MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE REIDSVILLE CITY COUNCIL

HELD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 AT 3:00 P.M.

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mayor John M. "Jay" Donecker

Mayor Pro-Tem John Gentry

Councilman James K. Festerman

Councilman John Henderson

Councilman George O. Rucker

Councilman W. Clark Turner

Councilwoman Joan Zdanski

COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:

None

CITY STAFF PRESENT:

D. Kelly Almond, City Manager

Angela G. Stadler, City Clerk

William F. McLeod Jr., City Attorney

Michael J. Pearce, Community Development Director

Terri J. Stamey, Assistant City #9; Manager

Mayor Donecker called the meeting to order at 3:00 P.M. The Mayor asked the Rev. Mark Tolodziecki, Pastor of First Congregational Christian Church, to come and provide the invocation. However, the Mayor asked first that there be a moment of silence for all the victims of September 11, 2001. Rev. Tolodziecki then prayed.

The Mayor also asked that at 8:46 a.m. on Thursday everyone stop what they’re doing and remember those whose lives were lost.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

The audience then rose to give the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

PROCLAMATIONS:

Mayor Donecker noted that two of the day’s proclamations deal with cleaning up the environment.

RECOGNITION OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY "BIG SWEEP" SEPTEMBER 13-20, 2003.

Mayor Donecker asked T Butler to come forward while he read the Big Sweep proclamation. (THE PROCLAMATION IS HEREIN INCORPORATED AND MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES.) Ms. Butler encouraged those in the audience to take part in the countywide cleanup. Among the cleanups planned is Lake Reidsville on September 27, she said.

RECOGNITION OF THE FALL 2003 "LITTER SWEEP" ROADSIDE CLEANUP SEPTEMBER 13-28 SPONSORED BY THE NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

The Mayor noted this proclamation but did not read it aloud. (A COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION IS HEREIN INCORPORATED AND MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES.)

RECOGNITION OF "MULTICULTURAL DAY" ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2003, SPONSORED BY THE REIDSVILLE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION.

Mayor Donecker then read a proclamation recognizing the Human Relations Commissions Multicultural Day. (A COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION IS HEREIN INCORPORATED AND MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES.) On hand to accept the proclamation were Commission Chairman Dick Frohock and Commission members Joyce Coleman and Garry Percell. Mr. Frohock noted that this is the third year for this event, which will include a visit by State Representative Nelson Cole of Reidsville. He invited Council members to attend. It was pointed out by Mr. Frohock that the area has 17 different cultural groups living here. The Mayor let Mr. Frohock know that Mayor Pro Tem Gentry will attend Multicultural Day to read the proclamation there.

APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

Mayor Donecker asked if there were any items that needed to be pulled from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately? None were offered.

Councilman Henderson made the motion, seconded by Councilman Turner and unanimously approved by Council 7-0, to approve the Consent Agenda.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 1- APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 13, 2003 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES.

With the approval of the Consent Agenda in a 7-0 vote, the Council approved the August 13, 2003 regular meeting minutes.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 2- APPROVAL OF BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 3, WHICH APPROPRIATES A CONTRIBUTION TO THE RECREATION DEPARTMENT; A GRANT FOR SAFETY VESTS RECEIVED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT; FUNDS FROM THE ANNIE PENN TRUST FOR A FIRE AND SAFETY EDUCATION TRAILER FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; AND $175,000 FROM THE SEWER RESERVE FUND FOR EXTRA SLUDGE REMOVAL.

With the approval of the Consent Agenda in a 7-0 vote, the Council approved Budget Ordinance Amendment No. 3, which follows:

BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 3

WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Reidsville adopted a budget ordinance on June 11, 2003 which established revenues and authorized expenditures for fiscal year 2003-2004; and

WHEREAS, since the time of the adoption of said ordinance, it has become necessary to make certain changes in the City's budget to appropriate a contribution from Equity Group to the Recreation Department for youth football team sponsor; to appropriate a grant received by the Police Department for safety vests; to appropriate Annie Penn Trust funds received by the Fire Department for a fire and safety education trailer; to appropriate funds from the Sewer Reserve to the Sewer operating fund for sludge removal:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Reidsville that the budget ordinance as adopted on June 11, 2003 is hereby amended as follows;

Section 1. That revenue account no. 11-3613-7700, Contributions Recreation Department, be increased by $1,500; that revenue account no. 10-3431-8002, Grant NCLM, be increased by $2,400; that revenue account no. 10-3431-9004, Annie Penn Trust Grant, be increased by $32,000; that revenue account no. 44-3991-0000, Sewer Reserve Fund Balance, be increased $175,000; that revenue account no. 62-3987-0000, Transfer from Sewer Reserve, be increased by $175,000:

Section 2. That expense account no. 11-6123-2609, Recreation Athletic Supplies, be increased by $1,500; that expense account no. 10-4312-2120, Patrol Uniforms, be increased by $2,400; that expense account no. 10-4340-5505, Fire Department Equipment, be increased by $32,000; that expense account no. 44-9810-0000, Transfer to Sewer Fund, be increased by $175,000; that expense account no. 62-7130-4400, Sludge Removal, be increased by $175,000:

This the 10th day of September, 2003.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 - APPROVAL OF A RECOMMENDATION BY FIRE CHIEF DAVID BRACKEN TO WAIVE COMPETITIVE BIDDING STATUTES AND "PIGGYBACK" ON A COMPETITIVE BID AWARDED TO THE BUIES CREEK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A FIRE TRUCK AND ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $337,105 FROM PIERCE MANUFACTURING/TRIAD FIRE, INC.

With the approval of the Consent Agenda in a 7-0 vote, the Council approved Fire Chief Bracken’s recommendation to "piggyback" on a competitive bid awarded to Buies Creek Volunteer Fire Department for a fire truck and accessory equipment for $337,105 from Pierce Manufacturing/Triad Fire.

The Resolution as approved follows:

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REIDSVILLE AUTHORIZING PIGGY BACKING ACCORDING TO GENERAL STATUTES 143-129 FOR A CUSTOM FIRE RESCUE PUMPER FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT

WHEREAS, General Statutes 143-129 allows local governments to buy off another local government’s contract if the vendor is willing to provide the items at the same or better price; and

WHEREAS, the Buies Creek Volunteer Fire Department formally bid the purchase of a custom Rescue Pumper for the Fire Department; and

WHEREAS, said Buies Creek Volunteer Fire Department awarded the bid to Pierce Mfg. and its authorized Pierce Representative, Triad Fire, Inc.; and

WHEREAS, Pierce Mfg. and its authorized Pierce Representative, Triad Fire, Inc., have offered to extend to the City of Reidsville the same price as offered to Buies Creek Volunteer Fire Department in the amount of $301,227, in addition, the Reidsville Fire Department will make additions to the base price totaling $18,773.00 and purchase accessory equipment totaling $17,105 for a total price of $337,105.00; and

WHEREAS, the City Manager, the City Finance Director, and the Fire Chief recommend that the contract for the purchase of a Custom Rescue Pumper for the Fire Department be awarded to Pierce Mfg. and its authorized Pierce Representative, Triad Fire, Inc.;

THEREFORE, NOW BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Reidsville that the contract for the purchase of a Custom Rescue Pumper for the Fire Department be awarded to Pierce Mfg. and Triad Fire, Inc. in the amount of $337,105.00 in accordance with G.S. 143-129 and that the appropriate City Officials are hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract with Pierce Mfg. and Triad Fire, Inc. to provide this purchase.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager and City Finance Director are authorized to enter into financing arrangements with Pierce Mfg. and Triad Fire, Inc.

This the 10th day of September, 2003.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 - APPROVAL OF WRITE-OFFS OF ASSESSMENTS AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AS RECOMMENDED BY BERNICE PHILLIPS, FINANCE DIRECTOR.

In a memo dated August 28, 2003 from the Finance Director to City Manager Almond, Bernice Phillips listed three accounts that needed to be written off the City’s accounts receivable list, two of which belonged to the City. The three accounts were listed as follows:

Assessment Lindsey Street City of Reidsville $3,245.00

Assessment Lindsey Street City of Reidsville $5,082.00

Demolition 323 Hill St. William Harrison $ 950.00

(Foreclosure sale by Rockingham County)

With the approval of the Consent Agenda in a 7-0 vote, the Council approved the write-offs of these three assessments.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 - APPROVAL OF A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF REIDSVILLE AND THE MEN & WOMEN IN CHRIST FOR THE "OLD CHAMBER BUILDING."

In his memo to Council dated September 2, 2003, City Manager Almond noted that the Men and Women in Christ have been leasing the City-owned building on North Scales Street known as the old Chamber building for approximately five years. The current lease expires in 2004, and the group is seeking a two-year extension. Since the City has no need of this property, and the organization has been good tenants, the City Manager said he was recommending the lease be extended for an additional two years (ending in 2006). The organization pays only $1 per year for the building but is responsible for all utilities and some minor upkeep.

With the approval of the Consent Agenda in a 7-0 vote, the Council approved the two-year lease extension requested by Men & Women in Christ.

- End of Consent Agenda -

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8-INCH SEWER LINE AND MANHOLE BEGINNING AT AN EXISTING MANHOLE IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH SCALES STREET AND LAWNDALE DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY INTERSECTION WESTWARD ALONG LAWNDALE APPROXIMATELY 346 FEET.

In making the staff report, City Manager Almond noted that this resolution is the final step in the assessment process following the completion of the sewer line on Lawndale.

Mayor Donecker opened the public hearing at 3:08 p.m. by asking if there was anyone to speak for or against this assessment? No one spoke, and the public hearing was closed at 3:08 p.m.

Mayor Pro Tem Gentry made the motion, seconded by Councilman Rucker and approved unanimously by Council, to approve the resolution.

The Resolution as approved follows:

RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL

AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS

(SP-02-01)

WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Reidsville has on this day held a public hearing, after due notice as required by law, on the Preliminary Assessment Roll for the sewer extension constructing an 8" sewer line and manhole beginning at an existing manhole in the southwest corner of the South Scales Street and Lawndale Drive right-of-way intersection thenceforth west along Lawndale Drive approximately 346'; and

WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council has heard all those present who requested to be heard, and has found the said Assessment Roll to be proper and correct;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Reidsville that:

(1) The Assessment Roll for the sewer extension constructing an 8" sewer line and manhole beginning at an existing manhole in the southwest corner of the South Scales Street and Lawndale Drive right-of-way intersection thenceforth west along Lawndale Drive approximately 346' is hereby declared to be correct, and is hereby confirmed in accordance with G.S. 160A-228, and the assessments shown thereon are hereby levied pursuant to authority granted by G.S. 160A-216, as follows:

(2) The Reidsville City Clerk is hereby directed to deliver to the City of Reidsville Tax Collector the said Assessment Roll, and the Tax Collector is hereby charged with the collection of the said assessments in accordance with the procedure established by law.

OWNERS ASSESSED #9; PIN # FRONTAGE AMOUNT

Robert S. & Geneva Williams 8903-09-16-5442 #9; 106.00 $1,166.00 #9; 8903-09-16-6382 #9; 0 (corner lot exemption) #9; 0

Caldwell H. & Vicki B. Hobbs III #9; 8903-09-16-4344 #9; 110.00 $1,210.00

Paul H. King Jr. #9; 8903-09-16-6110 #9; 239.00 $2,629.00

Waldo D. & Maurine P.Smith Sr. #9; 8903-09-16-3043 #9; 192.50 $2,117.50

(3) The City of Reidsville Tax Collector is hereby directed to publish on the 1st day of October, 2003, a notice of confirmation of the Assessment Roll, which notice shall set forth the terms of payment of the assessments.

Adopted this 10th day of September, 2003.

CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 861 FEET OF A SIX-INCH WATERMAIN AND APPURTENANCES BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF FORREST DRIVE AND ROBINHOOD ROAD, SOUTHWARD ALONG ROBINHOOD TO THE SOUTH EDGE OF PARCEL NO. 7993-19-52-4049.

City Manager Almond stated he would make the same report for this waterline project on Robinhood Road. He noted that this is phase one of a two-phase waterline project on this road.

The Mayor opened the public hearing at 3:09 p.m. by asking if there was anyone wanting to make positive or negative comments about this issue? No one responded. The public hearing was closed at 3:09 p.m.

Mayor Pro Tem Gentry made the motion, seconded by Councilwoman Zdanski and unanimously approved by Council, to approve the Resolution.

The Resolution as approved follows:

RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL

AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS

(WP-02-01)

WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Reidsville has on this day held a public hearing, after due notice as required by law, on the Preliminary Assessment Roll for the water extension constructing approximately 861 feet of 6-inch watermain and appurtenances beginning at the intersection of Forrest Drive and Robinhood Road, henceforth south along Robinhood Road to the south edge of Parcel No. 7993-19-52-4049; and

WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council has heard all those present who requested to be heard, and has found the said Assessment Roll to be proper and correct;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Reidsville that:

(1) The Assessment Roll for the water extension constructing approximately 861 feet of 6-inch watermain and appurtenances beginning at the intersection of Forrest Drive and Robinhood Road, henceforth south along Robinhood Road to the south edge of Parcel No. 7993-19-52-4049 is hereby declared to be correct, and is hereby confirmed in accordance with G.S. 160A-228, and the assessments shown thereon are hereby levied pursuant to authority granted by G.S. 160A-216, as follows:

(2) The Reidsville City Clerk is hereby directed to deliver to the City of Reidsville Tax Collector the said Assessment Roll, and the Tax Collector is hereby charged with the collection of the said assessments in accordance with the procedure established by law.

OWNERS ASSESSED #9; PIN # FRONTAGE AMOUNT

Jimmie & Pamela Watkins 7993-15-52-4865 0 (Corner lot exemption) 0

Donald & Clara Holcomb 7993-15-52-7728 50.00 (Corner Lot) $450.00

George M. Olivo 7993-15-52-4766 100.00 $900.00

George & Donna Olivo 7993-15-52-4675 100.00 $900.00

Michael & Patricia Honaker 7993-15-52-7613 100.00 $900.00

Otha & Lannette Hodges 7993-15-52-4565 100.45 $904.05

Mark Hart & Kelly Vaden 7993-15-52-7524 100.00 $900.00

Nathan & Melissa Brown 7993-19-52-7424 100.00 $900.00

Todd & Wendy Clark 7993-19-52-4369 100.00 $900.00

Betty Warf Ross 7993-19-52-7314 100.00 $900.00

Earl & Linda Williams 7993-19-52-4259 100.00 $900.00

Victor & Susan Snodgrass 7993-19-52-7213 115.50 $1,039.50

Earl Wayne Williams 7993-19-52-4169 100.00 $900.00

James & Lillian Dotson 7993-19-52-7008 184.50 $1,660.50

James & Carolyn Richmond 7993-19-52-4049 100.00 $900.00

(3) The City of Reidsville Tax Collector is hereby directed to publish on the 1st day of October, 2003, a notice of confirmation of the Assessment Roll, which notice shall set forth the terms of payment of the assessments.

Adopted this 10th day of September, 2003.

CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE NAME OF DUKE STREET TO MARCELLUS STREET.

City Manager Almond indicated there was no staff report other than his memo in the agenda packets.

The City Manager’s memo reads as follows:

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: The Honorable Mayor Donecker and Members of Reidsville City Council

FROM: D. Kelly Almond, City Manager

SUBJ: Changing the Name of Duke Street

DATE: September 2, 2003

Last month staff was directed to follow the necessary procedure in order to allow the Council to consider renaming Duke Street to Marcellus Street. The process outlined in Article VI, Section 16-70, of the City’s Code of Ordinances requires that a public hearing be held and all property owners be notified of the proposed name change. That public hearing has been advertised, and all the property owners have been notified; therefore, if it is your desire to take this action, you can do this at the September 10th meeting.

We’ve also checked with the County EMS, and we find that there is no conflict anywhere in the City or in the nearby vicinity with the proposed name "Marcellus Street." If you have any questions or desire any additional information, please let me know.

DKA/ags

Mayor Donecker opened the public hearing at 3:09 p.m. by asking if there was anyone who wished to speak for the name change or negatively about the name change? No one responded. The public hearing was closed at 3:10 p.m.

Mayor Pro Tem Gentry made the motion, seconded by Councilman Henderson and unanimously approved by the Council, to change Duke Street to Marcellus Street.

The Mayor asked Mrs. Cecil Marcellus if she would like to come up and say a few words. Mrs. Marcellus thanked the Council for naming the street after her husband, who could not be at the meeting today. She noted that the name change would help give a new start to the revitalization under way in the West End community and said they were "greatly honored."

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT THE PROJECT BE UNDERTAKEN TO CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY 975 FEET OF 8-INCH SEWER LINE AND MANHOLES BEGINNING AT 503 MCCOY ROAD SOUTHWARD 550 FEET ALONG MCCOY, THEN EASTWARD ALONG LONGBOW ROAD APPROXIMATELY 425 FEET TO AN EXISTING SEWER LINE.

In making his staff report, City Manager Almond noted that the City had been approached in the past about getting sewer lines constructed in this area, but the applicants had never been able to get enough signatures to satisfy the City’s 51% requirement on the petition. At the meeting last month, a majority of the Council indicated they might be willing to go ahead and order the project undertaken without a valid petition. The Council has the legal authority to do according to State statutes, the City Manager pointed out, especially considering a health hazard that was documented to the Council by letter from Ted Nelson, County Environmental Health Director. A copy of that letter was included in the Council members’ agenda packets, he said.

The affected property owners were notified of today’s public hearing, the City Manager said. If Council orders that the project should be undertaken, staff will then design the project and get DOT approval to put the sewer line along McCoy Road and Longbow Road. He said he would envision, if everything goes reasonably well, that the project could be started in late winter or early spring. Staff would then come back to Council around June or July with the final assessments.

City Manager Almond said he would point out there are mistakes in the petition located in the agenda packets, which he noted is there for advisory purposes only. The petition was included because it shows the footage of the affected property owners and proposed assessments, he said. He said there are two corrections he would make. The first, based on Councilwoman Zdanski’s recommendation during last month’s meeting, the property listed in the name of Dee Ann Stanfield shows 1,463.35 feet. Actually, the footage to be used for the assessment is only that footage along the sewer line, which equals 525 feet. For the property in the name of Sam Montgomery on Longbow Road, staff brought to his attention that if you look at the map, parcels 2214 and 4220 are owned by the Montgomerys. There should not be an assessment on that corner property because that property owner was not given a corner lot assessment when sewer was run down Sherwood Road. That may still leave something to be decided in the future if sewer is run down McCoy Road from the other direction, he said. In the packet, Parcel 2214 shows 220.56 feet of affected property, which with a corner lot exemption should be zeroed out to zero. He said that those revisions wouldn’t have to be made until the final assessment roll is brought back to Council to levy for assessments.

Today, the Council just has to decide whether the project should be undertaken, the City Manager explained.

The Mayor open the public hearing at 3:14 p.m. by asking if there was anyone who wished to speak for the petition?

Mr. Raeford Roberts of 503 McCoy Road got up to speak. Mr. Roberts said they have no desire to cause any ill will, hardship or break down any friendship with any of their neighbors. He presented two photographs for Council to look at, which he said showed that he has a serious sewer problem in his yard. He said his grandchildren could not play there, and they have a need for help in this area. Therefore, they have come to the City, of which they are residents of, to help them in this situation. Mr. Roberts said that, under the direction of Mayor Donecker, he contacted the County Health Department and received the letter (already presented to Council) assessing the condition of his lot. He said they also received a "memo letter" back in March requesting the assessment, and the people signed this as well as the original petition. He said they believed that any repairs made to their present system would be just a temporary situation. Therefore, they are asking for City sewer, which they can connect onto. He said, if Council sees fit to work out a different agreement with the Stanfields, he would suggest that the Stanfields not be made to pay for their part of the assessment until they connect to the sewer line.

Councilman Rucker asked Mr. Roberts when his tank has to be pumped, how long does it take to fill it back up? Mr. Roberts noted that there had been a lot of rain lately. He said he had it pumped on September 8 – two days ago – and the last time was about two months previously. He noted that it had been pumped four times since December, adding that it depends on how much it rains.

Councilman Festerman asked Mr. Roberts if he knew what his tank capacity is? Mr. Roberts said he wasn’t sure, but he thought it was 800 gallons.

After Mr. Roberts sat down, the Mayor asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of this consideration?

Mr. Norman Walker of 507 McCoy Road said he knew that four out of six property owners on that road have had trouble with their septic tanks. Mr. Walker said he had had trouble with his, and they were "just getting by with it." He said he would appreciate any help Council could give them.

The Mayor then asked if there was anyone who wished to speak against consideration of this?

Ms. Dee Stanfield of 504 McCoy Road approached City Council. She said she was surprised to learn from her husband, Bob, what had occurred at the August 13 Council meeting. She said the next day she started preparing for today’s meeting.

Ms. Stanfield then went over a timeline of events. She said that in late summer of 1992, Carolyn Roberts (wife of Raeford Roberts) asked her when the sewer line was going to be run? This was immediately after the water line had been run, Ms. Stanfield informed Council. She questioned Ms. Roberts, who told her the City had said it was going to run a sewer line. Ms. Stanfield told her the City was talking about outfall lines, not sewer lines. She also informed her that a sewer line took a petition, which needed to have 51% of the property owners who owned 51% of the footage.

Ms. Stanfield said she told Ms. Roberts that she hoped she understood, but she would never sign a petition because it could cost them as much as $16,000. She said they didn’t have a choice with the water line, but they did have a choice with the sewer line and signing the petition. Ms. Roberts was floored that it would cost the Stanfields that much, Ms. Stanfield said. Ms. Roberts told Ms. Stanfield that they had been having trouble with their septic tank, and she didn’t know what they were going to do.

Ms. Stanfield said it was not mentioned again until six years later, in March of 1998. Ms. Roberts called her over to her yard one day in late March and told her Raeford had requested an official petition from the City for a sewer line. Ms. Roberts said she just wanted to show Ms. Stanfield what the City was going to charge them. It was $16,096.85. Ms. Stanfield said she told Ms. Roberts that nothing had changed since they had first talked about it. She said she told Ms. Roberts that she was going to have a hard time getting 51% and that they needed to consider repairing or replacing their system.

Ms. Stanfield said at the April 1998 Council meeting, Raeford Roberts and Norman Walker were there. They informed her they were going to submit the petition. Ms. Stanfield said she knew they weren’t going to have 51%. They presented their petition to Council and were told it was not valid, she noted.

On March 11, 2003, Raeford Roberts called her late in the evening before the March 12 Council meeting and told her he would be presenting another petition because he was having a terrible time with his septic tank. He told her he had the tank pumped twice in the last two months, and again on March 10. Ms. Stanfield told Council these dates are different from the ones quoted in Mr. (Ted) Nelson’s letter. Raeford told her they understood the Stanfields’ position, and he would ask the City to grant them a special consideration.

At the March 12 Council meeting, at which time the cell tower discussion was held, Ms. Stanfield asked whether Mr. Roberts had an official petition from the City. She was told he had not received one. What he presented appeared to her to be a homemade petition, she said, which was signed by the six people in the 500 block. That, however, is not 51%, she noted.

Ms. Stanfield stated that, in Mr. Roberts’ remarks to Council that night, he said, which she noted was not in Council’s meeting minutes, he stood beside her and said if the Health Department knew that he had sewage running out on the ground, "they would probably shut me down." She said the key word there was "if," which showed that the Health Department didn’t know anything about it. He also said his neighbor, Fred Denny, had been allowed to put in a temporary fix. She said she thought that was unusual, and she asked Mr. Roberts as they left the building that night what a temporary fix was? She told him that she didn’t think the Health Department let people put in "temporary fixes" and asked if Mr. Denny had a permit? Mr. Roberts said he thought so, that Mr. Denny had another septic tank put on top of the other. She said she didn’t pursue that at the time although she questioned it in her mind.

At the August 13th meeting, Councilwoman Zdanski presented the letter from Ted Nelson, Environmental Health Director, saying it was the basis for this public hearing today and running this sewer line without requiring the 51% requirement, Ms. Stanfield said. When her husband told her that, she called the next day and requested of City Clerk Angela Stadler a copy of Mr. Nelson’s letter, which she picked up on Friday. A Xeroxed copy of the pictures Raeford Roberts had presented to Council were attached so Ms. Stanfield said she assumed the pictures were from Mr. Nelson. She called Mr. Nelson to make him aware that "there were two sides to this story and two sides to this road." She said she explained their position to him. She then asked him if there was an imminent health hazard in their neighborhood? He told her "no." He also told her that there was not a "ballooning problem" and that their neighborhood didn’t have any more of a health hazard than any other neighborhood that has septic tanks.

Ms. Stanfield said she asked Mr. Nelson if he knew that Mr. Roberts had used his letter as a basis to get a public hearing called for a sewer line without the 51% requirement and that there is a "long standing health hazard" there? He said, no, he was not aware of that. She asked him how the letter came about? She interjected that she asked Mr. Nelson to attend today’s meeting and that he was in the audience to answer any questions. She had talked with Mr. Nelson on the phone and met with him on Monday. Again, she noted that she asked him how the letter came about and who took these pictures? He said Mr. Roberts asked him to write it, that it was a "regurgitation" of what Mr. Roberts sat there and told him. He said he didn’t know anything about the pictures.

Ms. Stanfield asked City Manager Almond if anyone from the City had gone out to Mr. Roberts’ property to check on these pictures? He said not to his knowledge. She said no one has been on the property when this problem was evident. These pictures don’t have a date on them, she noted. She said she knows Mr. Roberts has a problem, she doesn’t doubt that, but she questioned the validity of the evidence presented.

Mr. Nelson said he could tell her that on May 29, Mr. Roberts received a permit to fix his system. When the lady from the Environmental Health Office went out to check, she could find no evidence of a problem, Ms. Stanfield said, but she gave him a permit anyway. She noted that Mr. Roberts had always said that he would have to put the drain field in his front yard, which always seemed objectionable to him. This permit calls for putting the drain field in the back yard, she pointed out.

Ms. Stanfield said she asked Mr. Nelson if anyone other than Fred Denny had contacted him in the last few years about a problem. He said, no. She asked him to explain what a temporary fix is? She said she asked if Mr. Denny was allowed to do a temporary fix? Mr. Nelson said, "no, we’re not in the business of doing temporary fixes." He said no one knows how long a septic system will last. The repairs are intended to put the system back in as good a working order as possible. She said Mr. Nelson told her there was nothing wrong with Fred Denny’s septic tank, and then listed the repairs that were done to Mr. Denny’s drain field.

Ms. Stanfield said she asked Mr. Nelson again if he was aware of any other health hazards in her neighborhood? He said, "no." She said she met with Mr. Nelson on Monday and got a copy of Fred Denny’s permit. She noted that Mr. Roberts’ problems have been going on for 11 years, and he hasn’t fixed them; however, Mr. Denny fixed his problem as soon as he let the Health Department know.

The point she really wanted to stress, Ms. Stanfield said, is this: Tommy Young had his septic system fixed not too long after the area was annexed, but he had had no problems with the septic tank. Lucy and Ron Byers are not having any problems with their septic system. She said she and her husband were not having any problems. Bob (Stanfield) had told Council they had their septic tank pumped at the end of November, not because it needed it, but because her husband had heard the forecast of a wet winter, she said. Also, the tank hadn’t been pumped in three years, which is recommended, she said. She said they had the tank pumped to avoid problems, and they’ve had no problems. Nancy Montgomery has not had any problems, Ms. Stanfield continued.

Her concern, she said, is if Council approves the sewer line today, they will be endorsing Mr. Roberts "choosing to be negligent" in making repairs for at least 11 years by giving him a sewer line. This decision will be an "unfounded labeling" of their area as a public health hazard, she said. "If there is any hazard at all, it is confined to Raeford’s yard, and it is of his own making," Ms. Stanfield said. "There are no other health hazards that we know of. There are no other health hazards that Environmental Health knows of. I do not take lightly the mislabeling of our area as a hazardous area because that can have a long-term detrimental effect on property values."

She and her husband, Bob, asked Council to put serious thought into its decision, Ms. Stanfield said. She asked Council not to run a sewer line based on the reasons given in the August minutes and in City Manager Almond’s memo to them. She said they did not have evidence to substantiate them, and Ted Nelson’s letter is not the evidence they need either.

Ms. Stanfield asked Mr. Nelson if he would like to come up and respond. He said he would if the Mayor or Council had any questions to ask him.

Councilman Festerman asked Mr. Nelson if had read the City Manager’s memo? Mr. Nelson replied in the negative. Mr. Nelson was given a moment to look at the memo, specifically the reference to a "long-standing health problem."

Mr. Roberts also showed Mr. Nelson the pictures he had shown Council earlier.

Councilman Festerman asked Mr. Nelson if it was a "long-standing health problem"? Mr. Nelson said there has not been a continuing health problem, but he said there have been septic systems in the area that have failed. When those septic systems have failed, people have applied for repairs, and they have been repaired, he said. Mr. Nelson added that he doesn’t know of any outstanding problems currently. The biggest problem there, he said, as often is the case in such neighborhoods, sometimes it is hard for someone to repair a septic system because of limited repair space. However, he added that doesn’t mean a repair can’t be found. Mr. Nelson said they don’t condemn houses or ask people to leave houses, they find a way. Sometimes those ways are a little more expensive than an initial, conventional system, he noted.

Mr. Nelson added that he rode through the McCoy Road area recently and didn’t see anything and wasn’t aware of any septic problems out there right now.

Councilman Festerman asked if this area, since it is part of the critical watershed area, should get any heightened concern? Mr. Nelson said there would be concern if there was sewage running out of a septic system. He said they have had that problem. He again noted that it’s not always the "easiest thing" to fix them. If someone can look to a City sewer line where they don’t have to work with septic systems, it does make it easier to work with, he said. He said he wasn’t aware of any watershed-related problems.

City Attorney Bill McLeod Jr. asked Mr. Nelson if he was correct in understanding that Mr. Nelson was saying at the present time, there is not a public health problem in this area? Mr. Nelson said there is no imminent hazard. From the pictures shown to him by Mr. Roberts, it looks like Mr. Roberts may have a problem on his property, Mr. Nelson said. Mr. Nelson said he was unaware of that although he knew that Mr. Roberts had his tank pumped several times and that he has a permit to put in some new lines. Mr. Nelson said again, he knew of no imminent hazard although there had been hazards at times, which had been fixed when they came up.

Councilman Henderson asked if there was any frequency of problems in that area that indicates there is a serious problem? Mr. Nelson said it is "about the same" as any other residential area where there are limited repair areas.

Councilman Turner asked Mr. Nelson whether Mr. Roberts had adequate space to repair his lines? Mr. Nelson replied in the affirmative, noting some of this would be putting new lines between old lines. He said there may be the possibility of running some lines to the front part of Mr. Roberts’ property as well, but that is not a permanent solution. What’s permanent is putting new lines between old lines, Mr. Nelson said.

Councilman Rucker asked Mr. Nelson if he had told Mr. Roberts that information? Mr. Nelson said he didn’t think he and Mr. Roberts had discussed that. Mr. Roberts had talked about the possibility of the property being evaluated by an environmental specialist. "I haven’t talked to him about it," Mr. Nelson said.

Ms. Stanfield asked to make another comment. She noted that her farm is on the outer edge of the critical watershed area; therefore, Mr. Roberts’ property is not in the critical watershed area.

Mr. Roberts then asked to speak again. He said it seems like he has been made the villain in this procedure. He said he did have a permit here. He noted that Mr. Walker has been having problems. It was noted that Mr. Denny had put in a new septic line in the spring. Mr. Roberts said he has been in the building business for 47 years. To him, this would be just a "temporary fix," giving him trouble again in five years, especially with as much rain as the area has had. With this system, lines go in between the lines that are already there, block off the other lines, he noted, and this is just temporary. Mr. Roberts said they are citizens of Reidsville and need some help from the City of Reidsville. The City is going to want them to pay their taxes fairly shortly, he noted. He said he wasn’t looking for a temporary fix. Mr. Roberts acknowledged that he had had some problems and that he didn’t have all the dates Ms. Stanfield has. Councilwoman Zdanski came out and visited his property, and saw the situation they have there, he said. The dates in the letter reflect the times his tank was pumped, he said, even if there are no dates on the pictures provided. He noted the tank had been pumped five times since December. Mr. Roberts asked if he was going to have to bear the expense of $2,000-$3,000 and still have only a temporary fix or whether or not they can have City sewer in front of their house? "That’s up to you folks," he told Council.

Ms. Nancy Montgomery of 104 Longbow Road approached Council. She asked for explanation of the "corrections" noted at the beginning of the meeting.

City Manager Almond explained that the documents in the agenda packet showed her property with a frontage of 220.56 feet. When Ms. Montgomery was assessed for sewer on Sherwood Road, she was not given a corner lot exemption, which she was entitled too. Therefore, on this assessment, her cost would be zeroed out, he said. A brief discussion ensued about how Council was figuring assessment costs based on actual footage. City Manager Almond told Ms. Montgomery that she was being given the corner lot exemption for the Sherwood Road project on this project. Councilman Festerman noted that if this sewer project was done, it would be at no cost to Ms. Montgomery. She said she wanted to say that she had not had any sewer problems.

Mr. Bob Stanfield of 504 McCoy Road got up to speak. He wanted to address one comment Mr. Roberts made when he returned to the podium. He noted that Mr. Roberts said he didn’t want any possible problems. Mr. Stanfield said one could buy a new automobile, and it could break down. He noted that Mr. Nelson was a professional. While Raeford was in the building business, he (Mr. Stanfield) was in the telephone business and nobody could ever predict what was going to happen to a telephone line or any system one builds. He noted that Mr. Roberts’ attitude was that he was going to do this, and it was going to break. "That’s not necessarily 100% correct," Mr. Stanfield said, most likely it wasn’t because the County had been out there and said this system would work and it’s worked everywhere else.

The public hearing was closed at 3:45 p.m.

The Mayor said he would entertain a motion. Councilman Turner said, as bad as he hated to say it, he thought they needed to ask Mr. Roberts to go back and explore the possibilities of putting in a new septic tank. Mr. Roberts asked if the City was prepared to pay half of that cost? Councilman Turner said, no, it wasn’t.

As Mr. Roberts started to ask another question, Mayor Donecker interrupted, asking Councilman Turner if he had made that in the form of a motion? If there was no motion, the Mayor said they would move on to Item #7 on the agenda.

City Attorney McLeod asked whether he could, by explanation for Mr. Roberts, explain the petition process? The Mayor agreed.

The City Attorney told Mr. Roberts that it became clear to him during the information provided to Council that there may not be an existing or current public health problem in the neighborhood. Without the finding of fact that there is a current health problem out there, the Council would have to rely on the petition, which is insufficient at 44%. Mr. McLeod said he knew of no other petition out there. Without a public health problem currently available, there is nothing for the Council to move forward with because they have to have an adequate petition.

City Manager Almond interrupted, saying he begged to differ with the City Attorney. According to State statutes, the City Council has the authority to order a project whether there is a public health hazard or not, he said. City Attorney McLeod said he would do some research, but he thought there had to be a health or safety problem. He said he would be glad to research it, but Mr. Roberts seemed to be wanting an answer and that was where the discussion seemed to be heading.

Mayor Donecker said he thought Manager Almond was referring to the idea that if this Council feels that a sewer line needs to be run down there, they could do it based on economic reasons, based on the good of the City. However, he said Council needed to hear the City Attorney’s opinion.

City Attorney McLeod said that the explanation provided early on was that there was a public safety or health issue. Mr. Nelson was made available, and didn’t see it that way. It was almost like everything fell into a void, and Mr. Roberts needed that explanation, McLeod said.

Councilman Zdanski asked if the issue could be tabled and discussed further? Mayor Donecker said that, without a motion, if Councilwoman Zdanski wanted to put it back on the agenda, she could do so.

The City Attorney said he would be glad to research it and get back with the City Manager.

Councilman Turner asked if the issue was tabled, could it be brought up at the next meeting? Mayor Donecker replied in the affirmative, noting that it would need to be discussed in the next six months. The City Attorney said he thought he could have an opinion before the next meeting.

Councilman Turner made the motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gentry, to table this issue until the October 8th City Council meeting.

During the discussion phase, Councilman Festerman said this is a troubling issue to him. Here is a citizen living in the City who ought to be able to expect sewer service. He said he could also understand the Stanfields’ side. He said he would give both sides careful consideration. He added that he thought both sides had done an excellent job making their points. He said he was sure that his colleagues would do the same, giving the decision careful consideration.

City Attorney McLeod again stated that he would report back to the City Manager before the next meeting.

Mayor Donecker said it may be that this issue might need to be looked into more deeply. He asked if the issue is whether or not the sewer line needs to be there or how the City charges people to pay for a sewer line when they’re not connected. He said he would like for Council to consider whether landowners, such as the Stanfields, could pay for their assessments at the appropriate time, he said. That way you can allow for residents who need the sewer line right now. "I don’t think it has to be a neighbor against neighbor situation," he said, "and it doesn’t have to be a black-white situation." He noted that the current ordinance is not flexible. He talked of the Council sitting down, looking at the issues with the City Manager providing examples. The payment of such a line wouldn’t have to be effected until next June, the Mayor stated. He said that would leave enough time for the assessment process to be looked at during a Council retreat. It would also give the City Manager time to find out how other cities and counties address this issue.

The motion was unanimously approved by Council.

- End of Public Hearings -

CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDEMNATIONS:

Community Development Director Michael Pearce brought two condemnations that staff was recommending be ordered by Council.

316 S. Branch

Pearce said that a title search of 316 South Branch Street showed the property owners to be George Rufus Mullins, Sedalia Mullins, Lorraine Gunn, Randall Mullins, Kenneth Mullins and Maria Mullins. They were given notice of the May 12th hearing with the Code Enforcement Officer, but no one attended and no evidence was presented, he said. An order to remove the dwelling was sent to the owners, who refused to accept the order by certified mail. Staff did post the property and put the notice in the Reidsville Review, Pearce explained. On August 11, 2003, time expired on the 90 days given to repair or remove the dwelling. He said that the Order requires removal because the estimated cost of repairs ($21,150) exceeds 50% of the value of the building ($14,285). On August 28, a follow-up inspection was done showing no changes. He added that no property taxes have been paid on the property since 1992 and now total $3,738.49. Staff is recommending this demolition, Pearce stated.

Councilman Festerman made the motion, seconded by Councilman Rucker and unanimously approved by Council, to accept the recommendation of staff.

The Demolition Order as approved by Council follows:

O R D I N A N C E

To Demolish and Remove Structure at 316 S. Branch Street

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED:

WHEREAS, on the 12th day of May, 2003 at 10:30 a.m., the Code Enforcement Inspector of Reidsville, North Carolina conducted a hearing on violations of Chapter 4, Article II, Housing Code, Reidsville Code of Ordinances, Section 4.26, for the property located at 316 S. Branch Street, Reidsville, North Carolina Tax Map No. 8905-19-60-2782. The Complaint and Notice of Hearing was served on the owners by publication in the Reidsville Review newspaper, on April 29, 2003, and by posting the subject property with the complaint and notice on the subject property on April 25, 2003. Said owners being the George Rufus Mullins, Sedalia Mullins, Lorraine Gunn, Randall Mullins, Kenneth Mullins, and Maria Mullins.

Whereas, no one appeared at said hearing and presented no evidence, and whereas a copy of the Order of the Code Enforcement Inspector was posted on said property May 13, 2003 and published in the Reidsville Review on May 14, 2003. The Order allowed said owners to demolish and remove the above structure on or before August 11, 2003, and whereas there has been insufficient compliance with said Order in that said structure has not been demolished or removed, and remains dilapidated and unfit for human habitation, and constitutes a public health, safety, and fire hazard;

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the Reidsville Code of Ordinances, Section 4-29 (c), the Code Enforcement Inspector of Reidsville, North Carolina is hereby ordered to cause the above structure located at 316 S. Branch Street, Reidsville, North Carolina, to be demolished and removed, in pending demolition and removal to be placarded said structure as provided by N.C.G. S. 160A443 and Section 4-29 (b) of the Reidsville Code of Ordinances.

This is the 10th day of September, 2003.

1702 Sherwood

In making his staff report on the second condemnation request, Pearce informed Council that a title search of 1702 Sherwood Drive had found the property owner to be the estate of Berta Crouch Surrett. The owner was given proper notice of the May 15 hearing with the Code Enforcement Officer, which was not attended by anyone and no evidence was presented, the Community Development Director said. The Order to repair or demolish the dwelling was advertised, and the property posted. On August 12, 2003, the 90 days for the property owner to either repair or remove the dwelling expired. The Order required removal because the cost of repairs ($15,790) exceeded 50% of the value of the house ($14,297). An inspection of the property as recently as yesterday found the building still to be in dilapidated condition, Pearce said.

Pearce noted that the property taxes for the site have not been paid since 1995 and are in arrears in the amount of $2,628.50. This situation has been sticky and has taken longer because of the estate problems, he explained, noting that no deeds have been filed giving the property to anyone as far as he knows. Ms. Betty Jean Turner, who was listed as an heir, has claimed ownership of the property and stated that she wants to bring the house up to habitable condition. However, Code Inspector Tim Warner said no physical repairs have been made to the building, which is still in dilapidated condition, Pearce said.

Pearce stated that staff is, therefore, recommending Council issue an order to demolish. Councilman Henderson asked about the City’s legal standing on this issue. Pearce turned this discussion over to City Attorney Bill McLeod Jr.

The City Attorney explained that with the death of Berta Crouch Surrett in 1995, the estate situation had become somewhat ambiguous due to the interpretation of the will. It went to court, and there was a declaratory judgement. Deeds with the property have never been prepared and things have been "up in the air" about whether that will ever take place, he said.

The property was posted, he noted, but there is no way to search the public records to do anything more than he has already done, the City Attorney said. Properly posting the property is about the only thing to do, he added. Councilman Henderson wanted to make sure that the City was not exceeding its legal authority, to which the City Attorney said it wasn’t.

Councilman Festerman said he goes by the property several times a week, and someone is occupying the property, at least on a temporary basis. Pearce said his department has been notified that people have been trying to maintain some type of presence there, but he didn’t think they were legally occupying the building.

Councilman Festerman made the motion, seconded by Councilman Rucker and unanimously approved by Council, to approve the staff’s recommendation.

The Order to Demolish as approved follows:

O R D I N A N C E

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED:

WHEREAS, on the 15th day of May, 2003 at 10:00 a.m., the Code Enforcement Inspector of Reidsville, North Carolina conducted a hearing on violations of Chapter 4, Article II, Housing Code, Reidsville Code of Ordinances, Section 4.26, for the property located at 1702 Sherwood Drive, Reidsville, North Carolina Tax Map No. 7994-07-78-4133. The Complaint and Notice of Hearing was served on the owners by publication in the Reidsville Review newspaper, on May 4, 2003, and by posting the subject property with the complaint and notice on the subject property on May 1, 2003. Said owners being the Estate of Berta Crouch Surrett.

WHEREAS, no one appeared at said hearing and presented no evidence, and whereas a copy of the Order of the Code Enforcement Inspector was posted on said property May 15, 2003 and published in the Reidsville Review on May 18, 2003. The Order allowed said owners to demolish and remove the above structure on or before August 12, 2003, and whereas there has been insufficient compliance with said Order in that said structure has not been demolished or removed, and remains dilapidated and unfit for human habitation, and constitutes a public health, safety, and fire hazard;

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the Reidsville Code of Ordinances, Section 4-29 (c), the Code Enforcement Inspector of Reidsville, North Carolina is hereby ordered to cause the above structure located at 1702 Montgomery Street, Reidsville, North Carolina, to be demolished and removed, in pending demolition and removal to be placarded said structure as provided by N.C.G. S. 160A443 and Section 4-29 (b) of the Reidsville Code of Ordinances.

This is the 10th day of September, 2003.

Update on 102 South Branch Street.

Community Development Director Pearce said he wanted to give Council an update on 102 S. Branch Street. Council had given Mr. Samuel Archer 90 days to repair the structure during its May 13th meeting. He informed Council that Mr. Archer had been issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the building, which has been rehabilitated. No further action is needed on this, Pearce said.

Mayor Donecker then called for a five-minute recess. At approximately 4:09 p.m., Council resumed its meeting.

CONSIDERATION OF VENDOR INSURANCE OPTIONS FOR CITY-SPONSORED EVENTS.

Assistant City Manager Terri Stamey provided the staff report. She noted that recently she had been asked to research whether or not the City should require that vendors providing services and goods at City events, such as festivals, be required to provide a Certificate of Insurance. This certificate would show whether they have coverage in case something they sold harmed a member of the public, she explained. In doing that research, Stamey said she tried to look at how staff might protect the City and public while working with the vendors in a reasonable manner.

Stamey said she talked with the City’s insurance carrier at the NC League of Municipalities seeking direction. Together they determined the City Council has multiple options it can consider, she said.

(THOSE OPTIONS ARE OUTLINED IN THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER’S SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 MEMO TO THE CITY MANAGER WHICH FOLLOWS:

MEMORANDUM

TO: D. Kelly Almond, City Manager

FROM: Terri J. Stamey, Assistant City Manager

DATE: September 2, 2003

RE: Insurance Requirements for Vendors

Recently, you and Harry Brown requested that I research options for liability insurance to protect the City from liability associated with the sale of food and other items by vendors at events sponsored by the City.

As you know, the City’s general liability insurance coverage is purchased through the North Carolina League of Municipalities’ program titled the Interlocal Risk Financing Fund of North Carolina. I spoke with underwriter Dianna Wodziak about this matter.

We concluded that the City Council has several choices regarding the issue of coverage for this liability. They are listed below.

The City may require that vendors selling goods at events sponsored by the City have a certificate of insurance proving that they carry $2 million in liability coverage for their operations and completed products. This certificate should also list the City as an additional insured. This is the safest course of action for the City because the limits on the vendors’ insurance policy would match the City’s limits.
The City may require that vendors provide proof of coverage in any amount up to $2 million with the certificate of insurance listing the City as an additional insured. This reduction in the amount of insurance required would indicate that the City Council has chosen to assume some level of risk in order to make it more affordable for vendors to sell at our events. The suggested level of coverage for this option would be at least $1 million.
The City may not require vendors to carry liability insurance coverage. This would mean that the City Council would potentially be assuming all the risk associated with the vendors’ operations at City events.
In establishing a policy on insurance for vendors, it is important to remember that the City will be defended against claims for damages arising from the events that we sponsor if the City has been negligent. However, the vendors will not be covered by our policy and will have to provide their own defense in the event of litigation.

A policy requiring vendors to carry a meaningful amount of liability insurance may serve to "weed out" some vendors who are local residents conducting a fund-raiser in favor of vendors who provide these goods on a professional or semi-professional basis and who are already insured for the business.

We also considered the liability associated with the events sponsored by the Downtown Corporation. In my discussions with Mrs. Wodziak, she indicated that the City’s coverage would not extend to the Downtown Corporation since they are an independent organization with a separate Board of Directors. I faxed a copy of the Downtown Corporation’s Articles of Incorporation and By-laws to the League of Municipalities to assist them in determining if they are permitted by Department of Insurance regulations to provide coverage to the Downtown Corporation. They have not yet responded.

To review, the City Council may choose to require vendors to carry liability insurance coverage in an amount of their choosing or not to carry liability insurance at all. The City’s insurance policy will defend the City against liability claims if the City is negligent. The City’s coverage will not extend to the vendors or to the Downtown Corporation. The City’s limit for general liability coverage is $2 million.

I hope this information is helpful as the City Council considers insurance coverage requirements for vendors. Please let me know if you have questions or need more information. - END)

The Assistant City Manager stated that it is good to note that the City’s general liability insurance policy provides $2 million worth of coverage in case anything goes wrong at events like this. "That protects the City, and we would be defended against the claims in the event that we were negligent," she said. She explained that this coverage would not extend to vendors operating at festivals that the City sponsors.

Some entities take another tact, Stamey said. They have their own coverage, but they also require that vendors provide a Certificate of Insurance equaled to their limits – which in the City’s case would be $2 million, she continued. This could be costly for the vendors, but would provide coverage equal to what the City has and list the City as an insured. Therefore, people seeking litigation for damages that they thought resulted from a vendor’s irresponsible actions would have no reason to go against the City because by going against the vendor, they would be going against the City, Stamey explained. Therefore, the City might avoid costly litigation through the City’s insurance policy.

Some entities choose to take a "mid-level" approach and have vendors provide proof of insurance coverage, but not equal to the City’s level, the Assistant City Manager said. This approach probably would require the vendors have at least $1 million in coverage. The City Council could choose any amount of coverage it wants vendors to carry, she noted.

The City Council may choose not to require the vendors to carry any insurance or provide any certificates of insurance, Stamey explained. In the event of a claim against any of those vendors, the vendor wouldn’t have any coverage from the City and would be uncovered unless they had coverage the City didn’t know about. Their defense would be their own costs, and any damages would be their own costs, she said. The City of Reidsville would be protected by its own insurance policy, but the City would be unable to extend that coverage to vendors.

Stamey then recapped the three options listed in her memo: (1) coverage required by vendor naming the City as an insured with coverage equaling the City’s at $2 million; (2) any level of coverage up to or above the $2 million, naming the City as an additional insured so the City would be protected by the policy; and (3) no coverage with vendors on their own with the City covered by its policy.

In response to a question from Council, Stamey noted that the City currently follows Option #3.

Councilman Turner noted that most vendors are required to have a tax identification number. He said he believed the IRS checks to make sure they have such an ID number. Stamey noted that some of these people are professional or semi-professional vendors while others are community groups doing fund-raisers. She was unsure whether these community groups would have a tax ID number or not. She said one thing that was looked at was if the cost of the policy was so great, it would prove to be a disincentive for some people to participate in events. She said it was a matter for City Council members to decide.

Councilman Festerman said he was not interested in making it more difficult for people to come to City functions. The more vendors there are, the more it adds to the flavor of the event, he said.

Councilman Festerman made the motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gentry, to continue doing business as the City currently is (Option #3 in the Assistant City Manager’s memo).

Councilman Henderson asked if everyone who sells at these events are considered vendors? Stamey and the City Manager replied in the affirmative.

Mayor Pro Tem Gentry noted that most organizations usually have a large liability coverage. With those types of vendors, it’s not usually a problem to get the certificate of coverage and get the City named as an insured, but it is difficult for people who don’t have such a policy and might lead them not to participate in the event, Stamey said.

The Council then unanimously approved the motion.

City Manager Almond said he wanted to make a couple of clarifications. This policy only applies to vendors at City-sponsored events or those sponsored by City board or commissions, he explained. Those events sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce or the Reidsville Downtown Corporation, which is a separate corporation whose board is not appointed by the City Council, are not covered by this policy, he stressed. He said he just wanted to make sure Council understood this. No coverage is being extended to other organizations or to vendors, Stamey explained.

BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS:

City Manager Almond distributed the ballots for the boards and commissions.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS.

Column in Police Department Newsletter.

Mr. Richard Moore, a businessman at 217 Turner Drive, Reidsville, got up to address Council. He read from Enclosure #8, a memo from the City Manager to Council, Item No. 1 (City Manager’s Report), which indicated that the column, Alexander’s Corner, in the Police Department newsletter, would be discussed again at the Council meeting, and the City Attorney would give his legal opinion. Mr. Moore said he was going to take it on "good faith" that the City Manager was going to bring that subject up.

Mr. Moore said he didn’t have anything to contribute to the discussion so he was quite content to wait until the City Manager brought it up in his report. The City Manager said if he was to bring it up in the report, he would read exactly what Mr. Moore had just read. Mayor Donecker informed Mr. Moore that the Council had received a written legal opinion from the City Attorney about this. Mr. Moore requested a copy of the opinion.

Mayor Donecker told Mr. Moore that the bottom line here was that he should "let sleeping dogs lie" regarding this issue. The Mayor said if Mr. Moore was uncomfortable with the situation, he was more than welcome to talk with an attorney about it. Mr. Moore said that was never the reason it was raised in the first place, but that he felt the need to raise a flag of caution here. It sounded like at the last meeting that the City Attorney also had some concerns, Mr. Moore noted. He said if Council had received a written opinion from the City Attorney and still planned to "let sleeping dogs lie," all he had wanted was an answer.

Letter from Roger Daniel.

Mr. Moore then said he had something to read on behalf of another citizen. He noted that it referenced page 41 of last month’s minutes and the schedule of meeting times noted. As Mr. Moore began to read it, Mayor Donecker interrupted him, noting that he and other members of Council had already received the letter from Roger Daniel. The Mayor told Mr. Moore there was no point in going over this again, especially since Mr. Daniel wasn’t here himself. He said Council received the letter by US mail. He told Mr. Moore, again, this was a case of letting sleeping dogs lie. Mr. Moore asked if the Mayor was directing him not to read the letter? The Mayor replied in the affirmative. Mr. Moore said he would report back that the Mayor had refused to allow him to read it.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS.

The Mayor then asked City Clerk Angela Stadler to report on the outcome of voting for the boards and commissions. The City Clerk said before doing that, she wanted to point out something that may have confused some of the Council members. Noting that three Council members had voted for only two of the three people applying for the Historic Preservation Commission, she wanted to make sure Council realized that while only two positions are currently open, two positions will come open in September. Therefore, all three applicants could be appointed. The Mayor asked the City Clerk to return the ballots to those Council members. This was done, and all of the ballots were re-collected.

City Clerk Stadler reported the following unanimous appointments:

Appearance Commission – Angela Chestnut-Black of 112 Cherry Street; Gloria Pegram of 419 Turner Drive Extension; Johnsie Hayes of 1106 Arbor Lane (re-appointment); and Sandra Strader of 201 McCollum Drive (re-appointment).

Historic Preservation Commission – Chris Burnette of 629 Lindsey Street; Sheryl Manion of 1603 Pennrose Drive; and Diana Moran of 507 Redd Street.

Human Relations Commission – Alexander Williams of 904 Walters Street.

CITY MANAGER'S REPORT.

In making his report, City Manager Almond referred to Item No. 3, which noted that he would bring to Council a resolution to declare vehicles surplus and authorize their disposal. He said the City didn’t have enough items to have a public auction; therefore, the resolution asked for the Council to declare surplus 18 vehicles and dispose of them by sealed bids. He stated that there were some good deals to be found.

Councilman Gentry made the motion, seconded by Councilman Rucker and unanimously approved by Council, to pass the Resolution.

The Resolution as approved follows:

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT

FOR SEALED BID FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Reidsville desires to dispose of certain surplus property of the City;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council that:

The following described property is hereby declared to be surplus to the needs of the City:
1998 Ford Crown Victoria – Car #367 – Vin # 2FAFP71WXWX155611 - Police
1998 Ford Crown Victoria – Car #368 (wrecked) – Vin #2FAFP71WIWX155626 - Police
1996 Ford Crown Victoria – Car #339 - Vin #2FALP71W7TX138781 - Police
1998 Ford Crown Victoria – Car #370 - Vin #2FAFP71W3WX186716 - Police
1998 Ford Crown Victoria – Car #371 - Vin #2FAFP71W1WX134775 - Police
1998 Ford Crown Victoria – Car #369 - Vin #2FAFP71W6WX172325 - Police
1992 Chevrolet Caprice – Car #292 - Vin #1G1BL5374NR134933 - Police
1994 Chevrolet Caprice – Car #335 - Vin #1G1BL52PORR170559 - Police
1994 Chevrolet Caprice – Car #333 - Vin #1G1BL52P8RR136952 - Police
1992 Chevrolet Caprice – Car #287 - Vin #1G1BL5376NR134965 – Police
1994 Chevrolet Caprice – Car #334 – Vin #1G1BL52P9RR136619 - Police
1990 Dodge 4x4 Power Ram – Vin #1B7M06YXL5711296 – Recreation
1985 Galion 54-6A – Vin #367195 – Street
1991 Chevrolet S-10 – Vin #1GCCS14Z2M2245933 – Sanitation
1995 Volvo GM – Vin #4V5EAFMD4TR725023 – Sanitation
1980 Heil Trailer – Vin #T08002880 - Sanitation
1986 Chevrolet Custom Deluxe 10 – Vin #2GCEC14H9G1188860 – Lake Reidsville
1986 Ford F-600 Dump Truck – Vin #1FDNF60H9GVA27705 – Street
2. The City Manager is authorized to receive on behalf of the City Council sealed bids for the purchase of the described property.

3. If the bids received do not meet the minimum bid, the City Manager is hereby authorized to dispose of the surplus property at the best price offered based upon market value.

4. Sealed bids may be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 230 W. Morehead Street.
5. The City Clerk shall cause a notice of this resolution to be published in accordance with G.S. 160A-268.

6. Bids will not be accepted unless, upon time of filing, they are accompanied by a deposit of cash, cashiers check, equal to 5% of the minimum bid.
7. The City Manager reserves the right to reject any or all bids.

Adopted this 10th day of September, 2003.

Resolution Requesting Freeway Drive Traffic Study.

Mayor Pro Tem Gentry said the NC Department of Transportation needs to study the traffic patterns on Freeway Drive again. Noting this has been requested several times in the past, the Mayor Pro Tem said he would continue to bring this up until NCDOT studied the traffic patterns. He talked of the trouble of getting in and out along Freeway Drive, especially with more buildings being built along there. He said it probably needed to be done quicker than NCDOT wanted to do it. "It needs to be done," he said.

Councilman Festerman told Mayor Pro Tem Gentry that he agreed with him. He said it might be good if the Council talked with Representative Nelson Cole.

City Manager Almond noted that sure wouldn’t hurt. Rep. Cole is working to try to get improvements to the roadway moved up on the TIP schedule. Right now, it’s scheduled for 2008, the City Manager said.

Mayor Pro Tem Gentry made the motion, seconded by Councilman Festerman and unanimously approved by Council, to request by Resolution that a traffic study be done of Freeway Drive as quickly as possible.

The Resolution as prepared is as follows:

RESOLUTION SUPPORTING

A STUDY OF TRAFFIC PATTERNS

ON FREEWAY DRIVE IN REIDSVILLE BY

THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WHEREAS, the City Council of Reidsville, North Carolina, grows increasingly concerned about the safety of its residents and visitors traveling within its corporate limits along the congested Freeway Drive, and;

WHEREAS, among the primary concerns of local officials regarding transportation are the safety of our citizens using state and federal highways and the adequacy of the roads which connect local areas to each other and to the region to accommodate existing and future demands, and;

WHEREAS, the Freeway Drive area is a growing and prosperous commercial area of the City, where new construction currently under way will bring even more vehicles to this already busy thoroughfare, and;

WHEREAS, with this new growth comes the increased opportunity for accidents and potential loss of life, thereby precipitating the urgent need for interim steps to be taken before the scheduled widening of the road in 2008.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Reidsville City Council goes on record as strongly endorsing and recommending to the North Carolina Department of Transportation that an evaluation be done of Freeway Drive at the earliest opportunity, including a study of turn lane and traffic light possibilities as well as the possibility of consolidating driveway entrances and restricting left turns, to ensure the safety of its residents and visitors to our City.

Endorsed this the 10th day of September, 2003, by the Reidsville City Council.

COUNCIL MEMBERS' REPORTS.

Councilman Festerman – No report.

Councilman Rucker – The Councilman noted that he was unable to attend the last meeting of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission. He encouraged everyone to attend the Stone Soul Picnic on Sept. 20 at Lake Reidsville.

Councilman Festerman interjected that he was now a "card carrying member of the EDC." Any Council members with concerns were urged to let him know so he could bring it up to the Rockingham County Partnership.

Councilwoman Zdanski – The Councilwoman said that at the last Historic Preservation Commission meeting, a Certificate of Appropriateness was awarded for 408 Maple Avenue. Officers elected at the meeting were Anne Marie Simmons, chair, and Ray Marsh, vice chair.

At the August 27th Chamber of Commerce board meeting, they discussed the success of the golf tournament. The Chamber of Commerce Christmas parade will be held on November 22 with the theme, "Peace, Honor." She said she attended the countywide coffee on September 4th at 8 a.m. A notary is now located in the Chamber offices for Chamber members, she said. Two candidate forums are planned at 7 p.m.: September 18th for District A at Lawsonville School; and September 25th for District B in the Choral Room of Reidsville High School.

Councilman Turner – The Councilman told Richard Moore he would respond to Roger Daniel directly.

He noted that he attended the last Planning Board/Board of Adjustment meeting. The Schoolsfields’ appeal to the Board of Adjustment for a variance at 514 Piedmont Street was denied. A rezoning request on Turner Drive to the Planning Board was remanded back to be considered at a later date for Conditional Use.

Councilman Henderson – The Councilman noted that the Human Relations Commission will be holding Multicultural Day. All Council members are invited to attend.

The Councilman also thanked Council for renaming Duke Street to Marcellus Street. He noted that Rev. Marcellus was the first minority Councilman elected to the Council, serving at its vice-chairman. In 1969, Rev. Marcellus asked Mr. Henderson to serve on the Adjustment Board, he noted. He described Rev. Marcellus as an honorable person and minister.

Mayor Donecker – The Mayor stated that the City has received a request for rights-of-way for a sewer line by Rev. King and Project Homestead. He asked when it was going to be put on the agenda? He noted the Rev. King had called him asking about it, and he thought the Council needed to give Rev. King the honor of a decision. He asked the City Manager to put the item on the agenda, either as an open or closed session item. The Mayor stated that if it was to be considered in closed session, he wanted a letter sent to property owners so that they could attend the meeting.

The Mayor also reminded those present to stop at 8:46 a.m. tomorrow and think about those whose lives were lost in the World Trade Center. He also noted that the second part of a series on this would air on UNC Television tonight.

Councilman Festerman then made the motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gentry and unanimously approved by Council, to adjourn at approximately 4:33 p.m.

Return to Agendas/Minutes

Return to Agendas/Minutes

Return to Minutes/Agendas