Town of Montreat Board of Commissioners

Proposed Meeting Agenda September 10, 2015 – 7:00 p.m.

Walkup Building

1

I. Call to Order

Pledge of Allegiance

Invocation

II. Agenda Adoption

III. Presentation to Council

A. Akira Shavers – Cyber Security Department at Montreat College

IV. Public Hearings

A. Preliminary Assessment Roll - Upper Kentucky Road Phase 1 Neighborhood Street Assessment Project

V. Mayor’s Communications

VI. Consent Agenda

A. Meeting Minutes Adoption

May 21, 2015, Special Meeting – Town Council Meeting (Pending)

June 11, 2015, Town Council Meeting (Pending)

June 18, 2015, Special Meeting (Pending)

June 25, 2015, Special Meeting (Pending)

July 2, 2015, Agenda Meeting (Pending)

July 9, 2015, Town Council Meeting (Pending)

August 6, 2015, Agenda Meeting (Pending)

August 13, 2015, Town Council Meeting (Pending)

B. Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget Amendment • Suggested Motion: To approve Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget Amendment #1 to

account for the Landcare Hemlock Restoration Initiative Grant

C. Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget Amendment • Suggested Motion: To approve Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget Amendment #2 to

account for the installation of electronic equipment on the new police car

All items on the Consent Agenda are considered routine, to be enacted by one motion with the adoption of the agenda and without discussion. If a member of the governing body requests discussion of an item, it will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.

Packet Page 1

Montreat Board of Commissioners Meeting Agenda

September 10, 2015

2

VII. Town Administrator’s Communications

Consent Agenda Review

Texas Road Bridge Project

Personnel Updates – Town Clerk

2014 Municipal Population Estimate

Other Topics VIII. Administrative Reports

A. Police Chief B. Public Works Director C. Finance Officer D. Building Inspector/Code Administrator

IX. Public Comment – Agenda Items

Public comments will be heard during this period for only those items listed on the meeting agenda.

X. Old Business

A. Resolution Confirming Assessment Roll and Levying Assessments – Upper Kentucky Road Phase 1 Neighborhood Street Assessment

Suggested Motion: To Adopt Resolution #15-09-01 Confirming Assessment Roll and Levying Assessments – Upper Kentucky Road Phase 1 Neighborhood Street Assessment

B. Sanitation Services Discussion

XI. New Business

A. Montreat Board of Adjustment Meeting Summary

Suggested Motion: To Request that the Zoning Administrator research better options for addressing the requirements of the Fair Housing Act in the Ordinances of the Town of Montreat and that the Zoning Administrator send those options to the Planning and Zoning Commission to draft recommended ordinance changes for the Town Council to consider and that this review and the one previously requested on front and back building setbacks be addressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission as soon as possible.

Packet Page 2

Montreat Board of Commissioners Meeting Agenda

September 10, 2015

3

XII. Public Comment – Other Topics

Public comments will be heard during this period for other public business items or topics not

listed on the meeting agenda.

XIII. Commissioner Communications

XIV. Meeting Dates September Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting:

September 15, 2015, 7:00 p.m. Walkup Building

Agenda Items Due September 25, 2015, 5:00 p.m. Town Services Office

October Agenda Meeting October 1, 2015, 7:00 p.m.

Walkup Building

Montreat Landcare Committee Meeting

October 7, 2015, 9:00 a.m. Moore Center

October Town Council Meeting October 8, 2015, 7:00 p.m.

Walkup Building Bulk Item Sanitation Collection

October 27, 2015

Agenda Items Due October 30, 2015, 5:00 p.m.

Town Services Office XV. Adjournment

Packet Page 3

Packet Page 4

Packet Page 5

TOWN OF MONTREAT FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016

BUDGET AMENDMENT #1

J:\BUDGET AMENDMENTS\FY_2015_2016\FY_2015-2016_Budget_Amendment_1.docx

Be it ordained by the Town of Montreat Board of Commissioners that the following amendment be made to the Budget Ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015.

Department(s): Environment, Conservation & Recreation

Purpose: To amend the Environment, Conservation & Recreation Landcare budget to cover expenditures for the Hemlock treatment project. This project is to be funded in part by grant assistance and in part by contributions.

Section 1. To amend the Water Fund as follows:

Line Item Account Number

Debit Change

Credit Change

Amended Budget

Env/Consv/Rec – Landcare

10-80-6190-340 $20,000 $21,000

Contributions – Landcare

10-80-3330-310 $10,000 ($10,000)

Grants – Hemlock 10-80-3340-452 $10,000 ($10,000)

Section 2. I certify that the accounting records provide for this budget amendment, and that the revenue source(s) are available:

Finance Officer Date

Section 3. Copies of this amendment shall be delivered to the Budget/Finance Officer and Town Auditor for their direction.

Adopted this 10th day of September, 2015.

Recorded and filed:

Budget Officer/Town Administrator Date

Town Clerk Date

Packet Page 6

TOWN OF MONTREAT FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016

BUDGET AMENDMENT #2

J:\BUDGET AMENDMENTS\FY_2015_2016\FY_2015-2016_Budget_Amendment_2.docx

Be it ordained by the Town of Montreat Board of Commissioners that the following amendment be made to the Budget Ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016.

Department(s): Police

Purpose: To amend the Police budget to cover the installation of electronic equipment on the new police car. This expenditure was encumbered in FYE 15 per a purchase order, but the procurement was not completed and invoiced until July 31, 2015; the invoice was received after the cutoff for processing of transactions in advance of the audit fieldwork. Since funds were budgeted and encumbered and not expended in FYE 15, this resulted in a higher fund balance, which in turn is now being appropriated to cover this expenditure.

Section 1. To amend the General Fund as follows:

Line Item Account Number

Debit Change

Credit Change

Amended Budget

Police – Capital Outlay 10-10-5100-730 $3425 $3425

Fund Balance Approrpiated

10-00-3905-900 $3425 ($3425)

Section 2. I certify that the accounting records provide for this budget amendment, and that the revenue source(s) are available:

Finance Officer Date

Section 3. Copies of this amendment shall be delivered to the Budget/Finance Officer and Town Auditor for their direction.

Adopted this 10th day of September, 2015.

Recorded and filed:

Budget Officer/Town Administrator Date

Town Clerk Date

Packet Page 7

To: Mr. Stephen L. Freeman Town of Montreat Public Works Director From: Dewayne Sykes – KCI Associates of NC, PA Project Manager Date: August 19, 2015

TIP Number: B-5196

County: Buncombe

Project: Replacement of Bridge #528 – Texas Road over Flat Creek

Progress Report Number 13

Reporting Period: June 24, 2015 to August 17, 2015

Completed Tasks to Date:

• Received executed contract September 10, 2012. • Received notice to proceed via e-mail from Ray Lotfi on September 20, 2012. • Continued project planning activities – awaiting historic architecture for completion. • Completed field natural resource investigations and Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR). • Completed base surveys and mapping. • Held CIW and Local Officials Meeting on November 27, 2012 from 4:00 to 7:00 pm in the Walkup

Building in Montreat. • Revised preliminary roadway alignments based on comments from workshops. • Completed NRTR. • Developed and presented scope for historic buildings survey and report. • Negotiated and agreed on scope and fees for historic buildings survey and report. • Completed preliminary hydraulic analyses for alternatives. • Initiated historic buildings survey and presented the results to the SHPO on June 25, 2013.

SHPO determined that the project setting is an eligible historic district, defined a reduce area of potential effect (APE), and requested a more involved study documenting all of the properties within the APE.

• Developed fee estimates for Phase II of the historic architecture survey and for archaeological investigations and submitted to the Town and NCDOT.

Packet Page 8

2

• Negotiated fees for the Phase II architecture and archaeology and submitted a supplemental agreement to the Town for approval and execution.

• Completed Phase II Architectural History and Archaeology studies and reports. • Drafted 4f document and memo. • Completed draft Community Impact Analysis (CIA) and submitted to NCDOT. • Received NCDOT comments on the CIA and began incorporation. • Completed Archeological Investigations and Architectural History Survey and drafted reports.

Sent reports to Town and incorporated comments. Delivered draft reports to NCDOT and SHPO. Awaiting final comments.

• Drafted CE document and sent to Town for comment and selection of preferred alternative. • Preferred alternate selected. • Presentation of project and status at Town Council meeting August 2014. • Secured favorable opinion from SHPO and FHWA relative to proposed bridge appearance and

the historical district. Incorporated necessary aesthetics and comments. • Completed CE and secured signatures January 2015. • Completed 25% plans and submitted to NCDOT for review • Incorporated NCDOT comments and began drainage design. • Submitted drainage design and Bridge Survey Report to NCDOT for review. • Performed soil borings and geotechnical investigation at proposed bridge end bents and

retaining wall sites. • Submitted preliminary Traffic Control Plans. • Created Bridge General Drawings and proposed retaining wall design. • Incorporated NCDOT comments and submitted 75% plans to NCDOT for approval of Right of

Way funding. • Reached agreement with SHPO and FHWA regarding proposed bridge appearance and

aesthetics that fits with the context of the existing historical district. • Right of Way Funds Authorized June 10, 2015 • Right of Way Acquisition Plans completed • Met with Historic Preservation Office and FHWA regarding commitments and concerns

Unusual Problems Encountered During Reporting Period:

• Resolving Historic Preservation Office commitments and concerns.

Proposed Tasks for Next Reporting Period:

• Complete Right of Way acquisition process • Complete Final Plans and Specifications • Develop Contract Bid Proposals

Comments:

• None

Packet Page 9

Packet Page 10

Packet Page 11

MONTHLY POLICE STATISTICS REPORT

AUGUST 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Mileage 2952 2503 3041 3030 2900

Dispatched Calls 102 101 115 114 78

Officer-Initiated Calls 252 201 229 362 345

Fire/EMS Assistance Calls 16F,12E 6F,7E 4F,3E 8 8

Motorist/Other Assistance Calls 81 54 52 30 25

Traffic Stops 35 21-63G 29 25 30

Parking Issues 6 3 7 13 14

Burglar/Fire Alarm Responses 2B,0F 5B,1F 5B 5 4

Residential House/Building Checks 211 272 114 117 134

Ordinance violations 21 13 11 19 12

LE Agency Assistance Calls 16 17 24 57 18

Animal Calls 5 9 9 0 0

Larcenies 0 0 0 0 0

B&E Calls 0 0 0 0 0

Suspicious Person/Vehicle Investigations 8P,21V 12P,9V 11P,4V 15 12

Disturbance Calls 5 10 2 7 1

Accident Responses 2 0 2 0 3

Auxiliary Hours Worked 24R,48T 32R,32O 40R,148O 140 64

Truck turns at gate 2 2 3 6 9

Town Service: 395

MRA Service: 159

College Service: 30

On 08/02/2015, MPD responded to a property dispute on West Virginia

On 08/03/2015 MPD responded to 3 incomplete 911 calls. 1 at Chestnut Lodge at 1:34 a.m.; 1 at Georgia Terrace Apt-2 at 9:40 a.m., 1 at Lookout Road at 1:10p.m.

On 08/04/2015 MPD responded to Kentucky Road reference a pit fire that was in compliance

On 08/06/2015 MPD responded to a suspicious person looking for Dr. Graham

On 08/09/2015 MPD responded to a rattlesnake seen on Lookout Road, it was relocated

On 08/10/2015 MPD responded to a lost child which was located below the playground area on Assembly Drive. Also on this date MPD responded to suspicious material found at the Post Office.

On 08/13/2015 MPD dealt with an out-of-state protection order for a resident on South Carolina Terrace and Appalachian Way. The subject was advised to stay away from the residences and

Packet Page 12

anyone residing there. The subject stayed at Assembly Inn for at least 2 days before leaving town.

On 08/17/2015 MPD responded to an accident on Shenandoah

On 08/18/2015 MPD responded to an accident at the Gate

On 08/19/2015 MPD responded to a communicating threat call

On 08/21, 22, 23/2015 MPD participated in the MLK event, approximately 50 hours were contributed to this event. MRA did an excellent job on the parking for this event and there were no significant incidences.

On 08/24/2015 MPD responded to a domestic issue on Shenandoah. On this same date, MPD responded to a lost hiker and that subject was located.

On 08/25/2015 MPD received a wallet found on the roadway. On this same date, MPD was called to the College Library reference a found 3-year old juvenile, Mother was located and proper action was taken.

On 08/26/2015 the owner of the found wallet was located and MPD participated in a Governor’s Highway Safety Check Point.

On 08/28/2015 MPD and BMFD responded to a lost and scared hiker on Lookout Trail and the subject was located at approximately 10 p.m.

Note: MPD is receiving reports and has seen a major increase in bear sightings around Kentucky Road, Kentucky Circle, South Carolina and several other locations. Of special interest some of these sightings has been not just a single bear, but a mother bear and 2 cubs. Please be aware of these sightings and adhere to the Town leash ordinance for dogs.

Packet Page 13

General Fund

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances

For the Period Ended July 31, 2015

FYE 2016 Previously Current FYE 2016 FYE 15 Comparison FYE 2016

Actual to

Budget %

Statement

Period Variance 7/31/14

Budgeted Reported Month YTD Actual YTD Actual Remaining Budget 1

Revenues:

Ad valorem taxes 952,500.00$ -$ -$ 952,500.00$

Other taxes and licenses 357,400.00$ -$ -$ 357,400.00$

Unrestricted intergovernmental 60,500.00$ -$ -$ 60,500.00$

Permits and Fees 46,000.00$ 7,122.70$ 7,122.70$ 2,878.00$ 38,877.30$

Community Service Fee 50,000.00$ -$ -$ 50,000.00$

Sales and Services 13,000.00$ 410.90$ 410.90$ 95.00$ 12,589.10$

Investment earnings 2,200.00$ 71.45$ 71.45$ 81.43$ 2,128.55$

Other revenues 3,700.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ -$ 2,200.00$

Subtotal - Normal Operating 1,485,300.00$ 9,105.05$ 9,105.05$ 3,054.43$ 1,476,194.95$ 0.61% 8.33% -7.72% -8.13%

Restricted intergovernmental 740,000.00$ 56,767.79$ 56,767.79$ -$ 683,232.21$

Contributions - Landcare -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Contributions - Open Space -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Total Revenues 2,225,300.00 - 65,872.84 65,872.84 3,054.43$ 2,159,427.16 2.96% 8.33% -5.37% -8.20%

Expenditures:

Governing Body 104,700.00$ 5,074.59$ 5,074.59$ 21,204.88$ 99,625.41$ 4.85% 8.33% 3.49% -20.28%

Administration 282,800.00$ 32,243.86$ 32,243.86$ 37,504.06$ 250,556.14$ 11.40% 8.33% -3.07% -3.94%

Public Buildings 139,950.00$ 34,810.89$ 34,810.89$ 42,525.20$ 105,139.11$ 24.87% 8.33% -16.54% -9.96%

Police 365,500.00$ 38,982.79$ 38,982.79$ 34,160.05$ 326,517.21$ 10.67% 8.33% -2.33% -0.59%

Building & Zoning 82,200.00$ 8,427.20$ 8,427.20$ 6,841.11$ 73,772.80$ 10.25% 8.33% -1.92% -0.68%

Public Works 86,100.00$ 8,899.09$ 8,899.09$ 7,344.99$ 77,200.91$ 10.34% 8.33% -2.00% -0.66%

Streets 1,271,400.00$ 21,011.60$ 21,011.60$ 18,047.20$ 1,250,388.40$ 1.65% 8.33% 6.68% 7.10%

Powell Bill 56,000.00$ 257.47$ 257.47$ 218.63$ 55,742.53$ 0.46% 8.33% 7.87% 7.83%

Sanitation 113,600.00$ 10,149.25$ 10,149.25$ 8,370.80$ 103,450.75$ 8.93% 8.33% -0.60% 0.06%

Env/Cons/Rec 8,500.00$ -$ -$ -$ 8,500.00$ 0.00% 8.33% 8.33% 8.33%

Total expenditures 2,510,750.00 -$ 159,856.74$ 159,856.74$ 176,216.92$ 2,350,893.26$ 6.37% 8.33% 1.97% 1.97%

Revenues over expenditures (285,450.00) -$ (93,983.90)$ (93,983.90)$ (173,162.49)$ (191,466.10)$

Other financing sources (uses):

Transfer to/from Water Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Fund Balance Appropriated: 285,450.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 285,450.00$

Total other financing sources (uses) 285,450.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 285,450.00$

Revenues and other sources over

expenditures and other uses -$ -$ (93,983.90)$ (93,983.90)$ (173,162.49)$ 93,983.90$

Expenditure Recap:

Salaries & Benefits 922,400.00$ 100,215.49$ 100,215.49$ 112,838.56$ 822,184.51$

Other Operating 395,300.00$ 59,641.25$ 59,641.25$ 59,600.23$ 335,658.75$

CIP/Grant Projects 1,193,050.00$ -$ -$ 3,778.13$ 1,193,050.00$

Total Expenditures 2,510,750.00$ -$ 159,856.74$ 159,856.74$ 176,216.92$ 2,350,893.26$

Packet Page 14

Water Fund

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances

For the Period Ended July 31, 2015

FYE 2016 Previously Current FYE 2016 FYE 15 Comparison FYE 2016

Actual to

Budget

Percent

Statement

Period Variance 7/31/14

Budgeted Reported Month YTD Actual YTD Actual Remaining Budget 1

Revenues:

Ad valorem taxes -$ -$

Other taxes and licenses -$ -$

MRA Comm Svc Fee -$ -$ -$

Permits and Fees -$ -$

Sales and Services 300,000.00$ 34,634.55$ 34,634.55$ 31,969.16$ 265,365.45$

Investment earnings 500.00$ 6.59$ 6.59$ 6.33$ 493.41$

Other revenues 26,500.00$ 2,113.71$ 2,113.71$ 2,682.51$ 24,386.29$

Subtotal - Normal Operating 327,000.00$ -$ 36,754.85$ 36,754.85$ 34,658.00$ 290,245.15$

Restricted intergovernmental -$ -$

Total revenues 327,000.00$ -$ 36,754.85$ 36,754.85$ 34,658.00$ 290,245.15$ 11.24% 8.33% 2.91% -0.77%

Expenditures:

Water Department 327,000.00$ 8,813.15$ 8,813.15$ 4,373.94$ 318,186.85$ 2.70% 8.33% 5.64% 7.21%

Total expenditures 327,000.00$ -$ 8,813.15$ 8,813.15$ 4,373.94$ 318,186.85$ 2.70% 8.33% 5.64% 7.21%

Revenues over expenditures -$ -$ 27,941.70$ 27,941.70$ 30,284.06$ (27,941.70)$

Other financing sources (uses):

Transfers to/from General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Fund Balance Appropriated: -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Total other financing sources (uses) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Revenues and other sources over

expenditures and other uses -$ -$ 27,941.70$ 27,941.70$ 30,284.06$ (27,941.70)$

Expenditure Recap:

Salaries & Benefits -$ -$ -$ -$

Other Operating 327,000.00$ 8,813.15$ 8,813.15$ 4,373.94$ 318,186.85$

CIP/Grant Projects -$ -$ -$ -$

Total Expenditures 327,000.00$ 445,641.85$ 8,813.15$ 8,813.15$ 4,373.94$ 318,186.85$

Packet Page 15

Packet Page 16

Packet Page 17

Packet Page 18

Packet Page 19

Packet Page 20

Packet Page 21

Packet Page 22

Packet Page 23

Packet Page 24

Packet Page 25

Packet Page 26

Packet Page 27

Packet Page 28

Packet Page 29

Packet Page 30

Town of Montreat Cash & Investments Report As of 3

Institution Type Maturity Date Balance Central General Water Int. Rate Int for mo

Avl Sav Bank Checking x2519 90,471.33$ 90,471.33$ 0.00% -$

Avl Sav Bank Cent'l Dep x 6863 138,174.93$ 138,174.93$ 0.00% -$

Avl Sav Bank Savings - Powell Bill 3572 192,833.32$ 192,833.32$ 0.10% 16.37$

Avl Sav Bank Savings - Water Res. 7727 58,095.27$ 58,095.27$ 0.10% 4.93$

Avl Sav Bank MMkt Acct xxx1204 559,787.93$ 559,787.93$ 0.10% 47.54$

Avl Sav Bank Subtotal 1,039,362.78$

BB&T MMkt Act - General Fund 449,756.20$ 449,756.20$ 0.01% 3.82$

BB&T MMkt Act - Water Fund 157,395.01$ 157,395.01$ 0.01% 1.34$

BB&T Subtotal 607,151.21$

NCCMT Investment - General Fund 6,425.48$ 6,425.48$ 0.07% 0.40$

NCCMT Investment - Water Fund 6,710.38$ 6,710.38$ 0.08% 0.42$

NCCMT Subtotal 13,135.86$

All Accts Subtotal 1,659,649.85$ 228,646.26$ 1,208,802.93$ 222,200.66$ 0.05% 74.82$

All Accts Fiscal Year to Date 1,670,035.00$ 0.05% 152.86$

(average) (average) (cumulative)

Avl Sav Bank CD, 1yr x6827 Empl Benf 11/24/2015 54,371.91$ 54,371.91$ -$

Avl Sav Bank CD x5119 11/12/2015 10,333.66$ 10,333.66$ -$

CDs Subtotal 64,705.57$ -$

CDs Fiscal Year to Date 64,705.57$

All Accts + CDs Total 1,724,355.42$ 0.05% 74.82$

All Accts + CDs Fiscal Year to Date 1,734,740.57$ 0.05% 152.86$

(average) (average)

August 31, 2015

Packet Page 31

Packet Page 32

Packet Page 33

Packet Page 34

Packet Page 35

Packet Page 36

Packet Page 37

Packet Page 38

Packet Page 39

Packet Page 40

Packet Page 41

Packet Page 42

Packet Page 43

Packet Page 44

Packet Page 45

Packet Page 46

Packet Page 47

Packet Page 48

Packet Page 49

Packet Page 50

Packet Page 51

Packet Page 52

Packet Page 53

Packet Page 54

Packet Page 55

Packet Page 56

Packet Page 57

Packet Page 58

J:\BOC\Board Action Requests\2015 Requests\REQUEST_Resolution_150901__Upper_Kentucky_Road_Phase_1_Neighborhood_Street_Final_Assessment_Roll_09102015.docx

TOWN OF MONTREAT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: September 10, 2015

SUBJECT: Resolution Confirming Assessment Roll and Levying Assessments – Upper Kentucky Road Phase 1 Neighborhood Street Assessment Project

AGENDA INFORMATION: Agenda Location: Old Business Item Number: A Department: Administration Contact: Ron Nalley, Town Administrator Presenter: Ron Nalley, Town Administrator BRIEF SUMMARY: The Board adopted a Resolution in June 2014 directing that the Upper Kentucky Road Phase 1 Neighborhood Street Assessment project be undertaken to pave 415 feet lineal feet of Salem Drive, with the total project costs to be assessed equally against each benefitted real property on a per lot basis. The project has now been completed, and all project costs that will be included in the assessment amount have been tabulated. At July’s Town Council Meeting, the Board adopted a Resolution declaring the final cost of the project, ordering preparation of a preliminary assessment roll and setting a date and time for a Public Hearing on this issue. All affected property owners were notified pursuant to current statutory procedures. At the August meeting, the Board exempted Mr. McLean and two lots from the Assessment Roll. A new preliminary assessment roll has been prepared and all affected property owners were notified. Following any comments heard during September’s Public Hearing, the Board may choose to adopt a final assessment roll for this project or defer that decision until the October Town Council Meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: To adopt Resolution #15-09-01 Confirming Assessment Roll and Levying Assessments – Upper Kentucky Road Phase 1 Neighborhood Street Assessment Project

FUNDING SOURCE: Capital Outlay – Financing Agreement, Special Assessment

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #15-09-01; Preliminary Assessment Roll, Map of Proposed Assessment Area STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: N.C.G.S. Chapter 160A, Article 10 contains very specific instructions that must be followed in order to assess property owners for public utility extensions. Once the final assessment roll is adopted, it cannot be amended without undertaking a new assessment procedure. Once the final roll is adopted, it will be sent to the Buncombe County Tax Department for collection on the same due date as annual property tax payments.

Packet Page 59

TOWN OF MONTREAT

P. O. Box 423 Montreat, NC 28757

Tel: (828)669-8002 Fax: (828)669-3810 www.townofmontreat.org

RESOLUTION #15-09-01 CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS- UPPER KENTUCKY ROAD PHASE 1 NEIGHBORHOOD PAVING ASSESSMENT PROJECT

WHEREAS, the Town of Montreat Board of Commissioners has on this day held a public hearing, after due notice as required by law, on the Preliminary Assessment Roll for the Upper Kentucky Road Phase 1 Neighborhood Paving Project; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners 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 Town of Montreat Board of Commissioners that:

1. The Assessment Roll for the Upper Kentucky Road Phase 1 Neighborhood Paving Project 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:

Owner(s) Assessed Number of

Benefitted Lots Amount Assessed

MING REAL ESTATE COMPANY, LLC 1 $458.87

JONES CASKEY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 6 $2,753.21

MOUNTAIN RETREAT ASSOCIATION 16 $7,341.88

STEWART & LIBERTY RAWSON 1 $458.87

GAYDEN R JONES 2 $917.74

WILLIAM C GOODWIN JR 1 $458.87

RALPH EMERSON MCCASKILL III 1 $458.87

WILLIAM HINSON ROYALL JR, ET AL 1 $458.87

ROBERT & CAROL ECKARD 3 $1,376.60

MATTHEW & KRISTY SCHLICHENMAIER 1 $458.87

SHAWN & KAREN STRAIGHT 1 $458.87

J STUART HUME ET AL 1 $458.87

HAROLD & AMANDA DEMAREST 1 $458.87

2. The Deputy Town Clerk is hereby directed to deliver to the Buncombe County Tax Collector

the said Assessment Roll, and the Tax Collector is hereby charged with the collection of said assessments in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Packet Page 60

http://www.townofmontreat.org/

RESOLUTION #15-08-02 Page 2

3. The Buncombe County Tax Collector is hereby directed to publish on the 1st day of October, 2015 a notice of confirmation of the Assessment Roll, which notice shall set forth the terms of payment of the assessments, with installment payments to become due and payable on succeeding due dates of property tax.

READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 10th day of September, 2015. _______________________________ Letta Jean Taylor, Mayor ATTEST: I hereby certify this is a true and correct copy of this Resolution, duly adopted by the Town of Montreat on the 10th day of September, 2015, as it appears of record in the official minutes. ______________________________ Stefan B. Stackhouse Deputy Town Clerk

Packet Page 61

Packet Page 62

Packet Page 63

Packet Page 64

revised 17 August 2015

Vendor Expense DescriptionTotal Expense

Amount

Cost Per

Benefitted Lot

C&T Paving Contract Paving 16,519.23 $458.87

$16,519.23 $458.87

Property Owner Number of Lots OwnedTotal Cost Per

Property OwnerMING REAL ESTATE COMPANY, LLC 1 $458.87

JONES CASKEY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 6 $2,753.21

MOUNTAIN RETREAT ASSOCIATION 16 $7,341.88

STEWART & LIBERTY RAWSON 1 $458.87

GAYDEN R JONES 2 $917.74

WILLIAM C GOODWIN JR 1 $458.87

RALPH EMERSON MCCASKILL III 1 $458.87

WILLIAM HINSON ROYALL JR, ET AL 1 $458.87

ROBERT & CAROL ECKARD 3 $1,376.60

MATTHEW & KRISTY SCHLICHENMAIER 1 $458.87

SHAWN & KAREN STRAIGHT 1 $458.87

J STUART HUME ET AL 1 $458.87

HAROLD & AMANDA DEMAREST 1 $458.87

Total Costs: $16,519.23

Upper Kentucky Road Phase 1 Neighborhood Paving Assessment Per Lot Cost Tabulations

Cumulative Cost Totals

Packet Page 65

Packet Page 66

Town of Montreat P.O. Box 423, Montreat, North Carolina 28757

Phone: (828) 669-8002 • Fax: (828) 669-3810

September 8, 2015 TO: Montreat Board of Commissioners FR: Ron Nalley, Town Administrator Steve Freeman, Public Works Director Barry Creasman, Utility Maintenance Technician RE: Sanitation Services – Alternative Service Delivery Considerations At their August 13, 2015 meeting, the Montreat Board of Commissioners requested that staff further research the options and costs for the alternative service delivery recommendations made at the August 11, 2015 special meeting. Please note that the alternative service delivery considerations presented were based on the current challenges of the service delivery methods and that each alternative has its own advantages and disadvantages. There are also several variations or combinations of these alternatives that can be considered. From an administrative perspective however, it is important to remember that the replacement of the sanitation truck is needed and that the service contract with Consolidated Waste Services for the compactors is ending. Alternative One: Montreat offers a higher level of service than all of our neighboring cities and towns. Service is labor intensive and more expensive. Consideration should be given to upgrading the truck to a small compactor truck at a cost of around $120,000. Scheduled pickups would be changed to once weekly for the entire year or two days during the summer months if a higher level of service is desired. Trash would be taken by the Town directly to the landfill. The compactor site would be closed and rental and haul costs would be eliminated. The cost of a compactor truck large enough to handle the amount of waste during the summer is estimated to be around $120,000. The payments over a five year period would be around $26,000 a year. Alternative One would require changing the curbside sanitation and recycling collection schedule during the summer. No change would be required to the existing compactor site other than to remove the compactors. The data collected at the compactor site from June through August support closing the compactor site. This eliminates the safety and liability concerns with the site. In order to accommodate those residents and visitors who have excessive amounts of garbage, enjoy the convenience of the compactor site or choose not to have a bear proof container, the Town could offer for sale, a special imprinted color trash bag. The initial startup cost of this program is estimated to be $8,500, however, this cost would be recovered through the sale of the bags. Those with special bags would be allowed to place them in a fenced handling area, opened by any staff member upon request. Thought is still required on how to handle any Saturday collection during the summer months of June and July, if the Board feels that it is still warranted. Total Costs: Sanitation Compactor Truck - $26,000 per year over a five year period. Imprinted Bag System - $8,500 to be recovered through the sale of the bags.

Packet Page 67

Alternate Two: Continue collection services in the same manner, however the compactor site would be closed permanently to the public. While this alternative may be unpopular with some residents who now use the site as a convenience center instead of using curbside service, this will ensure that taxpayer money is appropriately spent on true service delivery while eliminating the safety and liability concerns of the site. It is interesting to note that the days with the highest use at the compactor site was often days with scheduled pickups. The cost of replacing the existing sanitation truck is estimated to be around $75,000. The payments over a five year period would be around $16,500 a year. Alternative Two does not resolve staff’s concern that the existing system is very labor intensive and requires handling garbage and recycling twice. This alternative would neither require changing the curbside sanitation or recycling collection schedule during the summer, nor require changes to the existing compactor site other than to remove the compactors. The data collected at the compactor site from June through August support closing the compactor site. This eliminates the safety and liability concerns with the site. In order to accommodate those residents and visitors who have excessive amounts of garbage, enjoy the convenience of the compactor site or choose not to have a bear proof container, the Town could offer for sale, a special imprinted color trash bag. The initial startup cost of this program is estimated to be $8,500, however, this cost would be recovered through the sale of the bags. Those with special bags would be allowed to place them in a fenced handling area, opened by any staff member upon request. Thought is still required on how to handle any Saturday collection during the summer months of June and July, if the Board feels that it is still warranted. Total Costs: Sanitation Truck - $16,500 per year over a five year period. Imprinted Bag System - $8,500 to be recovered through the sale of the bags. Alternate Three: Eliminate curbside collection and develop a safe and efficient convenience center for the disposal of household garbage and recyclables. Under this alternative, the Town would continue to offer back door service, bulk collections and special pickups for a fee. The collection center would be staffed and a system developed through either a straight fee, special bag or tag system that allows only residents and visitors to Montreat to use the Center. Alternative Three resolves staff’s concern that the existing system is very labor intensive and requires handling garbage and recycling twice. It also recommends changes to the compactor site to resolve staff’s concern with safety and liability issues. Alternative Three, however, is a complicated scenario and will require the complete renovation of the compactor site in order to meet ADA and OSHA regulations. First, there is clear evidence from surrounding counties and from our own experience that an unstaffed center is not a successful method for providing sanitation disposal services. The convenience center, therefore, would be required to be staffed and supported with either a straight fee or special bag system. The center would operate as an Enterprise Fund, similar to the Water Fund, meaning that the revenues generated from the site pay for the expenses of the service. The resident tax burden would be reduced, and sanitation services would be paid for by those who use the service most. The Town would continue to offer back door service for those who could not use the convenience center, bulk collections and special pick-ups for a fee. Therefore, a replacement truck will be required. Initially, the renovation of the site will be expensive and require careful thought to make sure that enough space is available for the changes. Initial estimated costs for the changes total around $50,000. This includes security cameras ($4,500), a compactor conversion ($5,500), parking area and ramp installation ($35,000), upgrades to fencing ($2,500) and electrical work ($500). If enough space is not available, additional site work will be required. During the public meeting, it was suggested that some type of swipe card, key pad or buzzer system would be preferable. These systems ranged in price from $2,000 to $4,500 each for initial start-up. However, the vendors we contacted stated that, “these systems were not recommended for our application,” that installation can be difficult, and that there is little customer support for product failure. It was also stated that these systems allow 24-hour access, which can often be abused, and that over time, even under the most controlled circumstances, codes and cards will be shared or lost, which will certainly cause logistical

Packet Page 68

challenges for the Town. Over time, this alternative shows the most potential for saving tax dollars, reducing the amount of solid waste generated by the community, and increasing recycling rates. With that said, this scenario will be a difficult change for those in the community accustomed to traditional sanitation services at the curb. Total Costs: Sanitation Truck - $16,500 per year over a five year period.

Imprinted Bag System - $8,500 to be recovered through the sale of the bags. Convenience Center Changes - $50,000 based on having enough space for the modifications.

Swipe Card, Key Pad or Buzzer System – Range of $2,000 to $4,500 each for initial setup. These systems were not recommended by the vendor for the proposed application.

Convenience Center Operation – Costs to be offset by revenue generated at site. Alternate Four: Do not make any changes to the current sanitation collection system. Under this alternative, staff would recommend changes to the compactor site in order to address safety and liability concerns. Remember that while this seems the easiest choice to make, Montreat taxpayers are subsidizing sanitation services for non-residents and tax exempt entities. This alternative is attractive if Montreat residents are happy with the higher level of service and do not mind paying for others using the compactor site. The cost of replacing the existing sanitation truck is estimated to be around $75,000. The payments over a five year period would be around $16,500 a year. Alternative Four does not resolve staff’s concern that the existing system is very labor intensive and requires handling garbage and recycling twice or address the illegal dumping and unauthorized use at the site. Under this alternative, the Board will need to decide whether to continue with the temporary service plan, schedule, and rates; return to the unstaffed site; or develop some alternative sanitation operations plan. Staff strongly recommends not returning to the unstaffed site, based on the initial success of the temporary plan and the safety and liability concerns with public access to the existing site. If the Board decides otherwise, upgrading the compactor site should be a priority. It should be noted again, that in general, ad valorem taxes pay for curbside collection and that the compactor site was never intended to be used by residents and visitors as a convenience center. The Board and Montreat residents should not expect fees generated from the current plan to be sufficient to pay for the annual costs of supporting the convenience center program. These costs, along with subsidizing sanitation services for non-residents and tax exempt entities will certainly result in future tax rate increases. Total Costs: Sanitation Truck - $16,500 per year over a five year period. Convenience Center Changes - $50,000 based on having enough space for the modifications. Convenience Center Operations – Subsidized through ad valorem taxes.

Packet Page 69

Town of Montreat P.O. Box 423, Montreat, North Carolina 28757

Phone: (828) 669-8002 • Fax: (828) 669-3810

September 8, 2015 TO: Ron Nalley, Town Administrator FR: Steve Freeman, Public Works Director RE: Compactor Site - Summer Summary During their May meeting, the Board of Commissioners approved the following schedule for the compactor site located behind the Town Services Office: January through May and September through December Open Tuesday through Thursday from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. June through August Open Tuesday through Friday from 1:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. Open Saturday from 7:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. In keeping with the Board’s direction, the compactor site is staffed by a town employee and not accessible to the general public. The site is operated in a “pay as you throw” manner, meaning that the site is open to the public during those times, but residents and visitors pay for the use of the compactor site through a per bag fee system. A summary of the results of the data collected at the site since it opened on June 16, 2015 is provided below. Detailed information can be found following the highlights. Public Usage

The most users recorded on any single day was 11 on Saturday, July 18.

Since opening, the site received on average 4 visitors per day.

During the work week, the site averages 3 visitors per day.

The day with the most usage is Saturday. On average, 6 people used the site each Saturday. However, please note that on Saturdays since August 8, the site has received only 1 visitor.

The highest number of users were recorded during the first week after the site was opened and then during the week of July 4th.

The site has received very little use after August 8.

Since June 16th, 214 visitors have used the site.

While not reflected in the numerical data presented here, during the heaviest times of use, visitors were asked by staff why they chose to use the site. A large majority of those who responded stated that it was primarily due to the fact that the rental home they were staying in did not have enough cans or did not have a bear-proof container.

Packet Page 70

Number of Bags

The most bags being disposed of on any single day was 30 on Saturday, July 18.

Since opening, visitors disposed an average of 8 bags per day. Saturday’s average is 14 bags.

The highest number of bags disposed at the site occurred during the first week after opening and then during the week of July 4th.

The site has received very few bags after August 8.

Visitors to the site has disposed a total of 465 bags of solid waste and recyclables.

Revenue Generated by the Site

The most revenue generated from the site on any one day was $61.00 received on July 18.

Since opening, the site generates on average $17.05 per day.

The site has generated very little revenue since August 8.

During the work week, the site generates on average $14.18 per day. On Saturdays, the site generates an average of $28.55.

The site has collected a total of $938.00 since opening on June 16.

During the time period of June through August of 2014, the Town collected 85.90 tons of solid waste. During that same time period in 2015, the Town collected 76.52 tons. The temporary service plan change has provided the Town a savings in disposal fees as well as hauls to the disposal site. We believe this savings corresponds directly to the changes made at the site and comes despite having one of the busiest July 4th weeks in recent memory. In summary, the temporary service plan for the compactor site is having its desired effect in the reduction of municipal solid waste, illegal dumping and unauthorized use. It has also resolved staff’s concern with the safety and liability of the site to the general public as well as our own employees. However, the personnel cost to operate the site exceeds the revenue generated and the savings realized during the first three months of operation. While initially, usage at the site was higher, usage significantly declined after the first week in August. This leads one to believe, that if the site continues to operate in this manner at all, the best scenario is to open only during the months of June and July and to remember that the site is actually serving very few people when compared to the total number of visitors to our community during those months. Following a three month review, the information and data collected at the site supports the closing the compactor site to the general public, encouraging the use of curbside sanitation collection services, and increasing education efforts for specific disposal topics including container rules, bear-proof-container requirements, and special collection services.

Packet Page 71

Number of Users:

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Totals

June 16 - June 20 6 9 6 6 10 37

June 23 - June 27 4 7 1 6 10 28

June 30 - July 4 3 10 5 6 6 30

July 7 - July 11 3 0 4 1 6 14

July 14 - July 18 5 4 5 2 11 27

July 21 - July 25 6 5 3 5 9 28

July 28 - August 1 2 3 2 1 6 14

August 4 - August 8 6 4 1 3 7 21

August 11 - August 15 2 1 1 2 0 6

August 18 - August 22 2 0 1 1 0 4

August 25 - August 29 2 0 1 1 1 5

Totals 41 43 30 34 66 214

Number of Bags:

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Totals

June 16 - June 20 14 16 19 11 19 79

June 23 - June 27 9 13 2 9 23 56

June 30 - July 4 8 18 24 15 9 74

July 7 - July 11 7 0 6 4 18 35

July 14 - July 18 12 10 11 5 30 68

July 21 - July 25 15 7 5 10 21 58

July 28 - August 1 2 6 2 2 11 23

August 4 - August 8 13 6 1 6 18 44

August 11 - August 15 3 1 2 3 0 9

August 18 - August 22 3 0 6 2 0 11

August 25 - August 29 3 0 2 1 2 8

Totals 89 77 80 68 151 465

Revenue Generated:

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Totals

June 16 - June 20 $24.00 $30.00 $33.00 $23.00 $35.00 $145.00

June 23 - June 27 $16.00 $23.00 $4.00 $18.00 $49.00 $110.00

June 30 - July 4 $12.00 $34.00 $51.00 $28.00 $16.00 $141.00

July 7 - July 11 $24.00 $0.00 $12.00 $8.00 $38.00 $82.00

July 14 - July 18 $24.00 $19.00 $24.00 $14.00 $61.00 $142.00

July 21 - July 25 $20.00 $22.00 $5.00 $18.00 $49.00 $114.00

July 28 - August 1 $3.00 $13.00 $10.00 $5.00 $26.00 $57.00

August 4 - August 8 $33.00 $11.00 $1.00 $13.00 $37.00 $95.00

August 11 - August 15 $6.00 $2.00 $5.00 $5.00 $0.00 $18.00

August 18 - August 22 $6.00 $0.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 $21.00

August 25 - August 29 $5.00 $0.00 $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $13.00

Totals $173.00 $154.00 $157.00 $140.00 $314.00 $938.00Packet Page 72

August 11, 2015 Sanitation Meeting Summary Mayor Letta Jean Taylor introduced the session by reviewing the history of sanitation services provided to the Town of Montreat. In July 2006, the Town began offering residential sanitation, recycling and yard waste collection services. Benefits of providing our own sanitation services included the following: a competitive cost structure; efficient and personal service delivery; increased service levels; Town owned capital investment; and smaller and safer vehicles for collection. Mayor Taylor reviewed the current service delivery method and discussed the amount of solid waste, recycling and yard waste collected since 2010. The Mayor also reviewed the temporary service change made at the compactor site by the Board of Commissioners in early June and the savings realized at the site since that time. She went on to state that the town experienced a problem with illegal dumping and unauthorized use at the site, which necessitated the changes implemented in June. Following a staff review of the sanitation program, it was determined that the present system is labor intensive, bags are handled twice, and the compactor site is being used as convenience center, even though it was not designed as such, and is not safe for use by the general public. Staff then developed four alternatives for consideration: 1) Montreat offers a higher level of service than most nearby municipalities – the Town could consider replacing the present equipment with a compactor truck and close the compactor site; 2) Continue as present, but permanently close compactor site to the public; 3) Eliminate curbside service except for fee-based back-door service, and go entirely to a fee-based pay as you throw convenient center system; 4) No change from present, except for safety changes to the compactor site, with taxpayers continuing to subsidize non-taxpayer use. The Mayor went on to say that each option has advantages and disadvantages and that there are likely several variations or combinations of these alternatives. She also reminded everyone that the present sanitation truck must be replaced this fiscal year and that the service contract with Consolidated Waste Services for the compactors is ending. Mayor Taylor concluded by stating that the temporary service plan for the compactor site is having the desired effect in the reduction of solid waste, hauls and illegal dumping and unauthorized use. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the program, the challenges of operating the program and to receive feedback on what aspects of the program are most important to our residents and visitors. With additional public input and any additional research, the Board will be in position to make an informed decision on the potential changes to improve the overall sanitation program. Mayor Taylor then introduced Mr. Sam Hopkins who facilitated the remainder of the meeting. Those who attended the meeting were divided into groups of five to six people to discuss what they like about the current service; what they do not like about the current service; how Montreat’s service and cost compare to the service at your permanent residence; the biggest challenge facing sanitation services; the appropriate level of service needed in Montreat; how much they are willing to pay for that level of service; and if they had to choose from the four alternatives, which would they prefer. After reconvening, each small group was asked to report back to the larger group.

Group One – Started with the premise that the community needs infrastructure services. The group listened respectfully to each other and of the four alternatives, leaned primarily towards alternative two. The group encouraged the Town, College and Conference Center to work together to creatively solve the problem. The group also encouraged the Town to consider standardized cans for automated truck pickup. In closing, the group expressed concern with alternative three but stated that Montreat residents need a site to throw trash, and acknowledged that illegal use by those outside the Gate was a problem.

Packet Page 73

Group Two – The group discussed several ideas and asked the Town to consider installing a key card type system and to update the compactor site. Most of those in the group wanted to retain the current system and preferred alternative four – to keep the service like it is and subsidize others use. There were mixed feelings about having a convenience center only because they liked having curbside collection, but they do not like the pay as you throw concept.

Group Three – The group felt that Montreat residents should have free access to the compactor site and that the Town should consider a key card type system at the site. The group mentioned that there is a credibility gap about the illegal dumping claims and the Town should install cameras to monitor the issue to determine how big a problem it really is. The group preferred to have a place at the Gate, like a truck, so that the garbage could be tossed when people are leaving town. The group also noted the inefficiencies with the separate entities having different service providers and that the Town should explore cost saving options with the College and Conference Center.

Group Four – The group commended the Town’s sanitation staff and expressed their feelings that Montreat is a town for visitors, so the sanitation services should reflect that. The group felt that there is a need for curbside trash collection, however, people are opportunistic and will take advantage of whatever service is available. The group expressed interest in exploring the possibility of contracting out the service and wondered if this was a feasible idea. The group also expressed interest in revisiting consolidation sanitation service efforts with the College and Conference Center. Interest was expressed for a key card type system for residents. Alternative three was the least popular of the group and they also felt that it was not feasible for residents to use large carts with the Town’s topography and narrow streets. The group then expressed a concern that they felt forced to buy bear proof containers and that this solution to the bear problem impacted the Town’s ambiance.

Group Five – The group favored alternatives one or two. Alternative three was their least favorite. The group asked about the possibility of the Cottagers arranging a bulk purchase with discounted prices and the possibility of smaller, more attractive bear proof containers. The group expressed concern that the open compactor site problems will only get worse.

Following the group reports, Town Administrator Ron Nalley fielded several questions regarding Montreat’s current service and how that service might change depending on the alternative selected. It was noted by a resident that garbage is a national issue and one that is having to be currently discussed and dealt with all over the country. Mr. Nalley then asked that everyone take a few minutes to answer the brief survey provided at the beginning of the meeting. Mayor Taylor then thanked everyone for attending and their input.

Packet Page 74

Customer Satisfaction Survey for Solid Waste Services Results August 11, 2015 The results of the Customer Satisfaction Survey distributed at the special meeting on August 11, 2015 are provided below. This survey was designed to capture a snapshot of the level of satisfaction regarding solid waste services offered by the Town from those participants that attended the special meeting. Of those that attended, 25 surveys were returned. Overall the survey results were consistent across the board. The following is a brief overview of the questions and related responses that received the highest levels of overall agreement. Detailed survey results and a list of the write in comments can be found following the highlights.

Out of the 25 responses, 73% were permanent residents.

92% respondents came from one or two person residences.

75% of the respondents do not participate in the back door sanitation service collection program. Of those that did, all had participated in the annual service.

71% of those responding only place one trash can out on collection day.

61% do not have a bear proof trash container.

96% of the respondents recycle weekly.

61% of the respondents recycle all the materials listed on the survey, while 74% recycle all but one or two of the materials listed on the survey. Plastic, Mixed Paper and Glass were the most common materials being recycled.

87% of respondents feel that twice per week pickups in the summer is just right.

95% of the respondents feel that once per week pickups in the fall, winter and spring is just right.

95% of the respondents participate in the free biannual bulk items collection program.

83% are very satisfied or satisfied with the garbage service they receive.

52% of the respondents do not perceive there to be a problem in their neighborhood with garbage and recyclables left behind by short-term renters. Of those that did, 50% felt that it was the owner’s responsibility to resolve the problem, while 33% felt that it was the rental company/agent’s responsibility to resolve the problem.

64% of the respondents would not be willing to pay additional tax dollars and fees for increased sanitation services, while 27% remain undecided.

Packet Page 75

1. What best describes your residence?

Permanent Residence – 73% (19) Seasonal Residence – 23% (6) Rental – 4% (1)

2. How many people live at your residence (include yourself)?

One – 17% (4) Two – 75% (18) Three – 4% (1) Four – 4% (1) More than Four – 0% (0)

3. Do you participate in the back door sanitation service collection program?

Yes – 25% (6) No – 75% (18) If Yes, at which rate? Annual - 4 Seasonal – 0 ETJ – 0

4. On average, how many garbage cans per collection day to you place at the curb?

One – 71% (17) Two – 13% (3) Three – 8% (2) Four – 4% (1) More than Four – 4% (1)

5. Do you have a bear proof garbage container at your residence?

Yes – 35% (9) No – 61% (16) Shared with Neighbor – 4% (1)

6. On your garbage pickup day, are your garbage cans: Overflowing – 4% (1) Full – 50% (13) ¾ Full – 26% (7) ½ Full – 8% (2) ¼ Full – 4% (1) Less than ¼ Full – 8% (2)

Packet Page 76

7. How often to you recycle?

Weekly – 96% (24) Monthly – 4% (1) Occasionally – 0% (0) Never – 0% (0)

8. What item(s) do you recycle most often?

Newspaper – 74% (17) Cardboard – 74% (17) Catalogs/Magazines – 70% (16) Plastic – 100% (23) Glass – 78% (18) Mixed Paper – 83% (19) Aluminum – 74% (17) Metal – 70% (16) Other – No other material listed.

9. On your recycling pickup day, are your cans/bags:

Overflowing – 8% (2) Full – 54% (13) ¾ Full – 13% (3) ½ Full – 17% (4) ¼ Full – 8% (2) Less than ¼ Full – 0% (0)

10. How often do you use the yard waste collection service?

Weekly – 8% (2) Monthly – 20% (5) Seasonally – 24% (6) Occasionally – 36% (9) Never – 12% (3)

11. How often do you bag your yard waste?

Always – 22% (5) Occasionally – 48% (11) Never – 30% (7)

12. During summer your garbage and recycling is collected twice per week. Is that:

Too Often – 9% (2) Just Right – 87% (20) Not Enough – 4% (1)

Packet Page 77

13. During spring, fall and winter your garbage and recycling is collected once per week. Is that:

Too Often – 0% (0) Just Right – 95% (20) Not Enough – 5% (1)

14. How often do you request pickup of furniture, appliances, or other large items?

Weekly – 0% (0) Monthly – 0% (0) Occasionally – 30% (7) Never – 70% (16)

15. Do you participate in the free biannual bulk items collection program?

Yes – 95% (20) No – 5% (1)

16. How satisfied are you with the garbage service you receive?

Very Satisfied – 74% (17) Satisfied – 9% (2) Somewhat Satisfied – 4% (1) Somewhat Dissatisfied – 0 Dissatisfied – 13% (3)

17. If you answered ‘dissatisfied’ to Question 16, what is the cause of your dissatisfaction?

Please see the list of answers to this question on the Comment Sheet.

18. Montreat has many rental properties. Do you perceive there to be a problem in your neighborhood

with garbage and recyclables left behind by short-term renters?

Yes – 31% (7) No – 52% (12) Undecided – 17% (4)

19. If you answered ‘yes’ to Question 18, who should be responsible for resolving this problem?

Owner Responsibility – 50% (9) Rental Company/Agent Responsibility – 33% (6) Town Responsibility – 17% (3)

20. How satisfied would you be if your garbage and recycling was collected one day per week?

Very Satisfied – 30% (7) Satisfied – 35% (8) Somewhat Satisfied – 9% (2) Somewhat Dissatisfied – 17% (4) Dissatisfied – 9% (2)

Packet Page 78

21. What would make you willing to increase your recycling efforts?

Please see the list of answers to this question on the Comment Sheet.

22. Would you be willing to pay additional tax dollars and fees for increased sanitation services?

Yes – 9% (2) No – 64% (14) Undecided – 27% (6)

23. Please share any additional comments you have regarding your garbage, recycling, bulk item or yard

waste collection with us.

Please see the list of answers to this question on the Comment Sheet.

Packet Page 79

Customer Satisfaction Survey for Solid Waste Services Comments 1. What would make you willing to increase your recycling efforts?

I always want to

I do recycle

Collection at Gate

I am very careful to recycle

Not sure

I recycle everything possible

The only thing I don’t recycle now is grease

Collection of Styrofoam and aluminum

I’m a huge recycler

Already recycle more than throw in garbage

I already recycle all items. I believe education is best on why we need to recycle (for the health of the world)

I recycle all possible 2. Please share any additional comments you have regarding your garbage, recycling, bulk

item or yard waste collection with us.

Prepare for large departure days – weekends, summer of both residents and visitors. Truck at Gate? Balance convenience of drop-off with equitable cost to all residents – seasonal or otherwise

Make trash to dumpster free – chip card very important. Work with MRA, College to get good deal

There needs to be an initial discussion on recycling – green

Because of topography, I cannot have back door pickup and must drive my garbage down the driveway to the road. In inclement weather, poor health, I might not be able to do this on the assigned day but I need access to dumpster on another day. I do not wish to pay under these circumstances for access to the dumpster. I am a long term year round resident.

Survey doesn’t really address the issue of new costs to taxpayers regarding pay for bags at dumpster. Also the access is not addressed.

Do not like paying extra for it.

Anyone renting should provide bear proof container – just like Wi-Fi/tv/ etc. We should not allow unbridled illegal dumping. If a reasonable agreement can be made with MRA/College etc. that works it would be fine.

Folks should compact at home (like stomping on milk, orange juice etc. plastic containers – use less space. Less garbage. Also rinse things out first to fight smell. I take the paper off cans and recycle and wash every can, clean and dry before putting in trash.

Packet Page 80

I don’t think the compactors should be open to the public. If this is continued, some sort of ID system should be employed. I do not mind paying a fee for the convenience system on a per use basis.

Property tax payers should not have to pay for them or their renter/guests to use dump.

Because we are so transient, having a way for people to dispose of waste between pickups is important – free is more effective.

Option 2 – Close dumpster. Require owner and rental home owners to buy more cans and backdoor if needed – compactor truck – your choice.

Dissatisfied with paying twice for service. 3. If you answered ‘dissatisfied’ to Question 13, what is the cause of your dissatisfaction?

Being charged to take trash

Provide free access to dumpster

Paying for it

Clerk was so rude to me several times

Packet Page 81

DRAFT_09102015_BOC_AgendaLetters of AppreciationFY_2015-2016_Budget_Amendment_1FY_2015-2016_Budget_Amendment_2Texas Road Bridge Progress Report 13Texas Road Bridge - KCI Email CorrespondencePopulation EstimateAugust 2015 Police Report201507 BudgettoActualJuly 15 final detailcash invest rpt 201508Aug 15 prelim detailAugust 2015 Inspections ReportREQUEST_Resolution_150901__Upper_Kentucky_Road_Phase_1_Neighborhood_Street_Final_Assessment_Roll_09102015DRAFT_RESOLUTION_150901_CONFIRMING_UPPER_KY_PHASE_1_Neighborhood_Paving_ASSESSMENT_ROLL_09102015Upper KY I Nbrhood Pave Prelim Assment Roll 20150818Upper KY I Nbrhood Pave Notice Cert 20150818UPPER_KY_ROAD_PHASE_1_NEIGHBORHOOD_PAVING_ASSESSMENT_PROJECT_COST_TABULATION__rev081715Upper Kentucky Street Paving MapSanitation Alternative Service Delivery Considerations 09082015Sanitation Summer Operation Summary 09082015Sanitation Special Meeting Summary 08112015Sanitation Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2015 ResultsSanitation Customer Satisfaction Survey - Comments 2015

Button1: