STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERS

) STOKES COUNTY GOVERNMENT

COUNTY OF STOKES ) DANBURY, NORTH CAROLINA

) MAY 26, 2009

The Board of Commissioners of the County of Stokes, State of North Carolina, met

for regular session in the Commissioners’ Chambers of the Ronald Wilson Reagan Memorial

Building (Administration Building) located in Danbury, North Carolina on Tuesday,

May 26, 2009 at 6:00 pm with the following members present:

Chairman J. Leon Inman (entered the meeting at 7:40 pm)

Vice-Chairman Jimmy Walker

Commissioner Ron Carroll

Commissioner Ernest Lankford

Commissioner Stanley Smith

County Personnel in Attendance:

County Manager K. Bryan Steen

Clerk to the Board Darlene Bullins

Finance Director Julia Edwards

Support Services Supervisor Danny Stovall

County Attorney Edward Powell

Vice Chairman Jimmy Walker called the meeting to order.

County Manager Bryan Steen delivered the invocation.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT-GOVERNING BODY-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Vice Chairman Walker opened the meeting by inviting the citizens in attendance to join the

Board with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Vice Chairman Walker noted that Chairman Inman had a family obligation and would be

joining the meeting later this evening.

PRESENTATION – Proposed Fiscal Year 2009-10 County Budget

County Manager Bryan Steen presented the following proposed Budget Message:

In accordance with the North Carolina Local Government and Fiscal Control Act

(G.S. 159-8), I hereby present and submit for your review and adoption a balanced proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. I respectfully remind you that a mandatory Public Hearing for the Proposed FY 2009-2010 Budget has been scheduled for 7:00 PM in Court Room “A” of the Government Center on Monday, June 1, 2009.

Budget Guidelines

During March of 2009, the County Manager was asked to develop two proposed budgets. One budget would include receipt of the Hold Harmless revenues (Option 1) and a second that did not (Option 2). Both budgets have been prepared for the Boards consideration. However, the recommended budget is Option 2 with the caveat that Option 1 could later be implemented should the Hold Harmless revenues be received in late August of 2009.

Budget Theme

Severe cost reduction is the overriding theme of both proposed FY 2009-2010 Budgets through a mixture of budget cuts, slight service reduction and, in Option 2, potential use of fund balance: twelve furlough days for county employees, freezing of annual pay increases, no holiday bonus, closing of convenience sites one weekday (possibly Tuesday), selective hiring freeze for vacant positions, significant reduction of departmental budgets and funding of special appropriation requests as well as a reduction in funding of the public school budget from last year. The proposed cuts result from a dismal economic climate, loss of ADM funds, probable loss of Hold Harmless funds and significant reduction of revenues associated with various sales taxes and other revenue sources.

Objectives of the proposed budgets are:

Continue to provide current service levels for emergency services and services that provide a safety net to our vulnerable citizens.
Maintain a strong County Fund Balance to enable attainment of low interest financing options for the funding of approved school construction projects.
Continue to review service delivery methods to reduce expenditures and improve efficiency / effectiveness.
Provide responsible and timely maintenance of critical infrastructure and equipment in order to prevent more expensive repair or replacement cost at a later date.

Budget Process

Our initial process had each county department, the county school system and other non-county agencies provide the county manager with a requested budget. For 2009-2010, the Requested Budget totaled $41,750,177 and would have required a tax rate of 65.46 cents for Option 1 (with Hold Harmless) or 70.70 cents for Option 2 (without Hold Harmless).

Revenues

In light of current economic trends, the proposed budget reduces anticipated Sales Tax Revenues from authorized sales taxes by $1,095,000 from the figures used during FY 2008-09. Additionally, the current revenue shortfalls being experienced by the state and their recent actions to limit their expenditures by reducing previously dedicated revenues to counties, as evidenced by their redirection of ADM funds and taking of School Lottery funds, causes me to have grave doubt in the state’s ability to provide Hold Harmless funds for our use in FY 2009-10. If not offset by the anticipated increase in Property Tax revenues due to revaluation, $1,584,331, we anticipate total revenues to the county to be decreased by $4,996,197 from total revenues received in FY 2008-09.

Expenditures

Over the past several weeks, I have worked with county staff and developed proposed budgets that total $39,802,536 for Option 1 and $38,559,824 for Option 2:

Budget Option	Total	FY 2008-09 Total	Budget Reduction
1	$39,802,536	$41,971,690	$2,169,154
2	$38,559,824	$41,971,690	$3,411,866

Both budgets are funded with a tax rate of 60 cents for services funded by the General Fund.

Additionally, $200,000 has been set-aside in Contingency for unexpected expenditures as well as $45,000 to cover unpredictable fuel cost increases that may arise during the upcoming budget year.

Expenditure Containment

Containment and reduction of expenditures is a constant and ongoing activity as evidenced by implementation of the “Video Probable Cause” process to reduce fuel consumption, miles driven and return of officers to service as quick as possible. Staff also looks for other opportunities to reduce costs such as energy efficiency improvements in heating/cooling of buildings and reductions in health and property insurance premiums.

In the recommended budget for county departments, I’ve budgeted an overall reduction of funds requested for Dept. Supplies, Travel and Training and I will continue with our current restriction on Travel and Training to mandatory events or events of exceptional importance. As in past years, we will also continue to look for beneficial ways to reduce cost through the use of technology, restructuring and quarterly budget reviews of all county departments to identify and obtain expenditure savings during the budget year.

Capital Outlay

Departments requested a total of $799,724.00 for capital expenditures. Of those requests, I recommend approval of requests totaling $440,450 shown in the Option 2 Budget.

The Option 1 Budget would approve requests totaling $593,610.

See Capital Outlay Schedule for item specific information.

School-Current Expense

The Stokes County School System submitted a Current Expense Budget request totaling $11,411,103. After reviewing the request, I recommend appropriation of $10,148,277 shown in the Option 2 Budget for FY 2009-2010.

The Option 1 Budget would provide funding of $10,462,141.

My recommendation (Option 2 Budget) represents a decrease of 1.56% or $161,323 from funding appropriated for FY 2008-09. As mentioned earlier, I’m making severe cuts to county department budgets to limit the use of Fund Balance.

Please note the following information from FY 2008-2009 regarding our appropriation to current expense as compared to that of surrounding counties of greater financial means and a few other similar sized counties:

Fire Service Request

Upon review of the Service District, King, Rural Hall and Walnut Cove Budgets, it is my recommendation that no fire tax rates increase for FY 2009-10 and the Board of County Commissioners review budgets submitted for Sauratown and Double Creek. The review would be for the purpose of considering a reduction of the submitted budgets by $1,436 for Sauratown and $2,984 for Double Creek. I also want to make the Board aware that a fire tax increase of 1 cent has been requested by the City of King in a letter from the Mayor.

Revenue-Neutral Tax Rate

In compliance with North Carolina General Statute 159-11(e), the revenue neutral tax rate would be 57.35 cents ($0.5735). However, in setting the property tax rate for FY 2009-10, I would recommend Commissioners give careful consideration to the County’s recent financial history, current and future budgetary needs and my doubt regarding the state’s ability to provide Hold Harmless revenue to the county.

My recommendation is that the current property tax-rate of 60 cents ($0.60) per $100.00 of property value remain in effect. The revenue now generated by one cent of property tax is estimated to be $360,173.00 at 100% collection, or $343,966 at 95.5% collection.

FY 2008-09 Budget Highlights

Retired County General Fund debt in the amount of $710,228 (principal and interest).
Attained a fund balance of 19.6% as part of efforts to prepare for funding of county school construction or rehabilitation projects.
Completed construction of new office space on 3^rd floor of Ronald Reagan Building and moved staff to create a virtual one-stop-shop for building, well and septic tank permits.
Completed construction of 2,880 square foot addition to Stokes Opportunity Center without the use of county tax dollars.
Commissioners continued with a 60-cent tax rate for fiscal year 2008-09.
The County continued efforts to collect delinquent revenues.
Financed the purchase of eight new vehicles for the Sheriff’s Office and two new ambulances: remount of current box onto a new chassis.
Installed new roofs on courthouse, communications building and Danbury Library.
Obtained $800,000 in grants to rehabilitate Danbury Water System.
Obtained $40,000 Water/Sewer Planning Grant for Meadows Comm. College Site.

PUBLIC HEARING –Proposed Amendments to the Stokes County Animal Control Ordinance

Vice Chairman Walker called to order the Public Hearing for the proposed Amendments to

the Stokes County Animal Control Ordinance.

There were no public comments.

Vice Chairman Walker closed the Public Hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING –Proposed Water Shortage Response Plan for the Danbury Water System

Vice Chairman Walker called to order the Public Hearing for the proposed Water Shortage

Response Plan for the Danbury Water System.

There were no public comments.

Vice Chairman Walker closed the Public Hearing.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT – GOVERNING BODY – APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Vice Chairman Walker entertained a motion to approve or amend the May 26, 2009 Agenda.

Commissioner Carroll requested to add the following to the May 26^th Agenda:

· Add continued discussion regarding Board of Education Facility Needs

Request particularly regarding the Nancy Reynolds Project to

Discussion Item B- (Financial Advisor –Financial Model Update)

· Add appointment to the Health Services Alliance to Discussion Item- F (Appointments)

· Add Request from the Board of Commissioners to the Board of Education for additional budget information to the Action Agenda - Item D

The Board had no issues with Commissioner Carroll’s requests.

Commissioner Lankford moved to approve the May 26, 2009 Agenda as amended.

Commissioner Carroll seconded and the motion carried (4-0) with Chairman Inman absent.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

The following spoke during public comments:

Suzan Garner

1118 Flynt Road

King, NC 27021

Re: Funding for King Senior Center

Ms. Garner presented the Board of Commissioners statistical information regarding the King Senior Center and requested funding for the Center. Ms. Garner noted that approximately 45% of those attending the center do not reside in the King City Limits and approximately 10% do not reside in Stokes County. Ms. Garner requested funding for the following needs: tuition fees, transportation, sound system, slat board paneling, dehumidifier, table and chairs, kitchen improvements, and blood pressure machine.

CONSENT AGENDA

Vice Chairman Walker entertained a motion to approve or amend the following items on the

Consent Agenda:

Minutes

Minutes of May 11, 2009

Tax Administration Report – April 2009

Tax Administrator Oakley presented the following Real and Personal Property Refunds

(April 2009) which are more than $100 for the Board’s consideration at the May 11^th meeting with a

request for action at the May 26^th meeting:

Real and Personal Property Refunds More
than $100–April 09-Per NCGS 105-381 (b)
	Account	Amount	Reasons
Name	Number
Brant Mickel	08A155928303.07	$119.08
	07A155928303.07	$123.83
	06A155928303.07	$121.00
Ronda Melvin	08a63652.07	$124.04
	Totals	$497.95

Policy for Fire Service District and Fire Commission and Use of Service District Funds

The adopted policy for Fire Service District and Fire Commission and Use of Service

District Funds was presented and amended at the April 11^th meeting. The proposed amended policy

was forwarded to the Fire and Rescue Association for comments before final approval by the

Board.

At the May 11^th meeting, Commissioner Carroll noted that information had been received

from the Fire and Rescue Association that there were no issues with the proposed amendments and

requested consideration for approval at the May 26^th meeting. (Upon approval, a copy of the

policy will be retained by the Clerk to the Board and the Stokes County Fire Marshal)

NCDOT- Request to Abandon SR#1506 – Raymond Jessup Road from the Secondary Road System

County Manager Bryan Steen presented at the May 11^th meeting a request from NCDOT to

abandon SR#1506 –Raymond Jessup Road from the Secondary Road System along with request from

Ms. Ruth Jessup (sole property owner) to also abandon the right of way.

County Manager Steen requested the Board take formal action to abandon SR#1506-

Raymond Jessup Road from the Secondary Road System in order to proceed with the abandonment

right of way.

Double Creek Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. Certification for Lease Purchase

Mr. L. G. Tilley, Board of Directors-Double Creek Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

presented the following documentation for certification for lease purchase for the Board’s

consideration:

United Financial of North Carolina, Inc

58 Wilkie Way

Fletcher, NC 28732

Re: Lease Purchase Agreement between United Financial of North Carolina, Inc. and

Double Creek Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

Dear Sirs:

I am Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Stokes County.

This letter is to advise you that: Double Creek Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. is a qualified Volunteer Fire Department, assigned to protect a specific Fire District within Stokes County.

In addition, a special ad valorem (Fire Tax) is assessed on the real property owners of this district. Said Tax is to be used exclusively to provide equipment, facilities, and training as is necessary to provide fire protection for said district. Said Funds may also be used to upgrade equipment as the need arises. This tax is collected by the County and disbursed by the Finance Office to the Fire Department on a regular basis by the County Finance Officer.

The Double Creek Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. is operated and managed by the Board of Directors of the Fire Department and the Officers of said Department. The Department is currently meeting the requirements of their Fire Service Contract.

The Double Creek Volunteer Fire Department has made the Board of Commissioners aware of their intention to acquire a new capital asset through a Lease Purchase transaction with your firm. Please be advised that the County has no objections to this transaction and such approval does not obligate the County or its Board of Commissioners in any way regarding repayment of the debt.

If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely yours,

J. Leon Inman

Chairman

The correspondence was originally approved February 9, 2009 as required by the

financial institution, which was before the department’s Public Hearing in March. Per IRS guidelines

for the loan, the documentation for certification must be approved by the Board of Commissioners

after the Public Hearing.

Mr. Tilley requested the Board approve Chairman Inman to execute the correspondence.

Proposed Contracts for Fire/Rescue Protection/Mutual Aid/Medical First Response

County Manager Bryan Steen submitted the following proposed Fire/Rescue Fire Service

Agreements for the Board’s final approval, the agreements have been approved by each individual

department:

o Danbury Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad, Inc

o Northeast Stokes Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad, Inc.

o Pilot Mountain Rescue Squad and EMS Inc.

o Stokes-Rockingham Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad, Inc.

o Westfield Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

o Town of Rural Hall – Fire and Rescue Protection Services

o Walnut Cove Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad, Inc.

Commissioner Carroll moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted.

Commissioner Smith seconded and the motion carried (4-0) with Chairman Inman absent.

Update – Manager and Board of Commissioners

There were no updates.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT – GOVERNING BODY – DISCUSSION AGENDA

Financial Advisor – Financial Model Update

Financial Advisor Doug Carter, DEC Associations, Inc., presented the following

financial update:

Last Discussion on the Plan

· Alternative 1

o $22.1 MM - Nancy Reynolds and New elementary school

o One issue – Spring 2009

o Projected No New Resources Needed

· Alternative 2

o $40.3 MM – School Needs and Community College

o Three issues – Spring 2009- (school needs); Spring 2011 (school needs); Spring 2012 (community college)

o Projected 3 cents Equivalent Resources Needed

· Alternative 3

o $61.3 MM – All School Needs and Community College

o Three issues - Spring 2009- (school needs); Spring 2011 (school needs); Spring 2012 (community college)

o Projected 7.5 cents Equivalent Resources Needed

· Funding Resources were calculated from the Retirement of Current Debt and Assumptions of Lottery Proceeds of $800,000 (2008) from the State

Updated Scenarios

New assumptions – Lottery proceeds of $500,000 starting in fiscal year 2010 and assuming no starting fund balance in capital fund

· Version 7a

o $12.584 MM –

Land and PODS - $2.6 MM

Nancy Reynolds - $9.285 MM

Community College - $700,000

o Two issues – June 2009 (land and PODS); Fall 2009 (Nancy Reynolds and community college)

o Projected No New Resources Needed

· Version 7b

o $25.984 MM –

Land & PODS - $2.6 MM

Nancy Reynolds - $9.285 MM

Community College - $700,000

Yadkin Elementary School - $13.4 MM

o Three issues – June 2009- (land & PODS); Fall 2009 (Nancy Reynolds and community college); Fall 2010 (Yadkin Elementary School)

o Projected 2.1 cents (fiscal year 2010) Equivalent Resources Needed

· Version 7c

o $41.234 MM

Lands & PODS – $2.6 MM

Nancy Reynolds - $9.285 MM

Community College - $700,000

Yadkin Elementary School - $13.4 MM

Southeastern Middle School - $9.25 MM

Community College - $6 MM

o Five issues – June 2009 (land and PODS); Fall 2009 (Nancy Reynolds & community college); Fall 2010 (Yadkin Elementary School); Spring 2014 (Southeastern Middle School ); Spring 2015 (community college)

o Projected 3.5 cents (fiscal year 2010) Equivalent Resources Needed

The Board discussed the presented updated financial models with Mr. Carter, state revenue

shortfalls, lack of lottery funds, and capital leases. Mr. Carter noted that the County should have a

better understanding of the state’s financial status in July 09.

Commissioner Smith requested information from Mr. Carter regarding what impact would

there be if the County placed $1 million in the capital fund. Mr. Carter noted the impact would only

be a fraction of a penny – fractional impact.

Vice Chairman Walker opened the discussion regarding the item added to today’s Discussion

Agenda –“Discussion regarding Board of Education Facility Needs Request particularly regarding the

Nancy Reynolds Project”.

Commissioner Lankford requested the item be postponed until Chairman Inman was present.

The Board agreed to wait until Chairman Inman was present for the discussion (later in

today’s meeting).

City of King – Fire Tax Request

City Manager John Cater noted that Mayor Jack Warren was attending the Forsyth County

Board of Commissioners’ meeting with Fire Chief Randy Williams who was presenting the same

request – a 1 cent fire tax increase.

City Manager John Cater presented and discussed the following power point presentation:

Ø Brief history of the King Volunteer Fire Department ‘s revenue

Ø King Fire District incorporates the King City Limits, area in Forsyth County and a small

part outside of the city limits in Stokes County

Ø Request for 1 cent fire tax increase

Ø Ways that could determine what amount of funding each entity should provide

· Number of calls in 2008

o Forsyth County – 247 (12%)

o City of King – 1,107 (55%)

o Stokes County – 649 (33%)

o Not a good way to determine funding due to calls fluctuate each year

· Land area in the District

o Forsyth County – 5 square miles – 17%

o City of King -7 square miles – 23%

o Stokes County – 18 square miles – 60%

o Not a good way to determine funding due to the density of the areas

· Valuation (Propose the best way to determine funding)

o Forsyth County - approximately $443,250,000 - 30%

o City of King – approximately $580, 202,696 - 39%

o Stokes County – approximately $458,444,911 – 31%

· Level of commitment according to past arrangements was for each entity to pay a third of the expenditures (this is currently not the case)

· Actual Levels of Support

o Forsyth County – 24%

o City of King – 51%

o Stokes County – 25%

· Currently the taxpayers of the City of King are subsidizing the services of the King Fire Department outside the City Limits of King which is unfair to the residents who live and pay taxes in the City Limits of King

· The Department must have paid on call volunteers who help to meet OSHA requirements regarding 2 on 2 when entering a burning structure

· The current 3-4 volunteers have over 100 years of combined experience

· These volunteers feel that the three entities have not funded the department properly and have valid concerns regarding the department and it operation

· Be very difficult to replace the current volunteers

· 1 cent fire tax increase will fund basic operations

· 1 cent fire tax increase will not provide enough funding to cover the proposed funding request of 31% from Stokes County

· Currently, Department has several serious equipment issues along with liability issues: ladder truck, fire hoses, rescue system that all fire departments must have to help extract victims from auto crashes, another truck has rust on frame estimated cost of repairs -$50,000

· If insurance rating decreases from the current 6 to 9- (example: citizens who have $200,000 property value in the district could pay as much as $200 more each year for fire insurance)

· Very concerned about the situation

· Proposed budget submitted to the County will only fund the necessities, no funding has been requested for personnel or capital outlay, and the Department has no capital reserve

· Proposed fire department budget submitted to the County has not been approved by City Council

· Approximately 8 cents of the city taxes paid by city residents goes to fund the King Vol. Fire Department

The Board discussed the item with Manager Cater.

Commissioner Carroll suggested reviewing the breakdown of population of each area and

noted that even though funding was being provided by three entities, the City of King has total

management control of the Department.

Manager Cater noted that the Department’s first duty is to protect property and felt that

property valuation was the best tool to project what each entity should pay. Property valuation was

the only method of funding that the Forsyth County Manager was willing to review.

Manager Steen noted the Department has three grants positions which are currently being

funded approximately 75% from the Grant, the amount of funding decreases each year.

Manager Cater expressed his appreciation to the Board for allowing him to speak at tonight’s

meeting.

Vice Chairman Walker noted the fire tax increase would be discussed during the upcoming

budget work sessions.

Proposed Property and Liability Insurance for Fiscal Year 2009-10

Proposed Workmen’s Compensation Insurance for Fiscal Year 2009-10

Support Services Supervisor Danny Stovall presented the following insurance renewal

information for upcoming 2009-10 fiscal year:

(Workers’ Compensation, General Liability, Automotive with the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners Joint Risk Management Agency)

	Year	Year
	2008-09	2009-10
Workers' compensation	$ 281,740.00	$ 255,122.00
Liability, Property, Auto	$ 325,007.00	$ 291,074.00
2% prepayment discount	$ (12,135.00)	$ (10,923.00)
Multi-pool discounts	$ (14,840.00)	$ (16,165.00)	Savings
Totals	$ 579,772.00	$ 519,108.00	$60,664.00

Deductible Amounts
Property Loss Claims	$ 1,000.00
Auto Liability	$ -
Crime	$ 5,000.00
Law Enforcement	$ 5,000.00
Boiler/Machinery	$ 1,000.00
General Liability	$ -
Auto Physical Damage	$ 1,000.00
Public Officials	$ 5,000.00
Employment Practices	$ 5,000.00

The Board discussed the insurance renewals with Mr. Stovall.

Vice Chairman Walker, with full consent of the Board, directed the Clerk to place the item

on tonight’s Action Agenda.

Proposed Bids – Feasibility Study – Meadows Property

Support Services Supervisor Danny Stovall presented the following bid information regarding

conducting a property feasibility study relating to the conversion of the old Department of

Corrections/Department of Transportation facility/property into a Community College campus, which

was received until Friday, April 17^th at 5:00 pm:

Meadows Property Feasibility Study Proposals

Gumpton & Associates

Partners – PDI Architecture, ECS Carolinas

References – City of King, Davidson County

$9,000.00 fixed fee – mileage/normal reports included

60 calendar day completion timeframe

Asbestos/lead paint testing extra charge

Scope of Work

a) Inspect existing buildings, water, sanitary sewer and other infrastructure

b) Determine if existing facilities are salvageable

c) Establish proposed entrances, parking, building locations and vehicle circulation

d) Prepare conceptual plans for best utilization of site and any applicable existing facilities

e) Prepare cost projections of new and/or renovation costs for building construction

f) Prepare cost projections for demolition and disposal cost for unusable facilities

g) Prepare cost projections for feasibility of renovation of existing water and sanitary sewer facilities versus the cost of new systems

h) Prepare cost projections for Civil Engineering and Architectural project fees

i) Prepare written recommendation and plan of action

Ramsay, Burgin, Smith Architects

Partner – David Roberts, P.E.

References: Rowan-Cabarrus Community College, Catawba College, Lexington City Schools

$9,400.00 fee plus mileage - round trip mileage will be an additional charged (130 miles x federal rate per visit) – 3-4 trips.

30 day completion timeframe

Lead paint or asbestos testing costs are not included in quote

Additional site testing if required by governmental agencies (water/sewer) are not included

Scope of Work:

“Ramsay Burgin Smith designs first by listening. Through meetings with County Administration personnel, we develop a clear understanding of the program needs and feasibility study goals. We inventory the site’s buildings, land and environmental attributes – both positive and negative. Our consulting engineer will expose possibilities with the existing domestic water and waste water treatment facilities, and will examine all current requirements through NCDENR and other agencies having jurisdiction. Our recommendation will consider the aspects of new construction versus renovation including initial investments, maintenance costs, utility costs, building life cycle costs, etc. Through plan graphics, we will demonstrate where facilities, parking, future growth, etc, could be best located on site. We feel that appropriate design for a community college involves clear circulation, flexible and functional space and minimized life cycle costs.”

Peterson/Gordon Architects

Partners: Moorefield Engineering, Robert Bouknight

$9,800.00 flat fee 10-12 week completion timeframe

Mileage - no additional charge

Lead paint or asbestos testing costs are not included in quote

School References – Forsyth County Schools, Stokes County Schools

Scope of Work:

a) New and renovation cost for building construction

b) Renovation cost for former waste water system versus cost of new system

c) Consultant/architectural/engineer fees for building construction project

d) Building and site demolition statement of probable costs

e) Well water system upgrade cost versus new water system cost

f) Parking/Site development statement of probable cost

g) Review of existing structural components at the Dormitory, Kitchen/Shop buildings

h) Evaluation of the existing structures for 2009 code compliance (community college use)

i) Site layout diagrams showing structures, site access/egress parking, water and sewer

j) Written action plan including a schematic site drawing

Efird Sutphin Pearce

Partner – Westcott Small & Associates

Tritech Civil Environmental

S&ME Inc

Harris & Associates

$27,000.00 basic fee/reimbursable charges

10 week completion time frame

ArcVision Studios

No fixed or flat fee rate cost shown in RFQ

Partner – Davis-Martin-Powel & Associates

ECS Carolinas, Cubic Inc, Teeter Engineering Group

No fixed or flat rate cost shown

The Board discussed the item with Mr. Stovall and Manager Steen.

Chairman Inman entered the meeting at 7:40 pm.

Vice Chairman Walker turned the meeting over to Chairman Inman.

Commissioner Smith stated:

· Feels some of the questions in the RFQ have already been answered such as using the existing facility, - not interested in using the existing facility

· Expressed concerns that the feasibility study is premature due to not having a “clean bill of health” regarding the contaminated property

· Keep a close eye on DEHNR and NCDOT

· No need to pursue the feasibility study until answers have been provided by DEHNR and a cleanup timeframe from NCDOT

Commissioner Carroll stated:

· Is the existing site large enough for the county’s current needs without even considering future needs

· Possible need for the feasibility study to determine what the land can be used for

· Need explore other options, see what is available

· No interest in reconstructing the existing building, that part of the feasibility study can be taken out of the RFQ- just look at demolition cost

· In favor of moving forward with the feasibility study

Commissioner Lankford stated:

· Not in favor of moving forward with the feasibility study due to not knowing the outcome of the contaminated soil

· Need to look to see if there is any adjoining land available

· County does not need to spend additional funding on a feasibility study until after the final decision has been made regarding the contaminated soil

Vice Chairman Walker stated:

· If water and sewer were available, several acres could be used for other purposes, would eliminate several issues

· Need to explore other options as suggested by Commissioner Carroll

· In favor of moving forward with the feasibility study in order to determine what the property can be used for

Chairman Inman stated:

· Site has some huge challenges, possible years regarding the NCDOT cleanup

· Need to look at other options

· Need to be ready for Early College High School

Manager Bryan Steen stated:

· Environmental testing has not been completed

· Feasibility study can provide information regarding water and sewer, demolition of existing buildings, acreage needed for a community college

· County must provide a place for Early College High School

· Company currently testing the soil wants to place monitoring wells on the property

· Can’t get a definite timeframe regarding when the property may be available

Mr. Stovall also noted the following:

· Consultants noted the possibility that the site might be land locked

· Unsure if there is any adjoining land for purchase

· Consultants feel the feasibility is necessary to determine what the land can be used for,

if the existing sewage packaging system can be reactivated, and can be used for future grant applications

· With the addition of monitoring wells, this could be a very drawn out process

Manager Steen requested if the Board would like for him to explore other land options within

the area. The Board discussed Manager Steen looking for other options.

Chairman Inman, with full consent of the Board, directed Manager Steen to explore other

possible locations within the Meadows area.

Vice Chairman Walker suggested placing the item on the June 8th Action Agenda.

Chairman Inman, with full consent of the Board, directed the Clerk to the place the item

on the June 8^th Action Agenda,

Capital School Project

Proposed Installment Financing Contract – BB&T

Proposed Lease Agreement with Stokes County Board of Education

Finance Director Julia Edwards presented the proposed Installment Financing Contract

between Branch Banking and Trust Company (BB&T) and the County of Stokes and the proposed

Lease Agreement with Stokes County Board of Education. Director Edwards noted that the PODS

and the land that are being financed by the County must be in the County’s name. The County then

must lease the land and PODS to the Board of Education until the debt is retired.

Chairman Inman requested to be recused from any discussion or action regarding the

proposed Installment Financing Contract between BB&T and the County of Stokes and the proposed

Lease Agreement with Stokes County Board of Education due to a potential financial conflict.

Chairman Inman turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Walker.

Vice Chairman Walker entertained a motion to allow Chairman Inman to be recused

from any discussion or action regarding the proposed Installment Financing Contract between

BB&T and the County of Stokes and the proposed Lease Agreement with Stokes County Board

of Education.

Commissioner Carroll moved to recuse Chairman Inman from any discussion or action

regarding the proposed Installment Financing Contract between BB&T and the County of Stokes and

the proposed Lease Agreement with the Stokes County Board of Education along with any

subsequent discussions or actions dealing with this issue. Commissioner Smith seconded and the

motion carried unanimously. (a copy of the proposed documents will be retained by the Clerk to the

Board and the Finance Director)

Chairman Inman excused himself from the meeting.

Director Edwards noted that the application for financing will be considered by the Local

Government Commission (LGC) on June 2^nd.

Director Edwards requested the Board move this item to today’s Action Agenda in

order to complete the project before June 30^th.

The Board discussed the item with Director Edwards.

Commissioner Carroll moved to add this item to today’s Action Agenda. Commissioner

Lankford seconded and the motion carried (4-0) with Chairman Inman being excused from the vote.

Chairman Inman returned to the meeting.

Stokes County Animal Control Advisory Council – Vacancy

Clerk to the Board Darlene Bullins submitted an appointment application from Leonard Hicks

to serve on the Stokes County Animal Control Advisory Council.

Chairman Inman noted that the Stokes County Animal Control Advisory Council

recommended Candis Loy at the May 11^th meeting.

Vice Chairman Walker nominated Leonard Hicks.

Commissioner Smith nominated Candis Loy.

Chairman Inman noted that other nominations can be submitted for appointment at the

June 8^th meeting.

Stokes Health Services Alliance

Commissioner Carroll noted that Vice Chairman Walker’s term (member must be a Stokes

County Commissioner) on the Stokes Health Services Alliance expires June 30, 2009.

Commissioner Carroll nominated Vice Chairman Walker to be re-appointed to the

Stokes Health Services Alliance.

Chairman Inman entertained a motion to re-appoint Vice Chairman Walker (appointment

does not have to be advertised –Commissioner appointment) to the Stokes County Health Services

Alliance.

Commissioner Carroll moved to re-appoint Vice Chairman Walker to serve on the Stokes

Health Services Alliance. Commissioner Lankford seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

Nancy Reynolds Project

Chairman Inman opened the floor for discussion regarding the Nancy Reynolds Project.

Commissioner Carroll noted that this Board had stated that once the Board of Education

presents a project, the Board would act on a Nancy Reynolds Project, it is time for the Board

of Commissioners to act on a Nancy Reynolds Project.

Vice Chairman Walker reiterated the following information received from Financial

Advisor Doug Carter regarding available funding for the Nancy Reynolds Project:

· Alternative 1

o $22.1 MM - Nancy Reynolds and New elementary school

o One issue – Spring 2009

o Projected No New Resources Needed

The Board discussed the Agenda item.

County Manager Steen noted that any expenditures paid by the County regarding the Nancy

Reynolds Project would be reimbursed through the proceeds of the loan.

Director Edwards noted that once a Nancy Reynolds Project was identified, the County

would work with Bond Attorney Don Ubell and Financial Advisor Doug Carter to complete

all the necessary paperwork and requirements.

Commissioner Lankford moved to add the Nancy Reynolds Project to today’s Action Agenda.

Commissioner Carroll seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT – GOVERNING BODY – ACTION AGENDA

Stokes County Animal Control Ordinance – Proposed Amendments

County Manager Bryan Steen presented a revised copy of the proposed amendments

to the Stokes County Animal Control Ordinance which was presented to the Board at the May 11^th

meeting. Manager Steen noted that the proposed document reflects only grammatical corrections.

The Board discussed the proposed Animal Control Ordinance.

Commissioner Lankford questioned Item (1) on page 6: The director shall have the

authority to hire appropriate staff including animal control officers.

County Manager Steen noted that the Chief Animal Control Officer has the authority

to hire approved positions upon approval from the County Manager.

Commissioner Lankford request the language be corrected.

Commissioner Carroll suggested a possible correction: The County Manager shall

appoint a Chief Animal Control Officer who has responsibility to administer this article; the County

Manager shall employ other animal control personnel as appropriate.

Commissioner Lankford questioned “Keeping a wild animal” under Enforcement -Level III –

page 27.

Chairman Mona Singleton, Animal Control Advisory Council, stated that state law prohibits

the keeping of wild animals unless the individual has taken an eight week course to become a wildlife

rehabilitator.

Vice Chairman Walker expressed the following concerns:

· Would like to have the item back on the June 8^th Action Agenda

· Need more time to review the proposed document

· Concerned with Item I -page 8 – Inspections, Interference, or Concealment - Inspections allowing the animal control officer is empowered to enter and inspect property at any reasonable time if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in any household or upon any premises any violation of this article (too intrusive)

· Proposed document too broad and too tight for Stokes County

· Can’t determine if the proposed Ordinance fair to the citizens of Stokes County

· Who will be able to enforce the size of an adequate shelter for a specific dog – page 15 (item 5)

Commissioner Smith noted the following:

· Page 9 – Dog Privilege Tax – dogs to wear a privilege tax… should read

dogs to wear a privilege tag…

Commissioner Carroll noted that he felt the Council had done a very comprehensive job.

Chairman Inman, with full consent of the Board, directed the Clerk to place the item on

the June 8^th Action Agenda. (a copy of the proposed ordinance will be retained by the Clerk)

Capital School Projects

Proposed Resolution – Installment Financing

Proposed Deed of Trust

Chairman Inman turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Walker and excused himself from

the meeting. (Chairman Inman was approved to be recused from any discussion or action regarding

this item earlier in tonight’s meeting).

Finance Director Julia Edwards presented the following proposed Resolution Approving

an Installment Financing Contract and a Deed of Trust with respect to the financing of the purchase

of land and mobile classrooms for a new elementary school project and the Nancy Reynolds project

at the May 11^th meeting:

A regular meeting held on May 26, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Commissioner’s Chambers on the 2^nd Floor of the Administration Building located at 1014 Main Street, Danbury, North Carolina. Chairman J. Leon Inman presiding.

Commissioners Present:

Commissioners Absent:

* * * * * *

Commissioner _______________ introduced the following resolution, a summary of which had been provided to each Commissioner, a copy of which was available with the Clerk to the Board and which was read by title:

A Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the County of Stokes, North Carolina, Approving an Installment Financing Contract and a Deed of Trust With Respect Thereto and Delivery Thereof and Providing for Certain Other Related Matters

WHEREAS, the County of Stokes, North Carolina (the “County”) is a validly existing political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, existing as such under and by virtue of the Constitution, statutes and laws of the State of North Carolina (the “State”);

WHEREAS, the County has the power, pursuant to the General Statutes of North Carolina to (1) purchase real and personal property, (2) enter into installment financing contracts in order to finance the purchase of real and personal property used, or to be used, for public purposes, and (3) grant a security interest in some or all of the property purchased to secure repayment of the purchase price;

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the County (the “Board of Commissioners”) has determined that it is in the best interest of the County to (a) enter into an installment financing contract (the “Contract”) with Branch Banking and Trust Company (the “Bank”) in order to provide for the acquisition of land to be used for school purposes and the acquisition and installation of portable classroom units (collectively, the “Project”), (b) create a security interest in the land acquired to be used for school purposes (the “Mortgaged Property”) through a deed of trust, security agreement and fixture filing (the “Deed of Trust”), (c) create a security interest in the portable classroom units (the “Equipment”) through a financing statement (the “Financing Statement”) and (d) enter into a lease agreement (the “Lease”) with the Stokes County Board of Education (the “Board of Education”) authorizing the use of the Equipment and the Mortgaged Property and any improvements thereon by the Board of Education;

WHEREAS, the Project will be owned and operated by the County;

WHEREAS, the Board adopted a resolution on April 27, 2009 making certain findings with respect to the Project and the proposed financing therefor;

WHEREAS, the Board conducted a public hearing with respect to the Project on April 14, 2009 to receive public comments on the Project, the proposed financing, the Contract, the Deed of Trust, the Financing Statement and the Lease;

WHEREAS, the County has filed an application with the LGC for approval of the LGC with respect to the County entering into the Contract in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $2,600,000;

WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Board the forms of the Contract, the Deed of Trust and the Lease (collectively, the “Instruments”), copies of which are attached hereto, which the County proposes to approve, enter into and deliver, as applicable, to effectuate the proposed financing at an interest rate as specified in the Instruments; and

WHEREAS, it appears that each of the Instruments is in appropriate form and is an appropriate instrument for the purposes intended;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF STOKES, NORTH CAROLINA, AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Ratification of Prior Actions. All actions of the County, the County Manager, the Finance Director of the County and the Clerk to the Board and their respective designees in effectuating the proposed financing are hereby approved, ratified and authorized pursuant to and in accordance with the transactions contemplated by the Instruments.

Section 2. Approval, Authorization and Execution of Contract. The County hereby approves the Project in accordance with the terms of the Contract, which will be a valid, legal and binding obligation of the County in accordance with its terms. The County hereby approves the amount advanced by the Bank to the County pursuant to the Contract in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $2,600,000, such amount to be repaid by the County to the Bank as provided in the Contract. The form, terms and content of the Contract are in all respects authorized, approved and confirmed, and the Chairman, the County Manager, the Finance Director of the County and the Clerk to the Board or their respective designees are authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Contract for and on behalf of the County, including necessary counterparts, in substantially the form attached hereto, but with such changes, modifications, additions or deletions therein as they may deem necessary, desirable or appropriate, their execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of their approval of any and all such changes, modifications, additions or deletions, and that from and after the execution and delivery of the Contract, the Chairman, the County Manager, the Finance Director of the County and the Clerk to the Board or their respective designees are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to do all such acts and things and to execute all such documents as may be necessary to carry out and comply with the provisions of the Contract as executed.

Section 3. Approval, Authorization of Deed of Trust. The form, terms and content of the Deed of Trust are in all respects authorized, approved and confirmed, and the Chairman, the County Manager, the Finance Director of the County and the Clerk to the Board or their respective designees are authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Deed of Trust for and on behalf of the County, including necessary counterparts, in substantially the form attached hereto, but with such changes, modifications, additions or deletions therein as they may deem necessary, desirable or appropriate, their execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of their approval of any and all such changes, modifications, additions or deletions, and that from and after the execution and delivery of the Deed of Trust, the Chairman, the County Manager, the Finance Director of the County and the Clerk to the Board or their respective designees are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to do all such acts and things and to execute all such documents as may be necessary to carry out and comply with the provisions of the Deed of Trust as executed.

Section 4. Authorization of the Financing Statement. The Chairman, the County Manager, the Finance Director of the County and the Clerk to the Board or their respective designees are authorized, empowered and directed to file or have filed the Financing Statement for and on behalf of the County.

Section 5. Approval, Authorization and Execution of Lease. The form, terms and content of the Lease are in all respects authorized, approved and confirmed, and the Chairman, the County Manager, the Finance Director of the County and the Clerk to the Board or their respective designees are authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Lease for and on behalf of the County, including necessary counterparts, in substantially the form attached hereto, but with such changes, modifications, additions or deletions therein as shall to them seem necessary, desirable or appropriate, their execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of their approval of any and all such changes, modifications, additions or deletions, and that from and after the execution and delivery of the Lease, the Chairman, the County Manager, the Finance Director of the County and the Clerk to the Board or their respective designees are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to do all such acts and things and to execute all such documents as may be necessary to carry out and comply with the provisions of the Lease as executed.

Section 6. Further Actions. The County Manager, the Chairman of the Board and the Finance Director of the County are hereby designated as the County’s representatives to act on behalf of the County in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Instruments, and the County Manager, the Chairman of the Board and the Finance Director of the County are authorized and directed to proceed with the Project in accordance with the terms of the Instruments, and to seek opinions on matters of law from the County Attorney, which the County Attorney is authorized to furnish on behalf of the County, and opinions of law from such other attorneys for all documents contemplated hereby as required by law. The Chairman, the County Manager and the Finance Director of the County are hereby authorized to designate one or more employees of the County to take all actions which the Chairman, the County Manager and the Finance Director of the County are authorized to perform under this Resolution, and the Chairman, the County Manager, the Finance Director of the County or their designees are in all respects authorized on behalf of the County to supply all information pertaining to the transactions contemplated by the Instruments. The Chairman of the Board, the County Manager, the Finance Director of the County and the Clerk to the Board are authorized to execute and deliver for and on behalf of the County any and all additional certificates, documents, opinions or other papers and perform all other acts as may be required by the Instruments or as they may deem necessary or appropriate to implement and carry out the intent and purposes of this Resolution.

Section 7. Repealer. All motions, orders, resolutions, ordinances and parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Section 8. Severability. If any section, phrase or provision of this Resolution is for any reason declared to be invalid, such declaration does not affect the validity of the remainder of the sections, phrases or provisions of this Resolution.

Section 9. Effective Date. This Resolution is effective on the date of its adoption.

On motion of Commissioner __________________, seconded by Commissioner __________________, the foregoing resolution entitled “A Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the County of Stokes, North Carolina, Approving an Installment Financing Contract and a Deed of Trust With Respect Thereto and Delivery Thereof and Providing for Certain Other Related Matters” was duly adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

Vice Chairman Walker entertained a motion.

Commissioner Carroll moved to approve proposed Resolution – Installment Financing and

proposed Deed of Trust. Commissioner Lankford seconded and the motion carried (4-0) with

Chairman Inman being excused from the vote.

Chairman Inman returned to the meeting.

Vice Chairman Walker turned the meeting back over to Chairman Inman.

NCDOT –Proposed Resolution - Abandonment of Right of Way - SR#1506 – Raymond Jessup Road

Chairman Inman entertained a motion regarding the following Request to Abandon the Right

of Way - SR#1506 – Raymond Jessup Road:

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF

STOKES COUNTY PROPOSING THE CLOSING OF

SR#1506-RAYMOND JESSUP ROAD

WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Stokes County Board of Commissioner to close SR#1506-Raymond Jessup Road; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C.G.S. 153A-241, the Stokes County Board of Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing regarding the closing of SR#1506 –Raymond Jessup Road on Monday, June 22, 2009 at its regular scheduled meeting; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C.G.S. 153A-241, the notice of the Public Hearing will

be advertised in the Stokes News for three successive weeks – June 4th, June 11th, and June 18th, 2009: and

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C.G.S. 153A-241, the notice of closing and public hearing will be prominently posted in at least two places along the road; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C.G.S. 153A-241, a copy of the Resolution will be sent by certified mail to each owner (if applicable) as shown on the county tax records of property adjoining the public road; and

WHEREAS, the sole property owner petitioned to abandon approximately 618’ along their property only, from the Secondary Road System prior to this Resolution on

May 11, 2009; and

WHEREAS, SR#1506-Raymond Jessup Road has already been petitioned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and approved by the Stokes County Board of Commissioners on May 26, 2009 to be removed from the Secondary Road System; and

WHEREAS, the closing SR#1506-Raymond Jessup Road does not affect any other property owner.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Stokes that since the State will not maintain the abandoned SR #1506-Raymond Jessup Road and the closing of the said road does not affect any other property owner, the SR #1506-Raymond Jessup Road will be considered by the Board of Commissioners to be closed pursuant to N.C.G.S. 153A-241.

Adopted this, the 26th day of May 2009.

WITNESS, my hand and official seal this the 26^th day of May 2009.

____________________________ ___________________________

J. Leon Inman- Chairman Jimmy Walker – Vice Chairman

____________________________ _____________________________

Ron Carroll - Commissioner Ernest Lankford - Commissioner

____________________________ Attest:

Stanley Smith – Commissioner

__________________________________

Darlene M. Bullins – Clerk to the Board

Commissioner Lankford moved to approve the submitted Resolution to proceed with the

Abandonment of Right of Way – SR#1506 Raymond Jessup Road. Commissioner Smith

seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

Request from Board of Commissioners to the Board of Education for additional Budget Information

Commissioner Carroll moved that the Board of Commissioners request the following

information from the Stokes County Board of Education before the joint meeting in June:

· Most recent State and Federal Allotment Revisions for 2008-09

· State and Federal Planning Allotments for 2009-10, including any possible adjustments based on proposed state budgets

· Use of Low Wealth Funds in 2008-09

· Proposed use of Low Wealth Funds in 2009-10

· Summary of Current Expense and Capital Outlay Fund Balances (start with amounts at June 30, 2008 per audit, then list any adjustments)

Commissioner Lankford seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

Proposed Property and Liability Insurance for Fiscal Year 2009-10

Proposed Workmen’s Compensation Insurance for Fiscal Year 2009-10

Chairman Inman entertained a motion.

Commissioner Lankford moved to continue participation with the North Carolina Association

County Commissioners Joint Risk Management for Workers’ Compensation, General Liability, and

Automotive insurance for fiscal year 2009-10 in the amount of $519,108.00. Vice Chairman Walker

seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

Capital School Project

Proposed Installment Financing Contract – BB&T

Proposed Lease Agreement with the Stokes County Board of Education

Chairman Inman turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Walker and excused himself from

the meeting. (Chairman Inman was approved to be recused from any discussion or action regarding

this item earlier in tonight’s meeting).

Vice Chairman Walker entertained a motion to approve the proposed Installment Financing

Contract with BB&T and the proposed Lease Agreement with the Stokes County Board of Education

which was presented and discussed earlier in tonight’s meeting.

Commissioner Lankford moved to approve the proposed Installment Financing Contract

with BB&T and the proposed Lease Agreement with the Stokes County Board of Education.

Commissioner Smith seconded and the motion carried (4-0) with Chairman Inman being excused

from the vote. (a copy of the approved documents will be retained by the Clerk and Finance Director)

Chairman Inman returned to the meeting.

Vice Chairman Walker turned the meeting back over to Chairman Inman.

Nancy Reynolds Project

Chairman Inman entertained a motion regarding the Nancy Reynolds Project.

The Board discussed whether the Board had to include the amount of funding for the

project in the motion.

Commissioner Lankford understood from Financial Advisor Doug Carter the amount of

funding did not have to be included in the motion, only the approval of the project. Vice Chairman

Walker agreed with Commissioner Lankford.

County Manager Steen suggested a possible motion: Approve for the Board of Education to

move forward with the necessary steps in order to provide the County with the bid information

required by the LGC for financing authorization.

Commissioner Carroll stated that he wanted to vote to approve a specific project as outlined

by the Board of Education with specific amounts.

Chairman Inman agreed that a specific amount (up to …) should be included in the motion.

Commissioner Smith stated that he felt the motion needed to include the wording “Option #5”

as recommended by the Board of Education in the motion.

Commissioner Lankford moved to approve up to $9,285,000.00 for the Nancy Reynolds

Project as recommended by the Board of Education. Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion.

Vice Chairman Walker expressed concerns with including the amount of funding in the

motion before seeing bids and if this process is used, then future school projects should include the

amount such as the estimated $13 million for a new elementary school in the Yadkin Township.

Vice Chairman Walker noted that he supports the Nancy Reynolds Project, but reiterates that he

wants to be consistent with all school projects, (new elementary school in Yadkin Township and

Southeastern Middle School).

Chairman Bill Hart, Board of Education, stated that the Board of Education is interviewing

three architects this week and that the Board of Education is trying save money on design cost and

time. Chairman Hart assured the Board of Commissioners that the Board of Education is dedicated

to save as much funding as possible.

Vice Chairman Walker reiterated that he feels that the amount should not be included in the

motion.

Commissioner Carroll stated that including the amount in the motion provides the Board of

Education some type of direction.

Commissioner Lankford noted that the exact amount would have to be voted on after the

qualified bids are received and before submission to LGC.

The motion carried unanimously.

Closed Session

Chairman Inman entertained a motion to enter into closed session for the following:

· To consult with the Attorney employed or retained by the Public Body in Order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the Attorney and the Public Body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged, and to consider and give instructions to an attorney concerning the handling or settlement of a claim judicial action, mediation, arbitration, or administrative procedure pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(3).

To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the County pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(4).

To consider the initial employment or appointment of an individual to any office or position, other than a vacancy in the Board of County Commissioners or any other public body, or to consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, and fitness of any public officer or employee, other than a member of the Board of Commissioners or of some other public body pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(6).

Commissioner Smith moved to enter closed session for the following:

To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the County pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(4).

To consider the initial employment or appointment of an individual to any office or position, other than a vacancy in the Board of County Commissioners or any other public body, or to consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, and fitness of any public officer or employee, other than a member of the Board of Commissioners or of some other public body pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(6).

Vice Chairman Walker seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

Vice Chairman Walker requested clarification from County Attorney Edward Powell

regarding whether the items included in the closed session motion should include item (a).

Chairman Inman recessed the meeting to allow County Attorney Powell to research the

the request from Vice Chairman Walker.

The Board returned to the open session of the May 26^th meeting.

County Attorney Powell confirmed that the item (a) should be included and advised the

Board to restate the motion.

Commissioner Carroll moved to enter into closed session for the following:

To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the County pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(a)(4).

To consider the initial employment or appointment of an individual to any office or position, other than a vacancy in the Board of County Commissioners or any other public body, or to consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, and fitness of any public officer or employee, other than a member of the Board of Commissioners or of some other public body pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(a)(6).

Commissioner Lankford seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

The Board returned to the open session of the May 26^th meeting.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Board, Chairman Inman entertained

a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Commissioner Smith moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Lankford seconded

and the motion carried unanimously.

_________________________ _____________________________

Darlene M. Bullins J. Leon Inman

Clerk to the Board Chairman