Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Cip topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves transportation plan guidance after debate over eminent domain
Summary
The board approved a resolution giving staff guidance to pursue the city’s transportation capital improvement plan, prompting an extended debate over whether the board should require aldermanic sign‑off before staff pursues eminent domain.
The Board of Mayor and Aldermen on March 11 approved a resolution providing implementation guidance for the city’s transportation capital improvement plan (CIP), directing staff to pursue design, grants and right‑of‑way steps needed to advance projects across Hendersonville.
The resolution instructs staff to seek public and private funding, attempt to acquire needed rights‑of‑way by mutual agreement and — where necessary — “utilize other legal avenues of acquisition with strict adherence to state and federal law.” That language prompted a floor amendment and sustained debate over whether eminent domain should require a separate BOMA vote.
Alderman Sassy proposed an amendment that would have required explicit BOMA approval whenever eminent domain was to be used. The amendment failed 8‑4. Supporters of the amendment said requiring board approval would protect property rights and ensure transparency; opponents said mandating board sign‑off before staff can perform design, apply for grants or begin negotiations would stall projects, waste consultant and engineering dollars, and make it harder to secure matching funds.
Alderman Robertson framed the resolution as the next step after the earlier CIP priority work, noting that actual implementation and funding choices will come later when projects are proposed for the budget. Several aldermen said if a particular CIP project reaches the budget or right‑of‑way stage, members will have other committee and budget opportunities to scrutinize and halt projects if they object.
The final resolution passed 10‑2. Those voting against were Aldermen Martin and Sassy; proponents included the mayor, finance and public‑works advocates on the board. The resolution does not appropriate funds; staff said project‑level budgets and any right‑of‑way acquisitions will still require future approvals or appropriations as necessary.
Aldermen asked staff to provide project maps and to continue regular committee briefings so members can assess potential property impacts and timing before any budget appropriation.
The approved CIP guidance covers multiple future projects listed in the transportation plan and is intended to position the city to pursue grants and design work that would allow projects to move forward when funding is secured.
