Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
07-21-2021 Agenda Packet BOC
PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING AGENDA 304 South Morgan Street, Room 215 Roxboro, NC 27573-5245 336-597-1720Fax 336-599-1609 July 12, 2021 9:00am CALL TO ORDER………………………………………………….. Chairman Powell INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING: ITEM #1 (pgs 4-17, 32-47)Petition SUP-01-21 – A request by Roxboro Stor-n-Lock, Inc. for a special use permit to allow a self-storage business at a site located on Carver Drive in Roxboro, NC (Tax Map & Parcel 132-3) in the B-2 (Neighborhood Shopping) Zoning District …………………… Lori Oakley ITEM #2 Consideration to Grant or Deny request by Roxboro Stor-n-Lock, Inc. for a special use permit to allow a self-storage business at a site located on Carver Drive in Roxboro, NC (Tax Map & Parcel 132-3) in the B-2 (Neighborhood Shopping) Zoning District …………….. Chairman Powell 1 PUBLIC HEARING: ITEM #3 (pgs 4, 18-30, 48-179)Petition SUP-02-21 - A request by the applicant, Berea Solar, LLC, on behalf of the property owners, Elizabeth Christian and Catherine Phelps, John and Linda Mangum, Malcolm Mangum, Jr. and Mary Susan Williams, Matthew Moore, Jeffry Hendriks and EM & RM LLC, (Elvin Mangum) on Tax Map and Parcel numbers A110-7, A110-2, A110-31, A110-29, A110-6, A111-5 and 0961-06-5906 (Granville County PIN), totaling 920 acres located on Berea, Bethany Church and Isham Chambers Roads, for a special use permit to establish a Level 3 (10 acres or greater) Solar Energy System …………. Lori Oakley ITEM #4 Consideration to Grant or Deny request by the applicant, Berea Solar, LLC, on behalf of the property owners, Elizabeth Christian and Catherine Phelps, John and Linda Mangum, Malcolm Mangum, Jr. and Mary Susan Williams, Matthew Moore, Jeffry Hendriks and EM & RM LLC, (Elvin Mangum) on Tax Map and Parcel numbers A110-7, A110-2, A110-31, A110-29, A110-6, A111-5 and 0961-06-5906 (Granville County PIN), totaling 920 acres located on Berea, Bethany Church and Isham Chambers Roads, for a special use permit to establish a Level 3 (10 acres or greater) Solar Energy System …… Chairman Powell INFORMAL COMMENTS The Person County Board of Commissioners established a 10-minute segment which is open for informal comments and/or questions from citizens of this county on issues, other than those issues for which a public hearing has been scheduled. The time will be divided equally among those wishing to comment. It is requested that any person who wishes to address the Board, register with the Clerk to the Board prior to the meeting. ITEM #5 DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes of June 8, 2021 (pgs 180-187),B.Approval of Minutes of June 10, 2021 (pgs 188-191),C.Approval of Minutes of June 21, 2021 (pgs 192-241),D.Budget Amendment #1 (pg 242), E.Pay and Classification Schedule (pgs 243-251),F.Person Industries’ Record Destruction (pg 252),G.Person County Schools Application to NC Education Lottery for Public School Building Capital Fund in the amount of $1,050,000 for North End Parking and Queue (pg 253), H.FY2022 Home and Community Care Block Grant for Older Adults Agreement for the Provision of County-Based Aging Services (pgs 254-262),I.Health Department Fee Requests for the administration of COVID-19 first and second doses to submit claims to insurance companies (pgs 263-264), andJ.Tax Adjustments for July 2021(pgs 265-270)a.Tax Releasesb.NC Vehicle Tax System pending refunds 2 NEW BUSINESS: ITEM #6 (pgs 271-281)Tax Collector Settlement ………………………………………………… Russell Jones ITEM #7 (pgs 282-283)Order to Collect Taxes …………………………………………………… Russell Jones ITEM #8 (pgs 284-285)Reappointment of County Tax Assessor ………………………………... Russell Jones ITEM #9 (pgs 286-294)Person Area Transportation System Transportation Advisory Board By-Laws Update and Appointment …………………………….. Kurt Neufang ITEM #10 (pgs 295-297)Appointment to the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council and Kerr Tar Regional COG ……………………………………………………... Brenda Reaves ITEM #11 (pg 298)Designation of Voting Delegate to NC Association of County Commissioners Annual Conference ………………………….. Brenda Reaves ITEM #12 (pgs 299-328)Consideration of the Organization and Governance Structure for County Human Services ………………………... Commissioner Gentry CHAIRMAN’S REPORT MANAGER’S REPORT COMMISSIONER REPORTS/COMMENTS Note: All Items on the Agenda are for Discussion and Action as deemed appropriate by the Board. 3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Person County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in the Person County Office Building, Room 215, at 304 South Morgan Street, Roxboro, North Carolina to hear the following: 1.Petition SUP-01-21 – A request by Roxboro Stor-n-Lock, Inc. for a special use permit to allow a self-storage business at a site located on Carver Drive in Roxboro, NC (Tax Map & Parcel 132-3) in the B-2 (Neighborhood Shopping) Zoning District. 2.Petition SUP-02-21 - A request by the applicant, Berea Solar, LLC, on behalf of the property owners, Elizabeth Christian and Catherine Phelps, John and Linda Mangum, Malcolm Mangum, Jr. and Mary Susan Williams, Matthew Moore, Jeffry Hendriks and EM & RM LLC, (Elvin Mangum) on Tax Map and Parcel numbers A110-7, A110-2, A110-31, A110-29, A110-6, A111-5 and 0961-06-5906 (Granville County PIN), totaling 920 acres located on Berea, Bethany Church and Isham Chambers Roads, for a special use permit to establish a Level 3 (10 acres or greater) Solar Energy System. The public is invited to attend the meeting. Substantial changes may occur to the request based on comments from the public hearing. The Board of Commissioners reserves the right to recess the public hearing at another place and time. For further information on the case(s) listed above, please contact the Person County Planning and Zoning Department at (336) 597-1750. 4 Person CountyBoard of CommissionersJuly 12, 20215 Special Use PermitSUP-01-216 Special Use Permit - RequestSUP-01-21– Explanation of RequestA request by Roxboro Stor‐n‐Lock, Inc. for a special use permit to allow a self‐storage business at a site located on Carver Drive in Roxboro, NC (Tax Map & Parcel 132‐3) in the B‐2 (Neighborhood Shopping) Zoning District.7 Special Use Permit - RequestSUP-01-21– Site History•On June 3, 2019, the Person County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved a general rezoning petition for this site from R (Residential) to B‐2 (Neighborhood Shopping).•On November 6, 2019, the Person County Board of Adjustment unanimously approved a conditional use permit for this site for a self‐storage business containing seven conventional style enclosed storage buildings and one open‐air storage building. The seven enclosed buildings were originally proposed for the northeast corner of the site and the open‐air storage building was to be located on the southern portion of the site (please see previously approved attached site plan).8 Planning Board August 8th, 20199 Planning Board August 8th, 201910 Planning Board August 8th, 201911 Planning Board August 8th, 201912 Planning Board August 8th, 201913 Special Use Permit - RequestSUP-01-21– Planning Staff Analysis•The property is zoned B‐2 and the Table of Permitted Usesin Appendix C of the Planning Ordinance lists “Storage, Household and Commercial” as a special use in the B‐2 (Neighborhood Shopping). •The applicant is requesting to utilize a vacant lot for expansion of Roxboro Stor‐n‐Lock, Inc. operations. Current Roxboro Stor‐N‐Lock, Inc. operations are located on an adjacent parcel in the City of Roxboro. The applicant plans to erect six traditional storage buildings with a paved driveway/access area to the site along with a fence around surrounding the six buildings. 14 Special Use Permit - RequestSUP-01-21– Planning Staff AnalysisPlanning staff recommends that if the Board approves the request, the following conditions be placed on the Special Use Permit:•The applicant is to obtain all permits necessary from the County Planning and Zoning Department and Building Inspections Department. •The applicant is to obtain all permits necessary from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation.15 Special Use Permit - RequestSUP-01-21– Planning Staff AnalysisThe Board shall issue a special use permit if it has evaluated an application and determined:1. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved;2. That the use meets all of the required conditions and specifications;3. That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity;4. That the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. ***Please refer to the 4 Findings of Fact listed above when making a decision***16 Planning Board August 8th, 201917 Special Use PermitSUP-02-2118 Special Use Permit - RequestSUP-02-21– Explanation of RequestPetition SUP-02-21 is a request by the applicant, Berea Solar, LLC, on behalf of the property owners,Elizabeth Christian and Catherine Phelps, John and Linda Mangum, Malcolm Mangum, Jr. and MarySusan Williams, Matthew Moore, Jeffry Hendriksand EM & RM LLC, (Elvin Mangum) on Tax Map andParcel numbers A110-7, A110-2, A110-31, A110-29, A110-6, A111-5 and 0961-06-5906 (GranvilleCounty PIN), located on Berea, Bethany Church andIsham Chambers Roads, for a special use permitto establish a Level 3 (10 acres or greater) SolarEnergy System. The proposed project involvesapproximately 920 contiguous acres in separate ownership.19 The Aerial map shows the area as wooded, pasture or farm land with few single family dwellings.20 The zoning map shows the area zoned as RC or Rural Conservation.21 The Future Land Use map identifies the parcels as Rural Residential. Rural Residential allows for low density residential, agricultural, forestry, churches and very limited commercial uses. 22 Special Use PermitSUP-02-21 – Planning Staff AnalysisThis request for a Level 3 Solar Energy System is comprised of seven (7) parcels, all zonedRC (Rural Conservation). A Level 3 (10 acres or greater) Solar Energy System is allowed inthis zoning district as a special use under the Person County Solar Energy SystemOrdinance.The site plan shows existing vegetative buffers at the required 150’ feet, and the proposedbuffers of 150’ to be planted. The site plan shows a 300’ setback from any dwelling and 50’buffers on either side of a stream. The site plan also depicts the approximate location ofaccess for each tract.23 Special Use PermitSUP-02-21 – Planning Staff AnalysisThe parcels are all zoned RC (Rural Conservation). A Level 3 (10 acres or greater) Solar Energy System is allowed in this zoning district as a special use under the Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance.The site plan shows existing vegetative buffers at the required 150’ feet, and the proposed buffers of 150’ to be planted. The site plan shows a 300’ setback from any dwelling, and 50’ buffers on either side of a stream, with the exception of “Cub Creek”. The site plan also shows the approximate location of access for each tract.This area of the county is very rural, with woodlands and pastures or farmland. There are scattered single family dwellings. 24 Special Use PermitSUP-02-21 – Site Plan• The proposed Solar Energy System will consist of approximately 230,920 solar panels with a generating capacity of 80 Mega Watts of power combined.• The panels will not exceed 15’ in height.• Article 2, Section 2.1 of the Person County Solar Energy Ordinance allows facilities that are to be located on multiple contiguous lots of record in separate ownership, to apply building setbacks and buffer requirements only to exterior perimeters, providing those property owners sign a waiver. Signed waivers have been provided and are on file.• The property does not lie within the 100-year special flood hazard area according to the FEMA map. The site plan shows the location of a blue line stream on parcels A111-5, A110-31 and A110-7 and the required buffers (50’ either side of stream) have been delineated on the map. The site plan omits “Cub Creek”, a well-defined blue line stream located on parcel A110-6, which will need to be added to the site plan.• The property is located within the Neuse/Falls Watershed area and will be subject to the Falls Lake Stormwater rules governing land disturbance.25 26 27 Board of Commissioners July 12, 2021SITE PLAN28 Special Use Permit SUP-02-21 – Planning Staff Summary• The proposed site plan meets the setback and buffering requirements set forth in the Solar EnergySystem Ordinance where applicable, and is anallowed use within the RC (Rural Conservation)zoning district with a special use permit.• Approximately half of the perimeter requiring 150’ wide vegetative buffers are existing.If the Board approves the request, Planning Staff would recommend the following conditions to beplaced on the special use permit:1. The riparian buffers for “Cub Creek” located on parcel A110-6 be added to the site plan.2. The applicant is to obtain all necessary permits for the Solar Energy System projectand adhere to all requirements listed in the Person County System Ordinance andthe Planning Ordinance.29 Special Use Permit - RequestSUP-02-21 – Findings of FactIn approving an application for a special use permit, the Board of Commissioners may attach fair andreasonable conditions to the approval. The petitioner will have a reasonable opportunity to considerand respond to any additional requirements prior to approval or denial by the Board.The Board shall issue a special use permit if it has evaluated an application and determined:1. That the use will not materially endanger the publichealth or safety if located where proposed anddeveloped according to the plan as submitted and approved.2. That the use meets all of the required conditions and specifications;3. That the use will not substantially injure the valueof adjoining or abutting property, or that the useis a public necessity;4. That the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted andapproved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformitywith the Comprehensive Plan.30 Person CountyBoard of CommissionersJuly 12, 202131 1 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 12, 2021 Agenda Title: Petition SUP-01-21 - A request by Roxboro Stor-n-Lock, Inc. for a special use permit to allow a self-storage business at a site located on Carver Drive in Roxboro, NC (Tax Map & Parcel 132-3) in the B-2 (Neighborhood Shopping) Zoning District Quasi-Judicial Zoning Decision: The special use permit requires a quasi-judicial public hearing. Witnesses are to be sworn in and they are subject to cross examination. There shall be no ex parte communication without full disclosure at the hearing. The case also requires the review of four Findings of Fact from Section 155 of the Planning Ordinance. Summary of Information: The applicant is requesting to construct six conventional, single story self-storage buildings for rent to the general public to expand the operations of the adjacent Roxboro Stor-n-Lock. The applicant received approval for a conditional use permit on this site by the Board of Adjustment on November 6, 2019 for 8 self-storage buildings (7 enclosed buildings and 1 open storage building). Since receiving approval, the applicant has decided to modify the original site plan, which requires Board approval. Conditional use permits were removed from the Planning Ordinance in the spring of 2021 per NC General Statutes and the new proposed plan would require the approval of a special use permit by the Board of Commissioners. The six self-storage buildings will have a total of 57,250 square feet (the previous approval was for 83,250 square feet of buildings). The applicant plans to provide fencing surrounding the buildings. In addition, there will be pedestrian and golf cart connectivity to the site from the existing Roxboro Stor-N-Lock facility to the south via a gravel pathway. The property does not lie within the 100-year flood hazard area according to the FEMA maps; however, there are wetlands and an intermittent stream on the property and the applicant will need to obtain necessary permits from the state for the wetlands and stream. The Person County Land Use Plan identifies the site as Suburban/Residential, which includes commercial uses. Planning Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends that if the Board approves the request, the following conditions be placed on the Special Use Permit: 1.The applicant is to obtain all permits necessary from the County Planning and Zoning Departmentand Building Inspections Department. 32 2 2. The applicant is to obtain all permits necessary from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The Planning Board no longer reviews special use permits. Recommendation Action: Vote to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Special Use Permit. The Board will need to address the Findings of Fact in Section 155 of the Person County Planning Ordinance and whether this proposal is in keeping with the Person County Land Use Plan. The Findings of Fact in Section 155 are as follows: 1. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. 2. That the use meets all required conditions and specifications. 3. That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity, and 4. That the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the comprehensive plan. Submitted by: Lori Oakley, Planning Director 33 SUP-01-21 Staff Analysis 1 Special Use Permit SUP-01-21 Roxboro Stor-n-Lock, Inc. Self-Storage Facility EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST A request by Roxboro Stor-n-Lock, Inc. for a special use permit to allow a self-storage business at a site located on Carver Drive in Roxboro, NC (Tax Map & Parcel 132-3) in the B-2 (Neighborhood Shopping) Zoning District. LOCATION & CURRENT LAND USE Currently, the subject property is vacant and contains woodlands. The property is zoned B-2 (Neighborhood Shopping). Condition and land use of the surrounding properties are: To the West – vacant land that is partially wooded in Person County zoned R (Residential). To the North– vacant wooded land in the City of Roxboro zoned R-6 (Residential). To the East – a small tract of vacant wooded land and a commercial business (Davita Dialysis) in the City of Roxboro zoned B-2 (Neighborhood Business). To the South – two commercial businesses (Roxboro Stor-n-Lock, Inc. and Roxboro Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center) and a vacant lot in the City of Roxboro zoned B-2 (Neighborhood Business). SITE HISTORY On June 3, 2019, the Person County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved a general rezoning petition for this site from R (Residential) to B-2 (Neighborhood Shopping). On November 6, 2019, the Person County Board of Adjustment unanimously approved a conditional use permit for this site for a self-storage business containing seven conventional style enclosed storage buildings and one open-air storage building. The seven enclosed buildings were originally proposed for the northeast corner of the site and the open-air storage building was to be located on the southern portion of the site (please see previously approved attached site plan). In the spring of 2021, the engineer for the site contacted the Planning Department about some proposed modifications to the original approved plan. Staff informed both the engineer and property owner that the modifications were significant and required Board approval. Also, conditional use permits were removed from the Planning Ordinance in the spring of 2021 per NC General Statutes and that the new proposed plan would require the approval of a special use permit by the Board of Commissioners. On May 28, 2021, the applicant submitted the special use permit application. LAND USE / SITE PLAN The property is zoned B-2 and the Table of Permitted Uses in Appendix C of the Planning Ordinance lists “Storage, Household and Commercial” as a special use in the B-2 (Neighborhood Shopping). The applicant is requesting to build six conventional, single story self-storage buildings for rent to the general public to expand the operations of the adjacent Roxboro Stor-n-Lock. The six buildings will have a total of 57,250 square feet (the previous approval was for 83,250 square feet of buildings). 34 SUP-01-21 Staff Analysis 2 The applicant plans to provide fencing surrounding the buildings. In addition, there will be pedestrian and golf cart connectivity to the site from the existing Roxboro Stor-N-Lock facility to the south via a gravel pathway. The applicant will provide a paved driveway into the site, as well as pave the areas around each storage building. Per the Person County Planning Ordinance, this use does not require parking. The property is located within the Roanoke Watershed. The property does not lie within the 100-year special flood hazard area according to the FEMA map. The property contains a previously unidentified intermittent stream on the western portion of the site. Per the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, an intermittent stream is “a well-defined channel that contains water for only part of the year (typically during winter and spring). The flow may be heavily supplemented by stormwater. When dry, they typically lack the biological and hydrological characteristics commonly associated with continuous conveyances of water”. These streams are regulated by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The property also contains wetlands, which are regulated through NC Division of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Person County Land use Plan identifies the proposed site as Suburban/Residential. Suburban/Residential is defined as: Residential land uses including subdivisions and manufactured home parks at densities of 1-3 dwelling units per acre; commercial, office, industrial, public/institutional uses meeting locational criteria. Locational criteria for nonresidential uses within this land use category would include frontage and access to a major State highway or secondary road, proximity to similar uses and spatial separation from non-compatible uses such as existing residential development. Land uses within this category could develop with or without public sewer. Appendix O of the Land Use Plan lists goals and objectives for the county including the following: 1.0 – Promote an orderly and efficient land use development pattern, which allows for a variety of land uses while being sensitive to environmental concerns. 2.0 – Provide a strong local planning environment that supports and enhances the economic growth potential of Person County. PLANNING STAFF ANALYSIS The property is zoned B-2 and the Table of Permitted Uses in Appendix C of the Planning Ordinance lists “Storage, Household and Commercial” as a special use in the B-2 (Neighborhood Shopping). The applicant is requesting to utilize a vacant lot for expansion of Roxboro Stor-n-Lock, Inc. operations. Current Roxboro Stor-N-Lock, Inc. operations are located on an adjacent parcel in the City of Roxboro. The applicant plans to erect six traditional storage buildings with a paved driveway/access area to the site along with a fence around surrounding the six buildings. 35 SUP-01-21 Staff Analysis 3 Planning staff recommends that if the Board approves the request, the following conditions be placed on the Special Use Permit: 1. The applicant is to obtain all permits necessary from the County Planning and Zoning Department and Building Inspections Department. 2. The applicant is to obtain all permits necessary from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. In approving an application for a special use permit, the Board of Commissioners may attach fair and reasonable conditions to the approval. The petitioner will have a reasonable opportunity to consider and respond to any additional requirements prior to approval or denial by the Board. The Board shall issue a special use permit if it has evaluated an application and determined: 1. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved; 2. That the use meets all of the required conditions and specifications; 3. That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity; 4. That the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. ***Please refer to the 4 Findings of Fact listed above when making a decision*** Submitted by: Lori Oakley, Planning Director 36 37 38 39 2012ROXBOROSTOR-N-LOCKCARVER STREETROXBORO, NC 27573ROXBORO STOR N LOCK INC.333 S LAMAR STROXBORO, NC 27573Owner:10528RECORD NO.:111 West Main StreetDurham, N.C. 27701p 919.682.0368f 919.688.5646www.cjtpa.comNC BOARD OF EXAMINERS FORENGINEERS AND SURVEYORSLIC # C-1209NC BOARD OF LANDSCAPEARCHITECTS LIC # C-104ROXBORO STOR-N-LOCKLIST OF SHEETSCD-0.0COVER SHEETCD-1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLANCD-2.0 SITE PLANPROJECT DATADEVELOPER:ROXBORO STOR N LOCK, INC.333 S. LAMAR STREETROXBORO, NC 27573-5514PROPERTY OWNER:ROXBORO STOR N LOCK333 S. LAMAR STREETROXBORO, NC 27573-5514PROPERTY ADDRESS:CARVER DRIVE, ROXBORO, NCENGINEER APPLICANT:COULTER JEWELL THAMES, P.A.ATTN: PRESTON ROYSTER, PE111 WEST MAIN STREETDURHAM, NC 27701MAP NUMBER:132-3DEED BOOK / PAGE:BK 1010 PG 701PB 1 PG 791ACREAGE: 11.46 AC (499,208 sf)LAND USE:EXISTINGUNDEVELOPEDPROPOSED6 MINI WAREHOUSE STORAGE BUILDINGS, 57,250 SFZONING: PERSON COUNTYEXISTING B2 - NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPINGBUILDING SETBACK:FRONT50 FTSIDE20 FTREAR25 FTBUILDING AREA: PROPOSED: 57,250 SFBUILDING HEIGHT:ALLOWABLE50 FTVEHICULAR PARKING: PROVIDED0 SPACES (INCLUDES 0 VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE)RIVER BASIN:ROANOKEWATERSHED:ROANOKEAREA OF DISTURBANCE (FORSTORMWATER COMPLIANCE):217,800 SF = 5.00 ACNEW IMPERVIOUS AREA: 135,635 SF = 3.11 AC06/21/202140 2012ROXBOROSTOR-N-LOCKCARVER STREETROXBORO, NC 27573ROXBORO STOR N LOCK INC.333 S LAMAR STROXBORO, NC 27573Owner:10528RECORD NO.:111 West Main StreetDurham, N.C. 27701p 919.682.0368f 919.688.5646www.cjtpa.comNC BOARD OF EXAMINERS FORENGINEERS AND SURVEYORSLIC # C-1209NC BOARD OF LANDSCAPEARCHITECTS LIC # C-10406/21/202141 2012ROXBOROSTOR-N-LOCKCARVER STREETROXBORO, NC 27573ROXBORO STOR N LOCK INC.333 S LAMAR STROXBORO, NC 27573Owner:10528RECORD NO.:111 West Main StreetDurham, N.C. 27701p 919.682.0368f 919.688.5646www.cjtpa.comNC BOARD OF EXAMINERS FORENGINEERS AND SURVEYORSLIC # C-1209NC BOARD OF LANDSCAPEARCHITECTS LIC # C-10406/21/202142 CARVER DR. iSI TE. CARVER DR. ,...__..,.JEFFERSON DR. HILLHAVEN TER. VICINITY MAP OWNER/APPL !CANT: ROXBORO STOR N LOCK, INC. 335 S. LAMAR STREET ROXBORO, N. C. 27573 336-599-2221 PROPOSED BUILDING 1: 25'x 400' = 10,000 SO.FT. SI TE PL AN APPROVED: PERSON COUNTY ZONING ADt,HNISTRATOR ' I ' ' DATE I ONE STORY MINI STORAGE WAREHOUSE {12' HEIGHT) SR 1364 60' R/W CARVER DRIVE PHASE 1: 20' PAVED DRIVEWAY TO AND AROUND BUILDING 1 PHASE 2-8: ONE BUILDING AT A TIME WITH 20' PAVED DRIVEWAYAROUND BUILDING PHASE 2 BUILDING: 25' X 430" = 10,750 SQ. FT. { 12' HEIGHT) BUILDINGS 3-7: 25' X 540' = 11,000 SO.FT. (12' HEIGHT) BUILDING 8: 75'X 100' = 7,500 SO.FT. OPEN STORAGE {30' HEIGHT) BUILDING DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE: 2 TO 10 YEARS FENCING: PROPOSED FENCE A-8-C-D A-E WITH GATE: EXISTING FENCE D-E : FENCE 6' -8' CHAIN LINK OUTDOOR LIGHTING: WALL MOUNTED 43 WATT LED WALL PACKS ( PUBLI CJ '' I ' I I I I I I I II : MOUNTED 60' TO 75' APART ALONG EXTERIOR WALLS IPROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED IN A FEMA SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA SIGNS: NONE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE: NONE PROPOSED SOLID WASTE FACILITIES: NONE PROPOSED PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE PHASE 1: PHASE 2-8: DRIVEWAY 29,592.4 SO.FT. BUILDING 10,000 SQ.FT. DRIVEWAY 83,116.7 SO. FT.BUILDING 73,250 SQ. FT. TOPOGRAPHIC LINES BY PERSON COUNTY GIS NO PARKING IS REQUIRED OR PROVIDED PERSONNEL RAMP: EMPLOYEE TRAVEL WAY TO ALLOW EMPLOYEE ON DUTY TO PASS THROUGH A GATE IN THE EXISTING FENCEAND WALK DOWN THE HILL BETWEEN THE EXISTING AND NEW STORAGE UN I TS. 0 PERSON COUNTY ZONING: 82 SETBACKS:FRONT 25' REAR 25' SIDE 20' R ZONE 50' TAX MAP: 132-3 TAX PARCEL RECORD NUMBER: I 0528 100 200 SCALE: 1. = I oo· 300 576' TO FIRE HYDRANT ON SOUTH SIDE OF DOCTORS COURT LINE L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 / '.J I DLP PERSON COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, LLC D.B. 786P.136 PERSON COUNTY ZONING R USE: ACCESS DRIVE CITY OF ROXBORO ZONING 82 USE: UNDEVELOPED M>ARING DISTANCE N 12"46 48" W 85.97 N 79'26 00" W 29.88 N 10'28 42 E 99.04 N 11'10 07" E 122.69 N 13'04 18" E 125.16 N 17'14 31" E 123.13 N 20'41 44 E 125.75 N 21'42 10 E 77.43 \ I/ I / / roe:,<ci / / / / / / I I I 111.46 ACRES ,,_c:,ro EXISTING\ 15" CPP ' D.B. 1010 /P. 701 P.C. I /P. 791 I I I I ROXBORO NURSING CENTER, I NC. D.B. 272P.106 I CITY OF ROXBORO ZONING 82 USE: NURSING HOME I I E 7 6 I I ' ' I ' ' DANSFIELD, LLC D. B. 541 P.192 CITY OF ROXBORO ZONING R-6 USE: UNDEVELOPED 5 4 I \ \ \ 3 ROXBORO STOR N LOCK, D. B. 184P.572 ,-I ,.., I I I I ------ DANSFIELD, LLC D.B. 657P.753 CITY OF ROXBORO ZONING 82 USE: UNDEVELOPED LEGEND Existing Iron Bo, (1/2" unless noted) Existing Iron Pipe (3/◄" unless noted) 1/2" Iron Pipe Set Existing Nail Noll Set Corrpuled Point Non-Surveyed Lines Non-Surveyed Lines ---- - - - - - - Right-Of-Woy Lines -------- Center I [nes ------------ Fence --0>----<0>----<0>---- RCP Retnforced Concrete Pipe CPP Corrugated Plastic Pipe Topographic Lines Intermittent Stream-- --· - - ------------.... E-- � � . I '.,1;.,4---½-46. o I RHGC ROXBORO, LLC D.B. 835P.14 INC. ' ' I I I � ' ' CITY OF ROXBORO ZONING 82 USE: CLINIC ' ' ' '\ � ', PROFESSIONAL '\ ' HOLDING '\ ASSOCIATES '\ D.8. 163 '-, P.546 ROXBORO STOR N LOCK, D.B. 186P.963 CITY OF ROXBORO ZONING 82 USE: UNDEVELOPED INC. CITY OF ROXBORO ZONING 82 USE: STORAGE WAREHOUSES a: .ri u a: ' ' ' ' USE· ' . C !TY OF ROXBORO ZONING 82 STORAGE WAREHOUSES ' • 0 0 IPS • NF 0 NS 6. Q. -, 0: -,< -, in ., u C ., z j c.. r.J E--C/l 00 u z - �u 0 .....:I z 0:::: 0 E--< 0 0:::: 0 co :x: 0 0:::: .; ..... ._ 0 0 0 0 z ..... u"' 0 u z r.J> . ii: �oz 0:: ::::i r.Jo>u 0::z 0 <u C/l .. 0:: i::r.J 0a.. ::;al : CJc.. 0;:I: ....l E- >-. 0 t'. 0:: Q) 0 0.Ql 0 >< '""' 0 c.. .... N� uell·oz-g; o-000 x "' QO> "' O> "' 1-· U) L,J ,,, L,J ,,, "' - ll: N <"' :::; ....<"" ...JO> O> N . "' Vl u:i ... NI') -,,, cj" ::::; PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN FOR THE SITE (2019) 43 RidgeRdCarver Dr132 3132 3 40 140 1 132 8132 8 133 1 OUT133 1 OUT 134 94134 94 134 95134 95 40 240 2 134 1134 1 132 15132 15 132 18132 18 132 9132 9 132 16132 16 132 14132 14 132 6132 6132 24132 24132 25132 25 132 20132 20 132 11132 11 132 17132 17 General MapSUP 01-21Roxboro Stor-N-Lock ¯ Tax Map/Parcel 132 3 Local Parcels CityLimits 1 inch = 125 feet 44 RidgeRdCarver Dr132 3132 3 40 140 1 132 8132 8 133 1 OUT133 1 OUT 134 94134 94 134 95134 95 40 240 2 134 1134 1 132 15132 15 132 18132 18 132 9132 9 132 16132 16 132 14132 14 132 6132 6132 24132 24132 25132 25 132 20132 20 132 11132 11 132 17132 17 Zoning MapSUP 01-21Roxboro Stor-N-Lock ¯ Tax Map/ Parcel 132 3 Local Parcels CityLimits R: Residential B-1: Highway Commercial B-2: Neighborhood Shopping GI: General Industrial R-C: Rural Conservation AP: Airport Overlay 1 inch = 125 feet Residential Zoning Neighborhood Shopping City Limits surround on three sides.This parcel (133 1 OUT) is city zoning R-6 All other city parcels are zoned B-2 45 RidgeRdCarver Dr132 3132 3 40 140 1 132 8132 8 133 1 OUT133 1 OUT 134 94134 94 134 95134 95 40 240 2 134 1134 1 132 15132 15 132 18132 18 132 9132 9 132 16132 16 132 14132 14 132 6132 6132 24132 24132 25132 25 132 20132 20 132 11132 11 132 17132 17 FLU MapSUP 01-21Roxboro Stor-N-Lock ¯ Tax Map/Parcel 132 3 Local Parcels CityLimits Land Use Description Industrial O&I/Commercial Rural Res/AGPoorSoil Rural Residential/AG Suburban Residential 1 inch = 125 feet 46 RidgeRdCarver Dr132 3132 3 40 140 1 132 8132 8 133 1 OUT133 1 OUT 134 94134 94 134 95134 95 40 240 2 134 1134 1 132 15132 15 132 18132 18 132 9132 9 132 16132 16 132 14132 14 132 6132 6132 24132 24132 25132 25 132 20132 20 132 11132 11 132 17132 17 Aerial MapSUP 01-21Roxboro Stor-N-Lock ¯ Tax Map/Parcel 132 3 CityLimits Local Parcels 1 inch = 125 feet 47 1 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 12, 2021 Agenda Title: Petition SUP-02-21 - A request by the applicant, Berea Solar, LLC, on behalf of the property owners, Elizabeth Christian and Catherine Phelps, John and Linda Mangum, Malcolm Mangum, Jr. and Mary Susan Williams, Matthew Moore, Jeffry Hendriks and EM & RM LLC, (Elvin Mangum) on Tax Map and Parcel numbers A110-7, A110-2, A110-31, A110-29, A110-6, A111-5 and 0961-06-5906 (Granville County PIN), involving approximately 920 contiguous acres in separate ownership, located on Berea, Bethany Church and Isham Chambers Roads, for a special use permit to establish a Level 3 (10 acres or greater) Solar Energy System. Quasi-Judicial Zoning Decision: The special use permit requires a quasi-judicial public hearing. Witnesses are to be sworn in and they are subject to cross examination. There shall be no ex parte communication without full disclosure at the hearing. The case also requires the review of four Findings of Fact from Section 155 of the Planning Ordinance. Summary of Information: The applicant is requesting to construct a Level 3 (10 acres or greater) solar energy system on approximately 920 contiguous acres in separate ownership. Currently, the subject properties are comprised of woodlands, pasture/farm land and single-family dwellings. All of the properties are zoned RC (Rural Conservation). The proposed Solar Energy System will consist of approximately 230,920 solar panels with a generating capacity of 80 Mega Watts of power combined. The panels will not exceed 15’ in height. The Person County Land Use Plan identifies the site as Rural Residential/AG, which allows for low-density residential (single site-built and manufactured homes); agriculture, forestry, churches; very limited commercial, office or public/institutional uses meeting locational criteria. Most of the land within protected water supply watersheds should be placed in this category. Locational criteria for non-residential uses within this land use category would include frontage and access to a major State highway or secondary road, proximity to similar uses and spatial separation from non-compatible uses such as existing residential development. Land uses within this category would be expected to develop without public sewer, i.e., with private septic tank systems. 48 2 Appendix O of the Land Use Plan lists goals and objectives for the county including the following: 1.0 - To promote an orderly and efficient land use development pattern, which allows for a variety of land uses while being sensitive to environmental concerns. 2.0 – Provide a strong local planning environment that supports and enhances the economic growth potential of Person County. Planning Staff Summary: The proposed site plan meets the setback and buffering requirements set forth in the Solar Energy System Ordinance, where applicable, and is an allowed use within the RC (Rural Conservation) zoning district with a special use permit. The Planning Board no longer reviews special use permits. Recommended Action: Vote to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requested Special Use Permit. The Board will need to address the Findings of Fact in Section 155 of the Person County Planning Ordinance and whether this proposal is in keeping with the Person County Land Use Plan. The Findings of Fact in Section 155 are as follows: 1. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. 2. That the use meets all required conditions and specifications. 3. That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use in a public necessity, and 4. That the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the comprehensive plan. Submitted by: Lori Oakley, Planning Director 49 SUP-02-21 Staff Analysis Board of Commissioners July 12, 2021 1 Special Use Permit SUP-02-21 Berea Solar LLC Level 3 Solar Energy System EXPLANATION OF REQUEST Petition SUP-02-21 is a request by the applicant, Berea Solar, LLC, on behalf of the property owners, Elizabeth Christian and Catherine Phelps, John and Linda Mangum, Malcolm Mangum, Jr. and Mary Susan Williams, Matthew Moore, Jeffry Hendriks and EM & RM LLC, (Elvin Mangum), on Tax Map and Parcel numbers A110-7, A110-2, A110-31, A110-29, A110-6, A111-5 and 0961-06-5906, (Granville County PIN), on approximately 920 contiguous acres located on Berea, Bethany Church and Isham Chambers Roads, for a special use permit to establish a Level 3 (10 acres or greater) Solar Energy System. LOCATION AND CURRENT LAND USE These tracts are located on the South Eastern side of Person County near the Granville County line. All the properties are zoned RC (Rural Conservation). Condition and land use of the surrounding properties for Tax Map & Parcel number A110-6 along Berea Rd are: To the North – Vacant and wooded. To the East – Vacant, a mixture of open pasture/farm land and woodlands. To the South – A mixture of pasture/farm land and woodlands with a few single family dwellings. To the West – Bordered on the West by Range Rd, property on the other side of Range Rd is mainly wooded with a few single family dwellings. Condition and land use of the surrounding properties for Tax Map & Parcel number A110-7 along Berea Rd are: To the North – Property bordered on the North by Berea Rd, properties across Berea Rd are mainly woodlands with some pasture/farm land and a few single family dwellings. Property North also contains a power line easement. To the East – Properties bordering to the East are located in Granville County and are a mixture of pasture/farm land, woodlands, tree farms and 1 or 2 single family dwellings. To the South – Mainly woodland with a few areas of pasture/farm land, 1 or 2 single family dwellings. To the West – Mixture of Woodland, pasture land and a few single family dwellings. Condition and land use of the surrounding properties for Tax Map & Parcel number A110-2 along Bethany Church Rd are: To the North – Mostly woodland with a small amount of pasture land. To the East – Woodlands. To the South - Bordered by Bethany Church Rd., largely wooded with a small area of pasture/farm land and a few single family dwellings. To the West – Intersection of Range and Bethany Church Rds., several single family dwellings and a Church. (Bethany Baptist Church). Condition and land use of the surrounding properties for Tax Map & Parcel number A110-31 are: 50 SUP-02-21 Staff Analysis Board of Commissioners July 12, 2021 2 To the North – Mixture of woodlands and pastureland. To the East – Properties to the East are located in Granville County and are mainly woodlands with a few single family dwellings. To the South – Mostly woodlands with a small area of pasture/farm land. To the West – Mixture of woodlands and pasture/farm land and 1 or 2 single family dwellings. Condition and land use of the surrounding properties for Tax Map & Parcel number A110-29 are: To the North – Bordered by Bethany Church Rd, mainly woodland. To the East – Properties bordering on the East are located in Granville County and are mainly pasture/farm land and a few single family dwellings. To the South – Mainly woodlands, and 1 or 2 single family dwellings. To the West – Mainly woodlands, a small amount of pasture/farm lands and 1 or 2 single family dwellings. Condition and Land use of the surrounding properties for Tax Map & Parcel number A111-5 are: To the North – Mainly woodland with a small amount of pasture/farm land. To the East – Properties bordering on the East are located in Granville County and are mainly woodland with a few single family dwellings. To the South – Property is bordered by Camp Creek Lane (Isham Chambers Rd) is mainly wooded and borders on the Durham County line. To the West – Mainly Woodlands and 1 or 2 single family dwellings. Condition and Land use of the surrounding properties for Granville County Map number 0961-06-5906 are: To the North – Mainly woodlands, with 1 or 2 single family dwellings. To the East - Mixture of woodlands, pasture/farm lands, tree farms and a few single family dwellings. To the South – Mixture of woodlands, pasture/farm lands. Property to the South contains a power line easement. To the West – Property to the west is a mixture of woodlands with a majority of pasture/farm land. Property to the West contains a power line easement. LAND USE / SITE PLAN The property is zoned RC (Rural Conservation), and the Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance lists a Level 3 (10 acres or greater) Solar Energy System as a Special Use in this zoning district. The proposed project incorporates approximately 910.5 contiguous acres in separate ownership. The proposed Solar Energy System will consist of approximately 230,920 solar panels with a generating capacity of 80 Mega Watts of power combined. The panels will not exceed 15’ in height. The property is located within the Neuse and Pamlico watersheds and is subject to the Falls Lake Stormwater Rules regulating land disturbance. The site plan identifies the access to each site from a state maintained roadway. The site plan shows an existing 150’ vegetative buffer and the location of a proposed 150’ vegetative buffer around the perimeter of the project and along road rights-of-way. 51 SUP-02-21 Staff Analysis Board of Commissioners July 12, 2021 3 The site plan shows a 50’ riparian buffer from streams. Article 2, Section 2.1 of the Person County Solar Energy Ordinance allows facilities that are to be located on multiple contiguous lots of record in separate ownership, to apply building setbacks and buffer requirements only to exterior perimeters, providing those property owners sign a waiver. Signed waivers have been provided and are on file. The property does not lie within the 100-year special flood hazard area according to the FEMA map. The site plan shows the location of a blue line stream on parcels A111-5, A110-31 and A110-7 and the required buffers (50’ either side of stream). The applicant does not show “Cub Creek”, a well-defined blue line stream located on parcel A110-6, which will need to observe the 50’ buffer on both sides. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Person County Land Use Plan identifies the proposed tracts as Rural Residential and Rural Residential/AG (poor soils). Rural Residential is defined as: Low-density residential (single site-built and manufactured homes); agriculture, forestry, churches; very limited commercial, office or public/institutional uses meeting locational criteria. Most of the land within protected water supply watersheds should be placed in this category. Locational criteria for non-residential uses within this land use category would include frontage and access to a major State highway or secondary road, proximity to similar uses and spatial separation from non-compatible uses such as existing residential development. Land uses within this category would be expected to develop without public sewer, i.e. with private septic tank systems. (AG Poor Soils refers to the ability for the property to perk). Appendix O of the Person County Land Use Plan lists goals and objectives for the County including the following relevant statements: Goal 1.0 – Promote an orderly and efficient land use development pattern, which allows for a variety of land uses while being sensitive to environmental concerns. Goal 2.0 – Provide a strong local planning environment that supports and enhances the economic growth potential of Person County. PLANNING STAFF ANALYSIS The parcels are all zoned RC (Rural Conservation). A Level 3 (10 acres or greater) Solar Energy System is allowed in this zoning district as a special use under the Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance. The site plan shows existing vegetative buffers at the required 150’ feet, and the proposed buffers of 150’ to be planted. The site plan shows a 300’ setback from any dwelling, and 50’ buffers on either side of a stream, with the exception of “Cub Creek”. The site plan also shows the approximate location of access for each tract. This area of the county is very rural, with woodlands and pastures or farmland. There are scattered single family dwellings. PLANNING STAFF SUMMARY 52 SUP-02-21 Staff Analysis Board of Commissioners July 12, 2021 4 The proposed site plan meets the setback and buffering requirements set forth in the Solar Energy System Ordinance, where applicable, and is an allowed use within the RC (Rural Conservation) zoning district with a special use permit. Planning staff recommends that if the Board approves the request, the following conditions be placed on the Special Use Permit: 1. The riparian buffers for “Cub Creek” located on Tax Map & Parcel number A110-6 be added to the site plan. 2. The applicant is to obtain all necessary permits for the Solar Energy System project and adhere to all requirements listed in the Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance and the Planning Ordinance. In approving an application for a special use permit, the Board of Commissioners may attach fair and reasonable conditions to the approval. The petitioner will have a reasonable opportunity to consider and respond to any additional requirements prior to approval or denial by the Board. The Board shall issue a special use permit if it has evaluated an application and determined: 1. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved; 2. That the use meets all of the required conditions and specifications; 3. That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity; 4. That the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. ***Please refer to the 4 Findings of Fact listed above when making a decision*** Submitted by: Angela Blount, Planner I 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 PAGE 3 24. Locations of fire hydrants must be shown within 1000 feet, as measured along the access drive from every dwelling unit in a residential building group. All hydrants must be served by a water main of sufficient size. In no case shall the minimum size main be less than six (6) inches in diameter. 25. When building heights exceed 50’ certified approval from the fire inspector is required stating that the structure can be served by the local fire department. 26. The Planning Director may request the following information: A. Slope. Grade and cross-section of drives, sidewalks, malls, etc. B. Profiles of publicly maintained water and sewer lines. C. Profiles: Cross-sections and slopes of on-site and off-site ditches carrying water run-off. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. E. Lighting plan for Light or Heavy Industrial (LI or HI uses). SIGNATURES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The undersigned hereby certify that the forgoing application is complete and accurate. Furthermore, the undersigned hereby authorizes Person County Planning Director or designated representative to enter upon the above referenced property for the purpose of inspecting and verifying compliance with Person County’s Ordinances. Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Property Owner Date ZONING PROPOSAL SIGNS Applicants are required to post notice on the land subject to the application, one sign per each road frontage and no more than 25’ from the street right-of-way. Signs must be clearly visible from the street. Sign picked up: Signature: Sign Returned: Signature: OFFICE USE ONLY Completed Application Submitted On: Received By: Date of Planning Board Hearing: Receipt Number: Public Hearing Notice Filed: Name of Newspaper Dates Notices Published: Action of Planning Board: Additional Comments: 04/28/2021 60 61 62 63 64 Oakhurst Energy 606 Wade Avenue, Suite 102 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 www.oakhurstenergy.com May 28, 2021 Person County Planning and Zoning Ms. Lori Oakley, Director 325 S. Morgan St., Ste. B Roxboro, NC 27573 Dear Ms. Oakley, Pursuant to the Person County Planning Ordinance, Person County Solar Energy Systems Ordinance, and Person County Land Use Plan, Berea Solar, LLC, respectfully submits the following materials for a Special Use Permit to construct an 80-MW AC Solar Energy System: 1. Special Use Permit Application, fully executed; 2. Statement of Compliance; 3. Anticipated Panel Information pursuant to Section 3.1(c)(5) of the Solar Energy System Ordinance; 4. Aviation Map Analysis pursuant to Section 2.5(b)(1) of the Solar Energy System Ordinance; 5. Internal Setback Waivers, fully executed, pursuant to Section 2.2 of the Solar Energy System Ordinance; 6. Decommissioning Plan pursuant to Section 2.6 of the Solar Energy System Ordinance; 7. Property Impact Report and Market Analysis pursuant to Section 155 of the Land Use Plan; 8. 10 copies of the site plan, including topo information; 9. Application fee in the amount of $9,450; and 10. Request for vested rights pursuant to Section 155-5 of the Land Use Plan. Please let us know if you have any questions in regard to this information. Thank you and we look forward to investing and doing business in Person County. Sincerely, Rex Young Development Attorney, Oakhurst Energy 919.300.4120 x 701 | rex.young@oakhurstenergy.com 65 A110 29 A1106 A1106 A110 6 A110 6 A111 5 A110 7 A110 2 A110 31 A110 21A110 21 A110A1102A2A A110 1A110 1 A98 175A98 175 A109A1099999 A110 33A110 33 A98A98148148 A109 4A109 4 A98 174A98 174 A99A993333 A109A1092525 A99A99229229 A98A983A3A A98 3AA98 3A A109 22A109 22 A110 32A110 32 A110 37A110 37 A111 1A111 1 A111 1A111 1 A111 6A111 6 A110 11A110 11 A111 3A111 3 A110A1103535 A110 13A110 13 A110 5A110 5 A109A109100100 A99A99227227 A110 9A110 9 A110 14A110 14 A99 75A99 75 A110A1104040 A110A1102828 A111 4A111 4 A110 8A110 8 A110 3A110 3 A109 1A109 1 A99 70A99 70 A110A1104141A109 72A109 72 A110 15A110 15 A98 98A98 98 A109 101A109 101 A98A98159159 A111 12A111 12 A110A1103636 A110 12A110 12 A111 2A111 2 A109 98A109 98 A99 109A99 109 A99 67A99 67 A111 13A111 13 A110 19A110 19 A111 10A111 10 A111 9A111 9 A99A995A5A A110 22A110 22 A99 263A99 263 A98A98172172 A109A1098484 A110 4A110 4 A98 2A98 2 A110 10A110 10 A109A1092424 A109 23A109 23 A109 6A109 6 A109 3A109 3 A111 7A111 7 A99 126A99 126 Camp Creek Ln AandWBowlingRdBereaRd Range RdRange RdRangeRdRange RdRange RdBerea Rd General MapSUP 02-21Berea Solar ¯ Local Private Granville Parcel in Project Person Parcels in Project Granville Parcels Person Parcels 1 inch = 1,500 feet 66 A110 29 A1106 A1106 A110 6 A110 6 A111 5 A110 7 A110 2 A110 31 A110 21A110 21 A110A1102A2A A110 1A110 1 A98 175A98 175 A109A1099999 A110 33A110 33 A98A98148148 A109 4A109 4 A98 174A98 174 A99A993333 A109A1092525 A99A99229229 A98A983A3A A98 3AA98 3A A109 22A109 22 A110 32A110 32 A110 37A110 37 A111 1A111 1 A111 1A111 1 A111 6A111 6 A110 11A110 11 A111 3A111 3 A110A1103535 A110 13A110 13 A110 5A110 5 A109A109100100 A99A99227227 A110 9A110 9 A110 14A110 14 A99 75A99 75 A110A1104040 A110A1102828 A111 4A111 4 A110 8A110 8 A110 3A110 3 A109 1A109 1 A99 70A99 70 A110A1104141A109 72A109 72 A110 15A110 15 A98 98A98 98 A109 101A109 101 A98A98159159 A111 12A111 12 A110A1103636 A110 12A110 12 A111 2A111 2 A109 98A109 98 A99 109A99 109 A99 67A99 67 A111 13A111 13 A110 19A110 19 A111 10A111 10 A111 9A111 9 A99A995A5A A110 22A110 22 A99 263A99 263 A98A98172172 A109A1098484 A110 4A110 4 A98 2A98 2 A110 10A110 10 A109A1092424 A109 23A109 23 A109 6A109 6 A109 3A109 3 A111 7A111 7 A99 126A99 126 Camp Creek Ln AandWBowlingRdBereaRd Range RdRange RdRangeRdRange RdRange RdBerea Rd Zoning MapSUP 02-21Berea Solar ¯ Local Private Granville Parcel in Project Person Parcels in Project Granville Parcels Person Parcels R: Residential B-1: Highway Commercial B-2: Neighborhood Shopping GI: General Industrial R-C: Rural Conservation AP: Airport Overlay 1 inch = 1,500 feet 67 A110 29 A1106 A1106 A110 6 A110 6 A111 5 A110 7 A110 2 A110 31 A110 21A110 21 A110A1102A2A A110 1A110 1 A98 175A98 175 A109A1099999 A110 33A110 33 A98A98148148 A109 4A109 4 A98 174A98 174 A99A993333 A109A1092525 A99A99229229 A98A983A3A A98 3AA98 3A A109 22A109 22 A110 32A110 32 A110 37A110 37 A111 1A111 1 A111 1A111 1 A111 6A111 6 A110 11A110 11 A111 3A111 3 A110A1103535 A110 13A110 13 A110 5A110 5 A109A109100100 A99A99227227 A110 9A110 9 A110 14A110 14 A99 75A99 75 A110A1104040 A110A1102828 A111 4A111 4 A110 8A110 8 A110 3A110 3 A109 1A109 1 A99 70A99 70 A110A1104141A109 72A109 72 A110 15A110 15 A98 98A98 98 A109 101A109 101 A98A98159159 A111 12A111 12 A110A1103636 A110 12A110 12 A111 2A111 2 A109 98A109 98 A99 109A99 109 A99 67A99 67 A111 13A111 13 A110 19A110 19 A111 10A111 10 A111 9A111 9 A99A995A5A A110 22A110 22 A99 263A99 263 A98A98172172 A109A1098484 A110 4A110 4 A98 2A98 2 A110 10A110 10 A109A1092424 A109 23A109 23 A109 6A109 6 A109 3A109 3 A111 7A111 7 A99 126A99 126 Camp Creek Ln AandWBowlingRdBereaRd Range RdRange RdRangeRdRange RdRange RdBerea Rd FLU MapSUP 02-21Berea Solar ¯ Local Private Granville Parcel in Project Person Parcels in Project Granville Parcels Person Parcels Land Use Description Industrial O&I/Commercial Rural Res/AGPoorSoil Rural Residential/AG Suburban Residential 1 inch = 1,500 feet 68 A110 29 A1106 A1106 A110 6 A110 6 A111 5 A110 7 A110 2 A110 31 A110 21A110 21 A110A1102A2A A110 1A110 1 A98 175A98 175 A109A1099999 A110 33A110 33 A98A98148148 A109 4A109 4 A98 174A98 174 A99A993333 A109A1092525 A99A99229229 A98A983A3A A98 3AA98 3A A109 22A109 22 A110 32A110 32 A110 37A110 37 A111 1A111 1 A111 1A111 1 A111 6A111 6 A110 11A110 11 A111 3A111 3 A110A1103535 A110 13A110 13 A110 5A110 5 A109A109100100 A99A99227227 A110 9A110 9 A110 14A110 14 A99 75A99 75 A110A1104040 A110A1102828 A111 4A111 4 A110 8A110 8 A110 3A110 3 A109 1A109 1 A99 70A99 70 A110A1104141A109 72A109 72 A110 15A110 15 A98 98A98 98 A109 101A109 101 A98A98159159 A111 12A111 12 A110A1103636 A110 12A110 12 A111 2A111 2 A109 98A109 98 A99 109A99 109 A99 67A99 67 A111 13A111 13 A110 19A110 19 A111 10A111 10 A111 9A111 9 A99A995A5A A110 22A110 22 A99 263A99 263 A98A98172172 A109A1098484 A110 4A110 4 A98 2A98 2 A110 10A110 10 A109A1092424 A109 23A109 23 A109 6A109 6 A109 3A109 3 A111 7A111 7 A99 126A99 126 Camp Creek Ln AandWBowlingRdBereaRd Range RdRange RdRangeRdRange RdRange RdBerea Rd Aerial MapSUP 02-21Berea Solar ¯ Local Private Granville Parcel in Project Person Parcels in Project Granville Parcels Person Parcels 1 inch = 1,500 feet 69 5/20/2021 Person County Tax Parcel Viewer https://gis.personcountync.gov 1/1 State of North Carolina DOT, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA 1mi1mi1mi1mi1mi -78.743 36.333 Degrees + – Person County Tax Parcel Viewer Person County Register of Deeds (Link) 4281 Show search results for 4281 Measurement Clear | Nautical Miles Measurement Result 7.34 Nautical Miles Press CTRL to enable snapping70 Statement of Compliance Person County Planning Ordinance SUP Standards §155-3(b) 1-4 Applicant Berea Solar, LLC Berea Solar, LLC submits the following evidence that it complies with the standards for a Special Use Permit in the Person County Planning Ordinance §155-3(b) 1-4: 1. The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan submitted. A. General Simply described, solar farms are little more than passive facilities that receive sunlight and convert it to clean energy. The materials used are primarily steel, glass, and products found in most household electronic appliances. The technology is more than 60 years old. Nothing about the operation creates an unreasonable risk to public health or safety. B. Public Health Solar Farms do not generate chemical or toxic by-products that threaten groundwater or surface water resources; they do nothing to generate or spread disease or bacteria; and they do not create environmental noise that would disturb the emotional health of residents. In most circumstances, someone standing at the closest point off-site is not able to hear the slight and barely audible hum generated by inverters in the interior of the facility. If environmental noise is a concern, use of the property by a very quiet solar farm very often prevents the site from being used by many other uses that create substantial environmental noise (e.g. tractors for farming, lawnmowers and leaf blowers from a single family subdivision, guns from hunters, etc.). Solar farms also protect ground and surface waters from uses that could otherwise be developed as a matter of right (e.g. collection of manure from dairy farming; chemicals used in nurseries and greenhouses; or heavy application of chemicals used in crop production). C. Public Safety (1) Traffic Transportation/traffic safety is one of the key issues when considering the impact a use will have on public safety. This facility will generate practically no traffic once 71 2 construction is complete, with most days witnessing no incoming/outgoing vehicle trips at all. The only vehicles coming to the site will be occasional trips made to check on and maintain equipment and to mow grass – typically two vehicle trips per month during growing season. Construction time varies from site to site, but this 80-megawatt facility would take approximately 12 to 15 months to complete. If this entire site were developed for one single home, the standard trip generation would be 9.52 vehicle trips per day, contrasted with zero trips on most days for a solar farm and generally no more than 2-3 vehicle trips per month. (9.52 is the national average established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers based upon data collected over decades). If the site, or portions of the site, were developed for solar farms, the traffic generated would be approximately 9.52 vehicle trips per day times the number of homes built. (2) Environmental Safety Unlike farming and many types of development, a solar facility protects adjoining streams from sedimentation resulting from soil erosion. Solar cells are mounted on support poles that are driven into the ground and that require minimal site grading. Hearty grass suitable to the climate is planted beneath the panels for soil stability. During construction, standard erosion control measures will be constructed and maintained in accordance with local and state stormwater regulations. As with most developments, stormwater and erosion control permits must be obtained prior to construction and land disturbance. (3) Equipment Safety The facility will be constructed to meet or exceed all standards of the National Electric Code, and all equipment is listed with and will contain the stamp of Underwriters Laboratories, a safety consulting and certification company that specializes in the public adoption and drafting of safety standards for electrical devices and components. The facility will be surrounded by a security fence – likely one that is wildlife permeable – to protect wildlife, the public, and the facility from unauthorized access. 2. The use meets all required conditions and specifications This applicant’s consultants and engineers have worked diligently to make sure the proposed facility meets all requirements of the Person County Planning Ordinance and the Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance, and the applicant submits that it does meet all requirements. Compliance with all standards is typically determine is at the staff level during site plan review. If the applicant does not meet all requirements, no building permits 72 3 will be issued. If something is missing from a site plan, then the site plan will have to be amended. 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or the use is a public necessity. A. No Injury to Adjoining Properties Numerous appraisers throughout North Carolina and across the country have studied the impact of hundreds of solar farms on adjoining properties, and to the applicant’s knowledge, each of them has found, based upon information from public databases, that there is no objective evidence to support a claim that a solar farm has harmed neighboring property values. A common and accepted appraisal principle explains why solar farms have no impact on market value. A land use that has a negative effect on nearby property values is called an “external obsolescence.” Common factors that make a land use an external obsolescence are noise, unreasonable traffic generation, dust, lights, odor, and threats to public health. There is nothing about a solar farm’s safe, quiet, odorless, dust free, low traffic characteristics that would make it an external obsolescence. This is especially true when a facility like this one will have 150 feet of planted vegetation to screen it from view. Thus, there are no actual conflicts between a solar farm and surrounding uses, although some citizens may claim they personally and subjectively do not think a solar farm is attractive. As explained below, North Carolina courts consistently have stated that such subjective feelings are not evidence to be considered in an SUP hearing. To demonstrate compliance with this standard through competent, material, and substantial evidence, the applicant will present a study by Richard Kirkland, MAI, who has conducted several paired sales analyses for this project. Mr. Kirkland is now recognized as the world’s leading expert on the effect of solar farms on adjoining properties, having performed over 700 studies in 19 states. His studies are done strictly in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Most of his studies include solar farms adjacent to residential uses. B. Public Necessity Electricity – like access to water, roads, and food supplies – is a public necessity and a foundational energy source upon which our lives are built and function. Every home, every business, every church, every medical facility, and every school in Person County uses electricity for basic and necessary needs: lighting, heat, cooking, information (TVs and internet sources), entertainment, and the conduct of basic business. 73 4 Electricity has two primary components: production and distribution. The distribution of electricity is deemed to be so critical to modern life that utility companies such as Duke Energy are given powers of eminent domain over private property for regional and local power lines. The production of energy is no different, and year after year a greater percentage of energy produced in North Carolina comes from renewable solar energy facilities. Solar farms have become highly efficient at energy production and are increasingly more efficient as storage batteries are incorporated into the design of each facility. 4. The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan. A. What is “Harmony?” Addressing standard 4 requires first addressing what the word “harmony” means. In land use planning, “harmony” does not mean similar in use or appearance. For example, in the Person County Rural-Conservation Zoning District, the zoning ordinance allows by right or by special use permit uses: amusement parks, auto sales, breweries, retail chemical sales, churches, medical clinics, convenience stores, dry cleaning, restaurants, hardware stores, hospitals, light industrial uses, kennels, painting contractors, railroad yards, salvage yards, schools, tire sales, truck stops, utility substations and landfills. All of the above uses are considered harmonious adjacent uses, yet none is similar in function, appearance, or purpose. Although the solar panel arrays do not look like some nearby uses (such as a house), there are no public service facilities that do. The existing telephone, electrical and cellular infrastructure common throughout Person County do not look like homes either, but they are considered typical structures commonly seen in urban and suburban areas. Solar panels are not obtrusive and have a much lower profile than a typical home or barn. Rather than being based on appearance, harmony is primarily a functional determination. To determine whether a certain use of land is harmonious, a planner would examine whether that use has external impacts (an “externality”) that prevent other uses from reasonably co-existing. Common externalities that create disharmony are excessive light, dust, odor, noise, non-managed traffic, and environmental impacts. Most uses can be “in harmony” if the externalities are mitigated and or managed. No characteristic of this proposed facility would prevent neighboring landowners from enjoying the full use of their homes or lands for any purpose they currently engage in or could engage in under the Person County Planning Ordinance. 74 5 The proposed project has substantial setbacks from other uses on all sides – 300 feet from residential uses and 150 feet of existing or planted vegetative buffer. In communities across our state and nation, including those with the strictest land use controls, there are very few uses that are considered incompatible. For example, there are numerous examples where we have large sports venues downtown, concert venues in or adjacent to neighborhoods, bars next to homes, industry and day care coexisting, farms adjacent to industry, major highways adjacent to housing, expensive homes near manufactured homes, and hundreds of solar farms surrounded by residential and agricultural uses. In fact, hundreds of communities across this state have applied this same standard to local solar farms and concluded that, because of a solar farm’s inherent characteristics, the facilities are harmonious with the area. Occasionally there are uses that are incompatible, but they are rare. Some examples might include a sexually oriented business next to a school; an airport runway adjacent to a nursing home; or a commercial outdoor shooting range that is allowed to operate adjacent to a hospice facility. B. Appearance is not a Relevant Factor Several North Carolina appellate courts have published opinions that affirm the statements above that “harmony” is a functional determination and that subjective views on appearance are not relevant evidence in a special or conditional use permit hearing. Three of those cases are listed below, the first one being a solar farm. (1) Innovative 55, LLC and FLS Energy v. Robeson County (2017) This case involved a denial of an application for a solar farm in Robeson County whose special use permit standard required the board to determine whether a solar farm would be “in harmony” with the surrounding neighborhood. The Court held that whether a solar farm could be seen and was considered by some opponents to be “an eyesore” was not relevant to the issue of harmony. (“The testimony of solar farm opponents that the final project as constructed would be an ‘eyesore’ based upon other solar farms they have seen is not competent evidence to support the denial of the solar farm.”) (2) Blair Investments v. Roanoke Rapids (2013) This case involved denial of a special use permit for a cell tower under the standard that “the use will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located.” 75 6 The Court held that neighbors’ statements that they do “not want to look at one” and that it would be an “eyesore” are speculative opinions and not documentary evidence and therefore not competent evidence on the issue of harmony. (3) MCC Outdoor Advertising v. Town of Franklinton This case involved denial of a special use permit for a billboard under the standard that the billboard must be “compatible with the general neighborhood in which it is located ….” This Court held that opponents’ testimony that a billboard could be seen from a particular location is “simply irrelevant as to whether the billboard is incompatible with the neighborhood. . . . The evidence was merely an unsubstantiated opinion which is incompetent.” C. The Solar Farm’s Harmony is an Established Legal Presumption The N.C. Supreme Court has held that listing a particular use as allowed in a certain zoning district constitutes a legislative determination that the use is harmonious with other uses in the district. Woodhouse v. Board of Comm'rs of the Town of Nags Head, 299 N.C. 211, 216, 261 S.E.2d 882, 886 (1980). This presumption of harmony can be rebutted, but only by competent, material, and substantial evidence to the contrary. Vulcan Materials Co. v. Guilford County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 115 N.C.App. 319, 444 S.E.2d 639 (1994). Solar Energy Systems are allowed in the underlying zoning district with a special use permit and are therefore deemed, as a matter of law, to be harmonious with the surrounding area in the western part of Person County. D. Presumptions of Harmony Based on Compliance with Development Standards When Person County adopted a new “Solar Energy Systems Ordinance” in October of 2020, it adopted several development standards for such facilities that would mitigate external impacts. These standards (most notably 300-foot setbacks from homes and 150 feet of vegetated buffer) are adopted as additional assurance that the use will be harmonious and compatible with the surrounding uses. More importantly, compliance with these new standards demonstrates that it has met the threshold of harmony and compatibility insured by these standards. It is presumed as a matter of law that an applicant who meets the county’s development standards will develop a facility that is harmonious according to its basic design standards. 76 7 E. Precedent Literally hundreds of solar farms across North Carolina have been found by boards of adjustment and governing bodies to be in harmony with the area in locations very similar to this – rural land in timber and agriculture but with scattered homes on nearby and adjacent properties. F. General Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan (1) Res Judicata Person County has already approved several solar farms and found them to be in general conformity with the comprehensive plan. These previous findings are generally binding on future boards. Mount Ulla Historical Preservation Society v. Rowan County, 232 N.C. App. 436, 754 S.E.2d 237 (2014). (2) Inclusion in UDO Demonstrates General Conformity It is important to note that under N.C. law, zoning ordinances must be informed by and arise out of a comprehensive plan. Therefore, it must be assumed that the Person County Planning Ordinance is an expression of the land use plan’s principles that solar farms are compatible uses in the Rural-Conservation district. (3) Provisions in Comprehensive Plan The following provisions from the Comprehensive Plan support solar farms generally, especially in rural areas: (3) Provisions in Comprehensive Plan The following provisions from the Comprehensive Plan support solar farms generally, especially in rural areas: G. Additional Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (1) Person County, NC Solar Energy Ordinance Article 1§ 2(a) The purpose of this ordinance is to facilitate the construction, installation, and operation of solar energy systems (SES) in Person County in a manner that promotes economic development, preserves the dignity and aesthetics of the environment in Person County, and ensures the protection of health, safety, and welfare while also avoiding adverse impacts to important areas such as agricultural lands. 77 8 (2) Person County Land Use Plan (2001) 1.0 Goal: Promote an orderly and efficient land use development pattern, which allows for a variety of land uses while being sensitive to environmental concerns. Comment: Solar farms allow for diverse options available to large tract owner, yet leave large areas of the county for traditional forms of rural growth. Areas under and between solar panels are considered pervious, thereby protecting groundwater. 1.3 Objective: Minimize conflicts between incompatible land uses. Comment: Solar farms are dark at night, generate few cars, do not generate light, dust, or odors have no emissions into the land, air, or waterways. 1.3.6 Leave open options for future development of farmland. Comment: Solar farms last between 30 and 40 years, and then the land can be returned to agriculture or other profitable use. 2.0 Goal: Provide a strong local planning environment that supports and enhances the economic growth potential of Person County. Comment: Renewable energy creates hundreds of jobs during construction but for the long term converts land in agricultural deferment into land taxed as an industrial use. 2.1 Objective: Promote continued economic investment through retention and expansion of existing industrial concerns and the recruitment of new industries and commercial businesses. Comment: Solar is still a new industry, but as it lowers costs for the production of energy in the aggregate, it lowers the cost of energy to citizens in Person County over time. 2.1.1 Continue to work with the Person County Economic Development Commission to identify and meet the special needs of industry. Comment: All industries have different needs, but solar is most different in that it has a direct and positive impact on the tax base without adding to the cost of public services. 4.0 Goal: Maintain and enhance the character and identity of Person County including established rural communities, farmland and woodland, historic sites, and other features that represent the area’s heritage. Protect the appearance of US 501 as a “gateway” into the County and the City of Roxboro. Comment: With the extensive setbacks and vegetative buffer requirements, this facility does not detract from the character of the area. Additionally, it enables many rural and farming families to diversify their income so that they can keep family land in the family. 78 9 4.1 Objective: Establish design standards that ensure future development contributes to the aesthetic appearance of the County while limiting development of unsightly uses that detract from community appearance. Comment: The county has done this with the adoption of the new solar ordinance. 5.0 Goal: Provide efficient, high quality public services and facilities in a manner, which encourages planned growth and development. Comment: As previously stated, solar facilities generate tax revenue to pay for services while not drawing upon that revenue as a user of public services. 5.1 Objective: In cooperation with public utility providers, coordinate the development of phased and prioritized plans for providing infrastructure to strategic growth areas of the County. Comment: Solar facilities enhance and strengthen the area’s electric generation. 7.0 Goal: Protect water quality, significant natural features, and other natural resources that have ecological, recreational or other important values. Comment: All requirements of the Sedimentation Erosion Control Act and the Clean Water Act must be met. 7.1 Objective: Discourage development in unsuitable or sensitive environmental areas, which have natural or man-made constraints or limitations. Comment: The land under lease for these facilities does not have such limitations. Any sensitive environmental areas will be avoided and not built in. (3) Person County Farmland Preservation Plan (2016) “Support is strong for sustaining agriculture and forestry as the underpinning for this quality of life. However, most interviewees also talked about the need for new jobs. Without exciting, new employment opportunities in agriculture or other sectors, young people will leave the county for greener pastures.” (pg. 16) Comment: At our neighborhood meeting, one of the neighbors came seeking a construction job for a family member and left having been properly connected. Once this facility reaches the end of its life, it can be returned to agricultural and timber use. 79 Berea Solar: Anticipated Panel Information pursuant to Section 3.1(c)(5) Number of panels 230,920 Dimensions of panels 2132 x 1048 x 30 mm Height of panels Not to exceed 15’ Type of panels (array) Mono-crystalline Generating capacity 420-445 w for a total of 80 MW AC 80 MORE POWER CANADIAN SOLAR INC. is committed to providing high quality solar products, solar system solutions and services to cus- tomers around the world. No. 1 module supplier for quality and performance/price ratio in IHS Module Customer Insight Survey. As a leading PV project developer and manufacturer of solar modules with over 40 GW deployed around the world since 2001. FRONT BACK CS3W-420|425|430|435|440|445MB-AG 420 W ~ 445 W BiHiKu SUPER HIGH POWER BIFACIAL MONO PERC MODULE Low NMOT: 41 ± 3 °C Low temperature coeffi cient (Pmax): -0.35 % / °C MORE RELIABLE 41°C Better shading tolerance * For detail information, please refer to Installation Manual. UP TO 30% MORE POWER FROM THE BACK SIDE 24 % higher front side power than conventional modules Heavy snow load up to 5400 Pa, wind load up to 3600 Pa * Lower internal current, lower hot spot temperature Up to 30% more power from the back side EXTRAPOWER Minimizes micro-crack impacts PRODUCT CERTIFICATES* CANADIAN SOLAR INC. 545 Speedvale Avenue West, Guelph, Ontario N1K 1E6, Canada, www.canadiansolar.com, support@canadiansolar.com ISO 9001:2015 / Quality management systemISO 14001:2015 / Standards for environmental management systemOHSAS 18001:2007 / International standards for occupational health & safety MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CERTIFICATES* * As there are different certifi cation requirements in different markets, please contact your local Canadian Solar sales representative for the specifi c certifi cates applicable to the products in the region in which the products are to be used. IEC 61215 / IEC 61730: VDE / CE / MCS / INMETROUL 1703: CSA / IEC 61701 ED2: VDE / IEC 62716: VDE / IEC 60068-2-68: SGSTake-e-way enhanced product warranty on materials and workmanship* linear power output warranty*30 *According to the applicable Canadian Solar Limited Warranty Statement. 12 81 PARTNER SECTION ELECTRICAL DATA | STC* Nominal Max. Power (Pmax) Opt. Operating Voltage (Vmp) Opt. Operating Current (Imp) Open Circuit Voltage (Voc) Short Circuit Current (Isc) Module Efficiency CS3W-420MB-AG 420 W 39.9 V 10.53 A 47.9 V 11.27 A 18.8% Bifacial Gain** 5%441 W 39.9 V 11.06 A 47.9 V 11.83 A 19.7% 10%462 W 39.9 V 11.58 A 47.9 V 12.40 A 20.7% 20%504 W 39.9 V 12.64 A 47.9 V 13.52 A 22.6%30%546 W 39.9 V 13.69 A 47.9 V 14.65 A 24.4%CS3W-425MB-AG 425 W 40.1 V 10.60 A 48.1 V 11.32 A 19.0% Bifacial Gain** 5%446 W 40.1 V 11.13 A 48.1 V 11.89 A 20.0% 10%468 W 40.1 V 11.66 A 48.1 V 12.45 A 20.9% 20%510 W 40.1 V 12.72 A 48.1 V 13.58 A 22.8%30%553 W 40.1 V 13.78 A 48.1 V 14.72 A 24.8%CS3W-430MB-AG 430 W 40.3 V 10.68 A 48.3 V 11.37 A 19.2% Bifacial Gain** 5%452 W 40.3 V 11.21 A 48.3 V 11.94 A 20.2% 10%473 W 40.3 V 11.75 A 48.3 V 12.51 A 21.2% 20%516 W 40.3 V 12.82 A 48.3 V 13.64 A 23.1%30%559 W 40.3 V 13.88 A 48.3 V 14.78 A 25.0%CS3W-435MB-AG 435 W 40.5 V 10.75 A 48.5 V 11.42 A 19.5% Bifacial Gain** 5%457 W 40.5 V 11.29 A 48.5 V 11.99 A 20.5% 10%479 W 40.5 V 11.83 A 48.5 V 12.56 A 21.4% 20%522 W 40.5 V 12.90 A 48.5 V 13.70 A 23.4%30%566 W 40.5 V 13.98 A 48.5 V 14.85 A 25.3% CS3W-440MB-AG 440 W 40.7 V 10.82 A 48.7 V 11.48 A 19.7% Bifacial Gain** 5%462 W 40.7 V 11.36 A 48.7 V 12.05 A 20.7% 10%484 W 40.7 V 11.90 A 48.7 V 12.63 A 21.7% 20%528 W 40.7 V 12.98 A 48.7 V 13.78 A 23.6%30%572 W 40.7 V 14.07 A 48.7 V 14.92 A 25.6% CS3W-445MB-AG 445 W 40.9 V 10.89 A 48.9 V 11.54 A 19.9% Bifacial Gain** 5%467 W 40.9 V 11.43 A 48.9 V 12.12 A 20.9% 10%490 W 40.9 V 11.98 A 48.9 V 12.69 A 21.9%20%534 W 40.9 V 13.07 A 48.9 V 13.85 A 23.9%30%579 W 40.9 V 14.16 A 48.9 V 15.00 A 25.9% * Under Standard Test Conditions (STC) of irradiance of 1000 W/m2, spectrum AM 1.5 and cell temperature of 25°C. ** Bifacial Gain: The additional gain from the back side compared to the power of the front side at the standard test condition. It depends on mounting (structure, height, tilt angle etc.) and albedo of the ground. TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS Specification Data Temperature Coefficient (Pmax)-0.35 % / °C Temperature Coefficient (Voc)-0.27 % / °C Temperature Coefficient (Isc)0.05 % / °C Nominal Module Operating Temperature 41 ± 3°C ENGINEERING DRAWING (mm) Rear View CANADIAN SOLAR INC. 545 Speedvale Avenue West, Guelph, Ontario N1K 1E6, Canada, www.canadiansolar.com, support@canadiansolar.com MECHANICAL DATA Specification Data Cell Type Mono-crystalline Cell Arrangement 144 [2 X (12 X 6) ] Dimensions 2132 ˣ 1048 ˣ 30 mm (83.9 ˣ 41.3 ˣ 1.2 in) Weight 28.4 kg (62.6 lbs) Front / Back Glass 2.0 mm heat strengthened glass Frame Anodized aluminium alloy J-Box IP68, 3 diodes Cable 4.0 mm² (IEC), 12 AWG (UL) Cable Length (Inclu-ding Connector) Portrait: 400 mm (15.7 in) (+) / 280 mm (11.0 in) (-); landscape: 1400 mm (55.1 in); leap-frog connection: 1850 mm (72.8 in)* Connector T4 series or H4 UTX or MC4-EVO2 Per Pallet 33 pieces Per Container (40' HQ)660 pieces or 561 pieces (only for US) * For detailed information, please contact your local Canadian Solar sales and techni- cal representatives. ELECTRICAL DATA | NMOT* Nominal Max. Power (Pmax) Opt. Operating Voltage (Vmp) Opt. Operating Current (Imp) Open Circuit Voltage (Voc) Short Circuit Current (Isc) CS3W-420MB-AG 315 W 37.3 V 8.42 A 45.2 V 9.09 A CS3W-425MB-AG 318 W 37.5 V 8.48 A 45.4 V 9.13 A CS3W-430MB-AG 322 W 37.7 V 8.54 A 45.6 V 9.17 A CS3W-435MB-AG 326 W 37.9 V 8.59 A 45.8 V 9.21 A CS3W-440MB-AG 329 W 38.1 V 8.65 A 46 V 9.26 A CS3W-445MB-AG 333 W 38.3 V 8.71 A 46.1 V 9.31 A * Under Nominal Module Operating Temperature (NMOT), irradiance of 800 W/m2, spectrum AM 1.5, ambient temperature 20°C, wind speed 1 m/s. ELECTRICAL DATA Operating Temperature -40°C ~ +85°C Max. System Voltage 1500 V (IEC/UL) or 1000 V (IEC/UL) Module Fire PerformanceTYPE 3 (UL 1703) or CLASS C (IEC61730)Max. Series Fuse Rating 25 A Application Classification Class A Power Tolerance Power Bifaciality* 70 % * Power Bifaciality = Pmaxrear / Pmaxfront, both Pmaxrear and Pmaxfront are tested under STC, Bifacia-lity Tolerance: ± 5 %3023 A A 6-Φ5 8-14x9 1155130021325030 1048 GroundingHole MountingHole 4-10x7MountingHole(tracker)4004-10x7MountingHole(tracker)4001019 Frame Cross Section A-A Mounting Hole 710 R CS3W-435MB-AG / I-V CURVES * The specifications and key features contained in this datasheet may deviate slightly from our actual products due to the on-going innovation and product enhancement. Canadian Solar Inc. reserves the right to make necessary adjustment to the information described herein at any time without further notice. Please be kindly advised that PV modules should be handled and installed by qualified people who have professional skills and please carefully read the safety and installation instructions before using our PV modules. 914 R V A 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 V A 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1000 W/m2 800 W/m2 600 W/m2 400 W/m2 200 W/m2 5°C 25°C 45°C 65°C 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 May 2020. All rights reserved, PV Module Product Datasheet V5.59_EN 0 ~ + 10 W 82 83 84 I, Jeffry Hendriks, of 619 Flagstone Way, Durham, North Carolina 27712, as owner of Parcel Record Number 4332 (Tax Map/Parcel No. A111 5), do hereby waive any internal setback requirements for the Berea Solar project that otherwise would be required under Section 2.2 of the Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance. Sincerely, _______________________________________ Jeffry Hendriks 85 86 87 88 89 April 29, 2021 Mr. Rex Young Oakhurst Energy 606 Wade Avenue, Suite 102 Raleigh, NC 27605 RE: Berea Solar Farm, Rougemont, NC Mr. Young At your request, I have considered the impact of a solar farm proposed to be constructed on a portion of an assemblage of 911.50 acres located at 1101 Bethany Church Road, Rougemont, Person County, North Carolina. Specifically, I have been asked to give my professional opinion on whether the proposed solar farm will have any impact on adjoining property value and whether “the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located.” To form an opinion on these issues, I have researched and visited existing and proposed solar farms in North Carolina, researched articles through the Appraisal Institute and other studies, and discussed the likely impact with other real estate professionals. I have not been asked to assign any value to any specific property. This letter is a limited report of a real property appraisal consulting assignment and subject to the limiting conditions attached to this letter. My client is Oakhurst Energy, LLC, represented to me by Mr. Rex Young. My findings support the conditional use application. The effective date of this consultation is April 29, 2021. Conclusion The matched pair analysis in the attached report shows no impact in home values due to abutting or adjoining a solar farm as well as no impact to abutting or adjacent vacant residential or agricultural land where there are sufficient setbacks and buffering as identified in the analysis. The criteria that typically correlates with downward adjustments on property values such as noise, odor, and traffic all indicate that a solar farm is a compatible use for rural/residential transition areas and that it would function in a harmonious manner with this area. Very similar solar farms in very similar areas have been found by hundreds of towns and counties not to have a substantial injury to abutting or adjoining properties, and many of those findings of no impact have been upheld by N.C. Courts or overturned by N.C. Courts when a board found otherwise (see, for example Dellinger v. Lincoln County). Similar solar farms have been approved adjoining agricultural uses, schools, churches, and residential developments. Industrial uses rarely absorb negative impacts from adjoining uses. This same pattern of development has been identified in this report showing that this is not a local phenomenon, but found in Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Tennessee, and Florida as representative of the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern U.S. Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI 9408 Northfield Court Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Phone (919) 414-8142 rkirkland2@gmail.com www.kirklandappraisals.com Kirkland Appraisals, LLC 90 Based on the data and analysis in this report, it is my professional opinion that the solar farm proposed at the subject property will have no impact on the value of adjoining or abutting property and that the proposed use is in harmony with the area in which it is located. I note that some of the positive implications of a solar farm that have been expressed by people living next to solar farms include protection from future development of residential developments or other more intrusive uses, reduced dust, odor and chemicals from former farming operations, protection from light pollution at night, it’s quiet, and there is no traffic. If you have any questions please call me any time. Sincerely, Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI State Certified General Appraiser Nicholas D. Kirkland Licensed Residential Appraiser 91 3 Table of Contents Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 1 I. Proposed Project and Adjoining Uses ....................................................................................... 4 II. Methodology and Discussion of Issues .................................................................................... 7 III. Research on Solar Farms ....................................................................................................... 9 A. Appraisal Market Studies ......................................................................................................... 9 B. Articles ................................................................................................................................... 10 C. Broker Commentary .............................................................................................................. 11 IV. University Studies ................................................................................................................ 12 A. University of Texas at Austin, May 2018 ................................................................................ 12 B. University of Rhode Island, September 2020 ......................................................................... 14 C. Master’s Thesis: ECU by Zachary Dickerson July 2018 ........................................................ 15 D. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, December, 2019 ........................... 16 V. Market Analysis of the Impact on Value from Solar Farms ................................................. 17 A. North Carolina Data ............................................................................................................... 17 B. Southeastern USA Data – Over 5 MW .................................................................................... 49 C. Summary of National Data on Solar Farms ........................................................................... 54 D. Larger Solar Farms ................................................................................................................ 56 VI. Distance Between Homes and Panels ................................................................................. 61 VII. Topography ........................................................................................................................... 61 VIII. Potential Impacts During Construction ............................................................................. 61 IX. Scope of Research ................................................................................................................ 62 X. Specific Factors Related To Impacts on Value ...................................................................... 63 XI. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 66 92 4 I. Proposed Project and Adjoining Uses Proposed Use Description This solar farm is proposed to be constructed on a portion of an assemblage of 911.50 acres located at 1101 Bethany Church Road, Rougemont, Person County, North Carolina. Adjoining land is a mix of residential and agricultural uses, which is very typical of solar farm sites. Adjoining Properties I have considered adjoining uses and included a map to identify each parcel’s location. The closest adjoining home is proposed to be greater than 300 feet. The subject property is planned to maintain existing tree buffers where possible and supplement as needed to provide a visual screen between solar panels and adjoining properties. The breakdown of those uses by acreage and number of parcels is summarized below. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 7.68% 58.33% Agricultural 84.09% 31.25% Agri/Res 8.23% 10.42% Total 100.00% 100.00% 93 5 94 6 Surrounding Uses GIS Data Adjoin Adjoin # MAP ID Owner Acres Present Use Acres Parcels 1 4036 NC State 97.74 Agricultural 4.61% 2.08% 2 4987 Drinyaev 1.20 Residential 0.06% 2.08% 3 24473 Drinyaev 8.80 Residential 0.42% 2.08% 4 24474 Iken 9.20 Residential 0.43% 2.08% 5 4986 Winstead 1.12 Residential 0.05% 2.08% 6 26669 Iken 0.65 Residential 0.03% 2.08% 7 20218 Anderson 7.19 Residential 0.34% 2.08% 8 4597 EM &RM LLC 45.00 Agricultural 2.12% 2.08% 9 4438 Earwood 25.08 Agri/Res 1.18% 2.08% 10 4665 Newsome 25.08 Residential 1.18% 2.08% 11 2424 Mangum 48.37 Agricultural 2.28% 2.08% 12 21106 EM &RM LLC 114.90 Agricultural 5.42% 2.08% 13 2421 Christian 93.19 Agricultural 4.40% 2.08% 14 1673 Stamakis 620.16 Agricultural 29.28% 2.08% 15 20956 Orlander 25.00 Agricultural 1.18% 2.08% 16 21586 Skinner 34.50 Agri/Res 1.63% 2.08% 17 21581 Zangrele 20.23 Agricultural 0.96% 2.08% 18 21731 Seaford 10.00 Residential 0.47% 2.08% 19 28734 Belmonte 15.28 Residential 0.72% 2.08% 20 29039 Abate 25.00 Agri/Res 1.18% 2.08% 21 29768 Powers 14.88 Residential 0.70% 2.08% 22 33732 Hall 7.22 Residential 0.34% 2.08% 23 2515 Stewart 14.57 Residential 0.69% 2.08% 24 22487 Covington 6.84 Residential 0.32% 2.08% 25 4342 Jones 40.96 Agri/Res 1.93% 2.08% 26 22900 Jones 5.50 Residential 0.26% 2.08% 27 4045 Monk 169.52 Agricultural 8.00% 2.08% 28 6261 Barker 48.83 Agri/Res 2.31% 2.08% 29 4086 Tilley 289.75 Agricultural 13.68% 2.08% 30 28158 Mangum 5.70 Residential 0.27% 2.08% 31 21426 Stephens 0.57 Residential 0.03% 2.08% 32 4855 Stephens 1.00 Residential 0.05% 2.08% 33 21425 Stephens 0.83 Residential 0.04% 2.08% 34 26437 Richardson 7.32 Residential 0.35% 2.08% 35 25197 Edlund 6.23 Residential 0.29% 2.08% 36 21456 Mangum 2.38 Residential 0.11% 2.08% 37 4592 Mangum 6.00 Residential 0.28% 2.08% 38 6641 Newton 38.36 Agricultural 1.81% 2.08% 39 3976 Bowling 30.77 Agricultural 1.45% 2.08% 40 27740 Day 27.65 Agricultural 1.31% 2.08% 41 27741 Day 0.23 Residential 0.01% 2.08% 42 4835 Day 0.77 Residential 0.04% 2.08% 43 4228 Linden 1.00 Residential 0.05% 2.08% 44 4604 Mangum 46.41 Agricultural 2.19% 2.08% 45 4281 Moore 114.21 Agricultural 5.39% 2.08% 46 4282 Moore 1.00 Residential 0.05% 2.08% 47 3918 Dean 1.00 Residential 0.05% 2.08% 48 3940 Blalock 1.07 Residential 0.05% 2.08% Total 2118.260 100.00% 100.00% 95 7 II. Methodology and Discussion of Issues Standards and Methodology I conducted this analysis using the standards and practices established by the Appraisal Institute and that conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The analyses and methodologies contained in this report are accepted by all major lending institutions, and they are used in Virginia and across the country as the industry standard by certified appraisers conducting appraisals, market analyses, or impact studies and are considered adequate to form an opinion of the impact of a land use on neighboring properties. These standards and practices have also been accepted by the courts at the trial and appellate levels and by federal courts throughout the country as adequate to reach conclusions about the likely impact a use will have on adjoining or abutting properties. The aforementioned standards compare property uses in the same market and generally within the same calendar year so that fluctuating markets do not alter study results. Although these standards do not require a linear study that examines adjoining property values before and after a new use (e.g. a solar farm) is developed, some of these studies do in fact employ this type of analysis. Comparative studies, as used in this report, are considered an industry standard. The type of analysis employed is a Matched Pair Analysis or Paired Sales Analysis. This methodology is outlined in The Appraisal of Real Estate, Twelfth Edition by the Appraisal Institute pages 438-439. It is further detailed in Real Estate Damages, Third Edition, pages 33-36 by Randall Bell PhD, MAI. Paired sales analysis is used to support adjustments in appraisal work for factors ranging from the impact of having a garage, golf course view, or additional bedrooms. It is an appropriate methodology for addressing the question of impact of an adjoining solar farm. The paired sales analysis is based on the theory that when two properties are in all other respects equivalent, a single difference can be measured to indicate the difference in price between them. Dr. Bell describes it as comparing a test area to control areas. In the example provided by Dr. Bell he shows five paired sales in the test area compared to 1 to 3 sales in the control areas to determine a difference. I have used 3 sales in the control areas in my analysis for each sale developed into a matched pair. Determining what is an External Obsolescence An external obsolescence is a use of property that, because of its characteristics, might have a negative impact on the value of adjacent or nearby properties because of identifiable impacts. Determining whether a use would be considered an external obsolescence requires a study that isolates that use, eliminates any other causing factors, and then studies the sales of nearby versus distant comparable properties. The presence of one or a combination of key factors does not mean the use will be an external obsolescence, but a combination of these factors tends to be present when market data reflects that a use is an external obsolescence. External obsolescence is evaluated by appraisers based on several factors. These factors include but are not limited to: 1) Traffic. Solar Farms are not traffic generators. 2) Odor. Solar farms do not produce odor. 3) Noise. Solar farms generate no noise concerns and are silent at night. 96 8 4) Environmental. Solar farms do not produce toxic or hazardous waste. Grass is maintained underneath the panels so there is minimal impervious surface area. 5) Appearance/Viewshed. This is the one area that potentially applies to solar farms. However, solar farms are generally required to provide significant setbacks and landscaping buffers to address that concern. Furthermore, any consideration of appearance of viewshed impacts has to be considered in comparison with currently allowed uses on that site. For example if a residential subdivision is already an allowed use, the question becomes in what way does the appearance impact adjoining property owners above and beyond the appearance of that allowed subdivision or other similar allowed uses. 6) Other factors. I have observed and studied many solar farms and have never observed any characteristic about such facilities that prevents or impedes neighbors from fully using their homes or farms or businesses for the use intended. Relative Solar Farm Sizes Solar farms have been increasing in size in recent years. Much of the data collected is from existing, older solar farms of smaller size, but there are numerous examples of sales adjoining 75 to 80 MW facilities that show a similar trend as the smaller solar farms. This is understandable given that the primary concern relative to a solar farm is the appearance or view of the solar farm, which is typically addressed through setbacks and landscaping buffers. The relevance of data from smaller solar farms to larger solar farms is due to the primary question being one of appearance. If the solar farm is properly screened, then little of the solar farm would be seen from adjoining property regardless of how many acres are involved. Larger solar farms are often set up in sections where any adjoining owner would only be able to see a small section of the project even if there were no landscaping screen. Once a landscaping screen is in place, the primary view is effectively the same whether adjoining a 5 MW, 20 MW or 100 MW facility. I have split out the data for the matched pairs adjoining larger solar farms only to illustrate the similarities later in this report. Steps Involved in the Analysis The paired sales analysis employed in this report follows the following process: 1. Identify sales of property adjoining existing solar farms. 2. Compare those sales to similar property that does not adjoin an existing solar farm. 3. Confirmation of sales are noted in the analysis write ups. 4. Distances from the homes to panels are included as a measure of the setbacks. 5. Topographic differences across the solar farms themselves are likewise noted along with demographic data for comparing similar areas. There are a number of Sale/Resale comparables included in the write ups, but most of the data shown is for sales of homes after a solar farm has been announced (where noted) or after a solar farm has been constructed. 97 9 III. Research on Solar Farms A. Appraisal Market Studies I have also considered a number of impact studies completed by other appraisers as detailed below. CohnReznick – Property Value Impact Study: Adjacent Property Values Solar Impact Study: A Study of Eight Existing Solar Facilities Patricia McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, CRA and Andrew R. Lines, MAI with CohnReznick completed an impact study for a proposed solar farm in Cheboygan County, Michigan completed on June 10, 2020. I am familiar with this study as well as a number of similar such studies completed by CohnReznick. I have not included all of these studies but I submit this one as representative of those studies. This study addresses impacts on value from eight different solar farms in Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Virginia and North Carolina. These solar farms are 19.6 MW, 100 MW, 11.9 MW, 23 MW, 71 MW, 61 MW, 40 MW, and 19 MW for a range from 11.9 MW to 100 MW with an average of 31 MW and a median of 31.5 MW. They analyzed a total of 24 adjoining property sales in the Test Area and 81 comparable sales in the Control Area over a five-year period. The conclusion of this study is that there is no evidence of any negative impact on adjoining property values based on sales prices, conditions of sales, overall marketability, potential for new development or rate of appreciation. Christian P. Kaila & Associates – Property Impact Analysis – Proposed Solar Power Plant Guthrie Road, Stuarts Draft, Augusta County, Virginia Christian P. Kaila, MAI, SRA and George J. Finley, MAI developed an impact study as referenced above dated June 16, 2020. This was for a proposed 83 MW facility on 886 acres. Mr. Kaila interviewed appraisers who had conducted studies and reviewed university studies and discussed the comparable impacts of other development that was allowed in the area for a comparative analysis of other impacts that could impact viewshed based on existing allowed uses for the site. He also discussed in detail the various other impacts that could cause a negative impact and how solar farms do not have such characteristics. Mr. Kaila also interviewed county planners and real estate assessors in eight different Virginia counties with none of the assessor’s identifying any negative impacts observed for existing solar projects. Mr. Kaila concludes on a finding of no impact on property values adjoining the indicated solar farm. Fred Beck, MAI, CCIM – Impact Analysis in Lincoln County 2013 Mr. Fred Beck, MAI, CCIM completed an impact analysis in 2013 for a proposed solar farm that concluded on a negative impact on value. That report relied on a single cancelled contract for an adjoining parcel where the contracted buyers indicated that the solar farm was the reason for the cancellation. It also relied on the activities of an assessment impact that was applied in a nearby county. Mr. Beck was interviewed as part of the Christian Kalia study noted above. From that I quote “Mr. Beck concluded on no effect on moderate priced homes, and only a 5% change in his limited 98 10 research of higher priced homes. His one sale that fell through is hardly a reliable sample. It also was misleading on Mr. Beck’s part to report the lower re-assessments since the primary cause of the re-assessments were based on the County Official, who lived adjacent to the solar farm, appeal to the assessor for reductions with his own home.” In that Clay County Case study the noted lack of lot sales after announcement of the solar farm also coincided with the recession in 2008/2009 and lack of lot sales effectively defined that area during that time. I further note, that I was present at the hearing where Mr. Beck presented these findings and the predominance of his argument before the Lincoln County Board of Commissioner’s was based on the one cancelled sale as well as a matched pair analysis of high-end homes adjoining a four-story call center. He hypothesized that a similar impact from that example could be compared to being adjacent solar farm without explaining the significant difference in view, setbacks, landscaping, traffic, light, and noise. Furthermore, Mr. Beck did have matched pairs adjoining a solar farm in his study that he put in the back of his report and then ignored as they showed no impact on property value. Also noted in the Christian Kalia interview notes is a response from Mr. Beck indicating that in his opinion “the homes were higher priced homes and had full view of the solar farm.” Based on a description of screening so that “the solar farm would not be in full view to adjoining property owners. Mr. Beck said in that case, he would not see any drop in property value.” NorthStar Appraisal Company – Impact Analysis for Nichomus Run Solar, Pilesgrove, NJ, September 16, 2020 Mr. William J. Sapio, MAI with NorthStar Appraisal Company considered a matched pair analysis for the potential impact on adjoining property values to this proposed 150 MW solar farm. Mr. Sapio considered sales activity in a subdivision known as Point of Woods in South Brunswick Township and identified two recent new homes that were constructed and sold adjoining a 13 MW solar farm and compared them to similar homes in that subdivision that did not adjoin the solar farm. These homes sold in the $1,290,450 to $1,336,613 price range and these homes were roughly 200 feet from the closest solar panel. Based on this analysis, he concluded that the adjoining solar farm had no impact on adjoining property value. Conclusion of Impact Studies Of the four studies noted two included actual sales data to derive an opinion of no impact on value. The only study to conclude on a negative impact was the Fred Beck study based on no actual sales data, and he has since indicated that with landscaping screens he would not conclude on a negative impact. I have relied on these studies as additional support for the findings in this impact analysis. B. Articles I have also considered a number of articles on this subject as well as conclusions and analysis as noted below. Farm Journal Guest Editor, March 22, 2021 – Solar’s Impact on Rural Property Values Andy Ames, ASFMRA (American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers) published this article that includes a discussion of his survey of appraisers and studies on the question of property value related to solar farms. He discusses the university studies that I have cited as well as Patricia McGarr, MAI. 99 11 He also discusses the findings of Donald A. Fisher, ARA, who served six years at the Chair of the ASFMRA’s National Appraisal Review Committee. He is also the Executive Vice President of the CNY Pomeroy Appraiser and has conducted several market studies on solar farms and property impact. He is quoted in the article as saying, “Most of the locations were in either suburban or rural areas, and all of those studies found either a neutral impact, or ironically, a positive impact, where values on properties after installation of solar farms went up higher than time trends.” Howard Halderman, AFM, President and CEO of Halderman Real Estate and Farm Management attended the ASFMRA solar talk hosted by the Indiana Chapter of the ASFMRA and he concludes that other rural properties would likely see no impact and farmers and landowners shown even consider possible benefits. “In some cases, farmers who rent land to a solar company will insure the viability of their farming operation for a longer time period. This makes them better long-term tenants or land buyers so one can argue that higher rents and land values will follow due to the positive impact the solar leases offer.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory – Top Five Large-Scale Solar Myths, February 3, 2016 Megan Day reports form NREL regarding a number of concerns neighbors often express. Myth #4 regarding property value impacts addresses specifically the numerous studies on wind farms that show no impact on property value and that solar farms have a significantly reduced visual impact from wind farms. She highlights that the appearance can be addressed through mitigation measures to reduce visual impacts of solar farms through vegetative screening. Such mitigations are not available to wind farms given the height of the windmills and again, those studies show no impact on value adjoining wind farms. North Carolina State University: NC Clean Energy Technology Center White Paper: Balancing Agricultural Productivity with Ground-Based Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Development (Version 2), May 2019 Tommy Cleveland and David Sarkisian wrote a white paper for NCSU NC Clean Energy Technology Center regarding the potential impacts to agricultural productivity from a solar farm use. I have interviewed Tommy Cleveland on numerous occasions and I have also heard him speak on these issues at length as well. He addresses many of the common questions regarding how solar farms work and a detailed explanation of how solar farms do not cause significant impacts on the soils, erosion and other such concerns. This is a heavily researched paper with the references included. North Carolina State University: NC Clean Energy Technology Center White Paper: Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics, May 2017 Tommy Cleveland wrote a white paper for NCSU NC Clean Energy Technology Center regarding the health and safety impacts to address common questions and concerns related to solar farms. This is a heavily researched white paper addressing questions ranging from EMFs, fire safety, as well as vegetation control and the breakdown of how a solar farm works. C. Broker Commentary In the process of working up the matched pairs used later in this report, I have collected comments from brokers who have actually sold homes adjoining solar farms indicating that the solar farm had no impact on the marketing, timing, or sales price for the adjoining homes. I have comments from 12 such brokers within this report including brokers from Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina. I have additional commentary from other states including New Jersey and Michigan that provide the same conclusion. 100 12 IV. University Studies I have also considered the following studies completed by four different universities related to solar farms and impacts on property values. A. University of Texas at Austin, May 2018 An Exploration of Property-Value Impacts Near Utility-Scale Solar Installations This study considers solar farms from two angles. First it looks at where solar farms are being located and concludes that they are being located primarily in low density residential areas where there are fewer homes than in urban or suburban areas. The second part is more applicable in that they conducted a survey of appraisers/assessors on their opinions of the possible impacts of proximity to a solar farm. They consider the question in terms of size of the adjoining solar farm and how close the adjoining home is to the solar farm. I am very familiar with this part of the study as I was interviewed by the researchers multiple times as they were developing this. One very important question that they ask within the survey is very illustrative. They asked if the appraiser being surveyed had ever appraised a property next to a solar farm. There is a very noticeable divide in the answers provided by appraisers who have experience appraising property next to a solar farm versus appraisers who self-identify as having no experience or knowledge related to that use. On Page 16 of that study they have a chart showing the responses from appraisers related to proximity to a facility and size of the facility, but they separate the answers as shown below with appraisers with experience in appraising properties next to a solar farm shown in blue and those inexperienced shown in brown. Even within 100 feet of a 102 MW facility the response from experienced appraisers were -5% at most on impact. While inexperienced appraisers came up with significantly higher impacts. This chart clearly shows that an uninformed response widely diverges from the sales data available on this subject. 101 13 Furthermore, the question cited above does not consider any mitigating factors such as landscaping buffers or screens which would presumably reduce the minor impacts noted by experienced appraisers on this subject. The conclusion of the researchers is shown on Page 23 indicated that “Results from our survey of residential home assessors show that the majority of respondents believe that proximity to a solar installation has either no impact or a positive impact on home values.” This analysis supports the conclusion of this report that the data supports no impact on adjoining property values. 102 14 B. University of Rhode Island, September 2020 Property Value Impacts of Commercial-Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island The University of Rhode Island published a study entitled Property Value Impacts of Commercial- Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island on September 29, 2020 with lead researchers being Vasundhara Gaur and Corey Lang. I have read that study and interviewed Mr. Corey Lang related to that study. This study is often cited by opponents of solar farms but the findings of that study have some very specific caveats according to the report itself as well as Mr. Lang from the interview. While that study does state in the Abstract that they found depreciation of homes within 1-mile of a solar farm, that impact is limited to non-rural locations. On Pages 16-18 of that study under Section 5.3 Heterogeneity in treatment effect they indicate that the impact that they found was limited to non-rural locations with the impact in rural locations effectively being zero. For the study they defined “rural” as a municipality/township with less than 850 population per square mile. They further tested the robustness of that finding and even in areas up to 2,000 population per square mile they found no statistically significant data to suggest a negative impact. They have not specifically defined a point at which they found negative impacts to begin, as the sensitivity study stopped checking at the 2,000-population dataset. Where they did find negative impacts was in high population density areas that was largely a factor of running the study in Massachusetts and Rhode Island which the study specifically cites as being the 2nd and 3rd most population dense states in the USA. Mr. Lang in conversation as well as in recorded presentations has indicated that the impact in these heavily populated areas may reflect a loss in value due to the scarce greenery in those areas and not specifically related to the solar farm itself. In other words, any development of that site might have a similar impact on property value. Based on this study I have checked the population for the Mt. Tirzah Township of Person County, which has a population of 3,519 population for 2020 based on SiteToDoBusiness by ESRI and a total area of 46.57 square miles. This indicates a population density of 76 people per square mile which puts this well below the threshold indicated by the Rhode Island Study. I therefore conclude that the Rhode Island Study supports the indication of no impact on adjoining properties for the proposed solar farm project. 103 15 C. Master’s Thesis: ECU by Zachary Dickerson July 2018 A Solar Farm in My Backyard? Resident Perspectives of Utility-Scale Solar in Eastern North Carolina This study was completed as part of a Master of Science in Geography Master’s Thesis by Zachary Dickerson in July 2018. This study sets out to address three questions: 1. Are there different aspects that affect resident satisfaction regarding solar farms? 2. Are there variations in satisfaction for residents among different geographic settings, e.g. neighborhoods adjacent to the solar farms or distances from the solar farms? 3. How can insight from both the utility and planning sectors, combined with knowledge gained from residents, fill gaps in communication and policy writing in regard to solar farms? This was done through survey and interview with adjacent and nearby neighbors of existing solar farms. The positive to neutral comments regarding the solar farms were significantly higher than negative. The researcher specifically indicates on Page 46 “The results show that respondents generally do not believe the solar farms pose a threat to their property values.” The most negative comments regarding the solar farms were about the lack of information about the approval process and the solar farm project prior to construction. 104 16 D. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, December, 2019 The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis This study addresses wind farms and not solar farms but it is a reasonable consideration. The activity on a wind farm is significantly different in terms of the mechanics and more particularly on the appearance or viewshed as wind farms cannot be screened from adjoining property owners. This study was commissioned by the Department of Energy and not by any developer. This study examined 7,500 home sales between 1996 and 2007 in order to track sales prices both before and after a wind energy facility was announced or built. This study specifically looked into possible stigma, nuisance, and scenic vista. On page 17 of that study they conclude “Although the analysis cannot dismiss the possibility that individual homes or small numbers of homes have been or could be negatively impacted, it finds that if these impacts do exist, they are either too small and/or too infrequent to result in any widespread, statistically observable impact.” Given that solar farms are a similar use, but with a lower profile and therefore a lower viewshed than the wind farms, it is reasonable to translate these findings of no impact to solar farms. 105 17 V. Market Analysis of the Impact on Value from Solar Farms I have researched hundreds of solar farms in numerous states to determine the impact of these facilities on the value of adjoining property. This research has primarily been in North Carolina, but I have also conducted market impact analyses in Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Oregon, Mississippi, Maryland, New York, California, Missouri, Florida, Montana, Georgia, Louisiana, and New Jersey. Wherever I have looked at solar farms, I have derived a breakdown of the adjoining uses to show what adjoining uses are typical for solar farms and what uses would likely be considered consistent with a solar farm use similar to the breakdown that I’ve shown for the subject property on the previous page. A summary showing the results of compiling that data over hundreds of solar farms is shown later in the Scope of Research section of this report. I also consider whether the properties adjoining a solar farm in one location have characteristics similar to the properties abutting or adjoining the proposed site so that I can make an assessment of market impact on each proposed site. Notably, in most cases solar farms are placed in areas very similar to the site in question, which is surrounded by low density residential and agricultural uses. In my over 750 studies, I have found a striking repetition of that same typical adjoining use mix in over 90% of the solar farms I have looked at. Matched pair results in multiple states are strikingly similar, and all indicate that solar farms – which generate very little traffic, and do not generate noise, dust or have other harmful effects – do not negatively impact the value of adjoining or abutting properties. On the following pages I have considered matched pair data specific to North Carolina. In the next section I have considered matched pair data throughout the Southeast of the United States as being the most similar states that would most readily compare to North Carolina. This includes data from Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Maryland. I focused on projects of 5 MW and larger though I have significant supplemental data on solar farms just smaller than that in North Carolina that show similar results. This data is available in my files. I have additional supporting information from other states in my files that show a consistent pattern across the United States, but again, I have focused on the Southeast in this analysis. A. North Carolina Data The following pages detail the matched pairs and how they were derived. 106 18 1. Matched Pair – AM Best Solar Farm, Goldsboro, NC This 5 MW solar farm adjoins Spring Garden Subdivision which had new homes and lots available for new construction during the approval and construction of the solar farm. The recent home sales have ranged from $200,000 to $250,000. This subdivision sold out the last homes in late 2014. The solar farm is clearly visible particularly along the north end of this street where there is only a thin line of trees separating the solar farm from the single-family homes. Homes backing up to the solar farm are selling at the same price for the same floor plan as the homes that do not back up to the solar farm in this subdivision. According to the builder, the solar farm has been a complete non-factor. Not only do the sales show no difference in the price paid for the various homes adjoining the solar farm versus not adjoining the solar farm, but there are actually more recent sales along the solar farm than not. There is no impact on the sellout rate, or time to sell for the homes adjoining the solar farm. I spoke with a number of owners who adjoin the solar farm and none of them expressed any concern over the solar farm impacting their property value. The data presented on the following page shows multiple homes that have sold in 2013 and 2014 adjoining the solar farm at prices similar to those not along the solar farm. These series of sales indicate that the solar farm has no impact on the adjoining residential use. The homes that were marketed at Spring Garden are shown below. The homes adjoining the solar farm are considered to have a light landscaping screen as it is a narrow row of existing pine trees supplemented with evergreen plantings. 107 19 Matched Pairs As of Date:9/3/2014 Adjoining Sales After Solar Farm Completed TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600195570 Helm 0.76 Sep-13 $250,000 2013 3,292 $75.94 2 Story 3600195361 Leak 1.49 Sep-13 $260,000 2013 3,652 $71.19 2 Story 3600199891 McBrayer 2.24 Jul-14 $250,000 2014 3,292 $75.94 2 Story 3600198632 Foresman 1.13 Aug-14 $253,000 2014 3,400 $74.41 2 Story 3600196656 Hinson 0.75 Dec-13 $255,000 2013 3,453 $73.85 2 Story Average 1.27 $253,600 2013.4 3,418 $74.27 Median 1.13 $253,000 2013 3,400 $74.41 Adjoining Sales After Solar Farm Announced TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 0 Feddersen 1.56 Feb-13 $247,000 2012 3,427 $72.07 Ranch 0 Gentry 1.42 Apr-13 $245,000 2013 3,400 $72.06 2 Story Average 1.49 $246,000 2012.5 3,414 $72.07 Median 1.49 $246,000 2012.5 3,414 $72.07 Adjoining Sales Before Solar Farm Announced TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600183905 Carter 1.57 Dec-12 $240,000 2012 3,347 $71.71 1.5 Story 3600193097 Kelly 1.61 Sep-12 $198,000 2012 2,532 $78.20 2 Story 3600194189 Hadwan 1.55 Nov-12 $240,000 2012 3,433 $69.91 1.5 Story Average 1.59 $219,000 2012 2,940 $74.95 Median 1.59 $219,000 2012 2,940 $74.95 Nearby Sales After Solar Farm Completed TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600193710 Barnes 1.12 Oct-13 $248,000 2013 3,400 $72.94 2 Story 3601105180 Nackley 0.95 Dec-13 $253,000 2013 3,400 $74.41 2 Story 3600192528 Mattheis 1.12 Oct-13 $238,000 2013 3,194 $74.51 2 Story 3600198928 Beckman 0.93 Mar-14 $250,000 2014 3,292 $75.94 2 Story 3600196965 Hough 0.81 Jun-14 $224,000 2014 2,434 $92.03 2 Story 3600193914 Preskitt 0.67 Jun-14 $242,000 2014 2,825 $85.66 2 Story 3600194813 Bordner 0.91 Apr-14 $258,000 2014 3,511 $73.48 2 Story 3601104147 Shaffer 0.73 Apr-14 $255,000 2014 3,453 $73.85 2 Story Average 0.91 $246,000 2013.625 3,189 $77.85 Median 0.92 $249,000 2014 3,346 $74.46 Nearby Sales Before Solar Farm Announced TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600191437 Thomas 1.12 Sep-12 $225,000 2012 3,276 $68.68 2 Story 3600087968 Lilley 1.15 Jan-13 $238,000 2012 3,421 $69.57 1.5 Story 3600087654 Burke 1.26 Sep-12 $240,000 2012 3,543 $67.74 2 Story 3600088796 Hobbs 0.73 Sep-12 $228,000 2012 3,254 $70.07 2 Story Average 1.07 $232,750 2012 3,374 $69.01 Median 1.14 $233,000 2012 3,349 $69.13 108 20 I note that 2308 Granville Drive sold again in November 2015 for $267,500, or $7,500 more than when it was purchased new from the builder two years earlier (Tax ID 3600195361, Owner: Leak). The neighborhood is clearly showing appreciation for homes adjoining the solar farm. The Median Price is the best indicator to follow in any analysis as it avoids outlying samples that would otherwise skew the results. The median sizes and median prices are all consistent throughout the sales both before and after the solar farm whether you look at sites adjoining or nearby to the solar farm. The average size for the homes nearby the solar farm shows a smaller building size and a higher price per square foot. This reflects a common occurrence in real estate where the price per square foot goes up as the size goes down. So even comparing averages the indication is for no impact, but I rely on the median rates as the most reliable indication for any such analysis. I have also considered four more recent resales of homes in this community as shown on the following page. These comparable sales adjoin the solar farm at distances ranging from 315 to 400 feet. The matched pairs show a range from -9% to +6%. The range of the average difference is -2% to +1% with an average of 0% and a median of +0.5%. These comparable sales support a finding of no impact on property value. Matched Pair Summary Adjoins Solar Farm Nearby Solar Farm Average Median Average Median Sales Price $253,600 $253,000 $246,000 $249,000 Year Built 2013 2013 2014 2014 Size 3,418 3,400 3,189 3,346 Price/SF $74.27 $74.41 $77.85 $74.46 Percentage Differences Median Price -2% Median Size -2% Median Price/SF 0% 109 21 I have also considered the original sales prices in this subdivision relative to the recent resale values as shown in the chart below. This rate of appreciation is right at 2.5% over the last 6 years. Zillow indicates that the average home value within the 27530-zip code as of January 2014 was $101,300 and as of January 2020 that average is $118,100. This indicates an average increase in the market of 2.37%. I conclude that the appreciation of the homes adjoining the solar farm are not impacted by the presence of the solar farm based on this data. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 103 Granville Pl 1.42 7/27/2018 $265,000 2013 3,292 $80.50 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 385 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Granville 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 103 Granville Pl $265,000 -2% Not 2219 Granville $4,382 $1,300 $0 $265,682 0% Not 634 Friendly -$8,303 -$6,675 $16,721 -$10,000 $258,744 2% Not 2403 Granville -$6,029 -$1,325 $31,356 $289,001 -9% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 104 Erin 2.24 6/19/2017 $280,000 2014 3,549 $78.90 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 315 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Granville 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 104 Erin $280,000 0% Not 2219 Granville -$4,448 $2,600 $16,238 $274,390 2% Not 634 Friendly -$17,370 -$5,340 $34,702 -$10,000 $268,992 4% Not 2403 Granville -$15,029 $0 $48,285 $298,256 -7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2312 Granville 0.75 5/1/2018 $284,900 2013 3,453 $82.51 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 400 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Granville 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2312 Granville $284,900 1% Not 2219 Granville $2,476 $1,300 $10,173 $273,948 4% Not 634 Friendly -$10,260 -$6,675 $27,986 -$10,000 $268,051 6% Not 2403 Granville -$7,972 -$1,325 $47,956 $303,659 -7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2310 Granville 0.76 5/14/2019 $280,000 2013 3,292 $85.05 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 400 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Granville 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2310 Granville $280,000 1% Not 2219 Granville $10,758 $1,300 $0 $272,058 3% Not 634 Friendly -$1,755 -$6,675 $16,721 -$10,000 $265,291 5% Not 2403 Granville $469 -$1,325 $31,356 $295,500 -6% 110 22 Initial Sale Second Sale Year % Apprec. Address Date Price Date Price Diff Apprec. Apprec. %/Year 1 103 Granville Pl 4/1/2013 $245,000 7/27/2018 $265,000 5.32 $20,000 8.16% 1.53% 2 105 Erin 7/1/2014 $250,000 6/19/2017 $280,000 2.97 $30,000 12.00% 4.04% 3 2312 Granville 12/1/2013 $255,000 5/1/2015 $262,000 1.41 $7,000 2.75%1.94% 4 2312 Granville 5/1/2015 $262,000 5/1/2018 $284,900 3.00 $22,900 8.74%2.91% 5 2310 Granville 8/1/2013 $250,000 5/14/2019 $280,000 5.79 $30,000 12.00% 2.07% 6 2308 Granville 9/1/2013 $260,000 11/12/2015 $267,500 2.20 $7,500 2.88%1.31% 7 2304 Granville 9/1/2012 $198,000 6/1/2017 $225,000 4.75 $27,000 13.64%2.87% 8 102 Erin 8/1/2014 $253,000 11/1/2016 $270,000 2.25 $17,000 6.72% 2.98% Average 2.46% Median 2.47% 111 23 2. Matched Pair – Gastonia SC Solar, Gastonia, NC 112 24 This 5 MW project is located on the south side of Neal Hawkins Road just outside of Gastonia. The property identified above as Parcel 4 was listed for sale while this solar farm project was going through the approval process. The property was put under contract during the permitting process with the permit being approved while the due diligence period was still ongoing. After the permit was approved the property closed with no concerns from the buyer. I spoke with Jennifer Bouvier, the broker listing the property and she indicated that the solar farm had no impact at all on the sales price. She considered some nearby sales to set the price and the closing price was very similar to the asking price within the typical range for the market. The buyer was aware that the solar farm was coming and they had no concerns. This two-story brick dwelling was sold on March 20, 2017 for $270,000 for a 3,437 square foot dwelling built in 1934 in average condition on 1.42 acres. The property has four bedrooms and two bathrooms. The landscaping screen is light for this adjoining home due to it being a new planted landscaping buffer. I also considered the newer adjoining home identified as Parcel 5 that sold later in 2017 and it likewise shows no negative impact on property value. This is also considered a light landscaping buffer. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 609 Neal Hawkins 1.42 3/20/2017 $270,000 1934 3,427 $78.79 4/2 Open 2-Brick Not 1418 N Modena 4.81 4/17/2018 $225,000 1930 2,906 $77.43 3/3 2-Crprt 2-Brick Not 363 Dallas Bess 2.90 11/29/2018 $265,500 1968 2,964 $89.57 3/3 Open FinBsmt Not 1612 Dallas Chry 2.74 9/17/2018 $245,000 1951 3,443 $71.16 3/2 Open 2-Brick Unfin bath Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 609 Neal Hawkins $270,000 225 1418 N Modena $7,319 $2,700 $32,271 -$10,000 $257,290 5% 363 Dallas Bess $746 -$27,081 $33,179 -$10,000 $53,100 $262,456 3% 1612 Dallas Chry $4,110 -$12,495 -$911 $10,000 $235,704 13% 7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Adjoins 611 Neal Hawkins 0.78 7/6/2017 $288,000 1991 2,256 $127.66 5/3 2-Gar 1.5 Brick Not 1211 Still Frst 0.51 7/30/2018 $280,000 1989 2,249 $124.50 3/3 2-Gar Br Rnch Not 2867 Colony Wds 0.52 8/14/2018 $242,000 1990 2,006 $120.64 3/3 2-Gar Br Rnch Not 1010 Strawberry 1.00 10/4/2018 $315,000 2002 2,330 $135.19 3/2.5 2-Gar 1.5 Brick Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 611 Neal Hawkins $288,000 145 1211 Still Frst $1,341 $2,800 $697 $284,838 1% 2867 Colony Wds $7,714 $1,210 $24,128 $275,052 4% 1010 Strawberry -$4,555 -$17,325 -$8,003 $5,000 $290,116 -1% 2% 113 25 3. Matched Pair – Summit/Ranchlands Solar, Moyock, NC 114 26 This project is located at 1374 Caritoke Highway, Moyock, NC. This is an 80 MW facility on a parent tract of 2,034 acres. Parcels Number 48 and 53 as shown in the map above were sold in 2016. The project was under construction during the time period of the first of the matched pair sales and the permit was approved well prior to that in 2015. I looked at multiple sales of adjoining and nearby homes and compared each to multiple comparables to show a range of impacts from -10% up to +11% with an average of +2% and a median of +3%. These ranges are well within typical real estate variation and supports an indication of no impact on property value. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance 48 Adjoins 129 Pinto 4.29 4/15/2016 $170,000 1985 1,559 $109.04 3/2 Drive MFG 1,060 Not 102 Timber 1.30 4/1/2016 $175,500 2009 1,352 $129.81 3/2 Drive MFG Not 120 Ranchland 0.99 10/1/2014 $170,000 2002 1,501 $113.26 3/2 Drive MFG Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 129 Pinto $170,000 -3% Not 102 Timber $276 $10,000 -$29,484 $18,809 $175,101 -3% Not 120 Ranchland $10,735 $10,000 -$20,230 $4,598 $175,103 -3% Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 105 Pinto 4.99 12/16/2016 $206,000 1978 1,484 $138.81 3/2 Det G Ranch Not 111 Spur 1.15 2/1/2016 $193,000 1985 2,013 $95.88 4/2 Gar Ranch Not 103 Marshall 1.07 3/29/2017 $196,000 2003 1,620 $120.99 3/2 Drive Ranch Not 127 Ranchland 0.00 6/9/2015 $219,900 1988 1,910 $115.13 3/2 Gar/3Det Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 105 Pinto $206,000 980 111 Spur $6,747 $10,000 -$6,755 -$25,359 $177,633 14% 103 Marshall -$2,212 $10,000 -$24,500 -$8,227 $5,000 $176,212 14% 127 Ranchland $13,399 $10,000 -$10,995 -$24,523 -$10,000 $197,781 4% 11% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance 15 Adjoins 318 Green View 0.44 9/15/2019 $357,000 2005 3,460 $103.18 4/4 2-Car 1.5 Brick 570 Not 195 St Andrews 0.55 6/17/2018 $314,000 2002 3,561 $88.18 5/3 2-Car 2.0 Brick Not 336 Green View 0.64 1/13/2019 $365,000 2006 3,790 $96.31 6/4 3-Car 2.0 Brick Not 275 Green View 0.36 8/15/2019 $312,000 2003 3,100 $100.65 5/3 2-Car 2.0 Brick Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 318 Green View $357,000 4% Not 195 St Andrews $12,040 $4,710 -$7,125 $10,000 $333,625 7% Not 336 Green View $7,536 -$1,825 -$25,425 -$5,000 $340,286 5% Not 275 Green View $815 $3,120 $28,986 $10,000 $354,921 1% 115 27 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance 29 Adjoins 164 Ranchland 1.01 4/30/2019 $169,000 1999 2,052 $82.36 4/2 Gar MFG 440 Not 150 Pinto 0.94 3/27/2018 $168,000 2017 1,920 $87.50 4/2 Drive MFG Not 105 Longhorn 1.90 10/10/2017 $184,500 2002 1,944 $94.91 3/2 Drive MFG Not 112 Pinto 1.00 7/27/2018 $180,000 2002 1,836 $98.04 3/2 Drive MFG Fenced Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 164 Ranchland $169,000 -10% Not 150 Pinto $5,649 -$21,168 $8,085 $5,000 $165,566 2% Not 105 Longhorn $8,816 -$10,000 -$3,875 $7,175 $5,000 $191,616 -13% Not 112 Pinto $4,202 -$3,780 $14,824 $5,000 $200,245 -18% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 358 Oxford 10.03 9/16/2019 $478,000 2008 2,726 $175.35 3/3 2 Gar Ranch 635 Not 276 Summit 10.01 12/20/2017 $355,000 2006 1,985 $178.84 3/2 2 Gar Ranch Not 176 Providence 6.19 5/6/2019 $425,000 1990 2,549 $166.73 3/3 4 Gar Ranch Brick Not 1601 B Caratoke 12.20 9/26/2019 $440,000 2016 3,100 $141.94 4/3.5 5 Gar Ranch Pool Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 358 Oxford $478,000 5% Not 276 Summit $18,996 $3,550 $106,017 $10,000 $493,564 -3% Not 176 Providence $4,763 $38,250 $23,609 -$10,000 -$25,000 $456,623 4% Not 1601 B Caratoke -$371 $50,000 -$17,600 -$42,467 -$5,000 -$10,000 $414,562 13% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Nearby 343 Oxford 10.01 3/9/2017 $490,000 2016 3,753 $130.56 3/3 2 Gar 1.5 Story Pool 970 Not 287 Oxford 10.01 9/4/2017 $600,000 2013 4,341 $138.22 5/4.5 8-Gar 1.5 Story Pool Not 301 Oxford 10.00 4/23/2018 $434,000 2013 3,393 $127.91 5/3 2 Gar 1.5 Story Not 218 Oxford 10.01 4/4/2017 $525,000 2006 4,215 $124.56 4/3 4 Gar 1.5 Story VG Barn Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 343 Oxford $490,000 3% Not 287 Oxford -$9,051 $9,000 -$65,017 -$15,000 -$25,000 $494,932 -1% Not 301 Oxford -$14,995 -$10,000 $6,510 $36,838 $452,353 8% Not 218 Oxford -$1,150 $26,250 -$46,036 -$10,000 -$10,000 $484,064 1% 116 28 4. Matched Pair – Tracy Solar, Bailey, NC 117 29 This project is located in rural Nash County on Winters Road with a 5 MW facility that was built in 2016 on 50 acres. A local builder acquired parcels 9 and 10 following construction as shown below at rates comparable to other tracts in the area. They then built a custom home for an owner and sold that at a price similar to other nearby homes as shown in the matched pair data below. The retained woods provide a heavy landscaped buffer for this homesite. The comparables for the land show either a significant positive relationship or a mild negative relationship to having and adjoining solar farm, but when averaged together they show no negative impact. The wild divergence is due to the difficulty in comping out this tract of land and the wide variety of comparables used. The two comparables that show mild negative influences include a property that was partly developed as a residential subdivision and the other included a doublewide with some value and accessory agricultural structures. The tax assessed value on the improvements were valued at $60,000. So both of those comparables have some limitations for comparison. The two that show significant enhancement due to adjacency includes a property with a cemetery located in the middle and the other is a tract almost twice as large. Still that larger tract after adjustment provides the best matched pair as it required the least adjustment. I therefore conclude that there is no negative impact due to adjacency to the solar farm shown by this matched pair. Adjoining Land Sales After Solar Farm Completed # Solar Farm TAX ID Grantor Grantee Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/AC Other 9 &10 Adjoins 316003 Cozart Kingsmill 9162 Winters 13.22 7/21/2016 $70,000 $5,295 & 316004 Not 6056 Billingsly 427 Young 41 10/21/2016 $164,000 $4,000 Not 33211 Fulcher Weikel 10533 Cone 23.46 7/18/2017 $137,000 $5,840 Doublewide, structures Not 106807 Perry Gardner Claude Lewis 11.22 8/10/2017 $79,000 $7,041 Gravel drive for sub, cleared Not 3437 Vaughan N/A 11354 Old 18.73 Listing $79,900 $4,266 Small cemetery,wooded Lewis Sch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time Acres Location Other Adj $/Ac % Diff $5,295 $0 $400 $0 $0 $4,400 17% -$292 $292 $0 -$500 $5,340 -1% -$352 $0 $0 -$1,000 $5,689 -7% -$213 $0 $0 $213 $4,266 19% Average 7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Completed #Solar Farmn Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GLA $/GLA BR/BA Style Other 9 &10 Adjoins gs 9162 Winters 13.22 1/5/2017 $255,000 2016 1,616 $157.80 3/2 Ranch 1296 sf wrkshp Not ow 7352 Red Fox 0.93 6/30/2016 $176,000 2010 1,529 $115.11 3/2 2-story Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time Acres YB GLA Style Other Total % Diff $255,000 $0 $44,000 $7,392 $5,007 $5,000 $15,000 $252,399 1% 118 30 The dwelling that was built on the site was a build-to-suit and was compared to a nearby homesale of a property on a smaller parcel of land. I adjusted for that differenced based on a $25,000 value for a 1-acre home site versus the $70,000 purchase price of the larger subject tract. The other adjustments are typical and show no impact due to the adjacency to the solar farm. The closest solar panel to the home is 780 feet away. I note that the representative for Kingsmill Homes indicated that the solar farm was never a concern in purchasing the land or selling the home. He also indicated that they had built a number of nearby homes across the street and it had never come up as an issue. 119 31 5. Matched Pair – McBride Place Solar Farm, Midland, NC This project is located on Mount Pleasant Road, Midland, North Carolina. The property is on 627 acres on an assemblage of 974.59 acres. The solar farm was approved in early 2017 for a 74.9 MW facility. 120 32 I have considered the sale of 4380 Joyner Road which adjoins the proposed solar farm near the northwest section. This property was appraised in April of 2017 for a value of $317,000 with no consideration of any impact due to the solar farm in that figure. The property sold in November 2018 for $325,000 with the buyer fully aware of the proposed solar farm. The landscaping buffer relative to Joyner Road, Hayden Way, Chanel Court and Kristi Lane is considered medium, while the landscaping for the home at the north end of Chanel Court is considered very light. I have considered the following matched pairs to the subject property. The home at 4380 Joyner Road is 275 feet from the closest solar panel. I also considered the recent sale of a lot at 5800 Kristi Lane that is on the east side of the proposed solar farm. This 4.22-acre lot sold in December 2017 for $94,000. A home was built on this lot in 2019 with the closest point from home to panel at 689 feet. The home site is heavily wooded and their remains a wooded buffer between the solar panels and the home. I spoke with the broker, Margaret Dabbs, who indicated that the solar farm was considered a positive by both buyer and seller as it ensures no subdivision will be happening in that area. Buyers in this market are looking for privacy and seclusion. The breakdown of recent lot sales on Kristi are shown below with the lowest price paid for the lot with no solar farm exposure, though that lot has exposure to Mt Pleasant Road South. Still the older lot sales have exposure to the solar farm and sold for higher prices than the front lot and adjusting for time would only increase that difference. The lot at 5811 Kristi Lane sold in May 2018 for $100,000 for a 3.74-acre lot. The home that was built later in 2018 is 505 feet to the closest solar panel. This home then sold to a homeowner for $530,000 in April 2020. I have compared this home sale to other properties in the area as shown below. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 4380 Joyner 12.00 11/22/2017 $325,000 1979 1,598 $203.38 3/2 2xGar Ranch Outbldg Not 3870 Elkwood 5.50 8/24/2016 $250,000 1986 1,551 $161.19 3/2.5 Det 2xGar Craft Not 8121 Lower Rocky 18.00 2/8/2017 $355,000 1977 1,274 $278.65 2/2 2xCarprt Ranch Eq. Fac. Not 13531 Cabarrus 7.89 5/20/2016 $267,750 1981 2,300 $116.41 3/2 2xGar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time Acres YB Condition GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff $325,000 $7,500 $52,000 -$12,250 $10,000 $2,273 -$2,000 $2,500 $7,500 $317,523 2% $7,100 -$48,000 $4,970 $23,156 $0 $3,000 -$15,000 $330,226 -2% $8,033 $33,000 -$3,749 $20,000 -$35,832 $0 $0 $7,500 $296,702 9% Average 3% Adjoining Lot Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/AC $/Lot Adjoins 5811 Kristi 3.74 5/1/2018 $100,000 $26,738 $100,000 Adjoins 5800 Kristi 4.22 12/1/2017 $94,000 $22,275 $94,000 Not 5822 Kristi 3.43 2/24/2020 $90,000 $26,239 $90,000 121 33 After adjusting the comparables, I found that the average adjusted value shows a slight increase in value for the subject property adjoining a solar farm. As in the other cases, this is a mild positive impact on value but within the typical range of real estate transactions. I also looked at 5833 Kristi Lane that sold on 9/14/2020 for $625,000. This home is 470 feet from the closest panel. The average difference is 0% impact and the differences are all within a close range with this set of comparables and supports a finding of no impact on property value. I have also looked at 4504 Chanel Court. This home sold on January 1, 2020 for $393,500 for this 3,010 square foot home built in 2004 with 3 bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms, and a 3-car garage. This home includes a full partially finished basement that significantly complicates comparing this to other sales. This home previously sold on January 23, 2017 for $399,000. This was during the time that the solar farm was a known factor as the solar farm was approved in early 2017 and public discussions had already commenced. I spoke with Rachelle Killman with Real Estate Realty, LLC the buyer’s agent for this transaction and she indicated that the solar farm was not a factor or consideration for the buyer. She noted that you could see the panels sort of through the trees, but it wasn’t a concern for the buyer. She was not familiar with the earlier 2017 sale, but indicated that it was likely too high. This again goes back to the partially finished basement issue. The basement has a fireplace, and an installed 3/4 bathroom but otherwise bare studs and concrete floors with different buyers assigning varying value to that partly finished space. I also reached out to Don Gomez with Don Anthony Realty, LLC as he was the listing agent. I also looked at the recent sale of 4599 Chanel Court. This home is within 310 feet of solar panels but notably does not have a good landscaping screen in place as shown in the photo below. The plantings appear to be less than 3-feet in height and only a narrow, limited screen of existing hardwoods were kept. The photograph is from the listing. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 5811 Kristi 3.74 3/31/2020 $530,000 2018 3,858 $137.38 5/3.5 2 Gar 2-story Cement Ext Not 3915 Tania 1.68 12/9/2019 $495,000 2007 3,919 $126.31 3/3.5 2 Gar 2-story 3Det Gar Not 6782 Manatee 1.33 3/8/2020 $460,000 1998 3,776 $121.82 4/2/2h 2 Gar 2-story Water Not 314 Old Hickory 1.24 9/20/2019 $492,500 2017 3,903 $126.18 6/4.5 2 Gar 2-story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 5811 Kristi $530,000 5% Not 3915 Tania $6,285 $27,225 -$3,852 -$20,000 $504,657 5% Not 6782 Manatee $1,189 $46,000 $4,995 $5,000 $517,183 2% Not 314 Old Hickory $10,680 $2,463 -$2,839 -$10,000 $492,803 7% Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Nearby 5833 Kristi 4.05 9/14/2020 $625,000 2008 4,373 $142.92 5/4 3-Car 2-Brick Not 4055 Dakeita 4.90 12/30/2020 $629,000 2005 4,427 $142.08 4/4 4-Car 2-Brick 4DetGar/Stable Not 9615 Bales 2.16 6/30/2020 $620,000 2007 4,139 $149.79 4/5 3-Car 2-Stone 2DetGar Not 9522 Bales 1.47 6/18/2020 $600,000 2007 4,014 $149.48 4/4.5 3-Car 2-Stone Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 5833 Kristi $625,000 470 4055 Dakeita -$9,220 $5,661 -$6,138 -$25,000 $594,303 5% 9615 Bales $6,455 $1,860 $28,042 -$10,000 -$15,000 $631,356 -1% 9522 Bales $7,233 $1,800 $42,930 -$5,000 $646,963 -4% 0% 122 34 According to Scott David with Better Homes and Gardens Paracle Realty, this property was under contract for $550,000 contingent on the buyer being able to sell their former home. The former home was apparently overpriced and did not sell and the contract stretched out over 2.5 months. The seller was in a bind as they had a home they were trying to buy contingent on this closing and were about to lose that opportunity. A cash buyer offered them a quick close at $500,000 and the seller accepted that offer in order to not lose the home they were trying to buy. According to Mr. David, the original contracted buyer and the actual cash buyer never considered the solar farm as a negative. In fact Mr. David noted that the actual buyer saw it as a great opportunity to purchase a home where a new subdivision could not be built behind his house. I therefore conclude that this property supports a finding of no impact on adjoining property, even where the landscaping screen still requires time to grow in for a year-round screen. I also considered a sale/resale analysis on this property. This same home sold on September 15, 2015 for $462,000. Adjusting this upward by 5% per year for the five years between these sales dates suggests a value of $577,500. Comparing that to the $550,000 contract that suggests a 5% downward impact, which is within a typical market variation. Given that the broker noted no negative impact from the solar farm and the analysis above, I conclude this sale supports a finding of no impact on value. 123 35 6. Matched Pair – Mariposa Solar, Gaston County, NC This project is a 5 MW facility located on 35.80 acres out of a parent tract of 87.61 acres at 517 Blacksnake Road, Stanley that was built in 2016. I have considered a number of recent sales around this facility as shown below. The first is identified in the map above as Parcel 1, which is 215 Mariposa Road. This is an older dwelling on large acreage with only one bathroom. I’ve compared it to similar nearby homes as shown below. The landscaping buffer for this home is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Adjoins 215 Mariposa 17.74 12/12/2017 $249,000 1958 1,551 $160.54 3/1 Garage Br/Rnch Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 1974 1,792 $85.38 4/2 Garage Br/Rnch Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 1962 2,165 $76.67 3/2 Crprt Br/Rnch Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 1980 2,156 $112.48 3/2 Drive 1.5 Not 1201 Abernathy 27.00 5/3/2018 $390,000 1970 2,190 $178.08 3/2 Crprt Br/Rnch 124 36 The average difference after adjusting for all factors is +9% on average, which suggests an enhancement due to the solar farm across the street. Given the large adjustments for acreage and size, I will focus on the low end of the adjusted range at 4%, which is within the typical deviation and therefore suggests no impact on value. I have also considered Parcel 4 that sold after the solar farm was approved but before it had been constructed in 2016. The landscaping buffer for this parcel is considered light. The average difference after adjusting for all factors is +6%, which is again suggests a mild increase in value due to the adjoining solar farm use. The median is a 4% adjustment, which is within a standard deviation and suggests no impact on property value. I have also considered the recent sale of Parcel 13 that is located on Blacksnake Road south of the project. I was unable to find good land sales in the same 20-acre range, so I have considered sales of larger and smaller acreage. I adjusted each of those land sales for time. I then applied the price per acre to a trendline to show where the expected price per acre would be for 20 acres. As can be seen in the chart below, this lines up exactly with the purchase of the subject property. I therefore conclude that there is no impact on Parcel 13 due to proximity to the solar farm. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Time YB Acres GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Adjoins 215 Mariposa 17.74 12/12/2017 $249,000 $249,000 Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 -$5,583 -$17,136 $129,450 -$20,576 -$10,000 $229,154 8% Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 $7,927 -$4,648 $126,825 -$47,078 -$10,000 $239,026 4% Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 -$5,621 -$37,345 $95,475 -$68,048 -$10,000 $5,000 $221,961 11% Not 1201 Abernathy 27.00 5/3/2018 $390,000 -$4,552 -$32,760 -$69,450 -$60,705 -$10,000 $212,533 15% Average 9% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 242 Mariposa 2.91 9/21/2015 $180,000 1962 1,880 $95.74 3/2 Carport Br/Rnch Det Wrkshop Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 1974 1,792 $85.38 4/2 Garage Br/Rnch Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 1962 2,165 $76.67 3/2 Crprt Br/Rnch Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 1980 2,156 $112.48 3/2 Drive 1.5 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Time YB Acres GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Adjoins 242 Mariposa 2.91 9/21/2015 $180,000 $180,000 Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 -$15,807 -$12,852 $18,468 $7,513 -$3,000 $25,000 $172,322 4% Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 -$3,165 $0 $15,808 -$28,600 $25,000 $175,043 3% Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 -$21,825 -$30,555 -$15,960 -$40,942 $2,000 $25,000 $160,218 11% Average 6% Adjoining Residential Land Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Tax/Street Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/Ac Time $/Ac Adjoins 174339/Blacksnake 21.15 6/29/2018 $160,000 $7,565 $7,565 Not 227852/Abernathy 10.57 5/9/2018 $97,000 $9,177 $38 $9,215 Not 17443/Legion 9.87 9/7/2018 $64,000 $6,484 -$37 $6,447 Not 164243/Alexis 9.75 2/1/2019 $110,000 $11,282 -$201 $11,081 Not 176884/Bowden 55.77 6/13/2018 $280,000 $5,021 $7 $5,027 125 37 Finally, I have considered the recent sale of Parcel 17 that sold as vacant land. I was unable to find good land sales in the same 7-acre range, so I have considered sales of larger and smaller acreage. I adjusted each of those land sales for time. I then applied the price per acre to a trendline to show where the expected price per acre would be for 7 acres. As can be seen in the chart below, this lines up with the trendline running right through the purchase price for the subject property. I therefore conclude that there is no impact on Parcel 13 due to proximity to the solar farm. I note that this property was improved with a 3,196 square foot ranch built in 2018 following the land purchase, which shows that development near the solar farm was unimpeded. Adjoining Residential Land Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Tax/Street Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/Ac Time Location $/Ac Adjoins 227039/Mariposa 6.86 12/6/2017 $66,500 $9,694 $9,694 Not 227852/Abernathy 10.57 5/9/2018 $97,000 $9,177 -$116 $9,061 Not 17443/Legion 9.87 9/7/2018 $64,000 $6,484 -$147 $6,338 Not 177322/Robinson 5.23 5/12/2017 $66,500 $12,715 $217 -$1,272 $11,661 Not 203386/Carousel 2.99 7/13/2018 $43,500 $14,548 -$262 -$1,455 $12,832 126 38 7. Matched Pair – Candace Solar, Princeton, NC This 5 MW solar farm is located at 4839 US 70 Highway just east of Herring Road. This solar farm was completed on October 25, 2016. 127 39 I identified three adjoining sales to this tract after development of the solar farm with frontage on US 70. I did not attempt to analyze those sales as they have exposure to an adjacent highway and railroad track. Those homes are therefore problematic for a matched pair analysis unless I have similar homes fronting on a similar corridor. I did consider a land sale and a home sale on adjoining parcels without those complications. The lot at 499 Herring Road sold to Paradise Homes of Johnston County of NC, Inc. for $30,000 in May 2017 and a modular home was placed there and sold to Karen and Jason Toole on September 29, 2017. I considered the lot sale first as shown below and then the home sale that followed. The landscaping buffer relative to this parcel is considered medium. Following the land purchase, the modular home was placed on the site and sold. I have compared this modular home to the following sales to determine if the solar farm had any impact on the purchase price. The best comparable is 1795 Bay Valley as it required the least adjustment and was therefore most similar, which shows a 0% impact. This signifies no impact related to the solar farm. The range of impact identified by these matched pairs ranges are therefore -3% to +26% with an average of +8% for the home and an average of +4% for the lot, though the best indicator for the lot shows a $5,000 difference in the lot value due to the proximity to the solar farm or a -12% impact. Adjoining Land Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Other Time Site Other Total % Diff 16 Adjoins 499 Herring 2.03 5/1/2017 $30,000 $30,000 Not 37 Becky 0.87 7/23/2019 $24,500 Sub/Pwr -$1,679 $4,900 $27,721 8% Not 5858 Bizzell 0.88 8/17/2016 $18,000 $390 $3,600 $21,990 27% Not 488 Herring 2.13 12/20/2016 $35,000 $389 $35,389 -18% Average 5% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other 16 Adjoins 499 Herring 2.03 9/27/2017 $215,000 2017 2,356 $91.26 4/3 Drive Modular Not 678 WC 6.32 3/8/2019 $226,000 1995 1,848 $122.29 3/2.5 Det Gar Mobile Ag bldgs Not 1810 Bay V 8.70 3/26/2018 $170,000 2003 2,356 $72.16 3/2 Drive Mobile Ag bldgs Not 1795 Bay V 1.78 12/1/2017 $194,000 2017 1,982 $97.88 4/3 Drive Modular Adjoining Residential Sales Af Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Parcel Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 16 Adjoins 499 Herring $215,000 488 Not 678 WC -$10,037 -$25,000 $24,860 $37,275 -$5,000 -$7,500 -$20,000 $220,599 -3% Not 1810 Bay V -$2,579 -$20,000 $11,900 $0 $159,321 26% Not 1795 Bay V -$1,063 $0 $21,964 $214,902 0% 8% 128 40 8. Matched Pair – Innovative Solar 46, Roslin Farm Rd, Hope Mills, NC This project was built in 2016 and located on 532 acres for a 78.5 MW solar farm with the closest home at 125 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 423 feet. I considered the recent sale of a home on Roslin Farm Road just north of Running Fox Road as shown below. This sale supports an indication of no impact on property value. The landscaping buffer is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 6849 Roslin Farm 1.00 2/18/2019 $155,000 1967 1,610 $96.27 3/3 Drive Ranch Brick 435 Not 6592 Sim Canady 2.43 9/5/2017 $185,000 1974 2,195 $84.28 3/2 Gar Ranch Brick Not 1614 Joe Hall 1.63 9/3/2019 $145,000 1974 1,674 $86.62 3/2 Det Gar Ranch Brick Not 109 Bledsoe 0.68 1/17/2019 $150,000 1973 1,663 $90.20 3/2 Gar Ranch Brick Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 6849 Roslin Farm $155,000 5% Not 6592 Sim Canady $8,278 -$6,475 -$39,444 $10,000 -$5,000 $152,359 2% Not 1614 Joe Hall -$2,407 -$5,075 -$3,881 $10,000 -$2,500 $141,137 9% Not 109 Bledsoe $404 $10,000 -$4,500 -$3,346 -$5,000 $147,558 5% 129 41 9. Matched Pair – Innovative Solar 42, County Line Rd, Fayetteville, NC 130 42 This project was built in 2017 and located on 413.99 acres for a 71 MW with the closest home at 135 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 375 feet. I considered the recent sales identified on the map above as Parcels 2 and 3, which is directly across the street these homes are 330 and 340 feet away. Parcel 2 includes an older home built in 1976, while Parcel 3 is a new home built in 2019. So the presence of the solar farm had no impact on new construction in the area. The matched pairs for each of these are shown below. The landscaping buffer relative to these parcels is considered light. Both of these matched pairs adjust to an average of +3% on impact for the adjoining solar farm, meaning there is a slight positive impact due to proximity to the solar farm. This is within the standard +/- of typical real estate transactions, which strongly suggests no impact on property value. I noted specifically that for 2923 County Line Road, the best comparable is 2109 John McMillan as it does not have the additional rental unit on it. I made no adjustment to the other sale for the value of that rental unit, which would have pushed the impact on that comparable downward – meaning there would have been a more significant positive impact. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2923 County Ln 8.98 2/28/2019 $385,000 1976 2,905 $132.53 3/3 2-Car Ranch Brick/Pond 340 Not 1928 Shaw Mill 17.00 7/3/2019 $290,000 1977 3,001 $96.63 4/4 2-Car Ranch Brick/Pond/Rental Not 2109 John McM. 7.78 4/25/2018 $320,000 1978 2,474 $129.35 3/2 Det Gar Ranch Vinyl/Pool,Stable Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2923 County Ln $385,000 3% Not 1928 Shaw Mill -$3,055 $100,000 -$1,450 -$7,422 -$10,000 $368,074 4% Not 2109 John McM. $8,333 -$3,200 $39,023 $10,000 $5,000 $379,156 2% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2935 County Ln 1.19 6/18/2019 $266,000 2019 2,401 $110.79 4/3 Gar 2-Story 330 Not 3005 Hemingway 1.17 5/16/2019 $269,000 2018 2,601 $103.42 4/3 Gar 2-Story Not 7031 Glynn Mill 0.60 5/8/2018 $255,000 2017 2,423 $105.24 4/3 Gar 2-Story Not 5213 Bree Brdg 0.92 5/7/2019 $260,000 2018 2,400 $108.33 4/3 3-Gar 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2935 County Ln $266,000 3% Not 3005 Hemingway $748 $1,345 -$16,547 $254,546 4% Not 7031 Glynn Mill $8,724 $2,550 -$1,852 $264,422 1% Not 5213 Bree Brdg $920 $1,300 $76 -$10,000 $252,296 5% 131 43 10. Matched Pair – Sunfish Farm, Keenebec Rd, Willow Spring, NC This project was built in 2015 and located on 49.6 acres (with an inset 11.25-acre parcel) for a 6.4 MW project with the closest home at 135 feet with an average distance of 105 feet. I considered the 2017 sale identified on the map above, which is 205 feet away from the closest panel. The matched pairs for each of these are shown below followed by a more recent map showing the panels at this site. The average difference in the three comparables and the subject property is +3% after adjusting for differences in the sales date, year built, gross living area, and other minor differences. This data is supported by the comments from the broker Brian Schroepfer with Keller Williams that the solar farm had no impact on the purchase price. The landscaping screen is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Adjoins 7513 Glen Willow 0.79 9/1/2017 $185,000 1989 1,492 $123.99 3/2 Gar BR/Rnch Not 2968 Tram 0.69 7/17/2017 $155,000 1984 1,323 $117.16 3/2 Drive BR/Rnch Not 205 Pine Burr 0.97 12/29/2017 $191,000 1991 1,593 $119.90 3/2.5 Drive BR/Rnch Not 1217 Old Honeycutt 1.00 12/15/2017 $176,000 1978 1,558 $112.97 3/2.5 2Carprt VY/Rnch Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 7513 Glen Willow $185,000 Not 2968 Tram $601 $3,875 $15,840 $10,000 $185,316 0% Not 205 Pine Burr -$1,915 -$1,910 -$9,688 -$5,000 $172,487 7% Not 1217 Old Honeycutt -$1,557 $9,680 -$5,965 -$5,000 $5,280 $178,438 4% 3% 132 44 11. Matched Pair – Camden Dam, Camden, NC This 5 MW project was built in 2019 and located on a portion of 49.83 acres. Parcel 1 noted above along with the home on the adjoining parcel to the north of that parcel sold in late 2018 after this solar farm was approved but prior to construction being completed in 2019. I have considered this sale as shown below. The landscaping screen is considered light. The comparable at 548 Trotman is the most similar and required the least adjustment shows no impact on property value. The other two comparables were adjusted consistently with one showing significant enhancement and another as showing a mild negative. The best indication is the one requiring the least adjustment. The other two sales required significant site adjustments which make them less reliable. The best comparable and the average of these comparables support a finding of no impact on property value. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 122 N Mill Dam 12.19 11/29/2018 $350,000 2005 2,334 $149.96 3/3.5 3-Gar Ranch Not 548 Trotman 12.10 5/31/2018 $309,000 2007 1,960 $157.65 4/2 Det2G Ranch Wrkshp Not 198 Sand Hills 2.00 12/22/2017 $235,000 2007 2,324 $101.12 4/3 Open Ranch Not 140 Sleepy Hlw 2.05 8/12/2019 $330,000 2010 2,643 $124.86 4/3 1-Gar 1.5 Story Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 122 N Mill Dam $350,000 342 548 Trotman $6,163 -$3,090 $35,377 $5,000 $352,450 -1% 198 Sand Hills $8,808 $45,000 -$2,350 $607 $30,000 $317,064 9% 140 Sleepy Hlw -$9,258 $45,000 -$8,250 -$23,149 $5,000 $30,000 $369,343 -6% 1% 133 45 12. Matched Pair – Grandy Solar, Grandy, NC This 20 MW project was built in 2019 and located on a portion of 121 acres. Parcels 40 and 50 have sold since construction began on this solar farm. I have considered both in matched pair analysis below. I note that the marketing for Parcel 40 (120 Par Four) identified the lack of homes behind the house as a feature in the listing. The marketing for Parcel 50 (269 Grandy) identified the property as “very private.” Landscaping for both of these parcels is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 120 Par Four 0.92 8/17/2019 $315,000 2006 2,188 $143.97 4/3 2-Gar 1.5 Story Pool Not 102 Teague 0.69 1/5/2020 $300,000 2005 2,177 $137.80 3/2 Det 3G Ranch Not 112 Meadow Lk 0.92 2/28/2019 $265,000 1992 2,301 $115.17 3/2 Gar 1.5 Story Not 116 Barefoot 0.78 9/29/2020 $290,000 2004 2,192 $132.30 4/3 2-Gar 2 Story 134 46 Both of these matched pairs support a finding of no impact on value. This is reinforced by the listings for both properties identifying the privacy due to no housing in the rear of the property as part of the marketing for these homes. Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 120 Par Four $315,000 405 102 Teague -$4,636 $1,500 $910 $10,000 $20,000 $327,774 -4% 112 Meadow Lk $4,937 $18,550 -$7,808 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $320,679 -2% 116 Barefoot -$12,998 $2,900 -$318 $20,000 $299,584 5% 0% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 269 Grandy 0.78 5/7/2019 $275,000 2019 1,535 $179.15 3/2.5 2-Gar Ranch Not 307 Grandy 1.04 10/8/2018 $240,000 2002 1,634 $146.88 3/2 Gar 1.5 Story Not 103 Branch 0.95 4/22/2020 $230,000 2000 1,532 $150.13 4/2 2-Gar 1.5 Story Not 103 Spring Lf 1.07 8/14/2018 $270,000 2002 1,635 $165.14 3/2 2-Gar Ranch Pool Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 269 Grandy $275,000 477 307 Grandy $5,550 $20,400 -$8,725 $5,000 $10,000 $272,225 1% 103 Branch -$8,847 $21,850 $270 $243,273 12% 103 Spring Lf $7,871 $22,950 -$9,908 $5,000 -$20,000 $275,912 0% 4% 135 47 Conclusion – NC Data The solar farm matched pairs shown above have similar characteristics to each other in terms of population, but with several outliers showing solar farms in farm more urban areas. The median income for the population within 1 mile of a solar farm is $54,845 with a median housing unit value of $206,862. Most of the comparables are under $300,000 in the home price, though I have matched pairs in multiple states over $1,000,000 adjoining solar farms. The adjoining uses show that residential and agricultural uses are the predominant adjoining uses. These figures are in line with the larger set of solar farms that I have looked at with the predominant adjoining uses being residential and agricultural and similar to the solar farm breakdown shown for the southeast as shown later in this report. Based on the similarity of adjoining uses and demographic data between these sites and the subject property, I consider it reasonable to compare these sites to the subject property. I have pulled 32 matched pairs from the above referenced solar farms to provide the following summary of home sale matched pairs and land sales next to solar farms. The summary shows that the range of differences is from -10% to +10% with an average of +2% and median of +2%. This means that the average and median impact is for a slight positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. However, this +2% to rate is within the typical variability I would expect from real estate. I therefore conclude that this data shows no negative or positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. While the range is seemingly wide, the graph below clearly shows that the vast majority of the data falls between 0% and +5%. There were only 2 indicators showing an impact below zero and they were -1% and -10%. The other thirty results ranged from zero to +10%. I therefore conclude that these matched pairs support a finding of no impact on value at the subject property for the proposed project, which as proposed will include a landscaped buffer to screen adjoining residential properties. Matched Pair Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2019 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Veg. Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com Pop. Income Unit Buffer 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 38 5.00 2 38% 23% 0% 39% 1,523 $37,358 $148,375 Light 2 Gaston SC Gastonia NC 35 5.00 48 33% 23% 0% 44% 4,689 $35,057 $126,562 Light 3 Summit Moyock NC 2034 80.00 4 4% 94% 0% 2% 382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 4 Tracy Bailey NC 50 5.00 10 29% 71% 0% 0% 312 $43,940 $99,219 Heavy 5 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 78% 10% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Me 6 Mariposa Stanley NC 36 5.00 96 48% 52% 0% 0% 1,716 $36,439 $137,884 Light 7 Candace Princeton NC 54 5.00 22 76% 0% 24% 0% 448 $51,002 $107,171 Medium 8 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 0% 83% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 9 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 0% 59% 0% 568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 10 Sunfish Willow Spring NC 50 6.40 30 35% 30% 35% 0% 1,515 $63,652 $253,138 Light 11 Camden Dam Camden NC 50 5.00 0 17% 11% 72% 0% 403 $84,426 $230,288 Light 12 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 0% 24% 21% 949 $50,355 $231,408 Light Average 337 30.08 30 34% 32% 26% 9% 1263 $55,312 $194,322 Median 52 5.70 10 34% 23% 17% 0% 759 $54,845 $206,862 High 2,034 80.00 140 76% 94% 83% 44% 4,689 $84,426 $281,731 Low 35 5.00 0 4% 0% 0% 0% 312 $35,057 $99,219 West River Solar 1-Mile 469 50 20% 45% 35% 0% 196 $55,144 $181,333 3-Mile 469 50 20% 45% 35% 0% 8852 $63,489 $218,705 136 48 137 49 B. Southeastern USA Data – Over 5 MW I have also considered a number of projects throughout the southeast which includes a number of solar farms much larger than those considered in just North Carolina. I have shown the results below. The full write-ups similar to the NC write-ups are available in my files. Conclusion – Southeast Over 5 MW The solar farm matched pairs shown above have similar characteristics to each other in terms of population, but with several outliers showing solar farms in farm more urban areas. The median income for the population within 1 mile of a solar farm is $60,037 with a median housing unit value of $231,408. Most of the comparables are under $300,000 in the home price, with $483,333 being the high end of the set, though I have matched pairs in multiple states over $1,000,000 adjoining solar farms. The adjoining uses show that residential and agricultural uses are the predominant adjoining uses. These figures are in line with the larger set of solar farms that I have looked at with the predominant adjoining uses being residential and agricultural and similar to the solar farm breakdown shown for Virginia and adjoining states as well as the proposed subject property. Based on the similarity of adjoining uses and demographic data between these sites and the subject property, I consider it reasonable to compare these sites to the subject property. I have pulled 56 matched pairs from the above referenced solar farms to provide the following summary of home sale matched pairs and land sales next to solar farms. The summary shows that the range of differences is from -10% to +10% with an average of +1% and median of +1%. This means that the average and median impact is for a slight positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. However, this +1 to rate is within the typical variability I would expect from real estate. I therefore conclude that this data shows no negative or positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. Southeast USA Over 5 MW Matched Pair Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2020 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Veg. Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Pop. Income Unit Buffer 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 38 5.00 2 38% 0% 23% 39% 1,523 $37,358 $148,375 Light 2 Mulberry Selmer TN 160 5.00 60 13% 73% 10% 3% 467 $40,936 $171,746 Lt to Med 3 Leonard Hughesville MD 47 5.00 20 18% 75% 0% 6% 525 $106,550 $350,000 Light 4 Gastonia SC Gastonia NC 35 5.00 48 33% 0% 23% 44% 4,689 $35,057 $126,562 Light 5 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2% 382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 6 Tracy Bailey NC 50 5.00 10 29% 0% 71% 0% 312 $43,940 $99,219 Heavy 7 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0%48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 8 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 9 Mariposa Stanley NC 36 5.00 96 48% 0% 52% 0% 1,716 $36,439 $137,884 Light 10 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46% 1% 578 $81,022 $374,453 Light 11 Simon Social Circle GA 237 30.00 71 1% 63% 36% 0% 203 $76,155 $269,922 Medium 12 Candace Princeton NC 54 5.00 22 76% 24% 0% 0% 448 $51,002 $107,171 Medium 13 Walker Barhamsville VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0% 203 $80,773 $320,076 Light 14 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 15 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0% 568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 16 Sunfish Willow Spring NC 50 6.40 30 35% 35% 30% 0% 1,515 $63,652 $253,138 Light 17 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0%74 $51,410 $155,208 Light 18 Camden Dam Camden NC 50 5.00 0 17% 72% 11% 0% 403 $84,426 $230,288 Light 19 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 24% 0% 21% 949 $50,355 $231,408 Light 20 Champion Pelion SC 100 10.00 N/A 4% 70% 8% 18% 1,336 $46,867 $171,939 Light 21 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 22 Miami-Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0% 0% 127 $90,909 $403,571 Light 23 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0%74 $120,861 $483,333 Md to Hvy Average 485 57.04 38 24% 48% 22% 6% 923 $63,955 $237,700 Median 234 20.00 20 17% 59% 11% 0% 467 $60,037 $231,408 High 3,500 617.00 160 76% 98% 94% 44% 4,689 $120,861 $483,333 Low 35 5.00 0 1% 0% 0% 0%48 $35,057 $99,219 138 50 While the range is seemingly wide, the graph below clearly shows that the vast majority of the data falls between -5% and +5% and most of those are clearly in the 0 to +5% range. This data strongly supports an indication of no impact on adjoining residential uses to a solar farm. I therefore conclude that these matched pairs support a finding of no impact on value at the subject property for the proposed project, which as proposed will include a landscaped buffer to screen adjoining residential properties. 139 51 Residential Dwelling Matched Pairs Adjoining Solar Farms Approx Adj. Sale Veg. Pair Solar Farm City State MW Distance Tax ID/Address Date Sale Price Price % Diff Buffer 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600195570 Sep-13 $250,000 Light 3600198928 Mar-14 $250,000 $250,000 0% 2 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600195361 Sep-13 $260,000 Light 3600194813 Apr-14 $258,000 $258,000 1% 3 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600199891 Jul-14 $250,000 Light 3600198928 Mar-14 $250,000 $250,000 0% 4 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600198632 Aug-14 $253,000 Light 3600193710 Oct-13 $248,000 $248,000 2% 5 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600196656 Dec-13 $255,000 Light 3601105180 Dec-13 $253,000 $253,000 1% 6 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600182511 Feb-13 $247,000 Light 3600183905 Dec-12 $240,000 $245,000 1% 7 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600182784 Apr-13 $245,000 Light 3600193710 Oct-13 $248,000 $248,000 -1% 8 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600195361 Nov-15 $267,500 Light 3600195361 Sep-13 $260,000 $267,800 0% 9 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 400 0900A011 Jul-14 $130,000 Light 099CA043 Feb-15 $148,900 $136,988 -5% 10 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 400 099CA002 Jul-15 $130,000 Light 0990NA040 Mar-15 $120,000 $121,200 7% 11 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 480 491 Dusty Oct-16 $176,000 Light 35 April Aug-16 $185,000 $178,283 -1% 12 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 650 297 Country Sep-16 $150,000 Medium 53 Glen Mar-17 $126,000 $144,460 4% 13 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 685 57 Cooper Feb-19 $163,000 Medium 191 Amelia Aug-18 $132,000 $155,947 4% 14 Leonard Rd Hughesville MD 5.5 230 14595 Box Elder Feb-16 $291,000 Light 15313 Bassford Rd Jul-16 $329,800 $292,760 -1% 15 Neal Hawkins Gastonia NC 5 225 609 Neal Hawkins Mar-17 $270,000 Light 1418 N Modena Apr-18 $225,000 $242,520 10% 16 Summit Moyock NC 80 1,060 129 Pinto Apr-16 $170,000 Light 102 Timber Apr-16 $175,500 $175,101 -3% 17 Summit Moyock NC 80 980 105 Pinto Dec-16 $206,000 Light 127 Ranchland Jun-15 $219,900 $198,120 4% 18 Tracy Bailey NC 5 780 9162 Winters Jan-17 $255,000 Heavy 7352 Red Fox Jun-16 $176,000 $252,399 1% 19 Manatee Parrish FL 75 1180 13670 Highland Aug-18 $255,000 Heavy 13851 Highland Sep-18 $240,000 $255,825 0% 20 McBride Place Midland NC 75 275 4380 Joyner Nov-17 $325,000 Medium 3870 Elkwood Aug-16 $250,000 $317,523 2% 21 McBride Place Midland NC 75 505 5811 Kristi Mar-20 $530,000 Medium 3915 Tania Dec-19 $495,000 $504,657 5% 22 Mariposa Stanley NC 5 1155 215 Mariposa Dec-17 $249,000 Light 110 Airport May-16 $166,000 $239,026 4% 23 Mariposa Stanley NC 5 570 242 Mariposa Sep-15 $180,000 Light 110 Airport Apr-16 $166,000 $175,043 3% 24 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 20 1230 833 Nations Spr Jan-17 $295,000 Light 6801 Middle Dec-17 $249,999 $296,157 0% 25 Candace Princeton NC 5 488 499 Herring Sep-17 $215,000 Medium 1795 Bay Valley Dec-17 $194,000 $214,902 0% 26 Walker Barhamsville VA 20 250 5241 Barham Oct-18 $264,000 Light 9252 Ordinary Jun-19 $277,000 $246,581 7% 27 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 385 103 Granville Pl Jul-18 $265,000 Light 2219 Granville Jan-18 $260,000 $265,682 0% 28 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 315 104 Erin Jun-17 $280,000 Light 2219 Granville Jan-18 $265,000 $274,390 2% 29 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 400 2312 Granville May-18 $284,900 Light 2219 Granville Jan-18 $265,000 $273,948 4% 140 52 Residential Dwelling Matched Pairs Adjoining Solar Farms Approx Adj. Sale Veg. Pair Solar Farm City State MW Distance Tax ID/Address Date Sale Price Price % Diff Buffer 30 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 400 2310 Granville May-19 $280,000 Light 634 Friendly Jul-19 $267,000 $265,291 5% 31 Summit Moyock NC 80 570 318 Green View Sep-19 $357,000 Light 336 Green View Jan-19 $365,000 $340,286 5% 32 Summit Moyock NC 80 440 164 Ranchland Apr-19 $169,000 Light 105 Longhorn Oct-17 $184,500 $186,616 -10% 33 Summit Moyock NC 80 635 358 Oxford Sep-19 $478,000 Light 176 Providence Sep-19 $425,000 $456,623 4% 34 Summit Moyock NC 80 970 343 Oxford Mar-17 $490,000 Light 218 Oxford Apr-17 $525,000 $484,064 1% 35 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 78.5 435 6849 Roslin Farm Feb-19 $155,000 Light 109 Bledsoe Jan-19 $150,000 $147,558 5% 36 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 71 340 2923 County Line Feb-19 $385,000 Light 2109 John McMillan Apr-18 $320,000 $379,156 2% 37 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 71 330 2935 County Line Jun-19 $266,000 Light 7031 Glynn Mill May-18 $255,000 $264,422 1% 38 Sunfish Willow Sprng NC 6.4 205 7513 Glen Willow Sep-17 $185,000 Light 205 Pine Burr Dec-17 $191,000 $172,487 7% 39 Neal Hawkins Gastonia NC 5 145 611 Neal Hawkins Jun-17 $288,000 Light 1211 Still Forrest Jul-18 $280,000 $274,319 5% 40 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 20 1230 833 Nations Spr Aug-19 $385,000 Light 2393 Old Chapel Aug-20 $330,000 $389,286 -1% 41 Sappony Stony Creek VA 20 1425 12511 Palestine Jul-18 $128,400 Medium 6494 Rocky Branch Nov-18 $100,000 $131,842 -3% 42 Camden Dam Camden NC 5 342 122 N Mill Dam Nov-18 $350,000 Light 548 Trotman May-18 $309,000 $352,450 -1% 43 Grandy Grandy NC 20 405 120 Par Four Aug-19 $315,000 Light 116 Barefoot Sep-20 $290,000 $299,584 5% 44 Grandy Grandy NC 20 477 269 Grandy May-19 $275,000 Light 103 Spring Leaf Aug-18 $270,000 $275,912 0% 45 Champion Pelion SC 10 505 517 Old Charleston Aug-20 $110,000 Light 1429 Laurel Feb-19 $126,000 $107,856 2% 46 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 765 465 Papaya Jul-19 $155,000 Medium 1132 Waterway Jul-20 $129,000 $141,618 9% 47 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 750 455 Papaya Sep-20 $183,500 Medium 904 Fir Sep-20 $192,500 $186,697 -2% 48 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 690 419 Papaya Jul-19 $127,500 Medium 865 Tamarind Feb-19 $133,900 $124,613 2% 49 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 690 413 Papaya Jul-20 $130,000 Medium 1367 Barefoot Jan-21 $130,500 $139,507 -7% 50 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 690 343 Papaya Dec-19 $145,000 Light 865 Tamarind Feb-19 $133,900 $142,403 2% 51 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 710 335 Papaya Apr-18 $110,000 Light 865 Tamarind Feb-19 $133,900 $110,517 0% 52 Miami-Dade Miami FL 74.5 1390 13600 SW 182nd Nov-20 $1,684,000 Light 17950 SW 158th Oct-20 $1,730,000 $1,713,199 -2% 53 Spotsylvania Paytes VA 617 1270 12901 Orange Plnk Aug-20 $319,900 Medium 12717 Flintlock Dec-20 $290,000 $326,767 -2% 54 Spotsylvania Paytes VA 617 1950 9641 Nottoway May-20 $449,900 Medium 11626 Forest Aug-20 $489,900 $430,246 4% 55 Spotsylvania Paytes VA 617 1171 13353 Post Oak Sep-20 $300,000 Heavy 12810 Catharpin Jan-20 $280,000 $299,008 0% 56 McBride Place Midland NC 75 470 5833 Kristi Sep-20 $625,000 Light 4055 Dakeita Dec-20 $600,000 $594,303 5% Avg.Indicated MW Distance Impact 64.91 612 Average 1% 20.00 479 Median 1% 617.00 1,950 High 10% 5.00 145 Low -10% 141 53 I have further broken down these results based on the MWs, Landscaping, and distance from panel to show the following range of findings for these different categories. Most of the findings are for homes between 201 and 500 feet. Most of the findings are for Light landscaping screens. Light landscaping screens are showing no impact on value at any distances, including for solar farms over 75.1 MW. MW Range 4.4 to 10 Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ # 1192012001 Average 5% 2% 3% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% Median 5% 1% 3% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% High 5% 10% 4% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% Low 5% -5% 3% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% 10.1 to 30 Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ # 032001000 Average N/A 4% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A Median N/A 5% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A High N/A 7% 0% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A Low N/A 0% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A 30.1 to 75 Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ # 023004000 Average N/A 1% 0% N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A N/A Median N/A 1% 0% N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A N/A High N/A 2% 2% N/A N/A 9% N/A N/A N/A Low N/A 1% -2% N/A N/A -7% N/A N/A N/A 75.1+ Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ # 025002001 Average N/A -3% 2% N/A N/A 1% N/A N/A 0% Median N/A -3% 4% N/A N/A 1% N/A N/A 0% High N/A 5% 5% N/A N/A 4% N/A N/A 0% Low N/A -10% -3% N/A N/A -2% N/A N/A 0% 142 54 C. Summary of National Data on Solar Farms I have worked in 19 states related to solar farms and I have been tracking matched pairs in most of those states. On the following pages I provide a brief summary of those findings showing 37 solar farms over 5 MW studied with each one providing matched pair data supporting the findings of this report. The solar farms summary is shown below with a summary of the matched pair data shown on the following page. Matched Pair Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2020 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Popl. Income Unit Veg. Buffer 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 38 5.00 2 38% 0% 23% 39% 1,523 $37,358 $148,375 Light 2 Mulberry Selmer TN 160 5.00 60 13% 73% 10% 3%467 $40,936 $171,746 Lt to Med 3 Leonard Hughesville MD 47 5.00 20 18% 75% 0% 6%525 $106,550 $350,000 Light 4 Gastonia SC Gastonia NC 35 5.00 48 33% 0% 23% 44% 4,689 $35,057 $126,562 Light 5 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2%382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 7 Tracy Bailey NC 50 5.00 10 29% 0% 71% 0%312 $43,940 $99,219 Heavy 8 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0%48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 9 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0%398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 10 Grand Ridge Streator IL 160 20.00 1 8% 87% 5% 0%96 $70,158 $187,037 Light 11 Dominion Indianapolis IN 134 8.60 20 3% 97% 0% 0% 3,774 $61,115 $167,515 Light 12 Mariposa Stanley NC 36 5.00 96 48% 0% 52% 0% 1,716 $36,439 $137,884 Light 13 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46% 1%578 $81,022 $374,453 Light 14 Flemington Flemington NJ 120 9.36 N/A 13% 50% 28% 8% 3,477 $105,714 $444,696 Lt to Med 15 Frenchtown Frenchtown NJ 139 7.90 N/A 37% 35% 29% 0%457 $111,562 $515,399 Light 16 McGraw East Windsor NJ 95 14.00 N/A 27% 44% 0% 29% 7,684 $78,417 $362,428 Light 17 Tinton Falls Tinton Falls NJ 100 16.00 N/A 98% 0% 0% 2% 4,667 $92,346 $343,492 Light 18 Simon Social Circle GA 237 30.00 71 1% 63% 36% 0%203 $76,155 $269,922 Medium 19 Candace Princeton NC 54 5.00 22 76% 24% 0% 0%448 $51,002 $107,171 Medium 20 Walker Barhamsville VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0%203 $80,773 $320,076 Light 21 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 22 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0%568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 23 Demille Lapeer MI 160 28.40 10 10% 68% 0% 22% 2,010 $47,208 $187,214 Light 24 Turrill Lapeer MI 230 19.60 10 75% 59% 0% 25% 2,390 $46,839 $110,361 Light 25 Sunfish Willow Spring NC 50 6.40 30 35% 35% 30% 0% 1,515 $63,652 $253,138 Light 26 Picture Rocks Tucson AZ 182 20.00 N/A 6% 88% 6% 0%102 $81,081 $280,172 None 27 Avra Valley Tucson AZ 246 25.00 N/A 3% 94% 3% 0%85 $80,997 $292,308 None 28 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0%74 $51,410 $155,208 Medium 29 Camden Dam Camden NC 50 5.00 0 17% 72% 11% 0%403 $84,426 $230,288 Light 30 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 24% 0% 21%949 $50,355 $231,408 Light 31 Champion Pelion SC 100 10.00 N/A 4% 70% 8% 18% 1,336 $46,867 $171,939 Light 32 Eddy II Eddy TX 93 10.00 N/A 15% 25% 58% 2%551 $59,627 $139,088 Light 33 Somerset Somerset TX 128 10.60 N/A 5% 95% 0% 0% 1,293 $41,574 $135,490 Light 34 DG Amp Piqua Piqua OH 86 12.60 2 26% 16% 58% 0% 6,735 $38,919 $96,555 Light 45 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 36 Miami-Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0% 0%127 $90,909 $403,571 Light 37 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0%74 $120,861 $483,333 Med to Hvy Average 362 42.05 32 24% 52% 19% 6% 1,515 $66,292 $242,468 Median 150 17.80 10 16% 59% 7% 0%560 $62,384 $230,848 High 3,500 617.00 160 98% 98% 94% 44% 7,684 $120,861 $515,399 Low 35 5.00 0 1% 0% 0% 0%48 $35,057 $96,555 143 55 From these 37 solar farms, I have derived 94 matched pairs. The matched pairs show no negative impact at distances as close as 105 feet between a solar panel and the nearest point on a home. The range of impacts is -10% to +10% with an average and median of +1%. While the range is broad, the two charts below show the data points in range from lowest to highest. There is only 3 data points out of 94 that show a negative impact. The rest support either a finding of no impact or 9 of the data points suggest a positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. As discussed earlier in this report, I consider this data to strongly support a finding of no impact on value as most of the findings are within typical market variation and even within that, most are mildly positive findings. Avg. MW Distance Average 44.80 569 Median 14.00 400 High 617.00 1,950 Low 5.00 145 Indicated Impact Average 1% Median 1% High 10% Low ‐10% 144 56 D. Larger Solar Farms I have also considered larger solar farms to address impacts related to larger projects. Projects have been increasing in size and most of the projects between 100 and 1000 MW are newer with little time for adjoining sales. I have included a breakdown of solar farms with 20 MW to 80 MW facilities with one 617 MW facility. The breakdown of adjoining uses, population density, median income and housing prices for these projects are very similar to those of the larger set. The matched pairs for each of these were considered earlier and support a finding of no negative impact on the adjoining home values. I have included a breakdown of solar farms with 50 MW to 617 MW facilities adjoining. The breakdown of adjoining uses, population density, median income and housing prices for these projects are very similar to those of the larger set. The matched pairs for each of these were considered earlier and support a finding of no negative impact on the adjoining home values. The data for these larger solar farms is shown in the SE USA and the National data breakdowns with similar landscaping, setbacks and range of impacts that fall mostly in the +/-5% range as can be seen earlier in this report. Matched Pair Summary - @20 MW And Larger Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2019 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Veg. Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Popl. Income Unit Buffer 1 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2% 382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 2 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0%48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 3 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 4 Grand Ridge Streator IL 160 20.00 1 8% 87% 5% 0%96 $70,158 $187,037 Light 5 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46% 1% 578 $81,022 $374,453 Light 6 Simon Social Circle GA 237 30.00 71 1% 63% 36% 0% 203 $76,155 $269,922 Medium 7 Walker Barhamsville VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0% 203 $80,773 $320,076 Light 8 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 9 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0% 568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 10 Demille Lapeer MI 160 28.40 10 10% 68% 0% 22% 2,010 $47,208 $187,214 Light 11 Turrill Lapeer MI 230 19.60 10 75% 59% 0% 25% 2,390 $46,839 $110,361 Light 12 Picure Rocks Tucson AZ 182 20.00 N/A 6% 88% 6% 0% 102 $81,081 $280,172 Light 13 Avra Valley Tucson AZ 246 25.00 N/A 3% 94% 3% 0%85 $80,997 $292,308 None 14 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0%74 $51,410 $155,208 None 15 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 24% 0% 21% 949 $50,355 $231,408 Medium 16 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 17 Miami-Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0% 0% 127 $90,909 $403,571 Light 18 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0%74 $120,861 $483,333 Med to Hvy Average 640 76.03 19% 64% 17% 4% 721 $69,501 $262,659 Median 335 29.20 12% 68% 2% 0% 293 $72,579 $273,135 High 3,500 617.00 75% 98% 94% 25% 2,446 $120,861 $483,333 Low 121 19.60 1% 0% 0% 0%48 $36,737 $110,361 Matched Pair Summary - @50 MW And Larger Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2019 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Veg. Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Popl. Income Unit Buffer 1 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2% 382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 2 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0%48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 3 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 4 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 5 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0% 568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 6 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 7 Miami-Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0% 0% 127 $90,909 $403,571 Light 8 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0%74 $120,861 $483,333 Med to Hvy Average 1,142 143.19 19% 58% 23% 1% 786 $73,128 $289,964 Median 580 75.00 15% 67% 0% 0% 390 $69,339 $279,039 High 3,500 617.00 41% 97% 94% 3% 2,446 $120,861 $483,333 Low 347 71.00 2% 0% 0% 0%48 $36,737 $143,320 145 57 On the following page I show 81 projects ranging in size from 50 MW up to 1,000 MW with an average size of 111.80 MW and a median of 80 MW. The average closest distance for an adjoining home is 263 feet, while the median distance is 188 feet. The closest distance is 57 feet. The mix of adjoining uses is similar with most of the adjoining uses remaining residential or agricultural in nature. This is the list of solar farms that I have researched for possible matched pairs and not a complete list of larger solar farms in those states. 146 58 Output Total Used Avg. Dist Closest Adjoining Use by Acre Parcel # State City Name (MW) Acres Acres to home Home Res Agri Ag/R Com 78 NC Moyock Summit/Ranchland 80 2034 674 360 4% 94% 0% 2% 133 MS Hattiesburg Hattiesburg 50 1129 479.6 650 315 35% 65% 0% 0% 179 SC Ridgeland Jasper 140 1600 1000 461 108 2% 85% 13% 0% 211 NC Enfield Chestnut 75 1428.1 1,429 210 4% 96% 0% 0% 222 VA Chase City Grasshopper 80 946.25 6% 87% 5% 1% 226 VA Louisa Belcher 88 1238.1 150 19% 53% 28% 0% 305 FL Dade City Mountain View 55 347.12 510 175 32% 39% 21% 8% 319 FL Jasper Hamilton 74.9 1268.9 537 3,596 240 5% 67% 28% 0% 336 FL Parrish Manatee 74.5 1180.4 1,079 625 2% 50% 1% 47% 337 FL Arcadia Citrus 74.5 640 0% 0% 100% 0% 338 FL Port Charlotte Babcock 74.5 422.61 0% 0% 100% 0% 353 VA Oak Hall Amazon East(ern sh 80 1000 645 135 8% 75% 17% 0% 364 VA Stevensburg Greenwood 100 2266.6 1800 788 200 8% 62% 29% 0% 368 NC Warsaw Warsaw 87.5 585.97 499 526 130 11% 66% 21% 3% 390 NC Ellerbe Innovative Solar 34 50 385.24 226 N/A N/A 1% 99% 0% 0% 399 NC Midland McBride 74.9 974.59 627 1,425 140 12% 78% 9% 0% 400 FL Mulberry Alafia 51 420.35 490 105 7% 90% 3% 0% 406 VA Clover Foxhound 91 1311.8 885 185 5% 61% 17% 18% 410 FL Trenton Trenton 74.5 480 2,193 775 0% 26% 55% 19% 411 NC Battleboro Fern 100 1235.4 960.71 1,494 220 5% 76% 19% 0% 412 MD Goldsboro Cherrywood 202 1722.9 1073.7 429 200 10% 76% 13% 0% 434 NC Conetoe Conetoe 80 1389.9 910.6 1,152 120 5% 78% 17% 0% 440 FL Debary Debary 74.5 844.63 654 190 3% 27% 0% 70% 441 FL Hawthorne Horizon 74.5 684 3% 81% 16% 0% 484 VA Newsoms Southampton 100 3243.9 - - 3% 78% 17% 3% 486 VA Stuarts Draft Augusta 125 3197.4 1147 588 165 16% 61% 16% 7% 491 NC Misenheimer Misenheimer 2018 80 740.2 687.2 504 130 11% 40% 22% 27% 494 VA Shacklefords Walnut 110 1700 1173 641 165 14% 72% 13% 1% 496 VA Clover Piney Creek 80 776.18 422 523 195 15% 62% 24% 0% 511 NC Scotland Neck American Beech 160 3255.2 1807.8 1,262 205 2% 58% 38% 3% 514 NC Reidsville Williamsburg 80 802.6 507 734 200 25% 12% 63% 0% 517 VA Luray Cape 100 566.53 461 519 110 42% 12% 46% 0% 518 VA Emporia Fountain Creek 80 798.3 595 862 300 6% 23% 71% 0% 525 NC Plymouth Macadamia 484 5578.7 4813.5 1,513 275 1% 90% 9% 0% 526 NC Mooresboro Broad River 50 759.8 365 419 70 29% 55% 16% 0% 555 FL Mulberry Durrance 74.5 463.57 324.65 438 140 3% 97% 0% 0% 560 NC Yadkinville Sugar 60 477 357 382 65 19% 39% 20% 22% 561 NC Enfield Halifax 80mw 2019 80 1007.6 1007.6 672 190 8% 73% 19% 0% 577 VA Windsor Windsor 85 564.1 564.1 572 160 9% 67% 24% 0% 579 VA Paytes Spotsylvania 500 6412 3500 9% 52% 11% 27% 582 NC Salisbury China Grove 65 428.66 324.26 438 85 58% 4% 38% 0% 583 NC Walnut Cove Lick Creek 50 1424 185.11 410 65 20% 64% 11% 5% 584 NC Enfield Sweetleaf 94 1956.3 1250 968 160 5% 63% 32% 0% 586 VA Aylett Sweet Sue 77 1262 576 1,617 680 7% 68% 25% 0% 593 NC Windsor Sumac 120 3360.6 1257.9 876 160 4% 90% 6% 0% 599 TN Somerville Yum Yum 147 4000 1500 1,862 330 3% 32% 64% 1% 602 GA Waynesboro White Oak 76.5 516.7 516.7 2,995 1,790 1% 34% 65% 0% 603 GA Butler Butler GA 103 2395.1 2395.1 1,534 255 2% 73% 23% 2% 604 GA Butler White Pine 101.2 505.94 505.94 1,044 100 1% 51% 48% 1% 605 GA Metter Live Oak 51 417.84 417.84 910 235 4% 72% 23% 0% 606 GA Hazelhurst Hazelhurst II 52.5 947.15 490.42 2,114 105 9% 64% 27% 0% 607 GA Bainbridge Decatur Parkway 80 781.5 781.5 1,123 450 2% 27% 22% 49% 608 GA Leslie-DeSoto Americus 1000 9661.2 4437 5,210 510 1% 63% 36% 0% 616 FL Fort White Fort White 74.5 570.5 457.2 828 220 12% 71% 17% 0% 621 VA Spring Grove Loblolly 150 2181.9 1000 1,860 110 7% 62% 31% 0% 622 VA Scottsville Woodridge 138 2260.9 1000 1,094 170 9% 63% 28% 0% 625 NC Middlesex Phobos 80 754.52 734 356 57 14% 75% 10% 0% 628 MI Deerfield Carroll Road 200 1694.8 1694.8 343 190 12% 86% 0% 2% 633 VA Emporia Brunswick 150.2 2076.4 1387.3 1,091 240 4% 85% 11% 0% 634 NC Elkin Partin 50 429.4 257.64 945 155 30% 25% 15% 30% 147 59 Output Total Used Avg. Dist Closest Adjoining Use by Acre Parcel # State City Name (MW) Acres Acres to home Home Res Agri Ag/R Com 638 GA Dry Branch Twiggs 200 2132.7 2132.7 - - 10% 55% 35% 0% 639 NC Hope Mills Innovative Solar 46 78.5 531.87 531.87 423 125 17% 83% 0% 0% 640 NC Hope Mills Innovative Solar 42 71 413.99 413.99 375 135 41% 59% 0% 0% 645 NC Stanley Hornet 75 1499.5 858.4 663 110 30% 40% 23% 6% 650 NC Grifton Grifton 2 56 681.59 297.6 363 235 1% 99% 0% 0% 651 NC Grifton Buckleberry 52.1 367.67 361.67 913 180 5% 54% 41% 0% 657 KY Greensburg Horseshoe Bend 60 585.65 395 1,394 63 3% 36% 61% 0% 658 KY Campbellsville Flat Run 55 429.76 429.76 408 115 13% 52% 35% 0% 666 FL Archer Archer 74.9 636.94 636.94 638 200 43% 57% 0% 0% 667 FL New Smyrna BeaPioneer Trail 74.5 1202.8 900 1,162 225 14% 61% 21% 4% 668 FL Lake City Sunshine Gateway 74.5 904.29 472 1,233 890 11% 80% 8% 0% 669 FL Florahome Coral Farms 74.5 666.54 580 1,614 765 19% 75% 7% 0% 672 VA Appomattox Spout Spring 60 881.12 673.37 836 335 16% 30% 46% 8% 676 TX Stamford Alamo 7 106.4 1663.1 1050 - - 6% 83% 0% 11% 677 TX Fort Stockton RE Roserock 160 1738.2 1500 - - 0% 100% 0% 0% 678 TX Lamesa Lamesa 102 914.5 655 921 170 4% 41% 11% 44% 679 TX Lamesa Ivory 50 706 570 716 460 0% 87% 2% 12% 680 TX Uvalde Alamo 5 95 830.35 800 925 740 1% 93% 6% 0% 684 NC Waco Brookcliff 50 671.03 671.03 560 150 7% 21% 15% 57% 689 AZ Arlington Mesquite 320.8 3774.5 2617 1,670 525 8% 92% 0% 0% 692 AZ Tucson Avalon 51 479.21 352 - - 0% 100% 0% 0% 81 Average 111.80 1422.4 968.4 1031 263 10% 62% 22% 6% Median 80.00 914.5 646.0 836 188 7% 64% 17% 0% High 1000.00 9661.2 4813.5 5210 1790 58% 100% 100% 70% Low 50.00 347.1 185.1 343 57 0% 0% 0% 0% 148 60 E. Solar Farms Around Person County I have also considered the following solar farm activity in Person and adjoining counties. Total Used Avg. Dist Closest Adjoining Use by Acre Solar # Name County City Output Acres Acres to home Home Res Agri Agri/Res Com (MW) 4 White Cross Orange Chapel Hill 5 121.21 45 5% 51% 44% 0% 16 Wagstaff Person Roxboro 5.5 594.22 30 7% 89% 4% 0% 17 Roxboro Person Roxboro 6 478.71 34.83 1% 93% 5% 1% 20 Stout Orange Mebane 52.66 52.66 52% 38% 0% 10% 21 Mile Durham Rougemont 6.473 78.5 42.99 0% 36% 45% 25% 29 Star Solar Durham Durham 49.98 39.18 6% 94% 0% 0% 33 Binks Orange Chapel Hill 5.6 54.97 50.3 15% 78% 6% 0% 55 Thomas 2 Person Roxboro 116.27 71.86 636 296 12% 88% 0% 0% 56 Mattress Orange Mebane 26.73 26.73 N/A N/A 22% 0% 0% 78% 75 White Cross Farm Orange Chapel Hill 34.41 19.8 994 230 24% 76% 0% 0% 86 Yanceyville 3 Caswell Yanceyville 122.96 875 300 39% 0% 56% 5% 135 Meriweather Granville Oxford 5 67 25.3 984 215 8% 47% 8% 36% 173 Perkins Person Roxboro 86.7 1,022 350 39% 54% 0% 37% 184 Caswell Caswell Yanceyville 45.62 45.62 490 490 19% 49% 24% 18% 186 Oakwood Orange Mebane 4.996 53.74 931 460 72% 28% 0% 0% 208 Whitt Town Person Roxboro 43.22 462 201 22% 43% 35% 0% 266 Woodsdale Person Roxboro 594.22 15.75 3,443 585 9% 77% 14% 0% 271 Sun Person Roxboro 0.8 7 223 160 100% 0% 0% 0% 384 Tarpey Granville Butner 63.52 32.65 814 250 1% 0% 99% 0% 19 Average 4.9 141.7 38.0 989 322 24% 50% 18% 11% Median 5.3 63.5 37.0 875 296 15% 49% 5% 0% High 6.5 594.2 71.9 3443 585 100% 94% 99% 78% Low 0.8 7.0 15.8 223 160 0% 0% 0% 0% 149 61 VI. Distance Between Homes and Panels I have measured distances at matched pairs as close as 105 feet between panel and home to show no impact on value. This measurement goes from the closest point on the home to the closest solar panel. This is a strong indication that at this distance there is no impact on adjoining homes. However, in tracking other approved solar farms across North Carolina and other states, I have found that it is common for there to be homes within 100 to 150 feet of solar panels. Given the visual barriers in the form of privacy fencing or landscaping, there is no sign of negative impact. I have also tracked a number of locations where solar panels are between 50 and 100 feet of single- family homes. In these cases the landscaping is typically a double row of more mature evergreens at time of planting. There are many examples of solar farms with one or two homes closer than 100- feet, but most of the adjoining homes are further than that distance. VII. Topography As shown on the summary charts for the solar farms, I have been identifying the topographic shifts across the solar farms considered. Differences in topography can impact visibility of the panels, though typically this results in distant views of panels as opposed to up close views. The topography noted for solar farms showing no impact on adjoining home values range from as much as 160-foot shifts across the project. Given that appearance is the only factor of concern and that distance plus landscape buffering typically addresses up close views, this leaves a number of potentially distant views of panels. General rolling terrain with some distant solar panel views are showing no impact on adjoining property value. VIII. Potential Impacts During Construction Any development of a site will have a certain amount of construction, whether it is for a commercial agricultural use such as large-scale poultry operations or a new residential subdivision. Construction will be temporary and consistent with other development uses of the land and in fact dust from the construction will likely be less than most other construction projects given the minimal grading. I would not anticipate any impacts on property value due to construction on the site. I note that in the matched pairs that I have included there have been a number of home sales that happened after a solar farm was approved but before the solar farm was built showing no impact on property value. Therefore the anticipated construction had no impact as shown by that data. 150 62 IX. Scope of Research I have researched over 750 solar farms and sites on which solar farms are existing and proposed in North Carolina Virginia, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky as well as other states to determine what uses are typically found in proximity with a solar farm. The data I have collected and provide in this report strongly supports the assertion that solar farms are having no negative consequences on adjoining agricultural and residential values. Beyond these references, I have quantified the adjoining uses for a number of solar farm comparables to derive a breakdown of the adjoining uses for each solar farm. The chart below shows the breakdown of adjoining or abutting uses by total acreage. I have also included a breakdown of each solar farm by number of adjoining parcels to the solar farm rather than based on adjoining acreage. Using both factors provide a more complete picture of the neighboring properties. Both of the above charts show a marked residential and agricultural adjoining use for most solar farms. Every single solar farm considered included an adjoining residential or residential/agricultural use. Percentage By Adjoining Acreage Closest All Res All Comm Res Ag Res/AG Comm Ind Avg Home Home Uses Uses Average 19% 53% 20% 2% 6% 887 344 91% 8% Median 11% 56% 11% 0% 0% 708 218 100% 0% High 100% 100% 100% 93% 98% 5,210 4,670 100% 98% Low 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%90 25 0% 0% Res = Residential, Ag = Agriculture, Com = Commercial Total Solar Farms Considered: 705 Percentage By Number of Parcels Adjoining Closest All Res All Comm Res Ag Res/AG Comm Ind Avg Home Home Uses Uses Average 61% 24% 9% 2% 4% 887 344 93% 6% Median 65% 19% 5% 0% 0% 708 218 100% 0% High 100% 100% 100% 60% 78% 5,210 4,670 105% 78% Low 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%90 25 0% 0% Res = Residential, Ag = Agriculture, Com = Commercial Total Solar Farms Considered: 705 151 63 X. Specific Factors Related To Impacts on Value I have completed a number of Impact Studies related to a variety of uses and I have found that the most common areas for impact on adjoining values typically follow a hierarchy with descending levels of potential impact. I will discuss each of these categories and how they relate to a solar farm. 1. Hazardous material 2. Odor 3. Noise 4. Traffic 5. Stigma 6. Appearance 1. Hazardous material A solar farm presents no hazardous waste byproduct as part of normal operation. Any fertilizer, weed control, vehicular traffic, or construction will be significantly less than typically applied in a residential development and even most agricultural uses. The various solar farms that I have inspected and identified in the addenda have no known environmental impacts associated with the development and operation. 2. Odor The various solar farms that I have inspected produced no odor. 3. Noise Whether discussing passive fixed solar panels, or single-axis trackers, there is no negative impact associated with noise from a solar farm. The transformer reportedly has a hum similar to an HVAC that can only be heard in close proximity to this transformer and the buffers on the property are sufficient to make emitted sounds inaudible from the adjoining properties. No sound is emitted from the facility at night. The various solar farms that I have inspected were inaudible from the roadways. 4. Traffic The solar farm will have no onsite employee’s or staff. The site requires only minimal maintenance. Relative to other potential uses of the site (such as a residential subdivision), the additional traffic generated by a solar farm use on this site is insignificant. 5. Stigma There is no stigma associated with solar farms and solar farms and people generally respond favorably towards such a use. While an individual may express concerns about proximity to a solar farm, there is no specific stigma associated with a solar farm. Stigma generally refers to things such as adult establishments, prisons, rehabilitation facilities, and so forth. Solar panels have no associated stigma and in smaller collections are found in yards and roofs in many residential communities. Solar farms are adjoining elementary, middle and high schools as well as churches and subdivisions. I note that one of the solar farms in this report not only adjoins 152 64 a church, but is actually located on land owned by the church. Solar panels on a roof are often cited as an enhancement to the property in marketing brochures. I see no basis for an impact from stigma due to a solar farm. 6. Appearance I note that larger solar farms using fixed or tracking panels are a passive use of the land that is in keeping with a rural/residential area. As shown below, solar farms are comparable to larger greenhouses. This is not surprising given that a greenhouse is essentially another method for collecting passive solar energy. The greenhouse use is well received in residential/rural areas and has a similar visual impact as a solar farm. The solar panels are all less than 15 feet high, which means that the visual impact of the solar panels will be similar in height to a typical greenhouse and lower than a single-story residential dwelling. Were the subject property developed with single family housing, that development would have a much greater visual impact on the surrounding area given that a two-story home with attic could be three to four times as high as these proposed panels. Whenever you consider the impact of a proposed project on viewshed or what the adjoining owners may see from their property it is important to distinguish whether or not they have a protected viewshed or not. Enhancements for scenic vistas are often measured when considering properties that adjoin preserved open space and parks. However, adjoining land with a preferred view today conveys no guarantee that the property will continue in the current use. Any consideration of the impact of the appearance requires a consideration of the wide variety of other uses a property already has the right to be put to, which for solar farms often includes subdivision development, agricultural business buildings such as poultry, or large greenhouses and the like. Dr. Randall Bell, MAI, PhD, and author of the book Real Estate Damages, Third Edition, on Page 146 “Views of bodies of water, city lights, natural settings, parks, golf courses, and other amenities 153 65 are considered desirable features, particularly for residential properties.” Dr. Bell continues on Page 147 that “View amenities may or may not be protected by law or regulation. It is sometimes argued that views have value only if they are protected by a view easement, a zoning ordinance, or covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), although such protections are relatively uncommon as a practical matter. The market often assigns significant value to desirable views irrespective of whether or not such views are protected by law.” Dr. Bell concludes that a view enhances adjacent property, even if the adjacent property has no legal right to that view. He then discusses a “borrowed” view where a home may enjoy a good view of vacant land or property beyond with a reasonable expectation that the view might be partly or completely obstructed upon development of the adjoining land. He follows that with “This same concept applies to potentially undesirable views of a new development when the development conforms to applicable zoning and other regulations. Arguing value diminution in such cases is difficult, since the possible development of the offending property should have been known.” In other words, if there is an allowable development on the site then arguing value diminution with such a development would be difficult. This further extends to developing the site with alternative uses that are less impactful on the view than currently allowed uses. This gets back to the point that if a property has development rights and could currently be developed in such a way that removes the viewshed such as a residential subdivision, then a less intrusive use such as a solar farm that is easily screened by landscaping would not have a greater impact on the viewshed of any perceived value adjoining properties claim for viewshed. Essentially, if there are more impactful uses currently allowed, then how can you claim damages for a less impactful use. 7. Conclusion On the basis of the factors described above, it is my professional opinion that the proposed solar farm will not negatively impact adjoining property values. The only category of impact of note is appearance, which is addressed through setbacks and landscaping buffers. The matched pair data supports that conclusion. 154 66 XI. Conclusion The matched pair analysis shows no negative impact in home values due to abutting or adjoining a solar farm as well as no impact to abutting or adjacent vacant residential or agricultural land. The criteria that typically correlates with downward adjustments on property values such as noise, odor, and traffic all support a finding of no impact on property value. Very similar solar farms in very similar areas have been found by hundreds of towns and counties not to have a substantial injury to abutting or adjoining properties, and many of those findings of no impact have been upheld by appellate courts. Similar solar farms have been approved adjoining agricultural uses, schools, churches, and residential developments. I have found no difference in the mix of adjoining uses or proximity to adjoining homes based on the size of a solar farm and I have found no significant difference in the matched pair data adjoining larger solar farms versus smaller solar farms. The data in the Southeast is consistent with the larger set of data that I have nationally, as is the more specific data located in and around North Carolina. Based on the data and analysis in this report, it is my professional opinion that the solar farm proposed at the subject property will have no negative impact on the value of adjoining or abutting property. I note that some of the positive implications of a solar farm that have been expressed by people living next to solar farms include protection from future development of residential developments or other more intrusive uses, reduced dust, odor and chemicals from former farming operations, protection from light pollution at night, it’s quiet, and there is no traffic. 155 67 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Kirkland Appraisals, LLC, Raleigh, N.C. 2003 – Present Commercial appraiser Hester & Company, Raleigh, N.C. Commercial appraiser 1996 – 2003 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS MAI (Member, Appraisal Institute) designation #11796 2001 NC State Certified General Appraiser # A4359 1999 VA State Certified General Appraiser # 4001017291 SC State Certified General Appraiser # 6209 FL State Certified General Appraiser # RZ3950 IL State Certified General Appraiser # 553.002633 OR State Certified General Appraiser # C001204 GA State Certified General Appraiser # 321885 MI State Certified General Appraiser # 1201076620 EDUCATION Bachelor of Arts in English, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 1993 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ CONTINUING EDUCATION Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2020 Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Yellow Book) 2019 The Cost Approach 2019 Income Approach Case Studies for Commercial Appraisers 2018 Introduction to Expert Witness Testimony for Appraisers 2018 Appraising Small Apartment Properties 2018 Florida Appraisal Laws and Regulations 2018 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2018 Appraisal of REO and Foreclosure Properties 2017 Appraisal of Self Storage Facilities 2017 Land and Site Valuation 2017 NCDOT Appraisal Principles and Procedures 2017 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2016 Forecasting Revenue 2015 Wind Turbine Effect on Value 2015 Supervisor/Trainee Class 2015 Business Practices and Ethics 2014 Subdivision Valuation 2014 Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI 9408 Northfield Court Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Mobile (919) 414-8142 rkirkland2@gmail.com www.kirklandappraisals.com Kirkland Appraisals, LLC 156 68 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2014 Introduction to Vineyard and Winery Valuation 2013 Appraising Rural Residential Properties 2012 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2012 Supervisors/Trainees 2011 Rates and Ratios: Making sense of GIMs, OARs, and DCFs 2011 Advanced Internet Search Strategies 2011 Analyzing Distressed Real Estate 2011 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2011 Business Practices and Ethics 2011 Appraisal Curriculum Overview (2 Days – General) 2009 Appraisal Review - General 2009 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2008 Subdivision Valuation: A Comprehensive Guide 2008 Office Building Valuation: A Contemporary Perspective 2008 Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate 2007 The Appraisal of Small Subdivisions 2007 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2006 Evaluating Commercial Construction 2005 Conservation Easements 2005 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2004 Condemnation Appraising 2004 Land Valuation Adjustment Procedures 2004 Supporting Capitalization Rates 2004 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, C 2002 Wells and Septic Systems and Wastewater Irrigation Systems 2002 Appraisals 2002 2002 Analyzing Commercial Lease Clauses 2002 Conservation Easements 2000 Preparation for Litigation 2000 Appraisal of Nonconforming Uses 2000 Advanced Applications 2000 Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis 1999 Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches 1999 Advanced Income Capitalization 1998 Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate 1999 Report Writing and Valuation Analysis 1999 Property Tax Values and Appeals 1997 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, A & B 1997 Basic Income Capitalization 1996 157 Pine Gate Renewables, LLC 130 Roberts St. Asheville NC 28801 P: 704-376-2767 www.pinegaterenewables.com DECOMMISSIONING PLAN BEREA SOLAR May 28, 2021 158 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2 PINE GATE RENEWABLES BACKGROUND Pine Gate Renewables, LLC (“PGR”) originates, develops, finances, engineers, constructs, owns, and operates utility-scale solar projects that generate clean renewable power for the communities in which they are located. Founded in 2014, PGR consists of approximately 200 employees with offices in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, and Asheville and Charlotte, North Carolina. PGR’s focus is on ground mounted utility-scale projects located in the United States ranging from 1 to 100 MW in capacity. PGR positions our projects near existing utility infrastructure, and thoroughly evaluates the natural surroundings to ensure minimal environmental impact. We work closely with landowners to develop agreements that are based on trust, open communication, and financial benefit. The company has extensive experience executing utility-scale solar projects utilizing every available technology, in a myriad of locations and conditions, to maximize the efficiency and economics of the available solar resource. PGR QUALIFICATIONS PGR currently owns and operates over 770 MW of solar generation across the United States. PGR’s team of industry leading solar professionals facilitate each stage in a solar project’s lifecycle, from early-stage development through operations. Team members draw on their deep well of experience working at prominent renewable energy companies, including Cypress Creek Renewables, FLS Energy, Duke Energy, Nexamp, and Trina Solar. We are licensed general contractors, have in-house licensed PE, licensed PMP, a Licensed Professional Geologist, and NABCEP-certified designers and technicians available to solve even the most challenging operations and maintenance issues that may arise. PGR has worked extensively within the utility-scale sector, providing comprehensive solar services to customers across South Carolina, North Carolina, Oregon, Minnesota, and Rhode Island. With over 770 MW of installed capacity, and construction and operation experience in all sectors of the industry, PGR’s team has solidified their status as experts in the solar industry. With our wealth of experience owning and operating projects built with a wide array of equipment and technologies (fixed tilt, trackers, central and string inverters, etc.), we have developed strong equipment vendor and service provider relationships, which facilitate our ability to connect the ideal product with the prescribed application and to facilitate operations. PGR strives to safely outperform our customers’ expectations in every project we own and operate. Fully licensed and insured, Pine Gate Renewable’s Engineering, Procurement and Construction (“EPC”) and Operations and Maintenance (“O&M”) teams design, construct, operate and maintain utility-scale solar projects at a level that exceeds industry standards, and that maximizes our customers’ return-on- investment. 159 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Berea Solar, LLC, is a proposed 80 MWAC solar project located in Person County, North Carolina (the “Project”). The Project will consist of approximately 230,920 485-watt photovoltaic solar modules that may track the sun throughout the day. PGR is responsible for the decommissioning of the Project as detailed herein. The proposed Berea Solar project sits on the following Person County parcel record numbers: 4399, 4598, 9773, 21455, 4281, and 4332. A portion of Granville County parcel ID 0961-06-5906 is also included in the project footprint. (This parcel straddles the county boundary but only the portion located within the jurisdiction of Person County is included in the project footprint.) These parcels are owned by the following Person County property owners: Ms. Elizabeth Christian, Ms. Catherine Phelps, Mr. John Mangum, Ms. Linda Mangum, Mr. Malcolm Mangum, Jr., Ms. Mary Susan Williams, Mr. Matthew Moore, Mr. Jeffry Hendriks, and EM & RM, LLC. The site consists primarily of wooded or cleared agricultural land. There are no wetlands, FEMA mapped floodplains, or Special Flood Hazard Areas in array areas. The Project will be designed and engineered to have a minimum operating life of at least 25 years. It is feasible that the Project could potentially continue to operate past the design life assuming the economics remain viable and routine maintenance is conducted on the equipment. In addition, it is expected that during the Project’s operating life technological advances will continue to be made that will make it more efficient and cost-effective to operate the Project rather than decommissioning. The decommissioning plan described below will help to ensure there are sufficient funds available and a process is in place to remove the equipment and restore the site at the end of the Project’s useful life. DECOMMISSIONING - GENERAL Decommissioning includes the removal of modules, support columns, buildings, cabling, electrical components, and any other associated facilities (i.e., foundations, conduit) plus the necessary grading, restoration of soil and reseeding. Any additional conditions are also applicable which may be defined or established by Person County upon which decommissioning will be initiated (i.e., end of lease, condition of potential public safety hazard, etc.). The timeframe for completion of removal and decommissioning activities is to be from six to twelve months unless otherwise extended by the local zoning/building authority. All equipment and imported materials will be removed from the site such that it is returned to its original state prior to construction, unless otherwise directed. PGR will perform the decommissioning of the Project in accordance with all governing authorities, applicable local, state and federal requirements and industry standards. Any required permits will be obtained, and environmental considerations will be adhered to prior to de-energizing and decommissioning the Project. Similar to the construction of the Project, the necessary erosion control measures and best practices will be in place during decommissioning. PGR does not anticipate any environmental impacts as a result of the decommissioning process. The Project’s components will be recycled, reused, salvaged or discarded and will be transported to the appropriate facilities upon removal. Based on current salvage practices and industry standards PGR anticipates that most of the Project’s materials will be able to be recycled or reused upon decommissioning. 160 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 4 DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS In the extremely unlikely event the Project is required to be decommissioned during the construction phase, the decommissioning process would be similar to that during operations, as described in more detail below. Further, under the Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance adopted October 5, 2020, PGR must decommission the project after it is nonoperational for a period of 12 months unless substantial evidence is provided to the Planning Direct of PGR’s intent to maintain and reinstate operation of Berea Solar. Moreover, site control agreements with the landowner also include provisions requiring PGR to decommission and restore the site for this Project. The relevant selections from those lease and purchase agreements are attached. PGR’s decommissioning process includes the following: Equipment: Similar to the Project’s construction phase, various pieces of equipment will likely be utilized during the decommissioning process including (among others): trucks, cranes, backhoes, skid-steers, graders and scissor lifts. PGR estimates several subcontractors will be performing work, including civil, electrical and general labor. Decommissioning the Project is estimated to take approximately three months. Lay Down Area: A lay down area will be established that will provide a space for organizing and storing disassembled equipment that allows for truck access to haul the equipment off site. Construction of a lay down area may require minimal civil work and disturbance to existing soil before ultimately being graded and reseeded along with the other disturbed earth. Civil and Site Work: Disturbed earth (roads, driveways, culverts, etc.) will be graded and reseeded with a native mix to prevent erosion and ensure suitable vegetation is established unless the landowner requests in writing that access roads or other land surface areas are not to be restored. Solar Arrays: Solar array equipment (modules, racking, combiner boxes, inverter, transformers, etc.) will be removed and recycled or salvaged, if possible. PGR anticipates that the majority of the Project’s materials will be able to be recycled or reused upon decommissioning. When entire components are not able to be reused the materials (steel, aluminum, glass, copper, etc.) will be examined and recycled whenever possible. Specific solar array components are discussed further below: 161 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 5 Modules: Solar modules are comprised of silicon, glass and aluminum which can be recycled. The modules that will be installed at the Project are not considered a hazardous material. The modules will be removed and packaged per manufacturer’s recommendations and shipped to the appropriate recycling facility. Foundations: Following dismantling and removal of equipment, any foundations will be removed, and the earthwork graded (as necessary) and restored to its natural condition. Pads will be excavated to remove all conduit, cable, rebar, concrete, etc. and the areas backfilled with material similar to the site conditions and topsoil restored. Concrete that is removed will be recycled or repurposed. Electrical - Cable: Electrical cable will be removed from inverters, combiner boxes, and pulled from conduit before disassembly. Aluminum and copper cable will be recycled. Overhead lines and poles will be dismantled and recycled or disposed of, as necessary. Electrical – Components: The electrical components (inverters, combiner boxes, etc.) will be dismantled and reused in their entirety, recycled or disposed of accordingly. Removal of the equipment will be conducted in accordance with manufacturer specifications. Frames: Frames (racking), including driven piles will be removed and recycled. Fencing: Fencing will be dismantled and recycled. Decommissioning Closeout: Following decommissioning, the site will be inspected, and all construction-related material and equipment removed. All waste generated by the decommissioning process, which is expected to be minimal, will be disposed of accordingly and recycled when possible. DECOMMISSIONING - COST ESTIMATE The cost estimates for decommissioning of the Project are premised on a 80 MWAC system and current equipment costs. Obviously, it is extremely difficult to precisely determine future decommissioning costs; however, the below is based on the best information currently available. In addition, we expect a significant portion of these costs to be offset by recycling and salvaging material from the Project (steel, aluminum, copper, etc.). The Net Decommissioning Costs for the Project are expected to be approximately $418,265.00. For additional detail please reference the attached cost estimate at the end of this document. 162 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 6 PGR CONTACT Please contact the following PGR employees with any questions or concerns regarding the decommissioning plan: Sean Andersen Development – Director of Project Management E: sandersen@pgrenewables.com James Froelicher Construction – Vice President E: jfroelicher@pgrenewables.com 163 9 Property is and shall at all times during the Term be deemed to be the property of Tenant (subject to any Transfer in accordance with Section 26(a)), to be removed at Tenant's expense upon the expiration or earlier termination of the Term in accordance with Section 13. The creation, attachment and perfection of security interests in Tenant's Property shall be governed exclusively by Article 9 of the UCC. For the avoidance of doubt and without limiting the foregoing. Landlord hereby waives all rights to distraint, possession or landlord’s lien against Tenant's Property, if any, and shall not cause the creation of, or attachment to, Tenant's Property of any liens (including mechanics' liens) or other encumbrances. For the avoidance of doubt, Landlord is not responsible for payment of any Taxes assessed on Tenant's Property. (b) The parties hereto acknowledge that the Premises consist of land only and do not include Tenant’s Property. Any claim to a lien or encumbrance upon the Premises, arising from any act or omission of Landlord, shall accrue only against the real estate owned by Landlord, and not against Tenant’s Property, and shall be subject to this Lease. If any such lien or encumbrance shall be filed against Tenant’s Property as a result of Landlord's actions, Landlord shall, without cost or expense to Tenant, promptly and within a reasonable time cause such lien or encumbrance to be discharged of record by payment, statutory lien release bond, court order or otherwise as provided by law. Landlord shall not permit any sale, foreclosure or forfeiture of the Premises by reason of nonpayment of a lien caused by Landlord or anyone claiming by or through Landlord. Landlord shall immediately notify Tenant of, and send Tenant a copy of, any notice Landlord receives claiming that Landlord is late or in default regarding any obligation Landlord has to pay money to any lender or third party holding a mortgage or other lien affecting the Premises. 11. Use and Occupancy. Tenant shall use the Premises for the Intended Use (including all lawful uses that are incidental to, or not inconsistent with the Intended Use) and/or any other lawful use. 12. Alterations and Construction Rights. Tenant may, at its expense and without the consent of Landlord, remove and/or alter any existing improvements on the Premises, and make any alterations, additions, improvements and changes to the Premises that Tenant deems reasonably necessary in the operation of its business and the Intended Use, including, without limitation, installation of the System, fencing, security devices and/or signage, and excavating, grading, leveling or otherwise modifying the Land; provided, that such alterations, additions, improvements and changes are made in compliance with applicable laws. Landlord shall sign and deliver all applications and other documents, and shall take all such other actions, as are reasonably requested by Tenant in connection with obtaining any re-zonings, variances or other approvals as Tenant shall deem necessary or desirable in connection with the operation of the Premises. 13. End of Term. Within six (6) months after the expiration or earlier termination of the Term, Tenant shall, at its sole cost and expense, remove all of Tenant's Property, shall commence to decommission the Premises, and vacate the Premises. The removal of all of Tenant's Property, including all machinery, fixtures, trade fixtures, equipment, racking, inverters, cables, solar panels, fencing, security devices, signage and other personal property shall be completed in a manner that does not unreasonably and adversely affect the suitability of the Premises for farming DocuSign Envelope ID: 021C2B7D-7CEB-4C4F-B2DF-1882169F7559 164 10 purposes, and Tenant shall leave the Premises free of any conditions created by Tenant which present a current unreasonable risk of harm to Landlord or members of the public. The “decommission” or “decommissioning” of the Premises, shall mean Tenant’s removal of all above-grade facilities or systems, the burying of any constructed foundations, and the reseeding of areas where pads, panels, systems and roads were located with grasses and/or natural vegetation. For the avoidance of doubt, Tenant shall have no obligation to restore any improvements demolished and removed from the Premises as permitted under Section 12 and shall not be required to replant any trees or farm crops removed in connection with the construction of the System. If Tenant fails to vacate the Premises in accordance with this Section 13, Landlord shall be entitled to holdover rent in the amount equal to one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of Rent for the final year of the Term, prorated on a daily basis, for each day that Tenant fails to so vacate the Premises. Any such holdover shall be construed as a tenancy from month-to-month. Landlord hereby grants to Tenant and its successors and assigns a license to enter upon the Premises to perform the activities required to be performed by Tenant pursuant to this Article 13, which license shall be effective commencing upon the date of termination or expiration of the Term and shall continue for one hundred eighty (180) days thereafter. If Tenant fails to decommission the Premises as required herein within six (6) months of termination of this Lease, or such longer period as Landlord may provide by extension, subject to all cure periods as set forth herein, including those of any Additional Notice Party, then Tenant’s Property may be deemed abandoned, and Landlord may assert ownership interest in Tenant’s Property thereafter, . 14. Taxes. (a) During the Lease Term, Tenant shall pay Tenant's Portion (calculated in accordance with this Section 14(a)) of the Tax Bill, applicable to each tax year or part thereof which falls within the Lease Term. Landlord shall provide Tenant with copies of all invoices, bills and notices (collectively, “Tax Bills”) regarding all real estate and ad valorem taxes and assessments imposed or levied on the Premises by any applicable government taxing authority (each, a “Tax”, and collectively, “Taxes”), within thirty (30) days of Landlord's receipt of any such Tax Bill. Tenant shall remit payment directly to the taxing authority for any Tax Bill that Tenant receives; provided, that if the Premises are comprised of less than 100% of a larger tax parcel (“Larger Parcel”), Tenant shall pay the portion of the Tax Bill allocable to the Premises (such portion, “Tenant's Portion”), which portion shall bear the same relationship to the total Tax Bill as the Premises bears to the Larger Parcel. Once the Lease Boundary Line is established, the parties shall confirm Tenant's Portion in a written confirmation. Without limiting the foregoing, Tenant shall have the right, but not the obligation, at any time during the Term to pay the entire Tax Bill on Landlord's behalf and deduct any amounts not attributable to Tenant’s Portion from future installment payments of Rent. (b) Without limiting Section 14(a), if Tenant's use of the Premises results in the revocation of a classification of the Premises as “agricultural land”, “forestry land” or similar classification, thereby triggering liability for “rollback” taxes, Tenant shall pay Tenant’s Portion of such rollback tax liability, together with any related interest or penalties, other than interest and/or penalties arising from Landlord's failure to timely provide Tenant with a copy of such Tax Bill. DocuSign Envelope ID: 021C2B7D-7CEB-4C4F-B2DF-1882169F7559 165 166 167 9 and shall not cause the creation of, or attachment to, Tenant's Property of any liens (including mechanics' and judgment liens) or other encumbrances. For the avoidance of doubt, Landlord is not responsible for payment of any Taxes assessed on Tenant's Property. (b) The parties hereto acknowledge that the Premises consist of land only and do not include Tenant’s Property. Any claim to a lien or encumbrance upon the Premises, arising from any act or omission of Landlord, shall accrue only against the real estate owned by Landlord, and not against Tenant’s Property, and shall be subject to this Lease. If any such lien or encumbrance shall be filed against Tenant’s Property as a result of Landlord's actions, Landlord shall, without cost or expense to Tenant, promptly and within a reasonable time cause such lien or encumbrance to be discharged of record by payment, statutory lien release bond, court order or otherwise as provided by law. Landlord shall not permit any sale, foreclosure or forfeiture of the Premises by reason of nonpayment of a lien caused by Landlord or anyone claiming by or through Landlord. Landlord shall immediately notify Tenant of, and send Tenant a copy of, any notice Landlord receives claiming that Landlord is late or in default regarding any obligation Landlord has to pay money to any lender or third party holding a mortgage or other lien affecting the Premises. (c) Any claim to a lien or encumbrance upon the Premises, arising from any act or omission of Tenant, shall accrue only against Tenant's Property and Tenant's interest under this Lease. If any such lien or encumbrance shall be filed against Landlord's interest in the Premises as a result of Tenant's actions, Tenant shall, without cost or expense to Landlord, promptly within a reasonable time, cause the encumbrance to be discharged of record by payment, statutory lien release by, court order, bond or otherwise as provided by law. 11. Use and Occupancy. Tenant shall use the Premises only for the Intended Use (including all lawful uses that are incidental to, or not inconsistent with the Intended Use). 12. Alterations and Construction Rights. Tenant may, at its expense and without the consent of Landlord, remove and/or alter any existing improvements on the Premises, and make any alterations, additions, improvements and changes to the Premises that Tenant deems reasonably necessary in the operation of its business and the Intended Use, including, without limitation, installation of the System, fencing, security devices and/or signage, and excavating, grading, leveling or otherwise modifying the Land; provided, that such alterations, additions, improvements and changes are made in compliance with applicable laws. Landlord shall sign and deliver all applications and other documents, at Tenant’s expense, and shall take all such other actions, as are reasonably requested by Tenant in connection with obtaining any re-zonings, variances or other approvals as Tenant shall deem necessary or desirable in connection with the operation of the Premises, provided that Landlord shall not be obligated to assume any additional liability relating to any such applications or documents. 13. End of Term. Upon the expiration or earlier termination of the Term, Tenant shall completely remove Tenant's Property and vacate the Premises. The removal of Tenant's Property shall be completed in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances and regulations and in a manner that does not unreasonably and adversely affect the suitability of the Premises for farming purposes, and Tenant shall leave the Premises free of any conditions created by Tenant which DocuSign Envelope ID: 021C2B7D-7CEB-4C4F-B2DF-1882169F7559 168 10 present a current unreasonable risk of harm to Landlord or members of the public. For the avoidance of doubt, Tenant shall have no obligation to restore any improvements demolished and removed from the Premises as permitted under Section 12 and shall not be required to replant any trees or farm crops removed in connection with the construction of the System. If Tenant fails to vacate the Premises in accordance with this Section 13, Landlord shall be entitled to holdover rent in the amount equal to one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of Rent for the final year of the Term, prorated on a daily basis, for each day that Tenant fails to so vacate the Premises. Any such holdover shall be construed as a tenancy from month-to-month. 14. Taxes. (a) During the Term, Tenant shall pay Tenant's Portion (calculated in accordance with this Section 14(a)) of the Tax Bill, applicable to each tax year or part thereof which falls within the Term. Landlord shall provide Tenant with copies of all invoices, bills and notices (collectively, “Tax Bills”) regarding all real estate and ad valorem taxes and assessments imposed or levied on the Premises by any applicable government taxing authority (each, a “Tax”, and collectively, “Taxes”), within thirty (30) days of Landlord's receipt of any such Tax Bill. Tenant shall remit payment directly to the taxing authority for any Tax Bill that Tenant receives; provided, that if the Premises are comprised of less than 100% of a larger tax parcel (“Larger Parcel”), Tenant shall pay the portion of the Tax Bill allocable to the Premises (such portion, “Tenant's Portion”), which portion shall bear the same relationship to the total Tax Bill as the Premises bears to the Larger Parcel. Once the Lease Boundary Line is established, the parties shall confirm Tenant's Portion in a written confirmation. Without limiting the foregoing, Tenant shall have the right, but not the obligation, at any time during the Term to pay the entire Tax Bill on Landlord's behalf and deduct any amounts not attributable to Tenant’s Portion from future installment payments of Rent. (b) Without limiting Section 14(a), if Tenant's use of the Premises directly causes any increase in the Taxes assessed against any Larger Parcel owned by Landlord (including liability for “rollback” taxes), Tenant shall pay the entire amount of such increase in Taxes attributable to the Larger Parcel, together with any related interest or penalties, other than interest and/or penalties arising from Landlord's failure to timely provide Tenant with a copy of such Tax Bill. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Taxes assessed against the Premises or any Larger Parcel owned by Landlord increase due to any actions or activities of Landlord, Landlord shall be solely responsible for paying the entire amount of such increase in Taxes attributable to the Premises or any Larger Parcel, together with any interest or penalties related to such increased Taxes. (c) Upon Tenant's reasonable request, Landlord shall take such reasonable actions and do such things as necessary or desirable to facilitate any action by Tenant to contest any Tax Bill or the assessed value of the property on which they are levied, or to otherwise seek the abatement of Taxes applicable to the Premises, or to seek the separate assessment of the Premises as a distinct tax parcel if the Premises are included within a Larger Parcel. Tenant shall have the right, but not the obligation to pursue any such action. DocuSign Envelope ID: 021C2B7D-7CEB-4C4F-B2DF-1882169F7559 169 From the desk of Thomas H. Cleveland III, P.E. Raleigh, NC Person County 304 South Morgan Street Roxboro, NC 27573 June 28, 2021 Dear Members of the Board, With this letter I hope to show that utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) generation is a mature technology that provides reliable, low cost, healthy electricity that can meet a significant portion of the electricity needs across our state and county. For starters, solar energy provided over 7% of all the electricity used in North Carolina in 2020, nearly all of which was produced by ground-mounted utility-scale facilities. These solar systems are a significant part of the electric grid in the state and their role will continue to grow as more sites are installed. Duke Energy’s plans for the upcoming decades include more than doubling the amount of solar energy generation in the state, yet research by others show that even larger amounts of solar are cost effective. There are many factors driving the past and future installation of solar energy generation, including the fact that solar generation built today produces electricity cheaper than traditional types of electricity generation and does so without producing polluting emissions. Another advantage of solar energy is that there are no fluctuations in the cost of the fuel and there is no need to import fuel from another state or country, such that once a solar system is built it produces reliable, cheap electricity without risk of fuel shortages or spikes in the cost of fuel. Utility-scale solar is a mature industry capable of meeting a significant portion of our electricity needs at a low cost. This is evidenced by the fact that solar has been a significant percentage of the new power plant capacity built over the last few years. For the past 3 or 4 years solar has been about a third or more of new generation capacity on the grid in the US. Here are several facts about recent solar energy installations in the US (linked articles/reports are provided as attachments): • 39% of new generation capacity built in US in 2021 will be utility-scale solar (EIA data) • chart of annual power plant additions and retirements in US since 2005, shows solar significant, coal is retiring, and EIA predicts lots of new solar for decades (EIA data) • government data showing solar is getting built because it generates valuable electricity at a lower cost than other types of power plants (EIA data) There is a federal tax credit for solar investment that plays into the amount of solar developed, but it is important to understand that this credit only applies to the initial investment in project construction, so once a solar project is constructed it’s economic performance will not be affected when the tax credit expires and is no longer available to support construction of new projects. This tax credit is just one of many government subsidies for energy, including many long-standing subsidies for fossil fuel. This solar investment tax credit has existed across Democrat and Republican administrations. Another few indicators of the robust value solar energy provides is the military’s use of solar energy both at bases and in the field and the trend toward heavy industry installing large photovoltaic systems to provide their own secure power onsite: • article on US military’s use of solar energy • article on a steel mill in Colorado installing a 300 MW solar farm to power its facility 170 From the desk of Thomas H. Cleveland III, P.E. Raleigh, NC Not only is utility-scale solar cost efficient it is also land efficient. A good point of comparison is corn grown to produce ethanol for blending into gasoline. While corn ethanal provides about 10% of the energy in US gasoline this requires a very significant amount of land. Roughly 40% of the corn acreage in the US is used for ethanol production, which amounts to about 30 million acres for corn ethanol. Across the US the annual energy in ethanol from an acre of corn is about 10 megawatt-hours (MWh) yet single- axis photovoltaics installed at a density of 10 acres per MWAC under North Carolina sunlight produces about 190 MWh of electricity each year, nearly 20 times more energy per acre than corn. If that electricity is used to power electric vehicles each acre of solar energy provides more than 70 times the miles of an acre of corn ethanol. Relatively little land would be needed to supply a large portion of the county's electricity needs. While it is not feasible to provide 100% of our electricity needs with solar, the US does have plenty of space to do so with minimal land usage. As shown in the MIT study below, the total land requirements of PV per unit of energy produced is less than coal when you consider the land required for coal mining. • A huge MIT report on solar discussed the land needed to meet 100% of US electricity needs (Figure 6.2, on page 130), showing PV land requirements vs other land uses. Including for example that if all of PV went on crop land it would require only 2% of cropland (assuming none on buildings, no wind turbines, no nuclear, etc.). It also shows the needed PV area to meet 100% of US electricity needs to equal the area used by coal mining. 171 From the desk of Thomas H. Cleveland III, P.E. Raleigh, NC There is a strong case to be made about how much cleaner solar energy is than fossil fuel combustion, and now that electric vehicles are readily accessible you can make the case that solar electricity can replace gasoline for transportation. A more direct comparison is replacement of natural gas and coal for generation of electricity. The differences between the environmental and public health impacts of photovoltaics and fossil fuel are huge. Solar does not create any emissions. It produces clean electricity that directly reduces the need to burn natural gas and coal, both of which generate harmful emissions that pollute the air, water, and soil, as well as producing greenhouse gases. The US EPA has calculated the value of the public health impact of renewable generation sources based on avoiding the pollution of the energy sources that they reduce. For the Carolinas, utility-scale solar provides a health benefit of 1.5 to 3.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (low to high range of assumptions), which is roughly in line with the value of the electricity the systems generate, meaning that the public health benefit of solar is just as valuable as the electricity commodity that it produces. Using this EPA metric for the public health benefit value of utility scale solar in the Carolinas, the health impacts over the life of a large PV system are very significant. Each MWAC of single-axis tracking PV capacity in the Carolinas generates roughly 2,000,000 kWh per year and applying a public health benefit of 2 cents per kWh equals a benefit of $40,000 per year (per MWAC). Multiplying this annual benefit of $40,000 by 30 years equals a lifetime benefit of $1.2 million per MWAC. So, a 100 MWAC system will provide over $100 million in public health benefits over 30 years. Sincerely, Tommy Cleveland, P.E. 172 © 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS APPROXIMATE SITEACCESS LOCATION EXISTING PRIVATEACCESS DRIVE APPROXIMATE SITEACCESS LOCATION APPROXIMATE SITEACCESS LOCATION APPROXIMATE SITEACCESS LOCATION APPROXIMATE SITEACCESS LOCATION APPROXIMATE SITE ACCESS LOCATION PROPOSED 150'VEGETATIVE BUFFER (TYP.) EXISTING VEGETATIVEBUFFER (TYP.) APPROXIMATE EXISTING OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES (TYP.) EXISTING WETLAND (TYP.) BETHANY CHURCH ROA D MORIAH ROADGRANVILLE COUNTYPERSON COUNTY DURHAM COUNTY PERSON COUNTYGRANVILLE COUNTYHEL E N A M O R I A H R O A D MORIAH ROADMOUNT HARMONY CHURCH ROADRANGE ROADEN O N R O A DUZZLE ROADBERE A R O A D ISHAM C H A M B E R S R O A DRANGE ROADAPPROXIMATE PROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP.) APPROXIMATE EXISTING OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT (TYP.) 300' DWELLING SETBACK (TYP.) 300' DWELLINGSETBACK (TYP.) STREAM (TYP.) APPROXIMATE COUNTY LINE (TYP.) 50' RIPARIAN BUFFER (TYP.) EXISTING 150' BUFFER PER PERSONCOUNTY REQUIREMENTS APPROXIMATE POI36°16'14.89"N, 78°48'18.56"W BEREA ROAD BETHANY CHURCH ROADDATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYNORTH CAROLINAPERSON COUNTYVICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE BEREA SOLARAS SHOWNKHA PROJECTZONING SITE PLANEX-0105/24/21LCLJSL©LCLPRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NORTH 013632003SITE DATA TABLE GENERAL NOTES LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY GIS PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE EXISTING OVERHEADTRANSMISSION LINE MAXIMUM ARRAY EXTENTS APPROXIMATE EXISTING ELECTRIC EASEMENT NWI STREAM 300' DWELLING SETBACK 150' PROPOSED VEGETATIVE BUFFER 150' EXISTING VEGETATIVE BUFFER 50' RIPARIAN BUFFER NWI WETLANDS APPROXIMATE COUNTY LINE 173 © 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS BETHANY CHURCH ROA D MORIAH ROADGRANVILLE COUNTYPERSON COUNTY DURHAM COUNTY PERSON COUNTYGRANVILLE COUNTYHEL E N A M O R I A H R O A D MORIAH ROADMOUNT HARMONY CHURCH ROADRANGE ROADEN O N R O A DUZZLE ROADBERE A R O A D ISHAM C H A M B E R S R O A DRANGE ROADBEREA ROAD BETHANY CHURCH ROADDATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYNORTH CAROLINAPERSON COUNTYBEREA SOLARAS SHOWNKHA PROJECTEXISTINGTOPOGRAPHYEX-0205/24/21LCLJSL©LCLPRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NORTH 013632003LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY 10' GIS CONTOUR APPROXIMATE COUNTY LINE GENERAL NOTES 174 175 176 177 178 179 June 8, 2021 1 PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JUNE 8, 2021 MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Gordon Powell Heidi York, County Manager Kyle W. Puryear Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the BoardC. Derrick Sims Katherine Cathey, Assistant County Manager Charlie Palmer Amy Wehrenberg, Finance Director Patricia Gentry The Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, met in recessed session on Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 3:00pm in the commissioners’ boardroom 215 in the Person County Office Building. Chairman Powell called the recessed meeting to order. Vice Chairman Puryear joined the meeting remotely. County Manager, Heidi York stated this was the first budget work session in which the Board could obtain further information and/or adjust the Manager’s Recommended Budget. Ms. York provided the Board updated slides related to the County Contracted Fire Departments’ Calls noting all the Volunteer Fire Departments’ (VFDs) calls were not captured in the previous version. 180 June 8, 2021 2 Commissioner Sims asked staff if the contracts for the VFDs would remain the same to which the Assistant County Manager, Katherine Cathey stated the VFDs’ contracts as well as the Rescue Squad contract would be on the Board’s June 21, 2021 agenda noting there would be minor modifications. Following the Board of Commissioners’ approval of the VFDs’ contracts and the Rescue Squad contract, all parties would sign by July 1, 2021. Ms. York stated an updated slide for the County EMS Calls was provided noting it was not for comparison due to the responses protocols put into place for COVID-19. 181 June 8, 2021 3 Ms. York provided a slide for the Airport Operations; the Airport nets various operating costs against their monthly lease payments that are added back to the lease and charged to General Services at the end of each fiscal year. These expenses such as Property Insurance, Telephone, Utilities, etc., are posted to various line items in the General Services Department as an annual adjustment. Commissioner Gentry asked the Finance Director, Amy Wehrenberg to explain indirect costs to the group. Ms. Wehrenberg explained the Indirect Cost Audit for Person County reports other related operating costs that are not directly applied in the annual adjustment. These include expenditures such as service and maintenance contracts, audit services, information technology, finance administration and building maintenance. When included, the result is an annual net loss. Ms. Wehrenberg told the group that the Indirect Cost Audits for FY2020 and FY2021 are not yet available. Commissioner Palmer asked Ms. Wehrenberg when was the FY2020 audit expected to be completed to which she said, at this time, the completion of the Tourism Development Authority’s (TDA) audit was holding up the completion of Person County’s audit and she could not answer why the TDA audit was not completed. Commissioner Gentry asked about the FBO lease revenue; Ms. York stated one factor was related to the sale of fuel and that was dependent upon the air transportation industry. She added Person County receives a portion of the fuel sales. 182 June 8, 2021 4 The group discussed the Fee Schedule to which staff answered questions; for any questions unanswered, Ms. York said she would follow up with appropriate staff and report to the Board. The Board then discussed Piedmont Community College’s (PCC) request for support of its proposal for an Advanced Technology Center (ATC) to which Ms. York stated she did not include in the budget due to PCC needed to identify a site and develop a plan for the estimated $25M. Ms. York recalled PCC would go after any grants to assist with the construction; $10M was projected to be requested of the County to which Ms. York suggested to include in its Debt Model. Ms. York stated the Feasibility Study was funded by the County through it Capital Improvement Plan in FY2020 to which she would obtain a copy to share with the Board. Ms. York stated if the Board had any questions for PCC to let her know and she would submit the questions in writing to Dr. Senegal. Commissioner Gentry stated she supported the ATC but had concerns about spending county money when PCC’s enrollment has decreased over the last five years and she would like to see a plan. Commissioners Gentry and Palmer raised questions as to why the ATC would not be located on the campus of PCC. Chairman Powell noted his support of the ATC and that the current PCC facilities were built in the ‘70s. Ms. York led the group in discussion related to Revenue Projections. She provided an updated slide from March to present date related to the Property Tax Revenues. 183 June 8, 2021 5 Vice Chairman Puryear asked about the state reimbursement loss of revenue of $150,000 for inmates to which Ms. Wehrenberg noted there was a decrease in the inmate population. Ms. York added that the Sheriff informed her that the loss of inmate population was due to the state controlling the risks of COVID-19. Commissioner Palmer asked about the Dept. of Social Services (DSS) request for new positions to which Ms. York stated the Director requested five positions however, she only funded one in her Recommended Budget. Ms. York stated DSS staff are overwhelmed and she noted the County is reimbursed from the State of NC for a portion of the salary. Commissioner Gentry asked if new positions had to be included in the budget at this time or could they be added mid-year to which Ms. York stated new positions can be added at any time with an appropriation from Fund Balance or the Contingency Fund. Chairman Powell announced a brief break at 3:58pm. The meeting reconvened at 4:02pm. Ms. York reminded the Board of the full-time new positions she had included in her Recommended Budget through the following slide. She noted there were 11 new positions requested and she recommended six. 184 June 8, 2021 6 The Board recognized the ongoing need for assistance in the Inspections Department. Ms. York stated she was considering some efficiency training to assist in identifying processes to streamline functions. Of course, the new software planned this summer should help staff time with the processes. Ms. York shared the following slide for Vehicles: 185 June 8, 2021 7 Ms. York said the local share for the PATS vans was $6,600 each. Commissioner Sims noted the surplus PATS vehicles revenue went back into the purchase of new vehicles. Ms. York stated one EMS vehicle was being purchased with CARES funding and was not in her Recommended Budget. Commissioner Gentry asked Ms. York if the County had a contract for fleet management to which she replied no. Ms. York added that staff negotiate prices for its fleet to match the state contract pricing. Commissioner Gentry asked if the Person Industries’ (PI) Director might come to the next budget work session before the Board to which Ms. York stated affirmatively. Commissioner Gentry asked when would the lease expire at the PI main facility to which Ms. York stated 2024/2025. Ms. York said she included in the Recommended Budget to fund a feasibility study to merge the PI main facility with the Recycling Center that included an efficiency study to best utilize the space. Chairman Powell advocated improving the funding for the Economic Development Catalyst Fund. Ms. York said she was increasing the appropriation by $231K noting $270K was designated for financial incentive payments and $890K for discretionary development needs (new $250K General Fund contribution and $640K in the Economic Catalyst Fund Balance). Chairman Powell spoke of the federal funding (American Rescue Funds) that were specified to be used for water and sewer infrastructure and broadband. Ms. York reminded the Board that a study was recently approved to update the coverage maps and gaps of service in Person County. She added the county would be poised to develop a plan following the study and more information was released related to the federal funding. Commissioner Gentry said that carriers are not providing what they have to consumers. Ms. Cathey stated the focus would be aimed on broadband speed beyond coverage areas. The Board briefly touched on the debt coming off the County this year and in a position for financings that may be needed for Person County Schools and PCC immediate needs for updating facilities. Ms. York noted the next budget work session was scheduled on June 10, 2021 at 10:00am in the Commissioners’ boardroom. She further noted that the adoption of the Budget Ordinance was planned to be on the agenda at the Board’s June 21, 2021 meeting at 9:00am however, the Budget Ordinance could be adopted at any meeting. 186 June 8, 2021 8 RECESS: A motion was made by Commissioner Sims and carried 5-0 to recess the meeting at 4:38pm until June 10, 2021 at 10:00am in the commissioners’ boardroom 215 in the County Office Building. _____________________________ ______________________________ Brenda B. Reaves Gordon Powell Clerk to the Board Chairman (Draft Board minutes are subject to Board approval). 187 June 10, 2021 1 PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JUNE 10, 2021 MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Gordon Powell Heidi York, County Manager Kyle W. Puryear Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board C. Derrick Sims Katherine Cathey, Assistant County Manager Charlie Palmer Amy Wehrenberg, Finance Director Patricia Gentry The Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, met in recessed session on Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 10:00am in the commissioners’ boardroom 215 in the Person County Office Building. Chairman Powell called the recessed meeting to order. County Manager, Heidi York followed up with the Board related to questions about new or changed fees noting there were no substantial changes and in some cases with the Fire Marshal related fees, some were relocated from other areas. She added that health department fees are reviewed each year and follow the state recommendations. Ms. York stated she had received an email from Dr. Senegal as a follow up to the Board’s discussion on the enrollment of PCC. Ms. York asked Person Industries’ Director, Amanda Everett to provide an overview of its services and funding sources. Ms. Everett told the group that Person Industries (PI) serves individuals with intellectual developmental disabilities and considers them consumers. Ms. Everett stated PI’s goal was to work with their consumers to gain employment in the community. She added each consumer brings with him or her their own Medicaid funding and PI earns revenue through its contracts with production companies and receives a local appropriation. PI works with community businesses to enhance production needs to gain contracts for its consumers for vocational and production training as well as provides transportation with the appropriate ratio for staff and consumers. Ms. Everett said PI currently has two locations and noted discussions have taken place for many years to merge the two locations to one location. She added no additional staff would be requested to operate when the merger is complete. Commissioner Gentry asked Ms. York if the merger process could be accelerated, and Ms. York responded noting a feasibility study was the first step and was budgeted in Fiscal Year 2022 to assess the operations’ efficiency and the equipment needs for the two locations to operate under one roof. Ms. York stated a plan for new equipment related to the merger needs would be budgeted in Fiscal Year 2023. Ms. York said there are approximately three years left on the current lease and the lease payments costs are low. 188 June 10, 2021 2 Commissioner Gentry said her preference that PI was more financially independent of county funding. Ms. Everett said the City of Roxboro might be working toward a recycling program, which would be great for the recycling center. Ms. Everett stated by the end of June she expected to have 70% of PI’s consumers to return to PI. Ms. Everett thanked the Board for their support. Commissioner Gentry requested quarterly updates on PI’s progress. Ms. York opened the floor for commissioner adjustments to the budget. Commissioner Gentry requested holding off funding the recommended position for the Department of Social Services to which the Board consented. Vice Chairman Puryear requested the identified new revenue of $365,983 be placed into the Contingency Fund. Chairman Powell stated he would like to see some additional funding go in the Economic Development Catalyst Fund. Ms. York stated a savings of $29,363 was reflected due to one sheriff vehicle being purchased in this fiscal year. Finance Director, Amy Wehrenberg explained some corrections to the budget that came up since the recommended budget was delivered to the Board. The additions included corrections to the Governing Body budget in the amount of $1,100 for printing that was inadvertently left out and an increase to the NC Association of County Commissioners membership dues by $254; also added expenditures for a Tier 2 Emergency Management grant for $1,000, an Emergency Medical Services grant in the amount of $21,500 for the Regional Approach to Cardiovascular Emergencies (RACE) project focusing on Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation System (CARS) out of hospital cardiac arrest. With the changes as described, there was $102,283 surplus to which the Board consented on appropriating $52,283 to the Economic Development Catalyst Fund and the remaining $50,000 to go into Contingency Fund. Ms. Wehrenberg noted a tweak to the DSS position revenue would also need to come out. The surplus amount was then noted on the running total as $101,168 to which $51,168 was earmarked to go into the Economic Development Catalyst Fund and $50,000 to go into the Contingency Fund. Ms. Wehrenberg made the Board aware that the increase in the property tax revenue was also reflected in the Fire Tax revenue; $103,272 would be designated in the unallocated fire fund. Ms. York added three VFDs would be pursuing certification for a reduced ISO fire rating this summer and the unallocated fire funding would be used to fulfill any bonus noting $7,500 per rating points was given to the VFD on a recurring basis. 189 June 10, 2021 3 The following spreadsheet depicts the adjustments from the Recommended Budget to the Adopted Budget. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to instruct staff to prepare a Budget Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 to be brought before the Board at the June 21, 2021 meeting. 190 June 10, 2021 4 Commissioner Gentry asked for clarification if the Assistant County Manager job description included any duties related to economic development to which Ms. York replied that about ten years ago, there were duties assigned to the Assistant County Manager for economic development however, the job description was changed and no longer included such. Chairman Powell thanked Ms. York and staff that worked on the prepared budget and he felt the balanced budget the Board has put together for adoption supports mandated services, education and public safety. Vice Chairman Puryear informed the group that the Board of Equalization and Review (BOER) finished the hearings for tax value appeals on June 9, 2021 and said the Tax Office staff did a great job on adjusting values before the appeals went before the BOER. Commissioner Palmer said the Roxboro City Manager told him he was expecting the Board of Commissioners to vote on the NCDOT presentation related to options to slow traffic on Morgan Street between Semora Road and Chub Lake Road. Ms. York stated the presentation was for information and input by the Board as the decision to change the facility to slow traffic is by the City of Roxboro. Ms. York stated she spoke with the City Manager and would again contact him to further discuss noting the Board of Commissioners had no objections to the option presented by NCDOT. Commissioner Sims stated he would need to see final drawings prior to him voting support of a change. Commissioner Sims opined that a budget work session set aside for the Board to discuss its budget should not include public comments from individuals attending the meeting as the budget public hearing was the place for such. Chairman Powell agreed with Commissioner Sims comments. Commissioner Sims said that the Chairman should be the one to recognize individuals wishing to address the board. ADJOURMENT: A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 10:48pm. _____________________________ ______________________________ Brenda B. Reaves Gordon Powell Clerk to the Board Chairman (Draft Board minutes are subject to Board approval). 191 June 21, 2021 1 PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JUNE 21, 2021 MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Gordon Powell Heidi York, County Manager Kyle W. Puryear Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board C. Derrick Sims S. Ellis Hankins, County Attorney Charlie Palmer Patricia Gentry The Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, met in regular session on Monday, June 21, 2021 at 9:00am in the commissioners’ boardroom 215 in the Person County Office Building. Chairman Powell called the meeting to order. Due to the number of members from the public attending the meeting, the Board discussed briefly options related to relocating the meeting to the County Auditorium but ultimately consented to proceed with the meeting agenda as planned in their usual boardroom. Chairman Powell offered an invocation and Vice Chairman Puryear led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman Powell stated a need to add an item to the agenda for the FY2022 Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Funding. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to add an item to the agenda for FY2022 Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Funding and to approve the agenda as adjusted. INFORMAL COMMENTS: Chairman Powell asked his fellow commissioners for input for a time limit. A motion was made by Commissioner Sims and carried 5-0 to set a two-minute time limit for each speaker. Representative Larry Yarborough of 87 Duck Pointe Drive, Roxboro told the Board that a resolution of support for House Bill 951 by the Board of Commissioners was not appropriate at this time but maybe in the future as he just received the preliminary bill last Wednesday. He stated he his office would be working on the bill as a priority and would represent Person County’s interest as the two coal burning power plants have an orderly transition to a future energy. 192 June 21, 2021 2 Ms. Elizabeth Bradsher of 976 Estate Rd., Semora stated she supported Representative Larry Yarborough’s comments and to pass a resolution was premature at this time. She advocated for the transitioning to natural gas. Ms. Bradsher thanked the Piedmont Community College employees and students for being at the meeting noting post-secondary education is important. Mr. Jimmy Clayton of 717 Berman Clayton Road, Timberlake spoke of the $61B federal funding to be used for eligible infrastructure. He spoke of a well issue on Highway 49 and used the special tax district that was set up for Somerset when sewer was extended as a resolution. As far as the request from Piedmont Community College (PCC), Mr. Clayton suggested to renovate the old Helena School for PCC to use. Mr. Chris Weaver of 342 Satterfield Farm Rd., Timberlake stated his support of the Advanced Technology Center (ATC) but not in favor of the taxpayers to pay for it if there was another way to pay for it noting former commissioner David Newell, Sr. worked to get the ATC without the taxpayers having to pay for it. Mr. Weaver said the feasibility study that was paid for by the County and was hidden for 18-months. In addition, Mr. Weaver asked the Board to avoid any perceived conflicts of interest by supporting House Bill 951. Mr. Earl Gurtner of 525 Pine Knoll Acres, Leasburg presented to the Board a need for a golf course of 10-holes that would earn $200,000 in revenue for the county. He added the current property was a mess and that he would help in any way he could. Mr. Antonio Foster of 933 Ashland Rd., Ruffin, and a member of the Piedmont Community College (PCC) Board of Trustees, thanked the Board for its support of PCC’s Advanced Technology Center. He said the recent article in the newspaper did not reflect PCC’s high quality post-secondary education and its net core values. Mr. Foster said Dr. Senegal has increased student enrollment minus COVID number by approximately 12%; he stated he stands behind Dr. Pamela Senegal’s work at this institution of higher learning. Mr. Paul Lynch of 395 Union Grove Church Rd., Hurdle Mills stated he was glad the energy bill resolution of support was not on the Board’s agenda. He stated concerns for battery storage which would bring no jobs and the built in authority to automatically increase rates. Mr. Anthony Winston of 604 Townbranch Rd., Graham stated he was a product of PCC through its Mechatronics program and currently is employed at Polywood. He advocated for the programs at PCC but noted the welding equipment was dated. Mr. Chris Spivey of 1421 Halifax Rd., Roxboro, a full time employee at AW in Durham spoke in support of the Advanced Technology Center noting it is a great need. He said he attended PCC in 1998-1999 and the facility looks the same now as it did then. 193 June 21, 2021 3 Dr. Pamela G. Senegal of 200 Daniel Ridge, Roxboro, and President of Piedmont Community College (PCC) thanked the PCC Board of Trustees and the Pacer family who joined her at this meeting with their support. Dr. Senegal stated they all are at a pivot point of who they wanted to be as a community noting nothing gets in the way more for economic development than the recent headline. Dr. Senegal suggested the Board to begin the work and to stop disparaging her professional career and move forward and it was a conversation she was willing to have together. Ms. Anderson Clayton of 546 Flat River Church Rd., Roxboro, and Chair of the Person County Democratic Party delivered the position of the party that Commissioner Charlie Palmer should resign effective immediately due to the direct attack to assassinate the character with racial prejudices toward Dr. Senegal. Ms. Clayton asked the Board to recuse Commissioner Palmer from any vote related to PCC as it was an obvious conflict of interest. Mr. Avie Lester, Sr. of 7455 Virgilina Rd., Roxboro stated how he was personally appalled and embarrassed at the despicable plot outlined in the recent article of the Courier- Times and that such was unfounded and undeserved allegations hurled at such a distinguished member of this community who was duly appointed by a governing board that has oversight responsibility for this position. He added that PCC’s planned Advanced Technology Center is needed and the appropriate budgeting and funding must move forward. Rev. Langston Logan, Sr. of 176 Carrington Lane, Roxboro stated a public apology to Dr. Senegal was called for and he questioned what sanctions were appropriate for the actions of the Board, how the Board would be accountable to its citizens when comments cross the line to hate speech of someone that has been vetted by the state. Ms. Cindy Lynch of 395 Union Grove Church Rd., Hurdle Mills said the recent article in the Courier-Times were excerpts from private emails noting she had seen complaints on social media about the PCC leadership and the Advance Technology Center. DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA: A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to approve the Consent Agenda with the following items: A. Approval of Minutes of June 7, 2021, B. Budget Amendment #20, C. Home & Community Care Block Grant Funding 2021-2022, and D. Tax Adjustments for June 2021 a. Tax Releases b. NC Vehicle Tax System pending refunds 194 June 21, 2021 4 NEW BUSINESS: RESOLUTION PERMITTING THE PERSON COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE DISTRICT TO PROVIDE RESCUE SERVICES: Fire Marshal, Keith Duncan recognized his Deputy Fire Marshal, Lisa Yancey, for attaining a Level II Fire Inspector certification. Mr. Duncan presented a Resolution to Permit the Person County Fire Protection Service District to Provide Rescue Services; he requested the Board to adopt the resolution to add rescue services to the permitted services in the Person County Fire Protection District. The resolution authorizes the provision of emergency medical, rescue, and/or ambulance services in the Person County Fire Protection District and enables Person County to levy property taxes for such purposes. Mr. Duncan stated the resolution, if adopted will go into effect July 1, 2021. The Person County Board of Commissioners established the Person County Fire Protection Service District, effective July 1, 2018, to provide and fund fire protection services in the unincorporated areas of Person County. Generally, in order to provide multiple services within a single district, the services need to have been identified in the report generated on the proposed district and adopted in the governing board’s resolution establishing the district. NC General Statute 153A-309 provides an exception to this process. If a service district initially was established for fire protection purposes only, the Board of Commissioners may adopt a resolution to permit the service district to provide emergency medical, rescue, and/or ambulance services and to use service district tax proceeds to fund these services. The Roxboro-Person County Rescue Squad responds to emergency calls within Person County that require specialized equipment and technical skill for patient rescue, including water rescue, land search, and rescue. Fire district taxes provide a funding source for the Rescue Squad. The Roxboro-Person County Rescue Squad is a non-profit organization, distinctive from the Person County EMS Division. The EMS Division is funded through the County’s General Fund and serves as the lead agency for the emergency medical services system in Person County and is responsible for coordinating all system participants in Person County; encompassing both public and private sectors including the medical first responder program. Expanding the services permitted in the service district supports the Board of Commissioners desire to fund rescue services with service district tax proceeds in accordance with NC General Statute 153A-301(a). A motion was made by Commissioner Palmer and carried 5-0 to adopt a Resolution to Permit the Person County Fire Protection Service District to Provide Rescue Services. 195 June 21, 2021 5 196 June 21, 2021 6 FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND RESCUE SQUAD CONTRACT APPROVAL: Fire Marshal, Keith Duncan stated existing fire and rescue contracts between Person County and each individual department were approved in June 2018 with a provision for automatic extensions every odd year, beginning July 1, 2019. The Fiscal Year 2022-2023 contract template has been updated to incorporate new fire tax disbursements (resulting from redrawing district lines following the decertification of Woodsdale VFD), audit requirements, and other minor changes. The contract template has been reviewed by county management, Emergency Services staff, the county attorney, and the Fire Chiefs Association. The Fiscal Year 2022 Manager’s Recommended Budget includes funding in the following amounts, which will be inserted into the contract for each department following approval by the Board of Commissioners. Department FY22 Funding Rescue Squad $78,030 Allensville VFD $77, 586 Ceffo VFD $183,627 Hurdle Mills VFD $152,346 Moriah VFD $138,608 Semora VFD $79,223 Timberlake VFD $174,342 Triple Springs VFD $140,000 Mr. Duncan requested Board consideration to approve the contract templates. A motion was made by Commissioner Sims and carried 5-0 to approve Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Volunteer Fire Departments and Rescue Squad contracts, as presented. The templates for the VFD contracts and the Rescue Squad contract are hereby incorporated into the minutes for reference. 197 June 21, 2021 7 198 June 21, 2021 8 199 June 21, 2021 9 200 June 21, 2021 10 201 June 21, 2021 11 202 June 21, 2021 12 203 June 21, 2021 13 204 June 21, 2021 14 205 June 21, 2021 15 206 June 21, 2021 16 207 June 21, 2021 17 208 June 21, 2021 18 209 June 21, 2021 19 APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMITTEES: Clerk to the Board, Brenda Reaves presented interested citizen applications for current vacancies and upcoming June 30th term expirations that were received in response to an ad published in the local newspaper and on the county website. Ms. Reaves requested the Board to consider all citizen applications and to appoint as deemed appropriate. ABC Board 3-Year Term: 1 position available 1) John R. Bradsher requested reappointment A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to reappoint John R. Bradsher to the ABC for a 3-year term. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee 1-Year Initial Term; 3-Year Reappointment: 3 positions available 1) Rhonda Haynes requested reappointment A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to reappoint Rhonda Haynes to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee for a 3-year term. Animal Services Advisory Committee Unspecified Term: 1 position for a veterinarian 1) Dr. Barbara Harris requested appointment A motion was made by Commissioner Sims and carried 5-0 to appoint Dr. Barbara Harris to the Animal Services Advisory Committee to represent in the veterinarian position for an unspecified term. Board of Adjustment 3-Year Term: 2 positions available and 1 position for an Alternate 1) Treco Lea-Jeffers requested reappointment A motion was made by Commissioner Gentry and carried 5-0 to reappoint Treco Lea-Jeffers to the Board of Adjustment for a 3-year term. 210 June 21, 2021 20 Board of Health 3-Year Term: 1 position for a veterinarian: Dr. Barbara Harris requested reappointment 1 position for a physician: Dr. Kimberly Yarborough requested reappointment 1 position for a nurse: Patsy Clayton, RN requested reappointment 2 positions from the general public: 1) Ben Tillett requested reappointment 2) Gerald Jermaine Wallace requested appointment 3) Phillip Edelblute requested reappointment A motion was made by Commissioner Gentry and carried 5-0 to reappoint Dr. Barbara Harris (veterinarian), Dr. Kimberly Yarborough (physician), Patsy Clayton, RN (nurse), Ben Tillett (general public), and Phillip Edelblute (general public) on the Board of Health for a 3-year term. Environmental Issues Advisory Committee 3-Year Term: 1 position for a citizen residing in each of the following townships: Bushy Fork, Holloway, Roxboro Cheryl Allen requested reappointment Mt. Tirzah A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to reappoint Cheryl Allen to the Environmental Issues Advisory Committee representing the Roxboro Township for a 3-year term. Jury Commission 2-Year Term; 1 position available 1) Gerald Jermaine Wallace requested appointment 2) Froncello Bumpass requested appointment A motion was made by Commissioner Palmer and carried 5-0 to appoint Froncello Bumpass to the Jury Commission for a 2-year term. Juvenile Crime Prevention Council 1-Year Initial Term: 2-Year Reappointment 1 position for a representative of the faith community: 1) Rev. Elizabeth McCoy requested appointment, 1 position for a representative of the business community: 1) Charles Harvey requested reappointment A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to appoint Rev. Elizabeth McCoy (representative of the faith community) for an initial 1-year term, and to reappoint Charles Harvey (representative of the business community) for a 2-year term. 211 June 21, 2021 21 2-Year Term: 1 position for the Health Director or her designee: 1) Elizabeth Haebig requested appointment 1 position for a representative of the Mental Health Authority/LME: 1) Stephanie Jones requested reappointment A motion was made by Commissioner Gentry and carried 5-0 to appoint Elizabeth Haebig (Health Director’s designee) for a 2-year term, and reappoint Stephanie Jones (representative of the Mental Health Authority/LME) for a 2-year term on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council representing Person County. Library Advisory Board 3-Year Term: 3 positions available 1) Charles Harvey requested reappointment 2) Jonathan Bradsher requested appointment 3) Rev. Elizabeth McCoy requested appointment A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to reappoint Charles Harvey and appoint Jonathan Bradsher and Rev. Elizabeth McCoy to the Library Advisory Board, each for a 3-year term. Nursing Home Advisory Committee 1-Year Initial Term: 3-Year Reappointment; 5 positions available 1) Rhonda Haynes requested reappointment A motion was made by Commissioner Gentry and carried 5-0 to reappoint Rhonda Haynes to the Nursing Home Advisory Committee for a 3-year term. Person Area Transportation System Board 3-Year Term; Positions available for a citizen to represent in each of the following occupational affiliations: the senior center, school system, economic development, Person Industries: Kim Morgan requested reappointment A motion was made by Commissioner Gentry and carried 5-0 to reappoint Kim Morgan representing Person Industries on the Person Area Transportation System Board for a 3-year term. 212 June 21, 2021 22 Person-Caswell Lake Authority 3-Year Term: 1 position available 1) Carla Hawkins Stovall requested appointment 2) Rebecca Morrow requested reappointment A motion was made by Commissioner Gentry and carried 5-0 to reappoint Rebecca Morrow to the Person-Caswell Lake Authority for a 3-year term. Piedmont Community College Board of Trustees Prior to the presented citizen applications, Ms. Reaves recognized the County Attorney for an update on one of the applicants. County Attorney, Ellis Hankins stated the applicant, Jimmie Whitfield was deemed ineligible per North Carolina legislation § 115D-12, which states “No person who has been employed full time by the community college within the prior 5 years and no spouse or child of a person currently employed full time by the community college shall serve on the board of trustees of that college”. 4-Year Term: 1 position available 1) Thomas Savage, Jr. requested appointment 2) Charles Harvey requested appointment 3) Jimmie Whitfield requested appointment, but was deemed ineligible 4) Adam Wolfe requested appointment 5) Carl Bradsher requested appointment 6) Rev. Elizabeth P. McCoy requested appointment A motion was made by Commissioner Sims and carried 5-0 to appoint Adam Wolfe to the Piedmont Community College Board of Trustees for a 4-year term. Planning Board 3-Year Term: 2 positions available 1) Michael Brandon requested reappointment 2) Sandra Majors requested reappointment A motion was made by Commissioner Gentry and carried 5-0 to reappoint Michael Brandon on the Planning Board for a 3-year term. A motion was made by Commissioner Sims and carried 5-0 to reappoint Sandra Majors on the Planning Board for a 3-year term. Recreation Advisory Board 3-Year Term: 2 positions available 1) Kirk Redman requested reappointment A motion was made by Commissioner Palmer and carried 5-0 to reappoint Kirk Redman to the Recreation Advisory Board for a 3-year term. 213 June 21, 2021 23 Research Triangle Regional Partnership (RTRP) Board of Directors Fiscal Year 2021-2022 1) Sherry Wilborn, Person County Economic Development Director, 2) Gordon Powell, Chairman of the Person County Board of Commissioners and commissioner representative on the Economic Development Commission (also serves on the RTRP Executive Board), and 3) Phillip Allen, Chairman, Economic Develop. Commission Chairman Powell passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Puryear to run the meeting during this item only as he was included as a candidate for reappointment. Commissioner Gentry questioned why applicants from the private sector were not sought and advertised for citizen interest to which Ms. Reaves responded this fiscal year appointment was made by the Board of Commissioners and the Board had not, in the past, advertised for the RTRP board of directors. Vice Chairman Puryear suggested the Board could consider advertising for the following fiscal year should the Board so desire. A motion was made by Commissioner Sims and carried 5-0 to reappoint Sherry Wilborn, Gordon Powell and Phillip Allen to the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Board of Directors for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 as well as Commissioner Powell to serve on the RTRP Executive Board. Voluntary Agriculture District 3-Year Term: 1 position for a citizen residing in each of the following townships: Bushy Fork: Cunningham: Johnny Rogers requested reappointment Holloway: Cal Berryhill requested reappointment Woodsdale: Paul Bailey requested reappointment A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to reappoint Johnny Rogers (Cunningham Township), Cal Berryhill (Holloway Township), and Paul Bailey (Woodsdale Township) for a 3-year term. 214 June 21, 2021 24 DESIGNATE NACO VOTING DELEGATE FOR THE 2021 ANNUAL CONFERENCE: Clerk to the Board, Brenda Reaves informed the group that voting credentials for the NACo 2021 Annual Business Meeting and Election will be held virtually and in-person at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in Prince George's County, Md. on Monday, July 12, tentatively scheduled for 1 p.m. EDT. The voting delegate form must submitted by July 6, 2021 in order for Person County’s delegate to participate in the association’s annual election of officers and policy adoption. All designated voting delegates, whether participating in person or virtually, will cast their votes using an online/mobile solution. Virtual participants will be able to view the meeting in real time. Commissioner Gentry has requested to attend the NACo Conference virtually. Ms. Reaves requested Board consideration to designate Commissioner Gentry to serve as Person County’s voting delegate. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to designate Commissioner Gentry to serve as Person County’s voting delegate at the NACo 2021 Annual Business Meeting and Election. FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 BUDGET ORDINANCE: County Manager, Heidi York and Finance Director, Amy Wehrenberg presented the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget Ordinance and Fee Schedule for adoption by the Board having fulfilled the legal requirements including the conducting of a public hearing. NC General Statute 159-13(a) directs that the annual budget must be adopted by July 1. The budget ordinance may be adopted at any regular or special meeting at which a quorum is present, by a majority of those present and voting. Ms. York requested Board action to adopt the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget Ordinance. A motion was made by Commissioner Gentry and carried 5-0 to adopt the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget Ordinance, as presented. 215 June 21, 2021 25 216 June 21, 2021 26 217 June 21, 2021 27 218 June 21, 2021 28 219 June 21, 2021 29 220 June 21, 2021 30 221 June 21, 2021 31 222 June 21, 2021 32 223 June 21, 2021 33 224 June 21, 2021 34 225 June 21, 2021 35 226 June 21, 2021 36 227 June 21, 2021 37 228 June 21, 2021 38 229 June 21, 2021 39 230 June 21, 2021 40 231 June 21, 2021 41 232 June 21, 2021 42 233 June 21, 2021 43 234 June 21, 2021 44 235 June 21, 2021 45 FY2022 JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL FUNDING: Each year, funding is made available through the North Carolina Department of Public Safety/Division of Juvenile Justice to Person County and its Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) to be utilized to address the needs of youth at-risk for delinquency as well as adjudicated undisciplined and delinquent youth in Person County. The funding comes in the form of a county allocation. All 100 counties in the State of North Carolina are allocated funds based on the population of youth in the county between the ages of 10 and 17. Annually, the JCPC Board conducts a planning process, which includes an array of legislated tasks: a review of the community risk factors and the risk levels of youth in the community; an assessment of the needs of the target populations; a review of the service resources available to address those needs; the identification of service gaps; and the strategic development of a plan to structure a seamless continuum of service programming to address the target population needs. As part of the development of the needed services identified in the continuum, there is a Request for Proposal (RFP) process that is completed by the JCPC Board. Non-profits and government entities may apply for the opportunity to provide services per the guidelines of the RFP. The JCPC Board reviews all requests and awards are made to service providers to address service needs identified by the JCPC Board. The JCPC Board makes its recommendation of expenditures of the allocation and presents its written annual planning documents to the Person County Board of County Commissioners for its approval. The JCPC Board performs this function as an extension of the Board of County Commissioners in its fulfillment of the legislated duties imposed upon them through general statute. For FY2022, the JCPC Board recommends approval for the following funding: Interpersonal skill building, teen court, parent/family skill building, and mediation/conflict resolution programs provided by Roots and Wings (fully funding proposal), Restitution/community service program provided by 4-H Youth Enrichment Service (Y.E.S.) (funding proposal at 80%), JCPC administration (continuation funding), and Unallocated funds reserved for releasing an RFP for mental health services (including remaining state and county JCPC funds and additional county mental health funds in the amount of $19,478). Mental health funds remain in the FY21 community mental health programs line item and may be carried forward to FY22 for this purpose. Additionally, on an on-going basis, the JCPC evaluates the performance of its funded programs by annually monitoring each program through on-site visits and also monthly through program reporting at the local monthly JCPC meetings. The JCPC is also charged with the tasks of increasing public awareness of the causes of delinquency, addressing strategies to intervene and appropriately responding to and treating the needs of juveniles while at the same time reducing juvenile recidivism. The JCPC stands ready to respond to the changing needs of youth and service delivery in the community. 236 June 21, 2021 46 Assistant County Manager, Katherine Cathey noted a revised County Funding Plan was at the commissioners’ seats noting $2,700 for local In-Kind was added to the grid. Ms. Cathey requested the Board to approve the JCPC funding plan for FY2022. A motion was made by Commissioner Gentry and carried 5-0 to approve the JCPC funding recommendation for Fiscal Year 2022, as presented. 237 June 21, 2021 47 238 June 21, 2021 48 CHAIRMAN’S REPORT: Chairman Powell had no report. MANAGER’S REPORT: County Manager, Heidi York reported progress at the Airport as the Hangar I-beams and shell building were delivered this date to be constructed on-site. Ms. York said Person County would be transitioning from Cardinal Innovations to VAYA noting meetings are planned in July. She added a mental health coordinator would be on-site along with other enhanced services that VAYA adopts as standard practices. COMMISSIONER REPORT/COMMENTS: Vice Chairman Puryear had no report. Commissioner Palmer had no comment. Commissioner Gentry stated the need for foster parents through the Department of Social Services. Commissioner Sims asked if the Courier-Times’ public records request had been closed to which the County Manager, Heidi York stated there was one commissioner that had not yet submitted records. Commissioner Sims asked the County Attorney to explain the protocol for such public records request. County Attorney, Ellis Hankins stated the public records statutes are very broad, and unless there is a clear statutory exception, and all records in any form, including email messages to and from private email addresses of public officials, "in connection with the transaction of public business," are public records, and copies must be provided upon request. Mr. Hankins stated where some commissioners use their personal email accounts "in connection with the transaction of public business," they themselves are "custodians" of public records with a duty to assist in providing copies upon request. Mr. Hankins further noted sanctions include criminal misdemeanor. Commissioner Sims stated his disappointment with the article in the paper and it was not representative of himself and hoped they all could learn from this experience. Commissioner Sims praised Dr. Pamela Senegal for a great job. 239 June 21, 2021 49 CLOSED SESSION #1 A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to enter into Closed Session per General Statute 143-318.11(a)(4) at 10:10am for the purpose of discussion of matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by the public body, including agreement on a tentative list of economic development incentives that may be offered by the public body in negotiations with the following individuals permitted to attend: County Manager, Heidi York, Clerk to the Board, Brenda Reaves, Economic Development Director, Sherry Wilborn and County Attorney, Ellis Hankins. Chairman Powell called Closed Session #1 to order at 10:12am. A motion was made by Commissioner Sims and carried 5-0 to return to open session at 10:36am. CLOSED SESSION #2 A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to enter into Closed Session per General Statute 143-318.11(a)(4) at 10:37pm for the purpose of discussion of matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by the public body, including agreement on a tentative list of economic development incentives that may be offered by the public body in negotiations with the following individuals permitted to attend: County Manager, Heidi York, Clerk to the Board, Brenda Reaves, Economic Development Director, Sherry Wilborn and County Attorney, Ellis Hankins. A motion was made by Commissioner Sims and carried 5-0 to return to open session at 10:55am. 240 June 21, 2021 50 ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 10:56am. _____________________________ ______________________________ Brenda B. Reaves Gordon Powell Clerk to the Board Chairman (Draft Board minutes are subject to Board approval). 241 7/12/2021 Dept./Acct No.Department Name Amount Incr / (Decr) EXPENDITURES General Fund Public Safety 39,001 REVENUES General Fund Other Revenues 39,001 EXPENDITURES Person Industries & MRF Fund Material Recovery Facility 22,768 REVENUES Person Industries & MRF Fund FBA 22,768 EXPENDITURES Emergency Telephone System Fund 54 REVENUES Emergency Telephone System Fund 54 E911 State Surcharges EXPENDITURES Economic Catalyst Fund 52,000 REVENUES Economic Catalyst Fund FBA 52,000 EXPENDITURES Stormwater Fund 394 REVENUES Stormwater FundFBA 394 Explanation: BUDGET AMENDMENT Carrying forward insurance proceeds received in June 2021 for totalled vehicle to be replaced in the Sheriff's Department ($39,001); appropriating fund balance in the PI/MRF Fund to cover the full cost of a feasibility study ($22,768); recognizing additional E911 Telephone Surcharge funds from the State finalized in June 2021 for the Emergency Telephone System Fund ($54); appropriating fund balance in the Economic Catalyst Fund for the Light Leap Project payments to Riverstreet that was transferred from the General Fund in June 2021 ($52,000); and appropriating fund balance in the Stormwater Fund to correctly reflect the full annual reserved amount for IAIA projects ($394). BA‐1242 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 12, 2021 Agenda Title: Pay and Classification Schedule Summary of Information: New positions and reclassifications approved for 2021-2022 Budget Grade 63 Administrative Assistant II – reclassification Grade 68 Assistant ED Director – new position Grade 69 Senior Code Enforcer – new position Grade 72 Systems Admin/Security Analyst – reclassification No Grade (off Classification) PT Kennel Attendant – new part-time position Per Article II, Section 5 of the Person County Personnel Policy, “The position classification plan, along with any new positions or classifications shall be approved by the Board of Commissioners and on file with the Human Resources Director.” Therefore, the aforementioned positions have been added to the Salary Schedule effective July 1, 2021. Changes during the year 2020-21 year: Grade 58 – Minimum annual salary correction due to rounding error Grade 57 - Accounting Technician I – new part-time Grade 65 – Accounting Specialist I – work against Accounting Specialist II Grade 68 – Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator - reclassification Grade 64 – Finance Specialist – reclassification Recommended Action: Approval Submitted By: Sonya Carver, Interim Human Resources Director 243 GR Min Mid Max Min Mid Max Min Mid Max Min Mid Max 48 17,742 22,621 27,500 9.10 11.60 14.10 8.53 10.88 13.22 8.12 10.36 12.59 49 18,629 23,752 28,875 9.55 12.18 14.81 8.96 11.42 13.88 8.53 10.88 13.22 50 19,561 24,940 30,319 10.03 12.79 15.55 9.40 11.99 14.58 8.96 11.42 13.88 51 20,539 26,187 31,835 10.53 13.43 16.33 9.87 12.59 15.31 9.40 11.99 14.58 52 21,565 27,496 33,426 11.06 14.10 17.14 10.37 13.22 16.07 9.87 12.59 15.31 53 22,644 28,871 35,098 11.61 14.81 18.00 10.89 13.88 16.87 10.37 13.22 16.07 54 23,776 30,314 36,853 12.19 15.55 18.90 11.43 14.57 17.72 10.89 13.88 16.87 55 24,965 31,830 38,695 12.80 16.32 19.84 12.00 15.30 18.60 11.43 14.57 17.72 56 26,213 33,422 40,630 13.44 17.14 20.84 12.60 16.07 19.53 12.00 15.30 18.60 57 27,524 35,093 42,662 14.11 18.00 21.88 13.23 16.87 20.51 12.60 16.07 19.53 58 28,899 36,847 44,795 14.82 18.90 22.97 13.89 17.72 21.54 13.23 16.87 20.51 59 30,345 38,690 47,034 15.56 19.84 24.12 14.59 18.60 22.61 13.89 17.72 21.54 60 31,862 40,624 49,386 16.34 20.83 25.33 15.32 19.53 23.74 14.59 18.60 22.61 61 33,455 42,655 51,855 17.16 21.87 26.59 16.08 20.51 24.93 15.32 19.53 23.74 62 35,128 44,788 54,448 18.01 22.97 27.92 16.89 21.53 26.18 16.08 20.51 24.93 63 36,884 47,027 57,171 18.92 24.12 29.32 17.73 22.61 27.49 16.89 21.53 26.18 64 38,728 49,379 60,029 19.86 25.32 30.78 18.62 23.74 28.86 17.73 22.61 27.49 65 40,665 51,848 63,031 20.85 26.59 32.32 19.55 24.93 30.30 18.62 23.74 28.86 66 42,698 54,440 66,182 21.90 27.92 33.94 20.53 26.17 31.82 19.55 24.93 30.30 67 44,833 57,162 69,491 22.99 29.31 35.64 21.55 27.48 33.41 20.53 26.17 31.82 68 47,075 60,020 72,966 24.14 30.78 37.42 22.63 28.86 35.08 21.55 27.48 33.41 69 49,428 63,021 76,614 25.35 32.32 39.29 23.76 30.30 36.83 22.63 28.86 35.08 70 51,900 66,172 80,445 26.62 33.93 41.25 24.95 31.81 38.68 23.76 30.30 36.83 71 54,495 69,481 84,467 27.95 35.63 43.32 26.20 33.40 40.61 24.95 31.81 38.68 72 57,220 72,955 88,690 29.34 37.41 45.48 27.51 35.07 42.64 26.20 33.40 40.61 73 60,081 76,603 93,125 30.81 39.28 47.76 28.88 36.83 44.77 27.51 35.07 42.64 74 63,085 80,433 97,781 32.35 41.25 50.14 30.33 38.67 47.01 28.88 36.83 44.77 75 66,239 84,455 102,670 33.97 43.31 52.65 31.85 40.60 49.36 30.33 38.67 47.01 76 69,551 88,677 107,804 35.67 45.48 55.28 33.44 42.63 51.83 31.85 40.60 49.36 77 73,028 93,111 113,194 37.45 47.75 58.05 35.11 44.76 54.42 33.44 42.63 51.83 78 76,680 97,767 118,854 39.32 50.14 60.95 36.87 47.00 57.14 35.11 44.76 54.42 79 80,514 102,655 124,796 41.29 52.64 64.00 38.71 49.35 60.00 36.87 47.00 57.14 80 84,539 107,788 131,036 43.35 55.28 67.20 40.64 51.82 63.00 38.71 49.35 60.00 81 88,766 113,177 137,588 45.52 58.04 70.56 42.68 54.41 66.15 40.64 51.82 63.00 82 93,205 118,836 144,467 47.80 60.94 74.09 44.81 57.13 69.46 42.68 54.41 66.15 83 97,865 124,778 151,691 50.19 63.99 77.79 47.05 59.99 72.93 44.81 57.13 69.46 84 102,758 131,017 159,275 52.70 67.19 81.68 49.40 62.99 76.57 47.05 59.99 72.93 85 107,896 137,568 167,239 55.33 70.55 85.76 51.87 66.14 80.40 49.40 62.99 76.57 7/3/2020 Revised 7/1/2021 Revised 2080 HOURS1950 HOURSEXEMPT Pay and Classification Schedule 2184 HOURS 244 GRADE CLASSIFICATION MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX 53 COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES ASSISTANT*11.61 14.81 18.00 22,644 28,871 35,098 54 12.19 15.55 18.90 23,776 30,314 36,853 55 COMMUNITY HEALTH TECHNICIAN*12.80 16.32 19.84 24,965 31,830 38,695 CUSTODIAN 56 OFFICE ASSISTANT III* 13.44 17.14 20.84 26,213 33,422 40,630 PROCESSING ASSISTANT III* 57 INCOME MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN* 14.11 18.00 21.88 27,524 35,093 42,662 COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES TECHNICIAN 58 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE WORKER 14.82 18.90 22.97 28,899 36,847 44,795 LIBRARY TECHNICIAN OFFICE ASSISTANT IV* PROCESSING ASSISTANT IV* TAX CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE 59 ACCOUNTING TECHNCIAN II* 15.56 19.84 24.12 30,345 38,690 47,034 ADMIN SUPPORT SPECIALIST BUILDING MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN DEPUTY REGISTER OF DEEDS INCOME MAINTENANCE CASEWORKER I* SENIOR GROUNDS MAINTENANCE WORKER 60 ANIMAL SERVICES OFFICER 16.34 20.83 25.33 31,862 40,624 49,386 APPRAISAL TECHNICIAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATE MEDICAL LAB TECHNICIAN I* PROCESSING UNIT SUPERVISOR V* SENIOR TAX CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE SOCIAL WORKER I - TRAINEE* 61 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III* 17.16 21.87 26.59 33,455 42,655 51,855 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I* CHILD SUPPORT AGENT I* FOREIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETOR II* INCOME MAINTENANCE CASEWORKER II* LANDS RECORDS SPECIALIST LIBRARY TECH SPECIALIST PARKS MAINTENANCE CREW LEADER PERMITS TECH PERSONAL PROPERTY APPRAISAL TECHNICIAN PLANNING TECHNICIAN PRACTICAL NURSE II * SOCIAL WORKER I* SR ADMIN SUPP SPECIALIST SR ADMIN SUPP SPECIALIST /PATS ADMIN COORD 62 SENIOR ANIMAL SERVICES OFFICER 18.01 22.97 27.92 35,128 44,788 54,448 1950 YEARLY HOURLY ANNUAL 245 GRADE CLASSIFICATION MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX 1950 YEARLY HOURLY ANNUAL SENIOR BUILDING MAINT TECHNICIAN 63 ADMINISRATIVE ASSISTANT II 18.92 24.12 29.32 36,884 47,027 57,171 4H PROGRAM ASSISTANT ACOUNTING TEHCNICIAN IV* CHILD SUPPORT AGENT II* DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS INCOME MAINTENANCE CASEWORKER III* INCOME MAINTENANCE SUPV I W/A II* PERMIT TECH/CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER PUBLIC HEALTH EDUCATOR I* SENIOR FINANCE TECHNICIAN SOCIAL WORKER/PARENT EDUCATOR SOIL CONSERVATIONIST 64 BUILD CODE ENFORCE OFF I 19.86 25.32 30.78 38,728 49,379 60,029 FINANCE SPECIALIST LEAD CHILD SUPPORT AGENT* NUTRITIONIST II* OUTDOOR RECREATION PROGRAM SPECIALIST RECREATION PROGRAM SPECIALIST 65 ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST I E 20.85 26.59 32.32 40,665 51,848 63,031 FIRE INSPECTOR HR GENERALIST INCOME MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR* E LIBRARIAN - CHILD REFERENCE E LIBRARIAN - REFERENCE E PAYROLL SPECIALIST PERSONAL PROPERTY APPRAISER SUPERVISOR REAL PROPERTY APPRAISER SOCIAL WORKER II* SOIL & WATER MANAGER E TAX COLLECTIONS SUPERVISOR TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR 66 ASSISTANT LIBRARY DIRECTOR E 21.90 27.92 33.94 42,698 54,440 66,182 CHILD SUPPORT SUPERVISOR* E COMPUTER SYSTEMS ADMINISTATOR I GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR E NUTRITIONIST III* E PLANNER I E 246 GRADE CLASSIFICATION MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX 1950 YEARLY HOURLY ANNUAL 67 ACCOUNTING SPECIALISTII * E 22.99 29.31 35.64 44,833 57,162 69,491 ANIMAL SERVICES MANAGER BUILDING MANTENANCE SUPERVISOR E ELECTIONS DIRECTOR E ENRIVONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST* GIS ANALYST HR & RISK MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR IT USER SUPPORT SPECIALIST PARK SUPERVISOR E RECREATION PROGRAM SUPERVISOR E SOCIAL WORKER III* 68 ASSISTANT ED DIRECTOR 24.14 30.78 37.42 47,075 60,020 72,966 CLERK TO THE BOARD/EXEC ASSISTANT CLINCIAL CHAPLIN II* FIRE MARSHAL E IT SENIOR USER SUPPORT SPECIALIST PUBLIC HEALTH EMERG. PREPAREDNESS COORD. SOCIAL WORK SUPERVISOR II* E SOCIAL WORKER IAT* 69 ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR E 25.35 32.32 39.29 49,428 63,021 76,614 ASSISTANT HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR E ASSISTANT PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR E ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROG SPECIALIST* SENIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 70 ANIMAL SERVICES DIRECTOR E 26.62 33.93 41.25 51,900 66,172 80,445 EMS OPERATIONS MANAGER E ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SUPERVISOR I* E HUMAN SERVICES EVALUATOR II* INCOME MAINTENANCE ADMINISTRATOR I * e PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE II* PUBLIC HEALTH QUALITY ASSUR SPEC II* 71 NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR E 27.95 35.63 43.32 54,495 69,481 84,467 PROPERTY APPRAISAL MANAGER E PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE III* PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE III/QI COORDINATOR* SOCIAL WORK SUPERVISOR III* E 72 DIRECTOR OF INSPECTIONS & PERMITS E 29.34 37.41 45.48 57,220 72,955 88,690 GIS MANAGER E LIBRARY DIRECTOR ** E PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR E REGISTER OF DEEDS E SOCIAL WORK PROGRAM MANAGER * E SYSTEMS ADMIN/SECURITY ANALYST 73 ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR E 30.81 39.28 47.76 60,081 76,603 93,125 247 GRADE CLASSIFICATION MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX 1950 YEARLY HOURLY ANNUAL ASSISTANT IT DIRECTOR E PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR E 74 PHYSICAL THERAPIST I*32.35 41.25 50.14 63,085 80,433 97,781 PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING SUPERVISOR II* E 75 EMERGENCY SERVICES DIRECTOR E 33.97 43.31 52.65 66,239 84,455 102,670 GENERAL SERVICES DIRECTOR E PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING DIRECTOR* E 76 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR E 35.67 45.48 55.28 69,551 88,677 107,804 PLANNING DIRECTOR E FINANCE DIRECTOR E HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR E INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR E TAX ADMINISTRATOR E 77 37.45 47.75 58.05 73,028 93,111 113,194 78 PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR* E 39.32 50.14 60.95 76,680 97,767 118,854 SOCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR* E 79 ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER E 41.29 52.64 64.00 80,514 102,655 124,796 *=Subject to State Human Resources Act E=FLSA exempt with related degree 248 GRADE CLASSIFICATION MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX 55 HABILITATION ASSISTANT 12.00 15.30 18.60 24,965 31,830 38,695 PRODUCTION ASSISTANT 57 FIELD SUPERVISOR 13.23 16.87 20.51 27,524 35,093 42,662 TRANSIT SPECIALST 58 LEAD TRANSIT SPECIALIST 13.89 17.72 21.54 28,900 36,847 44,795 59 EMT 14.59 18.60 22.61 30,345 38,690 47,034 JOB COACH 60 PI PAYROLL TECH & ADMIN SUP SPEC 15.32 19.53 23.74 31,862 40,624 49,386 TELECOMMUNICATOR 61 ADVANCED EMT 16.08 20.51 24.93 33,455 42,655 51,855 PRODUCTION COORDINATOR TELECOMMUNICATOR EMD 62 DETENTION ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 16.89 21.53 26.18 35,128 44,788 54,448 SR ADMIN SUPP SPEC/EVIDENCE CUSTODIAN TELECOMMUNICATOR LEAD 63 TELECOMMUNICATOR SUPERVISOR 17.73 22.61 27.49 36,884 47,027 57,171 ADMIN SUPP SPEC SUPV-SHERIFF'S DEPT 64 911 TRAINING AND QA SUPERVISOR 18.62 23.74 28.86 38,728 49,379 60,029 PARAMEDIC PRODUTION SUPERVISOR 65 EMS ASSISTANT SHIFT SUPVERVISOR 19.55 24.93 30.30 40,665 51,848 63,031 BUSINESS OFFICER SHERIFF EXEC ASSISTANT 66 EMS SHIFT SUPERVISOR 20.53 26.17 31.82 42,698 54,440 66,182 PROGRAM MANAGER E 67 EMS COMPLIANCE OFFICER 21.55 27.48 33.41 44,833 57,162 69,491 LEAD PROGRAM MANAGER E TELECOMM TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST 2080 YEARLY HOURLY ANNUAL 249 GRADE CLASSIFICATION MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX 2080 YEARLY HOURLY ANNUAL 68 22.63 28.86 35.08 47,075 60,020 72,966 69 ASSISTANT PERSON INDUSTRIES DIRECTOR E 23.76 30.30 36.83 49,428 63,021 76,614 70 TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGER E 24.95 31.81 38.68 51,900 66,172 80,445 71 26.20 33.40 40.61 54,495 69,481 84,467 72 27.51 35.07 42.64 57,220 72,955 88,690 73 28.88 36.83 44.77 60,081 76,603 93,125 74 30.33 38.67 47.01 63,085 80,433 97,781 75 PERSON INDUSTRIES DIRECTOR E 31.85 40.60 49.36 66,239 84,455 102,670 250 GRADE CLASSIFICATION MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX 60 DETENTION OFFICER 14.59 18.60 22.61 31,862 40,624 49,386 61 SENIOR DETENTION OFFICER 15.32 19.53 23.74 33,455 42,655 51,855 62 DETENTION SHIFT SUPERVISOR 16.08 20.51 24.93 35,128 44,788 54,448 63 DEPUTY SHERIFF 16.89 21.53 26.18 36,884 47,027 57,171 64 17.73 22.61 27.49 38,728 49,379 60,029 65 DEPUTY SPECIAL ASSIGN 18.62 23.74 28.86 40,665 51,848 63,031 DETENTION CENTER OPS MANAGER 66 DEPUTY UNIT SUPERVISOR (SG)19.55 24.93 30.30 42,698 54,440 66,182 67 DEPUTY DIVISION SUPERVISOR (LT)20.53 26.17 31.82 44,833 57,162 69,491 DEPUTY SHERIFF TECH SPECIALIST 68 21.55 27.48 33.41 47,075 60,020 72,966 69 22.63 28.86 35.08 49,428 63,021 76,614 70 23.76 30.30 36.83 51,900 66,172 80,445 71 DEPUTY SHER OPER COMMANDER E 24.95 31.81 38.68 54,495 69,481 84,467 72 CHIEF COMMANDER (MAJOR) E 26.20 33.40 40.61 57,220 72,955 88,690 73 CHIEF DEPUTY E 27.51 35.07 42.64 60,081 76,603 93,125 78 SHERIFF E 35.11 44.76 54.42 76,680 97,767 118,854 GRADE CLASSIFICATION MIN MID MAX 48 Library Page 9.10 11.60 14.10 57 Accounting Technician I 14.11 18.00 21.88 59 Veteran's Services Officer 15.56 19.84 24.12 Elections Assistant 12.53 Elections Admn Supp 11.48 Elections 1 stop 11.48 Help Desk Technician 20.00 Mayo/ Parks Maintenance 10.00 PI Machine Operator 9.50 Grounds Maintenance Huck Sansbury/ Kirb 10.00 PI Van Driver 8.50 PT Truck Driver 10.00 PT Kennel Attendant 9.10 TITLES OFF THE CLASSIFICATION 2184 YEARLY HOURLY ANNUAL PART-TIME POSITIONS 251 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 12, 2021 Agenda Title: Person Industries Record Destruction Summary of Information: Person Industries must obtain permission from the Board of Commissioners for destruction of records over 11 years old. Recommended Action: Routine record maintenance, shredding will occur at Person Industries. Submitted By: Amanda Everett, Director 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 12, 2021 Agenda Title: Tax Adjustments for July 2021 Summary of Information: Attached please find the tax releases and motor vehicle pending refunds: 1.July 2021 tax releases. 2.July 2021 North Carolina Vehicle Tax System pending refunds. Recommended Action: Motion to accept reports and authorize refunds. Submitted By: Russell Jones, Tax Administrator 265 NAME BILL NUMBER OPER DATE/TIME DISTRICT VALUE AMOUNT 60958301 2020-21673 DY: RP:A74 208 MP 6/11/2021 10:34:51 AM STOTLER TERESA TURNER C ADVLTAX 9,935.00 71.53 C PEN FEE 9,935.00 7.15 FIREADVLTAX 9,935.00 2.73 FIREPEN FEE 9,935.00 0.27 TOTAL RELEASES:81.68 60958301 2019-21673 DY: RP:A74 208 MP 6/11/2021 10:36:43 AM STOTLER TERESA TURNER LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C ADVLTAX 10,598.00 77.37 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C PEN FEE 10,598.00 7.74 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREADVLTAX 10,598.00 2.91 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREPEN FEE 10,598.00 0.29 DOUBLE CHARGED FOR SINGLEWIDE TOTAL RELEASES:88.31 60958301 2018-21673 DY: RP:A74 208 MP 6/11/2021 10:37:38 AM STOTLER TERESA TURNER LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C ADVLTAX 11,260.00 78.82 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C PEN FEE 11,260.00 7.88 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREADVLTAX 11,260.00 1.13 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREPEN FEE 11,260.00 0.11 CHARGED FOR SINGLEWIDE TWICE TOTAL RELEASES:87.94 60958301 2017-21673 DY: RP:A74 208 MP 6/11/2021 10:46:48 AM STOTLER TERESA TURNER LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C ADVLTAX 11,918.00 83.43 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C PEN FEE 11,918.00 1.91 BILLED FOR SINGLEWIDE TWICE TOTAL RELEASES:85.34 60958116 2016-1168118 DY: RP:A74 208 MP 6/11/2021 10:47:52 AM STOTLER TERESA TURNER LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C ADVLTAX 12,580.00 88.06 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C PEN FEE 12,580.00 2.10 BILLED TWICE FOR SINGLEWIDE TOTAL RELEASES:90.16 60958115 2015-1136034 DY: RP:A74 208 MP 6/11/2021 10:49:21 AM STOTLER TERESA TURNER LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C ADVLTAX 13,242.00 92.69 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C PEN FEE 13,242.00 2.30 BILLED TWICE FOR SINGLEWIDE TOTAL RELEASES:94.99 39617101 2018-33419 DY: PERSONAL PROPERTY RH 6/14/2021 2:19:41 PM DOUG JONES METAL ROOFING LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C ADVLTAX 1,350.00 9.45 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C PEN FEE 1,350.00 0.95 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREADVLTAX 1,350.00 0.14 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREPEN FEE 1,350.00 0.01 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C GARNFEE 1,350.00 30.00 BUSINESS CLOSED 12/17 TOTAL RELEASES:40.55 39617101 2019-33419 DY: PERSONAL PROPERTY RH 6/14/2021 2:20:25 PM DOUG JONES METAL ROOFING LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C ADVLTAX 1,230.00 8.98 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C PEN FEE 1,230.00 0.90 RUN DATE: 7/1/2021 2:04 PM RELEASES REPORT Person County 266 NAME BILL NUMBER OPER DATE/TIME DISTRICT VALUE AMOUNT LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREADVLTAX 1,230.00 0.34 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREPEN FEE 1,230.00 0.03 BUSINESS CLOSED 12/17 TOTAL RELEASES:10.25 39617101 2020-33419 DY: PERSONAL PROPERTY RH 6/14/2021 2:21:42 PM DOUG JONES METAL ROOFING LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C ADVLTAX 1,110.00 7.99 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C PEN FEE 1,110.00 0.80 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREADVLTAX 1,110.00 0.31 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREPEN FEE 1,110.00 0.03 BUSINESS CLOSED 12/17 TOTAL RELEASES:9.13 202050451500 2020-504515 DY:19 PERSONAL PROPERTY SRJ 6/18/2021 3:31:49 PM THOMAS DENNIS RAY LIEN FEE ADJUSTMENT C GARNFEE 0.00 30.00 TOTAL RELEASES:30.00 21444201 2018-37586 DY: PERSONAL PROPERTY MP 6/24/2021 2:00:52 PM CLARK RUSSELL & SHELIA LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C ADVLTAX 750.00 5.25 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C PEN FEE 750.00 0.53 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREADVLTAX 750.00 0.08 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREPEN FEE 750.00 0.01 MOVED OUT OF PERSON COUNTY JULY 2017 TOTAL RELEASES:5.87 21444201 2019-37586 DY: PERSONAL PROPERTY MP 6/24/2021 2:20:53 PM CLARK RUSSELL LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C ADVLTAX 750.00 5.48 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C PEN FEE 750.00 0.55 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREADVLTAX 750.00 0.21 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREPEN FEE 750.00 0.02 MOVED OUT OF PERSON COUNTY JULY 2017 TOTAL RELEASES:6.26 21444201 2020-37586 DY: PERSONAL PROPERTY MP 6/24/2021 2:28:51 PM CLARK RUSSELL LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C ADVLTAX 750.00 5.40 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C PEN FEE 750.00 0.54 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREADVLTAX 750.00 0.21 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FIREPEN FEE 750.00 0.02 LISTING ADJUSTED PERSONAL PROPERTY C GARNFEE 750.00 30.00 MOVED OUT OF PERSON COUNTY JULY 2017 TOTAL RELEASES:36.17 NET RELEASES PRINTED:666.65 TOTAL TAXES RELEASED 666.65 RUN DATE: 7/1/2021 2:04 PM RELEASES REPORT Person County 267 C ADVLTAX - County Tax TAX YEAR RATE YEAR REAL VALUE RELEASED PERS VALUE RELEASED TOTAL VALUE RELEASED REAL TAX RELEASED PERS TAX RELEASED MV VALUE RELEASED MV TAXES RELEASED TOTAL VALUE RELEASED TOTAL TAXES RELEASED 2015 2015 13,242 0 13,242 92.69 0.00 0 0.00 13,242 92.69 2016 2016 12,580 0 12,580 88.06 0.00 0 0.00 12,580 88.06 2017 2017 11,918 0 11,918 83.43 0.00 0 0.00 11,918 83.43 2018 2018 0 13,360 13,360 0.00 93.52 0 0.00 13,360 93.52 2019 2019 0 12,578 12,578 0.00 91.83 0 0.00 12,578 91.83 2020 2020 0 11,795 11,795 0.00 84.92 0 0.00 11,795 84.92 DIST TOTAL 37,740 37,733 75,473 264.18 270.27 0 0.00 75,473 534.45 C GARNFEE - GARNISHMENT FEE TAX YEAR RATE YEAR REAL VALUE RELEASED PERS VALUE RELEASED TOTAL VALUE RELEASED REAL TAX RELEASED PERS TAX RELEASED MV VALUE RELEASED MV TAXES RELEASED TOTAL VALUE RELEASED TOTAL TAXES RELEASED 2018 2018 0 1,350 1,350 0.00 30.00 0 0.00 1,350 30.00 2020 2019 0 0 0 0.00 30.00 0 0.00 0 30.00 2020 2020 0 750 750 0.00 30.00 0 0.00 750 30.00 DIST TOTAL 0 2,100 2,100 0.00 90.00 0 0.00 2,100 90.00 C PEN FEE - County Late List TAX YEAR RATE YEAR REAL VALUE RELEASED PERS VALUE RELEASED TOTAL VALUE RELEASED REAL TAX RELEASED PERS TAX RELEASED MV VALUE RELEASED MV TAXES RELEASED TOTAL VALUE RELEASED TOTAL TAXES RELEASED 2015 2015 13,242 0 13,242 2.30 0.00 0 0.00 13,242 2.30 2016 2016 12,580 0 12,580 2.10 0.00 0 0.00 12,580 2.10 2017 2017 11,918 0 11,918 1.91 0.00 0 0.00 11,918 1.91 2018 2018 0 13,360 13,360 0.00 9.36 0 0.00 13,360 9.36 2019 2019 0 12,578 12,578 0.00 9.19 0 0.00 12,578 9.19 2020 2020 0 11,795 11,795 0.00 8.49 0 0.00 11,795 8.49 DIST TOTAL 37,740 37,733 75,473 6.31 27.04 0 0.00 75,473 33.35 FIREADVLTAX - Fire District Tax TAX YEAR RATE YEAR REAL VALUE RELEASED PERS VALUE RELEASED TOTAL VALUE RELEASED REAL TAX RELEASED PERS TAX RELEASED MV VALUE RELEASED MV TAXES RELEASED TOTAL VALUE RELEASED TOTAL TAXES RELEASED 2018 2018 0 13,360 13,360 0.00 1.35 0 0.00 13,360 1.35 2019 2019 0 12,578 12,578 0.00 3.46 0 0.00 12,578 3.46 2020 2020 0 11,795 11,795 0.00 3.25 0 0.00 11,795 3.25 DIST TOTAL 0 37,733 37,733 0.00 8.06 0 0.00 37,733 8.06 FIREPEN FEE - Fire LateList TAX YEAR RATE YEAR REAL VALUE RELEASED PERS VALUE RELEASED TOTAL VALUE RELEASED REAL TAX RELEASED PERS TAX RELEASED MV VALUE RELEASED MV TAXES RELEASED TOTAL VALUE RELEASED TOTAL TAXES RELEASED 2018 2018 0 13,360 13,360 0.00 0.13 0 0.00 13,360 0.13 2019 2019 0 12,578 12,578 0.00 0.34 0 0.00 12,578 0.34 2020 2020 0 11,795 11,795 0.00 0.32 0 0.00 11,795 0.32 DIST TOTAL 0 37,733 37,733 0.00 0.79 0 0.00 37,733 0.79 GRAND TOTALS:75,480 153,032 228,512 270.49 396.16 0 0.00 228,512 666.65 RUN DATE: 7/1/2021 2:04 PM RELEASES REPORT Person County 268 Payee Name Address 3 Refund Type Refund Reason Create Date Tax Jurisdiction Levy Type Total Change 01 Tax ($6.93) 60 Tax ($0.26) $7.19 01 Tax ($31.54) 60 Tax ($1.21) $32.75 01 Tax ($49.30) 60 Tax ($1.88) $51.18 01 Tax ($7.86) 60 Tax ($0.29) $8.15 01 Tax ($4.91) 60 Tax ($0.18) $5.09 01 Tax ($14.12) 60 Tax ($0.53) $14.65 01 Tax ($9.05) 60 Tax ($0.35) $9.40 01 Tax ($82.03) 60 Tax ($3.13) $85.16 01 Tax ($17.29) 50 Tax ($16.09) 50 Vehicle Fee $0.00 $33.38 01 Tax ($6.63) 60 Tax ($0.25) $6.88 01 Tax ($105.99) 60 Tax ($4.05) $110.04 01 Tax ($45.81) 60 Tax ($1.76) $47.57 MANGUM, DENNIS DUNCAN SR ROXBORO, NC 27574 Proration Vehicle Sold 06/14/2021 LEWIS, MICHAEL CAMERON TIMBERLAKE, NC 27583 Proration Vehicle Sold 06/14/2021 HENSLER, DAVID FRANCIS WAKE FOREST, NC 27587 Proration Vehicle Sold 06/18/2021 GRAVES, KENDRICK MARVAE ROXBORO, NC 27573 Proration Vehicle Sold 06/14/2021 FIRST CHOICE LEASING DURHAM, NC 27717 Proration Vehicle Sold 06/21/2021 FIRST CHOICE LEASING DURHAM, NC 27717 Proration Vehicle Sold 06/21/2021 FIRST CHOICE LEASING DURHAM, NC 27717 Proration Vehicle Sold 06/21/2021 FIRST CHOICE LEASING DURHAM, NC 27717 Proration Vehicle Sold 06/21/2021 FIRST CHOICE LEASING DURHAM, NC 27717 Proration Vehicle Sold 06/21/2021 BUNNELL, JEFFREY CARLIN TIMBERLAKE, NC 27583 Proration Reg . Out of state 06/29/2021 BUNNELL, JEFFREY CARLIN TIMBERLAKE, NC 27583 Proration Reg . Out of state 06/29/2021 BUNNELL, JEFFREY CARLIN TIMBERLAKE, NC 27583 Proration Reg . Out of state 06/29/2021 269 Payee Name Address 3 Refund Type Refund Reason Create Date Tax Jurisdiction Levy Type Total Change 01 Tax ($53.52) 60 Tax ($2.05) $55.57 01 Tax $0.00 50 Tax ($124.62) 50 Vehicle Fee ($20.00) 60 Tax $5.12 $139.50 01 Tax ($14.51) 60 Tax ($0.55) $15.06 WOMELDORF, EVELYN NAOMI TIMBERLAKE, NC 27583 Proration Vehicle Sold 06/14/2021 WILLIAMS, TRAYWICK SHAN ROXBORO, NC 27573 Adjustment >= $100 Situs error 05/18/2021 WHITT, MARTIN LUTHER ROXBORO, NC 27574 Proration Vehicle Sold 06/29/2021 270 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 12, 2021 Agenda Title: Tax Collector Settlement Summary of Information: As required by General Statute 105-373(a)(3), an annual settlement for taxes for the current fiscal year and all previous years must be made with the governing body of the taxing unit. The Tax Collector Settlement is attached. Recommended Action: Motion to accept report. Submitted By: Russell Jones, Tax Administrator 271 2020Tax CollectorSettlement272 Introduction:Per N.C. General Statute 105‐373 the Tax Collector must make a report of settlement for the fiscal Year 2020‐2021 and prior years.273 2020 County LevyReal/Personal PropertyTotal Billed Actual Collections Uncollected % Collected$24,525,229.42 $24,299,610.94 $225,618.4899.08%Public ServiceTotal Billed Actual Collections Uncollected % Collected$6,625,681.62 $6,625,681.62 $.00 100.00%Motor VehiclesTotal Billed Actual Collections Uncollected % Collected$3,057,736.32 $3,054,199.56 $3,536.76 99.88%274 Total 2020 County LevyCombined CollectionsTotal Billed Actual Collections Uncollected % Collected$34,208,647.36 $33,979,492.12 $229,155.24 99.33%Total 2020 County Levy‐AdjustedCombined CollectionsTotal Billed Actual Collections Uncollected % Collected$34,186,376.13 $33,979,492.12 $184,612.78 99.39%275 5 Year Comparison By CategoryReal/Personal Property6/30/2021 6/30/2020 6/30/2019 6/30/2018 6/30/201799.08% 98.53% 98.43% 98.37% 98.39%Public Service6/30/2021 6/30/2020 6/30/2019 6/30/2018 6/30/2017100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%Motor Vehicles6/30/2021 6/30/2020 6/30/2019 6/30/2018 6/30/201799.88% 99.83% 99.87 % 99.90 % 99.85 %276 5 Year Comparison Overall Collection Rate6/30/2021 6/30/2020 6/30/2019 6/30/2018 6/30/201799.33% 98.91% 98.85% 98.81% 98.74%277 Collections Tools UsedDelinquent Notices Mailed out in January and May each yearAdvertisingListed in newspaper early MarchGarnishments Instructs employer to withhold/submit 10% of gross wagesAttachmentInstructs bank to withdraw available funds to pay taxesEscheatsAlso known as NCCashDebt SetoffFor debts over $50/submitted against NC Tax Refunds & Lottery WinningsPayment Arrangements Many taxpayers, especially those with fixed income, make payments even before bills are mailedForeclosureResults in the sale of property at public action278 Other CollectionsPre‐Payment Collection Fees Stormwater/Interest$202,356,48 $75,249.50 $287,069.97Prior Year Taxes Animal Taxes Fire Tax/Interest$476,437.46 $533.43 $1,020,816.89County Interest Gross Receipts Copy Fees$169,928.59 $17,935.96 $482.01Late Listing Beer License City$47,396.99 $2,600.00 $4,325,686.66Grand total for all taxes & fees = $37,478,977.64279 11thYear Insolvents‐20102010 County Taxes Original Levy Balance %Real Estate/Other$25,040,920.65 $11,540.84 99.95%Vehicle $2,002,211.03 $7,163.29 99.64%Final Collection Rate Overall $27,043,313.68 $18,704.13 99.82%280 Other Tax Office ItemsDeceased Owners 224 bills with a 2020 county amount due of $51,3602021 Reappraisal Completed appeals before June 30. Next Reappraisal scheduled for 2025Gap BillingCreated 2,271 new bills, county taxes due of $52,235, collected $39,820, or 76.23%.Staffing‐collections Replaced 2 collection staff, and both new employees have completed necessary trainingStaffing‐Appraisal Property Appraisal Manager retired April 1, 2021281 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 12, 2021 Agenda Title: Order to Collect Taxes Summary of Information: As required by General Statute 105-321, the governing board of the taxing unit must issue an order of collection to tax collectors. This gives the tax collector legal authority to collect taxes. The Tax Collection Order is attached. Recommended Action: Motion to direct Tax Collector to collect taxes for 2021 and all delinquent taxes from prior years. Submitted By: Russell Jones, Tax Administrator 282 PERSON COUNTY OFFICE OF THE TAX ADMINISTRATOR Person County Tax Office P.O. Box 1116 13 Abbitt St Roxboro, North Carolina 27573-1116 (336) 597-1721 Fax No. (336) 322-8619 County of Person To the Tax Collector of the County of Person: You are hereby authorized, empowered, and commanded to collect the taxes set forth in the tax records filed in the office of Person County Tax Office and in the tax receipts herewith delivered to you, in the amounts and from the taxpayers likewise therein set forth. Such taxes are hereby declared to be a first lien upon all real property of the respective taxpayers in the County of Person, and this order shall be a full and sufficient authority to direct, require, and enable you to levy on and sell any real or personal property of such taxpayers, for and on account thereof, in accordance with law. Witness my hand and official seal, this 12th day of July 2021. _________________________________________ Gordon Chairman, Chairman Board of Commissioners of Person County Attest: ________________________________________________ Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 283 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 12, 2021 Agenda Title: Reappointment of County Tax Assessor Summary of Information: As required by G.S. 105-294(a), the Person County Board of Commissioner's must appoint a Tax Assessor. The Board of Commissioners appointed the current tax assessor, Russell Jones, on July 10, 2017 for a 4 year term, which will expire this month. The current tax assessor is certified by the North Carolina Department of Revenue as an Assessor, and therefore eligible for a 4-year appointment. It is customary for counties to appoint an Assessor for the full 4-year term. § 105-294. County assessor.(a) Appointment. – Persons occupying the position of county assessor on July 1, 1983, shall continue in office until the first Monday in July, 1983. At its first regular meeting in July, 1983, and every two years or four years thereafter, as appropriate, the board of county commissioners ofeach county shall appoint a county assessor to serve a term of not less than two nor more than fouryears; provided, however, that no person shall be eligible for initial appointment to a term of morethan two years unless such person is deemed to be qualified as provided in subsection (b) of this section or has been certified by the Department of Revenue as provided in subsection (c) of this section. The board of commissioners may remove the assessor from office during his term for goodcause after giving him notice in writing and an opportunity to appear and be heard at a publicsession of the board. Whenever a vacancy occurs in this office, the board of county commissionersshall appoint a qualified person to serve as county assessor for the period of the unexpired term. Recommended Action: Appoint a County Tax Assessor for a designated term and administer oath. Submitted By: Russell Jones, Tax Administrator 284 PERSON COUNTY OFFICE OF THE TAX ADMINISTRATOR Person County Tax Office P.O. Box 1116 13 Abbitt St Roxboro, North Carolina 27573-1116 (336) 597-1721 Fax No. (336) 322-8619 July 12, 2021 Person County Oath for County Tax Assessor I, Russell Jones, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as Tax Assessor, and that I will not allow my actions as assessor to be influenced by personal or political friendship or obligations, so help me God." ____________________________________________ Russell Jones County Tax Assessor ___________________________________________ Gordon Powell, Chairman Board of Commissioners of Person County Attest: ____________________________________________ Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 285 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 12, 2021 Agenda Title: Person Area Transportation System (PATS) Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) By-Laws Update and Appointment to the TAB Summary of Information: The Person County Board of Commissioners (BOC) is the governing board for PATS, and the TAB serves in an advisory capacity. N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) requires that the BOC approve updates to the TAB By-Laws. The recommended update includes increasing the number of TAB members from 13 to 14. The additional position would be designated for a City of Roxboro representative, which would enhance collaboration with city staff on efforts to improve transit services in our community. It also includes updating the “Occupational Affiliation” description for the Economic Development member to “Economic Development/Chamber of Commerce” to expand representation of the business community on the TAB. Lastly, staff recommends consideration of Vernell Davis’s application for appointment to the TAB in Economic Development/Chamber of Commerce position for a 3-year term. Recommended Action: Approve the staff recommended TAB By-Laws updates. Appoint Vernell Davis as a TAB member for a 3-year term. Submitted By: Kurt J. Neufang, Transportation Director 286 Person Area Transportation System Transportation Advisory Board By-Laws Article I: Name The name of this board shall be the Person Area Transportation System Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). Article II: Powers and Responsibilities The TAB serves in an advisory capacity only. The board shall perform the following duties or be responsible for the following functions: 1.Serve as a liaison between the residents of Person County and thecounty government concerning transportation issues.2.Serve as the advisory body to Person Area Transportation Systemin operations of transportation services for Person County. 3.Make policy recommendations to the Person Area Transportation System and Person County Board of Commissioners on the transportation needs of Person County citizens regarding all public transportation matters including proposed routes, service changes, ridership policies, fare structures, funding and budgets. 4.Reviews public transportation services, projects and funding toensure that they are being fairly and equitably distributed toresidents of the community served.5.Work to stimulate and promote needed transportation services andprograms for Person County residents. 6.Assist public, private and voluntary agencies in providing transportation services for their clients. 7.Assist in the development and update of the Person Area Transportation System future plans for transportation services. 8.Disseminates information and holds forums to solicit public input. 9.Promotes support for and utilization of transit services in thecommunity.10. Perform other functions and responsibilities as requested orprescribed by the Person County Board of Commissioners. 287 Article III: Composition 1) Number and Qualifications The Person Area Transportation System Transportation Advisory Board is composed of a total of 14 representatives from different human services agencies and other related community members who represent various consumer groups. Below is the list of representatives and agencies that the board is composed of: Person County Commissioner Person County Social Services Person Industries Person County Senior Center Person County Health Department Economic Development/Chamber of Commerce School System (PCS or PCC) Medical Related Service (Hospital, dialysis center, doctor’s office or clinic) Private Industry within Person County Citizen (2) EOC Manager (permanent) RPO Director or designee (permanent) City of Roxboro Representative The Public Transportation Director shall serve as the staff liaison on the Transportation Advisory Board. 2) Terms and Replacements At-large members of the Person Area Transportation System Transportation Advisory Board shall serve a three-year term, with no maximum term limit. Agency representatives may reapply to continue to serve on the board in the agency’s capacity at the end of their term. Person Area Transportation System encourages the rotation of representatives from various agencies, but does not discourage the continuous participation of representatives, if adequate alternatives are not identified. When the County Commissioner appointed to the board ceases to be a County Commissioner for any reason, his or her appointment as a member of the board shall also cease and the 288 Board of Commissioners, during its next meeting shall appoint another Commissioner to the transportation advisory board. 3) Vacancies The Person County Board of Commissioners shall fill vacancies on the Person Area Transportation System Transportation Advisory Board. The person appointed shall serve for the unexpired portion of the term. 4) Attendance a) Any member of the Board who accumulates more than three consecutive unapproved absences in a 12-month period shall lose his/her status as a member of the board and shall be replaced by the Person County Board of Commissioners. Absences due to illness, death of an immediate family member or previously scheduled event shall be considered approved absences if notified 24 hours before the scheduled meeting. Following the second consecutive absence, the member will be notified in writing of the attendance policy by the staff liaison. b) The County’s Authorizing Official or designee must attend a minimum of one meeting per year. 5) Orientation New Board Members shall receive orientation and a TAB member manual to educate them regarding the nature and purpose of the Transportation Advisory Board, the role of the transportation system and their roles and responsibilities as Board Members. 6) Compensation Transportation Advisory Board members will serve without compensation. 289 Article IV: Regular Meetings 1) Dates and Locations a) Regular meetings of the Person Area Transportation System Transportation Advisory Board will be held quarterly. Regular meetings are held at the Person Area Transportation System offices on the first Wednesday of the last month in each quarter at 4:00pm. The board will determine the dates for the following calendar year at the last meeting of the previous calendar year. b) The Chairperson or Public Transportation Director may call special meetings of the Person Area Transportation System Transportation Advisory Board as deemed necessary to carry out of the duties of the board. c) Board agenda package will be provided to the board members a minimum of five working days in advance of the meeting date. d) Public notice of all meetings will be provided in compliance with NC G.S. 14-318.12. 2) Quorum A majority of the board then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business for any meeting of the board. Article V: Officers 1) Number and Title The principle officers of the Person Area Transportation System Transportation Advisory Board shall be a chairperson, vice-chairperson and secretary. 2) Election a) The board shall elect the chairperson and vice-chairperson for a term of one year at its first meeting in the Person County fiscal year. Consecutive terms may be served. 290 b) The Public Transportation Director will serve as the secretary for the board. 3) Chairperson The chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the board and shall represent the board in approved activities on its behalf. The chairperson will also be responsible for scheduling and submitting notices of all meeting to the membership of the board. 4) Vice-Chairperson The vice-chairperson shall perform the duties of the chairperson in his/her absence. 5) Secretary a) The secretary shall record and keep file of the minutes of all board meeting. b) The secretary will also be responsible for posting public notices of the scheduled meeting dates in the newspaper, website and social media outlets. c) The secretary will also be responsible for posting the official minutes on the county website. Article VI: Committees The Person Area Transportation System Advisory Board may designate committees, as it shall determine. Minutes must be taken at each committee meeting and will be filed with the official board minutes. Committee minutes must be turned into the secretary by the following scheduled board meeting. Reports from each committee shall be given to the full membership of the board. 291 Article VII: Rules of Order At all meeting of the board and of such committees as may be established, the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern procedure and as modified by rules of the board. Article VIII. Conflict of Interest Members of the Transportation Advisory Board shall not advise or recommend to staff of the transportation system/authority or its governing body, any actions that would result in personal or financial gain for the member or his/her family or relatives, or in which the member’s interest conflict or could be construed to conflict with those of the transportation system/authority. Each member must sign a Conflict of Interest form annually. Article VIII: Board of Commissioners The Person County Board of Commissioners may direct the Transportation Advisory Board regarding matters relating to it and may over-rule or re-direct actions of the Transportation Advisory Board. Article IX: Amendments These by-laws may be adopted, altered, or appealed by the affirmative votes of a majority of the Board of Commissioners in office at any regular or special meeting of the board, but only if the notice of such meeting contained a copy or an accurate summary and explanation of the proposed by-laws amendment, alteration, or repeal as the case may be. 292 Adopted on the 12th day of July, 2021. __________________________________ Gordon Powell, Chairman Person County Board of Commissioners Attest: __________________________________ Brenda B. Reaves, NCCCC, MMC Clerk of Board __________________________________ Melinda Hudson, Chairperson PATS Transportation Advisory Board 293 294 295 296 297 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 12, 2021 Agenda Title: Designation of Voting Delegate to NC Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) Annual Conference Summary of Information: Voting Credentials for the 2021 NCACC Annual Business Session scheduled on August 14, 2021 in New Hanover County must be submitted by August 9, 2021 in order for Person County’s delegate to participate in the association’s annual election of officers and policy adoption. Recommended Action: Designate Commissioner Sims attending the Conference as Person County’s delegate. Submitted By: Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board 298 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 12, 2021 Agenda Title: Consideration of the Organization and Governance Structure for County Human Services Summary of Information: The NC Legislature approved in 2012 a law expanding the options for consolidating human services agencies in county government (S.L.2012-126). Person County currently operates with two separate agencies: Public Health Department and the Department of Social Services. Each department is governed by an appointed Board: the Board of Health and the DSS Board. The 2012 law provides County Commissioners some additional options for the organizational structure and the governance of human services. The Board of County Commissioners may decide the organizational option of separate departments or to consolidate the two departments into one consolidated human services agency. The Board of County Commissioners may also decide the governance and reporting option as either an appointed board (consolidated human services board) or assume the powers and duties of the board themselves. These decisions also impact the reporting structure of the agency directors, which can then report directly to the Board of Commissioners or to the County Manager depending on the structure. If the Board consolidates the departments, county department employees can then become subject solely to county personnel policies and procedures rather than be subject to the State Human Resources Act as they are currently. Recommended Action: Receive the information and direct staff as appropriate. Submitted By: Commissioner PJ Gentry 299 Human Services Organization & Governance: A Changing LandscapeJill D. Moore & Aimee N. WallLegal Basics for Human Services AdministratorsMarch 2018300 Why are we talking about this?S.L. 2012- 126 (H 438)•Consolidation law changes in countiesS.L. 2017-41 (H 630)•Social services regionalization & supervision working group301 What are we talking about?• Agencies• Directors• EmployeesOrganization• Local boards and advisory committees• Role of stateGovernance302 General Framework•Requirement: Counties must provide public health and social services•Organizational options:– Single-county separate PH & SS agencies– Single-county consolidated human services agencies– Multi-county agencies– Other (authority models, interlocal agreements)•Governance options for single-county agencies:– Appointed governing board(s), or – BOCC may assume powers and duties of board(s)4303 CONSOLIDATIONG.S. 153A-77 (S.L. 2012-146, H 438)304 Consolidation Law Timeline1973• Large counties may abolish boards (Mecklenburg)1995• Large counties may establish CHSAs (Wake)2012• All counties authorized to abolish boards and/or establish CHSAs6305 OptionsStay the sameOptions in PH & SS lawsOptions in consolidation law306 Board of County CommissionersDepartment of Social Services and/or Public HealthBoard of County CommissionersConsolidated Human Services BoardConsolidated Human Services AgencyBoard of County Commissioners as a Consolidated Human Services BoardConsolidated Human Services Agency123Options in Consolidation Law307 Not consolidatedConsolidated human services agency (CHSA)with a consolidated human services board (Wake)CHSA with BOCC as governing board (Mecklenburg) PH and SS Organization and GovernanceJune 2012308 SS & PH agencies with appointed governing boardsOption 1 with both SS & PH agencies governed by BOCC (Graham, Stokes, Sampson [eff. April 1, 2018])Option 1 with SS agency governed by BOCC, PH agency with appointed governing board (McDowell, Mitchell, Watauga, Wilkes, Surry, Columbus)Option 2 with consolidated HS agency including SS & PH, appointed CHS board (Jackson, Haywood, Buncombe, Gaston, Union, Stanly, Rockingham, Wake, Nash, Edgecombe, Carteret, Dare)Option 2 with consolidated HS agency include SS and other human services but not PH, governed by appointed CHS board (Polk)Option 3 with consolidated HS agency including SS & PH, governed by BOCC, health advisory committee (Clay, Swain, Yadkin, Mecklenburg [no advi. comm.], Guilford, Montgomery, Richmond, Bladen, Brunswick, Pender, Onslow)Option 3 with consolidated HS agency including SS & other human services but not PH, governed by BOCC (Cabarrus)PH and SS Organization and GovernanceResolutions as of February 1, 2018309 Agency Board Hire Agency Director PersonnelDSSSeparate Appointed;3-5 mem.Board hires SHRAPHSeparate Appointed;11 mem.Board hiresSHRAOneSeparate Elected* BOCC hiresSHRATwoConsolidated(any combo of human services)Appointed;up to 25 mem.Manager hires with advice & consent of CHS boardSHRAOptionalThreeConsolidated(any combo of human services)Elected* Manager hires with advice & consent of BOCCSHRAoptional* If public health affected, must appoint health advisory committee (except in Mecklenburg)Key Differences310 What goes in a CHSA?•Law does not require any particular mix of human services•May include:– Public health– Social services– Other county human services departments or programsGaston County• Public Health, Social Services, Transportation, Aging, Youth Services, Child Advocacy Center, Battered Women’s ShelterGuilford County• Public Health, Social Services, Transportation, County Veterans’ AffairsCabarrus County• Social Services, Aging, Transportation311 CHS BoardMembership (if appointed) •County commissioner•4 consumers of human services•Professionals: psychologist, pharmacist, engineer, dentist, optometrist, veterinarian, social worker, registered nurse, two physicians (one must be a psychiatrist)•Up to 12 othersPowers and duties•Assume all powers and duties of PH/SS boards, except hiring director•Other powers and duties– Advise and consent to hiring/firing of director– Plan and recommend a budget – Assure compliance with state/federal laws– Recommend creation of human services programs– Perform public relations and advocacy functions13312 Board of Social ServicesMembership (if appointed)•Two members appointed by BOCC•Two members appointed by NC Social Services Commission•One member appointed by the other membersPowers and duties•Consult with director in preparing agency budget•Authority to inspect social services and public assistance records•Authority to make some decisions related to Work First, Special Assistance, and services funded through the Social Services Block Grant•Review suspected cases of fraud for some public assistance programs14313 Board of HealthMembership (if appointed)•County commissioner•Physician•Dentist•Optometrist•Veterinarian•Registered nurse•Pharmacist•Professional engineer•3 general public membersPowers and duties•Make policy for local public health agency•Adopt local public health rules•Adjudicate disputes regarding local rules or locally imposed public health administrative penalties (fines)•Impose local public health fees•Satisfy state accreditation requirements for local boards of health15314 Common threads•Statutorily required •Statutes and regulations grant authority•Agency director not a member•Role in advising the director•Role with regard to agency employees315 Key differences•Appointment•Size and composition•Removal •Vacancies•Fees•Budget•Appointing agency director•Rulemaking•Adjudications•Accreditation-related duties•Social services program related duties•Access to records•“Assure compliance”316 BOCC as governing boardProcess• 30 days’ notice of public hearing• Resolution adopted after public hearingMembership• Conferred by election to board of commissioners• Not required to meet statutory requirements for particular professionsPowers & duties• Board of commissioners acquires; multiple sources of law• Some may be delegated; some may notAdvisory committee(s)• Advisory committee on health required if BOH duties assumed• Expanded committee or additional committees allowed317 Role of advisory committees•No guidance or specific grant of authority in consolidation statute•PH accreditation expressly allows certain duties to be delegated from the local board of health to an advisory committee, such as– Review and report on community data– Receive community input– Foster partnerships with the community– Advocate for public health 318 Lessons Learned•Organizational structure– Flexibility, but still must comply with state and federal mandates•Employees– Advance discussion about implications of change– Update HR policies/ ordinance in advance to comply with federal merit personnel standards– Open legal question about transitioning career status employees•Advisory committees– Define roles, including appropriate delegation•Information sharing– Don’t assume a components of a CHSA will be able to share information more freely than they could before consolidation•Budget impact– Don’t assume creating a CHSA will save money319 SOCIAL SERVICES WORKING GROUP320 Overview – S.L. 2017-41 (H 630)321 SSWG’s Puzzle PieceStage One• Once reform is underway at the State level, how should a new and improved State system use regional offices to provide oversight and support for the county departments administering the social services program?• Once reform is underway at the State level, how should a new and improved State system use regional offices to provide oversight and support for the county departments administering the social services program?Stage Two• In the county-administered system, what change is needed to improve coordination and collaboration at the county level?• What would a regionally-administeredsystem look like?• In the county-administered system, what change is needed to improve coordination and collaboration at the county level?• What would a regionally-administeredsystem look like?322 SSWG’s Focus – Stage One•The WHOLE enchilada– Child welfare– Adult services– Public assistance, including Medicaid, Food and Nutrition, State-County Special Assistance, Work First, Energy programs, program integrity, etc.– Child support enforcement– Adult care home oversight– Other programs323 Not SSWG’s Focus •Organization of the state agencies overseeing local administration•Services– What services are being delivered– Who is delivering services– Who is receiving services•Finance– Who is paying for services– How much do services cost324 Discussions•Supervisory functions– What is involved in supervising social services administration? – Who does what? Central v. Regional v. County•Staffing model – What types of staff should be in the regional offices?•Maps– What factors are important when designing regions?•Relationship with Board of County Commissioners– Should the BOCC have an expanded role in supervision of DSS when there are challenges facing the agency?325 TimelinesStage One Report 4/15/2018DHHS Plan 11/15/2018NCGA Acts?Regional Supervision? 3/1/2020Stage Two Report 2/1/2019NCGA and/or DHHS Acts? 326 Information •Social Services Microsite– Meeting notices– Materials– Minutes – Recordings•https://www.sog.unc.edu/resources/microsites/social-services327 Questions?•Jill Moore– 919.966.4442–moore@sog.unc.edu•Aimee Wall– 919.843.4957–wall@sog.unc.edu328