first time for Gupton and Hendley to work together with County Manager Lucas answering that it showed in their proposal. County Manager Lucas stated that you could tell it was two different people writing the information. Commissioner Jones asked the amount that would be paid to the broker with County Manager Lucas stating the broker would receive 3% of commissions which would be roughly $30,000. Commissioner Streater stated that it was explained earlier that this would not be county dollars with County Manager Lucas offering that it was commissions paid by the carrier. County Manager Lucas offered that if it were partially self-insured it would be a different arrangement. Commissioner Jones voiced that he personally differed last time with the type of coverage we got but his experience with Anson has been that Mr. Lookabill and Ms. Moore are hard working energetic folks who tried to be of use to the county and he could think of no reason they should not be the broker. Commissioner Jones voiced that he did not support them last year but as individuals he has found them to be honest and good brokers. Motion by Commissioner Streater to approve to let the County Manager enter into a contract with Anson Real Estate & Insurance. Commissioner Smith asked if we could not do the same thing with Hendley/Gupton. Commissioner Smith voiced that Mr. Lookabill already had the insurance and feels this is bad insurance and they are a part of that. Commissioner Smith voiced that he was willing to try Hendley. Commissioner Jones asked how many counties Ms. Gupton writes for with County Manager Lucas answering that right now she is not brokering but rather handling supplemental insurance for several local government jurisdictions. Commissioner Jones was of the opinion she was doing medical insurance for Montgomery and Burke counties with County Manager Lucas stating this would be her first step at brokering in Montgomery County. County Manager Lucas explained that Ms. Gupton handles cafeteria plans where items are pre-taxed. Commissioner Sims voiced that he was not involved in the health insurance program but that is sounds like the disagreement is directly with Aetna. Commissioner Sims voiced that it does not matter who does the brokering as long they get someone else other than Aetna. Commissioner Jones felt that Commissioner Smith made a valid point in that we did business with Anson Real Estate and they gave us Aetna last time and he has seen what they did and is distrustful of them this time. Commissioner Streater withdrew his motion. County Manager Lucas stated that the Board would be given a choice and it was not like they were going to bring back Aetna. County Manager Lucas felt it important to remember that it was the Board that chose Aetna and not Anson Real Estate & Life. Chairman Woodburn was of the impression that Aetna was not the first package presented last year as the Board wanted something else and we ended up with Aetna. Chairman Woodburn stated that this was to identify a broker and it had nothing to do with the actual package. At this point, Commissioner Smith offered a recommendation that the Board use the Hendley/Gupton group. Commissioner Jones offered a second to the recommendation. Commissioner Jones then offered that when we had our meeting, we had Ross Hendley as a partial self insurer wanting to market his coverage with us and we had the Gupton lady from Montgomery County who has written coverage for a number of counties other than supplemental or so he thought. Commissioner Jones stated that rather than competing they decided to get together to make an application to Anson County. Commissioner Jones voiced that this was the first application they’ve ever made and suspected it was defective in the nature of the application. Commissioner Jones was of the opinion that Mr. Hendley and Ms. Gupton were both good people and felt they would do a good job. Commissioner Jones stated that he knows Mr. Hendley is a professional and is as serious about this county as any Board member is. Commissioner Jones stated that while he knows Mr. Hendley would return with an arms length presentation, he hates to go against the committee but because he believes there are so many variables here he feels he can go against the committee. Motion carried 6 to 1 with Chairman Woodburn opposed. Commissioner Sims voiced that he really had no preference as he feels that is why we had a committee. Commissioner Jones stated that he felt Mr. Hendley received a raw deal the last time this was bid and feels it is time to give him a chance. Commissioner Streater voiced that it really didn’t matter to him, as both were his friends. Commissioner Smith voiced that they were his friends as well but he voted to give Ross Hendley an opportunity.

Telephone Use Policy: County Manager Lucas stated that we do not have a consistent policy governing the use of cell phones and telephones and the policies presented will bring some governance to the way we issue cell phones and the way we review and audit the use of cell phones. County Manager Lucas shared that this was our attempt to bring control over the matter so departments and employees are not doing things inconsistently. County Manager Lucas stated that this would also provide financial ramifications tied to the use of cell phones. Commissioner Smith asked if we have abuse with phones with County Manager Lucas answering there is no control as we do not have a policy governing the use of cell phones. Commissioner Sims voiced that he felt this was a good thing with Commissioner Smith in agreement. Commissioner Smith asked if we had a lot of phones out with County Manager Lucas feeling we had less than fifty. Commissioner Jones asked the location of the phones with County Manager Lucas answering that the Sheriff’s office is the primary user with others being water, EMS, County Manager and a few others. Commissioner Smith asked if our cell phones had other means of communication on them. Commissioner Smith then asked the amount of a monthly phone bill with County Manager Lucas stating he would be glad to get the answer to the Board later in the week. Commissioner Jones asked the County Manager to explain the need for a deputy to have a cell phone when he had other means of communication. County Manager Lucas noted that we have certain areas where a radio will not transmit and noted that not all deputies have cell phones. County Manager Lucas noted that the Sheriff’s office has asked to experiment with the touch to talk phones. County Manager Lucas shared that we are trying hard to make sure we are not abusing cell phones. Commissioner Jones voiced that he would like to see the amount and the breakdown by department on the cell phone use before acting on the policy. Vice Chair Sikes stated that he would like to see the current plan and other choices available. Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Nix if EMS could use the touch to talk phone. Commissioner Streater felt one reason would be that they could not communicate with the hospital unless the hospital had the same devise. Mr. Nix stated that there are places around the county where a cell phone does not work and they have to use VHF radios and unit radios. Mr. Nix shared that one problem with cell phones is once the parameter is met there is little reception. Motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that consideration of this policy be carried over to the next meeting and that the County Manager be directed at that time to discuss with the Commission what departments use the phones and in what manner and the expenses involved. Commissioner Sims was of the opinion that County Manager Lucas was trying to be proactive in addressing a problem that needed to be addressed and trying to improve it. Commissioner Sims feels we need to say thank you to him for looking ahead and being proactive and trying to ensure that we use cell phones in a responsible manner. Commissioner Jones voiced agreement with Commissioner Sims as well as Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Jones feels that this is something the Board needs to know. Motion carried unanimously.

Cellular Telephone Agreement: County Manager Lucas noted that this was part of the same package with the Telephone Use Policy.

Water and Waste Water Rates for FY 07: Vance Gulledge noted that page 95 was the first page of water and sewer rates and it shows the filtration cost which is the starting point for all water rate calculations. Mr. Gulledge stated that based on our contract with Richmond County, which does not expire until 2015, we are locked in on the methodology for determining the base water rate charged to out of county customers and others. Mr. Gulledge explained that this rate structure was based upon filtration cost, debt service and some general administrative expenses. Mr. Gulledge noted key items that have risen significantly this year were chemicals and supplies. Mr. Gulledge estimates these items will cost $240,000 next budget year as compared to the $218,000 budgeted this year. Mr. Gulledge shared that electricity for the plant, raw water and the high service pump station is estimated to be $460,000 next year. Mr. Gulledge stated that a letter received from Progress Energy indicates an 11% increase next year. Mr. Gulledge shared that they are spending lots of money in order to bring the plant into compliance as they had to dechlorinate the wastewater this year. Mr. Gulledge stated that the budget as presented needs to be cut $1,900,000, which would come from the distribution budget. Mr. Gulledge noted he only has $100,000 for waterline extension and it may have to be reduced. Commissioner Sims asked Mr. Gulledge if there was any particular reason why he would ask for more money in a line item next year than was spent from that line item this year with Mr. Gulledge answering that it depends on the item. Commissioner Sims then mentioned some of the items as office supplies, professional services, telephone, maintenance for buildings and grounds, plant equipment and repairs and unemployment. Mr. Gulledge stated that any one of those items could vary from year to year and especially on the revenue side where he puts down a line item to keep an existing line item. Commissioner Sims feels it only fair if you ask the public to pay more for water that we do all we can to hold cost to the very minimum particularly those living in the towns. Commissioner Sims asked how much the average water bill would increase if Mr. Gulledge receives what he is asking for with Mr. Gulledge answering about $1.57. Commissioner Smith referred to the earlier statement regarding citizens having access to a water line but not using the water and asked if these people had signed wanting the water in their area. Mr. Gulledge stated that they did not necessarily sign wanting water. Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Gulledge to explain what took place. Mr. Gulledge explained that if the line will pay for itself in ten years it goes on the list and if it takes ten or twelve houses on that line that’s fine. Mr. Gulledge stated that if there are twenty houses in the area, as long as twelve sign up the project will be done and this is what is happening in a lot of cases. Mr. Gulledge stated that they have had people to sign up on projects and then forgiven them from doing it. Mr. Gulledge stated that they are doing roughly $2,700 a month in adjustments which represents approximately two million gallons of water. Mr. Gulledge stated that they are predicting this to be a dry summer and feels we can’t allow people to waste water and then come in and get a write off to the tune of $2,700 a month. Commissioner Smith voiced that he does not remember hearing before about people moving out leaving a high water bill and voiced that he hopes this is not happening. Mr. Gulledge stated that it is happening with people that continue to use the water. Mr. Gulledge stated that they are considering take a very proactive stand on this and cutting the water off when the customer does not repair the leak and letting the water remain off until the leak is repaired. Mr. Gulledge noted that the base rate for water was proposed at $1.3283 which is a 7.14% increase. Mr. Gulledge stated that this was a 8.45% increase in production cost and 1.94% in debt service. Mr. Gulledge stated that debt service was higher because the water sales projection was lower by about thirty some million gallons. Commissioner Smith asked why it was less with Mr. Gulledge answering that we have less gallons paying for the same amount of debt. Commissioner Sims asked if the rate increase would apply to all out of county customers with Mr. Gulledge answering that all out of county customers would have anywhere from a 5.94 to a 7.14% increase. Commissioner Sims commented that all out of county customers would still be paying at least something more than in county customers with Mr. Gulledge answering that the rates are structured that way. Commissioner Sims stated that he does not understand why but there are people in the county that still believe that people outside the county pay less for water than people inside the county. Commissioner Smith was of the opinion that people outside the county were paying less for our water and feels the increase needs to be on those we sell to outside the county. Commissioner Smith felt that water bills in the counties we sell water to were much less than customers in our county. Commissioner Sims felt that it would have to be because those places were setting a different profit margin than our municipalities. Commissioner Sims noted that the actual wholesale price of water we sell cost less here than it does to our customers outside the county. Mr. Gulledge stated that all municipalities in the county pay the same rate as Richmond County, which is the base rate. Commissioner Sims noted that this was not less with Mr. Gulledge saying it was not less but all municipalities pay the same. Mr. Gulledge shared that Chesterfield County was paying three cents more while Union County pays seven cents more. Mr. Gulledge explained that the Richmond County contract determines the base rate and we extend that rate to all municipalities. Commissioner Streater asked why we do this with Mr. Gulledge feeling that in reality they should pay more. Mr. Gulledge shared that if it were not for the Richmond County contract our water bills would be sky high. Commissioner Jones asked for the number of different water rates. Mr. Gulledge stated that we have the standard rate that everyone here pays and that everyone here pays the same as the municipalities once they get past one million gallons of usage. Mr. Gulledge shared that once past a million gallons they would pay the same as Richmond County. Mr. Gulledge shared that we have Richmond County rates, the standard rate, Chesterfield County rates, Union County, Marshville and irrigation. Commissioner Smith asked if Richmond County would be happy for us to unhook the line with Mr. Gulledge feeling they would be but noted that we are talking about $35,000 a month going out and that pays a lot of debt service. Commissioner Smith feels we can’t just give the resources of the county away. Mr. Gulledge stated that some people don’t like it because the towns pay the same as Richmond County but shared that Richmond County installed the twenty-inch waterline to the river and the ground storage tank as their buy- in. Mr. Gulledge shared that Union County was paying for the twenty-four inch line up Highway 74 with a significant dollar value. Mr. Gulledge then asked what the towns in the county contributed to the water system, reminding Board members that taxpayers do not support the water system as water customers’ support it. Mr. Gulledge shared that the towns have always gotten water at a discounted rates and feels they are getting a fair deal. Mr. Gulledge stated that we need to sell water in large volume and Union County seems to be our best candidate. Motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Vice Chair Sikes, to adopt the water and wastewater rates as presented. County Manager Lucas asked if approving the rates means we are approving the budget with Mr. Gulledge answering no. Commissioner Sims feels that people of the county should realize that we want to do all we can to provide safe, quality water. Commissioner Sims stated that personally he would like to see us do as much as we can to extend the remainder of the waterlines. Mr. Gulledge stated that currently we do not have the financing arm to rapidly expand the water system. Mr. Gulledge noted that the minimum bill, which is $10.00 for the first 2,000 gallons, has been the same for the past twenty years. Mr. Gulledge stated that the reason for the decrease in sewer rates is because he projected that Marshville would be on line by July 1st. Motion carried 6 to 1 with Commissioner Smith opposed.

Resolution-Child Protection Amendment: Commissioner Jones was of the opinion that passage of this Resolution would not be in our best interest. Commissioner Jones was of the opinion this was going after the Judges. Commissioner Streater asked how we got the Resolution with County Manager Lucas noting that from time to time we receive these from other counties asking for our support. County Manager Lucas noted that he shared this with Mr. Crandell to make sure it was consistent with our policy and he felt it was. Commissioner Smith asked Commissioner Jones to explain his objection with Commissioner Jones feeling they should not be given a death penalty. Commissioner Jones felt it would apply only to minorities. Commissioner Sims felt it was calling for the maximum penalty based on the situation with Commissioner Jones feeling that was not what it said. County Attorney Bower stated that it calls for the maximum penalty under the constitution and the maximum penalty allowed would generally be the death penalty but it would be what the Supreme Court would say for that type case. Commissioner Smith voiced that he saw nothing wrong with the Resolution. Chairman Woodburn suggested tabling the issue and instructed the County Manager to get more clarification.

Manager’s Report: Richmond, Union Street Update: County Manager Lucas stated that there was no doubt these citizens would benefit from county sewer and if these systems were tested he feels they could potentially fail our environmental health standards. County Manager Lucas stated that the county has utilized Supplemental Grants from the Rural Center for certain projects and currently this program has a limit of $100,000 in order to conserve the state approved bond money. County Manager Lucas noted that it was recommended that the Board take action and lobby our legislative leaders for another state bond referendum for the purpose of water and sewer projects. County Manager Lucas shared that the area would require a pump station and an estimated cost to eliminate all problems in the area is $1,000,000. County Manager Lucas noted the projected debt service on a loan of this amount would be approximately $87,000 a year or three-fourths of a cent on the current tax rate. County Manager Lucas noted that it was important to understand that there are several other projects in the county like this. County Manager Lucas mentioned several options for funding with one being a local bond referendum to support water and sewer expansions or the Board could elect a pay- as-you-go mechanism, which would require either increased sewer rates or an annual appropriation from the General Fund. County Manager Lucas recommended waiting on the return of the capital improvement plan in order to prioritize issues and to have a better rate should the Board elect to go out to the bond market. County Manager Lucas stated that we were asked to look at Board minutes from 1967 through 1974 to see if there was anything in the minutes noting any type deal or contractual stipulation that the individual that built the homes was required to do. County Manager Lucas noted that the Clerk spent several days going through old minute books researching this and found no evidence that this body made any contractual arrangement with the builder. Commissioner Smith stated that he was on the Board when this situation was discussed and it was said that the best way to get sewage to this area was to go from Richmond Street to White Front. Commissioner Jones felt we were looking to see whether or not the county committed itself to this project. County Manager Lucas feels we would be looking to see if there was something in the agreement to build the houses that says the builder had to provide sewer service. Commissioner Smith shared that he does not remember what was said but that it was discussed and the engineer said the sewage would be free flow to White Front. Commissioner Jones feels that if the Board is headed toward getting Mr. Huntley to provide sewage to this area they would be fishing in a dry stream. Commissioner Smith asked about the money recently received for the scattered housing grant with County Manager Lucas noting that was received for a specific project and could not be used for a sewer project. Commissioner Jones asked how assessments would work with County Manager Lucas answering that we would assess a special tax to individuals in this area to pay for the improvements. Commissioner Smith was of the opinion that homes in areas such as this should have never been allowed without some type of sewage system. Motion by Commissioner Jones that a committee be appointed to appear at the May meeting and give us a recommendation on how to proceed and the committee be composed of Chairman Woodburn, Commissioner Streater and Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Streater asked that someone else be appointed. Commissioner Smith stated he would go by the recommendation of the Chairman and the County Manager. Commissioner Jones withdrew his motion. Motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that the Chairman and the County Manager reconsider this matter and consider the various options and make recommendations at the May meeting. Commissioner Sims voiced his concern that there are a lot of others in need and where would all the money come from. Commissioner Smith voiced that the Town of Wadesboro should take over these people as well as those on White Store Road. Motion carried unanimously.

Ridge Street Bridge Replacement-Ansonville: County Manager Lucas offered that the matter is presented to the Board for review and to discuss any potential social, economic, land use or environmental concerns. County Manager Lucas shared that the replacement is proposed by the Town of Ansonville and included as part of the 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Plan. County Manager Lucas stated that all impact statement were due in writing by no later than Monday, April 10.

Chairman Woodburn called for a ten-minute break.

After the break, Chairman Woodburn called the meeting back to Order noting the next issue was Commissioner Concerns: Commissioner Lear stated that there was a road in his district that he feels needs to have the name changed and asked the process for changing a road name. County Manager Lucas presented Board members with information on the issue. County Manager Lucas stated that the road was formerly named Grassy Island Extension. County Manager Lucas stated it was renamed Daisy Road and Pansy Road. County Manager Lucas stated that Daisy Road goes from the intersection of Mill Peach Orchard to Ingram Mountain and after Ingram Mountain it becomes Pansy Road. County Manager Lucas shared that it was approved by this Board to change the name to Daisy and Pansy. Commissioner Lear asked if anyone knew of a problem with the name Grassy Island Extension other than it being similar to Grassy Island Road. Commissioner Streater noted that he and Commissioner Jones were on the committee but a group from Lilesville named the road. Commissioner Lear asked the number of residence on the road with County Manager Lucas noting that Pansy Road has one resident and there are several on Daisy Road. County Manager Lucas explained that the road had one name, which was Grassy Island Extension, and the Board approved the change to name it two names, Daisy Road from one intersection to another and Pansy Road from the intersection with Ingram Mountain to The Crossings Subdivision. Commissioner Streater noted that this issue was not brought before the committee. County Manager Lucas shared that in January of this year the Board approved the process of naming roads as part of the 911 Addressing Ordinance. County Manager Lucas stated that in order to change the road back the following would be needed: the petitioner shall complete the official Road Name Petition Form which is on file in the office of the Address Administrator. The Petition must indicate the number of property owners on the road. Signatures of no less than 75% of property owners adjacent to petitioned public road is required to include address and Property Tax #ID and to include no rental signatures. Any requested or suggested road name or change shall be on application and approval noted by each property owner listed. Signatures of property owners shall be verified by the Address Administrator and certification of such. Address Committee hearings shall be held no less than 10 days after receipt of application and no more than 25. All recommendation for public roads shall be forwarded from the Address Committee to the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners to be scheduled for Public Hearing and approval by County Commissioners. Commissioner Lear asked the County Manager to get him a copy of the petition form and guidelines. Commissioner Smith asked who passed the guidelines on the road name with the County Manager answering this Board. County Manager Lucas noted there were two Ordinances that were merged into one. Commissioner Jones stated that they offered the people a chance to propose names for streets with duplications and we then publicized the meeting. Commissioner Jones noted that he along with Commissioner Streater and Becky Westbrook listened and changes were granted to everyone with a sensible reason for the change. Commissioner Jones noted that no one appeared on Pansy or Daisy Road and it got changed in the process. Commissioner Streater shared that each community had their own committee working on road names. Commissioner Smith felt there should be a more simple way to change road names than going through all this. Commissioner Lear stated that he does not mind going through the process. Chairman Woodburn noted that if guidelines were not in place road names would be changed every time you turned around. Commissioner Sims voiced that there was a lot to consider in changing an address such as driver’s license, mail and many other things.

Chairman Woodburn referred to the information packet and the material involving EMS response time. Chairman Woodburn noted a recent situation where a lady suffered a stroke and a lot of time went by before EMS responded. Chairman Woodburn noted that the family feels the outcome might have been different had the response been more timely. Chairman Woodburn noted that Mr. Nix has indicated a need for more staff and another ambulance and asked the County Manager and staff to evaluate this and see what could be done to improve response time. Commissioner Sims reminded Board members that on several occasions residents of the Peachland-Polkton area have said the same thing. Commissioner Sims feels that they have had deaths that we’ll never know if the response time had been quicker there might have been a different outcome. Commissioner Streater suggested forming a committee of the County Manager and Vice Chair Sikes and another to bring a recommendation to the Board on this issue. Vice Chair Sikes stated that the EMS Planning Board was in the process of looking at this issue. Commissioner Smith voiced that everyone in the county was paying for the service and feels they need to be served. Commissioner Lear asked the number of dispatch units available at any given time with County Manager Lucas noting two. Commissioner Jones noted there were two EMS units on duty twenty-four hours a day and are backed up by the Rescue Squad or occasionally a third EMS. Commissioner Jones shared that there is also the Ansonville and other locals that will respond to calls in their area. Commissioner Lear stated his question was going to be what happens if a third comes in but then if we get a third unit and a fourth call comes in we are still one unit short. Commissioner Jones voiced that he likes the idea of those involved getting into the issue. Commissioner Streater was of the impression we had a spare ambulance. Mr. Nix stated that he is very passionate about this problem. Mr. Nix explained that they have two full time units and they used to have a third line unit when they were with the hospital. Mr. Nix said that in the past two years their transfer volume with the hospital has gone to 66%. Mr. Nix stated that they have had the same two units for twenty years. Mr. Nix shared that with the hub of correctional facilities, nursing homes and the new assisted living facility and transfers their call volume has increased dramatically. Mr. Nix stated that since tonight’s meeting began there has been three times that both ambulances were tied up in the county. Mr. Nix stated that if someone were to call right now the call would go to a rescue squad. Mr. Nix noted one problem with the rescue squad is that they only have available certain paramedics and they have a longer response time. Mr. Nix explained that there are five ambulances ready to respond at any given time but we only have funding for two. Commissioner Streater asked if they had additional staff in the building during the day with Mr. Nix answering he was available but it was hard for him to manage the EMS service when he has to run calls during the day. Commissioner Streater asked about the training officer with Mr. Nix stating she works forty hours a week and does continuing education for Burnsville which requires a lot of night work. Commissioner Streater asked the need for a training office when SPCC offers training. Mr. Nix stated that a training officer has an enormous amount of work to do. Mr. Nix stated that EMS folks have to have thirty-six hours of training a year and the training officer keeps up with State training agencies in addition to other duties. Commissioner Streater stated that he has been told by others that this position was not needed and asked Mr. Nix to explain her duties. Mr. Nix explained that they offer training three times a week, which makes our protocols unmatched. Mr. Nix stated that the training officer coordinates the emergency service’s plan for EMS and first responders in addition to auditing and reviewing all calls as well as patient care issues. Commissioner Jones asked how many people would we have to hire if we were to put on a third ambulance with Mr. Nix answering we would need six full time positions. Commissioner Jones asked the typical salary with Mr. Nix answering that basic was $22,000 a year and entry level paramedic is around $25,000. Mr. Nix shared that we have the unit and the cost of six new employees with associated benefits would be around $200,000. Commissioner Streater asked Vice Chair Sikes what his committee was doing with this issue. County Manager Lucas noted that he has discussed this issue with Mr. Nix and Mr. Diggs and offered that his recommended budget will include a plan that he feels will enhance the level of service while maintaining an affordable tax rate. County Manager Lucas noted that this is not the only need we have and he is trying to balance this need against all the other demands for general fund dollars. Commissioner Smith stated that he was brought up in the ambulance business and feels we could do a better job taking care of the citizens. Commissioner Smith feels we do not need to offer the same training as SPCC. Chairman Woodburn noted the Board would hear the recommendation from the Manager in May.

Marshville Sewer Project: Chairman Woodburn stated that according to Mr. Gulledge this project should be on line by the first of July.

Commissioner Jones –Pee Dee Preservation: Commissioner Jones reminded Board members that at the last meeting the Chairman appointed Commissioner Lear, County Manager Lucas, Kevin Gullette and Commissioner Jones to look at issues with East Anson, Pee Dee River and Blewett Falls. Commissioner Jones noted they have been amazingly busy since that time and they think the committee needs more structure. Commissioner Jones offered the following motion: Whereas the Chairman was authorized by the Anson County Commission at its regular March, 2006 meeting to appoint a committee to study the land usage in eastern Anson County for those lands adjoining or near Blewett Falls Lake and Pee Dee River; That said committee was to be composed of the County Manager, the County Economic Development Director and two County Commissioners; That thereafter the Chairman did appoint Steve Lear, Neil Jones, Andy Lucas and Kevin Gullette to said committee; That the committee has been most active and it does recommend that the committee be made a standing committee to permit it to continue its research and promotion of the area. NOW, THEREFOR it is moved as follows: That the committee be named the Pee Dee Preservation Committee. That the Chairman of the Anson County Commission be empowered to name the Chairman of the Pee Dee Preservation Committee That the duly appointed Chairman of the Pee Dee Preservation Committee be empowered to appoint up to five other members of said Committee for terms of 2 years, such that the Committee could have up to 9 members. That the Committee report its activities to the Commission at the June and January meetings of the County Commission, and on such other times as the Committee deems prudent. Commissioner Jones then recommended that the Chairman appoint Commissioner Lear as Chairman of the committee. Motion carried unanimously.

Chairman Woodburn then appointed Commissioner Lear as Chairman of the Pee Dee Preservation Committee.

Commissioner Smith then asked if the letter from Ms. Bennett included in the information packet was to be injected as part of the record. Chairman Woodburn stated that that could be made a part of the record. The letter received is as follows: March 6, 2006

Jarvis Woodburn, Chairman Anson County Commissioners Anson County Courthouse Wadesboro North Carolina 28170

Gentlemen:

On June 25, 2004, my mother, Eva Mae Bennett was strickened with a stroke. I registered a complaint with Chuck Nix, Sheriff Tommy Allen, and Ross Streater because it took too long for help to arrive. Every minute that my mother lay on the floor in her bedroom waiting for emergency medical services possibly diminished the recovery time of the effects of her stroke. Would they have been different? How long had she lain there before she was able to call me? I cannot say definitely. I can say that she was not given the benefits of a timely arrival at a critical time of need in her health.

To expedite time, I called for help from my home in Wadesboro. I also arrived at her residence in Morven before EMS did, and I called twice from her home trying to find out why it as taking so long for help to arrive. Emotional and outraged as a daughter and a taxpayer, I vented my thoughts and feelings on the communications dispatcher. No reasons were good enough for my mother or anyone else to have to wait so long without medical attention. That is why I am compelled now to join Chuck Nix in his request to the Anson County Board of Commissioners for more funding for more personnel and units to serve the county. No one else needs to have the same experience my mother and I had on June 25, 2004.

To each of you members of the Board, I appreciate your consideration of my plea of endorsement to increase funding for at least one more unit. It could be your mother or loved one the next time. Respectfully yours, Marilynn Bennett

Jail Overcrowding and Courthouse Usage: Commissioner Jones stated that our jail cost us an average of $22.75 a day per prisoner and currently we have sixty- five in jail. Commissioner Jones stated that the jail was built for 42 inmates. Commissioner Jones stated that for the last two weeks we had two weeks of Superior Court scheduled which included a capital murder case. Commissioner Jones stated that the murder case was for a prisoner that had been in jail since July 2002. Commissioner Jones stated that the first day of court the guy pleaded guilty to first degree murder and received life in prison without parole. Commissioner Jones feels this plea was always available to him but they wanted him make the plea so he could be punished in the State system and us stop paying for him. Commissioner Jones noted there were seven other prisoners in jail that have been waiting trial for over two years. Commissioner Jones stated that on that Monday when this person pleaded guilty, the DA informed the judge that this was the only case they had for the week so that was the end of Court. Commissioner Jones questioned why they are trying misdemeanor cases with all the felons in jail. Commissioner Jones feels it terrible that the DA is not prepared to try more cases plus the fact that he is costing us money by holding people in jail. Commissioner Jones stated that he plans to propose a Resolution at the next meeting to say something out loud that we expect more than this. Commissioner Jones referred to the recent murders stating that two have been sent to Central Prison for safe keeping at a cost of $80 a day. Commissioner Jones feels the Board needs to ask the District Attorney to do his job.

Commissioner Smith-Scattered Housing Grant: Commissioner Smith stated that he received information from the County Manager but feels the information did not include all the particulars that he feels should have been included. Commissioner Smith stated that Ms. Beck would not give out the names of those receiving the grant and he feels this is illegal and asked that all parties to the grant be made public immediately. Commissioner Smith feels there should have been a committee to submit the names to the Board so they could inspect them. Commissioner Smith then referred to work done by this group on a specific house that was inferior. County Manager Lucas felt it important to note that this program was different from the Scattered Housing Grant as it was an Urgent Repairs program that allows a certain amount of money to be spent on each house. Commissioner Smith voiced that as far as repairs are concerned it was the same group. Commissioner Smith was of the opinion that you could not keep names anonymous when using public funds. County Manager Lucas stated that a concern he heard was that we could potentially embarrass individuals that are low income by putting their name out there for all to see. County Manager Lucas stated that if the Board approves releasing the names then he would uphold that. Commissioner Jones suggested having the County Manager released the names to Commissioner Smith to review and determine if they should be released. County Manager Lucas noted that there is a scattered housing committee that reviews and determines which homes qualify for repairs. Commissioner Streater voiced that he is a part of that committee. Commissioner Streater feels any member of the Board would have a right to review the names but did not feel it should be published in the paper. County Attorney Bower offered to review the specifications of the grant to see what could and could not be released. Commissioner Smith stated that if he were like this he would want it in the paper to help him to do better. Commissioner Smith voiced that he wanted the names provided to the press if taxpayer money was involved. Chairman Woodburn stated that it could not be provided to the press until the County Attorney investigates and makes a determination. County Manager Lucas stated that no county dollars are associated with this program, as it is all state tax dollars. Commissioner Streater asked if this would be like running the names of all parents whose child receives free lunch. Commissioner Lear commented that this information was guard very carefully. Chairman Woodburn stated that the County Attorney would provide the information to Board members.

Commissioner Lear stated that he was upset about a matter he was made aware of last week and thinks all Board members are aware of the situation. Motion by Commissioner Lear that we direct the County Attorney to investigate possible present violations of this policy and that we get Ms. Jan Benton to address and correct the potential problems with our present Ordinance as expediently as possible and that the County Manager or his designee begin work on this as expediently as possible. Commissioner Smith asked Commissioner Lear if he was asking to suspend with Commissioner Lear answering that if we could do that he would like to do so. County Manager stated that he had already asked the County Attorney to research the matter to see if there has been a violation of the law and to see if there is any way to legally stop what has occurred. Commissioner Lear felt most Board members share his same feelings about this situation. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion. Commissioner Lear then asked to add to his motion to see if there could be a moratorium on issues as this until we could get something in place. Commissioner Smith asked if we could suspend the use of this particular item. County Attorney Bower stated that Ordinances in this area require an advertised public hearing and there are certain procedures that have to be following before you can change the Ordinance. Commissioner Sims voiced that he could not believe that after all that has been done we left ourselves in this situation. Commissioner Smith asked the County Attorney if the Board could suspend that particular portion of the Ordinance with County Attorney Bower feeling the Board could not as that would be changing the Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.

Chairman Woodburn referred to information from the Health Department shared with Board members at the beginning of the meeting. Commissioner Smith interrupted to say he was of the opinion this Board could suspend on a temporary basis anything being issued and felt the Board would be right in doing so. County Attorney Bower referred to a Court case a few years ago that addressed a similar issue where a county attempted to impose a moratorium on issuing building permits in a certain area. The county passed the moratorium without following the proper procedure and it was found not to be valid. County Attorney Bower advised that if the Board addresses an Ordinance dealing with building permits, zoning or subdivisions to following the procedure outlined in the Statute. Commissioner Jones voiced problems with changing the rules in the middle of the game. Chairman Woodburn understands that Board members want to do something right now but to make it valid we need to follow the process.

Chairman Woodburn stated that this issue is general for county employees since this has been heard from several different departments. Chairman Woodburn shared that the Board has heard from various department managers their difficulty in retaining and attracting employees. Chairman Woodburn asked Board members to read the information to see what Dr. Kateh is up against at the Health Department. Chairman Woodburn asked to keep this in mind during the budget process. Chairman Woodburn mentioned that the Manager and Ms. Carr were working on a package to make our wages and benefits competitive. Commissioner Jones asked the County Manager if this would be addressed in the budget with County Manager Lucas answering absolutely.

Chairman Woodburn noted this concluded Commissioner Concerns. Chairman Woodburn stated there was a personnel issue requiring a closed session. Commissioner Smith asked the Board to recognize Mr. Little a former Commissioner from Lilesville. Commissioner Smith stated this was separate from the personnel issue. Mr. Little stated that they were having a situation in his neighborhood where neighbors did not know exactly what was going on. Mr. Little stated that it appeared to be either a subdivision or a mobile home park being placed there. Mr. Little stated they were trying to get direction from the Planning/Zoning Board as to what could be done about the situation. Mr. Little stated that he understands the type process that was put in place in order to establish what is there. Mr. Little explained that it was called an installment land sale contract and it allows the owners to subdivide and lease/purchase to someone a piece of land and they in turn can place whatever on the property. Mr. Little stated that the Ordinance does not necessarily address installment land sale contracts. Mr. Little feels this is not in the best interest of a lot of neighborhoods and communities in the county. Mr. Little asked the Board to look into the issue and amend or update the current policy. Mr. Little feels there should be a better process and feels his neighborhood will be destroyed as a result of this. Mr. Little gave notice to the Board that everyone in his neighborhood would be asking for a reduction in values because they know they will be affected. Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Little if someone could purchase a piece of land on the basis of a lease and asked how it would be recorded. Commissioner Jones answered under a lease purchase arrangement or either a contractual arrangement the title would stay with the owner. County Attorney Bower stated that title would stay with the owner but the contract would be recorded. Commissioner Jones asked if it was required to be recorded with County Attorney Bower answering no but normally they were. Commissioner Smith asked who would pay the taxes with Commissioner Jones answering that the landowner would pay the tax. Commissioner Sims voiced that it sounded like a legal means to do what we otherwise thought we had made illegal. Commissioner Smith asked if this would be a subdivision with Mr. Little answering it was not a subdivision. County Attorney Bower stated that it was either a subdivision or a rural linear subdivision or a minor subdivision. County Attorney Bower explained that we have in our Ordinance, besides the regular general subdivision, a provision for a rural linear subdivision which can have so many lots that abut a public road or you could have a minor subdivision with a number of lots which he believes to be four. Mr. Little voiced appreciation to the Board for listening and for their consideration.

Motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Sikes, to go into closed session to discuss a personnel issue pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes 143-318.11(a)(6) to consider the qualifications, competence, performance, condition of appointment of a public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee. Motion carried unanimously.

In regular session, motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to come out of closed session. Motion carried unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Jones to recess until April 13, 2006. Commissioner Smith felt it should be noted for the record that there was no action taken from closed session. Commissioner Jones withdrew his motion. Chairman Woodburn stated there was no action taken in executive session. Motion by Commissioner Jones to recess until April 13, 2006 to meet at Grace Center with the Board of Education at 6:00 P.M. for a dinner meeting. Commissioner Streater asked if the Board would be meeting with the school board two times with County Manager Lucas noting the second time was not about the school board but more about the children’s partnership doing a collaborative meeting. County Manager Lucas there would be no business discussed at the second meeting. Motion seconded by Commissioner Lear and carried unanimously.

Respectfully submitted:

Bonnie M. Huntley, CMC Clerk to the Board

Meeting time: 3-hr. 45 min.

Load more

  29

Copy Link