Agenda Packet April 1 2013PERSON 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 1, 2013
7:00 pm
CALL TO ORDER…………………………………………………. Chairman Clayton
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA
INFORMAL COMMENTS
The Person County Board of Commissioners established a 10 minute
segment which is open for informal comments and/or questions from citizens
of this county on issues, other than those issues for which a public hearing
has been scheduled. The time will be divided equally among those wishing to
comment. It is requested that any person who wishes to address the Board,
register with the Clerk to the Board prior to the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
ITEM #1
March 11, 2013
1
OLD BUSINESS:
ITEM #2
Discussion of Zoning Ordinance pertaining to
Nonconforming Uses and Accessory Uses ……………… Paula Murphy & Sybil Tate
ITEM #3
Interlocal Agreement between the City of Roxboro and
Person County for Planning Administration ……………………………... Heidi York
NEW BUSINESS:
ITEM #4
The Week of the Young Child Proclamation …………………….. Chairman Clayton
ITEM #5
Recommended Capital Improvement Plan for
FY 2014-2018 ……………………………………….. Heidi York & Amy Wehrenberg
ITEM #6
CDBG Monthly Reporting …………………………………………………. Heidi York
ITEM #7
Budget Amendment ……………………………………………...…. 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
March 11, 2013
1
PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MARCH 11, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
Jimmy B. Clayton Heidi York, County Manager
Kyle W. Puryear
B. Ray Jeffers Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board
Frances P. Blalock
David Newell, Sr.
The Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, met in
regular session on Monday, March 11, 2013 at 9:00 am in the FEMA room in the Human
Services Building located at 355 S. Madison Blvd, Roxboro.
Chairman Clayton called the meeting to order, led invocation and asked Vice
Chairman Jeffers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
RECOGNITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT DAY:
Chairman Clayton 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 Clayton, Vice Chairman Jeffers and
Commissioners Puryear, Blalock and Newell proceeded to introduce themselves. County
Manager, Heidi York and Clerk to the Board, Brenda Reaves also introduced themselves.
Chairman Clayton recognized in the audience Representative Winkie Wilkins and
Senator Mike Woodard to offer comments to the group.
Two of the participating students, Carly Allen and Karmen Clayton spoke to the
Board addressing the need of updated technology at Person High School.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to approve the
agenda.
INFORMAL COMMENTS:
The following individuals appeared before the Board to make informal comments:
Mr. Bryan Glei of 250 Whitetail Lane, Leasburg requested the Board to take
action related to the recent property tax revaluation. Mr. Glei commented that he had
recently purchased 250 records of properties located on various areas of Hyco Lake
noting values increased ranging from 10% at Fox Lair to 149% at St. George noting there
was no data to support these increases. Mr. Glei stated he had submitted ten questions to
Michael Brown of the NC Department of Revenue to which he did not get answers
following a lengthy wait for a reply. Mr. Glei requested the Board to redo the revaluation
or consider forming a group to study the revaluation.
3
March 11, 2013
2
Ms. Martha McKinnon of 5310 Helena Moriah Road, Rougemont addressed the
Board on the lack of respect by citizens for roadway littering in Person County, in
particular on the Helena Moriah Road and Antioch Church Road. Ms. McKinnon
recommended the county to initiate a recycling program and to utilize incarcerated
individuals to help rectify the littering issues as well as suggested a requirement for high
school graduation for students to complete twenty hours of community service.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to approve the
minutes of February 4, 2013, February 18, 2013, and February 26, 2013.
TAX ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to approve the
Tax Administrative Reports noting the Releases for the months of January and February,
2013.
OLD BUSINESS:
RESOLUTION REQUESTING A LOCAL BILL TO EXTEND PERSON
COUNTY’S PROPERTY REVALUATION BEYOND THE REQUIRED EIGHT
YEAR CYCLE:
County Manager, Heidi York stated that during the Board’s Retreat,
Commissioners directed the Manager to draft a Resolution for their consideration to grant
a “redo” of the 2013 real property revaluation. The draft Resolution requesting the NC
General Assembly’s assistance to Person County for an extension of the real property
octennial revaluation established by NC General Statute 105-285(d); 105-286(a) would
suspend the current revaluation and conduct a new revaluation as soon as possible. Ms.
York noted the request for a redo had never been approved for any county in the state of
North Carolina.
To date, Ms. York noted approximately 2400 informal appeals have been filed
with the Tax Office, which represents roughly 8% of the 27,000 parcels.
Representative Winkie Wilkins and Senator Mike Woodard were present to
participate in the Board’s discussion. Representative Wilkins stated that the deadline for
Senator Woodard to introduce a bill in the Senate has passed however he still had time to
file such noting he and Senator Woodard had discussed the proposed local bill at great
length. Both Representative Wilkins and Senator Woodard stated their support to Person
County and to the proposed Resolution, if approved by the Board, as long as the
Resolution was not deemed unconstitutional.
4
March 11, 2013
3
Representative Wilkins told the Board that Representative Bill Brawley of
Mecklenberg filed House Bill 200 noting the bill would be a backward view of
revaluation put into place in Mecklenberg County with the possibility of the bill applying
to 70 counties across the state.
Representative Wilkins stated if a local bill focusing only on Person County were
introduced, the bill may not move due to it is a precedent.
Commissioner Puryear voiced his concerns that the revaluation system was
flawed and the realistic next step was to request the state to approve additional time to
review further. Commissioner Puryear requested Representative Wilkins and Senator
Woodard to support and push through the General Assembly.
Commissioner Blalock stated citizens deserved an explanation of the
determination of values.
Vice Chairman Jeffers read the following House Bill 200 noting the bill passed
the first reading:
Bill: H200
Sponsors: Brawley, W. (R103); Cotham (D100)
Title: REQUIRE CERTAIN GENERAL REAPPRAISALS
Related: 2013:SB159
This bill would require counties to reassess property if several conditions are met: the
county has "independent, corroborating evidence that the majority of commercial
neighborhoods in the county possess significant issues of inequity; the county has
independent, corroborating evidence that, for residential neighborhoods, instances of
inequity or erroneous data had a significant impact on the valuation of the neighborhood
as a whole; The county's last general reappraisal was performed for the 2008 tax year,
2009 tax year, 2010 tax year, 2011 tax year, or 2012 tax year; (and) the independent,
corroborating evidence resulted from a review performed by a qualified appraisal
company selected and retained by the county and registered with the Department of
Revenue and had a sample size of no less than 375 properties, the relevant characteristics
of which were reviewed on location at the property." If a county reassesses property
because all these conditions exist, then the county would have to backdate the new
property values to the date of the last reassessment. Homeowners whose homes were
overvalued would be eligible for a refund of the overpaid property taxes, plus interest.
Homes that were undervalued would face paying additional taxes on the new value.
Chairman Clayton stated the mechanisms were in place to adjust incorrect values
and did not feel a costly redo was warranted but would support House Bill 200 if Person
County would be one of the seventy counties eligible to piggyback.
5
March 11, 2013
4
Representative Wilkins and Senator Woodard asked Mr. Glei to send his
questions to them for review noting the Department of Revenue’s lengthy reply with
unanswered questions was unsatisfactory.
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear, to approve the Resolution
requesting the NC General Assembly’s assistance to Person County for an extension of
the real property octennial revaluation and ask Representative Wilkins to review and
submit on behalf of Person County to the General Assembly.
Vice Chairman Jeffers stated his opposition to request Representative Wilkins to
introduce a bill to the General Assembly noting his preference for Person County to tag
onto House Bill 200. Vice Chairman Jeffers recommended that Person County follow the
process for the appeals to appear before the Board of Equalization and Review.
A substitute motion was made by Chairman Clayton, and carried 3-2 for Person
County to tag onto House Bill 200 (already introduced in the General Assembly).
Commissioners Puryear and Newell cast the dissenting votes.
Commissioners Puryear and Newell stated support to approve the Resolution as
well as tag onto House Bill 200 at the same time while the appeal process was before the
Board of Equalization and Review but was in opposition to the substitute motion in lieu
of the original motion.
Representative Wilkins confirmed with Ms. York he would be in touch with her
related to Person County’s eligibility to tag onto House Bill 200.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROXBORO AND
PERSON COUNTY FOR PLANNING ADMINISTRATION:
County Manager, Heidi York stated staff presented the concept of a joint city-
county planning department as well as a joint planning commission and board of
adjustment at the meeting with the City of Roxboro. The draft Interlocal Agreement was
reviewed and elected officials provided their feedback at that time and agreed to review
the final agreement at the March meeting. The revisions to the draft Agreement include
adding an effective date of July 1, 2013 and as requested in Section III related to the
Board of Adjustment, to change the frequency of their meetings to “The Board of
Adjustment shall hold meetings as needed.” The proposed agreement remains cost
neutral to both the city and the county. Ms. York noted the draft agreement does not
address the next step in the process establishing a Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO).
6
March 11, 2013
5
Ms. York confirmed the Planning Director has sent the draft agreement to the
Planning Board members for feedback. Ms. York stated the feedback from the Planning
Board members noted concern for the change in the process creating a larger bureaucracy
rather than a more efficient process. Planning Director, Paula Murphy added that some
of the Planning Board members would have preferred having the UDO process started or
in place prior to a joint city-county planning department. Ms. York stated the UDO
process is a long, two-year process and the managers felt the joint planning department
would be the first step in terms of creating efficiency.
Ms. York informed the Board that City Council had tabled action earlier this date
until April to allow time for the City’s Planning Board and Board of Adjustment to
provide feedback.
A motion was made by Commissioner Blalock, and carried 5-0 to table action on
this item until the Board’s April meeting.
2013 FIREWORKS APPROPRIATION:
County Manager, Heidi York stated in 2009, the County chose to no longer
allocate the $10,000 annually to fund the community fireworks. This decision was based
on narrowing the services of county government during a difficult financial situation.
Since then the fireworks have been funded through community contributions. Last year,
the County appropriated $2,000 towards fireworks.
At the Joint City-County Meeting held on February 26th, the Directors
Roundtable, represented by Marcia O’Neil, requested the City and the County to
contribute $4,000 each towards the fireworks for 2013.
Commissioner Puryear made a motion on February 26, 2013 to allocate $4,000
from the General Fund for the fireworks funding. Ms. York noted the correct funding
source for such appropriation would be the County’s Fund Balance. On February 26,
2013 a substitute motion made by Commissioner Blalock carried by majority vote to
table Commissioner Puryear’s motion until the Board’s March 11, 2013 meeting.
Commissioner Puryear renewed his motion to allocate $4,000 from the County’s
Fund Balance for the fireworks funding.
A substitute motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, to appropriate up to
$4,000 from the County’s Fund Balance for the 2013 fireworks funding. Vice Chairman
Jeffers stated the substitute motion would be the same as the City of Roxboro’s motion
and he wanted to encourage rather than discourage fund raising efforts for the fireworks
fund. The substitute motion failed 2/3. Vice Chairman Jeffers and Commissioner
Puryear voted in favor of the substitute motion. Chairman Clayton and Commissioners
Newell and Blalock voted in opposition to the substitute motion.
7
March 11, 2013
6
Commissioner Blalock requested the students in the audience to take a look at the
USA Weekend’s article titled Red, White and You for an opportunity to link the web site:
destinationamerica.com to enter an essay contest (link for essay
http://america.discovery.com/fourth-of-july.htm) for an American Town Fourth of July
celebration.
Vice Chairman Jeffers stated ninth and tenth graders can submit an essay about
their county to the NC Association of County Commissioners to win a monetary prize for
each the student and teacher. Vice Chairman Jeffers noted he would send the link to the
PHS teacher, Steve Evans.
Commissioner Blalock encouraged the students to visit the county website to
view the Person Future’s goals and to provide input as well as participation.
Chairman Clayton announced a brief recess at 10:29 am as the students were
exiting the meeting. Chairman Clayton reconvened the meeting at 10:42 am.
NEW BUSINESS:
STORMWATER UPDATE:
Assistant County Manager, Sybil Tate noted the Fiscal Year 2013 budget includes
$231,755 in funding for stormwater-related expenses. During the Fiscal Year 2013
budget process, the Board of Commissioners decided to fund stormwater-related
expenses from the General Fund, instead of charging a stormwater fee via the property
tax bill. The Fiscal Year 2014 stormwater costs are estimated at approx. $250,000. The
cost of stormwater includes salaries and wages for existing employees and a stormwater
administrator; dues for the Upper Neuse River Basic Association, which includes local
governments in the Upper Neuse and pools money to implement water monitoring costs;
money to improve failing septic systems and professional fees.
Ms. Tate stated the consultant, Raftelis, has worked with the other jurisdictions in
the Falls Lake area to create a joint stormwater utility. Raftelis will provide an overview
of their work thus far and details about how Person County can implement stormwater
fees. Ms. Tate introduced Mr. Keith Readling and Ms. Henrietta Locklear who were
present to provide the following presentation to the Board.
8
March 11, 2013
7
9
March 11, 2013
8
10
March 11, 2013
9
11
March 11, 2013
10
12
March 11, 2013
11
13
March 11, 2013
12
14
March 11, 2013
13
15
March 11, 2013
14
16
March 11, 2013
15
17
March 11, 2013
16
Ms. Locklear confirmed the system is in place to implement fees noting there
would be some updating required. Tax Administrator, Russell Jones stated his need to
have a month to ready the system for the tax bills to include the stormwater fees. The
revenue generated (approximately $250,000) from the fees can only be used for
stormwater related expenses.
County Manager, Heidi York stated fees would be reviewed and evaluated each
year.
Commissioner Puryear stated his opposition to implementing the fees on the
citizens.
Vice Chairman Jeffers stated support to implementation of the stormwater fees.
EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION AND RETENTION:
County Manager, Heidi York told the Board with 400 fulltime employees, Person
County Government’s most valuable asset and the largest component of the County’s
annual operating budget lies in personnel. One of the items that was not addressed during
the Board’s retreat in February was the changing needs of the County’s workforce. There
is a direct correlation between the economy and the retention and motivation of
employees. As the economy improves, the County as well as other organizations, expects
to see the turnover rate increase. Ms. York introduced Mr. Drake Maynard who has been
working with the County as a consultant on workforce development to talk with the
Board about investing in the county workforce noting Mr. Maynard is a retired Human
Resources Manager with over 35 years of experience working with State agencies, State
universities and county and municipal governments as he advises state agencies,
universities and local government agencies such as social services and public health in
every aspect of human resource management, including recruitment and retention,
compensation, and employee relations. Since retirement, Mr. Maynard is the principal
for Drake Maynard Human Resources Services, LLC; his clients include Wilson County,
Buncombe County, Stanly County, McDowell County, the City of Hickory, the UNC-CH
School of Government and Person County. Ms. York asked the Board to consider Mr.
Maynard’s comments addressing employee motivation and retention and direct staff as
appropriate.
Mr. Maynard stated in his observation of the Board meeting he noted two themes
present: 1) role as financial stewards and 2) role to invest in the future.
Mr. Maynard told the Board that 62 counties out of 100 have merit based pay
implemented but with only five being funded in 2010 noting that number is increasing
each year. Mr. Maynard stated Person County’s turnover rate is at 6.5% noting the
expense of turnover can result in as much as 50% to 400% of the position’s salary.
18
March 11, 2013
17
Mr. Maynard described workforce development with quality supervision
motivates employees to stay noting performance pay increases engagement to retain high
performing employees.
Mr. Maynard spoke to the affects of having multi-generational employees noting
the same old standard will not attract the younger generation.
Mr. Maynard noted a cost of living adjustment (COLA) recognizes the fact that
goods to live cost more but can be de-motivating to employees for everyone to receive
the same increase for the different levels of effort.
Mr. Maynard illustrated how employees are no longer doing the job they were
hired to do using the fast-changing world of technology as an example.
Ms. York explained the process of performance based pay noting Person County
implemented in 2010 as a pilot without funding which remains the same this date. Each
year employees have an annual performance evaluation based on criteria defined by the
workforce which is reviewed by the Human Resources Director for consistency. Ms.
York explained the three standards on a performance evaluation are 1) exceeds standards,
2) meets standards and 3) fails to meet standards.
Vice Chairman Jeffers suggested the meets standard could receive the COLA
amount with exceeds standard receiving the top merit amount and no funding for anyone
that fails the standard. Ms. York noted employees that fail the standard have three
months to remedy any unacceptable performance.
Ms. York noted the turnover rate rose to 12.5% in 2011 which was the same time
the early retirement package was offered.
CDBG MONTHLY REPORTING:
Kerr Tar Regional Council of Governments Community Development Planner,
Karen Foster presented the activities for the months of December, 2012 and January and
February, 2013 as well as a Month Performance Status Report for March, 2013 noting
effective February 1, 2013, Community Assistance (CA) has eliminated the quarterly
reporting requirement and changed it to a monthly reporting requirement to the Board of
Commissioners. County Manager, Heidi York commented that the monthly reporting
would now be included on the Board’s agenda for approval.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to accept the
monthly reports as presented.
19
March 11, 2013
18
PROCUREMENT FOR CDBG LEGAL SERVICES
Kerr Tar Regional Council of Governments Community Development Planner,
Karen Foster stated bids for the Person County Scattered Site program legal services
were solicited from local attorneys and received on January 29, 2013 with four law
offices responding. Pending verification of licensing and insurance, Ms. Foster
recommended the bid be awarded to Joe Weinberger, Jr., Attorney and Counselor At Law
and requested Board approval to enter into contract for such legal services which include
Preliminary Title Opinions, Deeds of Trust, Promissory Notes, and Loan Closings for
CDBG qualified participants.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to award the
CDBG legal services contract to Joe Weinberger, Jr., Attorney and Counselor at Law as
presented.
20
March 11, 2013
19
AMENDMENT TO FAIR HOUSING PLAN:
Kerr Tar Regional Council of Governments (COG) Community Development
Planner, Karen Foster told the Board Fair Housing is a compliance component of the
Community Development Block Grant program. Grant recipients are required to provide
and implement the approved fair housing plan in accordance with Person County’s grant
award.
Ms. Foster stated in the approved Fair Housing Plan for Person County, the
quarters and activities affected by the proposed amendment are April – June, 2013 and
2014 and October – December, 2013. The proposed new activity for April- June, 2013
and 2014 would be “Collaborate with the counties of Regional K to provide a Regional
Fair Housing Workshop.”
The proposed new activity for October – December, 2013 would be “Place fair
housing brochures at the Public Library, Water Department, and Social Services
Department.” Ms. Foster outlined the changes on page 3 of the proposed revised Plan
and page 3 of the existing plan.
Ms. Foster noted the COG staff are recommending this change in this activity due
to staff were unable to collaborate with the sponsor of a community event/festival in
attempt to setup a booth to display and briefly discuss fair housing materials in
accordance with the County’s approved Fair Housing Plan activity for the fall of 2012.
Ms. Foster stated the COG foresees this as an impediment in fulfilling this activity in the
future. Ms. Foster stated in order to amend this activity; it requires approval from the
Board of Commissioners. Ms. Foster requested Board consideration that the Fair
Housing Plan be amended to involve a regional fair housing workshop rather than
piggyback with a community event/festival where the focus would not be fair housing.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to amend the Fair
Housing Plan to involve a regional fair housing workshop rather than piggyback with a
community event/festival where the focus would not be fair housing as presented on page
3 of the Fair Housing Plan.
21
March 11, 2013
20
22
March 11, 2013
21
COMMUNITY CHILD PROTECTION TEAM ANNUAL REPORT:
Ms. Nancy Wagstaff, Chair of the Community Child Protection Team (CCPT)
and Ms. Judi Akers, Services Program Manager at the Department of Social Services
were present to highlight the CCPT 2012 Annual Report.
Ms. Akers told the group the CCPT meets monthly with the exception of the
month of July. Ms. Akers stated annually the CCPT reports to the state of NC and to the
Board of Commissioners. Ms. Akers noted the CCPT shares event information; review
cases and discuss gaps in the community resources. In 2012 the CCPT discussed six
different cases for the child protective services report with each including some of the
following factors: substance abuse, an act of violence, improper discipline, improper
supervision, and child sexual abuse. Ms. Akers stated the three top factors discussed
were access to mental health services, safe and stable housing and emotional abuse. Ms.
Akers spoke to the identified gaps as successfully be able to navigate the mental health
waiver and assessing services within Person County as well as safe and stable housing
including resources for the homeless within the community. The CCPT has requested
from the state training and resource development in rural areas.
Chairman Clayton stated he is the county commissioner representative on the
mental health advisory board and requested Ms. Akers to let him know if there are any
issues he can report to that board.
NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH WEEK PROCLAMATION:
Health Director, Janet Clayton, on behalf of the Public Health Month Committee
requested the Board of Commissioners to adopt a National Public Health Week
Proclamation designating the week of April 1-7, 2013 as National Public Health Week.
It was the consensus of the Board to adopt the National Public Health Week
Proclamation designating the week of April 1-7, 2013 as National Public Health Week.
Chairman Clayton read and presented the National Public Health Week Proclamation to
Ms. Clayton.
23
March 11, 2013
22
24
March 11, 2013
23
BUDGET AMENDMENT:
Finance Director, Amy Wehrenberg presented and explained the following
Budget Amendment.
Upon a motion by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and majority vote (5-0), the Board of
Commissioners of Person County does hereby amend the Budget of the Fund(s) listed
below on this, the 11th day of March 2013, as follows:
Dept./Acct No. Department Name Amount
Incr / (Decr)
EXPENDITURES General Fund
General Government 36,479
Public Safety 15,383
Human Services 23,535
Culture & Recreation 970
Contingency
(5,282)
REVENUES General Fund
Intergovernmental Revenues 43,482
Charges for Services 1,200
Other Revenues 26,403
EXPENDITURES Economic Catalyst Special Revenue Fund 500,000
REVENUES Economic Catalyst Special Revenue Fund
Intergovernmental Revenues 475,000
Fund Balance Appropriated 25,000
EXPENDITURES Airport Construction Capital Project Fund
Runway 6 Approach Clearing
(25,831)
2009 Vision 100 Projects 2,451
Fencing Perimeter & Emergency Repair 23,380
REVENUES Airport Construction Capital Project Fund
Federal Grant-Runway 6 Approach Clearing
(23,247)
Federal Grant-Vision 100 2,205
Federal Grant-Fencing Perimeter & Emergency Repair 21,042
Local Match-Runway 6 Approach Clearing
(2,584)
Local Match-2009 Vision 100 246
Local Match-Fencing Perimeter & Emergency Repair 2,338
Explanation:
25
March 11, 2013
24
Received concession revenue for the Morale Committee ($404); utilizing remaining
contingency insurance funds (-$5,282) to cover deductible costs for claims assessed
($5,282); received State Election Grant for 2012's Second Primary election ($5,955);
proceeds from sale of vehicles ($8,200); an insurance claim for repair to a County
building damaged from the July 2012 hail storm ($16,638); received State and Federal
Inmate reimbursements ($13,992) that will be used for a new time keeping system and
computer equipment in the Detention Center; Commissions on the sale of Inmate Phone
Cards ($816); received additional funds for the Veterans Services Grant ($452);
donations for Animal Services ($191); additional fees associated with the rabies
vaccination program ($384); donations for Recreation, Arts & Parks ($362); donations
for Library ($608); allocating revenues received in DSS for various assistance programs
($23,083); received NC Rural Center Grant ($475,000) requiring a local match ($25,000)
to be appropriated from fund balance in the Economic Catalyst Special Revenue Fund;
transferring the remaining funds per DOT's approval in the closeout of the Airport
Runway 6 Approach Clearing project (-$25,831) to the 2009 Vision 100 Airport Project
($25,831); and utilizing a portion of the 2009 Vision 100 Airport Project funds
(-$23,380) for a new Fencing Perimeter and Emergency Repair Project ($23,380) in the
Airport Construction Capital Project Fund.
General Services Director, Ray Foushee stated the HVAC system at the County
Office Building has been experiencing issues noting the boiler is forty-plus years old.
Mr. Foushee stated he is requesting to budget replacement at a cost of $100,000 during
next fiscal year. Ms. Wehrenberg stated this item will be included in the Capital
Improvement Plan for next fiscal year.
Ms. Wehrenberg stated the proceeds of the sales of vehicles are used in the fleet
maintenance program.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT:
Chairman Clayton reported the following:
· March 14, 2013 Ribbon Cuttings scheduled for:
o 10:00 am for RE/MAX Premier Realty at 223 N. Main Street, Roxboro
o 5:30 pm for Dr. Sapna Shah at Person Memorial Hospital at 615 Ridge
Road
· Stated an update from Mental Health is forthcoming
· Invited the group to the Upper Neuse River Basin Association meeting on March
20, 2013.
· Person County EMS employee, Kenneth Everett was recognized by the Roxboro
Jaycees with the outstanding public servant award.
26
March 11, 2013
25
MANAGER’S REPORT:
County Manager, Heidi York reported the following:
· March 27, 2013 Economic Development Day 9:00 am – 4:00 pm in the
County Auditorium focusing on economic priorities for the Strategic Plan –
Ms. York requested the Board to RSVP with her if attending. The community
should RSVP with Stuart Gilbert at 597-1752. Economic Development
Director, Stuart Gilbert stated speakers will include School of Government
professors, Smart Community expert, Senior Advisor for the Governor and the
President of MCNC (state broadband).
· The North Carolina Department of Revenue has offered to provide a brief
(approximately 2 hour) training session to help the Board of Equalization and
Review understand their new role and to help establish criteria for conducting
the required meetings. The proposed dates are either March 28 or April 1.
The meeting will be held at the Tax Office, 13 Abbitt St, in the large
conference room. Commissioner Newell stated he would be available to
attend on either date. Commissioner Puryear requested the training be
scheduled at night.
· Confirmed the joint meeting with Board of Education on Monday, April 15,
2013 at 6:00 pm in the County Auditorium. Commissioner Puryear stated he
would not be able to attend noting he had already spoken to the Board of
Education Chair.
· Stated possible locations for the April 29, 2013 6:30 pm Community
Conversations meeting in the Bushy Fork/Hurdle Mills area is The Grange,
Hurdle Mills Volunteer Fire Department and Hester Store Volunteer Fire
Department. It was the consensus of the group to hold the meeting at The
Grange.
COMMISSIONER REPORT/COMMENTS:
Vice Chairman Jeffers and Commissioners Newell, Blalock and Puryear had no
reports.
27
March 11, 2013
26
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to adjourn the
meeting at 12:12 pm.
_____________________________ ______________________________
Brenda B. Reaves Jimmy B. Clayton
Clerk to the Board Chairman
(Draft Board minutes are subject to Board approval).
28
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 1, 2013
Agenda Title: Discussion of Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Nonconforming Uses
and Accessory Uses
Summary of Information:
The Board of Commissioners requested the Planning Board to recommend amending the
nonconforming use and accessory use sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Recommendations from the Planning Board were presented to the Commissioners in
October. A public hearing on the recommended changes was conducted at the
Commissioners’ January 7th meeting. During this meeting, the BOC asked to further
discuss sections 101-2, 102-1, 60-5 and 60-6 of the current Zoning Ordinance. Staff has
included comments below each item to guide the discussion.
Non-conforming
101-2 No building may be extended or enlarged or the amount of land devoted to a use
increased unless such extensions or enlargements comply with all the provisions of
this ordinance.
Proposed 101-2
Any structure existing at the time of adoption of this Ordinance which does not
comply with setback or yard requirements, or which exceeds height requirements,
may be continued in use but shall not be enlarged or extended unless such
extensions or enlargements comply with all the provisions of this ordinance. No
unenclosed portion of a building may be enclosed if the setback or height
requirements are not met.
The intent of this proposed section is to “grandfather-in” existing non-conforming
structures, provided that no additional changes are made. Would the BOC like to
accept the proposed 101-2 wording, keep the existing wording or make additional
changes?
102-1 Nothing in this ordinance shall prevent the restoring or strengthening of a
nonconforming structure to a safe condition, provided that the square feet of the
structure shall not be increased.
No changes were made to this section. The intent of this section is to allow
individuals to improve non-conforming structures for safety reasons, but not
increase their size. Would the BOC like to make any changes to 102-1?
29
Accessory Structures
60-5 Unless otherwise specified in this ordinance, accessory buildings may be allowed
within five feet of rear and side yard lot lines provided they are five feet or more
from the main structure.
Proposed 60-5
Accessory structures shall be located at least five feet from any principal
structure and side and rear property lines.
The intent of this section is to ensure that accessory structures are at least 5 feet
from property lines and the main structure. Five feet allows for mowing and
maintenance of buildings. Would the BOC like to accept the proposed 60-5 wording,
keep the existing wording or make additional changes?
60-6 Unless otherwise specified in this ordinance, every principal building hereafter
erected or moved shall be located on a separate lot and in no case shall there be
more than one principal building and three permitted accessory buildings on all
lots under three acres. There shall be allowed one additional accessory building
for every acre over three acres. Industrial operations located in the GI district shall
be exempted from this provision.
The BOC’s discussion of this section has been around allowing additional accessory
structures. Would the BOC like to increase the number of accessory buildings
allowed on lots less than three acres?
New: 60-6A
60-6A - Accessory structures shall be placed in the rear or side yard and not the
front yard of all lots under ten acres. Parcels of property containing ten
acres or larger may place an accessory building in the front yard provided
such building is located at least 50 feet from any street right of way line and
a minimum of twenty five feet from any side property line.
The BOC’s discussion of this section has been primarily around the size of the lot.
Would the BOC like to keep the lot size at 10 acres or reduce it to 5 acres?
30
Commissioners have also expressed concerns about allowing an exemption for open
car ports. Would the BOC like to add “open carports” to the list of exempt items?
An accessory building - An accessory building, structure or use is a building or structure
or use on the same lot or site with, of a nature customarily incidental or subordinate to,
and of a character related to the principal use or structure. Accessory buildings are but
not limited to sheds, garages, lean to, storage buildings, carports, pool, but not to
include well houses (not to exceed 6’ x 6’) , gazebo or pool house if attached to
footprint of pool.
Please note that the public hearing was closed after the Board’s discussion of these
amendments at the January meeting. If the Board decides to adopt the text amendments
as they were presented in January, they may do so. However, if they are altered, another
public hearing must be advertised to allow public comments prior to adoption.
Recommended Action
Make amendments to the zoning ordinance and direct staff to advertise for a public
hearing.
Submitted by:
Planning Director, Paula Murphy and Assistant County Manager, Sybil Tate
31
Planning Board Recommended Changes to the Non-conforming Use and Accessory
Structure sections of the zoning ordinance
Text in italics are proposed changes.
Text in bold are additions to the ordinance.
Nonconformities are existing, completed land uses, structures, or lots that were legal
when established but are inconsistent with subsequently adopted or amended land use
regulations. A use that is initiated in violation of a zoning ordinance does not enjoy
nonconforming status.
NONCONFORMING USES
New Definitions to Consider: The Ordinance needs to define the following:
Nonconforming Building – A building or structure that is not in conformance with
the provisions(Section 75-Table of Dimensional Requirements) of the district in
which it is located.
Nonconforming Lot – Surveyed and recorded lots that met existing zoning
regulations when created but no longer conform with the adopted regulations.
Nonconforming Use – A lawful use of land that does not comply with the use
regulations for its zoning district but which complied with applicable regulations
before adoption of this Ordinance or the predecessor Person County Zoning
Ordinance.
101-1 Nonconforming uses may not be changed to another nonconforming use unless
the Board of Adjustment determines that such change shall be no more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use; however, no change of title
or possession, or right to possession of property shall be construed to prevent the
continuance of a nonconforming use.
101-2 No building may be extended or enlarged or the amount of land devoted to a use
increased unless such extensions or enlargements comply with all the provisions
of this ordinance.
Proposed 101-2
Any structure existing at the time of adoption of this Ordinance which does not
comply with setback or yard requirements, or which exceeds height requirements, may be
continued in use but shall not be enlarged or extended unless such extensions or
32
enlargements comply with all the provisions of this ordinance. No unenclosed portion of
a building may be enclosed if the setback or height requirements are not met.
101-3 Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the reconstruction of any
building, conforming or nonconforming, damaged by any means. However, any
nonconforming building which is damaged may only be replaced by a structure of
equal or smaller size and square footage as that of the previous structure. No
reconstruction or new construction shall be allowed which creates any new or
additional nonconformity than that which existed at the time of damage.
101-4 If a nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of 180 days or for more than
eighteen months in any three year period, the future use of the building or land
must be a conforming use.
Proposed 101-4
If any such nonconforming use of land and/or structure ceases for a period of more than
one year (except when government action impedes access to the premises), any
subsequent use of such land and/or structure shall conform to the regulations specified
by this ordinance for the district in which such land is located. Vacancy and/or nonuse of
the land or structure, regardless of the intent of the owner or tenant, constitutes
discontinuance under this Section.
101-5 A nonconforming use may be changed to a use of higher classification and
whenever the use is changed to a higher or conforming classification then it shall
not be allowed to change to the original use or to a lower use. For the purposes of
this section, the order of classification of use, form the highest to the lowest shall
be as follows: R, B-1, B-2, GI and RC.
101-6 If a nonconforming structure or a conforming structure devoted to a
nonconforming activity is destroyed or damaged in any manner, to the extent that
the cost of restoration to its condition before the occurrence shall not exceed 60
percent of the cost of reconstructing the entire structure based on the assessed
structure value, as recorded by the County Tax Assessor, it may be repaired or
restored, provided such repair or restoration is started within six months of the
damage and completed within twelve months. However, any nonconforming
building which is damaged may only be replaced by a structure of equal or
smaller size and square footage as that of the previous structure. Relief to the time
limits may be granted by the Board of Adjustment.
101-7 A nonconforming structure or a conforming structure devoted to a
nonconforming activity that is damaged by any casualty to an extent more than 60
percent of its assessed value, based on County Tax Assessor records, shall not be
restored except as follows:
a. As a conforming use.
33
b. If the use is a one-family dwelling, restoration shall be permitted, provided
such restoration is begun within six months of the casualty and completed
within 24 months of the casualty.
c. For structures except a one family dwelling, restoration of a nonconforming
structure shall require approval by the Board of Adjustment. A site plan
according to Section 80 will be required. In approving such permit, the Board
will consider the stated purpose for establishing the zoning district in which
the structure is located, the uses in the area immediately surrounding the
structure in question, particularly the other nonconforming uses, and the
hardship which would result from a denial of the Conditional Use Permit. The
permit shall include conditions as to time for repair to be completed and any
other conditions deemed necessary to carry out the intent of this section of the
ordinance.
101-8 A nonconforming use may be extended or enlarged with a Special Use Permit
provided that the addition is no more than fifty percent of the original structure
and a landscape buffer is provided to buffer the new portion from adjacent land
owners and all setbacks, height, and area requirements of the Planning Ordinance
are met. Single family dwellings are exempt from Section 101-6.
(The Planning Board proposes to delete this section from the ordinance)
New Sections to be considered:
101-9 Nonconforming lots of record: Permitted Structures may be erected upon
any single lot of record at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, provided
the minimum yard requirements are met. A variance to the zoning
ordinance is required if the yard width or setback requirements can not be
met.
101-10 The creation of a lot with a width or area smaller than allowed by existing
zoning requirements is prohibited, except by governmental action, such as a road
widening. Any lot, which, by reason of realignment of a public street or highway or
by reason of condemnation proceedings, has been reduced in size to an area less
than that required by law, shall be considered a nonconforming lot of record subject
to the provisions set forth in this section; and any lawful use or structure existing at
the time of such highway realignment or condemnation proceedings which would
thereafter no longer be permitted under the terms of this ordinance shall be
considered a nonconforming use or structure as that term is used in this ordinance.
101-11 When any nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use, the use shall
thereafter conform to the regulations for this district, and no nonconforming
use shall thereafter be resumed.
34
The Planning Board decided to keep these sections, making no changes:
102-1 Nothing in this ordinance shall prevent the restoring or strengthening of a
nonconforming structure to a safe condition, provided that the square feet of the
structure shall not be increased.
102-2 Should any nonconforming structure be moved for any reason within the Zoning
Jurisdiction of Person County, it shall conform to the regulations for the district
in which it is to be located.
The following section will be deleted. The proposed Section 101-9 is the same as this.
103-1 In any district, notwithstanding the dimensional requirements for the district in
regards to lot width and minimum area, buildings, may be erected on any legally
created lot of record existing at the effective date of adoption to this ordinance.
Accessory Structures
An accessory building - An accessory building, structure or use is a building or structure
or use on the same lot or site with, of a nature customarily incidental or subordinate to,
and of a character related to the principal use or structure. Accessory buildings are, but
not limited to : sheds, garages, lean to, storage buildings, carports, pool, but not to
include well houses(not to exceed 6’ x 6’) , gazebo or pool house if attached to
footprint of pool.
Pools - Pools are considered accessory uses if they are above ground or in ground if
not attached by either a deck or solid material such as brick, stone, concrete, etc. to
the principal structure.
60-5 Unless otherwise specified in this ordinance, accessory buildings may be allowed
within five feet of rear and side yard lot lines provided they are five feet or more from the
main structure.
Proposed 60-5
Accessory structures shall be located at least five feet from any principal structure and
side and rear property lines.
60-6 Unless otherwise specified in this ordinance, every principal building hereafter
erected or moved shall be located on a separate lot and in no case shall there be more than
one principal building and three permitted accessory buildings on all lots under three
acres. There shall be allowed one additional accessory building for every acre over three
acres. Industrial operations located in the GI district shall be exempted from this
provision.
35
60-6A - Accessory structures shall be placed in the rear or side yard and not the
front yard of all lots under five acres. Parcels of property containing five acres or
larger may place an accessory building in the front yard provided such building is
located at least 50 feet from any street right of way line and a minimum of twenty
five feet from any side property line.
60-6B -Accessory buildings shall only be allowed on a lot upon which a primary
dwelling, multifamily dwelling, business use or industrial use exists.
36
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 1, 2013
Agenda Title: Interlocal Agreement between the City of Roxboro and Person
County for Planning Administration
Summary of Information: Staff presented the concept of a joint city-county planning
department as well as a joint planning commission and board of adjustment at the
meeting with the City of Roxboro on February 26, 2013. The draft Interlocal Agreement
was reviewed and elected officials provided feedback at that time and agreed to review
the final agreement at the March meeting. The revisions to the draft Agreement include
adding an effective date of July 1, 2013 and as requested in Section III related to the
Board of Adjustment, to change the frequency of their meetings to “The Board of
Adjustment shall hold meetings as needed.” The proposed agreement remains cost
neutral to both the city and the county. On March 11, 2013 the Board took action to table
until the Board’s April meeting.
Recommended Action: Review the draft agreement and adopt if appropriate.
Submitted by: Heidi York, County Manager
37
1
DRAFT
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement
Between Person County and the City of Roxboro
for Planning Administration
This is an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the CITY OF ROXBORO (hereinafter called “the
CITY”), a North Carolina municipal corporation, and the COUNTY OF PERSON (hereinafter called
“the COUNTY”), a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina. This agreement is made
pursuant to Article 20 of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes. The date of this
agreement is April 1, 2013.
The City and County agree as follows:
SECTION I. POLICY
A. The Governing Bodies hereby find and declare that interlocal cooperation for
comprehensive planning and plan implementation is a necessity: Such planning allows
for more orderly and coordinated growth, provides a mechanism for consistent analysis
of planning issues across political boundaries and therefore gives a more sound basis for
policy decisions which affect both political entities. The Governing Bodies recognize that
comprehensive planning and its implementation are vital to the public interest. Therefore,
it is found that such activities as planning investigations and surveys, formulation of
development goals and objectives, and development or means to carry out plans in a
cooperative, coordinated and efficient manner are necessary in order that the two
governments may more competently perform their duties, and in order that the citizens of
the respective jurisdictions may have a better understanding of planning issues and be
better able to participate in decision-making.
B. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a joint planning endeavor and to provide
for the organization and administration necessary to effectuate that endeavor.
SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION
A. Establishment of Person-Roxboro Planning Commission
There is hereby established a joint commission to be known as the Person-Roxboro
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is designated as the planning advisory
body to the City and the County, and shall have the powers and duties described in this
Agreement and other powers and duties as may be delegated by the governing bodies
from time to time.
B. Appointments by Governing Bodies
1. Number; Composition. The Planning Commission shall consist of seven (7) members
and two (2) alternates; of whom the Board shall appoint four (4) members and one (1)
38
2
alternate and the Council shall appoint three (3) members and one (1) alternate. The
four (4) persons appointed by the City shall be appointed for three (3) year staggered
terms by the Council. The five (5) appointed by the County shall be appointed for
three (3) year staggered terms by the Board. Initially, one person shall be appointed
for a one year term, one person for a two year term and one (or 2 in the case of the
county) for a three year term. Thereafter all appointments shall be for a three year
term.
2. Subsequent Appointments. Appointments made to fill Commission vacancies shall be
made by the governing body that made the initial appointment, and shall be for three
(3) year terms except for appointments to replace members who have become
disqualified, or have been removed, which shall be for the remainder of the replaced
member’s term.
3. Vacancies/Removal Prior to Expiration of Term. Upon resignation, permanent
disqualification or removal of any member of the Planning Commission, the
governing body which appointed that member shall appoint a successor to fill the
unexpired term.
4. Optional Replacement of Members who Move outside the City or County. The
governing bodies may replace Commission members who move during their tenure if
they no longer meet the in-city or out-of-city appointment requirements they met
when appointed.
C. Requirements for Membership on the Person-Roxboro Planning Commission;
Compensation
1. Term. The term of office of a member of the Planning Commission, except for
persons appointed to fill unexpired terms, shall be three (3) years and shall expire on
June 30 of the final year of service. If the respective governing body has not
appointed a successor, however, a member’s term shall continue until such
appointment is made. No person shall serve consecutively more than two full terms.
An individual appointed to a two-year term shall be deemed to have served a full
term.
2. Residency Requirements. Members of the Planning Commission shall be residents of
the County. Prior to any change in residency, members shall notify the Clerk to the
Council or Board of the prospective change and the date of the move. A member who
ceases to be a resident of the Person-Roxboro City/County Planning Jurisdiction shall
become disqualified immediately upon the change in residency, and the governing
body that made the appointment shall be notified. Changes of residency within the
County may result in replacement by the governing body that made the appointment.
3. Voting Conflicts. Commission members shall follow state statutory requirements
regarding voting when there are conflicts of interest.
4. Attendance. Members shall attend at least seventy-five (75) percent of the total
number of regular meetings of the Planning Commission during any twelve (12)
month period, except for excused absence due to illness or other extraordinary
circumstances. The Planning Commission shall establish, within its Rules of
Procedure, conditions that constitute an excused absence, and the case-by-case
application of those rules shall be the duty of the Chairperson of the Planning
Commission. The Chairperson shall immediately report to the appropriate governing
body the failure of any member appointed by said governing body to meet said
39
3
attendance standard, and the appropriate governing body may then remove said
member from the Planning Commission.
5. Compensation. Members shall receive such compensation and reimbursement, if any,
for expenses as the governing bodies may prescribe.
D. Operating Procedures
The Planning Commission shall elect its own officers in a manner prescribed in its Rules
of Procedure. Further, the Planning Commission shall comply with the following:
1. The officers of the Planning Commission shall be a Chairperson and Vice
Chairperson, one of who shall be a City appointee and one of whom shall be a County
appointee. The positions shall alternate between a City appointee and a County
appointee at least every two years.
2. The Planning Commission shall adopt rules of procedure for the transaction of its
business. Such rules shall be consistent with applicable laws, ordinances and
regulations and shall be filed with the city and county clerks.
3. The Planning Commission shall hold regular monthly meetings, and may hold special
meetings. The Chairperson may cancel the regular meeting, acting in concert with the
Planning Director, if a determination is made that there is no business to conduct. All
meetings shall be open to the public but the Planning Commission may hold
appropriate closed sessions when allowed or required by law.
4. The Planning Commission may invite and receive suggestions from the public
concerning any and all matters within the scope of its duties.
5. The Planning Commission shall keep minutes, which shall record all actions taken by
it. Such minutes shall be public records, when required by law.
6. The Planning Commission shall adopt policies and procedures encouraging broad
public input on all plans and programs for which the Planning Commission has
review responsibility.
E. Voting
1. Quorum. A quorum for the Planning Commission shall consist of four (4) eligible
voting members present.
2. Conflicts of Interest. Members may be disqualified from voting for conflicts of
interest as determined under State statute. The procedures for recusal and for
determining potential or actual conflicts of interest shall be as provided in the
Commission’s Rules of Procedure.
3. Duty to Vote. A member of the Planning Commission must vote unless the member
has a conflict of interest or other good cause. The Commission’s Rules of Procedure
shall address the process by which members may be excused from voting.
40
4
4. Votes Required for Action. Actions of the Planning Commission shall require a
simple majority vote of those present and voting, a quorum being present. A tie vote
shall be considered as a recommendation to deny the zoning change requested. A
party requesting a zoning change and receiving a tie vote, may ask for a re-hearing at
the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
F. Powers and Functions of the Planning Commission
1. For the purpose of fulfilling its role as contemplated by this agreement, the Planning
Commission is hereby designated as a planning board pursuant to G.S. 153A-344 and
G.S. 160A-383 The Commission may also take on any other planning related
functions as delegated, in writing, by the governing bodies.
2. Pursuant to Article 19 Chapter 160A and Article 18 Chapter 153A of the North
Carolina General Statutes, the Planning Commission shall have, among other duties,
the following duties:
a. Propose and review policies and procedures for encouraging broad public
input on all comprehensive, area, sub-area, neighborhood and functional
plans.
b. Review reports of committees it has appointed, or of other commissions or
agencies making recommendations in the area of land use or planning.
c. Review and make recommendations on plans, including land use,
transportation, and capital improvements plans, planning policy and
planning implementation actions. Such review and recommendations shall
be transmitted to the appropriate governing bodies for consideration
during their deliberation.
d. Advise and cooperate with units of local government, State government or
Federal government on any matter within the Planning Commission’s
powers and duties.
e Review and make recommendations to the appropriate governing body
concerning re-zonings and comprehensive plan changes related to such re-
zonings, and proposed text changes to the ordinances.
f. Serve if requested by either governing body or if required by ordinance, as
ex officio members on other appointive boards, commissions or
committees.
g. Carry out such additional duties as may from time to time be given or
directed by either governing body, so long as no conflict exists between
the City and County concerning work priorities or use of resources. In
such a case where a conflict exists, the Joint City-County Planning
Committee shall work out a resolution to the conflict sufficient for the
Governing Bodies to agree upon.
41
5
SECTION III. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A. Establishment of the Board of Adjustment (BOA)
There is hereby established a joint BOA which shall exercise all the powers and duties
authorized under G.S. 160A-381, G.S. 160A-388, G.S. 153A-340, and G.S. 153A-345,
all local enabling legislation adopted by either party.
B. Structure of BOA; Appointments by Governing Bodies
1. Composition. The Joint BOA shall consist of seven (7) members and two (2)
alternates; of whom the Board shall appoint four (4) members and one (1)
alternate and the Council shall appoint three (3) members and one (1) alternate.
The four (4) persons appointed by the City shall be appointed for three (3) year
staggered terms by the Council. The five (5) appointed by the County shall be
appointed for three (3) year staggered terms by the Board. Initially, one person
shall be appointed for a one year term, one person for a two year term and one (or
2 in the case of the county) for a three year term. Thereafter all appointments shall
be for a three year term.
2. Vacancies and Removal. Upon resignation, permanent disqualification or removal
of any member of the BOA, an alternate appointed by the governing body that
made the original appointment shall fill the subsequent vacancy in that position
for the remainder of the previous member’s term.
C. BOA Membership
1. General/Term. The term of office of members of the BOA shall be three (3) years,
except where a member is replacing a member whose term has not ended, and
shall expire on June 30 of the final year of membership. Members shall receive
such compensation and reimbursement of expenses as the governing bodies may
prescribe.
2. Membership Requirements. Members of the BOA shall be residents of the County
and shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Residency. A member or alternate who ceases to be a resident of the
Person-Roxboro Planning Jurisdiction shall be immediately disqualified
from membership upon the change of residency and shall resign from the
BOA upon such change.
c. Attendance. Members shall attend at least seventy-five (75) percent of the
total number of regular meetings of the BOA as further prescribed in the
BOA’s Rules of Procedures, and may be removed by the appointing
governing body for failure to meet this standard.
D. Operation of the BOA
1. The officers of the BOA shall be a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, one of
whom shall be a City appointee and one of whom shall be a County appointee.
The positions shall alternate between a City appointee and a County appointee at
42
6
least every two years. They shall be elected by the BOA in accordance with its
Rules of Procedure and shall have such duties as prescribed in the Rules of
Procedure. The Board of Adjustment shall hold meetings as needed.
2. The BOA shall adopt Rules of Procedure concerning the conduct of the business
of the BOA and other necessary matters. Votes required to approve matters before
the BOA shall be as provided by General Statute, special legislation, ordinances,
and such Rules
3. The BOA shall be subject to applicable state statutes regarding conflicts of
interest in voting.
E. Legal Representation and Liability
The City Attorney’s Office and County Attorney’s Office shall provide legal support and
representation for the BOA on issues arising from actions taken within and on behalf of
their respective jurisdictions and for issues that arise before the BOA involving the
respective jurisdictions. The City shall be liable for judgments rendered against the City
and for actions within the City and the County shall be liable for judgments against the
County and for actions outside the City. When both the City and the County are named in
any action against the BOA or neither jurisdiction is named but the BOA itself is named,
the jurisdiction on whose behalf the contested action was taken shall be responsible for
defense and payment, if any, of the claim, and, where necessary, shall cooperate in
allowing dismissal of the other jurisdiction. In any action, the offices of the City and
County Attorney shall only be responsible for representing their respective jurisdictions,
and the BOA actions involving their jurisdictions.
SECTION IV. ADMINISTRATION
A. Establishment of Person-Roxboro Planning Department. There is hereby established the
Person-Roxboro Planning Department, which shall consist of the Director and such
subordinate employees as may be funded in the Annual Budget. The Planning
Department is designated as the administrative body for performing the professional
planning functions and providing information, reports, and recommendations to the
Planning Commission, City and County Managers and governing bodies.
B. Responsibility of Department/Selection of Director/Responsibilities. The Planning
Department shall provide such management, regulatory, administrative, and support
services as are required or provided for under the approved Work Program and Annual
Budget.
1. Director. The administrative head of the Planning Department shall be the
Planning Director. The process for the appointment, evaluation and termination of
the Planning Director shall be as follows:
a. Appointment of the Planning Director. The City Manager and the County
Manager, acting in concert, shall appoint the Planning Director.
b. Evaluation and Supervision of Director. The City and County Managers
shall meet at least annually with the Director to evaluate the performance
of the Director.
43
7
c. Termination of Director. The Planning Director may be terminated by the
City Manager and County Manager, acting in concert.
2. Duties of Director. Pursuant to and consistent with City and County Planning
Documents, county evaluation system, Annual Budgets, the Planning Director
shall perform the following duties:
a. Appoint, reappoint, assign and reassign all subordinate employees of the
Agency and prescribe their duties;
b. Coordinate the activities of the Agency in its functions with other local,
State and Federal agencies;
c. Represent the Planning Department, Planning Commission, City or
County Manager, or governing bodies, before any agency or local
government, the State, any other State or the United States with respect to:
i. Functions, analysis or recommendations of the Planning
Department;
ii. Adopted policies of the Planning Commission or Governing
Bodies;
iii. Other matters as may be directed to the Planning Director from
time to time by the City or County Managers, or the Governing
Bodies.
d. Prepare and submit to the City and County Managers the Department’s
Annual Budget for each governmental entity. The Planning Director will
prepare revisions to the Annual Budget, as needed for subsequent action
by the City and/or County Manager(s) or the Council or Board, as may be
required.
e. Perform professional planning duties as administrative head of the
Planning Department, including but not limited to the following:
i. Meet with City and County officials and discuss planning issues,
including the development of capital improvement and
infrastructure plans, and the development of policy options in
response to those issues;
ii. Meet and discuss with City and County departments and other
public agencies or private groups planning programs in process,
under consideration, or established as community objectives.
iii. Meet and consult with individuals and groups affected by planning
issues, programs, and activities, in order to encourage citizen
participation in the planning process;
44
8
iv. Advise the City and County Managers concerning planning issues
and activities of City or County government, which have planning
implications;
v. Provide management, leadership, and oversight for all planning
and implementation activities of the Planning Department;
vi. Facilitate the understanding of planning issues and processes by
the Planning Commission, City and County governmental agencies
and general public.
vii. Perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the governing
bodies or City or County Managers, or which may be required to
carry out the terms of this Agreement
f. Regularly advise the Planning Commission, City and County
Managers and governing bodies concerning the activities and program
progress of the Person-Roxboro Planning Department.
C. Applicable Policies and Procedures for Employees
1. Joint Employees. The Planning Department staff shall be considered joint
City/County employees.
2. Policies. In order to facilitate administration of the department, the Planning Director
shall follow the personnel procedures of the City. The personnel procedures of the
County shall be followed by the Planner and Planning Technician positions.
D. The budget and financial procedures of the County shall be followed by the Planning
Department.
E. The County shall continue to own and operate the real property where the joint Planning
Department is located. If additional property is purchased and subsequently disposed of,
the proceeds of the sale of any jointly purchased property shall revert to the City and
County in the same proportion as each contributed to the initial purchase of the property.
G. Budget; Beginning with the FY 13-14 budget, the Planning Director shall prepare and
submit the proposed Annual Budget to the City and County Managers. The total budget
for the department will consist of the cumulative total of the City and County budget
allocation. The Planning Director will prepare a budget request for the City and County’s
budget process to address the specific funding priorities for each entity. Expenditures will
be credited to the proper Finance Department for payment processing. The Planning
Director will also be responsible for coordinating the City and County Managers on any
budgetary concerns that may arise. The City and County Manager will meet to discuss
the department’s budget as needed to address any concerns or future goals.
H. Method of Funding; Reimbursement of Budget Expenses
1. The expenses of the departmental salaries shall be apportioned as follows:
Planning Director – 70% from City funds/30% from County funds
County Planner – 100% from County funds
45
9
Planning Technician – 50% from City funds/50% from County funds
2. The Planning Director’s salary shall be paid by the City. The County Planner and
Planning Technician’s salaries shall be paid by the County. These expenses shall
be apportioned as stated in item 1 of this section. It is the understanding of all
parties that the apportioned salaries for the department as outlined in item 1 of this
section are cost neutral to both parties. The Finance Directors for the City and
County will review the salaries and allocation percentages in Item 1 annually to
verify this continuing neutrality of cost. Should a discrepancy greater than $1,000
annually occur through raises, promotions, reclassification or any other means,
the Managers shall review and adjust the budgets or contract accordingly. The
only exceptions to this will be through lapsed salaries that occur during the filling
of a vacant position.
I. Legal Representation and Liability
The City Attorney’s Office and County Attorney’s Office, respectively, shall provide
legal support and representation for the Planning Department and its employees on issues
arising from actions taken within and on behalf of their respective jurisdictions and for
issues that arise before the various commissions, agencies, and programs that are staffed
and directly supported by the Planning Department. Legal support and compensation for
claims against Planning Department employees shall be in accordance with the adopted
policies and procedures of the respective jurisdiction regarding defense of employees and
payment of claims. The City shall be liable for judgments rendered against the City and
the County shall be liable for judgments against the County. When both the City and the
County are named in any action against the Planning Department and/or an employee or
neither jurisdiction is named but the Planning Department itself is named, the jurisdiction
on whose behalf the contested action was taken shall be responsible for defense of the
claim, consistent with the policies identified above, and, where necessary, shall cooperate
in allowing dismissal of the other jurisdiction. In any action, the offices of the City and
County Attorney shall only be responsible for representing their respective jurisdictions,
and for Department employees acting on behalf of their jurisdictions, as detailed above,
and shall not be responsible for representation of the other jurisdiction.
SECTION V. GENERAL TERMS OF AGREEMENT
A. This Agreement may be amended from time to time upon mutual consent of the
Governing Bodies expressed in writing. The Governing Bodies shall review this
Agreement at least once every three (3) years.
B. It is the intent of the City and County under this Agreement for the City to exercise no
planning or zoning authority within an Extraterritorial Area (ETA).
C. Either the City or County may terminate this Agreement for any reason as follows:
1. Termination: This Agreement can only be terminated as of the beginning of any
fiscal year, except as provided under paragraph 2, below. Notice to terminate
must be given in writing to the other party on or before January 1 immediately
preceding the proposed July 1 termination date.
2. This Agreement may also be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days prior
written notice to the other party in the event the City and County are unable to
agree upon an Annual Budget.
3. The agreement shall have an effective date of July 1, 2013.
46
10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have authorized this Agreement to be executed and attested by
their undersigned officers, to be effective from and after the date written above.
CITY OF ROXBORO
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
COUNTY OF PERSON
BOARD CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
County Clerk
This instrument has been pre-audited in the manner required by the local government budget and fiscal
control act.
Person County Finance Director
City of Roxboro Finance Officer
47
48
49
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 14-20th, 2013; 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 14-20th, 2013 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 1st day of April, 2013.
____________________________________
Jimmy B. Clayton, Chairman
Person County Board of Commissioners
Attest:
____________________________________
Brenda B. Reaves, NCCCC, CMC
Clerk to the Board
50
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting date: April 1, 2013
Agenda Title: Recommended Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY 2014-2018
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, PCC and Person County
Schools.
The funding schedule on pages 11-13 outlines the projects and the project costs
anticipated for funding during FY14 to FY18.
The CIP is scheduled to be adopted at the Board’s meeting on April 29, 2013. If
necessary, the BOC may choose to discuss the CIP again on April 15th at 4:00 pm before
the joint meeting with the School Board at 6:00 pm.
Recommended Action: Discuss the CIP and provide staff with feedback. Direct staff
whether to schedule time on April 15th for further discussion.
Submitted By: Heidi York, County Manager and Amy Wehrenberg, Finance Director
51
Person County, North Carolina
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2014-2018
Recommended
Heidi York, County Manager
Sybil Tate, Assistant County Manager
Amy Wehrenberg, Finance Director
April 1, 2013
52
53
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 2013 .......................................................5
Status of Ongoing Projects for FY 2013 ................................................................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
54
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 1, 2013
Dear Person County Board of County Commissioners:
I am pleased to present Person County’s Fiscal Year 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP). This 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. The most critical capital needs are determined while taking into account the fiscal and
logistical constraints facing Person County. 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. Therefore, the full array of funding sources needed to support
the project as well as potential impacts to future operating budgets are presented as well.
The development of this plan is based on the economic and fiscal climate in which we find
ourselves. While revenues are in a slow recovery, the Board of Commissioners has stated their
desire to be prudent with County Fund Balance; a primary funding source for capital projects.
The last three years have seen a tremendous reliance on Fund Balance as we focused on long
overdue deferred maintenance needs. This use of Fund Balance caused a planned and targeted
decline of our Unanticipated Fund Balance reserves. The upcoming Fiscal Year 13-14 reduces
the appropriation of fund balance to approximately half of the current year’s appropriation.
While the projects and spending have not been scaled back, the funding sources have shifted to
reflect the directive of the Board of Commissioners.
This plan incorporates the needs of our partner agencies- the Person County Schools and
Piedmont Community College (PCC) as well, given that counties are statutorily responsible for
the provision of educational facilities. In fact, 46% of all CIP projects are for education. This
proactive approach to tackling major deferred maintenance needs for the facilities of all three
entities has allowed us to manage the scope and timing of these costly projects. Person County is
in its third year of implementing a comprehensive roofing needs assessment. In addition to
roofing repairs and replacements, some highlights of our progress during the current Fiscal Year
2012-2013 include: the completion of a feasibility study for a potential multi-jurisdictional
business and industrial park with Durham County; improved energy efficiency through a lighting
replacement project at the Person County Office Building and Library; paved access to Animal
Services as well as paving at PCC, Person High School, and Southern Middle School; paving
and repair of county walking tracks and the tracks at Person High and Southern Middle Schools;
purchasing and installation of a new financial and human resources software system; completion
of the engineering feasibility study for the Recreation and Senior Center; and painting of the
Detention Center.
Page 1
55
This updated FY 2014-2018 CIP continues to implement the roofing repairs and replacements
targeted as the most critical by our study and begins to implement the first phase of a new
windows replacement study, primarily for the Person County School facilities. Other major
projects that will commence in FY14 include the construction of the Recreation and Senior
Center, estimated at approximately $4 million to be financed along with three roofing projects;
launching a new paperless document management system as an efficiency and space solution for
managing paper storage and retention needs of county government; the development of a new
public safety and emergency services satellite facility to be housed at the Old Helena School site;
and the installation of $100,000 worth of new security equipment at all traditional public schools.
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 a state-wide average as well as counties benchmarked with our
population size indicates 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. This
information reveals that debt service payments take a precipitous drop in Fiscal Year 2016 even
with the proposed financing of the Recreation and Senior Center and roofing projects in Fiscal
Year 2014. This sharp drop in debt service is one indicator that 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 along with the availability of historically low
interest rates 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 on an annual basis, 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 financially responsible in its
service delivery and future operations. 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 2014-
2018 Capital Improvement Plan.
Sincerely,
Heidi N. York
County Manager
Page 2
56
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.
Page 3
57
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?
Strategic Plan
· How does this project fit into the Person County Futures plan?
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?
Page 4
58
Person County, North Carolina
Capital Improvement Plan
Summary of Completed Projects for FY 2013
Person County Government:
Kirby roofing - $90,731
Olive Hill gym roofing - $135,466
Airport Pumphouse roofing - $13,500
Energy Lighting Project at PCOB and Library - $174,267
Huck Sansbury roofing - $208,663
Animal Services Paving - $81,315
Recreation and Senior Center Engineering Study - $23,000
Painting at LEC Detention Center - $30,700
Piedmont Community College:
PCC paving and expansion of parking lots - $106,875
Public Schools:
Southern Middle School roofing - $1,275
Early Intervention roofing - $108
Learning Academy roofing - $38,417
Page 5
59
Person County, North Carolina
Capital Improvement Plan
Status of Ongoing Projects for FY 2013
Person County Government:
Courthouse Renovation and Roofing Projects ($5,446,000) – This project is 99% complete.
The remaining project will cost approximately $75,000 and will pay for an electrical upgrade that
will bring the entire electrical system up to code.
Multi-Jurisdictional Industrial Park ($155,000) – This is a joint endeavor with Durham County
that is underway. The first phase of the feasibility study was completed in April 2012. The
remaining cost is included in the Economic Development operating budget and will cover site
selection, site-certification and creation of a non-profit to manage the park.
Walking Track paving and repair ($65,000) – Weather has delayed this project. Tracks
included are Hurdle Mills, Olive Hill, Bushy Fork, Helena, Mt. Tirzah, Bethel Hill, and Allensville.
The paving/repair of Huck Sansbury track has been postponed to be included in the Recreation
and Senior Center Project. Completed to date: Hurdle Mills, Bushy Fork, and Olive Hill.
Anticipated completion date of the remaining tracks is April 2013.
PCOB roofing ($412,708) – Engineering has been completed. Bidding will occur in late March.
Bushy Fork gym roofing ($134,696) – This project can be completed quickly and will be
finished by the end of FY13.
LEC HVAC controls ($170,000) – Over 50% complete and will be completed by mid to late
April.
Accounting & HR Software Package ($290,000) – Finance records have been converted to
the new software and departments are now using the Munis system for Finance-related
documents. The HR software rollout is underway and anticipated for completion in May 2013.
Public Schools:
Exterior wall waterproofing at PHS ($250,000) – The waterproofing is 10% complete and will
be finished during the summer of 2013.
Paving at Person High and Southern Middle ($150,000) – Expected completion is summer
of 2013.
North End Elementary roofing ($577,646) – Bids will be received in April 2013.
Replacement of cooling tower at Person High ($60,000) – Bids have been received and are
higher than expected.
Paving tracks at Person High and Southern Middle School ($200,000) – Expected
completion is summer of 2013.
Southern Middle and Person High School roofing ($3,082,538) – Southern Middle School
roofing is over 50% complete and should be completed by May 2013. Person High School
roofing has not started, but is expected to be complete in fall of 2013. The re-roofing costs for
these two schools were funded with loan proceeds, and includes a 100% federal interest credit
through an approved Qualified School Construction Bond (QSCB).
Page 6
60
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2014-2018
Recommended Projects
YEAR DEPT PROJECT TITLE TOTAL COST PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2014 IT
Paperless Document
Management System 177,471
This project will allow the county to store and manage documents
more efficiently. We anticipate operating savings from this project
due to a reduction in staff time over the long-term.
General Services New roof - Huck Sansbury 293,068
As recommended in the Roofing Study. This cost will be included
in the financing for the Rec/Senior Center.
General Services
New roof-Kirby Civic
Auditorium (Phase 2)342,273 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
General Services
Boiler Replacement -
PCOB 108,700
The Person County Office Building boiler is over 40 years old and
is in need of replacement. It has become unreliable and costly to
repair and maintain. A new boiler will be more reliable and
efficient.
EMS/Sheriff
Public Safety Southern
Satellite Facility 181,725
In an effort to reduce response times to the southern end of the
county and provide oversight of the Old Helena School building,
EMS and the Sheriff's Office will locate a satellite base on the Old
Helena School Building property.
Rec, Arts & Parks
Senior/Rec Center - Huck
Sansbury 3,877,000
Construct a Senior Center and recreation facility at the Huck
Sansbury location. This item will be financed.
Rec, Arts & Parks
Senior/Rec Center - Huck
Sansbury, contingency 387,000
A 10% contingency is recommended for the Senior/Rec Center
construction.
PCC
Campus wide fire alarm
system 60,000
Fire inspections staff found that some buildings were
inadequately wired. Upgrading the system will provide greater
safety for the students and faculty and provide greater property
protection at night when the facility is vacant.
Public Schools
New roof - Person County
High School (Phase 2)537,659
As recommended in the Roofing Study. This cost will be included
in the financing for the Rec/Senior Center.
Public Schools
New roof-Early
Intervention 180,999 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
Public Schools
Window replacement -
Oak Lane Elementary 178,600 As recommended in the Window Study.
Public Schools
Security equipment at all
schools 99,122
Includes placing an electronic lock and intercom system for the
front entrance at each school, a front door camera for each
school, and keypad locks for exterior doors between buildings.
2015 General Services New roof - EMS 125,659 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
General Services
Replace carpet and tile -
PCOB (Phase 1)55,000
The third floor costs have been moved to the operating budget,
since it did not meet the $50,000 threshold. The remaining two
floors will be completed over two years. A solution has been
developed that will not require removal of carpet, tile, and glue.
Rec, Arts & Parks
Senior/Rec Center
furniture and equipment 500,000
The cost of furniture and equipment for the Senior/Rec Center,
which may be paid for by a PARTF grant.
Elections
Voting equipment
(Phase 1)177,650
Includes purchasing E-pollbooks, tabulators, and AutoMark
machines. E-pollbooks are needed for the 2016 election. The
tabulators and the AutoMark machines are needed in 2017.
PCC
Campus Sidewalks
Upgrades 80,000
Existing sidewalks are hazardous due to breaks and uneveness
from tree growth.
Public Schools New Roof- Earl Bradsher 563,411 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
Public Schools
Window Replacements -
Woodland 180,500 As recommended in the Window Study.
Public Schools
Fire alarm replacements -
NMS 135,000
Current fire alarms are not adequately covering the school and
are recommended to be replaced by the PC Fire Inspector.
Public Schools
Fire alarm replacements -
SMS 175,000
Current fire alarms are not adequately covering the school and
are recommended to be replaced by the PC Fire Inspector.
2016 General Services
Replace carpet and tile -
PCOB (Phase 2)55,000
The third floor costs have been moved to the operating budget,
since it did not meet the $50,000 threshold. The remaining two
floors will be completed over two years. A solution has been
developed that will not require removal of carpet, tile, and glue.
General Services
Window Replacements -
PCOB 216,480 As recommended in the Window Study.
Airport
Construct an additional
hangar 800,000
The Airport Commission has recommended construction of an
additional hangar.
Elections
Voting equipment
(Phase 2)132,650
Includes purchasing E-pollbooks, tabulators, and AutoMark
machines. E-pollbooks are needed for the 2016 election. The
tabulators and the AutoMark machines are needed in 2017.
Page 7
61
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2014-2018
Recommended Projects
YEAR DEPT PROJECT TITLE TOTAL COST PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PCC New Roof - D Building 180,559 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
PCC
Upgrade Campus-wide
HVAC 100,000
HVAC controllers are outdated and have become expensive to
repair. New controllers are cheaper to maintain and user-friendly.
Public Schools New roof - VFW 69,781 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
Public Schools
Window Replacements -
North End Elementary 176,280 As recommended in the Window Study.
Public Schools
Asphalt replacement in
bus parking lot-PHS 80,000
Many areas in the bus parking lot have deteriorated, allowing
water to run across pavement, causing freeze and thaw issues.
Public Schools
Replace HVAC
controllers (at 10 schools) 97,000
HVAC controllers are outdated and have become expensive to
repair. New controllers are cheaper to maintain and user-friendly.
Public Schools
Replace rooftop units -
NMS (1st unit)65,000
Three units are at the end of their life. Failure is likely according
to a professional evaluation. One unit replaced annually.
2017 General Services
Improvements to Old
Helena School 2,598,548
Upgrade the old Helena school in order to make the facility a
usable space. This cost will cover bringing the facility up to code.
This cost will be financed.
General Services
New roof - Helena
Elementary School 1,014,031
As recommended in the Roofing Study. These costs will be
included in the financing for the Old Helena School
Improvements.
General Services
New roof-Board of
Elections/IT 143,047
As recommended in the Roofing Study. These costs will be
included in the financing for the Old Helena School
Improvements.
General Services
Old Helena School -
contingency 265,000 Contingency for Old Helena School improvements.
PCC
Upgrade Campus-wide
HVAC 100,000 The existing HVAC system is expensive to repair and inefficient.
PCC New Roof - L Building 115,113
As recommended in the Roofing Study. Included in financing for
Old Helena School Improvements.
Public Schools New roof - PHS 46,158 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
Public Schools
Replace roof top units-
NMS (2nd unit)67,500
Three units are at the end of their life. Failure is likely according
to a professional evaluation. One unit replaced annually.
Public Schools
New Roof - School
Maintenance 284,164
As recommended in the Roofing Study. Included in financing for
Old Helena School Improvements.
Public Schools
New Roof - South
Elementary 290,664
As recommended in the Roofing Study. Included in financing for
Old Helena School Improvements.
Public Schools New Roof - North End 215,686
As recommended in the Roofing Study. Included in financing for
Old Helena School Improvements.
Public Schools New Roof - Oak Lane 244,706
As recommended in the Roofing Study. Included in financing for
Old Helena School Improvements.
Public Schools
New Roof - North
Elementary 258,858
As recommended in the Roofing Study. Included in financing for
Old Helena School Improvements.
Public Schools New Roof - Woodland 155,183
As recommended in the Roofing Study. Included in financing for
Old Helena School Improvements.
Public Schools
Window Replacements -
Earl Bradsher 233,440 As recommended in the Window Study.
Public Schools
Window Replacements -
South Elementary 161,880 As recommended in the Window Study.
2018 General Services
New roof - Bushy Fork
Park 68,657 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
PCC
Construct covered
walkways 205,000 Construct a covered walkway from Building A to Building S.
Public Schools
Replace rooftop units -
NMS (3rd unit)70,000
Three units are at the end of their life. Failure is likely according
to a professional evaluation. One unit replaced annually.
Public Schools
New Roof - Southern
Middle 53,074 As recommended in the Roofing Study.
Public Schools
Window Replacements -
North Elementary 168,840 As recommended in the Window Study.
Public Schools
Window Replacements -
PHS 320,800 As recommended in the Window Study.
Page 8
62
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2014-2018
Projects Not Recommended
DEPT PROJECT TITLE
TOTAL
COST
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/REASON FOR NOT
RECOMMENDING
Tax Pictometry 50,000
Pictometry provides oblique aerial images that have greater
detail than ortho-photograhy. Pictometry reduces the cost of
visting properties significantly, therefore reducing tax office
staff time and fuel costs. This project can be completed
using funds from the Revaluation Fund.
EMS Garage Re-configuration 62,450
Includes building an exterior garage and renovating the
existing garage at the EMS base. Half of these costs would
have been used to build an external garage, but since the
County Manager is recommending the Public Safety satellite
facility, an additional external garage is not needed. The
remaining cost of this project (renovation of the existing
garage) does not meet the CIP threshold and will be
included in the operating budget.
Rec, Arts & Parks
Playground and Park
Improvements 160,000
Includes upgrades and ADA compliance for Longhurst,
Allensville, Hurdle Mills, Mt. Tirzah, Bushy Fork, Bethel Hill,
Helena and older playgrouns at Mayo Park.The cost for this
project has been moved to the operating budget, as these
are recurring costs that should be maintained regularly.
Rec, Arts & Parks Olive Hill Restroom Project 50,000
Includes construction of outdoor restrooms at Olive Hill. Not
recommended at this time.
Rec, Arts & Parks
Solar Lights on Walking
Tracks 260,000
Installation of solar lights on all walking tracks. Turning on
existing lights is a much cheaper option than replacing the
lights with solar lights. The cost of turning on lights does
not meet the $50,000 CIP threshold and will be included in
the operating budget.
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 Senior/Rec
Center will provide additional recreational opportunities,
so this project is not needed at this time.
Rec, Arts & Parks
New Park Location (Critcher-
Wilkerson)150,000
Includes construction of multi-purpose fields at Critcher-
Wilkerson. The Senior/Rec Center will provide additional
recreational opportunities, so this project is not needed at
this time.
Rec, Arts & Parks
Renovate Old Landfill into
Park/Green space 53,000
Renovate the old landfill for hiking, biking and open space.
The Senior/Rec Center will provide additional recreational
opportunities, so this project is not needed at this time.
Rec, Arts & Parks
Kirby Auditorium - second floor
renovation 64,000
Includes cost of installing an elevator to access the second
floor of the Kirby. Since fundraising efforts are still in
progress for the second floor of the Kirby, this project is
not recommended at this time.
Rec, Arts & Parks Kirby Auditorium seating 75,000
Includes replacement of seating for the Kirby Theater. Not
recommended at this time.
Rec, Arts & Parks Kirby Auditorium carpet 69,000
Includes replacement of carpet in the theater area. Not
recommended at this time.
Rec, Arts & Parks Gym restorations 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 55,000
Includes replacing and upgrading scoreboards at all
recreational locations. These are ongoing maintenance
costs and have been moved to the operating budget.
PCC Allied Health Building 9,025,000
Includes construction of a new Allied Health facility on PCC's
campus. More information is needed to determine the
feasibility of this project.
Page 9
63
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2014-2018
Projects Not Recommended
DEPT PROJECT TITLE
TOTAL
COST
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/REASON FOR NOT
RECOMMENDING
PCC Upgrade dining facility 52,500
Includes purchasing equipment that would expand food
offerings to students and staff. Not recommended at this
time.
PCC Bookstore expansion 60,000
Includes furnishings and shelving for the new PCC bookstore.
Not recommended at this time.
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. 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. 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, in
the event that it is displaced by the new Senior/Rec Center. A
space needs study may be a more economical approach
to relocating the WFDTC.
PCC
Furniture & Fixture for Allied
Health building 600,000
Includes furnishings and fixtures for the Allied Health Building.
Since the Allied Health Building is not included in this
CIP, neither is this project.
EDC
Person County Commerce
Shell Building 3,000,000
Includes purchasing land and constructing a 100,000 sq ft.
shell building in Person County that can be expanded to
200,000 sq ft. for economic development purposes. A shell
building will attract businesses that are looking for a new
location. The building may or may not be the building that is
ultimately selected for use; however, it is the mechanism for
attracting new investment to Person County. Not
recommended because the Force Protection buildng is
vacant and can be used to show prospective businesses.
PI/Materials
Recovery Facility
Purchase MRF Building and
renovate 2,200,000
Includes purchasing land and a building to house both Person
Industries and the MRF. Combining both entities in one
building will result in efficiencies and provide the room to grow
as recycling tonnage increases. Not recommended because
more detailed information is needed on the actual cost of
combining the facilities.
Public Schools Classroom conversion - PHS 100,000
Convert old metal shop to classroom space. Metals program
is no longer in existence and space is needed for normal
classroom use. Delayed due to cost of implementing
roofing and windows studies.
Public Schools
VCT Floor Tile replacement -
Earl Bradsher 250,000
Replace floor tiles that are original from the 1950's. Delayed
due to cost of implementing roofing and window studies.
Public Schools Stadium restrooms - PHS 500,000
Restrooms are not readily accessible to the public. Handicap
access is also not available. Delayed due to cost of
implementing roofing and window studies.
Public Schools Chiller replacement - PHS 285,000
Chiller is at least 23 years old. Delayed due to cost of
implementing roofing and window studies.
Public Schools
Construction of Maintenance
Facility 1,500,000
New maintenance facility to replace existing facility that is 60+
years old. Not recommended at this time.
Page 10
64
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan
2014-18
Recommended - Funding Schedule
GF Fund Balance 2,102,482 1,145,685 1,487,220 1,512,750 1,183,978 946,371 8,378,486
CIP Project Fund Balance 256,701 254,545 355,000 460,000 100,000 200,000 1,626,246
Paperless Document Management System-
Cost Share from DSS Reimb & City of Roxboro - 20,387 - - - - 20,387
PARTF Grant - Recreation & Senior Center - 353,000 500,000 - - - 853,000
Debt Proceeds - Installment Purchase Financings 3,132,538 5,050,000 - - 5,320,000 - 13,502,538
Total Sources of Revenue:5,491,721 6,823,617 2,342,220 1,972,750 6,603,978 1,146,371 24,380,657
Project Costs for County:
Current
Year
2012-13
Budget
Year
2013-14
Planning
Year
2014-15
Planning
Year
2015-16
Planning
Year
2016-17
Planning
Year
2017-18
TOTAL
PROJECT
COSTS
Information Technology:
Paperless Document Management System - 177,471 - - - - 177,471
General Services:
Paving-driveway & parking lots-Anim Svcs,
Pub Works Maintenance & Mayo Park 135,000 - - - - - 135,000
LEC HVAC Controls Retrofit 170,000 - - - - - 170,000
New roof-Olive Hill Gym 19,133 - - - - - 19,133
New roof-PCOB 412,708 - - - - - 412,708
New roof-Huck Sansbury Complex - 293,068 - - - - 293,068
New roof-Kirby Civic Auditorium - 342,273 - - - - 342,273
Boiler Replacement-PCOB - 108,700 - - - - 108,700
New roof-Emergency Medical Services - - 125,659 - - - 125,659
Replace carpet & tile-PCOB - - 55,000 55,000 - - 110,000
Window Replacements-PCOB - - - 216,480 - - 216,480
Improvements to Old Helena Elementary School - - - - 2,598,548 - 2,598,548
New roof-Old Helena Elementary School - - - - 1,014,031 - 1,014,031
New roof-Board of Elections/IT - - - - 143,047 - 143,047
Old Helena School and Roofing Projects-
contingency - - - - 265,000 - 265,000
New roof-Bushy Fork Park 134,696 - - - - 68,657 203,353
Elections
Voting Equipment - - 177,650 132,650 - - 310,300
Emergency Management Services:
Public Safety Southern Satellite Facility - 181,725 - - - - 181,725
Economic Development:
Multi-Jurisdictional Industrial Park 45,000 - - - - - 45,000
Finance and Human Resources
Accounting Software Package 290,000 - - - - - 290,000
Recreation, Arts & Parks:
Walking tracks repaving & repair 65,000 - - - - - 65,000
Recreation and Senior Center Project - 3,877,000 - - - - 3,877,000
Rec and Senior Center Project - contingency - 387,000 - - - - 387,000
Rec and Senior Center Project - furn. & equip.- - 500,000 - - - 500,000
Airport Construction Projects:
Additional airport hanger construction - - - 800,000 - - 800,000
Set -asides for future projects - 100,000 350,000 - - 50,000 500,000
Total County Projects 1,271,537 5,467,237 1,208,309 1,204,130 4,020,626 118,657 13,290,496
Sources of Revenue for
Project Costs:
Current
Year
2012-13
Budget
Year
2013-14
Planning
Year
2014-15
Planning
Year
2015-16
Planning
Year
2016-17
Planning
Year
2017-18
TOTAL
REVENUE
SOURCES
Page 11
65
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan
2014-18
Recommended - Funding Schedule
Project Costs for PCC:
Current
Year
2012-13
Budget
Year
2013-14
Planning
Year
2014-15
Planning
Year
2015-16
Planning
Year
2016-17
Planning
Year
2017-18
TOTAL
PROJECT
COSTS
Piedmont Community College (PCC):
Paving and Expansion-Parking Lot 4 100,000 - - - - - 100,000
Campus-wide fire alarm system - 60,000 - - - - 60,000
Campus Sidewalks Upgrade - - 80,000 - - - 80,000
New roof-D Building - - - 180,559 - - 180,559
Upgrade campus-wide HVAC - - - 100,000 100,000 - 200,000
New roof-L Building - - - - 115,113 - 115,113
Construct covered walkways - - - - - 205,000 205,000
Set -asides for future projects - 100,000 - - - - 100,000
Total PCC 100,000 160,000 80,000 280,559 215,113 205,000 1,040,672
Project Costs for Public Schools:
Current
Year
2012-13
Budget
Year
2013-14
Planning
Year
2014-15
Planning
Year
2015-16
Planning
Year
2016-17
Planning
Year
2017-18
TOTAL
PROJECT
COSTS
Public Schools:
SMS & PHS Roofing-Issuance Costs 50,000 - - - - - 50,000
Replacement of cooling tower-PHS 60,000 - - - - - 60,000
Replace tracks-PHS & SMS 200,000 - - - - - 200,000
Paving-PHS & South Elem 150,000 - - - - - 150,000
New roof-PHS 568,816 537,659 - - 46,158 - 1,152,633
New roof-Early Intervention - 180,999 - - - - 180,999
Window replacements-Oak Lane Elementary - 178,600 - - - - 178,600
Security equipment at all schools - 99,122 - - - - 99,122
New roof-Earl Bradsher - - 563,411 - - - 563,411
Window replacements-Woodland - - 180,500 - - - 180,500
Fire alarm replacement-NMS - - 135,000 - - - 135,000
Fire alarm replacement-SMS - - 175,000 - - - 175,000
New roof-VFW - - - 69,781 - - 69,781
Window replacements-North End Elementary - - - 176,280 - - 176,280
Asphalt replacement in bus parking lot-PHS - - - 80,000 - - 80,000
Replace HVAC controllers (at 10 schools)- - - 97,000 - - 97,000
Replace rooftop units-NMS (1 unit per year)- - - 65,000 67,500 70,000 202,500
New roof-School Maintenance - - - - 284,164 - 284,164
New roof-South Elementary - - - - 290,664 - 290,664
New roof-North End 577,646 - - - 215,686 - 793,332
New roof-Oak Lane - - - - 244,706 - 244,706
New roof-North Elementary - - - - 258,858 - 258,858
New roof-Woodland - - - - 155,183 - 155,183
Window replacements-Earl Bradsher - - - - 233,440 - 233,440
Window replacements-South Elementary - - - - 161,880 - 161,880
New roof-Southern Middle School 2,513,722 - - - - 53,074 2,566,796
Window replacements-North Elementary - - - - - 168,840 168,840
Window replacements-PHS - - - - - 320,800 320,800
Set -asides for future projects - 200,000 - - 410,000 210,000 820,000
Total Public Schools Projects:4,120,184 1,196,380 1,053,911 488,061 2,368,239 822,714 10,049,489
Total Project Costs:5,491,721 6,823,617 2,342,220 1,972,750 6,603,978 1,146,371 24,380,657
Page 12
66
Person County
Capital Improvement Plan
2014-18
Recommended - Funding Schedule
Sources of Revenue for
Operating Impact Costs:
Current
Year
2012-13
Budget
Year
2013-14
Planning
Year
2014-15
Planning
Year
2015-16
Planning
Year
2016-17
Planning
Year
2017-18
TOTAL
REVENUE
SOURCES
General Fund Revenues 67,549 540,851 15,903 - 35,410 9,479 669,192
Paperless Doc Mgt: DSS-State Reimbursement - 4,606 4,606 4,606 4,606 4,606 23,030
Paperless Doc Mgt: City of Roxboro Cost Share - 4,000 6,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 34,000
Durham County's Cost Share-Multi Juris Park - 17,500 - - - - 17,500
Recreation and Senior Center: Fees - - 107,305 107,305 107,305 107,305 429,220
Total Sources of Revenue for Operating Impact
Costs 67,549 566,957 133,814 119,911 155,321 129,390 1,172,942
Operating Impact Costs:
Current
Year
2012-13
Budget
Year
2013-14
Planning
Year
2014-15
Planning
Year
2015-16
Planning
Year
2016-17
Planning
Year
2017-18
TOTAL
PROJECT
COSTS
Paperless Document Management
Staff Training - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 - 4,000
Scanning costs - 9,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 - 49,000
Licensing & Maintenance - 29,739 29,739 29,739 29,739 29,739 148,695
Multi-Jurisdictional Park - site certification and
formation of non-profit agency - 35,000 - - - - 35,000
Public Safety Southern Satellite Facility
Utilities - 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 37,500
Phone lines (fire, fax, phone, cable)- 278 278 278 278 278 1,390
IT maintenance - 3,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 13,500
Recreation and Senior Center/Huck Sansbury &
PHS Roofing Project
Personnel/Operating costs - - 237,422 242,170 247,014 251,954 978,560
Debt service impacts with proposed debt 67,549 480,940 (164,625) (1,924,917) (142,710) (162,581) (1,846,344)
Total Operating Impact Costs 67,549 566,957 133,814 (1,631,730) 155,321 129,390 (578,699)
Note: Items highlighted in blue are projects associated with a debt financing.
2012-13 School Roofing Project (QSCB financing)
2013-14 Recreation and Senior Center Construction and Various Roofing Projects
2016-17 Old Helena School Improvements & Various Roofing Projects
Due to the approval by the Department of Public Instruction of a $3.1M Qualified School Construction Bond ("QSCB") issuance in April
2012, the total re-roofing construction of Southern Middle School and a portion of re-roofing for Person High School was approved by
the Board in FY 2013. The total QSCB borrowing amount was $3,132,538. The QSCB offers a 100% federal interest credit as part of
its intended structure.
A debt borrowing is proposed to cover various improvements to Old Helena School and re-roofing projects for the County, PCC and
Schools. (Note: A decision will need to be made with respect to the designated use of the Old Helena School to clarify what other
improvements may be required to fulfill the needs of the new occupant(s).) This Old Helena improvements are estimated at $2,598,548
and nine re-roofing projects (2-County, 1-PCC, and 6-Schools) for $2,721,452. The total proposed borrowing for these projects is
estimated to be $5,320,000.
It is recommended to do an installment financing to capture the cost of the recently revised Recreation and Senior Center Project along
with the re-roofing of the Huck Sansbury Complex, the Kirby and the rest of Person High School. The engineering contract for the
Recreation and Senior Center has been approved for $300,000 and is currently in progress. The engineering study for the roofs has
already been completed as part of the latest Roofing Study. The total proposed borrowing for these projects is $5,050,000.
Page 13
67
Person County Capital Improvement Plan
Recommended - Revenue Sources
FY 2014 - 2018
Total % Revenue Sources
Description Current Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Totals % of Total
GF Fund Balance 2,102,482 1,145,685 1,487,220 1,512,750 1,183,978 946,371 8,378,486 34.4%
CIP Project Fund Balance 256,701 254,545 355,000 460,000 100,000 200,000 1,626,246 6.6%
Paperless Document
Management System-Cost
Shares - 20,387 - - - - 20,387 0.1%
PARTF Grant - Recreation &
Senior Center - 353,000 500,000 - - - 853,000 3.5%
Debt Proceeds - Installment
Purchase Financings 3,132,538 5,050,000 - - 5,320,000 - 13,502,538 55.4%
Totals 5,491,721 6,823,617 2,342,220 1,972,750 6,603,978 1,146,371 24,380,657 100.0%
GF Fund Balance
34.4%
CIP Project Fund
Balance
6.6%
Paperless Document
Management
System-Cost Shares
0.1%
PARTF Grant -
Recreation & Senior
Center
3.5%
Debt Proceeds -
Installment
Purchase
Financings
55.4%
Page 14
68
Person County Capital Improvement Plan
Recommended - by Function
FY 2014 - 2018
Total % CIP Projects by Function
Description Current Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Totals % of Total
General Government 1,161,537 1,021,512 358,309 404,130 4,020,626 118,657 7,084,771 29.1%
Public Safety - 181,725 - - - - 181,725 0.7%
Economic Development 45,000 - - - - - 45,000 0.2%
Culture & Recreation 65,000 4,264,000 500,000 - - - 4,829,000 19.8%
Transportation (Airport) - - 350,000 800,000 - - 1,150,000 4.7%
Education - PCC 100,000 160,000 80,000 280,559 215,113 205,000 1,040,672 4.3%
Education - Schools 4,120,184 1,196,380 1,053,911 488,061 2,368,239 822,714 10,049,489 41.2%
Totals 5,491,721 6,823,617 2,342,220 1,972,750 6,603,978 1,146,371 24,380,657 100.0%
General
Government
29.1%
Public Safety
0.7%
Economic
Development
0.2%
Culture &
Recreation
19.8%
Transportation
(Airport)
4.7%
Education - PCC
4.3%
Education - Schools
41.2%
Page 15
69
Person County Capital Improvement Plan
Recommended - by Type
FY 2014 - 2018
Total % CIP Projects by Type
Description Current Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Totals % of Total
Roofing 4,276,721 1,353,999 689,070 250,340 2,767,610 121,731 9,459,471 38.8%
Construction/Renovation - 4,145,725 - 800,000 2,863,548 205,000 8,014,273 32.9%
Equipment Upgrades 520,000 445,293 810,000 439,650 300,150 70,000 2,585,093 10.6%
Window Replacements - 178,600 180,500 392,760 395,320 489,640 1,636,820 6.7%
Set-Asides - 400,000 350,000 - 410,000 260,000 1,420,000 5.8%
Paving 650,000 - 80,000 80,000 - - 810,000 3.3%
Engineering/Planning Costs 45,000 300,000 - - - - 345,000 1.4%
Other B&G Improvements - - 55,000 55,000 - - 110,000 0.5%
Totals 5,491,721 6,823,617 2,164,570 2,017,750 6,736,628 1,146,371 24,380,657 100.0%
38.8%
32.9%
10.6%
6.7%
5.8%
3.3%
1.4%
0.5%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%
Roofing
Construction/Renovation
Equipment Upgrades
Window Replacements
Set-Asides
Paving
Engineering/Planning Costs
Other B&G Improvements
Page 16
70
Set-Aside
Amount
Fiscal Year that
project is
recommended
to take place
Remaining
Amount
Current & Prior Years
New roof-Kirby Civic Auditorium 209,545$ 2014 132,728$
Replace carpet & tile (PCOB)65,000 2015 & 2016 45,000
Window replacement-Earl Bradsher 100,000 2017 133,440
Total 374,545$
Budget Year 2013-2014
New roof-EMS 100,000$ 2015 25,659$
New roof-Earl Bradsher 200,000 2015 363,411
New roof-D Building (PCC)100,000 2016 80,559
Total 400,000$
Planning Year 2014-2015
Additional airport hanger construction 350,000$ 2016 450,000$
Total 350,000$
Planning Year 2015-2016
(No set asides proposed in this year)-$
Planning Year 2016-2017
Window replacements-PHS 200,000$ 2018 120,800$
New roof-Oak Lane Elementary 100,000 2025 630,943
New roof-Woodland Elementary 110,000 2025 751,261
Total 410,000$
Planning Year 2017-2018
New roof-Inspections 50,000$ 2020 72,365$
New roof-Oak Lane Elementary 100,000 2025 530,943
New roof-Woodland Elementary 110,000 2025 641,261
Total 260,000$
Note: The County has implemented 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
Page 17
71
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% 3,050,364 2021
2007 School Bus
Garage/Health
Buildings
Renovation/PCC
Roofing
Construction of a bus garage for the
Person County Schools administrative
unit, re-roofing two classroom building
at Piedmont Community College and
renovating, equipping and furnishing
former Health Department buildings to
provide space for other County
departments
7
years
3.75% 616,921 2014
2008
Refinancing of
1999 & 2000
Elem School
Construction &
LEC Building
Combine and refinance the previous
debt held on the cost of construction to
the elementary schools in 1999 and
2000, and the acquisition and
construction on the law enforcement
center
7
years
3.55% 4,680,516 2015
2009 Material
Recovery
Facility
Equipment
Capital lease of a baler and equipment
associated with the operation of a
material recovery facility
5
years
2.71% 96,668 2014
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% 4,285,500*
*(4,087,075
net of interest
credit)
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% 3,920,658*
*($3,028,120
net of interest
credit)
2028
Page 18
72
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 2011, the debt to assets ratio for Person County was 36%, while counties with similar
populations were at 57%. A more applicable comparison may be to view the debt to assets ratio for Person
County since FY 2008. As displayed in the following chart, Person County's debt to assets ratio has declined
from 47% in FY 2008 to 29% in FY 2012. This reduction can be attributed to conservative spending in
uncertain economic conditions and the build-up of reserves. 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. Once this debt
is decreased and new debt is issued to level out the County’s debt structure, 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
2008 47%
2009 42%
2010 35%
2011 36%
2012 29%
· 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 7% is well below the population group of 10% for FY 2011 (Person
County's ratio increases to almost 9% for FY 2012), and lower than the Statewide average of 12%. 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 new debt financings are incorporated to assist in leveling out the 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.
FY 2011 Debt Service Ratio
Person County 7%
Population Group 10%
State-wide 12%
Maximum Benchmark 15%
47%
42%
35%36%
29%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
7%
10%
12%
15%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Person County
Population Group
State-wide
Maximum Benchmark
Page 19
73
New Debt Service
The two proposed financings in Person County's 2014-2018 plan are recommended below:
FY 2014 Recreation and Senior Center Construction and Various Re-roofing Projects
It is the current recommendation in this CIP to issue Installment Purchase Debt in FY 2014 for the construction
of a Recreation and Senior Center and various re-roofing projects for County and School buildings. The re-
roofing projects would include the Huck Sansbury Complex, the Kirby Theater, and a portion of Person High
School. The engineering contract for the Recreation and Senior Center was approved in FY 2013 for
$300,000 and the application for a PARTF grant was completed in anticipation of a $1,000,000 award over a
two year period. The grant would require a 50% match from Person County. The engineering study for the
roofing has been completed and estimates are available as part of the latest Roofing Study. The total
proposed debt amount for these projects is $5,050,000 and is comprised of the following:
Recreation and Senior Center Construction $ 3,877,000
Re-roofing: Huck Sansbury Complex 293,068
Re-roofing: The Kirby Theater 342,273
Re-roofing: Person High School 537,659
Total $ 5,050,000
FY 2017 Old Helena School Improvements and Various Re-roofing Projects
Also recommended in this CIP is the issuance of Installment Purchase Debt in FY 2017 for improvements to
Old Helena Elementary School and re-roofing construction to various buildings for the County, PCC and
Schools. The total proposed debt amount for these projects is $5,320,000 and is comprised of the following:
Old Helena School Improvements $ 2,598,548
Re-roofing: Old Helena Elementary 1,014,031
Re-roofing: Elections/IT 143.047
Re-roofing: PCC Building L 115,113
Re-roofing: School Maintenance 284,164
Re-roofing: South Elementary 290,664
Re-roofing: North End Elementary 215,686
Re-roofing: Oak Lane Elementary 244,706
Re-roofing: North Elementary 258,858
Re-roofing: Woodland Elementary 155,183
Total $ 5,320,000
Note: Person County has the option to finance the Recreation and Senior Center with General Obligation (G.O.)
Bonds; however, this is currently not recommended due to the additions of other major roofing projects, the flexibility to
level out our current debt structure, and the narrow rate spread still remaining between Installment Purchase
Financing and G.O. Bonds. If the spread in these rates widen to the extent that a G.O. Bond is preferred, these
projects will need to be re-evaluated. Also included in the plan are contingency amounts for the FY 2014 and FY
2017 financing projects that would be locally supported in case of cost overruns. Since the contingency amounts are
not part of debt proceeds, remaining unspent amounts can be re-allocated for any purpose or other capital projects.
Page 20
74
Future Debt Service Payments for Person County
Fiscal Year Ending
June 30
2006
Various
roofing/paving
projects
2007
School Bus
Gar/Health Bldg
Renov/PCC Roofing
2008
Refinancing of 1999
& 2000 Schools/LEC
Bldg
2009
Material Recovery
Facility Equipment
2010
Courthouse
Renovation &
Various Roofing
Projects
2012
School Roofing
Projects for SMS
& PHS (QSCB)
Total Current Debt
Service
Year to Year
Change in
Current
Debt Service
2013 330,915 793,652 2,268,888 98,668 462,180 149,216 4,103,518 67,549
2014 322,230 616,921 2,394,160 98,668 449,940 325,789 4,207,708 104,190
2015 313,545 - 2,286,356 - 932,600 317,582 3,850,083 (357,625)
2016 329,831 - - - 899,960 309,375 1,539,166 (2,310,917)
2017 319,969 - - - 867,320 301,167 1,488,456 (50,710)
2018 483,635 - - - 339,780 292,960 1,116,375 (372,081)
2019 442,471 - - - 327,540 284,753 1,054,764 (61,611)
2020 427,094 - - - 315,300 276,546 1,018,940 (35,824)
2021 411,591 - - - 153,060 268,338 832,989 (185,951)
2022 - - - - - 260,131 260,131 (572,858)
2023 - - - - - 251,924 251,924 (8,207)
2024 - - - - - 243,717 243,717 (8,207)
2025 - - - - - 235,509 235,509 (8,208)
2026 - - - - - 227,302 227,302 (8,207)
2027 - - - - - 219,095 219,095 (8,207)
2028 - - - - - 106,470 106,470 (112,625)
2029 - - - - - - - (106,470)
Totals 3,381,279$ 1,410,573$ 6,949,404$ 197,337$ 4,747,680$ 4,069,874$ 20,756,146$ (4,035,969)$
Fiscal Year Ending
June 30
Total Current Debt
Service
2014
Proposed -
Recreation and
Senior Center &
Various Roofing
Project
(assumptions:
3%, 20yr)
2017
Proposed - Old
Helena School
Improvements &
Various Roofing
Project
(assumptions:
5%, 20yr)
Total Debt Service
with
2014 and 2017
Proposed Financings
Adjusted
Year to Year
Change with
Proposed
Debt Service
2013 4,103,518 - - 4,103,518 67,549
2014 4,207,708 376,750 - 4,584,458 480,940
2015 3,850,083 569,750 - 4,419,833 (164,625)
2016 1,539,166 955,750 - 2,494,916 (1,924,917)
2017 1,488,456 327,750 536,000 2,352,206 (142,710)
2018 1,116,375 320,750 752,500 2,189,625 (162,581)
2019 1,054,764 313,750 527,500 1,896,014 (293,611)
2020 1,018,940 306,750 412,500 1,738,190 (157,824)
2021 832,989 299,750 402,500 1,535,239 (202,951)
2022 260,131 292,750 692,500 1,245,381 (289,858)
2023 251,924 285,750 467,500 1,005,174 (240,207)
2024 243,717 278,750 352,500 874,967 (130,207)
2025 235,509 271,750 342,500 849,759 (25,208)
2026 227,302 264,750 332,500 824,552 (25,207)
2027 219,095 257,750 322,500 799,345 (25,207)
2028 106,470 250,750 312,500 669,720 (129,625)
2029 - 243,750 352,500 596,250 (73,470)
2030 - 236,750 340,000 576,750 (19,500)
2031 - 229,750 327,500 557,250 (19,500)
2032 - 222,750 315,000 537,750 (19,500)
2033 - 215,750 302,500 518,250 (19,500)
2034 - 258,750 240,000 498,750 (19,500)
2035 - - 230,000 230,000 (268,750)
2036 - - 220,000 220,000 (10,000)
2037 - - 210,000 210,000 (10,000)
2038 - - - - (210,000)
Totals 20,756,146$ 6,780,750$ 7,991,000$ 35,527,896$ (4,035,969)$
-
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
5,000,000
Total Current Debt Service Adjusted
Year to Year
Change with
Proposed
Debt Service
The above chart displays Person
County's current debt service
schedule. A large amount of debt
drops off in fiscal year 2016 for
$2.3M.
This sharp decline in debt
obligations and the availability of
low interest rates allows for the
opportunity and capacity for
Person County to take on
additional debt (see 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.
Page 21
75
76
77
78
Upon a motion by Commissioner __________________________, and a second by Commissioner
_____________________________ and majority vote, the Board of Commissioners of Person County does
hereby amend the Budget of the Fund(s) listed below on this, the 1st day of April 2013, as follows:
Dept./Acct No.Department Name Amount
Incr / (Decr)
EXPENDITURES General Fund
General Government 3,300
Public Safety 18,389
Transportation 64,500
Economic Development 5,514
Culture & Recreation 32,025
REVENUES General Fund
Intergovernmental Revenues 83,050
Charges for Services 27,614
Other Revenues 11,186
Fund Balance Appropriated 1,878
EXPENDITURES Capital Improvement Project Fund 27,414
REVENUES Capital Improvement Project Fund
Other Revenues 27,414
Explanation:
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Received additional proceeds from the sale of fixed assets ($3,300); appropriating fund balance to reimburse the
Dept of Juvenile Justice for unspent JCPC Admin funds from 2011-2012 ($428); received additional funds from
the Partnership for Children for the VIP grant ($5,000); fees associated with Concealed Weapons ($7,520); inmate
telephone fees, sales of inmate phone cards and Commissions ($2,589); Rabies Vaccination charges ($552);
Spay and Neuter Program revenues (7,300); carry-forward grant funds and County's match from 2011-2012 for
DOT's approved purchase of a PATS van ($64,500); farmer's market dues ($1,304); Cooperative Extension class
registration fees ($1,010); insurance claim revenues for hail damage to two Cooperative Extension vehicles
($3,200) and a vehicle in the Recreation, Arts & Parks Department ($3,626); recreation fees associated with the
Kirby ($8,399); a Library Services and Technology Act grant received for the Public Library ($20,000); and an
insurance claim received for damage to the Huck Sansbury Roofing ($27,414).
Budget Amentment 14
79