BOC minutes april 1 2013
April 1, 2013
1
PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APRIL 1, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
Jimmy B. Clayton Heidi York, County Manager
Kyle W. Puryear C. Ronald Aycock, County Attorney
B. Ray Jeffers Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board
Frances P. Blalock
David Newell, Sr.
The Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, met in
regular session on Monday, April 1, 2013 at 7:00 pm in the Commissioners’ meeting
room in the Person County Office Building.
Chairman Clayton called the meeting to order, led invocation and asked Vice
Chairman Jeffers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to add the
following items to the agenda for consideration:
• a Resolution to maintain and support the current integrity and funding for
the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF); and a
• Discussion and consideration for appointments to fill the two resigned
alternate seats on the Board of Equalization and Review.
A motion was made by Commissioner Blalock, and carried 5-0 to approve the
agenda as adjusted including the following two Closed Sessions:
• A Closed Session per General Statute 143-318, 11(a)(5) to consider the
acquisition or lease of real property; and
• A Closed Session per General Statute 143-318.11(a)(2) for the purpose to
consult with the county attorney in order to preserve the attorney-client
privilege.
INFORMAL COMMENTS:
There were no comments from the public.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to approve the
minutes of March 11, 2013.
April 1, 2013
2
OLD BUSINESS:
DISCUSSION OF ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO
NONCONFORMING USES AND ACCESSORY USES:
Assistant County Manager, Sybil Tate and Planning Director, Paula Murphy
guided the Board’s discussion in further review of sections 101-2, 102-1, 60-5 and 60-6
of the current Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Tate reminded the Board a public hearing on the
recommended changes was conducted at the Commissioners’ January 7, 2013 meeting.
Non-conforming
Existing:
101-2 No building may be extended or enlarged or the amount of land devoted to a use
increased unless such extensions or enlargements comply with all the provisions of
this ordinance.
Planning Board Proposed 101-2:
Any structure existing at the time of adoption of this Ordinance which does not
comply with setback or yard requirements, or which exceeds height requirements, may be
continued in use but shall not be enlarged or extended unless such extensions or
enlargements comply with all the provisions of this ordinance. No unenclosed portion of
a building may be enclosed if the setback or height requirements are not met.
Ms. Tate stated the intent of this proposed section is to “grandfather-in” existing
non-conforming structures, provided that no additional changes are made. Ms. Murphy
explained property line setback requirements. Ms. Murphy confirmed that residents can
request a variance from the Board of Adjustment for non-conforming uses.
It was the consensus of the Board that the Planning Board Proposed 101-2 is
acceptable for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
Existing:
102-1 Nothing in this ordinance shall prevent the restoring or strengthening of a
nonconforming structure to a safe condition, provided that the square feet of the
structure shall not be increased.
Ms. Tate stated there were no changes recommended by the Planning Board to
this section. The intent of this section is to allow individuals to improve non-conforming
structures for safety reasons, but not increase their size.
It was the consensus of the Board that section 101-2 is acceptable as currently
written in the Zoning Ordinance.
April 1, 2013
3
Accessory Structures
Existing:
60-5 Unless otherwise specified in this ordinance, accessory buildings may be allowed
within five feet of rear and side yard lot lines provided they are five feet or more
from the main structure.
Planning Board Proposed 60-5:
Accessory structures shall be located at least five feet from any principal structure
and side and rear property lines.
The intent of this section is to ensure that accessory structures are at least five feet
from property lines and the main structure. Five feet allows for mowing and maintenance
of buildings.
Commissioner Puryear stated agreement for accessory structures to be at least five
feet from property lines but disagreed with restrictions for accessory structures related to
the main structure and in the side and rear yards. Commissioner Puryear noted many
county residents are out of compliance and inquired about striking this section from the
Zoning Ordinance in its entirety.
Commissioner Puryear suggested the text amendment for section 60-5 to read as
follows: Accessory structures shall be located no less than five feet from the property
lines.
County Attorney, Ron Aycock confirmed if the text amendment(s) are approved
by the Board of Commissioner, the amendments would apply to future development only
(not applicable to existing structures).
Ms. Murphy stated the zoning requirements would be applied to permanent and
mobile structures to the same standard.
It was the consensus of the Board that section 60-5 is amended in the Zoning
Ordinance as follows: Accessory structures shall be located no less than five feet from
the property lines.
Existing:
60-6 Unless otherwise specified in this ordinance, every principal building hereafter
erected or moved shall be located on a separate lot and in no case shall there be
more than one principal building and three permitted accessory buildings on all
lots under three acres. There shall be allowed one additional accessory building
for every acre over three acres. Industrial operations located in the GI district shall
be exempted from this provision.
April 1, 2013
4
Ms. Tate and Ms. Murphy confirmed there was not a recommendation from the
Planning Board for amendment to section 60-6.
Vice Chairman Jeffers asked if county staff has spoken with Lowes, Talberts, i.e.,
vendors that sell accessory buildings to see if they inform buyers that a permit is required.
Ms. Murphy stated staff have not talked with Lowes but could take a letter out to them
noting they have told other vendors that sell the unenclosed metal carports and storage
buildings that permits are required.
Ms. Murphy confirmed that a well house if not counted as an accessory structure.
Vice Chairman Jeffers stated the Board wanted suggestions on changing this
section to which the Planning Board did not recommend any changes nor did they offer
any options or compare to other counties. Ms. Murphy stated she could provide the
Board with the following data from other entities:
Warren County: allows accessory building in the side and rear yards
total sq. footage not to exceed 75% of permit principle use
Vance County: allows one accessory building per 20,000 sq. ft.
building not to exceed 1,000 sq. ft.
one additional accessory building per 20,000 sq. ft.
(comparable to two per acre per Ms. Murphy)
accessory building size limits
City of Roxboro: not more than 20% of the rear yard
Commissioner Blalock asked what the smallest conforming lot size is. Ms.
Murphy stated one acre minimum with City water and sewer.
Vice Chairman Jeffers suggested the following amendment changes:
1 acre 3 accessory buildings
2 acres 4 accessory buildings
3 acres 5 accessory buildings
4 acres 6 accessory buildings
5 acres 7 accessory buildings
6 acres 8 accessory buildings
7 acres 9 accessory buildings
Commissioner Puryear suggested three accessory building per one acre.
Vice Chairman Jeffers stated comparison data with Scotland County, New
Hanover County, and other rural counties would have been helpful.
Ms. Tate offered for management staff to take the Board’s feedback to craft a
proposed section 60-6.
April 1, 2013
5
Chairman Clayton and County Attorney, Ron Aycock confirmed the Board had its
public hearing on this matter in January and is not required to have another public
hearing unless desired by the Board.
New proposed section: 60-6A:
60-6A - Accessory structures shall be placed in the rear or side yard and not the front
yard of all lots under ten acres. Parcels of property containing ten acres or larger
may place an accessory building in the front yard provided such building is
located at least 50 feet from any street right of way line and a minimum of
twenty five feet from any side property line.
Ms. Tate stated the Board’s discussion of this section has been primarily around
the size of the lot and asked if the Board would like to keep the lot size at ten acres or
reduce it to five acres. Commissioner Newell asked a question related to an existing
structure, i.e. barn in the front yard. Ms. Murphy stated zoning could not approve with the
structure in the front but what is being done to get around it is a surveyor puts an
easement so that the barn or structure is not in the front.
Commissioner Puryear stated what the Board just discussed with section 60-5
eliminating the reference of side and rear yards destroys section 60-6A and questioned
why 60-6A was needed. Ms. Murphy stated most zoning areas do not allow buildings in
the front yard as a standard zoning practice. Unintended consequences may include
visibility issues, aesthetics, lower property values, and more importantly a public safety
access issue.
Chairman Clayton suggested adding a clause for a parcel of property containing
five acres or larger for an accessory building located in the front yard located fifty feet
from the street allowable. Chairman Clayton advocated for existing structures to remain
in place.
Mr. Aycock added the language as written … “Parcels of property containing ten
acres or larger may place an accessory building in the front yard provided such building
is located at least 50 feet from any street right of way line and a minimum of twenty five
feet from any side property line” suggest action to put something there as opposed to
keeping something there thereby noting the language may already exempt existing
structures on the property.
There was a discrepancy to which the agenda abstract stated ten acres and the
Planning Board recommendation stated five acres.
Commissioner Puryear stated 60-5 already deals with this issue and suggested
striking section 60-6A in its entirety as a proposed amendment.
Chairman Clayton stated he was not in favor of adding accessory buildings to the
front yard but in favor or exempting existing structures.
April 1, 2013
6
Ms. Tate offered for management staff to take the Board’s feedback and review
other counties’ policies related to accessory structures in the front yards and provide
suggestions to the proposed section 60-6A.
Commissioner Blalock inquired about construction that does not need a permit
and having it written in the ordinance. Ms. Tate stated staff is willing to waive the
zoning fee for any project under $200 and intends to make it a part of the fee schedule
which is adopted as part of the budget.
Commissioner Puryear asked how many feet is the right of way from a road.
Chairman Clayton stated 30 ft. from the road centerline. Ms. Murphy stated the setbacks
have changed road types, i.e., 40 ft. setback for dwellings on US and NC Highways and
25 ft. from other roads right of way. Commissioner Puryear suggested the road right of
way plus the 50 ft. as proposed in section 60-6A is a bit much. Ms. Murphy stated it
could be changed to 5 ft.
It was the consensus of the Board to have management staff bring back a proposal
related to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to nonconforming uses and accessory uses at
the Board’s regular scheduled meeting on May 20, 2013.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROXBORO AND
PERSON COUNTY FOR PLANNING ADMINISTRATION:
County Manager, Heidi York stated staff presented the concept of a joint city-
county planning department as well as a joint planning commission and board of
adjustment at the meeting with the City of Roxboro. The draft Interlocal Agreement was
reviewed. Elected officials provided their feedback at that time and agreed to review the
final agreement at the March meeting. The revisions to the draft Agreement include
adding an effective date of July 1, 2013 and as requested in Section III related to the
Board of Adjustment, to change the frequency of their meetings to “The Board of
Adjustment shall hold meetings as needed.” The proposed agreement remains cost
neutral to both the city and the county and enhances the one-stop shop concept for
customer service related to permitting. On March 11, 2013, the Board voted to table
action on this item until the Board met in April. Ms. York reminded the Board the
Agreement creates a shared administrative body between the City and County
governments for a joint Planning Department as well as jointly combines both entities’
Planning Board and the Board of Adjustment listing the terms and number of seats for
each entity. Ms. York noted the Agreement before the Board does not address a shared
Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. York noted the City Council had tabled action on this item in March to seek
feedback from their Planning Board members. Ms. York further noted City Council will
be taking up this item on their April 9, 2013 agenda.
April 1, 2013
7
Chairman Clayton asked about current county Planning Board members that
reside in the City. Ms. York confirmed city residents would be eligible for appointment
by the Board of Commissioners.
Vice Chairman Jeffers suggested combining the city and county staffs but not
combine the Planning Boards and Boards of Adjustment at this time.
Ms. York stated the Agreement allows for the processes to be in place when the
decision was made to proceed with the shared Zoning Ordinance with one joint Planning
Board and Board of Adjustment as well as the joint Planning Department.
Vice Chairman Jeffers stated he was not sold on the joint boards at this time.
Commissioner Blalock stated city and county zoning issues are quite different.
Ms. York reminded the Board the Home Builders Association was interested in a
Unified Development Ordinance much more so than the Planning administration.
Ms. York stated her recommendation of the Interlocal Agreement before the
Board. Ms. York asked the Board’s consideration in implementing in phases: phase one
to combine the planning staff with the next phase to combine the advisory boards.
It was the consensus of the Board to request a joint meeting with the City of
Roxboro once the County hears back from the City as suggested by Vice Chairman
Jeffers.
NEW BUSINESS:
THE WEEK OF THE YOUNG CHILD PROCLAMATION:
Chairman Clayton read and presented the Week of the Young Child Proclamation
to the Board for adoption.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to adopt a
Proclamation designating April 14-20, 2013 as the Week of the Young Child.
April 1, 2013
8
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR
2014-2018:
County Manager, Heidi York and Finance Director, Amy Wehrenberg presented
to the Board the Recommended Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2014-
2018. Ms. York stated the CIP includes projects costing $50,000 or greater from county
departments, PCC and Person County Schools. Ms. York noted the CIP is a planning
tool for implementing large, capital projects reflecting the priorities of the Board. Ms.
York requested feedback from the Board reminding that one strategy identified at the
Board Retreat is not relying on Fund Balance to fund capital projects as much as in the
past. Ms. Wehrenberg stated this is the fifth year of implementation on the CIP in that
funds are actually dedicated and allocated for the budget year. The remaining four years
are for planning purposes only and can change as the capital priorities of the Board
changes.
April 1, 2013
9
Ms. Wehrenberg told the Board the CIP is basically divided into three sections.
The first group of documents includes the Manager’s letter and summary information on
completed and ongoing projects. The second section houses the requested and
recommended projects for this year’s CIP plan and various associated summaries. And
the final section includes an analysis of Person County’s current and proposed debt
service and a schedule of the outstanding debt service payments. Ms. Wehrenberg noted
criteria for a capital project are that they are non-recurring in nature, and that the total
project cost exceeds $50,000. Exceptions to this threshold are the roofing projects which
were part of the roofing study. Since many of the roofing projects are done in phases,
some of these costs are actually below the $50,000 limit.
Ms. Wehrenberg highlighted the funding schedule on pages 11-13 outlining the
projects, the project costs anticipated for funding and the funding sources available
during Fiscal Year 2014-2018. Ms. York stated the recommendation for the upcoming
fiscal year reduces the Fund Balance appropriation by approximately on half. Ms.
Wehrenberg stated the top section, which is the list of revenue sources, includes the local
support, or County’s General Fund – Fund Balance Contribution, needed to fund the
projects listed in each year. Other sources of funds available include the amount of funds
estimated to be leftover in the CIP Project Fund at the end of each fiscal year, cost shares
for the Paperless Document Management System from the State’s reimbursement to DSS
and the City of Roxboro, a PARTF grant for the proposed Recreation and Senior Center,
and debt proceeds from some proposed installment purchase financings including the
Recreation and Senior Center, the old Helena School improvements, and multiple roofing
projects. The news indicates a reduction in the PARTF grant proceeds is part of the
Governor’s current budget proposal, so this is something Person County will have to
monitor as the State’s budget develops.
According to the Recommended CIP, the amount of local funding needed by the
County to fund the projects listed in the 2013-2014 year is $1,145,685 which is about half
of the amount that was required for the current year’s projects due to the Board’s stated
desire during the Commissioner’s Retreat to scale back given the current restraints on
fund balance and other much-needed initiatives that will likely be part of next year’s
budget. Ms. Wehrenberg noted that due to the set-aside of funds in the current year for
future projects that were adopted in last year’s CIP, staff estimates $254,545 are available
to fund requested projects. Although small in comparison, this certainly helps to reduce
the amount needed from local funding. The revenue amount showing for $20,387
represents a dedicated cost share from the City of Roxboro and funding from the State’s
reimbursement to DSS for a Paperless Document Management System that will benefit
all County departments and particular City functions as well. The efficiencies that this
system offers department-wide, along with the indirect labor cost returns make this an
attractive project. The PARTF grant listed under the cost share at the top of page 11 is
the amount of grant proceeds that have been applied for by the Recreation Department to
assist in the construction of the Recreation and Senior Center in the amount of $353,000
netted against the proposed amount of debt proceeds for $5,050,000. If the grant amount
April 1, 2013
10
is reduced, Person County would need to adjust the amount of debt proceeds to support
this project.
Ms. Wehrenberg stated the total amount of projects recommended for next year is
$6,823,617. Almost 75% of this amount includes the debt financing proposed for just
over $5M for the projects highlighted in blue. Projects recommended to be funded with
this debt include the Huck Sansbury Complex Roof, the Kirby Civic Auditorium’s Roof,
the construction and renovation of the new Recreation and Senior Center, and the
remaining roof construction and repair for the High School.
Ms. Wehrenberg suggested another item that the Board may want to consider
rolling into this financing is the purchase of a building for the merging of Person
Industries and the Material Recycling Facility operations. This project is being looked at
due to the end of the Recycling Center’s 5 year lease arrangement coming up in the
spring of next year. The current lease amount is around $107,000 per year, which is
slightly less than a 15 year annual debt service payment given the current low interest
rates. Ms. Wehrenberg noted this project is currently listed in the “Projects not
Recommended” schedule on page 10 for $2.2 million as this was the estimate to purchase
and up fit the current Recycling facility. Ms. Wehrenberg stated other more feasible
options have recently surfaced for the merge and relocation of these two facilities that the
Board may want to consider at some point.
Ms. Wehrenberg added other projects separate from the financing include the
boiler replacement in the County Office Building that continues to be a cost drain due to
the numerous repairs that have been required in the current year, the renovation of the
cafeteria and adjacent buildings at the Old Helena School for the location of an EMS and
Sheriff’s satellite facility to service the higher call volume in the southern part of Person
County, contingency funds for the Recreation and Senior Center Project, a campus-wide
fire alarm system at PCC, a new roof at the Early Intervention facility, window
replacements at Oak Lane Elementary, and the installation of security equipment at all of
the Schools. Also included in the budget year are set-asides for $400,000 for future
roofing projects. Details of the set-aside projects are included on page 14. Projects in the
planning years for FY 2015 through 2018 include more roofing repairs, window
replacements, construction of a new Airport hangar, updated elections voting equipment,
a proposed financing covering the Old Helena Elementary School and multiple roofing
projects, and fire alarm replacements at Northern and Southern Middle Schools.
Ms. Wehrenberg noted the table on page 13 represents the sources of revenue
required or available, for any recurring costs, or operating costs, associated with these
projects. The Operating Impact Costs portion of the grid included estimated operating
costs that will occur if these projects are approved. Ms. Wehrenberg stated typically, the
total sources of revenue for recurring costs balance to the total operating impact costs,
which are represented by the rows highlighted in green. However, in fiscal year 2016,
there is a negative recurring cost figures, indicating more cost savings associated with
these projects than operating costs which results solely due to the reduction in the total
April 1, 2013
11
debt service of almost $2 million in that year, netting a total operating cost reduction of
$1,631,730. Ms. Wehrenberg noted this assumes the two financings currently proposed
on the plan in FY 2014 and in FY 2017.
Ms. Wehrenberg explained the County current and future debt service as outlined
in a chart on page 18. The current debt projects are listed with a description and
borrowing terms for each. Also listed are the outstanding balance and the last year that a
debt service payment is required for each project. The largest payoff of debt will occur in
Fiscal Year 2016 of the 2008 refinancing for almost $4.7M. Between now and Fiscal
Year 2015, over $5.4M of debt will be paid off for 3 out of the 5 projects currently listed.
This sharp drop-off of debt prompted an analysis of our current debt capacity, which is
included in the next section on page 19. The two ratios that are typically used for
measuring debt service levels and the capacity for taking on additional debt are the Debt
to Assets Ratio and the Debt Service Ratio. The analysis of each ratio is included and
results are displayed in bar graphs on page 19. The overall results show that Person
County’s debt to assets ratio has radically declined from 47% in Fiscal Year 2008 to 29%
as of 2012. This large pay down of debt coupled with conservative spending in uncertain
economic conditions have driven the debt to assets ratio to a much lower level. This low
% of debt compared to the assets is an indicator to credit agencies that Person County is
not managing or maintaining its assets. Ms. Wehrenberg anticipated that this percentage
will begin to increase once the large drop-off of debt occurs in Fiscal Year 2016.
Ms. Wehrenberg noted Person County’s debt service ratio which is a measure of
financed obligations is minimally lower than its population group and state-wide
counties. The maximum benchmark for a debt service ratio is typically 15%. Person
County’s ratio was calculated to be 9% for Fiscal Year 2012. It is anticipated that this
percentage will begin to decline unless new debt is issued or overall expenditures are
reduced. If this percentage is too high or too low, it is another indicator that Person
County is not managing financial resources in relation to the amount that is available for
other services.
Ms. Wehrenberg spoke to the detail of the proposed financings in the CIP plan.
The offering of historically low interest rates makes borrowing funds a valid and cost-
effective option. Given the large debt reduction in Fiscal Year 2016, it would be prudent
to consider taking on new debt for costly projects that the Board deems worthy of
completing over the next five years.
Ms. Wehrenberg added that the interest rate environment is on the precipice of
changing at any time, and when it does, rates are inevitably going up. Ms. Wehrenberg
noted that since the CIP was prepared banks are holding more to 15 year terms versus the
20 year terms which would mean that Person County would need to reevaluate the debt
service payments on any new debt pursued by the Board for financing capital projects in
the next fiscal year.
The Recommended CIP for Fiscal Year 2014-2018 as presented follows:
April 1, 2013
12
April 1, 2013
13
April 1, 2013
14
April 1, 2013
15
April 1, 2013
16
April 1, 2013
17
April 1, 2013
18
April 1, 2013
19
April 1, 2013
20
April 1, 2013
21
April 1, 2013
22
April 1, 2013
23
April 1, 2013
24
April 1, 2013
25
April 1, 2013
26
April 1, 2013
27
April 1, 2013
28
April 1, 2013
29
April 1, 2013
30
April 1, 2013
31
April 1, 2013
32
April 1, 2013
33
April 1, 2013
34
April 1, 2013
35
Vice Chairman Jeffers inquired about a project not recommended and requested
the costs of upgrading the equipment for the metal shop related to the Public Schools
request for the classroom conversion at Person High School.
Vice Chairman Jeffers asked Ms. Wehrenberg if she knew about the USDA Rural
Development quarterly fixed rate loans with a 20 year term. Ms. Wehrenberg stated she
did not have any knowledge of that type of loan but would be interested in learning.
Ms. York stated the CIP is scheduled to be adopted at the Board’s meeting on
April 29, 2013 and suggested if the Board so desired, an additional work session to
discuss the CIP again, could be held on April 15, 2013 at 4:00 pm prior to the joint
meeting with the School Board at 6:00 pm.
It was the consensus of the Board to not hold an additional work session to further
discuss the CIP.
Commissioners Newell and Puryear both stated opposition to the CIP due to
inclusion of the Recreation and Senior Center project.
CDBG MONTHLY REPORTING:
County Manager, Heidi York presented to the Board the CDBG monthly activities
report for March 2013 and a Monthly Performance Status Report for April 2013 that is
due to be submitted to the Division of Community Assistance.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to accept the
monthly report as presented.
April 1, 2013
36
BUDGET AMENDMENT:
Finance Director, Amy Wehrenberg presented and explained the following
Budget Amendment.
Upon a motion by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and majority vote (5-0), the Board of
Commissioners of Person County does hereby amend the Budget of the Fund(s) listed
below on this, the 1st day of April 2013, as follows:
Dept./Acct No. Department Name Amount
Incr / (Decr)
EXPENDITURES General Fund
General Government 3,300
Public Safety 18,389
Transportation 64,500
Economic Development 5,514
Culture & Recreation 32,025
REVENUES General Fund
Intergovernmental Revenues 83,050
Charges for Services 27,614
Other Revenues 11,186
Fund Balance Appropriated 1,878
EXPENDITURES Capital Improvement Project Fund 27,414
REVENUES Capital Improvement Project Fund
Other Revenues 27,414
Explanation:
Received additional proceeds from the sale of fixed assets ($3,300); appropriating fund
balance to reimburse the Dept. of Juvenile Justice for unspent JCPC Admin funds from
2011-2012 ($428); received additional funds from the Partnership for Children for the
VIP grant ($5,000); fees associated with Concealed Weapons ($7,520); inmate telephone
fees, sales of inmate phone cards and Commissions ($2,589); Rabies Vaccination charges
($552); Spay and Neuter Program revenues (7,300); carry-forward grant funds and
County's match from 2011-2012 for DOT's approved purchase of a PATS van ($64,500);
farmer's market dues ($1,304); Cooperative Extension class registration fees ($1,010);
insurance claim revenues for hail damage to two Cooperative Extension vehicles ($3,200)
and a vehicle in the Recreation, Arts & Parks Department ($3,626); recreation fees
associated with the Kirby ($8,399); a Library Services and Technology Act grant
received for the Public Library ($20,000); and an insurance claim received for damage to
the Huck Sansbury Roofing ($27,414).
April 1, 2013
37
A RESOLUTION TO MAINTAIN AND SUPPORT THE CURRENT INTEGRITY
AND FUNDING FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION TRUST FUND
(PARTF):
Recreation, Arts and Parks Director, John Hill informed the Board that the
Governor’s proposed budget removes the dedicated funding source for PARTF impacting
the ability to fund local government PARTF grants this year and in the future.
Mr. Hill stated in Fiscal Year 2010, Person County received $327,500 from
PARTF to support the construction of Person County’s Mayo Lake facility. Mr. Hill
noted Person County has applied for $353,000 in PARTF funding for Fiscal Year 2014 to
be used toward the new Senior Center/Recreational Center as well as anticipated applying
for an additional $500,000 from PARTF for Fiscal Year 2015 to also be used toward the
Senior Center/Recreational Center.
Mr. Hill requested Board approval of the proposed resolution which is intended to
encourage the General Assembly to restore the funding source in order to maintain
dedicated funding for PARTF now and in the future.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 3-2 to support a
Resolution to maintain and support the current integrity and funding for the Parks and
Recreation Trust Fund. Chairman Clayton, Vice Chairman Jeffers and Commissioner
Blalock voted in favor of the motion to support. Commissioners Puryear and Newell
voted in opposition of the Resolution due to the Senior Center/Recreational Center
project as a designated recipient of funds.
April 1, 2013
38
April 1, 2013
39
April 1, 2013
40
DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION FOR APPOINTMENTS TO FILL THE
TWO RESIGNED ALTERNATE SEATS ON THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
AND REVIEW:
Chairman Clayton requested Board consideration of Vice Chairman Ray Jeffers
who had volunteered to serve as well as Commissioner Blalock’s nominee of citizen,
Faye Boyd to be appointed to the Board of Equalization and Review’s alternate seats to
fulfill the terms of the unexpired terms of Edwin Knott and Leigh Woodall.
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear, and carried 5-0 to appoint Vice
Chairman Ray Jeffers and citizen, Faye Boyd to be appointed to the Board of
Equalization and Review’s alternate seats to fulfill the terms of the unexpired terms of
Edwin Knott and Leigh Woodall.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT:
Chairman Clayton updated the Board on a legal issue with Cardinal Innovations
related to their mental health board members’ loyalty oath. County Attorney, Ron
Aycock explained the Cardinal Innovations’ loyalty oath requires its board members to
have a higher degree of loyalty to the Cardinal Innovations organization over the
commissioners’ responsibility to their county.
Chairman Clayton added that commissioners have refused to sign the loyalty oath
which resulted in Cardinal Innovations refusing to seat Commissioner Dorosin,
representative for Orange, Person and Chatham counties to the board. Mr. Aycock added
that Cardinal Innovations also feels Commissioner Dorosin who is an attorney
representing a client in a case with another county for an unrelated health issue has a
conflict of interest thereby giving another reason not to seat. Mr. Aycock stated he has
conferred with the county attorneys representing Orange and Chatham counties and their
recommendation is for each county attorney to submit letters to Cardinal Innovations
with a copy to the Attorney General disagreeing with the position taken.
Commissioner Newell suggested withholding the local IPRS $300,000 funds as
leverage. Chairman Clayton noted his preference to start with the county attorney letters
to Cardinal Innovations as the first step. It was the consensus of the Board to proceed
with the County Attorney to submit a letter to Cardinal Innovations on behalf of Person
County.
MANAGER’S REPORT:
County Manager, Heidi York highlighted an email sent to Board members earlier
in the day from the General Assembly’s Bill Drafting Division determining the local bill
request to Representative Wilkins to tag onto House Bill 200 for Mecklenburg would not
work for Person County due to revaluation year and that the method was determined
sound with an appeal process forthcoming.
April 1, 2013
41
Ms. York reminded the Board their next meeting is scheduled for 6:00 pm on
April 15, 2013 for a joint meeting with the Board of Education in the County Auditorium.
Ms. York noted the Board of Education would be presenting their budget request to the
Board of Commissioners.
Ms. York stated a Community Conversations meeting is scheduled for April 29,
2013 at 6:30 pm to be held at the Bushy Fork Grange Hall. Ms. York stated the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) is scheduled to be adopted on April 29, 2013 at the Community
Conversations meeting.
Chairman Clayton added a comment related to a ribbon cutting scheduled for
April 3, 2013 at 10:00 am at a new barber shop located in the former Pete’s Sandwich
Shop location.
COMMISSIONER REPORT/COMMENTS:
Commissioner Newell had no report or comments.
Commissioner Blalock stated a recent complaint from a citizen related to the
number of junk cars, tractors, containers, etc. are allowed on a residential property and
requested the Board address such in the near future. County Manager, Heidi York stated
she would bring back a proposal for screening beyond unregistered vehicles for
consideration. Vice Chairman Jeffers commented the Board had last discussed pursuing
other options for enforcement of such.
Commissioner Puryear asked the County Attorney when a resolution could be
reconsidered by the Board of Commissioners. County Attorney, Ron Aycock stated a
resolution could be reconsidered by the Board of Commissioners at any subsequent
meeting unless there is a motion to lay the issue on the table in which there is a sixty-day
waiting period. Related to House Bill 200, Mr. Aycock commented there is a
constitutional provision requiring all laws related to property tax to be uniform
throughout the state. Mr. Aycock further noted the General Assembly could not enact a
bill specific only to a single county pertaining to property tax.
Commissioner Blalock requested a summary of actions taken by the Board of
Equalization and Review. Tax Administrator, Russell Jones confirmed a collective
summary including a list of properties appealed with any such changes or no change in
value would be provided to the Board of Commissioners.
Vice Chairman Jeffers relayed appreciation from the Woodsdale Volunteer Fire
Department for continued local support of funding into the next fiscal year as well as
stated the success of increasing the occupancy and sales tax through his involvement with
a recent Dog Show in Person County noting over 130 entries and participation for the
three-day event.
April 1, 2013
42
CLOSED SESSIONS:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to enter into
Closed Session per General Statute 143-318,11(a)(5) to consider the acquisition or lease
of real property at 9:20 pm with the following individuals permitted to attend: County
Manager, Heidi York, Assistant County Manager, Sybil Tate, Clerk to the Board, Brenda
Reaves, County Attorney, Ron Aycock, General Services Director, Ray Foushee, Person
Industries Director, Wanda Rogers and Assistant Person Industries Director, Becky
Clayton and Finance Director, Amy Wehrenberg.
Chairman Clayton announced a brief recess prior to convening Closed Session.
Chairman Clayton called the Closed Session to order at 9:25 pm.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to return to open
session at 9:47 pm.
A motion was made by Commissioner Blalock, and carried 5-0 to enter into
Closed Session per General Statute 143-318.11(a)(2) for the purpose to consult with the
county attorney in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege at 9:47 pm with the
following individuals permitted to attend: County Manager, Heidi York, Assistant
County Manager, Sybil Tate, Clerk to the Board, Brenda Reaves, and County Attorney,
Ron Aycock.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to return to open
session at 9:52 pm.
RECESS:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to recess the
meeting at 9:53 pm until 6:00 pm on April 15, 2013 at which time the Board will have a
joint meeting with the Board of Education
_____________________________ ______________________________
Brenda B. Reaves Jimmy B. Clayton
Clerk to the Board Chairman