STANLY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 7:00 P.M.  CALL TO ORDER & WELCOME - CHAIRMAN EFIRD INVOCATION & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - CHAIRMAN EFIRD APPROVAL/AD.USTMENTS TO THE AGENDA  SCHEDULED AGENDA ITEMS  1. INTRODUCTION OF DR. JOHN ENAMAIT, NEW SCC PRESIDENT Presenter: Nadine Bowers, Chair of the SCC Board of Trustees  2. PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER 2016 ASDOMESTICVIOLENCE Presenter: Donna Miller, Executive Director for Esther House  AWARENESS MONTH  3. UTILITIES  Presenter: Donna Davis, Utilities Director 1. Hold the public hearing.  A. 2016 CDBG INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING APPLICATION & RESOLUTION 2. Approve both the application for fundingand associated resolution. B. ASSET INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT GRANT APPLICATION &  RESOLUTION  4. SUBMISSION OF THE 2017 SCHEDULES OF VALUES Presenters: Clinton Swaringen, Tax Administrator  Charles Johnson, Revaluation Director  5. OAKBORO SCHOOL UTILIZATION OMMITEE/TASAFORCE  Presenter: Andy Lucas, County Manager    6. UNION COUNTY & TOWN OF NORWOOD - PROPOSED INTER-BASIN  TRANSFER TO THE ROCKY RIVER SUB-BASIN Presenter: Andy Lucas, County Manager  7. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE ONE-QUARTER CENTER (1/4C)SALES  TAX. ADVISORY REFERENDUM Presenter: Chairman Scott Efird  8. DISCUSSION REGARDING UNIVERSAL ELECTIONS Presenter: Commissioner Peter Asciutto  9. CONSENT AGENDA  A. Minutes - Regular meeting on August 8, 2016.  B. Library = Request Board approve changes to the Oakboro Branch C. Sheriff's Office - Request approval of budget amendment # 2017-06. D.A Airport - Request approval of budget amendment # 2017-05. E.F Finance = Request approval of the attached vehicle tax refunds.  Library hours as requested.  PUBLICCOMMENT  BOARD COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & COMMITTEE REPORTS  CLOSED SESSION: To discuss economic development in accordance with G.S. 143.318.11(a)(4) and a real estate transaction in accordance with G.S.  143.318.11(a)(5). ADJOURN  The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.    Stanly County Board of Commissioners Presenter: Nadine Bowers, Chair of the SCC  STANLY) COUNTY Meeting Date: September 6, 2016  Waen An lad. Saccet.  Board ofTrustees  Consent Agenda Regular Agenda  Presentation Equipment: Lectern PC* Lectern VCR Lectern DVD L Document Camera** Laptop*** *PCis equipped with' Windows XP and Microsoft Office XP (including Word, Excel, and PowerPoint), Internet connectivity and Network connectivity ** Ifyoul have need tou use thel Document Camera and zoom into a particular area, ifp possible please attacha a copy oft the document with the areai indicated  Please Provide al Brief Description ofyour. Presentations format:_ that you need toz zoom into. AI laser light is available to pinpoint your area of projection. *** You can bring inal laptopt that will allow video out tol be connected: att the lectern- set display to6 60Mhz.  for County Employees.  ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED  INTRODUCTION OF DR. JOHN ENAMAIT, NEW SCC PRESIDENT  No action required.  Signature: Date:  Dept. Attachments:  Yes Certification of Action Certified to bea a true copy oft the action taken by the Stanly County Board of Commissioners on  No  Review Process  Approved Yes No Initials  Finance Director County Attorney County Manager Other:  Budget Amendment Necessary  Tyler Brummitt, Clerk to the Board  Date    Stanly County Board of Commissioners Presenter: Donna Miller, Executive Director for  STANLY) COUNTY Meeting Date: September 6, 2016  Mbter Anl ledlSaser.  2  Esther House  Consent Agenda Regular Agenda  Presentation Equipment: Lectern PC* Lectern VCR Lectern DVD LJ Document Camera** Laptop*** *PCis equipped with Windows XP: and Microsoft Office XP( (including Word, Excel, and PowerPoint), Internet connectivity and Network connectivity ** Ifyou have need to use the Document Camera and zoomi intos a particular area, if possible please attach a copy of the document with the areai indicated  Please Provide: a Brief Description of your Presentations format: that you need toz zoom into. AI laser lighti is available top pinpoint your area of projection. *** You can bringi in a laptop that will allow video out tol be connected at thel lectern- set display to6 60Mhz.  for County Employees.  ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION  Please see the attached proclamation for Board consideration and adoption.  Request adoption of the resolution.  Signature: Date:  Dept. Attachments:  Yes Certification of Action Certified to bea at true copy oft the action taken the County Board of Commissioners on  No  X  Review Process  Approved Yes No Initials  Finance Director County Attorney County Manager Other:  by Stanly  Budget Amendment Necessary  Tyler Brummitt, Clerk to the Board  Date    COUNTY OF STANLY 1000NORTHFIRST: STREET,SUITE1 10 ALBEMARLE, NORTHCAROLINA  28001  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION  WHEREAS, the family is the foundation of a safe and healthy community and is a goal oft the WHEREAS, the problem of domestic violence affects all citizens ofl North Carolina crossing all WHEREAS, according to the NC Department of Justice in 2015, there were 53 individuals (41 women and 12 men) who died as ar result of domestic violence in North Carolina. WHEREAS, domestic violence is an immense problem in Stanly County where in 2015, 558 calls for service for domestic violence were answered by the Stanly County 911 Center; WHEREAS, batterers ofwomen are highly likely to abuse their children: 49% ofbatterers abuse their children, whereas 7% of non-abusive partners perpetrate violence against their children, according to a national study by Murray Strauss. The batterer's behavior often undermines the WHEREAS, Esther House served 183 women and 71 children in 2015, all who were victims of WHEREAS, domestic violence is widespread, including one in three Americans who have witnessed an incident of domestic violence and with an annual cost to U. S. companies of billions ofd dollars in lost work time, increased health care costs, higher turnover, and lower productivity; NOW, THEREFORE, in recognition of the impact that domestic violence has on the health and well-being of our community, we, the Board of County Commissioners, do hereby proclaim Further, we affirm the commitment to reduce violence in our homes as well as on our streets. We urge all citizens to participate in the activities planned by battered women's programs and community organizations during this month. Citizens should also take this opportunity to educate themselves about the impact of domestic violence in North Carolina and to become familiar with resources and programs available. This month let us remember the victims of domestic violence, celebrate the survivors, and work together to eliminate violence against women and children from  Board ofCounty Commissioners;  racial, social, religious, ethnic, geographic, and economic groups;  relationship between a mother and her children. domestic violence and/or sexual assault;  October 2016 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.  our community.  Adopted this the 6" day of September, A 2016.  Terry Scott Efird, Chairman    Stanly County Board of Commissioners  STANLV) COUNTY Meeting Date: September 6, 2016  Presenter: Donna Davis, Utilities Director  3A  MerfaledSan.  Consent Agenda Regular Agenda  Presentation Equipment: I Lectern PC* Lectern VCR Lectern DVD - Document Camera** Laptop*** * PCise equipped with' Windows XP and! Microsoft Office XP (including' Word, Excel, and PowerPoint), Internet connectivity and Network connectivity ** Ifyoul have need to use thel Document Camera and zoomi into a particular area, ifp possible pleases attach a copy oft the document with the areai indicated  Please Provide a Brief Description ofyour Presentations format:_ that you need toz zoomi into. Al laserl lighti is availablet top pinpoint your area ofp projection. *** You can! bringi ina a laptopt that will allow video out to be connected att the lectern set display to6 60Mhz.  for County Employees.  ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED  Stanly County Utilities  Stanly County is considering applying to the North Carolina Department ofl Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) Division of Water Infrastructure (DWI) for Community Development Block Grant-Infrastructure In an effort to involve the citizens oft the County and obtain their comments in the planning of the community development program, Stanly County is holding a required public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is to explain the funding categories oft the 2016 CDBG Program and to allow the citizens oft the County an opportunity to express their views concerning community development needs  (CDBG-I) funds.  and priorities.  1) Public Hearing  2) Approve application for funding 3) Approve application resolution  Signature: Donna LI Davis, Utilities Director  Dept. Attachments:  Date: August 19, 2016  Yes  No  Review Process  Certification of Action Certified to be a true copy of the action taken by the Stanly County Board of Commissioners on  Approved Yes No Initials  Finance Director County Attorney County Manager Other:  Budget Amendment: Necessary  Tyler Brummitt, Clerk tot thel Board  Date    NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO APPLICATION BY STANLY COUNTY  FOR FUNDING UNDER THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED  Notice is hereby given that Stanly County will conduct a public hearing on September 6, 2016 at 7:00 PM, or as soon thereafter as the agenda will allow, at the Stanly County Board of Commissioners' Meeting located in the Commons Meeting Room 1000 N 1st Street Albemarle, NC relative to the intention of the Stanly Countyt to apply for FY2016 CDBG funding under Titlel Stanly County intends to submit an application for a grant of approximately $150,000 in CDBG Infrastructure funds to connect qualified residential housing units to the County's water system. The following is a tentative list of proposed activities and an estimated budget. The final  of the Housing and Community Development Act.  application will be reviewed at the public hearing.  Water Improvements and Grant Administration Estimated Budget  $150,000  The proposed project will provide benefits to residents located in the the Stanly County Utilities service area, 100% of whom are low and moderate income individuals based on surveys performed by the Stanly County Utilities Department. No individuals will be displaced nor will any require temporary relocation assistance as a result of the proposed project. Citizens will be given the opportunity to provide oral and written comment on the county's past and proposed use of CDBG funds at the public hearing. All interested citizens are encouraged Ifa additional information is needed, please contact the Stanly County Utilities Department at 704-986-3686. Formal written complaints or comments concerning the application process that are submitted to Stanly County prior to or following the public hearing will be responded to within ten working days by Donna Davis. A copy of the completed project application will be available for public review after September 30, 2016, at the Stanly County Utilities Office at  to attend.  1000 N 1st Street Suite 12, Albemarle, NC 28001.  Persons with disabilities or who otherwise need assistance should contact Tyler Brummit at 704- 986-3602 (TDD # 1-800-735-0533 or Relay North Carolina tbrummit@stanlycountync.gov, 72 hours prior to the meeting date. Accommodations will be made for all who request assistance with participating in the public hearing. This information is available in Spanish or any other language upon request. Please contact Tyler Brummit, at 704-986-3602 or at the Stanly County Manager's office at Stanly Commons 1000 N. First Street, Suite 10, Albemarle, NC 28001 for accommodations for this request. Esta informacion està disponible en espanol 0 en cualquier otro idioma bajo peticion. Por favor, pongase en contacto con Tyler Brummitt, al 704-986-3602 0 en Stanly Commons, 1000 N. First  711) or  Street, Suite 10, Albemarle, NC 28001, de alojamiento para esta solicitud.    Notificacion de Audiencia Publica Aplicacion de Stanly County THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED  Para recibir fondos bajo el Acta de 1974, modificada de Vivienda y Desarrollo de la Comunidad  Notificacion es dada aqui para anunciar que el Stanly County llevara a cabo una audiencia publica el 6 de septiembre de, el ano 2016 a 7:00 PM, o tan pronto después de esta si la agenda lo permite en Stanly County Board of Commissioners' Meeting located in the Commons Meeting Room 1000 N 1st Street Albemarle, NC relacionada con la intencion de Stanly County para aplicar por fondos FY2016 CDBG bajo el titulo I del Acta de Vivienda y Desarrollo de la Stanly County tiene la intenciôn de enviar una aplicaciôn para un subsidio de aproximadamente $150,000 en fondos de Infraestructura en CDBG para para conectar unidades de vivienda La siguiente es la lista tentativa de actividades propuestas y el presupuesto estimado. La  Comunidad.  residencial calificados para el sistema de agua del Condado.  aplicacion de la aplicaciôn final serà revisada en la audiencia publica:  Mejoras de agua y  Administracion del Subsidio Presupuesto estimado $150,000  EIP Proyecto propuesto beneficiara a residentes situados en el area de servicio del condado de Stanly Utilidades, 100% quienes son individuos con bajo y muy bajo ingreso basado en encuestas encuestas realizadas por Stanly County Utilities. Ningun individuo serà desplazado o requerirà asistencia de reubicacion temporal como resultado del Proyecto propuesto. Los ciudadanos tendran la oportunidad de dar sus comentarios por escrito o verbal sobre el uso de fondos de CDBG en proyectos anteriores o el proyecto propuesto durante la audiencia Si necesita informacion adicional, por favor contacte a Stanly County Utilities en 704-986-3686. Quejas formales por escrito 0 comentarios relacionados con el proceso de la aplicaciôn enviados as Stanly County anterior 0 después de la audiencia publica seràn respondidos dentro de diez dias hâbiles por Donna Davis. Una copia complete de la aplicacion estarà disponible para revision del publico después de septiembre 30, 2016, en Oficina de Stanly County Utilities a Personas con discapacidades 0 personas que necesiten asistencia deben contactar Tyler Brummit, a 704-986-3602 (TDD # 1-800-735-0533 or Relay North Carolina 711) o tbrummit@stanlycountync.gov, 72 horas antes de la fecha de la reuniôn. Acomodaciones razonables seràn concedidas para todas aquellos que requieren asistencia para participar en la Esta informacion està disponible en espanol 0 en cualquier otro idioma bajo peticion. Por favor, pongase en contacto con Tyler Brummit, al 704-986-3602 0 en la oficina del administrador del condado de Stanly en Stanly Commons 1000 N. 1st Street, Suite 10, Albemarle, NC 28001, de  publica. Todos los ciudadanos interesados estàn invitados a asistir.  1000 N 1st Street Suite 12, Albemarle, NC 28001.  audiencia publica.  alojamiento para esta solicitud.    10001 North First Street Suite 10 Albemarle, North Carolina 28001  STANLY) COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA MarAhllSca  RESOLUTION BY GOVERNING BODY OF APPLICANT  WHEREAS, Title I of the Federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, has  established the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and has authorized the making of grants to aid eligible units of government in funding the cost of construction, replacement, or rehabilitation of water and wastewater infrastructure, and that the North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Infrastructure (DWI) has delegated the authority by the state legislature to administer the water and wastewater infrastructure portion of the state grant monies received from the U.S. HUD CDBG program by Session Law 2013-360, Section 15.15(a) as residential housing units to the County's water system described as a hook up grant program,  amended by Section 5.3 of Session Law 2013-363, and  WHEREAS, The County of Stanly has need for and intends to implement a project to connect qualified  and  WHEREAS, The County of Stanly intends to request state grant assistance for the project,  NOW THEREFORE BE ITI RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF STANLY:  That County of Stanly the Applicant, will adopt and place into effect on or before completion of the project a schedule of fees and charges and other available funds which will provide adequate That the Applicant will provide for efficient operation and maintenance of the project on That Andy Lucas, County Manager, the Authorized Official, and successors SO titled, is hereby authorized to execute and file an application on behalf of the Applicant with the State of North That the Authorized Official, and successors sO titled, is hereby authorized and directed to furnish such information as the appropriate State agency may request in connection with such application for the project; to make the assurances as contained above; and to execute such other That the Applicant has substantially complied or will substantially comply with all Federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the project and to Federal and  funds for proper operation, maintenance, and administration oft the system.  completion of construction thereof.  Carolina for a grant to aidi in the construction oft the project described above.  documents as may ber required in connection with the application.  State grants and loans pertaining thereto.  Adopted this the 6"h day of September, 2016 in Albemarle, North Carolina.  (Signature of Chief Executive Officer) Chairman, Stanly County Board of Commissioners  (Title)  Stanly County - Hook up Grant (CDBG-I program)    CERTIFICATION BY RECORDING OFFICER  The undersigned duly qualified and acting as clerk oft the Stanly County Board of Commissioners does hereby certify: That the above/attached resolution is ai true and correct copy oft the resolutionauthorizing the filing of an application with the State of North Carolina, as regularly adopted at a legally convened meeting oft the! Stanly County Board of Commissioners duly held on the 6th day of September, 2016; and, further, that such resolution has been fully recorded in thej journal of proceedings and recordsi in my office. INWITNESS WHEREOF, Ihave  hereunto set myl hand this  day of  20_  (Signature of Recording Officer)  Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, Stanly County, NC  (Title of Recording Officer)  Stanly County- Hook up Grant (CDBG-I program)    Stanly County Board ofCommissioners  STANL)COUNTY Meeting Date: September 6, 2016  Presenter: Donna Davis, Utilities Director  Waler An lans Sarcesr.  3B  Consent Agenda Regular Agenda  Presentation Equipment: Lectern PC* Lectern VCR DL Lectern DVD Document Camera** Laptop*** *PCise equipped with Windows XP and Microsoft Office XP (including Word, Excel, and PowerPoint), Internet connectivity and Network connectivity ** Ifyouh have need to use thel Document Camera and zoom intos aj particular area, ifp possible please attacha a copy of the document with the areai indicated  Please Provide al BriefDescription ofyour Presentations format: that you need toz zoomi into. AI laser lighti is available top pinpoint your area ofp projection. *** You can bring ina al laptop that will allow video out tot be connected att the lectern- set display to 60Mhz.  for County Employees.  ITEMTOE BE CONSIDERED  Stanly County Utilities  Stanly County is considering applying to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) Division of Water Infrastructure (DWI) for an Asset Inventory and Assessment Grant to inventory the existing water and/or sewer system and document the condition ofinventoried departmental infrastructure for effective maintenance and repair. Applicants must apply for water and sewer grants  separately.  1) Approve application for funding for the Asset Inventory and Assessment Water and Sewer 2) Approve application resolution for the Asset Inventory and Assessment Water and Sewer  Grants Grants  Signature: Donna LDavis,Utilitiesl Director  Dept. Attachments:  Date: August 30, 2016  Yes  No  Review Process  Certification of Action Certified to bea at true copy oft the action taken by the Stanly County Board of Commissioners on  Approved Yes No Initials  Finance Director County Attorney County Manager Other:  Budget Amendment Necessary  Tyler Brummitt, Clerk tot the Board  Date    10001 North First Street Suite 10 Albemarle, North Carolina 28001  STANLY) COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Water An Lond, Saccess,  RESOLUTION BY GOVERNING BODY OF APPLICANT  WHEREAS, The Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 and the North Carolina the Water  Infrastructure Act of 2005 (NCGS 159G) have authorized the making of loans and grants to aid eligible units of government in financing the cost of an Asset Inventory and Assessment program/document described as an inventory of the existing sewer system and documentation of the condition of inventoried departmental infrastructure for effective maintenance and repair,  program/document, and  WHEREAS, The County of Stanly has need for and intends to develop an Asset Inventory and Assessment  and  WHEREAS, The County of Stanly intends to request state grant assistance for the project, NOW THEREFORE BEI ITI RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OFTHE COUNTY OF STANLY:  That County of Stanly the Applicant, will adopt and place into effect on or before completion of the project a schedule of fees and charges and other available funds which will provide adequate That the Applicant will provide for efficient operation and maintenance of the project upon That Andy Lucas, County Manager, the Authorized Official, and successors sO titled, is hereby authorized to execute and file an application on behalf of the Applicant with the State of North That the Authorized Official, and successors so titled, is hereby authorized and directed to furnish such information as the appropriate State agency may request in connection with such application for the project; to make the assurances as contained above; and to execute such other That the Applicant has substantially complied or will substantially comply with all Federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the project and to Federal and  funds for proper operation, maintenance, and administration of the system.  completion of construction thereof.  Carolina for a grant to aid in the construction of the project described above.  documents as may be requiredi in connection with the application.  State grants and loans pertaining thereto.  Adopted this the 6th day of September, 2016 in Albemarle, North Carolina.  (Signature of Chief Executive Officer) Chairman, Stanly County Board of Commissioners  (Title)  Stanly County - AIA Sewer    CERTIFICATION L BYF RECORDING OFFICER  The undersigned duly qualified and acting as clerk of the Stanly County Board of Commissioners does hereby certify: That the above/attached resolutioni is at true and correct copy of the resolutiona authorizing the filing of an application with the State of North Carolina, as regularly adopted at a legally convened meeting of the Stanly County Board of Commissioners duly held on the 6th day of September, 2016; and, further, that such resolution has been fully recorded in the journal of proceedings and recordsi in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,Ihave  hereunto set my hand this  day of  20  (Signature of Recording Officer)  Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, Stanly County, NC  (Title of Recording Officer)  Stanly County AIA Sewer    10001 North First Street Suite 10 Albemarle, North Carolina 28001  STANL) COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA WaterAn Lord, Saccess,  RESOLUTION BY GOVERNING BODY OF APPLICANT  WHEREAS, The Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 and the North Carolina the Water  Infrastructure Act of 2005 (NCGS 159G) have authorized the making of loans and grants to aid eligible units of government in financing the cost of an Asset Inventory and Assessment program/document described as an inventory oft the existing water system and documentation of the condition of inventoried departmental infrastructure for effective maintenance and repair,  program/document, and  WHEREAS, The County of Stanly has need for and intends to develop an Asset Inventory and Assessment  and  WHEREAS, The County of Stanly intends to request state grant assistance for the project,  NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF STANLY:  That County of Stanly the Applicant, will adopt and place into effect on or before completion of the project a schedule of fees and charges and other available funds which will provide adequate That the Applicant will provide for efficient operation and maintenance of the project upon That Andy Lucas, County Manager, the Authorized Official, and successors SO titled, is hereby authorized to execute and file an application on behalf of the Applicant with the State of North That the Authorized Official, and successors so titled, is hereby authorized and directed to furnish such information as the appropriate State agency may request in connection with such application for the project; to make the assurances as contained above; and to execute such other That the Applicant has substantially complied or will substantially comply with all Federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the project and to Federal and  funds for proper operation, maintenance, and administration of the system.  completion of construction thereof.  Carolina for a grant to aid in the construction of the project described above.  documents as may be required in connection with the application.  State grants and loans pertaining thereto.  Adopted this the 6"h day of September, 2016 at Albemarle, North Carolina.  (Signature of Chief Executive Officer) Chairman, Stanly County Board of Commissioners  (Title)  Stanly County- AIA water    CERTIFICATION! BYR RECORDING OFFICER  The undersigned duly qualified and acting as clerk oft the Stanly County Board of Commissioners does hereby certify: That the above/attached resolution is at true and correct copy oft the resolution authorizing the filing of an application with the State of North Carolina, as regularly adopted at al legally convened meeting oft the Stanly County Board of Commissioners duly held on the 6th day of September, 2016; and, further, that such resolution has been fully recorded in thej journal of proceedings and records in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Ihave  hereunto set my hand this  day of  20  (Signature of Recording Officer)  Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, Stanly County, NC  (Title of Recording Officer)  Stanly County - AIAI water    Stanly County Board of Commissioners Presenter: Clinton Swaringen-Tax Administrator  STANL)COUNTY Meeting Date: September 6, 2016  X  Materh Aa lacSaccur,  Charles ohnson-Revaluation Director  Consent Agenda Regular Agenda  Presentation Equipment: Lectern PC* Lectern VCR Lectern DVD D Document Camera** Laptop*** *PCise equipped with' Windows XP: and Microsoft Office XP( (including' Word, Excel, and PowerPoint), Internet connectivity and Network connectivity **I Ify you have need to uset the Document Camera and zoom intoar particular area, ifp possible please attacha copy oft the document with the areai indicated  Please Provide a Brief Description of your Presentations format: that! your need toz zoomi into. A laser lighti is available top pinpoint your area ofp projection. *** You can bringi ina al laptop that will allow video out to be connected at thel lectern set display to60Mhz.  for County Employees.  ITEM' TOBE CONSIDERED  Submission of the two 2017 Revaluation Schedules, the Schedule of Values for Market Value and the Schedule of Values for Present Use Value. A timeline for the adoption and appeal process for the Schedules has been provided. Charles Johnson and I will briefly review this timeline.  No Action is required by the Commissioners at this time. Copies of the Schedules of Values are  available for public inspection at the following locations: Stanly County Tax Administration Office Stanly County Central Administration Office Stanly County Public Libraries (AIl Branches)  Signature: Cazset  Dept. Attachments:  Date: 8/30/16  Yes X Certification of Action Certified tol be: a true copy of the action taken by the Stanly County Board of Commissioners on  No  Review Process  Approved Yes No Initials  Finance Director County Attorney County Manager Other:  Budget Amendment Necessary  Tyler Brummitt, Clerk to the Board  Date    3    Revised 10/19/2007  Stanly County Board of Commissioners  STANLY) COUNTY Meeting Date Watr An Larl Sacesr. Presenter:  September 6, 2016 Andy Lucas,County Manager ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED  Consent Agenda Regular Agenda  Oakboro School Utilization Committe/Taskforee  Both the Town ofOakboro and the Stanly County Board of Education have agreed to participate on a multi-agency committee/taskforce with the County to assess options for utilization oft the Oakboro  Elementary School facility.  The County will need to appoint members to this Committe/Tasklorce.  Consider the appointment of at least two (2), and possibly three (3), members oft the Board to the  aforementioned Commitee/Taskforee.  Signature: Date: 8/26/16  Andy Lucas  Dept Central Administration Attachments:  Yes Certification of Action Certified to be a true copy oft the action taken the County Board of Commissioners on  X No  Review Process  Approved Yes No Initials  Director Finance Budget Amendment Necessary County Attorney County Manager Other:  by Stanly  Tyler Brummitt, Clerk to thel Board  Date    Revised 10/19/2007  Stanly County Board ofCommissioners  STANLY) COUNTY Meeting Date  September 6, 2016 AndyLucas, County Manager ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED  Consent Agenda  Ai. Lanl Wéten Sarer.  Presenter:  5  Union County & Town of Norwood - Proposed Inter-Basin Transfer (IBT) to the Rocky River Attached please find information and several maps related to the analysis performed by an engineering firm (HDR) and other consultants as it relates to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed IBT. Based on the data provided in the proposed IBT, the year 2050 water withdrawal demand model indicates there may potentially be a minimal impact on Lake Tillery's lake level, but there is no apparent impact to water However, it is unclear ift the data analysis effectively forecasts growth among the other counties in the region over the next 30-+ years and the potential impact this growth (both residential and commercial) may have on the water As such, it is recommended the Board consider submitting comments to NC DEQ and the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to ensure a detailed analysis off future water demand for all the communities in the Yadkin river basin is conducted. Further, the Board may request that a comprehensive, independent analysis oft the proposed IBT's water demand model and forecast be conducted to ensure the model's assumptions and data Review and consider directing staff to submit comments via letter correspondence to NC DEQ and EMC by no  Sub-Basin  withdrawals.  withdrawal demand model.  are accurate. A draft letter is included for the Board's consideration.  later than October 3.  Dept Central Administration Attachments:  Signature: Date: 8/26/2016  Ardg Lacas  X Yes Certification of Action Certified to be at true copy oft the action taken by the County Board of Commissioners on  No  Review Process  Approved Yes No Initials  Finance Director Budget Amendment Necessary County Attorney County Manager Other:  Stanly  Tyler Brummitt, Clerk tot the Board  Date    @ C  @  -   a  3 ly        W  K3    311o  Anten  B    Union County Public Works Environmental impact Slatement  PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE HR  Table 7-3, below, provides al brief, practical review oft the key differentiators between alternatives and the rationale for selecting the Preferred Alternative. As illustrated and summarized in this table, Alternative 1A is recommended as the Preferred Alternative for Union  County's Yadkin River Water Supply Project. Table 7-3 Review of Key Differentiators for Project Alternatives  Alt. Description 1A Lake Tillery to Union County Union County 2A,2B Narrows Reservoir (2A) or Tuckertown Union County 3A,3B Blewett Falls Reservoir Union County via Alternative Transmission Routes (3A, 3B) Union County 5 Rocky River to Union County  Key Differentiators in Comparison to Alternative 1  Preferred Alternative  1B Lake Tillery to . Longer raw water transmission lengths with greater environmental impacts.  More costlylcost prohibitive. generation and surface water quality. Longer raw water transmission lengths. More costly/cost prohibitive. Less politically acceptable. Longer raw water transmission lengths. More costly/cost prohibitive. water storage (i.e. terminal reservoir). Is cost prohibitive.  More significant consequences for water interests in the Yadkin River Basin including lake elevations, reservoir discharges, hydropower  Reservoir (2B) to . Less politically acceptable.  More significant consequences for water interests in the Yadkin River Basin including reservoir discharges during drought periods.  to  4 Pee Dee River to - More significant environmental consequences associated with raw  Source water not classified for public drinking water supply by NC. May not meet the purpose and need for overall water demand. Source water not classified as a drinking water source by NC. More significant environmental consequences associated with raw water collection (i.e. low head dam) and storage (i.e. terminal reservoir). and quality interests in the Catawba River Basin, as indicated in Table Likely would noth be açceptable from a poltcal/community perspective. and quality interests in the Catawba River Basin, as indicated in Table Likely would not be acceptable from a political/community perspective. More costly than Preferred Alternative. Has more significant environmental consequences associated with magnitude of groundwater well system. Requires extensive, prohibitive land acquisition to meet purpose & need Does not meet the purpose and need. Demand management and conservation reflected in historical water demand and future projections for Union County. exists to make this alternative possible in North Carolina. Likely cost prohibitive and not accepted politically or by the community.  6 Catawba River to . Places additional demands on existing high-demand surface waters. Union County via . More significant environmental consequences for surface water quantity  Existing Catawba River Supply Project Charlotte Water's Mountain Island Lake Withdrawal 8 Groundwater Supply 9 Water Demand Management and Conservation Reuse  Water  7-1.  More costly than Preferred Alternative.  7 Catawba River to . Places additional demands on existing high-demand surface waters. Union County via . More significant environmental consequences for surface water quantity  7-1.  Is cost prohibitive.  10 Direct Potable . Does not meet the purpose and need since no regulatory framework  403    IMI  da  S -   35 r s  SEEEE f  do  a : -  $    Union County Public Works Environmental Impact Statement  PREFERRED. ALTERNATIVE HR  7.0  PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE  Alternative 1A is designated as the Preferred Alternative after a thorough assessment of each alternative's ability to meet the project's purpose and need of delivering a safe, sustainable water supply to meet the County's current and future water demands in their Yadkin River Basin Service Area, as well as the associated environmental impacts, mitigation measures, technical feasibility, financial impacts, and political and community acceptance. Alternative 1A includes the withdrawal of water from Lake Tillery ini the Yadkin River IBT Basin and the transfer of this water into the Rocky River IBT Basin in Union County for treatment and distribution. A portion of the water will be returned viai treated wastewater effluent back through the Rocky River into the Pee Dee River approximately five miles downstream from the Lake Tillery dam. Alternative 1A, in conjunction with the existing grandfathered IBT from the Catawba River Basin, iso capable of delivering the stated 28.9 mgd maximum month average day projected 30-year demands (23.0 mgd from the Yadkin River Basin, supplemented by up to 5.9 mgd from the existing Catawba supply) and 35.3 mgd maximum day demands (28.0 mgd from the Yadkin River Basin, supplemented by up to 7.3 mgd from the existing Catawba supply) of Union County. The water modeling efforts completed for this EIS indicate that withdrawal from Lake Tillery has less impact on lake aesthetics, other water withdrawal interests including during drought conditions, and hydropower production than withdrawal of water from other locations along the main stem of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River. Further, as described in Sections 4-5 of this document, the environmental impacts of Alternative 1A are similar, or significantly less, than the other alternatives evaluated. Table 7-1 provides a summary of the environmental impacts associated with each oft the project alternatives. Mitigation measures are in place (as described ins Section 6) throughout the proposed service area to mitigate these environmental impacts. An evaluation of project costs is summarized in Table 7-2. The cost of developing a water supply solution for Union County's Yadkin River Basin Service Area is significant and represents the largest future capital expenditure for the County over the next twenty years. As illustrated in Table 7-2, Alternative 1A represents on oft the lowest cost project alternatives and has been determined to be ai financially feasible option for this water supply. In developing this project, Union County held discussions with numerous entities along the Yadkin-Pee Dee River regarding potential partnerships for water supply. Of all those contacted, the Town of Norwood was the only political jurisdiction who expressed a desire to participate in a partnership with mutual benefits for both parties. Currently, Union County and the Town of Norwood have an Interlocal Intake and Transmission Agreement in place for water withdrawal from a common raw water intake in Lake Tillery at the site of the Town of Norwood's current intake. The progress realized on water supply regionalization between the Town of Norwood and Union County easily  makes this the most politically acceptable alternative, as well.  389    Union Counly Public' Works Environmentail Impact Stalement  ENVIROMMENTAL CONSEQUENCES HR  modeling. The primary differences in metrics observed are between the 2050 and 2012 evaluations from projected basin-wide water demand increases in the future, not the proposed  Union County IBT. Lake Levels  Often of important consideration to lakeside property owners and parties with recreational interests for particular lakes is the effect of water withdrawals on lake elevations and, subsequently, lake aesthetics. Given this consideration, the effect of each Union County surface water supply alternative from the Yadkin River Basin was evaluated in CHEOPSTM. for their effect on lake elevations, relative to the operating rule/guide curve, full pond elevation, and/or normal minimum elevation for a particular reservoir, as a percentage of time the end of day elevations are within a particular range of the reservoir rule/guide curve or full pond elevation. Results from the applicable Performance Measure Sheets (PMS) for the model analysis are summarized in the following tables, by reservoir, alternative and baseline scenario comparison (BLY-2012 or BLY-2050). Potential negative impacts, as compared to the' "baseline" scenarios, are denoted by' " (Negligible Impact, with no detectable modeled impact, as compared to baseline), "MI" (Minor Impact, typically resulting in negative impact of >0% and <5%, as compared to baseline), "MO" (Moderate Impact, typically resulting in negative impact of 5% to <15%, as compared to baseline), and' "MA" (Major Impact, typically resulting in negative impact of 15% or greater. For detailed results of the PMS, see Appendix E, CD-2.  260    Union County Public Works Envionmenial inpact Statement  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ER  Table 5-11 Period of Record (1955 to 2013)Lake Aesthetics Elevation) impacis, Based on % of Time Endo of  Day Elevations within Particular Range of Rule/Guide Curve or Full PondE Elevation  Reservoir  Comparison to BLY-2012 Current Comparison to BLY-2050 Future (2012) Basin-Wide Water Use With (2050) Basin-Wide Water Use With 1 2A 2B 3 4 5 11 1 2A 2B 3 4 5 11  Union County 2050 IBT Alternative  Union County 2050 IBT Alternative  W.H Kerr Scott High Rock Tuckertown Narrows (Badin). Falls Tillery Blewett Falls  MI MO MI MI MI  MI MI MI MO MO MI  MI MI MI  MI MI MI MI  ""= Negligible Impact" no detectable impact); MI"= Minor Impact (>0% to <5%); "MO"= Moderate Impact (5% to Table5.12Dfoughi1(999102003)" ake Aesthetics (Elevation) Impacts, Based on % of Time End of Day  <15%); "MA"= Major Impact (215%)  Elevations within Particutar Range'of Rule/Guide Gurve or Full Pond Elevation  Reservoir  Comparison to BLY-2012 Current Comparison to BLY-2050 Future (2012) Basin-Wide Water Use With (2050) Basin-Wide Water Use With 2A 2B 3 4 5 11 1 2A 2B 3 4 5 11  Union County 2050 IBT Alternative  Union County 2050 IBT Alternative  W. Kerr Scott High Rock Tuckertown Narrows (Badin) Falis Tillery Blewett Falls  MI MI MI MO MO MO MI MI  MO MO MI MI MI  MI MI MI MI MI MI MI  MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI  ""= Negligible Impact" (no detectable impact); MI"= Minor Impact (>0% to <5%); "MO"= Moderate Impact (5% to Tabs-n3Drogni2200810200.L.ke Aesthetics (Elevation) impacts, Based on % of Time End of Day  <15%); "MA": = Major Impact (215%)  Elevations within Particular Range of Rule/Guide Curve or Full Pond Flevation  Reservoir  Comparison to BLY-2012 Current Comparison to BLY-2050 Future (2012) Basin-Wide Water Use With (2050) Basin-Wide Water Use With 2A 2B 3 4 5 11 1 2A 2B 3 4 5 11  Union County 2050 IBT Alternative  Union County 2050 IBT Alternative  W. Kerr Scott High Rock Tuckertown Narrows (Badin) Falls Tillery Blewett Fails  MI MI MI MI MO MI  MO MO MI MI MI  MI  MI MI MI MI  "= Negligible Impaci (no detectable impact); M!"= Minor Impact (>0% to <5%); "MO"= Moderate Impact (5% to  <15%); "MA"= Major Impact (215%)  261    Union County Public Works! Envionmentar impactSistement  ENVIROMMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ER  Table 5-14 Period of Record (1955-2013) Average ModeiediLake Elevation Differences for YRWSP Alternatives (Union County 20501 IBT) as Compared to Baseline Current (2012) Conditions  Reservoir  Avg. Elev. (feet) Base 623.2 564.2 330.9 278.0 176.5  Difference (inches) from BASE (UC2050_2012) Alternative  Avg. Difference (inches) from  Elev. (feet) Base 1030.1 623.2 564.2 509.0 330.9 278.0 176.5  BASE (2050) Alternative  2012 1 2A 2B 3 4 5 11 2050 1 2A 2B 3 4 5 11  W. Kerr Scott 1030.2 High Rock Tuckertown Narrows (Badin) 509.0 Falls Tillery Blewett Falls  1  ""= No modeled change in lake elevation for alternative as compared lo baseline condition Tables5DroughtosC99.200JAverage Modeled Lake Elevation Differences for YRWSP Alternatives (Union County 20507 IBT) as Compared to Baseline Current (2012) Conditions  Reservoir  Avg. Difference (inches) from Avg. Difference (inches) from  Elev. (feet) Base 2012 622.1 564.0 330.2 278.0 176.6  BASE (UC2050_2012) Alternative  Elev. (feet). Base 1030.0 622.0 563.9 508.6 330.2 278.0 176.4 -1  BASE (2050) Alternative 2A 2B 3 4 5 11  2A 2B 3 4 5 11 2050  W. Kerr Scott 1030.0 High Rock Tuckertown Narrows (Badin) 508.8 Falls Tillery Blewett Falls  -5 -4 -1  4 -1  ""= No modeled change in lake elevation. for altemnalive as compared to baseline condition  262    Union County Public Works Ensonnental Impaci Statement  ENVIROMMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ER  Fables-16Droughts 2(2006-2009) Averaye Modeled Lake Elevation Differences for YRWSP Aiternatives  (Union County 2050 IBT) as Compared to Baseline Current (2012) Conditions  Reservoir  Avg. Difference (inches) from Avg. Difference (inches) from 2012 1 2A 2B 3 - 4 5 11 2050 1 2A 2B 3 4 5 11  Elev. (feet) Base 622.9 564.2 330.4 278.0 176.5  BASE UC2050_2012) Alternative  Elev. (feet) Base 1030.0 622.9 564.1 508.8 330.3 278.0 176.5  BASE (2050) Alternative  W. Kerr Scott 1030.1 High Rock Tuckertown Narrows (Badin) 508.8 Falls Tillery Blewett Falls  -2  -1 -2 1  ""= No modeled change in lake elevation for alternative as compared lo baseline condition  W. Kerr Scott Reservoir  Impacts to lake elevations were observed to be negligible in W. Kerr Scott Reservoir as the result of Union County's proposed IBT under Alternatives 1, 2A,2B,3,4,5or 11. This is due largely to the fact that the operational rules of this reservoir are not dependent on the downstream APGI or Duke Energy Progress hydroelectric projects. As all proposed IBT alternative withdrawals are downstream oft this reservoir, there are no observed impacts tol lake elevations in W. Kerr Scott Reservoir under current or future projected basin-wide water  demands. High Rock Lake  Asi indicated by Tables 5-11, 5-12 and 5-13, while impacts to lake elevations were observed to be negligible in High Rock Lake as the result of Union County's proposed IBT under Alternatives 1,2A, 2B, 3,4,5or1 11, based on current basin water demands, modeling off future basin water demands indicate minor impacts to lake elevations in High Rock Lake under Alternatives 2A (Narrows Reservoir withdrawals) and 2B (Tuckertown Reservoir withdrawals). During the POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2, impacts tol lake elevations are considered minor, resulting in elevation deviations from the baseline scenarios approximately 1% to 2% of the time. For all other alternatives (1,3,4, 5 and 11), impacts to lake elevations in High Rock Lake are observed to be negligible under current or future basin-wide water demand projections. As indicated in Tables 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16, with the 2050 demands including the Union County IBT under each Yadkin River Basin alternative (1,2A, 2B, 3,4,5 and 11), annual average High Rock Lake modeled elevations for the POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2 period are no lower than Tables 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16 additionally indicate that with the 2050 demands oft the Union County IBT from Tuckertown Reservoir (Alternative 2B), annual average High Rock Lake  the baseline operations with current basin-wide water demands.  263    Hlan Coty Fuhh Worhs Emionmariall impari Siaement  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES HR  elevations for the Drought 1 and 2 periods are approximately 1-inch lower, as compared to baseline operations with future (Year 2050) basin-wide water demands. Impacts on elevations are observed to be negligible, on an average annual average basis, for the POR analysis for Alternative 2B. Additionally, impacts are observed to be negligible to High Rock Lake for any of the other alternatives (1,2A, 3, 4,5and 11) for the POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2 periods. As indicated by Tables 5-11, 5-12 and 5-13, impacts to lake elevations were observed in Tuckertown Reservoir under Alternative 2B, where al Union County IBT would withdraw water from Tuckertown Reservoir. During the POR, impacts to lake elevations are considered minor, resulting in elevation deviations from the baseline scenarios approximately 1% to 2% of the time. However, during both Drought 1 and Drought 2, these impacts are moderate with deviations from the baseline scenarios approximately 10% to 14% of the time during these shorter drought periods. Additionally, minor impacts during Drought 1 and 2 are observed under Alternative 2A (Narrows Reservoir withdrawals), with future projected basin-wide water demands, with deviations approximately 1% to 2% of the time. For all other alternatives (1,3,4, 5and 11), impacts to lake elevations in Tuckertown Reservoir are observed to be negligible, As indicated in Tables 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16, with the 2050 demands of the Union County IBT from Tuckertown Reservoir (Alternative 2B), annual average Tuckertown Reservoir elevations for the Drought 1 period would be about 5 inches lower and about 2 inches lower during the Drought 2 period as compared to baseline operations with current basin-wide water demands. Noi impact to average elevations is modeled during the POR for Alternative 2B. Additionally, no other alternative (1,2A, 3,4, 5and 11) is modeled to have more than a negligible impact to Tuckertown Reservoir elevations during the POR, Drought 1 or Drought 2 periods. Tables 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16 additionally indicate that with the 2050 demands of the Union County IBT from Tuckertown Reservoir (Alternative 2B), annual average Tuckertown Reservoir elevations for the Drought 1 period would be about 5 inches lower and about 1 inch lower during the Drought 2 period as compared to baseline operations with future (Year 2050) basin-wide water demands. No impact to average elevations is modeled during the POR for Alternative 2B. Additionally, no other alternative (1, 2A,3,4,5 5and 11) is modeled tol have more thana negligible impact to Tuckertown Reservoir elevations during the POR, Drought 1 or Drought 2  Tuckertown Reservoir  under current and projected future basin-wide water demands.  periods.  Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)  Asi indicated by Tables 5-11, 5-12 and 5-13, impacts to lake elevations were observed in Narrows Reservoir under both Alternative 2A and 2B, where a Union County IBT would withdraw water from Narrows Reservoir (Alternative 2A) or Tuckertown Reservoir (Alternative 2B). During the POR, impacts to lake elevations are considered minor under Alternative 2B, resulting in elevation deviations from the baseline scenarios approximately 1% of the time. Under Alternative 2A, the impacts are considered moderate during the POR, with elevation deviations from the baseline scenarios approximately 7% of the time. During both Drought 1 and  2d    un County PE works EiwhtAHgau: Fianehi  ENVIROMMENTAI CONSE OUENCES HR  Drought 2, these impacts are considered moderate under Alternative 2A, with deviations from the baseline scenarios approximately 9% to 12% of the time during these shorter drought periods. Additionally, impacts under Alternative 2B during the Drought 1 period are noted as being moderate when future basin-wide water demands are applied. For all other alternatives (1,3,4,5and 11), impacts to lake elevations in Narrows Reservoir are observed to be negligible, under current and projected future basin-wide water demands. As indicated in Tables 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16, with the 2050 demands of the Union County IBT from Narrows Reservoir (Alternative 2A), annual average Narrows Reservoir elevations for the Drought 1 period would be about 4-inches lower and about 1-inch lower for the Drought2 period, as compared to baseline operations with current basin-wide water demands. Additionally, the proposed withdrawal from Tuckertown Reservoir (Alternative. 2B) would lower annual average Narrows Reservoir elevations for the Drought 1 period by about 1-inch. No impact to average elevations is modeled during the POR for any alternative. Additionally, no other alternative (1,3,4,5a and 11)i is modeled to have more than a negligible impact to Narrows Tables 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16 additionally indicate that with the 2050 demands of the Union County IBT from Narrows Reservoir (Alternative 2A), annual average Narrows Reservoir elevations would be approximately 1-inch lower over the POR, 4-inches lower during the Drought 1 period and about 1-inch lower for the Drought 2 period, as compared to baseline operations with future (Year 2050) basin-wide water demands. Additionally, the proposed withdrawal from Tuckertown Reservoir (Alternative 2B) would lower annual average Narrows Reservoir elevations for both the Drought 1 and Drought 2 periods by about 1-inch, but no modeled change to average elevations over POR. No other alternative (1,3,4,5and 11)is modeled to have more than a negligible impact to Narrows Reservoir elevations during the  Reservoir elevations during the Drought 1 or Drought 2 periods.  POR, Drought 1 or Drought 2 periods.  Falls Reservoir  As indicated by Tables 5-11, 5-12 and 5-13, impacts to lake elevations were observed in Falis Reservoir under Alternative 2A and 2B, where a Union County IBT would withdraw water from Narrows Reservoir and Tuckertown Reservoir, respectively. During the POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2, impacts to lake elevations are considered minor, resulting in elevation deviations from the baseline scenarios approximately 1% to 2% of the time. For all other alternatives (1,3, 4,5and 11), impacts to lake elevations in Falls Reservoir are observed to be negligible under As indicated in Tables 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16, with the 2050 demands including the Union County IBT under each Yadkin River Basin alternative (1,2A, 2B, 3,4 4,5and 11), annual average Falls Reservoir modeled elevations for the POR and Drought 1 periods are no lower than the baseline operations with current basin-wide water demands. However, during the Drought 2 period, withdrawals from Narrows Reservoir (Alternative 2A) and Tuckertown Reservoir (Alternative 2B) result in annual average Falls Reservoir elevations approximately 1-inch lower than the baseline condition. For all other alternatives (1,3,4, 5a and 11), impacts are observed  current and projected future basin-wide water demands.  to be negligible during the Drought 2 period.  255    Union County Public Works Eironmental impaci Statement  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ER  Tables 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16 additionally indicate that with the 2050 demands of the Union County IBT under each Yadkin River Basin alternative (1,2A,2B,3,4,5and 11), annual average Falls Reservoir elevations for the POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2 periods are not modeled as being any lower than the baseline operations with future (Year 2050) basin-wide  water demands. Lake Tillery  As indicated by Tables 5-11, 5-12 and 5-13, impacts to lake elevations were observed to be negligible to Lake Tillery as the result of Union County's proposed IBT under Alternatives 1,2A, 2B,3,4,5or 11, based on current basin-wide water demands. Even direct withdrawals from Lake Tillery as proposed under Alternative 1 are not observed to change elevations within the lake. However, under future projected. basin-wide water demands during the Drought. 1 period only, Union County's proposed IBT under Alternatives 1,3,4,5 5and 11 are observed to have minor impacts on elevations withinl Lake Tillery,with deviations approximately 1% to 2% of the time. Although, elevation impacts are considered negligible for these alternatives during the POR or Drought 2 period, even with the increased projected future basin-wide water demands. As indicated in Tables 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16, with the 2050 demands of the Union County IBT under Alternatives 1,2A, 2B, 3,4,5 and 11, model results do not indicate a notable difference in annual average Lake Tillery elevations for the POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2 periods as compared to the baseline operations with current basin-wide water demands. Tables 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16 additionally indicate that with the 2050 demands oft the Union County IBT under Alternatives 1, 2A, 2B, 3,4,5and 11, model results do not indicate a notable difference in annual average Lake Tillery elevations for the POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2 periods when compared to the baseline operations with future (Year 2050) basin-wide water  demands. Blewett Falls Lake  Asi indicated by Tables 5-11, 5-12 and 5-13, minor impacts to lake elevations were observed in Blewett Falls Lake under Alternative 1,3,4, 5 and 11, where a Union County IBT would withdraw' water from either Lake Tillery (Alternatives 1 and 11), Blewett Falls Lake (Alternative 3), the Pee Dee River (Alternative 4), or the Rocky River (Alternative 5). During the POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2, impacts to lake elevations are considered minor, resulting in elevation deviations from the baseline scenarios approximately 1% to 2% of the time. Iti is noted that any oft the proposed withdrawals (including the non-IBT Alternative 5Rocky River withdrawal) from Duke Energy Progress' Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project or tributaries flowing to Blewett Falls Lake could have a minor impact on the elevation of Blewett Falls Lake. For alternatives with withdrawals outside of the Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project (2A and 2B), impacts to As indicated in Tables 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16, with the 2050 demands of the Union County IBT under Alternatives 1, 2A, 2B,3,4, 5and 11, model results do not indicate a notable difference in  lake elevations in Blewett Falls Lake are observed to be negligible.  266    Union County Public Works Enviionmental Inpace Staisment  ENVIROMMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ER  annual average Blewett Falls Lake elevations for the POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2 periods when compared to the baseline operations with current basin-wide water demands. Tables 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16 additionally indicate that with the 2050 demands of the Union County IBT under Alternatives 1,3 3,4, 5 and 11, annual average Blewett Falls Lake elevations for the Drought 1 period would be about 1-inch lower, as compared to baseline operations with future (Year 2050) basin-wide water demands. However, during both the POR and Drought 2 periods, there are no modeled differences in average lake elevations for the alternatives as compared to the baseline condition. Withdrawals under Alternatives 2A and 2B are not modeled to affect Blewett Falls Lake average elevations under the POR, Drought 1 or Drought 2 periods. Generally, the CHEOPSTM, modeling results for Alternatives 1,3 3,4, 5and 11, with water withdrawals from Duke Energy Progress operated lakes (Lake Tillery or Blewett Falls Lake) or tributaries flowing thereto, show impacts on lake elevations to be negligible to minor, when compared to the respective baseline scenario. Only slight reductions in elevations were noted in these reservoirs for small percentages of time under the aforementioned alternatives, typically resulting in annual average elevation differences less than % -inch, even with the higher Year- 2050 basin-wide water use projections and during extreme drought periods. However, under Alternatives 2A and 2B, for withdrawals from APGI operated lakes, moderate impacts on reservoir elevations are apparent in Tuckertown Reservoir and Narrows Reservoir due to elevated percentages of the time below defined full pond and/or target operating curve levels, when compared to the baseline scenarios. While average annual lake elevations under these alternatives are typically less than 1-inch below the baseline scenario, the alternatives do appear to increase the percentage of time the reservoirs spend below their full pond and/or target elevations. Based on the modeling results, it appears that withdrawals from APGI operated lakes as proposed in Alternatives 2A and 2B have a greater negative effect on overall basin lake levels than do the proposed withdrawals of Alternatives 1,3,4, 5 and 11. Ina addition to the PMS metric evaluation, the elevation and storage exceedance curves and comparisons for each reservoir under the various IBT alternatives, as depicted in Appendix E, CD-2, generally reflect only negligible to minor differences between any of the alternatives when compared to baseline conditions over the POR or during the Drought 1 and Drought 2 periods. The greatest differences reflected by these charts confirm the conclusion that Alternatives 2A and 2B have a greater negative (moderate) impact on lake elevations and system-wide water storage, than the other proposed IBT alternatives from the Yadkin River Basin.  Summary  Ofi important consideration to owners of water supply intakes in the Yadkin River Basin lake system is the effect of water withdrawals on lake elevations related to operability of these intakes. In times of reduced system inflow (i.e. droughts), water supply intakes may be vulnerable to inoperability (not being able to take in water from the source) or reduced operability because of falling lake levels. Additional water withdrawals within the lake system  267    Union County Public Works Emitonmental Impact Siatement  ENVIROMMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ER  increase outflows from the system and can subsequently exacerbate the effect ofl low lake Given this consideration, the effect of each Union County surface water supply alternative from the Yadkin River Basin was evaluated in CHEOPSTM. for their effect on lake elevations, relative to the critical intake elevations in each reservoir. The critical intake is defined as the highest intake in each reservoir, which represents the first intake that could be exposed due to falling lake levels during times ofl lowi inflow. This evaluation was completed to determine if any of the IBT alternatives negatively affected lake levels such that other water supply intakes were Results from the applicable PMS for the model analysis are summarized in the following tables, by reservoir, alternative and baseline scenario comparison (BLY-2012 or BLY-2050). Potential negative impacts, as compared to the "baseline" scenarios, are denoted by" "-" (Negligible Impact, with no detectable modeled impact, as compared to baseline), "MI" (Minor Impact, typically resulting in negative impact of >0% and <5%, as compared to baseline), "MO" (Moderate Impact, typically resulting in negative impact of 5% to <15%, as compared to baseline), and "MA" (Major Impact, typically resulting in negative impact of 15% or greater. For As shown in the summary tables, there impacts to water supply intakes due to restricted intake operation are observed to be negligible for any of the proposed Yadkin River Basin IBT alternatives (1,2A, 2B,3,4,5or 11), as compared to the baseline scenarios for both current and future projected basin-wide water use. Furthermore, under no scenario were there any days inv which modeled lake elevations were low enough to restrict water supply intake operation on any reservoir. Additionally, minimum modeled lake elevations remain well above all existing lake intakes. As such, impacts were determined to be negligible ("-), based on this metric. Table 5-17 Period of Record (1955 to2 2013)Water Withdrawal (ntake) Impacts, Based on Number of Days of  levels on intake operability.  jeopardized.  detailed results of the PMS, see Appendix E, CD-2.  Restricted Operation artaketocated) intakes  Reservoir  Comparison to BLY-2012 Current Comparison to BLY-2050 Future (2012) Basin-Wide Water Use With (2050) Basin-Wide Water Use With 1 2A 2B 3 4 5 11 1 2A 2B 3 4 5 11  Union County 2050 IBT Alternative  Union County 2050 IBT Alternative  W. Kerr Scott High Rock Tuckertown Narrows (Badin) Falls Tillery Blewet! Falls  "= Negligible Impaclno detectable impact); M!"= Minor Impaci (>0% lo <5%): "MO"= Moderate Impact (5% to  <15%); MA"= Major Impact (215%)  268    Union County Public Works Enwonnentar impact Statement  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ER  TabS18DouADT03Mater Withdrawal (Intake). Impacts, Based on Number of Days of  Restricted Operation at Lake Located intakes  Reservoir  Comparison to BLY-2012 Current Comparison to BLY-2050 Future (2012) Basin-Wide Water Use With (2050) Basin-Wide Water Use With 1 2A 2B 3 4 5 11 1 2A 2B 3 4 5 11  Union County 2050 IBT Alternative  Union County 2050 IBT Alternative  W. Kerr Scott High Rock Tuckertown Narrows (Badin) Falls Tillery Blewett Falls  ""= Negligible Impact"no detectable impact); MI"= Minor Impact (>0% to <5%); "MO"= Moderate Impact (5% to Table5-19 Drought 2(2006 to2009) Water Withdrawal (intake) Impacts, Based on Number of Days of  <15%); "MA"= Major Impact (215%) Restricted Operation att Lake Located intakes  Reservoir  Comparison to BLY-2012 Current Comparison to BLY-2050 Future (2012) Basin-Wide Water Use With (2050) Basin-Wide Water Use With 2A 2B 3 4 5 11 1 2A 2B 3 4 5 11  Union County 2050 IBT Alternative  Union County 2050 IBT Alternative  W. Kerr Scott High Rock Tuckertown Narrows (Badin) Falls Tillery Blewett Falls  ""=/ Negligible Impact" (no detectable impact); MI"= Minor Impact (>0% to <5%); "MO"= Moderate Impact (5% to  <15%); "MA"= Major Impaci (215%) Reservoir Discharge  For ecological considerations ànd certain recreational interests int the' Yadkin River Basin the effect of water withdrawals on reservoir discharges (downstream releases) from these lakes is ofi importance. In times of reduced system inflow (i.e. droughts), the ecological health or recreational uses (e.g. kayaking or canoeing) of the waterway can be negatively affected. During normal periods (i.e. normal inflow), both the APGI and Duke Energy Progress hydroelectric projects are required to make certain downstream releases from the reservoirs under the operating agreements between the two entities and as required under their respective FERC licenses. During periods of reduced inflow to the system, the LIP specifies reductions to these release requirements, based on particular drought stages, while seeking to provide discharges at al level sufficient to maintain the ecological health of the waterway. However, additional water withdrawals within the lake system increase outflows from the system and may  269    STANLY) ) COUNTY Water Ai Lard, Sacoess. September7,2016 Ms. Kim Nimmer Division of Water Resources 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-611  RE: Union County Inter-Basin Transfer Certificate Request  Dear Ms. Nimmer:  Onl behalf of the Stanly County Board of Commissioners, please allow this correspondence to express their concerns asi it relates to Union County's request fora a 23 million gallons per day (MGD)Inter-Basin' Transfer (IBT) from the Multiple Stanly County municipalities haver raw wateri intakes alongt the Yadkin Riverb basin, and the Yadkin-Pee Dee ist the County'ss sole waters source. Based on Union County's final Environmentall Impact Statement (EIS), they year 2050 water demand model (evaluated usingt the CHEOPS tool) suggests there willr not be any adversei impact tol lake levels or water withdrawals alongt the Yadkin River basin under normal conditions. However, the model does suggest there willl be: ar minimal impact tol Lake' Tillery'sl lake level during conditions similar to they year 1999-2003 drought (referred to as thel Drought 1 period in thel EIS). Stanly County requests the 1% to 2%i identifiedi impact be Thus, under similar drought conditions ori ins situations of more: severe droughta an adverse impact tol lake levelsi is likely to occur. Significant variations inl lake levels willi impact property valuesandi recreational opportunities. Please note, lake basedt tourism generates significant sales tax revenue: for Stanly County. Stanly County appreciates ther regional approach to sharing natural resources, andi ita appears much oft the analysis in the final EIS isi reasonably supported. At the same time, itis unclear whether or not they year 2050 water demand models sufficiently: addresses the potential basin wide residential and commercial growth inc counties such as Stanly, Montgomery, Rowan andI Davidson and the overalli impact on water availability: and demand. Further, Stanly County believes iti isi important: a comprehensive, independent analysis oft the proposed IBT's water demand model conclusions be conducted to ensure thei model's assumptions. and data are accurate. Stanly County understands and appreciates the benefits oft the proposed IBT tol both Union County and the' Town of Norwood. At thes same time, iti is thel Board's desire to makes sure: sufficient water resources willl be available for our future growth and prosperity. Your kind review and consideration are: appreciated. Thank you.  Yadkin River basin to thel Rocky! River sub-basin.  quantified in feet sot thei impact is more transparent.  Sincerely, Andrew M. Lucas County Manager 704.986.3600 704.986.3133 oowstanlycomoncsw, County Manager's Office  10001 N. First Street, Suite 10A, Albemarle, NC: 28001    Revised 10/19/2007  Stanly County Board of Commissioners  STANLY)COUNTY Kter An Lars Sccer.  Meeting Date Presenter:  September 6, 2016 Terry Scott Efird, Chairman ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED  7  Consent Agenda Regular Agenda  Resolution of Support for One-Quarter Cent (1/4f) Sales Tax Special Advisory Referendum Attached please find a resolution re-affirming the Board's support for a special advisory sales tax  referendum on the November 8, 2016 general election ballot.  Review and consider adopting a resolution supporting the Special Advisory Referendum on the November 8, 2016 general election ballot concerning the levy of a one quarter cent (1/4) county sales and use tax with the proceeds dedicated for public education and public safety.  Dept: Governing Body Attachments: X yes  Date: 08/30/2016  no  Review Process  Certification of Action Certified to be a true copy of the: action taken by the Stanly County Board of Commissioners on  Approved Yes No Initials  Finance Director County Attorney County Manager Other:  Budget Amendment Necessary  Tyler Brummitt, Clerk tot thel Board  Date    Resolution in Support oft the Scheduled November 8, 2016S Special Advisory Referendum to Increase the Stanly County Sales' Tax Ratel by 14% for Public Education and Public Safety WHEREAS, on August 8, 2016 the Stanly County Board of Commissioners called for as special advisory referendum and stated itsi intent to use the revenue from the Article 46 one-quarter cent (1/4c)County sales and use tax, ifapproved by the voters of Stanly County, to fund initiatives related to publiceducation WHEREAS, an additional 1/4 % sales tax would: shift some ofthe financial burden associated with paying for educational and public safety initiatives to visitors traveling, shopping or dining in Stanly County; and WHEREAS, with the exception of Union County, the sales tax ratei in neighboring counties (Anson, Cabarrus, Davidson, Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Randolph and Rowan) is currently at least 14%1 higher WHEREAS, there have been many on-going operational and facility maintenance needsi identified by both the Stanly County School Board and the Stanly Community College Board of Trustees; and WHEREAS, public safety services: such as fire, law enforcement, emergency medical services and 911 are core local government functions that must continue to be prioritized with respect to funding; NOW' THEREFORE, BEI IT RESOLVED the Stanly County Board of Commissioners re-affirmsi itsi intent to utilize the revenue from an additional 14% sales tax to financially assist the Stanly County School system, Stanly Community College and public safety services, and the Board encourages taxpayers to support the  and public safety; and  than Stanly County; and  passage of this additional 14% sales tax referendum. ADOPTED this the 6th day of September, 2016  Terry Scott Efird, Chairman  Bill Lawhon, Vice Chairman  Peter Asciutto, Commissioner  Joseph Burleson, Commissioner  Tony M. Dennis, Commissioner Gene Mcintyre, Commissioner  Janet K.I Lowder, Commissioner  ATTEST:  Tyler Brummitt, Clerk to the Board    Revised 10/19/2007  Stanly County Board ofCommissioners  Meeting Date  September 6, 2016 Commissioner Peter Asciutto ITEM' TOBE CONSIDERED  B  STANLY) COUNTY  Consent Agenda Regular Agenda  Water An Lol Sarest, Presenter:  Discussion Regarding Universal Elections  Commissioner Asciutto is seeking to engage the Board in a discussion regarding universal elections.  Discussion and consideration ofCommissioner Asciutto's agenda item.  Signature: Date: 8/31/2016  Dept Governing Body Attachments:  Yes Certification of Action Certified tol be a true copy of the action taken by the Stanly County Board of Commissioners on  X No  Review Process  Approved Yes No Initials  Finance Director County Attorney County Manager Other:  Budget Amendment Necessary  Tyler Brummitt, Clerk to the Board  Date    Stanly County Board of Commissioners  STANU)COUNTY Meeting Date: September 6, 2016  Presenter: Chairman Efird  9  Water An lanlSacuar.  Consent Agenda Regular Agenda  Presentation Equipment: Lectern PC* Lectern VCR Lectern DVD Document Camera** Laptop*** *PCise equipped with' Windows XP: and Microsoft Office. XP (including Word, Excel, and PowerPoint), Internet connectivity and Network connectivity ** Ifyoul have need to use the Document Camera and: zoom into: a particular area, ifp possible please attach a copy oft the document with the: areai indicated  Please Provide al Brief Description of your Presentations format: that you need toz zoomi into. AI laser lighti is available to pinpoint your area of projection. *** You can bringi ina a laptop that will: allow video out to be connected: att thel lectern- set display to6 60Mhz.  for County Employees.  ITEMT TO BE CONSIDERED  CONSENT AGENDA  A. Minutes = Regular meeting on August 8, 2016.  B. Library = Request Board approve changes to the Oakboro Branch Library hours as requested.  Sheriff's Office - Request approval of budget amendment # 2017-06. D. Airport- - Request approval of budget amendment # 2017-05. E. Finance - Request approval of the attached vehicle tax refunds.  Request approval of the above items as presented.  Signature: Date:  Dept. Attachments:  Yes Certification of Action Certified to be at true copy of the action taken by the Stanly County Board of Commissioners on  No  Review Process  Approved Yes No Initials  Finance Director County Attorney County Manager Other:  Budget Amendment Necessary  Tyler Brummitt, Clerk tot the Board  Date    qA  STANLYC COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 8, 2016  COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:  T. Scott Efird, Chairman Peter Asciutto Joseph Burleson Tony M. Dennis Janet K. Lowder Gene Mcintyre  ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:  Bill Lawhon, Vice Chairman Andy Lucas, County Manager Jenny Furr, County Attorney Tyler Brummitt, Clerk  CALL TO ORDER  The Stanly County Board of Commissioners (the "Board") met in regular session on Monday, August 8, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commissioners Meeting Room, Stanly Commons. Chairman Efird called the meeting to order with Commissioner Mcintyre leading the invocation and  pledge of allegiance.  APPAOVAL/ADIUSIMENTS TO THE AGENDA  Due to Vice Chairman Lawhon's absence, Chairman Efird requested the Board take action to excuse him from the meeting. Commissioner Dennis moved to do sO and was seconded by By motion, Chairman Efird requested that item # 6- Law Enforcement Support Resolution be moved and added as item # 2A on the agenda. Commissioner Lowder seconded the motion  Commissioner Mcintyre. Motion carried by unanimous vote.  which passed by unanimous vote.  ITEM # 1 - RETIREMENT AWARD PRESENTATION FOR JUDIE DEMUTH, FORMER HEALTH The Board took a moment to recognize Ms. Judie DeMuth for her thirty-two (32) years of  DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTII  service to the county.  Page 1 of12    ITEM#2A-LAWI ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT RESOLUTION  Presenter: Chairman Scott Efird  For consideration, Chairman Efird read the proclamation followed by a request for its adoption. By motion, Commissioner Dennis moved to adopt the resolution as presented and was  seconded by Commissioner Lowder. The motion carried by unanimous vote.  See Exhibit A  Resolution in Support of All Law Enforcement Officers  ITEM#2B- -S SHERIFF'S OFFICE AWARD PRESENTATIONS  Presenter: Sherriff George Burris  Sheriff Burris was in attendance to make the following presentations: Detective Sergeant George Miller and Captain Roddy Tomberlin received Advanced Certificate awards and Sergeant Mike Haigler received both the Advanced Service and Training & Service awards. ITEM#3-P PRESENTATION ON THE LANDTRUST FOR CENTRAL NORTH CAROLINA  Presenter: Travis Morehead, Executive Director  For the Board's information, Mr. Morehead provided an overview of the services provided by the Landtrust for Central North Carolina. The non-profit organization has a volunteer board of directors which serves a ten (10) county region in central North Carolina. Staff works closely with the board to identify properties that should be protected and preserved in addition to also working with families and their communities to understand the options available to protect and  conserve these properties.  The presentation was for information only and required no action from the Board. TEMB4-TAXCOLECTORS ANNUAL SETTLEMENT FOR FY: 2015-16  Presenter: Clinton Swaringen, Tax Administrator  Pursuant to GS 105-373, the Tax Collector presented the annual settlement report to the Board which provides an overview of the collection activity for the year. The statutory remedies of garnishment, attachment, debt setoff, escheat and pre-foreclosure have been utilized to the extent possible for collection of taxes. As part of the settlement, it was also requested the Board charge the Tax Collector with collecting taxes for the current 2016--2017 fiscal year. By motion, Commissioner Lowder moved to accept and approve the annual settlement report and charge the Tax Collector with collection of the current fiscal year taxes. Commissioner  Burleson seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote.  Page2of12    TEM#S-PLANNING & ZONING Presenter: Michael Sandy, Planning Director A. CUP 16-01 - Rex Greg and Gina Slack  Mr. Sandy stated that Mr. and Mrs. Slack have requested an amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 07-01 to remove condition # 9-' "Construction on applicant's house located on Lot 10 in the Running Creek Estates Subdivision will begin within one year ofi issuance of certificate ofoccupancy for the business." The CUP is for Lot 11 in the subdivision and is located at 28727 Hunters Lane Albemarle, NC (Tax Record Numbers 29041 and 29042). The business was constructed in 2007 on the portion of Lot 11 which was zoned as M1-CUP with 9 conditions recommended by the Planning Board and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. The business, known as S&SS Saw Service, is operated by Rex Greg and Gina Slack and is located ina 9,000 square foot building located in the M1-CUP zoned district. Lot 10 has a 2,000 square foot barn for horses. Because no home has been constructed on the lot, the owners are not in compliance with requirement # 9 of the CUP. After receiving an inquiry in March 2016, Stanly County Planning Staff informed the owners they must come into compliance with the CUP. The Slacks have decided to request an amendment to the CUP since they have indicated to staff that they plan to build a home on Lot 10 in the future, but are not prepared to do sO at the present time. Planning Staff recommended removal of condition #9 due to there being no adverse impact due to the business being located on the property. The Planning Board forwarded the case to the county commissioners with a recommendation to approve CUP 16-  01.  Chairman Efird introduced the item stating that CUP 16-01 is a request by Greg and Gina Slack for an amendment to CUP 07-05. The hearing on this matter is quasi-judicial in nature and will be conducted in accordance with special due process safeguards. He then requested that all persons wishing to testify in the case to please sign in if they have not already done sO and to proceed to the front of the room to be sworn in. Chairman Efird continued stating that the issuance of a CUP is made based on a quasi-judicial hearing. Therefore, the NC State General Statutes requires that the Board of County Commissioners base its decisions only on testimony given under oath. Any person who while under oath during this proceeding willfully swears falsely is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. If anyone refuses to be sworn, your statements will not be treated as evidence on which to base a decision but merely as arguments. The following individuals were sworn in: Ms. Gina Slack, Mr. Keith Andrews, Mr. Jerry Burleson, Mr. Tony  Miller and Mr. Lanny Burleson.  Prior to opening the public hearing, Chairman Efird requested the Board members reveal any possible conflicts they may have and to withdraw from the proceedings if necessary. None  were noted.  Page 30 of12    Chairman Efird requested if any Board members have information or special knowledge of the case, have been contacted by the property owners, or by anyone for or against the case to please describe this information for the record sO that interested persons can respond during the hearing. Commissioner Burleson stated that Ms. Slack had contacted him when the issue of non-compliance arose and he referred her to Planning Staff for further direction.  Chairman Efird noted the Order of Business for the hearing would be to hear from Planning Staff first, the applicant and their witnesses secondly, followed by opponents to the request. Parties may cross-examine witnesses after each testifies when questions are called for and any written evidence to be reviewed by the Board should ask that it be introduced during or at the end of their testimony. It was also requested that each witness clearly identify themselves for  the record prior to beginning their testimony.  Chairman Efird declared the public hearing open. Property owner Ms. Gina Slack came forward to speak in favor of the request and presented a map and petition signed by nearby property owners in support of the request. With no objections from the Board, the information was submitted as evidence. Ms. Slack stated that after the CUP was granted in July 2008, shortly thereafter her husband was diagnosed with cancer. After the first year, she contacted Mr. Sandy to notify him that due to her husband's illness, the building of a home would be delayed indefinitely. Planning Staff responded stating that the Slacks should still work toward the goal of building the home but that it would not be an issue unless someone filed a complaint. During this time, S& S Saw Service submitted letters annually indicating the company was still in business. Mr. Sandy requested that Ms. Slack contact the Planning Department should any changes to the status of the business occur. Ms. Slack explained that her husband's medical condition has continued to be a challenge, but that the business continues to operate and  employs five (5)people.  Following Ms. Slack's testimony, Commissioner McIntyre asked if the Slacks request is to remove condition # 9 or modify it to where there is no time limit to construct the home. Ms. Slack reiterated her intentions to build al home in the future noting that she spends a lot of time there now due to the business and having horses located on the property. She also stated that by removing the condition, it would be less stressful for her husband while dealing with his  health issues.  Prior to staff testimony, Planning Director Michael Sandy was sworn in since he was not under oath at the time of his previous testimony. Mr. Sandy restated the request and referenced the report given earlier and asked that this information be considered in order to proceed.  Page 4of12    With no questions from the Board, the public hearing continued.  To answer Commissioner Mcintyre's earlier question as to whether or not to remove condition #9orn modify it, Mr. Sandy stated that either decision would have the same effect. Dr. Keith Andrew of Noritake Trail and neighbor of the Slacks came forward in support of their request. He stated that while attending the Planning Board meeting in June, complaints of gunshots and other noise coming from the Slacks property were mentioned. Mr. Andrew stated that the noise is not coming from the Slacks' property but surrounding areas. Mr. Jerry Burleson also addressed the Board in support of the request stating that his land adjoins their property and that they are exemplary people who are an asset to the community.  He feels for their situation and supports their request to amend the CUP.  Commissioner Mcintyre addressed Mr. Sandy to ask if condition #9i is removed, would it affect the business. Mr. Sandy responded no, but the Slacks would still be in violation since all conditions of the CUP have not been met and would be fined. Commissioner Lowder asked for the amount of the fines to which Mr. Sandy stated that the first violation is $50, second violation is $200 and the third violation is $500 and would remain at $500 daily until the  violation is corrected.  Chairman Efird then asked for anyone opposed to the request to come forward. Mr. Tony Miller of 28751 Hunters Lane stated that he had opposed the rezoning in 2007 when he learned it was to construct a building for a backyard business. After being approved by the county, he learned the business included construction of a 100 'x 100' metal building with the condition that the Slacks would begin construction of a home within one year. He indicated conçerns with the shooting range that is located on the property as well and the effect the noise has on himself and his wife at their home. He stated that illness and death are at fact of life and should  have no bearing on the Board's decision.  Mr. Lanny Burleson of Salisbury and owner of a farm near the Slacks' property spoke against the request. He noted his opposition to the original rezoning in 2007 and the proposed amendment due to concerns of what may happen if the property is sold and another business locates there. Mr. Burleson also felt that it is a bad precedent to determine a zoning issue  based on an individual's health.  With no other testimonies, Chairman Efird entertained questions from the Board. For clarification, Commissioner Dennis asked Mr. Sandy to verify that when zoned M1, only the  Page! e5of12    business stated on the Conditional Use Permit is allowed to operate on the property to which  Mr. Sandy replied yes, that is correct.  Inr response, Ms. Slack stated that when they originally applied for the CUP, it was explained that only the business listed on the CUP application could operate on the 3.1 acre tract and the remaining property would remain RA Resdental-grcutural, Ms. Slack stated that half of the shop is used for the business and the other half houses Mr. Slack's race car. A shooting range is located on the RA property as well and is used approximately twice a month. With no further questions or comments from the Board, staff, or other parties present, Chairman Efird stated that once the hearing is closed, no additional facts or arguments may be presented. He then declared the public hearing closed and opened the floor for further  discussion.  Commissioner Burleson stated his support of the removal of condition # 9 noting that in his opinion, this is the reason the county has Conditional Use Permits and feels the Slacks are using it for the purpose intended with the best of intentions. He feels deeply for them and would  support removal of condition # 9ofthe CUP.  With no further comments or discussion, Chairman Efird stated the Board will review the four 1. Finding # 1-That the project will maintain or enhance the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed, and if developed and operated according to the plan Commissioner Dennis made the motion to find this fact to be true based on the evidence presented and was seconded by Commissioner Burleson. The motion carried by unanimous 2. Finding # 2-That the project will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Commissioner Dennis made the motion to find this fact to be true based on the evidence presented and was seconded by Commissioner Burleson. Motion passed with a 6-Ovote. 3. Finding # 3-1 That the project has adequate sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water provisions; police, fire and rescue squad protection; and transportation systems/roads Commissioner McIntyre made the motion to find this fact true based on the evidence presented and was seconded by Commissioner Dennis. Motion carried by unanimous vote. Chairman Efird stated the Board finds this fact to be true based on the evidence presented.  findings of fact:  submitted.  vote. Chairman Efird: stated the Board finds this fact tol bei true.  Chairman Efird stated the Board finds this fact to be true.  available within and around the site.  Page 6of12    4. Finding # 4 - That the project complies with the general plans for physical development of the County as contained in the Land Use Plan as adopted by the Board of Commissioners in Commissioner Dennis made the motion to find this fact to be true based on the evidence presented and was seconded by Commissioner Burleson. The motion passed by a 6-0  2010.  vote. Chairman Efird stated the Board finds this fact to be true.  Chairman Efird then requested a motion to approve the Findings of Fact, the Conditional Use Permit with the revised conditions to remove condition # 9, and the zoning as CU-M1. Commissioner Dennis moved to approve the items as stated and was seconded by  Commissioner Burleson. The motion passed by unanimous vote.  B. ZA16-04-1 Ron and Sheila Bales  Mr. Sandy began by stating that Mr. and Ms. Bales had submitted a request to rezone approximately 2.5 acres of a 23.32 acre tract located at 24285 NC 49 Hwy South, Richfield, NC from RA (Residential Agricultural) to GB (General Business). A portion of the property is currently zoned RA and a portion is zoned GB. The 2.5 acres is located adjacent to and south of the present GB zoning district extending to Hwy 49 (Tax Record Number 8384). This highway is designated as a North Carolina Scenic Byway which is a designation by the NCDOT and is for tourist purposes and does not include any development restrictions. Planning Staff recommended the project as it is located in a growth corridor along a moderately traveled road with nearby property zoned Highway Business and M1-Light Industrial. At the Planning Board meeting on June 13, 2016, those who spoke against the rezoning expressed concerns related to the current condition of the General Business section of the Bales property and that the property could be an example of spot zoning. The Planning Board forwarded this case to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to deny ZA 16-04 because the  property isi in violation of zoning compliance.  With no questions from the Board at the time, Chairman Efird declared the public hearing open and requested those who would like to speak in favor of the rezoning to come forward. Mr. Ron Bales came forward stating he has lived on the property for twenty-seven (27) years and owned a small business known as Carolina Crane Repairs from 1992 - 2013. In January 2013, he sold the business to his brother-in-law and his business partner. After his brother-in- law passed earlier this year, the business partner got behind on the payments. Mr. Bales, who had co-signed on the note, took the business back. Mr. Bales stated since he is no longer physically able to make repairs to signs, he began selling commercial trucks as part of his business and placed them at the front of his property next to the highway. When Mr. Cosgrove  Page 7of12    filed a complaint, Mr. Bales moved the trucks to the back of the property and filed an application to request the property be rezoned for GB since the original rezoning approved in 1993 did not include road frontage. For the Board's information, he submitted his employee  payroll records as evidence.  With no one else coming forward, Chairman Efird requested those opposed to the rezoning to  come forward.  Dr. James Link of 24249 Hwy 49 South in Richfield, NC spoke on behalf of himself and three other landowners (Mr. and Mrs. Richard Cosgrove, Mr. Randy Sells and Mr. Michael Sells) whose property borders Mr. Bales. He noted concerns related to the impact that past and the currently proposed zoning requests have had on the value of their own properties. The property along the highway consists of rolling hills, pasture land and hardwoods. When Mr. Bales purchased the property in 1993, he removed an old barn and replaced it with a metal building which later became a shop and used to establish a crane repair and sign erection business. After being found in zoning violation at that time, he petitioned the Planning Board to have the property rezoned from RA to GB. When the Planning Board refused to rule on the request, it was forwarded to the County Commissioners who ruled to spot zone 4.7 acres of property behind the shop. Dr. Link stated that based on the current condition of the property, it appears to be a salvage yard and has now become a truck sales lot. He expressed conçerns that Mr. Bales will not abide by the zoning requirements and requested no further zoning  changes be approved for the property.  Jim Scarboro, attorney for Dr. Link, provided a handout which included aerial photos of the Bales property, information regarding General Business districts permitted uses, the county's 2010 Land Use Plan Sustainability Plan and the NC DOT's Scenic Byways Program. Mr. Scarboro noted the photos show debris and open storage areas on the property which are only allowed in an area zoned for heavy manufacturing. He also feels if the request is granted, this will only aid in expanding the violation area and believes that Mr. Bales should be required to come into compliance prior to requesting additional zoning amendments. Mr. Scarboro stated if the property is rezoned for General Business, this could potentially allow for numerous businesses to operate on the property and felt it would be better to consider the request as a Conditional Use Permit. On a final note, he stated the property is located on the Uwharrie Scenic Highway between Asheboro and Concord and that placing a truck sales lot on the highway would not  coincide with the NCI DOT's definition of a scenic highway.  Mr. Bales requested Zoning Officer Tim Swaringen come forward to verify that much of the debris has been removed from his property. Mr. Swaringen stated that as of his last inspection  Page 8 of12    the prior week, the owner has made considerable progress towards bringing the property into compliance but is still in violation due having seven (7) unlicensed/noperable vehicles on the property. Per the zoning ordinance, RA district properties are allowed one (1) unlicensed/ inoperable vehicle on the premises which also includes any new unlicensed vehicles.  Inr response, Mr. Bales noted that he has been a licensed NC truck dealer since 1992 and that every vehicle on his property is operational but not licensed until sold. Therefore he will have unlicensed vehicles on the property which are inspected annually by the NC Highway Patrol to  ensure compliance.  With no further comments, the public hearing was closed.  Commissioner Mcintyre made the motion to concur with the Planning Board's decision to deny ZA 16-04 and was seconded by Commissioner Lowder. The motion passed with a 5-1 vote. Ayes: Chairman Efird, Commissioner Burleson, Commissioner Dennis, Commissioner Lowder  and Commissioner Mcintyre. Nos: Commissioner Asciutto  RECESS p.m.  Chairman Efird called for a short recess at 8:35 p.m. The meeting was then reconvened at 8:40  ITEM # 6 - ONE-QUARTER CENT (1/4 CENT) SALES TAX SPECIAL ADVISORY REFERENDUM  RESOLUTION  Presenter: Chairman Scott Efird  Chairman Efird requested the Board discuss the potential adoption of a resolution calling for a Special Advisory Referendum concerning the levy of a one-quarter cent (1/4C) county sales and  use tax during the November 2016 general election.  Commissioner Burleson stated that he feels the Board should identify what the funds are to be used for and recommended they be designated for K - 12 education and public safety. Commissioner Dennis questioned if Stanly Community College would be included for funding as well. Commissioner Burleson stated he felt the referendum would be more successful if designated for K-12 only and that the community college will receive funding from the Connect NCI Bond which passed earlier this year. Commissioner McIntyre concurred with Commissioner  Burleson's comments.  Page 9of12    Commissioner Lowder disagreed with Commissioners Burleson and Mcintyre noting that the workforce training programs offered by the community college encourages economic development in the county and therefore feels that proceeds from the referendum should be for all public education to include the community college. Commissioner Dennis agreed with Commissioner Lowder's comments but also felt that public safety is important and should be  included as well.  Commissioner Lowder stated her support of the referendum only if proceeds are dedicated for public education and not for public safety. She feels that public safety has been funded adequately in the past through the county's budget appropriations and the greater need is for Commissioner Asciutto agreed with Commissioner Lowder's comments noting that the referendum failed previously when public safety was included. He feels the greater need is for public education in order to provide the tools, courses and programs in the schools as well as for school facility improvements. He stated his support of the referendum with proceeds being  public education.  designated for public education but not public safety.  By motion, Commissioner Burleson moved to designate the funds for public safety and public  education. Commissioner Mcintyre seconded the motion.  Prior to the vote, Commissioner Asciutto reiterated that he would vote against the resolution if any portion of the proceeds is designated for public safety. Commissioner Lowder stated the  same.  Commissioner Efird stated that he understands the importance of both public safety and public education and feels if the Board is not united on this, it will be difficult for the referendum to  pass.  With no further discussion, Chairman Efird restated the motion requesting adoption of a resolution calling for a special advisory referendum with proceeds dedicated to public education and public safety. With a motion and second on the floor, Chairman Efird called fora Ayes: Chairman Efird, Commissioner Burleson, Commissioner Dennis, Commissioner Mcintyre  vote. The motion passed with a 4-2vote. Nos: Commissioner Asciutto, Commissioner Lowder  See Exhibit B  Page 10 of12    A Resolution Calling For A Special Advisory Referendum Concerning the Levy of a One- Quarter Cent (1/4c) County Sales and Use Tax With the Proceeds Dedicated for Public Education and Public Safety During the November 2016 General Election  TEM#7-CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - Regular meeting of. July 11, 2016.  B. Finance - Request approval oft the attached vehicle tax refunds.  - Health Department - Request approval of budget amendments #: 2017-03 and #2017-04. Commissioner Dennis moved to approve the above items as presented and was: seconded by  Commissioner Mcintyre. The motion carried by unanimous vote.  PUBLIC COMMENT - None.  BOARD COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & COMMITTEE REPORTS  Commissioner Asciutto welcomed new School Superintendent Bill Josey who was in Commissioner Dennis reported that although last month's numbers were down at the airport duei to the runway lights not working properly, they have now been repaired.  attendance.  Commissioner Burleson reminded everyone of the Law Enforcement Day of Prayer scheduled  for Tuesday, August 12"h at 6:00 p.m. at the Agri-Civic Center.  Commissioner Mcintyre encouraged everyone to attend the Law Enforcement Day of Prayer to Chairman Efird also welcomed Superintendent Josey and wished him good luck in his new  show their support of the Sheriff's Office and law enforcement officers.  position. CLOSED SESSION  Commissioner Burleson moved to recess in to closed session to discuss economic development in accordance with G. S. 143-318.11(a)(4) and a real estate transaction in accordance with G.S. 143-318.11(a/5). Commissioner Dennis seconded the motion which carried with a 6-Ovote: at  9:05 p.m. ADJOURN  Page 11 of12    With no further discussion taking place, Commissioner Dennis moved to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Commissioner Burleson. The motion passed unanimously at 9:35 p.m.  Terry Scott Efird, Chairman  Tyler Brummitt, Clerk  Page 12of12    Stanly County Board of Commissioners  STANLY) COUNTY Meeting Date: September 6, 2016  9Bx  Presenter:  Warfn4 Lorl Saccer.  Consent Agenda Regular Agenda  Presentation Equipment: Lectern PC* Lectern VCR Lectern DVD L Document Camera** Laptop*** *PCise equipped with Windows XP and Microsoft Office XP (including Word, Excel, and PowerPoint), Internet connectivity and Network connectivity **I Ifyou! have need tou use thel Document Camera and: zoomi into: aj particular area, if possible please attach a copy of the document with the: areai indicated  Please Provide a Brief Description of your Presentations format: that your need toz zoomi into. Alaser lighti is availablet toj pinpoint your area ofp projection. *** You canl bringi in al laptop that will: allow video out tol be connected: at thel lectern set display to 60Mhz. Changing the hours of the Oakboro Branch Library.  for County Employees.  ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED  Request that the Board vote to change thel hours of the Oakboro Branch Library tol Monday and Wednesday from 1:00-7:00 and Friday 9:00-1:00. This change allows thel library to be open in the evenings tol better serve the local school children who will be bused to other schoois thus getting home about 4:30. Current hours are Monday 9:00-1:00, Wednesday and Friday 1:00-5:00, and Saturday 9:00-1:00. The change in hours will not add any extra hours, but will make the hours  more convenient for school children. Signature: Mnl  Dept. Attachments:  Date: &islG  Yes Certification of Action Certified tol be a true copy of the action taken! the Stanly County Board of Commissioners on  No  Review Process  Approved Yes No Initials  Finance Director Budget Amendment Necessary County Attorney County Manager Other:  by  Tyler Brummitt, Clerk to the Board  Date    Revised 07/07/2003  9C  AMENDMENT NO: 2017-06  STANLY COUNTY-BUDGET AMENDMENT  BEI IT ORDAINED byt the Stanly County Board of Commissioners that the following amendment be made  tot the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017: To amend the General Fund 110, the expenditures are to be changed as follows:  CURRENT BUDGETED INCREASE AMOUNT (DECREASE) AMENDED $  FUND/DEPART ACCOUNT NUMBER 110.4310.4310  ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION  AS  NUMBER  540.000 Motor Vehicles  197,772 $ 197,772  TOTALS  $  $ 197,772 $ 197,772  This budget amendment isj justified as follows:  To amend the budget fort the loan proceeds to purchase vehicles for the Sheriff's Office.  This will result in a neti increase $ 197,772 ine expenditures and other financial use to the County's annual budget. Top provide the additional revenue for the above, the following revenues will be increased. These revenues have already been received or are verified they will be received int this fiscal year.  CURRENT BUDGETED INCREASE AMOUNT (DECREASE) AMENDED $ $  FUND/DEPART ACCOUNT NUMBER 110.3838  ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION  AS  NUMBER  330.32 Loan Proceeds  $ 197,772 $ 197,772  TOTALS  197,772 $ 197,772  SECTION:2. Copies oft this amendment shall be furnished to the Clerk of the Board of Commissioners,  Budget Officer, and to the Finance Director.  Adopted this_  day of  20  Verifieddyt the Clerk oft the Board R  816 Date 8-29-16 Date Date  Posted by Journal No. Date  Reviewed by County Manager  8/26/2016 4:03F PM  BA2017-06    Revised 07/07/2003  9D  AMENDMENT NO: 2017-05  STANLY COUNTY-BUDGET AMENDMENT  BE IT ORDAINED by the Stanly County Board of Commissioners that thet following amendment be made To amend the Airport Operating Fund Fund 671, the expenditures are to be changed as follows:  tot the annual budget ordinance for thet fiscal year ending June 30, 2017:  CURRENT BUDGETED INCREASE AMOUNT (DECREASE) AMENDED  FUND/DEPART ACCOUNT NUMBER 671.4530  ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION  AS  NUMBER  351.000 Rep & Maint-Bldg & Grounds $ 12,000 $ 12,161 $ 24,161  TOTALS  $ 12,000 $ 12,161 $ 24,161  This budget amendment isj justified as follows: This will resulti in a neti increase  To amend the Airport budget with insurance settlement funds from lightning damage to cameras and gates. budget. To provide the additional revenue for the above, the following revenues will be increased. These revenues have already been received or are verified they willl be received ini this fiscal year.  $ 12,161 in expenditures and other financial use tot the County's annual  CURRENT BUDGETED INCREASE AMOUNT (DECREASE) AMENDED $ $  FUND/DEPART ACCOUNT NUMBER 671.3453  ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION Insurance Settlements  AS  NUMBER 580.10  12,161 $ 12,161  TOTALS  $ 12,161 $ 12,161  SECTION:2. Copies of this amendment shall be furnished to the Clerk of the Board of Commissioners,  Budget Officer, and tot the Finance Director.  Adopted this_  day of  20  Verifed-ayneCleiko ofthe Boayby 322  sfpalle Date 8-30-16 Date Date  Posted by Journal No. Date  Revieyed by Finahce Reviewed by County Manager  8/26/2016: 3:42 PM  BA2017-05    Stanly County Board of Commissioners  STANLY) COUNTY Meeting Date: September 6, 2016  9E  Presenter: Consent  Water ArladSasr.  Consent Agenda Regular Agenda  Presentation Equipment: Lectern PC* Lectern VCR Lectern DVD LJ Document Camera** Laptop*** *PCis equipped with Windows XP: and Microsoft Office XP (including Word, Excel, and PowerPoint), Internet connectivity and Network connectivity ** Ifyou have need to use the Document Camera and: zoom into: a particular area, ifp possible please attach a copy oft the document with the: areai indicated  Please Provide a Brief Description ofy your Presentations format: that your need toz zoomi into. Al laser lighti is available to pinpoint your area of projection. *** Youc can bring inal laptop that will allow video out to be connected att thel lectern set display to 60Mhz.  for County Employees.  ITEMTOE BE CONSIDERED  Please see the attached August 2016 refund report from the North Carolina Vehicle Tax System for taxpayers due vehicle refunds over $100 which requires Board of Commissioners approval.  Consider and approve the attached vehicle tax refunds.  Signature: Toby R. Hinson Date: 9/01/16  Dept. Finance Attachments:  Yes Certification of Action Certified to be a true copy oft the action taken by the Stanly County Board of Commissioners on  No  Review Process  Approved Yes No Initials  Finance Director County Attorney County Manager Other:  Budget Amendment Necessary  Tyler Brummitt, Clerk tot the Board  Date    8888881 1:8 888888) 8  588888 SF 588 5 588 588