09-09-2019 Agenda Packet BOCPERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING AGENDA
304 South Morgan Street, Room 215
Roxboro, NC 27573-5245
336-597-1720
Fax 336-599-1609
September 9, 2019
7:00pm
CALL TO ORDER………………………………………………….. Chairman Newell
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA
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 #1
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes of August 19, 2019, and
B.Budget Amendment #5
1
NEW BUSINESS:
ITEM #2
Report on Adaptive Reuse of the Old Helena School ………………….. Laura Jensen
ITEM #3
TA-01-19 Request by Martin & Sheila Persson to Add
Event Center to the Planning Ordionance and Add a
Definition to Event Center ………………………………………………… Lori Oakley
ITEM #4
Appointments to Juvenile Crime Prevention Council and
Person Area Transportation System Board ……………………………Brenda Reaves
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.
2
August 19, 2019
1
PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AUGUST 19, 2019
MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
David B. Newell, Sr. Heidi York, County Manager
Gordon Powell C. Ronald Aycock, County Attorney
Jimmy B. Clayton Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board
Kyle W. Puryear
B. Ray Jeffers
The Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, met in
regular session on Monday, August 19, 2019 at 9:00am in the Commissioners’ meeting
room in the Person County Office Building.
Chairman Newell called the meeting to order. Commissioner Powell offered an
invocation and Commissioner Puryear led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Chairman Newell announced two agenda adjustments: 1) to delete the item titled
Resolution Authorizing Lease of Ten Strands of Fiber and Authorizing Upset Bid Process,
and 2) to add an additional Closed Session.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers and carried 5-0 to adjust the agenda
as requested by Chairman Newell and to approve the agenda as amended.
RECOGNITION:
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR COUNTY RETIREE RAY PULLIAM:
Chairman Newell read and presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Person
County Retiree Ray Pulliam.
3
August 19, 2019
2
4
August 19, 2019
3
PUBLIC HEARING:
FY2021 COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM APPLICATION:
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried 5-0 to open the duly
advertised public hearing for the FY2021 Community Transportation Program Application
for grant funding.
Public Transportation Director, Glen LaBar requested Board approval for the
FY2021 Community Transportation Program Application for grant funding that included
federal, state and local appropriations. Mr. LaBar stated the application consists of
Administrative and Capital funding; in the FY2021 budget, PATS requested replacement
of two (2) Light Transit Vehicles (LTVs) and seven (7) Security Cameras for half of the
PATS fleet. The total estimated budget requested is $357,835, with a local share of
$44,921.
The Community Transportation Program provides assistance to coordinate existing
transportation programs operating in Person County as well as provides transportation
options and services for the communities within this service area. These services are
currently provided using demand response, subscription and trip referrals. Services are
rendered by utilizing ADA vans and LTVs.
The total estimated amount requested for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30,
2021 was as follows:
Project
Total Amount Local Share
Administrative
$ 182,698 $ 27,406 (15%)
Capital (Vehicles & Other)
TOTAL PROJECT
$ 175,137
$357,835
$ 17,515
$44,921
(10%)
Total Funding Request Total Local Share
There were no individuals appearing before the Board to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the FY2021 Community Transportation Program Application for grant
funding.
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried 5-0 to close the public
hearing for FY2021 Community Transportation Program Application for grant funding.
5
August 19, 2019
4
CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE FY2021 COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM APPLICATION:
A motion was made by Commissioner Powell and carried 5-0 to approve the
FY2021 Community Transportation Program Application for grant funding as presented.
This approval included the FY2021 Public Transportation Program Resolution and
FY2021 Local Share Certification for Funding.
6
August 19, 2019
5
7
August 19, 2019
6
8
August 19, 2019
7
9
August 19, 2019
8
10
August 19, 2019
9
INFORMAL COMMENTS:
There were no comments from the public.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA:
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried 5-0 to approve the
Consent Agenda with the following items:
A. Approval of Minutes of August 5, 2019,
B. Budget Amendment #4, and
C. Tax Adjustments for August 2019
a. Tax Releases
b. NC Vehicle Tax System pending refunds
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
REQUEST TO REINSTATE THE PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING DIRECTOR I
POSITION:
Health Director, Janet Clayton requested the Board to reinstate the Public Health
Nursing Director I position that was eliminated from the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Budget
noting this position would provide the Health Department with state mandated nursing
leadership. As stated in previous meetings, Ms. Clayton stated the following positions,
which were included in the approved Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Budget are proposed to be
eliminated to offset the costs of the Nursing Director I position; no further general fund
appropriations would be needed:
Licensed Practical Nurse= $56,213 (budgeted salary and benefits)
Processing Assistant III = $40,839 (budgeted salary and benefits)
Ms. Clayton requested the Board to approve the reinstatement of the Public Health
Nursing Director I position and to eliminate the LPN and Processing Assistant III positions;
approve the unfreezing of all health department positions with the understanding that
positions only will be filled as needed with the approval of the County Manager.
Vice Chairman Jeffers asked Ms. Clayton what were the remaining frozen positions
to which she stated one Clinic Nurse position that has been vacant since May, one Clinic
Nurse in the Care Management Program that has been vacant for a few months, and one
Community Health Technician that has been vacant for three months.
Chairman Newell asked Ms. Clayton what steps was she taking to cross-train staff
to which she replied there was not enough staff at this time to cross-train. She added
previous staff would go through a clinic training so that they could fill-in for any position
in the clinic and the immunization room.
11
August 19, 2019
10
Vice Chairman Jeffers asked Ms. Clayton to report on the participation levels to
which she responded that currently the Health Department was not offering maternity
programs nor family planning services or STD service because there was not adequate staff
to do so. In the past, Ms. Clayton said the numbers were lower than seen in previous years,
which was why she requested the unfreezing of positons as needed. Chairman Newell
stated the majority of people that used to come to the Health Department for services now
have insurance; they now go to a doctor and not to the Health Department. Chairman
Newell said the Health Department averaged 12-13 people a day coming in for services,
which was his concern; he asked Ms. Clayton to consider if cross-training staff and
eliminating positons, keeping those only absolutely needed or she would have to create a
need for the health department, i.e. sports physicals.
Ms. Clayton explained that prior to January 24, 2019 the position had been listed
as a Public Health Nursing Supervisor II.
Commissioner Powell asked Ms. Clayton if approving her request, would any of
the revenue streams that were eliminated would be reinstated to which she told the group
that this approval would begin the rebuilding of the staff to provide the services that are
not being provided currently. She added approximately $500,000 in revenues are affected
by the inability to provide services which includes grant funding, Medicaid and insurance
billing with the only exception being immunization billing. Ms. Clayton stated there were
funds allocated for community education and outreach but until individuals are in place to
provide the service, those funds are sitting there unused. She added the last date for
provider clinic services was July 8, 2019.
Vice Chairman Jeffers asked Ms. Clayton if she provides reports to the Board of
Health at its meetings related to the numbers of people getting services at the Health
Department to which she affirmed.
Vice Chairman Jeffers asked for the salary and benefits for the Public Health Nurse
Supervisor II to which Ms. Clayton confirmed salary and benefits $87,589; the salary
without benefits $63,085.
Chairman Newell asked if referrals were being made to Person Family Medical to
which Ms. Clayton affirmed and noted some patients are referred to Durham County.
Chairman Newell asked Ms. Clayton how many other services can be subbed out. Ms.
Clayton responded she could contract out other services but questioned what is being done
for the county’s citizens, especially those with transportation barriers. She added subbing
out services requires citizens to go outside of the county, or not receive the care, or end up
in the emergency room or at the health department for something such as STDs, or other
things detrimental to their health.
12
August 19, 2019
11
Commissioner Powell asked Ms. Clayton about outside provider approval for
services. Ms. Clayton said she has two medical directors, one through Duke for OB/GYN
services and the other for communicable diseases and immunizations.
Vice Chairman Jeffers stated his concern with unfreezing the other positions with
the decline in participation for services noting he was not sure about making a decision
based on one month’s reports; he suggested the Board to review previous months’
reporting on the number of clients being served.
Commissioner Puryear stated his confidence in the Health Director.
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear to approve the Health Director’s
request for the reinstatement of the Public Health Nursing Director I position and eliminate
the LPN and Processing Assistant III positions; approve the unfreezing of all health
department positions with the understanding that positions only will be filled as needed
with the approval of the County Manager.
Commissioner Clayton stated the abnormal turnover rate with positions at the
Health Department caused the Board of Commissioners to freeze positons in the Budget to
bring attention to the Board of Health so that the Health Director and the Board of Health
could hear and address the issues.
Vice Chairman Jeffers asked Ms. Clayton about the difference in qualifications of
the Public Health Nursing Director I position and the Public Health Nursing Supervisor II
position to which Ms. Clayton noted the Director I position required more experience. She
added the minimum salary of the Nursing Supervisor II is $63,085 compared to the Nursing
Director I minimum salary of $66,239.
Chairman Newell asked the County Manager if she had comments. County
Manager, Heidi York stated the decision to sell Home Health and Hospice was similar
whereas there was a decline in patients and turnover of staff but when the County sold
those services, there was a market for those services. She added there was not a market for
the current services however clients, customers and patients need a community health
department, i.e., young pregnant mothers having to travel to Durham for OB care does not
reflect well for the community. She added it was a challenge to rebuild staff at the health
department to meet the needs of the community and that a nursing leadership was required
in order to draw down the state funds. Ms. York suggested that the Board work with Ms.
Clayton and the Board of Health to rebuild the health department with monitoring on a
regular basis to review patient participation, staff hiring to build programs for a successful
clinic serving the community. She told the group that everyone was now aware of the
turnover issues but a first step to moving forward was to get the positions that are critical
to drawdown funds as well as providing services to the residents.
13
August 19, 2019
12
Vice Chairman Jeffers stated he was not questioning Ms. Clayton competence
however he felt one month of reports did not provide enough facts and information to make
a decision to go back the way it was prior to the budget.
Ms. York suggested bringing the Board of Health’s Chairman back to the Board of
Commissioners and to allow Ms. Clayton to work with the Manager on the day-to-day
rather than the commissioners having to direct Ms. Clayton when she reports to a board;
this would keep the Board of Health more engaged.
A substitute motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers and carried 3-2 to
approve a Public Health Nursing Supervisor II position to comply with the state and instead
of unfreezing positions with approval by the County Manager, and while the Health
Department is rebuilding and advertising with a plan to go forward with the clinic, that a
request comes back before the Board for the positions so that the Board knows what is
going on. Vice Chairman Jeffers, Chairman Newell and Commissioner Clayton voted in
favor of the substitute motion. Commissioners Puryear and Powell cast the dissenting
votes.
NEW BUSINESS:
RESULTS OF WOODSDALE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RECENT
CERTIFICATION INSPECTION:
Doug Young, Director of Emergency Services stated the Office of the State Fire
Marshal (OSFM) contacted him and requested that he meet the OSFM staff at the
Woodsdale Volunteer Fire Department (WVFD) on June 25, 2019 for an unannounced 9S
Ratings Inspection that was conducted by Derrick Clouston, Vernon Ward, Tony Bailey
and Jerry Coble. Mr. Young stated he did not participate in the inspection but was only
present at the request of the OSFM. On June 26, 2019, Mr. Young stated he briefed the
County Manager that the inspection took place. On July 3, 2019, Mr. Young said the
OSFM met with him and advised that they would be opening up an investigation of the
WVFD certification based on their findings of their unannounced 9S inspection. Mr.
Young noted that on August 8, 2019 he received Notice of the WVFD 9S Certification
Failure and Decertification from the OSFM. The effective date of the WVFD
decertification is October 8, 2019 at which time the rating will change from a Class 9E to
a Class 10.
Mr. Young introduced Mr. Derrick Clouston, Deputy Director for Training,
Ratings, Government Services of the NC Office of State Fire Marshal to present the
findings of OSFM recent certification inspection of WVFD.
Mr. Clouston briefed the Board on the OSFM findings as follows:
14
August 19, 2019
13
15
August 19, 2019
14
16
August 19, 2019
15
17
August 19, 2019
16
18
August 19, 2019
17
19
August 19, 2019
18
20
August 19, 2019
19
21
August 19, 2019
20
22
August 19, 2019
21
23
August 19, 2019
22
24
August 19, 2019
23
25
August 19, 2019
24
26
August 19, 2019
25
27
August 19, 2019
26
28
August 19, 2019
27
29
August 19, 2019
28
30
August 19, 2019
29
31
August 19, 2019
30
32
August 19, 2019
31
33
August 19, 2019
32
34
August 19, 2019
33
35
August 19, 2019
34
36
August 19, 2019
35
37
August 19, 2019
36
38
August 19, 2019
37
39
August 19, 2019
38
40
August 19, 2019
39
41
August 19, 2019
40
42
August 19, 2019
41
43
August 19, 2019
42
44
August 19, 2019
43
45
August 19, 2019
44
46
August 19, 2019
45
47
August 19, 2019
46
Mr. Clouston stated the WVFD has the option to appeal the decertification anytime
by the deadline of October 8, 2019. Any such appeal will go before the Department of
Insurance and will scheduled by the Department of Insurance. Mr. Clouston stated the
current status of the WVFD is probationary until October 8, 2019. The appeal process will
put off the decertification date until such time the appeal is resolved.
Vice Chairman Jeffers asked staff if any payments have been expended for Fiscal
Year 2019-2020 to which staff confirmed no payments have been made for the current
fiscal year due to contract violations (submittal of audit and other documentation required
to receive payments). Interim Assistant County Manager and Budget Manager, Laura
Jensen confirmed $123,000 was expended to WVFD in previous Fiscal Year 2018-2019.
WVFD Board of Directors President, Ronnie Womack and current Chief, James
Royster were present and stated the information was felonious and erroneous noting they
had retained the services of an attorney to address the issues.
Chairman Newell stated his concerns with increasing the fire tax for the County
with the goal to lower the fire rating for residents to in turn, pay for the fire tax increases
on the tax bills. He suggested implementing a countywide fire system.
Chairman Newell asked the County Attorney about any liability related to insurance
premiums, protection of members, worker’s comp, etc. County Attorney, Ron Aycock
stated he would like to further research any such liability, however, he noted the WVFD is
operated by a 501c3 non-profit which would negate liability for the county with the
exception of political exposure as a result of any adverse effects on the residents.
Vice Chairman Jeffers noted call volume, reports of WVFD being called off due to
no one showing up and that mutual aid by the City of Roxboro and other neighboring
VFDs.
Mr. Young stated the WVFD contract was breached with the state regulations for
the number of volunteers being below the required 19 members. In preparation of the
October 8, 2019 decertification of WVFD, Mr. Young said for the short-term, he has
spoken with three bordering fire departments that are willing to provide fire services
coverage. As far as a long-term plan, Mr. Young noted he has one VFD interested in
placing a substation in the Woodsdale area which would cause the fire district maps and
contracts to be approved. Alternatively, another option would be for the community to
step up and dissolve the current board. There are only 3-4 members currently serving on
the WVFD board of directors.
Mr. Aycock stated the county contract was written that if the VFD fails to conform
to any one of the terms or conditions contained in the contract, the County shall notify the
VFD in writing, which provides for 30 days to correct such breach, after which, if there is
no resolution, the County may terminate its agreement with the VFD.
48
August 19, 2019
47
When asked about the annual maintenance, WVFD Chief James Royster responded
that a certified mechanic provides maintenance to the fire truck. He added that the
individual requesting to be taken off the roster had not been counted nor had the WVFD
used the email or mail addresses. WVFD Board of Directors’ President, Mr. Womack said
a disgruntled former volunteer provided information to the OSFM.
Vice Chairman Jeffers stated the Board was dealing with two issues: 1) tax payer’s
money and 2) public safety. With the short-term plan through mutual aid with fire
department, Vice Chairman Jeffers stated until the WVFD gets an audit that no county
funds can be dispersed.
Mr. Aycock stated the WVFD assets, real property and the personal property are
owned by the non-profit. The County does not have any direct control over the assets. He
added the County has an interest in assuring those assets continue to be available for the
purpose for which they were funded (providing services to the citizens in the area.)
Ms. York stated the Board could take action to give a 30-day notice of violation of
contract noting the process of the appeal is not a county issue. She noted Mr. Young has a
plan to prevent the district from going to a 10 rating.
Vice Chairman Jeffers suggested a notice to the same timeframe as the state,
October 8, 2019. Commissioner Clayton asked to consider a notice that corresponds with
the resolution of the appeal, if an appeal is optioned noting WVFD is still operating under
a probationary status as a fire department until October 8 or until the appeal is resolved.
Ms. York clarified that the audit is one requirement of the contract. Should the
audit come back with issues, funding will be withheld until such time the corrected actions
are resolved.
Mr. Womack asked how long do they have to produce an audit. Mr. Young stated
the contract specified the audit was due last April 2019; he also noted other documentation
was due with the audit, i.e. bond report, roster of 19 members, board member listing, etc.,
as specified in the contract.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers and carried 5-0 to serve the
Woodsdale Volunteer Fire Department notice of breach of contract to coincide with
October 8, 2019.
49
August 19, 2019
48
SPUNTECH APPEAL OF LATE LISTING PENALTY:
Tax Administrator, Russell Jones explained the tax office’s procedures related to
listing forms. He said the tax office mails listing forms to businesses and individuals late
December each year in order to facilitate the accurate listing of all taxable personal
property. Forms are mailed to taxpayers that are currently on the tax rolls (either listed
the previous year or a known new business). Mr. Jones stated this amounts to over 8,000
forms being mailed. However, not receiving a form by mail does not relieve the taxpayer
from listing simply because they did not receive a form.
Mr. Jones noted the tax office processes the receipt of listing forms daily to
document timely filings and honor the United States Postal Service postmarks.
Mr. Jones further noted that the tax office grants numerous extensions. Extensions
must be requested before the end of the listing period, January 31. For 2019, Mr. Jones
stated they received 290 timely requests for extensions, and all were granted an extension
to April 15, 2019. Mr. Jones said the tax office received one (1) late request for extension,
Spuntech, which was denied based on the extension request not being timely filed.
Mr. Jones said the tax office processes numerous late filings. For 2019, there were
2,213 late returns filed. All late listings were charged the required 10% penalty. Of the
290 extensions granted, 30 missed the extended deadline, and therefore were charged the
required 10% penalty. There were two (2) other large charges for 2019 for $7,082.23 and
$4,909.47, and 22 charges between $100 and $400 with 1,712 charges under $10. Mr.
Jones stated one company has paid over $79,000 in late listing penalties in past years due
to five late listings. Since the penalty for late listing is a percentage, and not a flat rate, each
penalty is fairly computed and based on the taxes due on the late listed property. It would
be unfair to release a penalty solely due to the fact that the 10% penalty was a large amount,
or to release a penalty simply due to the fact that it was small.
Mr. Jones told the group that the Board of Commissioners has heard appeals for
late listing in the past years with all late penalties having been upheld.
Mr. Jones presented a request to the Board from Spuntech. Spuntech has been
assessed a 10% late listing penalty for failure to meet the deadline for listing their 2019
property taxes. The penalty is $46,228.16, which is a combination of county penalty
($44,549.91) and fire tax penalty ($1,678.25).
Mr. Jones presented the facts of the case as follows:
1. The deadline for listing property taxes was January 31, 2019 as required by
NCGS 105-307.
2. The tax office mailed a listing form to Spuntech on or around December 23,
2018.
50
August 19, 2019
49
3. The completed listing form was not returned to our office before the deadline of
January 31, 2019.
4. After the deadline of January 31, but on February 5, 2019, the tax office received
an email from Mr. Daniel Sharon, representing Spuntech, requesting an extension of the
listing deadline until April 15, 2019.
5. The request for an extension was denied, in compliance with NCGS 105-307(c),
which allows for extensions only if requested before the end of the normal listing period.
6. The tax office properly applied NCGS 105-312(h) in computing the required
penalty for the late listing. The taxpayer has raised no issue with the application of the
penalty, but specifically requests an exception be applied to their case.
7. A timely appeal has been filed by Spuntech. The late listing penalty cannot be
waived by the county assessor. The power to compromise late listing penalties is under
the authority of the Board of County Commissioners, as per NCGS 105-312(k).
Mr. Jones stated that while it may seem simple to alter the penalty for late listing
for this taxpayer, it would open up other appeals and be viewed as unfair by other taxpayers
that have been charged under similar circumstances. He requested the Board to uphold the
penalty noting by state statutes deadlines are important to the tax office.
Mr. Daniel Sharon, Spuntech Controller requested leniency from the Board on this
issue noting it was a slip-up; he said Spuntech likes the County and wants to continue to
expand in the County.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers and carried 5-0 to uphold the
penalty.
Ms. Sharon voiced his displeasure with the action by the Board; he said it would
have morbid effects on future investments in Person County as the County was not showing
good faith towards Spuntech.
51
August 19, 2019
50
REVISION OF COUNTY PAY PLAN WITH COMPRESSION STUDY
IMPLEMENTATION:
County Manager, Heidi York stated the County’s current Personnel Policy states
that new employees are hired at a “hiring rate” and upon successful completion of a
probationary period (either nine or twelve months depending on the level of the position)
employees receive an increase of 5% to the minimum pay rate of the position. The
implementation of the Compression Study eliminated the hiring rate, advancing the pay for
positions to the minimum salary. New employees will now be hired at the minimum rate
for those departments impacted in the Compression Study this Fiscal Year. These changes
went into effect July 5, 2019. The remaining departments will continue to have a hiring
rate and a probationary increase until phase two of the Study is implemented next Fiscal
Year.
Ms. York noted that due to these changes in the pay plan, the Personnel Policy
needs to be revised for accuracy and clarity. Removing the 5% probationary increase will
also prevent further compression issues of new employees advancing beyond longer term
employees. The County’s Merit Pay program will now begin at the employee’s one-year
anniversary with a performance review to determine whether the employee is eligible for
a 0, 2, or 3% increase.
Ms. York requested the Board to direct staff to have an addendum to the Personnel
Policy reflecting the implementation of the Compression Study, eliminating a hiring rate
and a probationary increase following the successful probationary period, while allowing
employees to be eligible for merit pay at their one year employment anniversary; effective
July 5, 2019 for those departments impacted in the Compression Study this Fiscal Year.
A motion was made by Commissioner Clayton and carried 5-0 to direct staff to
have an addendum to the Personnel Policy reflecting the implementation of the
Compression Study, eliminating a hiring rate and a probationary increase following a
successful probationary period, while allowing employees to be eligible for merit pay at
their one year employment anniversary; effective July 5, 2019 for those departments
impacted in the Compression Study this Fiscal Year.
52
August 19, 2019
51
APPOINTMENT TO JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL:
Clerk to the Board, Brenda Reaves presented the following application for Board
consideration for reappointment:
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
2-Year Term:
1 position for the Chief of Police or his designee
1) Lieutenant Ricky Hughes requested reappointment
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried 5-0 to reappoint
Lieutenant Ricky Hughes to the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council to represent the Chief
of Police for a 2-year term.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT:
Chairman Newell had no report.
MANAGER’S REPORT:
County Manager, Heidi York had no report.
COMMISSIONER REPORT/COMMENTS:
Commissioner Clayton reported that the Kerr Tar Annual Awards Banquet will be
held in Person County on September 26, 2019 at the Homestead Festival House. He stated
he is the outgoing Chairman this year.
Vice Chairman Jeffers reported on a Medicaid state change noting Person County
is in the first region to enforce the changes. He noted the health providers have placed an
Outreach Coordinator in the county; the Outreach Coordinator is housed at the Department
of Social Services to assist citizens in reviewing and selecting plans by September 21,
2019.
There were no reports offered by Commissioners Powell and Puryear.
53
August 19, 2019
52
CLOSED SESSION #1
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers and carried 5-0 to enter Closed
Session at 10:46am per General Statute 143-318.11(a) (5) to establish, or to instruct the
public body's staff or negotiating agents concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf
of the public body in negotiating the price and other material terms of a contract with the
following individuals permitted to attend: County Manager, Heidi York, Clerk to the
Board, Brenda Reaves, County Attorney, Ron Aycock and Interim Assistant County
Manager, Laura Jensen.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers and carried 5-0 to return to open
session at 10:58am.
CLOSED SESSION #2
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers and carried 5-0 to enter into Closed
Session at 11:01am per General Statute 143-318.11(a)(6) to consider the qualifications,
competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of
initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer
or employee for the purpose to discuss personnel with the following individuals permitted
to attend: County Manager, Heidi York, Clerk to the Board, Brenda Reaves and County
Attorney, Ron Aycock.
A motion was made by Commissioner Powell and carried 5-0 to return to open
session at 11:14am.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers and carried 5-0 to increase the
County Manager’s salary by 3% merit pay for performance as well as a 1.5% certification
increase for a Credentialed Manager designation earned from the International
City/County Management Association following her annual performance evaluation.
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Commissioner Powell and carried 5-0 to adjourn the
meeting at 11:16am.
_____________________________ ______________________________
Brenda B. Reaves David B. Newell, Sr.
Clerk to the Board Chairman
(Draft Board minutes are subject to Board approval).
54
9/9/2019
Dept./Acct No.Department Name Amount
Incr / (Decr)
EXPENDITURES General Fund
Public Safety 50
Transportation 1,700
Human Services 15,778
REVENUES General Fund
Intergovernmental 15,778
Other Revenues 3,250
Fund Balance Appropriation (1,500)
EXPENDITURES Airport Construction Capital Project Fund
Airport Development Study 47.13.1 (297,000)
REVENUES Airport Construction Capital Project Fund
Transfer from CIP Fund (267,300)
Fund Balance Appropriation (29,700)
Explanation:
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Receipt of NCACC Body Armor Grant for Sheriff's department ($1,500) and reduction of fund balance
appropriation for those expenditures (-$1,500) that took place in the prior year; receipt of insurance claim for
storm damage to airport runway ($1,700); receipt of donation to Sheriff's GREAT camp ($50); receipt of WIC
Grant for Public Health department ($15,778); closeout of Airport Development Study Grant that was completed
in FY2018 (-$297,000).
BA-555
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 9, 2019
Agenda Title: Report on Adaptive Reuse of the Old Helena School
Summary of Information: Person County applied to have a graduate student team undertake
analysis of the possible revitalization of the historic Helena School in Timberlake as part of the
team’s course work in Community Revitalization Applied (PLAN 735/PUBA 735) at no charge to
the county. The course instructor is UNC-Chapel Hill School of Government faculty member Tyler
Mulligan. The team produced a comprehensive report at the conclusion of the project, with four
recommended actions the county can take for encouraging redevelopment of the school by a
private developer.
Recommended Action: None required
Submitted By: Laura Jensen, Interim Assistant County Manager
56
April 25, 2019ANDREW CUTLER, MARIA DEWEES, PAUL LIU AND NATALIE SWANSONADAPTIVE REUSE OF THE HELENA SCHOOLPLAN 73557
TIMBERLAKE, NORTH CAROLINA24,300Population$63,041Household Income43Median Age58
SITE SNAPSHOT3~ 25,000 ft2school built in 19363 auxiliary buildingsSite Considerations•Traffic & Parking•Storm Water•Auxiliary Buildings59
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYProposed Private UsesMultifamily housing development in historic schoolCommercial space in auditoriumKey ConsiderationsIs a community‐minded investor available to invest in the project?Is Person County willing to participate in a public‐private partnership to enable private redevelopment of the school?460
REPORT OVERVIEW1) Community Profile2) Site Analysis3) Market Analysis4) Financial Feasibility Analysis5) Recommendations561
6COMMUNITY PROFILE62
TIMBERLAKE'S ASSETS AND LIABILITIES7PhysicalInstitutions/Amenities•Location along US 501 and proximity to Durham•Rural commercial/retail center•Zoning allows for future development•Undeveloped/underutilized land•Limited traffic capacity•Helena Park and Helena Gym•Brooks General Store and Dollar General•New Helena School•Limited amenities in a small communityEconomicSocial•Modest increase in new residents•Relatively wealthier compared to Person County and NC•Aging population•No municipal services or resources•Well‐established social networks and strong connection to place•Mobility of county residents•Strong community interest in redeveloping the Old Helena School63
COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS8County Governmentand Affiliates•Person County Board of Commissioners •Person County Parks and Recreation Department•Person County EMS •Piedmont Community College Major Landholders•Brooks, Woody, Gentry, Bello and Chambers familiesMajor Business Owners•Brooks and Woody familiesOther Institutions•Helena Elementary PTA•Helena United Methodist Church64
9SITE ANALYSIS65
STUDY AREA10The study area captures the residential and commercial center of Timberlake.Study area includes:•101 parcels•221 acres •$20 million in value•Zoning: commercial/residential66
TOP 5 LAND OWNERS11NameParcels % Parcels Acres % Acreage Building SF % Building SF TAV % TAVBrooks14 14% 36.9 17% 45,00517% $2,405,739 12%Woody12 12% 13.8 6% 12,2675% $918,379 5%Chambers11 11% 8.8 4% 7,1963% $701,105 3%Gentry6 6% 23.4 11% 4,6182% $827,630 4%Bello6 6% 4.2 2% 8,2403% $269,593 1%Top 5 Owners49 49% 87.1 39% 77,32629% $5,122,446 25%Other Owners 52 51% 134.1 61% 187,02471% $15,180,190 75%Total101 100% 221.2 100% 264,350 100% $20,302,636 100%67
LAND OWNERSHIP12•Five families own 39% of the land in the study area, including a large portion of undeveloped and underutilized parcels.•These land holders will likely shape the future development of Timberlake.68
13MARKET ANALYSIS69
MARKET ANALYSIS OVERVIEW14Office jobs in Person County have decreased by ~1% every year since 2010.Timberlake has a significant retail presence in southern Person County.The number of older and relatively higher‐income households in Timberlake is projected to increase in the next 5 years.OfficeRetailResidentialNo additional demand~2,800 square feet70 to 110 multifamilyrental unitsSupportable New Demand70
RESIDENTIAL MARKET AREA OVERVIEWSource: ESRI Business Analyst44,000Individuals16,600Households$56,700Household Income45Median Age20 Minute Drive Time from TimberlakeMedian Rent Median Home Value Vacancy$480 $173,000 9.2%71
GROWTH IN HIGHER INCOME HOUSEHOLDSSource: ESRI Business Analyst, TruliaProjected Household Income Growth, 2018‐2023Household Income Breakdown, 20180%5%10%15%20%25%$0Kto$25K$25Kto$50K$50Kto$75K$75Kto$100K$100Kto$200K$200K+Primary Market AreaNC(600)(300)0300600$0Kto$25K$25Kto$50K$50Kto$75K$75Kto$100K$100Kto$200K$200K+72
GROWTH IN OLDER AGE DEMOGRAPHICSSource: ESRI Business Analyst0%10%20%30%40%50%Under 19 20‐34 35‐64 65‐74 75+Primary Market AreaNCAge Segment Share of Total Population, 2018Age Segment Growth and Decline, 2018 – 2023(600)(300)0300600900Under 19 20‐34 35‐64 65‐74 75+Over 1,600 new retirees expected in the next 5 years73
MULTIFAMILY RENTAL MARKET SUMMARY•Given lack of multifamily housing in southern Person County and ongoing demographic trends, pent‐up demand may exist for a multifamily project in Timberlake•Timberlake can potentially support 70 to 110 of new renter‐occupied unitsin the next five years•A project which takes advantage of adjacent on‐site amenities could potentially catalyze additional development in Timberlake’s “town center”74
19FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY75
RECOMMENDED USE•Mixed Program: Residential & Commercial•17 one‐bedroom & 7 two‐bedroom apartments•Commercial use in the auditorium20Type NumberApprox. Square FootageRent/Unit/MonthOne‐Bedroom 17 675 $950Two‐Bedroom 7 900 $1250Auditorium 1 3000 $300076
KEY ASSUMPTIONS•Historic Tax Credits•Long Hold Period (10 years)•Acquisition cost would be $14/SF or $343,000•Community‐minded investor2177
BASE CASE RESULTS•Internal Rate of Return (IRR):6.4%•Typical IRR would be 15%•Equity Multiple: 1.6x•For every $100 of investment, $160 return22Permanent SourcesDevelopment Equity 31%$1,325,483 Federal HTC Equity 12%$522,270State HTC Equity 11%$468,704Deferred Developer Fee 9%$378,350Mortgage36%$1,513,095 Seller Financing 0%$0 Total Permanent Sources100%$4,207,904 UsesAcquisition8%$343,098 Hard Costs68%$2,853,966 Soft Costs24%$1,010,840 Total Dev. Uses $172/SF$4,207,904 78
FEASIBILITY STRATEGIES1.List Property on Historic Register2.Amend County Parking Requirements3.County Builds and Leases Parking to Developer4.County Master Leases Auditorium5.Interest Only Seller Financing2379
LIST PROPERTY ON HISTORIC REGISTER•Apply for historic designation to make property eligible for historic tax credits•Provides 23% of project funds 2480
PARKING AT THE OLD HELENA SCHOOL SITE•Decrease Parking Requirement•Current parking requirement: 2.5 spaces per residential unit (71 total)•Other rural counties: 1.5 spaces per residential unit (47 total)•Lease Parking to Developer for $25/Space/Month25Impact on Project Cost to County Benefit to County+2.3% IRR$235,000 $141,00081
MASTER LEASE OF AUDITORIUM26Impact on Project Cost to County Benefit to CountyImproves loan terms $360,000 Up to $360,000•County master leases auditorium for $3000 per month to decrease vacancy from 10% to 0%.•County can utilize the space or lease to another private tenant.82
INTEREST ONLY SELLER FINANCING•Benefit to Developer: Defers payment to acquire school•Benefit to County: Receive annual interest on loan27Impact on Project Cost to County Benefit to CountyLowers Development Cost Deferred Revenue $157,00083
RESULTS WITH FEASIBILITY STRATEGIES•Internal Rate of Return (IRR):9.7%•Typical IRR would be 15%•Equity Multiple: 1.9x•For every $100 of investment, $190 return28Permanent SourcesDevelopment Equity 20%$733,862 Federal HTC Equity 12%$446,705 State HTC Equity 11%$400,889 Deferred Developer Fee 8%$294,767 Mortgage39%$1,429,398 Seller Financing 9%$343,098 Total Permanent Sources 100% $3,648,718 UsesAcquisition9%$343,098 Hard Costs 66%$2,413,766 Soft Costs24%$891,854 Total Dev. Uses $149/SF $3,648,718 84
29RECOMMENDATIONS85
PROPOSED ACTIONS1.Identify Community‐Minded Investor or Developer2.List Property on the Historic Register3.Amend Parking Requirements4.Address the Other Vacant Buildings on SiteDemolish or Determine Alternative Use Plan3086
31QUESTIONSANDREW CUTLER, MARIA DEWEES, PAUL LIU AND NATALIE SWANSON87
32APPENDIX88
LAND UTILIZATION33•Significant amount of undeveloped or underutilized land•Suggests limited investment89
RECENT SALES34•August 2017: Bello family purchased 4 parcels for approximately $21,500oPurchase price was 35% of tax assessed valueoParcels contain several structures in very poor condition•June 2017: Woody family purchased two parcels near the fire station for approximately $7,400oPurchase price was 10% of tax assessed value90
SALES OVER TAX-ASSESSED VALUE3591
36mBuilding and Land Values Property values increase closer to Timberlake's town center and along Helena Moriah Road or Ashley AvenueUnderuƟlizaƟon Significant amounts of undeveloped (19%) and underutilized (22%) land in the study areaOwnership Five families (Brooks, Bello, Woody, Chambers, and Gentry) own 39% of the land in the study area, including a large portion of undeveloped and underutilized parcels.Recent Sales Most properties sold recently are underutilized or undevelopedSUMMARY OF PARCEL ANALYSIS92
HOUSING SUMMARYRenter‐Occupied(Market Rate)20%Renter‐Occupied(Affordable)7%Owner‐Occupied74%74%Single‐FamilyMarket Area Housing by Tenure~18,000 Total Housing Units8%18%Mobile HomesMultifamilySource: ESRI Business Analyst, affordablehousingonline.com93
NEW DEMAND FOR MULTIFAMILY RENTALSNew Households in Timberlake by Age25‐34 35‐44 45‐54 55‐64 65‐74 75+HH Income: $50,000+10205307045•Across all age segments, roughly 1,200 new households earning more than $50,000 are expected in the market area•Of these, 120 to 250 households are likely to rent based on the share of existing renter‐occupied housing in Person County, excluding affordable units•Timberlake is expected to capture ~15%, or 20 to 40, of these new households*~145 New Households~35 New HouseholdsSource: ESRI Business Analyst, affordablehousingonline.com*Timberlake delineated by the Timberlake Zip Code Tabulation Area (ZIP Code 27583); capture rate of 15% derived from Timberlake’s share of housing units in market area94
TIMBERLAKE MULTIFAMILY RENTAL DEMAND PROJECTIONSDemand from New Households, 2018‐2023Market Area New Households 1,200Likely to Choose Renter‐Occupied Multifamily Housing 120 to 250Timberlake Capture (15% of Market Area) 20 to 40Demand from Conversion of Existing Households, 2018‐2023Current Households Over 65 in Market Area5,200Converting to Multifamily Renter‐Occupied Housing in Next 5 Years300 to 450Timberlake Capture (15% of Market Area)50 to 70Total Potential Demand for Renter‐Occupied Multifamily Housing70 to 110 Units95
COMPS FOR ACQUISITIONComparable Properties for Acquisition CostDevelopment Community Building Sq Ft Listing PricePrice per Sq FtYear Built Building ConditionAsa Manning Farm Life SchoolWilliamston (pop 5,000)12,000 $117,500 $9.79 1920s FairAmity SchoolMooresville (pop 32,711)22,600 $389,900 $17.24 1920 FairAppalachian SchoolLansing (pop 200)30,000 $500,000 $16.67 1938 Fair40Asa Manning Farm Life SchoolAmity SchoolAppalachian School96
Comparable Multifamily PropertiesDevelopment Community 1 BedroomRent RangeSq Ft RangeRent/ SqFt Range2 BedroomRent RangeSq Ft RangeRent/ SqFt RangeSaxapahawRiver MillSaxapahaw $850‐$1045 567‐857$1.21 ‐$1.49$1015‐1205 1056‐1478$0.81‐$0.96Key City LoftsNorth Wilkesboro$900 1000 $0.90 $1350 1855 $0.72White Furniture LoftsMebane $930‐$1180 655‐750$1.42 ‐$1.54$1085‐$1160886‐1014$1.14‐$1.22Saxapahaw River MillKey City LoftsWhite Furniture Lofts97
RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS42New Households in Trade Area80Est. Retail Demand per Household100 SFProjected New Demand in Trade Area8,000 SFTimberlake Capture of New Demand20% ‐ 35%Projected New Retail in Timberlake1,600 ‐ 2,800 SFTrade Area: 10 Minute Drive from TimberlakeSource: ESRI Business Analyst98
Comparable Retail PropertiesDevelopment Community Total Leasable AreaUnit SF RangeRent/SF/YR RangeYear Built Retail TypeMarshall High StudiosMarshall, NC 26,000 SF 180‐870 $11.00‐$13.00 1925 StudiosBethania Mill & Village ShoppesBethania (Winston‐Salem), NC12,318 SF 180‐3,000 $12.00‐$14.65 1899Storefront Retail / CafeEno River Mill Hillsborough, NC 266,589 SF 1,000‐53,292 $4.00‐$16.00 1890Retail, BreweryMarshall High StudiosBethania Mill & Village ShoppesEno River Mill99
COMPARABLE GENERAL EVENT SPACE RENTALSVenue Name Price / 1 hrPrice / 12hrs # of People AccommodatedLocation Kitchen? Equipment?Waldensian Room1$21/hr (5 req’d); $20/hr over 5 hrs$245 150 max Valdese, NC Yes Equip. and services, must self‐cleanCentral School Auditorium2$31.67/hr (15 hrs req’d) $380100+ (max unknown) Albemarle, NC NoEquip., no servicesWoodlawn School3$16.25 ea for 4 hrs (min), then $10 ea$145 50+ (max unknown) Mebane, NC Yes Equip., no servicesFullwood Theater4$44.44/hr (9 hrs req’d) $533.33362 maxMatthews, NC Yes (+$35) Equip., no servicesIngram Center5$200 base fee & $10/hr ($210 for 1st hr / only 1 hr)$320 100 max Sanford, NC No Equip. and services, must self‐cleanOld Rock School Auditorium6$100/hr (4 hrs req’d):$400 <4 hrs$450 4‐6 hrs$500 6‐12 hrs$500 (+$100/hr over 12)473 max Valdese, NC No Equip. and services available for extra $, self‐clean44•Price per hour range = $16.25‐$100•12‐hour (typical 1‐day rental) price range = $145‐$533$145/day $350/day $533/day15% Vacancy $7,943 $19,173 $29,19830% Vacancy $15,889 $38,353 $58,40645% Vacancy $23,867 $57,610 $87,732Annual Rental Income at Various Rates and Vacancies1Valdese Old Rock School Waldensian Room: https://static.townofvaldese.com/public/media/uploads/waldensian_room_2018-2019.pdf2Albemarle Central School Auditorium: https://www.albemarlenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=32193Historic Woodlawn School Building: https://www.historicwoodlawnschool.com/rental-information4The Fullwood Theater at Matthews Community Center: https://www.matthewsnc.gov/files/documents/MCCRentalInfo1322022621040519PM.pdf5Ingram Center at Dalrymple Park: https://leecountync.gov/Departments/ParksRecreation/FacilitiesRentals6Valdese Old Rock School Auditorium: https://static.townofvaldese.com/public/media/uploads/auditorium2019withguidelines.pdf100
THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT•We considered applying for LIHTCs at The Helena School site.•Our research led us to believe that the site will have difficulty scoring high enough on the NC Qualified Allocation Plan to secure tax credits.•The biggest challenge for the site securing LIHTCs is the lack of amenities close by, including a full‐service grocery store, medical facilities and public transportation options.45101
SENIORS DOWNSIZING: DRIVING DEMAND•Approximately 5,200 households over the age of 65 currently reside in the market area•National trend of 2.5% of retired households downsizing every year to multifamily units ~600 elderly households seeking multifamily in the next 5 years•Of these, 300 to 450 are estimated to seek rental multifamily units•Timberlake is expected to capture 15%, or 45 to 70of these senior households102
REACHING 15% IRR47Auditorium Rent ($ per Month)Acquisition Cost ($ per Square Foot)103
REACHING 15% IRR48Auditorium Rent ($ per Month)Acquisition Cost ($ per Square Foot)104
REACHING 15% IRR49105
REACHING 15% IRR50106
SELLER FINANCING519.7%5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 6.5% 7.0% 7.5% 8.0% 8.5% 9.0%209.9% 9.6% 9.2% 8.8% 8.5% 8.1% 7.7% 7.4% 7.0%259.8% 9.4% 9.0% 8.7% 8.3% 7.9% 7.5% 7.1% 6.8%309.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.5% 8.2% 7.8% 7.4% 7.0% 6.6%359.6% 9.2% 8.8% 8.5% 8.1% 7.7% 7.3% 6.9% 6.5%409.6% 9.2% 8.8% 8.4% 8.0% 7.6% 7.2% 6.9% 6.5%Seller Financing TermsInterest RateAmort. Period107
`
Person County applied to have a graduate student team undertake analysis of a local revitalization
project in Timberlake, North Carolina as part of the team’s course work in Community Revitalization
Applied (PLAN/PUBA 735). The course instructor is UNC‐Chapel Hill School of Government faculty
member Tyler Mulligan. The Helena School project was selected for analysis and the graduate student
team of Natalie Swanson, Paul Liu, Maria Dewees, and Andrew Cutler was assigned to perform the
analysis at no charge to Person County.
Adaptive Reuse of the
Old Helena School
Prepared for Person County, NC
Andrew Cutler
Maria Dewees
Paul Liu
Natalie Swanson
Person County applied to have a graduate student team undertake analysis of a local revitalization project as
part of the team’s course work in Community Revitalization Applied (PLAN 735/PUBA 735). The course
instructor is UNC‐Chapel Hill School of Government faculty member Tyler Mulligan. The project was selected
for analysis and the graduate student team of Andrew Cutler, Maria Dewees, Paul Liu, and Natalie Swanson
was assigned to perform the analysis at no charge to Person County.
108
PUBA/PLAN 735 1
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Community Overview ........................................................................................................................... 3
Population Trends .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Timberlake Assets and Liabilities .................................................................................................................... 3
Community Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................... 4
Land and Business‐Owners ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
Person County Government Stakeholders .............................................................................................................................. 5
Other Institutions .................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Parcel Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Timberlake Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 6
Timberlake Study Area Summary ................................................................................................................... 8
Ownership ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
Underutilization ............................................................................................................................................ 11
Recent Sales ................................................................................................................................................. 12
Key Findings of Parcel Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 13
Market Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 14
Office Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Retail Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Residential Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 17
Key Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 21
Financial Feasibility ............................................................................................................................ 22
Key Assumptions .......................................................................................................................................... 23
Sources and Uses .......................................................................................................................................... 24
Feasibility Strategies ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Sources and Uses with County Involvement .................................................................................................. 26
Sensitivity Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 29
Appendix 1: Comparable Properties ................................................................................................... 30
Appendix 2: Market Analysis Detail.................................................................................................... 32
Appendix 3: Housing Needs Assessment ............................................................................................. 34
Appendix 4: Pro Forma Detail ............................................................................................................ 36
109
PUBA/PLAN 735 2
Introduction
Timberlake is a small community located in southern Person County, NC. The community is primarily
residential and anchored by small businesses in two commercial nodes along US 501 and Ashley Avenue.
Despite having the highest population concentration in the county outside of Roxboro, the community is
unincorporated. Residents enjoy a small‐town lifestyle with easy access to the urban amenities of the
Triangle.
The focus of this report is the historic Helena School located at 295 Helena‐Moriah Road. The original
school house was built in 1918; the main building as it stands today was built in 1936 and used as a
school until 2000. Over the years, five auxiliary buildings, a large sports field, paved walking track, and
playground were added to the campus. The Board of Education deeded the school to Person County in
2012. Currently, the county utilizes two of the five buildings on site: one as a gym and another as a
satellite EMS station. Community members largely oppose demolishing the building and have proposed
various alternative uses for the space including an early college, retail center, a cultural‐arts facility,
business incubator, and senior housing. This report will examine whether private investment can
accomplish the community’s goals and how Person County might support development of the former
Helena School through public private partnership strategies.
Figure 1: Helena School in 1969
The student team conducted a community scan, parcel analysis, market analysis, and financial feasibility
assessment of the site to present options the County may consider when approaching the future of the
Helena School. One potentially feasible approach would be to repurpose the historic classroom building
into multi‐family apartments with a commercial space in the auditorium. The team determined that this
adaptive reuse project will be financially challenging and suggests various strategies for county
involvement to increase the project’s financial feasibility.
110
PUBA/PLAN 735 3
Community Overview
This community scan of Timberlake, North Carolina serves to describe key characteristics of the
community, particularly the numerous social, economic, physical, and institutional assets of Timberlake
that will be instrumental in catalyzing redevelopment at the former Helena School building.
Population Trends
U.S. Census data shows that Timberlake’s population grew by 29% from 2000 to 2010, from 3,014 to
3,877 people. In comparison, Person County’s population increased by 11%, neighboring Durham
County increased by 20%, and North Carolina increased by 18% between 2000 and 2010. We explore
population growth in more depth in the market analysis section of the report. However, it is worth
nothing that the most growth in Timberlake occurred among people 45 years and older. The population
of 45 to 54‐year‐olds grew by 54% and the population of 55 to 64‐year‐old individuals increased by
155%. Timberlake’s total population growth has slowed in recent years to 1% annually, compared to
Person County’s 1% decrease over the same period. Today, Timberlake’s population is approximately
4,300 with a median age of 43 and median income of $63,000.
Figure 2: Population Change for Timberlake Compared to Counties and State
Timberlake Assets and Liabilities
Through research, a site visit, and conversations with community stakeholders, the student team
identified key physical, economic, social, and institutional assets in the community. The community scan
also highlights some liabilities that may affect future development.
111
PUBA/PLAN 735 4
Table 1: Timberlake Assets and Liabilities
Physical Institutions/Amenities
Location along US 501
Proximity to Durham
Rural commercial/retail center
Zoning allows for future development
Undeveloped/underutilized land
Limited traffic capacity
Helena Park and Helena Gym
Brooks General Store and Dollar General
New Helena School
Limited amenities in a small community
Economic Social
Modest increase in new residents
Relatively wealthier compared to Person County
and NC
Aging population
No municipal services or resources
Well-established social networks and strong
connection to place
Mobility of county residents
Strong community interest in redeveloping the
former Helena School
Compared with townships that receive both municipal and county support, Timberlake does not benefit
from a municipal tax base for public projects as Person County is the only local government unit that
provides services to Timberlake.
Community Stakeholders
Long‐standing residents, landholders, business‐owners, local institutions, and groups affiliated with
Person County government will have a vested interest in the Helena School redevelopment. Although
each stakeholder may have a different vision for the project, all understand the significance of the
former school to the community and recognize that the site is underutilized. Particularly in small
communities like Timberlake, local stakeholders may serve as potential investors with a vested interest
in the project’s success. Local business owners, for example, may be willing to consider investment
opportunities with higher risk and lower returns in their own community because of their strong social
ties to the area. As such, some of the following stakeholders may become collaborators on the project.
Land and Business‐Owners
The Brooks Family is the largest landholder in Timberlake and owns parcels immediately surrounding
the Helena School (tax records show that some of the parcels are owned by Helena Trading Company,
an LLC managed by brothers Roy and William Brooks). For several generations, the Brooks family has
operated the local hardware store at the heart of the Timberlake community called T.G. Brooks Co, in
addition to other small businesses. The family’s multiple businesses in Timberlake demonstrate a
willingness to invest in the community. Their support of the project will be crucial.
112
PUBA/PLAN 735 5
The Chambers, Gentry, Bello and Woody Families own several parcels of land along Ashley Avenue and
US 501 near the site. Although it is unclear currently how they might participate in redevelopment, the
report discusses their stake in the community in the parcel analysis section. Ultimately, these families
will likely shape the future of development in Timberlake because they are major landholders.
Person County Government Stakeholders
The Person County Board of Commissioners controls and maintains county‐owned properties like the
site and are therefore the gatekeepers of the project. Members of the Board include David Newell, Sr.,
B. Ray Jeffers, Jimmy Clayton, Kyle Puryear and Gordon Powell. Commissioner Clayton lives in
Timberlake and in the past has asked for the community to provide input on potential uses of the
former Helena School site.
Piedmont Community College president Walter Bartlett was a vocal advocate for using the former
Helena School building as an enhanced early college center to serve grades 6‐13 with a STEM
curriculum. Dr. Bartlett’s advocacy for the early college center at county commissioner meetings
catalyzed a public engagement process where the county sought input from residents about the site. Dr.
Bartlett retired in 2016, but because he led much of the recent conversation about the site, Piedmont
Community College leaders may still have a vested interest in redevelopment.
Person County’s Parks and Recreation Department currently uses the site for recreation, particularly
the fields behind the school building and the gym. Director John Hill oversees the use of the site and was
previously on the Helena Steering Committee, which met in 2013 to discuss potential uses for the site.
County Emergency Medical Services occupies a satellite building on the site. Any redevelopment must
consider the EMS services due to their proximity to the project and the critical services they provide for
the county.
The Parent Teacher Association at Helena Elementary School will have a vested interest in the
development of the site. Any redevelopment will have to consider the proximity to an elementary
school.
Other Institutions
Two local churches are located in close proximity to the site. The Helena Primitive Baptist Church is
immediately adjacent to the site and currently appears vacant, and the Helena United Methodist
Church is located directly to the South of the Baptist Church. This church currently offers religious
services and community programming.
113
PUBA/PLAN 735 6
Parcel Analysis
After conducting a community scan, the student team performed an analysis of the parcel level data in
Timberlake to better understand development trends in the community. In this analysis, the team
considered variables like land use, ownership, occupancy, and parcel values. In addition to cleaning and
mapping parcel data in ArcGIS, the team verified the information for accuracy throughout the process.
This parcel analysis highlights the high degree of underutilization and concentrated ownership structure
in Timberlake, showing that a small number of property owners play an important role in the
community’s development. These insights influence our later recommendation that the County identify
a community champion should the County elect to work with a private developer to redevelop the
School.
Timberlake Study Area
To perform the analysis, the team first identified a study area that captured the land around the site
that would help inform decisions about future development. The study area focuses on the heart of the
community by connecting the two main commercial corridors in Timberlake and the longstanding
residential area located along Ashley Avenue.
114
PUBA/PLAN 735 7
Figure 3: Study Area
The study area includes 101 parcels totaling 221 acres and approximately $20 million in tax assessed
value (Figure 3). The selected area is bounded to the west by US 501 and the east by a former railroad
which serves as a natural barrier between the heart of Timberlake and an adjacent new single‐family
subdivision. The eastern boundary extends across the old railroad at the intersection of Helena‐Moriah
Road and Ashley Avenue, thus capturing the “town center” of the community. The study area extends
south along US 501 to incorporate a cluster of retail establishments that serve as a “gateway” to the
community. Most land in this study area falls under Timberlake’s B‐2 Neighborhood Shopping zone,
except along US 501, which is zoned for B‐1 Highway Commercial Business. Overall, this study area
captures Timberlake’s mixed‐use character, the commercial activity along US 501, and the majority of
the B‐2 zone to provide insight into the community’s development and land use trends.
115
PUBA/PLAN 735 8
Timberlake Study Area Summary
The variety of land uses in Timberlake highlights the community’s mixed‐use character. Despite being
zoned for Neighborhood Shopping and Highway Commercial, half of the parcels in the study area
contain single‐family residences. Undeveloped land comprises 22% of parcels and 20% of land acreage.
It is unclear whether there are any current plans to develop any of the undeveloped parcels.
Figure 4 and Table 2 provide a snapshot of property use and value in the study area.
Figure 4: Land Use in Timberlake
116
PUBA/PLAN 735 9
Table 2: Property Use and Building Values
Ownership
Five families—Brooks, Woody, Chambers, Gentry, and Bello — own 49% of the parcels in the study area.
These families, moreover, own 77% of commercial parcels and 65% of undeveloped parcels (Table 3).
Of the five families, Brooks owns the most property by number of individual parcels, total acreage,
built square footage, and total value. Additionally, in the mid‐1990s, the family developed the
Timber Ridge subdivision on the other side of US 501. Their remaining 127 acres bordering US 501
across from the study area and adjacent to the Timber Ridge neighborhood are currently
underutilized and could be prime for development.
Table 3: Ownership of Parcels and Tax Assessed Value
The major land owners and their families featured in this analysis are longstanding members of the
community and maintain a clustered ownership pattern, with the exception of the Bello family
(Figure 5). The Bellos have bought, sold, and developed property in greater Timberlake and
Roxboro beginning in 2004; these acquisitions have made the family a major player in the local real
estate market both in and beyond the study area. Ultimately, it is possible that the Bello family may
be interested in additional property investment within the Timberlake core and thus could be
117
PUBA/PLAN 735 10
considered a potential investor on the Helena School redevelopment project. The outcome of
development at the site could catalyze or deter more investment in the area by any of these major
landowners in Timberlake depending on their interests and long‐term plans, which are unknown at
this point. A potential developer would likely consider the future use of the currently underutilized
property owned by the Helena Primitive Baptist Church, especially given concerns about the limited
traffic capacity. Currently, the two‐lane road between the church and the Old Helena School becomes
congested for student morning drop‐off and afternoon pick‐up at the Helena Elementary School.
Development of the Old Helena School would contribute to additional traffic congestion on Helena
Moriah Road towards the elementary school.
Figure 5: Ownership and Utilization
118
PUBA/PLAN 735 11
Underutilization
The final utilization map (Figure 6) reflects what properties are in poor physical condition, underutilized
(e.g., vacant structures), or both. The team initially defined undeveloped parcels as having $0 in
improvement value and underutilized parcels as having either a building value/SF of less than $19 or a
total assessed value/SF of less than $0.50. This served as the team’s baseline criteria; however, we also
used visual observations and conversations with stakeholders to determine a final utilization status for
each parcel.
Figure 6: Utilization Map
119
PUBA/PLAN 735 12
Table 4: Utilization Summary
Table 4 illustrates that 37% of parcels, 16% of building square footage, and 41% of land acreage in
Timberlake is either undeveloped or underutilized. Most of these parcels are residential. After
conducting a visual survey in‐person and through Google Street View, the team found that many
buildings on underutilized parcels are in fact in poor condition, and several appear abandoned. Although
these findings imply a lack of investment in the study area, they also highlight the opportunity for
development in Timberlake.
Recent Sales
Property sales in the Timberlake core have remained relatively consistent and stable over the past five
years, with increases in 2015 and 2017. The fact that most sales have been at or above the county’s tax
assessed values bodes well for rising property values in the future, even though many sales have been of
underutilized parcels (Figure 7). Of the 25 recent sales dating from 2014 to 2018, the three main
buyers by number of parcels purchased have been Bello (6), Woody (6), and Brooks (4). Most of the
parcels sold are residential. The recent transactions involving Woody and Brooks appear to have mostly
been consolidating family interests by acquiring properties adjoining theirs or transferring them among
family members.
Figure 7: Ownership and Recent Sales by Tax Assessed Value
Walker
Bello
Bello
Shivamar Properties
Woody
Lanier
Inman
Dargan
Woody
Woody
Strickland
Bello
Lynn
Brooks
(100%)
0%
100%
200%
300%
Nov‐13 May‐14 Oct‐14 Apr‐15 Oct‐15 Apr‐16 Oct‐16 Apr‐17 Oct‐17 Apr‐18 Oct‐18% Sale Price over Tax Assessed Value120
PUBA/PLAN 735 13
*Size of the data point indicates the number of parcels sold
While most sales in the past 5 years have been property transfers between long‐time residents or
between family members, Bello and Woody have recently acquired several undeveloped parcels or
parcels with structures in very poor condition. This may imply an intention to develop or redevelop
these properties. The analysis thus highlights the fact that Timberlake’s growth may be contingent on
local players, as 39% of land in Timberlake, including a large portion of undeveloped and underutilized
parcels, is owned by the Brooks, Bello, Woody, Chambers, and Gentry families. Their decisions to invest
in their undeveloped and underutilized properties is crucial to Timberlake’s future development.
Key Findings of Parcel Analysis
While the community scan highlighted many of Timberlake’s strengths and assets, this parcel analysis
reveals that significant challenges remain regarding future development. According to the county’s tax
parcel data, there has been no new development in the study area in the past 12 years, which is
consistent with the study area’s slow population growth. This general lack of new development,
combined with the abundance of undeveloped and underutilized land in the community, implies slow
growth in Timberlake. The slow rate of change in Timberlake is further emphasized by community’s
inaction to commit to a use for the Helena School. However, the new construction of single‐family
homes at Timberlake Meadows indicates some new development just outside of the study area.
Sales patterns among longstanding property owners suggest there may be interest in future
development in Timberlake. Those families and individuals purchasing undeveloped and undervalued
land may see opportunity to develop the property in the future. This parcel analysis underscores the
high degree of underutilization and key landowners in Timberlake. The analysis, though showing a
historical lack of new development within the study area, also suggests opportunities for future
redevelopment.
121
PUBA/PLAN 735 14
Market Analysis
The third part of the student team’s assessment includes a market analysis to determine a highest and
best use for the school based on what the market can support. The team examined the supply and
demand trends for office, retail, and residential space using publicly available data and information
supplied by ESRI Business Analyst. For each real estate type, the team: 1) defines a geographic area for
the local market, 2) analyzes relevant demographic and economic trends, and 3) projects the amount of
additional space the market can support. The team uses a “capture rate”, which considers historical
trends to infer Timberlake’s ability to attract new demand from the markets around it. The team will use
the capture rate to infer how much additional demand for each real estate type the market can support.
Based on the findings of this market analysis, the student team found that the most feasible use for the
school given market demand, its historical nature, and the physical layout of the interior is multifamily
housing with a commercial use in the auditorium.
Office Analysis
A market analysis for office space projects a decline in demand in Timberlake in the next 5 years. The
following section describes the logic of the office market analysis.
The entirety of Person County serves as the primary market study area for office space. The data is
available on a county‐wide basis and not at smaller geographic units, therefore the county is the best
unit of analysis. The team identified the following industries from the US Census Bureau as office space
dependent: information, finance and insurance, real estate and leasing, professional, scientific, and
technical services, management of companies and enterprises, and public administration/government.
Figure 8: Office Market Area and Job Densities
Data from the market area demonstrates that the unemployment rate has decreased in Person County
between 2010 and 2017, and the number of office jobs available has also decreased from 3,356 jobs to
3,073 (Figure 9), approximately a 1% annual decrease on average. North Carolina, on the other hand,
122
PUBA/PLAN 735 15
has seen an increase of 336,933 jobs and has followed similar patterns in unemployment, however at a
slightly lower rate.1
Figure 9: Person County Office‐Prone Jobs and Unemployment (ACS 2010‐2017)
The Timberlake study area has one office space: the post office, a 3,192 square foot space with nine
employees classed as public administrators. Timberlake’s capture rate for office space is a negligible
0.46%. With the 1% projected annual decrease for office jobs, Timberlake can expect a decline in
demand of between 258 and 280 square feet for office space in the next five years (Table 15, Appendix
2).
Retail Analysis
Based on analysis of retail data provided by ESRI, the team projects supportable retail space in
Timberlake to be between 2,300 – 2,900 square feet over the next five years. This projection is informed
by expected household growth as well as current and unmet sales demand in Timberlake’s Retail Trade
Area, a geographic area bounded by a 7‐minute drive time from Timberlake. This area seeks to capture
retail activity in southern Person County and therefore excludes retail centers in and near Roxboro.
1 Social Explorer ACS Census Data (5 Year).
123
PUBA/PLAN 735 16
Figure 10: Retail Trade Area
Table 5: Retail Surplus/Leakage in Trade Area
Category Trade Area Surplus/Leakage
Retail Trade ‐14.8M
Food Service 2.2M
Total ‐12.6M
Considering expected household growth and unmet retail demand, the team projects 7,300 ‐ 9,200
square feet in demand for new retail space within the trade area over the next five years. This analysis
finds that current sales in retail trade, such as general merchandise and clothing, exceed local demand
by approximately $14.8 million, indicating that customers are traveling into the trade area to shop.
However, approximately $2.2 million in unmet food service demand exist which businesses in the trade
area do not currently capture. As such, Timberlake can potentially capture some of the unmet demand
in these sectors.
Additionally, the team estimates that Timberlake currently captures 32% of all retail activity in the trade
area, as 14 out of the 44 trade area businesses are located in and around Timberlake. If Timberlake can
similarly capture 32% of the trade area’s projected retail growth, it can potentially support 2,300 – 2,900
square feet of new retail space in the next five years.
It is worthwhile to note that these projections assume that current conditions in Timberlake will
continue in accordance with historic trends. However, as the team’s residential market analysis will
suggest, a successful multifamily use for the school could drive additional demand for retail. Primarily,
the increase in the number of potential customers, along with synergies a residential project can
generate through adjacent amenities, have the potential to increase Timberlake’s retail presence in
124
PUBA/PLAN 735 17
southern Person County. As such, supportable square footage above the projections provided by this
analysis is possible.
Residential Analysis
The student team projects that the market in Timberlake can support 70 to 110 units of new renter‐
occupied multifamily housing in the next five years. To perform this residential market analysis, the
team first examined commuting patterns to determine a primary market area. The primary market area
defined in this analysis includes both the City of Roxboro and northern Durham County and is based on a
20‐minute drive time from the school. It is important to note that 37% of southern Person County
residents commute to Durham County and another 13% commute to Roxboro, making these two areas
especially important when marketing the school as a housing option to future tenants.
Additionally, the team’s analysis of IRS migration data shows that Durham and Orange Counties have
historically been the largest contributors of households moving to Person County (Figure 12). For these
reasons, the team chose a secondary market area that is bounded by Person, Durham, and Orange
county lines. Commuter and migration data therefore suggest that a residential use could potentially be
attractive to two types of markets: 1) households who work in Durham County and 2) Durham and
Orange County residents seeking a lower cost of living.
Figure 11: Primary and Secondary Residential Market Areas
125
PUBA/PLAN 735 18
Figure 12: 2015‐16 Household Migration to Person County by County of Origin
The population and number of households in both market areas are forecast to grow in the next five
years. However, projected growth in the secondary market area, which includes the City of Durham and
the Town of Chapel Hill, is three times higher than the primary market area around Timberlake (Figure
13).
Figure 13: Projected Growth of Residential Demand Drivers (2018 – 2023)
Over 44,000 individuals and 16,000 households live in the primary market area. Of these households,
57% make annual incomes of over $50,000 per year compared to 52% in North Carolina. Moreover, the
number of higher‐income households is projected to increase in the next five years while the number of
lower‐income households is projected to decrease (Figure 15). As such, the average household in
Timberlake’s primary market area is expected to become more affluent by 2023.
126
PUBA/PLAN 735 19
Figure 14: Household Income Breakdown, 2018
Figure 15: Projected Household Growth by Income 2018‐2023
Additionally, 20% of households in Timberlake’s primary market area is over the age of 65, compared to
16% in North Carolina. The share of the senior population is projected to grow, with the area housing
approximately 1,600 additional elderly residents by 2023. Although working‐age adults will still comprise
the largest share of the population, the housing needs of seniors in Timberlake’s primary market area
will become more important as this segment continues to grow.
127
PUBA/PLAN 735 20
Figure 16: Age Segment Share of Total Population, 2018
Figure 17: Age Segment Growth and Decline, 2018‐2023
In analyzing how much new housing demand Timberlake can support, the team found that roughly
1,200 new households moving to the primary market area can afford the rents of the proposed
development.2,3 Considering the current mix of owner‐occupied and renter‐occupied housing in the
market area, this analysis determines that 120 to 250 households are likely to seek multifamily rentals
with the rest seeking single‐family homes. The team expects Timberlake to capture 15% of new
residential demand in the market area based on its share of housing units within the market. Among the
2 See appendix regarding comparable multifamily developments.
3 Assuming that households spend at most 30% of their annual income on housing, the maximum rent threshold for a
household making $50,000 is $1,250 per month. This study found that approximately 1,200 projected households moving to the
primary market area earn $50,000 per year or above.
128
PUBA/PLAN 735 21
renter‐occupied households seeking multifamily in the market area, approximately 20 to 40 households
are likely to seek multifamily rentals in Timberlake based on historic trends.
Another potential source of new demand is existing households in the market area looking to downsize
to smaller units. Nationally, 5.5% of retired households are downsizing annually, with half seeking
multifamily apartments4. As the primary market area houses approximately 5200 households over 65,
the team expects that 50 to 70 senior households seeking to downsize can be supported in Timberlake.
The team therefore expects that, in the next five years, Timberlake can support between 70 to 110
multifamily rental units. Furthermore, given the lack of multifamily housing in southern Person County,
pent‐up demand in southern Person County may already exist5.
Key Findings
While the team’s research suggests that Timberlake has the highest demand for residential at 70 to 110
potential multifamily units, there is evidence to support additional retail growth as well. Given these
findings, the student team recommends redevelopment of the school to include 24 multifamily units: 17
one‐bedrooms and 7 two‐bedrooms. This combination of units was chosen based on the current layout
of the school. Additionally, the team proposes that the 3,000 square foot auditorium be preserved as its
current structure and used for retail. A project of this nature, if successfully developed, can furthermore
take advantage of adjacent on‐site amenities to catalyze additional development in Timberlake’s center.
4 Trulia: https://www.trulia.com/research/late‐boomers‐how‐seniors‐are‐affecting‐the‐housing‐market/
5 The rental vacancy rate in Person County is 1%, another indicator of pent‐up demand for rental units (source: ACS 5‐year
estimate)
129
PUBA/PLAN 735 22
Figure 18: Helena School Proposed Program
Financial Feasibility
Findings from the market analysis concluded that the highest market demand in Timberlake is for
residential and retail development at the former Helena School site. The financial feasibility assesses a
proposed building program of 24 apartments and a 3,000 square foot commercial space located within
the auditorium. The feasibility of the project is assessed by internal rate of return (IRR), a measure of
profitability over time, and the equity multiple, which offers the return per dollar of investment. For
example, a 1.6 equity multiple suggests that $160 will be returned at the end of the project for $100 of
investment.
First, the analysis outlines a baseline financial model of the program, the combination of uses in the
building, and their corresponding rents displayed below (Table 6). The proposed rents are based on
research of comparable properties [see appendix]. Next, it demonstrates the impact of feasibility
strategies on the profitability of the project.
130
PUBA/PLAN 735 23
Table 6: Proposed Rents
Type Number Approx. Square
Footage Rent/Unit/Month
One‐Bedroom 17 675 $950
Two‐Bedroom 7 900 $1250
Auditorium 1 3000 $3000
Key Assumptions
When building the financial model for the program,6 the team made various foundational assumptions
as part of the baseline model as a developer might do. First, the team assumed that this redevelopment
project will utilize state and federal historic tax credits to decrease the cash equity required. The
auditorium and corridors must be kept intact to receive these credits. Historic tax credits are necessary
to create a possible return on the project regardless of other interventions.
Based on comparable rent research in the market analysis, one‐bedroom rent was $950 and two‐
bedroom rent was $1,2507. Similarly, based on retail market research of comparable sites, rents were
set for the auditorium at approximately $1.00 per square foot, or $3,000 per month. While one‐
bedroom apartments are more profitable than two‐bedrooms, the team included a mix of unit sizes in
the program to increase the marketability of the project.
The team determined an acquisition cost of $14 per square foot, or $343,000, based on similar historic
schools in rural communities in North Carolina (Table 12, Appendix 1). Though this amount is somewhat
below the estimated acquisition price of $21 per square foot,8 the property has likely depreciated since
its last tax assessment in 2013. The baseline model does not propose adding any additional square
footage to the project but will increase the surface area of development by adding parking, incurring a
stormwater development cost of approximately $500,000. The Person County zoning ordinance requires
2.5 parking spaces for each dwelling unit in a multifamily building and 0.7 spaces for every 200 feet of
gross leasable retail area.9 The baseline program will require 71 additional parking spaces (in addition to
the ~30 spaces that is currently available on the site). Given that these costs are prohibitive to
development, they will be the subject of feasibility strategies introduced below.
The financial model also assumes a 10% vacancy rate for both the apartments and auditorium space.10
The team’s model shows 84% building efficiency in the former Helena School.11 The team set the
6 See appendix demonstrating Pro Forma.
7 For reference, median gross rent in Person County is $650 and $912 in the Census tract that covers Timberlake. See
Median Gross Rent Tables, 2013‐2017 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimate.
8 This acquisition cost is derived from the tax assessed value of the structure and the portion of the land that
includes the school building footprint and the parking lot adjacent to the school.
9 See Section 110 of Person County’s Zoning Ordinance, available at
http://www.personcounty.net/home/showdocument?id=5820
10 The overall vacancy rate in Person County is 14% while the rental vacancy rate is 1%. Source: Vacancy Rate and
Occupancy Status Tables, 2013‐2017 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimate.
11 Although the baseline model does not include the auxiliary buildings, the team assumed an efficiency rate of
80% for these buildings should they be rehabbed and 90% should they be demolished and rebuilt.
131
PUBA/PLAN 735 24
capitalization rate of 10% based on the advice and experience of Development Finance Initiative staff.
The model also projects 2% annual rent growth over time and anticipates sale of the project in year 10.
While the team tested incorporation of the other vacant buildings on site in the model, they did not
improve the profitability of the project. Our financial analysis also considered Low Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC). From research on the LIHTC application process, we concluded that the site will have
difficulty scoring high enough on the North Carolinas Qualified Allocation Plan to secure Low‐Income
Housing Tax Credits. The biggest challenge for the site is the lack of amenities nearby, such as a full‐
service grocery store, medical facilities, and public transportation options. Funding for LIHTC is very
competitive and typically developments need a perfect score on the Qualified Allocation Plan in North
Carolina to receive credits.
Sources and Uses
Table 7 summarizes funding sources and uses for the project without county intervention. To
determine the size of the primary loan, the team considered the loan‐to‐value, loan‐to‐cost, and
stabilized NOI loan valuation methods. To manage risk, lenders tend to offer a loan equal to the lowest
of those three valuation methods. Therefore, the team selected the loan to value method, which yielded
the smallest loan totaling $1,513,095. For this loan, the model assumed an interest rate of 6.0%, 30‐year
amortization period, and 1.25 debt service coverage ratio.
Table 7: Baseline Sources and Uses
Project Sources
Development Equity 31% $1,325,483
Deferred Developer's Fee 9% $378,350
Federal HTC Equity 12% $522,270
State HTC Equity 11% $468,704
Mortgage 36% $1,513,095
Total 100% $4,207,904
Project Uses
Acquisition 8% $343,098
Hard Costs 68% $2,853,966
Soft Costs 24% $1,010,840
Total 100% $4,207,904
The total development cost is assumed to be $174.00 per square foot. The school is in fair condition,
based on a feasibility assessment of the building in 2012 provided by the County Manager. Once
redeveloped, the multifamily housing can expect to yield $1.42 per square foot per month in rent. The
auditorium space is approximately 3,000 square feet and can expect to yield $36,000 per year,
increasing 2% annually after the first year.
The IRR for the project in the baseline model is 6.4%, with an equity multiple of 1.6x. For a first‐mover
project in a rural community, a developer who has no existing connection to Timberlake would likely
look for an IRR of 15‐20%.
132
PUBA/PLAN 735 25
Feasibility Strategies
Person County could pursue the following five strategies to increase the financial feasibility of the
project: 1) seek historic designation for the site on the National Register of Historic Places; 2) rezone
parking requirements for multifamily developments; 3) build the required parking at the site and then
lease it to the developer; 4) master lease the auditorium space; and 5) offer an interest only seller
financing option to the developer. Combining these strategies increases the project IRR to 9.7% and the
equity multiple to 1.9x.
The county can apply to get the property listed on the National Register of Historic Places to make the
project eligible for historic tax credits with the State Historic Preservation Office. The county should
prioritize historic designation to make the project eligible for approximately $990,000 or 23% of the
equity required for the project.
Person County should consider reducing parking requirements for multifamily housing projects. The cost
of parking has a significant negative impact on returns for a potential project at the school. Reducing the
required number of spaces to 1.5 per housing unit (to 47 spaces total) would increase project returns by
almost 1%. To make this recommendation, we looked to other counties in North Carolina that have
lower parking requirements for multifamily development: Johnston, Lee, and Chatham Counties require
1.5 spaces per unit for buildings with one and two‐bedroom units.12 These counties, like Person County,
are relatively rural and experiencing suburban growth from neighboring urbanized counties.
The returns of the project increase by 1.4% if the county builds the required parking spaces and leases
them to the developer of the site. Additional parking would also benefit the county by serving the
recreational facilities on the site, simultaneously increasing the marketability of the project and current
functionality of the site. The cost for building parking will amount to $235,000, but the county could
lease the spaces for $25 per space per month until the year of sale. Leasing the parking spaces to the
developer would net the county approximately $141,000 in revenue through year 10.
Person County could consider signing a master lease with the developer for the auditorium space for at
least the market rate of $3,000 per month. The auditorium space would be conducive to a small public
library, recreational space, open‐format office, or many other uses. Master leasing the space would
guarantee a tenant and therefore reduce the risk of the project, improving the terms the developer
could receive on a loan by reducing the vacancy during underwriting. With a master lease, the county
would also have the option to lease out the auditorium space to a private group. Leasing out the space
would net up to $360,000 in revenue for the county over the lifetime of the project.
Finally, the county could offer interest only seller financing, which essentially services the acquisition
cost as a loan. The developer pays 5% interest on the acquisition cost for 30‐year amortization period;
the developer would likely pay the acquisition cost as a balloon payment at disposition of the property
in year 10. The developer receives the benefit of delaying the full acquisition cost; the county receives
12 “Johnston County Land Development Design Manual, Section 2(G),” June 1, 2009.
http://www.johnstonnc.com/FILES/planning/DesignManualApproved.pdf.;
“Lee County Unified Development Ordinance,” January 2006.
https://leecountync.gov/Portals/0/Content/files/unified‐development‐ordinance‐udo‐currently‐in‐revision.pdf.;
“Chatham County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14,” May 21, 2012.
https://www.chathamnc.org/home/showdocument?id=571.
133
PUBA/PLAN 735 26
the benefit of interest on the financing option, which would net approximately $157,000 in addition to
the acquisition cost that they would eventually receive.
Sources and Uses with County Involvement
With the implementation of these feasibility strategies, the project achieves an IRR of 9.7% with an
equity multiple of 1.9x. The associated sources and uses are outlined in Table 8 below. While the
project does not reach the threshold of 15% IRR, the returns may be sufficient for a community‐minded
investor or developer to support the project.
Table 8: Sources and Uses with County Intervention
Project Sources
Development Equity 20% $733,862
Deferred Developer's Fee 8% $294,767
Federal HTC Equity 12% $446,705
State HTC Equity 11% $400,889
Seller Financing 10% $343,098
Mortgage 39% $1,429,398
Total 100% $3,648,718
Project Uses
Acquisition 10% $343,098
Hard Costs 66% $2,413,766
Soft Costs 24% $891,854
Total 100% $3,648,718
Sensitivity Analysis
The team tested variables in the model to determine how they might impact returns. The financial
feasibility of the project is highly sensitive to changes in rents, acquisition cost, and interest rate of the
primary loan. Financial feasibility was not very sensitive to changes in capitalization rate or the
amortization period of the loan.
The following demonstrates how changes to the acquisition cost per square foot and auditorium rents
affect returns. As the acquisition cost decreases and rent per month for the auditorium increases, the
IRR increases.
134
PUBA/PLAN 735 27
The table below shows the Internal Rate of Return given different scenarios regarding annual rent
escalator and the number of years a developer holds on to the property.
Table 9: IRR Sensitivity Analysis for Sale Year and Rent Growth
Table 10: IRR sensitivity to Acquisition Cost and Auditorium Rent
The following demonstrate IRR sensitivity to changes in rents and rents per square foot for both one‐
bedroom and two‐bedroom apartments. As rents increase, returns on the project increase. To achieve
the minimum threshold IRR of 15%, one‐bedroom apartments would need to be priced between $1025‐
$1100 per month and two‐bedroom would need to be priced between $1200‐$1300 per month.
9.7%1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0%
6 (5.3%) (2.5%) 0.0% 2.5% 4.9% 7.2% 9.4% 11.7% 13.9%
7 (1.2%) 1.5% 3.9% 6.3% 8.6% 10.7% 12.9% 15.0% 17.0%
8 1.7% 4.3% 6.7% 8.9% 11.0% 13.1% 15.1% 17.1% 19.0%
9 3.9% 6.4% 8.6% 10.7% 12.7% 14.7% 16.6% 18.4% 20.3%
10 5.1% 7.5% 9.7% 11.7% 13.7% 15.6% 17.4% 19.2% 20.9%
11 6.4% 8.7% 10.8% 12.7% 14.6% 16.4% 18.1% 19.8% 21.5%
12 7.4% 9.6% 11.6% 13.5% 15.2% 17.0% 18.6% 20.3% 21.9%
13 8.2% 10.3% 12.2% 14.0% 15.7% 17.4% 19.0% 20.6% 22.1%
14 8.9% 10.9% 12.7% 14.4% 16.1% 17.7% 19.2% 20.8% 22.3%
15 9.4% 11.3% 13.1% 14.8% 16.4% 17.9% 19.4% 20.9% 22.4%
16 9.8% 11.7% 13.4% 15.0% 16.6% 18.1% 19.6% 21.0% 22.5%
17 10.1% 11.9% 13.6% 15.2% 16.7% 18.2% 19.6% 21.1% 22.5%
18 10.4% 12.2% 13.8% 15.3% 16.8% 18.3% 19.7% 21.1% 22.5%
19 10.6% 12.3% 13.9% 15.5% 16.9% 18.3% 19.7% 21.1% 22.5%
20 10.8% 12.5% 14.1% 15.6% 17.0% 18.4% 19.8% 21.1% 22.5%
Sale Year and Rent Growth
Rent Growth (1B = $950; 2B = $1,250)Sale Year135
PUBA/PLAN 735 28
Table 11: IRR Sensitivity of One‐ and Two‐Bedroom Rents
The following demonstrates how changes to the primary loan terms affect returns on the project.
Interest on the loan has a greater effect on than IRR than the amortization period.
The following demonstrates how changes to the seller financing loan affect returns on the project.
Interest on the loan has a greater effect on than IRR than the amortization period.
9.7%5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 6.5% 7.0% 7.5% 8.0% 8.5% 9.0%
20 9.9% 9.6% 9.2% 8.8% 8.5% 8.1% 7.7% 7.4% 7.0%
25 9.8% 9.4% 9.0% 8.7% 8.3% 7.9% 7.5% 7.1% 6.8%
30 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.5% 8.2% 7.8% 7.4% 7.0% 6.6%
35 9.6% 9.2% 8.8% 8.5% 8.1% 7.7% 7.3% 6.9% 6.5%
40 9.6% 9.2% 8.8% 8.4% 8.0% 7.6% 7.2% 6.9% 6.5%
Seller Financing Terms
Interest Rate
Amort. Period136
PUBA/PLAN 735 29
Recommendations
With an understanding of the financial challenges this project faces, the team recommends four possible
actions the county can take to pursue the redevelopment of the Helena School by a private developer:
1) identify a community minded investor or developer; 2) list the property on the National Register of
Historic Places; 3) amend zoning requirements for parking; and 4) address the other vacant buildings on
the site.
Even with county involvement, it is unlikely that a developer will tackle a first‐mover project in a rural
community with an IRR below 15%. However, a community member or community‐minded individual
might be willing to see a low return if they are invested in seeing the School achieve its highest use and
believe the development may impact the future of Timberlake. They must have enough equity to initiate
the project.
As recommended among the feasibility strategies, it is essential to the project that it receive equity from
Historic Tax Credits. Without this source of equity, the development is not financially feasible.
Furthermore, using Historic Tax Credits in the project would ensure the preservation of a community
asset that many have expressed a deep connection to as former students at the Helena School.
The team also recommends decreasing the parking requirement from 2.5 parking spaces per residential
unit to 1.5 spaces. The current state of the zoning ordinance is prohibitive to this development because
of the development cost associated with creating parking.
Finally, the team recommends that Person County secures the demolition or an alternative use plan for
the auxiliary buildings prior to soliciting private development proposals. The marketability of a
development in the former Helena School may be impacted by the auxiliary buildings for better or for
worse depending on their slated use.
137
PUBA/PLAN 735 30
Appendix 1: Comparable Properties
Table 12: Comparable Properties for Acquisition Cost
Project Community Building
SF
Listing
Price
Price
per SF
Year
Built
Building
Condition
Asa Manning Farm
Life School
Williamston
(pop 5,000)
12,000 $117,500 $9.79 1920s Fair
Amity School
Mooresville
(pop 32,711)
22,600 $389,900 $17.24 1920 Fair
Appalachian School
Lansing
(pop 200)
30,000 $500,000 $16.67 1938 Fair
Comparable Residential Properties
Currently, no new multifamily housing exists in Timberlake. Therefore, to find comparable multifamily
housing developments our team looked to small communities in North Carolina that have recently
adaptively reused historic buildings with historic tax credits. Each community is of similar size to
Timberlake and located along a major highway within commuting distance of a larger city. None of the
comparable developments are historic school buildings, mainly because historic schools tend to get
redeveloped into affordable and senior housing which are not market‐rate comparables.
The Wilkes Hosiery Mill in North Wilkesboro is an 86,000 square foot mill built in 1923. The site was
redeveloped in 2010 into 35 market rate condos called Key City Lofts. Like Timberlake, Wilkesboro is a
small community and this development was the first multifamily housing of its kind in the area.
Wilkesboro has a denser, more defined downtown, however
White Furniture Company, a historic factory and warehouse in Mebane, was constructed in 1924. After
sitting vacant since 1993, the building was converted in 2015 into 152 market rate apartment units. This
development benefits from economies of scale (i.e. has much more space than the site). The apartments
were marketed to commuters who work in the Triangle and Triad. The commuting patterns of Person
County are similar in that many residents commute along 501 to jobs in Durham. Although Mebane is a
larger community than Timberlake, the way this particular development was marketed to commuters
makes it a potential comparable property for Person County.
The Saxapahaw Mill in Alamance County is another example of an historic mill dating to 1840. It was
redeveloped in multiple phases beginning in 2008 and converted into 75 apartments (as well as condos
and commercial space). This development has been called a rural renaissance for Saxapahaw. We looked
to Saxapahaw as a successful development in a small community where this type of housing did not
exist prior.
138
PUBA/PLAN 735 31
Table 13: Comparable Multifamily Properties
Development Community 1‐Bedroom
Rent Range SF Range Rent/SF
Range
2‐Bedroom
Rent Range SF Range Rent/SF
Range
Saxapahaw
River Mill Saxapahaw $850‐$1045 567‐857
$1.21
‐ $1.49 $1015‐1205 1056‐
1478
$0.81‐
$0.96
Key City Lofts North
Wilkesboro $900 1000 $0.90 $1350 1855 $0.72
White Furniture
Lofts Mebane $930‐$1180 655‐750
$1.42 ‐
$1.54
$1085‐
$1160
886‐
1014
$1.14‐
$1.22
Figure 19: White Furniture Lofts (Top Left), Key City Lofts (Top Right)
& Saxapahaw River Mill (Bottom)
139
PUBA/PLAN 735 32
Comparable Residential Properties
Table 14: Comparable Retail Properties
Development Community
Total
Leasable
Area
Unit SF
Range
Rent/SF/YR
Range Year Built Retail Type
Marshall High
Studios Marshall, NC 26,000 SF 180‐870
$11.00‐
$13.00 1925 Studios
Bethania Mill &
Village Shoppes Bethania, NC 12,318 SF 180‐3,000
$12.00‐
$14.65 1899 Storefront
Retail / Cafe
Eno River Mill Hillsborough, NC 266,589 SF
1,000‐
53,292 $4.00‐$16.00 1890
Retail,
Brewery
Appendix 2: Market Analysis Detail
Table 15: Supportable Office Space (5 Year Projection)
Timberlake Office SF (Post Office) 3,192
Person County Office SF ÷ 694,083
Capture Rate 0.46%
Projected New Office‐Prone Jobs in Person County (5 Years) ‐187
Average Office SF Per Employee x 300‐32513
Projected Office SF Demand for Person County 2023 ‐56,100 to ‐65,775
Capture Rate x 0.46%
Projected Demand SF for Timberlake 2023 ‐258 to ‐280
13 Calculated by dividing the current square footage of office space in Timberlake by the number of office‐prone jobs (i.e. the
post office). 3,192 ÷ 9 = 300‐325 sq ft. per employee
140
PUBA/PLAN 735 33
Table 14: Supportable Retail Space (5 Year Projection)
By Sales
Existing Food Service Sales $8,700,000
Food Service Sales Potential $6,500,000
Est. Sales per SF $300
Projected New Retail Demand in Trade Area based on Sales 7,300 SF
By Household Growth
New Households in Trade Area 80
Est. Retail Needed per Household 115
Projected New Retail Demand in Trade Area based on HH Growth 9,200
Total Retail Demand
Range for Supportable Retail Space 7,300 – 9,200
Timberlake Capture Rate 32%
Projected New Retail Demand in Timberlake 2,300 – 2,900 SF
Table 15: Supportable Residential Space (5 Year Projection)
Demand from New Households, 2018‐2023
New Households in Market Area 1,200
Likely to Choose Renter‐Occupied Multifamily Housing 120 to 250
Timberlake Capture 20 to 40
Demand from New Households, 2018‐2023
Current Households Over 65 in Market Area 5,200
Converting to Multifamily Renter‐Occupied Housing in Next 5
Years
300 to 450
Timberlake Capture 50 to 70
Total Potential Demand for Renter‐Occupied Multifamily Housing
70 to 110 Units
141
PUBA/PLAN 735 34
Appendix 3: Housing Needs Assessment
Cost Burden Status in 2015 – Owner Cost Burden Status in 2015 – Renter
Person County Cost Burden Summary (2015)
Approximately 33% of Person County households are cost‐burdened (housing cost between 30% and
50% of HMI), which is higher than the state average of 22%. Additionally, 13% of households are
severely burdened (housing cost greater than 50% of HMI), significantly higher than the state average of
3%. Almost half of all renters are cost burdened, and 25% are severely burdened. As such, renters also
comprise a disproportionate share of cost‐burdened households despite being outnumbered by
homeowners.
142
PUBA/PLAN 735 35
Change in Cost‐Burden Status of Renters: 2013‐201714
Further analysis has shown that the cost burden born by Person County renters has worsened over time.
Although rental supply increased by 450 units between 2012 and 2017, the latest ACS shows that the
share of cost‐burdened renters increased by 13% in the same period. We, therefore, estimate there is
significant demand for affordable rental units throughout Person County, as over 2,300 renter
households are expected to be cost‐burdened.
14 Social Explorer ACS Census Data (5 Year).
143
PUBA/PLAN 735 36
Appendix 4: Pro Forma Detail
Pro Forma Summary and Assumptions
Proposed Rents ‐ Residential
144
PUBA/PLAN 735 37
Development Budget
145
PUBA/PLAN 735 38
Operating Cash Flow
146
PUBA/PLAN 735 39
Historic Tax Credit Calculations
147
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 9, 2019
Agenda Title: TA-01-19 Request by Martin and Sheila Persson to add Event Center to the
Person County Planning Ordinance Appendix C - Table of Uses and add a definition of event center
to Appendix B – Definitions.
Summary of Information: This text amendment request proposes to add a use that is not
currently listed in the Person County Planning Ordinance Table of Uses. Adding this use will
apply to the applicant’s property as well as provide an option for other property owners in the
county who are interested in a similar business.
While the applicant is proposing the definition for an event center and allowing the use by right in
the zoning district RC (Rural Conservation), to ensure consistency within the Table of Permitted
Uses, planning staff recommends adding the proposed use as a by-right use in the following zoning
districts: B-1 (Highway Commercial), B-2 (Neighborhood Shopping) and GI (General Industrial).
Planning staff recommends adding the proposed use via special use permit in the R (Residential)
district because of the restrictive nature of the district.
At the Planning Board meeting on August 8th, 2019, the board voted 4-0 to approve the requested
text amendment TA-01-19 including staff’s recommended text (Members Benji Gault, Shelia
McGhee, Sandra Majors, and Robert Allen voted to approve. No members voted to deny).
Recommended Action: Planning Staff recommends approval of TA-01-19. Additional text
recommended by staff ensures that this text amendment is consistent with the Person County
Planning Ordinance and Table of Uses.
The text amendment request is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and future
planning goals of Person County. It is reasonable and in the public interest as it will provide clear
regulations for event centers in Person County.
Submitted By: Lori Oakley, Planning Director
148
149
APPLICANT’S PROPOSED TEXT
PROPOSED TEXT:
Appendix C: Table of Permitted Uses
Add: Event Venue (to the table)
Add: X (permitted use) in the RC Zoning District
Appendix B: Definitions
Event Venue: A commercial establishment and associated grounds engaged in the hosting and production
of pre-planned events like weddings, corporate parties, or reunions. Typical accessory uses include
kitchens or meal preparation space, limited overnight accommodations, photography studios, facilities to
accommodate live or recorded music, on- and off-site parking and outdoor recreation facilities.
REASON FOR REQUESTED CHANGE:
We purchased the Roxboro Country Club house with the intent to continue hosting weddings and other
events such as corporate meetings, reunions, anniversaries, and various other indoor and outdoor events.
Previously the permitted use fell under the golf club as an accessory, however since we only purchased
the clubhouse and not the golf course there isn’t a good category under the permitted use for just an
event venue.
150
Black text – Applicant’s proposed text
Red text – Planning staff’s additional recommendations
ADDITIONAL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS (in red)
Appendix B- Definition-
Event Venue: A commercial establishment and associated grounds engaged in the hosting and production
of pre-planned events like weddings, corporate parties, or reunions. Typical accessory uses include
kitchens or meal preparation space, limited overnight accommodations, photography studios, facilities to
accommodate live or recorded music, on- and off-site parking and outdoor recreation facilities.
Appendix C – Tables of Uses:
Event Center =
X (Permitted) in RC district
S (Special Use) in R district
X (Permitted) in B-1 district
X (Permitted) in B-2 district
X (Permitted) in GI district
REASON FOR REQUESTED CHANGE:
We purchased the Roxboro Country Club house with the intent to continue hosting weddings and other
events such as corporate meetings, reunions, anniversaries, and various other indoor and outdoor events.
Previously the permitted use fell under the golf club as an accessory, however since we only purchased
the clubhouse and not the golf course there isn't a good category under the permitted use for just an
event venue.
151
TA‐01‐19
Staff Analysis
TEXT AMENDMENT TA‐01‐19
Event Center
EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST
Petition TA‐01‐19 is a request by Martin and Sheila Persson to add Event Center to the Person County
Planning Ordinance Appendix C ‐ Table of Uses and also add a definition of event center to Appendix B –
Definitions.
REQUESTED ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES
Appendix B (see attached language)
Language was amended in this section to add a definition for an event center.
Appendix C (see attached language)
Language was amended in this section to add Event Center to the Table of Uses
PLANNING STAFF ANALYSIS
This text amendment request proposes to add a use that is not currently listed in the Person County
Planning Ordinance Table of Uses. Adding this use will apply to the property in question as well as provide
an option for other property owners in the county who are interested in a similar business.
The applicant purchased a portion of the former Roxboro Country Club property containing the former
club house. The club house had many uses including an event center. The principal use of the club house
was considered a private recreation facility for profit and the event center was an accessory use to the
principal use. The applicant is proposing to allow an event center as a primary use. Given that the property
previously functioned as an event center, albeit as an accessory use, allowing the property to function as
solely an event center would not disrupt the current fabric of the surrounding neighborhood.
While the applicant is proposing the definition for an event center and allowing the use by right in the
zoning district RC (Rural Conservation), to ensure consistency within the Table of Permitted Uses, planning
staff recommends adding the proposed use as a by‐right use in the following zoning districts: B‐1 (Highway
Commercial), B‐2 (Neighborhood Shopping) and GI (General Industrial). Planning staff recommends
adding the proposed use via special use permit in the R (Residential) district because of the restrictive
nature of the district.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends approval of TA‐01‐19. The proposed text amendment allows a use that
previously existed as an accessory use to be added to the Table of Uses and clearly defined so that it may
function as the primary use on the property. Additional text recommended by staff ensures that this text
amendment is consistent with the Person County Planning Ordinance and Table of Uses.
REASONABLENESS AND CONSISTENCY STATEMENT
The text amendment request is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and future planning
goals of Person County. It is reasonable and in the public interest as it will provide clear regulations for
event centers in Person County.
152
TA‐01‐19
Staff Analysis
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIOM
At the Planning Board meeting on August 8th, 2019, the board voted 4‐0 to approve the requested text
amendment TA‐01‐19 including staff’s recommended text (Members Benji Gault, Shelia McGhee, Sandra
Majors, and Robert Allen voted to approve. No members voted to deny).
Submitted by: Kayla DiCristina, Planner I
153
Person CountyBoard of CommissionersSeptember 9, 2019154
Text AmendmentTA 01-19155
Text AmendmentTA-01-19 – Explanation of RequestTA-01-19 is a request by Martin and Sheila Persson to add Event Center to thePerson County Planning OrdinanceAppendix C - Table of Usesand also add adefinition of Event Center toAppendix B - Definitions.156
Text AmendmentTA-01-19 – Planning Staff Analysis‐The applicant purchased a portion ofthe former Roxboro Country Club property containing the former clubhouse. The club house had many uses including an event center. The principal use of the club house wasconsidered a private recreation facility for profit and the event center was an accessory use to the principal use.157
Text AmendmentTA-01-19 – Planning Staff Analysis‐This text amendment request proposesto add a use that is not currently listed in the Person County PlanningOrdinance Table of Uses.‐Adding this use will apply to the property in question as well as provide an option for other property owners inthe county who are interested in a similar business.‐The applicant is proposing to allow an event center as a primary use. Given that the property previouslyfunctioned as an event center, albeit as an accessory use, allowing the property to function as solely an eventcenter would not disrupt the current fabric of the surrounding neighborhood.158
Text AmendmentTA-01-19 – Planning Staff Analysis⁻Event venues currently exist in Person County in an unregulated state. Properties that qualify for bona fidefarm exemption are able to circumnavigate Planning and Zoning and Building Inspections regulations forerecting buildings on their land. There are multiple cases where these buildings are used as event venues,most notably the wedding venue present on the Northside of Tunnel Creek. Inaddition to providing an avenuefor the Perssons and other residents to conduct a business of this nature, adding the proposed changes to thePerson County Planning Ordinance allows staff and board members to betterregulate event venues andensure the protection of persons and property.159
Text AmendmentTA-01-19 – Planning Staff Analysis‐While the applicant is proposing the definition for an event center and allowing the use-by-right in the zoningdistrict RC (Rural Conservation), to ensure consistency within the Tableof Permitted Uses, planning staffrecommends adding the proposed use as a by-right use in the following zoning districts: B-1 (HighwayCommercial), B-2 (Neighborhood Shopping) and GI (General Industrial). Planning staff recommends addingthe proposed use via special use permit in the R (Residential) district because of the restrictive nature of thedistrict.160
Text AmendmentTA-01-19 – Applicant’s Proposed RecommendationsAppendix B: DefinitionsEvent Venue: A commercial establishment and associated grounds engaged in the hosting and production of pre-planned eventslike weddings, corporate parties, or reunions. Typical accessory uses include kitchens or meal preparation space, limited overnightaccommodations, photography studios, facilities to accommodate live orrecorded music, on- and off-site parking and outdoorrecreation facilities.Appendix C: Table of Permitted UsesAdd: Event Venue (to the table)Add: X (permitted use) in the RC Zoning District161
Text AmendmentTA-01-19 – Additional Staff Recommendations (in yellow)Appendix B: DefinitionEvent Venue: A commercial establishment and associated grounds engaged in the hosting and production of pre-planned eventslike weddings, corporate parties, or reunions. Typical accessory uses include kitchens or meal preparation space, limited overnightaccommodations, photography studios, facilities to accommodate live orrecorded music, on- and off-site parking and outdoorrecreation facilities.Appendix C: Table of Permitted UsesEvent Center: X (Permitted) in RC districtS (Special Use) in R districtX (Permitted) in B-1 districtX (Permitted) in B-2 districtX (Permitted) in GI district162
Text AmendmentTA-01-19 – Planning Staff Recommendation‐Planning Staff recommends approval ofTA-01-19. The proposed text amendment allows a use that previouslyexisted as an accessory use to be added to the Table of Permitted Uses and clearly defined so that it mayfunction as the primary use on the property. Additional text recommended by staff ensures that this textamendment is consistent with the Person County Planning Ordinance and Table of Permitted Uses.163
Text AmendmentTA-01-19 – Reasonableness and Consistency Statement‐The text amendment request is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and future planning goals ofPerson County. It is reasonable and in the public interest as it will provide clear regulations for event centers inPerson County.164
Text AmendmentTA-01-19 – Planning Board Recommendation from August 8, 2019 Meeting• Board voted 4-0 to approve the requested text amendment TA-01-19 in its proposed state• Members Benji Gault, Shelia McGhee, Sandra Majors, and Robert Allen voted to approve. • No members voted to deny.165
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 9, 2019
Agenda Title: Appointments to Juvenile Crime Prevention Council and
Person Area Transportation Board
Summary of Information:
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
Unexpired term of a 2-Year Term:
1 position for the Local School Superintendent or designee
Dr. Rodney Peterson requests the Board of Commissioners to appoint Mr. Ron Anthony to the
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council to serve out the remainder of the term for Ms. Joan Kister
(current Superintendent’s designee). Ms. Kister’s term is due to expire December 31, 2019.
The Board of Commissioners, if so desires, may appoint Mr. Anthony to fulfill the unexpired term,
or, appoint for the remainder of the term to December 31st as well as a new term (2-years) thus
giving him a term to 12/31/2021.
Person Area Transportation System Board
3-Year Term: 1 position for a citizen-at-large to fulfill an unexpired term to 12/31/2021
Ms. Tammie Kirkland requests appointment.
Recommended Action: Nominate and appoint as deemed appropriate.
Submitted By: Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board
166
167
168