Town of Blowing Rock
Board of Commissioners
Tuesday, May 9, 2006
The
Town of Blowing Rock Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
May 9, 2006 in the Town Hall Council Chambers.
Present were Mayor J.B. Lawrence, Commissioners Bobby Ball, Keith
Tester, Terry Lentz, Rita Wiseman and Tommy Klutz. Others in attendance were Town Manager Scott
Hildebran, Town Engineer Doug Chapman, Town Attorney Allen Moseley, Planning
Director Kevin Rothrock, Public Works Director Johnny Lentz, Police Chief Owen
Tolbert, Building Inspector Jesse Horner, EMS Director Kent Graham, Parks &
Recreation Assistant Director Jennifer Brown, and Town Clerk Sharon
Greene.
Mayor
Lawrence called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and welcomed those in
attendance.
A motion to approve the minutes as
written for the April 11, 2006 meeting was received from Commissioner Tester,
seconded by Commissioner Ball.
Unanimously approved.
Public
Hearings
1.
CUP #2003-07-
Chetola Manor House - Major Amendment
The following people were sworn to
speak during the public hearing: Planning Director Kevin Rothrock, Randy Jones
and Kent Tarbutton.
Planning Director Kevin Rothrock
presented a request to Council from Kent Tarbutton for a conditional use permit
amendment. The amendment would be to
enlarge the existing kitchen facilities at the Manor House Restaurant. The proposed 878 square foot addition would
be on the west side of the existing restaurant.
Mr. Rothrock stated that Mr. Tarbutton would like the option to license
a Pizza Hut Express for carry out and delivery from the Manor House
Restaurant. The subject property is
zoned CB-PUD, Central Business-Planned Unit Development and is located in the
WS-IV-PA water supply watershed.
According to the license agreement, the
optional Pizza Hut Express would be marketed for Chetola residents and guest of
the hotel. Pizza Hut delivery or
carry-out would not be advertised to the general public. Based on discussions with Mr. Tarbutton, Mr.
Rothrock stated that pizza would be available to the general public, but would
not be advertised.
Mr. Rothrock informed Council that the
Chetola Manor House, recreation center and hotel currently had 174 parking
spaces, a surplus of 21 spaces over town requirements. The 878 square foot
addition would require (9) additional spaces.
Since there is a parking surplus of 21 spaces, no additional parking
would be required.
The proposed addition would blend into
the existing restaurant with materials matching those of the Manor House.
Commissioner Tester asked if this
proposed request was one request of two parts, or two separate requests. Mr. Rothrock replied that it was one request
of two parts. Commissioner Tester also
asked if this property was in fact zoned CB-PUD, Central Business-Planned Unit
Development and would the central business code apply. Mr. Rothrock stated that the underlying CB
zoning would apply. Commissioner Tester
submitted that Council could not approve a take-out restaurant, but could
approve a restaurant expansion.
Mr. Tarbutton asked to address Council
on the request. He stated that the Boone restaurant had the Pizza Hut franchise
for the area, and that he could only get a license from them, which would mean
that he could not do any advertising on his property or delivery from
Chetola. Mr. Tarbutton also stated that
his original intent was to enlarge the existing restaurant, but had received
requests from his guests for take-out pizza since there was none in the Blowing
Rock area. Mr. Tarbutton mentioned that
in the last ten years, the existing restaurant had done take-out orders and
even before he had acquired the business.
He felt if there were problems with the code regarding this issue, the
problems still existed. Tarbutton stated that he was only proposing a request
to enlarge the existing kitchen, and would need to come to Council at a later
date for the Pizza Hut Express request.
Commissioner Tester stated the Planning
Board were currently reviewing the code regarding carry-out restaurants, and
that the public hearing should be for the restaurant expansion request
only.
Commissioner Ball asked when it was
decided to change the request to a kitchen expansion only. Planning Director Rothrock stated it had
always been a request for expansion.
Commissioner Wiseman stated that she had been present at the last
Planning & Zoning meeting when Mr. Tarbutton had presented his request and
his request had been for a kitchen expansion only. Mr. Tarbutton stated that in the last two
weeks, he had learned that Domino’s Pizza was actually opening in the area.
A motion was made by Commissioner
Tester to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ball. Unanimously approved.
Commissioner Wiseman entertained a
motion to approve CUP #2003-07 with the following correction; that under Item
#2 of the CUP, the last line stating the applicant was also authorized to
option a license for a Pizza Hut delivery and carry-out service from the Manor
House Restaurant be omitted.
Commissioner Klutz seconded the motion.
Unanimously approved. CUP #2003-07 Chetola Manor House-Major
Amendment Attached as Exhibit A
2.
CUP #2006-02
Hanna Family Trust @ Sunset Café
The following people were sworn to
speak during the public hearing: Bill Dixon, Michael Trew, Andy Whatley, Annie
Whatley, Pam Vines, Charles Hardin, Ginny Stevens, Karen Herterich, Beth
Walreth, Jim Burgess, Bill Williamson, Sharon Moore, and Mr. and Mrs. Agapios
Vrikkis.
Planning Director Rothrock stated he
would like to clarify incorrect information sent by email from the Chamber of
Commerce regarding this issue. He stated the starting date according to the
construction schedule for storm water services for the proposed project was
December 1, 2006.
Mr. Rothrock then presented Council with
the project analysis, stating that Mr. Bill Dixon, architect for the Hanna
Family Trust, was requesting a conditional use permit to build a two-story,
three-level, mixed-use building at the former Sunset Café location at 1107 Main
Street. The subject property is zoned
CB, Central Business and is located in the WS-IV-PA water supply watershed.
The basement level and main level would
each have 1772 square feet of office or retail space. The upper floor, also 1772 square feet, would
contain a one (1)-bedroom apartment and a two (2)-bedroom apartment. The
proposed project would be built on 0.095 acres.
Mr. Rothrock stated that the setbacks
in the Central Business zoning district were 15 feet. The proposed building setback would be 24
feet from the back of the public sidewalk.
In the Central Business zoning
district, side and rear setbacks are five (5) feet. The proposed building would meet the setback
requirements.
According to plans the proposed
building height would be 28 feet 7 inches from the sidewalk elevation to the
highest point of the parapet wall. The
Land Use Code specifies that the maximum building height is determined by the
lesser of: a) 30 feet or, b) a 25% increase above the average existing heights
of buildings within 100 feet. The average
existing height of adjacent buildings within the 100 feet is 16.3 feet. Adding
25% would allow a building height of 20.4 feet.
The Land Use Code also states that at least 2 stories shall be
permitted. If at least 2 stories are
permitted on the proposed building, the building is less than the allowed
30-foot maximum building height, and would comply with the ordinance standard.
The project is located in the WS-IV
watershed area and may cover up to 70% of the site with impervious surfaces
with a Special Intensity Allocation. The
proposed project will require a net impervious area of 68% of the site.
Storm water detention would be provided
for the site in an underground detention system that would discharge to
Mr. Rothrock stated that the area
between the building and the public sidewalk must be open space. Seventy-five percent of the open space must
be planted green space. The site plan
indicated that only approximately 55% of the open space will be green space;
however, much of the area in front of the proposed building would be a public
courtyard. A waiver request was also
made to reduce the green space in front of the building to allow more public
area.
Mr. Rothrock stated the two large maple
trees at the rear of the lot would be removed during the construction process.
M. Rothrock also stated the proposed
project required 21 standard parking spaces.
The two apartments require a total of three (3) spaces. The retail space requires a total of 18
spaces. The applicant proposed to
provide all of the required parking in a new satellite parking area at the
Snips building site on
Mr. Rothrock stated since the February
Planning Board meeting, the Applicant had made a request to pay $180,000 into
the Parking Fund for the 18 spaces required on the Snips lot. The Applicant requested that Council adjust
the number of paid spaces in accordance with the three required spaces located
on the old Hanna House property.
The Planning Board recommended the
request be approved with the following conditions:
1. That the
building be moved forward two (2) feet toward
2. That the required green space in front of the building be reduced from 75% to 55% to provide additional public courtyard area.
3. That the project be allowed a Special Intensity Allocation with a net increase of 68% impervious surfaces.
4. That the parking lot buffer width be reduced from 16 feet to between 6 feet and 7 feet, if planted as an opaque buffer.
Commissioner Ball inquired about the
Special Intensity Allocation. Mr.
Rothrock stated that the town ordinance allowed projects located in the CB -
Central Business, GB – General Business and the O/I – Office/Institutional
District up to 70 percent impervious when storm water detention is
provided. Mr. Rothrock said it had been
customary to allow Special Intensity Allocations.
Commissioner Lentz had questions
regarding the three (3) parking spaces located on the Snip’s property, he asked
if these spaces were for the public or only for the residents of the proposed
apartments. Mr. Rothrock answered they
were for the proposed residential apartments.
Commissioner Lentz was concerned as to how this would be regulated
should this property be sold or should a change in use occur. Mr. Rothrock stated it would be written in
the CUP and would transfer with the property.
Town Attorney Moseley concurred.
Commissioner Wiseman asked if the
project were approved, would Council be approving the site plan for the Snip’s
property as well. Mr. Rothrock stated
not with the addendum, all the items that pertained to the Snip’s property
could be struck from the CUP.
Commissioner Wiseman asked if the property would remain the same except
for the demolition of the existing building regarding the vegetation. Mr. Rothrock stated it would remain the same
with the exception of cleaning up and improving the area.
Commissioner Klutz asked if the
entrance would remain the same. Mr.
Rothrock stated the only change to the entrance would be for safety
purposes. He felt some of the vegetation
might need to be removed for better visibility while exiting the parking lot.
Commissioner Wiseman stated since this
area would be used as a staging area, would the applicant need to come back
before Council for a permit to improve the lot.
Mr. Rothrock stated the town would need to specify how the property was
used for a staging area. Commissioner
Tester expressed his concern regarding the impervious area, stating that he
would like to see it evaluated before being used as a staging area, and
afterwards to make sure the impervious area remained the same.
Commissioner Wiseman questioned the
last paragraph of Item #6 of the CUP regarding the storm water generated by the
satellite parking lot being detained on site and piped in a new drainage pipe
to the existing storm drainage system. She inquired if the impervious area
would be affected. Mr. Rothrock stated
this was only temporary, the applicant had to have a place to store materials
and with the Snip’s building being torn down the impervious area would actually
decrease.
Next item discussed was the garbage
collection for the four retail shops and two apartments, Commissioner Tester
stated he had not seen anything that addressed garbage collection in the
CUP. Mr. Rothrock stated he understood
it be collected the same as other businesses located on
Commissioner Wiseman inquired about the
parking spaces on
The time frame for the utility
construction was also discussed.
Commissioner Wiseman asked if this would take as long as two to three
weeks or longer for this to be completed.
Mr. Bill Dixon, Architect for the project, stated that it would take
approximately that amount of time for completion. Commissioner Tester stated in looking at the
construction schedule the utility construction was scheduled to begin on
Thanksgiving weekend until Christmas, and asked if this could be postponed
until January. Mr. Dixon agreed with the
schedule change.
Commissioner Lentz asked about the two
parking spaces that were to be blocked, and if they would be used for storage
of materials. Mr. Rothrock stated they
would not be used for materials, but for deliveries only. Commissioner Wiseman stated without the
spaces being blocked off all the time during construction, she did not see how
this could possibly work, with visitors and residents parking there when
available. Mr. Dixon stated that
delivery times were to be scheduled during the early morning hours.
Mr. Tony diSanti, representative for
the Hanna Family Trust spoke regarding the project, saying the original plan
was approved in 2004. He stated the
building design would remain the same with one exception. He stated that it was recommended that the
building be moved back to extend the courtyard area and make if more useful
with his client agreeing to the change.
Mr. diSanti also stated the parking issue for the proposed project was
the reason for the delay in bringing the project back before Council. Mr. diSanti stated that Mr. Hanna had
concluded it would best to pay the $180,000 to the Town parking fund for the
required parking. He also stated that
the three spaces for the residential portion would remain on the Snip’s
property.
Mrs. Annie Whatley, owner of the
Village Café located east of the Hanna property, voiced her concerns regarding
the proposed project. She stated that
this project had been a part of their lives since 2003 and she would like to
see it settled. Mrs. Whatley stated the
project had been approved in 2004 with the exception of some parking issues and
construction was supposed to begin in November of that year. She stated that for various reasons the
applicant was unable to obtain easements, which delayed the project once
again. Mrs. Whatley stated that her
business was seasonal and she did not know how a project of this size could be
built without causing several problems for the Town residents and business
owners. She also voiced her
dissatisfaction over the large Maple trees being removed from the property.
Mr. Andy Whatley spoke of concerns he
had regarding the lack of green space in front of the proposed building. He stated the town land use codes encouraged
green space and park-like settings in town and he felt the proposed concrete
courtyard was not in keeping with the land use code. Mr. Whatley further stated that parking
spaces within the downtown area would be much more valuable than money being
paid to a parking fund. He felt that
most people would not be inclined to park at the other end of town, especially
in inclement weather.
Mrs. Ginny Stevens, a resident of
Local business owner Jim Burgess voiced
his concerns regarding the lack of adequate parking on
Chamber of Commerce representative Pam
Vines spoke regarding the time frame in which the project would be under
construction. Mrs. Vines stated she
respected the applicant’s rights with being able to develop their property, but
felt that construction should be started at the correct time, not during the
Blowing Rock’s seasonal peak.
Commissioner Lentz asked when a good
time to start would be, with Blowing Rock’s seasonal weather, he stated it
would be difficult to pour concrete or dig footers in January. He also stated there were many steps during a
construction project that could not be done in the wintertime.
Mrs. Vines reiterated her concerns for
merchants along
Mr. Andy Whatley approached Council
with further concerns. He stated he had
not heard of any provisions for loading and unloading zones and felt that
allowances had to be made. Mr. Whatley
stated that the Hanna property and the Snip’s property were raw land and should
be required to have loading and unloading zones. He also shared his concerns regarding run-off
from the project. He felt that drainage
issues should be taken care of before construction started without waiting
until the scheduled time in December.
He felt that adjacent properties would have flooding problems due to the
delay in the drainage installation.
Commissioner Tester stated that storm
water management and run-off were two different issues; with the storm water
management being done after the building was constructed, and the applicant
being obligated to control run-off during the construction process. Mr. Tester asked the applicant to speak
regarding these issues. Mr. Michael
Trew, Project Engineer assured everyone that run-off from the project would be
controlled with temporary erosion ditches going to temporary sediment basins.
Annie Whatley spoke of two projects
that had been built in Blowing Rock during the off-season without interrupting
the surrounding businesses excessively.
The projects were SouthMarke and the Village Shoppes. Mrs. Whatley felt with planning and staging
the project could be done in the off-season.
Commissioner Lentz stated in those
situations, things were slightly different, with both projects being located on
a side street. Mayor Lawrence reminded
everyone that a situation, such as the Hanna project, had been done previously
when the four units beside Kilwin’s were built.
Mayor Lawrence stated he didn’t recall any major problems with their
construction.
Karen Herterich owner of Southmarke
spoke of the disruption they experienced when Storie Street Grill was under
construction. She stated the week
previous to Memorial Day of that year the sidewalk from
Chamber of Commerce Director Charles
Hardin approached Council with an apology in reference to an email sent to area
merchants regarding the project’s starting date, he stated that the time line
for the utility portion and the construction of the project were reversed. Mr. Hardin reminded everyone that downtown
merchants had approximately six months to make it in Blowing Rock and while he
was not against the project, he expressed his concerns for members of the
Chamber of Commerce and how they would be affected by this project. Mr. Hardin complimented the project, but felt
a solution regarding the utility portion and the effect on area merchants
should be addressed further.
Beth Walrath, manager of the Six Pence
Pub, stressed to Council that July was not the time to start construction on
Mr. Agapios Vrikkas, owner of Final
Touches located on
Mr. Michael Trew, Project Engineer
asked Council for permission to change the construction schedule slightly to
allow them to install pipes during the construction of Gaines Kiker’s business
on Morris Street, so the road would only be disturbed once.
Mayor Lawrence asked if this
improvement would alleviate some of the surface water on
Mrs. Herterich asked what could be done
if traffic problems, safety issues and complaints from merchants, as well as
visitors arose after the project met all the CUP credentials and construction
began. Mayor Lawrence stated if problems should arise, they would be dealt with
as they developed and with the aid of a logistic plan Council would address the
problems.
Mr. diSanti stated his client had
complied with the Town on any recommended changes Council had regarding this
project. Mr. diSanit continued on to say the Hanna family were merchants on
Commissioner Lentz asked about the
timeline for the project and asked project architect Bill Dixon if he had a
realistic time in which he felt the project could be completed. Mr. Dixon responded that seven (7) months
seemed to be a reasonable time frame.
Commissioner Lentz inquired if a penalty clause would be written into
the contract should construction not go as anticipated. Mr. Dixon assured Council that provisions
would be made.
Mr. Bill Williamson, owner of Kilwin’s,
voiced his concerns over the parking situation and felt the construction
workers should not be allowed to park on
Mrs. Annie Whatley spoke regarding the
economic impact during construction and problems with noise, as well as the
impact this would have on outdoor dining at the Village Café. Commissioner Klutz asked if it would be
possible to utilize the alleyway in back for the concrete trucks, etc. Mrs. Whatley stated in the beginning of the
project that has been discussed, but she felt over the course of time, they had
had been misled by the applicant and this would not be a feasible solution.
Mr. Whatley stated the alleyway was a
very small area and if used during construction it would become even more
congested than it was already and would be too disruptive to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Tester commented that he
had not heard anyone during the course of the meeting, say they were against
the project. Commissioner Tester said
that some good issues had been raised and they should be worked into the
logistics plan and then reviewed by all department heads before construction
could begin.
Mr. Rothrock stated the logistic plan
for the project would be reviewed and brought back before Council for final
approval.
Commissioner Ball asked who would be
responsible for any damage to the median on
Commissioner Ball inquired if Mrs.
Whatley had been included in the planning process regarding the buffer between
the proposed project and the Village Café.
Mrs. Whatley replied that in the beginning it had been discussed, but
she was not clear on what would be planted.
Mr. Rothrock stated there would be a variety of evergreen shrubs planted
in the four-foot planned buffer. He also
said code required they had to be at least 18 inches in height, but Council
could require more. Commissioner Ball
stated she felt the code requirements would not be adequate in this
situation.
Mrs. Ginny Stevens said she would like
to address Commissioner Tester’s comment regarding that he had not heard anyone
state they did not want the project to be built. Mrs. Stevens stated there were people in the
community that were not in favor of the project, but they understood the owner
had a right to utilize his property. In
Mrs. Steven’s opinion, the property would be best utilized as a park, and expressed
her desire to approach the Hannas’ regarding a donation of the property to the
Town. Mrs. Stevens also commented any
person with landlocked property such as this should not be allowed to
inconvenience the community in this manner.
Mrs. Sharon Moore, manager of the
Martin House on
Mr. Whatley addressed Commissioner
Tester’s comment, stating there were several people in town that were opposed
to the project due to the disruptions and the fact that the Hanna’s had several
vacant properties in town. In his
opinion as long as the project met town codes, he felt the applicant should be
able to build. Mr. Whatley stated the green space was going to be reduced from
75% to 48% and the pervious area went from 36% to 68% and he felt the building
was too large for the lot based on town codes.
Mr. Rothrock replied to Mr. Whatley’s
comments stating most all lots in town are over 70% impervious.
At this point, Commissioner Wiseman
made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ball. Unanimously approved.
A motion to table the project until the
applicant wrote a construction logistics plan addressing issues brought forth
and reviewed with staff, was made by Commissioner Tester, seconded by
Commissioner Ball.
Commissioner Tester explained that in
listening to all the discussion, there were many issues that had not been
addressed in the logistics plan, and staff had not reviewed the plan; he felt
the project could not be approved with all these unsolved issues. He also stated that it was his understanding
from the beginning, that Council was supposed to approve the logistics
plan.
Commissioner Wiseman asked if the
project could be approved with the stipulation that the logistics plan come
back to Council after all the issues had been factored into it and signed off
by staff and department heads. Town
Manager Hildebran stated that was what happened in the beginning with the first
permit, but had not been followed through with by the applicant.
Commissioner Tester stated he did not
feel this would be a logical solution since the applicant could not put much
effort into the project without the logistics plan in place. He felt it was pertinent that a logistics
plan be in place that addressed all the issues raised tonight.
Mayor Lawrence stated a motion had been
given and called of a vote. In favor of
the motion were Tester & Ball, against the motion were Lentz, Wiseman &
Klutz. Motion failed 2-3.
A second motion was received from
Commissioner Tester to approve the project subject to the following:
1) Accept waivers
a.
to reduce green space percentage in front of building from
75% to
48% (Approved
Finding of Fact 5-0)
b.
to allow a Special Intensity Allocation of 68% net
impervious.
2) Replace Item
#10 with parking in-lieu fund substitute language.
3) Require Snips
property staging area to re restored once project is completed to original
condition or better.
4) Logistics Plan
must be approved by Town Department Heads and Town Council prior to any
construction.(No public hearing required)
5) Storm water
utilities construction can not begin prior to January 1, 2007(work to align
with Gaines Kiker project, if possible)
6) Consider local
businesses adjacent to property in development of revised Logistic Schedule to
minimize impact.
7) Add language
about solid waste pick-up by detailing specific collection times and receptacle
removal
8) Include
performance bond of 125% for construction costs of storm water/detention
utilities and landscaping
9) Require a
designated loading/unloading space on Snips property
10) Require
parking in-lieu fee ($180,000) must be paid up-front
Mayor Lawrence requested that Council
vote on the following Findings of Fact:
·
For the request to reduce the green space percentage be
reduced from 75% to 48% in front of the building:
a) The project
would not materially endanger public health or safety – Aye-all
b) That it will
not substantially injure adjourning or abutting property values – Aye-all
c)
That it is in harmony with surrounding area in which it is
located – Aye-all
d) That it
general conformity with Master Plan or other plans officially adopted by the
Board – Aye-all
e) That it will
be in substantial conformity with the intent to regulations contained in this
article – Aye-all
The waiver was
approved unanimously.
Commissioner Tester’s motion received a
second from Commissioner Wiseman. Unanimously
approved. CUP #2006-02 Hanna Family Trust @ Sunset Café Attached as Exhibit B
New
Business
1. Blowing Rock Appearance Advisory
Commission-Fountain Request
The Blowing Rock Appearance Advisory
Commission (BRAAC) presented Council with a proposal to install a fountain in
BRAAC Chairperson Virginia Jones
provided information to Council regarding the fountain by showing various
photographs and specifications. She
stated that BRAAC could currently handle the cost of approximately $7,500 for
the purchase and installation of a tri-tier fountain. Ms. Jones stated that a tri-tier fountain was
favored over the others due to aesthetics.
Commissioner Tester inquired if the
cost of maintenance included the cost for electricity to light the fountain
which according to calculations, could be as much as $150 per month or
more.
Ms. Jones stated that BRAAC would like
for the town to absorb the electrical power costs if possible. She also stated the fountain lights would not
be running all the time, but would be put on a timer.
Public Works Director, Johnny Lentz
asked who would be maintaining the fountain after installation. Ms. Jones stated that a quarterly maintenance
contract would be acquired through the installer and that she would also like
to learn how to maintain it.
Commissioner Ball asked if the model
that was preferred by BRAAC would be in scale with the lake and park area. Ms. Jones stated that the main body of the
lake was 1 ½ acres and that the supplier had access to topographic maps of the
area and according to them a two-tier or tri-tier fountain would be the best
for this area.
Commissioner Lentz made a motion to
accept BRAAC’s proposal for a fountain in
After some discussion regarding
electrical power for the fountain, Council decided that it would be more cost
effective for the fountain to be purchased by BRAAC through the Town.
3.
Blowing Rock
Art and History Museum-Mural on
Planning Director Rothrock presented
Council with a request from the Blowing Rock Art & History Museum (BRAHM)
for permission to allow the painting of a mural on the northwest building wall
of the
Council discussed several concerns they
had regarding the proposed mural. Mrs.
Joanne Mitchell a representative of BRAHM spoke regarding the mural. She stated that BRAHM wanted to provide a
unique gift to the Town and raise public awareness of art in Blowing Rock. She also felt it would attract people that
enjoyed art to the community. Mrs. Mitchell stated the mural would not be
permanent work of art, but it would be difficult to know the anticipated life
of the mural.
Several photographs were given to
Council to review of murals in other towns that had been done.
Mayor Lawrence spoke in favor of the
mural. While Commissioner Lentz stated
he felt Blowing Rock did not need to be like other places and he was not in
favor of a mural of any kind.
Commissioner Ball disagreed with
Commissioner Lentz stating a mural would be appropriate for Blowing Rock and
she felt it would be a lovely addition.
Commissioner Klutz stated that he
agreed with Commissioner Lentz and that he did not like for Blowing Rock to be
compared with other areas and he was not in favor of a mural.
Commissioner Wiseman entertained a
motion to accept BRAHM’s proposal for a mural to be painted on the Capel Rug
building, seconded by Commissioner Ball.
Commissioner Tester stated that Council should decide upon the final
rendering of artwork to be displayed, and this should be added to the original
motion for consideration. Commissioner
Wiseman agreed. In favor of the motion
were Wiseman, Ball & Tester. Against
were Lentz & Klutz. Motion carried
3-2.
4.
Resolution
#2006-06 – NC Rural Center Water 2030 Initiative Support
Town Manager Hildebran presented
Council with Resolution #2006-06 supporting a 2006 Clean Water Bond for their
consideration. Mr. Hildebran stated that
High Country Council of Governments had been asked by the NC Rural Center to
contact several towns and counties in the region regarding a State bond bill
for water, sewer, and stormwater projects.
The
According to Mr. Hildebran the
Upon a motion received by Commissioner
Wiseman, seconded by Commissioner Ball, Resolution #2006-06 was accepted as
written. Unanimously approved. Resolution #2006-06 – NC Rural Center Water
2030 Initiative Support Attached as Exhibit C
Speakers
from the Floor
None
Departmental
Reports
Town Manager Hildebran presented
Council with the proposed 2006/07 Budget for their review. Mr. Hildebran stated that the FY 2006-2007
Recommended Budget totaled $5,671,795 for all town operations, capital
improvements, and debt service requirements, for a increase of 10.78% over last
year’s adopted budget of $5,119,695.
Mr. Hildebran advised that the total
property tax base (excluding vehicles) was estimated at $1,004,200,200 which is
higher than FY 2005-2006 budget base of $787,000,000.
The recommended tax rate is 28.0 ¢ per
$100 of the valuation, which represents an overall decrease from the current
property tax rate of 29.5¢. This rate
provides approximately $2,727,400 in property tax revenue based on expected
collection rate of 97.0%. The
Recommended FY 2006-2007 budget sets aside .0375 cents of the proposed 28.0¢
General Fund tax rate revenue towards future capital improvements, such as the
new
Mr. Hildebran advised Council that
State Law require the inclusion of a revenue-neutral tax rate in the budget
immediately following the completion of a general appraisal of real property to
provide its citizens with comparative information. The revenue-neutral rate is defined as the
rate that is estimated to produce revenue for the next fiscal year equal to the
revenue for the current fiscal year if no reappraisal has occurred. The rate is then adjusted by a growth factor
equal to the average annual percent increase in the tax base due to
improvements since the last general reappraisal.
The FY 2006-2007 Recommended Budget for
the General Fund totals $4,299,265 or 14.24% more than FY 2005-2006 Adopted
Budget of $3,763,345.
Mr. Hildebran also advised Council that
the first annual budget workshop had been scheduled for Thursday, May 11th
from 4-6 p.m. FY 2006-2007 Recommended Budget Attached as Exhibit D
Adjournment
There being not further business to
discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
MAYOR_____________________________
J.B.
Lawrence
Attest: ________________________
Sharon H. Greene, CMC