BOC Minutes October 1 2010
October 1, 2012
1
PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OCTOBER 1, 2012
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
Samuel R. Kennington
Frances P. Blalock
The Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, met in
regular session on Monday, October 1, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ meeting
room in the Person County Office Building.
Chairman Clayton called the meeting to order, led invocation and asked
Commissioner Kennington to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
A motion was made by Commissioner Blalock, seconded by Commissioner
Kennington and carried 3-2 to add an item to the agenda for action related to Patrick
Riley’s request for a motion for his tax cases to be reheard by the Property Tax
Commission and to approve the agenda as adjusted. Vice Chairman Puryear and
Commissioner Jeffers cast the dissenting votes.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SCHEDULE OF VALUES:
A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers, seconded by Vice Chairman
Puryear, and carried 5-0 to open the duly advertised Public Hearing for the Schedule of
Values.
Tax Administrator, Russell Jones stated the scheduled public hearing for the
Schedules of Values for the 2013 Revaluation is to receive taxpayer feedback on the
proposed Schedule of Values that was made available at the Board’s last meeting on
October 1, 2012. The Schedule of Values was also made available at the Tax Office as
well as posted on the web site. Mr. Jones stated the Schedule of Values will be placed on
the Board’s October 15, 2012 meeting agenda for consideration for approval. Mr. Jones
introduced Property Revaluation Manager, Phillip Christy to explain the Schedule of
Values to the group.
Mr. Christy told the group the revaluation process is over 90% complete with a
review of 3,700 sales over the last four years with 1,000 of those noted as good, qualified
sale. Mr. Christy stated Marshall & Swift, a revaluation company, assisted Person
County for the manual information.
October 1, 2012
2
Mr. Christy noted land values have risen more than other values with house
values being flat the last four years. Mr. Christy indicated to the Board a fairly flat
revaluation.
Mr. Christy stated taxpayers will receive a new notice of value along with an
appeal form. The goal is for all property to be at 100% fair market value.
Commissioner Kennington asked Mr. Christy to explain a good, qualified sale.
Mr. Christy explained a good, qualified sale is a sale between two parties that are not
related, no undue influence, arms-length transaction, not a foreclosure, and not a family
sale.
There were no individuals appearing before the Board to speak in favor or in
opposition to the Schedule of Values.
A motion was made by Commissioner Blalock, seconded by Commissioner
Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to close the Public Hearing for the Schedule of Values.
INFORMAL COMMENTS:
The following individuals appeared before the Board to make informal comments:
Mr. Barry Walker of 1575 Charlie Tapp Road, Roxboro, and Chairman of the
Planning Board, requested Board consideration to allow Derrick Smith, a newly hired
county employee, to continue as a member on the Planning Board.
Ms. Faye Boyd of 69 Foxwood Drive, Timberlake stated support of the Recycling
Ordinance on the agenda for consideration for compliance with the state’s goals to
achieve 40% reduction in solid waste.
Mr. Ken Hill of 916 Mann Oakley Road, Rougemont and Chairman of the Solid
Waste Advisory Committee voiced support for the Board to enact the Person County
Recycling Ordinance regulating recycling materials. Mr. Hill noted the state of NC
issued General Statutes 130A-309.4 and 138-309.9 which call for local governments to
find alternatives other than disposal of solid waste in the landfills with the hierarchy of
the methods starting with waste reduction, recycling and reuse, composting with the last
option being disposal into landfills. Mr. Hill stated the Board’s adoption of the proposed
Recycling Ordinance would support the mandate dictated by the state. Mr. Hill informed
the group that the City of Roxboro has a Recycling Ordinance, under General Statutes
50.25 Articles I and J to which Mr. Hill read an excerpt noting the passage date of June
11, 1974.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers, seconded by Vice Chairman
Puryear, and carried 5-0 to approve the minutes of September 17, 2012.
October 1, 2012
3
TAX ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers, seconded by Commissioner
Blalock, and carried 5-0 to approve the Tax Administrative Report noting the Releases
for the month of August, 2012.
OLD BUSINESS:
REVIEW OF SECTION 101, NONCONFORMING USES AND SECTION 60,
GENERAL REGULATIONS, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE:
Chairman of the Planning Board, Barry Walker stated the Board of County
Commissioners asked the Planning Board to review the nonconforming and accessory
use sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Walker stated the Planning Board discussed
these issues in three separate meetings and presented the Board with proposed
amendments and changes as outlined below:
Planning Board Recommended Changes to the Non-conforming Use and Accessory
Structure sections of the zoning ordinance
Text in italics are proposed changes.
Text in bold are additions to the ordinance.
Nonconformities exist; completed land uses, structures, or lots that were legal when
established but are inconsistent with subsequently adopted or amended land use
regulations. A use that is initiated in violation of a zoning ordinance does not enjoy
nonconforming status.
NONCONFORMING USES
New Definitions to Consider: The Ordinance needs to define the following:
Nonconforming Building – A building or structure that is not in conformance with
the provisions(Section 75-Table of Dimensional Requirements) of the district in
which it is located.
Nonconforming Lot – Surveyed and recorded lots that met existing zoning
regulations when created but no longer conform with the adopted regulations.
Nonconforming Use – A lawful use of land that does not comply with the use
regulations for its zoning district but which complied with applicable regulations
before adoption of this Ordinance or the predecessor Person County Zoning
Ordinance.
October 1, 2012
4
101-1 Nonconforming uses may not be changed to another nonconforming use unless
the Board of Adjustment determines that such change shall be no more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use; however, no change of title
or possession, or right to possession of property shall be construed to prevent the
continuance of a nonconforming use.
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.
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.
101-3 Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the reconstruction of any
building, conforming or nonconforming, damaged by any means. However, any
nonconforming building which is damaged may only be replaced by a structure of
equal or smaller size and square footage as that of the previous structure. No
reconstruction or new construction shall be allowed which creates any new or
additional nonconformity than that which existed at the time of damage.
101-4 If a nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of 180 days or for more than
eighteen months in any three year period, the future use of the building or land
must be a conforming use.
Proposed 101-4
If any such nonconforming use of land and/or structure ceases for a period of more than
one year (except when government action impedes access to the premises), any
subsequent use of such land and/or structure shall conform to the regulations specified
by this ordinance for the district in which such land is located. Vacancy and/or nonuse of
the land or structure, regardless of the intent of the owner or tenant, constitutes
discontinuance under this Section.
101-5 A nonconforming use may be changed to a use of higher classification and
whenever the use is changed to a higher or conforming classification then it shall
not be allowed to change to the original use or to a lower use. For the purposes of
this section, the order of classification of use, form the highest to the lowest shall
be as follows: R, B-1, B-2, GI and RC.
October 1, 2012
5
101-6 If a nonconforming structure or a conforming structure devoted to a
nonconforming activity is destroyed or damaged in any manner, to the extent that
the cost of restoration to its condition before the occurrence shall not exceed 60
percent of the cost of reconstructing the entire structure based on the assessed
structure value, as recorded by the County Tax Assessor, it may be repaired or
restored, provided such repair or restoration is started within six months of the
damage and completed within twelve months. However, any nonconforming
building which is damaged may only be replaced by a structure of equal or
smaller size and square footage as that of the previous structure. Relief to the time
limits may be granted by the Board of Adjustment.
101-7 A nonconforming structure or a conforming structure devoted to a
nonconforming activity that is damaged by any casualty to an extent more than 60
percent of its assessed value, based on County Tax Assessor records, shall not be
restored except as follows:
a. As a conforming use.
b. If the use is a one-family dwelling, restoration shall be permitted, provided
such restoration is begun within six months of the casualty and completed
within 24 months of the casualty.
c. For structures except a one family dwelling, restoration of a nonconforming
structure shall require approval by the Board of Adjustment. A site plan
according to Section 80 will be required. In approving such permit, the Board
will consider the stated purpose for establishing the zoning district in which
the structure is located, the uses in the area immediately surrounding the
structure in question, particularly the other nonconforming uses, and the
hardship which would result from a denial of the Conditional Use Permit. The
permit shall include conditions as to time for repair to be completed and any
other conditions deemed necessary to carry out the intent of this section of the
ordinance.
101-8 A nonconforming use may be extended or enlarged with a Special Use Permit
provided that the addition is no more than fifty percent of the original structure
and a landscape buffer is provided to buffer the new portion from adjacent land
owners and all setbacks, height, and area requirements of the Planning Ordinance
are met. Single family dwellings are exempt from Section 101-6.
(The Planning Board proposes to delete this section from the ordinance)
New Sections to be considered:
101-9 Nonconforming lots of record: Permitted Structures may be erected upon
any single lot of record at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, provided
the minimum yard requirements are met. A variance to the zoning
ordinance is required if the yard width or setback requirements can not be
met.
October 1, 2012
6
101-10 The creation of a lot with a width or area smaller than allowed by existing
zoning requirements is prohibited, except by governmental action, such as a road
widening. Any lot, which, by reason of realignment of a public street or highway or
by reason of condemnation proceedings, has been reduced in size to an area less
than that required by law, shall be considered a nonconforming lot of record subject
to the provisions set forth in this section; and any lawful use or structure existing at
the time of such highway realignment or condemnation proceedings which would
thereafter no longer be permitted under the terms of this ordinance shall be
considered a nonconforming use or structure as that term is used in this ordinance.
101-11 When any nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use, the use shall
thereafter conform to the regulations for this district, and no nonconforming
use shall thereafter be resumed.
The Planning Board decided to keep these sections, making no changes:
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.
102-2 Should any nonconforming structure be moved for any reason within the Zoning
Jurisdiction of Person County, it shall conform to the regulations for the district
in which it is to be located.
The following section will be deleted. The proposed Section 101-9 is the same as this.
103-1 In any district, notwithstanding the dimensional requirements for the district in
regards to lot width and minimum area, buildings, may be erected on any legally created
lot of record existing at the effective date of adoption to this ordinance.
Accessory Structures
An accessory building - An accessory building, structure or use is a building or structure
or use on the same lot or site with, of a nature customarily incidental or subordinate to,
and of a character related to the principal use or structure. Accessory buildings are but
not limited to sheds, garages, lean to, storage buildings, carports, pool, but not to
include well houses (not to exceed 6’ x 6’), and gazebo or pool house if attached to
footprint of pool.
Pools - Pools are considered accessory uses if they are above ground or in ground
attached by either a deck or solid material such as brick, stone, concrete, etc.
attached to the principal structure.
October 1, 2012
7
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.
Proposed 60-5
Accessory structures shall be located at least five feet from any principal structure and
side and rear property lines.
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.
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.
60-6B -Accessory buildings shall only be allowed on a lot upon which a primary
dwelling, multifamily dwelling, business use or industrial use exists.
Planning Director, Paula Murphy stated the Planning Board’s recommendations
were based on standard zoning ordinance regulations with safety being an issue in the
decisions. Ms. Murphy told the group that if the Board of County Commissioners wishes
to act on any zoning ordinance changes, the procedures are to refer changes back to the
Planning Board for a Public Hearing for citizen input. The Planning Board Public
Hearing could be held on November 8, 2012.
County Manager, Heidi York asked Ms. Murphy for clarification on grand-
fathering related to the ordinance. Ms. Murphy stated if something existed prior to the
1991 Zoning Ordinance adoption date, then it is considered grandfathered. Ms. Murphy
noted there are many buildings constructed without permits.
Vice Chairman Puryear requested to eliminate Section 60-6A to ease the
regulations so that people are not out of compliance. Ms. Murphy noted the drain field in
the front yard is the key issue.
Commissioners Blalock and Jeffers noted education of the rules to the citizens
and sellers. Ms. York suggested preparing a flyer for businesses as well as posting the
requirements on the county web site.
October 1, 2012
8
It was the consensus of the Board for Mr. Walker to take the feedback given by
the Board back to the Planning Board for further discussion as well as the Planning Board
to hold a public hearing.
NEW BUSINESS:
RECYCLING ORDINANCE:
Commissioner Blalock stated she had worked with staff to prepare a recycling
ordinance for Person County noting the 3-year update to the Solid Waste Plan is currently
being reviewed to which a recycling ordinance is one of the goals. Commissioner
Blalock stated the state waste reduction goal by 2012 is 40% and suggested making the
county’s 10-year goal to match the state waste reduction goal of 40% noting Person
County is currently recycling approximately 4% of its waste. Commissioner Blalock
illustrated if Person County reduced its waste by 40% that revenues would approximate
$1.8 million and advocated the recycling ordinance to achieve the state goals and
generate revenue for the county.
Commissioner Blalock recommended the Board to schedule a public hearing on
November 5, 2012 which is the same date the Solid Waste Plan would be presented and
hold a public hearing. Commissioner Blalock noted the purpose is to educate the
citizens.
Vice Chairman Puryear stated concerns with Section 9 – Enforcement noting he
could not support imposing such on the entire population of the county. Vice Chairman
Puryear noted costs are a factor for a recycling container and/or disposal service for
citizens. Vice Chairman Puryear noted his opposition to the recycling ordinance.
Chairman Clayton suggested having the recycling ordinance sent to the Solid
Waste Advisory Committee for review and input.
Commissioner Jeffers asked the County Attorney, Ron Aycock the process by
which fines can be issued for non-compliance. Mr. Aycock stated that an administrative
official can not assess a penalty, but by a criminal sanction through the Magistrate for a
judicial process. Mr. Aycock stated he would confirm the statute that sets out authority
for an administrative official to start the process. Commissioner Jeffers noted his
opposition to proceeding with a recycling ordinance without knowing the financial
impact to the county and the citizens.
County Manager, Heidi York stated the ordinance allows for enforcement, though
no staff has been dedicated to enforce the ordinance noting staff resources have not been
explored at this time.
October 1, 2012
9
Commissioner Kennington stated support of proceeding further with the
ordinance noting he also had concerns with the enforcement provision. Commissioner
Kennington recommended input from the Solid Waste Advisory Committee prior to a
public hearing as well as joint agreement with the City of Roxboro.
Mr. Aycock spoke to the impact this proposed recycling ordinance would have on
city residents noting general law is that a county ordinance is applicable outside city
limits unless the city authorizes enforcement within city limits.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear, seconded by Commissioner
Jeffers, to not approve the Recycling Ordinance.
A substitute motion was made by Commissioner Kennington, seconded by
Commissioner Blalock, and carried 3-2 to submit to the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee to study Person County’s recycling and bring back to the Board
recommendations on ways to increase recycling to meet the projected state mandate.
Vice Chairman Puryear and Commissioner Jeffers voted in opposition to the
substitute motion.
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR ORANGE PERSON CHATHAM
MENTAL HEALTH AUTHORITY RELATED TO THE MERGER WITH
PIEDMONT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TO COVER EXCLUDED LIABILITIES:
County Manager, Heidi York presented a Memorandum of Agreement
formalizing the transition from Orange, Person and Chatham Mental Health,
Developmental Disabilities, and Substance Abuse Authority (OPC) to Piedmont
Behavioral Health (PBH). Ms. York stated the transition included some excluded
liabilities which are listed in Exhibit A of the Memorandum of Agreement. Ms. York
noted PBH took the position that they would not accept responsibility for those records,
so staff began to review options, which included and led to the possibility that Orange
County Government would assist in the management of the excluded liabilities. The
Memorandum of Agreement sets for a transfer of funds, $500,000, from the OPC fund
balance to Orange County Government for managing the liabilities, with any balance left
over upon the completion of all transitions related to the excluded liabilities reverting to
Orange County. Ms. York confirmed there would be no costs to Person County. Ms.
York requested the Board to review the Memorandum of Agreement and authorize the
Chair to execute noting the agreement requires approval by all three member counties.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers, seconded by Vice Chairman
Puryear, and carried 5-0 to approve the Memorandum of Agreement authorizing the
Chairman to execute.
October 1, 2012
10
October 1, 2012
11
October 1, 2012
12
October 1, 2012
13
October 1, 2012
14
October 1, 2012
15
PERSON COUNTY RECREATION AND SENIOR CENTER AND CRITCHER-
WILKERSON FIELD CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE:
Finance Director, Amy Wehrenberg presented the Board for approval a Capital
Project Ordinance for the engineering, design, construction and renovation of a
Recreation and Senior Center, as well as design costs associated with the construction of
recreational fields on County-owned property ("Critcher-Wilkerson Field"). Per
consensus of the Board of Commissioners in the meeting on September 17, 2012,
direction was given to move forward with the design phase covering the base plan of the
Recreation and Senior Center, the Splash and Therapy Pools, and enclosing the walking
track. Also, the Board directed staff that the additional gym (with HVAC) and the
Critcher-Wilkerson Field be included in the design plan for purposes of determining the
construction costs, which will allow the Board to determine if these add-ons could be
included in the final project.
Ms. Wehrenberg stated the Board funded capital expenditures of $4.2 million on
September 17, 2012. Below is the breakdown of how the $4.2 million will be spent:
Ms. Wehrenberg stated the Board agreed to fund additional design fees for the
field and a new gym to determine the capital costs of these items and provide the
opportunity to move forward with these projects at a later date.
Ms. Wehrenberg noted the total estimated expenditures of $4,950,700 include the
following: construction costs $3,910,000, engineering and design $476,850, debt issuance
costs of $60,000, and contingency funds for preliminary and unforeseen costs $503,850.
Project Capital Costs Design fees (.085)
New construction $ 2,625,000.00 $ 223,125.00
Gym AC $ 50,000.00 $ 4,250.00
Renovation $ 520,000.00 $ 44,200.00
Site work $ 275,000.00 $ 23,375.00
Add‐ins
Splash pool $ 400,000.00 $ 34,000.00
Enclosed track $ 40,000.00 $ 3,400.00
Subtotal $ 3,910,000.00 $ 332,350.00
TOTAL Capital and design $ 4,242,350.00
Future Add‐ins Capital Design fees
Critcher‐Wilkerson N/A $ 51,000.00
Gym N/A $ 93,500.00
TOTAL N/A $ 144,500.00
October 1, 2012
16
Total projected revenues of $4,950,700 include the following: debt proceeds in
the amount of $4,446,850, a transfer from the County's CIP Fund for $27,000 to help
support the projected expenditures for any contractual amendments and overages that
may occur, and an advancement of funds from the General Fund for $476,850 to cover
preliminary design costs until a reimbursement of debt proceeds is possible.
Ms. Wehrenberg stated the approval of this Ordinance allows for the creation of
this Project on the County's books in anticipation of preliminary expenses associated with
the design phase of the Project in order for the County Manager to execute a contract
with the engineering firm responsible for the design phase which is required by law. It is
expected that these costs will require adjustments as the final scope of the Project is
determined.
Ms. Wehrenberg requested the Board to approve the “Person County Recreation
and Senior Center and Critcher-Wilkerson Field Project - Capital Project Ordinance”
Ms. Wehrenberg confirmed the Board has the authority to stop the project from
proceeding at most any time pointing out the county would be at a loss for any amount
that is appropriated from Fund Balance noting the intent would be for the county to
reimburse the General Fund from the financing for the project.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers, seconded by Chairman Clayton,
and carried 3-2 to approve the Capital Project Ordinance as presented for the Recreation
and Senior Center and Critcher-Wilkerson Project. Vice Chairman Puryear and
Commissioner Blalock cast the dissenting votes.
October 1, 2012
17
October 1, 2012
18
October 1, 2012
19
REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION – FINANCING OF RECREATION AND
SENIOR CENTER AND CRITCHER-WILKERSON FIELD:
Finance Director, Amy Wehrenberg requested Board approval of a Resolution of
the Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, Declaring Its
Intention to Reimburse said County from the Proceeds of one or more Tax-Exempt
Financings for Certain Expenditures in connection with certain Capital Improvements.
Ms. Wehrenberg stated the Resolution is set forth by sections in the following:
Preamble:
The County plans to expend funds for certain improvements involving the
creation of a Recreation and Senior Center and potential improvements to the
Critcher-Wilkerson property.
1. States the Board's intention to advance funds as necessary from County funds no
earlier than August 2, 2012 for these expenditures until installment financing
proceeds become available for reimbursement
2. Lists the types of costs that are eligible under the Project, including issuance costs
and provisions for these expenditures to be capital-related and non-recurring
3. Establishes the maximum principal expected to be borrowed
4. Describes the process of how the County requests a reimbursement from the
proceeds, and the time parameters in which the expenditures can be reimbursed.
Ms. Wehrenberg gave the group an anticipated timeline for the project moving
forward: Define Scope during CIP discussions in the Spring, 2013 with the project
financing in the Summer/Fall 2013.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers, seconded by Chairman Clayton,
and carried 3-2 to approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners for the County
of Person, North Carolina, Declaring Its Intention to Reimburse said County from the
Proceeds of one or more Tax-Exempt Financings for Certain Expenditures in connection
with certain Capital Improvements. Vice Chairman Puryear and Commissioner Blalock
cast the dissenting votes.
October 1, 2012
20
October 1, 2012
21
October 1, 2012
22
October 1, 2012
23
BUDGET AMENDMENT:
Finance Director, Amy Wehrenberg presented and explained the following
Budget Amendment.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Jeffers, and a second by Vice Chairman Puryear
and majority vote (5-0), the Board of Commissioners of Person County does hereby
amend the Budget of the General Fund(s) on this, the 1st day of October 2012, as
follows:
Dept./Acct No. Department Name Amount
Incr / (Decr)
EXPENDITURES General Fund
General Government 5,976
Human Services (153,613)
REVENUES General Fund
Intergovernmental Revenues (147,687)
Other Revenues 50
Explanation:
Appropriating a HAVA grant award in the Department of Elections ($5,976); net
reductions in various DSS programs (-$153,663) and a donation received in DSS ($50).
October 1, 2012
24
CONSIDERATION FOR PATRICK RILEY’S REQUEST FOR A MOTION FOR
HIS TAX CASES TO BE REHEARD BY THE PROPERTY TAX COMMISSION:
Commissioner Blalock stated that at the request of Mr. Patrick Riley, she asked
the Board of County Commissioners to make a motion that the cases Mr. Riley filed with
the Property Tax Commission be reheard based on the Right to Appeal in Article 24
Review and Enforcement of Orders 105-345c based on the exceptions. Commissioner
Blalock stated Mr. Riley told her that the judgment was prejudiced because of errors
rendered in the Final Decision:
1. Dates were incorrect.
2. Two programs were lumped together as if they were the same.
3. The appellant appealed to the county board the tax assessor’s decision to deny
agriculture was in 2010.
4. The decision to deny horticulture was for tax year 2011.
Commissioner Blalock stated if the motion passes then Mr. Aycock will file the
motion with the Property Tax Commission.
County Attorney, Ron Aycock concluded the following facts:
1. Mr. Riley had a full opportunity to participate in the appeal at the Property
Tax Commission. The Property Tax Commission accepted Person
County’s argument that, in fact, Mr. Riley had not made a case for tax
exemption. The allegations provided by Mr. Riley to Commissioner
Blalock were, in fact, considered by the Property Tax Commission, and
rejected.
2. Mr. Riley properly and timely filed a hand-written Notice of Appeal to the
Property Tax Commission but notice was not sufficient to perfect his
appeal to the Court of Appeals. Mr. Riley was required to file other
documents according to the procedures and policies of the Court of
Appeals to which he failed to do so in a timely manner.
Mr. Aycock stated, in his opinion, Mr. Riley was foreclosed from further appeal
because of failure to file additional documents with the Court of Appeals in a timely
basis. Mr. Aycock noted that time has expired for Mr. Riley. Mr. Aycock noted it would
be inappropriate for the Board of Commissioners to in effect request its attorney to
change position and argue against what was argued at the Property Tax Commission. Mr.
Aycock concluded the issue is moot and/or inappropriate.
Commissioner Blalock asked Mr. Aycock if it was inappropriate for the Board to
make a motion. Mr. Aycock stated he would never tell the Board that they could not
make a motion but a passed motion would be ineffective because the time for filing the
proper documents in the Court of Appeals has expired without extraordinary legal
expense and procedures.
October 1, 2012
25
A motion was made by Commissioner Blalock that died for a lack of second for
the cases Mr. Riley filed with the Property Tax Commission to be reheard based on the
Right to Appeal in Article 24 Review and Enforcement of Orders 105-345c based on the
exceptions outlined above.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT:
Chairman Clayton had no report.
MANAGER’S REPORT:
County Manager, Heidi York announced a joint meeting on October 18, 2012 at
8:00 am for the Board of Commissioners, Roxboro City Council and the Economic
Development Board in room S-100 at Piedmont Community College. Ms. York stated
the meeting is the regular Economic Development meeting to which a guest speaker from
the Research Triangle Regional Partnership will attend.
Ms. York requested Board input related to the location of the upcoming
Community Conversations meeting on October 29, 2012 starting at 6:30 pm. It was the
consensus of the Board for the location to be Mayo Park or Bethel Hill Charter School.
Ms. York thanked the Board for their suggestions and noted staff will follow up.
COMMISSIONER REPORT/COMMENTS:
Commissioner Kennington had no report or comments.
Commissioner Blalock had no report or comments.
Commissioner Jeffers stated he attended a Preservation Farmland Trust Fund
meeting and announced a grant award for a county project available through December 1,
2012 and wanted to let staff, in particular, Derek Day, to review for use. Commissioner
Jeffers noted 13 counties out of 100 make up 50% of NC’s population.
Vice Chairman Puryear announced the Republican headquarters are located at the
old Car Quest building.
October 1, 2012
26
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers, seconded by Vice Chairman
Puryear, and carried 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 pm.
_____________________________ ______________________________
Brenda B. Reaves Jimmy B. Clayton
Clerk to the Board Chairman