Agenda Packet April 6 2015PERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING AGENDA
304 South Morgan Street, Room 215
Roxboro, NC 27573-5245
336-597-1720
Fax 336-599-1609
April 6, 2014
7:00 pm
CALL TO ORDER…………………………………………………. Chairman Puryear
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARING:
ITEM #1
For Consideration to Repeal Person County’s
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance …………………… Mike Ciriello
ITEM #2
Consideration to Repeal Person County’s
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance …………….. Chairman Puryear
PUBLIC HEARING:
ITEM #3
Person County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan ………….. Will Brooks
ITEM #4
Resolution of Adoption for the Person County – City of Roxboro
Hazard Mitigation Plan …………………………………………… Chairman Puryear
1
INFORMAL COMMENTS
The Person County Board of Commissioners established a 10 minute segment
which is open for informal comments and/or questions from citizens of this
county on issues, other than those issues for which a public hearing has been
scheduled. The time will be divided equally among those wishing to comment.
It is requested that any person who wishes to address the Board, register with
the Clerk to the Board prior to the meeting.
ITEM #5
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes of March 16, 2015,
B. Proclamation for the Week of the Young Child, and
C. Budget Amendment #14
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
ITEM #6
Second Reading for an Amendment to the Automobile
Graveyard and Junkyard Ordinance ………….................................. Michael Ciriello
ITEM #7
Review of the Senior Center Site Options ………………. Heidi York & Ray Foushee
NEW BUSINESS:
ITEM #8
Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments’ Request for
Continued Financial Assistance towards the Senior Center Rent ………. Heidi York
ITEM #9
Consideration to abolish the special Board of Equalization and
Review for 2015 and forward ………………….. Chairman Puryear & Russell Jones
ITEM #10
Recommended Capital Improvement Plan for
FY 2016-2020 ………………………………………... Heidi York & Amy Wehrenberg
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
MANAGER’S REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS/COMMENTS
CLOSED SESSION (if desired by the Board)
Note: All Items on the Agenda are for Discussion and Action as deemed appropriate
by the Board.
2
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 6, 2015
Agenda Title: Public Hearing for consideration to Repeal Person County’s Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance
Background: On March 2, 2015, the Person County Commissioners voted unanimously to
repeal the Person County Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance. The Person
County Attorney has determined that the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities is a free-
standing ordinance and does not require action by the Planning Board. Any tower constructed is
subject to local planning authority, building code requirements, and State statutes regarding
tower construction.
Summary of Information:
Repealing the Person County Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance requires
Planning staff to develop a new approval process for tower projects. There are two options for
the new approval process. The differences between these options are the time required to
process a permit and the opportunity for public input.
Expand Districts Allowing “Radio, Telephone and TV Transmitting Tower(s)”
Currently, “Radio, Telephone and TV Transmitting Tower(s)” are not allowed in Neighborhood
Shopping district (B-1) and Highway Commercial Business District (B-2). Consider adding to
the Table of Permitted Uses, to allow “Radio, Telephone and TV Transmitting Tower(s)” in
Neighborhood Shopping district (B-1) and Highway Commercial Business District (B-2).
PERMITTING PROCESS OPTION #1: Special Use Permit (Do nothing)
A Special Use Permit requires a public hearing by the Planning Board and the Board of
Commissioners. The Planning Board then makes a recommendation to the Board that a project
application be approved with conditions, approved, or denied. The process takes 60 to 90 days.
The existing Table of Dimensional Requirements would have no limits on the height of television
and radio masts, aerials and towers. Setbacks would be no more than 40’ but no less than 8’
from property lines. This process takes 7 – 10 working days for plans to be reviewed and a
zoning permit to be issued.
The Board may consider adding height limits and setbacks for radio, telephone and TV
transmission towers.
PERMITTING PROCESS OPTION #2: Use-by-Right (Administrative Permit)
Use-by-Right allows a zoning permit to be issued administratively. If an application is complete,
this process takes no more than 48 hours. No public hearing is required.
The Board may consider adding height limits and setbacks for radio, telephone and TV
transmission towers.
3
PERMITTING PROCESS OPTION #3: Combination of Option 1 and 2
The third option is to consider “Radio, Telephone and TV Transmitting Tower(s)” a Use-by-
Right in one or more zoning district(s) but, require a Special Use Permit in the other (s) districts.
This would require changing the Table of Permitted Uses, for example, to allow as a Use-by-
Right “Radio, Telephone and TV Transmitting Tower(s)” in the General Industrial (GI) and
Rural Conservation (RC) zoning districts, but require a Special Use or Conditional Use Permit in
Residential (R).
If the Board prefers Option #3, consider adding height limits and setbacks for radio, telephone
and TV transmission towers to Section 75.
Recommended Action: Vote on whether or not to repeal the ordinance. Provide staff with
feedback about which process to use for approving new towers.
Submitted By: Michael Ciriello, Planning Director
4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE
COUNTY OF PERSON, NORTH CAROLINA SHOULD REPEAL PERSON
COUNTY’S WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
ORDINANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of a public hearing to be held 7:00 P.M. on April 6, 2015,
in Room 215 in the Person County Office Building, 304 S. Morgan Street, Roxboro, North
Carolina, for the purpose of hearing public comments as to whether the Board of Commissioners
for the County of Person, North Carolina should repeal Person County’s Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance.
Brenda B. Reaves
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
for the County of Person, North Carolina
5
1
PERSON COUNTY WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
ORDINANCE
I. Purpose and Legislative Intent
The County of Person finds that wireless telecommunications facilities may pose concerns to the
health, safety, public welfare, character and environment of the County and its residents. The
County also recognizes that facilitating the development of wireless service technology can be an
economic development asset to the County and of significant benefit to the County and its
residents. In order to assure that the placement, construction or modification of wireless
telecommunications facilities is consistent with the County’s land use policies, the County is
adopting a single, comprehensive, wireless telecommunications facilities application and
permitting process. The intent of this Ordinance is to minimize the physical impact of wireless
telecommunications facilities on the community, protect the character of the community to the
extent reasonably possible, establish a fair and efficient process for review and approval of
applications, assure an integrated, comprehensive review of environmental impacts of such
facilities, and protect the health, safety and welfare of the County of Person.
II Severability
A) If any word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion of this Ordinance
or any application thereof is declared void, unconstitutional, or invalid for any reason,
then such word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion, or the
proscribed application thereof, shall be severable, and the remaining provisions of this
Ordinance, and all applications thereof, not having been declared void, unconstitutional,
or invalid, shall remain in full force and effect.
B) Any special use permit issued pursuant to this Ordinance shall be comprehensive and not
severable. If part of a permit is deemed or ruled to be invalid or unenforceable in any
material respect, by a competent authority, or is overturned by such, the permit shall be
void in total, upon determination by the County.
III. Definitions
For purposes of this Ordinance, and where not inconsistent with the context of a particular
section, the defined terms, phrases, words, abbreviations, and their derivations shall have the
meaning as defined. When not inconsistent with the context, words in the present tense include
the future tense, words used in the plural number include words in the singular number and
words in the singular number include the plural number. The word “shall” is always mandatory,
and not merely directory.
1. “Accessory Facility or Structure” means an accessory facility or structure serving or being
used in conjunction with wireless telecommunications facilities, and located on the same
property or lot as the wireless telecommunications facilities, including but not limited to,
utility or transmission equipment storage sheds or cabinets.
2. “Administrative Approval” means zoning approval that the Planning Director or designee is
authorized to grant after administrative review.
6
2
3. “Amend” or “Amended” means any change in an application made subsequent to the
submission of the application originally submitted, regardless of the reason.
4. “Applicant” means any wireless service provider submitting an application for a special use
permit for wireless telecommunications facilities.
5. “Application” means all necessary and required documentation that an applicant submits in
order to receive a special use permit or a building permit and zoning permit for wireless
telecommunications facilities.
6. “Antenna” means a system of electrical conductors that transmit or receive electromagnetic
waves or radio frequency or other wireless signals.
7. “Board” means the Board of County Commissioners.
8. “Carrier on Wheels or Cell on Wheels” (COW) -- A portable self-contained
telecommunications facility that can be moved to a location and set up to provide wireless
services on a temporary or emergency basis. A COW is normally vehicle-mounted and
contains a telescoping boom as the antenna support structure.
9. “Co-location” means the use of an approved telecommunications structure to support an
antenna for the provision of wireless services.
10. “Commercial Impracticability” or “Commercially Impracticable” means the inability to
perform an act on terms that are reasonable in commerce, the cause or occurrence of which
could not have been reasonably anticipated or foreseen and that jeopardizes the financial
efficacy of the project. The inability to achieve a satisfactory financial return on investment
or profit, standing alone and for a single site, shall not deem a situation to be “commercially
impracticable” and shall not render an act or the terms of an agreement “commercially
impracticable.”
11. “Completed Application” means all necessary and required information and data are
included to enable an informed decision to be made with respect to an application.
12. “DAS” or “Distributive Access System” means a technology using antenna combining
technology allowing for multiple carriers or wireless service providers to use the same set of
antennas, cabling or fiber optics.
13. “FAA” means the Federal Aviation Administration, or its duly designated and authorized
successor agency.
14. “FCC” means the Federal Communications Commission, or its duly designated and
authorized successor agency.
15. “Height” means, when referring to a tower or structure, the distance measured from the pre-
existing grade level to the highest point on the tower or structure including an antenna or
lightening protection device.
7
3
16. “Maintenance” means plumbing, electrical or mechanical work that may require a building
permit and zoning permit but that does not constitute a modification to the wireless
telecommunications facility.
17. “Modification” or “Modify” means the addition, removal or change of any of the physical
and visually discernable components or aspects of a wireless facility, such as antennas,
cabling, equipment shelters, landscaping, fencing, utility feeds, changing the color or
materials of any visually discernable components, vehicular access, parking and/or an upgrade
or change out of equipment for better or more modern equipment. Adding a new wireless
carrier or service provider to a telecommunications tower or site as a co-location is a
modification.
18. “Monopole” --A single, freestanding pole-type structure supporting one or more antenna.
For purposes of this Ordinance, a monopole is not a tower.
19. “Necessary” means what is technologically required for the equipment to function as
designed by the manufacturer and that anything less will result in prohibiting or acting in a
manner that prohibits the provision of service as intended and described in the narrative of the
application. Necessary does not mean what may be desired or preferred technically.
20. “NIER” means Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation.
21. “Person” means any individual, corporation, estate, trust, partnership, joint stock company,
association of two (2) or more persons having a joint common interest, or any other entity.
22. “Personal Wireless Facility” See definition for ‘Wireless Telecommunications Facilities’.
23. “Personal Wireless Services (PWS)” or “Personal Telecommunications Service (PTS)”
shall have the same meaning as defined and used in the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
24. "Repairs and Maintenance" means the replacement or repair of any components of a
wireless facility where the replacement is identical to the component being replaced or for any
matters that involve the normal repair and maintenance of a wireless facility without the
addition, removal or change of any of the physical or visually discernable components or
aspects of a wireless facility that will add to the visible appearance of the facility as originally
permitted.
25. “Replacement” -- Constructing a new support structure of proportions and of equal height or
such other height that would not constitute a Substantial Increase to a pre-existing support
structure in order to support a telecommunications facility or to accommodate co-location and
removing the pre-existing support structure.
26. “Self-Supporting Tower” refers to a four legged, self-supporting tower made of square
angular elements designed on a square base pattern.
27. “Special Use Permit” means the official document or permit by which an applicant is
allowed to file for a building permit and zoning permit to construct and use wireless
telecommunications facilities as granted or issued by the County.
8
4
28. “Stealth” or “Stealth Technology” means a design or treatment that minimizes adverse
aesthetic and visual impacts on the land, property, buildings, and other facilities adjacent to,
surrounding, and in generally the same area as the requested location of such wireless
telecommunications facilities, which shall mean building the least visually and physically
intrusive facility that is not technologically or commercially impracticable under the facts and
circumstances. Stealth technology includes such technology as DAS or its functional
equivalent or camouflage where the tower is disguised to make it less visually obtrusive and
not recognizable to the average person as a wireless telecommunications facility.
29. “State” means the State of North Carolina.
30. “Telecommunications” means the transmission and/or reception of audio, video, data, and
other information by wire, radio frequency, light, and other electronic or electromagnetic
systems.
31. “Telecommunications Facilities” – Any cables, wires, lines, wave guides, antennas, and any
other equipment or facilities associated with the transmission or reception of communications
which a person seeks to locate or has installed upon or near a tower or antenna support
structure. However, telecommunications facilities shall not include:
a. Any satellite earth station antenna two meters in diameter or less which is located in
an area zoned industrial or commercial; or,
b. Any satellite earth station antenna one meter or less in diameter, regardless of zoning
category.
32. “Telecommunications Site” See definition for wireless telecommunications facilities.
33. “Telecommunications Structure” means a structure used in the provision of services
described in the definition of wireless telecommunications facilities.
34. “Temporary” means temporary in relation to all aspects and components of this Ordinance,
something intended to, or that does, exist for fewer than ninety (90) days.
35. “Tower” means any structure designed primarily to support an antenna for receiving and/or
transmitting a wireless signal.
36. “Wireless Telecommunications Facility or Facilities (WTF or WTFs)” means and includes
a “Telecommunications Site” and “Personal Wireless Facility” meaning a structure,
facility or location designed, or intended to be used as, or used to support antennas or other
transmitting or receiving devices. This includes without limit, towers of all types, kinds and
structures, including, but not limited to buildings, church steeples, silos, water towers, signs
or other structures that can be used as a support structure for antennas or the functional
equivalent of such. It further includes all related facilities and equipment such as cabling,
equipment shelters and other structures associated with the facility. It is a structure and
facility intended for transmitting and/or receiving radio, television, cellular, SMR, paging,
911, personal communications services (PCS), commercial satellite services, microwave
services and any commercial wireless telecommunication service not licensed by the FCC.
9
5
IV. Summary of Approvals Required for Telecommunications Facilities and Support
Structures.
Administrative Review and Approval
Type of Structure Use Maximum
Height
Zoning District
New Support/Self-Supporting Telecommunications 60 feet Any except residential
Stealth Telecommunications 60 feet Any
New Support/Self-Supporting Wireless Broadband 120 feet Any
Stealth Telecommunications 150 feet Any except residential
New Support/Self-Supporting Telecommunications 199 feet Industrial
Monopole/Replacement Poles Telecommunications None
specified
Utility easements or
rights of way
COWs Telecommunications None
specified
Any
Special Use Permit
Any structure not meeting the above guidelines.
Exempt
1) Ordinary Maintenance
2) Antennas used by residential households solely for the reception of radio and television
broadcasts
3) Satellite antennas used sole for household or residential purposes
4) COWs placed in Person County for 120 days or less after declaration of emergency or
disaster
5) Television and AM/FM radio broadcast towers and associated facilities
V. Telecommunications Facilities and Support Structures Permitted by
Administrative Approval.
(A) Telecommunications Facilities Located on Existing Structures
(1) Telecommunications facilities are permitted in all zoning districts when located
on any existing structure subject to administrative approval in accordance with the
requirements of this section.
(2) Antennas and accessory equipment may exceed the maximum building height
limitations within a zoning district, provided they do not constitute a substantial
increase.
(3) Minor modifications are permitted in all zoning districts subject to administrative
approval in accordance with the requirements of this section.
10
6
(B) New Support Structures
(1) New support structures less than sixty (60) feet in height shall be permitted in all
zoning districts except residential districts in accordance with the requirements of
this section.
(2) Stealth telecommunications facilities that are less than sixty (60) feet in height
shall be permitted in any residential district after administrative review and
administrative approval provided that it meets the applicable standards in
accordance with this Ordinance
(3) New support structures up to one hundred twenty (120) feet in height that are used
to provide wireless broadband service to specific geographical areas or
neighborhoods shall be permitted in any zoning district after administrative
review and administrative approval in accordance with the standards set forth in
this Ordinance.
(4) New support structures up to one hundred ninety-nine (199) feet in height shall be
permitted in all Industrial Districts in accordance with the requirements of this
section. The height of any proposed support structure shall not exceed the
minimum height necessary to meet the coverage or capacity objectives of the
facility. The setback of the structure shall be governed by the setback
requirements of the underlying zoning district.
(5) A monopole or replacement pole that will support utility lines as well as a
telecommunications facility shall be permitted within utility easements or rights-
of-way, in accordance with the requirements of this section.
(a) The utility easement or right-of-way shall be a minimum of one hundred
(100) feet in width.
(b) The easement or right-of-way shall contain overhead utility transmission
and/or distribution structures that are eighty (80) feet or greater in height.
(c) The height of the monopole or replacement pole may not exceed by more
than thirty (30) feet the height of existing utility support structures.
(d) Monopoles and the accessory equipment shall be set back a minimum of
fifteen (15) feet from all boundaries of the easement or right-of-way.
(e) Single carrier monopoles may be used within utility easements and rights-
of-way due to the height restriction imposed by Subsection (c) above.
(f) Poles that use the structure of a utility tower for support are permitted
under this Part. Such poles may extend up to twenty (20) feet above the
height of the utility tower.
11
7
(6) Monopoles or replacement poles located on public property or within public
rights-of-way that will support public facilities or equipment in addition to
telecommunications facilities shall be permitted in accordance with requirements
of this section. Examples include, but are not limited to, municipal
communication facilities, athletic field lights, traffic lights, street lights, and other
types of utility poles in the public right-of-way.
(C) Stealth Telecommunications Facilities
(1) Stealth telecommunications facilities shall be permitted in all zoning districts after
administrative review and administrative approval in accordance with the
requirements below. Stealth facilities in residential areas must not exceed sixty
(60) feet and comply with the requirements below in order to qualify for
administrative review.
(a) Antennas must be enclosed, camouflaged, screened, obscured or otherwise
not readily apparent to a casual observer.
(b) Existing structures utilized to support the antennas must be allowed within
the underlying zone district. Such structures may include, but are not
limited to, flagpoles, bell towers, clock towers, crosses, monuments,
smoke stacks, parapets, and steeples.
(c) Setbacks for stealth facilities that utilize a new structure shall be governed
by the setback requirements of the underlying zoning district.
(D) COW Facilities and Minor Modifications
(1) The use of COWs shall be permitted in any zoning district after administrative
review and administrative approval in accordance with the standards set forth in
this Ordinance if the use of the COW is either not in response to a declaration or
emergency by the Governor or will last in excess of one hundred-twenty (120)
days.
(E) General Standards, Design Requirements, and Miscellaneous Provisions
(1) Unless otherwise specified herein, all telecommunications facilities and support
structures permitted by administrative approval are subject to the applicable
general standards and design requirements of Section VII and the provisions of
Section VIII.
(F) Administrative Review Process
(1) All administrative review applications must contain the following:
(a) Administrative review application form signed by applicant.
12
8
(b) Copy of lease or letter of authorization from property owner evidencing
applicant’s authority to pursue zoning application. Such submissions need
not disclose financial lease terms.
(c) Site plans detailing proposed improvements which comply with Section
81—Site Plan Requirements of the Person County Planning Ordinance.
Drawings must depict improvements related to the requirements listed in
this section, including property boundaries, setbacks, topography,
elevation sketch, and dimensions of improvements.
(d) In the case of a new Support Structure:
i. Statement documenting why collocation cannot meet the
applicant's requirements. Such statement may include
justifications, including why collocation is either not reasonably
available or technologically feasible as necessary to document the
reasons why collocation is not a viable option; and
ii. The applicant shall provide a list of all the existing structures
considered as alternatives to the proposed location. The applicant
shall provide a written explanation why the alternatives considered
were either unavailable, or technologically or reasonably
infeasible.
iii. Applications for new support structures with proposed
telecommunications facilities shall be considered together as one
application requiring only a single application fee.
(e) Administrative review application fee listed as Cellular Tower
Recertification, Cellular Tower Fee, and/or Collocation Fee as appropriate
in the Person County Schedule of Fees.
(2) Procedure
(a) Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of an application for administrative
review, the Planning Director shall either: (1) inform the applicant in
writing the specific reasons why the application is incomplete and does
not meet the submittal requirements; or (2) deem the application complete.
If the Planning Director informs the applicant of an incomplete application
within thirty (30) days, the overall timeframe for review is suspended until
such time that the applicant provides the requested information.
(b) An applicant that receives notice of an incomplete application may submit
additional documentation to complete the application. An applicant’s
unreasonable failure to complete the application within sixty (60) business
days after receipt of written notice shall constitute a withdrawal of the
application without prejudice. An application withdrawn without
prejudice may be resubmitted upon the filing of a new application fee.
13
9
(c) The Planning Director must issue a written decision granting or denying
the request within ninety (90) days of the submission of the initial
application unless:
(ii) Planning Director notified applicant that its application was
incomplete within thirty (30) days of filing. If so, the remaining time
from the ninety (90) day total review time is suspended until the
applicant provides the missing information; or
(ii) Extension of time is agreed to by the applicant.
Failure to issue a written decision within ninety (90) days shall constitute an
approval of the application.
(d) Should the Planning Director deny the application, the Planning Director
shall provide written justification for the denial. The denial must be based
on substantial evidence of inconsistencies between the application and this
Ordinance.
(e) Applicant may appeal any decision of the Planning Director approving,
approving with conditions, or denying an application or deeming an
application incomplete, within thirty (30) days to the Planning Board in
accordance with this Ordinance.
VI. Telecommunications Facilities and Support Structures Permitted by Special Use
Permit.
(A) Any Telecommunications Facility or Support Structures Not Meeting the Requirements
of Section V Shall Be Permitted by Special Use Permit in all Zoning Districts Subject to:
(1) The submission requirements of Section VI (B) below; and
(2) The applicable standards of Sections VII and VIII below; and
(3) The requirements of the special use permit general conditions in Section 74 of the
Person County Planning Ordinance.
(B) Submission Requirements for Special Use Permit Applications
(1) All special use permit applications for telecommunications facility and support
structures must contain the following:
(a) Special Use Permit application form signed by applicant.
(b) Copy of lease or letter of authorization from the property owner evidencing
applicant’s authority to pursue zoning application. Such submissions need not
disclose financial lease terms.
14
10
(c) Written description and scaled drawings of the proposed support structure,
including structure height, ground and structure design, and proposed
materials.
(d) Number of proposed antennas and their height above ground level, including
the proposed placement of antennas on the support structure.
(e) When locating within a residential area, a written technical and operational
analysis of why a monopole or similar structure at a height of less than one
hundred (100) feet cannot be used.
(f) Line-of-sight diagram or photo simulation, showing the proposed support
structure set against the skyline and viewed from at least four (4) directions
within the surrounding areas.
(g) A statement justifying why collocation is not feasible. Such statement shall
include:
(i) Such technical information and other justifications as are necessary to
document the reasons why collocation is not a viable option; and
(ii) A list of the existing structures considered as possible alternatives to the
proposed location and a written explanation why the alternatives
considered were either unavailable or technologically infeasible.
(h) A statement that the proposed support structure will be made available for
collocation to other service providers at commercially reasonable rates.
(i) Proof that the proposed special use will not materially injure the value of the
adjoining or abutting property as required by Section 74 of the Person County
Planning Ordinance.
(j) Special use permit application fee and Cellular Tower Recertification, Cellular
Tower Fee, and/or Collocation Fee as appropriate as listed in the Person
County Schedule of Fees.
(C) Procedure
(1) Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of an application for administrative review,
the Planning Director shall either: (1) inform the applicant in writing the specific
reasons why the application is incomplete and does not meet the submittal
requirements; or (2) deem the application complete and meet with the applicant.
If the Planning Director informs the applicant of an incomplete application within
thirty (30) days, the overall timeframe for review is suspended until such time that
the applicant provides the requested information.
(2) If an application is deemed incomplete, an applicant may submit additional
materials to complete the application. An applicant’s unreasonable failure to
complete the application within sixty (60) business days after receipt of written
15
11
notice shall constitute a withdrawal of the application without prejudice. An
application withdrawn without prejudice may be resubmitted upon the filing of a
new application fee.
(3) A complete application for a special use permit shall be scheduled for a hearing
date as required by Section 74 of the Person County Planning Ordinance.
(4) Applications for new support structures with proposed telecommunications
facilities shall be considered as one application requiring a single application fee.
(5) The posting of the property and public notification of the application shall be
accomplished in the same manner required for any special use permit application
under this Ordinance.
(6) The Planning Director must issue a written decision granting or denying the
request within one hundred-fifty (150) days of the submission of the initial
application unless:
(i) The Planning Director notified applicant that its application was incomplete
within thirty (30) days of filing. If so, the remaining time from the one
hundred-fifty (150) day total review time is suspended until the applicant
provides the missing information; or
(ii) Extension of time is agreed to by the applicant.
Failure to issue a written decision within one hundred-fifty (150) days shall constitute an
approval of the application.
VII. General Standards and Design Requirements.
(A) Design
(1) Support Structures shall be subject to the following:
(a) Shall be designed to accommodate a minimum number of collocations based
upon their height:
(i) Support structures sixty (60) to one hundred (100) feet shall support at
least two (2) telecommunications providers;
(ii) Support structures from one hundred (100) to one hundred-fifty feet
(150) shall support at least three (3) telecommunications providers;
(iii) Support structures greater than one hundred-fifty (150) feet in height
shall support at least four (4) telecommunications carriers.
(b) The compound area surrounding the monopole must be of sufficient size
to accommodate accessory equipment for the appropriate number of
telecommunications providers in accordance with Section VII(A)(1)(a).
16
12
(2) Stealth telecommunications facilities shall be designed to accommodate the co-
location of other antennas whenever feasible.
(3) Upon request of the applicant, the Planning Board may waive the requirement that
new support structures accommodate the co-location of other service providers if it
finds that co-location at the site is not essential to the public interest, or that the
construction of a shorter support structure with fewer antennas will promote
community compatibility.
(B) Setbacks
(1) Property Lines. Unless otherwise stated herein, support structures shall be set
back from all property lines a distance equal to their height measured from the
base of the structure to its highest point.
(2) Self-Supporting Towers. Self-support structures shall be set back from all
property lines a distance equal to their ½ height measured from the base of the
structure to its highest point but not less than the existing setbacks in the zoning
district for other structures.
(3) Residential Dwellings. Unless otherwise stated herein, monopoles, towers and
other support structures shall be set back from all off-site residential dwellings a
distance equal to the height of the structure. There shall be no setback
requirement from dwellings located on the same parcel as the proposed structure.
Existing or replacement structures shall not be subject to a setback requirement.
(4) Unless otherwise stated herein, all accessory equipment shall be set back from all
property lines in accordance with the minimum setback requirements in the
underlying zoning district. Accessory equipment associated with an existing or
replacement utility pole shall not be subject to a setback requirement.
(5) The Planning Board shall have the authority to vary any required setback upon the
request of the applicant if:
(a) Applicant provides a letter stamped by a certified structural engineer
documenting that the proposed structure’s fall zone is less than the actual
height of the structure.
(b) The telecommunications facility or support structure is consistent with the
purposes and intent of this Ordinance.
(C) Height
(1) In non-residential districts, support structures shall be designed to be the
minimum height needed to meet the service objectives.
(2) In residential districts, support structures shall not exceed a height equal to one
hundred ninety-nine (199) feet from the base of the structure to the top of the
17
13
highest point, including appurtenances. Any proposed support structure shall be
designed to be the minimum height needed to meet the service objectives.
(3) In all zoning districts, the Planning Board shall have the authority to vary the
height restrictions of this section upon the request of the applicant and a
satisfactory showing of need for a greater height. With its waiver request the
applicant shall submit such technical information or other justifications as are
necessary to document the need for the additional height to the satisfaction of the
Planning Board.
(D) Aesthetics
(1) Lighting and Marking. Telecommunications facilities or support structures shall
not be lighted or marked unless required by the FCC or the FAA.
(2) Signage. Signs located at the telecommunications facility shall be limited to
ownership and contact information, FCC antenna registration number (if required)
and any other information required by government regulation. Commercial
advertising is strictly prohibited.
(3) Landscaping. In all districts, the Planning Board shall have the authority to
impose reasonable landscaping requirements surrounding the accessory
equipment. Required landscaping shall be consistent with surrounding vegetation
and shall be maintained by the facility owner. The Planning Board may choose to
not require landscaping for sites that are not visible from the public right-of-way
or adjacent property or in instances where in the judgment of the Planning Board,
landscaping is not appropriate or necessary.
(E) Accessory equipment, including any buildings, cabinets or shelters, shall be used only to
house equipment and other supplies in support of the operation of the
telecommunication facility or support structure. Any equipment not used in direct
support of such operation shall not be stored on the site.
The accessory equipment must conform to the setback standards of the applicable zone. In the
situation of stacked equipment buildings, additional screening/landscaping measures may be
required by the Planning Board.
VIII. Miscellaneous Provisions.
(A) Fencing
(1) Ground mounted accessory equipment and support structures shall be secured and
enclosed with a fence not less than six (6) feet in height as deemed appropriate by
the Planning Board.
(2) The Planning Board may waive the requirement of Subsection (1) above if it is
deemed that a fence is not appropriate or needed at the proposed location.
18
14
(B) Abandonment and Removal. If a support structure is abandoned, and it remains
abandoned for a period in excess of twelve (12) consecutive months, the County may
require that such support structure be removed only after first providing written notice to
the owner of said structure and giving them the opportunity to take such action(s) as
may be necessary to reclaim said structure within thirty (30) days of receipt of written
notice. In the event the owner of the support structure fails to reclaim said structure
within the thirty (30) day period, they shall be required to remove it within six (6)
months thereafter. The County shall ensure and enforce removal by means of its
existing regulatory authority.
(C) Multiple Uses on a Single Parcel or Lot. Telecommunications facilities and support
structures may be located on a parcel containing another principal use on the same site
or may be the principal use itself.
IX. Telecommunications Facilities and Support Structures in Existence on the Date of
Adoption of this Ordinance.
(A) Telecommunications facilities and support structures that were legally permitted on or
before the date this Ordinance shall be considered a permitted and lawful use.
(B) The provisions of this section are limited to those structures that do not meet the height
or setback requirements set forth in these regulations.
(C) Non-conforming Support Structures
(1) Ordinary maintenance may be performed on a non-conforming support structure
or telecommunications facility.
(2) Co-location and/or minor modifications of telecommunications facilities on an
existing non-conforming support structure shall not be construed as an expansion,
enlargement or increase in intensity of a non-conforming structure and/or use and
shall be permitted through the administrative approval process defined in Section
IV.
(3) Major modifications may be made to non-conforming support structures utilizing the
regulatory approval process defined in Section V.
X. Retention of Expert Assistance
(A) The County may hire any consultant and/or expert necessary to assist the County in
reviewing and evaluating the Application, including the construction and modification
of the site, once permitted, and any site inspections.
(B) The hiring of any consultant will be based upon the findings of the County Manager or
their designee of a demonstrable need for assistance beyond the expertise of the County
staff.
19
15
(C) The cost of retaining this expert will be borne by the applicant and shall not exceed an
amount of $4,000.
XI. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective on the 6th day of December, 2010 and amended
September 6, 2011.
XII. Non Applicability to State Owned or Operated Facilities on County Owned
Property
This ordinance or any other provision of the Person County Planning Ordinances shall not
apply to wireless telecommunications towers or facilities owned and/or operated by the
state of North Carolina on property owned by Person County located on Critcher Wilkerson
Road and identified on the records of Person County as Tax Map 118 Parcel 8.
Adopted this the ____ day of March, 2015.
Kyle W. Puryear, Chairman
Person County Board of Commissioners
Attest:
Brenda B. Reaves
Clerk to the Board
20
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 6, 2015
Agenda Title: Public Hearing Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and a
Resolution for Adoption for the Person County – City of Roxboro
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Summary of Information: A Public Hearing is required for local adoption. Following the
Request for a Resolution of Adoption by the Board of Commissioners of a five-year update to
the Person County – City of Roxboro Hazard Mitigation Plan. Local hazard mitigation planning
is a requirement under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 for Federal and State declared natural
disaster recovery assistance and supporting mitigation programs. The plan update addresses both
the County and City of Roxboro’s assessment of disaster mitigation practices; thus, satisfying all
required FEMA planning elements as a multi-jurisdictional plan. The plan five-year update has
been conditionally approved by FEMA, pending local adoption.
Recommended Action: Conduct the Public Hearing as required and approve the Resolution of
Adoption.
Submitted By: Will Brooks, Project Consultant, Kerr-Tar COG
21
PERSON COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Beginning in August 2014, Person County and the City of Roxboro updated their existing
Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). FEMA gave preliminary plan approval, pending local adoption,
of the multi-jurisdictional plan in March 2015. The multi-jurisdictional HMP will serve as a
blueprint for the City and County to follow to help reduce property damages and save lives from
the effects of future natural hazards. The HMP is required in order for the City and County to
receive certain types of state and federal disaster relief funding when future disasters, e.g.,
widespread flooding, occur.
The public is invited to the Person County Board of Commissioners meeting to be held at 7:00
p.m., Monday, April 6, 2015 in Room 215 of the Person County Office Building at 304 South
Morgan Street, Roxboro, North Carolina. The Person-Roxboro Hazard Mitigation Plan update, is
available online at www.personcounty.net or in the Person County Planning Department at 325
S. Morgan Street, Roxboro, N.C.
The public may also attend the Roxboro City Council meeting which will also be held at 7:00
p.m., April 14, 2015 at Roxboro City Hall, Council Chambers, 105 S. Lamar Street, Roxboro,
North Carolina.
If you have any questions or cannot attend the meeting and would like more information, please
contact Paula Murphy or Aaron Holland, Planning and Zoning Department at (336) 597-1750/
(336) 599-3116.
Published March 28, 2015
22
2015
PERSON COUNTY-CITY OF
ROXBORO HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
23
RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION
Person County – City of Roxboro Hazard Mitigation Plan
WHEREAS, the citizens and property within Person County and City of Roxboro are subject to the
effects of natural hazards and man-made hazard events that pose threats to lives and
cause damages to property, and with the knowledge and experience that certain areas, i.e.,
flood hazard areas, are particularly susceptible to flood hazard events; and
WHEREAS, the County desires to seek ways to mitigate situations that may aggravate such
circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of North Carolina has in Part 6, Article 21 of Chapter 143; Parts
3, 5, and 8 of Article 19 of Chapter 160A; and Article 8 of Chapter 160A of the North
Carolina General Statutes, delegated to local governmental units the responsibility to adopt
regulations designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its
citizenry; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of North Carolina has in Section 1 Part 166A of the North
Carolina General Statutes (adopted in Session Law 2001-214—Senate Bill 300 effective
July 1, 2001), states in Item (a) (2) “For a state of disaster proclaimed pursuant to G.S.
166A6 (a) after November 1, 2004, the eligible entity shall have a hazard mitigation plan
approved pursuant to the Stafford Act”; and
WHEREAS, Section 322 of the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 states that local government
must develop an All-Hazards Mitigation Plan in order to receive future Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program Funds, and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board of Commissioners of Person County and the Roxboro City
Council to fulfill this obligation in order that the County and City will be eligible for state
assistance in the event that a state of disaster is declared for a hazard event affecting the
County or City;
NOW, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Commissioners of Person County and Roxboro
City Council hereby:
1. Adopts the Person County – City of Roxboro Hazard Mitigation Plan; and
2. Vests the County Manager and City Manager with the responsibility, authority, and the
means to:
(a) Inform all concerned parties of this action.
(b) Cooperate with Federal, State and local agencies and private firms which
undertake to study, survey, map, and identify floodplain or flood-related erosion
areas, and cooperate with neighboring communities with respect to management
of adjoining floodplain and/or flood-related erosion areas in order to prevent
aggravation of existing hazards.
(c) Adjust the boundaries of County and municipal planning jurisdictions whenever a
municipal annexation or extraterritorial jurisdiction revision results in a change
whereby a municipality assumes or relinquishes the authority to adopt and
enforce floodplain management regulations for a particular area in order that all
Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FHBMs) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)
accurately represent the planning jurisdiction boundaries. Provide notification of
boundary revisions along with a map suitable for reproduction, clearly delineating
municipal corporate limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction boundaries to all
concerned parties.
161
3. Appoints the County Manager and City Manager to assure that the Hazard Mitigation
Plan is reviewed annually and in greater detail at least once every five years to assure
that the Plan is in compliance with all State and Federal regulations and that any needed
revisions or amendments to the Plan are developed and presented to the Person-
Roxboro Board of Commissioners for consideration.
4. Agrees to take such other official action as may be reasonably necessary to carry out
the objectives of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Adopted by Person County on April 6, 2015 and by City of Roxboro on April 14, 2015. Adoption to be
within one calendar year after FEMA approval.
_____________________________________________________________
Kyle Puryear, Chairman
Person County Board of Commissioners
_____________________________________________________________
Marilyn Newell, Mayor
City of Roxboro
Attest:
SEAL
___________________________________________________________________
Brenda Reaves, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
SEAL
___________________________________________________________________
Trevie Adams, City Council Clerk
162
March 16, 2015
1
PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MARCH 16, 2015
MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
March 16, 2015
2
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
SECOND READING OF ABANDONED STRUCTURE ORDINANCE:
Director of Inspections, Sam Hobgood stated that the Board, at its March 2, 2015
meeting, voted 4-1 to adopt the Abandoned Structure Ordinance at the First Reading. Since
the ordinance was not adopted unanimously, the Board had a duty to have a Second
Reading to which a simple majority vote would be required to adopt the ordinance.
Mr. Hobgood highlighted the following key points related to the Abandoned
Structure Ordinance.
• Covers manufactured mobile homes and abandoned residential and commercial
structures,
• Ordinance shall not apply to structures further than 500’ from residential or public
uses (schools, playgrounds) on adjacent properties; and, not visible from
transportation right-of-way,
• Exceptions for farm structures and historic properties,
• Abandoned structure standards would be enforced by Building Inspections,
• Mobile home grant program (optional) would be administered by the Planning
Department,
• County can pay for removal costs; however, removal costs cannot be collected via
the property tax bill only through a lien on the property,
• Appeals heard by Board of Commissioners, and
• Operating Cost: $15,000 - $20,000 – Some operating funds would be needed to pay
for clean-up of abandoned structures.
Mr. Hobgood estimated having ten complaints over the last ten years for abandoned
structures.
Commissioner Kendrick noted his displeasure with county government dictating
what individuals can and cannot do on their own personal property.
Mr. Hobgood noted NC General Statute 153A-366 (Unsafe buildings condemned.
The inspector shall condemn as unsafe each building that appears to him to be especially
dangerous to life because of its liability to fire, bad conditions of walls, overloaded floors,
defective construction, decay, unsafe wiring or heating system, inadequate means of egress,
or other causes; and he shall affix a notice of the dangerous character of the building to a
conspicuous place on its exterior wall.), which is already in place; the adoption of the
proposed ordinance provides enforcement power for condemned structures to be torn
down.
A motion was made by Chairman Puryear and carried 3-2 to approve the
Abandoned Structure Ordinance. Chairman Puryear, Vice Chairman Newell and
Commissioner Jeffers voted in support of the motion. Commissioners Kendrick and
Clayton cast the dissenting votes.
164
March 16, 2015
3
165
March 16, 2015
4
166
March 16, 2015
5
167
March 16, 2015
6
168
March 16, 2015
7
NEW BUSINESS:
PRELIMINARY OPTIONS ON SENIOR CENTER SITES:
Heidi York, County Manager stated the Board, at its March 2, 2015 meeting,
directed the Manager to work with Brockwell Associates to acquire preliminary plans and
options related to a potential senior center on the three different parcels that the City is
willing to convey to the County for use as a senior center.
Ray Foushee, General Services Director introduced Mr. Sam Brockwell and Mr.
Brent Davis from Brockwell Associates of Durham.
Mr. Brockwell stated their architectural firms evaluated and explored options on
the former hotel lot, the former senior center structure along with the green area adjacent
to the senior center structure.
Mr. Brockwell and Mr. Davis provided an overview of the options:
Option 1 and 1a: Hotel Lot Maximum/Hotel Lot New Building – New 2- Story
Construction Cost $2,350,200 for 12,000 sq. ft. on existing vacant hotel lot presented as
one of the best solutions for price, flexibility of programming as well as overall building
performance with an option to increase the sq. ft. to a maximum of 14,950. The scope of
work is not restricted due to existing building elements. The construction is commercial,
steel frame with masonry material exterior similar to existing structures in the area. Mr.
Brockwell stated a clear span building (metal with a brick veneer exterior) is not
recommended. Mr. Brockwell stated the site work/parking fee potentially be could be cut
in half if the parking was eliminated.
Option 2: Existing Senior Building 2-Story Renovation 12,000 sq. ft.- Construction
Cost without fire suppression is $2,470,300. Fire Suppression required if assembly areas
exceed 299 people – add $50,000 to total costs. Option 2 is a challenge due to the existing
building elements (tight floor to floor dimensions, roof issues, basement not occupiable)
will negatively impact the ability to freely program the space for its intended use. The
existing building also presents a challenge for code compliance. Unforeseen conditions in
old structures results in unforeseen costs/budget overages which are not reflected in the
preliminary budget.
Option 3: New Construction of Building on Existing Senior Lot – Cost $2,608,400
for 12,000 sq. ft. of a new facility which would require demolition of existing structure
with more extensive site preparation in comparison to the former hotel lot or the existing
green space with more flexible programming space than option 2. Setback requirements
to the adjacent property owners. Option 3 would encroach on the green space in order to
achieve the desire square footage. Note: unknown site conditions beneath the existing
building could result in budget overages. Mr. Davis stated NC Historic Preservation
approval would be required prior to demolition due to the site lies within a historic district.
169
March 16, 2015
8
Option 4: New and Renovated Construction – 1-Story 6,000 sq. ft. on existing
structure (remove attic) plus new construction of a 2-Story addition encroaching on grassy
area to achieve desire square footage. Cost as follows:
12,000 sq. ft. new plus renovation $3,111,200
8,000 sq. ft. new plus renovation $2,511,200
6,000 sq. ft. new plus renovation $2,271,200
Mr. Brockwell presented option 4 as the best overall option with most potential.
Leaving the existing structure exterior walls intact provides opportunities within the
building code that would be lost with demolition (retain current windows). Should the
structure change in use and occupancy classification, the windows would have to be
replaced. The new addition would connect with a terrace/patio area.
Mr. Davis informed the group that potential for obtaining historic grant funding
through the Main Street Program exists to save old buildings. Mr. Davis noted the City of
Roxboro would have to submit the grant application and the award could be up to $200,000
based on criteria, i.e. number of full time employees.
Commissioner Jeffers noted his preference for options 1 and 1a as both allowed for
future expansion. Mr. Davis pointed out that the only access between the former hotel lot
and the existing structure lot is at the corner.
Commissioner Kendrick asked the Brockwell representatives about a pre-
engineered steel building concept lessening the engineer fees. Mr. Brockwell noted he did
not have this information nor was this the firm’s recommendation; however noted he could
provide such information if a steel building was desired by the Board.
Chairman Puryear requested the potential timeframe for the proposed project once
the Board chose an option. The Brockwell representative noted the process of approvals
to ready the site for construction was estimated to take six months with the construction
phase lasting from ten to eighteen months.
Commissioner Clayton noted option 4 illustrated the best opportunity for
expansion.
Commissioner Kendrick requested more time for review before the Board make a
recommendation. Chairman Puryear stated this item would be tabled for review until the
Board’s next meeting for recommendation.
The drawings presented by Brockwell Associates follows:
170
March 16, 2015
9
171
March 16, 2015
10
172
March 16, 2015
11
173
March 16, 2015
12
174
March 16, 2015
13
175
March 16, 2015
14
RECOGNITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT DAY:
Chairman Puryear welcomed the Person High School students enrolled in civics
and economics participating in Local Government Day to observe the Board of County
Commissioners in session. Chairman Puryear, Vice Chairman Newell and Commissioners
Clayton, Jeffers and Kendrick proceeded to introduce themselves; County Manager, Heidi
York and Clerk to the Board, Brenda Reaves also introduced themselves. Chairman
Puryear asked other county staff to stand to be recognized that was present in the audience.
COUNTY EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN FOR FY 2015-2016:
Heidi York, County Manager stated she requested the renewal quotes for Person
County’s employee health benefits earlier than in previous years in an effort to involve the
Board in determining the most fiscally responsible option that also addresses the needs of
the county’s workforce. Ms. York noted the County currently enrolls 412 subscribers to
the health benefits plan at a cost of $2,508,833; paying a rate of $507.45 per employee per
month. Ms. York reminded the Board that the County utilizes the services of its brokers
Mr. Phillip Allen of Thompson-Allen Insurance of Roxboro and Mr. Bryan Bickley of
Scott Benefit Services of Raleigh who would present their health benefits renewal analysis
to the Board.
Ms. York further noted the brokers are supporting the transition to a self-funded
benefits plan and will provide costs for both the current fully insured option with Coventry
as well as a self-funded option through Coventry for the next fiscal year.
Mr. Allen and Mr. Bickley gave the Board the following presentation entitled
Person County 2015 Renewal Meeting. Mr. Bickley explained the option to renew with
Coventry for fully insured would result in an increase of 14.64% for a health benefits plan
cost of $3,137,858; paying a rate of $634.68 per employee per month. Another fully
insured Coventry CareLink option narrows the network of providers to CareLink Duke
realizes an increase of 4.44% for a health benefits plan cost of $2,858,472; paying a rate of
$578.17 per employee per month. Mr. Bickley outlined the Coventry Self-Funded option
for an increase by 8.94% to reflect the maximum liability costs at the current enrollment
for a budgeted health benefits plan cost of $2,981,811.
176
March 16, 2015
15
177
March 16, 2015
16
178
March 16, 2015
17
179
March 16, 2015
18
180
March 16, 2015
19
181
March 16, 2015
20
182
March 16, 2015
21
183
March 16, 2015
22
184
March 16, 2015
23
185
March 16, 2015
24
186
March 16, 2015
25
187
March 16, 2015
26
188
March 16, 2015
27
Mr. Bickley stated the trend has been for companies to move toward self-funded
plans noting self-funding is less expensive for everyone. Mr. Bickley told the group that
the total claims drive the premium costs. Mr. Bickley stated Person County could expect
$2M in claims in the first year, however staff was recommended to budget at the maximum
liability for claims at $2.9M. Mr. Bickley confirmed the plan would not change from the
current design by moving to self-funded.
Vice Chairman Newell asked if other employee benefits, i.e. dental, group life
could be bundled with health to realize a group savings. Mr. Allen stated that was not
possible due to the fact that the claims drive the cost. Mr. Allen noted the fixed costs could
be negotiated, i.e. commissions is a fixed cost. Mr. Allen further noted that employers can
redesign the plan to a) decrease the level of benefits, b) make changes in the plan design,
and/or c) set a contribution by the employees, each resulting in a lesser employer
contribution.
Commissioner Clayton stated support of the employees making their own plan
design choices, i.e. reduced premium with a higher deductible.
Mr. Allen told the Board the first year the premium was $2,485,877 for fiscal year
2013-14 and the claims for the same period of $2,209,061 with a loss ratio at 88.8%.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kendrick and carried 5-0 to adopt the self-
funded insurance plan.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kendrick and carried 5-0 for the Board to
take a brief recess at 11:07 am. Chairman Puryear reconvened the meeting at 11:13 am.
189
March 16, 2015
28
STRATEGIC PLAN FOCUSING ON COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT:
Assistant County Manager, Sybil Tate stated at the Board’s Budget Retreat, the
commissioners recommended that staff 1) review the structure of the SPC III document 2)
focus on community and economic development only and 3) create a CIP-like strategic
plan document. Ms. Tate presented the following options for the Board’s feedback:
Option #1: Begin work on a new strategic plan focused on community and
economic development. Provide staff with feedback about the attached projects and
potential committee members.
Option #2: Continue work on the Person Futures Plan. Meet with strategic plan
groups and develop funding request for FY16 budget. See attached for projects proposed
at the FY15 budget retreat.
Option #3: Conduct a community-wide survey, instead of a strategic plan. Conduct
a survey in-house or hire the International City/County Manager’s Association (ICMA) to
conduct a survey, which can be compared to other communities of similar size ($7,000 -
$14,000).
Option #4: Do nothing.
Chairman Puryear supported option 1 with using previous Strategic Plan
Committee (SPC) members or equivalent for the position represented to move forward on
developing a new strategic plan focusing on economic development. In addition,
Commissioner Jeffers advocated to hire a consultant to facilitate the economic
development ideas from the group that agree to serve on the new committee.
Chairman Puryear recommended using the previous SPC four areas of study:
o Branding/Marketing;
o Education, Training and Business Development;
o Infrastructure; and
o Quality of Life.
Commissioner Jeffers suggested the use of billboards in neighboring areas to
promote Person County.
Ms. Tate indicated the next step would be to release a Request for Proposal (RFP)
for a consultant as well contact previous SPC members to serve on the new committee.
Chairman Puryear asked the County Manager to share the previous strategic plan
committees’ list of members with the Board.
190
March 16, 2015
29
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE UPDATE:
Mr. Paul Westfall, Interim County Extension Director told the group that
Cooperative Extension conducted a strategic planning initiative to help the organization
cope with continued budget cuts and realign services. The result was a reduction in one
admin support position for Person County beginning in FY16. In order to achieve the
State’s cuts for FY17, the current proposal is to share all staff but 4-H with Granville
County. Mr. Westfall shared the following presentation with the Board:
191
March 16, 2015
30
192
March 16, 2015
31
193
March 16, 2015
32
194
March 16, 2015
33
195
March 16, 2015
34
196
March 16, 2015
35
197
March 16, 2015
36
Vice Chairman Newell asked Mr. Westfall about the prospect of Person County
becoming a food growing county to which he replied very feasible for specialty crops
noting local foods are strong in NC.
Commissioner Clayton noted the benefits of the Voluntary Agricultural Districts,
the educational Farm Tour as well as many participating youth of 4-H programs.
Commissioner Jeffers commended the Farmland Protection Plan moving forward.
PUBLIC SALE OF “LIBRARY HOUSE”:
General Services Director, Ray Foushee told the group that quite a few years ago,
the house and .85/100 acre that is located at 2461 Burlington Road was donated to the
Person County Library in a “trust” under the will of Mattie Maude Williams. For a time,
the head librarian lived in the house. Later, when that was not practical, the County began
to lease the property (through a rental agency) and continued that up through September
2014.
Mr. Foushee stated with the guidance of the County Attorney, staff decided it best
to remove the property from the rental market, sell the house/property, and put the proceeds
back into the library trust fund. However, removing the property from the “trust” was not
easy and resulted in a lengthy court proceeding. In December 2014, the Superior Court
judge ruled that the property could be sold at Public Auction and proceeds go to the library
fund. Thus, upon instruction from the County, Alan Hicks, a local attorney will orchestrate
the sale of this property through the required 20-day advertisement period. In order to
prevent the sale going significantly below market value, Mr. Foushee requested the Board
to approve the County entering an upset bid of up to $100,000. Mr. Foushee noted that
Wayne Ross, a local appraiser completed and released to the County on March 5, 2015 an
appraisal that stated the value of this house/property at $100,000.
Mr. Foushee stated if approved by the Board and the County has to use the upset
bid process, the County would then be able to advertise and sell the property by any
approved means, including the use of a real estate agent.
A motion was made by Commissioner Clayton and carried 5-0 to approve the
County entering an upset bid up to $100,000.
198
March 16, 2015
37
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT:
Chairman Puryear report that he and Vice Chairman Newell recently met with the
Chair and Vice Chairman of the Board of Education to discuss their budget request.
Chairman Puryear told the group that he had participated in the Reality Store
through the Chamber of Commerce. The Reality Store is an interactive, hands-on
simulation of real life in which 8th graders are assigned a career with basic educational
requirements and family life. Depending on their life assignments, the students move from
booth to booth where each represent expenses and income for living. The Reality Store is
designed to provide students with a glimpse into their future lives, and help them with real-
world financial planning, goal setting, decision making and career planning.
MANAGER’S REPORT:
County Manager, Heidi York reported that staff and Vice Chairman Newell met
with a representative from DENR related to the available testing by the State at the landfill.
Ms. York noted the DENR representative is available to attend the Board’s meeting in
April once the Board provides input for the specific data to which he will be asked to
address. Ms. York said she would provide the Board contact information to give residents
that complain of odor issues from the landfill.
Ms. York asked the Board to confirm attendance at a closed session meeting for
PCBIC on March 18, 2015 at 4:30 pm in the S-100 room at Piedmont Community College
for the purpose of consultant site evaluation follow-up.
COMMISSIONER REPORT/COMMENTS:
Commissioner Jeffers reported he presented the proposed capital program to the
Fire Chief’s Association to which they were appreciative and agreed to accept the proposal.
Commissioner Clayton encouraged the Board to attend the upcoming County
Assembly Day scheduled for May 6, 2015 for an opportunity to talk to the legislative
delegation representing Person County.
Commissioner Kendrick had no report.
Vice Chairman Newell reported the DENR representative, Jason Watkins would
address complaints about the landfill noting he was currently working to get an inspector
on site to address a recent complaint.
199
March 16, 2015
38
CLOSED SESSION #1
A motion was made by Commissioner Kendrick and carried 5-0 to enter into
Closed Session per General Statute 143-318.11(a)(4) at 11:47 am for the purpose of
discussion of matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses
in the county (economic development update) with the following individuals permitted to
attend: County Manager, Heidi York, Clerk to the Board, Brenda Reaves and Economic
Development Director, Stuart Gilbert.
It was the consensus of the Board to hold the Closed Session in the Board’s meeting
room 215. A brief recess was called to relocate the meeting to the Board’s meeting room
215.
Chairman Puryear called the Closed Session to order at 11:54 am.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers and carried 5-0 to return to open
session at 12:14 pm.
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Commissioner Kendrick and carried 5-0 to adjourn the
meeting at 12:14 pm.
_____________________________ ______________________________
Brenda B. Reaves Kyle W. Puryear
Clerk to the Board Chairman
(Draft Board minutes are subject to Board approval).
200
PROCLAMATION BY
Person County Board of Commissioners
On
THE WEEK OF THE YOUNG CHILD
WHEREAS, the Person County Partnership for Children and other local
organizations, in conjunction with the National Association for the
Education of Young Children, are celebrating the WEEK OF THE
YOUNG CHILD April 12-18, 2015; and
WHEREAS, by calling attention to the need for high-quality early childhood
services for all children and families within our community/state,
these groups hope to improve the quality and availability of such
services; and
WHEREAS, the future of Person County depends on the quality of the early
childhood experiences provided to young children today.
NOW THEREFORE, the Person County Board of Commissioners does hereby
proclaim the week of April 12-18, 2015 as THE WEEK OF THE YOUNG CHILD in
Person County and urge all citizens to recognize and support the needs of young
children in Person County.
Adopted this, the 6th day of April, 2015.
____________________________________
Kyle Puryear, Chairman
Person County Board of Commissioners
Attest:
____________________________________
Brenda B. Reaves, NCCCC, CMC
Clerk to the Board
201
3/16/2015
Dept./Acct No.Department Name Amount
Incr / (Decr)
EXPENDITURES General Fund
Human Services (20,649)
Transportation 20,549
REVENUES General Fund
Fund Balance Appropriation (100)
Explanation:
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Correction of Budget Amendment 12 - funds for ROAP were mistakenly applied to DSS rather than PATS.
This will correct each department budget per the terms of the state allocation, and results in a small
reduction in fund balance appropriation for the year (-$100).
BA 14202
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 6, 2015
Agenda Title: Second Reading for an Amendment to the Automobile
Graveyard and Junkyard Ordinance
Background: At the Board of Commissioners’ March 2, 2015 meeting, amendments
were presented for consideration to the Automobile Graveyard and Junkyard Ordinance. Staff
was asked to clarify and change the time limit on the second notice to 30 days as well as
review the definition of junk. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Newell and carried 3-2
to table the proposed amendments to the existing Automobile Graveyard and Junkyard
Ordinance. Vice Chairman Newell and Commissioners Kendrick and Jeffers voted in favor of
the motion. Chairman Puryear and Commissioner Clayton cast the dissenting votes.
A motion to take the matter up again (revive consideration) is required by a member of the
prevailing side, (in this case Vice Chairman Newell, Commissioner Kendrick and
Commissioner Jeffers) prior to the Board proceeding with the Second Reading. If this matter
is not taken up again within 100 days (June 10, 2015) of the First Reading, the agenda would
have to be taken back up as a new item.
Summary of Information:
Key Points
• Adds definition of “Establishment” to mean “commercial” operations
• Adds clarification about the applicability of the ordinance to residential properties
• Does not apply to residential properties that are not visible from adjacent residential or
public uses (schools, playgrounds) on adjacent properties or from public roads or to
farms as defined by State statute and construction sites with currently active permits;
• Enforcement process managed by the Planning Department
• Specific abatement process would apply to “chronic offenders”; costs would be
applied to property tax bill
• Appeals heard by Board of County Commissioners
• 2nd notice allows for 30 days to remedy violation
Recommended Action: 1) A motion to revive consideration for the Amendment to the
Automobile, Graveyard and Junkyard Ordinance, and 2) Review and vote on the amended
Automobile Graveyard and Junkyard Ordinance. A simple majority vote is required for the
amended ordinance to be adopted.
Submitted By: Michael Ciriello, Planning Director
203
ORDINANCE REGULATING AUTOMOBILE GRAVEYARDS AND
JUNKYARDS IN PERSON COUNTY
SECTION ONE. TITLE
This ordinance may be known and may be cited as “Ordinance Regulating Automobile
Graveyards and Junkyards in Person County.”
SECTION TWO. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The purposes and objectives for which this ordinance is passed are as follows:
A. To protect the citizens and residents of Person County from possible injury at automobile
graveyards and junkyards.
B. To preserve the dignity and aesthetic quality of the environment in Person County.
C. To preserve the physical integrity of land in close proximity to residential areas.
D. To protect the economic interests of the citizens and residents of Person County.
E. To achieve responsible economic growth in areas of Person County that is compatible with
growth and development in nearby areas.
SECTION THREE. DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this ordinance, certain terms and words are hereby defined; words used in
the present tense shall include the future; words used in the singular number shall include the plural
number; and the plural the singular; and the word “shall” is mandatory and not directory.
Automobile Graveyard: The term and definition of “automobile graveyards” shall apply to
commercial establishment only. Any commercial establishment which is maintained, used, or operated
for storing, salvaging, keeping, buying and selling two or more wrecked, scrapped, ruined, dismantled or
inoperable motor vehicles and which are not being restored to operation, regardless of the length of
time which individual motor vehicles are stored or kept at said establishment. The phrase “automobile
graveyard” as used herein shall be interpreted to include all service stations and repair shops which
have on their premises four or more wrecked, scrapped, ruined, dismantled or inoperable motor
vehicles which are not being restored to operation.
Chronic Offender: A person who owns property whereupon, in the previous calendar year, the
county gave notice of violation at least three times under any provision of the public nuisance
ordinance.
Establishment: Any commercial operation.
204
Housing Unit: A house, an apartment, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied or intended
for occupancy as separate living quarters.
Junk: The term “junk” shall mean scrap metal, rope, rages, batteries, paper, trash, rubber,
debris, tires, waste, or junked, dismantled or wrecked motor vehicles or parts.
Junkyard: An establishment which is maintained, operated, or used for storing, salvaging,
keeping, buying or selling junk regardless of the length of time that junk is stored or kept, or for
maintenance or operation of an automobile graveyard, but shall not include garbage dumps or county-
operated sanitary landfills.
Public Road: Any road or highway which is now or hereafter designated and maintained by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation as part of the State Highway System, whether primary or
secondary, and any road which is a neighborhood public road as defined in North Carolina General
Statute Section 136-67.
Repair Shop: An establishment which is maintained and operated for the primary purpose of
making mechanical and/or body repairs to motor vehicles and which receives fifty percent or more of its
gross income from charges made for such repairs.
School: Any public or private institution for teaching which is recognized and approved by the
State of North Carolina.
Service Station: An establishment which is maintained and operated for the primary purpose of
making retail sales of fuels, lubricants, air, water, and other items for the operation and routine
maintenance of motor vehicles and/or for making mechanical repairs, servicing and/or washing of
motor vehicles, and which receives more than fifty percent of its gross income from the retail sale of this
aforesaid items and/or from the making of mechanical repairs, servicing and/or washing of motor
vehicles.
Solid Fence: A continuous, opaque, unperforated barrier extending from the surface of the
grounds to a uniform height of not less than six (6) feet from the ground at any given point, constructed
of dirt, wood, stone, steel, or other metal, or any substance of a similar nature and strength.
Vegetation: Evergreen trees, including, but not limited to, white pine and/or hemlock,
evergreen shrubs or plants with a minimum height of six (6) inches when planted, which reach a height
of at least six (6) feet of maturity.
Visible: Capable of being seen without visual aid by a person of normal visual acuity.
Wire Fence: A continuous, translucent, perforated barrier extending from the surface of the
ground to a uniform height of not less than six (6) feet from the group at any given point, constructed of
wire, steel or nylon mesh, or any substance of a similar nature and strength, but which perforations or
openings are no larger than sixteen (16) square inches.
205
SECTION FOUR. PROHIBITIONS
All commercial junkyards or automobile graveyards except as hereinafter provided shall be
unlawful after the effective date of this Ordinance for any person, firm or corporation, or other legal
entity to operate or maintain in any unincorporated area of Person County a junkyard or automobile
graveyard without first obtaining a license to operate same and without maintaining screening from
view as hereafter described.
SECTION FIVE. SCREENING
All commercial junkyards or automobile graveyards operated and/or maintained in Person
County shall be fenced at all points where said fencing shall be necessary to screen the view of persons
from public roads, schools, or housing units, and where such screening is not already substantially
provided by natural vegetation, or other natural barriers. The fence shall be wire fence used in
conjunction with vegetation or a solid fence. If a wire fence with vegetation is used, the plants shall be
planted on at least one side of the wire fence and as close as practical to said fence. Vegetation shall be
planted at intervals evenly spaced and in close proximity to each other so that a continuous, unbroken
hedgerow will exist to a height of at least six (6) feet along the links of the wire fence surrounding the
junkyard or automobile graveyard when the vegetation reaches maturity. Each owner, operator or
maintainer of a junkyard or automobile graveyard to which this Ordinance applies and who chooses to
use vegetation with wire fence, shall utilize good husbandry techniques with respect to said vegetation,
including but not limited to, proper pruning, proper fertilizer and proper mulching, so that the
vegetation will reach maturity as soon as practical and will have maximum density in foliage. Dead or
diseased vegetation shall be replaced at the next appropriate planting time, and the fence, or wire fence
and vegetation, shall be maintained in good condition. All wrecked, scrapped, ruined, dismantled or
inoperable motor vehicles and junk shall be stored inside said fence.
SECTION SIX. APPLICABILITY
This Ordinance applies to all residential zoned properties and uses and applies to junk as defined
in this Ordinance from an adjacent property, and/or road. This Ordinance applies to all commercial and
industrial uses on properties that abut residential and public uses and apples to junk and abandoned
vehicles as defined in this Ordinance that is visible from an adjacent property, and/or public road.
SECTION SEVEN. EXCEPTIONS
A. Ordinance shall not apply to residential properties that are not visible from residential or public
uses (schools, playgrounds) on adjacent properties or from public roads.
B. Ordinance shall not apply to service stations or repair shops unless said service station or repair
shop has on or inoperable motor vehicles which are not being restored to operation.
C. This ordinance shall not apply to bona fide farm properties as defined by NCGS §153A-340.
206
D. Automobile graveyards or junkyards existing at the effective date of this Ordinance which would
be in violation of this Ordinance shall be granted a grace period of four (4) months to conform to
the provisions of this Ordinance, thereafter same shall be subject to the provisions of this
Ordinance.
E. The provisions of this section shall not apply to material which is being used in connection with a
construction activity taking place on the premises provided the construction activity associated
with an active permit, is being diligently pursued, and com- plies with applicable ordinances and
codes.
SECTION EIGHT. PENALTIES
A. Criminal Penalty. Any person, firm, corporation, or other entity who maintains or operates or
who controls the maintenance of a junkyard or automobile graveyard in violation of this
Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to prosecution, and if convicted, shall
be punished by a fine not to exceed $50 or by imprisonment not to exceed thirty ( 30) days,
or both, in the discretion of the Court. Each day that said automobile graveyard or junkyard
shall be maintained or operated in violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a separate and
distinct offense.
B. Civil Penalties. In addition to the criminal sanctions as herein set out, as provided by North
Carolina General Statute 153A-123 (d), and (e), this Ordinance may be enforced by an
appropriate equitable remedy issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction or by injunction
and order of abatement.
C. The Person County Planner shall be responsible for enforcing the provisions of this Ordinance
and may take informal measures to procure compliance from any person deemed by the
planner or his representative to be in violation. If such informal measures fail to cause
compliance, the planner shall be responsible for obtaining warrants or instigating civil remedies
for violations of this Ordinance.
D. This Ordinance may be enforced by an appropriate equitable remedy, including temporary
restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction was issued by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
E. Pursuant to NCGS §153A-140.2, the County Planning Director may issue annual notice to chronic
violators. The County may notify a chronic violator of the County's public nuisance ordinance
that, if the violator's property is found to be in violation of the ordinance, the county shall,
without further notice in the calendar year in which notice is given, take action to remedy the
violation, and the expense of the action shall become a lien upon the property and shall be
collected as unpaid taxes.
F. Appeals
1.) Unless the owner is a chronic violator, an owner who has received a violation notice
under this section may appeal from the order to the Board of Commissioners by giving
written notice of appeal to the Planning Department and to the clerk within 10 days
following the day the order is issued. In the absence of an appeal, the order of the
Planning Director is final.
207
2.) Without exception, the County may notify a chronic violator of the county's public
nuisance ordinance that, if the viola- tor's property is found to be in violation of the
ordinance, the county shall, without further notice in the calendar year in which notice
is given, take action to remedy the violation, and the expense of the action shall become
a lien upon the property and shall be collected as unpaid taxes. The notice shall be sent
by certified mail.
SECTION NINE. LICENSING
Any person, firm, corporation, or other organization desiring to operate, or continue to operate
a junkyard or automobile graveyard after the adoption of this Ordinance shall be required to obtain a
license to operate same from the Person County Planner. The application for license shall be in writing
and contain such information that, in the discretion of the County Planner, is needed to guarantee that
the operation is, or shall be, in compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
The County Planner shall issue a license to operate to each applicant, upon payment of a license
fee of $50.00, unless it appears that said operation is or shall be in violation of this Ordinance.
The County Planner shall have the authority to revoke the license or any person, firm,
corporation, or other organization who fails to comply with the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION TEN. SIGNAGE
All commercial junkyards and automobile graveyards operated and maintained in
Person County shall be identified at the entrance to said facility by a sign not less than fifteen (15)
square feet in area.
SECTION ELEVEN. PROCESS
Complaints shall be submitted by residents and investigated by the Planning Department; upon
determining that a violation of this ordinance exists, the Planning Department shall issue written notice
to the registered owner, lessee, or person(s) entitled to the land. The notice shall be provided by
registered or certified mail. The notice shall:
1. Identify the property and describe the violation located thereon to be removed, abated, or
remedied;
2. State that the costs incurred by the county for chronic offenders to remove, abate, or remedy
the violation, if not paid by the violator(s), shall be subject to NCGS §153A-140.2 for chronic
offenses.
3. If the violation is not removed, abated or remedied within thirty (30) days of the initial notice,
and an appeal has not been filed, a second notice shall be issued. The notice shall:
4. Direct that the violation be removed, abated or remedied;
208
5. Advise that the property must comply by a specific date thirty (30) days from the certified
mailing date of the second notice;
6. Advise that civil penalties, are being accessed daily as of the date of the second notice; and,
7. Advise that in addition to any and remedies above, the Person County Board of Commissioners
may request criminal penalties in accordance with this Ordinance.
SECTION TWELVE. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective the 6th day of April 2015 and supersedes any previous
versions of the ordinance.
Adopted, this, the 6th day of April 2015.
________________________________________ ____________________________
Kyle Puryear, Chairman Date
Person County Board of Commissioners
Attested by:
___________________________________________
Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Person County Board of Commissioners
209
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 6, 2015
Agenda Title: Review of the Senior Center Site Options
Summary of Information:
At the Board’s March 16th meeting, Brockwell Associates presented four options for the Board’s
consideration for the construction of a senior center.
These options included:
Option 1: Hotel Lot new construction of 12,000 sf on existing vacant hotel lot $2.35M
Option 1a: Hotel Lot new construction of 12,000sf designed to mimic old hotel $2.35M
Option 2: Renovate Existing Senior Building (2 Story, 12,000sf) $2.52M
Option 3: New Construction on Existing Senior Lot (2 Story, 12,000sf) $2.61M
Option 4: New Construction of an Addition plus Renovation of 6,000sf of existing:
$2.27M for 12,000sf
$2.511M for 14,000sf
$3.11M for 18,000sf
Recommended Action: Discuss the information and direct staff on how the Board would like to
proceed.
Submitted By: Heidi York, County Manager; Ray Foushee, General Services Director
210
211
212
213
214
215
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 6, 2015
Agenda Title: Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments’ Request for Continued
Financial Assistance towards the Senior Center Rent
Summary of Information: The Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments (COG) is
requesting continued assistance from the County towards the Senior Center rent at The Perfect
Venue. For the past twelve months, Person County Government has contributed $600 per month
towards the monthly rent of $1700. The City of Roxboro also contributed $600 per month and
the COG contributes $500 per month. The COG has signed a 24 month lease beginning April 1,
2015 through March of 2017. The rent remains at $1700 per month.
The request is for continued support of $600 per month through this lease period. This request
was also presented to the City and they agreed to fund this through the end of June with
intentions of discussing the funding during their budget deliberations for FY16.
Attached is a letter from the Director of the COG outlining their request.
The County also provides an annual appropriation of $100,000 towards operating expenses for
the Senior Center.
Recommended Action: Receive the request and direct staff on the desire of the Board to
continue providing rental assistance.
Submitted By: Heidi York, County Manager
216
PO Box 709 • 1724 Graham Avenue • Henderson, NC 27536 • Phone (252) 436-2040 • Toll Free (866) 506-6223 • Fax (252) 436-2055
Region K Community Assistance Corporation
March 10, 2015
Ms. Heidi York, Manager
Person County
304 S. Morgan Street
Roxboro, NC 27573
Dear Heidi,
On behalf of the Region K Community Assistance Corporation, I would like
to request continued rental assistance in the amount of $600 monthly for
the Person County Senior Center located at 309 Long Avenue, Roxboro.
The rental assistance is requested for the timeframe of April, 2015 through
March, 2017.
Monthly rental for the Center will remain at $1,700 a month for 24 months
beginning April 1, 2015. I am once again requesting assistance from both
Person County and the City of Roxboro with the monthly rental costs.
Region K Community Assistance Corporation will also pay a portion of the
rental expense.
The Person County Senior Center could not have continued to operate over
the past twelve months without the assistance of Person County
Government. The rental assistance has ensured that no drastic cuts in
services to seniors were required AND the use of county facilities for our
activities has allowed us to grow many of our programs.
Again, thank you for your support of the Person County Senior
Center. If you have any questions or need any additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Diane
Diane Cox, Executive Director
Kerr Tar Regional Council of Governments
Region K Community Assistance Corporation
217
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 6, 2015
Agenda Title: Consideration to abolish the special Board of Equalization and
Review for 2015 and forward
Summary of Information:
The Person County Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution establishing
a special Board of Equalization and Review on January 7, 2013, and amended the
resolution on January 22, 2013 (adding 3 alternate members). Both resolutions were
passed by a unanimous vote. Members were appointed for 4 year terms. Person
County joined the majority of counties when this special board was created (62 counties
out of 100 are currently utilizing a special Board of Equalization and Review).
After the creation of the special Board of Equalization and Review, the Person County
Tax Office and the North Carolina Department of Revenue held a training session for all
members. The meeting was held on April 11, 2013 and was recorded by Person
County Information Technology. The training is available on-line at
http://www.personcounty.net for your review.
The newly created Board of Equalization and Review met beginning April 22, 2013 with
100% attendance. This board had 23 meetings in 2013, amounting to over 80 hours in
meeting time alone, and heard over 500 appeals. Their final meeting for 2013 was
completed on July 18, 2013.
The appeals for 2014 were much less, with only 26 appeals. This was to be expected,
since most appeals occur during a revaluation year.
North Carolina General Statute 105-322(a) allows for the creation of a special Board of
Equalization and Review if a resolution is adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners on or before the first Monday in March. While there is a specific
deadline for establishing the special Board of Equalization and Review, there is no
deadline for abolishing the special board; this can be done at anytime, with the adoption
of a new resolution.
Some reasons to consider abolishing this special Board of Equalization and
Review:
1. Fewer Appeals. There could be fewer appeals since this is non-revaluation year.
2. Consistency. There could be more consistency since there will not be alternate
members involved (same 5 commissioners will hear all appeals).
218
3. Savings. Since the special Board of Equalization and Review members were
reimbursed either $50 or $150 per meeting, this expense can be eliminated from the tax
office budget. The member reimbursement for 2013 was $12,800 and for 2014 was
$1,150.
If adopted, the Board of Commissioners will also need to determine the following:
a. First meeting date. This meeting must be advertised at least 10 days prior to the
first meeting date, according to NCGS 105-322(f). If determined tonight, the opening
meeting must be no earlier than April 20th and must be no later than May 4th. At best,
there is only a 14 day window remaining to have the opening meeting for the Board of
Equalization and Review.
b. Date to adjourn for accepting new appeals. The Board must set a date to adjourn
for accepting new appeals. It is recommended that the appeal window be open for 2
weeks in a non-revaluation year, and the Board must be in session in order to adjourn
for the acceptance of new appeals. This will need to be a set time and date and must
also be advertised. It would be acceptable to hear appeals at that time also.
c. Hearing Dates. After adjourning for the acceptance of new appeals, the Board may
need to set up times for all timely filed appeals to be heard. The adjournment under
item b is only for the filing of the appeals. Appeals that were timely filed can be heard at
a later date, but should be finished by July 1st in a non-revaluation year.
e. Scheduling. The Board will need to determine the time allotment for each taxpayer
for scheduling purposes. The special Board of Equalization and Review allowed 15
minutes per taxpayer, with 5 additional minutes if the taxpayer appealed additional
parcels. This is not a requirement, but this is much more taxpayer friendly than having
all appeals scheduled at the same time and having taxpayers waiting for hours. The tax
office will notify the taxpayers of their designated time and accept 7 copies of all
evidence from the taxpayer, along with their appeal form, and have these available for
the meeting.
f. Location. The Board will need to determine where the meetings will be held. Before
the special Board of Equalization and Review was established, the meetings were held
in the Commissioner's Board Room, the meetings were streamed live, and also posted
to the county website. If held at this location, taxpayers that appeal without an
appointment may have to be rescheduled, since the tax office records will be located at
a different location. An alternate location would be the tax office conference room,
which was utilized by the special Board of Equalization and Review for 2013 and 2014.
Recommended Action: Adopt resolution and select meeting dates, if appropriate.
Submitted By: Mr. Kyle W. Puryear, Chairman; and Russell Jones, Tax
Administrator
219
RESOLUTION ABOLISHING A SPECIAL
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW FOR PERSON COUNTY
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 105-322, has authorized the
Board of County Commissioners of the respective counties within the State to appoint a special Board of Equalization
and Review to carry out the duties imposed under Article 21 or the Machinery Act of North Carolina as revised in 1977;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners did in fact create such a special Board of Equalization and
Review in compliance with North Carolina General Statute 105-322(a) on January 2, 2013, and later revised such board
on January 22, 2013; and
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 105-322(a) authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to abolish
this special Board of Equalization and Review at any time and without cause; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners finds that it is in the best interest of the citizens of Person
County to abolish this special Board of Equalization and Review.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR PERSON COUNTY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
1. This special Board of Equalization and Review is hereby abolished for Person County, effective immediately
for all property tax appeals.
2. The duties of this special Board of Equalization and Review shall be relinquished to the Person County Board
of County Commissioners, and shall be governed and limited by North Carolina General Statute 105-322 and
the North Carolina Machinery Act.
3. The Person County Board of Commissioners, sitting as the Person County Board of Equalization and Review,
shall hear all tax appeals for the tax year 2015 and forward.
4. The chairman of the Person County Board of Commissioners shall be the chairman of the Board of
Equalization and Review.
5. All appeals from the Person County Board of Commissioners, sitting as the Person County Board of
Equalization and Review, shall be to the North Carolina Property Tax Commission as provided by the North
Carolina Machinery Act.
6. The members of the Person County Board of Commissioners, sitting as the Board of Equalization and Review,
shall not be reimbursed for the duties of the Board of Equalization and Review.
7. This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption.
Adopted this 6th day of April, 2015.
_______________________________
Kyle W. Puryear, Chairman
Attest:
_______________________________
Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board
220
221
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting date: April 6, 2015
Agenda Title: Recommended Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY 2016-2020
Summary of Information:
The CIP is a planning tool for implementing large, capital projects. The CIP includes
projects costing $50,000 or greater from county departments, Piedmont Community
College and Person County Schools.
This document paves the way for the Recommended Budget as it will provide an
estimate of funding needed for capital projects and projects impacts on operating
costs as well. These capital projects span the next five fiscal years with the
upcoming fiscal year (FY16) being the only year where a funding commitment
is needed.
The CIP is scheduled to be adopted at the Board’s meeting on April 20, 2015. It is being
presented for discussion and direction from the Board.
Recommended Action: Discuss the CIP and provide staff with feedback.
Submitted By: Heidi York, County Manager and Amy Wehrenberg, Finance Director
222
Person County, North Carolina
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2016-2020
Recommended
Heidi York, County Manager
Sybil Tate, Assistant County Manager
Amy Wehrenberg, Finance Director
April 6, 2015
223
224
Person County, North Carolina
Capital Improvement Plan
Table of Contents
Manager’s Letter to the Board of Commissioners ............................................ 1-2
Objectives and Procedures for the CIP .................................................................3
Criteria for Project Priority .....................................................................................4
Summary of Completed Projects for FY 2015 .......................................................5
Status of Ongoing Projects for FY 2015 ................................................................6
Recommended Projects (By Year) .................................................................... 7-8
Projects Not Recommended ........................................................................... 9-10
Funding Schedule ......................................................................................... 11-13
Set Aside Funds for Future Years ....................................................................... 14
Graph-Revenue Sources ..................................................................................... 15
Graph-Projects by Function ................................................................................. 16
Graph-Projects by Type ...................................................................................... 17
Person County’s Debt Service ...................................................................... 18-20
Future Debt Service Payments ........................................................................... 21
225
PERSON COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER
304 South Morgan Street, Room 212
Roxboro, NC 27573-5245
336-597-1720
Fax 336-599-1609
April 6, 2015
Dear Person County Board of Commissioners:
I am pleased to present Person County’s Fiscal Years 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The
CIP is an important planning tool for our County and is intended to reflect the priorities of the Board of
County Commissioners in terms of capital needs and spending over the next five years. In addition to
projects for Person County Government, this Plan also incorporates the needs of our partner agencies-
both Person County Schools and Piedmont Community College (PCC) - given that counties are
statutorily responsible for the provision of educational facilities. To that end, we have taken a proactive
approach towards managing both the costs and timing of maintenance projects; namely roofs and
windows. We are in our fifth year of implementing a comprehensive roofing assessment for all three
entities and our third year of a windows replacement plan primarily for the Person County Schools.
The development of this Plan takes into account many factors including the current economic and fiscal
climate, the logistical and financial constraints, as well as competing demands and priorities for county
funds. The most critical capital needs are those that address a life, safety issue. Once those are known,
we work towards a balance of needs and priorities within our logistical and financial constraints. This
Plan identifies the anticipated funding sources needed to meet these priorities. Although the projects in
this Plan span the next five years, the fiscal effects extend far beyond, particularly projects that will be
financed for which the County will incur debt service payments typically over a fifteen to twenty year
period. Therefore, the full array of funding sources needed to support the projects, as well as potential
impacts to future operating budgets are also presented. The Board of Commissioners reviews the five
year CIP every year, but only funds the projects on an annual fiscal year basis.
County Fund Balance is a typical and appropriate funding source for the CIP. However, the Board of
Commissioners has prioritized a reduction in the use of Fund Balance as that resource has become
constrained through its use of operating and recurring expenses over the past several years. The Board
has also prioritized several large capital projects to finance in FY15-16 including the construction of a
new senior center at an estimated cost of $2.9M and the purchase and up-fit of the Roxboro Little
League ballpark projected to cost $560,000. I am recommending that most other major capital needs be
deferred into future years to allow the Board to maintain and in some cases increase operations funding,
which has been expressed as a priority by the Board as well.
The projects recommended to be funded for FY16 total $5.73M. Of this amount, $5.12M will be
financed and supported by debt proceeds including General Obligation Bonds for the proposed Senior
Center. This updated FY 2016-2020 CIP includes new roofing projects to be financed: Huck Sansbury
($285,189); South Elementary ($268,991); Woodland Elementary ($149,156); Oak Lane Elementary
($207,532); as well as a chiller replacement for Southern Middle School ($300,000) and window
replacements at North End Elementary ($329,643) which are also included as part of the financing
1
226
package. Lottery funds will fund a new roof for the Alternative School ($69,781). In addition, other
projects proposed for next Fiscal Year 2016 are a chiller replacement for the Law Enforcement Center at
$150,000; mandated voting equipment at a cost of $247,400; the second of three payments on a
telephone system for county operations for $70,000. Piedmont Community College has an update to
their master plan ($50,000) and dining facility equipment upgrades ($20,000).
An important element of this CIP is a debt analysis summary, as well as a table and graph showing the
future debt service levels for Person County Government. Comparing Person County’s debt service
levels with counties benchmarked with our population size indicate that our debt is well below those
averages. The spreadsheets and graph illustrate Person County’s ability to take on additional debt
payments in the future. Debt Service take a precipitous drop in the upcoming Fiscal Year 2016 even
with the proposed financings planned. This sharp drop in debt service is not viewed favorably by
financial analysts and bond rating agencies who recommend a steady level of debt with little deviation in
either direction. Sharp changes can signal poor planning on a county’s behalf and suggest inefficient use
of financing tools. This is something that needs to be considered as projects are evaluated within this
CIP.
Please keep in mind that this Capital Improvement Plan is just that- a plan, and while a great deal of
effort and analysis have gone into this, it offers a starting point for annual comparisons, fiscal changes,
unforeseen needs, and a place where public discussion can begin. The CIP will continue to be reviewed
throughout the year, presenting any recommended changes to the Board for consideration. This review
is critical as new information about our capital needs, our fiscal health, financing tools, and existing
project scheduling arises.
Person County Government takes great care and pride in being fiscally responsible in providing
services. This Capital Improvement Plan is indicative of our commitment to provide residents with not
only sustainable infrastructure, but improvements and enhancements to our community and quality of
life. County staff looks forward to working with the Board of County Commissioners and our
community as we implement the Fiscal Year 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Plan.
Sincerely,
Heidi N. York
County Manager
2
227
Person County, North Carolina
Capital Improvement Plan
Objectives of a CIP:
· Create a plan to organize long term capital needs in a manner to promote
discussion regarding priority, feasibility, timing, potential costs, financing options
and future budgetary effect.
· Limit projects to those costing $50,000 and over in the plan.
· Present an overview of requests submitted by Person County departments,
Piedmont Community College and Public Schools.
· Facilitate the exchange of information and coordination between the County, the
community college and the schools on capital planning.
Steps in developing a CIP:
· Determine capital needs for all departments and certain County-funded agencies.
· Review priorities and assess proposed capital projects in relationship to these
priorities.
· Make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on a project’s
timing, priority and possible financing options.
Categories of projects:
Person County Government
Piedmont Community College
Public Schools
· Each project includes a description, a timeline for construction and operating
costs, and the current status.
· Also included are graphs that summarize revenue sources, projects by function,
projects by type, and outstanding debt.
3
228
Person County, North Carolina
Capital Improvement Plan
Criteria in determining project status:
Safety
· Is public health or safety a critical factor with regard to this project?
· What are the consequences if not approved?
Mandate
· Is the project required by legal mandates?
· Is the project needed to bring the County into compliance with any laws or
regulations?
Timing and Linkages
· What is the relationship to other projects, either ongoing or requested?
· Does the project relate to a County-adopted plan or policy?
Economic Impact
· Will this project promote economic development or otherwise raise the standard
of living for our citizens?
Efficiencies
· Will this project increase productivity or service quality, or respond to a demand
for service?
· Are there any project alternatives?
Service Impact
· Will this project provide a critical service or improve the quality of life for our
citizens?
· How will this project improve services to citizens and other service clients?
· How would delays in starting the project affect County services?
Operating Budget Impact
· What is the possibility of cost escalation over time?
· Will this project reduce annual operating costs in some manner?
· What would be the impact upon the annual operating budget and future operating
budgets?
Debt Management
· What types of funding sources are available?
· How reliable is the funding source recommended for the project?
· How would any proposed debt impact the County’s debt capacity?
· Does the timing of the proposed construction correspond to the availability of
funding?
4
229
Person County, North Carolina
Capital Improvement Plan
Summary of Completed Projects for FY 2015
Person County:
Financing issuance cost: PCRC Purchase & Various Roofing Project - $60,606
Public Schools:
Window Replacements: Oak Lane Elementary - $83,582
5
230
Person County, North Carolina
Capital Improvement Plan
Status of Ongoing Projects for FY 2015
Person County Government:
New Telephone System ($90,000) – This project spans three years. The final payment
on the lease agreement will be made in 2017. The total project’s cost is $235,229.
New Roof – Kirby Civic Auditorium ($335,562) – Completion is set for the end of
March 2015. Project is estimated to come in under budget.
Upgrade Controls System at LEC ($200,000) – The last bid has been received and
the project will be awarded to a vendor soon. This project is scheduled for completion
by July 1, 2015.
Voting Equipment ($56,795) – IT and Elections staff are gathering quotes for the new
voting equipment. The purchase will be made by July 2015.
Purchase and Renovation of PCRC ($1,417,050) – The purchase has been
completed and renovations are 60% complete. Roof is 95% complete. This project is
scheduled for completion by Sept. 1, 2015.
Contingency for PCRC renovation ($30,000) –Staff is uncertain at this time if
contingency funds will be needed to complete these projects.
PCC:
Campus Sidewalks Upgrade ($80,000) –This project is 55% complete and anticipated
to be completed in April 2015.
Public Schools:
New Roof - Earl Bradsher ($547,388) – A vendor has been selected and will begin in
April; should be complete by July 2015.
6
231
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2016-2020
Recommended Projects
YEAR DEPT PROJECT TITLE TOTAL COST PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2016 IT Telephone System 70,000
The County's phone system is outdated and the vendor no longer
provides maintenance or repair for this type of system.
Payments span over a three year period; total cost is $217,000.
General Services
New roof - Huck
Sansbury 285,189 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
General Services
Issuance Costs - various
re-roofing & equipment
upgrades; Roxplex
Acquisition/ Improvmts 59,989
Financing costs associated with various roofing projects,
equipment upgrades and the Roxplex acquisition and
improvements.
General Services Chiller replacement - LEC 150,000 Replacement of the Law Enforcement Center's chiller system.
Elections Voting equipment 247,400
Includes purchasing tabulators and AutoMark machines. The
tabulators and the AutoMark machines are needed for 2016.
Rec, Arts & Parks Senior Center 2,900,000
Construction of a new Senior Center in Uptown Roxboro.
Includes architectural and engineering costs.
Rec, Arts & Parks
Issuance costs - Senior
Center 60,000 Financing costs associated with the Senior Center project.
Rec, Arts & Parks
Roxplex
Acquisition/Improvement 559,500 Purchase and upgrades to the Roxplex Little League facility.
PCC
Master Plan
Update/Feasibility Study 50,000
The Master Plan was last updated in 2008 and needs to be
updated to reflect economic changes. Once the master plan is
updated, a feasibility study will be conducted for the Allied Health
Building and an additional access route.
PCC
Dining Facility Equipment
Upgrades 20,000
Dining facility equipment does not allow for expanded food
service. Payments span a three year period; total cost is $60,000.
Public Schools New roof - VFW 69,781 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
Public Schools
New roof - South
Elementary 268,991 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
Public Schools
New roof - Woodland
Elementary 149,156 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
Public Schools
New roof - Oak Lane
Elementary 207,532 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
Public Schools Chiller replacement- SMS 300,000
Chiller is 20 years old and in need of major repairs. Cost of repair
is not justifiable, considering the age of the chiller.
Public Schools
Window Replacements -
North End 329,643 As recommended in the Window Study.
2017 IT Telephone System 75,229
The County's phone system is outdated and the vendor no longer
provides maintenance or repair for this type of system.
Payments span over a three year period; total cost is $217,000.
Public Safety
Public Safety
Communication System 3,587,350
Construct 3 towers to provide 95% coverage for public safety
departments.
Public Safety Broadband equipment 88,650 Broadband equipment to provide service to unserved areas.
PI/PCRC PCRC/PI Merger 683,500
Merge PI and PCRC into one building. Includes moving costs and
upgrades to the interior of the facility to increase efficiencies.
Construction of roof for outside storage and 5,000 sq ft of
conditioned space for PI employees.
PCC
New roof - Building D and
walkways 226,156 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
PCC
Upgrade campus-wide
HVAC 100,000 Controls are outdated and it is difficult to maintain/replace parts.
PCC
Dining Facility Equipment
Upgrades 20,000
Dining facility equipment does not allow for expanded food
service. Payments span a three year period; total cost is $60,000.
PCC
New Allied Health
Building (infrastructure) 100,000
PCC will grow in the areas of Allied Health and Workforce
training. New buildings need to be built for these programs.
Roads, water, and sewer need to be extended to this property.
Payments span a four year period; total cost is $1.25M.
Public Schools
New roof- North
Elementary 223,925 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
7
232
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2016-2020
Recommended Projects
YEAR DEPT PROJECT TITLE TOTAL COST PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2018 General Services New roof- EMS 147,419 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
General Services New roof- Elections/IT 100,479 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
General Services New roof - Library 72,986 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
Library
Southern Satellite at
Helena 368,500
Renovate FFA building on Old Helena School campus to create a
new library branch.
Rec, Arts & Parks Recreation Center 3,040,000 Construct a Recreation Center.
Rec, Arts & Parks Light Replacement 100,000
This project spans three years; total cost is $300K. Current
system is 25+ yrs old.
Airport Hangar Construction 800,000
The Airport Commission has recommended construction of a
new hangar.
PCC New roof- Bldg. L 110,642 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
PCC
Upgrade campus-wide
HVAC 100,000 Controls are outdated and it is difficult to maintain/replace parts.
PCC
Dining Facility Equipment
Upgrades 20,000
Dining facility equipment does not allow for expanded food
service. Payments span a three year period; total cost is $60,000.
PCC
New Allied Health
Building (infrastructure) 100,000
PCC will grow in the areas of Allied Health and Workforce
training. New buildings need to be built for these programs.
Roads, water, and sewer need to be extended to this property.
Payments span a four year period; total cost is $1.25M.
Public Schools
Valve Replacement -
South Elementary 105,000
Valves are failing, causing heating and cooling issues in the
school.
2019 Rec, Arts & Parks
ADA Accessibility for
Park Facilities 60,000
Improve ADA accessible parking and routes to access park
amenities.
Rec, Arts & Parks
Light Replacement-
Bushy Fork Park 52,490
Replace Bushy Fork's ball field lights. Current lighting system
uses oil-based transformers and poses safety problems.
Rec, Arts & Parks
Kirby Auditorium- seating
replacement 85,000
Current seating at the Kirby is very outdated and in some cases
pose a hazard for the patrons visiting to watch shows. The
current theater seating was last replaced in the late 70's.
Rec, Arts & Parks Light Replacement 100,000
This project spans three years; total cost is $300K. Current
system is 25+ yrs. old.
PCC
Upgrade campus-wide
HVAC 100,000 Controls are outdated and it is difficult to maintain/replace parts.
PCC
New Allied Health
Building (infrastructure) 400,000
PCC will grow in the areas of Allied Health and Workforce
training. New buildings need to be built for these programs.
Roads, water, and sewer need to be extended to this property.
Payments span a four year period; total cost is $1.25M.
Public Schools
Chiller Replacement-
PHS 325,000
Chiller is 23+ years old and is coming to the end of life for this
unit.
2020 General Services New Roof- Courthouse 120,471 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
General Services
New Roof - Museum
complex and assoc.
buildings 327,306 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
Rec, Arts & Parks Light Replacement 100,000
This project spans three years; total cost is $300K. Current
system is 25+ yrs. old.
PCC
New Allied Health
Building (infrastructure) 650,000
PCC will grow in the areas of Allied Health and Workforce
training. New buildings need to be built for these programs.
Roads, water, and sewer need to be extended to this property.
Payments span a four year period; total cost is $1.25M.
Public Schools
New roof - Southern
Middle 52,033 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
Public Schools
New roof - Early
Intervention 188,164 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
8
233
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2016-2020
Projects Not Recommended
DEPT PROJECT TITLE
TOTAL
COST
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/REASON FOR NOT
RECOMMENDING
General Services
New Roof - Museum,
concession stands 64,764
As recommended in the roofing study. Not recommended at
this time due to more critical needs.
General Services
New Roof - Misc. small roofs
(airport, Mayo, Museum, etc)217,639
As recommended in the roofing study. Not recommended at
this time due to more critical needs.
General Services New Roof - Animal Services 199,255
As recommended in the roofing study. Not recommended at
this time due to more critical needs.
General Services
New Roof - Grounds
maintenance, concessions 77,144
As recommended in the roofing study. Not recommended at
this time due to more critical needs.
General Services New Roof - Inspections 117,614
As recommended in the roofing study. Not recommended at
this time due to more critical needs.
General Services Replace carpet & tile (PCOB)124,350
Replace BOE carpet and first floor tile in PCOB. First floor
tile replacement incorporated into operating budget.
General Services
New Roof - Helena School
Complex 1,076,099
As recommended in the roofing study. Not recommended at
this time due to more critical needs.
Rec, Arts & Parks Olive Hill Restroom Project 55,000
Includes construction of outdoor restrooms at Olive Hill. Not
recommended at this time.
Rec, Arts & Parks Outdoor Multi-Purpose Courts 60,000
Includes additional multi-use courts at Olive Hill, Allensville,
Hurdle Mills, Bushy Fork and Bethel Hill. The Roxplex will
provide additional recreational opportunities, so this
project is not needed at this time.
Rec, Arts & Parks
Gym renovations (Huck
Sansbury, O.H., Helena)65,000
Includes painting, floor restoration, new fixtures, and bathroom
upgrades to meet ADA standards. These are ongoing
maintenance costs and have been moved to the operating
budget.
Rec, Arts & Parks
Score Board Replacements
and Repairs 65,000
Includes replacing and upgrading scoreboards at all
recreational locations. These are ongoing maintenance
costs and have been moved to the operating budget.
PCC
Architectural Plans for Building
A Upgrade 75,000
This study would include renovation and expansion of Building
A that would allow for additional office and meeting space. The
results of the Master Plan may impact this project, so it is
not recommended at this time.
PCC
Architectural Plans for Building
D Upgrade (Barnette
Auditorium)75,000
Includes updated lighting, HVAC, seating, desks and new
finishes. The results of the Master Plan may impact this
project, so it is not recommended at this time.
PCC
Architectural Plans for
Upgrade of BDEC 75,000
Includes renovation of the upstairs of the BDEC building to
incorporate the Work Force Development Training Center.
The results of the Master Plan may impact this project, so
it is not recommended at this time.
PCC Construct covered walkways 205,000
Construct a covered walkway from Building A to Building S.
Not recommended at this time.
PCC Building A Upgrades 250,000
Includes improvements to offices and meeting spaces. The
results of the Master Plan may impact this project, so it is
not recommended at this time.
PCC Building D Upgrades 250,000
Includes improvements to the auditorium, classrooms,
bathrooms and office areas. The results of the Master Plan
may impact this project, so it is not recommended at this
time.
PCC BDEC Upgrades 250,000
Includes installing an elevator, staircase and improvements to
upstairs. The results of the Master Plan may impact this
project, so it is not recommended at this time.
9
234
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2016-2020
Projects Not Recommended
DEPT PROJECT TITLE
TOTAL
COST
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/REASON FOR NOT
RECOMMENDING
Public Schools
New Roof - Helena
Elementary 1,644,232
As recommended in the roofing study. Not recommended at
this time due to more critical needs.
Public Schools
New Roof - School
Maintenance 296,358
As recommended in the roofing study. Not recommended at
this time due to more critical needs.
Public Schools
New Roof - School Bus
Garage 269,826
As recommended in the roofing study. Not recommended at
this time due to more critical needs.
Public Schools
Window Replacements - North
End Elementary 329,643
As recommended in the window study. Not recommended at
this time due to more critical needs.
Public Schools Upper Tennis Courts-PHS 200,000
Replace upper tennis courts. Not recommended at this time
due to more critical needs.
Public Schools Artificial Turf- PHS 165,000
Replace football field turf with artificial surface. Not
recommended at this time due to more critical needs.
10
235
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
2016-2020
Recommended - Funding Schedule
Revenues:
County Contribution 202,975 237,400 1,328,810 1,246,026 1,272,490 1,202,244 5,489,945
CIP Project Fund Balance 438,820 300,000 100,000 65,000 236,000 1,139,820
Airport Construction Fund Balance 800,000 800,000
Debt Proceeds - PCRC Acquisition/Improvements and
Various Re-roofing 2,360,000 2,360,000
Debt Proceeds - Senior Center Project 2,960,000 2,960,000
Debt Proceeds - Various Re-roofing and Equipment
Upgrades; Roxplex Acquisition/Improvements 2,160,000 2,160,000
Debt Proceeds - Public Safety Cell Towers 3,676,000 3,676,000
Debt Proceeds - Recreation Center Project 3,040,000 3,040,000
Lottery proceeds-VFW Roofing 69,781 69,781
Total Sources of Revenue:3,001,795 5,727,181 5,104,810 5,151,026 1,272,490 1,438,244 21,695,546
Project Costs for County:
Current
Year
2014-15
Budget
Year
2015-16
Planning
Year
2016-17
Planning
Year
2017-18
Planning
Year
2018-19
Planning
Year
2019-20
TOTAL
PROJECT
COSTS
Information Technology:
Telephone System 90,000 70,000 75,229 235,229
General Services:
New roof-Kirby Civic Auditorium 335,562 335,562
Upgrade controls system at LEC 200,000 200,000
New roof-Huck Sansbury (Annex & Workforce)285,189 285,189
Issuance Costs-Various Re-roofing and Equipment
Upgrades; Roxplex Acquisition/Improvements 59,989 59,989
Chiller replacement - LEC 150,000 150,000
New roof-Emergency Medical Services 147,419 147,419
New roof-Board of Elections/IT 100,479 100,479
New roof - Library 72,986 72,986
New roof- Courthouse 120,741 120,741
New roof - Museum complex & associated buildings 327,306 327,306
Elections
Voting Equipment 56,795 247,400 304,195
Emergency Management Services:
Public Safety Towers 3,587,350 3,587,350
Broadband Equipment 88,650 88,650
Library
Southern Satellite Library 368,500 368,500
Recreation, Arts & Parks:
Senior Center Project 2,900,000 2,900,000
Issuance Costs-Senior Center Project 60,000 60,000
Roxplex Acquisition/Improvements 559,500 559,500
ADA Accessibility for Park facilities 60,000 60,000
Light Replacement - Bushy Fork Park 52,490 52,490
Recreation Center Project 3,040,000 3,040,000
Kirby Auditorium: seating replacements 85,000 85,000
Light Replacement - all parks 100,000 100,000 100,000 300,000
Person Industries/Material Recycling Center:
PCRC Acquisition/Improvements 1,417,050 1,417,050
Issuance Costs-PCRC Acquisition/Improvements and
Various Re-roofing 60,000 60,000
Contingency-PCRC Renovation 30,000 30,000
PCRC/PI Merger 683,500 683,500
Sources of Revenue for Project Costs:
Budget
Year
2015-16
Planning
Year
2017-18
Planning
Year
2019-20
TOTAL
REVENUE
SOURCES
Current
Year
2014-15
Planning
Year
2016-17
Planning
Year
2018-19
11
236
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
2016-2020
Recommended - Funding Schedule
Airport Construction Projects:
Hangar construction 800,000 800,000
Set -asides for future projects 100,000 86,000 150,000 336,000
Total County Projects 2,289,407 4,332,078 4,434,729 4,715,384 447,490 548,047 16,767,135
Project Costs for PCC:
Current
Year
2014-15
Budget
Year
2015-16
Planning
Year
2016-17
Planning
Year
2017-18
Planning
Year
2018-19
Planning
Year
2019-20
TOTAL
PROJECT
COSTS
Piedmont Community College (PCC):
Campus Sidewalks Upgrade 80,000 80,000
New roof-Bldg. D and walkways 226,156 226,156
New roof-L Building 110,642 110,642
Master Plan Update/Feasibility Study 50,000 50,000
Upgrade campus-wide HVAC 100,000 100,000 100,000 300,000
Dining Facility equipment upgrades 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000
New Allied Health Building (Infrastructure)100,000 100,000 400,000 650,000 1,250,000
Set -asides for future projects -
Total PCC 80,000 70,000 446,156 330,642 500,000 650,000 2,076,798
Project Costs for Public Schools:
Current
Year
2014-15
Budget
Year
2015-16
Planning
Year
2016-17
Planning
Year
2017-18
Planning
Year
2018-19
Planning
Year
2019-20
TOTAL
PROJECT
COSTS
Public Schools:
New roof-Earl Bradsher Preschool 547,388 547,388
Window replacements-Oak Lane Elementary 85,000 85,000
New roof-VFW (Alternative School)69,781 69,781
New roof-South Elementary 268,991 268,991
New roof-Woodland Elementary 149,156 149,156
New roof-Oak Lane Elementary 207,532 207,532
Chiller replacement-Southern Middle School 300,000 300,000
Window replacements-North End Elementary 329,643 329,643
New Roof-North Elementary 223,925 223,925
Valve Replacement-South Elementary 105,000 105,000
Chiller replacement-PHS 325,000 325,000
New roof-Southern Middle School 52,033 52,033
New roof-Early Intervention 188,164 188,164
Set -asides for future projects -
Total Public Schools Projects:632,388 1,325,103 223,925 105,000 325,000 240,197 2,851,613
Total Project Costs:3,001,795 5,727,181 5,104,810 5,151,026 1,272,490 1,438,244 21,695,546
12
237
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
2016-2020
Recommended - Funding Schedule
Sources of Revenue for Operating Impact
Costs:
Current
Year
2014-15
Budget
Year
2015-16
Planning
Year
2016-17
Planning
Year
2017-18
Planning
Year
2018-19
Planning
Year
2019-20
TOTAL
REVENUE
SOURCES
General Fund Contribution 110,878 784,886 754,227 1,113,012 1,027,132 975,712 4,765,847
Fees (Southern Satellite Library)10,000 10,000 20,000
Fees (Roxplex Center)73,902 73,902 73,902 73,902 295,608
Fees (Recreation Center)100,000 100,000 200,000
Increase in PCRC/PI program revenues 52,000 52,000 52,000 156,000
Total Sources of Revenue for Operating Impact Costs 110,878 784,886 828,129 1,238,914 1,263,034 1,211,614 5,437,455
Operating Impact Costs:
Current
Year
2014-15
Budget
Year
2015-16
Planning
Year
2016-17
Planning
Year
2017-18
Planning
Year
2018-19
Planning
Year
2019-20
TOTAL
PROJECT
COSTS
Public Safety Tower Project 3,385 3,385 3,385 10,155
Broadband Equipment 23,550 49,810 23,550 96,910
Southern Satellite Library 75,100 75,100 150,200
Roxplex Center Project 806 80,919 80,919 80,919 80,919 324,482
PCRC building rent (26,751) (107,000) (107,000) (107,000) (107,000) (107,000) (561,751)
PCRC/PI Merger efficiencies (40,000) (40,000) (40,000) (40,000) (160,000)
Airport hangar construction 1,500 1,500 3,000
Debt Service impacts with proposed debt 137,629 891,080 870,660 1,251,800 1,225,580 1,197,710 5,574,459
Total Operating Impact Costs 110,878 784,886 828,129 1,238,914 1,263,034 1,211,614 5,437,455
Note: Items highlighted in blue and red are projects associated with a debt financing.
2014-15 PCRC Acquisition/Improvements and Various Re-roofing
2015-16 Senior Center Project
2015-16 Various Re-roofing and Equipment Upgrades; Roxplex Acquisition/Improvements
2016-17 Public Safety Tower Project
2017-18 Recreation Center
Until more decisions are made, this project has been placed in the CIP to finance in FY 2017-18. The location and scope of this project is undetermined.
The recommendation above assumes the use of the remaining GO Bond Issue of $3.04M. An extension of the G.O. Bond authority will be necessary if
the Board of Commissioners wish to finance this project with the issuance of bonds. The extension will provide for 3 more years from November 8, 2015
to issue bonds for this purpose.
The County entered into an installment purchase contract for $2.36 million on November 6, 2014 with BB&T to finance a portion of the cost of acquisition
and land improvement of the Person County Recycling Center (PCRC); the re-roofing of Earl Bradsher Preschool; and the re-roofing of the Kirby Civic
Auditorium.
The Board of Commissioners are in negotiations with the City of Roxboro on several property options for the future location of the Senior Center. Final
decisions about the scope of this project have not been made. Until further determined, the CIP grid above assumes a General Obligation Bond Issue to
finance $2.96 million which would cover property acquisition, construction, and renovation for the purposes of providing improved Senior Center facilities.
Since another financing is proposed in the same year for roofing and the Roxplex acquisition and improvements, other loan recommendations may be
forthcoming to minimize the County's debt cost. The timing of when these two projects become "shovel-ready" will have a significant impact on the
financing method recommended.
Due to the large amount of roofing to be completed in accordance with the County's Roofing Study and the current condition of these roofs, a
recommendation is included to finance this cost, as well as window replacements at North End Elementary, a boiler replacement at Southern Middle
School, and the acquisition and improvements to the Roxplex property for $2.16 million. As stated above for the Senior Center financing, which is also
proposed for 2015-16, determinations associated with this financing may be altered in an attempt to minimize the County's debt cost.
Hired consultants conducted a feasibility study which resulted in the recommendation to construct three, 300 foot towers and installing Simulcast public
safety communication equipment. It also included the cost of providing grant funds to a private broadband provider to hang broadband equipment on the
towers for a total project cost of approximately $4M. The Commissioners approved $100,000 in the FY15 budget to pay for environmental studies to be
conducted at the three potential tower locations. Currently, the environmental studies are underway and should be completed by the end of FY15. The
project is scheduled to be completed in December 2016. Loan terms and amounts are to be determined.
13
238
Set-Aside
Amount
Fiscal Year that
project is
recommended
to take place
Remaining
Cost
Current & Prior Years
Chiller replacement - LEC 100,000$ 2016 50,000$
Upgrade campus-wide HVAC 100,000 2017 200,000
New roof-Board of Elections/IT 65,000 2018 35,479
Total 265,000$
Planning Year 2015-2016
(No set asides proposed in this year)-$
Planning Year 2016-2017
(No set asides proposed in this year)-$
Planning Year 2017-2018
New roof - Museum complex & associated
buildings 86,000$ 2020 241,306$
Planning Year 2018-2019
New roof - Museum complex & associated
buildings 100,000$ 2020 141,306$
New roof- Courthouse 50,000 2020 70,741
150,000$
Planning Year 2019-2020
(No set asides proposed in this year)-$
Note: The County implements a best practice approach for distributing the costs of capital projects
to minimize the impact in any one fiscal year. This is accomplished by incrementally funding
expensive projects over multiple fiscal years. The projects listed below are funded through set-
aside funds leading up to the year in which the project will be completed, thus reducing the burden
in that year. This is a proactive approach to planning and funding future capital needs as well as
maximizing cash flow capacity.
Set-Aside Funds for Future Years
14
239
Person County Capital Improvement Plan
Recommended - Revenue Sources
FY 2016 - 2020
Total % Revenue Sources
Description Current Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Totals % of Total
GF Fund Balance 202,975 237,400 1,328,810 1,246,026 1,272,490 1,202,244 5,489,945 25.3%
CIP Project Fund Balance 438,820 300,000 100,000 65,000 - 236,000 1,139,820 5.3%
Airport Capital Projects Fund
Balance - - - 800,000 - - 800,000 3.7%
Debt Proceeds 2,360,000 5,120,000 3,676,000 3,040,000 - - 14,196,000 65.4%
Lottery Proceeds - 69,781 - - - - 69,781 0.3%
Totals 3,001,795 5,727,181 5,104,810 5,151,026 1,272,490 1,438,244 21,695,546 100.0%
GF Fund
Balance
25.3%
CIP Project Fund
Balance
5.3%
Airport Capital
Projects Fund
Balance
3.7%
Debt Proceeds -
65.4%
Lottery Proceeds -
0.3%
15
240
Person County Capital Improvement Plan
Recommended - by Function
FY 2016 - 2020
Total % CIP Projects by Function
Description Current Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Totals % of Total
General Government 782,357 3,772,578 75,229 406,884 150,000 448,047 5,635,095 26.0%
Public Safety - - 3,676,000 - - - 3,676,000 16.9%
Environmental Protection
(Recycling Center) 1,507,050 - 683,500 - - - 2,190,550 10.1%
Culture & Recreation - 559,500 - 3,508,500 297,490 100,000 4,465,490 20.6%
Transportation (Airport) - - - 800,000 - - 800,000 3.7%
Education - PCC 80,000 70,000 446,156 330,642 500,000 650,000 2,076,798 9.6%
Education - Schools 632,388 1,325,103 223,925 105,000 325,000 240,197 2,851,613 13.1%
Totals 3,001,795 5,727,181 5,104,810 5,151,026 1,272,490 1,438,244 21,695,546 100.0%
General
Government
26.0%
Public Safety
16.9%
Environmental
Protection
(Recycling Center)
10.1%
Culture &
Recreation
20.6%
Transportation
(Airport)
3.7%
Education - PCC
9.6%
Education
- Schools
13.1%
16
241
Person County Capital Improvement Plan
Recommended - by Type
FY 2016 - 2020
Total % CIP Projects by Type
Description Current Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Totals % of Total
Construction/Renovation 1,507,050 3,519,500 4,370,850 4,308,500 400,000 650,000 14,755,900 68.0%
Roofing Replacements 882,950 1,040,638 450,081 431,526 - 688,244 3,493,439 16.1%
Equipment Upgrades 346,795 787,400 183,879 225,000 477,490 100,000 2,120,564 9.8%
Other B&G Improvements 80,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 245,000 - 575,000 2.7%
Window Replacements 85,000 329,643 - - - - 414,643 1.9%
Set-Asides 100,000 - - 86,000 150,000 - 336,000 1.5%
Totals 3,001,795 5,727,181 5,104,810 5,151,026 1,272,490 1,438,244 21,695,546 100.0%
68.0%
16.1%
9.8%
2.7%
1.9%
1.5%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%
Construction/Renovation
Roofing Replacements
Equipment Upgrades
Other B&G Improvements
Window Replacements
Set-Asides
17
242
Person County's Debt Service
Current Debt Service
Project
Description
Term
Int Rate
%
Outstanding
Balance
Last Pyt
Fiscal
Year
2006 Various
Roofing/Paving
Re-roofing, paving and repaving
certain school, community college and
other public facilities; re-floor the
gymnasium; construct new tennis
courts at Person High School
15
years
3.86% $2,414,590 2021
2010
Courthouse
Renovation &
Various Roofing
(BAB’s)
Engineering and construction costs
associated with the renovation of the
Courthouse and some various re-
roofing for certain school, community
college and other public facilities;
financed through Build America Bonds
(BAB’s) yielding a 35% refund of the
interest payments
10
years
4.08% 2,902,960
2021
2012 SMS &
portion of PHS
Re-roofing
(QSCB)
Re-roofing construction for Southern
Middle School and a portion of Person
High School; financed through a
Qualified School Construction Bond
(QSCB) yielding a 100% refund of the
interest payments
15
years
3.93% 3,277,287
2028
2014 Capital
Equipment
Lease
(Telephone
Equipment)
Replacement of primary phone
system; financed as a capital
equipment lease for a 3 year term
3
years
4.55% 145,229
2017
2015 PCRC
Purchase/
Renovation &
Various Roofing
Projects
Purchase, renovation and re-roofing of
the existing Person County Recycling
Facility, and re-roofing construction for
the Kirby Civic Auditorium and Earl
Bradsher Preschool
15
years
2.80% 2,639,540
2029
TOTAL DEBT
SERVICE
OUTSTANDING
$11,379,606
18
243
Current Debt Analysis
There are two standard ratios that measure debt service levels and the capacity for taking on additional debt. These
ratios and their meaning for Person County are described below:
· Debt to Assets Ratio: Measures leverage, the extent to which total assets are financed with long-term debt.
The debt-to-assets ratio is calculated as long-term debt divided by total assets. A high debt to assets ratio
may indicate an over-reliance on debt for financing assets, and a low ratio may indicate a weak management
of reserves. At FY 2013, the debt to assets ratio for Person County was 27%, while counties with similar
populations were at 51%. Although Person County was at the mid-range for the amount of total assets
reported in comparison to these other counties, Person County had the 3rd lowest Debt to Assets Ratio, as
well as the 5th lowest long term debt amount. A more applicable comparison may be to view the debt to
assets ratio for Person County since FY 2010. As displayed in the following chart, Person County's debt to
assets ratio has declined from 35% in FY 2010 to 21% in FY 2014. This reduction can likely be attributed to
conservative spending in uncertain economic conditions and the attempt to build-up of reserves during this
five year period. This increase in the County's cash reserves (assets) causes a decrease in this ratio. Another
variable causing this downward trend is the large $2M yearly pay down of the 2008 Refinanced Debt for the
1999 & 2000 Elementary School Construction and Law Enforcement Center debt. Even though the County
has issued new debt since 2008, the historically low interest rates have generated significantly lower debt
payments than the previous years’ debt financings. This decreasing trend is likely to continue until the 2008
debt ceases with the last payment in 2015. After this debt is defeased and new debt is issued, it is likely that
this percentage will begin moving slowly upwards again, indicating to credit agencies a more strategic
approach to the management of the County’s assets.
Person County's
FY Debt to Assets Ratio
2010 35%
2011 36%
2012 29%
2013 27%
2014 21%
· Debt Service Ratio: Measures financing obligations, provides feedback on service flexibility with the amount
of expenditures committed to annual debt service. The debt service ratio is calculated as annual debt service
divided by total expenses. General accounting guidance discourages this ratio from being higher than 15% for
a maximum benchmark. Any percentage higher than this can severely hamper the County's service flexibility.
Person County's debt service ratio of 8% is well below the population group of 11% for FY 2013 (Person
County's ratio stays flat at 8% for FY 2014). Due to the expected debt reductions in fiscal years 2015 and
2016, it is anticipated that Person County's debt service ratio will substantially decrease unless additional debt
is acquired to support the leveling out of this ratio. A consistent debt ratio level would indicate a stronger
management of financing resources in relation to the amount that is available for other services.
Debt Service
FY 2013 Ratio
Person County 8%
Population Group 11%
Maximum Benchmark 15%
19
244
New Debt Service
The four proposed financings in Person County's 2016-2020 plan are recommended below:
FY 2016 Senior Center Project
A General Obligation (G.O.) Bond issue is proposed to cover the construction and renovation of properties
recently acquired from the City of Roxboro to provide improved facilities for the County's senior citizens that
have been previously displaced from the current Senior Center location. Five plan options were presented to
the Board of Commissioners on March 16, 2015 by contracted engineers for consideration. The costs ranged
from $2.2M to $3.1M. Until further determined, the total proposed debt amount for these projects is
$2,960,000 and is comprised of the following:
Construction and Renovation: Senior Center $ 2,900,000
Issuance costs 60,000
Total $ 2,960,000
FY 2016 Various Re-roofing and Equipment Upgrades; Roxplex Acquisition /Improvements
A debt borrowing is proposed to cover the roof replacements for Huck Sansbury Workforce building and
various school buildings, window replacements for North End Elementary, a boiler replacement at Southern
Middle School, and the acquisition and improvements to the Roxplex property. The total proposed debt
amount for these projects is $2,160,000 and is comprised of the following:
Re-roofing: Huck Sansbury Complex $ 285,189
Re-roofing: South Elementary 268,991
Re-roofing: Woodland Elementary 149,156
Re-roofing: Oak Lane Elementary 207,532
Window Replacements: North End Elementary 329,643
Chiller Replacement: Southern Middle School 300,000
Acquisition/Improvements: Roxplex Center 559,500
Issuance costs 59,989
Total $ 2,160,000
FY 2017 Public Safety Towers and Broadband Equipment
A debt borrowing is proposed to cover the construction of three, 300 foot towers and installing Simulcast public
safety communication equipment. Also included is the cost of providing grant funds to a private broadband
provider to hang broadband equipment on the towers. Currently, the environmental studies are underway and
should be completed by the end of FY 2015. Until further determined, the total proposed debt amount for this
project is $3,676,000 and is comprised of the following:
Construction/Engineering: cell towers $ 3,587,350
Broadband Equipment Installation 88,650
Total $ 3,676,000
FY 2016 Recreation Center Project
A G.O. Bond issue is proposed to cover the possible construction of a Recreation Center for improved
recreational facilities. The location and scope of this project is undetermined. The recommendation assumes
the use of the remaining G.O. Bond Issuance after the costs of the Senior Center Project have been applied.
Until further determined, the total proposed debt amount for these projects is $3,040,000 and is comprised of
the following:
Construction and Renovation: Senior Center $ 3,040,000
20
245
Future Debt Service Payments for Person County
Fiscal Year Ending
June 30
2006
Various
roofing/paving
projects
2008
Refinancing of
1999 & 2000
Schools/LEC
Bldg
2010
Courthouse
Renovation &
Various Roofing
Projects
2012
School Roofing
Projects for
SMS & PHS
(QSCB)
2014
Capital
Equipment
Lease
(Teleph Equip)
2015
PCRC
Purchase/
Renovation &
Various
Roofing
Projects
Total Current
Debt Service
Year to Year
Change in
Current
Debt Service
2015 313,545 2,286,356 932,600 317,582 90,000 137,629 4,077,712 (129,997)
2016 329,831 - 899,960 309,375 70,000 460,480 2,069,646 (2,008,066)
2017 319,969 - 867,320 301,167 75,229 210,960 1,774,645 (295,001)
2018 483,635 - 339,780 292,960 - 246,200 1,362,575 (412,070)
2019 442,471 - 327,540 284,753 - 141,300 1,196,064 (166,511)
2020 427,094 - 315,300 276,546 - 138,500 1,157,440 (38,624)
2021 411,591 - 153,060 268,338 - 135,700 968,689 (188,751)
2022 - - - 260,131 - 430,800 690,931 (277,758)
2023 - - - 251,924 - 221,000 472,924 (218,007)
2024 - - - 243,717 - 116,100 359,817 (113,107)
2025 - - - 235,509 - 113,300 348,809 (11,008)
2026 - - - 227,302 - 110,500 337,802 (11,007)
2027 - - - 219,095 - 107,700 326,795 (11,007)
2028 - - - 106,470 - 104,900 211,370 (115,425)
2029 - - - - - 102,100 102,100 (109,270)
2030 - - - - - - (102,100)
Totals 2,728,135$ 2,286,356$ 3,835,560$ 3,594,869$ 235,229$ 2,777,169$ 15,457,318$ (4,207,709)$
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Total Current
Debt Service
2016
Proposed -
Senior Center
Project
(assumptions:
3.5%, 20 yrs)
2016
Proposed -
Roofing &
Equipment
Upgrades;
Roxplex
Acquisition &
Improvements
(assumptions:
3.5%, 15 yrs)
2017
Proposed -
Public Safety
Cell Towers
(assumptions:
3.75%, 15 yrs)
2018
Proposed -
Recreation
Center Project
(assumptions:
3.5%, 20 yrs)
Total Proposed
Debt Service
Adjusted
Year to Year
Change with
Proposed
Debt Service
2015 4,077,712 - - - - 4,077,712 (129,997)
2016 2,069,646 255,000 175,600 - - 2,500,246 (1,577,466)
2017 1,774,645 249,750 172,100 237,850 - 2,434,345 (65,901)
2018 1,362,575 244,500 268,600 234,100 258,400 2,368,175 (66,170)
2019 1,196,064 239,250 261,600 330,350 253,080 2,280,344 (87,831)
2020 1,157,440 234,000 154,600 422,850 247,760 2,216,650 (63,694)
2021 968,689 228,750 251,100 411,600 242,440 2,102,579 (114,071)
2022 690,931 223,500 344,100 400,350 237,120 1,896,001 (206,578)
2023 472,924 218,250 233,600 465,100 231,800 1,621,674 (274,327)
2024 359,817 213,000 186,600 375,000 226,480 1,360,897 (260,777)
2025 348,809 207,750 121,000 363,750 221,160 1,262,469 (98,428)
2026 337,802 202,500 117,500 352,500 215,840 1,226,142 (36,327)
2027 326,795 197,250 114,000 241,250 210,520 1,089,815 (136,327)
2028 211,370 192,000 110,500 233,750 205,200 952,820 (136,995)
2029 102,100 186,750 107,000 226,250 199,880 821,980 (130,840)
2030 - 181,500 103,500 318,750 194,560 798,310 (23,670)
2031 - 176,250 - 207,500 189,240 572,990 (225,320)
2032 - 171,000 - - 183,920 354,920 (218,070)
2033 - 165,750 - - 178,600 344,350 (10,570)
2034 - 160,500 - - 173,280 333,780 (10,570)
2035 - 155,250 - - 167,960 323,210 (10,570)
2036 - - - - 162,640 162,640 (160,570)
2037 - - - - 157,320 157,320 (5,320)
2038 - - - - - - (157,320)
Totals 15,457,318$ 4,102,500$ 2,721,400$ 4,820,950$ 4,157,200$ 31,259,368$ (4,207,709)$
The above chart
displays Person
County's current debt
service schedule. A
large amount of debt
drops off in fiscal
year 2016 for $2.0M.
The sharp decline in
debt obligations and
the availability of low
interest rates creates
an enviroment that is
suitable for taking on
additional debt as
proposed in the chart
to the right.
The blue line in the
graph below includes
the new proposed
debt and indicates a
more gradual dropoff
of debt compared to
the red line showing
our current debt
service schedule.
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
Total Current Debt Service Total Proposed Debt Service
21
246