Board Agenda Packet Jan 22 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
January 22, 2013
9:00 am
CALL TO ORDER…………………………………………………. Chairman Clayton
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA
ITEM #1
Resolution of Appreciation – Debra Clayton …………………….. Chairman Clayton
ITEM #2
Person County Government Safety Award ……………………………….. Heidi York
PUBLIC HEARING:
ITEM #3
NC Dept. of Transportation’s (DOT) Proposed
Secondary Road Construction Program for
Person County (2012-2013) ……………………. Mike Goodwin & Cadmus Capehart
ITEM #4
Accept the NC DOT Secondary Road Construction Program for
Person County (2012-2013) …………………………………………Chairman Clayton
1
PUBLIC HEARING:
ITEM #5
Fiscal Year 2014 Community Transportation Program
Application ………………………………………………………………. Kathy Adcock
ITEM #6
Fiscal Year 2014 Community Transportation Program
Resolution and Local Share Certification for Funding ………….. Chairman Clayton
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 #7
December 10, 2012
January 7, 2013
TAX ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
ITEM #8
Releases for the month of December, 2012
OLD BUSINESS:
ITEM #9
Appointments to the Board’s Newly Established
Board of Equalization and Review ……………………………….. Chairman Clayton
NEW BUSINESS:
ITEM #10
2012 State of the County Health Report ………………………….. Leigh Ann Creson
ITEM #11
Sale of Property donated by the family
of former commissioner Stony Stonbraker ……………Ron Aycock & Janet Clayton
ITEM #12
A Resolution Authorizing Publication of Intent
To Exchange Property Owned by the County
for Property owned by North Park Drive, LLC …….. Ron Aycock & Stuart Gilbert
2
ITEM #13
Strategic Plan Update ……………………………………………………….. Sybil Tate
ITEM #14
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.
3
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATIONRESOLUTION OF APPRECIATIONRESOLUTION OF APPRECIATIONRESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
WHEREAS,WHEREAS,WHEREAS,WHEREAS, Debra ClaytonDebra ClaytonDebra ClaytonDebra Clayton has served the people has served the people has served the people has served the people oooof Person Counf Person Counf Person Counf Person Counttttyyyy
during during during during her her her her tenuretenuretenuretenure as a as a as a as a Senior Administrative Support Senior Administrative Support Senior Administrative Support Senior Administrative Support
SpecialistSpecialistSpecialistSpecialist in in in in the Soilthe Soilthe Soilthe Soil & & & & WaterWaterWaterWater Department Department Department Department; and; and; and; and
WHEREAS,WHEREAS,WHEREAS,WHEREAS, Debra ClaytonDebra ClaytonDebra ClaytonDebra Clayton has served has served has served has served the citizens of Person County the citizens of Person County the citizens of Person County the citizens of Person County
with honor, integrity, sincerity and dwith honor, integrity, sincerity and dwith honor, integrity, sincerity and dwith honor, integrity, sincerity and dedicationedicationedicationedication, pro, pro, pro, providing viding viding viding
accurate, concise servicesaccurate, concise servicesaccurate, concise servicesaccurate, concise services for for for for twentytwentytwentytwenty----oneoneoneone yearsyearsyearsyears, , , , JuneJuneJuneJune 1919191999991111
–––– DecemberDecemberDecemberDecember 20 20 20 2011112222; and; and; and; and
WHEREASWHEREASWHEREASWHEREAS,,,, Debra ClaytonDebra ClaytonDebra ClaytonDebra Clayton has earned the respect and admiration of has earned the respect and admiration of has earned the respect and admiration of has earned the respect and admiration of
all who have known hall who have known hall who have known hall who have known herererer and worked with h and worked with h and worked with h and worked with herererer througho througho througho throughout ut ut ut
hhhherererer career; andcareer; andcareer; andcareer; and
WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the County of Person recognizes the many contributions the County of Person recognizes the many contributions the County of Person recognizes the many contributions the County of Person recognizes the many contributions
Debra ClaytonDebra ClaytonDebra ClaytonDebra Clayton has made to the County and offers h has made to the County and offers h has made to the County and offers h has made to the County and offers herererer
sincere best wishes for sincere best wishes for sincere best wishes for sincere best wishes for her her her her retirement.retirement.retirement.retirement.
NOW, THEREFORENOW, THEREFORENOW, THEREFORENOW, THEREFORE, I, , I, , I, , I, Jimmy B. ClaytonJimmy B. ClaytonJimmy B. ClaytonJimmy B. Clayton, Chairman of the Person County , Chairman of the Person County , Chairman of the Person County , Chairman of the Person County
Board of CoBoard of CoBoard of CoBoard of Commissioners, do hereby extend this Resolution of Appreciation mmissioners, do hereby extend this Resolution of Appreciation mmissioners, do hereby extend this Resolution of Appreciation mmissioners, do hereby extend this Resolution of Appreciation
to to to to Debra ClaytonDebra ClaytonDebra ClaytonDebra Clayton for continually striving to make Roxboro and Person for continually striving to make Roxboro and Person for continually striving to make Roxboro and Person for continually striving to make Roxboro and Person
County a better place to live and work.County a better place to live and work.County a better place to live and work.County a better place to live and work.
AdoptedAdoptedAdoptedAdopted this, this, this, this, the the the the 22nd22nd22nd22nd day of day of day of day of JanuaryJanuaryJanuaryJanuary, 20, 20, 20, 2011113333....
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
JJJJimmy B. Claytonimmy B. Claytonimmy B. Claytonimmy B. Clayton, Chairman, Chairman, Chairman, Chairman
Person County Board of CommissionersPerson County Board of CommissionersPerson County Board of CommissionersPerson County Board of Commissioners
Attest:Attest:Attest:Attest:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brenda B. ReavesBrenda B. ReavesBrenda B. ReavesBrenda B. Reaves, NCCCC, CMC, NCCCC, CMC, NCCCC, CMC, NCCCC, CMC
Clerk to the BoardClerk to the BoardClerk to the BoardClerk to the Board
4
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 22, 2012
Agenda Title: Person County Government Safety Award
Summary of Information:
The Person County Safety Committee implemented a new safety recognition program in July
2012. Each quarter, the Person County Safety Committee selects a county department safety
winner. This is a competitive award based on established criteria including: attendance at county
trainings, reporting accidents in a timely manner, submitting accident investigation forms,
reporting hazards, performance on facility inspections, and emergency procedures testing and
other outstanding safety acts.
The department will be presented a certificate and plaque with their department’s name listed.
The plaque is located in the hallway outside the Commissioners’ Meeting Room. A newsletter
article will be in the county newsletter and submitted to the local paper to highlight the
outstanding measures of the county department.
This award is presented quarterly and this is the second recipient to achieve this honor.
Recommended Action: Allow the County Manager to recognize the county department that has
earned the second Person County Government Safety Award.
Submitted By: Heidi York, County Manager
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
December 10, 2012
1
PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 10, 2012
MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
Jimmy B. Clayton Heidi York, County Manager
Kyle W. Puryear Sybil Tate, Assistant County Manager
B. Ray Jeffers Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board
Frances P. Blalock Angie Warren, Human Resources Director
David Newell, Sr.
The Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, met in
recessed session for a special called meeting on Monday, December 10, 2012 at 5:00 pm
in the FEMA room at the Human Services Building for the purpose to meet jointly with
the Board of Health and the Department of Social Services (DSS) Board. The meeting
was facilitated by UNC School of Government representatives for the group to discuss
options related to consolidating human services.
Chairman Clayton called the meeting to order at 5:04 pm.
Person County participants:
· Jimmy Clayton – Chair, Board of Commissioners
· Ray Jeffers – Vice Chair, Board of Commissioners and Commissioner
Representative on the DSS Board
· Commissioner Frances Blalock, Board of Health Member (Commissioner
Representative)
· Commissioner David Newell
· Commissioner Kyle Puryear
· Brenda Reaves – Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
· Heidi York – County Manager
· Sybil Tate – Assistant County Manager
· Angie Warren – Human Resources Director
· Steven Bailey – Chair, Board of Health
· Claudia Berryhill – Member, Board of Health
· Jack Hester – Member, Board of Health
· Jeff Noblett – Member, Board of Health
· Doris Pillow – Member, Board of Health
· Janet Clayton – Director, Health Department
· Angeline Brown – Chair, Social Services Board
· Dolly Denton – Member, Social Services Board
· Margaret Jones – Member, Social Services Board
· Carlton Paylor – Interim Director, Department of Social Services
15
December 10, 2012
2
UNC School of Government participants:
· David Brown – Director, Applied Public Policy Initiative
· Margaret Henderson – Facilitator
· Jill Moore – Associate Professor of Public Law and Government
· Aimee Wall – Associate Professor of Public Law and Government
Introduction and Expectations:
Ms. Wall introduced herself and the rest of the UNC School of Government
(SOG) team, including Margaret Henderson, Jill Moore, and David Brown. Ms. Wall
explained that she and others at SOG have been tracking a developing issue over the
course of the past year—namely, how are human services agencies and their governing
boards structured in North Carolina’s counties? How are they presently organized, and
what has changed in light of the recent passage of House Bill 438? This would be the
topic of the evening’s facilitated discussion, led by Ms. Henderson and informed by Ms.
Wall and Ms. Moore. Ms. Wall emphasized that SOG staff are participating as educators
in the interest of informed debate; they have no stake in whether or not Person County
decides to implement changes to its human services.
To begin the discussion, Ms. Henderson asked Person County participants to
introduce themselves and to each offer at least one value or process that the group should
honor. The group suggested the following:
· We have two good boards. (Commissioner Puryear)
· Don’t change the things that are working now. (Mr. Hester)
· No news is good news—community seems satisfied with services. (Chairman
Clayton)
· Citizen participation and input on boards. (Ms. Reaves)
· Good staff who create positive first impressions. (Ms. Tate)
· Advocacy from boards is an asset in the community. (Vice Chairman Jeffers)
· Perfect score on accreditation. (Mr. Noblett)
· Departments work well together as currently configured. (Ms. Clayton)
· Positive communication between department heads. (Ms. Warren)
· Keep the focus on Person County, not a wider region; Health and Department of
Social Services (DSS) boards provide a political buffer for the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC), but BOCC has the last word. (Ms. Berryhill)
· What we have works well, so there’s no reason to change. (Commissioner
Blalock)
· Good customer service and working environment. (Mr. Paylor)
· Quality staff and relationships with directors. (Ms. York)
· Working relationship between directors and staff should remain as open as
possible. (Ms. Brown)
· Continuing citizen participation and involvement; mandated professions on the
Board of Health brings together more diverse perspectives and professional
expertise. (Mr. Bailey)
16
December 10, 2012
3
Discussion of County Options:
Ms. Moore gave a presentation entitled “Local Human Services Organization and
Governance”:
17
December 10, 2012
4
18
December 10, 2012
5
19
December 10, 2012
6
20
December 10, 2012
7
21
December 10, 2012
8
22
December 10, 2012
9
23
December 10, 2012
10
24
December 10, 2012
11
25
December 10, 2012
12
26
December 10, 2012
13
27
December 10, 2012
14
28
December 10, 2012
15
Ms. Moore summarized that no counties are implementing Option 1 noting that Wake,
Buncombe, and Edgecombe are implementing Option 2; the latter two counties have
pursued this change since the passage of House Bill 438. Bladen, Brunswick,
Mecklenburg, and Montgomery are implementing Option 3; all but Mecklenburg has
made this change since the passage of House Bill 438 with many more counties,
including Person, are evaluating their options.
29
December 10, 2012
16
30
December 10, 2012
17
Ms. York explained that the county’s Health and DSS directors each report to
their respective boards. As the county manager, she does not supervise either director.
Chairman Clayton added that he likewise has no direct authority over these positions;
disputes are resolved by the State Personnel Board.
Ms. York said that confusion from employees has driven management to explore
alternatives for change. One such alternative is to remove Health and DSS employees
from State Personnel Act (SPA) jurisdiction, in favor of having them governed by the
county’s personnel policies. Commissioner Newell asked if SPA policies are different
from Person County’s. Ms. Warren affirmed that there are important differences: for
example, county personnel grievances stop with the employee’s manager, while SPA
personnel grievances are elevated to the appropriate director and ultimately to the state.
In general, there is a greater state role with SPA employees.
Ms. Moore explained that under Option 1, the BOCC is the governing board for
both Health and DSS. Those departments’ employees remain under the SPA’s
jurisdiction because there is no consolidation; by default, state law prescribes that Health
and DSS employees are governed by the SPA. Under Options 2 and 3, the Health and/or
DSS departments or other agencies are combined into a consolidated human services
agency (CHSA), which may be governed by a newly appointed board (Option 2) or
directly by the BOCC (Option 3). After consolidation, Health and DSS employees are
removed from the SPA’s jurisdiction and put under county personnel policies unless the
BOCC affirmatively acts to keep them under the SPA. The default is for CHSA
employees to go under county policies, but the law gives the BOCC the option to elect to
keep them under the SPA.
Ms. Wall explained that Options 1 and 3 require the appointment of a Public
Health advisory committee while Option 2 does not, and none of the three options
requires the appointment of a DSS advisory committee. Ms. Wall speculated that the
reason for this might be that NC law already contains a specific list of required positions
the legislature could point to for existing Health boards, but no similar language for
existing DSS boards.
Ms. Moore said that if the BOCC assumes the Board of Health’s duties (Option 1)
or the Consolidated Human Services Board’s duties (Option 3), the commissioners also
assume responsibility for requirements such as accreditation.
What is a human services agency? Vice Chairman Jeffers described this as “the
great unanswered question.” Under the new law, could Person County combine DSS with
its Veterans agency, and leave the Board of Health out of this consolidated arrangement?
If so, could it then remove DSS employees from SPA jurisdiction? Ms. Moore affirmed
that this is an option under the new law.
31
December 10, 2012
18
Ms. Moore informed the group that no matter what agencies they may
consolidate, the composition of the Consolidated Human Services Board remains the
same. For example, the board must include both a psychologist and a psychiatrist who
must be county residents. Also, although a normal board member’s term is 4 years, the
BOCC could appoint some members of the initial consolidated board to 2-year terms to
create a staggered membership and ensure some continuity from one appointment cycle
to the next.
Vice Chairman Jeffers noted that if the BOCC appoints a consolidated board
(Option 2), the Board of Health loses very little of its powers and authorities. Ms. Moore
agreed, except that unlike the current Health board, the consolidated board would not
appoint the Health Director. Instead, the County Manager would hire the director with the
advice and consent of the consolidated board.
Chairman Clayton announced a brief break at 6:22 pm. The meeting reconvened
at 6:34 pm.
Discussion of Public Health Data:
Ms. Wall circulated a handout entitled “Person County Public Health Data.”. She
explained that research identifies population as a driver of lower per-capita public health
costs and FTEs, presumably because of economies of scale, and that SOG’s findings
were consistent with this. For the purposes of this analysis, Person was grouped with 27
other counties in the “low population” cohort.
Ms. Clayton explained that Home Health and Hospice is included in the “Other
Revenues” bar in the chart displaying expenditures by funding source for fiscal year
2010.
32
December 10, 2012
19
33
December 10, 2012
20
34
December 10, 2012
21
35
December 10, 2012
22
36
December 10, 2012
23
Human Services Changes: Catalysts, Context, and Concerns:
Vice Chairman Jeffers identified a key frustration for the county under its current
human services arrangement with the state: the county cannot hire a DSS director that
does not meet the exact state standards, in spite of the fact that Person County provides
some of the funding for DSS. Ms. York concurred, explaining that Mr. Paylor had been
the “Interim” DSS Director for more than 2 years. She said that the county’s largest
department should have a permanent director, but the county is unable to give Mr. Paylor
this designation before he meets all of the state’s requirements (which he is in the process
of fulfilling). If Person County consolidated DSS with another human services agency, it
could remove DSS employees from SPA jurisdiction and thus acquire the ability to set its
own qualifications for the position.
Aside from the ability to remove staff from SPA jurisdiction, Ms. Henderson
asked participants whether they saw other advantages (or disadvantages) arising from
changes in its human services structure. She encouraged the group to be clear about what
could be gained and what could be lost in any change. For example, she noted that it
could become more difficult to recruit senior officials and staff from counties where
employees remain under the SPA. Ms. Clayton said that removing employees from SPA
would be a benefit for managers, because it would mean that state approval would no
longer be required for position reclassification, but the move could be detrimental for
employees, because the SPA is more protective and gives employees a property right in
their jobs. Ms. York noted that the county’s other 280 employees do not enjoy this right,
and they also differ from Health and DSS employees in that their leadership serves at the
pleasure of the BOCC. Ms. Berryhill agreed with the notion that all county employees
should be treated equally.
Continuing the discussion of advantages and disadvantages, Ms. Warren
identified a possible efficiency gain through the elimination of human resources
responsibilities in Person’s DSS and Health departments, as those duties would be
consolidated in her department for all county employees. However, she recognized that
Human Resources could face the need to augment its staff to handle the increased
workload. Turning to the subject of boards, Commissioner Puryear observed that smaller
boards operate more efficiently, and it is sometimes hard to get everyone to show up.
Chairman Clayton provided important context for the discussion of personnel
status and why Health and DSS employees have traditionally been considered SPA
employees. He explained that in the 1950s the state first required its counties to provide
Health and DSS services to their citizens. Because some county oficials did not support
the new requirement, the state protected its Health and DSS employees from local control
and the potential for harassment or meddling this could bring. It also seemed wise to
create a buffer between those service providers and local BOCCs in order to allow space
for politically or socially sensitive decisions.
37
December 10, 2012
24
Commissioner Newell asked who advocated for the new legislation. Ms. Wall
replied that the NC Association of County Commissioners was its primary advocate. Vice
Chairman Jeffers said that smaller counties sought changes in human services
organization and governance because they wanted the same flexibility that the largest
counties already had. Counties thus lobbied the General Assembly for the ability to
explore efficiencies in these areas, which required the legislature to remove the
population threshold it had previously established. Vice Chairman Jeffers explained that
the initiative arose out of the association’s legislative goals process. As the association’s
president-elect, he encouraged county participants to identify “what isn’t working” in
their departments and discuss these matters with him to determine whether the
association should pursue a legislative solution.
Ms. Wall shared an example from Guilford County’s experience. Although the
state had deemed the county’s personnel policies to be “substantially equivalent” in all
six of the existing areas, county commissioners decided to leave Guilford’s employees
under the SPA because they wanted to retain access to the free technical assistance
provided by the state’s Office of State Personnel (OSP). Ms. Wall noted, however, that
FTEs in that OSP group had been reduced over the past several years from 9 to 1.5.
Ms. Wall explained that the concept of “substantial equivalence” comes into play
only if a county keeps its employees under SPA. If a county consolidates two or more
human services agencies, employees may be placed under the county’s personnel
policies, and the substantial equivalence of those policies is no longer relevant.
Mr. Bailey said he understood that retirement policies would not change for
employees moved from SPA to Person County’s personnel system. He asked whether the
same would be true for leave—would employees retain their per-paycheck accrual rates
and accumulated totals? Mr. Paylor noted more information is needed from the OSP
related to the leave transition for employees. The SOG representatives noted they would
follow up with an SPA specialist and report back to Person County.
Mr. Hester asked about potential consequences if the county could not recruit a
psychiatrist to serve on its Consolidated Human Services Board. Ms. Wall said that the
body would still be considered a governing board. When asked how many vacancies
could exist at any one time, Ms. Moore stated that this is an unanswered question under
existing law, but it is likely that at least a majority of the positions would need to be filled
in order for the board to be functional. Ms. Wall noted that DSS boards at times operate
for months with selected vacancies.
Participants discussed other personnel models in the county. These include the
Sheriff’s and Registrar’s offices, which have elected leaders and at-will employees. In
addition, the ABC Board has two BOCC-appointed members, but its employees have a
separate retirement system and are not really county personnel.
38
December 10, 2012
25
Participants asked about the permanence of any human services changes the
BOCC may undertake. SOG staff explained that changes could be re-considered as soon
as the next BOCC meeting. This could involve separating consolidated departments, re-
creating separate boards, and/or returning Health and DSS employees to SPA
jurisdiction.
Next Steps and Follow-ups:
Ms. York said that her impression from talks with the BOCC is that
commissioners have no interest in becoming a governing board. So the choice seems to
be between (a) retaining separate human services agencies and their respective boards,
i.e., the status quo; and (b) consolidating certain agencies and governing them with a
consolidated board, i.e., Option 2.
Ms. York said that she, Ms. Clayton, and Mr. Carlton would talk to each of their
respective boards about the county’s options and then report back. Vice Chairman Jeffers
asked SOG staff to stand by while the county deliberates and determines whether further
SOG assistance is needed.
As a follow-up, participants wanted to know more about the potential transition
away from SPA, specifically the possibility of current SPA employees losing their leave
if moved under the county’s personnel system. As noted above, the SOG representatives
will follow up with an SPA specialist and will report back.
Evaluation of the Meeting:
Like Dislike/Proposed Change
In-person presentation easier to digest than
webinar
Informed presenters brought needed
information into the room
SOG cleared up the “fear factor” around
the unknown
None
All NC counties have the same options
39
December 10, 2012
26
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Commissioner
Blalock, and carried 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 7:21 pm.
_____________________________ ______________________________
Brenda B. Reaves Jimmy B. Clayton
Clerk to the Board Chairman
Note: UNC School of Government representatives contributed to the preparation of the
minutes.
(Draft Board minutes are subject to Board approval).
40
January 7, 2013
1
PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JANUARY 7, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
Jimmy B. Clayton Heidi York, County Manager
Kyle W. Puryear C. Ronald Aycock, County Attorney
B. Ray Jeffers Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board
Frances P. Blalock
David Newell, Sr.
The Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, met in
regular session on Monday, January 7, 2013 at 7:00 pm in the Person County Office
Building Auditorium.
Chairman Clayton called the meeting to order, led invocation and asked Vice
Chairman Jeffers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was the consensus of the Board to move the Informal Comments period to
follow Board discussion of Item #8 and prior to action in Item #8.
A motion was made by Commissioner Blalock, seconded by Commissioner
Puryear and carried 5-0 to approve the agenda as adjusted.
RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION:
Chairman Clayton read and presented a Resolution of Appreciation to each
Person County retirees Linda Perkins and Annie Williams.
41
January 7, 2013
2
42
January 7, 2013
3
43
January 7, 2013
4
PUBLIC HEARING:
TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO
NONCONFORMING USES AND ACCESSORY USES:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Commissioner
Puryear and carried 5-0 to open the duly advertised Public Hearing related to text
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to nonconforming uses and accessory
uses.
Planning Director, Paula Murphy stated the Planning Board addressed the
nonconforming use and accessory use sections of the Zoning Ordinance and
recommended the following amendment changes as follows:
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 to 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.
44
January 7, 2013
5
101-1 Nonconforming uses may not be changed to another nonconforming use unless
the Board of Adjustment determines that such change shall be no more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use; however, no change of title
or possession, or right to possession of property shall be construed to prevent the
continuance of a nonconforming use.
101-2 No building may be extended or enlarged or the amount of land devoted to a use
increased unless such extensions or enlargements comply with all the provisions
of this ordinance.
Proposed 101-2
Any structure existing at the time of adoption of this Ordinance which does not
comply with setback or yard requirements, or which exceeds height requirements, may be
continued in use but shall not be enlarged or extended unless such extensions or
enlargements comply with all the provisions of this ordinance. No unenclosed portion of
a building may be enclosed if the setback or height requirements are not met.
101-3 Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the reconstruction of any
building, conforming or nonconforming, damaged by any means. However, any
nonconforming building which is damaged may only be replaced by a structure of
equal or smaller size and square footage as that of the previous structure. No
reconstruction or new construction shall be allowed which creates any new or
additional nonconformity than that which existed at the time of damage.
101-4 If a nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of 180 days or for more than
eighteen months in any three year period, the future use of the building or land
must be a conforming use.
Proposed 101-4
If any such nonconforming use of land and/or structure ceases for a period of more than
one year (except when government action impedes access to the premises), any
subsequent use of such land and/or structure shall conform to the regulations specified
by this ordinance for the district in which such land is located. Vacancy and/or nonuse of
the land or structure, regardless of the intent of the owner or tenant, constitute
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.
45
January 7, 2013
6
101-6 If a nonconforming structure or a conforming structure devoted to a
nonconforming activity is destroyed or damaged in any manner, to the extent that
the cost of restoration to its condition before the occurrence shall not exceed 60
percent of the cost of reconstructing the entire structure based on the assessed
structure value, as recorded by the County Tax Assessor, it may be repaired or
restored, provided such repair or restoration is started within six months of the
damage and completed within twelve months. However, any nonconforming
building which is damaged may only be replaced by a structure of equal or
smaller size and square footage as that of the previous structure. Relief to the time
limits may be granted by the Board of Adjustment.
101-7 A nonconforming structure or a conforming structure devoted to a
nonconforming activity that is damaged by any casualty to an extent more than 60
percent of its assessed value, based on County Tax Assessor records, shall not be
restored except as follows:
a. As a conforming use.
b. If the use is a one-family dwelling, restoration shall be permitted, provided
such restoration is begun within six months of the casualty and completed
within 24 months of the casualty.
c. For structures except a one family dwelling, restoration of a nonconforming
structure shall require approval by the Board of Adjustment. A site plan
according to Section 80 will be required. In approving such permit, the Board
will consider the stated purpose for establishing the zoning district, in which
the structure is located, the uses in the area immediately surrounding the
structure in question, particularly the other nonconforming uses, and the
hardship which would result from a denial of the Conditional Use Permit. The
permit shall include conditions as to time for repair to be completed and any
other conditions deemed necessary to carry out the intent of this section of the
ordinance.
101-8 A nonconforming use may be extended or enlarged with a Special Use Permit
provided that the addition is no more than fifty percent of the original structure
and a landscape buffer is provided to buffer the new portion from adjacent land
owners and all setbacks, height, and area requirements of the Planning Ordinance
are met. Single family dwellings are exempt from Section 101-6.
(The Planning Board proposes to delete this section from the ordinance)
New Sections to be considered:
101-9 Nonconforming lots of record: Permitted Structures may be erected upon
any single lot of record at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, provided
the minimum yard requirements are met. A variance to the zoning
ordinance is required if the yard width or setback requirements can not be
met.
46
January 7, 2013
7
101-10 The creation of a lot with a width or area smaller than allowed by existing
zoning requirements is prohibited, except by governmental action, such as a road
widening. Any lot, which, by reason of realignment of a public street or highway or
by reason of condemnation proceedings, has been reduced in size to an area less
than that required by law, shall be considered a nonconforming lot of record subject
to the provisions set forth in this section; and any lawful use or structure existing at
the time of such highway realignment or condemnation proceedings which would
thereafter no longer be permitted under the terms of this ordinance shall be
considered a nonconforming use or structure as that term is used in this ordinance.
101-11 When any nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use, the use shall
thereafter conform to the regulations for this district, and no nonconforming
use shall thereafter be resumed.
The Planning Board decided to keep these sections, making no changes:
102-1 Nothing in this ordinance shall prevent the restoring or strengthening of a
nonconforming structure to a safe condition, provided that the square feet of the
structure shall not be increased.
102-2 Should any nonconforming structure be moved for any reason within the Zoning
Jurisdiction of Person County, it shall conform to the regulations for the district
in which it is to be located.
The following section will be deleted. The proposed Section 101-9 is the same.
103-1 In any district, notwithstanding the dimensional requirements for the district in
regards to lot width and minimum area, buildings, may be erected on any legally
created lot of record existing at the effective date of adoption to this ordinance.
Accessory Structures
An accessory building - An accessory building, structure or use is a building or structure
or use on the same lot or site with, of a nature customarily incidental or subordinate to,
and of a character related to the principal use or structure. Accessory buildings are, but
not limited to: sheds, garages, lean to, storage buildings, carports, pool, but not to
include well houses (not to exceed 6’ x 6’), and gazebo or pool house if attached to
footprint of pool.
Pools - Pools are considered accessory uses if they are above ground or in ground if
not attached by either a deck or solid material such as brick, stone, concrete, etc. to
the principal structure.
47
January 7, 2013
8
60-5 Unless otherwise specified in this ordinance, accessory buildings may be allowed
within five feet of rear and side yard lot lines provided they are five feet or more from the
main structure.
Proposed 60-5
Accessory structures shall be located at least five feet from any principal structure and
side and rear property lines.
60-6 Unless otherwise specified in this ordinance, every principal building hereafter
erected or moved shall be located on a separate lot and in no case shall there be more than
one principal building and three permitted accessory buildings on all lots under three
acres. There shall be allowed one additional accessory building for every acre over three
acres. Industrial operations located in the GI district shall be exempted from this
provision.
60-6A - Accessory structures shall be placed in the rear or side yard and not the
front yard of all lots under 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.
Ms. Murphy stated the Planning Board held a Public Hearing on November 8,
2012 and voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval of all of the proposed ordinance changes as
presented.
The only individual that appeared before the Board to speak related to the
proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to nonconforming uses and
accessory uses was Mr. Jay Jennings of 155 High Rock Road, Hurdle Mills. Mr.
Jennings told the Board he thought the proposed text amendment in some cases would be
an improvement and in other cases raised concerns. Mr. Jennings asked for clarification
of the proposed 101-2 would mean if the structures existing at adoption meant the
original adoption of the Zoning Ordinance or referred to the pending Board adoption of
the text amendment. Ms. Murphy and the County Attorney, Ron Aycock confirmed the
intent refers to the original adoption date of 1991 of the Zoning Ordinance which would
mean any non-conforming structure would not be required to be removed nor could it be
enlarged or extended. Mr. Jennings noted concerns related to the proposed 101-4 giving
an example of elderly parents having to vacate the residence due to necessity of assisted
living or medically placement at a health facility.
48
January 7, 2013
9
Mr. Jennings stated his approval of the proposed lesser restrictive number of
accessory buildings being allowed on larger lots over five acres noting his concerns
related to the property line set back only making sense on small lots, i.e. City limits, one-
acre lots and encouraged the Board to let the citizens decide the footprint of their
property.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Commissioner
Puryear and carried 5-0 to close the Public Hearing related to text amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance pertaining to nonconforming uses and accessory uses.
CONSIDERATION OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING USES AND ACCESSORY
USES:
Vice Chairman Jeffers and Commissioners Puryear and Blalock commented the
recommendations did not fully satisfy their preference in the proposed 101-2, 102-1, 60-5
and 60-6.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Commissioner
Newell to further discuss this item at a time designated for a work session.
A substitute motion was made by Commissioner Puryear, seconded by Vice
Chairman Jeffers and carried 5-0 to place this item on the Board Retreat agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PERSON COUNTY NON-SMOKING ORDINANCE:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Commissioner
Puryear and carried 5-0 to open the duly advertised Public Hearing to hear comments
related to the Person County Non-Smoking Ordinance.
Health Director, Janet Clayton reminded the Board that the Person County Non-
Smoking Ordinance was presented September 17, 2012. Since that time, several
discussions and changes have been presented and during the November 19, 2012 Board
meeting, the Person County Board of County Commissioners decided to move forward
with a public hearing for the Person County Non-Smoking Ordinance in January 2013.
At the Board’s meeting on December 3, 2012, the public hearing was scheduled to be
held on January 7, 2013.
Ms. Clayton requested the Board to 1) Conduct the public hearing for public
comment and 2) Approve the Person County Non-Smoking Ordinance.
49
January 7, 2013
10
Vice Chairman Jeffers stated issue with the seventh paragraph of the proposed
Non-Smoking Ordinance requesting text change to reflect the parks and recreational
facilities only as determined by the Recreation Advisory Board (RAB) in lieu of facilities
and grounds controlled by Person County. Vice Chairman Jeffers stated the intent for the
RAB to designate smoking areas away from the stands and dugouts.
County Attorney, Ron Aycock suggested defining as recreational facilities and
grounds and such other facilities as determined by the Board of County Commissioners.
Vice Chairman Jeffers asked the Health Director about the required setback at the
Human Services facilities. Ms. Clayton stated there is a 35 foot setback for the Human
Services building.
Commissioner Puryear stated his preference to not have another ordinance on the
on the books and suggested a Parks and Recreation regulation defining designated
smoking areas.
Mr. Aycock confirmed the Board of Health adopted a resolution regulating
smoking as authorized by the State of NC in public health and social services facilities
and their surrounding parking lot. Mr. Aycock noted additional legislation adopted by
General Assembly authorizing counties or health boards to implement further regulation
as approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Ms. Clayton explained Appendix A as a listing of all county facilities that the
Board of Commissioners could, at any time, regulate and designate smoking areas is so
desired.
Chairman Clayton stated that it is not the intent to regulate smoking in the county
however; the intent is to regulate and prohibit smoking in the dugouts and grand stand
areas at recreational facilities.
Ms. Clayton clarified the proposed Non-Smoking Ordinance is a new ordinance
noting the 2008 Board of Health Ordinance prohibited smoking inside of governmental
buildings in the City of Roxboro and Person County as well as within a 35 foot perimeter
around the Human Services facility. Ms. Clayton stated the Board of Health under law
and precedent is not allowed to make exceptions such as presented in the proposed
ordinance.
Mr. Aycock told the group that the General Assembly has granted authority
requiring the Board of County Commissioners to approve a health regulation thereby
setting policy noting that same authority is not granted to a county department.
Ms. Clayton stated if the Non-Smoking Ordinance is approved, the Board of
Commissioners will grant the authority to the RAB the opportunity to set a 50 foot
setback from any recreation, health and wellness amenity.
50
January 7, 2013
11
There were no individuals appearing before the Board to speak in favor of the
Person County Non-Smoking Ordinance.
The following individual spoke in opposition to the Person County Non-Smoking
Ordinance:
Mr. Raleigh Evans of 181 Fork Junction Road, Timberlake stated his preference
for designated smoking areas be available at the recreational facilities where smoking
would be prohibited. Mr. Evans did not want the prohibition of smoking or inclement
weather to lead the smokers to use the public bathroom and/or cars thereby making others
breathe in the chemicals and nicotine.
Vice Chairman Jeffers addressed Mr. Evans concern noting covered areas will not
be available but the goal is to remove smoking from the stands by setting a buffer from
those areas.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Commissioner
Blalock and carried 5-0 to close the Public Hearing related to the Person County Non-
Smoking Ordinance.
CONSIDERATION OF THE PERSON COUNTY NON-SMOKING ORDINANCE:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Commissioner
Blalock and carried 4-1 to adopt the Person County Non-Smoking Ordinance
incorporating the text suggestion by the County Attorney in seventh paragraph of page
one of the Ordinance to define as recreational facilities and grounds and such other
facilities as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Puryear
cast the lone dissenting vote.
51
January 7, 2013
12
52
January 7, 2013
13
53
January 7, 2013
14
54
January 7, 2013
15
55
January 7, 2013
16
56
January 7, 2013
17
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Commissioner
Blalock, and carried 5-0 to approve the minutes of December 3, 2012.
TAX ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
A motion was made by Commissioner Blalock, seconded by Vice Chairman
Jeffers, and carried 5-0 to approve the Tax Administrative Report noting the Releases for
the month of November, 2012.
OLD BUSINESS:
REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RECREATION AND SENIOR CENTER
PROJECT:
County Manager, Heidi York stated at the Board’s December 3, 2012 meeting,
the Board voted 3-2 to suspend the current contract for design services and authorize the
County Manager to negotiate a contract for the design of the existing buildings at the
Huck Sansbury complex not to exceed $75,000. Staff, along with MHA Works, the
contracted architectural firm, has been directed to make a presentation on the projected
financial impact of a new recreation complex focusing on a new “base” version of the
project. This base version includes renovation of the existing buildings as a combined
recreation and senior center, a six-lane swimming pool and splash pool area, air
conditioning for the existing gym, and an enclosed track. Staff has also been asked to
share revenue projections, proposed membership and usage fees, as well as projected
annual operating costs.
Ms. York presented the following presentation to the Board and requested the
Board to provide direction to staff.
57
January 7, 2013
18
58
January 7, 2013
19
59
January 7, 2013
20
60
January 7, 2013
21
61
January 7, 2013
22
62
January 7, 2013
23
63
January 7, 2013
24
64
January 7, 2013
25
65
January 7, 2013
26
66
January 7, 2013
27
67
January 7, 2013
28
Recreation, Arts and Parks Director, John Hill stated the presentation was based
on very conservative projections, i.e., 200 memberships.
Ms. York told the Board the break-even numbers for the proposed center would
be a monthly fee of $130 for a total of 200 members or at the proposed $30 monthly fee
level, 800 members would be required.
Finance Director, Amy Wehrenberg estimated a 3 to 4% interest rate on a 15-year
term loan. Commissioner Newell estimated $274,000 as an annual payment on a 20-year
loan at 3%.
At this point during the discussion of the Recreation and Senior Center project,
the Board wanted to hear informal comments from those who had signed up to speak.
INFORMAL COMMENTS:
The following individuals appeared before the Board to make informal comments:
Dr. Walter Bartlett, President of Piedmont Community College (PCC), PO Box
1197, Roxboro requested the Board to keep PCC in the forefront of any conversation and
planning with respect to the proposed Recreation and Senior Center project due to the
fact that PCC’s Workforce Training Center has been located in part of the county-owned
space to be a part of that project since 2005 to serve unemployed and underemployed
citizens of Person County and would be displaced if constructed.
Mr. Bryan Glei of 250 Whitetail Lane, Leasburg described to the Board an
adversarial relationship between the Tax Office and taxpayers with respect to the recent
revaluation noting the appeal process is unfair requiring the taxpayer to obtain an
appraisal and provide sales data to prove the new value is incorrect. Mr. Glei stated his
property increased by 43%.
Ms. Kay Rudd of 1056 Paynes Tavern, Roxboro read a letter from one of her
recreational program participants that supported the proposal recreational and senior
center project.
Ms. Pat Hill of 916 Mann Oakley Road, Rougemont commented on how the
county would pay for the proposed recreation and senior center and if taxes would be
increased to do so. Ms. Hill urged the Board to work with existing fitness centers to use
their facilities. Ms. Hill stated revenues could be gained by increasing recycling.
Mr. Curtis Bradsher of 1114 Burlington Road, Hurdle Mills stated he had no
comments.
68
January 7, 2013
29
Ms. Maddison Teasley of 448 River Oaks Parkway, Timberlake advocated for the
proposed recreation and senior center.
Elder Clyde Winstead of 2920 Lawson Chapel Church Road, Roxboro and
President of the Person County Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance reminded the
Board that 55% of the voters in 2008 supported the project and the center would improve
the quality of life of the community.
Ms. Phyllis Sutton of 72 Shannon Court, Timberlake thanked Commissioner
Jeffers, Ms. York and Ms. Foti for the Public Broadcasting System feature on UNC-TV
on Person County and its growing senior population. Ms. Sutton stated the many services
offered at the Senior Center are necessities to those who do not have the natural supports
in the home.
Ms. Patricia Paylor of 410 Cody Street, Roxboro stated the need in Person County
to have a facility for patients for swimming, track, therapy, nutrition noting she currently
obtains those services from Duke programs.
Ms. Betty Blalock of 144 Tirzah Ridge, Rougemont spoke against the proposed
recreational and senior center due to the economy with people out of work. Ms. Blalock
estimated the project to costs $5 million over a 15-year term.
Ms. Connie McCain of 1425 Jackson Street, Roxboro told the Board the citizens
have overwhelming spoken in support of the proposed recreation and senior center at
forums, through editorials and on the 2008 ballot. Ms. McCain urged the Board to stop
playing politics, leave their personal agendas at the door and vote in favor of the center.
Ms. Doris Johnson of 996 Robertson Road, Roxboro asked the Board to forget the
trash and County Club and to vote to proceed with the senior center just like was done
with the Courthouse.
Mr. Will Paul of 350 Wrenn Crumpton Road, Roxboro stated the dire need in
Person County for something to do and the proposed recreation and senior center would
benefit every citizen.
Mr. Robert Allen of 549 Old City Lake Road, Roxboro and a member of the Kerr-
Tar Aging Advisory Council stated the current senior center facility is inadequate and
requested for the Board to make a long term investment in the senior population.
Mr. Avie Lester of 7499 Virgilina Road, Roxboro and President of the Person
County NAACP encouraged the Board to go forward with what the people voted for in
2008 and asked if not now, when.
Ms. Susan Naylor of 481 Valhalla Drive, Timberlake stated her support of the
proposed recreation and senior center project.
69
January 7, 2013
30
Ms. Amy Green of 630 Younger Road, Roxboro advocated for the recreation and
senior center and the use by citizens.
Ms. Faye Boyd of 69 Foxwood Drive, Timberlake stated government should not
compete with local businesses, telling the Board to plan fiscally for the long term noting
the costs for maintenance on the proposed facility will only increase over the term. Ms.
Boyd added that recycling equals revenue.
Mr. Tony Wesley of 3808 Burlington Road, Roxboro told the group that Total
Fitness was here to stay. Mr. Wesley described the weak economy noting Total Fitness
has experienced a big turnover in membership and feels the same will happen to Person
County with the proposed center and eventually costs will have to be passed on to the
taxpayers as the county struggles to make budget. Mr. Wesley stated he took issue with
the financial projections as illustrated in the presentation.
Ms. Becky Fuller of 602 Frank Street, Roxboro asked the Board to give the
children of Person County something to do with the proposed center. Ms. Fuller stated
the economy would grow if the recreation and senior center is constructed.
Mr. Donald Long of 9741 Virgilina Road, Roxboro and Chairman of the
Recreation Advisory Board told the Board that now is the time to proceed with the
proposed recreation and senior center noting the project has been studied, researched and
voted on for 15 years.
Mr. Mitch Pergerson of 2146 Thee Hester Road, Roxboro and former Director of
the Recreation, Arts and Parks Department provided a detailed history of events related to
the Board and community position of a recreational center for nearly 40 years. Mr.
Pergerson urged the Board to reconsider the proposed recreation and senior center
project.
Mr. Carl Mangum of 947 Jones Lester Road, Roxboro told the group that not all
families in Person County can afford to be a member of a private pool and asked the
Board to step out on faith to proceed with the recreation and senior center project. Mr.
Mangum noted his support of the project that he would agree with taxes being raised to
pay for it.
Mr. Raleigh Evans of 181 Fork Junction Road, Timberlake told the group he
voted in support of the 2008 Bond Referendum noting a lot has changed for his family
since 2008, i.e. 2 incomes are now 1 for this family. Mr. Evans stated his budget is
restrictive and he could not afford the membership at the proposed rates.
Following the Informal Comments period, the Board continued their discussion of
the recreation and senior center project.
70
January 7, 2013
31
Commissioner Newell stated his objective was to make the citizens aware of the
projected costs as illustrated in the presentation. Commissioner Newell stated the county
would have to subsidize $336,271 in operating plus an approximate $275,000 in capital
so the county is looking at $600,000 to $1,000,000 annually.
Vice Chairman Jeffers asked the Board to take action reflecting what the people
voted for in 2008 and to get the plans in hand.
Chairman Clayton told the group that the Board was not voting to build the
facility but was making the first step to obtain drawings to bid out for construction costs.
Chairman Clayton stated his belief that the facility could be built and operated without a
tax increase to the citizens. Chairman Clayton added that the county has some school
debt being relieved in the near future. Chairman Clayton told the group that without the
plans, grants eligibility and construction costs are unknown.
Commissioner Blalock stated her preference for a membership drive for the
proposed facility be conducted with the goal of those citizens who want the facility to
commit to supporting as well as suggested two separate construction phases.
Commissioner Puryear stated the new center would grow the tax base and the tax
payers would carry the burden. Commissioner Puryear noted he did not support the
project at this time and urged the Board to be fiscally responsibility and not reconsider.
Commissioner Puryear noted his support for the senior center project only at this time.
Vice Chairman Jeffers confirmed with the County Manager and Mr. Bill
McCaffrey that the addition of the therapy pool to the new base version could be included
in the $300,000 design fees as presented.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Chairman Clayton
and carried 3-2 to approve the design phase of the new base version of the recreation and
senior center not to exceed $300,000 as presented. Chairman Clayton, Vice Chairman
Jeffers and Commissioner Blalock voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Newell
and Puryear cast the dissenting votes.
The project approved the design work phase which includes renovation of the
existing facilities at the Sansbury site as a combined recreation and senior center as well
as new construction, air conditioning for the existing gym, a 6-lane swimming pool, a
splash pool, a therapy pool and an enclosed walking track.
Chairman Clayton announced a brief recess at 9:36 pm. The Board reconvened at
9:43 pm.
71
January 7, 2013
32
NEW BUSINESS:
LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER WATER HEATER:
General Services Director, Ray Foushee stated the water heater at the 1993 built
Law Enforcement Center (LEC) that provides hot water to the entire building, including
pods, (except kitchen) is leaking and has gotten progressively worse. Mr. Foushee noted
a contractor has assessed the situation confirming the water heater is significantly rusted.
Mr. Foushee told the Board the weakened section could give way at any time and blow
out. This could be devastating in a couple of ways: the water heater is located adjacent to
numerous electrical controls and downtime on this water heater would eliminate any hot
water in the building (except kitchen).
Mr. Foushee stated quotes were solicited from vendors and were received in the
range from $93,400 to replace the entire system, including gas burner/boiler to just
replacing the water heater/tank for $38,780. Quotes were obtained from Schneider
(current contractor that does most work at LEC), Comfort Systems of South Boston, and
Brown Brothers of Durham. Mr. Foushee stated Person County has issued the contract to
Schneider for the replacement of the tank at $38,780.
Mr. Foushee noted the expense is considered an emergency and was not budgeted.
Mr. Foushee requested Board approval of an appropriation from Fund Balance in the
amount of $40,000 to the Building Maintenance and Repair line item in General Services
Budget for the replacement of the water heater tank.
Commissioner Newell asked Mr. Foushee if the entire system was working
properly. Mr. Foushee told the group the tank seemed to be the only component that
needed replacing at this time, i.e. the burner was functioning properly.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Commissioner
Puryear and carried 5-0 to approve of an appropriation from Fund Balance in the amount
of $40,000 to the Building Maintenance and Repair line item in General Services Budget
for the replacement of the water heater tank.
72
January 7, 2013
33
CONSIDERATION TO ESTABLISH A SPECIAL BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
AND REVIEW:
Chairman Clayton introduced the idea of the Board of Commissioners
establishing a Special Board of Equalization and Review due to the anticipated high
number of appeals expected this year due to the revaluation.
One responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the Board of
Equalization and Review is to hear appeals from taxpayers regarding tax values for
property taxes. With the current real estate market, many counties have seen tremendous
increases in the number of appeals that the Board of Equalization and Review need to
address. Some Boards of Equalization and Review have to meet for weeks in order to get
all of the appeals heard.
Tax Administrator, Russell Jones told the Board that North Carolina General
Statute 105-322 allows the Board of County Commissioners to establish a special Board
of Equalization and Review to hear tax appeals. A majority of North Carolina counties
have chosen this option as seen on the map in the packet (60 out of 100 NC counties).
According to the Statute, the special Board of Equalization and Review must be
established no later than the first Monday in March (March 4, 2013). Mr. Jones noted a
resolution must be adopted by the Board of Commissioners to create this special Board of
Equalization and Review. The resolution shall provide for the membership,
qualifications, term of office and the filling of vacancies on the board. The board of
commissioners shall also designate the chairman of the special board.
Mr. Jones noted some reasons to consider a special Board of Equalization and
Review:
1. The Board of County Commissioners will be involved with the budget process
during this time and will have other additional issues to focus on.
2. A special Board of Equalization and Review would allow the Board of County
Commissioners to appoint individuals from a cross section of the citizens,
choosing those who possess the expertise necessary for the board to carry out its
duties. Chairman Clayton suggested former commissioners due to they already
know the process.
3. The creation of a special Board of Equalization and Review helps to remove the
matter of taxation from local political issues.
4. Creating a special Board of Equalization early versus later would allow time for
the Department of Revenue to meet with the newly created board for an
orientation of the process.
County Manager, Heidi York and Mr. Jones both noted that due to the time
commitment of the special Board of Equalization and Review, most counties have chosen
to reimburse this board for their time and that funds had been budgeted for this purposed
this current fiscal year in the Tax budget.
73
January 7, 2013
34
Mr. Jones stated by January 31, 2013, he would know how many informal appeals
would be before the Tax Office however he could not confirm the number that would
appear before the Board of Equalization and Review. Mr. Jones noted in 2005, there
were 1,200 informal appeals at the Tax Office and 35 to the Board of Equalization and
Review. Mr. Jones stated trends indicate about 10% appeal rate with the current
economy which would approximate 2,700 informal appeals to the Tax Office with 10%
of that amount to the Board of Equalization and Review. Mr. Jones noted Person County
has always had lesser appeals than the trend average but providing an example of 270
appeals scheduled every 15 minutes would take 16 days.
Mr. Jones explained the informal appeal process as a time for the taxpayer to
submit documentation to justify an adjustment, if appropriate. In fact, should the Tax
Office agree with the taxpayer’s documentation, an adjustment or correction will be made
right away to the taxpayer’s bill. Mr. Jones noted the taxpayer has the option to appeal to
the Board of Equalization and Review if not satisfied with the decision of the Tax Office.
Mr. Jones confirmed the 27,000 mailers to taxpayers notifying of the new values
included the appeal form as well as information about the process.
Commissioner Newell asked Mr. Jones the result of the tax revaluation for the
county. Mr. Jones stated it is early to forecast but estimated a slight increase in the total
tax values for the county. Mr. Jones noted values within the city, rental property,
manufactured homes and subdivisions were decreased with raw land and property at the
lakes being increased. The results were based on sales history from the last two years.
Vice Chairman Puryear led a discussion for consideration for county staff to
create an educational flyer with the appeal process to mail to all the taxpayers.
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear, seconded by Vice Chairman
Jeffers to direct the County Manager to obtain a price as well as design a brochure for
Board approval that would be mailed to all taxpayers prior to the next Board meeting.
The motion failed 1-4. Commissioner Puryear voted in favor or the motion. Chairman
Clayton, Vice Chairman Jeffers and Commissioners Blalock and Newell voted in
opposition to the motion.
It was the consensus of the Board to direct the County Manager to prepare a press
release to submit to the local newspaper and radio detailing the revaluation process.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Commissioner
Blalock and carried 5-0 to adopt a Resolution Establishing a Special Board of
Equalization and Review for Person County.
It was the consensus of the Board to nominate members for the Special Board of
Equalization and Review at the Board’s next meeting.
74
January 7, 2013
35
75
January 7, 2013
36
2013 COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS FOR COMMISSIONERS:
Chairman Clayton presented the 2013 Board of Commissioners Committee
Assignments for adoption.
A motion was made by Commissioner Blalock, seconded by Vice Chairman
Jeffers and carried 5-0 to adopt the 2013 Committee Assignments for Commissioners.
Vice Chairman Jeffers noted he would recommend in the near future that the
Board establish a Youth Advisory Committee to follow the state model.
76
January 7, 2013
37
77
January 7, 2013
38
BOARDS AND COMMITTEES APPOINTMENTS:
Clerk to the Board, Brenda Reaves presented to the Board citizen applications for
consideration for appointment in response to Person County’s ad soliciting volunteers
published in the Courier Times on November 14, 2012 with a deadline to submit
application by noon on December 4, 2012.
The highlighted boards denote a competitive board and are eligible for the informal
interview process. Please direct the Clerk to organize and inform the applicants of the
informal interviews or consider waiving the process. Ms. Reaves asked the Board to
nominate the applicants for appointment, if appropriate.
- Airport Commission
3-Year Term: 1 position available
1) Henry Newell, Jr. requested appointment
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Chairman Clayton
and carried 5-0 to appoint Henry Newell, Jr. to the Airport Commissioner for a 3-year
term. Commissioner Newell went on record that the County Attorney had confirmed that
there was no conflict of interest that he and his brother would both be representatives on
the Airport Commission.
- Animal Control Advisory Committee
Unspecified Term: 1 position for a citizen-at-large
1) Carol Keyser requested appointment
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear, seconded by Vice Chairman
Jeffers and carried 5-0 to appoint Carol Keyser to the Animal Control Advisory
Committee for an unspecified term.
- Home Health and Hospice Advisory Committee
3-Year Term: 1 position representing the hospital
No Applications
- Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC)
1-Year Initial Term; 2-Year Reappointment each for:
a member of the faith community
No applications
a member of the business community,
No applications
2-Year Term: 1 position each representing:
Chief District Court Judge,
1) Mark Galloway requested reappointment
Public Health,
1) Harold Kelly requested reappointment
78
January 7, 2013
39
six citizen-at- large positions
1) Alisa Clayton requested reappointment
2) Johnny Myrl Lunsford requested reappointment
Vice Chairman Jeffers requested Board consideration to waive the rule for
citizens to only participate on two appointed boards and consider
reappointing Treco Lea-Jeffers stating Judge Galloway requested such due
to her participation on JCPC.
an unexpired term to 12/31/13 representing Mental Health
No applications
A motion was made by Commissioner Newell, seconded by Commissioner
Blalock and carried 5-0 to reappoint Mark Galloway, Chief District Court Judge, Public
Health staff, Harold Kelly, and the following citizens: Alisa Clayton, Johnny Myrl
Lunsford and Treco Lea-Jeffers to JCPC for a 2-year term.
- Person Area Transportation System Board
3-Year Term; 8 positions available with the following designations:
1 position available each for citizens that can represent or are affiliated with:
Person Industries,
1) Lisa Jeffreys requested reappointment
Public Health,
1) Leigh Ann Creson requested reappointment
Department of Social Services (DSS),
1) Melinda Hudson requested reappointment
Senior Center,
1) Kelly Foti requested reappointment
private industry,
1) Will Davis requested appointment
economic development
No applications
2 positions from the general public
No applications
A motion was made by Commissioner Blalock, seconded by Chairman Clayton
and carried 5-0 to reappoint Lisa Jeffreys to represent Person Industries, Leigh Ann
Creson to represent Public Health, Melinda Hudson to represent DSS and Kelly Foti to
represent the Senior Center as well as appoint Will Davis to represent private industry to
the Person Area Transportation System Board each for a 3-year term.
79
January 7, 2013
40
- Planning Board
1 position available for a 3-Year Term
1 position with an unexpired term to 6/30/15
1) Steve Carpenter requested appointment
A motion was made by Chairman Clayton, seconded by Commissioner Jeffers to
appoint Steve Carpenter to the Planning Board.
A substitute motion was made by Commissioner Puryear, seconded by
Commissioner Newell and carried by majority vote 3-2 for the Board to make no
decision on the Planning Board appointment and direct staff to re-advertise the vacancies.
Chairman Clayton and Vice Chairman Jeffers cast the dissenting votes.
Commissioner Puryear indicated interest in the Board considering an exception
for a county employee (Derrick Smith) to serve on the Planning Board noting Mr. Smith
was serving on the Board however his job offer with the county was contingent upon his
resignation from the Planning Board.
- Region K Aging Advisory
3-Year Term: 1 position available
No applications
- Roxboro/Person County Human Relations Commission
3-Year Term; 3 positions available for county residents
No applications
- Tourism Development Authority
3-Year Term: 1 position from the general public available
1) Tommy Winstead requested appointment
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Commissioner
Puryear and carried 5-0 to appoint Tommy Winstead to the Tourism Development
Authority for a 3-year term.
- Work Force Development Board
1-Year Initial Term; 2-Year Reappointment: 1 position representing private
industry
No applications
80
January 7, 2013
41
- Research Triangle Regional Partnership
Consideration to replace Phillip Allen (former Chairman on the EDC) with City
of Roxboro representative, Abby Gentry, RDG Director to fulfill term to 6/30/2014
A motion was made by Commissioner Blalock, seconded by Chairman Clayton
and carried by majority vote 3-2 to appoint Abby Gentry, RDG Director to the
Research Triangle Regional Partnership Board to fulfill the term previously held by
Phillip Allen to June 30, 2014. Commissioners Puryear and Newell cast the dissenting
votes.
- Kerr Tar Regional Council of Government (COG)
Board nomination/recruitment
There were no nominations by the Board of Commissioners.
VOTING DELEGATE DESIGNATION FOR THE NC ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LEGISLATIVE GOALS CONFERENCE:
Clerk to the Board, Brenda Reaves requested the Board to designate a
Commissioner attending the NC Association of County Commissioners Legislative
Conference as Person County’s delegate. Ms. Reaves told the group that Chairman
Clayton and Vice Chairman Jeffers are both registered to attend the NCACC Legislative
Goals Conference. Ms. Reaves noted voting credentials for the January 24-25, 2013 NC
Association of County Commissioners Legislative Goals Conference must be submitted
by January 11, 2013.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Commissioner
Newell and carried 5-0 to nominate Chairman Clayton as the voting delegate for Person
County at the NC Association of County Commissioners Legislative Goals Conference
scheduled for January 24-25, 2013.
REVIEW OF THE BOARD’S RULES OF PROCEDURE:
County Attorney, Ron Aycock stated the Person County Board of
Commissioners’ Rules of Procedures were adopted in 2007 and re-adopted in 2008.
Commissioners Puryear and Newell have requested a review and discussion of the
Board’s adopted Rules of Procedure.
Commissioner Puryear requested the Board to revisit the rules requiring a second
to have a motion voted upon.
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear, seconded by Commissioner
Blalock to not require a second to a motion on a trial basis for a period of three months.
81
January 7, 2013
42
An amended motion was made by Commissioner Puryear, seconded by
Commissioner Blalock and carried 3-2 to not require a second to a motion on a trial
basis until the first meeting in May 2013 at which time, the process will be reevaluated.
Commissioners Puryear, Blalock and Newell voted in favor of the amended motion.
Chairman Clayton and Vice Chairman Jeffers cast the dissenting votes.
BUDGET AMENDMENT:
Finance Director, Amy Wehrenberg presented and explained the following
Budget Amendment.
Upon a motion by Vice Chairman Jeffers, and a second by Commissioner Puryear
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 7th day of January 2013, as
follows:
Dept./Acct No. Department Name Amount
Incr / (Decr)
EXPENDITURES General Fund
General Government 19,832
Public Safety 90,761
Transportation 2,267
Environmental Protection 40,000
Economic Development 1,185
Culture & Recreation 7,101
Human Services 2,875
Contingency (17,150)
Transfer to Other Fund 351
Interfund Transfer 2,875
REVENUES General Fund
Other Revenues 31,926
Intergovernmental
Revenues 31,918
Charge for Services 3,378
Fund Balance
Appropriation 40,000
Transfer from Other Fund 40,000
Interfund Transfer 2,875
EXPENDITURES Person Industries Fund 351
REVENUES Person Industries Fund
Transfer from General
Fund 351
82
January 7, 2013
43
Explanation:
Received additional morale concessions ($341); proceeds from sale of vehicles
($11,225); filing fees ($300); revenues from the misdemeanant confinement program
($29,160) and the housing of federal inmates ($1,940); insurance claim for damage to
ambulance ($10,050); donations and fees associated with the rabies vaccination and
Spay and Neuter Program ($5,757); insurance claim for hail damage to Animal Control
vehicle ($1,000); fund balance appropriation for required trench installation and
monitoring compliance at Old Landfill ($40,000); City of Roxboro's portion of Planning
& Zoning fees ($1,185); concessions revenue for Recreation, Arts & Parks ($3,496);
insurance claim for damage to Huck Sansbury gym ($1,950); State Aid funds for the
Public Library ($818); transfer of available contingency funds in the Courthouse
Renovation Project to the General Fund to cover the Fair Labor Standard Requirement
for payment of overtime to certain employees at EMS ($40,000); and utilizing funds
from the Unemployment Contingency line item (-$17,150) to cover unemployment costs
in various departments ($17,150).
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT:
Chairman Clayton had no report.
MANAGER’S REPORT:
County Manager, Heidi York asked the Board about their preference of streaming
live the upcoming Board Retreat. It was the consensus of the Board to not stream live the
Board Retreat but a preference to record and post for public viewing.
Ms. York stated she had put into the Board member’s mailbox a memo related to
the request for additional School Resource Officers in the schools as well as a memo
related to Commissioner Newell’s request on the timber harvesting at the County Farm.
Ms. York noted a memo would be prepared describing the revaluation process.
COMMISSIONER REPORT/COMMENTS:
Vice Chairman Jeffers had no report.
Commissioner Puryear recognized Mr. Clyde Whitfield in the audience who
wanted to address the Board but had not done so at the Informal Comments period.
Commissioner Blalock offered to give us her time for comments as well for Mr.
Whitfield to speak.
83
January 7, 2013
44
Mr. Clyde Whitfield asked the Board about the adopted Resolution to establish a
special Board of Equalization and Review noting his preference to appeal before the
Board of Commissioners. Mr. Whitfield asked the Board to be familiar with the
Machinery Act of NC. Commissioner Newell asked the Tax Administrator to get him a
copy of the Machinery Act of NC.
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Commissioner Newell and carried 5-0 to adjourn the
meeting at 10:49 pm.
_____________________________ ______________________________
Brenda B. Reaves Jimmy B. Clayton
Clerk to the Board Chairman
(Draft Board minutes are subject to Board approval).
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 22, 2013
Agenda Title: 2012 State of the County Health Report
Summary of Information: This report provides current mortality and morbidity data for the
county. It also lists health priorities identified through the 2011 Community Health Assessment
process and reveals progress made towards addressing those priorities in the past year. New and
emerging issues in public health are addressed as well as other changes in the county that have the
potential to impact the health of Personians.
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
Submitted By: Leigh Ann Creson, Health Department Educator
100
Prepared by: Person County Health Department
November 30, 2012
2012
State of the
County Health
Report
101
Person County 2012 State of the County Health Report Page 1
New Health Priorities Identified for Person County
Person County’s most recent Community Health Assessment (CHA) was conducted in 2011. As part of
the assessment process, the following health priorities for the county were identified and will remain in
place until the next assessment which will be completed in 2014:
Chronic Disease (cancer, heart disease, stroke)
Unhealthy Behaviors (lack of exercise; having unsafe sex; poor eating habits; substance abuse –
tobacco, drugs, and alcohol; lack of parenting skills)
Overweight/Obesity
Teen Pregnancy
Alzheimer’s Disease/Problems of Aging
Community Health: Access to and Awareness of Services (prevention, education, and mental
health)
The intent of developing such an extensive list was to provide the county a comprehensive look at the
predominant health concerns and issues that came to light in the data during the CHA process. From this
listing, Person County Health Department and the Healthy Personians Partnership have decided to more
specifically focus their efforts on Chronic Disease and Overweight/Obesity as detailed in the 2012
Community Health Action Plan. However, the Health Department and Healthy Personians will take
advantage of opportunities, as they present themselves and as changes in data occur, to address other
priority areas. In 2012, the following initiatives were implemented by Person County Health
Department, Healthy Personians and their various partners to begin to address some of the
aforementioned priority areas:
A free PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) Screening Program continued to be offered to eligible
men.
The Physical Activity and Nutrition Prescription Pad Program was sustained and efforts were
made to continue to reach Hispanic clients.
New facilitators were trained to deliver Stanford University’s Living Healthy and Living Healthy
with Diabetes self-management programs. Both programs were offered several times to the
community in 2012.
The Cook Smart, Eat Smart Program was implemented.
A county-wide 10-in-10 Weight Loss Challenge was offered.
The Community Health Resource Guide was updated and redistributed.
County employees were given the opportunity to participate in Eat Smart,
Move More’s Ten Minute Challenge and Solving the Puzzle of Moving
More Challenge.
The Faithful Families Eating Smart and Moving More program was piloted in an African-
American church.
102
Person County 2012 State of the County Health Report Page 2
The Healthy Living for a Lifetime Screening Event was brought to the county through a
collaborative effort with Farm Bureau. Follow-up services were also available through this
initiative.
Various educational programs (addressing general nutrition and healthy eating; carbohydrate
counting and meal planning; overall wellness; stress management; etc.) were conducted through
different venues.
Efforts began towards adopting a stricter smoking ordinance to further restrict smoking on
properties owned, leased or rented by the county.
A Fruit and Vegetable Outlet survey was conducted with local farmers’ markets and a
community supported agriculture program to gain more insight about these resources and how
partners can work together to help them.
Work began through a regional Community Transformation Grant Project to address local
objectives focusing on tobacco-free living and the enhancement of local farmers’ markets and
community supported agriculture programs.
The priorities that the Health Department, Healthy Personians and its partners address are determined
by the resources (staff, funding, time, availability and expertise of partners), etc.) that are available to
support them. Many of these efforts were made possible through grants and donations.
Cancer Out Ranks Heart Disease As Leading Cause of Death in Person County
Aggregate data from 2005-2009 was the latest sited in the 2011 CHA for leading causes of
death for Person County and North Carolina. Table 1 compares that data with the most
current data from the 2012 County Health Data Book which is from the aggregate period
2006-2010. As indicated in the bold type, Person County’s death rates continue to exceed
that of the state for the 10 leading causes of death. Notable changes in the 2006-2010 data
are as follows:
Cancer exceeded diseases of the heart as the leading cause of death.
Diabetes moved up the list to become the 5th leading cause of death.
Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome, and Nephrosis became the 8th leading cause of death.
When comparing Person County’s rates from these time periods, death rates for cancer, chronic lower
respiratory diseases, diabetes and septicemia increased while rates decreased for all the other leading
causes of death.
Changes in the data, as related to cancer and diabetes, reinforce the need for Person County Health
Department to advocate for a stricter smoking ordinance for county owned, leased and rented
properties. It also validates the need to continue offering regular diabetes programming to the county.
103
Person County 2012 State of the County Health Report Page 3
Table 1: Age-Adjusted Mortality (Death) Rates for the 10 Leading Causes of Death:
Comparing Five Year Aggregate Periods 2006-2010 and 2005-2009
Notes: Rate = Number of events per 100,000 population, where the Standard = Year 2000 US Population. Leading causes of death
are ranked according to rate. Figures in Bold type indicate causes of death for which the Person County rate exceeds the
comparable rate for the state as a whole.
2006-2010 2005-2009
Person County NC Person County NC
Cause of Death # Rate Rate Cause of Death # Rate Rate
1. Cancer 481 218.7 183.1 1. Diseases of the Heart 454 223.3 191.7
2. Diseases of the Heart 451 213.3 184.9 2. Cancer 462 216.1 185.6
3. Cerebrovascular Disease 168 81.4 47.8 3. Cerebrovascular Disease 172 86.9 50.5
4. Chronic Lower Respiratory
Diseases 114 54.0 46.4 4. Chronic Lower Respiratory
Diseases 108 52.7 47.0
5. Diabetes 69 32.3 22.5 5. All Other Unintentional
Injuries 62 33.7 28.6
6. All Other Unintentional
Injuries 57 29.8 28.6 6. Diabetes 66 31.7 23.6
7. Pneumonia and Influenza 56 27.4 18.6 7. Pneumonia and Influenza 58 29.6 19.4
8. Nephritis, Nephrotic
Syndrome, Nephrosis 51 23.8 18.9 8. Unintentional Motor
Vehicle Injuries 46 26.2 17.6
9. Unintentional Motor
Vehicle Injuries 41 23.4 16.7 9. Nephritis, Nephrotic
Syndrome, Nephrosis 51 24.9 18.7
10. Septicemia 45 21.0 13.7 10. Septicemia 41 19.7 13.8
North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics (NCSCHS); 2012 and 2011 County Health Data Books; 2011 CHA
Additional mortality data was reviewed for Alzheimer’s disease, as it was identified as a health concern and
priority during the community health assessment process. Even though it remained the 11th leading cause
of death, the death rate increased from 16.8 (2005-2009) to 20.8 (2006-2010) and the number of deaths
increased from 33 to 42. Healthy Personians has already begun to strategize about how the partnership can
work with the Alzheimer’s Association and local organizations to address this in the community.
104
Person County 2012 State of the County Health Report Page 4
Infant Death Rates Down!
Table 2 compares the most recent aggregate data available for infant death rates and that which was
last documented in the 2011 CHA. Person County’s infant death rate not only decreased from
2005-2009 to 2006-2010 but also fell below the state’s rate.
Table 2: NC Resident Infant (<1 year) Death Rates per 1,000 Live Births
NCSCHS; 2012 and 2011 County Health Data Books; 2011 CHA
Pregnancy Rate for Females Ages 15-19 is the Lowest It’s Been in Years!
In the 2011 CHA, single year data was presented for pregnancy rates and numbers
of pregnancies for females ages 15-19. The most recent data on pregnancy rates
for females ages 15-19 cited in the CHA was 2009. In order to make accurate
comparisons, single year data from 2009-2011 is used in Table 3. The number of
pregnancies and the pregnancy rate for females ages 15-19 increased from 2009
to 2010 then decreased in 2011. This is the lowest the county’s pregnancy rate for
females ages 15-19 has been in at least 7 years.
Table 3: NC Resident Pregnancy Rates per 1,000 Population: Females Ages 15-19
Notes: Total pregnancies represent the sum of all induced abortions, live births, and fetal deaths 20 or more weeks of
gestation reported in the state. Not included are spontaneous fetal deaths (still births) occurring prior to 20 weeks gestation,
which are not reportable to the state.
2011 2010 2009
#
Pregnancies
Pregnancy
Rate
#
Pregnancies
Pregnancy
Rate
#
Pregnancies
Pregnancy
Rate
Person County 65 51.8 83 65.1 78 64.3
North Carolina 13,909 43.8 15,957 49.7 18,142 56.0
NCSCHS; Query System; 2012 and 2011 County Health Data Books; 2011 CHA
In 2009 and 2011, there were no pregnancies reported among Person County females ages 10-14 while
in 2010 there were 2 pregnancies. Due to small numbers, an annual pregnancy rate for this age group is
not calculated as it would render the data unstable.
2006-2010 2005-2009
# Infant
Deaths
Infant
Death Rate
# Infant
Deaths
Infant
Death Rate
Person County 16 6.8 22 9.3
North Carolina 5,066 7.9 5,289 8.3
105
Person County 2012 State of the County Health Report Page 5
Majority of County’s Communicable Diseases Attributed to STDS
Data collected on communicable diseases from Person County Health Department was used in the 2011
CHA and is used in Table 4 as it provides a more recent update than that which is collected elsewhere.
The Health Department classifies communicable diseases in 3 categories: Foodborne Illnesses, Sexually
Transmitted Diseases (STDS) and General Communicable Diseases. There was an increase in the total
number of communicable diseases reported from 2010 to 2011 as well as an increase in the number of
cases in each category. Forty-seven percent of the reported foodborne illnesses were from
salmonellosis. Chlamydia accounted for 82% of the STDS. The majority of general communicable
disease cases were due to Rocky Mountain spotted fever (37%).
Overweight/Obesity Data
Table 5: Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity in Children and Youth Ages 2-18, 2009
2009
Ages 2-18 Ages 2-4 Ages 5-11 Ages 12-18
Overweight Obese Overweight Obese Overweight Obese Overweight Obese
Person County 20.1% 18.6% 19.9% 16.2% 13.5% 32.4% 35.0% 25.0%
North Carolina 16.2% 18.0% 15.8% 15.4% 17.1% 25.8% 18.1% 28.0%
North Carolina Nutrition and Physical Activity Surveillance System (NC-NPASS).
0
179
22
201
17
194
33
244
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Foodborne
Illnesses
Sexually
Transmitted
Diseases
General
Communicable
Diseases
Totals# Reorted Cases 2010
2011
Table 4: 2010 and 2011 Communicable Disease Comparison
106
Person County 2012 State of the County Health Report Page 6
NC-NPASS is maintained by the Nutrition Services Branch for the NC Division of Public Health. NC-NPASS
provides data for children seen in public health sponsored Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) and child
health clinics, as well as some school-based health centers. This data source was used in the 2011 CHA
and the latest data cited was for 2009 as shown in Table 5. *NC-NPASS only provided data on the
prevalence of overweight and obesity for children ages 2-4 in 2010 which is displayed in Table 6.
Therefore, comparisons among the other age groups and for the overall 2-18 age group cannot be made
between 2009 and 2010.
2010
Ages 2-4
Overweight Obese
Person County 16.6% 16.6%
North Carolina 16.1% 15.6%
*Notes: NC-NPASS data for children ages 2-4 are reflective of the population at 185% of the federal poverty level.
Approximately 85-95% of the children included in the NC-NPASS sample for ages 2-4 are WIC participants. Since children are
not eligible to participate in WIC once they become 5 years old, the sample size for NC-NPASS data received from the child
health clinics was not adequate to calculate county-specific rates for children ages 5 and older in 2010.
In 2011, a community health survey was conducted during the CHA process. Twenty-nine percent of
survey respondents indicated that they had been told by a doctor, nurse or other health care
professional that they were overweight or obese. Community health surveys are not conducted in the
interim years between assessments so comparisons in data cannot be made annually.
Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) Survey was used in previous CHAs to
try to track adult overweight and obesity. However this time it was not included. Person County is part
of a 35 county sample, making the data too broad to be of use. BRFSS data is not used in this report
either.
In October 2012, 163 people received various screenings through a community-
wide event. One of the things participants were screened for was Body Mass
Index (BMI). Even though the sample size was small it reaffirms that
overweight/obesity is very prevalent among adults in the county. A report
generated by Farm Bureau and US Wellness (screening sponsors) showed that of
those people screened 74.8% had a BMI greater than 24.9. More specifically,
27.0% fell into the “moderate risk” category with a BMI of 25-29.9 while 47.9%
were classified as “high risk” with a BMI greater than 29.9. Such data has
validated the need to continue offering a yearly county-wide weight loss
challenge. Healthy Personians will coordinate the challenge with its partner
group the FAN (Fitness And Nutrition) Club in 2013.
Table 6: Prevalence of
Overweight and Obesity in
Children Ages 2 – 4, 2010
107
Person County 2012 State of the County Health Report Page 7
What’s New in Person?
The following section identifies new and emerging public health issues since the 2011 CHA.
Foodborne Illnesses
In 2011 and 2012, foodborne illnesses became more prevalent than they had been since 2007. As
shown in Table 4 there were 17 reportable cases of foodborne illnesses in 2011 and as of this report
there have been 14 reportable cases in 2012. Table 7 depicts what attributes to these cases. In 2012,
most cases of foodborne illness occurred in July and August as they did in 2011. Both summers the
Health Department reached out to the local media by providing articles on food safety and ways to
prevent foodborne illnesses related to cookouts and warm temperatures.
Foodborne Illness 2012 2011
Campylobacter 7 6
E. Coli 0 2
Salmonellosis 6 8
Shigellosis 0 1
Vibrio 1 0
Total # Cases 14 17
Adoption of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code in North Carolina
September 2012 brought significant changes to the rules governing retail food service in North Carolina.
The FDA Food Code was adopted in order to better protect the public from dangers associated with
foodborne illness. Some of the important changes included in the updated North Carolina Food Code
include:
Prohibiting bare hand contact of ready to eat foods.
Requiring each food establishment to have an Employee Health
Policy so that sick employees are excluded from preparing or
serving food.
Requiring facility managers to have completed accredited food
safety training (bonus points are no longer awarded).
Lowering storage temperatures of potentially hazardous foods.
Person County Environmental Health Specialists have obtained the required training in order to be able
to implement the changes and educate food service establishments. The Health Department continues
to partner with Cooperative Extension in offering ServSafe trainings for food service professionals.
Table 7: Breakdown of
Foodborne Illnesses in
Person County for
2012 and 2011
Data from Person County
Health Department
Note: 2012 data accounts for
reportable cases from
January – November 2012
108
Person County 2012 State of the County Health Report Page 8
Falls Lake Rules
In 2012, the Person County Health Department participated in the
implementation of the Falls Lake Rules. The rules were adopted by the
Environmental Management Commission in 2011, in an effort to
improve water quality in Falls Lake. The rules affect all counties in the
Falls Lake watershed and establish a time frame for implementation of
specific programs and activities. In 2012, Person County staff worked to
identify all septic systems and discharging sand filter systems located
within the watershed.
In October 2012, a study was conducted to estimate the number of malfunctioning septic systems in the
watershed. The study was a joint effort of Person County and neighboring health departments and
North Carolina State University, and represented a considerable investment of resources to plan,
prepare and implement the study. The second phase of the study will include investigating and repairing
malfunctioning systems identified in the study. In January 2013, the results of the study must be
submitted to the State. Annual septic system surveys are a reoccurring requirement of the Falls Lake
Rules. Environmental Health staff will have an integral role to play as Person County continues to
implement the Fall Lake Rules.
2012: A Good Year for Person County!
This section features some of the factors that have had the potential to impact the health and well-being
of Personians in 2012. Factors range from resources generated to those that were dissolved to county
economic development to unemployment.
Person County Health Department received funding to support the
establishment of a Medical Reserve Corps (MRC) in the county. The
local MRC has become a nationally recognized unit through the
Division of the Civilian Volunteer Medical Reserve Corps which is a
part of the Office of the Surgeon General. As of November 2012,
9 volunteers have been recruited to help with emergency response as
well as to serve the community through non-emergency community
health initiatives.
Additionally, the Health Department was awarded funding to be a part of a regional Community
Transformation Grant Project over the next 4 years. Project objectives focus on tobacco-free living;
active living and healthy eating; and high impact evidence based clinical and preventive services.
Staff at the Health Department had the opportunity to participate in a Quality Improvement (QI) 101
Project through the North Carolina Center for Public Health Quality (NCCPHQ). The project focus has
been on improving the efficiency of clinic services and increasing both client and staff satisfaction. This
project has increased the capacity of the department to continue QI efforts and to offer quality care in
Person County. Funding was provided by the NCCPHQ for this project.
109
Person County 2012 State of the County Health Report Page 9
Farm Bureau worked with partners from Cooperative Extension, Person County Farmers Market, the
Health Department and Healthy Personians to bring the Healthy Living for a Lifetime Screening event to
the county. The regional and local Farm Bureau generously donated funds to Healthy Personians to help
provide follow up services to screening participants, as needed and to implement health and wellness
initiatives in the community.
Over the past year or so, several state offices/programs that have supported local public health efforts
have dissolved. However, the Health Department has worked hard to maintain services to the
community with the help of community partners.
According to Person County’s Economic Development Director, local manufacturing developments
included the following ongoing projects in 2012:
CertainTeed, a subsidiary of St. Gobain, held their open house for their state of the art 700,000
square foot facility in Person County in September 2012. The company expects to have a
$160,000,000 capital investment and they have already hired 63 people of the estimated 89
people they plan to hire. By the end of this year they anticipate that they will have hired 74 of
the estimated 89 total workforce.
Eaton Corporation completed the first phase (which equates to approximately one half or
around $25 million) of their planned 50 million dollars of new capital investment in their
Roxboro plant.
GKN Drive Line CVJ announced a $3 million dollar 47,000 square foot building expansion along
with an additional $20 million dollar new equipment expansion and an increase of 138 new jobs.
The County is working with existing Person County manufacturers and is prepared to offer
financial incentives if and when new jobs and investments are created.
In September of 2012, the county hired a professional, full time economic development director
to assist in the recruitment of new industry and retention of existing industry.
110
Person County 2012 State of the County Health Report Page 10
Person County Economic Development Commission (EDC), the County's industrial recruitment arm and
liaison with local industry, is an active member of the Regional Triangle Regional Partnership
(RTRP). RTRP is headquartered in the state capital, Raleigh, and is a consortium of thirteen counties of
central North Carolina. Its purpose is to promote and market the area including Person County to new
and existing industrial concerns. The EDC also partners with the NC Department of Commerce, local
utilities and other industrial allies to retain existing industries, promote expansion opportunities and to
locate new industries to the area. The County continues to develop a diversified local economy and has
a positive outlook for the future.
According to reports released by the North Carolina Department of Commerce, Labor and Economic
Division, Local Area Unemployment statistics, Person County’s unemployment rate decreased from 10.7
(January 2012) to 9.0 (October 2012). This most current rate is slightly above the state’s rate which is
8.8.
Help Make Life Better “in Person”!
Opportunities are available to help address Person County’s health priorities and to work towards
creating a healthier and safer community. Service through the Healthy Personians Partnership, Person
County FAN (Fitness And Nutrition) Club, Person County Medical Reserve Corps, etc. is how Personians
can get involved. For more information, contact LeighAnn Creson (Health Educator, Person County
Health Department) at lcreson.pchd@personcounty.net or 336-597-2204 x2277. Visit us at
http://health.personcounty.net for information on Person County Health Department, Healthy
Personians and Person County Medical Reserve Corps. The Health Department is on Facebook at
www.facebook.com/PCHealthDept. Find Person County Medical Reserve Corps on Facebook at
www.facebook.com/PCMRC .
TTTTTTTTT
This report can be found at http://health.personcounty.net – Health Data and Community Resources – Health Data.
T
111
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 22, 2013
Agenda Title: Sale of Property donated by the family of former commissioner Stony Stonbraker
Summary of Information: The family of former county commissioner Stony Stonbraker has
donated a piece of property to the County in appreciation for the care received by Mr. Stonbraker
from the Person County Hospice program. It is their desire that proceeds from the sale of the
property be used for the benefit of the Hospice Program.
William Bert Sherman and Linda Gates Sherman have indicated a desire to purchase the property at
a price of $4,000. State law allows a private sale of such property subject to procedural and notice
compliance. The attached resolution complies with such provisions.
Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution
Submitted By: Ron Aycock, County Attorney and Janet Clayton, Health Director
112
A Resolution Authorizing a Private Sale of County Owned Property to
William Bert Sherman and Linda Gates Sherman
WHEREAS, the family of the late Harry G. (Stony) Stonbraker conveyed to Person county a tract of
land identified as Lot 3 (section A) of the Lake View subdivision as depicted on a plat recorded in Plat
book 7 page 225 (deed dated December 21, 2012 book 826 at page 700); and
WHEREAS, the Stonbraker family has stated that its purpose in conveying the property was to express
its appreciation for the compassionate care given to Stony Stonbraker during his last sickness by the
Person County Hospice Program; and
WHEREAS, the Stonbraker family has expressed its desire that any proceeds of the sale of such
property be expended for the benefit of the Person County Hospice Program; and
WHEREAS, William Bert Sherman and Linda Gates Sherman have expressed interest in purchasing the
property mentioned above: and
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statutes 153A-176 and 160A-267 authorize a County to dispose of
property by private sale; and
WHEREAS, William Bert Sherman and Linda Gates Sherman are willing to offer a price of $4,000 for
such property which such price is a fair market price.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Person County Board of County Commissioners
that:
1. The County Manager be authorized to negotiate with William Bert Sherman and Linda Gates
Sherman for the sale of such property,
2. The County manager is authorized to agree to a sales price of not less than $4,000,
3. That a notice of this resolution be published at least 10 days prior to its February 4, 2013 meeting
and no sale shall be consummated hereunder until at least 10 days after its publication, and
4. The Board intends to authorize execution of the necessary legal documents to consummate this
transaction at its February 4, 2013 meeting.
Adopted this, the 22nd day of January 2013.
Person County Board of Commissioners
__________________________________
Jimmy B. Clayton, Chairman
Attest:
___________________________________
Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board
113
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 22, 2013
Agenda Title: A Resolution Authorizing Publication of Intent To Exchange Property
Owned by the County for Property owned by North Park Drive, LLC
Summary of Information: The County owns a .04 acre tract of land contiguous to property owned
by Spuntech which is disconnected from other County owned property. Spuntech owns a .04 acre
tract of land contiguous to property owned by the County which is disconnected from other Spuntech
owned property. An exchange of the tracts would benefit both parties. State law authorizes Counties
to engage in such exchanges subject to procedural and notice compliance. The attached resolution
complies with those requirements
Recommended Action: Approve the Resolution
Submitted By: Ron Aycock, County Attorney and
Stuart Gilbert, Economic Development Director
114
A Resolution Authorizing Publication of Intent
To Exchange Property Owned by the County
for Property owned by North Park Drive, LLC
WHEREAS, Person County owns a tract of land on North Park Drive (State Route 1430)
comprised of approximately .042 acres identified as a part of Person County Deed Book 181-
217, P.C. RECN 16841 Reference is made to a plat available in the Office of the Clerk to the
Board of Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, North Park Drive, LLC (Spuntech’s real estate holding company) owns a
tract of land on North Park Drive (State Route 1430) comprised of approximately .040 acres
identified as a part of Person County Deed Book 646-211 RECN 20988, Reference is made to a
plat available in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the tracts of both parties are separate and apart from other property owned
by the parties; and
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statutes 153A-176 and 160A-271 authorize a
county to exchange property with private entities so long as the County receives a full and fair
consideration in exchange for its property; and
WHEREAS, an exchange of the subject tracts would cause each party to own the
property which abuts other property owned by it; and
WHEREAS, the value of the tracts is substantially equal, each being valued at
approximately $608 and $680.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Person County Board of County
Commissioners that:
1. That it finds that Person County would receive a full and fair consideration in
exchange for its property by exchanging the properties described above,
2. The Board intends to authorize execution of the necessary legal documents at its
February 4, 2013 meeting, and.
3. The Board directs that a notice of its Intent to Exchange the Properties be
published at least 10 days prior to its February 4, 2013 meeting.
Adopted this, the 22nd day of January 2013.
Person County Board of Commissioners
__________________________________
Jimmy B. Clayton, Chairman
Attest:
___________________________________
Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board
115
AGENDA ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 22, 2013
Agenda Title: Strategic Plan Update
Summary of Information: In November 2012, staff assembled the Person Futures Executive
Committee to discuss the best way to proceed with the strategic plan. The Executive Committee
recommended reconvening the five subcommittees and asking them to commit to meeting every
quarter. The Executive Committee also asked staff to present an update on the strategic plan to
various community groups to share the progress that has been made thus far.
Staff created a webpage (http://www.personcounty.net/index.aspx?page=902) that provides
information about the status of each objective. The webpage acts as a report card for our strategic
plan. At this time, approximately 37 of the 112 objectives have been achieved or are in progress with
three years left to achieve the remaining seventy-five. Thus far, staff has presented or will present
this webpage to Rotary, JCPC, Kiwanis, and the United Way. In addition, a press release was sent to
the Courier-Times and posted on the county website. The press release cites a few of the plan’s
success stories, such as creating the one-stop shop for city-county permitting services, and asks
residents to participate in the plan by attending a subcommittee meeting.
At this time, three – Encourage Learning for Life and Lifelong Learning, Foster a Sense of
Community and Protect our Land - of the five subcommittees have met to continue to work on the
objectives. The Re-Imagine our County for a Better Future subcommittee is planning to meet in the
next few weeks and the Prosper by Developing the New Economy Locally subcommittee will host a
summit meeting in March.
Staff has asked that each subcommittee submit its top five priorities before the budget retreat on Feb.
18th. Staff proposes to use these priorities to guide a discussion about the commissioners’ vision for
Person County and inform staff of the commissioners’ budget priorities.
Recommended Action: Provide feedback about how the strategic plan should be used during the
budget retreat.
Submitted By: Assistant County Manager, Sybil Tate
116
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 22nd day of January 2013, as follows:
Dept./Acct No.Department Name Amount
Incr / (Decr)
EXPENDITURES General Fund
Public Safety 13,132
Culture & Recreation 2,173
Human Services 201,632
REVENUES General Fund
Other Revenues 7,913
Intergovernmental Revenues 204,532
Fund Balance Appropriation 4,492
Explanation:
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Received insurance claims for repair to the Huck Sansbury Gym floor ($2,173) and for some EMS equipment
($4,895) that was damaged during a vehicle accident; received a matching grant in the Sheriff's Department
for the purchase of Bulletproof vests ($3,745) which requires a fund balance appropriation in the Law
Enforcement Restricted Fund for the local portion ($4,492); and allocating revenues received in DSS for
various assistance programs ($201,632).
Budget Amenment 11117