MINUTES

WILKES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

NOVEMBER 3, 2009

The Wilkes County Board of Commissioners met on Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 5:00 P. M. with the following members present: Chairman Zach Henderson, Vice Chairman Keith Elmore, Commissioner Gary Blevins, Commissioner Luther Parks, and Commissioner Charlie Sink. 

Also present for the meeting were Tony Triplett, County Attorney; County Manager John Yates; and Alene Faw, Clerk to the Board. 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Henderson who welcomed those in attendance.   

INVOCATION & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – The Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance were led by Commissioner Luther Parks.

MINUTES - Motion was made by Commissioner Charlie Sink, seconded by Commissioner Luther Parks and unanimously adopted to approve the Minutes of the Board Meeting held on October 20, 2009.

BUDGET AMENDMENTS & BUDGET TRANSFERS - Commissioner Luther Parks made a motion to approve Budget Amendments No. 14 (Health – Health Care Connection and Programs/Salaries), and No. 15 (Health-Programs/Salaries, Maternal Health, Family Planning and Child Care); and Budget Transfer No. 6 (Social Services). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gary Blevins.

Vice Chairman Keith Elmore asked if Budget Amendment No. 14 is creating a permanent job. County Manager John Yates stated this is not creating a new position. Jerri Colvard from the Health Department stated this is for reassignment of staff.

            Voting on the motion:             Ayes - Unanimous

SMOKY MOUNTAIN CENTER UPDATE - Shelly Foreman with Smoky Mountain Center stated she is here tonight to introduce their new Area Director Bryan Ingraham. She stated Mr. Ingraham worked in the community mental health system in New York for over fifteen years and came to North Carolina over six years ago to work for Piedmont Behavioral Health which was the only LME in the State of North Carolina to have a special Medicaid Waiver Program. Ms. Foreman stated Mr. Ingraham did work for Smoky for about a year on a special project and when that finished went back to Davidson to work for Day Mark which is a large provider organization and then decided he wanted to make the Smoky Mountain Center catchment area his home. She stated they are very happy to have Mr. Ingraham. She introduced Suzy Long, the northern region Director. She stated Ms. Long has six months left with Smoky before she retires. Ms. Foreman stated this is a challenging time for Mental Health Services in the State of North Carolina. She stated in the budget process during the last term of the General Assembly there was significant State funding reductions for Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Developmental Disabilities Services. She stated they also lost a core Medicaid service, Community Support, which many people in Wilkes County receive. She stated another blow for providers was that Medicaid rates were reduced. She stated the next couple of years will be challenging.

Mr. Ingraham stated it would a lot better if he could come here with a bunch of good news and say they have a truck load of money and cannot wait to develop better and more services for people but nothing could be further from the truth. He stated as Ms. Long alluded there are really three very significant challenges that have all collided at once. He stated they are used to doing one or two but three puts them into a situation where it is almost like he is preparing people for some real rough times certainly for the rest of this year and for the better part of next year. He stated Smoky Mountain Center like all of the other LME’s in the State took a very significant cut. He stated it was much larger than they anticipated. He stated for two fiscal years it will be roughly $10 million. He stated this is money they used for indigent care which is most precious because it goes to support the services for people that have no Medicaid eligibility or insurance but still have significant needs which is a large part of the population they try to serve. Mr. Ingraham stated when they lost $10 million of those dollars it really hurt. He stated the first thing Smoky did was basically wrote a check for $3.2 million from their Fund Balance to be a buffer for this year’s cut which is roughly $6 million the way it worked out. He stated they were able to cut that in about half because taking that much out of the system for what is left of this fiscal year would have been devastating. Mr. Ingraham stated from there they went through a big exercise to look at safety net services which are things they simply cannot do without on behalf of the consumers they serve and the providers that provide those services. He stated they got to a smaller list and had to make some significant cuts in some areas. He stated Wilkes County will fare much better than some of the other counties. Mr. Ingraham stated they were very excited to hear less than a week after they went through this big exercise to take all the money back that miraculously someone in Raleigh found $15 million so they got $1 million of that share, put it back in, and redid the reduction plan. He stated they are going to make the best of it. He stated if it were just that, they would get through it and manage somehow but the combination of providers also having big cuts in their Medicaid rates is going to be very difficult. He stated agencies across the State will go out of business. He stated they do not suspect that here but in their catchment area that is what is going to happen. Mr. Ingraham stated the other piece to that is Community Support going away. He stated that is a major service in their catchment area. He stated in the fifteen counties they have over 1,300 people that receive that service. He stated the way he has been trying to make this concrete is if he had a chronic health problem and was used to getting a service that helped him and was comfortable with that and learned one day at the end of the year that was going away, that would not be very good news. He stated that is what a lot of people are faced with. He stated in Wilkes County there are 229 folks and that is a little more unusual than in some of the other counties where the split is almost 50/50 between children and adults. He stated there are 116 children and 113 adults. Mr. Ingraham stated he cannot say they have a good plan right now for how all those folks are going to be served but they are working on that. He stated the budget reduction certainly made planning for augmenting other services when they are reducing some services all the more difficult. Mr. Ingraham stated they are going to do their best but he does not think it will be without some pain and suffering on behalf of some citizens and some providers. He stated Ms. Long can tell the Board that Wilkes is going to be in a lot better shape than most of the counties.

Ms. Long stated the northern region in general is in pretty good shape after the cuts. She stated when they planned this year’s budget, they looked at some new services and some non mandated services they thought would be best practices and they had those in the budget. She stated none of those services had started so when they had to cut those were the first items to go because nobody was being served by those programs so it made sense to cut those first. Ms. Long stated in Wilkes County as well as all of the fifteen counties they looked at the ADVIP Programs because that is their major Developmental Disabilities provider of services. She stated here in Wilkes that is Wilkes Vocational Services and Wilkes ADAP. She stated they made the cut 3%. She stated when the $1 million was restored they were able to change that cut to 2%. She stated across the State ADVIP’s received up to 20% to 25% cuts and they were able to keep that at 2%. Ms. Long stated they looked at their group homes. She stated in Wilkes County they have Brushy Mountain Group Homes and a major residential provider with Omni-Vision. She stated they cut those residential services by 1.5%. She stated with the restoration of some of the dollars they were able to restore that funding leaving the group homes with 0% cut. She stated with their comprehensive service provider which in Wilkes County is New River Behavioral Services, who provides their State funded services for indigents, they were able to add to their budget in basic benefits, in community support teams, and in intensive in-home services which are services that will replace for some people the Community Support services that are going away. Ms. Long stated they had also looked at some of the services that were provided where they knew the providers and knew there were lapsed salaries in those companies. She stated they worked with them and were able to take those dollars out which would not affect any consumer care. She stated she feels positive that with really bad news they were able to make it as good as or better than their providers expected it to be. She stated there are 229 folks in Wilkes County Mr. Ingraham talked about who have been getting Community Support that will be going away and they are very concerned with those individuals. She stated she wants the Board to know that here in Wilkes County they know who those folks are, who the providers that are serving those folks are, and they have a northern region office that is working with these providers to transition to make sure these folks do not fall through the cracks. Ms. Long stated this will not be perfect but they are doing as much as they can do to stay involved with these folks and make sure they have services. 

Chairman Zach Henderson stated it is nice to know Smoky Mountain has been able to retrieve some of the cuts they originally thought they were going to have and in this area maybe they will not be as drastic or severe as they are in other areas.  He stated one of the things that some do not seem to understand is Smoky as well as the Board of Commissioners are mandated to provide services and care for people that need this and if it were not for entities like Smoky Mountain and the service providers such as New River those services would not be provided and the County would have to do it in another way and that would be very tough. He thanked them for what they do. 

Mr. Ingraham stated he appreciates Chairman Zach Henderson and Commissioner Charlie Sink attending their meeting last week. He stated their efforts with trying to address some of the issues they face are very encouraging.

Vice Chairman Keith Elmore asked if Wilkes County cut 10% of Smoky’s budget and if that is reflected in their document. Mr. Ingraham stated that was in New River’s budget and it is not in the document. Ms. Long stated all of their maintenance of effort money goes to New River Behavioral Healthcare. She stated the only county where they had a cut was Wilkes County. Vice Chairman Elmore stated it looks like Haywood cut $53,000. Ms. Long stated New River does not provide services in Haywood. She stated of the northern region counties, the five original New River counties fund New River through the LME. Vice Chairman Elmore asked if Wilkes County is the only one that had a cut. He stated it should be pointed out that Wilkes County funds the lion’s share of this. Ms. Long stated that is correct. She stated they are very dependent on that and they really appreciate the funding. She stated it is major for that provider. Mr. Ingraham stated New River did take a very significant cut from another LME they do business with. He stated Smoky is not in control of how that pans out in terms of any ripple effect in the services they provide for Wilkes County. He stated that is over $1 million.

Chairman Henderson thanked them for the report.

TAX DEPARTMENT – REVALUATION RESOLUTION - Tax Administrator Alex Hamilton stated in April of 2001, the Board of Commissioners passed a resolution approving a four year revaluation cycle unless a subsequent resolution is passed that changes the schedule. He stated he is currently scheduled to do a revaluation effective January 1, 2011. Mr. Hamilton stated it takes approximately two years to do a revaluation. He stated the most difficult task in doing one is preparing the schedule of values. He stated the most important part of the schedule of values is the tables used to value the properties. He stated the tables are modified based on data he obtains from the sale of properties here in the County. Mr. Hamilton stated unfortunately the Tax Department has only been able to document 120 sales of vacant and improved properties that are arms length transactions so far this year. He stated he has not seen anything that would convince him that 2010 is going to be any better. Mr. Hamilton stated he does not see how he can value 50,000 parcels here in the County based on the limited number of sales he has. He stated there were over 1,000 qualified sales used in the 2007 revaluation that were legitimate market sales. Mr. Hamilton stated another problem is the sales he has are sending a mixed message. He stated there are sales that could be used to show that the market is going up and there are sales that could be used to show that the market is going down. He stated the problem is there are not enough sales to prove it one way or another. Mr. Hamilton stated if the County goes ahead with the 2011 revaluation it would be very difficult defending the values because of the lack of sales and the uncertainty in the market. Mr. Hamilton requested the Board pass a resolution tonight postponing the revaluation until January 2013. He stated hopefully there will be enough data by then for the Tax Department to do the job properly and the market will have stabilized one way or the other. 

Vice Chairman Keith Elmore stated some folks have purchased property in gated communities and that is where the properties have really taken a hit on values. He asked if there is any way to protect those folks in that situation. He asked if they can come in and request a tax hearing. Mr. Hamilton stated they can request a hearing but the current values will be based on the market conditions as of January 1, 2007. He stated if there are no sales in the subdivisions that Vice Chairman Elmore is referring to how can they say they are going down. He stated that is the problem as there are no sales. He stated he can make assumptions the market is going down but in some subdivisions some of the sales they are seeing are out of state sales where property values are actually increasing. He stated the whole problem is there is not enough data. He stated he can sit here all day and support the market is going up because there are sales to indicate that and again there are sales indicating the market is declining. He stated there are not enough sales. He stated Commissioner Charlie Sink can tell the Board it is tough to find comparable sales on any property right now. He stated he has talked to other real estate appraisers and they are having similar problems. He stated there are just not enough sales going on right now to do a revaluation much less do a single appraisal.

Commissioner Gary Blevins asked if they are doing appraisals. He asked if they have postponed doing appraisals because there are no sales. Commissioner Sink stated it is an entirely different situation in a private setting where banks and lawyers require that for what they need. He stated this is ad valorem taxation which is an entirely different process of mass appraisal. Commissioner Sink stated mass appraisal has got to have more data than what he might need to do an appraisal. He stated they have to establish neighborhoods and typical valuations within those neighborhoods so they can consistently apply the values. He stated they cannot do that when they have one set of criteria saying the value is going up and the other saying it is going down. He stated that is not clear. Commissioner Sink stated they have to have a lot of data. He stated he would think there have been more than 120 sales this year. Mr. Hamilton stated they send out letters to every property that was sold that had a deed stamp and they have gotten about 120 responses that have proven to be arms length transactions. He stated he is not saying they have gotten them all but that is what they have in their office. Mr. Hamilton stated Commissioner Sink may do 100 to 200 appraisals per year but this is talking about doing 50,000 appraisals of all different types of properties. He stated a lot of data is needed to quantify what they do. 

Commissioner Blevins asked if this situation was just not anticipated when the County resolved to do this every four years. Mr. Hamilton stated when the County resolved to do this every four years the market was increasing at that time 4% to 5% every year. He stated if they waited eight years to do a revaluation property values increased 40% to 50% and that was a huge slap in the face for a lot of people. He stated by going to a four year cycle there would be a smaller increase and it would be easier for people to stomach. He stated no one anticipated what is taking place now. Mr. Hamilton stated he is not saying one way or the other. He stated obviously there are signs it is decreasing and hopefully by 2013 it will be stabilized so they can make that determination and defend what they do. He stated if they are going to lower or raise values they have to be able to defend that. He stated if they cannot defend it, their whole system is worthless. Commissioner Blevins stated Mr. Hamilton has a tough job and what is being discussed is a technical point and Commissioner Sink is an expert in this area but frankly if a property owner perceives that property values are going down it seems fair to the individual taxpayer to have the revaluation at the four year increment and that decreasing the value of their property would be reflected in their property taxes. He stated the Board might have to raise the rate to make up the difference which is tough work for the Board of Commissioners but if they have to do it they have to do it. He stated if the Board cannot justify that it is another question but he thinks a lot of people feel like property should be revaluated after four years and if it is less they should be charged less taxes then it looks unfair for the Board to say wait for six years. He stated in fairness if the County waited eight years before and property went up 60% and people had to take a big hit still they were not paying that incremental tax at four years until they got to the eight so it actually saved them money with an eight year revaluation. Mr. Alexander stated he has put a lot of thought into coming before the Board with this request because everyone has been watching the news and there is a preconceived notion that all values are going down but he does not have the data to make that determination one way or another. He stated he has to have market data to show what the market is doing and 120 sales is not a market and that is the data he has. Mr. Hamilton stated last year or the year before last there were over 3,000 properties transferred and right now there are only 1,700. He stated these are family transactions. He stated there has been a huge decline in the number of properties that have been transferred. 

Commissioner Blevins asked if there is a minimum number they would have to have in order to go ahead with the revaluation that is fair and defensible. Mr. Hamilton stated they need sales of all types of properties. He stated vacant land is probably the most difficult. He stated it is getting easier but it is still pretty difficult because they have to delineate the County into neighborhoods. He stated in each neighborhood they look at all the sales in that neighborhood to set values is how this works. Mr. Hamilton stated land sales are scattered and scarce. He stated some areas could be going up and some areas could be going down but there is not enough information to make those determinations. He stated the more sales the merrier but he cannot say with 200 or 300 sales he can do a revaluation because that might be all sales of one type of property and not enough of other types of properties to do it. Mr. Hamilton stated the County was spoiled from the past revaluations because there were so many sales everywhere and it was easy. Commissioner Blevins asked if that it why it was originally set at eight years by the State so there would be enough data. Commissioner Sink stated that far back they did not anticipate these kinds of huge increases in property values. He stated there are some areas such as at the coast where in the early to late 1990’s into the 2000’s those properties went up. He stated he paid $110,000 for a small beach cottage of about 1,000 square feet and the next thing he knew he had someone asking if he would take $600,000 for it. He stated he did not sell for that amount but he sold out at three times what he had in it. He stated those changes are huge and that is a big bite for people in those areas. He stated Wilkes County is starting to get those types of things in the mountain developments here such as Leatherwood, etc. He stated what little data is going on there shows those property values are sure not going down. Commissioner Sink stated what he is seeing from other people is the sales are not happening because people are not willing to take less than what they think their property is worth based on the values that were established when things were picking up in 2005, 2006, and 2007. He stated the revaluation was finished in 2007 and basically that is when thing started stopping. He stated he is using 2007 and before data to do some appraisals now because he does not have a choice because things just came to a screeching halt.  He stated the data out there is tough to go by.

Mr. Hamilton stated last year there were four counties that did revaluations that after they finished the counties tried to rescind them because they actually increased. He stated what the Board is referring to is people have the preconceived notion that the market has gone down but in Alamance County they had a major revolt because they had the data to prove their market had increased. He stated they were on a four year cycle so during that four year cycle for the first two or three years for example they went up 15% to 20% and only dropped 10% so there was still a net 10% increase in value. He stated they rescinded the revaluation and had spent $500,000 to $600,000 on it and went back to the original values. Mr. Hamilton stated he would have to hire some help from outside to do this and he does not want to get into spending money and then turn around next year and find out it is worse and the market drops and be stuck with bad numbers. He stated he is looking to spend probably $150,000 on help to get this project done. Mr. Hamilton stated he has done three revaluations so far and will be glad to do this. He stated he has always been able to defend what he has done and he wants to be in the position to be able to defend it this time too. He stated his pay is not based on the market going up or the market going down. He stated he will do the best job he can.

Commissioner Blevins stated nobody questions that. He asked in the revaluations prior to 2007 how many average sales were they having then. Mr. Hamilton stated there were not quite as many as they had in 2007 but he has not checked that but was mainly basing this on 2007. 

Commissioner Blevins stated he does not like the idea of having a policy and changing it and changing it again the next time unless there is a really good reason to do that. He stated he thinks taxpayers should be paying property taxes based on the real value of their land at that particular time. He stated having frequent revaluations sounds fair to him but if Mr. Hamilton cannot defend it and the County is going to have to spend and end up not using the data even though they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce it, that is a good argument against it. He stated this is a tough call. 

Mr. Hamilton stated he has spent a lot of time working on this and thinking about it. Commissioner Blevins asked Mr. Hamilton if this is his best recommendation. Mr. Hamilton stated it is. He stated he has talked to other appraisers, looked at the data and sales, and done his homework on this. He stated if the Board chooses to have him do this it will be fine because that is part of his job. He stated when he goes before the Board of Equalization and Review he usually has good data to support what he has done and he wants to be in the position for this one too. 

Chairman Zach Henderson asked Mr. Hamilton if he will not have the data. Mr. Hamilton stated it is just not there. He stated if the Board wants to put this off a year, it will be fine but he needs to see if the market gets established one way or another. He stated if it goes down 10% so be it. He stated the Board is going to have to live with that as he is not the one that is going to have to raise taxes.

Commissioner Blevins stated he does not want anyone to think the Board is coping out of their responsibility but if that is what it is that is what it is. He stated Mr. Hamilton is an expert in this and this is more than his opinion, this is his recommendation. He stated Mr. Hamilton is recommending waiting two additional years. Mr. Hamilton stated he does not know because of the uncertainly for next year. He stated he does not have a crystal ball so he does not know if there is anything coming down the pike that will change a lot. He stated as Commissioner Sink said there are people holding out because they do not want to sell for less but eventually those people are going to have to sell and that is when he will be able to see what the market is doing. 

Commissioner Charlie Sink made a motion to approve the Resolution as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gary Blevins and unanimously approved.

RESOLUTION CHANGING SCHEDULED REAPPRAISAL

WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statutes §105-286 requires that all real property be reappraised at least every eight years; and

WHEREAS, the same statute permits any County desiring to conduct a reappraisal earlier to do so upon adoption of a resolution so providing; and

WHEREAS, the Wilkes County Board of Commissioners (hereinafter the “Board of Commissioners”), by Resolution duly adopted on the 20^th day of March, 2001, and forwarded to the North Carolina Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division (hereinafter the “2001 Resolution”), advanced its scheduled octennial reappraisal and implemented a four (4) year reappraisal system, with scheduled reappraisals of real property to be conducted effective January 1, 2003, and every four (4) years thereafter; and

            WHEREAS, pursuant to the 2001 Resolution, a reappraisal of real property for Wilkes County is currently scheduled to take effect as of January 1, 2011; and

            WHEREAS, due to the recent economic decline and conditions in the local real estate market, there have been insufficient sales of real property to obtain the required data for a county-wide real property reappraisal; and

            WHEREAS, due to the foregoing, the Board of Commissioners desires to modify the 2001 Resolution to change the date of the next county-wide real property reappraisal to January 1, 2013;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners, that the 2001 Resolution is hereby modified so as to provide that the next county-wide real property reappraisal shall be undertaken with an effective date of January 1, 2013;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that other than as modified herein, the 2001 Resolution shall continue in full force and effect, and that the four (4) year reappraisal system established thereunder shall continue to be used by Wilkes County, with the next reappraisal following the one for January 1, 2013, to be effective as of January 1, 2017, and every four (4) years thereafter unless changed by subsequent resolution of the Board of Commissioners.

ADOPTED this the 3^rd day of November, 2009.

        WILKES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

                                                       /s/ Zach Henderson, Chairman

ATTEST:

/s/ Alene E. Faw, County Clerk

TAX DEPARTMENT – TAX MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES CONTRACT - Tax Administrator Alex Hamilton stated he has a Business Personal Property Department with one employee. He stated that employee does a great job maintaining the listings and valuing the business personal property but it is really difficult to get into some of the auditing that is needed to determine if people are listing what they should be listing. He stated Tax Management & Associates is a company the County contracted with in 1997 prior to him being the Tax Administrator. He stated they came in and audited all of the businesses with a business personal property value of $50,000 or more. Mr. Hamilton stated that was a very successful project. He stated TMA actually visits the businesses and get into their depreciation schedules, their general ledgers, and make comparisons to make sure the property is being properly listed. He stated they also help in determining if property is real or personal property and making sure it is listed in the correct way. He stated business personal property is depreciated annually whereas real estate is depreciation on a revaluation.

Chairman Zach Henderson asked if this has been done more than once. Mr. Hamilton stated since he has been with the County it has only been done once and was very successful. He stated he has some numbers but since he was not here he cannot determine if they are accurate or not. He stated when he took over there were about five or six cases left they were able to clear up dealing with some of the bigger companies and that went well. He stated they have had no problem with this.  Mr. Hamilton stated basically what TMA will do is go in and look at their depreciation schedules and work with the taxpayer to make sure to resolve these issues. He stated they will also look for unlisted businesses to make sure they are listed. He stated since there is only one employee in this department it would be nice to let TMA come in and help out in that regard because she does not necessarily have the time to do everything that is needed. Mr. Hamilton stated this will be done on a contingency basis so there is no out of pocket money for the County. He stated in 1997 their fee was 35% but they have reduced that now to 30% of anything they find. Chairman Henderson stated that would be something the County would not have collected anyway. Mr. Hamilton stated that is correct. He stated this will get stuff back on the books and it will be there from here forward. He stated in 1997 since this had never been done before there was a lot to be found but he is not sure there will be a lot to be found right now but it is not going to cost the County anything. Mr. Hamilton stated TMA has a level of expertise with CPA’s on staff that the County cannot afford to have on staff. He stated they know what they are doing, have been in business a long time, and the County has a good working relationship with them. He stated the County has worked on other cases with them and they have always done a good job for the County.

Commissioner Gary Blevins asked if County Attorney Tony Triplett has read the contract thoroughly and are there are problems. Mr. Triplett stated he has read the contract and it is fine. He stated it is a slightly different contract than was used the last time. Mr. Hamilton stated the main difference is when a discovery is done there is room for the Board of Equalization or the Board of Commissioners to compromise a discovery. He stated if the Board of E & R chooses to compromise, TMA wants to be paid based on their original discovery and not the compromised amount which is fair. He stated they found the discovery and did their job and want to be paid on that. He stated that is the main difference he saw and he did address that with them. He stated he has always had a good working relationship where they could work a lot of this out without going before the Board. He stated some of the stuff is questionable and they have assured him he will still have the capability of working these things out. 

Mr. Triplett stated TMA assisted the County in the Lowe’s case which was resolved very amicably and was very productive. He stated this will be a big benefit to the County.

Commissioner Luther Parks asked how long this process will take. Mr. Hamilton stated to clear the whole thing up will probably take a couple of years. He stated if there are appeals they will stay with the County throughout the whole appeals process. He stated that is all included in their contract. He stated the actual audits will take about a year to a year and a half. 

Commissioner Gary Blevins stated TMA’s contract is for thirty six months. Mr. Hamilton stated it is. He stated they will be here until the County is done and satisfied. He stated he has had a great working relationship with them. He stated they have done other audits for the County outside of this.

Commissioner Gary Blevins made a motion to approve the contract with Tax Management Associates as presented. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Keith Elmore and unanimously approved. 

SKY CAROLINA PHASE 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - Planning Director Eddie Barnes stated during regular session on September 28, 2009 the Planning Board reviewed and recommended for approval the final plat for Sky Carolina Phase 1 Planned Unit Development owned by Wild Hare Development, Inc. He stated he has passed out a letter from the developer, Mr. Bo Quickle. He stated Mr. Quickle wanted to be here this evening to meet the Board and thank them for their consideration but an emergency came up and he was unable to attend but he did want the letter passed out on his behalf. Mr. Barnes stated the Planned Unit Development is located on Vannoy Road (SR 1570), Sky Way and Natural Way in Union Township. He stated the proposed subdivision consists of 117.58 acres to be divided into forty-two lots with an average size of 1.40 acres. Mr. Barnes stated streets in the subdivision are to be private with paving and constructed to non-DOT standards per section 71 of the Wilkes County Subdivision Ordinance. He stated this subdivision is not located in a zoned area but is in a WS-II protected watershed and all documentation, lot size, and setback requirements have been met. Mr. Barnes stated this is Phase 1 of a planned 511 acre development with proposed 139 lots. He stated also proposed is a tennis resort and spa along with some cabins for rental and other possible commercial uses on the project. Mr. Barnes stated he is asking the Board tonight for conditional approval of this plat based on some final improvements on the road he anticipates being done within the next week.   He stated they had anticipated the improvements already being completed but with the weather the past couple of weeks that held them off with paving. He stated the last remaining section that is unpaved right now is Natural Way which is on the northernmost part of Phase 1 and there is also some graveling to do on the secondary fire access road. He stated if the Board grants conditional approval tonight the Planning Department will retain the plat until the developer has met those obligations.  

Motion was made by Commissioner Charlie Sink to conditionally approve Sky Carolina Phase 1, Planned Unit Development as presented by the Planning Department and to approve the plat of the same for recording, pursuant to the Wilkes County Subdivision Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Keith Elmore and unanimously approved.

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT – E911 READDRESSING INITIATIVE CONTRACT - Major Greg Minton stated the County has reached an impasse with the data and dealing with the E 911 situation specifically the addressing layer they are currently using and have been using since 1993. He stated due to the inability to grow with existing and emerging technologies and using that data to work and interface with very cost effective programs right now, they have to upgrade. He stated they have to GPS the addresses in Wilkes County. Mr. Minton stated a committee was formed and they heard four presentations from four specific vendors previously identified. He stated from those vendors because of the way they approached the problem and solving that problem, they identified Kimble. He stated the County has had a strong working relationship with Kimble in the past. He stated their philosophy was “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and the County liked that. He stated that led to the realization they were originally looking at a budget issue of $400,000 to $500,000 to readdress and Kimble was very efficient and has reduced that cost factor to $145,000 turn key. Major Minton stated additionally even though they are going to readdress the County they are not going to change everybody’s address. He stated they are going to assign point based addressing to existing addresses so there are plenty of units in between the way they were previously addressed which was 5.28 feet. He stated there are plenty of addresses within that old standard so they assured the County they can do most of this electronically or digitally so they will not have to readdress everyone. Major Minton stated conservatively they will readdress 5% to 10% of the addresses in Wilkes County. He stated if those 5% to 10% were not public safety issues they would not touch them. He stated the only addresses they will change are the ones with public safety issues. He stated the worst case scenario they can envision is if someone has property and their children decide to locate behind them in either a mobile home or a permanent structure and there is only one drive. He asked how they could be found if the 911 call is generated from three separate phone trunks off of that one private drive. He stated point based addressing will identify that need and give a specific coordinate for that phone including if it is a cellular phone. He stated as long as they have it recorded they will respond to the address on record. Major Minton stated on a Phase 2 call they can respond anywhere in the County on cellular calls on 911. He stated with emerging technologies they have to have the addressing layer to be able to have the street layer that coincides with the GPS template. He stated they tried to use the old data and it failed miserably. He stated there is no way they can use the old data on a new addressing layer so they came about this in a very logical progression to this point. Major Minton stated Kimble has a good record as they have done several other projects for the County. He stated they are very cost effective and will only touch 5% to 10% of the existing addresses in the County. He asked the Board to approve their contract. He stated he has already submitted that to County Attorney Tony Triplett for review. He stated he only has one caveat and if that is amended it will sufficient. 

Chairman Zach Henderson asked if only a small portion of those affected will be affected due to emergencies.  He stated given the emerging technology and how quickly things are changing, almost daily, how long out in time this will be good for and can be used. Major Minton stated in 1993 they used the existing data and technology and in 1995 GPS became the standard. He stated as long as the satellites are up throwing out signals it is effective. He stated included in this is a GPS model. He stated out of the $145,000, he has received approval for $144,000 of that out of the E 911 funding. He stated the only reason the whole project was not funded is $1,000 is to use the data to convert to the existing GIS platform which other entities within the County can use. He stated it only makes sense if the County is going to go to the trouble to do this is to allow the street layers to be used for other applications within the County. Chairman Henderson asked if there can be multiple uses for this. Major Minton stated that is correct.

Vice Chairman Keith Elmore stated the contract is a pretty technical document and he is not a GIS expert. Major Minton stated that is why he is here. Vice Chairman Elmore stated on Page 4 it appears they are talking about 20% of the County addresses changing. He stated that says it is anticipated that 80% of the County structures are assigned addresses using existing data and the remaining 20% of the County structures are assigned addresses during field verification tasks. He asked if that should read 5% to 10%. Major Minton stated that is totally different. Tax Administrator Alex Hamilton stated that is referring to the 20% they are actually going to have to go out into the field to visit. He stated they will have to go out and identify each building that has shared addresses. He stated there might be two or three houses on that property. He stated each individual building will be assigned an address. He stated this will not change existing addresses but will assign an address to each structure. He stated this will require about 20% field visits. Vice Chairman Elmore asked if that will be approximately 4,000 homes. Major Minton stated the field verification is just to ensure the orthos. He stated most of the addresses are going to be generated from the orthos the County has that are less than two years old.   He stated this will be very cost effective when you put a team of four on the project. He stated the timeline on this is six months. He stated this is very accelerated.

Vice Chairman Elmore asked on Page 28 if there is a price on the yearly maintenance fee for Kimble. Major Minton stated there is no fee with Kimble. He stated that can be with anybody they choose and once again that is not going to come out of the County’s pocket but out of the 911 fees. Vice Chairman Elmore stated the 911 fees is County tax money. Major Minton stated it is a tariff that is statewide. He stated it is set and established and there are only certain things that it can be used for and it does not impact the General Fund whatsoever. Vice Chairman Elmore asked if that can be used in the new Jail for the Communications Center. Major Minton stated a portion of that funding can be used but they are coming down very hard on counties looking at what they cannot do. He stated on a telecommunicators station he can only pay for 1/3 of that out of 911 funds because it has to relate directly back to either addressing or phone termination. Vice Chairman Elmore asked how much money is in the 911 fund right now. Major Minton stated there is approximately $1.2 million. Vice Chairman Elmore asked what portion of that could be used for the new Jail Communications Center. Major Minton stated he does not have any idea right now. Sheriff Dane Mastin stated none of it can be used for that unless the County builds the Communications Center. Vice Chairman Elmore stated he is asking if the Law Enforcement Center is completely built with a Communications Center. Sheriff Mastin stated it can be used if they build the Communications Center and it has to do with addressing or public safety issues and/or termination points of 911 calls or in other words the Communications Center phone system for selective routing, reception of automated number identification, automated location identification, and that computer generated information. He stated that is the portion of the computer that houses, records, and maintains that information. He stated essentially that is about one third of each unit and that is significant. Sheriff Mastin stated it will not pay for anything that has to do with radios for example or any radio communications that go out, any personnel, and zero capital cost.

Commissioner Blevins asked how much revenue they take in per year in 911 approximately. Major Minton stated that is about $1.4 million per year. Commissioner Blevins asked approximately how much additional revenue comes in each year to that fund. Finance Director Jerry Shepherd stated that averages $50,000 per month. Major Minton stated quite a bit of that is paid out as well. He stated the phone bill runs approximately $24,000 to $27,000 per month so you can only look at $23,000 to $24,000 of that. Commissioner Blevins asked if they have been saving that in a fund. Major Minton stated they have been saving for five years because they have been expecting the worst on the readdressing and they have been trying to bank up. Commissioner Blevins asked if they have been saving for this specific project. Major Minton stated they have been saving for this along with the Law Enforcement site. Commissioner Blevins asked if there is any time limit for using this money or would it revert back to the State if it is not utilized or is it pretty much the County’s money. Major Minton stated he cannot say what the will of the Governor is this week but there have been challenges to the account because it is sitting there and is so restricted to use it. He stated the money is there for the County to build the technology needed. Commissioner Blevins stated this is a great idea and something that needs to be done but the only issue is the number of people that will have to actually change their address and that is not going to be popular of course with anybody. He stated he remembers when this was done in 1993. He stated the County has to make sure what they are doing is worth the amount of time, effort, and money it will cost for all the people. He asked if addresses changes are Countywide or are they in specific areas. Major Minton stated they are Countywide. He stated one of the specific goals Kimble really impressed them on is if it is not a public safety issue they will work with it. He stated he has roads from beginning to termination that change names three times within a specific emergency service area. He stated if you have a loved one on that road they have to know where one name stops and another name begins and factor that into a dispatched response. He asked why have that confusing method when they can simplify it and deal with the issue. Major Minton stated there are two Old Highway 60’s in the County. He stated it needs to be rectified with an Old Highway 60 East and an Old Highway 60 West to clear this up. He stated they have sound issues where roads sound alike. He stated they are trying to identify areas within the County that are currently causing them grief and that will save lives. He stated he has statistics that show that response on a good street address will save lives. He stated it cannot be simplified any better than that. Commissioner Blevins stated that makes it easier to justify what the Board is doing and more comfortable with regard to accepting the contract and moving forward.

Vice Chairman Elmore stated he certainly sees the need and there are some good merits to this but he does have a concern. He stated he would like a little more public input on this. He stated he has had a couple of people express different opinions. He stated at tonight’s meeting there were no public concerns but there will be at the next meeting. He stated he does not think a two weeks delay will be crucial to the project. Major Minton stated it will not. He stated this is the Board’s purview and he is just soliciting the Board’s vote on this. Vice Chairman Elmore stated he would like to put this off until the next meeting where there is a public concern portion. He stated he hates to do this tonight and the public not have that opportunity. 

Chairman Henderson asked if the Board wants to put this off for two weeks. Commissioner Blevins stated he thinks that is a good idea. Commissioner Charlie Sink stated he thinks this needs to move ahead. He stated as technical as this is this is strictly in favor of the County’s citizens. He stated there have been some addresses that were 1,500 or more feet from where the GPS says they are and that could be a problem. Major Minton stated that has been as much as 1,700 feet. Commissioner Sink stated 1,700 feet is a long way if you are up a mountain road and it is wooded. He stated a matter of inconvenience is all that is being talked about and he hates that for anybody because it is no fun going through that change. He asked how the public is going to have the technical knowledge to address. Vice Chairman Elmore stated there are some pretty smart people out there. Commissioner Sink agreed.

Commissioner Blevins asked County Attorney Tony Triplett if this requires a Public Hearing. Mr. Triplett stated it does not but the Board can set one if they want to. 

Vice Chairman Elmore stated a gentleman talked to him today concerned about all the addresses. He stated this is a six month plan and next year is an election year and people may have data bases. He asked how this information would flow to the Election Board. He stated people get data bases from the Board of Election and send out letters, etc. Major Minton stated the data will be there in six months. He stated the Board or individuals can use this data. He stated it is not sent only to them. He stated the GPS bought a year from now will incorporate this data so those units will be even more accurate because they give this data freely to anybody. He stated so far as specific issues, this is limitless. He stated they will be generating good data. Vice Chairman Elmore stated he does not doubt that but all he is saying is there is public concern out there and the Board owes them two weeks to express any opinions. He stated nobody may step up but this has been brought to him and he feels an obligation to put that forth to the Board. He stated he would like to put this off until the next meeting.

Mr. Triplett stated there is one change in the contract. He stated he has requested a number of changes in the contract and Kimble has made all of them except one. He stated it may be in another version he has not seen. He stated the change is a 10% retainage provision. He stated whatever the Board does tonight is fine but whatever is done needs to be contingent upon making that one change in the contract. He stated if the Board does not approve this for two weeks that gives him time to make the change. Major Minton stated that change has been made in Section E – Cost and Price Analysis. He stated it reads “the County retains 10% of the contract amount until the County approves all project deliverables”. He stated that is on Page 16 of the latest contract. Mr. Triplett stated that needs to be in the contract.

Commissioner Sink stated he does not have a problem to wait two weeks. Commissioner Blevins stated that is reasonable. 

Commissioner Luther Parks stated he knows the GPS will spot the different homes behind the first home. He asked if anything else will change at the head of the road such as on the signs. Major Minton stated they will have to do road sign maintenance. He stated he does want to reduce the frequency of beginning and termination on one road without a stop sign and changing the name three times. He stated those are miniscule changes with from sixteen to in the high twenties. He stated that was from their digital analysis of the existing street layer. 

GOSHEN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT - County Manager John Yates advised he received a letter from Goshen Volunteer Fire Department. He stated this is for informational purposes. He stated Goshen has a plan to remodel their fire department. He stated the estimated cost to remodel is $471,000, they have a down payment of $206,000, and they are going to finance the remainder with Yadkin Valley Bank of $265,000. He stated they have a checking account balance of $30,000 and a savings account balance of $150,000. 

Chairman Zach Henderson stated this is for information purposes only and not for action.

Commissioner Charlie Sink stated he has met and talked with Goshen VFD some and he is glad to see they are getting the opportunity to move ahead and make some real changes out there that have long been needed.  

AIRPORT BOARD APPOINTMENTS - County Attorney Tony Triplett stated Airport Board members serve three year terms with a rotating membership nine member board every three years with the exception of the Commissioner member. He stated the terms that expired on September 30^th are Richard Smith, Jim Faw, and Bill McElwee. Mr. Triplett stated at their last meeting the Airport Board voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that those three same members be reappointed for another three year term. He stated they are all willing to serve again.

Chairman Zach Henderson stated he serves on the Airport Board as the Commissioner representative and Mr. Smith, Mr. Faw, and Mr. McElwee are all pilots and they serve on the Board with distinction and bring a lot to the Board and a lot of progress has been made at the Airport through their and others leadership. He stated he hopes this Board will consider reappointing them.

Commissioner Charlie Sink made a motion to approve the reappointments as recommended. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Keith Elmore and unanimously approved. 

VISITORS CENTER - County Attorney Tony Triplett stated the County had originally been slated to receive $150,000 from the State through the Department of Transportation to assist with operation of the Visitors Center for the coming fiscal year and that ended up changing to $100,000. He stated the process by which that is to be approved has been a little uncertain up to now but it appears that is going to have to go through the State Board of Transportation. Mr. Triplett advised the State Board of Transportation meets later this week and wants to take this up. He stated they want to approve the necessary paperwork for the $100,000 and DOT has requested this be brought up tonight and approved. He stated the documents to be approved are a Reimbursement Agreement, an Invoice, and a Sub-contractor Payment Information Sheet. Mr. Triplett stated the County was going to have to approve a Reimbursement Agreement if the $150,000 had come through. He stated when that fell through he did not know what paperwork would be required and it turns out it is a Reimbursement Agreement again just like before. He stated he has reviewed the Reimbursement Agreement and it is very straight forward. He stated a couple of key points are this is a one time allocation of $100,000 for the coming fiscal year to operate the Visitors Center. He stated there is no more money. He stated if that is not enough the State will not supply any more for this coming year under this contract. He stated if there is any left over it has to be refunded to the Department of Transportation. Mr. Triplett advised that State auditing procedures require that an audit be performed at the end of this fiscal year as to these monies. He stated that might be part of the usual audit procedures. He stated that audit will have to show how the money was spent, if there is any left over, and if so it will have to be returned to DOT. Mr. Triplett stated he has talked in prior meetings about an agreement between the County and the Chamber of Commerce which he has been working on but has not finalized. He stated that is probably good because that agreement will still need to come before the Board and will come at a future meeting but DOT advises in light of this Reimbursement Agreement they not only want to be involved in that process but may want that to be a three party agreement. He stated DOT may want to be a party to that agreement for the Chamber to operate the Visitors Center so at some point, probably pretty quickly, he will be coming back with another contract to cover that aspect. He stated this contract just covers the $100,000 the County is going to get from Raleigh to operate the Visitors Center and does not cover the Chamber doing the operating. He stated if the Board wishes to go forward with this they will need to approve all three documents, the Reimbursement Agreement, the Invoice, and the Subcontractor Payment Information Sheet as presented.

Vice Chairman Keith Elmore stated under no circumstances is the County required to fund the Welcome Center if this money does not come in. Mr. Triplett stated that is correct. He stated the County is under no contractual obligation to fund it if the money does not come through.

Commissioner Luther Parks made a motion to approve the documents as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Charlie Sink and unanimously approved.

JAIL ALTERNATIVES - Chairman Zach Henderson stated the Board of Commissioners had a work session last Friday. He stated that was another session in on-going discussions on how to address over-crowding at the Jail. He stated the Board went through at least one or two different proposals and since then there have been another one or two. He stated this is an on-going process and the Board is trying to not leave any stones unturned and gather as much information as they can to make a good decision. 

Neil Shepherd with Blue Ridge Engineering stated he was asked to assist the County with trying to figure out what the alternatives are and come up with some alternatives given the decision not to proceed with the Jail and Law Enforcement Center earlier this year. He stated he has had a number of meetings with the County Manager and the Sheriff’s Department to try to come up with some reasonable alternatives. He stated last month they discussed a Satellite Jail Alternative. He stated they have refined that a little for this presentation and have more alternatives to consider. Mr. Shepherd stated the original design for bids received earlier was a new Law Enforcement Center and Jail with full support services located near the Courthouse. He stated the building of that facility would have called for the closing of the existing men’s and women’s jail. He stated that was for 298 beds and the low bidder for the construction cost was $22.5 million. He stated that design went through a thirty month planning and permitting process. He stated the whole design was based on efficiency of operation and getting the most bang for the buck long term. He stated one thing they questioned and wanted to put on a piece of paper is it seems like there is a little bit of confusion about what the transport and off site housing expense was. He stated that is a good thing to consider when making this decision. Mr. Shepherd stated the projected inmate number he got from the Sheriff’s Department is $55 per day in a neighboring County. He stated the transportation costs include salaries of deputies to haul inmates. He stated the projected number for thirty inmates at $55 per day is $767,050. He stated increasing inmate count for the next years will increase off site housing expense. 

Mr. Shepherd stated Alternative A is a satellite facility that was discussed at the last work session. He stated the concept was to come up with an alternate that is a minimum security facility which would be the cheaper jail space. He stated if the County can build cheaper jail space that could buy some time until they can take care of the rest of the inmate problems. He stated this would be a new satellite facility near the Animal Shelter that would house men and women. He stated it would call for closing the existing women’s jail but not the existing men’s jail. He stated that is where the maximum security inmates would be housed. Mr. Shepherd stated with the satellite facility the total inmate capacity at both locations added together is 196. He stated the combined floor area at the two locations would be 27,920 square feet with a new area of 17,700 square feet and the estimated construction cost and equipment up fit is $3.5 million for the satellite facility. He stated the staffing would be 24 staff at the new facility and 12 staff at the existing jail and zero at the women’s jail due to closing. He stated after construction, there would be a staff of 36. He stated the staffing cost for an average of $41,200 per year for each deputy including benefits times 36 equals $1,483,200 per year in staffing costs for this option. He stated this operational cost is less efficient compared to the two other alternatives. He stated the anticipated term return is five years fixed because it does not address the maximum security classification needs. He stated the Board will still need to make another decision in five years from now if they go this route on how to address those needs. He stated estimated planning and permitting time is twelve months and construction time is twelve months. He showed the floor plan was presented for consideration at the last meeting. He stated this is a conceptual floor plan with the pink area the women’s area and the blue area being the men’s area. He stated those are segregated areas. Mr. Shepherd stated there is very minimal administrative area and very minimal support area. He stated the proposed site for this is beside the existing Animal Shelter. He stated at this site there would be no opportunity for expansion of this facility. He stated once the facility is built it is bounded by a Duke Power right of way on the back, the Animal Shelter on one side, and Cub Creek on the other side. 

Mr. Shepherd stated Alternative B is what they came up in discussions with the County Manager and the Sheriff’s Department. He stated this is to build a portion of the original design of the Jail that was bid out earlier this year. He stated this would be building the cell blocks and minimal bare bones support area they can get by with to cut the cost down to a budget the County might can afford. He stated the inmate capacity there would be 230 which would include leaving the existing women’s facility open. He stated the way the floor plan was designed in the original facility there was a clean cut at the men’s part. He stated once building was started on the women’s part it was into the support area, the kitchen area, and the medical area. He stated they decided to keep it clean and cut it off there where the male detention ended. Mr. Shepherd stated there is an estimated construction and equipment cost for doing that portion of the facility of $10.5 million. He stated the staffing required would be 15 at the new facility and 9 at the existing women’s jail so the staffing cost would come down even though there are more beds because of the layout of the building. He stated this is where the County will get the payoff from the couple of years of planning and design that went into the original design. Mr. Shepherd stated this is piggy backing on that design to keep the staffing costs down. He stated this alternative was determined to have a term period of about ten years based on the inmate capacity. He stated it would take care of classification issues with minimum, medium, and maximum security prisoners. He stated the plans and permits are already approved for the original jail but it would require modifications to those plans and permits to send it back through the system to get reapproved since this would be modifying the plan. Mr. Shepherd stated the time for planning and permitting would be twelve months and a construction time of twelve months. He stated this is like building half of the jail. He showed a conceptual plan for Alternative B and a site location. He stated the material from the grading would be hauled and placed on an area that could be used to expand the parking lot in the future. He stated that is the closest place to put the material and it serves a future purpose. 

Mr. Shepherd stated Alternative C modifies the existing plans to keep the cost down as low as possible but includes male and female on site and basically the bare bones operation of support. He stated there would be no kitchen and no medical facilities. He stated all of the ancillary support facilities that were in the original design would be cut out if possible. He stated the things that could not be cut out would still be incorporated there. He stated that plan would have a capacity of 256 inmates with an estimated construction and equipment cost of $13.9 million. Mr. Shepherd stated the staffing for that facility would be 24 which is an efficient staff with $988,800 per year in staff costs. He stated the anticipated term for this would be a fifteen year fix. He stated there would be a twelve month planning and permit period and sixteen months construction time. He stated the annualized cost is $1,915,467. He stated this would be the Phase 1 and Phase 2 so this is just building more of the original plan.

Mr. Shepherd stated he took the three alternatives and added up the construction cost and the operating costs over the lifespan and then divided that number by five years, ten years, and fifteen years depending on what alternative he was talking about to come up with an annualized cost. 

Mr. Shepherd stated summarizing the alternatives:

            Alternate         Capacity          Term                Capital Expense      Annualized Cost

                 A                 196                5 years                 $ 3.5 million           $2,183,200

                 B                 230              10 years                $10.5 million           $2,038,800

                 C                  256             15 years                 $13.9 million           $1,915,467

He stated this is the easiest way to look at the three alternatives together and get an idea of what the County will be paying for. He stated it is important to note the cheapest fix, the five year fix, forces the Board to make another decision five years later on how to readdress the problem and spend more money to take care of the maximum security inmates.

Chairman Zach Henderson stated Alternate B & C uses the existing plans and Alternate A does not. Mr. Shepherd stated that is right. He stated Alternate B & C would use a portion of the original design. He stated Alternate A would be a totally new design and the County would be building a stand alone facility that cannot be added onto.

Commissioner Gary Blevins asked which of the two alternates, B or C, modifies the plan the least with using a section most closely. He asked on Alternate C if the additional section on the back is part of the original plan. Mr. Shepherd stated that is the women’s pod. He stated the more space they have to design with the more of the original plan they can incorporate. He stated the kitchen area in the original plan was a big kitchen to prepare food. He stated with the new concept it is a warming kitchen. He stated the big kitchen is condensed down to one room and that room has to be put somewhere. He stated that is the same with the laundry and the medical areas so it is condensing a lot of the support areas and eliminating a lot of the support areas. He stated the smaller the facility is built, the less capital expense the County will have. 

Vice Chairman Keith Elmore asked on Option C that includes staffing of 24 people for $988,800 if that money is already in the County’s budget or will this be an additional 24 people. County Manager John Yates stated he does not think so. Sheriff Dane Mastin stated there will be no additional employees. Vice Chairman Elmore stated backing out $988,800 out of the $1,915,000 will leave the payment at around $1 million per year. Mr. Yates stated $14 million over twenty years will be a payment of about $1.2 million. Vice Chairman Elmore stated if he is not mistaken that is affordable with the savings on the Courthouse and the Library. 

Commissioner Blevins asked if these numbers include the soft costs and everything. Mr. Shepherd stated they have attempted to make sure those numbers are in there but at the same time they are giving the Board an estimate based on a one piece of paper plan and obviously there are a lot more detailed plans that have to be prepared but this is their best estimate including the detention equipment and the soft costs along with building the building. Commissioner Blevins asked about the actual costs of the plans themselves, etc. Mr. Yates stated they have not gotten that far yet but he anticipates that is in this number. Mr. Shepherd stated it is to be determined what that number would be. He stated obviously they are not going to go out and redesign the whole set of plans but there will have to be modifications made to the plans so the expense for preparation of the revisions should be substantially less than what has already been spent as long as the County sticks with the original plan. He stated this is modifying a plan rather than starting over. Chairman Henderson stated those have already been approved. Mr. Shepherd stated that is correct but the plans will still have to go back for review.

Commissioner Luther Parks asked if they will allow the County to stay under the code changes that were made during those years back instead of falling under a new code. Mr. Shepherd stated that will shake out of this process. He stated there are new building codes that are out now that were not out then.

Chairman Henderson stated obviously the Board has to go through the process again they already went through one time but they have to start over because they rejected the bids on the original plans. He stated if the Board collectively says to move forward, it all cannot be done once but has to be done in phases like it originally was done. He asked Mr. Shepherd what he needs from the Board if they want to move forward. He asked how to proceed. Mr. Yates stated if the Board gives him, the Sheriff, Mr. Shepherd, and Finance Director Jerry Shepherd direction the Board does not want to exceed $14 million, they will make the plan work. 

Commissioner Gary Blevins asked what the estimated engineering, architectural costs, etc. are to retrofit this project. Mr. Shepherd stated he thinks the original number was 7%. He stated he does not have that number. Commissioner Blevins stated he is asking about costs associated with redoing this plan. Mr. Shepherd stated so far as moving forward with the design nobody has been asked to provide those numbers. He stated the Board will pick a route and once that is done it starts down that path. He stated obviously before anything is built, it will come back to the Board to vote on the bids, costs, etc. 

Chairman Henderson stated this will be done in phases as was done originally and will require Board approval on several occasions. Mr. Shepherd stated on building a facility like this there are basically two methods. He stated one is the County has a designer who gets the design 100% complete and then it is put out for public bids. He stated the last time the County got seventeen bids from all over the southeast. Mr. Shepherd stated the County could choose to do a Construction Manager at Risk type situation that would shorten the delivery time where there is one company that is managing the design and bids in phases so they could for example do the site work package design, put it out to bid and take bids from whomever is biding on that while the building design is still being completed. Chairman Henderson asked if it would be fair to say when the designs are already done normally that does not occur. He stated normally that occurs when the plans are not done. Mr. Shepherd stated in this case to date the plans are not done to do one of the alternatives. He stated there has to be some changes. Chairman Henderson stated they will be using the original design. Mr. Shepherd stated this will use the majority of it. Chairman Henderson stated that would not have to be redrawn or approved just the modifications. Mr. Shepherd stated that is correct but moving forward the Board has to decide if they want to complete the plans, approve the plans, go out to bid and have one contractor with one number or have a selection process where the Board takes proposals for Construction Managers at Risk. He stated that will get the proposal part up front and gets more tied to a budget early on in the process and the Construction Manager fast tracks the job to hurry up and get it built. Chairman Henderson stated if the County does not go out to bid, the Board would have to make a decision on what entities they pick. Mr. Shepherd stated that is correct. He stated the Board would take proposals and that would probably be the vast majority of the ones that turned in a bid. He stated this would just be a different delivery method. 

Commissioner Charlie Sink stated he likes this concept. Chairman Henderson stated he does too. He stated this is using the County’s plan basically with modifications and it can be put on the existing site where it was intended to go and in this particular instance get 256 beds. He stated that would allow the County to close the female facility. He stated Alternate B would not close the female facility. He asked Mr. Shepherd what he needs from the Board if they want to pursue this. He stated obviously the Board is not going to be approving the whole thing tonight but asked what the next step is to authorize Mr. Shepherd if the Board chooses to do that. Mr. Shepherd stated the Board would authorize the County Manager to accept proposals and choose a designer to complete the design or request and accept proposals for a Construction Manager to do the design and the building.

County Attorney Tony Triplett stated before the Board goes that step he would like to have the opportunity to talk with Mr. Shepherd and look into the statutory requirements for the Construction Manager at Risk process. He stated the County has never used that but many other counties have. He stated he wants to make sure that is followed correctly and advised the Board not to authorize proposals be accepted yet and give him time to look into that. Mr. Triplett stated if the Board wants to go that route that is perfectly fine. He stated the Board may want to authorize the County Manager, Mr. Shepherd, or the Sheriff to go ahead and be getting information on these proposals. 

Mr. Shepherd stated the big decision he would like to hear is are any of these alternatives possibly acceptable or none of them are. He stated it is hard to develop any more detail when you are at a fork in the road and there are a lot of ways to go. He stated he needs a path to focus on so that he is not doing a lot of work on a lot of different plans and can focus his energy. He asked the Board to give the County Manager some direction on where they see this going and progress down that path. He stated no one is voting tonight to spend $13.9 million. He stated that comes on down the road but the Board needs to give some direction.

Sheriff Mastin stated he appreciates Mr. Shepherd working with them. He stated he has aggravated the heck out of them all weekend, all day, and all night. He stated when Mr. Shepherd left his office at 10:30 P. M. last night he called him back from a meeting in Blowing Rock to make sure he knew what he was doing and enlightened him on several different things. He stated Mr. Shepherd is excellent and commended Grant Tharpe on getting him in the mix early and the County has stayed with him to help. He stated he appreciates Mr. Shepherd’s work. Sheriff Mastin stated if the Board is looking for a recommendation from the Sheriff that would be Alternative C. He stated that allows the most efficiency. He stated both jails can be closed and all of the operating costs that exist can be incorporated into a new facility and the County loses all of the liability on the old facilities. He stated that is the scheme of the original design. Sheriff Mastin stated giving Mr. Shepherd and whomever he chooses to work with the opportunity to reconfigure the original concept at a location behind the Courthouse gives them an opportunity to build on in the future, and add on as needed. He stated in this concept they tried to get something the County could pay for and hopefully not have to build while it is being paid for with an additional annex or extension. He stated that is what is in the numbers. Sheriff Mastin stated he thinks it would be ridiculous to tell the Board to pay $2 million per year and then start a building project to start another facility. He stated that is what they tried to consider. Sheriff Mastin stated the Construction Manager at Risk is the fast track. He stated he has talked to several sheriffs that have done that and they have thoroughly enjoyed that. He stated the County gets the opportunity to pick who they work with on the Requests for Proposals. He stated certainly Mr. Triplett would want to review that so the Board would be well informed on that choice. He stated this is a relatively new concept to government but a real old one to business. Sheriff Mastin stated the original plan is his recommendation which is a twenty year deal but the County cannot afford that according to what the Board, Mr. Shepherd, and Mr. Yates have said. He stated this is the next best thing to keep going in that vein where the County cannot hit the taxpayers any harder than they have to and it can be built onto and added onto in the future. Sheriff Mastin stated there is no second floor with the exception of the mezzanine level from the two stacked cells using space efficiently. He stated all of the concepts they worked on for two years is still there. He stated this is not just $13.9 million. He stated $1.5 million has to be added on that for the original plans. He stated he is looking at the whole jail package and what it is costing or $15 million. Sheriff Mastin stated if the Board is good with $15 million tell them that and they will build to that price. He asked the Board to tell them whether or not that number is acceptable and they will design the jail facility plus ancillary services they have to provide to give some expansion room for the future. He stated Mr. Tharpe told the Board early on if the Board had told them they wanted to spend $10 million, the jail could have been built for $10 million but the proposed jail was planned for twenty to thirty years. He stated if the number is $15 million that will include the $1.5 million for the plans.

Chairman Henderson asked on Alternative B if the female space cannot be added for the $10 million that was originally discussed. Mr. Shepherd stated it could be added on in the future. Chairman Henderson asked if it could be added now for those numbers. Mr. Shepherd stated it cannot. He stated it can be $10 million or $13 million. Chairman Henderson asked if females can be housed in that design. Mr. Shepherd stated that would be radically changing the original design. 

Commissioner Blevins stated this is gaining 26 beds for $3.4 million but it adds the female facility. Mr. Shepherd stated that would close both the existing jails. 

Mr. Yates stated if the Board decides to go on with this he would like for them to authorize he and Finance Director Jerry Shepherd to start the financing. Chairman Henderson stated that will take months. Mr. Shepherd stated on Alternative C they are estimating it will take twelve months from somebody saying go to get the plans revised and repermitted again. Mr. Yates stated it may be January before the County can get on the Local Government Commission’s agenda. Chairman Henderson stated it requires the Board’s authorization to do that. Mr. Yates stated that is correct.

Chairman Henderson asked if this requires a motion. Mr. Triplett stated it probably does not but the Board might wish to have a motion to identify which of these alternatives they want, if they want a cap, and if they want to instruct the County Manager, the Finance Director and the Sheriff to work under a certain dollar limit that needs to be in the motion too. He stated all of that is better contained in a motion. 

Commissioner Sink stated he gets a little concerned about putting a cap on something. He stated the Board has a pretty good idea but he gets the feeling the light bulb has gone off and the Board sees something that is a very reasonable alternative and he would hate to cut a little something out that will back this up. He stated he does not think it will vary much from what these numbers are. Mr. Shepherd stated the Board is not going to know what the answer is until the bids are opened. 

Chairman Henderson stated if the County uses the build/design there will not be bids. Mr. Shepherd stated there will be sub-bids. He stated the way that will work is the County would negotiate a fixed fee with the contractor, maybe one of the contractors that has bid on this project, and they will get paid that fee no matter what and then they will be managing just as they would have managed bidding the job taking bids from all the subs. He stated the contractors that bid this job do not send 500 of their employees here to build the jail. He stated they will send five men. Chairman Henderson stated he wants everyone to understand the County can either go through the bid process like they went through originally or not. Mr. Shepherd stated that is right. Chairman Henderson stated there might be certain things the Board might want to proceed on and certain things they do not want to proceed on depending upon what Mr. Triplett finds out for the Board. He stated there may be legal issues about what jeopardy the County might be in if any. Mr. Triplett stated he would like the chance to review that and talk to Mr. Shepherd. Mr. Shepherd stated that is the at risk part. He stated the contractor is carrying risk there but there are arguments both ways good or bad. He stated the County is putting all their eggs in one basket with the contractor they pick so it needs to be somebody the County has done their due diligence on and trust the contractor will do a good job. He stated there is also the argument that it affords more opportunity for contractors to get smaller pieces of the pie with more regional subcontractors rather than national sub-contractors where some guy from California gets the job and all of the subs come from California. 

Commissioner Parks asked if the Board can decide on a certain plan. Commissioner Sink stated if the Manager has it he is bidding but if the County decides to bid it, it is bid to a construction company so it is who the County is dealing with. He stated the County has already had inquiries from construction companies to do that very thing. Mr. Shepherd stated what the County is doing is agreeing to the profit up front saying here is the profit the County is willing to pay to a contractor for supervision of the project. He stated there are still multiple bid processes after that.

Mr. Triplett recommended the Board not address the issue of whether they are going to use a Construction Manager at Risk or go out for bid. He stated the Board does not have to do that tonight and encouraged them not to. He stated that decision can be made later. He stated the motion can allow County representatives to move forward with one of the alternatives and develop it in more detail and come back to the Board.

Mr. Shepherd stated there are three alternatives before the Board now. He stated if the Board chooses to pick one of those, at the next meeting the County Manager will bring back some more alternatives for that alternative. 

Commissioner Sink stated there needs to be a little more clarification as to what this is going to be but he thinks all of the Board agrees they would like to stay with the original plan. 

Chairman Henderson stated Mr. Shepherd can come back in two weeks or a month and give the Board a better idea of where this is. Mr. Shepherd stated if the Board picks an alternative tonight he will investigate that and have more alternatives for that alternative.

Commissioner Luther Parks made a motion to authorize County Manager John Yates, County Finance Director Jerry Shepherd and Sheriff Dane Mastin to proceed with the necessary architectural, engineering, and financing steps to move forward with final developments of Alternative C for construction of a new Jail and Law Enforcement facilities and to report back to the Board as soon as possible.   The motion was seconded by Commissioner Charlie Sink and unanimously approved.

CLOSED SESSION - Commissioner Charlie Sink made a motion to go into Closed Session to discuss the location or expansion of business in Wilkes County; to consider the qualifications, competence, performance, condition of appointment of a public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee; and to consult with the County Attorney to protect the attorney-client privilege. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Luther Parks and unanimously approved. 

Motion was made by Commissioner Charlie Sink seconded by Commissioner Luther Parks and by unanimous vote adopted to adjourn back into regular session. No action was taken.

ADJOURN - Motion was made by Commissioner Charlie Sink seconded by Commissioner Luther Parks and by unanimous vote adopted to adjourn the meeting of the Wilkes County Board of Commissioners at 9:30 P. M.

Alene E. Faw, Clerk                                                                  Zach Henderson, Chairman

WILKES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Approved: