Chatham County, NC

Meeting Agenda - Final Board of Commissioners

Monday, July 21, 2014 6:00 PM Historic Courthouse Courtroom

Work Session - 4:00 PM - Historic Courthouse Courtroom

PUBLIC INPUT SESSION

The Public Input Session is held to give citizens an opportunity to speak on any item. The session is no more than thirty minutes long to allow as many as possible to speak. Speakers are limited to no more than three minutes each and may not give their time to another speaker. Speakers are required to sign up in advance. Individuals who wish to speak but cannot because of time constraints will be carried to the next meeting and given priority. We apologize for the tight time restrictions. They are necessary to ensure that we complete our business. If you have insufficient time to finish your presentation, we welcome your comments in writing.

BOARD PRIORITIES

14-0774 Presentation by Chatham Trades

14-0865 Presentation on CCCC outdoor teaching shelter and washing station.

14-0849 Discuss the recommendation from the Planning Board’s subcommittee on the unzoned portions of the county. Attachments: BOC_PB_Memo_Unzoned_Portions of the county

14-0851 Discussion of the NC DOT Strategic Highway Transportation Corridor (STC) plan. Attachments: Hyperlink

End of Work Session

Regular Session - 6:00 PM - Historic Courthouse Courtroom

INVOCATION and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CALL TO ORDER

APPROVAL OF AGENDA and CONSENT AGENDA

The Board of Commissioners uses a Consent Agenda to act on non-controversial routine items quickly. The Consent Agenda is acted upon by one motion and vote of the Board. Items may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at the request of a Board member or citizen. The Consent Agenda contains the following items:

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 Board of Commissioners Meeting Agenda - Final July 21, 2014

14-0861 Vote on a request to approve the June 16, 2014 Work Session and June 16, 2014 Regular Session Minutes. Attachments: 06.16.2014 W&R Final

14-0784 Vote on a request to approve Spay Neuter Program Funds

Attachments: Spay Neuter Program Funds - Receipt Transaction.pdf

14-0803 Vote on a request from Will Copeland dba LIR Enterprises for a text amendment to the Chatham County Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.5.B, B1 Business District Dimensional Regulation, to change the language of “open carports” to “open structures”. Attachments: Hyperlink

14-0804 Vote on a request by Jim Anderson and Warren Mitchell dba Meadows Land Investment, LLC, to approve a rezoning on Parcel No. 18727 located at 12330 US 15-501 N, from R-1 Residential to CD-RB Conditional District Regional Business, on approximately 3.677 acres, for a four-story (4-story) self-storage facility. Attachments: Hyperlink

14-0833 Vote on a request to approve a Pyrotechnics Display at 280 Keith Nunn Drive, Chatham County, NC on August 23, 2014 Attachments: Attachment A-Pyrotechnics NCG.S. 14-413 14.pdf Attachment B- Hale Artificier Letter of Request.pdf Attachment C-NC Outdoor Pyrotechnics Display Operators Licenses.pdf Attachment D-Certificate of Insurance.pdf Attachment E-ATF License-Permit.pdf Attachment F-Display Area Drawing with Measurements.pdf

14-0835 Vote on a request to approve Vehicle Purchase 2014-15

Attachments: Item # 8.10 Charger V6 2014

14-0836 Vote on a request to approve Pittsboro Interlocal Agreement

Attachments: Pittsboro interlocal 042814 Abstract - Pittsboro Interlocal Agreement Resolution

14-0838 Vote on a request to approve reappointment to the County Community Advisory Committee for Nursing Homes & Adult Care Homes

14-0841 Vote on a request to approve reappointments to Environmental Review Advisory Committee

Chatham County, NC Page 2 Printed on 7/18/2014 Board of Commissioners Meeting Agenda - Final July 21, 2014

14-0842 Vote on a request to approve Chatham Trades Salary Agreement

Attachments: CHATHAM TRADES ED SALARY AGREEMENT 2014-2019 CLEAN

14-0843 Vote on a request to approve appointment to Recreation Advisory Committee 14-0844 Vote on a request from citizens to approve the naming of private road in Chatham County Attachments: HARRINGTON LANE PETITION HARRINGTON LANE MAP

14-0845 Vote on a request from citizens to approve the naming of private road in Chatham County Attachments: GRATEFUL WAY PETITION GRATEFUL WAY MAP

14-0846 Vote on a request by NNP-Briar Chapel, LLC for subdivision preliminary plat review and approval of Briar Chapel Granite Mill Boulevard Revision, located off SR-1528, Andrews Store Road, and Granite Mill Boulevard, Baldwin Township, parcel #’s 87469 and 2714. Attachments: Hyperlink

14-0847 Vote on a request by Lee Bowman, Project Manager on behalf of NNP Briar Chapel, LLC for subdivision final plat review and approval of NNP Briar Chapel LLC, Phase 5, Revision Plat, located off SR-1528, Andrews Store Road, Baldwin Township, parcel # 89197. Attachments: Hyperlink

14-0848 Vote on a request by Wade Barber for subdivision final plat review and approval of Henderson Place at Fearrington, consisting of 45 lots on 60.12 acres, located off S. R. 1835, South Langdon, Williams Township, parcel #’s 19333 and 88196. Attachments: Hyperlink

14-0850 Vote on a request to approve the Tax Releases and Refunds

Attachments: TaxReleasesandRefunds07-21-2014 NCVTS-JUNE-BOC 07-21-2014 June 2014

14-0852 Vote on a request to approve Tax Collectors Annual Settlement

Attachments: FY13-14.pdf

Chatham County, NC Page 3 Printed on 7/18/2014 Board of Commissioners Meeting Agenda - Final July 21, 2014

14-0854 Vote on a request to hold a public hearing to receive comments on the naming of one (1) state maintained road in Chatham County. Attachments: TURN KEY WAY PETITION TURN KEY WAY MAP

14-0855 Vote on a request to adopt a Resolution to Authorize the Sale of County Owned Properties Obtained Through Foreclosures Attachments: Resolution AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF COUNTY OWNED PROPERTIES OBTAINED THROUGH FORECLOSURES

14-0857 Vote on a request to approve Charging off 2003 Taxes

Attachments: 2003.pdf

14-0859 Vote on a request to approve appointments to the Chatham County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. Attachments: cox housing brd re- appt letter davis housing brd appt letter eugene davis housing brd app housing brd bylaws letter

14-0856 Vote on a request to approve Chatham Trades Allocation Agreement

Attachments: ContractWithChathamTradesFY15

14-0837 Vote on a request to approve Parks and Recreation Grants to Nonprofit Agencies Attachments: Funding Recommendations GoldstonApplication Council on Aging Application Chatham Soccer Application Triangle Land Conservancy Application

14-0862 Vote on a request to approve Appointments to Chatham Community Food Council 14-0864 Vote on a requeset to Renew Agreement with Southern Health Partners Health Agreement for inmate medical care Attachments: Chatham Co 2014 Renewal Letter 2007 HSA 2010 Amendment

End of Consent Agenda

PUBLIC INPUT SESSION

Chatham County, NC Page 4 Printed on 7/18/2014 Board of Commissioners Meeting Agenda - Final July 21, 2014

The Public Input Session is held to give citizens an opportunity to speak on any item. The session is no more than thirty minutes long to allow as many as possible to speak. Speakers are limited to no more than three minutes each and may not give their time to another speaker. Speakers are required to sign up in advance. Individuals who wish to speak but cannot because of time constraints will be carried to the next meeting and given priority. We apologize for the tight time restrictions. They are necessary to ensure that we complete our business. If you have insufficient time to finish your presentation, we welcome your comments in writing.

BOARD PRIORITIES

14-0858 Incentive Policy for Transformational Projects

Attachments: Transformational Projects (DRAFT 2)

14-0863 Budget Critique for FY 2014-2015 Budget

Attachments: FY 2014-2015 Budget Calendar Heads Up Document Financial Indicators Commissioner Goals Progress Report Financial & Budgetary Trends

CLOSED SESSION

14-0860 Closed Session to discuss matters within the attorney client privilege.

MANAGER’ S REPORTS

COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS

ADJOURNMENT

Chatham County, NC Page 5 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0774

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Work Session

In Control: Board of Commissioners File Type: Agenda Item

Agenda Number:

Presentation by Chatham Trades

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0865

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Work Session

In Control: Board of Commissioners File Type: Agenda Item

Agenda Number:

Presentation on CCCC outdoor teaching shelter and washing station.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0849

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Work Session

In Control: Planning File Type: Agenda Item

Agenda Number:

Discuss the recommendation from the Planning Board’s subcommittee on the unzoned portions of the county.

Action Requested: Discuss the recommendation from the Planning Board’s subcommittee on the unzoned portions of the county.

Introduction & Background: Following conversations with the Board of Commissioners, staff brought forward a discussion with the Planning Board regarding options for regulating industrial uses in the unzoned areas of the county. Following the Planning Board’s initial conversation at the May 6th meeting, the Board formed a subcommittee to discuss further the options for regulating certain land uses in the unzoned portions of the county. The subcommittee met Tuesday, June 24th and produced a recommendation that the Planning Board consider four options for regulating land uses in the unzoned areas in the county with a strong emphasis on public outreach and input. The four options are outlined in the attached staff memo. During the July 1st meeting of the Planning Board, the subcommittee presented their recommendation for Board discussion. In an 8-1 vote, the Planning Board endorsed the subcommittee’s recommendation as the formal recommendation from the Planning Board to the Board of Commissioners.

Discussion & Analysis: Resulting from staff’s research, the following four options were presented as options for addressing land use regulation in the unzoned portion of the county; 1. Extend zoning with an open use ordinance, 2. Adopt a standalone heavy industrial use ordinance, 3. Extend traditional zoning, or 4. Take no action at this time. The Board discussed in depth with staff the implications of each action, the timeline involved for implementation and the statutory requirements for public notice. Please note the state statute governing public notification, NCGS § 153a-343 zoning notice procedures, is applicable regardless the option chosen for land use regulation.

The Planning Board’s discussion focused heavily on the public input and education component of the process, indicating that in addition to gauging interest in extending land use regulation, it would allow a chance for the public to communicate what level of land use regulation is desired. Another component of discussion included the Land Use and Conservation Development Plan for the county. Having an updated, long

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 File Number: 14-0849 range (20-30 year) vision for the county would allow for the proper assignment of zoning districts and a valuable tool for gathering public input on the protection of farmland, water resources and economic development. Finally, staff advised the Board that guidance from the UNC School of Government is still forthcoming regarding the ability and extent that local jurisdictions can regulate hydraulic fracturing. At this time of this report, no guidance has been provided.

Recommendation: Receive Planning Board’s recommendation: The Planning Board recommends the Board of Commissioners consider the four options regarding land use regulation, with an emphasis on public input, outlined in the memo titled, “Planning Board Subcommittee on Unzoned Areas of the County.”

Chatham County, NC Page 2 Printed on 7/18/2014 Planning Department Phone: 919-542-8204 Post Office Box 54 Fax: 919-542-2698 80-A East Street – Dunlap Building www.chathamnc.org/planning Pittsboro, NC 27312-0054

MEMO

TO: Planning Board

FROM: Hillary Pace, Planner II

CC: Jason Sullivan, AICP, Planning Director Angela Birchett, CZO, Zoning Administrator

DATE: June 24th, 2014

RE: Planning Board Subcommittee on Unzoned Portions of the County

The Planning Board Subcommittee on the Unzoned Portions of the County met Tuesday June 24th to discuss the various options for land use controls in the unzoned areas Chatham county. Attached is the memo staff created to guide the subcommittee discussion. Members of the subcommittee include: BJ Copeland, Planning Board Chair, Gene Galin, Jim Crawford and Bill Arthur. The subcommittee has produced the following recommendation for Planning Board’s discussion during July 1st, 2014 meeting:

The Planning Board Subcommittee unanimously recommends the Planning Board consider the four options regarding land use regulation, with an emphasis on public input, outlined in the memo titled, “Planning Board Subcommittee on Unzoned Areas of the County.”

Attachment Planning Board Subcommittee on Unzoned Areas of the County

Background:

Based on conversations with Commissioners there is an interest in reviewing options for regulating industrial uses in the unzoned areas of the county. Some of the uses discussed include landfills, rock quarries and hydraulic fracturing. Although industrial uses exist in the unzoned portions of the county, the purpose of this discussion is so that Chatham County may be prepared for future uses, particularly industrial uses, in this area. The following memo outlines four options to consider going forward for regulating land uses in the unzoned portion of County. This memo also outlines the procedural requirements for enacting the different land use controls.

Chatham County is approximately 707 square miles, with 116 total square miles within the municipalities’ planning jurisdictions (see attachment A). There are currently 12,559 parcels that are in unzoned areas of the county covering approximately 387.7 square miles. Corps of Engineers property associated with Jordan Lake covers approximately 73 square miles with 60 in Chatham County. Approximately 21.7 square miles are permanently flooded and can cover 50 square miles at full flood stage. The following table details the land use authority by jurisdiction within the county.

Jurisdiction Square Miles (approximate)*

County (zoned) 210.2

County (unzoned) 387.7

Siler City 67.4

Pittsboro 46.1

Cary 1.64

Goldston 0.8

*Chatham County is approximately 707 square miles and the total square miles listed above is 713.84. The discrepancy between square miles is due to mapping issues.

Options:

1. Extend zoning with an open use district: A new zoning district can be created to extend across the currently unzoned portion of the county with a limited set of uses requiring a conditional use permit with all other uses listed as permitted by right pursuant to GS 153A-340 (zoning statute). Buncombe County, NC adopted an open use district in 2009 and it corresponds with areas that will not be served by water or sewer. They also amended their land use plan before and after this process. A list of the regulated uses is included in attachment B. Henderson County, NC adopted an open use district in the 1990’s in response to an asphalt plant that was unregulated and generated a citizen response requesting land use controls of such uses. In 2007 Henderson County expanded from an open use district format to full zoning based on citizen reaction to the increasing development that was occurring prior to the economic downturn.

Creating an open use district will require an amendment to Zoning Ordinance to establish the district and initially zoning the unzoned areas of the county (see attachment A for a copy of the current Zoning Map).

2. Adopt stand alone heavy industrial use ordinance: Another approach to address concerns about specific uses is adoption of a standalone Heavy Industrial Development Ordinance. Alamance County, NC adopted an ordinance in 2011 that provides requirements for a specific list of uses that are reviewed and approved by staff (see attachment B for list of regulated uses). This ordinance was adopted pursuant to several NC General Statutes including GS 153A-340 (zoning statute). Other counties with similar ordinances are Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Jackson, Macon, Rutherford, Watauga and Wilkes.

3. Extend Traditional Zoning: This option would extend traditional zoning across the unzoned portions of the county, using the same zoning districts in place currently in Chatham County Zoning Ordinance. The same protocol (NCGS 153A-340) for creating and adopting the newly zoned area would be the same as mentioned above for the Open Use option and the Stand Alone Heavy Industrial Use Ordinance option, however, special consideration for the long term development of the community would need to be considered.

4. No Action at this Time: Currently, there is no generalized sentiment for zoning the unzoned portions of the County. Discussions regarding zoning these areas have typically arisen in response to particular land uses in which citizens have expressed a desire to have a local input process and local decision made. At this time, the Board of Commissioners is not enabled to regulate land uses in the unzoned portions of the county and there is no public hearing requirement for specific types of uses. Continuing the non-regulation of land uses will exclude a public input process and local decision for certain land uses.

Comparison to 2007 rezoning: In 2007 the Board of Commissioners initially zoned several areas of the county adjacent to major corridors that were previously unzoned. There were 2,884 parcels included in the initial zoning covering 32.2 square miles. The following is a list of activities and a timeline leading to the adoption of zoning.

Activity Timeframe/Data

Discussions/Recommendations from April – May 2007 Major Corridor Ordinance Committee and Planning Board

BOC discussions June – August 2007 8 months

BOC public hearing September 2007

BOC adopts zoning November 2007

Business Rezoning – Staff directed to February 2008 identify business uses

BOC discussions and meetings with March 2008 – May 2009 business owners 16 months

BOC public hearing April 2009

BOC adopts business rezonings May 2009

Public Notification Requirements: Regardless of the option chosen for establishing regulations, the notification requirements for GS 153A-343 (zoning notice procedures) must be followed. The statute requires posting property in the affected area, legal ads in a local newspaper and mailed notice to individual property owners. An alternative to the mailed notice would be ½ page ads in a local newspaper; however property owners living outside the county must receive a mailed notice.

Approaches for Community Input: Prior to drafting land use regulations for the unzoned areas of the county it would be beneficial to receive community input. There are different methods to receive input depending on the preference of the board. First, Commissioners could receive feedback as part of a town hall meeting format.

Second, staff could prepare community drop-in sessions at different locations in the county. For drop-in sessions staff would provide some background information, have maps for reference and a questionnaire for participants to provide feedback. The drop-in sessions were used in the Chatham-Cary Joint Land Use Plan development process and a good amount of information was received from residents. The drawback is this is time consuming to prepare for the meetings and then compile the information.

Third, staff and Commissioners could hold public forums where a presentation is provided at the start of the meeting followed by a question and answer session. This method was used for the corridor overlay districts and did not produce as much meaningful feedback as the drop-in sessions for the joint plan. Fourth, the board could proceed directly to a public hearing without any community input. This method was used for the 2007 corridor zoning and the county received some feedback that it would have been beneficial to allow public participation prior to initiating the zoning process.

In speaking with Buncombe County, they used the drop-in sessions/open house format and thought that was a useful method to receive citizen input. They also scheduled public meetings as part of the Planning Board meeting and had an open comment period prior to starting the public hearing process. Alamance County presented their regulations to several groups, but did not hold community meetings or forums.

Inventory Existing Business Uses/Grandfathering: Staff will need to inventory the existing businesses in the uzoned areas of the county prior scheduling a hearing on a land use regulation to establish uses that will become non-conforming. This was also done after the 2007 corridor zoning in preparation for the rezoning of property with existing businesses to make them conforming. The inventorying took approximately 1.5 months in the areas covered by the 2007 and would take even longer in the currently unzoned areas due to the size of the area involved and staffing reductions that have occurred since 2012.

Land Use Plan: An important factor to consider while evaluating extending zoning in the County is the community’s vision for land use and development in the long term (20 -30 years in the future). While the County’s current Land Use Conservation and Development Plan identifies long range goals and visions for the County, it is currently being evaluated by another Planning Board subcommittee for an update and/or total revision. Land use plans are a valuable tool for gathering public input on a range of subjects such as infrastructure, farmland, water resources, and economic development that ultimately lead to comprehensive recommendations for initiating zoning.

Staffing Considerations: When the 2007 corridor zoning was processed there were seven (7) planning staff and there are currently five (5). Since the latter part of 2013 the department work load has increased with new non-residential projects and subdivisions. There will be implications for current planning activities if the Board moves forward with one of the options and work tasks will need to be reprioritized. Additional staff from other departments may be needed to supplement planning staff if this moves forward and/or filling an existing unfilled position in the department. The following table provides a comparison of the 2007 corridor zoning and the area currently under consideration for land use regulations.

Number of parcels Area in square miles

2007 Corridor Zoning 2,884 32.2

Currently Unzoned Area 12,559 387.7

Percentage difference 335.5% 1,104%

Costs: There will be additional expenses regardless of the type of land use regulation involved. The following cover the most significant expenses anticipated.

Additional signs – an additional 1,000 may be needed and would cost approximately $7,000 (estimate based on the cost of 500 signs purchased in 2007).

Postage – approximately $5,115 for one mailing based on a quote from Professional Mail Services.

Fuel – Additional fuel charges were not included in the FY 15 continuation budget and would be needed. No estimate provided at this point.

Direction: If the subcommittee is interested in recommending to extend zoning to the unzoned areas of the county or adopting a standalone industrial ordinance staff will need additional direction on the following items.

1. Should a new open use district be established or draft a standalone ordinance?

2. Do you want to extend regulations to the entire unzoned area at one time or target specific areas?

3. What type of community participation/outreach should be used, if any?

4. What level of participation do you want from the Planning Board and at what time in the process?

5. What type of notification process should be used for the ordinance adoption?

Based on the direction provided, staff will need to establish a tentative schedule, cost estimate and staff resources needed to accomplish the task. Please note that the initial timeline staff has identified for this process is a minimum of eighteen months for all zoning options. Attachment A: Zoning Map

Attachment B

List of regulated uses in the Buncombe County Zoning Ordinance table of uses (all uses allowed except as provided below).

Not Allowed

 Multifamily (one building) o However, Open Use Multifamily is allowed- less than 6 DU/on a single lot o Open Use Multifamily with more than 6 DU/on a single lot is allowed by CUP

Conditional Uses

 Open Use Multifamily with more than 6 DU/on a single lot  Adult uses  Amusement parks  Asphalt plants  Chip mills  Concrete plants  Hazardous waste facilities  Incinerators  Junk Yards  Landing Strips  Mining and extraction operations  Motor sport facilities  Private utility stations and substations, pumping stations, water and sewer plants, water storage tanks (2 acres or greater in total footprint)  Public utility stations and substations, pumping stations, water and sewer plants, water storage tanks (2 acres or greater in total footprint)  Shooting Ranges- Outdoor commercial  Slaughtering Plants  Solid Waste Facilities- landfills, transfer stations, materials recovery  Vacation rental complexes

List of regulated uses in the Alamance County Heavy Industrial Development Ordinance.

Allowed with conditions  Fuel bulk storage  Ready-mix concrete suppliers  Inert debris landfills  Soft mining/resource extraction  Chemical manufacturing  Alternate energy generating facilities  Automobile salvage & storage facilities  Waste facilities  Chip mills  Race tracks  Hard mining/Resource extraction/Quarrying  Asphalt plants  Fossil fuel generating facilities  Landfills-except inert debris  Cement manufacturing  Metal recycling & salvage facilities

Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0851

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Work Session

In Control: Planning File Type: Agenda Item

Agenda Number:

Discussion of the NC DOT Strategic Highway Transportation Corridor (STC) plan.

Discussion of the NC DOT Strategic Highway Transportation Corridor (STC) plan.

Action Requested:

Introduction & Background: The NCDOT is currently working on developing the North Carolina Transportation Network (NCTN). The NCTN will build upon the Strategic Highway Corridor Plan developed in 2004 and is envisioned by NCDOT to be a tool to aid long-range transportation planning throughout North Carolina. The focus will be to identify key multimodal transportation corridors, called Strategic Transportation Corridors (STC), based on system connectivity, mobility and access to state and regional activity centers throughout the state. The goal of the plan is to provide system connectivity, reliable, higher-speed mobility and promote economic prosperity.

Discussion & Analysis: The 2004 Strategic Highway Corridor Plan for Chatham County included the following highways: US 421, US15/501, US64 and US1. The current draft plan includes all of the aforementioned facilities except US15/501. A few points of distinction between the draft Strategic Transportation Corridors plan and the 2004 Strategic Highway Corridor Plan is the draft plan does not include prescribed facilities for the corridors identified. Additionally, the draft plan was not developed using the 2004 corridors as a start, rather it was developed used the following scoring criteria: connectivity, mobility and prosperity. 15/501 did not score well enough in these criteria to be included in the initial draft map. A link for information is provided as an attachment.

NCDOT indicates at this time the proposed Strategic Transportation Corridors are not tied to NCDOT funding.

Recommendation: Receive staff presentation and discuss draft Strategic Highway Transportation Corridor (STC) plan.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0861

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Board of Commissioners File Type: Minutes

Agenda Number:

Vote on a request to approve the June 16, 2014 Work Session and June 16, 2014 Regular Session Minutes.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County, NC

Meeting Minutes Board of Commissioners

Monday, June 16, 2014 6:00 PM Historic Courthouse Courtroom

Work Session - 3:00 PM - Historic Courthouse Courtroom

Rollcall

Present: 5 - Chairman Walter Petty,Vice Chair Brian Bock,Commissioner Mike Cross,Commissioner Pam Stewart and Commissioner Jim Elza

PUBLIC INPUT SESSION

Anna Lewis, 1381 Silk Hope Gum Springs Rd, Pittsboro, gave the following comments: "First I want to be clear that I am not against the local residents occasionally hunting or target shooting. I am not trying to take away the rights of our fellow neighbors. What I am against is a gun range that is set up like a business operating 7 days a week, 10 - 11 hours per day. This is not about guns, this is about noise.

Range 2A’s soft opening came as a surprise on May 24. It was anything but soft. Since then we have been subjected to loud gun fire and blasts every Saturday including one Sunday: also, there was activity three days this past week. We no longer have any peace. And this is only the beginning. Their web site states they are utilizing only 15 out of 71 acres and have plans to expand. (They also mention a building with bunks. I ask why bunks? For overnight stay perhaps? For night time shooting possibly?)

Their web site states that Range 2A took years of planning. It’s hard to believe that in all those years of planning they did not take more time to research the location. A public announcement and an opportunity to voice our concerns would have been productive. Perhaps they would have chosen a different location with a bit more research and input. Clearly they chose the location because it is unzoned but with complete disregard for the people that live nearby. Just because he felt he was within his right, does not make it right! (Let me repeat, just because he felt he was within his right, does not make it right!)

I have been told that the range has to stay within a certain decibel reading. Since when does a devise that gauges sound outweigh public opinion?! My ears tell me it is loud, offensive, and obnoxious. See these ear protectors, see these pictures taken from their web site showing people wearing ear protection. The reasons they wear them is because it is loud. (Very, very loud!!!) I refuse to live like this, a prisoner in my own home, while he and his customers create a war zone in our community.

We are home owners, residents, tax payers in Chatham County, and supporters of our local small businesses. He does not live here and likely most of his customers do not either. The reason he does not live here is because anyone in their right mind would not move their family next to a gun range. He lives in a different county so when he is done ruining our lives, he can leave for the peace and comfort of his own

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

home. He is not only ruining our quality of life, he is decreasing the value of our home that we have worked so hard for.

On their web site they state there are berms meant for sound abatement, lead containment, and safety. Obviously the berms are unsuccessful at sound abatement. The pictures of the berms depicted on their web site appear too low for lead containment and safety. Furthermore, to my knowledge, there is no fencing at this time around the range. The only blockade to the range is a gate with card access. Anyone on foot can wander into the range at any time possibly crossing the path of gun fire.

I invite the commissioners to seriously consider these disturbances and possible safety hazards before allowing them to proceed any further. Perhaps even asking them to move to a new location or building an indoor gun range instead for optimum safety and noise containment. This is not a gun debate, this is a noise and safety debate that warrants immediate attention and is not to be taken lightly. Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter."

Susan Little, Museum Chairman and CCHA Board Member, stated her purpose was to thank the Commission for its support and give an update on operations after one year of being open to the public. She gave the following comments:

"Our interaction with various county personnel has been very positive, from talking to Lindsay to schedule the court room to grappling with the keys to open the building to the help IT has given us during the 4th grade tours….WE THANK YOU. We are open Wednesday through Friday, from 11 to 4 (could change to 3) and on First Sundays.

Some statistics of use in the first year, June 1, 2013- June 1, 2014 does not include opening day and others who did not sign in. Total visitors 1788, School groups, including 550 4th graders who came on field trips; the Chatham County IT Department has been most helpful.

We are an All-Volunteer effort: 32 volunteers are making this happen. In one month this spring 28 individual volunteers gave 284 hours of service as museum greeters, 4th grade tour leaders and welcoming greeters on First Sundays.

We are going to have a special house/building tour of Pittsboro on September 13, 2014. It will include both bus rides and walking, docents at each stop, a guide on each bus, costumed re-enactors, refreshments and a booklet about the tour. More information will follow. Our intent is to have the same kind of tour in the Siler City area at a future date.

Change may come to Pittsboro and Chatham County but the history is a story that has already been written and we believe that we have it captured in the museum. We are your welcoming voice and help guide people to the places they wish to access in the county complex."

BOARD PRIORITIES

14-0796 Vote on a request to approve award of FY 2014-1015 generator service contract to Atlantic Power Solutions by approving adoption of resolution.

Chatham County, NC Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Attachments: Atlantic Power Resolution 2014 (fy 15) APS Agreement 2014-2015

Chairman Petty stated he needed to recuse himself due to the nature of the item and turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Bock.

Vice Chairman Bock reviewed the specifics of the item, stating it was a request to award a generator contract to Atlantic Power Solutions, a company owned by Chairman Petty. He stated a few changes had been made earlier in the day to the original document posted online and he asked the County Attorney to review those changes.

Jep Rose, County Attorney, reviewed the changes to the contract. He stated in paragraph 3, of appendix A, with respect to compensation and expenses. The items added were the provision of services for $85 an hour, which is time and a half with a 20 percent margin for maintenance beyond the scheduled repairs and also for emergency services. Mr. Rose stated the Resolution was correct but the contract was not correct. He stated Appedix 2 was added and provision was added in paragraph 4 that it is a default if there is a failure to maintain any of the generators.

Chairman Petty, stated it was the regular hourly rate during normal business hours and time and a half is after business hours. Mr. Rose stated he was correct.

Vice Chairman Bock asked if there were any additional questions from the Board. Hearing none he called for a motion.

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Commissioner Stewart, that Resolution #2014-17 Approving A Contract to be Entered Into Between Atlantic Power Solutions, Inc. and Chatham County, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be adopted and the Contract, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 4 - Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

Excused: 1 - Chairman Petty

14-0797 A request from Planning Staff to provide an update on the SPOT 3.0 Transportation Project Ranking. Attachments: Resolution of TARPO STI Support BOC 6-16-14

Hillary Pace, Planner, reviewed the specifics of the item. Ms. Pace reviewed the SPOT 3.0 process and stated we are currently in a local prioritization of the process. It is a quantitative assessment of transportation projects across the state. At this point the TARPO, the DCCH-MPO, and the NCDOT divisions are able to assign qualitative points to these projects to help elevate them to the level of selection by the state. The deadline for the point assignments is late August.

Ms. Pace stated the TARPO held public meetings on the point assignments in June. One was held in Chatham County in the Dunlap Classroom on June 10th. The final recommendation of local points will be determined by the TARPO Transportation Advisory Committee by June 19, 2014. Not much opposition has been received to the local point assignments.

Ms. Pace stated there were 20 total projects selected for Chatham County and those

Chatham County, NC Page 3 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

projects were presented to the Board in September of 2014. Of those 20, there were three specific county projects. The TAC ARC Chatham Transportation Advisory Committee reviewed this draft list and recommends approval and is also recommending the commissioners approve a resolution of support.

These projects included the NC87 widening to provide 12 foot lanes and 4 foot paved shoulders, from NC 902 to the Alamance County line and an airport project in Siler City.

The DCHMPO submitted 4 bike/ped projects and they were not scored, which is an anomaly. The MPO has submitted a letter of inquiry on the County’s behalf. The Transportation Advisory Committee submitted a request that a letter of inquiry be sent from the Board of Commissioners to the SPOT office as well. Ms. Pace stated these projects are most likely not to be selected or given qualitative points by the MPO, however the TAC still wanted an explanation as to why.

Mr. Pace stated one project was scored that is in the Chatham portion of the MPO region, the Chapel Hill Transit expansion vehicle project. It is proposed to increase frequency of the Pittsboro express route.

Vice Chairman Bock asked who assigns the points. Ms. Pace stated the points are assigned by the MPO and while this project was not scored the MPO said they would consider it. Chapel Hill Transit has identified it as a high priority for them.

Commissioner Elza stated the 4 bike/ped projects were not scored by the state. Ms. Pace stated is correct. One silver lining, however, is the Town of Cary is competing for enhancement funds so they may see that project come to fruition.

Ms. Pace stated there are 11 roads identified and 12 bridges identified for resurfacing and replacement projects for 2014. Ms. Pace then showed a map with the projects.

Ms. Pace then turned the presentation over to Darius Sturdivant, division planner with the NC DOT. Mr. Sturdivant stated he would give updates on the Strategic Transportation Corridors, the US 15/501 Corridor Study and the Chatham County (CTP) and Pittsboro (PCTP) Comprehensive Transportation Plans.

Mr. Sturdivant stated STI (Strategic Transportation Investments) is the new legislation as to how transportation projects are now being funded and it replaces the old equity formula. It establishes an open and transparent data driven process for selecting transportation projects. He reviewed Division 8’s process for scoring and their current timeline.

Strategic Transportation Corridors serve to enhance connectivity, mobility, and economic development. These corridors support NCDOT’s 25 year transportation plan currently in progress.

15/501 Corridor Update: the study looked at traditional intersections versus superstreet concept. The results of the study found that superstreets provided significant decrease in traffic delay and traffic congestion compared to traditional intersections. no recs for future widening. The Superstreet concept also determined that the current section of 15-501 in Chatham County could remain four lane with no future widening. The report should be complete within the next two to three months.

Mr. Sturdivant explained the superstreet concept. You cannot go through an intersection and cannot make left turns. You have to go to a u-turn light in order to

Chatham County, NC Page 4 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

access and cross the highway. A traditional intersection has approximately thirty-two potential conflict points for an accident and a superstreet reduces that number to approximately sixteen.

Mr. Sturdivant stated the Chatham County CTP has been presented in draft form to all the municipalities as well as the Board of Commissioners. Pittsboro has recently asked to revisit their plan to include the Chatham Park. Therefore, the County Plan is being revised to remove the Pittsboro part of the plan and it will be incorporated later. The Chatham CTP should be ready in the next two to three months.

Ms. Pace, stated the 15/501 has been tentatively been pulled off the Strategic Transportation Corridor map. Staff will bring the project back to the Board once a decision has been made. Also, staff will bring back the transportation projects to the Board after the Division public input meetings have been held. Ms. Pace stated the TAC has given the Board three items to consider: 1. the TARPO resolution of support 2. a letter of inquiry to the North Carolina SPOT office 3. a letter to MPO requesting the Chapel Hill Transit Pittsboro Express Route be assigned local points Ms. Pace stated staff can also do a more in depth transportation work session at any time.

Commissioner Cross if there was still a list of unpaved roads in Chatham County that needed to be paved. Mr. Sturdivant stated he believed it was part of the secondary roads program but he would check. Ms. Pace stated it was her understanding it now is assessed with a methodology as well and most of counties in western part of the state are getting the funds.

Commissioner Elza asked if the airport out at Siler City competes with highway projects. Mr. Sturdivant stated it definitely does. Ms. Pace stated it has been deemed an important economic development project.

A motion was made by Commissioner Elza, seconded by Commissioner Cross, that the Board approve the Resolution #2014-18 of Support for the Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning Organization (TARPO) Assignment of Local Points NC Strategic Transportation (STI) Prioritization 3.0 Process, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be adopted; and approve a letter of inquiry to the North Carolina SPOT Office; and approve a letter to the MPO requesting the Chapel Hill Transit Pittsboro Express Route be assigned local points. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0808 Presentation of schematic design for joint/county school bus garage.

Chris Blyce stated the main presenters today were Dave Taylor and Mike Hammersley from Corley Redfoot Architecs. He wanted to preface the presentation by stating this is the first and only partnership of its type according to the Department of Public Instruction (DPI). They took the schematics to the DPI and they were very supportive of the design and the partnership. He expressed his appreciation to the Board, to Renee Paschal, Assistant County Manager and to Dan LaMontagne, Environmental Quality and Public Works Director, for their work on the project.

Commissioner Cross asked if DPI provided answers as to why a partnership like this had not worked before. Mr. Blyce stated it really requires a high level of cooperation and we just have the teams willing to sit down, work through it and make it work.

Chatham County, NC Page 5 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Chairman Petty stated there was an opportunity to break the mold and we did it. The County and the Schools work very well together and that has not always been the case. He stated another large part of it is records keeping. Mr. Blyce agreed.

Dave Taylor and Mike ? from Corley Redfoot Architects, stated they have made a lot of progress over the last month and a half. They passed out handouts of the presentation to the commissioners and staff. Mr. Taylor stated they should have construction bids by early September. The site is located on Renaissance Drive, formerly known as County Landfill Road.

Mr. Taylor stated the design is set up for the school system, the county and also provides for some future expansion. He reviewed the base bid as well as the alternate bid. He reviewed the timeline and asked the Board if they had any questions.

Commissioner Elza asked how they planned to heat the building.

Mr. Taylor stated the engineers will deal with that. He believed there will probably be large space heaters in the work bay area. Joel stated he would like to go with low infrared heating.

Commissioner Elza stated the landfill is across the street and there is some talk of gas recovery there, could that be an option. Mr. Taylor stated they can investigate that.

Chairman Petty stated he knows they need a garage and this design and the School Board's willingness to work with the County, accomplishes everyone’s needs. He stated he has had a good experience with used oil. Joel stated he doesn't know if it would be enough to furnish the whole place but would look into it.

This Agenda Item was received and filed

14-0830 Agriculture Conference Center Presentation and Discussion

Renee Paschal, Assistant County Manager stated staff has been working on designing the facility for some time, the bid market has really heated up and things are coming in over budget. The architects cost estimators believe this item is $1 million dollars over budget. She stated staff met with the architect last week and they identified $500,000 in site cost savings. The project budget is currently $11.5 million dollars but the original debt model was run at $12 million dollars. Therefore staff recommends increasing the budget by $500,000 and taking up the entire debt model. The architect will present the options they looked at as well as what the recommendation is. She stated there is a very tight timeframe to work with. These projects will be combined for financing purposes therefore, a decision is needed today.

County Manager, Charlie Horne, stated the Board will see with the architect’s and staff’s presentation that everyone has worked hard to get this cost down. They believe they should be building this project for the future, not for the past. If they build it with the current budget they have, they will be building it for the past.

Taylor Hobbs, architect for the project, stated the budget estimates over a year ago for construction were at $9 million dollars. He stated with the site bid we just had and with the increase in the market, the project is over budget. The site bid came in at $1.9 million dollars and there were only three bidders.

Chatham County, NC Page 6 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

He stated as there is a two-pronged approach. They will make some cuts to get the project back in line that won't harm the long term use of the facility. They are in a tight spot with the bid market and they want to bid late August.

They need to know the entire number in September, combining the bid as one project will secure additional savings.

Chairman Petty clarified they would be combining site work and construction and then do the bidding it in August. Mr. Hobbs stated he was correct, in late August. He stated a year ago they would have had six to nine bidders and they only had three. They are being choosy with their bids and we are in the best part of the state for bids.

Commissioner Elza stated they need a half million dollars to make this move. Mr. Hobbs stated that was correct. He would ask for all the Board can give, but $500,000 would be greatly appreciated and it would go a long way. He stated it does give them a cushion, but it does not change their bid strategy.

Chairman Petty asked if he knew how many bidders he could expect. Mr. Hobbs stated it is a tough site and the ones capable of taking it are bigger companies. He expects they will want it and will be competitive for it.

Commissioner Cross asked if they are cutting $500,000 from somewhere else. Mr. Hobbs stated they are cutting it out of the base bid. The design will be there, but the build out could be done in phases.

A motion was made by Vice Chair Bock, seconded by Commissioner Cross, to approve increasing the project budget to $12 million dollars. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0817 Vote on a request to approve appointments to the Chatham County ABC Board. Attachments: Larry Miller ABC Board Application Edward McLaurin, Jr. ABC Board Application Louise Adcock ABC Board Robert Kerlin ABC Board Jimmie Pugh ABC Board ABC Budget

Walter Harris, Chair of Chatham County ABC Board, reviewed specifics of the request. He stated the Chatham County ABC Board recommends appointing two new members and reappointing one of its current members. After discussion, the Board agreed to vote on the following appointments:

Appoint new member, Larry Miller, to a two year term Appoint new member, Edward McLaurin, to a one year term Re-Appoint current member, Debra Oldham, to a three year term

The Chairman Called for a motion and a vote.

A motion was made by Vice Chair Bock, seconded by Commissioner Cross, that the Appointments be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Chatham County, NC Page 7 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza Mr. Harris stated the Chatham County ABC Board Budget also needs approval.

Commissioner Cross stated they are still looking for another location to replace the current Moncure store's location. Mr. Harris stated that was correct. He stated it would be the only ABC store between Tramway and Holly Springs. They want a store they can all be proud of. There are some options out there and they are working with a realtor.

The Chairman called for a motion and a vote.

A motion was made by Commissioner Elza, seconded by Commissioner Cross, that the Chatham County ABC Board Budget be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0825 Report and Presentation by the Chatham County 9/11 First Responders Memorial Foundation Corporation Jody Allen, President of the 9/11 First Responders Memorial Foundation Corporation, gave a short presentation about the memorial.

Mr. Allen gave a small piece of beam to the Commissioners that will be used for fundraising and presented a plaque that will go on the memorial.

He stated there will be a celebration on September 6, 2014, which is the project completion date and 12th year celebration. The Foundation has shirts available for purchase for $25.00.

The Foundation posed with the Board for photos.

This Agenda Item was received and filed

14-0809 An MPA intern working for the County Manager's Office will present his research on defining problems the county has with sales tax leakage. Attachments: Presentation to BOC (updated)

Renee Paschal, Assistant County Manager, introduced John O’Daniel, an Intern with the County Manager’s Department. Mr. O’Daniel is working on his Masters of Public Administration (MPA) at UNC Chapel Hill. The Manager’s Department has hired him for the summer to work on researching and defining problems the county has with sales tax leakage. Ms. Paschal stated they have tried to meet with the Department of Revenue several times to get several of the issues they will present clarified. They did get a call back from them last week but Mr. O’Daniel’s time is running short so they wanted to bring this issue to the Board’s attention. They have also set up meetings with vendors over the next couple of weeks to discuss the issue.

Mr. O’Daniel gave a PowerPoint presentation on problems the county has with sales tax leakage and the role zip codes play in the reporting of sales tax.

Traditional Sales Tax Leakage:

Chatham County, NC Page 8 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

- 55% of residents commute to jobs outside the county - The majority of residents cross county lines to purchase groceries and basic services - Approximately 60 cents of every retail dollar spent by residents is spent outside of Chatham County. (EDC, April 2014 Sales Tax Revenues)

Mr. O'Daniel stated this has been a problem for several years and it shows the importance of the issue he will present later on overlapping zip codes and incorrect sales tax reporting

Sales Tax Summary: - State Rate: 4.75% - Chatham Rate: 2% - Below the 2.25% max - Public Transportation .5% - Durham, Orange, and Mecklenburg - Total sales tax in Chatham County (State + County) - 6.75%, among counties with lowest rate in the state - Border counties - 5 of the 8 border counties have a higher sales tax rate - Two of these have the highest rates in the state (7.5%)

Sales: - In-Store Sales - 6.75% is the correct rate for in-store purchases in Chatham County - Special cases: - Medications (2%) - Over the counter (6.75%) - Groceries—local only (2%) - Prepared Foods (6.75%) - Point of Delivery Sales - Tax is charged based on the delivery location of goods—Chatham County entitled to sales tax on goods delivered here

Mr. O'Daniel stated they are still clarifying with the Department of Revenue the rate on goods delivered—whether it should be Chatham’s rate or that of the home county. They also should point out that they are waiting for a number of issues to be clarified by the Department of Revenue. Since his time with Chatham is limited, they needed to move ahead with the educational campaign, so it is based on what they know at this point.

Sales Tax Reporting: - Vendors are required to report to the NC Department of Revenue (DOR) sales tax by county - How vendors determines the county is up to them—DOR does not enforce a reporting standard - Vendors use a variety of methods: - 5-digit zip code - 9-digit zip code - “Geo-coding” of address to determine precise location - Request county from purchaser

Zip Code Overview: - Use of the 5-digit zip code - Zip code boundaries do not follow county boundaries - Incorrectly reported sales tax if vendor uses only 5-digit zip

Chatham County, NC Page 9 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

- For example, zip codes with Chapel Hill address are reported as Orange County sales - Lost tax revenue for Chatham - Possible over taxation of residents - We want to encourage use of Zip+4 or 9-digit zip code, geo-coding of addresses, or obtaining county at time of sale

Mr. O'Daniel stated they are aware of 2 Chatham businesses charging Orange County rates. An example would be Chapel Hill addresses reported as Orange County such as Governors Club. It is a Chatham County address but a Chapel Hill 27517 zip code.

Chairman Petty stated that would only be the case for point of sale or delivered items to that address. Mr. O'Daniel stated they are also looking at in-store sales. If a store is located in of sales because the store could be charging to the wrong zip code. They are encouraging the use of the nine digit zip code.

Background: - Since 2010 this has been a concern - Staff has spoken with DOR regarding reporting by vendors - DOR responded that there was no interest at the state level - It appears few counties have the same problem; plus, the current reporting tends to benefit more urban/developed counties - Counties are restricted from seeing sales tax data by vendor - Recent development has again brought this issue to the forefront

Mr. O'Daniel stated they asked GIS to map zip codes of other “bedroom” counties and only 2 or 3 appear to have the same issue. Commissioner Cross stated the real problem is with the Legislature. Wake and Mecklenburg alone own 20% of the House and the Senate. They have plenty of counties coming into their towns pumping money into them. They do not have a need to give the money back to us they want us to continue to give to them.

Commissioner Bock said to clarify the leakage means that if someone buys in Chatham County it is being reported as being bought in Orange County or Wake County. Mr. O'Daniel stated that was correct. Commissioner Stewart stated it was due to the zip codes. Mr. O'Daniel stated they believe the zip codes are playing a large role in the problem.

Commissioner Petty asked how many dollars are really at stake. Mr. O'Daniel stated it is difficult to determine that due to the lack of the ability to look at the businesses financials.

Ms. Paschal stated the issue of leakage is not what they are addressing. They are addressing businesses in Chatham County charging a Wake County or other county's sales tax.

Mr. O'Daniel then showed maps of Chatham County zip codes. These zip codes are assigned to cities recognized as being within Chatham, they believe. They are also trying to confirm this with Department of Revenue. PO BOX only zips were not included. Zip codes are based around a city and that determines the sales tax for county. He also showed zip codes that are overlap zip codes and are assigned to cities recognized as being outside Chatham, such as Chapel Hill, Durham, Apex, Cary, New Hill, Sanford, and Staley.

Current Impact:

Chatham County, NC Page 10 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

- In-Store Sales - Much sales tax leakage from residents shopping outside the county - We need to ensure all vendors inside the county are reporting their county correctly and charging the correct rate - Point of Delivery - Construction—building materials delivered to site - Growth is in non-Chatham zip codes - Internet sales and other deliveries - Per capita income is 35% higher in non-Chatham zip codes

Mr. O'Daniel stated 55% of Chatham residents commute outside of the county to work and spending tends to follow. Currently, Amazon online orders are coming back to the county correctly.

Construction Permits: - Loss of sales tax from delivered building materials - Number of building permits issued - High growth areas are in “non-Chatham” zip codes

Permit Valuations: - Loss of sales tax from delivered building materials - Value of building permits issued - Value of permits are higher in “non-Chatham” zip codes

Our Plan - Educate Locally! - Continue to work with NCDOR to find solutions - Educate Businesses - Meetings and brochures - In-store and point of delivery taxes - Flyers for building inspections - Educate Customers/Residents - Ensure vendors charging correct sales tax and reporting correct county—ASK! - Shop in the county - Report over taxation—look at sales tax % on receipts - Benefit: Chatham has a lower rate; keeping sales tax in the county gives us resources to maintain the property tax rate and/or increase services

Conclusion: - Impact of overlapping zip codes - In-Store Sales - Point of Delivery sales - Construction - Single family homes - Commercial buildings - Online Orders and Deliveries - Amazon - 82% of deliveries are for non-Chatham Zip Codes

Mr. O'Daniel shared the story of one of the County's employees. She purchased an appliance from a local business. She lives in a Sanford zip code and they had incorrectly assigned the sales tax to Lee County. She would not have known had she not asked.

Commissioner Stewart asked what a citizen can do if they look at their receipt shows they were charged the sales tax of a wrong county. Mr. O'Daniel said they should start by talking to the store manager.

Chatham County, NC Page 11 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Mr. O'Daniel stated Orange and Durham County have the highest sales tax in the state. Commissioner Petty stated he was interested in how many dollars the leakage amounted too but Mr. O'Daniel stressed again it is hard to determine.

The Board thanked Mr. O'Daniel for the hard work he put into the project.

This Agenda Item was received and filed

CLOSED SESSION

14-0823 Closed session to discuss matters concerning Economic Development

A motion was made by Vice Chair Bock, seconded by Commissioner Stewart, that the Board go out of the Work Session and into the Closed Session for matters related to Economic Development and matters within the attorney/client privilege. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

ADJOURNMENT

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Commissioner Stewart, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

End of Work Session

Regular Session - 6:00 PM - Historic Courthouse Courtroom

Roll Call

Present: 5 - Chairman Walter Petty,Vice Chair Brian Bock,Commissioner Mike Cross,Commissioner Pam Stewart and Commissioner Jim Elza

INVOCATION and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Commissioner Cross delivered the invocation after which the Vice Chairman invited everyone present to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Petty welcomed those in attendance and called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA and CONSENT AGENDA

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that the Agenda and Consent Agenda be approved with the noted changes:

Chatham County, NC Page 12 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Chairman Petty pulled Item #14-0807 from the Regular Agenda under Board Priorities and asked to move it to a future agenda

.

Commissioner Elza pulled Item #14-0736 from the Consent Agenda and asked to move it to the Regular Agenda.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0832 Vote on a request to approve the May 19, 2014 Work Session Minutes, the May 19, 2014 Regular Session Minutes and the May 20, 2014 Budget Public Hearing Minutes. - An updated agenda will be posted with the minutes attached.

Attachments: May 19, 2014 Work Session and Regular Session Minutes May 20, 2014 Budget Public Hearing Minutes

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that the Minutes be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0813 Vote on a request to approve the Tax Releases and Refunds

Attachments: NVCTS-MAY-BOC 06-16-14 TaxReleasesandRefunds06-16-2014

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that the Tax Releases and Refunds, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0814 Vote on a request to approve the re-appointment of Tax Collector

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Appointment be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0789 Vote on a request to approve Reappointment for the Board of Social Services

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Appointment be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

Chatham County, NC Page 13 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

14-0818 Vote on a request to approve an appointment for Chatham County Housing Authority Board. Attachments: Judith Wiggs Resignation from Housing Authority 06.2014 Dennis Vitolo Housing Authority Application Letter 06.2014

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Appointment be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0819 Vote on a request to approve accountant appointment to the Goldston Gulf Sanitary District Board of Directors Attachments: Gulf.goldston sanitary district

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Appointment be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0820 Vote on a request to approve Reappointments to the Recreation Advisory Committee

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that these Appointments be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0827 Vote on a request to approve Appointment to the Transportation Advisory Committee

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Appointment be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0783 Vote on a request to approve to accept $875 Animal Services Donation Funds Attachments: Animal Services Funds Balance Inquiry.pdf

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0737 Vote on a request from Briar Chapel Utilities, LLC to approve a text amendment to the Chatham County Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.13 Table of Permitted Uses, to add a category entitled “Spray Irrigation of

Chatham County, NC Page 14 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

tertiary treated wastewater (reclaimed water) and allow as “P” Permitted in all zoning districts. Attachments: Hyperlink

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Ordinance, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be adopted. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0738 Vote on a request request by Tim Winters with Winter Custom Yachts, located at 2273 Holland’s Chapel Rd., Parcel No. 64272, to approve a CUP revision to add three (3) additional 1800 sq. ft. storage buildings to the existing site. Attachments: Hyperlink

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0798 Vote on a request by Lee Bowman, Project Manager, on behalf of NNP Briar Chapel, LLC for final plat approval of Briar Chapel, Phase 8, consisting of 112 lots on 23.3 acres, off Andrews Store Road, SR-1528, Baldwin Township, parcel #87090 & 89623. Attachments: Hyperlink

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0828 Vote on a request from Staff to approve the change of Chatham County Assistance Policy for the 2012 Cycle of the Single-Family Rehabilitation Program Construction Completion Date to December 31, 2014. Attachments: Chatham SFR12 Assistance Policy_Amended June 2014

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0762 Vote on a request to approve a Pyrotechnics Display at 11000 Governors Drive, Chatham County, NC on July 4, 2014

Chatham County, NC Page 15 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Attachments: Attachment A-11000 Governors-Pyrotechnics 14.pdf Attachment B-11000 Governors-Pyrotechnics 14.pdf Attachment C-11000 Governors-Pyrotechnics 14.pdf Attachment D-11000 Governors-Pyrotechnics 14.pdf Attachment E-11000 Governors-Pyrotechnics 14.pdf Attachment F-11000 Governors-Pyrotechnics 14.pdf

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0795 Vote on a request to approve a Pyrotechnics Display at 255 Lois Lane, Chatham County, NC on July 4, 2014 Attachments: Attachment A-255 Lois Lane-Pyrotechnics 14.pdf Attachment B-255 Lois Lane-Pyrotechnics 14.pdf Attachment C-255 Lois Lane-Pyrotechnics 14.pdf Attachment D-255 Lois Lane-Pyrotechnics.pdf Attachment E-255 Lois Lane-Pyrotechnics 14.pdf Attachment F-255 Lois Lane-Pyrotechnics 14.pdf

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0822 Vote on a request to approve Pyrotechnics Display at 3000 Galloway Ridge Road, Chatham County, NC on July 7, 201 Attachments: Attachment A-Pyrotechnics NCG.S. 14-413 14.pdf Attachment B-Pyrotechnics Letter of Request 3000 Galloway Ridge Road.pdf Attachment C-NC Pyrotechnics Operators License 3000 Galloawy Ridge.pdf Attachment D-Pyrotechnics Insurance Certificate 3000 Galloway Ridge.pdf Attachment E-Pyrotechnics ATF License 3000 Galloway Ridge.pdf Attachment F-Pyrotechnics Display Area Map 3000 Galloway Ridge.pdf

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0788 Vote on a Request from citizens to approve the naming of private road in Chatham County

Chatham County, NC Page 16 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Attachments: LANDRUM HILLS LANE PETITION LANDRUM HILLS LANE

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0794 Vote on a request from citizens to approve the naming of private road in Chatham County Attachments: COUNTY SERVICES ROAD PETITION COUNTY SERVICES MAP

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0787 Vote on a request to approve an amendment to modify current Lease for term and additional space, and development of county employee wellness exercise program Attachments: YMCA Amended Lease July 1, 2014-June 30, 2017

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Contract, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0791 Vote on a request to approve the Home and Community Care Block Grant for fiscal year 2014/ 2015 as recommended by the Committee appointed by the County Commissioners.

Attachments: HCCBGFundingPlan

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this agreement, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0792 Vote on a request to approve the contract with Carol Holcomb, Attorney-At-Law (Holcomb & Cabe, LLP) for Social Services for the fiscal year 07/01/2014 to 06/30/2015 Attachments: Contract -FY15-1902 Holcomb Cabe LLP - Signature Copy

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Contract, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Chatham County, NC Page 17 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0793 Vote on a request to approve the Attorney for DSS Child Support Enforcement and Adult Services Attachments: 2014-05-28 Attorney matrix final

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Contract, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0826 Vote on a request to approve the Chatham Transit contract for Social Services for the fiscal year 07/01/2014 to 06/30/2015 Attachments: Contract -FY15-1908 Chatham Transit Network - Working Copy

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Contract, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0816 Vote on a request to approve the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software and Joint County/Bus Garage Project Ordinances Attachments: Project Ordinance ERP Software JointCounty-BusGarageProjectOrdinance

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that the project ordinances, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0821 Vote on a request to approve the Waste Industries, Inc. - Disposal Fee Contract Attachments: WASTE INDUSTRIES from 7-1-2013 to 6-30-2017 (2)

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Contract, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0739 Vote on a request to adopt the Resolution Declaring Property Surplus and Authoring the Sale of Said Property.

Chatham County, NC Page 18 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Attachments: Surplus-forPublicAuction-forBOC Resolution-surplus-2014

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Resolution,#2014-19 Declairing Property Surplus and Authorizing the Sale of Said Property, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be adopted. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0790 Vote on a request to approve the FY 2014-2015 Budget Ordinance

Attachments: BudgetOrdinance

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Ordinance, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0815 Vote on a request to approve Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Budget Amendments Attachments: FO Budget Amendments 6-16-14

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0831 Vote on a request to adopt a Resolution Delaying the Effective Date of a Reappraisal of Property in Chatham County Attachments: CHATHAM COUNTY RESOLUTION DELAY OF REAPPRAISAL 2014

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that this Resolution, #2014-20 Delaying the Effective Date of a Reappraisal of Property in Chatham County, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be adopted. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

End of Consent Agenda

PUBLIC INPUT SESSION

Chairman Petty reviewed the process for public input as well as the public hearings.

Bob Lewis Submitted the following Comments: "My wife Anna and I live on Silk Hope Gum Springs Rd, in close proximity to Range

Chatham County, NC Page 19 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

2A. I think the majority of people speaking in opposition to Range 2A will be talking about the unacceptable noise we are experiencing. For my wife and I this is also the main concern. But I am here to talk about safety issues related to this organization. First of all I will read a quote from Range 2A that was posted on the Range 2A.com.

“Since our members are grown adults who the state of North Carolina even agrees are responsible enough to own a firearm we do not feel it is our place to tell you what your shooting skill level is” End quote. This relates to their operation as a “Low Restriction” range. In other words as long as you pass their background check it does not matter that you have little or no experience.

I am here to talk about the berms they have in place. According to their website they have been put in place to suppress noise (which we know does not work) and for safety. Looking at the pictures on their website a conservative estimate of their height would put them at approximately 9 ft. They are proposing to operate ranges up to 300 yards or 900 ft. I have done some calculations that I can furnish you with upon request. At a distance of just 100 ft if a shooter was to aim just 2.5 degrees above horizontal the bullet would pass over the berm. At 300 ft (1/3 the distance they are proposing) a shooter aiming just 1 degree above horizontal would mean the bullet would pass 1.2 ft over the top of the berm. Obviously with a gun in the hands of an in experienced person this is very possible. I am not a ballistics expert so I don’t know where the bullet will come down, but God forbid that a person or maybe some livestock is in its path. Therefore I request that with immediate effect you shut down Range 2A until they have addressed both the noise issue and the safety concerns.

While I have a few seconds I would like to bring your attention to a newspaper article dated April 23RD in the Daily Tarheel. In which Chatham County Commissioner Michael Cross said Atkeson would have the right to build a range on his private property. “If he’s starting a business, that’s a whole different story,” Cross said. “The only thing I’ve heard is that its going to be for private shooting.”

Clearly this is a business, they can call it what they want, Club or whatever. THIS IS A BUSINESS !

Bonnie Bechard, 238 Bartlett Drive, Pittsboro, gave the following comments: “Thank you for your resolution to the NC legislature expressing your concerns about fracking. Please take this a step further and create an ordinance that will ban fracking in Chatham County, as other communities have done.

NC is the only state to have the unique geological formation of diabase dikes, where the shale is right on top of our aquifers. The dikes would allow fracking toxins to flow into groundwater. You may recall what happened a year or two ago when TCE leaked into aquifers and traveled up to 3 miles to contaminate wells in the Wake Forest community.

I have a copy of the Susquehanna County, Pa 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, for the Emergency Management Agency. I will quote from this report. This is real emergency management data, based on facts, not hyperbole. Remember, the Marcellus Shale deposit has 6000’ of separation from water sources. NC has 0’ to 1500’.

“Activities associated with Marcellus Shale gas drilling can cause fire and pollute streams and drinking water. Additional hazards from oil and gas well drilling of particular concern …exist in stray methane gas in the subsurface, which can migrate

Chatham County, NC Page 20 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

to wells and homes and ignite.”

“Hydraulic fracturing involves pumping one to eight million gallons of water, mixed with sand and other additives into the shale formation.” “The water used for hydraulic fracturing is composed of 87 chemicals, some of which have the potential to cause danger to health and life.” A separate report states: “These chemicals cause organ damage, birth defects, nervous system disorders, cancer, and even death.”

Testimonies of the harmed have been collected on a Pennsylvania website: pennsylvaniaallianceforcleanwaterandair.wordpress.com/the-list. The stories are long, but here are some quotes: “I have lost my home, my health, and my husband.” “Fracking has devastated my quality of life.” “My farm is losing revenue from sick and dying cattle.” “The natural gas industry has stole our land, polluted our streams and air, made our family and animals ill, and disrupted our peaceful way of life.”

There are over 1600 of these stories, and all call for an end to fracking and for government to start protecting families, not the industry. The Governor’s Club sits on top of this shale, as do other up-scale communities. Who will want to move to a county that may have this dirty, heavy industry polluting its air and waters? I believe people who can afford to, will start to leave the county unless you ban fracking.

I have not touched on the data that show the negative economic impacts of fracking and the increase in crime. That will be for another day.”

Judy Hogan, submitted the following comments: “I thank you for your Resolution of June 4 to the state officials about Senate Bill 786 which lifts the moratorium against fracking before the rules are in place and formally approved. You take seriously your role in protecting the health and welfare of Chatham citizens. I am 77, living near Lee county’s high intensity fracking zone. I may have to leave my home and give up farming.

Fracking anywhere near our farms is going to force us out of farming. Farmers in a frack zone can’t sell their vegetables, and farm animals die. It will also use up precious water that farms need, and agriculture is a major source of income here. Our Chatham sustainable farm and local food movement is nationally known and respected, and don’t forget tourism. Jordan Lake may be damaged. It, too, has gas under it.

We Moncure people have fought off three landfills and worked to reduce terrible air pollution since 2000. Many people here suffered from asthma and cancer, probably related to years of air pollution. Now we are threatened with worse air pollution both from fracking’s planned and accidental methane releases and from evaporation of fracking waste water disposal pools full of chemicals and radiation dangerous to our health.

The Jonesboro Fault Line passes under Shearon Harris and near where fracking is planned. Fracking sets off earthquakes. An accident at the nuclear plant would affect all of Chatham and be especially disastrous to those within the 10-mile evacuation zone, which Moncure is.

Fracking brings accidents with toxic chemicals and gas, and the state is making it illegal for firefighters, police, and doctors to reveal the chemicals involved in such an accident, plus only one person, the state geologist, apart from the fracking

Chatham County, NC Page 21 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

companies, will know what those chemicals are. Since the current state government is acting in disregard of the lives and health of North Carolinians, we appreciate your taking responsibility should Chatham citizens be threatened with fracking.”

Maryphyllis Horn, Creekside Circle, Pittsboro. She stated she grew up in a town in Pennsylvania that was all Republican. Very few people were Democrats. She grew up into her adult life as a republican. When she saw that the national republicans were letting go of anything relating to the environment, she became an independent. When Regan came into office, she became a Democrat. She feels as if she has an idea of both sides of the aisle. She has a brother who is almost a member of the tea party. About five or seven years ago they sat down and discussed why they both believed the way they do. I believe the republican. have a local view of business and the democrats have a ? view of business. She stated she is generalize but she noticed that republicans have a global view of business where the democrats have a local view of business. She noticed republicans value personal land where the democrats value globally the environment. She noticed republicans value family and personal friends and do not care a lot for anyone else where democrats value all people all around the world whether they know them or not. She stated again that she is generalizing. She believes the fracking situation is not political. It is important that this issue be looked at in a wider frame for what is right for both democrats and republicans and anyone else who is not affiliated. She sees the republican side as standing on the right leg only with the left leg in the air and she sees the democrat side standing on the left leg only with the right leg in the air. Both sides have to look for another way to find support. Both legs of our political system need to be used on this issue.

A Short List of Chemicals used in the fracking process and byproducts: Acrylonitrile: used as an adhesive. Exposure has been found to increase cancer rates. Benzene: a byproduct of fossil fuels, it is a known carcinogen. The average gas well has 2000 x the unsafe level of benzene. Methane: the main component in natural gas (see Duke Study above). High concentrations can break down oxygen and create carbon monoxide. A build up of methane in people's wells is what causes faucets to be lit on fire. Arsenic: a well-known, poison, it naturally occurs in shale rock layer, but gets into the water due to flowback from the fracking process. Barium: Barite is a compound containing barium that is used as a weighting agent in the fracking process. These compounds are poisonous and affect the nervous system, causing cardiac irregularities, tremors, weakness, anxiety, dyspnea, and paralysis. Strontium: can be used as a radioactive tracer. Problems can develop in the bone growth of children who ingest high levels. A build-up of strontium can cause muscle and bone depletion and lead to a low blood count. Toluene (Methyl Benzene): the EPA states that gas drilling emits toluene along with other dangerous gases into the atmosphere. Exposure to toluene over a long time may cause nervous system effects, irritation of the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract, dizziness, headaches, difficulty with sleep, and birth defects.

Governor McCrory signed the new bill Senate 786 to hurry up the tracking on June 4, but on Friday, at the Rules Committee meeting of The MEC, something unusual happened. A man named Craig Stevens came to that meeting, after having spoken with Tillis and some other gung-ho tracking people in the legislature, and he startled the committee by announcing that he was a Tea Party Republican from the part of PA which has been heavily fracked, and he began to tell them how horrible fracking had proved to be where he lived. It had ruined his community, one person had died when

Chatham County, NC Page 22 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

a big truck overturned on him; the creek behind his house had burst into flame, and then he said that the NC Constitution provided for counties to refuse fracking based on the health and welfare of its citizens. His speech should soon be available on an audio at the Mining and Energy website. www.portal.ncde nr.org/web/mining-and-energy-commission.home

Your letter was June 4, the day the governor signed 786 into law. Many months ago you wrote to the Sub-group of the Mining and Energy Commission saying you were against any forced pooling. It was the issue of property rights. That doesn't go very far and we need you to go farther.

Barbara Alotis, 570 Woodberry, Fearrington, Pittsboro, She thanked the Board for the resolution they adopted on June 4, 2014 about fracking. She stated she wanted to speak to the issue of water resources. 3.5 million gallons are used on average per frack. There is no oversight of streams and rivers, which would have water sucked out by fracking operations. The Falls Lake supplies water to over 450,000 people. Jordan Lake provides to over 300,000 people. There is no extra water for fracking. Numbers show North Carolina is experiencing increased periods of drought.. WIth fracking operations using up our water resources, there would be less resources for agriculture, business and the general population in Chatham County. Surface waters will also be contaminated by spills of chemicals or fracking fluids at drill sites and from run off for frack waste water holding ponds. Thus, such contamination would impact the water supply for over 2.4 million people.

Siglenda Scarpa 317 Goathouse Road, She is the founder and owner of the Goathouse Refuge. She came to Chatham County 18 years ago and has put all of her money here. She brings over $300,000 a year to Chatham County with her refuge. She loves animals and she has made the refuge a place of peace and love. Everything is done without chemicals, it is a fantastic place. How is it possible that the Board is allowing a shooting range in the middle of a community where people are finding a special life and animals are finding a second life. They have over 200 cats there and they also have dogs and they find homes for them. They have children that come, schools that come, and autistic children come to learn how to talk by communicating with the animals. Boy Scouts come and do service projects with them. She would like to know if these people have a permit to do what they are doing. He said it was just for a few friends. If he does have permits, what is he going to do with the lead? Does he have a permit to dispose of the lead? Does he have bathrooms? Does he have disabled access to those bathrooms? She put a $16,000 septic system at her place place to keep the place pristine for everyone. I want to see the permits and who gave it to them. She wants the Board to understand that the noise is so loud and the animals are terrified. The cats are not eating anymore. Please stop this insanity, it is not acceptable.

Beverly D'Quanni, 856 Millcroft, Fearrington, Pittsboro, thanked them for the resolution they adopted on June 4th. She watched three hours of those session at the legislature while they were discussing Bill 786. She could not believe how they railroaded through the bill. This issue is very personal to her. She lived in the Hudson River Valley most of her life and she can remember an add on the TV where a lone Indian looking at the hudson river had a tear in his eye regretting what could have been. She believes this happened before most people were educated and given the ability to think about the consequences of being careless with the environment. We have that education ability now, are we going to use it? She feels every time we rush something through we leave a legacy behind that is not good. Fracking could very well be one of them. Let's not let anybody push us around on fracking. We have to protect what we have here in Chatham County. What they do

Chatham County, NC Page 23 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

out west where they may not have what we have is one thing. We have to cherish what we have here.

Clay Owsley, 220 Whitakers Trail, stated Range 2A provides a safe environment for personal firearms training. It provides range access for local law enforcement and also provides training for all skill levels. It is built and designed for the safety of range members and its neighbors. It is not open to the public and only has 16 members. The berms are designed like thousands of ranges across the country. He stated he is a veteran and has seen many and these are built in a safe and responsible manner. All members have to pass a background check before they can be considered for access. Shooting can be heard from thousands of locations in Chatham County. His children can wake up for school and hear shooting in the distance. They accept that because they understand how the zoning laws work. There is no zoning in that area. The Goathouse benefited from no zoning. No zoning means no zoning. In this situation, one party understands this concept and the other party does not.

Diane Spotz, 220, Cary, is a volunteer at the Goathouse refuge. She stated she heard gunfire this week volunteering at the goathouse. She stated she had lived around a lot of shooting ranges throughout her life. She has never experienced anything like this. She heard their conversations. The animals were terrified, they wouldn't move or eat. They have had to cancel events because of the neighbors. There is no guarantee there will not be gunfire. She stated when you hear rapid fire and it vibrates through your body it is too close. It is too close when you an hear their conversation

Chairman Petty explained the Board does not often respond after the Public Input session, however, he felt it was important due to the zoning issues. It has been difficult to respond to some of the emails about the zoning issues. Unfortunately, zoning is all inclusive. it is either zoned or not zoned. It is currently unzoned. There is not a lot the Board can do about it. They could zone it, but that prevents a lot of things. For example, zoning could have prevented the Goat House operation at that time. You can't pick and choose what you allow and what you do not allow. You may have other avenues of how you can deal with the noise. There may be some opportunities for you to found some common ground as owners.

Chairman Petty stated the Board can't pick and choose if it is not zoned. We have an issue we have to deal with. We either have to accept not having zoned areas or we have to zone everything. Chairman Petty stated he wanted everyone to know where we are today, however it doesn't mean it is where we are going to be a year or five years from now. This time is not intended for dialogue but he feels he needed to clarify that. He stated he would be glad to answer any further questions through email correspondence.

Vice Chairman Bock also would like to address those who spoke on fracking. It is important to know that the Board of Commissioners cannot ban fracking. The law specifically prevents it from doing that. We have been working with Representative Reives on trying to maintain local control of our ordinances but they have to follow the law as it is now. For now the law says we do not have that authority. We are researching our options but we are not permitted to ban fracking

14-0736 Vote on a request from NNP Briar Chapel, LLC to approve a text amendment to the Chatham County Compact Communities Ordinance, Section 7.2 Wastewater Treatment; Section 9.2 Perimeter Buffer; and Section 9.3 Viewshed Buffers.

Chatham County, NC Page 24 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Attachments: Hyperlink

Jason Sullivan, Planning Director reviewed the specifics of the request.

Commissioner Elza stated he pulled the item off of the consent agenda because of the viewshed buffers. He wanted to know what the Planning Board and Planning Staff said about the language that was redone.

Mr. Sullivan reviewed the request by NNP, Briar Chapel, LLC to amend the Compact Communities Ordinance to allow exceptions for compliance with the maintaining of existing vegetation for viewshed buffers. Viewshed buffers apply where properties adjoin the road right of way. Staff had drafted a provision to include an additional paragraph that it wouldn't give an automatic option for a developer to remove all of the native vegetative buffer without some additional review by appearance commission as well as by planning staff.

Mr. Sullivan stated the way it would work is if any commercial or non-residential site, even in a compact communities ordinance, has to go to the appearance commission for review. The concern staff had was if we did include some additional language

for some additional review you could have an entire site where it adjoins a road right of way that would be denuded of the existing vegetation.

Chairman Petty stated this allowed planning staff to maintain some oversight. Mr. Sullivan stated that is the intent of what is written and the Planning Board agreed with this language.

Commissioner Elza stated his concern was that we were going to knock down the original vegetation and were going to replace with little bushes. With this new language in place it provides a process for review by the planning department.

Mr. Sullivan stated another realization on the staff is commercial sites want visibility. There are utility issues with these sites that are often unforeseen, particularly with electrical lines that are going to be buried.

Mr. Sullivan stated the consistency statement and the ordinance both need to be approved.

A motion was made by Commissioner Cross, seconded by Vice Chair Bock, that Consistency statement be approved and the Ordinance, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be adopted. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

PUBLIC HEARING

14-0803 A public hearing request from Will Copeland dba LIR Enterprises for a text amendment to the Chatham County Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.5.B, B1 Business District Dimensional Regulation, to change the language of “open carports” to “open structures”.

Chatham County, NC Page 25 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Attachments: Hyperlink

Angela Birchett, Land Use and Zoning Administrator, introduced the agenda item.

Ms. Birchett stated this is a public hearing request from Will Copeland d/b/a LIR Enterprises for a text amendment to the Chatham County Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.5.B, B1 Business District Dimensional Regulation, to change the language of "open carports" to "open structures". She stated at this time planning staff has no concerns or issues. The applicant is present if the Board has any questions.

There is no one signed up to speak regarding this topic.

The Chairman asked if there were any comments from the Board. There being none, the Chairman closed the hearing.

The item was referred to the Planning Board.

14-0804 A public hearing on a request by Jim Anderson and Warren Mitchell dba Meadows Land Investment, LLC, for a rezoning on Parcel No. 18727 located at 12330 US 15-501 N, from R-1 Residential to CD-RB Conditional District Regional Business, on approximately 3.677 acres, for a four-story (4-story) self-storage facility. Attachments: Hyperlink

Angela Birchett, Land Use and Zoning Administrator, introduced the agenda item.

Ms. Birchett stated this is a public hearing request by Jim Anderson and Warren Mitchell d/b/a Meadows Land Investment, LLC, for a rezoning on Parcel No. 18727 located at 12330 US 15-501 N, from R-1 Residential to CD-RB Conditional District Regional Business, on approximately 3.677 acres for a four (4) story self-storage facility.

Commissioner Bock asked if this was the property next to the new Walmart. Staff answered that it is between Walmart and the Park and Ride parking lot. The required community meeting has been held. The owners have also met with the Appearance Committee who gave them some suggestions and recommendations regarding landscaping and lighting. (PowerPoint presentation is available).

Birchett stated that during discussions with the Appearance Committee about the landscaping and lighting, the applicants agreed to make modifications to ensure that the neighbors at and around the Arbor Lease Subdivision located off of Old Lystra road would not have to deal with lighting problems because of the elevation. When the lighting will be mounted, they will be dropped down so that light will not beam on the adjacent neighbors. The developer has also agreed to plant large magnolia trees along with other large trees. At this time Staff has no major concerns, and any issues that may arise can be worked out during construction.

Commissioner Bock asked if there have been any concerns from neighbors. Staff reported that they have received no calls regarding this structure.

Chairman Petty asked if there was anyone who wished to speak.

The owner Warren Mitchell of 253 Tobacco Farm Way, Chapel Hill introduced himself and his partner, Jim Anderson.

Chatham County, NC Page 26 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Mitchell said that this is a 3.7 acre parcel with 36% impervious limitation that allows 1.3 acres impervious which is the building and parking area, that provides the maximum amount of impervious on the site. As an example, if this facility was a one story building, it would require 15 acres of land using the impervious restriction of 36%. Mitchell said that he lives in Chatham County and wanted to build something that they would be proud of and designed to fit nicely in the area.

Chairman Petty asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Elza asked what the height of the building will be. Mitchell responded that the request was for 50 feet, however the building will be at or about 43 feet.

After commenting that the design of the building was very impressive, the Chairman asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Board. There being none, the Chairman closed the hearing.

This Agenda Item was referred to the Planning Board.

14-0806 A public hearing request by The Retreat on Haw River, LLC to rezone Parcels 3027, 87217, 86946, 81274, and 86878 - 86944, from CU-RA90 to a split zoning district consisting of R-1 Residential for lands outside the River Corridor area and R-5 Residential to lands within the River Corridor, being approximately 650 acres collectively, located off Bynum Ridge Rd. Attachments: Hyperlink

Angela Birchett, Land Use and Zoning Administrator, introduced the agenda item. This is a public hearing request by The Retreat on Haw River, LLC to rezone Parcels 3027, 87217, 86946, 81274, and 86878 - 86944, from CU-RA90 to a split zoning district consisting of R-1 Residential for lands outside the River Corridor area and R-5 Residential to lands within the River Corridor, being approximately 650 acres collectively, located off Bynum Ridge Rd.

Ms. Birchett stated along with staff, different interest groups have toured the property. Staff does not see any issue taking it back to original zoning and doing so would actually benefit the further protection in the R5 area to put it back in place.

R1–will is the land that is more than 2500 feet of the river. R5 –will is the land within 2500 feet of the river.

Attorney for applicant, Nick Robinson addressed the Commissioners. (PowerPoint available) He pointed out the original zoning River Corridor 5 acre average/3 acre minimum and outside the River Corridor-1 acre tracts. In 2005 the zoning was changed to fit under the CUP to RA-90. A parallel and simultaneously track for a conservation subdivision with this rezoning amendment will soon be under consideration.

The conservation subdivision is contingent upon the approval of both. The developer is working with staff to address any issues that may arise prior to asking for Board approval. Commissioner Bock asked if this would be the first conservation subdivision since the ordinance was passed. Robinson confirmed.

Commissioner Elza asked if done simultaneously would the developer do the zoning first then the sub division. He asked about how many acres would be zoned for R1. Robinson said that 490.556 acres would be set aside for R1 and 239.836 for R5. He confirmed Commissioner Elza’s comment that the density would be five (5).

Chatham County, NC Page 27 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Robinson explained that the total density is not known at this time; however, the conservation portion would be under the total allowable density.

Commissioner Bock asked if this would be the first development since that ordinance was passed in 2005.

The Chairman asked if anyone was signed up to speak. The Clerk said Yes, however no speakers came forward.

Commissioner Cross asked what the development was called prior to 2008. Robinson said that it was called Williams Pond but it has been called The Retreat on Haw River since.

The Chairman asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Board. There being none, the Chairman closed the hearing.

This Agenda Item was referred to the Planning Board.

14-0801 A public hearing request by Bradshaw and Robinson, LLP on behalf of NNP- Briar Chapel, LLC to close a portion of Granite Mill Boulevard and Boulder Point Drive. Attachments: Closure abandonment request April 29 2014

Hillary Pace, Planner, introduced the agenda item. This is a public hearing request by Bradshaw and Robinson, LLP on behalf of NNP- Briar Chapel, LLC to close a portion of Granite Mill Boulevard and Boulder Point Drive. Nick Robinson will speak on behalf of the applicant.

(PowerPoint available)Robinson said that this is another situation with a bifurcated process. The roadway in front of Margaret Pollard Middle School needs to be straightened. In order to do so, however, the designated intersection which is a public right-of-way (“ROW”) would need to be abandoned and replaced with another. The sole item tonight is that process. NNP has worked with, and the School system has agreed to allow NNP Briar Chapel to straighten the road. NNP Briar Chapel will add a parking lot to help with the overflow of parking at the school. The applicant is asking the Board to not approve the abandonment at this time, but wait until the revised layout has been reviewed and approved by state and Chatham County Water Department. Waterlines will stay in the old roadway until new roadway is constructed, and will then be replaced.

Once the plat is approved, the applicant will come back and ask for abandoned the old ROW.

Commissioner Bock asked why the redesign of the road was needed. Robinson said that the intersection is awkward and will create more issues with an adjoining 4-way stop.

The Chairman asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Board. There being none, the Chairman closed the hearing.

This Agenda Item was referred to the Planning Board.

14-0805 A Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing on Wireless Telecommunication Permit request by American Tower Corporation and AT&T Mobility for a portion of Parcel No. 12512, known as the Pleasant Hill Site, located

Chatham County, NC Page 28 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

off NC Hwy 902 near Cannon Rd. for a 300’ self-supported telecommunications tower on a lease area of approximately 0.40 acres of the 107.20 acre tract, unzoned, within the Hickory Mountain Township. The application includes a waiver request to exceed 199’ in height pursuant to Section 2-4 of the Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance. Attachments: Hyperlink

Chairman Petty administered the oath for all three Quasi Judicial hearings to those signed up to speak.

Chairman Petty opened the hearing.

Hillary Pace, Planner, reviewed the specifics of the request. She stated this is a request by American Tower Corporation and AT&T Mobility for a three hundred foot cell tower, also known as the Pleasant Hill Site located off of 902 near Cannon Road in the Hickory Mountain Township. She stated the applicants have asked for a waiver of the 199 foot height limitation. The tower will accommodate four wireless service provider as required by the ordinance.

Karen Kemerait, attorney with Styers and Kemerait, spoke on behalf of co-applicants American Tower Corporation and AT&T mobility and also on behalf of property owner Mr. Edward Strong. Ms. Kemerite stated the applicant is requesting approval of the Conditional Use Permit application as well as approval of the waiver of the 199 foot limitation. The applicant is requesting approval of a 300 foot lattice tower. Ms. Kemerait stated American Tower will be the company constructing the tower and leasing the space on the tower to different carriers. AT&T Mobility will be the first carrier locating on the highest point of the tower. There will be space for three Co-locators to lease at lower points on the tower which will reduce the need for other towers.

Ms. Kemerait stated this tower is very important for the applicants with the demand for wireless services, especially with smartphone technology and demand for data services. It is important for AT&T Mobility that there be infrastructure. She sated for this area of the county, there is no AT&T coverage. The public is relying more and more on the safety and convenience aspects of wireless technologies and services and residents expect that those technologies and services be available. The tower would meet economic development needs for the county, such as the availability of wireless technology.

Ms. Kermerait stated the applicant requests that the conditional use permit application be approved because they have met all requirements of the telecommunications provisions of the ordinance. They are also asking the county to approve their waiver request of 199 foot limitation and approve the 300 foot tower request. Ms. Kemerait pointed out that under tab seven of the application the applicant has provided the radio frequency justification for the tower. This site will provide connectivity from the current sites that have been constructed along Highway 902 and Highway 64. Next Ms. Kemerait reviewed the coverage map. She stated American Tower worked very hard to find an ideal site for this tower and Mr. Strong’s 107 acre parcel is an ideal site. It is a particularly good site because there are mature trees on the parcel that will surround the tower site to the north, east and west.

Ms. Kemerait stated the applicant has met all the technical requirements. The application will show the tower will meet all the FCC and FAA regulations, specifically

Chatham County, NC Page 29 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

the FCC regulations relating to radio frequency emissions. The application also shows they have met all the setback requirements. The tower will be located 339 feet from Highway 902, 200 feet from the property line to the north, 227 feet from the property line to the east, and 391 feet from the property line to the south. The lighting for the tower will meet what is required by the FAA. The FAA requires all towers greater than 199 feet be lit, which is a duel system of medium intensity lighting. During the daytime and twilight hours the tower will have a white flashing light and at night the tower will have red lights. The FAA is also requiring the tower not be painted so it will remain the galvanized steel and blend in to the environment behind it. The FAA has very strict regulations relating to the scattering of light. The FAA prevents any type of scattering of light that will reach the residences or properties below the tower. American Tower will use LED systems with optical designs. What that means is the lighting will have a highly controlled beam pattern that will prevent any scattering of light. There will be no adverse effects on the property below the tower.

Ms. Kemerait stated the waiver request is very important to AT&T and American Tower. Without this waiver, American Tower and AT&T will not be able to move forward with the construction of this tower at this location. She stated under tab seven the applicant listed the technical information and documentation as to why a 300 foot tower would be required at this location. Three hundred foot towers are typically spaced approximately every five miles whereas one hundred ninety nine foot towers are spaced approximately every two to three miles. If there was a requirement for a 199 foot tower there would be multiple towers in the area as opposed to one 300 foot tower. Ms. Kemerait stated fewer towers will help to protect the rural character of the county.

Ms. Kemerait stated they have also met all of the conditional use permit standards and she wanted to touch on two of them briefly. First they have shown the tower will not impair the integrity or character of the surrounding or adjoining districts and it will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the residents or county. The tower will improve the convenience for the residents with wireless services and will increase safety with 911 services. The tower will not increase traffic in the area once it has been constructed and will only require, at most, two to four vehicle trips a month with no noise or odor coming from the tower.

Ms. Kemerait stated tab eighteen shows the property impact analysis, prepared by David Smith, a North Carolina certified real estate appraiser. He has evaluated this site and in his opinion the tower will not impair the integrity or character of the adjoining or surrounding districts. The site is also consistent with the objectives of the land use plan as it preserves the rural nature of the area and provides infrastructure that is necessary to support economic development in the area. It will also further environmental objectives by not requiring multiple towers in this area of the county.

Vice Chairman Bock asked if approved, what the timeline is to build a three hundred foot tower. Ms. Kemerait stated the conditional use permit is valid for two years. Ms. Kemerait stated American Tower and AT&T are looking to determine when the funding for AT&T will come through. Ms. Kemerait stated she did not have a clear answer at this time, however, American Tower and AT&T have shown a real commitment to improving the telecommunication coverage within the county.

Chairman Petty asked if the tower would be available for competitor wireless service providers. Ms. Kemerait stated American Tower will lease space on the tower to three additional carriers. She stated there is Verizon coverage in the area but she is not sure if the coverage is good in the area. They hope Verizon will come and want

Chatham County, NC Page 30 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

to locate their antennas on the tower as well.

Ms. Kemerait stated in answer to Vice Chairman Bock's question, they had a call a week ago to determine the different sites in North Carolina and when they would be constructed. So this is an evolving discussion about how quickly the towers are constructed. She stated back in the winter American Tower was ready to begin construction immediately and that AT&T would place its antennas on the towers.

Commissioner Elza asked if the lighting on the tower will comply with the County's lighting ordinance. Ms. Kemerait stated it has to comply with the ordinance but she did not believe the ordinance addressed lighting at the top of a 300 foot tower. They will have to comply with the FAA for the three hundred foot tower and all other lighting will have to comply with the ordinance.

Commissioner Elza stated one of the purposes of the ordinance was to prevent lighting up the sky of a rural county.

Ms. Kemerait stated as previously mentioned, the FAA has very strict regulations and they will be required to comply with those regulations.

Vice Chairman Bock stated the County could not override the FAA. Commissioner Elza stated the county does not have to give them a waiver. Vice Chairman Bock stated that was true. Chairman Petty stated the tower lighting would be mandated by the FAA and any compound or facility lighting would have to comply with the county’s ordinance.

Jason Sullivan, Planning Director, offered clarification on the lighting and lighting standards of the zoning ordinance and stated it is replicated in the stand alone off premise lighting ordinance as well. Mr. Sullivan stated in the unzoned areas there are some exceptions and one of these is airport lighting control by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Chairman Petty opened the public input portion of the hearing.

Marian Norton, 8481 NC Hwy 902, Pittsboro, She thanked the attorney for clarifying some things in her presentation. She stated she was thorough and answered several of her questions but she would still like to read the statement she prepared before the meeting. “While it is known that areas of Chatham County experience a deficit of bars when it comes to cell signals, I would urge the Commissioners to proceed with caution in granting variances in extending the height of towers. While some roads are probably safer without cell service it is true that many residents wish to get cell signals on their cell phones from their homes. The 300 foot tower proposed for highway 902 in the Hickory Mountain Township is positioned near a now vacant home and on a knoll with an elevation of about 430 feet. It is doubtful many will protest the location and it is convenient for fiber already laid down for DSL service on the Pittsboro exchange. However, I wonder if all this hype is really needed to provide cell service. How will this tower affect small airplanes that take off and land at the near proximity Eagle’s Landing? Will it be an unnecessary obstacle in the air? A real need in Chatham County is affordable and available broadband service in our homes. We already know that 4G and 3G service will not meet those criteria. This is not the answer for connecting our students and businesses. Please don’t blemish the landscape of western and southern Chatham County with unnecessary and oversized towers.

Edward Strong, 220 Cannon Road, stated he owned the proposed site for the tower off of Pleasant Hill Church Road. He stated the site is in an area where the cell

Chatham County, NC Page 31 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

service is spotty. He stated he wants to get along with his neighbors and the neighbors he has talked to have not had any complaints. He stated he was sure there were some that do not like it but most of the neighbors say they could use the revenue too. He stated it is simply an area with poor cell service and he wants to get along with his neighbors.

Nicole Brown, 6323 NC Highway 902/Cannon Road, stated she lives adjacent to the cell tower site. She stated she is in favor of the tower as she very rarely gets a cell signal in her home. She usually has to stand on her deck and has to apologize for calling people over and over.

Bob Freese , 8115 NC Highway 902, Pittsboro, stated they live about a mile and a half from the proposed cell tower site. He stated they have lived there ten years and can vouch for the fact that there is no cell service at their home. There is no hope that they are getting cable, no hope of getting DSL, and they have been to committee meeting after committee meeting. He stated as they move on to the 21st Century they find themselves further and further removed and this has created a lot of different issues besides the economic development argument, which he believes is a valid one. If you want a business at home you need access to high speed internet and you can’t get it. He stated they have run into several safety issues. A couple of years ago lightning struck their house and took out the telephone. A fire started in the house and they had to run to our neighbors and have them call 911. They are building a garage right now and every single construction guy cannot access anybody using whatever cell phone service they have. They can’t call an ambulance and they can’t call 911. They have had a veterinarian come out and she could not access anyone with her cell phone. He stated this is their only hope of having high speed internet. He strongly recommended that the commissioners approved the tower. He believes the tradeoff of having a higher tower and fewer towers is an excellent trade off to make.

Pam Freese, 8115 NC Highway 902, Pittsboro, stated she lives with Bob Freese and they live in an internet and phone wasteland. She can’t tell the Board how many miles they have to drive on a daily basis to go to the Pittsboro library for phone and internet access. She stated they have both had accidents. She broke her shoulder a couple of years ago and had no way to get 911 out there. She stated they can get a text to go through occasionally. She stated it is not safe. Her 84 year old father spends a lot of time with them and he has a safety device that does not work out there because there is no cell service. She does not care if the tower is orange. They really need it in this area and asked they please consider approval of the tower.

Commissioner Stewart stated she understood there is a 300 foot tower on Highway 421 going toward Sanford and asked if the lighting on that tower is the same lighting that would be on this tower. She asked if any lighting has changed after that towers’ construction that would be different on any of the new towers, or would the lighting be identical.

Hillary Pace, Planner stated staff could look into that.

Gray Styers, attorney with Styers and Kemerait, addressed the lighting questions. He stated that the lighting on that tower will comply with the FAA requirements, so it is acceptable. He could not say for sure how old the tower on Highway 421 is. He believes lighting has greatly improved over the last twenty years he has been doing this type of work, particularly in the ability to focus lighting in a more horizontal direction . He stated by the time they go to the Planning Board they can have the answer.

Chatham County, NC Page 32 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Chairman Petty asked the Board if there were any additional questions. Hearing none, the Chairman closed the hearing.

This Agenda Item was referred to the Planning Board.

14-0800 A Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing on Wireless Telecommunication Permit request by American Tower Corporation and AT&T Mobility for a portion of Parcel No. 3391, known as the Bennett Site, located at 24477 NC Hwy 902 for a 300’ self-supported telecommunications tower on a lease area of approximately 0.69 acres of the 28.90 acre tract, unzoned, within the Bear Creek Township. The application includes a waiver request to exceed 199’ in height pursuant to Section 2-4 of the Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance. Attachments: Hyperlink

The Chairman opened the hearing.

Hillary Pace, Planner, reviewed the specifics of the request. She stated this is a request by American Tower Corporation and AT&T Mobility for a three hundred foot cell tower, also known as the Bennett Site located at 24477 NC Hwy 902 for a 300 foot self-supported telecommunications tower in the Bear Creek Township. She stated the applicant has asked for a waiver of the 199 foot height.

Karen Kemerait, attorney with Styers and Kemerait, stated she would be briefer during this presentation because she does not believe there are any concerns with this tower. She has received no emails or calls about the site and no one showed up to the community meeting. She stated if there is any concern she is very much unaware of it.

Ms. Kemerait spoke on behalf of applicant American Tower Corporation and AT&T Mobility. AT&T will be the carrier at the top of the tower and American Tower can lease to three other carriers lower on the tower. Just like the previous application, this application is very important to American Tower and AT&T because this is a portion of the county that also has no coverage. Providing wireless services is very important for safety aspects, convenience aspects, and economic development aspects for the area and the county.

Ms. Kemerait stated under tab seven the application provided the documentation for the need for the tower. Like the previous application, American Tower has worked hard to find a good site for this tower. This parcel is 28.9 acres. The parcel is mostly wooded and the area around the tower site is heavily wooded. She stated under tab 19 the applicant provided documentation of the balloon test. The balloon test showed that the base of the tower will not be visible at all and the top of the tower will be visible from some locations.

Ms. Kemerait stated the applicants met all technical requirements of the telecommunications provisions and have exceeded the setback requirements. The tower will be located 343 feet from the property line to the north, 717 feet from the property line to the east, 1160 feet from the property line to the south, and 380 feet from Highway 902. The lighting is required by the FAA to be the same as in the previous application.

Ms. Kemerait stated the tower is not required by the FAA to be painted and will remain the galvanized steel. She stated the next statement applies to the previous

Chatham County, NC Page 33 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

application as well. There have been significant advances in the lighting developed for the tops of towers to prevent the vertical scattering of light underneath the towers, with what is now commonly referred to as dual optical systems. The lighting you may see may be inferior to the lighting that will be placed at the top of the towers.

Ms. Kemerait stated the applicants are also requesting a waiver of the 199 foot limitation and are requesting a 300 foot tower. She stated the application met all the Conditional Use Permit requirements and she quickly reviewed those requirements.

Chairman Petty asked for the timeline on this tower. Ms. Kemerait stated it was the same as in the previous application.

Commissioner Elza asked if it was not economical to put up a tower that is not 300 feet. Ms. Kemerait stated the answer to that is it is less economical because the area is a much less populated area of the county and economic justification is one of the factors for moving forward with coverage. She stated that as she mentioned with the previous application, American Tower and AT&T have made a significant investment, especially in the western and rural parts of the county. She believes that is where the majority of the tower applications are going to be coming from over the coming months.

Chairman Petty stated there is a desperate need for cell service in that area. Ms. Kemerait agreed and stated the 300 foot tower allows the economics for American Tower and AT&T to be able to come and provide that coverage.

Commissioner Elza stated that Ms. Kemerait stated there have been significant advances in the scattering of light. He stated her law partner stated the same information on the last application. He asked if she had submitted any evidence other than those statements. Ms. Kemerait stated she had provided information about the proposed lighting to Ms. Pace with the Planning Department. She stated she had not already, but could provide information about the advances in the lighting.

Commissioner Elza asked again if this tower lighting would comply with the county ordinance. Chairman Petty stated Ms. Kemerait had already answered that question. Commissioner Elza stated he felt she had not. Ms. Kemerait stated the lighting on the top of the tower will comply with all FAA regulations. A report has been provided to the Planning department that states the specificity the amount of lighting required with this particular tower.

Chairman Petty stated he did not believe they would get any complaints from anyone in Bennett about the tower.

Commissioner Elza asked how far the tower is from the other tower. Chairman Petty stated six miles. Ms. Kemerait stated that was correct.

Chairman Petty opened the Public Input portion of the hearing. No one was signed up to speak.

Chairman Petty asked the Board if there were any additional questions. Hearing none, the Chairman closed the hearing.

This Agenda Item was referred to the Planning Board.

14-0802 A Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing on Wireless Telecommunication Permit request by American Tower Corporation and AT&T Mobility for a portion of Parcel No. 20032, known as the Farrington Site, located

Chatham County, NC Page 34 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

off 464 Old Farrington Rd. for a 195’ monopole telecommunications tower on a lease area of approximately 0.73 acres of the 11 acre tract, zoned R-1, within the Williams Township. Attachments: Hyperlink

Hillary Pace, Planner, reviewed the specifics of the request

Gray Styers, attorney with Styers and Kemerait, stated he was speaking on behalf of co-applicants American Tower Corporation and AT&T Mobility. Mr. Styers stated AT&T has recognized for several years the lack of service in the Governor’s Village area. Back in the mid-nineties when Mr. Styers was working on getting the first digital wireless communications network in Chatham County, he worked with the owners, at that time, of the Governor’s Club utilities and placed the antennas at the very top of the Governor’s Club water tank. Despite the high above sea level elevation of that water tank and those antennas, there was a problem with that the very short elevation above ground level and the fact the tank was so close to the tree line meant there was no really dependable service from that location. Therefore, along Mt. Caramel Church Road and Old Farrington Point Road, the commercial space in Governor's Village and many areas in Governor’s Lake have no dependable coverage from AT&T.

Mr. Styers stated AT&T has looked for a way to provide coverage to this area for several years and has been talking to land owners for several years. This site and the location are very different than the two previous sites Ms. Kemerait presented. This is primarily for in-building coverage and is in a more densely populated area. It is true that it needs to hand off and connect to adjacent sites.

Mr. Styers showed a map of the coverage area of the proposed tower and also showed where future sites would be in Orange County and Chatham County in close proximity of this site. The site acquisition and real estate agents contacted land owners in the area to inquire about possible locations for this site. They are not like a utility; they do not have condemnation rights. They cannot put their sites anywhere they want them to be. Mr. Styers stated they have to find a willing land owner and also have to comply with the County ordinance.

Mr. Styers stated if they could, they would love to put the tower in the middle of the parking lot of Governor’s Village. He stated they may hear members of the public say it is not appropriate to put a tower this close to a neighborhood or it should be out in the rural areas. This site is to cover an urban area or a densely populated suburban community and they are putting it as close as they possibly can to the area that needs the coverage and they make no apologies for that.

Mr. Styers stated if anyone was to drive through other areas of this same population density in Wake County, Cary, Apex, Raleigh or near his house it is not unusual to see multiple towers close to homes. He has three sites within a quarter mile of his house and he has two more within a half mile radius of his house. You have to have the facilities near where the people live and near where the people want to use their phones. He stated if you are of his children’s generation, who are ages nineteen and twenty-one, you will probably never own a landline. He told the Board he did not know if they had family members of that generation, people under the age of thirty, but they believe based on the current trends that they will rely totally on a mobile phone. They are going to want to use their mobile phone in their home, not on their back deck and in their yard. Mr. Styers stated that in order for that to occur, you are going to need more sites in the more populated areas every one and a half to two miles.

Chatham County, NC Page 35 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Mr. Styers stated right now Chatham County only has about thirty five towers total and American Tower itself would like to build about fifteen more. That would bring the total number of towers to fifty. That is still a fraction of the probably two hundred and fifty to three hundred sites in Wake County. This means Chatham County is far behind in in-building coverage, but Chatham County is a more sparsley populated county except for in the northeast corner of the county.

Mr. Styers stated in looking for sites for this area they looked at transmission line support. There is a major transmission line just south and east of here, about two to three hundred yards. Those are not 90KV, 130KV, or 230KV lines, however, those are 520KV lines coming from Shearon Harris going west. There is no way they could put their antennas anywhere except below the lowest conductor on those supports which was only about ninety-five feet above ground level. The applicant looked at it, evaluated it, provided it to the neighbors and it was seriously considered but it just could not work. AT&T is not going to put a site up that is not going to meet the objectives of the coverage.

Mr. Styers stated the applicant did, however, find an eleven acre parcel next to a thirty acre parcel, owned by Mr. Lester Ray Porter. Mr. Porter is here this evening and he and his family have owned the property for over one hundred years and he believes it could be as long as two hundred years. He is willing to lease part of his property for this tower to the applicant.

Mr. Syters stated initially AT&T's site acquisition agents decided to shorten the driveway and the expensive construction and would put the tower right up on Old Farrington Road. He pointed out on the map where the tower was originally to go. When they notified the neighbors and scheduled a community meeting and went out and looked at this site, they decided that was not the location where the tower should be.

Mr. Styers stated they were going to put the application in the same cycle as a similar application he represented last year off of Poythress Road. They went back to AT&T and American Tower and said the original site was not a good location. The tower for anyone driving up Old Farrington Road was going to be visible as well as the tower base from the entrance to that area of Governor’s Lake off of Wicker Drive.

Mr. Styers went back to Mr. Porter and explained that after talking to the Planning staff and a former commissioner they needed to move the tower location behind the tree line. They could still meet the setback requirements behind the tree line and decided to move it as far back from Old Farrington Road as possible. He stated Mr. Porter was willing to work with the applicant on that location.

Vice Chairman Bock asked Mr. Styers to clarify if the decision to pick a new location was based on the recommendation of one of the commissioners. Mr. Styers said it was based on the recommendation of a former commissioner who is no longer on the Board. He stated they got a telephone call and they also talked to staff and they knew there would be some opposition. He has been doing this for over twenty years and he did not think it was a good site. He went back to American Tower and they said they wanted to find the very best site to meet the coverage and moving it back one hundred and fifty feet was something they could deal with. The RFF engineers looked at it and said they couldn't move it a quarter mile or three hundred yards but they could move it back one hundred and fifty feet.

Mr. Styers stated they prepared the site plans, the application materials, and the FAA approvals and moved forward to try to get this in the queue, in order to get coverage

Chatham County, NC Page 36 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

in this area. They held a community meeting on April 30. 2014 and it was well attended with approximately thirty people in attendance. A report of the meeting can be found in the notebooks provided to the Board. Mr. Styers stated that while it is not required by the ordinance, the applicant said they would perform a second balloon test. They wanted to fly the balloon at 195 feet which AT&T’s RF Engineering Department said they wanted to have. Mr. Styers said they would do it on a Saturday and they advertised it, sent out letters, and there is a great listserv where everyone was notified. He stated they would perform the second balloon test at 195 feet, 150 feet and 120 feet and he would ask AT&T’s Radio Frequency department if they could live with a lower height lower than 195 feet.

Mr. Styers stated that on Saturday, May 3, 2014 they performed the second balloon test. They flew the balloon so that they could check the visibility at 195 feet, 150 feet and 120 feet. He went to AT&T’s RF department and said they need to look at the lowest possible height AT&T can live with and will build. He stated the pictures of the balloon test were not in the original application and he asked Ms. Pace if she could distribute those. He stated the balloon test is important and he would like to now enter those into evidence. The photos were distributed to the Board and the staff.

Mr. Styers stated the photos could be found behind tab number five. He was at the balloon test and he saw them tether it at 195 feet and it was more visible than he thought it would be. He personally saw them lower the tether to 150 feet and they then took additional pictures. He can testify under oath that he was there when those pictures were taken. He stated where there are trees and houses in front of you in the neighborhood, the tower is going to be below the tree line but there will still be some places where you will see it. If you are looking across Governor’s Lake, it will be visible in the distance. The most visible location is looking up Wicker Drive. At 150 feet, it was right at the pine tree line. He stated the photographer used a computer program to calculate the distance from where the photograph was taken from where the balloon was based on latitudes and longitudes. Mr. Styers can testify under oath that he was there when those pictures were taken. He did not include the pictures of the balloon test at 120 feet simply because that height is not in consideration at this time.

Mr. Styers stated he had with him at the hearing as a witness Mr. Dave LaCava. He is a radio access network specialist and he analyzes coverage. Mr. Styers stated he did not have coverage maps with him, however, he did receive the information today that he promised the neighborhood he would provide. He stated behind tab number three there was information about the coverage for 195 feet, 150 feet and 120 feet and he was submitting those into the record. Mr. Styers stated the coverage difference between 195 feet, 150 feet, and 125 feet is marginal and he would be the first to admit that. However, there is a substantial enough difference as to where the in-building coverage is when you go around the curve on Mount Caramel Church Road. They are going to be looking in the future on where a site is going to be needed in Orange County on Mount Caramel Church Road. He stated AT&T spent several weeks in May looking at the coverage areas and decided they could live with a 150 foot tower at this site. They would not reduce the tower to 125 feet.

Mr. Styers stated people may argue he has already stated there is not much difference in coverage at 125 feet, however, It is AT&T's service, reputation, brand, and money. It is going to have to be built at 150 feet, which is a substantial compromise considering they initially wanted a 195 foot tower. The tower will not be lit because it is not over 200 feet.

Mr. Styers stated he wanted the record to be clear that they would like all application materials (24 tabs) be submitted into evidence and the additional supplement

Chatham County, NC Page 37 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

submitted tonight (8 tabs) also be submitted into evidence. The application has been amended and revised for a 150 foot tower and includes the balloon test and real estate report by David Smith, all of which has been submitted into the record tonight.

Mr. Styers has received a lot of emails about this tower and he is certain the Board has as well. He received an email from Mr. Jim Miller stating that he and his neighbors were all going to be emailing the commissioners. Mr. Styers stated that the Board knows in a quasi-judicial hearing, those emails are not something they can consider and the County Attorney has already made them aware of that. Therefore, he is not going to try to rebut those emails.

Mr. Styers stated in the Conditional Use Permit process there are five criteria. Ms. Kemerait talked about those already and he is not going to go through those again. He stated the issue before the Board is whether the applicant’s evidence meets those criteria. He stated the Board revised their ordinance last year to incentivize the industry to try and expand coverage here in Chatham County and to try to make sure that the rules were clear. He stated behind tab 8 in the notebook submitted this evening, they will find the real estate analysis by David Smith, who is an MAI appraiser. Mr. Smith looked at two things. First he looked at the sale of a home right adjacent to a 150 foot tower right outside of Pittsboro. He also looked at the sales of homes in the area that weren’t adjacent to towers. Mr. Smith determined that the house adjacent to the tower sell for a lower price than the other houses that were not in site of a tower. He compared eight properties to that one property. He found there was no impact to the properties next to the towers. Mr. Smith also looked at two neighborhoods where there were multiple sells in the neighborhood in Durham County. One neighborhood called River’s Edge where there is a lit tower and one with a shorter monopole tower. Mr. Styers stated this is a monopole and not a lattice tower. Most of the towers he has zoned were 250 foot lit towers on Highways 64 and 421 in the late nineties. Mr. Smith compared the sales of the homes in the River’s Edge neighborhood over time to a neighborhood in a forest with no towers. He concluded that the data shown by sales and resales of homes showed no impact on property values as a result of the tower. Mr. Smith stated the towers are needed in the way other utilities are.

Mr. Styers stated the Board will probably hear testimony from people who say there is not cell phone coverage but they believe a 120 foot tower is tall enough, or they would like a tower at another location and not in their neighborhood, or the tower should be disguised in some fashion, or there should not be a tower near a neighborhood like this one. Mr. Styers stated the Board answered the last question in the ordinance when it states that a tower can be on this type of property. He says it goes back to people saying they need the service but they don’t want the infrastructure.

Mr. Styers stated he has no delusions that this is unpopular. He also believes that this is a necessary service and will enhance the attractiveness of the area, especially among young people wanting to move to the area. He stated the applicant has met as shown in the application, all the requirements of the ordinance. They respectfully ask that when it comes back to the commissioners from the Planning Board that they approve the Conditional Use Permit. He stated that he, Mr. David Smith, and Mr. Dave LaCava are all available to answer any questions they may have about the application.

Mr. Styers asked for time to address any new evidence after the public input time.

Chairman Petty opened the public input portion of the hearing.

Chatham County, NC Page 38 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Carrie Klein, 30172 Pharr, Chapel Hill, gave the following comments: “Thank you all for allowing this public comment time, since this is an issue that concerns many of us. Even after the "Balloon test" my family and I are concerned about the proposed construction of a cell tower on Farrington across from the very populated Governor's Village communities.

We moved to Governors Park because we loved the beauty of the area, and we felt this beauty was protected. Now we are very dismayed that giving the go- ahead to this enormous tower is even being considered ... and dismayed also that our property value IS at risk.

Despite what "appraisal reports" may say, I have learned 1st hand otherwise. I am in a business that helps homeowners ready their homes for sale ... and I have seen that when one of these towers are close by, its harder to sell the home and often it has to be sold for less that market value.

I understand that we need better cellular coverage in the area ... but the placement of this tower is wrong. It would be just too close to such an enormously populated area and affect too many. Even with the reduced height of 150 feet it would literally TOWER above the highest trees.

And the balloon test was not at all representative ... a pretty yellow ball on on a bright sunny Summer morning tethered by a string, is very different than a 6-8 fort wide solid metal tower with bars across the top towering above everything in its vicinity.

Please put yourselves in our shoes and imagine what it would be like to wake up every morning and see this monstrous tower from your yard. Imagine taking a walk around your neighborhood or the lake and see that huge metal structure marring your view of everything. It will be a constant jolt to the senses daily. It may be a bit more trouble for AT&T, but Please request that they find another location a bit further away. We have so much truly open space in the vicinity that would not impact so so many. Please have them find another nearby landowner. So I urge you all to please represent us, the citizens and voters of Chatham County on this matter, rather than the financial gains of AT&T. Please vote to deny a permit for this location.

I also have petitions for the record with over 200 signatures. Thank you.”

Mr. Styers objected to any petitions stating the law is well established as to what can be allowed as evidence in a quasi-judicial hearing.

Arnie Rosenthal, 30172 Pharr, Chapel Hill, stated he had several issues with the proposed cell tower on Farrington Road in the Governor’s Village Community. First we were afforded no due process on this issue until this evening. We had a local community meeting that AT&T sent legal counsel. We have no legal council representing us. In the corporate world this is just common courtesy and protocol that if you have people representing you that other people have the opportunity to have representation. This isn't avfair process, it is bullying. He stated he had a problem with the aesthetics. The tower is ugly at any height, 200 feet, 150 feet or 120 feet. The ugliness of the tower will diminish their home values. He isn’t sure where the information came from but nobody wants to live next that, it doesn’t make any sense. He stated they would be happy to work with AT&T on an alternate location, it is not the democratic way. They have a petition with over 200 signatures. They would at least like to get a stay of execution so they could at least hire legal

Chatham County, NC Page 39 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

counsel and have more time to organize their large community. Many working folks can't make the 6pm hearing. He asked the commissioners to please stop the cell tower and he stated he has Verizon and has excellent cell service.

Dan Hirschman, 13001 Droughton Ct, Chapel Hill, gave the following comments: “Good Evening. Thank you Commissioners for the opportunity to be heard on the proposed Farrington Road American Towers/AT&T cell tower site application.

My name is Dan Hirschman. I’m a Chatham County Resident and my wife and 3 children live at 13001 Droughton Court in the Governor’s Lake subdivision of the larger Governor’s Village community. Our home is on the corner of Wicker Drive and Droughton, and is one the homes from which the proposed tower would be most visible, based on the recent “balloon test” performed by American Towers.

I strongly oppose a cell tower being sited on the currently proposed location because of its proximity to our community; the substantial aesthetic impact that will impair the character and integrity of our community; the potential negative impact on our home values; and the associated related effect on the Chatham County real estate tax base.

First, with respect to the proximity to your community, a 150-foot cell tower, practically on top of our homes in plain view of many of the residences in the neighborhoods of Governors Lake, Governors Forest, Governors Park, Governors Townes, and Governors Village, is simply not an appropriate land use in a primarily residential area. If located in its currently proposed location, the tower would significantly impair the residential character and integrity of our community.

Second, with respect to the aesthetic impact and home values, for many of us, this tower, if permitted, will be the first things we will see when we walk out our front doors, or, in our case, what my daughter will see when she looks out of her bedroom window. And of course, this proposed eyesore will undoubtedly adversely impact home values in our community. Studies on the aesthetic impact from cell towers on home values support this statement. (See The Appraisal Journal, Summer 2005 – “The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods,” http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Property-devaluation-cell-to wers.-pdf.pdf ; and The Appraisal Journal, Fall 2007 – “The Effect of Distance to Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Florida,” http://nocelltoweronrhodawatertank.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/3/1/25312568/ref_09_sa ndy_bond_effect_of_distance.pdf). (See also http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08353.html, at Section C, finding that "There are […] instances […] where the assessed value of residential properties were reduced due to close proximity to commercial antenna towers" and one of these reduction was of 7.2% solely due to aesthetic impacts.).

Third, if home values decrease, Chatham County’s tax base is decreased along with them.

There must be a better location for this tower that will not result in the same adverse impacts to our community, especially given the extent of open space around our neighborhoods in our relatively rural county.

Of great concern to me, and what should also concern the Board of Commissioners, is that based on information from American Towers and AT&T’s representative, the companies have not adequately explored alternative locations that could provide that same cell reception benefits with less adverse impact to the community. Thus, on

Chatham County, NC Page 40 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

that basis alone, the Commissioner should deny the application until AT&T presents alternative locations for comparison.

Alternatively, if the Commissioners see it fit to approve the proposed location, at minimum, the Commission should require amendment of the proposal to lower the height of the tower to no more than 120 feet, the only height from which the visual impact from the balloon test was limited and relatively acceptable. Furthermore, the Commission should require AT&T to describe and implement any other appropriate and feasible additional visual screening techniques to minimize the abhorrent aesthetic impact. Thank you.”

Jason Hickey 15004 Barnhardt Court, Chapel Hill, gave the following comments: “Our family is in opposition to the proposed Cell Tower located at 464 Old Farrington Rd. (known as the Farrington Site) due to the proximity of our home. If the council members have not done so, I invite all of you to come visit the site and see firsthand just how close it is to our community.

It’s well documented that this will negatively impact real estate values and subsequently tax revenues for Chatham County. Attached here is a copy of several impact studies including the Bond and Wang Transaction Based Market Study which reflected a 20% reduction in sales price for homes in proximity to a Cell Tower. For the 49 homes of Governors Lake which sit directly adjacent to the proposed site that equates to roughly 3.5-4 million dollars in lost property values.

Chatham County is quite large and I understand the desire for better cellular communications but with that open land a more suitable site must exist.

In closing, I’m asking our elected officials to deny this request until a more realistic and suitable site has been proposed.”

Joan Hickey, 15004 Barnhardt Court, Chapel Hill, stated she was a graphic designer and was opposed to the tower. She also submitted a large photo she had created to demonstrate what the tower would look like from the street view of their neighborhood.

Bill Hlavac, 12010 Wicker Drive, Chapel Hill, gave the following comments: “My name is Bill Hlavac and I live with my wife and two daughters at 12010 Wicker Drive in the Governors Lake area of Governors Village.

Our family uses AT&T cell service and the signal in our home is adequate. Contrary to the assertion of Mr. Styer, there is only one location in all of Governors Village where the signal is spotty; and that is deep in the Food Lion. In fact, I can travel miles in every direction from my home and not lose my cell signal.

I strongly object to the siting of the proposed cell tower, primarily because of the impact it will have on the hundreds of homes nearby. The proposed tower will not fit with the character of the neighborhood and will adversely affect home values. There are countless studies and white papers documenting the adverse effect on home values; the range is from 5% to 38%.

For these same reasons the Morrisville, North Carolina Town Council rejected a proposed tower similarly placed near a populated area in December 2011. That tower was proposed by the same company that plans to build the Farrington site tower. The

Chatham County, NC Page 41 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

company, American Tower, was unhappy with the Town’s decision and appealed it in court. The judge upheld the Town’s decision on the basis the tower would not fit the character of the neighborhood, as well as American Tower’s failure to demonstrate that nearby home values would not be adversely affected.

On April 30 the attorney for AT&T mobility and American Tower, Gray Styers, held a meeting to explain the plan for the tower. Attendees repeatedly asked why the tower couldn’t be located away from such a populated area, or in the high power line easement -- on or around the existing structures—and what other locations were considered. They also wanted to understand why it had to be so tall. Mr. Styers told us the equipment could not be collocated with the power equipment, but didn’t know why. He promised he would look into it and get back to us. He did not follow through. We later observed several such colocations in the area. He also promised to send coverage maps for three tower heights; 195’, 150’ and 120’. He did not follow through on that promise either. In fact, as late as Friday, June 13, he told us he was unable to get them but was working on it. And tonight he miraculously managed to get them for the meeting.

I request the board reject the tower application for the same reasons the Morrisville Town Council did, and additionally because of AT&T and American Tower failed to explore other, more suitable locations.

Incidentally, Mr. Styers has indicated his clients are willing to lower the tower height from 195’ to 150’. During the balloon test it was abundantly clear that anything above 120’ would be clearly visible throughout the community. So this is simply an attempt by AT&T Mobility and American Tower to appear reasonable, and as if they’re looking out for the interest of the community. The commissioners should not be swayed by this and should reject the application as it currently exists. It’s worth noting there is very little tree coverage in front of the tower and the trees that do exist are no more than 40 or 50 feet tall. Even at 120’ – which would be a reasonable compromise-- there would be 70 to 80 feet of tower above the trees. It’s also worth noting the land owner does not even live in North Carolina so he does not care what happens to the home values. Thank you.”

Ryan Thornburg, 30165 Pharr Chapel Hill, thanked the Commissioners for allow time for public input on this issue. He stated he could not speak much on the evidence presented tonight but he is looking forward to looking at the evidence. He stated he would encourage the commissioners and others to be vigilant on the application so that they get all the information necessary. He said it was not an issue he has been paying attention too because he has Verizon and he has great coverage. When he saw the photos his neighbors took they were very different than what was being presented by the council for the tower. It raised questions in his mind and those questions still remain because he has not seen any coverage maps for a 150 foot tower and he is glad those are in evidence now. He is not an expert in real estate appraisal but he would not want to buy a house with a tower this close. He loves the blueberry bushes on that property he does not like cell towers. He is sorry that the neighborhood missed a chance to get involved in the political process and he understands this is no longer the time to do that. For now he has good coverage and he would not want to buy a property in that neighborhood if there was a tower on that site.

Scott Leslie 30169 Pharr, Chapel Hill, NC, gave the following comments “I'm a resident of a neighborhood adjacent to the proposed cell tower location. I am

Chatham County, NC Page 42 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

here to request that the current proposal be rejected until it can be amended to either change the location and/or lower the tower height. My first point is that we have a large utility corridor beside our neighborhood for Duke Power high tension lines. I request that the commission require American Tower Corporation to investigate use of this corridor for placement of the tower. At the community meeting with ATC's lawyer, he indicated that they had not contacted Duke Power to request use of part of this corridor to place a monopole. It seems like an obvious option which would be in the community's and ATCs best interest.

If the cell tower is not to be moved from its proposed location, I request that the commission limit the height based on information from Gray Styers at the community meeting held in April. Here is what he said about the height and location of cell towers. 19:50 Gray Styers. I'm quoting fairly closely : I have an audio recording if you would like to hear it. The trend actually is for towers; For there to be more and more and more towers; And for the towers to be shorter, shorter, and shorter. Within 20 years, towers every 1/2 mile and not much taller than light pole. Currently primarily putting in 120ft towers in Raleigh. Current spacing requirement of 1.5 miles will have to be amended in 4-5 years to allow closer spacing for shorter towers. (end quoting) Given this I respectfully request that if the tower cannot be moved to the utility corridor, the commissioners limit the permit to 120ft. This would keep a taller than necessary tower from staying at this location for 20-30 years when in only a short time the cell towers will being put in similar locations will be 120 feet or less. Mr Styres has said at this meeting that AT&T will not build the tower at 120 feet. However, at present they have no incentive to do so. If you reject the permit at greater than 120 feet, then I believe they will resubmit at that height, especially since by his own admission the difference in coverage between 150 and 120 feet is marginal. Please refuse this request at 150 feet since it is only marginally better than a 120 foot tower and will impact the surrounding area for many years to come. Thank you for your time.”

Anita Badrock, 90 Paul Green road, Pittsboro, stated she was speaking on behalf of the Greater Chapel Hill Association of Realtors. They have 500 members that help people buy and sell properties in Chatham County. Our Board of Directors have talked about this issue of connectivity at length and she would like for the Board to improve the cell phone coverage in Chatham County. She stated he understands a lot of people are going to be bringing a lot of information about the impact of cell towers on property values. She believes the ones who have the most information that can help are the people who sell and show properties in Chatham County. She stated she just got a text from someone who showed a property in this area where this tower will improve coverage and the person wouldn’t even get out of the car because there was one bar of coverage. We know that it does affect property values and cell coverage and connectivity is a issue for people looking to buy homes. She encouraged the Board to listen to their local realtors and appraisers who are out there selling property every day. She stated she also works with low income home buyers in Orange County. She stated that she knows she has a nice home and a lot of people present have a nice home but people with nice homes are not the only people impacted by cell coverage. Low income families are impacted by the need for cell phone coverage. 45% of low income children only have access to the internet through a smart phone. She asked the Board to think more broadly about connectivity and cell phone coverage for all areas of Chatham County.

Chatham County, NC Page 43 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Scott Whitney 30150 Walser, Chapel Hill, gave the following comments: “My name is Scott Whitney, and I live and work in the communities of Governors Village.

I am a business man and my company relies technology and wireless connectivity. Like many who work in technology, I strive to make life better, easier and more convenient, making sure not to diminish quality of life of those who use technology.

I also understand that the builders of this tower have a responsibility to find and construct as tall a tower that they're allowed, to as close to a densely populated areas as possible, for the largest possible coverage footprint-- at the lowest possible cost. However, there is such a thing as too high and too close, and too little time exploring all location options. And despite what we've heard from the attorney, I'm not convinced that Att and its Tower development partners thoroughly explored all their possible location options. After all, there is PLENTY of open space around our communities that could have been considered. I'd like to request that other sites be explored further. I'd like the tower moved further away from our homes and children so that this technology can more fully improve connectivity AND quality of Life. Or at the very least, lower this tower so it is no longer visible from our neighborhood.

The attorney himself just said that there is not a significant difference In coverage between 199, 150 And 125 feet.

We ask that AT&T respect the wishes of its current and Future customers. Thank you.”

Garry Stringer, 20008 Grier, stated he has only been in the community for about a year. He used to live in Texas where everything was just ugly compared to the beautiful place he now lives. He has come to appreciate all the HOA rules because it helps his property values. His property values is partly what he is worried about. He saw the balloon test the day they did it and does not think the picture his neighbor brought to the hearing is an over exaggeration of how obtrusive the tower is going to be. We chose the neighborhood because of the beauty and characteristics it had. He would not have chosen that area if that tower had been there. He feels the Board is their last hope. AT&T has tried to make it sound like it is a done deal and have reminded the Board that a previous Board has approved similar versions of this ordinance. However, they don't believe it is a done deal which is why the Board is having this hearing. He joins his neighbors in asking the Board to consider their wish to not have a tower to close and too obtrusive to their neighborhood.

Karen Howard, 12025 Wicker Drive, Chapel Hill. Stated she lives in the Governor's Lake neighborhood and believes her neighbors have eloquently said it all and does not have much to add. She wanted to reiterate that they are not a neighborhood of low income houses and they are in a relatively densely populated area. Many of them do work from home so they do appreciate great connectivity. They did choose these homes and they are not transcendental, they are not temporary, they are not renters; they are here permanently. They feel the attorney diminished their opinions and maybe thinks of them as “those folks”. They are the residents of Chatham County and she does not know where he lives but maybe he has been around towers so long that 150 foot towers are normal to them. From their point of view it is a monstrosity. They are asking that they look for another location and look at reducing the height because due to his own admission there is not that big of a difference. These homes are their biggest investments and she is concerned about their property values. She stated the Board would be stunned at how close the tower is to

Chatham County, NC Page 44 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

their homes. She hopes that the applicant will seriously consider other sites and that the Board will consider the number of people in the Northeast and that they are not all AT&T customers. Perhaps they aren't AT&T customers not because it is spotty service but because it is spotty customer service. She stated her husband works from home and always has a good connection and they have Verizon and T-Mobile. She is sure with a little more effort AT&T could find a better location for this tower.

Jan Rivero 12029 Wicker, Chapel Hill, gave the following comments: When my husband and I bought our home in Governor’s Lake almost seven years ago, cell phone service was not strong so we went to the ATT store and for less than $100 purchased a microcell to boost the signal. It is not a perfect solution but we prefer imperfection to the eyesore that would be this cell tower. The fact that we chose this option rather than to switch to a provider with a stronger signal speaks of our (now dwindling) loyalty to ATT.

I do not object to the idea of having a cell tower located in the north Chatham County area. I DO object to a cell tower being located in the proposed location at any height. It will be an eyesore that commands the view from our front porch and there is no way I would purchase a house with that view anywhere. That is not opinion - that is EVIDENCE - that this tower will negatively impact property sales in this neighborhood.

I am confident that since this is, according to Mr. Styers, an all or nothing proposition, there MUST be an alternative out there somewhere. If the Verizon signal is strong perhaps ATT could locate on THEIR tower. Or, given that the current location was the ONLY one identified, ATT could find another property owner a bit further south. If not on the power easement, then a bit further south on Fearrington Road, perhaps near the solar farm. It cannot be that much more costly to place it in an area where it will not be a violation of the neighborhood covenants that attracted buyers to the Governors Village area in the first place.

Several things are apparent in this discussion. The real estate agent referenced by the agent “representing the Chapel Hill Real Estate Agents” did not do her homework or she would have known how to reply to the doctor who could not get service. This is not about strengthening signals as much as it is about competing with Verizon and TMobile. The fact that Mr. Styers would turn my comment about a micro cell against me speaks to his unprofessional and condescending attitude. My point was that we make choices, we make decisions and we make peace with what we have. But I can tell you that will change. After the meeting several went home and changed their service to Verizon. We plan to do the same if the tower is approved.

In this so-called quasi-judicial hearing, the County attorney advised as though it was a true judicial hearing. Mr. Styers submitted much more than “evidence.” He told personal stories of his own experience. His “evidence” was not backed up in a fashion that the residents have access to. He called one neighbor a liar. He used veiled threats to intimidate. But the residents were denied any form of rebuttal.

I am outraged by the conduct of Mr. Styers and the County Commissioners. Every signal was sent to us that this is a foregone conclusion making me wonder, what is in it for them or for Chatham County? From where we sit, what’s in it is lost revenue when our property values are depreciated.

Jeffrey Pugh 12029 Wicker Drive, Chapel Hill, gave the following comments:

Chatham County, NC Page 45 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

“Thank you, commissioners, for the opportunity to say a few words about the proposed tower that AT&T Mobility and American Tower wish to place off Fearrington Road, next to the Governor's Village area. My name is Jeffrey Pugh and I live at 12029 Wicker Drive, Chapel Hill, Chatham County, NC.

When I first heard of the proposed tower placement I was only a little skeptical. I am usually not one who tries to stand in the way of progress, and I thought perhaps the tower would be situated in such a way as to have negligible effect on our neighborhood. But the day the balloon went up I was stunned. This tower will have an enormous impact not just on Governor's Lake, but on the entire Governor's Village area. I have heard testimony tonight that property values would not be impaired, however it is hard to imagine property values in our line of sight not taking a loss from such a dominant tower when it has its full array. I know I never would have bought the house I live in if the tower had been in place when we bought. That behemoth will be a monstrosity from my front porch.

I realize that the argument from the AT&T representative is that you have to put the tower where the people are, but there are certainly other places that tower can go. It may cost AT&T more to place it in a less obtrusive location, but given what they charge for service, they are better able to absorb that cost than the homeowners of this area. I realize this is not the place for emotional appeals, but It would be nice if once, just once, the little person was able to win one. Thank you for listening to me and I ask that you deny this siting and request AT&T to find alternative sites for their tower.”

Mary Ann Stringer 20008 Grier, Chapel Hill, gave the following comments: “Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. Just a year ago, when my husband and I chose a home in Governor's Village, we chose it for several reasons. One of the principal ones was the beauty of the area itself and of the homes. Mr. Styers' associate mentioned, in her statement about other cell tower placement, the charm and importance of the rural nature of the county. Even in this more populated section, we recognized and loved that immediately.

We also realized that my husband could never park a boat in front of our home and that we couldn't put up any kind of deck or porch we just happened to like. But that was okay. We knew the rules would protect not just the beauty of the neighborhood but also the value of the homes. Now both are at risk. She stated she really wished the Commissioners could have seen the balloon test. It was quite extraordinary. She found it interesting that the balloon test was not held until the trees were in full bloom. What would it have looked like before the flowering of all those trees?

There is no doubt that we need better cellular coverage. She has AT&T and sometimes she gets really mad at it. But the placement of this tower is awful. Thank you"

Gray Styers, apologized if anyone felt intimated by him in any way. He has tried to be sensitive to the concerns that have been raised. He did that when they told AT&T that the tower was too close to the road and they needed to move the tower back behind the tree line. He stated not only does the tower have to be moved back behind the tree line but the driveway also has to be moved so that the base of the tower and the facility cannot be seen from Farrington Road.

Mr. Styers stated they flew the balloon at 195 feet for about three hours from seven o’clock am until ten o’clock am and he felt it was too visible. So they dropped the

Chatham County, NC Page 46 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

balloon to 150 feet from ten o’clock to ten thirty and took some pictures and they argued that they needed to drop the tower height to be closer to the tree line. Mr. Styers stated that they did not mean to be intimidating at all and he hoped the Board will appreciate the work we tried to do with the citizens.

Mr. Styers stated the quote that was quoted by the gentleman during the public comment session was accurate. When he zoned the first ten or fifteen towers in this county every single one of them was 250 feet tall and every single one of them was lit. As population grows and as technology and demand increases, the tower height is coming down and we are going to have more and more of them closer to neighborhoods He stated that he believes this will be by far the shortest tower ever constructed in Chatham County. He asked how long should they wait to not have coverage at a commercial center, at a Food Lion, or at a shopping center.

Mr. Styers stated to clarify the difference in 195 feet and 150 feet was that it is what AT&T can live with. The difference in 150 feet and 120 feet is not something they can live with. It may be marginal but it is not something they can live with.

Mr. Styers stated people spoke about property values. He stated the County Attorney would say that there is case law there is substantial competent material evidence standards for Quasi-judicial hearings require quantitative data by an expert witness on that issue. He stated the Board has only heard quantitative date by those in the industry, an appraiser and a realtor. Mr. Styers stated their reports are the only competent evidence on that issue.

Mr. Styers stated he would be happy to answer any questions from the commissioners. He also stated that he believed the photo submitted into evidence by one of the members of the neighborhood, Joan Hickey, was probably representative of a 195 foot tower but was not representative of what this tower would look like.

Chairman Petty asked if the picture was representative of the style of the tower.

Mr. Styers stated it was his testimony that her picture is not at 150 feet. Chairman Petty stated that the River’s Edge Subdivision had a photograph of a tower that looked nothing like Ms. Hickey’s. Ms. Hickey stated that she is a graphic designer and did her best to scale the photo to represent the tower at 150 feet based on the balloon test done in their neighborhood.

Mr. Styers stated her photo has six sets of antennas and this would not be representative of what AT&T’s tower configuration would look like. He stated he could not speak to what other carriers’ configurations would look like. This site is only made to accommodate four carriers. Those four sets of arrays would be ten feet apart and the arrays in her picture are only five or six feet apart, therefore this is not representative of what our site would look like at all.

Chairman Petty asked for clarification as to whether the tower will be available for other carriers to locate. Mr. Styers stated as required by the ordinance, three other carriers will be able to co locate on the tower. Chairman Petty asked if any carriers have expressed any interest at co-locating on this tower. Mr. Styers stated they did not at this time but he would ask American Tower and look into it.

Mr. Styers stated that there are unfortunate instances where you will see three towers built right next to each other. He stated co location is a way to prevent too many towers being next to each other. He also stated that most of the towers he zoned in the county were in 1996 or 1997 and you can see how co-location has evolved over the last fifteen years. The lowest antenna has got to be above the tree

Chatham County, NC Page 47 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

line for it to be effective. The lower you build a tower the more you minimize the functionality of it.

Commissioner Stewart stated that most people who spoke tonight stated they have good reception. She wanted to know what tower is providing that good reception. Mr. Styers stated he could not speak to that as it is inconsistent with all the data we have. He stated there was testimony that members of the community had purchased micro cell amplifiers and there are several hundred micro cell amplifiers in and around the Governor's Village and Governor’s Club area. Mr. Styers stated they keep track of that and they know where those are. They know from market data that those are being purchased by residents, which indicates poor in-building coverage.

Chairman Petty stated the amplifiers are run off their DSL lines. Mr. Styers stated that is correct.

Mr. Styers stated AT&T started looking for a site in this area in 2011. They evaluated the transmission lines in 2011. This is going to be a significant investment for AT&T and American Tower. Mr. Styers stated AT&T is currently evaluating their capital deployment and when they are going to sequence their sites. He stated he does not believe they will begin construction on this site this year. AT&T doesn’t build sites just to be building sites. He can be doubted, he can be ridiculed, but typically companies will only invest where there is a demand and where there is a need.

Chairman Petty asked where the site was in relation to the photograph of the transmission lines. Mr. Styers showed the Board the location on the map.

Commissioner Stewart clarififed that moving that moving the tower in either direction would impact other neighborhoods the same way. Mr. Styers stated she was correct but they had to find a willing land owner. Chairman Petty asked if there were other site locations as options that they chose not to use. Mr. Styers stated he was not aware of any other locations they had as candidates for this site. Sometimes real estate folks will come back with two or three candidates but if they move a half a mile either way they would lose coverage in the Governor’s Village area.

Chairman Petty stated he was really trying to determine whether it was an all or none situation. Mr. Styers stated it was. He does not mean for that to be intimidating but it is the reality of where they are. They have been working with this site for three years. Mr. Styers said there was no site in his neighborhood when they were looking to provide coverage. A self storage facility near his neighborhood rezoned from residential to commercial and the developer aggregated several lots and put in a 195 foot tower. He cannot say that AT&T will not find another site down the road but for today, there is no other option for another site location to provide coverage in this area. Mr. Styers stated if there is going to be coverage in the foreseeable future with the budget constraints that AT&T has without starting from scratch, it is all or nothing.

Commissioner Elza stated this community is well planned by the developer and done in a specific style. It has a big lake that looks right at this site. He stated the applicant took ten photographs and he sees the balloon in at least nine of those pictures. He asked Mr. Styers if he felt the appearance would be improved by this tower.

Mr. Styers stated he was very familiar with this site. He used to ride ATV’s there before they put the first road in back in the eighties. He stated they have to meet the specific criteria in the ordinance. He stated the site at this location must not impair the integrity or character of the surrounding or adjoining property. It is the evidence presented here tonight and expert testimony presented by real estate brokers and appraisers that this site at this location will not impair the integrity or character of the

Chatham County, NC Page 48 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

surrounding or adjoining property. He stated ultimately it is the Board’s decision as to whether the evidence presented meets that standard.

Commissioner Elza stated that it is the applicant’s conclusion the community is not impaired in any way by the applicant’s evidence. Mr. Styers stated that he was correct. He does believe it is supported by the evidence.

Chairman Petty asked where the height is measured from in the balloon test. Mr. Styers stated it is measured from the top of the balloon to where the balloon is tied off to the stake at ground level.

Chairman Petty stated from the photograph he was holding all one can see is the top of the balloon. He asked if it was the 150 foot mark. Mr. Styers stated it was. He said he could testify under oath it was because he was there. He stated is not visible from Wicker Drive, however, across the lake when there is nothing in front of you to obstruct your view (trees, houses, etc.) it is visible. At that point the tower is three tenths of a mile from you. He stated they deliberately took pictures where it was visible because they could have taken fifty pictures where it was not visible.

Chairman Petty stated it appeared some of the citizens present had some comments they wanted to make. He stated he was not clear on the process as to whether or not anyone could speak at this time.

Mr. Styers stated he would refer to the County Attorney, however, typically, the Burden of Proof is usually the last to speak.

Jep Rose, County Attorney, stated the Chairman can bring some of them back and allow them speak.

Chairman Petty stated he would entertain a short time for comments but asked everyone keep in mind that comments should be evidence based and they should not be based on emotions or opinions.

Jason Hickey stated Mr. Styers stated that he was at the balloon test and he testified under oath that he was in two places at one time. He stated the photographer was seven football fields away from where the balloon was tied down. He did not know how he could be with the photographer and where the balloon was tied down at the same time.

Mr. Styers stated there is a carbineer and the rope is marked at certain heights and the carbineer is clipped and locked. You lock the carbineer in at the different heights. He stated they flew the balloon at 195 feet and took a lot of pictures. They went back to the site and took the combination lock off of the carbineer and rolled the rope down to the 150 foot mark. They clipped the carbineer back in place and locked the combination lock on the carbineer again. They then went to take a second set of pictures.

A citizen raised the question as to whether or not the pictures could be taken in the winter. Mr. Styers stated that is for this Board to determine. He stated there was no deliberate attempt to do the test in May, June or July versus December or January. He stated most of the trees behind the houses on Wicker Drive are pine trees. On Mr. Porter’s property there is a mixed forest with mostly deciduous trees.

Chairman Petty stated the item would be referred back to Planning. He informed the citizens they could submit their comments from the hearing to the Clerk so that they could be entered into the record.

Chatham County, NC Page 49 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

Mr. Rose addressed questions from Dan Hirschman who wished to submit additional comments. He clarified that all comments must be submitted tonight at the hearing.

Jason Sullivan, Planning Director, stated they could submit the same comments they gave at the hearing after tonight, however, they could not submit any new information after tonight.

Mr. Hirschman wanted to know if the sources he sited for his comments would be considered evidence. Mr. Styers stated he would object because he would not have the chance to cross examine any reports that would be hearsay. He stated this has been noticed for more than seven weeks and the applicant would ask that the hearing be closed.

Chairman Petty stated the hearing is closed and the item would be referred to Planning.

Commissioner Elza made the motion to continue the public hearing.

Mr. Rose stated a date needs to be set as part of the motion.

Commissioner Elza stated the hearing should be continued to the next Board of Commissioners meeting on July 21, 2014.

Chairman Petty called the question.

There was no second.

Chairman Petty stated the motion dies. He asked if the Board had any additional questions. Hearing none, the Chairman closed the hearing.

This Agenda Item was referred to the Planning Board.

BOARD PRIORITIES

14-0807 Vote on a request by Nicolas Robinson, on behalf of NNP-Briar Chapel, LLC, to adjust the riparian buffer map for Briar Chapel as indicated in the waiver request, pursuant to Section 15 of the CCO. Attachments: Hyperlink

This Agenda Item was tabled to a future meeting.

14-0799 Vote on a request by NNP-Briar Chapel, LLC to approve a First Plat review of a Conservation Subdivision for U. S. Steel Tract, Parcel #2177, consisting of 127 lots on 131.38 acres, located off Briar Chapel Parkway/Cliffdale Road, Baldwin Township. Attachments: Hyperlink

Lynn Richardson, Land Use Administrator, stated this was the first conservation subdivision request for the county and she wanted to give a quick overview of what a conservation subdivision is. It is an alternative subdivision plan that encourages the preservation of large contiguous blocks of land. When a developer chooses to develop property as a conservation subdivision, they are allowed a density bonus of

Chatham County, NC Page 50 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

10% density.

Ms. Richardson stated the number of lots is determined by identifying the land that is required to be protected. Those would be all riparian buffers and floodplain areas. 40% of the total land area must be set aside in the conservation space. Within that 40% space, 80% has to be natural space and up to 20% can be open space. Natural space is unimproved land and allows for recreational space and spray irrigation.

Ms. Richardson stated there is an additional 5% density bonus in addition to the 10% if the subdivision is proposed for the purpose of sustaining onsite bonafied agriculture. Roads can be public DOT, private roads or private easements. the conservation space can be managed by either a Home Owners Association, a land trust or some other entity. There must be management plan for the conservation space submitted and approved by the county attorney.

Ms. Richardson reviewed the specifics of the request before the Board of approval of first plat review. A public hearing was held at the planning board meeting and the Board of Commissioners now has sixty-five days from today to review and make a decision.

Staff recommends the environmental quality department work with the developer on removing the trails away from the buffer areas and then submit a new trail and greenway map prior to the construction plan being submitted. The Fire Marshal reviewed and finds the cross section of the roadway adequate and recommends parking should be limited to only one side of the street so that there is emergency vehicle access at all times. Emergency Operations has reviewed all the road names and has approved their submittal as they are not duplications.

Developer said there would be two phases for project, 53 lots per phase. A public hearing at planning board meeting. Nick Robinson spoke on behalf of the applicant and he was only one to speak. There were no questions or complaints from any adjoining property owners.

Ms. Richardson stated the planning board by unanimous vote and along with planning staff recommend approving roadway names and recommend approval of first plat approval with three conditions: timber management plan shall exclude timbering in riparian buffers and floodplain areas and a copy of the timber management plan shall be provided to staff prior to final plat recordation, developer shall work with environmental quality staff prior to construction plan submittal for compliance with riparian buffer requirements of the watershed protection ordinance and obtain any authorizations necessary to develop the trail and greenway plan and a revised trail and greenway map is to be submitted along with the construction pan, and prior to plat recordation the county attorney shall review and approve the form of the management plan, the declaration of covenants and restrictions and deeds for the conservation space.

A motion was made by Commissioner Stewart, seconded by Commissioner Elza, that the Plat Review be approved with the three conditions: the timber management plan shall exclude timbering in riparian buffers and floodplain areas and a copy of the timber management plan shall be provided to staff prior to final plat recordation, the developer shall work with environmental quality staff prior to construction plan submittal for compliance with riparian buffer requirements of the watershed protection ordinance and obtain any authorizations necessary to develop the trail and greenway plan and a revised trail and greenway map is to be submitted along with the construction pan, and prior to plat recordation the county attorney shall review and approve the form of the management plan, the declaration of covenants and restrictions and

Chatham County, NC Page 51 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014

deeds for the conservation space. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

14-0829 Vote on a request to approve the resolution agreeing the lease and agreeing to appropriate sufficient funds for the lease and a request to approve the transfer of fund balance from current expense to capital outlay in the amount of $251,000 Attachments: AppleLeaseResolution AppleLease.RevisedCapitalOutlay

Renee Paschal, Assistant County Manager, reviewed the specifics of the request.

A motion was made by Vice Chair Bock, seconded by Commissioner Stewart, that the Resolution #2014-21 Agreeing the Lease and Agreeing to Appropriate Sufficient Funds for the Lease, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, be adopted and approve the transfer of fund balance from current expense to capital outlay in the amount of $251,000. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

MANAGER’ S REPORTS

The County Manager stated Senate Bill 744, which is the Senate proposed budget clashes with the House budget. In the House Budget the Medicaid Transportation Budget there is a proposal to bid out all the transportation services across the state. The prices do not compete with what we do locally. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services recommends that be taken out of the budget. Chatham Transit Network estimates it would impact 22% or $335,000 of the total budget. Our price per trip is $1.55 and the bid price at the state level is $1.85 to $1.95.

COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS

There were no reports at this time.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned.

Aye: 5 - Chairman Petty, Vice Chair Bock, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Elza

Chatham County, NC Page 52 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0784

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Health Department File Type: Agenda Item

Vote on a request to approve Spay Neuter Program Funds

Action Requested: Motion to Accept $1,338.08 Spay Neuter Funds.

Introduction & Background: Chatham County Animal Services has been applying on a quaterly basis to receive reimbursements funds from the NC Dept. of Agriculture's ICARE Program. These funds have been awarded to the county to use for spay and neuter.

Discussion & Analysis: These funds are being received in the current fiscal year and will be rolled to the next fiscal year 2015. If approved, these funds will be used to support the operation of the Animal Shelter to purchase supplies.

Budgetary Impact: The supply costs have increased this FY in the shelter, and these funds will cover costs for supplies for the remainder of the Fiscal Year.

Recommendation: Motion to Accept $1,338.08

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014

Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0803

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 2 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Planning File Type: Agenda Item

Vote on a request from Will Copeland dba LIR Enterprises for a text amendment to the Chatham County Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.5.B, B1 Business District Dimensional Regulation, to change the language of “open carports” to “open structures”.

Action Requested: Vote on a request from Will Copeland dba LIR Enterprises for a text amendment to the Chatham County Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.5.B, B1 Business District Dimensional Regulation, to change the language of “open carports” to “open structures”.

Introduction & Background: A legislative public hearing was held on June 16, 2014. Planning staff presented the request and there were no other comments or discussion. The Board of Commissioners closed the public hearing. The applicant, Mr. William Copeland, has constructed an open structure on his B-1 Business property located at 40 Beaver Creek Rd. It was discovered the structure had not been properly permitted and possibly did not meet the required setbacks for the site. The B-1 Business zoning district requires a 50 foot front setback from the property line and 20 feet on any side or rear. Currently the Chatham County Zoning Ordinance allows for “open carports” to be located within 10 feet of any property line. This application is to modify the Zoning Ordinance to allow “open structures” within 10 feet of a property line.

Discussion & Analysis: Section 19 of the Zoning Ordinance states amendments to the ordinance may be made to change regulation and restrictions of the ordinance. These amendments shall be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and to achieve the purposes of the adopted Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan encourages continued support in the industrial and commercial areas (p27). Although this request is being made to enhance an existing B-1 Business zoned property, planning staff has reviewed all zoning districts to see if this change should be uniform across all the districts. In looking at the various zoning districts, open carports are allowed to be located within 10 feet of any property line. Open carports generally cause no visual hazards or

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 File Number: 14-0803 obstructions and require permits to ensure stability and anchoring. Currently there is not a definition in the Zoning Ordinance for open carport but it has been permitted as a roofed structure, open on all sides whether temporary or permanent. A carport is defined in the Webster’s Dictionary as an open-sided automobile shelter; a shelter for a car that has open sides. Citizens use open carports for multiple purposes other than for parking an automobile which essentially makes them a structure and not just a carport. The applicant is proposing to use an open structure for the selling of produce or other seasonal fruits, vegetables, and the like. This would be a common use for an open structure or carport.

The Planning Board discussed this item during their July 1, 2014 meeting. There were several questions concerning what would happen if an owner wanted to enclose a building previously approved to be open on all sides; whether equipment, such as large freezers, could be stored under these building; and height restrictions. Staff explained that enclosing the structures would not be allowed if the setbacks for enclosed structures could not be met; that walk-in coolers/freezers would be allowed under open sided structures; and that the underlying zoning districts have maximum building heights. The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the text amendment and voted 8-1 to approve a consistency statement in support of the text amendment.

Recommendation: The Planning Board, by a vote of 8-1, recommends adoption of a resolution approving the following consistency statement:

The request to amend the zoning ordinance is consistent with the adopted land use plans and regulations of the County, and approved as provided in the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance.

Planning staff and the Planning Board (by unanimous vote) recommends approval of the request and adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance to amend the sections as outlined below.

ADD LANGUAGE: Section 7 - Definitions; Open Structures - a building or structure, open on all sides supported by a roof and posts or columns.

CHANGE LANGUAGE: Sections 10.1; 10.2; 10.3; 10.4; 10.5; 10.6; 10.7; 10.8; 10.9; 10.10 - change the term “open carports” to “open structures”.

Chatham County, NC Page 2 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0804

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 2 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Planning File Type: Agenda Item

Agenda Number:

Vote on a request by Jim Anderson and Warren Mitchell dba Meadows Land Investment, LLC, to approve a rezoning on Parcel No. 18727 located at 12330 US 15-501 N, from R-1 Residential to CD-RB Conditional District Regional Business, on approximately 3.677 acres, for a four-story (4-story) self-storage facility.

Action Requested: A request by Jim Anderson and Warren Mitchell dba Meadows Land Investment, LLC, for a rezoning on Parcel No. 18727 located at 12330 US 15-501 N, from R-1 Residential to CD-RB Conditional District Regional Business, on approximately 3.677 acres, for a four-story (4-story) self-storage facility.

Introduction & Background: A quasi-judicial public hearing was held June 16, 2014. Planning staff presented the application and reviewed some concerns and comments from the submittal process that the applicant had addressed and/or corrected. Those items have been addressed below. Mr. Warren Mitchell, applicant, spoke briefly and was available for questions. No one else spoke on the issue. Until the development over the last 8-10 years, this portion of the US 15-501 N corridor was rural, residential lands. The subject property is now located between the UNC Park and Ride lot and the newly opened Wal-Mart. It has been used for and is currently zoned for residential use only. With the increase in non-residential uses in the area, the owner is now requesting a rezoning on this property.

Discussion & Analysis: Conditional Zoning districts are zoning districts in which the development and use of the property is subject to predetermined ordinance standards and the rules, regulations, and conditions imposed as part of a legislative decision creating the district and applying it to the particular property. Some land uses are of such a nature or scale that they have significant impacts on both the immediate surrounding area and on the entire community, which cannot be predetermined and controlled by general district standards. The review process established in this Ordinance provides for accommodation of such uses by a reclassification of property into a conditional zoning district, subject to specific

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 File Number: 14-0804 conditions, which ensure compatibility of the use with neighboring properties. A conditional zoning district is not intended for securing early zoning for a proposal, except when that proposal is consistent with an approved land use plan or the proposal can demonstrate that public infrastructure needed to serve the development will be made available within a reasonable time period. The applicant held a community meeting, as required by ordinance, and a report of that meeting was included in the application packet and is subject to consideration by the Board. Other than the applicants, there were no other adjacent or adjoining residents present. There were no concerns or issues discussed. There are four items listed in the Zoning Ordinance that must be addressed by an applicant when submitting a rezoning application. The applicant has addressed those items in the application materials and they are also discussed below. Item #1: The alleged error in this Ordinance, if any, which would be remedied by the proposed amendment with a detailed description of such error in the Ordinance and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the same. The applicant is not claiming any error in the ordinance. Item #2: The changed or changing conditions, if any, of the area or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare. The applicants state the adjacent properties to this location are currently non-residential. Due to recent changes in land uses in this area, they feel this parcel is now better suited for non-residential use. Growth in this portion of the county has increased with the approval of new subdivisions as well as in Orange County and is expected to continue. Based on the current growth, the applicant is proposing a full enclosed, climate controlled, four-story self-storage facility. There is no other facility like the one proposed in this area Chatham County. Item #3: The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of any adopted plans or parts thereof. Page 1 of the Land Conservation and Development Plan, further known as the “Plan” encourages guiding development towards areas planned for urban and suburban growth and away from areas with valued environmental or rural qualities. This property does not have any special environmental features, streams, or historic structures. Page 25 of the Plan encourages guiding growth along the US 15-501 corridor between Orange County and Pittsboro where growth is expected. This location is located within that recommended area. One of the goals of the Plan is to protect surface and groundwater resources. In order to increase the amount of usable square footage the applicant is seeking, the four-story structure helps to protect these resources. Two buildings are being proposed; one 72,000 square feet and one 50,400 square feet. If these were to be located in single story units, there could possibly be 4 or more buildings. By constructing multi-story, there are only two roofs with runoff to capture. The applicant has designed a stormwater pond that meets or exceeds the Chatham County

Chatham County, NC Page 2 Printed on 7/18/2014 File Number: 14-0804

Stormwater Ordinance requirements and that permit will be reviewed for approval by Dan LaMontagne with Environmental Quality. The applicant also completed an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which Mr. LaMontagne has reviewed and determined to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Item #4: All other circumstances, factors, and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment. The subject property is located on a major transportation corridor in an area that is expected to grow. The project with create one to two full time positions to man the office located on the first floor. During initial reviews and discussions with staff and the Chatham County Appearance Commission, a concern over the height of the building lighting, signage, and a portion of the perimeter landscaping were made. The height of the wall mounted lights on the building was originally submitted at 30 feet. Due to the elevations and topography of the southern property line boundary that is adjacent to the residents in Arbor Lea, the concern was they would be able to see the bottom of the light distribution. Since wall packs are required to be full cutoff, this could pose an issue. After discussion, the applicant agreed to drop the lights to no more than 20 feet. There was a concern regarding the height of the original proposed freestanding sign. The applicant offered a height of 18 feet which the CCAC accepted. Because of the topography of the southern property line that adjoins two properties in the Arbor Lea subdivision, the CCAC asked if the applicant would consider thickening the landscaping in those areas with trees and shrubs that would grow much taller to aide in making sure they are not affected by the building lights and buildings themselves. The applicant agreed and the current landscaping plan reflects those changes as well. It was discussed that even though the adjacent properties, being the UNC Park and Ride lot and the Wal-Mart lot, retained a large naturally vegetated buffer, it those buffers are ever removed, the applicant may be required to supplement landscaping to maintain the integrity of this project. This is stated in the condition below. The Planning Board discussed this item during their July 1, 2014 meeting and there was a general question about zoning adjacent to 15-501. One member had a concern regarding rezoning requests continuing along 15-501 resulting in a strip of non-residential development. Staff explained that the land use plan was general in nature and did not include a land use plan map to identify specific areas for non-residential development. Further, the board needs to rely on the general descriptions in the text of the land use plan for guidance. The board also discussed exterior lighting and the applicant addressed the proposed lighting and how it is designed to limit light spillover onto adjoining properties. The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning and voted 8-1 to approve a consistency statement in support of the text amendment. Recommendation:

Chatham County, NC Page 3 Printed on 7/18/2014 File Number: 14-0804

The Planning Board, by a vote of 8-1, recommends adoption of a resolution approving the following consistency statement:

The request to rezone Parcel No. 18727, in its entirety, from R-1, Residential to CD-RB, Conditional District Regional Business is consistent with the adopted land use plans and regulations of the County, and therefore is approved as requested. Planning staff and the Planning Board, by unanimous vote, recommends approval of the request and adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance to rezone Parcel No. 18727 from R-1, Residential to CD-RB, Conditional District Regional Business with the following conditions: Site Specific Conditions 1. The recommendations of the Chatham County Appearance Commission shall be followed as revised and agreed to by the applicant. Should adjacent properties remove their existing vegetation, this project will be required to supplement the landscaping according to the Zoning Ordinance Landscaping Guidelines in order to ensure this project remains in compliance. The applicant should ensure the maintenance and survival of all plantings which shall be installed at the next optimal planting season following the issuance of the building permit. Standard Site Conditions 2. The application, standards and adopted regulations of the applicable ordinances and policies, and the approved recommendations as provided for and/or conditioned, are considered to be the standards as set forth and shall comply as stated. Changes or variations must be approved through the Planning Department or other approving board before any such changes can take place. These include but are not limited to landscaping, lighting, signage, parking, building construction, etc. 3. All required local, state, or federal permits (i.e. NCDOT commercial driveway permits, NCDWQ, Chatham County Erosion & Sedimentation Control, Environmental Health Division, Stormwater Management, Building Inspections, Fire Marshal, etc.) shall be obtained, if required, and copies submitted to the Planning Department prior to the initiation of the operation/business. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained within two years of the date of this approval unless other approval/s has been given for an extension, or this approval becomes null and void. Standard Administrative Conditions: 5. Fees - Applicant and/or landowner shall pay to the County all required fees and charges attributable to the development of its project in a timely manner, including, but not limited to, utility, subdivision, zoning, and building inspections. 6. Continued Validity - The continued validity and effectiveness of this approval was expressly conditioned upon the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.

Chatham County, NC Page 4 Printed on 7/18/2014 File Number: 14-0804

7. Non-Severability - If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, this approval in its entirety shall be void. 8. Non-Waiver - Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to waive any discretion on the part of the County as to further development of the applicant’s property and this permit shall not give the applicant any vested right to develop its property in any other manner than as set forth herein.

Chatham County, NC Page 5 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0833

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Fire Marshal File Type: Agenda Item

Agenda Number:

Vote on a request to approve a Pyrotechnics Display at 280 Keith Nunn Drive, Chatham County, NC on August 23, 2014

Action Requested: Chatham County Board of Commissioners Approval of the Pyrotechnics Display Introduction & Background: Due to the dangerous nature of the use of pyrotechnics, the State of North Carolina enacted strict requirements including the licensing of Pyrotechnic Display Operators. Mr. Jeff Hale, Hale Artificier, Inc., has provided the required documentation for review which includes a copy of Mr. Jeff Hale and Mr. Gary Nunn’s NC Pyrotechnic Display Operators Licenses (Attachment #C), Certificate of Insurance (Attachment #D), and an ATF License/Permit (Attachment #E). Mr. Hale also submitted a drawing of the area denoting the required distances from the spectators and structures (Attachment #F). The sizes and types of pyrotechnics to be used were reviewed. Mr. Hale has met the applicable requirements of the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1123 Fireworks and Explosives. In accordance with the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code an inspection of the display area will be conducted by a Certified NC Fire Prevention Inspector of the Chatham County Fire Marshal's Office prior to the actual display. A piece of fire apparatus and personnel from the Silk Hope Volunteer Fire Department will be on-site before, during, and after the display. The Pyrotechnics Display may be delayed and or cancelled if weather and/or atmospheric conditions deem the activity to be unsafe. The Chatham County Fire Marshal will conduct a post display inspection of the display area. Recommendation: Chatham County Board of Commissioner's Approval of the Pyrotechnics Display to be conducted at 280 Keith Nunn Drive, Chatham County, NC.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014

Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0835

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 3 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Sheriff's Office File Type: Agenda Item

Vote on a request to approve Vehicle Purchase 2014-15

Action Requested: Motion to authorize the purchase of twelve vehicles on state contract #070B, item # 8.10 in the amount of $265,816.00.

Introduction & Background: As part of the budget process each year, vehicles are evaluated for mileage and reliability for the purpose of law enforcement support. A total of twelve vehicles were approved for the Sheriff's Office capital outlay budget. The NC General Statutes allow the County to use the State contracts for purchasing items. The formal bid process has been conducted by the NC Purchasing & Contract Division. Under the guidelines of G.S. 143-129(e), the State contract purchases are exempt from additional bidding processes.

Discussion & Analysis: The addition of these requested vehicles will benefit this office by replacing higher mileage vehicles which require more maintenance. Delivery of the new vehicles is expected to take 3-6 months.

Budgetary Impact: Funds are included in the Chatham County Sheriff's Office FY2014-15 budget for capital outlay.

Recommendation: Consideration of a request to purchase twelve vehicles on State Contract #070B, iten #8.10 in the amount of $265,816.00.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 2014 DODGE CHARGER RWD POLICE PACKAGE $21,867.00

3.6L V6 VVT Engine 5 spd. Automatic Transmission Column Shifter w/Autostick 220 amp Alternator 18 x 7.5 Steel Wheels All Speed Traction Control 4 Wheel ABS HD Disk Brakes Electronic Stability Program Emergency Brake Assist Bright Hub Caps Severe Duty Engine Cooling 800 amp MF Battery Dual Note Electric Horns External Oil Coolers: Engine oil, Transmission fluid, Power Steering Fluid Cloth Low Back Front Bucket Seats Power 6 way driver seat Carpet Floor w/Front & Rear Floor Mats Front Map & Reading Lamps Rear Courtesy Lamps Front & Rear Solar Control Glass 19 Gallon Fuel Tank Keyless Enter N Go Sentry Key Theft Deterrent System Daytime Running Lights Dual Multistage Front Airbags P225/60R18 BSW V-rated Tires Passenger Assist Handles Easy Path Wiring Grommet between under hood & passenger compartments Police Equipment Mounting Bracket Rear Trunk key lock cylinder Rear Window Defroster AM/FM/CD w/Changer Control Intermittent Wipers Tilt/Telescoping Steering Speed Control Power Mirrors Power Driver One-Touch Windows Front Dome Lamp (LED red/white) Emergency Rear Door Lock override Police Performance-Tuned Steering 4 wheel Independent Suspension 18” wheel covers map lights

Colors: Exterior: Pitch Black, Bright White, Bright Silver, Jazz Blue, Granite Chrystal, Billet Silver Torred Colors that carry additional charge: Electric Blue, Midnight Blue, Sheriff’s Tan, White Gold, Ivory 3, Phantom Black Pearl, add $ 470.00* *extended build times---120-180 days ARO

Interior: Black

701 SOUTH MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 350 HIGH POINT, NC 27261 SALES: 336-841-6100 SERVICE: 336-841-6162 FLEET SALES: 336-822-8708 WWW.ILDERTON.COM Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0836

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Public Works File Type: Contract

Agenda Number:

Vote on a request to approve Pittsboro Interlocal Agreement

Action Requested: Approve the Interlocal Agreement between the Town of Pittsboro and Chatham County, allowing the County to enforce Building Code, Fire Prevention and Protection, and Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control rules, regulations, laws, and ordinances. Also, approve County Manager, Charlie Horne, to sign the Agreement on behalf of the County.

Introduction & Background: The Town of Pittsboro requested that Chatham County enforce Federal, State, and County laws and regulations relative to Building Code, Fire Protection and Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control.

Discussion & Analysis: The Town of Pittsboro passed a Resolution on April 28, 2014 allowing the County to enforce certain Chatham County ordinances, rules, regulations and laws for Building Code, Fire Protection and Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control services within the corporate limits of the Town of Pittsboro and its ETJ. The County may collect its standard fees, fines, penalties and costs associated with these services.

Budgetary Impact: None

Recommendation: Motion to Approve the Interlocal Agreement between the Town of Pittsboro and Chatham County, allowing the County to enforce Building Code, Fire Prevention and Protection, and Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control rules, regulations, laws, and ordinances. Also, approve County Manager, Charlie Horne, to sign the Agreement on behalf of the County.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014

Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0838

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: County Manager's Office File Type: Appointment

Agenda Number:

Vote on a request to approve reappointment to the County Community Advisory Committee for Nursing Homes & Adult Care Homes

Action Requested: Approve the reappointment of Sandra Cameron to the Community Advisory Committee for Nursing Homes & Adult Care Homes.

Introduction & Background: Sandra Cameron was first appointed to a one-year term on August 19, 2013. She is an active member in good standing and the committee has asked that we reappoint her to a full three-year term, ending August 19, 2017 .

Discussion & Analysis: N/A

Budgetary Impact: N/A

Recommendation: Approve the reappointment as recommended.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0841

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 2 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: County Manager's Office File Type: Appointment

Agenda Number:

Vote on a request to approve reappointments to Environmental Review Advisory Committee

Action Requested: Approve the reappointments of two committee members as requested by the commttee: 1. Jerome Cole, who was first appointed on Sept. 19, 2011, to be reappointed to a term ending June 30, 2017 2. Victor D'Amato, who was first appointed on Jan. 19, 2010, to be reappointed to a term ending June 30, 2016

Both seats are designated for County Commissioner District 3.

Introduction & Background: Dan LaMontagne reports that both are active members in good standing and have asked to be reappointed.

Discussion & Analysis: N/A

Budgetary Impact: N/A

Recommendation: Approve the reappointment of Jerome Cole and Victor D'Amato as outlined above

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0842

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 2 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: County Manager's Office File Type: Contract

Agenda Number:

Vote on a request to approve Chatham Trades Salary Agreement

In the FY 2015 budget, Commissioners approved a proposal by Chatham Trades to provide salary support for the Executive Director. The additional funding to offset the salary is expected to improve the financial stability of Chatham Trades. Allocation of the Executive Director’s base salary from county funds will allow Chatham Trades to decrease salary expense and improve its bottom line.

Commissioners agreed that the additional funding would not be permanent, but instead would comprise a five-year grant to begin in FY 2015 and end after FY 2019. The attached contract defines the terms of the agreement.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014

NORTH CAROLINA

CHATHAM COUNTY

THIS AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), made and entered into this 1st day of July, 2014 by and between CHATHAM COUNTY, a body politic and corporate of the state of North Carolina (the “County”) and CHATHAM TRADES, INC., a North Carolina non-profit corporation having its registered office in Chatham County, North Carolina (“Chatham Trades”) The County and the Chatham Trades may hereinafter be referred to as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties”.

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, Chatham Trades is a 501(c)(3) corporation organized for the purpose of providing, inter alia, a Community Rehabilitation Program (CRP) to provide employment and training to adults with physical, intellectual and developmental disabilities to maximize their vocational opportunities; and

WHEREAS, Chatham Trades is licensed by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services as a Mental Health Facility to provide an Adult Developmental Vocational Program (ADVP); and

WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina has authorized counties to appropriate funds to support programs intended to further the welfare, education, and safety of its citizens, including inter alia, programs that provide employment and training to adults with physical, intellectual and developmental disabilities to maximize their vocational opportunities; and

WHEREAS, the County is authorized to contract with and appropriate funds to any corporation to carry out any public purpose that the County itself is authorized by law to engage in; and

WHEREAS, the County has funds available to provide support to nonprofit entities such as Chatham Trades which carry out activities that improve the health, quality of life, and public welfare of its citizens; and

WHEREAS, the County has determined that it is in the public interest to contract with and appropriate funds to Chatham Trades to assist Chatham Trades in operating a CRP and ADVP, as provided in this Agreement;

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the respective benefits flowing to the parties, the County and Chatham Trades, intending to be legally bound, contract and agree as follows:

Page 1 of 7

1. Purpose of Agreement; Chatham Trades Obligations. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide County funds to Chatham Trades for the purpose of funding the salary of its Executive Director for a period of five (5) years so that Chatham Trades can more effectively and efficiently provide CRP, ADNP, and other rehabilitation programs, employment and vocational training (collectively the “Chatham Trades Services”). Chatham Trades covenants and agrees that it will use the County funds appropriated and paid under this Agreement for the sole purpose of providing a salary for its Executive Director and in consideration of the receipt of the County funds hereunder, Chatham Trades contracts, covenants, and agrees that it will provide Chatham Trades Services to citizens and residents of Chatham County during the full) five (5) year term of this Agreement.

2. Maximum Payments. County payments to be made under this Agreement shall in no event exceed a total of $360,000. Payments hereunder shall be made during the term in the amount of $18,000, payable on or before the first day of each calendar quarter commencing July 1, 2014. All payments under this Agreement are subject to annual appropriation.

3. Term. The term of this Agreement is five (5) years beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2019.

4. Annual Appropriations and Funding. This Agreement is subject to the annual appropriation of funds by the Chatham County Commissioners. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, in the event that funds are not appropriated to fund the salary of the Executive Director under this Agreement, all County obligations hereunder, and this Agreement, shall automatically terminate as of the 1st day of July of the budget year for which the County Commissioners do not appropriate funds to fund this Agreement.

5. Notices. All notices, payments, or other correspondence given or made pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing, delivered in person, mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, or delivered by a recognized overnight courier, postage or fees prepaid, addressed to a Party at the address given below, and shall be deemed effective upon the date received, via personal delivery, certified mail, or overnight delivery. The Parties shall be responsible for notifying each other of any change of address.

Mailing addresses for Parties are as follows: If to County: Chatham County Post Office Box 1809 Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312 Attention: County Manager Email: [email protected]

Page 2 of 7

If to Chatham Trades: Chatham Trades, Inc. Post Office Box 511 Siler City, NC 27344 Email: [email protected]

6. E-Verify: Effective September 4, 2013 North Carolina local government units are prohibited from entering into certain contracts unless the contractor and the contractor’s subcontractors, if any, comply with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stats. §64-26(a). Prior to receiving any County funds hereunder, Chatham Trades and its subcontractors, if any, shall complete and return to the County the E- Verify affidavit, attached hereto as Appendix 1. If Chatham Trades or its subcontractors, are subject to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stats. §64-26(a), Chatham Trades agrees to fully comply with such statute and require its subcontractors, if any, to fully comply with such statute.

7. Miscellaneous. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties and it is understood and agreed that all undertakings, negotiations, representations, promises, inducements, and agreements heretofore entered into between the Parties with respect to the matters contained herein are merged in this Agreement. This Agreement may not be changed orally, but only by a written document signed by both Parties. No wavier of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the Party against whom it is sought to be enforced. This Agreement may not be assigned without the written consent of both Parties. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns to the extent such assignment has been consented to by both Parties. The provisions of the Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina. The headings contained in the Agreement are solely for the convenience of the Parties and do not constitute a part of this Agreement and shall not be used to construe or interpret any provisions hereof. This Agreement shall be considered for all purposes as having been prepared by the joint efforts of the Parties and shall not be construed against one Party or the other as a result of preparation, substitution, submission, or other event of negotiation. The invalidity or unenforceability of any term or provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provisions of this Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect, and, if any such unenforceable provision hereof is enforceable in any part or to any lesser extent, such provision shall be enforceable in all such parts and to the greatest extent permissible under applicable law. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the

Page 3 of 7

same instrument, and the Parties hereto may execute this Agreement by signing any such counterpart.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Chatham County and Chatham Trades, Inc. have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above.

CHATHAM COUNTY CHATHAM TRADES, INC.

By: ______By: ______Charlie Horne, County Manager Patrick Barnes, President

Page 4 of 7

NORTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF ______

I ______, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Patrick Barnes personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he is the President of Chatham Trades, Inc., and as President , being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument on behalf of Chatham Trades, Inc.

Witness my hand and official seal this ______day of , 2014.

Notary Public in and for the State of North Carolina

______Printed Name

(Affix Notary Seal) My Commission Expires:

NORTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF ______

I ______, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Charlie Horne personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he is the County Manager of Chatham County, North Carolina, and he as County Manager, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument on behalf of the said County.

Witness my hand and official seal this ______day of , ______.

Notary Public in and for the State of North Carolina

______Printed Name

Page 5 of 7

(Affix Notary Seal) My Commission Expires:

Page 6 of 7

APPENDIX 1

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA AFFIDAVIT COUNTY OF CHATHAM

I, ______(the individual attesting below), being duly authorized by and on behalf of ______(the entity bidding on project hereinafter "Employer") after first being duly sworn hereby swears or affirms as follows: 1. Employer understands that E-Verify is the federal E-Verify program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies, or any successor or equivalent program used to verify the work authorization of newly hired employees pursuant to federal law in accordance with NCGS §64-25(5). 2. Employer understands that Employers Must Use E-Verify. Each employer, after hiring an employee to work in the United States, shall verify the work authorization of the employee through E-Verify in accordance with NCGS§64-26(a). 3. Employer is a person, business entity, or other organization that transacts business in this State and that employs 25 or more employees in this State. (Mark Yes or No) a. YES _____, or b. NO _____ 4. Employer's subcontractors comply with E-Verify, and if Employer is the winning bidder on this project Employer will ensure compliance with E-Verify by any subcontractors subsequently hired by Employer. This ____ day of ______, 2014.

Signature of Affiant Print or Type Name: ______

State of North Carolina County of ______(Affix Official/Notarial Seal)

Signed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me, this the _____ day of ______, 20______.

My Commission Expires:

Notary Public

Page 7 of 7

026664-00003461/3741606v3 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0843

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: County Manager's Office File Type: Appointment

Vote on a request to approve appointment to Recreation Advisory Committee

Action Requested: Appoint Tammy Phillips to the Recreation Advisory Committee for a seat designated for County Commissioner District 5. She would serve a three-year term ending June 30, 2017.

Introduction & Background: The Recreation Advisory Committee currently has a vacancy for a seat assigned to County Commissioner District 5. Tammy Phillips, who lives near Gulf, applied for the seat.

Discussion & Analysis: N/A

Budgetary Impact: N/A

Recommendation: Approve the appointment of Tammy Phillips as noted above.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0844

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Emergency Operations File Type: Agenda Item

Vote on a request from citizens to approve the naming of private road in Chatham County

Action Requested: Motion to approve the private drives as listed A. HARRINGTON LANE

Introduction & Background: The Chatham County Commissioners adopted an ordinance providing for the establishment for the naming of private roads in Chatham County. The Office of Emergency Operations have received petitions requesting the naming of one (1) private road located in Chatham County on private property. These petitions are in order, complete and bear the proper number of required signatures. Discussion and Analysis: As part of its plan to develop the Enhanced-911 Emergency Response System, there is a vital need to maintain the County's established system providing for the naming of private roads. This is important so that there can be no duplications or similarities of these assigned names within Chatham County which could result in confusion and/or delay in the response to these roads, should an emergency exist in that location. Budgetary Impact: The cost of road signage for these roads will be $78.00 per sign. At the rate of one sign per road, this total cost will be $78.00. The Chatham County Commissioners have decided to absorb this cost for the making and installation of these private road signs. Recommendation: Motion to approve the private drives as listed.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014

12084 "

WALLACE MAXINE WHITEHEAD

12084 " "

BLACKWELL RUSSELL LEMONT & JONATHAN MARSHALL RACHEL LOUISE JOHNSON FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC

12084 12084 12164 " " " 12142 " BYNUM" PRISCILLA G & TONY 2036 12192

12092 "

US 64 W HARRINGTON LANE HARRINGTON

US 64 W Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0845

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Emergency Operations File Type: Agenda Item

Vote on a request from citizens to approve the naming of private road in Chatham County

Action Requested: Motion to approve the private drives as listed A. GRATEFUL WAY

Introduction & Background: The Chatham County Commissioners adopted an ordinance providing for the establishment for the naming of private roads in Chatham County. The Office of Emergency Operations have received petitions requesting the naming of one (1) private road located in Chatham County on private property. These petitions are in order, complete and bear the proper number of required signatures. Discussion and Analysis: As part of its plan to develop the Enhanced-911 Emergency Response System, there is a vital need to maintain the County's established system providing for the naming of private roads. This is important so that there can be no duplications or similarities of these assigned names within Chatham County which could result in confusion and/or delay in the response to these roads, should an emergency exist in that location. Budgetary Impact: The cost of road signage for these roads will be $78.00 per sign. At the rate of one sign per road, this total cost will be $78.00. The Chatham County Commissioners have decided to absorb this cost for the making and installation of these private road signs. Recommendation: Motion to approve the private drives as listed.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014

" " " " 149 " " 672 675

283 BUCK BRANCH RD

COTTEN CHARLIE HEIRS " SOLOMON GREGORY G & SONDRA H

714 " 354 " 106 " " 727 FEHER ADAM " 291 239 235 " 175 " PESSAGNO ASHLEY "

MCEACHERN EDNA ANDREWS HOWERTON KELLY W " DR HORIZON

" 766 1332 351 " " RATHBONE CURTIS S & 141 1360 " 197 " " SCHEVE DAVID 801 1314 " " 798 KIRBY THOMAS EARL "

A MOUNTAIN VIEW

1280 COFFEY GROUNDS OF C H INC " 2011 TRAVARS ANDREW 1226 " " LANDROVE NANETTE 842 845 " " GRATEFUL WAY

1150 " 1028 " 1088 " 75 CHATHAM LAND & TIMBER MGMT LLC & MARGARET BROWNING SHAW MILEE "

1044 " " CAMERON SHARON STROUD "HARRIS SHAWN RODERICK & KIMBERLY BROOKS 35 100 " MOORE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP HAMLETS CHAPEL RD 2022 ANDREWS WILLIE N

914 GOIND" RUFUS LEE HEIRS 886 0 1023 " " 961 j " " " " Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0846

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Planning File Type: Agenda Item

Agenda Number:

Vote on a request by NNP-Briar Chapel, LLC for subdivision preliminary plat review and approval of Briar Chapel Granite Mill Boulevard Revision, located off SR-1528, Andrews Store Road, and Granite Mill Boulevard, Baldwin Township, parcel #’s 87469 and 2714.

Action Requested: Vote on a request by NNP-Briar Chapel, LLC for subdivision preliminary plat review and approval of Briar Chapel Granite Mill Boulevard Revision, located off SR-1528, Andrews Store Road, and Granite Mill Boulevard, Baldwin Township, parcel 3’s 87469 and 2714.

Introduction & Background: Plat Slide 2011, Pages 47 and 48, titled “Right-of-Way Dedication for Granite Mill Boulevard and Boulder Point Drive and Easement Dedication” received final plat approval from the Board of County Commissioners on February 21, 2011. Discussion & Analysis: This request is for a preliminary plat revision for a realignment to the intersection of Granite Mill Blvd and Boulder Point Drive in Briar Chapel as currently shown on Plat Slide 2011, Pages 47 and 48. Along with this request, the applicant submitted a request to Chatham County for the closing and abandonment of this same section of right-of-way. A public hearing was held on the request at the June 16th Board of Commissioners meeting. Nick Robinson, Attorney for Briar Chapel, spoke and requested the ordinance closing and abandoning the right-of-way, which will be adopted at the August BOC meeting, not be officially signed until the applicant is ready to move the water line and abandon the right-of-way. The road has not been taken over for maintenance by NCDOT, therefore an abandonment of state maintenance is not required. Per the applicant, the realignment is necessary due to updated development plans within the Briar Chapel South area. The Margaret Pollard Middle School is adjacent to and accessed by Granite Mill Blvd. Per Randy Drumheller, Development Construction Manager, Chatham County Schools, the school administration is okay with the road realignment. A portion of the realignment area is owned by the County of Chatham. Both parties, Briar Chapel and County of Chatham have signed the preliminary plat

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 File Number: 14-0846 application. The realignment will provide 9 additional parking spaces on the school property. It is the intent of the applicant to have the work completed during the time that school is out for the summer break. The realignment will make Granite Mill Blvd a continuous roadway instead of an intersection with Boulder Point Drive eliminating previous concerns by the Fire Marshal regarding whether the turning radii for emergency vehicles was adequate and eliminating a 4 way intersection making a safer travelway. The road name Granite Mill Blvd will be extended to the intersection of Briar Chapel Parkway and will then transition to the road name Boulder Point Drive at the 3 way stop. Staff has received confirmation from NCDOT that the revised construction plans have been reviewed and approved; and confirmation from Rachael Thorn, Chatham County Erosion Control Officer, that the plans and permit are in order for erosion control for the road realignment. The water lines currently within the existing public road right-of-way will remain unchanged at this time. Per the applicant, the future Phase 11 preliminary plat request will include the relocation of the water lines to the new road right-of-way for Granite Mill Blvd. Per Leonard McBryde, Chatham County Utilities Director, this is acceptable and at the time the water line is relocated, a revised permit from the state and from Chatham County Utilities will be required. The Planning Board met on July 1, 2014 to review the request. Nick Robinson, Attorney, was present representing the developer. There were no questions or concerns from the Planning Board. The request seems reasonable.

Recommendation: The Planning Board by unanimous vote and planning staff recommend approving the request by NNP-Briar Chapel, LLC for subdivision preliminary plat review and approval of Briar Chapel Granite Mill Boulevard Revision, for realignment of the intersection of Granite Mill Blvd and Boulder Point Drive in Briar Chapel.

Chatham County, NC Page 2 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0847

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Planning File Type: Agenda Item

Vote on a request by Lee Bowman, Project Manager on behalf of NNP Briar Chapel, LLC for subdivision final plat review and approval of NNP Briar Chapel LLC, Phase 5, Revision Plat, located off SR-1528, Andrews Store Road, Baldwin Township, parcel # 89197.

Action Requested: Vote on a request by Lee Bowman, Project Manager on behalf of NNP Briar Chapel, LLC for subdivision final plat review and approval of NNP Briar Chapel LLC, Phase 5, Revision Plat, located off SR-1528, Andrews Store Road, Baldwin Township, parcel # 89197..

Introduction & Background: Briar Chapel, Phase 5 North, consisting of 174 lots, received final plat approval from the Board of County Commissioners on July 18, 2011.

Discussion & Analysis: This request is for approval of the dedication of 10 additional feet of public road right-of-way along Pokeberry Bend Drive and Owen Towne Road increasing the total width of right-of-way from 40 feet to 50 feet. The dedication of right-of-way includes the seven (7) parallel parking spaces that were constructed on the east side of Pokeberry Bend Drive. Staff received an e-mail from Justin Richardson, NCDOT, stating “NCDOT has reviewed the revised plats for Phase 5 N in Briar Chapel and concur with the changes.”

The Planning Board met on July 1, 2014 to review the request. Nick Robinson, Attorney, was present representing the developer. There were no questions or concerns from the Planning Board.

Recommendation: The Planning Board by unanimous vote and planning staff recommend granting the request for approval of the dedication of 10 additional feet of public road right-of-way along Pokeberry Bend Drive and Owen Towne Road increasing the total width of right-of-way from 40 feet to 50 feet as shown on plat titled “NNP Briar Chapel LLC, Phase 5, Revision Plat”.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 File Number: 14-0847

Chatham County, NC Page 2 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0848

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Planning File Type: Agenda Item

Vote on a request by Wade Barber for subdivision final plat review and approval of Henderson Place at Fearrington, consisting of 45 lots on 60.12 acres, located off S. R. 1835, South Langdon, Williams Township, parcel #’s 19333 and 88196.

Action Requested: Vote on a request by Wade Barber for subdivision final plat review and approval of Henderson Place at Fearrington, consisting of 45 lots on 60.12 acres, located off S. R. 1835, South Langdon, Williams Township, parcel #’s 19333 and 88196.

Introduction & Background:

Zoning: R-1 Water Source: Chatham County Watershed District: WSIV-Protected Area/Jordan Lake Watershed Sewer Source: Fearrington WWTP Within 100 year flood: No The project is reviewed under the pre-2008 Subdivision Regulations and Watershed Ordinance. Henderson Place received sketch design approval from the Board of County Commissioners on July 16, 2007 for 48 lots with the two following conditions: 1. The applicant shall prepare and environmental impact assessment and have it reviewed by the Environmental Review Board prior to preliminary plat submittal. 2. The applicant shall provide a 100 foot buffer along the common boundary with Bradford Place. Condition # 1 was met. Based on the EIA, several changes were made to the development plan as listed on the preliminary plat notes dated October 7, 2008. Condition # 2 was met. The 1994 Watershed Protection Ordinance required a 50 foot wide water hazard area along the stream feature. The developer voluntarily added an additional 50 foot buffer for a total of 100 feet along the common boundary with Bradford Place, Lots 1 -- 8. The additional 50 feet is part of the lot, and is not deducted from the useable lot area, but is to be a no build area to remain natural and wooded for a total width of 100 feet. Preliminary plat approval was granted on October 20, 2008 for 45 lots with the two

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 File Number: 14-0848 following conditions: 1. Prior to any land disturbing activity, the Chatham County Historical Association be allowed to visit the site to document any evidence of historical nature. 2. The developer shall consult with NCDOT to determine the width and length of “public drainage easements” requested by NCDOT and label the balance of the drainage easement “private”. Both conditions have been met. The Permit Extension Act of 2009 extended the final plat submittal sunset date to January 1, 2015. The property is not part of the Fearrington Planned Unit Development. An on-site stream determination was conducted on the property prior to preliminary plat approval. A portion of the stream feature along the common boundary with Bradford Place was determined to be a perennial / intermittent stream and transitioned to an ephemeral feature along Lots 9 - 11. Because the project received sketch design approval in 2007 the ephemeral feature was not required to be buffered. The developer volunteered to provide a 100 foot wide ‘stream protection building setback’ along Lots 9 - 11. During the on-site review an intermittent water feature was found along the southernmost boundary that was not shown on the USGS Topo map. A 50 foot wide ‘stream protection building setback’ was added along the intermittent portion of this feature. The 50 foot buffer per side of the feature is allowed to be included in the useable lot area, but is to be a no build area. The developer has provided a 50 foot wide perimeter setback that does not allow structures and is to remain naturally wooded and will be regulated by the private covenants.

Discussion & Analysis: The developer is requesting final plat approval for 45 lots to be served by county water and the Fearrington WWTP. The final plat request includes a request for a financial guarantee for the completion of required infrastructure. Per the engineer, Alan Keith, Diehl & Phillips, P. A, the development is currently 40.4% complete. The developer has stated that an updated cost estimate letter will be provided prior to final plat review by the Board of Commissioners and that he expects to have additional work completed and will provide certification from the engineer prior to final plat recordation that the roadway is accessible to emergency vehicles. The plat meets the requirement of the Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Board met on July 1, 2014 to review the request. Mr. Barber was present for questions along with Dan Sears, Sears Design Group. The only question presented to the developer was whether or not the Fearrington wastewater treatment plant had sufficient capacity to serve the 45 lots. Mr. Sears stated that the plant has capacity to serve the project and that Alan Keith, P.E., Diehl & Phillips, P.A. had certified this in the cost estimate letter dated June 5, 2014. The Planning Board had no other questions.

Chatham County, NC Page 2 Printed on 7/18/2014 File Number: 14-0848

Recommendation:

The Planning Board by unanimous vote and planning staff recommend granting final plat approval of “Henderson Place at Fearrington” as submitted and recommends granting the request for a financial guarantee with the following conditions: 1. The plat not be recorded until the county attorney has approved the form of the financial guarantee and contract. 2. The plat not be recorded until the engineer has certified that the roadway is accessible to emergency vehicles and confirmation has been received from the fire marshal.

Chatham County, NC Page 3 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0850

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Tax Office Assessor File Type: Agenda Item

Vote on a request to approve the Tax Releases and Refunds

Subject: Consideration of request for approval of tax releases and refunds

Action Requested: Motion to approve tax releases and refunds

Introduction & Background: The attached listed taxpayers have requested a release or refund on their tax bills.

Discussion & Analysis: In accordance with G.S. 150-381, taxpayers may demand a release or refund on their tax bills if there is an error. (See attached)

Recommendation: Motion to approve tax releases and refunds

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014

North Carolina Vehicle Tax System

NCVTS Pending Refund report

Report Date 7/8/2014 8:49:11 AM Name Address 1 Address Address 3 Refund Bill # Plate Number Status Transaction Refund Description Refund Create Tax Levy Type Change Interest Total Change 2 Type # Reason Date Jurisdiction Change ANGELA 721 GOLDEN SANFORD, NC Proration 0020579489 ACZ2716 AUTHORIZED 12506118 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/18/2014 00 Tax ($85.85) $0.00 ($85.85) BROWN HORSESHOE 27330 to proration on Bill 05 Tax ($15.24) $0.00 ($15.24) TOOMER LN #0020579489-2013- Refund $101.09 2013-0000-00 ASHLEY L 14 CHIMNEY DURHAM, NC Proration 0019433648 SWZ8344 AUTHORIZED 12102228 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/11/2014 00 Tax ($229.67) $0.00 ($229.67) CRAVER TOP CT 27705 to proration on Bill 07 Tax ($32.50) $0.00 ($32.50) #0019433648-2013- Refund $262.17 2013-0000-00 BETTY DUNN 1112 W 3RD SILER CITY, Proration 0008890822 CAM7569 AUTHORIZED 19309158 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/27/2014 00 Tax ($14.25) $0.00 ($14.25) MCKINNEY ST NC 27344 to proration on Bill 22 Tax ($10.31) $0.00 ($10.31) #0008890822-2013- 22 Vehicle Fee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2013-0000-00 Refund $24.56 BIG HOUSE PO BOX 196 GULF, NC Proration 0010499672 BJL5155 AUTHORIZED 19526883 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/30/201400 Tax ($128.11) ($6.39) ($134.50) TRADING CO 27256 to proration on Bill 04 Tax ($16.48) ($0.83) ($17.31) LLC #0010499672-2013- 02 Tax ($30.90) ($1.55) ($32.45) 2013-0000-00 Refund $184.26 BRADLEY 160 EXLINE PITTSBORO, Adjustment 0021367422 XW5878 AUTHORIZED 19219812 Refund Generated due Situs error 06/26/2014 00 Tax $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CLAYTON WILLIAM DR NC 27312 < $100 to adjustment on Bill 21 Tax ($20.17) $0.00 ($20.17) PEARCE #0021367422-2013- 09 Tax $3.43 $0.00 $3.43 2013-0000 Refund $16.74 BRENDA 323 HANKS PITTSBORO, Proration 0014496479 PVS3208 AUTHORIZED 12813714 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/26/2014 00 Tax ($56.20) ($2.80) ($59.00) SUTTON CHAPEL RD NC 27312 to proration on Bill 06 Tax ($10.46) ($0.53) ($10.99) WHITE #0014496479-2013- Refund $69.99 2013-0000-00 BRENT 125 PARTAIN NEW HILL, NC Proration 0014495528 BJK6559 AUTHORIZED 12506014 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/18/2014 00 Tax ($5.69) $0.00 ($5.69) LAURENCE RD 27562 to proration on Bill 05 Tax ($1.01) $0.00 ($1.01) ALCHIN #0014495528-2013- Refund $6.70 2013-0000-00 DANIEL 744 VALLEY PITTSBORO, Proration 0018810811 178MPH AUTHORIZED 12873318 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/27/2014 00 Tax ($183.46) $0.00 ($183.46) EDWARD LN NC 27312 to proration on Bill 07 Tax ($25.96) $0.00 ($25.96) GRZESIK #0018810811-2013- Refund $209.42 2013-0000-00 DORINDO 915 SILER CITY, Proration 0014486177 ACH3384 AUTHORIZED 19133283 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/25/201400 Tax ($17.78) $0.00 ($17.78) INTERIANO TANGLEWOO NC 27344 to proration on Bill 22 Tax ($12.87) $0.00 ($12.87) SANDOVAL D DR EXT #0014486177-2013- 22 Vehicle Fee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2013-0000-00 Refund $30.65 JACOB PO BOX 3140 CHAPEL HILL, Adjustment 0018817483 XTZ3317 AUTHORIZED 12872596 Refund Generated due Mileage 06/27/2014 00 Tax ($34.21) $0.00 ($34.21) WEST,III NC 27515 < $100 to adjustment on Bill 09 Tax ($3.76) $0.00 ($3.76) #0018817483-2013- Refund $37.97 2013-0000-00 JAMES 102 CHAPEL HILL, Proration 0001295344 YPY4486 AUTHORIZED 12813662 Refund Generated due Vehicle 06/26/2014 00 Tax ($43.93) $0.00 ($43.93) LAWRENCE WOODBEND NC 27516 to proration on Bill Totalled

Page 1 of 3 North Carolina Vehicle Tax System

NCVTS Pending Refund report

Report Date 7/8/2014 8:49:11 AM LAWRENCE WOODBEND NC 27516 to proration on Bill Totalled 07 Tax ($6.22) $0.00 ($6.22) KENNY CT #0001295344-2013- Refund $50.15 2013-0000-00

JANE KING 109 PRINCE GREENVILLE, Proration 0008924740 XZK2452 AUTHORIZED 18759066 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/18/201400 Tax ($2.82) $0.00 ($2.82) TELEKI RD NC 27858 to proration on Bill 22 Tax ($2.05) $0.00 ($2.05) #0008924740-2013- 22 Vehicle Fee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2013-0000-00 Refund $4.87 JOHNTHAN 813 W 6TH ST SILER CITY, Proration 0001267302 YSA8052 AUTHORIZED 18759027 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/18/201400 Tax ($16.08) $0.00 ($16.08) EDWARD NC 27344 to proration on Bill 22 Tax ($11.63) $0.00 ($11.63) JOHNSON #0001267302-2013- 22 Vehicle Fee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2013-0000-00 Refund $27.71 JOSEPH 61 HUNTERS CHAPEL HILL, Proration 0009943149 CY6432 AUTHORIZED 12505992 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/18/201400 Tax ($137.44) $0.00 ($137.44) BARRY LEE WAY NC 27517 to proration on Bill 07 Tax ($19.45) $0.00 ($19.45) #0009943149-2013- Refund $156.89 2013-0000-00 JOSEPH 436 DAVIS RD SILER CITY, Adjustment 0014501809 0354EU AUTHORIZED 11718900 Refund Generated due Mileage 06/04/2014 00 Tax ($31.48) $0.00 ($31.48) DUSTIN NC 27344 < $100 to adjustment on Bill 01 Tax ($4.05) $0.00 ($4.05) RHODES #0014501809-2013- Refund $35.53 2013-0000-00 KELLY 3836 ROSSER SANFORD, NC Proration 0014485093 ED1448 AUTHORIZED 12101978 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/11/201400 Tax ($72.30) ($3.62) ($75.92) PATTERSON RD 27330 to proration on Bill 11 Tax ($9.65) ($0.48) ($10.13) MARSH #0014485093-2013- Refund $86.05 2013-0000-00 LOIS DIANE 530 BEAR CHAPEL HILL, Adjustment 0021405072 AED1962 AUTHORIZED 19308906 Refund Generated due Situs error 06/27/201400 Tax $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 BALL TREE CRK NC 27517 < $100 to adjustment on Bill 21 Tax ($94.82) $0.00 ($94.82) #0021405072-2013- 07 Tax $20.69 $0.00 $20.69 2013-0000 Refund $74.13 LYNDA 1025 SILER CITY, Proration 0001307799 CK6091 AUTHORIZED 12505930 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/18/201400 Tax ($71.69) $0.00 ($71.69) GAINES PORE CLIFTWOOD NC 27344 to proration on Bill 01 Tax ($9.22) $0.00 ($9.22) DR #0001307799-2013- Refund $80.91 2013-0000-00 MARGERY 12455 US CHAPEL HILL, Adjustment 0021339122 TXM8628 AUTHORIZED 18833199 Refund Generated due Situs error 06/19/201400 Tax $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ANDERSON 15501 NORTH NC 27517 < $100 to adjustment on Bill 21 Tax ($65.09) $0.00 ($65.09) GATES #0021339122-2013- 07 Tax $14.20 $0.00 $14.20 2013-0000 Refund $50.89 MARK EARL 24 E CHAPEL HILL, Adjustment 0021396228 CE27200 AUTHORIZED 19308912 Refund Generated due Situs error 06/27/201400 Tax ($11.01) $0.00 ($11.01) PERRY NEWMAN RD NC 27517 < $100 to adjustment on Bill 21 Tax ($9.15) $0.00 ($9.15) #0021396228-2013- 07 Tax $0.44 $0.00 $0.44 2013-0000 Refund $19.72 MATTHEW 140 WANNIE CHAPEL HILL, Proration 0014490729 ADA8289 AUTHORIZED 12505848 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/18/2014 00 Tax ($42.97) $0.00 ($42.97) JOSEPH COLE WADE RD NC 27516 to proration on Bill

Page 1 of 3 North Carolina Vehicle Tax System

NCVTS Pending Refund report

Report Date 7/8/2014 8:49:11 AM JOSEPH COLE WADE RD NC 27516 to proration on Bill 07 Tax ($6.08) $0.00 ($6.08) #0014490729-2013- Refund $49.05 2013-0000-00 MICHELE ANN 2127 PITTSBORO, Adjustment 0021264139 CE27183 AUTHORIZED 12249974 Refund Generated due Assessed In 06/13/201400 Tax ($55.09) $0.00 ($55.09) HARRIS ANDREWS NC 27312 < $100 to adjustment on Bill Err 07 Tax ($7.80) $0.00 ($7.80) STORE RD #0021264139-2013- Refund $62.89 2013-0000-00 NANCY KAY 553 CHAPEL HILL, Proration 0008827596 SRD1972 AUTHORIZED 12506006 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/18/201400 Tax ($36.90) $0.00 ($36.90) LEDERER CAROLINA NC 27517 to proration on Bill 07 Tax ($5.22) $0.00 ($5.22) MDWS VILLA #0008827596-2013- Refund $42.12 2013-0000-00 NEAL EUGENE 790 PINEY SILER CITY, Adjustment 0014499031 XYW2649 AUTHORIZED 12174692 Refund Generated due Mileage 06/12/2014 00 Tax ($16.25) $0.00 ($16.25) JOHNSON GROVE NC 27344 < $100 to adjustment on Bill 01 Tax ($2.09) $0.00 ($2.09) CHURCH RD #0014499031-2013- Refund $18.34 2013-0000-00 PAMELA NIX 250 PITTSBORO, Adjustment 0014479166 VWF9184 AUTHORIZED 11953654 Refund Generated due Mileage 06/09/2014 00 Tax ($17.22) $0.00 ($17.22) CHAVEZ REVMONT DR NC 27312 < $100 to adjustment on Bill 06 Tax ($3.21) $0.00 ($3.21) #0014479166-2013- Refund $20.43 2013-0000-00 PAUL ARCHIE 694 PITTSBORO, Proration 0001275120 AKC5166 AUTHORIZED 12677518 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/24/201400 Tax ($39.79) $0.00 ($39.79) MCINTOSH FEARRINGTO NC 27312 to proration on Bill 07 Tax ($5.63) $0.00 ($5.63) N POST #0001275120-2013- Refund $45.42 2013-0000-00 PAULETTE 351 PITTSBORO, Proration 0014488717 ZRA6508 AUTHORIZED 11718634 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/04/201400 Tax ($76.59) $0.00 ($76.59) EVANS SMITH SILVERBERRY NC 27312 to proration on Bill 07 Tax ($10.84) $0.00 ($10.84) #0014488717-2013- Refund $87.43 2013-0000-00

PERFECTION 135 HAROLD SILER CITY, Adjustment 0014485363 SXR5636 AUTHORIZED 12022160 Refund Generated due Mileage 06/10/2014 00 Tax ($57.90) ($2.89) ($60.79) EQUIPMENT ANDREWS RD NC 27344 < $100 to adjustment on Bill 01 Tax ($7.45) ($0.38) ($7.83) COMPANY INC #0014485363-2013- Refund $68.62 2013-0000-00 PHILIP HENRY 1329 HAL SILER CITY, Proration 0019479259 CFK1867 AUTHORIZED 12755516 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/25/201400 Tax ($18.78) $0.00 ($18.78) JOHNSON CLARK RD NC 27344 to proration on Bill 01 Tax ($2.41) $0.00 ($2.41) #0019479259-2013- Refund $21.19 2013-0000-00

PHYLLIS 2 CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL, Adjustment 0020277520 YWR7552 AUTHORIZED 11561920 Refund Generated due Assessed In 06/02/201400 Tax ($7.05) $0.00 ($7.05) CHRISTINE MDWS APT NC 27517 < $100 to adjustment on Bill Err 07 Tax ($1.00) $0.00 ($1.00) MARINE 207 #0020277520-2013- Refund $8.05 2013-0000-01

RICHARD 612 OAK CHAPEL HILL, Proration 0001326583 WPP6692 AUTHORIZED 12506002 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/18/2014 00 Tax ($24.87) $0.00 ($24.87) DRAKE ISLAND DR NC 27516 to proration on Bill 07 Tax ($3.52) $0.00 ($3.52) HAYES,III #0001326583-2013-

Page 1 of 3 North Carolina Vehicle Tax System

NCVTS Pending Refund report

Report Date 7/8/2014 8:49:11 AM HAYES,III #0001326583-2013- Refund $28.39 2013-0000-00 ROBERT PO BOX 934 CARRBORO, Adjustment 0020769479 BF25894 AUTHORIZED 11562998 Refund Generated due Assessed In 06/03/201400 Tax ($39.80) $0.00 ($39.80) EDWARD NC 27510 < $100 to adjustment on Bill Err 07Tax ($5.63) $0.00 ($5.63) MURDAUGH #0020769479-2013- Refund $45.43 2013-0000-00 SARA 283 CHAPEL HILL, Proration 0001319880 MWL1833 AUTHORIZED 12872760 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/27/201400 Tax ($8.89) $0.00 ($8.89) WILLARD CAROLINA NC 27517 to proration on Bill 07Tax ($1.26) $0.00 ($1.26) JOHNSON MEADOW #0001319880-2013- Refund $10.15 VILLA 2013-0000-00 SUNDOG 24 E CHAPEL HILL, Adjustment 0021396251 CE54101 AUTHORIZED 19308909 Refund Generated due Situs error 06/27/201400 Tax ($19.15) $0.00 ($19.15) BUILDERS NEWMAN RD NC 27517 < $100 to adjustment on Bill 21Tax ($14.44) $0.00 ($14.44) #0021396251-2013- 07Tax $0.44 $0.00 $0.44 2013-0000 Refund $33.15 TERRY RAY PO BOX 113 BYNUM, NC Adjustment 0020140125 4N6415 AUTHORIZED 18662664 Refund Generated due Situs error 06/17/2014 00Tax $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 MANN 27228 < $100 to adjustment on Bill 21Tax ($9.76) $0.00 ($9.76) #0020140125-2013- 07Tax $2.13 $0.00 $2.13 2013-0000 Refund $7.63 THOMAS 35 FOX PITTSBORO, Proration 0014489181 AAZ4715 AUTHORIZED 12505908 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/18/201400 Tax ($109.70) $0.00 ($109.70) WAYNE GLOVE NC 27312 to proration on Bill 07Tax ($15.52) $0.00 ($15.52) SUGGS #0014489181-2013- Refund $125.22 2013-0000-00 TREMA 74 W PITTSBORO, Proration 0014481083 MPD5639 AUTHORIZED 12505944 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/18/201400 Tax ($16.69) $0.00 ($16.69) SPAULDING CORNWALLIS NC 27312 to proration on Bill 21Tax ($10.82) $0.00 ($10.82) CARROLL ST #0014481083-2013- Refund $27.51 2013-0000-00 VIVIAN 165 JOHNNY PITTSBORO, Proration 0014486052 SSA1414 AUTHORIZED 11953486 Refund Generated due Vehicle Sold 06/09/201400 Tax ($55.32) $0.00 ($55.32) FARRELL BURKE RD NC 27312 to proration on Bill 06Tax ($10.30) $0.00 ($10.30) ROVER #0014486052-2013- Refund $65.62 2013-0000-00 WILLIAM 300 DURANT CHAPEL HILL, Proration 0009529652 BKR5780 AUTHORIZED 13017420 Refund Generated due Reg . Out of 06/30/201400 Tax ($74.62) $0.00 ($74.62) FREEBODY ST APT 203 NC 27517 to proration on Bill state 07Tax ($10.56) $0.00 ($10.56) SAMPSON #0009529652-2013- Refund $85.18 2013-0000-00 Refund Total $2382.22

Page 1 of 3 Refunds NCVTS to other counties District Tag # Value Pd amount Pd date Surafeal Ghedamu Abraha 107 AEE4970 17,320 177.56 6/25/2014

Refund/ name change on check

Sundog Builders / change to Mark Perry 107 CE54101 Reason NCVTS pd to Chatham Co / refund to Wake co to bill

refund amount $33.15 / ok per Frances Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0852

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 2 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Tax Office Collector File Type: Agenda Item

Vote on a request to approve Tax Collectors Annual Settlement

Approval of Tax Collectors Annual Settlement

Introduction & Background: After July 1 and before the Tax Collector is charged with taxes for the current fiscal year, the tax collector shall make full settlement with the governing body for all taxes in her hand for collection for the preceding fiscal year. Reports of taxpayers who owe delinquent taxes is available upon request.

Discussion & Analysis: The report provided includes collection information of the various revenue groups. Revenue Group 100 - Real estate and personal property Revenue Group 150 - Public utilities Revenue Group 200 - Motor Vehicles The report includes the beginning balances of each revenue group, the taxes charged to the tax collector for the past fiscal year, the adjustments that includes the board approved abatements (releases) and the rebilled amounts. The amount collected for each revenue group is shown on the report as well as the ending balances of each revenue group. There is a section in the report that also specifies the collection of all other monies including interest, advertising, refunds and prepayments. The section also includes miscellaneous revenue for foreclosure costs, collections for copies and maps, returned checks and returned check fees. The percentage of collection is also shown separately for real estate, personal property and public utilities and motor vehicles. There is also a combined collection rate for all revenue groups.

Budgetary Impact: None

Recommendation: Approval of Tax Collectors Annual Settlement

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 Tax Collector's Annual Settlement July 1, 2013 Beginning Balances Collections Real & Personal Property 2,744,697.35 Current Tax Year Public Utilities 0.00 2013 Tax Year-RE & PP 65,638,199.99 Registered Vehicles 846,425.22 2014 Real & Personal Property 156,815.03 Total 3,591,122.57 Public Utilities 1,570,143.25 2013 Tax Year-RMV 2,218,421.85 Charges 2014 Registered Vehicles 6,504.39 Original Bills Total 69,590,084.51 Real & Personal Property 66,601,039.90 Prior Tax Years Public Utilities 1,570,143.25 Real & Personal Property 1,209,711.39 2013 Registered Vehicles 2,133,861.11 Public Utilities 2014 Registered Vehicles 7,305.51 Registered Vehicles 312,944.99 Total 70,312,349.77 Total 1,522,656.38 Total Collections 71,112,740.89 Discoveries 2013 Real & Personal Property 193,790.64 Miscellaneous 2014 Real & Personal Property 293,774.47 Interest 380,008.77 Prior Years RE & PP 374.48 3% Interest 10,147.59 Public Utilities Advertisement 12,903.30 2013 Registered Vehicles 69,073.85 Over/Short -447.76 2014 Registered Vehicles 593.69 Refunds 502,237.20 Prior Years RMV 69.50 Prepaid 14,244.46 Total 557,676.63 Garnishment Fees 40,299.59 Copies & Maps 942.50 Net Abatements Returned Checks 48,862.76 Current Tax Year Returned Check Fees 3,044.81 2013 Tax Year-RE & PP 324,110.78 Foreclosure Costs 56,074.20 2014 Real & Personal Property 17,084.22 Debt Setoff Reimbursements 0.00 Public Utilities Miscellaneous 844.37 2013 Tax Year-RMV 66,751.15 Occupancy Tax 14,893.29 2014 Registered Vehicles Gross Receipts on Vehicles 83,914.34 Total 407,946.15 Water Collections 272,815.60 Prior Tax Years Total Miscellaneous Collections 1,440,785.02 Real & Personal Property 38,027.78 Total Collections 72,553,525.91 Public Utilities June 30, 2014 Ending Registered Vehicles 33,396.27 Balances-Levy Total 71,424.05 Real & Personal Property 2,449,727.65 Total Net Abatements 479,370.20 Public Utilities 0.00 Adjusted A/R Levy Registered Vehicles 419,310.23 Real & Personal Property 69,454,454.06 Total 2,869,037.88 Public Utilities 1,570,143.25 Interest 554,618.38 Registered Vehicles 2,957,181.46 Miscellaneous Total 73,981,778.77 Total Receivable 3,423,656.26

Percentage of Collection Real & Personal Property 98.53% Public Utilities 100.00% RE, PP & PU 98.56% Registered Vehicles 95.36% All groups 98.45%

I, Frances L. Wilson, Tax Collector for Chatham County present this as my annual settlement for fiscal year ending June 30, 2014. July 9, 2014 Date Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0854

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Emergency Operations File Type: Agenda Item

Vote on a request to hold a public hearing to receive comments on the naming of one (1) state maintained road in Chatham County.

Action Requested: Motion to set a date on which to hold a public hearing on the naming of one state maintained road in Chatham County. A. Turn Key Way Introduction & Background: The Chatham County Commissioners adopted an ordinance providing the establishment for the naming of roads in Chatham County, a procedure for future naming or renaming of public and private roads located in Chatham County. The Office of Emergency Operations has received one (1) petition requesting the naming of a public road in Chatham County. Discussion and Analysis: As part of its plan to develop the Enhanced-911 Emergency Response System, there is a vital need to maintain the County’s established system providing for the naming or renaming of public roads. This is important so that there can be no duplications or similarities of these assigned names within Chatham County which could result in confusion and/or delay in the response to these roads, should an emergency exist in that location. Budgetary Impact: The cost of road signage for these roads will be $78.00 per sign. At the rate of one sign per road, this total cost will be $78.00. The Chatham County Commissioners have decided to absorb this cost for the making and installation of these private road signs. Recommendation: Motion to set a public hearing to name state road listed below: Turn Key Way

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014

HAMLET FRED T & MARGARET H BIN " 4960 25 " ELLIS MARY B

TURN KEY WAY KEY TURN 2030 " 145 MANESS THURMAN C US 64 W 147" 5135 " "

US 64 W

HANCOCK HELEN M ETAL 2028

RANSDELL WILLIAM G ETAL

KEYSER DAVID OLIN & TRACEY NELSON TURNER

ACCESSACCESS RD

5089 " Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0855

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Finance File Type: Resolution

Vote on a request to adopt a Resolution to Authorize the Sale of County Owned Properties Obtained Through Foreclosures

Action Requested: Request to adopt resolution Authorizing the Sale of County Owned Properties Obtained Through Foreclosures

Introduction & Background: The County has obtained sixteen (16) properties by way of tax foreclosures. Each property has been included once in a public auction for tax foreclosures properties, resulting in no bids. NC General Statute 160A-268 permits the County to sell real property by advertisment of sealed bids.

Discussion & Analysis: The County must publish the adopted resolution one time at least thirty days prior to the deadline for submital of bids. At that time, sealed bids by be received and recorded for all bids placed. All responsive bids must include a deposit of five percent (5%) to the County. The County has set the minimum bid at a price which is the total cost to the County of each property. In addition, the County may consider offers that do not meet the minimum should no other qualifying offer be made for a certain property. All bid results will be submitted to the Board of Commissioners at the September meeting. At that time, the Board may make awards to the winning bidders.

Budgetary Impact: None

Recommendation: To adopt the resolution Authorizing the Sale of County Owned Properties Obtained Through Foreclosures

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 CHATHAM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY MANAGER Charlie Horne Walter Petty, Chairman Brian Bock, Vice Chairman

Mike Cross Jim Elza Pam Stewart

P. O. Box 1809, Pittsboro, NC 27312-1809 ● Phone: (919) 542-8200

Established 1771

Resolution of the Chatham County Board of Commissioners

AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF COUNTY OWNED PROPERTIES OBTAINED THROUGH FORECLOSURES

WHEREAS, Chatham County owns sixteen (16) parcels of real estate purchased at tax foreclosure sales;

WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 160A-268 permits the county to sell real property by advertisement of sealed bid;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Chatham County Board of Commissioners:

Minimum Parcel # Acreage Location Town Bid

0017443 .443 acres US 64 E Pittsboro 1,168.26 0061967 .181 acres SEYMOUR AVE Moncure 989.34 0061968 .5 acres 45 SEYMOUR AVE Moncure 2,123.71 0002947 4.08 acres US 15 501 N Pittsboro 2,356.17 0070270 2.0 acres MAYS CHAPEL RD Bear Creek 1,425.31 0013743 .91 acres Harold Andrews Rd Siler City 1,526.18 0009518 .53 acres 348 VERNIE PHILLIPS RD Bear Creek 1,707.18 0009524 .57 acres 332 VERNIE PHILLIPS RD Bear Creek 2,519.88 0011586 .51 acres NORTH DR Moncure 2,518.50 0062007 .75 acres 774 GEES GROVE RD Siler City 4,746.52 0000189 .41 acres OLD US 421 N Staley 1,226.24 0019391 .17 acres OFF HINTON RD Chapel Hill 2,150.58 0009003 1.6 acres 2473 BEAR CREEK CHURCH RD Bear Creek 5,174.58 0060950 2.5 acres 2625 ST LUKE CHURCH RD Goldston 6,594.63 0072238 2.502 acres 1715 WRENN SMITH RD Siler City 7,055.28 0009426 .34 acres PINECREST DR Goldston 3,602.32

1. The county hereby authorizes the sale of the parcels identified in this table: 2. The county will accept sealed bids for the listed properties until 3:00 PM, Tuesday, August 26, 2014. Bids shall be delivered to the Chatham County Finance Office, in County Annex Building located at 12 East Street, Pittsboro, North Carolina, 27312 or mailed to PO Box 608, Pittsboro, North Carolina, 27312. 3. At 3:00 PM, Tuesday August 26, all bids received shall be opened in public and the amount of each bid recorded. The record of bids shall be reported to the Board of Commissioners at their regular meeting on Monday, September 15, 2014. 4. The Board of Commissioners will determine the highest responsible bidder for the property and consider accepting bids at that meeting. 5. To be responsible a bid must be accompanied by a bid deposit of five percent (5%) of the amount of the bid. A bid deposit may take the form of cash, a cashier’s check, a certified check, or a surety bond. The deposit of the bidder to whom the award is made will be held until sale of the property is closed; if that bidder refuses at any time to close the sale the deposit will be forfeited to the county. The deposits of other bidders will be returned at the time the Board of Commissioners awards the property to the highest responsible bidder. 6. The county has set a minimum bid for each parcel; however the county reserves the right to consider additional offers made should the minimum bid not be met. 7. The awarded bidder is responsible for all closing cost associated with the purchase of the property. 8. In addition, to be responsible, a bidder must be current on payment of all property taxes owed to the county. 9. The county reserves the right to withdraw any and all property from sale at any time and the right to reject any and all bids.

Adopted, this the ____day of ______, 2014.

Walter Petty, Chairman Chatham County Board of Commissioners

ATTEST:

Lindsay K. Ray, Clerk to the Board Chatham County Board of Commissioners Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0857

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Tax Office Collector File Type: Agenda Item

Vote on a request to approve Charging off 2003 Taxes

Approval of Charging off 2003 taxes

Introduction & Background: Since July 1, 1972, all taxing units in the State have been under the time limitations of G. S. 105-378, which sets up a continuing ten-year statute of limitations against the enforcement of any remedy for the collection of property taxes or the foreclosure of property tax liens. The ten years are measured from the September 1 due date. The 2003 tax bills were barred from collection procedures on September 1, 2013.

Discussion & Analysis: The 2003 taxes should have been charged off in September, 2013 when the 2013 taxes became due. This was an oversight and failed to be submitted for the board's approval.

Budgetary Impact: None

Recommendation: Approval of charging off 2003 taxes

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 1 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 ADAMS THOMAS EDWARD 6/27/2014 762500 105 5.93 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALONSO COTZOMI JOSE LUIS 6/27/2014 762411 101 67.54 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALSTON DEVOYER LYNN 6/27/2014 767024 107 24.30 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALSTON JAMES COLON 6/27/2014 681505 101 19.21 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALSTON LINNA DIANNE 6/27/2014 767956 103 16.98 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALSTON TIMOTHY LAMONT 6/27/2014 762499 107 4.24 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALVARADO JIMENEZ LUIS DANIEL 6/27/2014 762199 202 21.75 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ARITA EDGAR HUMBERTO LOPEZ 6/27/2014 739396 202 17.17 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ARRIAGA JORGE ENRRIQUE VASQUEZ 6/27/2014 768142 202 54.99 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ARRINGTON MICHAEL 6/27/2014 685303 106 3.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 AYALA OCTAVIO GALVAN 6/27/2014 767006 107 48.53 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BAIRD KAYE SMITH 6/27/2014 775198 107 8.05 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BALLARD ROXANNE MARIE 6/27/2014 737172 107 54.82 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BALLARD ROXANNE MARIE 6/27/2014 739028 107 64.64 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BARNES JUDY TILLEY 6/27/2014 765961 107 80.81 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BEST COONEY WENDY MICHELLE 6/27/2014 739331 107 9.54 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BICK CAROLINE B 6/27/2014 766485 107 4.26 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BLALOCK NICKOLAS WAYNE 6/27/2014 773135 109 17.17 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BOGUE RUSSELL FRANKLIN 6/27/2014 767819 113 3.58 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BRAST SAMUEL VALDEZ 6/27/2014 761149 101 30.02 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BREWER PATRICIA FERGUSON 6/27/2014 681507 101 23.17 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BROWER KENNETH RAY 6/27/2014 739027 106 21.14 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BROWN TAMMERA AVAISHA 6/27/2014 685780 107 30.38 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BURNETT CURTIS 6/27/2014 734832 107 40.19 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CANTU NORBERTO TORRES JR 6/27/2014 768156 101 43.23 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CAPPELLO JOANN MARGURITE 6/27/2014 739572 107 18.23 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CAPPELLO VINCENT 6/27/2014 761835 107 62.02 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CARAZA ANGEL GERERDO HERNANDEZ 6/27/2014 685826 101 2.26 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CARTER DANNY RAYNARD 6/27/2014 738850 109 11.52 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CARTER DUANE OSCAR JR 6/27/2014 685954 202 34.76 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CARVALHO VINICIUS PIRES 6/27/2014 739068 107 18.93 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CASTANEDA ALFREDO D 6/27/2014 767468 107 34.97 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CASTANEDA OMAR SANCHEZ 6/27/2014 767594 107 16.74 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CASTANEDA QUINTIL CABANAS 6/27/2014 766739 202 65.25 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CASTRO JOSE-FRANCISCO PENA 6/27/2014 685678 202 11.59 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CASTROSUAREZ NOEL FABER 6/27/2014 669891 202 286.82 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CAULFIELD F DONALD 6/27/2014 761915 107 22.18 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CHATHAM JASON BRIAN 6/27/2014 762524 107 27.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CHRIST MARK THOMAS 6/27/2014 761049 107 59.77 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CLARK LARRY EDWARD 6/27/2014 736110 103 2.11 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 COLORES REYNALDO DIMAS 6/27/2014 685386 101 13.50 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CONSTRUCTION SITE SERVICES INC 6/27/2014 762329 107 154.21 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CORDERO DELFINO MARTINEZ 6/27/2014 762637 202 34.86 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CORONADO JUAN JOSE MATA 6/27/2014 767915 107 19.78 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CRAWFORD JANICE LEIGH 6/27/2014 684275 113 10.46 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CRUZ ALEJO RAMIREZ 6/27/2014 761673 202 8.74 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CRUZ CARLOS SANTANA 6/27/2014 685310 202 28.16 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CRUZ MAURO JIMENEZ 6/27/2014 762774 202 23.27 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CRUZ-DURON HERBERT JOSE 6/27/2014 739639 202 166.79 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CUETO CLAUDIA IVED DE LUCIO 6/27/2014 684793 107 44.43 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CURRAN HERBERT LEE 6/27/2014 681966 101 23.03 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 2 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 CURT'S LAWN CARE 6/27/2014 768331 106 179.10 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DALTON SUSANNE CULLER 6/27/2014 762688 103 61.84 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DANDRIDGE PHILIP LEE III 6/27/2014 767727 107 3.53 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DE LA CRUZ PABLO LOPEZ 6/27/2014 738869 106 16.55 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DEGRAFFENREIDT TARA LAVETTE 6/27/2014 685681 202 15.55 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DEMORGOLI SANDRA JOAN 6/27/2014 768054 107 17.23 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DIAZ VICTOR JOSE SOTOMAYOR 6/27/2014 767463 101 25.86 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DOWNING LOREETA RENEE 6/27/2014 768055 101 19.70 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ELKORDY OSAMA FOUAD ALY MOHAME 6/27/2014 685269 202 87.92 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ELLIS GEORGE HORTON 6/27/2014 680869 101 39.77 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ESQUIVEL JORGE GUARDADO 6/27/2014 739355 202 11.59 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ESQUIVEL JORGE GUARDADO 6/27/2014 767627 202 26.73 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ESTRADA BALDEMAR HERRERA 6/27/2014 761958 101 18.37 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 EUBANKS ANTHONY SIDNEY 6/27/2014 738972 107 3.67 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 EVANS MICHAEL BRANDON 6/27/2014 685381 105 19.44 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FLORAL CREATIONS & INTERIORS I 6/27/2014 777840 201 42.52 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FLORES GABINO ARGUELLES 6/27/2014 762489 202 41.78 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FLORES GABINO ARGUELLES 6/27/2014 767650 202 14.53 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FLORES SERGIO MEZA 6/27/2014 765953 202 31.92 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FLORES SERGIO MEZA 6/27/2014 765954 202 93.10 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FOUSHEE BARBARA DICKERSON 6/27/2014 761292 104 5.33 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FOUSHEE RONNIE NEAL 6/27/2014 738625 113 6.66 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FRIDAY LEESA GEORGETTE 6/27/2014 739056 202 24.70 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FRY JOHN JEFFERY 6/27/2014 685511 201 8.51 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FRY JOHN JEFFERY 6/27/2014 762074 201 6.89 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FRY JOHN JEFFERY 6/27/2014 762075 201 12.06 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 G M ANDERSON BUILDERS INC 6/27/2014 765466 107 94.44 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GARCIA-OBRAJERO DAVID 6/27/2014 767570 107 23.24 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GAUTIER LLOYD RANDALL 6/27/2014 685420 106 5.73 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GIBSON ELLIOTT HENRY JR 6/27/2014 738835 107 2.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GILL SHAWNA LYNN 6/27/2014 739534 107 64.56 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GLIDDEN ELIZABETH SEILER 6/27/2014 685256 107 86.53 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GOLLINGER MARYANN ELIZABETH 6/27/2014 738777 107 42.46 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GOMEZ BLAS ONEL ORTEGA 6/27/2014 738991 107 9.89 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GONZALEZ MOISES DE SANTIAGO 6/27/2014 739366 105 13.17 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GONZALEZ VICTOR MANUEL FLORES 6/27/2014 762786 107 11.66 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GOODWIN JANICE NORDON 6/27/2014 761032 201 65.44 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GRAINGER WILLIE W 6/27/2014 676007 103 114.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GREEN ROSALIND MARIE 6/27/2014 681627 106 12.97 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GREEN WILLIAM KEITH 6/27/2014 685215 107 5.02 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GREGORY SYLVIA EVANS 6/27/2014 739185 109 11.44 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GRIFFIN MAMIE REESE 6/27/2014 766820 104 7.09 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GUZMAN CARLOS MEDINA 6/27/2014 685942 101 14.83 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HALEY CHARLES EDWARD 6/27/2014 768152 103 34.30 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HANCOCK CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL 6/27/2014 739520 101 14.05 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HARRINGTON CAROLYN GUNTER 6/27/2014 759180 105 17.24 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HARRIS LEASING INC 6/27/2014 669744 101 8.48 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HARVEY HARRISON JR 6/27/2014 762322 202 16.16 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HAUSER MELISSA DENISE 6/27/2014 767695 201 31.76 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HELBERT SHANNON TROY 6/27/2014 737194 106 88.04 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HERNANDEZ CRISTINA CASTILLO 6/27/2014 767478 202 45.13 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 3 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 HERNANDEZ MORINO CRUZ 6/27/2014 738446 202 32.42 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HERNANDEZ MORINO CRUZ 6/27/2014 767079 202 41.26 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HIPPLE RAYMOND LAWRENCE JR 6/27/2014 685819 107 17.31 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HOLCOMB CURTIS DON 6/27/2014 768074 106 5.44 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HOLLEMAN JONATHAN BRUCE JR 6/27/2014 762307 201 98.50 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HORTON LINWOOD DOUGLAS 6/27/2014 762651 107 3.61 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ISAAC JOSEPH BERNARD 6/27/2014 685379 109 22.33 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JERNSTROM GERALD PAUL 6/27/2014 685254 107 9.11 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JIMENEZ LUIS DANIEL ALVARADO 6/27/2014 761900 202 48.38 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JOHNSON MARY CHRISTINE 6/27/2014 737832 113 57.10 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JOHNSON WILLIE BLU 6/27/2014 760345 107 2.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JONES SONJA MARIE 6/27/2014 684927 106 15.76 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JUAN MAYOLA GUADALUPE TAVERA S 6/27/2014 738312 101 18.44 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JUAN MAYOLA GUADALUPE TAVERA S 6/27/2014 761423 101 12.79 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JUSTIS CATHERINE 6/27/2014 759184 202 172.48 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 KAPELA JENE PATRICE 6/27/2014 762190 113 146.65 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 KELLER JEAN ALISA 6/27/2014 765689 107 30.30 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 KISER WILLIAM FRANK JR 6/27/2014 739704 202 13.52 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 KLASS JASON EDWARD 6/27/2014 685913 101 15.47 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 KOEHLER YNONNE HELGA 6/27/2014 762161 107 16.03 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 KOVARIK JIRI 6/27/2014 767567 107 13.70 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LANDAZABAL LUZ MARINA 6/27/2014 685612 202 107.24 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LAWRENCE JAMES EDWARD JR 6/27/2014 683735 201 42.20 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LAZARO HECTOR MENDOZA 6/27/2014 685857 202 21.34 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LEAK DOROTHY REAVES 6/27/2014 737052 106 8.24 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LEFLER ROBERT DOYLE 6/27/2014 736585 113 44.28 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LEOPOLD DAVID FREDERICK 6/27/2014 768066 105 24.20 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LESHER MARY CATHERINE 6/27/2014 767795 107 138.81 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LEVITT EVERETT LEON 6/27/2014 682407 107 16.25 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LINDSEY TIMOTHY WAYNE 6/27/2014 767760 105 6.27 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LLOYD JOSEPH PAUL 6/27/2014 736816 201 14.10 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LOPEZ HERNAN HERNANDEZ 6/27/2014 739294 202 107.24 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LUGO LINO CHAVEZ 6/27/2014 768182 107 30.02 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LUNDY CARLENE SMITH 6/27/2014 684115 105 30.47 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MALDONADO NELSON 6/27/2014 685885 101 45.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARCOS DIEGO OCAMPO 6/27/2014 767465 202 219.95 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARCUM QUINCE JAY 6/27/2014 739008 107 16.39 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARSH CLYDE REE 6/27/2014 764848 106 7.02 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARSH RICKY EUGENE 6/27/2014 783102 103 74.24 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MASHBURN ERIC KEVIN 6/27/2014 759768 104 33.39 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MCDANIEL KAREN CHARLENE 6/27/2014 737417 103 17.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MCKINNEY ALEX COVETTE 6/27/2014 762160 105 12.06 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MCLAURIN JOHN FULLER 6/27/2014 780432 107 14.13 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MCMAHON RAY JR 6/27/2014 767991 101 27.69 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MEDINA NAZARIO RODRIQUUEZ 6/27/2014 767843 109 29.39 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MERCADO MARIBEL 6/27/2014 768017 202 63.62 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MILLS MEREDITH LEANNE 6/27/2014 685387 101 13.50 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MILLS RONALD WESTON 6/27/2014 779389 107 14.27 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MINTER REBECCA FAY 6/27/2014 737614 104 23.57 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MITCHELL PATRICK MICHEAL 6/27/2014 771923 106 91.27 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MOFFITT SHAMENA ARLENE 6/27/2014 761541 202 6.51 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 4 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 MOLINA MARTIN LEYVA 6/27/2014 739305 202 18.60 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MOLINA NICOLAS HINOJOSA 6/27/2014 685690 202 27.75 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MOLONEY ANITA SUE 6/27/2014 894352 107 31.62 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MOON RALPH CLEATIS 6/27/2014 736984 109 2.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MORALES RALPH CRUZ 6/27/2014 685675 202 8.64 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MORALES RALPH CRUZ 6/27/2014 762555 202 51.33 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MULHY HAMOOD A 6/27/2014 767256 104 44.54 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MUMM STEPHEN M 6/27/2014 772737 107 133.23 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 NATINBANC LEASING CORP 6/27/2014 676074 112 66.66 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 NESENKAR JOHN H 6/27/2014 758693 109 85.20 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 NEVILLE BOBBY POYTHRESS 6/27/2014 684667 107 9.54 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OBASANJO IYABO OLUSOLA 6/27/2014 738393 107 130.19 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OCHOA SAUL HERNANDEZ 6/27/2014 768200 109 29.45 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OLDHAM JAMES HARVEY 6/27/2014 765241 113 6.31 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OLDHAM JAMES HARVEY 6/27/2014 768068 113 29.80 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OLDHAM LECHARLES DIQUAN 6/27/2014 768112 107 39.13 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OLDHAM RUBY TRIPP 6/27/2014 681986 107 30.59 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OVERSTREET GINA RENEE 6/27/2014 739186 107 13.77 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OWENS TRACY WEAVER 6/27/2014 760252 106 9.45 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PACE BENJAMIN TODD 6/27/2014 685399 201 66.41 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PAGUADA MILTON EDGARDO POSAS 6/27/2014 738808 107 60.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PALOMO MICHAEL 6/27/2014 762044 101 14.56 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PARK LAWRENCE PHILIP 6/27/2014 765545 107 10.46 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PARRA ANTONIO DOMINGUEZ 6/27/2014 767484 202 109.67 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PAVON-CORTES JUAN CARLOS 6/27/2014 738987 202 17.79 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PAVON-CORTES JUAN CARLOS 6/27/2014 738988 202 24.19 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PENDERGRAPH EMMETT TILLEY 6/27/2014 764162 107 62.16 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PENNY KELVIN RONNELL 6/27/2014 762546 107 11.93 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PEREZ JESUS MENDEZ 6/27/2014 762604 101 51.71 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PEREZ JOAQUIN GARCIA 6/27/2014 767740 103 31.91 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PERRY JAMES DOYLE 6/27/2014 739504 104 2.05 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PERRY JAMES DOYLE 6/27/2014 762066 104 5.26 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PERRY JAMES DOYLE 6/27/2014 762113 106 15.69 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PHILLIPS COMMERLETHIER MONIQUE 6/27/2014 685491 107 67.25 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PHILLIPS ROBERT NEWLAND 6/27/2014 684983 111 14.45 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PINEDA ALEJANDRO LARA 6/27/2014 735423 202 33.04 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PINTEK JOHN 6/27/2014 762144 107 94.66 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PLYBON JOHN VINSON 6/27/2014 685528 109 141.42 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PORTER BARBARA ANN 6/27/2014 737899 107 64.21 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 QUACH BANG VAN 6/27/2014 738361 107 35.32 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RAHIMTOOLA SHARIF ALEXANDER 6/27/2014 738081 109 22.68 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RAMIREZ HELADIO REYES 6/27/2014 762522 202 11.79 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RAMIREZ PRISCILLA 6/27/2014 739354 202 82.13 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RAYO RAUL ISTA 6/27/2014 739517 202 26.12 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 REISNER RACHEL ELIZABETH 6/27/2014 739001 107 104.33 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RENKO HELOISA 6/27/2014 758410 107 2.83 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 REYES ERNESTO TORRES 6/27/2014 767154 101 105.75 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 REYES-LOPEZ JORGE 6/27/2014 739480 101 14.70 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 REYES-RAMOS IRIS NEREIDA 6/27/2014 738495 202 26.94 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 REYNERO REGINA 6/27/2014 767017 202 57.12 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 REYNERO REGINA 6/27/2014 767018 202 20.33 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 5 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 RIDDLE RICKY WAYNE 6/27/2014 762406 201 28.53 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RINCON ALVARO ABURTO 6/27/2014 762018 107 13.64 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RIVAS LUIS DONEL 6/27/2014 768309 101 44.36 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RIVERA FERNANDO 6/27/2014 760191 202 12.71 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RIVERA JORGE ALBERTO 6/27/2014 759403 107 40.26 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RIVERA JORGE ALBERTO 6/27/2014 765015 107 20.41 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RIVERA JULIO RICARDO 6/27/2014 739045 202 27.24 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROAD WARRIORS TRUCKING CO, INC 6/27/2014 675796 106 212.98 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROBINSON JAMIE SCOTT 6/27/2014 768058 202 20.22 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RODRIGUEZ ANA BERTHA ALTAMIRAN 6/27/2014 762700 101 21.41 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RODRIGUEZ EFRAIN NAPOLEON MARQ 6/27/2014 685934 109 55.02 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RODRIGUEZ HERRADA JUAN PABLO 6/27/2014 767928 106 33.03 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROJAS MANUEL CALLAO 6/27/2014 772696 107 18.15 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROYAL T ARABIANS 6/27/2014 762325 101 29.45 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RR&C TRUCKING INC 6/27/2014 762654 103 7.18 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RUBIO EFRAIN RUBIO 6/27/2014 685811 202 51.84 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SAGUSTAME MARIO LEONEL 6/27/2014 685255 202 20.13 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SAINT JULIA TUTORING ANDLITERA 6/27/2014 762318 202 67.28 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SAN JUAN EMILIANO SAN AGUSTIN 6/27/2014 685561 202 33.34 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SAN JUAN EMILIANO SAN AGUSTIN 6/27/2014 762078 202 13.62 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SAN JUAN EMILIANO SAN AGUSTIN 6/27/2014 762079 202 44.92 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SANCHEZ RENE GOMEZ 6/27/2014 739591 202 24.70 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SANDOVAL MARTA ILUSION 6/27/2014 739588 202 209.38 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SANTIAGO BALBINO PEREZ 6/27/2014 767914 110 57.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SANTIAGO JORGE FERNANDEZ 6/27/2014 685812 106 36.54 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SCOTT TERRY RAY 6/27/2014 685224 107 3.53 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SCOTTON SHAUN NICHOLAS 6/27/2014 685416 101 6.43 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SEVERIANO LIBRADO OCAMPO 6/27/2014 771561 202 35.07 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SHELTON KAREN LYNN 6/27/2014 739859 107 8.05 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SHEPHERD ELLIS DEXTER 6/27/2014 761930 107 38.57 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SHEPHERD JOHN LAFORREST JR 6/27/2014 738424 106 3.58 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SILER CITY MONUMENT COMPANY, I 6/27/2014 676171 202 5.08 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SKORSKI CAREY HEATH 6/27/2014 766914 107 47.19 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SMITH CAROL HEAPE 6/27/2014 770874 107 93.24 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SPINKS TRAVIS LASHAUN 6/27/2014 685775 107 2.19 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SPIVEY RAY DEAN 6/27/2014 739323 107 10.95 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STAFFORD PARK WAYNE 6/27/2014 737592 105 66.25 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STALLINGS CARLA CHRISTINE 6/27/2014 684662 107 5.79 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STEVENS MARCIA MAXINE 6/27/2014 737418 106 71.71 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STEVENSON CHARLES WILLIAM III 6/27/2014 685216 107 3.53 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STEVERS JOHN RONDELL 6/27/2014 767993 105 30.13 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STINE SHELIA MARIE 6/27/2014 788120 107 107.59 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STOCKING DAVID ALAN 6/27/2014 767203 107 64.56 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STONE JOSEPH CLEVELAND 6/27/2014 685353 106 3.58 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STONE JOSEPH CLEVELAND 6/27/2014 685691 106 8.31 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STRICKLAND MARY BURNETT 6/27/2014 776033 106 38.33 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SUAREZ NOEL FABER-CASTRO 6/27/2014 737046 202 4.07 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SWAIN TIMOTHY MARK 6/27/2014 675069 107 77.92 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TAC CON INC 6/27/2014 762401 104 23.08 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TATE PAIGE MICHELLE 6/27/2014 773105 107 16.95 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 THOMAS BARBARA ANDERSON 6/27/2014 762180 106 92.49 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 6 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 TOMLINSON NIYA DANIELLE 6/27/2014 685354 104 20.62 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TORRECILLAS FELIX VICTORIANO 6/27/2014 685530 101 85.34 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TRACY KELLY DEAN 6/27/2014 685221 202 5.08 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 UPCHURCH RACHEL BEATRICE 6/27/2014 685965 107 3.61 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VALLEY NATIONAL FINANCIAL 6/27/2014 684026 107 170.87 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VANCE JAMES WARD 6/27/2014 684644 106 30.67 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VAZQUEZ VICTORIO 6/27/2014 767666 107 4.38 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VELAZQUEZ JOSE CARLOS ORTIZ 6/27/2014 739290 202 53.37 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VILLAREAL ANTONIA 6/27/2014 685312 202 53.16 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VILLAREAL ANTONIA 6/27/2014 767601 202 92.90 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WALDO ORLANDA SANTANA 6/27/2014 685286 202 94.12 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WALKER JOHN EDWARDS 6/27/2014 765240 107 82.16 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WALSH CHAD ALLEN 6/27/2014 768292 103 90.37 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WATSON CLYDE THOMAS 6/27/2014 685220 109 3.53 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WATSON DIANE PEACOCK 6/27/2014 760998 103 133.34 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WATSON GISELLE LENORE 6/27/2014 685680 201 37.78 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WATSON RICHARD LESLIE 6/27/2014 760994 103 73.26 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WATSON RICHARD LESLIE 6/27/2014 761434 103 12.89 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WEST WILLIAM BARTLETT 6/27/2014 788136 107 25.86 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WILSON ERNEST EDWARD 6/27/2014 737799 107 30.51 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WOODWARD ALISA OLGA 6/27/2014 739141 105 91.13 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WOODWARD RANDY JAMES 6/27/2014 736702 105 6.21 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WOOLLEY MICHAEL EDWARD 6/27/2014 761454 107 30.38 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ZIKUSOKA LAWRENCE SHANE 6/27/2014 761957 101 13.99 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ZUCHIL JUAN GABRIEL ZUCHI 6/27/2014 762365 202 100.73 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ZUNIGA CLAUDIA VERONICA ZAPATA 6/27/2014 739487 202 18.40 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ACOSTA WILLIAM RIVERA 6/27/2014 784461 202 62.86 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ADAMS ADAM CASEY 6/27/2014 803911 105 37.13 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 AGUILAR ARACELI REYNA 6/27/2014 710575 101 137.82 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 AL-JASI JAMAN 6/27/2014 810532 202 13.31 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALARCON YONI ZERON 6/27/2014 809562 101 21.27 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALBRIGHT ELDER I W 6/27/2014 741197 105 7.11 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALDANA MARINO CARMONA 6/27/2014 773803 202 36.23 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALEXANDER BRANDON 6/27/2014 708813 107 20.82 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALLEN CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL 6/27/2014 797786 107 14.56 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALSTON AVEN 6/27/2014 778310 106 3.54 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALSTON DEVOYER LYNN 6/27/2014 793536 107 21.62 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALSTON DONALD RAY JR 6/27/2014 797547 107 15.97 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALSTON RUSSELL DEVORD 6/27/2014 789275 202 14.48 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALVARADO JIMENEZ LUIS DANIEL 6/27/2014 803649 202 8.45 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ALVARADO RAMIRO TROCHE 6/27/2014 784002 101 7.14 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 AMARO PEDRO BLAS 6/27/2014 773784 202 28.21 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 AMARO PEDRO BLAS 6/27/2014 784272 202 17.44 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 AMBRIZ JOSE LUIS 6/27/2014 802532 202 18.06 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ANTONIO MILDRED 6/27/2014 802754 107 105.33 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ARAGON JOSE BAUTISTA 6/27/2014 778303 106 30.49 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ARRIAGA JORGE ENRRIQUE VASQUEZ 6/27/2014 788826 202 31.80 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ARRIAGA JORGE ENRRIQUE VASQUEZ 6/27/2014 793246 202 50.50 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ARRIAGA JORGE ENRRIQUE VASQUEZ 6/27/2014 797471 202 43.63 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ASHBURN LOUIS DAVID 6/27/2014 784221 109 63.37 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ASSOCIATE HOUSING 6/27/2014 711263 107 138.85 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 7 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 BAHENA LETICIA 6/27/2014 797715 202 135.86 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BALDWIN JAMES LEE JR 6/27/2014 783254 104 27.46 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BALDWIN LINDA MARIE 6/27/2014 697891 107 116.56 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BALLARD ROXANNE 6/27/2014 695396 107 48.80 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BANKS TYRA MALIK 6/27/2014 784401 106 39.76 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BAPTISTA MARIO 6/27/2014 700693 201 146.47 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BARBER SEAN ALLEN 6/27/2014 797106 104 6.67 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BARNES CHRISTINA CORRINNE 6/27/2014 779548 107 48.11 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BASON CHARLES ANTONIO 6/27/2014 803869 202 16.48 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BASQUES-VASQUEZ ELADIO 6/27/2014 710519 101 152.44 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BASS LAURA KIM 6/27/2014 793360 107 40.40 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BASS LAURA KIM 6/27/2014 793361 107 7.77 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BAYE BENJAMIN JARED 6/27/2014 810194 103 26.07 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BEAU JAMES ALLEN 6/27/2014 779470 107 89.79 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BELMONTE THOMAS EDWARD 6/27/2014 773896 107 49.02 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BENITEZ JORGE GARDUNO 6/27/2014 788701 105 6.97 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BENITEZ REYES HERNANDEZ 6/27/2014 784194 202 101.62 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BENJAMIN ARETHA MOORE 6/27/2014 797749 107 8.62 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BERRIOS MARIA LAMUTT 6/27/2014 789315 202 19.43 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BERRIOS MARIA LAMUTT 6/27/2014 793659 202 69.30 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BIAS CHARLES EDWARD 6/27/2014 809476 107 8.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BISHOP ANGELA STAR 6/27/2014 787903 106 40.11 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BONILLA TINA 6/27/2014 732376 202 34.39 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BONILLA TINA 6/27/2014 732377 202 31.61 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BONILLA TINA 6/27/2014 732378 202 73.17 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BOONE MICHAEL ANDREW 6/27/2014 784327 201 16.25 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BOWDEN MARYLIN LEE 6/27/2014 784114 101 5.30 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BOWMAN BENJAMIN FRANKLIN 6/27/2014 743492 109 2.09 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BRAFFORD JOHNNIE JAMES 6/27/2014 769950 104 5.89 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BROOKS BELTON FRED JR 6/27/2014 695287 101 101.01 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BROOKS BELTON FRED JR 6/27/2014 695288 101 2.10 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BROOKS BELTON FRED JR 6/27/2014 695289 101 9.48 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BROOKS MARY LOU 6/27/2014 741810 109 7.66 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BROOKS PAMELA KATHRYN 6/27/2014 808571 101 20.27 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BROWN CLARENCE JINNES JR 6/27/2014 789049 201 8.51 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BROWN JESSE STEVEN 6/27/2014 792649 109 47.15 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BUCKNER BRYAN COLE 6/27/2014 803022 201 13.99 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BUENTELLO LEO JR 6/27/2014 773389 202 20.49 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 BURNETT CURTIS 6/27/2014 785193 107 27.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CABLE REBECCA ANNE 6/27/2014 792591 107 31.30 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CALDERON ALFREDO HERNANDEZ 6/27/2014 810229 202 51.45 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CALLE JUAN CARLOS TOBON 6/27/2014 779196 107 83.85 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CALVILLO JOSE DE JESUS AMADOR 6/27/2014 779340 201 17.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CAMACHO NEREIDA GARCIA 6/27/2014 808950 202 15.21 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CANAVA APOLINAE 6/27/2014 698818 202 72.09 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CANAVA APOLINAE 6/27/2014 1846675 202 45.73 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CANELA SABINO RANGEL 6/27/2014 797884 202 16.26 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CARDAMON CHRISTINE C 6/27/2014 797681 110 111.14 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CARLON JAMES FRANCIS 6/27/2014 694249 107 7.92 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CARMICHAEL E M 6/27/2014 747686 105 5.87 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CARROLL TAMMY LYNN 6/27/2014 797652 106 10.33 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 8 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 CARTER JEANETTE KAY 6/27/2014 789111 105 16.22 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CARUZ NICOLAS CASTILLO 6/27/2014 797802 101 4.73 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CASH CLARK 6/27/2014 748727 105 139.84 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CASTANEDA ALFREDO DE JESUS SAN 6/27/2014 789180 107 34.47 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CASTANEDA MIGUEL ANGEL LOPEZ 6/27/2014 797695 107 18.64 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CASTANEDA OMAR SANCHEZ 6/27/2014 778757 107 32.49 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CASTRO FEDERICO ARTURO 6/27/2014 810262 106 56.24 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CASTRO FEDERICO ARTURO 6/27/2014 810263 106 119.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CASTRO NOEL FABER 6/27/2014 810206 202 59.05 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CATES WALTER ALEXANDER 6/27/2014 773294 201 7.11 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CATON JESSE BRYAN JR 6/27/2014 778268 107 14.48 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CERVANTES ABRAHAN CRISTOBAL 6/27/2014 809127 202 18.17 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CERVANTES CANDELARIA CRISTOBAL 6/27/2014 797899 202 26.41 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CHAMBERS TIMOTHY EDWARD 6/27/2014 784276 202 8.87 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CHATHAM JASON BRIAN 6/27/2014 793223 106 8.98 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CHAVEZ PEDRO LOREDO 6/27/2014 793457 105 50.30 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CHEEK MICHAEL DEANGELO 6/27/2014 793183 201 15.61 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CHEEK WILLIAM GORRIS JR 6/27/2014 722943 202 6.75 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CHRESFIELD P CHARLES 6/27/2014 784182 105 5.05 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CID ALDANA DIONICIO SERGIO 6/27/2014 773520 202 23.55 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CLARK CHRISTOPHER JAMES 6/27/2014 784020 107 8.69 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CLARK JASON RAMSAY 6/27/2014 784190 107 90.99 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CLARK R S 6/27/2014 1846684 202 14.04 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 COCHRANE SHELLEY ANNE 6/27/2014 809123 103 60.65 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 COHEN JESSICA MARIE 6/27/2014 771588 106 20.94 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 COLORADO MANUEL BECERRA 6/27/2014 787394 202 16.06 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 COMBS LAURA LEA 6/27/2014 779017 109 20.75 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CONSECO FINANCE 6/27/2014 707700 107 106.37 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CONSECO FINANCE SERVICING CORP 6/27/2014 706818 107 87.96 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CONSECO FINANCE SERVICING CORP 6/27/2014 706819 107 125.49 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 COOK BETTY LOU 6/27/2014 807528 109 15.26 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 COOLEY LOIS WHITLEY 6/27/2014 693115 107 10.79 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CORDERO DELFINO MARTINEZ 6/27/2014 803464 107 17.59 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CORDOVA JABIER LEYVA 6/27/2014 787406 101 12.64 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CORDOVA JORGE CORDOVA 6/27/2014 803827 101 10.74 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CORREA CARLOS GUERRERO 6/27/2014 706165 107 36.29 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 COTTON JAMES 6/27/2014 700597 107 266.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 COVINGTON THERESA JEAN 6/27/2014 778286 106 26.59 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 COX KIMBERLY ANN 6/27/2014 783331 113 10.75 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CRAIG JAMES EARL 6/27/2014 722924 107 2.10 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CROSS GRACIE JUDD 6/27/2014 792659 105 6.69 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 CRUZ ALFONSO OROZCO 6/27/2014 789210 106 41.52 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DALTON SADIE HEADEN 6/27/2014 692044 202 7.11 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DARK ANNIE BELL 6/27/2014 745169 106 30.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DAVIS WILLIE L 6/27/2014 700677 107 69.31 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DE JESUS ANASTACIO JULIAN MART 6/27/2014 784172 202 13.31 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DEGRAFFENREIDT TARA LAVETTE 6/27/2014 773226 202 28.21 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DELEON MANBREDO TULIO 6/27/2014 796496 101 6.64 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DELGADILLO AGUSTIN 6/27/2014 793648 106 13.23 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DERAS NATIVIDAD ARNALDO 6/27/2014 810487 107 10.60 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DG'S ENTERPRISES LLC 6/27/2014 700012 107 160.31 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 9 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 DG'S ENTERPRISES LLC 6/27/2014 700013 107 30.47 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DG'S ENTERPRISES LLC 6/27/2014 700014 107 117.68 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DIAZ FRANK AUGUSTINE 6/27/2014 783262 107 61.18 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DIAZ-ALAVEZ ROSA MARIA 6/27/2014 784553 107 14.13 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DIXON STACEY NICHOLE 6/27/2014 802160 109 23.26 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DOMINGUEZ-GRAJALES YUNIOR A 6/27/2014 779380 202 27.15 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DONALDSON JOSEPH JOHN 6/27/2014 783264 107 7.77 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DOOLIN PAUL JOSEPH 6/27/2014 783342 107 46.27 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DOWDY PHYLLIS WOMBLE 6/27/2014 795167 202 5.82 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DRURY ASHLEY FIONA 6/27/2014 782937 107 24.30 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DUARTE ABELINO CAMACHO 6/27/2014 783006 202 10.15 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DUENAS FRANCISCO BAUTISTA 6/27/2014 778935 202 78.07 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DUENAS FRANCISCO BAUTISTA 6/27/2014 793268 202 26.94 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 DUNN WILLIAM HOWARD JR 6/27/2014 793499 109 5.85 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 EAGLE CORPS LLC 6/27/2014 797382 101 19.32 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 EARL MCCRARY ALYCE MARIE 6/27/2014 796830 201 66.41 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 EDWARDS ANTAWN LAMAR 6/27/2014 782851 107 4.73 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 EDWARDS CHADWICK LEE 6/27/2014 793643 202 86.10 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 EDWARDS RICO COREA 6/27/2014 803247 106 18.67 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 EMERY BLANE 6/27/2014 748712 105 7.82 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 EMMERT SCOTT 6/27/2014 704133 107 63.71 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ESCOBAR ALBERTO CARRETO 6/27/2014 711158 101 183.07 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ESCOBAR ALBERTO CARRETO 6/27/2014 788145 101 29.45 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ESPINOZA MARIO BAUTISTA 6/27/2014 803098 201 60.93 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ESQUIVEL DANIEL ESQUIVEL 6/27/2014 778866 201 5.38 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ESQUIVEL DANIEL ESQUIVEL 6/27/2014 778867 201 26.91 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ESQUIVEL SAMUEL ESQUIVEL 6/27/2014 789236 201 9.69 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ESTRADA CHENCHO 6/27/2014 708812 107 17.09 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 EUBANKS THEORDORE GERMONE 6/27/2014 784300 202 21.34 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 EVERETT JOSEPH MCNEILL 6/27/2014 786294 107 24.58 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FAIRBANK RODNEY GEORGE 6/27/2014 777419 106 90.34 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FARRAR WILSON 6/27/2014 733133 107 23.08 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FAUCETTE EUGENE E JR 6/27/2014 753143 105 2.35 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FAUCETTE EUGENE E JR 6/27/2014 753144 105 6.35 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FINES TIMOTHY NATHANIEL 6/27/2014 784124 107 10.10 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FISCHER JEREMY MICHAEL 6/27/2014 789291 109 15.53 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FLETCHER IAN JAMES 6/27/2014 809579 107 16.53 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FLORES MARTIN NAVA 6/27/2014 773699 202 79.76 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FLORES SABINO CERVANTES 6/27/2014 787713 101 4.59 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FLORES SABINO CERVANTES 6/27/2014 792240 101 40.54 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FLORES SABINO CERVANTES 6/27/2014 796677 101 6.50 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FLORES VICENTE RAMOS 6/27/2014 772191 202 12.68 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FOSTER JOSEPH WELDON JR 6/27/2014 802645 104 6.03 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FOUSHEE BARBARA DICKERSON 6/27/2014 782862 104 42.85 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FOUSHEE BARBARA DICKERSON 6/27/2014 787746 104 4.75 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FOUSHEE KIMBERLY DAWN 6/27/2014 793580 101 13.50 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FOX DEARLENE 6/27/2014 696322 103 12.04 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FOX GARRY 6/27/2014 744524 105 89.68 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FOX LEE 6/27/2014 745543 105 45.23 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FRDESKI MIKE 6/27/2014 711228 107 116.25 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FREEMAN LINDA 6/27/2014 732358 107 33.88 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 10 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 FUENTES JAVIER HERRERA 6/27/2014 791703 202 49.55 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FULTON CAROL BEATRICE 6/27/2014 784381 107 6.57 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FULTON CAROL BEATRICE 6/27/2014 793281 107 50.86 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 FULTON RILLA BEATRICE 6/27/2014 788934 107 10.81 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GALICIA ARTURO OMAR PEREZ 6/27/2014 792739 202 28.52 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GALVEN RAFAEL 6/27/2014 707668 107 57.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GARCIA ALBERTO LUNA 6/27/2014 784375 101 9.75 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GARCIA ANGEL JESUS GOMEZ 6/27/2014 810362 202 43.85 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GARCIA AURELIO SANTIAGO TADEO 6/27/2014 810552 202 33.91 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GARCIA JULIO GALLARDO 6/27/2014 809025 107 18.29 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GARCIA NEMESIO PIZARRO 6/27/2014 791374 202 28.10 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GARCIA OMAR MARROQUIN 6/27/2014 773824 106 25.54 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GARCIA ROMONA 6/27/2014 711242 107 7.92 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GATHERS TERRI 6/27/2014 711286 107 14.92 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GEISER DENNIS G 6/27/2014 787880 105 18.28 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GIL ENRIQUE 6/27/2014 704198 107 32.01 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GIL ENRIQUE 6/27/2014 704199 107 10.96 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GLIDDEN ELIZABETH S 6/27/2014 693369 107 14.14 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GLIDDEN ELIZABETH SEILER 6/27/2014 778432 107 117.34 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GLIDDEN GILBERT S 6/27/2014 698377 107 14.34 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GLIDDEN GILBERT S 6/27/2014 698378 107 2.96 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GLIDDEN GILBERT S 6/27/2014 698379 107 137.04 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GLIDDEN GILBERT S 6/27/2014 744855 106 10.68 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GLIDDEN GILBERT S 6/27/2014 744856 106 10.68 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GLOVER ARLETHA MIRANDA 6/27/2014 784458 202 14.15 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GODFREY LOUIS FELTON 6/27/2014 747772 104 458.09 115.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GODFREY WILLIE 6/27/2014 756733 106 318.10 115.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GOLD ERIC MARSHALL 6/27/2014 810457 107 2.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GOMEZ-REYES ELEUTERIO 6/27/2014 773869 101 64.56 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GONZALEZ ERIC MATTHEW 6/27/2014 796141 107 24.72 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GONZALEZ JAVIER RODRIQUEZ 6/27/2014 694142 202 13.64 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GONZALEZ PORFIRIO 6/27/2014 797905 101 7.77 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GONZALEZ REUDA IRMA ALICIA 6/27/2014 783380 202 10.35 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GONZALEZ-SANTES MIGUEL ANGEL 6/27/2014 797705 202 44.68 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GOODWIN JANICE NORDON 6/27/2014 772185 201 7.75 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GORDON JAMES CHADWICK 6/27/2014 776785 106 39.82 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GORDON JAMES CHADWICK 6/27/2014 786894 106 16.42 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GRAHAM ROBERT 6/27/2014 711287 107 12.74 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GRAY LESLIE BERNARD 6/27/2014 706166 107 40.95 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GRAY WILLIAM HENRY JR 6/27/2014 724131 101 10.79 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GREEN KELLY ELLEN 6/27/2014 743357 106 30.98 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GREEN WILLIAM KEITH 6/27/2014 779024 107 9.46 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GREGORY DONALD 6/27/2014 706257 107 27.28 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GREGORY ROSE LAVON 6/27/2014 779318 105 8.54 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GRIFFIN JOSEPH LON 6/27/2014 780899 202 1.06 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GUNTER RUTH JACKSON 6/27/2014 808537 106 27.59 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GUNTER SHIRLEY STEWART 6/27/2014 742884 105 122.23 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GURLEY EDWARD K 6/27/2014 698623 103 6.36 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GUTIERREZ JOSE JESUS 6/27/2014 774996 202 26.20 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GUTIERREZ JOSE JESUS 6/27/2014 780475 202 24.72 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 GUTIERREZ OSCAR TREJO 6/27/2014 808655 101 15.33 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 11 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 HACKNEY BRENDA VINCENT 6/27/2014 694328 107 152.60 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HACKNEY DEBBIE SMITH 6/27/2014 781067 105 87.43 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HACKNEY GEORGE WILLIAM JR 6/27/2014 772718 201 13.99 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HACKNEY TARA TENNILLE 6/27/2014 802620 107 18.37 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HACKNEY THOMAS 6/27/2014 746540 109 12.50 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HACKNEY THOMAS EDWARD 6/27/2014 698072 107 7.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HACKNEY THOMAS EDWARD 6/27/2014 698073 107 12.67 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HALL JOY DANIELLE 6/27/2014 810356 109 12.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HALL JOYE LYNN 6/27/2014 789247 113 48.58 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HAMRICK JOHNNA CHARLENE 6/27/2014 796404 202 13.52 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HARDIN RAYMOND PAUL JR 6/27/2014 694114 101 44.91 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HARKNESS ELIZABETH ANNE 6/27/2014 773222 107 87.03 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HARRIS CAROLYN GWEN 6/27/2014 779253 107 10.10 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HATFIELD JEARLD EDWARD 6/27/2014 787876 105 5.48 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HEARN DUANE ALLEN 6/27/2014 803865 105 18.92 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HEATH TRACY CAROL 6/27/2014 797904 106 12.24 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HELBERT SHANNON TROY 6/27/2014 771413 106 16.77 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HERNANDEZ CRISTINA CASTILLO 6/27/2014 778439 202 24.94 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HERNANDEZ FRANCISCO EMMO ARRIA 6/27/2014 793458 202 40.35 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HERNANDEZ FRANCISCO EMMO ARRIA 6/27/2014 793609 202 33.49 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HERNANDEZ JOHANS ELI OLIVA 6/27/2014 788982 202 58.10 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HERNANDEZ MARIO ALBARRAN 6/27/2014 793647 101 19.43 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HERNANDEZ ROBERTO ORTIZ 6/27/2014 773931 202 38.24 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HERNANDEZ SAUL NINO 6/27/2014 772626 101 59.34 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HERRERA SERGIO CORTES 6/27/2014 789416 109 9.33 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HEUSTESS SONYA MARIA 6/27/2014 810599 105 5.69 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HIDAKA KIYOSHI 6/27/2014 809981 107 29.10 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HILL ANGELA NICHOLE 6/27/2014 809462 109 4.87 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HILL RICHARD DESMOND 6/27/2014 779254 105 30.17 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HILL SUSAN MARIE 6/27/2014 773335 107 41.46 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HILL WAYLAND JR 6/27/2014 773725 101 24.72 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HINSHAW LEON HARRISON 6/27/2014 791902 110 62.32 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HIPPLE RAYMOND LAWRENCE JR 6/27/2014 797702 107 12.29 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HODGE KRISTI JO 6/27/2014 789418 101 37.87 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HOLDER MICHAEL CLARK 6/27/2014 778958 106 20.44 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HOLLAND J B 6/27/2014 700718 107 9.09 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HOLLAND J B 6/27/2014 700719 107 37.99 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HOOKER MICHAEL LANARIUS 6/27/2014 810222 107 4.81 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HORTON JUSTIN TILLMAN 6/27/2014 809669 107 6.71 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HORWITZ JONATHAN PETER 6/27/2014 793343 106 16.27 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 HUSSAMELDER AFAF 6/27/2014 733185 107 97.36 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 INVIROSCAPE, INC 6/27/2014 700306 107 2.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JACKSON BAYETE MELAI 6/27/2014 793592 107 89.71 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JENKINS GORDON STEPHEN 6/27/2014 800847 106 79.65 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JIMENEZ J-TRINIDAD ROMERO 6/27/2014 784284 202 12.04 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JIMENEZ JOSE DE JESUS ENRIQUE 6/27/2014 787884 202 68.25 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JOHNSON TOMMY D 6/27/2014 711412 201 5.38 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JOHNSON WILLIE BLU 6/27/2014 793673 106 3.54 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JONES MI SON 6/27/2014 792043 107 62.66 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JONES PHILLIP L 6/27/2014 797123 107 5.93 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 JUSTIS CATHERINE 6/27/2014 693996 202 116.26 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 12 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 JUSTIS CATHERINE 6/27/2014 1846669 202 73.74 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 KEACH KARA 6/27/2014 708246 201 45.11 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 KEWES PAULINA 6/27/2014 784028 112 10.31 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 KIDD JAMES MITCHELL 6/27/2014 773673 113 5.44 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 KIMREY RONALD RAYFORD 6/27/2014 714212 202 5.48 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 KIRBY DARRELL THOMAS 6/27/2014 793790 106 6.23 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 KNIGHT REGINA LINDSEY 6/27/2014 745140 105 12.84 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 KORTZ LEANDRA E 6/27/2014 793667 109 15.88 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 KOVACS ERVIN 6/27/2014 784242 107 6.43 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LAKE JORDAN COUNTER & CABINET 6/27/2014 754404 112 16.61 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LAKE JORDAN COUNTER & CABINET 6/27/2014 754405 112 .27 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LAKE JORDAN COUNTER & CABINET 6/27/2014 754406 112 .71 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LAND EDWARD 6/27/2014 733210 107 97.36 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LANE MINNIE HEIRS 6/27/2014 746225 124 1.59 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LARA BERNALDINO 6/27/2014 803811 105 24.97 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LARA JAVIER CARVAJAL 6/27/2014 711155 101 183.07 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LARA JESUS ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ 6/27/2014 803667 101 10.10 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LASSITER JEAN 6/27/2014 746533 105 21.21 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LASSITER LEWIS I 6/27/2014 714437 107 3.53 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LASSITER RAYMOND S 6/27/2014 750011 105 11.38 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LAZENSKI DAVID PAUL JR 6/27/2014 797748 107 72.33 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LEACH LATARA M 6/27/2014 756880 105 24.10 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LEACH WILLIAM TRAVIS 6/27/2014 793590 105 34.50 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LEMONS KIMBERLY ANN 6/27/2014 796730 101 21.76 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LLOYD SHARON MARIE 6/27/2014 797082 107 16.88 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LOFLAND RAJA RONALD 6/27/2014 779016 107 10.60 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LOFLAND RAJA RONALD 6/27/2014 779183 107 87.24 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LONG JAMES T 6/27/2014 756668 106 3.97 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LOPEZ ARELI RODRIGUEZ 6/27/2014 787534 202 17.44 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LOPEZ CATALINA DELCID 6/27/2014 779062 110 46.80 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LOPEZ RODRIGO TRINIDAD 6/27/2014 792718 110 5.97 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LOPEZ RODRIGO TRINIDAD 6/27/2014 803052 101 11.58 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LOPEZ RODRIGO TRINIDAD 6/27/2014 809570 202 14.79 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LOPEZ-CORONA DANIEL 6/27/2014 810157 202 16.59 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LOREDO ARMANDO 6/27/2014 746511 105 105.80 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LOZANO JORGE JOAQUIN 6/27/2014 1846670 202 6.72 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LUCAS EFRAIN PERALTA 6/27/2014 803981 107 4.73 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LUCAS MICHAEL WALTER 6/27/2014 780232 107 12.58 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LUETJEN ARLEEN C 6/27/2014 792009 109 37.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LUNA JUAN MANUEL LOPEZ 6/27/2014 707688 107 36.29 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LUNA JUAN MANUEL LOPEZ 6/27/2014 802638 107 7.77 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LUNA MARCELINO ORTIZ 6/27/2014 699983 101 137.82 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LYNN ANTONIO DEMETRIUS 6/27/2014 810008 106 37.78 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 LYNN CARLOS RAESHUN 6/27/2014 779499 107 24.16 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MABE JAMES R SR 6/27/2014 1846680 202 8.49 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MADRID MAURO 6/27/2014 777944 107 8.40 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MALDONADO ISOBEL 6/27/2014 699894 202 80.49 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MANGUM ILLA KLEVANSKY 6/27/2014 773305 106 20.30 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARCELLES SILLIANO 6/27/2014 708814 107 34.97 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARCELLES SILLIANO 6/27/2014 708815 107 11.89 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MAREZ OSCAR 6/27/2014 703848 101 151.60 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 13 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 MARTIN BRENDA H 6/27/2014 700172 101 31.55 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARTINEZ ALBERTO 6/27/2014 802615 101 40.05 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARTINEZ ALEJANDRO PARRA 6/27/2014 793034 101 31.65 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARTINEZ INOCENCIA MONTER 6/27/2014 711198 202 38.61 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARTINEZ INOCENCIA MONTER 6/27/2014 1846682 202 24.49 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARTINEZ JESUS BALTAZAR MONTIE 6/27/2014 793564 202 14.58 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARTINEZ JOSE L 6/27/2014 700639 202 43.73 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARTINEZ JOSE L 6/27/2014 1846677 202 20.39 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARTINEZ JUAN 6/27/2014 704197 107 40.83 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARTINEZ MANUEL VELAZQUEZ 6/27/2014 789204 110 10.30 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARTINEZ MANUEL VELAZQUEZ 6/27/2014 789205 109 21.87 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARTINEZ MANUEL VELAZQUEZ 6/27/2014 810093 110 45.68 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARTINEZ MIGUEL HERNANDEZ 6/27/2014 784096 202 13.10 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARTINEZ MIGUEL SANCHEZ 6/27/2014 797944 202 35.60 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MARTINEZ SERGIO VELAZQUEZ 6/27/2014 779446 202 41.20 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MATA JUAN 6/27/2014 707699 107 28.28 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MATTHEWS CASEY JIM 6/27/2014 802867 107 7.42 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MATTHEWS CLAUDE MORRIS 6/27/2014 791307 101 9.04 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MCCAIN JANET HOGAN 6/27/2014 773921 104 57.81 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MCDANIEL ADELAIDE HEIRS 6/27/2014 715428 202 23.27 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MCDONALD ANGELA RENE 6/27/2014 783537 201 52.42 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MCDONALD MARY KATHLEEN 6/27/2014 797618 109 3.48 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MCIVER JANICE ROSEVELT 6/27/2014 788923 104 72.86 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MCKENDALL RANDY LAVERNE 6/27/2014 778888 106 57.16 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MCKINNEY TERRY LYNN 6/27/2014 773205 104 12.13 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MCLAMB RAE 6/27/2014 745146 106 152.82 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MCNEILL ELIZABETH ANNETTE 6/27/2014 810320 101 6.08 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MCSWAIN GREGORY CRAIG 6/27/2014 788142 101 6.99 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MEADOWS SHELVIA FOX 6/27/2014 770381 105 3.56 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MENDOZA-MEDINA ROGELIO 6/27/2014 778926 101 11.23 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MERCADO RENE A 6/27/2014 711343 107 34.97 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MERMAID AQUATICS INC 6/27/2014 728927 202 6.07 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MESA ESTEBAN 6/27/2014 707715 107 13.29 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MEZA SERGIO 6/27/2014 1846678 202 119.23 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MICHALKIEWICZ RYAN CRAIG 6/27/2014 707157 107 28.61 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MILLER WILLIAM E 6/27/2014 694654 107 7.77 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MINOR KANNIS EUGENE 6/27/2014 698895 107 75.37 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MITCHELL THOMAS HAROLD 6/27/2014 797932 104 6.88 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MITCHELL TONYA KAY 6/27/2014 797801 105 7.62 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MODERT EVELYN REASONER 6/27/2014 792942 107 47.90 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MOFFITT DAVID BYRON 6/27/2014 776817 202 175.47 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MOLLEY STEVE 6/27/2014 699469 107 39.48 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MONDRAGON LUIS ALFREDO 6/27/2014 772353 101 23.24 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MONTES ISSAC GORDILLO 6/27/2014 779424 202 142.51 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MOORE CAROL LOUISE 6/27/2014 779227 101 12.01 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MORA GILBERTO 6/27/2014 793028 101 7.14 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MORA GILBERTO 6/27/2014 803084 101 9.81 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MORALES HUGO ENRIQUE SOTELO 6/27/2014 793578 101 15.40 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MORALES MUNIZ CARLOS ABELINO 6/27/2014 793579 107 7.91 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MORALES RALPH CRUZ 6/27/2014 773265 202 50.71 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MORAN GUTIERREZ SAUL 6/27/2014 803696 202 11.41 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 14 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 MORENO ADAN RODRIGUEZ 6/27/2014 772794 202 12.68 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MORENO-NEAVE IDRE EYDIE TANIA 6/27/2014 779423 107 56.94 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MORGAN PETER BROWN 6/27/2014 792693 109 10.31 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MORLEY PETER BOLLING 6/27/2014 796792 107 10.60 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MOROLES ISMAEL REYES 6/27/2014 707612 101 167.68 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MOSSO CONDE OMAR 6/27/2014 711145 101 183.07 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MPS INC DBA COLORS ON PA 6/27/2014 784184 107 51.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MYERS KATHY ELIZABETH 6/27/2014 782426 107 92.54 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MYERS SAMUEL J 6/27/2014 746674 105 3.14 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 MYERS SAMUEL JOSEPH 6/27/2014 699782 107 3.18 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 NAJA MIGUEL ANGEL SANCHEZ 6/27/2014 784200 202 31.17 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 NASH BLAKE DOUGLAS 6/27/2014 778516 107 6.57 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 NEGRETE HUGO JIMENEZ 6/27/2014 797623 202 18.17 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 NETTLES VIRGINIA 6/27/2014 744970 109 53.62 115.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 NETTLES VIRGINIA 6/27/2014 744971 109 6.96 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 NICHOLSON LARRY WILLIAM 6/27/2014 810264 107 2.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 NINO GILBERTO PIZANO 6/27/2014 797077 101 27.34 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OAKWOOD ACCEPTANCE CO 6/27/2014 703203 107 138.73 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OAKWOOD ACCEPTANCE CO 6/27/2014 703204 107 125.39 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OCHOA SAUL HERNANDEZ 6/27/2014 793248 109 47.49 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OLIVER ALBERT LEE 6/27/2014 772681 109 95.69 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OLSEN SHAWN MICHAEL 6/27/2014 788947 105 7.19 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ORELLANA LUIS RENE ESCOBAR 6/27/2014 782808 202 3.17 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ORENGO JOSE ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ 6/27/2014 803734 113 38.55 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ORNELAS FELIPE CHAVEZ 6/27/2014 784225 106 8.49 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ORTIZ ZITLALY RAMIREZ 6/27/2014 773861 202 57.05 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ORTIZ-PACHECO GERARDO LEONARDO 6/27/2014 810583 202 22.18 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OVAITT JOAN GENUNG 6/27/2014 783332 107 25.43 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 OVERBY ANGELA 6/27/2014 697665 107 68.15 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PABLO-RESENDIS MIGUEL EPITACIO 6/27/2014 779102 110 85.61 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PACE BENJAMIN TODD 6/27/2014 779565 201 41.76 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PAGE CARA M 6/27/2014 716640 101 17.63 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PALMERIN EDGAR JIMENEZ 6/27/2014 803984 202 18.14 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PALOMARES ELADIO SIFUENTES 6/27/2014 783747 202 13.84 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PAREDEZ GLADYS EULALIA MENDEZ 6/27/2014 810251 202 131.74 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PAREKH VIRALKUMAR KISHORCHANDR 6/27/2014 788254 202 52.18 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PARKER DAVID NEAL 6/27/2014 797776 107 5.44 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PARKER THOMAS GRASIN JR 6/27/2014 809335 107 83.63 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PATINO-CUELLAR MARIA MARGARITA 6/27/2014 809064 107 95.79 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PATTERSON JOSHUA BRIAN 6/27/2014 779113 109 34.76 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PAY-TEL COMMUNICATIONS INC 6/27/2014 773574 101 44.19 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PEARY CHRISTOPHER BRYAN 6/27/2014 772795 107 83.57 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PELLOT MICHAEL E 6/27/2014 784203 107 75.86 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PENDERGRAPH EMMETT TILLEY 6/27/2014 775101 107 22.33 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PEOPLES BYRON KEITH 6/27/2014 723025 101 3.19 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PERALTA VIDAL 6/27/2014 707687 107 151.60 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PERALTA VIDAL FERNANDO 6/27/2014 699987 107 28.28 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PEREZ JOAQUIN 6/27/2014 745556 109 123.72 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PEREZ JOAQUIN GARCIA 6/27/2014 773275 103 21.70 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PEREZ JOAQUIN GARCIA 6/27/2014 797463 103 26.07 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PEREZ JOSE RICARDO 6/27/2014 778259 106 56.59 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 15 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 PEREZ-ESCOBAR REYNESTOR ROCAEL 6/27/2014 779041 101 50.29 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PEREZ-MORALES TITO 6/27/2014 779521 200 127.99 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PERSON CORISSA RENEE 6/27/2014 810635 202 14.15 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PERTA NICOLA 6/27/2014 711424 101 19.21 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PETTY JAMES MARTIN 6/27/2014 782523 103 25.78 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PIZZA HUT OF SILER CITY 6/27/2014 717442 202 143.80 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PIZZA HUT OF SILER CITY 6/27/2014 717443 202 63.17 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PIZZA HUT OF SILER CITY 6/27/2014 717444 202 2.73 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PIZZA OF SILER CITY 6/27/2014 798064 202 15.85 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 POE KENNETH WAYNE JR 6/27/2014 743428 109 4.14 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 POOLE RICKY LANE SR 6/27/2014 773780 202 23.24 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 POOLE RICKY LANE SR 6/27/2014 783968 202 8.03 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 POPP ROBERT BRIAN 6/27/2014 693373 107 49.35 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PORTERA FRANK JR 6/27/2014 796775 107 9.18 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PRADO JUAN GOMEZ 6/27/2014 707702 107 106.37 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PRICE PEGGIE FARRAR 6/27/2014 775404 101 5.08 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 PUCEK IAN PAUL 6/27/2014 699439 107 51.44 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RAINES RUFFUS ALLEN 6/27/2014 770799 104 57.96 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RAINES RUFFUS ALLEN 6/27/2014 807865 104 13.83 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RAMIREZ MARIA SALOME 6/27/2014 773522 202 26.20 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 REAVES KENNETH MARVELL JR 6/27/2014 789400 106 6.65 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 REESE MICHAEL SCOTT 6/27/2014 788969 107 18.44 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 REYES ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ 6/27/2014 773165 202 23.14 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 REYES ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ 6/27/2014 788734 202 31.48 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 REYNERO REGINA 6/27/2014 802739 202 16.80 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RICHARD STEVEN RAE 6/27/2014 803956 106 33.39 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RIGGSBEE THOMAS 6/27/2014 697696 107 34.28 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RILEY TERRY MICHAEL CAMERON 6/27/2014 792073 107 60.40 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RIVERA FERNANDO 6/27/2014 696008 202 96.13 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RIVERA FERNANDO 6/27/2014 776715 202 24.72 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RIVERA JOSE VEGA 6/27/2014 778873 202 16.26 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROAD WARRIORS TRUCKING, INC 6/27/2014 753871 109 3.93 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROAD WARRIORS TRUCKING, INC 6/27/2014 753872 109 .42 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROBERTSON SANDRA MARIE 6/27/2014 810156 109 8.64 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROBINSON JAMIE SCOTT 6/27/2014 779206 101 12.93 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROBLES INOCENCIO ALEJANDR 6/27/2014 694771 202 73.67 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROBLES INOCENCIO ALEJANDR 6/27/2014 1846671 202 46.73 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROBLES REYNALDO SALGADO 6/27/2014 709677 101 137.82 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROBLES REYNALDO SALGADO 6/27/2014 788179 101 61.03 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RODRIGUEZ AMARYLLIS AMADEO ANT 6/27/2014 784267 201 27.99 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RODRIGUEZ ANDREA DEL-ANGEL 6/27/2014 810569 101 9.46 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RODRIGUEZ EDMUNDO 6/27/2014 1846666 202 8.39 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RODRIGUEZ EFRAIN NAPOLEON MARQ 6/27/2014 803408 101 34.40 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RODRIGUEZ JUANA ANTONIA VILLAL 6/27/2014 695991 202 7.11 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RODRIGUEZ MARIA DEL CARMEN 6/27/2014 773863 202 75.00 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RODRIGUEZ MARIA DEL CARMEN 6/27/2014 773864 202 92.22 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RODRIGUEZ MARTIN 6/27/2014 693595 107 16.24 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RODRIGUEZ OCTAVIO RODRIGUEZ 6/27/2014 777892 109 14.62 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROMERO LEONOR 6/27/2014 711205 202 32.21 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROMERO LEONOR 6/27/2014 1846683 202 20.43 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROMERO MIGUEL ANGEL ARANU 6/27/2014 711180 101 183.07 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 16 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 ROSALES ROMAN JR 6/27/2014 1846673 202 18.67 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROSE LAWRENCE ELDO JR 6/27/2014 788918 202 7.08 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROUNTREE REGINA JOYCE 6/27/2014 784123 107 6.43 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ROYSTER ANTHONY VIRGIL 6/27/2014 773919 107 3.61 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RUBIO-BOLANOS NATALIA ANGELICA 6/27/2014 777878 202 34.65 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RUIZ ALEJANDRO MENENDEZ 6/27/2014 702836 101 151.60 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RUIZ PATRICIA MENENDEZ 6/27/2014 795760 202 8.98 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 RYDER TRS INC 6/27/2014 703614 107 10.60 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SABER MOHAMED ABDEL'NABI 6/27/2014 793675 106 7.15 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SALAZAR-VELAZQUEZ LUIS DAVID 6/27/2014 797639 105 9.53 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SANCHEZ HUGO 6/27/2014 708819 107 8.64 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SANCHEZ RENE GOMEZ 6/27/2014 793214 202 11.62 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SANTIAGO BALBINO PEREZ 6/27/2014 773772 202 32.75 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SANTIAGO BALVINO PEREZ 6/27/2014 773906 202 126.03 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SANTOS JOSE 6/27/2014 708309 101 116.25 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SCURLOCK PEGGY BYNUM 6/27/2014 753426 106 11.98 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SHAW RUTH P 6/27/2014 718686 107 2.56 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SHAW RUTH P 6/27/2014 718687 107 .39 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SHAW RUTH P 6/27/2014 718688 107 3.03 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SHAW RUTH P 6/27/2014 718689 107 1.40 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SILER CARL LENWOOD 6/27/2014 782128 202 71.31 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SILER COLIE 6/27/2014 718804 101 7.77 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SILER SAM T 6/27/2014 718843 202 29.09 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SILER SAM T 6/27/2014 1846663 202 18.45 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SILVERNAIL MARJORIE MASON 6/27/2014 802700 105 128.91 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SINGLETON TABATHA BROWN 6/27/2014 803015 103 10.07 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SIPE APRIL LYNN 6/27/2014 745576 106 44.98 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SLOANE PETER JOSEPH 6/27/2014 783422 107 8.76 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SMALL TIFFANY ZANIA 6/27/2014 772945 201 34.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SMITH ARCHIE HUGH 6/27/2014 803641 103 4.09 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SMITH CAROL HEAPE 6/27/2014 810243 109 13.79 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SMITH JEFFREY AUSTIN 6/27/2014 698600 107 24.86 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SMITH KELLY NICOLE 6/27/2014 803384 107 41.05 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SMITH KIMBERLY WYATT 6/27/2014 808719 107 70.92 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SMITH PETER MICHAEL 6/27/2014 787723 107 9.54 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SMITH ROBERT LYNN III 6/27/2014 808609 105 12.24 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SOSA VICTOR JACOBO 6/27/2014 789106 202 8.98 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SOTO VICTORIA BRIONES 6/27/2014 711134 101 183.07 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SPENCER KATHERINE GARDNER 6/27/2014 779319 107 8.55 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SPINKS MAGGIE 6/27/2014 704188 202 14.15 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SPIVEY RAY DEAN 6/27/2014 779079 107 5.73 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SPROUSE JOHN HOWARD 6/27/2014 693644 101 8.07 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STAFFORD PARK WAYNE 6/27/2014 787201 105 56.91 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STEELE DONACIANA ESTER 6/27/2014 773818 112 24.20 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STONE CORA MARDIA 6/27/2014 797307 107 84.84 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STROWD WILLIAM 6/27/2014 752055 106 13.77 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 STROWD WILLIAM 6/27/2014 752056 106 2.10 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SUAREZ NOEL FABER-CASTRO 6/27/2014 776686 202 58.95 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SUAZO OSVALDO BERMUDEZ 6/27/2014 797836 202 41.62 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 SURO JOHN DAVID 6/27/2014 797720 106 69.68 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 T AND D TRUCKING LLC 6/27/2014 797920 103 40.93 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 17 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 TATE ROBERT JAMES 6/27/2014 789401 107 12.93 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TAYLOR GREG LOGGING 6/27/2014 743725 104 34.59 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TENANT LOUISE SUTTON 6/27/2014 779488 106 3.11 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 THARP HELEN 6/27/2014 700713 107 9.41 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 THE GRASS CLIPPER 6/27/2014 719938 108 320.43 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 THOMAS LISA BARNES 6/27/2014 810017 109 35.59 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TODD GAIL SANDRA 6/27/2014 796979 106 42.23 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TOMAS EULALIA GASPER 6/27/2014 773660 202 17.85 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TOMAS TOMAS ANDRES 6/27/2014 792859 101 22.04 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TORRECILEAS FELIX 6/27/2014 695941 101 152.60 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TORRECILLAS FELIX VICTORIANO 6/27/2014 797736 101 41.68 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TORRES ANGLES SANTIAGO 6/27/2014 711176 101 29.83 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TORRES ANTONIO 6/27/2014 789196 202 67.82 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TORRES ANTONIO 6/27/2014 810092 202 10.25 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TOUMBALAKIS BARBARA DIANE 6/27/2014 782561 107 32.99 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TROCHE-ALVARADO ANGELA DAWN 6/27/2014 797214 101 29.39 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TROCHE-ALVARADO ANGELA DAWN 6/27/2014 797215 101 38.57 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TRUJILLO FERNANDO B 6/27/2014 703851 101 167.68 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TSUTSUMI DAVID MASAO 6/27/2014 802179 107 78.84 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TUCKER VICKI LADONNA 6/27/2014 792457 106 125.35 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 TZINTZUN ALEJANDRO RUIZ 6/27/2014 778454 107 35.25 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ULLOA EXAR VIDAL 6/27/2014 778916 107 28.61 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ULLOA FRANSISCO 6/27/2014 707708 107 114.20 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 UNKNOWN OWNER 6/27/2014 700739 107 110.10 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 UNKNOWN OWNER (CONFLICT) BC TW 6/27/2014 730062 113 41.98 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 UNKNOWN OWNER CONFLICT 6/27/2014 747052 109 6.39 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VALENCIA JOSE 6/27/2014 792533 202 14.89 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VARGAS JOSE PIEDAD GUZMAN 6/27/2014 783156 101 13.50 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VARGAS JOSE PIEDAD GUZMAN 6/27/2014 792588 101 27.34 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VARGAS JOSE PIEDAD GUZMAN 6/27/2014 802855 101 12.44 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VASQUEZ PABLO FRANCISCO 6/27/2014 710578 101 96.70 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VAZQUEZ CANDIDO SILVA 6/27/2014 778541 101 5.79 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VAZQUEZ CANDIDO SILVA 6/27/2014 778542 101 13.91 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VAZQUEZ ERNESTO CARLOS VERDIGU 6/27/2014 784306 202 8.66 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VAZQUEZ FERMIN LAVARIEGA 6/27/2014 694929 113 54.30 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VAZQUEZ SARA M 6/27/2014 711154 101 183.07 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VELARDE JOSE BERNABE 6/27/2014 786832 107 35.53 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VICTORINO DEAN R 6/27/2014 734638 101 97.36 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VIDAL LUIS CANO 6/27/2014 784259 202 25.56 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 VILLASENOR SAMUEL HERRERA 6/27/2014 788213 103 45.71 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WALL REBECCA KUSEL 6/27/2014 803831 201 89.99 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WALTERS LAURA KATHRYN 6/27/2014 773916 101 184.51 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WALTES TIM 6/27/2014 711239 107 57.65 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WARD RANDAL RALPH 6/27/2014 786922 107 3.53 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WARREN LINDA MARY 6/27/2014 804014 109 8.50 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WARREN MELODI RAE 6/27/2014 807497 106 6.15 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WATKINS WALTER GUY III 6/27/2014 773264 109 23.82 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WATSON CLYDE THOMAS 6/27/2014 773481 109 9.89 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WATSON DEBORAH MORGAN 6/27/2014 793716 106 41.74 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WATSON GISELLE LENORE 6/27/2014 793689 201 23.25 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WATSON TIM 6/27/2014 711230 107 106.37 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF DATE 7/10/14 BOARD REVIEW OF CORRECTED RECEIPTS REPORT PAGE 18 TIME 11:06:02 CHATHAM CO TAX DEPARTMENT PROG# CL2182 USER FRANCES DEPOSIT DATES 6/01/2014 THROUGH 6/30/2014 SKIP NEGATIVE ABATEMENTS INCLUDE ABATE CODES CHGOF TAX DEPOSIT YEAR TAXPAYER NAME DATE RECEIPT DIST REAL PERSONAL M VEH MV FEE S WASTE REASON ABTCD ======2003 WATSON TIM 6/27/2014 711231 107 44.91 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WATTS KENT 6/27/2014 704147 107 5.83 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WHITE CYNTHIA DENISE 6/27/2014 782887 106 40.82 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WHITE QUENTIN MAURICE 6/27/2014 701979 107 44.91 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WHITE WILLIAM ALTON 6/27/2014 732372 101 57.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WHITE WILLIAM CALVIN 6/27/2014 803079 109 15.74 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WHITE WILLIAM CALVIN JR 6/27/2014 801507 109 8.15 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WIEGNER COURTNEY MICHELLE 6/27/2014 772803 107 51.85 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WIEGNER COURTNEY MICHELLE 6/27/2014 803632 107 79.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WILLIAMS ANDREW KELLY 6/27/2014 756472 104 115.34 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WILLIAMS ANNA LAURA 6/27/2014 782738 201 123.36 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WILLIAMS CLAYTON 6/27/2014 752813 109 84.90 115.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WILLIAMS LORA PHILLIPS 6/27/2014 769963 106 17.12 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WILLIAMS LYDIA A 6/27/2014 771461 105 30.45 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WILLIAMS RANDALL L 6/27/2014 753787 109 254.94 115.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WILLIAMSON ELAINE MOORE 6/27/2014 783759 202 73.10 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WILLIS SCOTT GERARD 6/27/2014 809639 107 14.48 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WIMBERLY MICHELE LYNN 6/27/2014 777772 106 17.48 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WINGARD MARYANN G 6/27/2014 803713 105 170.66 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WINGARD THOMAS LEE 6/27/2014 810318 105 231.21 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WYRICK ERIC BRADLEY 6/27/2014 771562 107 150.39 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 WYRICK ERIC BRADLEY 6/27/2014 777083 107 92.26 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 YARBOROUGH DANIEL TERRILL 6/27/2014 779317 101 11.38 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 YARBROUGH RANDALL SCOTT 6/27/2014 743424 105 21.99 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 YARBROUGH SCOTT 6/27/2014 743766 105 2.35 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 YOUNGBLOOD HEATHER FULTON 6/27/2014 789008 109 99.72 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ZACHARY AARON DANIEL 6/27/2014 803853 109 11.50 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ZARATE VALENTIN ESPEJO 6/27/2014 789231 202 16.90 5.00 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ZARATE VALENTIN ESPEJO 6/27/2014 789470 110 20.30 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF 2003 ZOUBEK LINDSAY SHEETS 6/27/2014 803802 106 242.28 MASS ABATEMENT B CHGOF

** YEAR TOTALS ** 1921.10 9768.80 25069.76 870.00 575.00

*** FINAL TOTALS *** 1921.10 9768.80 25069.76 870.00 575.00

*** NORMAL END OF JOB *** Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0859

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Board of Commissioners File Type: Appointment

Vote on a request to approve appointments to the Chatham County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.

Action Requested: The Chatham County Housing Authority is recommending Mr. Gary Cox, be re-appointed for another term ending April 16, 2016. The Housing Authority is recommending that Colonel "retired" Eugene Davis be appointed to complete Judith Wiggs unexpired term "present to April 15, 2016).

Introduction & Background: Pursuit to guidance from the US Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), the appointment of Dennis Vittolo to the Board of Commissioners, Chatham County Housing Authority "CCHA", will be a conflict of interest and a violation of HUD regulations. Mr. Vittolo is a Housing Choice Voucher Program Landlord with this agency. Therefore, Mr. Vittolo benefits monetarily from his association with the Chatham County Housing Authority which presents a conflict of interest.

Discussion & Analysis:

Budgetary Impact: NA

Recommendation: The Chatham County Housing Authority is recommending Mr. Gary Cox, be re-appointed for another term ending April 16, 2016. The Housing Authority is recommending that Colonel "retired" Eugene Davis be appointed to complete Judith Wiggs unexpired term "present to April 15, 2016).

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014

Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0856

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 2 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: County Manager's Office File Type: Contract

Agenda Number:

Vote on a request to approve Chatham Trades Allocation Agreement

Commissioners approved an allocation of $110,000 to Chatham Trades in the FY 2015 Approved Budget. The attached agreement outlines the terms of the allocation.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 Contract between Chatham County and Chatham Trades Beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015

Chatham County (“County”) and Chatham Trades (“Agency”) hereby agree:

A. Funds allocated by Chatham County are made available to the Agency to assist in delivering services to the public as provided for in N.C.G.S. §153A-149. The Agency will not undertake any program, function, joint undertaking, or service not otherwise authorized by law. Funds will be spent only for the purposes outlined in the attached letter, hereby incorporated by reference. Funds must be used for lawful, public purposes and cannot be used for political activity or to advocate for or against a political candidate or party. Funds must not be used to pay a Board Member for any service to the agency. B. The Agency will strive to meet the outcomes outlined in the Agency’s work plan, submitted as part of the budget, or as amended by written or e-mail communication between the Agency and Assistant County Manager. The Agency agrees to provide semi-annual written or e-mail reports on the status of achieving these outcomes to the Chatham County Manager’s office by January 13, 2015 and July 13, 2015. The County has the right to request additional information at any time. Failure to meet this deadline can result in suspension of funding and ineligibility for future funding. C. If the annual income of the agency is greater than $300,000, the Agency will provide an audit for the period covering the County’s allocation. If the annual income of the agency is $299,999- 50,000, the Agency will provide a financial review for the period covering the County allocation. If the annual income of the agency is $49,999 or less, the Agency will cooperate with a financial analysis conducted by staff for the period covering the County allocation. D. The Agency will immediately notify the County’s agent of any legal, financial or organizational matters or program changes which may impact the Agency’s ability to operate or deliver services or which may impair or adversely affect the Agency’s financial standing. E. Any information provided to the County or its agent is a matter of public record. F. Failure by the agency to comply with the terms of this agreement shall be grounds for the County to withhold funds and deem the agency ineligible for future funding. G. The County agrees to allocate the funds approved by the Board of Commissioners. H. If, at any time during the life of this agreement, it becomes necessary to change the terms of the agreement, such changes shall be effective when incorporated in written amendments to the agreement. Chatham Trades:

Name & Title Date

Attest:

Secretary

Chatham County:

Walter Petty, Chair Date Chatham County Board of Commissioners

Attest:

Lindsay Ray, Clerk to the Board Chatham County Board of Commissioners Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0837

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 2 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: County Manager's Office File Type: Agenda Item

Agenda Number:

Vote on a request to approve Parks and Recreation Grants to Nonprofit Agencies

The Parks and Recreation Department makes grant awards to recreation agencies through its operating budget. The allocation process is guided by the county's nonprofit grant policy, which was approved by the Board of Commissioners in December of 2013. Grant applications are reviewed and scored by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee; these recommendations are submitted to the County Manager, who reviews and makes a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. The department has $20,300 in the FY 2015 budget to allocate to agencies. This year four agencies applied for a total of $30,720 in grant funds. The Council on Aging request scored the highest with 82 points. The remaining requests tied with 77 points. Here is a brief summary of the grants and the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee and the County Manager (which is the same). The summary is taken directly from the applications (a fully copy of which is attached): Triangle Land Conservancy : TLC would like to be considered for a grant of $10,000 from Chatham County Parks and Recreation to fund restoration and improvement of heavily used trails at our White Pines Nature Preserve in Chatham County and support staff time to organize and promote hikes at this beautiful preserve. Specifically, TLC plans to add small foot bridges and restore 2-3 miles of trails within the preserve as a way to better connect people with nature. Recommendation: Fund $3,000 of the $10,000 request from Triangle Land Conservancy for maintenance of the White Pines trail. Comments: · The area where White Pines is located is geographically underserved. · Longevity: the project will be sustainable and usable for a long period of time. · Hiking/walking trails can be used by a variety of age groups. · County residents request hiking/walking trails frequently. Goldston Youth & Recreation: We are requesting assistance in purchasing a shed for the purpose of using it for a concession stand and restroom. Our upper field has no concessions or restroom facilities and people have to walk down a steep hill or go down some big steps to get to the current concessions and restroom. We have received feedback that more people would use the facility if the concession/restroom

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 File Number: 14-0837 was more accessible, especially for seniors and handicapped visitors. It would benefit all the patrons of the park, because the restroom would be open and accessible during the day for anyone who visits the park. We would use two people to run the concessions during ballgames or other events at the park. Recommendation: Fund $9,000 of $10,000 request from Goldston Youth and Recreation for a shed for concessions and restroom. Comments: · Goldston is a geographically underserved part of the county. · The request improves handicap accessibility. · Goldston will be able to provide more services: practices, games, and events. Chatham County Council on Aging: This request will provide the Exercise and Wellness Program at the Pittsboro Senior Center with a NuStep Machine. This senior-friendly machine allows those with limited range of motion and disabilities a way to do strength training and attain cardiovascular health. Although it is targeted towards these individuals, anyone at our facility can also use it. Wellness staff are always on hand to assist with exercise in the facility and help with individualized wellness plans. Recommendation: Fully fund the Chatham Council on Aging's request for $6,070 for the Nu Step Machine. Comments: · The Council on Aging had the highest score (82) from our scoring sheet. · The request is unique in providing physical fitness equipment for the underserved populations of elderly and disabled. Chatham Soccer League: With grant assistance, CSL proposes to continue its high quality services in three areas: equipment storage, field maintenance, and coaching. CSL provides regular maintenance and preparation of soccer fields for practices and games. The League needs an additional storage shed ($2,500) and two paint stripers ($200 each). Currently, CSL’s equipment, such as flags, nets, spare uniforms, fertilizer and field maintenance tools, are stored in one small shed located at Pittsboro Elementary School. This requires coaches and volunteers to travel to Pittsboro for equipment and supplies. In addition, easy-to-use paint stripers allow league coaches and volunteers to paint lines (using environmentally safe temporary paint) for recreation and challenge level games. Two new stripers will give coaches and volunteers easier access to this important equipment for North and West Chatham fields. Also, CSL hopes to continue to expand its pool of coaches by offering education classes and licenses/certificates for 22 coaches ($1,750 total). Quality coaching is one of CSL’s greatest assets. This allows the League to provide a fun and physically active learning environment where Chatham youth develop athletic and social skills. CSL soccer is the first chance many kids get to contribute to a team and work with others. Most are parents of registered players. All coaches and volunteers receive background checks before they are allowed to coach. The exact training site has yet to be determined but the intent is to train coaches throughout Chatham County. Training will be provided with English to Spanish translation services if needed. Registered players and the coaches themselves benefit from the training

Chatham County, NC Page 2 Printed on 7/18/2014 File Number: 14-0837 provided. Recommendation: Fund $2,230 of Chatham Soccer League's request for $2,500 for an additional storage shed. Provide no funding for the League's request for $1,750 for coach certifications and $400 for additional paint stripers. Comments: · According to the League's presentation, paint stripers were not an urgent need. · Members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee felt like individual coaches could pay for certifications.

Chatham County, NC Page 3 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County Parks and Recreation 2014/2015 Applying Agencies Contact Information and Amount Requested

Amount Committee Manager Agency Program Requested Rec Rec

Chatham Soccer League Training for coaches $1,750

Chatham Soccer League Additional storage shed $2,500 $2,230 $2,230

Chatham Soccer League Two paint stripers $400 Nu Step Machine to allow seniors with limited range of motion/disabilties Council on Aging to strength train and gain cardiovascular health. $6,070 $6,070 $6,070 Triangle Land Conservancy Trail maintenance at White Pines Nature Preserve $10,000 $3,000 $3,000 Goldston Youth & Recreation Shed for concessions and restroom $10,000 $9,000 $9,000 Total $30,720 $20,300 $20,300

Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0862

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: County Manager's Office File Type: Appointment

Agenda Number:

Vote on a request to approve Appointments to Chatham Community Food Council

Action Requested: Approve the appointment of Henry Outz and Hillary Pace to serve for two years on the newly formed Chatham Community Food Council.

Introduction & Background: The Chatham Community Food Council recently formed as a community-based group, not as a county entity. However, as noted at their presentation to the Board of Commissioners on May 19, 2014, the Board of Commissioners have the option of appointing two people to serve on the inaugural Food Council. They have recommended two people who have asked to be appointed for your consideration. They advertised for applicants for the food council two times and have made the other key appointments needed representing a broad spectrum of food interests, including food producers, processsors, distributors, consumers, nonprofits and others. 1. Henry Outz, who is environmental specialist for the Chatham Soil & Water Conservation Distrrict. Henry also represents traditional agricultural interests throughout the county. 2. Hillary Pace, who is in the county's Planning Department and has expertise in transportation issues that could impact access to local foods. Both would be appointed to two-year terms ending July 20, 2016.

Discussion & Analysis: N/A

Budgetary Impact: N/A

Recommendation: Approve the appointments of Hillary Pace and Henry Outz.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0864

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Sheriff's Office File Type: Contract

Agenda Number:

Vote on a requeset to Renew Agreement with Southern Health Partners Health Agreement for inmate medical care

Action Requested: Allow the County Manager to sign the agreement for renewal of Inmate Health Services Agreement

Introduction & Background: Chatham County must provide inmates with adequate health services while in the custody. Southern Health Partners provides a Part-time nurse, in-facility services, Medical Doctor, and manages bills and payments to outside medical providers. Staff is pleased with their services and they are cost effective.

Budgetary Impact: NA

Recommendation: The Sheriff's Office requests the Board of Commissioners to Allow the County Manager to sign the agreement for renewal of Inmate Health Services Agreement

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014

Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0858

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 2 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Economic Development File Type: Policies and Procedures

Incentive Policy for Transformational Projects

Action Requested: Approve new policy covering projects that create or retain at least 1,000 jobs and have capital investment of at least $500 million

Introduction & Background: With certification of the Chatham-Randolph Megasite by the North Carolina Department of Commerce and the potential of another megasite in Moncure, the County needs to have an incentive policy in place for mega-projects, projects that will create or retain at least 1,000 jobs and have capital investment of at least $500 million.

Projects of this size and scope require incentives with a longer time horizon. Instead of the maximum 5 year term of the County’s regular incentive policy, the proposed policy for Transformational Projects would extend for 10, 15, or 20 years based on the impact of the project.

The Chatham Economic Development Corporation (EDC) board of directors has endorsed the attached policy, which maintains the point-based system of the regular policy and reduces the incentive grant with the passage of time so that the maximum cash incentive is in the early years.

Discussion & Analysis: In order to attract a large manufacturer, local and state incentives are a must. By having our policy in place, we demonstrate to the prospective business as well as the state of North Carolina that Chatham County is committed to make such a project a reality. We will be able to enter into incentive discussions with clarity about what we are willing to offer based on overall project impact.

The potential incentive grant varies according to the project’s score in terms of: · the quantity and quality of jobs created, · capital investment, · environmental impact, and · type of industry.

Each potential project will be brought forward to the Board of Commissioners for approval and the incentive grant will be governed by a written agreement executed by the company and the County. The agreement will specify specific performance

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 File Number: 14-0858 criteria. In all cases, the company will be required to demonstrate that they have met the performance standards and have paid all taxes due on time before an incentive payment is released.

Budgetary Impact: All payments due under the policy will be paid out of new taxes received as a result of the project.

Recommendation: Approve the Incentive Policy for Transformational Projects.

Chatham County, NC Page 2 Printed on 7/18/2014 CHATHAM COUNTY INCENTIVE POLICY –TRANSFORMATIONAL PROJECTS

JOBS

Number of Jobs* Quality of New Jobs Points Points New or Retained Partial Employer Paid Health Insurance 1 1,000 5 Entire Employer Paid Health Insurance 3 1,000-1,500 10 Retirement Benefits 2 1,500-2000 15 Profit Sharing 2 2,000+ 20 Employer Paid Vacation 2 Total Possible Points 20 Total Possible Points 10

Wage Level of New Jobs Points Number of Existing County Residents Points Less than County Average 0 Hired County Average 1 500 1 Greater than County Average, but 500-750 5 Less than State Average 4 750-1,000 7 State Average 8 1,000+ 10 Above the State Average 10 Total Possible Points 10 Total Possible Points 10

CAPITAL INVESTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Level of Capital Investment Points Environmental Impact Points Under $500M 5 $500M-$1B 10 Location in area with public utilities 5 $1B-1.5B 15 Location in existing Industrial Area 5 $1.5B+ 20 Sustainable Building Features 5 Total Possible Points 20 Total Possible Points 15

INDUSTRY CLUSTER/BUSINESS TYPE

Industry Cluster/Business Type Points Presence in Identified Attraction Industry Cluster 5 Industry Multiplier greater than 2.5 5 Verified Supply Chain/Sourcing Relationship with existing Chatham County business 5 Total Possible Points 15 This model approximates the following weights out of a 100 possible points: Category Points Possible Jobs (Number, Quality, Wages, Hiring Residents) 50 points Capital Investment 20 points Environmental Impact 15 points Industry Cluster/Business Type 15 points

The allocation in the model represents the desire and need for quality jobs in Chatham County, while balancing the local governments’ need for additional capital investment (and associated property tax revenue), desire to preserve/protect the natural environment by focusing development to certain designated areas, and interest in targeting identified industry clusters. Depending on their score, new companies and existing company expansions are eligible to qualify for, but not guaranteed, a financial incentive grant based on the percentages of annual property taxes paid for each year for a five year period as outlined below. The County and Chatham County EDC will continue to utilize qualitative criteria outlined in this document and other policy documents to approve, reject, and/or modify the grant amount.

Year Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 1 70% 80% 90% 2 70% 80% 90% 3 65% 75% 90% 4 65% 75% 90% 5 60% 70% 80% 6 55% 70% 80% 7 50% 65% 80% 8 45% 65% 80% 9 40% 60% 75% 10 35% 60% 75% 11 55% 75% 12 55% 60% 13 50% 60% 14 50% 60% 15 50% 60% 16 50% 17 50% 18 50% 19 50% 20 50% Minimum Score 50 65 85

*All existing jobs must be retained before new jobs are counted. Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0863

Agenda Date: Version: 1 Status: Work Session

In Control: Board of Commissioners File Type: Agenda Item

Agenda Number:

Budget Critique for FY 2014-2015 Budget

Each year following completion of the budget, commissioners give staff feedback on how the process and document could be improved. Last year, Commissioners identified the following issues to address during the critique: 1. Integrating department summaries with its divisions in the main document, not a separate appendix 2. Noting Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) in previous budget years within the department sections 3. More description for nonprofits and fire departments 4. Including an all fund summary, a GFOA requirement All items were addressed/included in the recommended document. Commissioners adopted the attached calendar for preparation for the FY 2014-2015 budget: In addtion to the dates shown on the calendar, Staff met one-on-one with commissioners to review recommended budget immediately prior to submission. At their budget retreat commissioners set goals that guided development of the FY 2014-2015 budget. They adopted the overarching goal of achieving a prosperous and thriving community and goals as listed in the Recommended Budget (pages 6-9). The process used included a survey prior to the retreat that identified which existing goals had unanimous agreement, which goals commissioners wanted to revisit, and proposals for new goals. Staff believed this process was very effective and helped streamline the goal-setting process. Discussion & Analysis: Staff requests feedback on: Budget Retreat: · Was the goal-setting session helpful and should it be re-visited? · Is there additional information that would make the retreat more effective (attached)? Document: · Are the Recommended Budget and CIP documents effective? · Are the department work plans included in the Recommended Document effective for informing commissioner decisions ? Department goals, objectives, and measures are necessary to meet GFOA requirements. · What additional changes do Commissioners want to see in FY 2015-2016? Process: · Was the calendar that was followed effective? · Is the Heads Up document (attached) produced before the retreat effective for informing Commissioner priorities? Could this document be improved?

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014 File Number: 14-0863

· What additional changes do Commissioners think would make the process more effective or efficient? Calendar for FY 2016: · Based on your feedback, a FY 2015-2016 calendar will be developed for your review in August.

Chatham County, NC Page 2 Printed on 7/18/2014 Chatham County FY 2014-2015 Budget Calendar

Deadline Actions 6 September 2013  Capital Improvements Program (CIP) forms distributed to agencies 4 October 2013  Forms due from agencies and departments for new/changed CIP projects 4 November 2013  Manager submits recommended CIP to the Board of Commissioners at a special meeting  Heads Up document due from departments 18 November 2013  Hold public hearing on the proposed CIP 19 November 2013  Work session on the proposed CIP 16 December 2013  Board adopts CIP 23 December 2013  Budget summit materials (trends, financial indicators, performance team recommendations, and departmental “Heads Up” document) submitted to Board of Commissioners  Work plan and new position forms distributed to departments Weeks of January 6 and  Budget Summit: Board of Commissioners sets goals 13, 2014 and guidelines for FY 2015 budget 3 February 2014  Requests for new positions and work plans (with goals, objectives, and performance targets) due from departments  Remaining budget forms distributed to departments/agencies 7 March 2014  Budgets due from departments and agencies (except schools) 14 April 2014  Budget due from schools 5 May 2014  Budget submitted to Board of Commissioners and public at a special meeting May 19 and 20, 2014  Official public hearings held in Pittsboro and Siler City Late May and early  Board of Commissioners holds budget work sessions June, 2014 By 30 June 2014  Board of Commissioners adopts budget (legal deadline)

Chatham County Local Government

Department Heads-Up

Fiscal 2015

Early in the planning process for the upcoming budget, departments are asked to identify important issues they will be facing in the coming year. This information identifies the needs and issues as the department heads see them. It has not been edited by staff, and staff has not done any analysis to confirm the issue and identify viable alternative solutions. This document has been created with efficiency and economy in mind. Department Heads were asked to answer three questions clearly and concisely and had the option to provide additional detail in the form of links to other text, video, or audio files. This format will give you a summary of the issues but allow you to dig deeper if you choose. Chatham County Local Government FY 2014‐2015 Department Heads‐Up

Department Name: Board of Elections Budget/Division Name: Board of Elections

Describe the first issue: Implementation of HB 589 – VIVA (voter ID, One stop changes, absentee changes, provisional ballot changes, campaign finance changes, removal of in person registration, etc.) This bill changes many areas of elections, both administratively and actual voting processes. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) changes in most forms and documentation that we use; decrease in days of one stop, but must have same number of hours as previous years (our number of hours from the general 2010 was 393 hours); implementation of educational requirements to notify voters of ID required in 2016 (ask voters for ID in 2014 and record names of persons that state no ID, we will later notify those voters of ways to obtain IDs. More workload at the polling place. The list will be a public record for civic groups, parties, etc to use to help voters obtain ID) The relaxed conditions for ID for Mail In absentee voters may lead to increased numbers of mail in voters. (more printing, additional time processing and increased postage) More provisional ballots at one stop as in person registration is not allowed. Less provisional ballots on Election Day as provisional ballots will no longer be counted out of precinct. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? Currently implementing changes in forms and documentation that we use. Gathering information about acquiring additional one stop sites for the Primary 2014 as well as the General 2014. To have the 393 hours in a reduced time frame, I believe that we would need 5 sites, including the office site. All sites must be open the same number of hours each day. Describe the second issue: Implement new rules concerning multi partisan teams for each election. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) Additional temporary personnel that are required to be trained and spend time visiting nursing homes and assisted care facilities for each election. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? We currently have some temporary workers that have done this in the past, but only in big elections. Under the new law, these places have to ask for assistance. It is kind of an unknown factor right now.

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 1 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Chatham Transit Network Budget/Division Name: Human Services

Describe the first issue Demand for services by agencies (particularly the Council on Aging) and the general public has increased significantly to the point where additional drivers and vehicles are needed. In addition, effective Fiscal Year 2015-2016, the NC Department of Transportation is requiring that all expansion vehicles be requested as a part of their new Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) process. At that time, our expansion requests must compete with roads, sidewalks, bike lanes, railroad crossings, and other capital projects. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) Services are almost at capacity. Recently, we were only able to schedule one vehicle for Cooperative Extension’s Farm Tour. We have had multiple days where all drivers and available vehicles were scheduled. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? 1. We have already hired additional drivers. 2. To buy time until expansion vehicles can be obtained, we are holding onto older vehicles as they are replaced despite NCDOT guidelines to dispose of them. 3. We are requesting two expansion vehicles for FY2015 based on vehicle utilization data and ahead of the requirement to go through the Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) process in FY2016. Consequently, we are requesting 7 new vehicles in FY2015, requiring a local match of $38,000. 4. We are exploring leasing vehicles from neighboring systems to ensure that we have enough vehicles to meet service demand. NCDOT will participate in the cost of this type of lease. Describe the second issue

How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.)

Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue?

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 2 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Cooperative Extension Budget/Division Name: Cooperative Extension

Describe the first issue Due to continuing budget cuts at both the federal and state levels recurring funding for employees is being drastically reduced. This is trickling down from the university level to the local county offices. Currently the Chatham County Center has two vacant agent positions and one agent position that was eliminated in 2011. The subject matter areas that were covered by these three unfilled positions have to be covered by the agents that are left on staff. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) The additional responsibilities are wearing down the existing staff. Requests for help and the need for programming have not decreased. Current staff feels over-whelmed and inadequate when work is not getting done. Even though existing staff is trying to maintain the expected level of service before promotions, retirements and resignations occurred it is not physically possible to do it all. Customers are begging for the same level of service as before. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? The university has a special allotment of non-recurring monies they are using to hire back on 50% basis Al Cooke. However, the amount of programming that Al does is limited due to the fact that he is only half time. Ginger Cunningham, 4-H Program Assistant, is managing the entire 4-H program but with her position a 40 hour per week position that is difficult to do within that time limit. What may need to happen is the county to provide additional funding for salaries to decrease the cost to the state. Describe the second issue

How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.)

Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue?

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 3 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Council on Aging Budget/Division Name: Council on Aging

Describe the first issue: Transportation for older and disabled adults: senior centers 4 days a week (12,000 trips), groceries, etc one day a week (3,000 trips), medical (900 trips), general/outside the CTN standard town zones (100 trips), group trips for hiking, historical, art and other sites (480 individual trips). Total 16,180 trips. Direct services are contracted through CTN. Total budget this year (without in kind) is $341,612. A NC DOT grant pays $277,490 of direct services. Continued DOT funding / amount of funding/announcement date are unknown. Without it, seniors won’t be able to go to the center, make medical appointments, have access to general transportation, and take group travel trips. These services do not duplicate services provided by other local/state/federal funded resources. We are asking the county to set aside funding of $277,500 to fund the direct services or cover any shortfall in our DOT grant award. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, custom- er service, federal or state mandates, etc.) Lack of transportations severely impacts the ability of hundreds of seniors to continue to live inde- pendently (our mission) and would eliminate socialization, recreation, exercise, self care, nutrition, health education for the senior center riders; losing 10,000 of the 15,000 noontime center meals, a 34% decrease; significant decline in the health of people who have no other access to regular health care; an isolated and unserved older adult population. No other agency in the county provides these funded ser- vices. The decrease in participation would result in staff layoffs in several departments. The impact on Chatham Transit would also be significant. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? Applying to the NC DOT for a $306,000 grant to also cover 20% local match. We are also working with Chatham Transit on alternatives to our group transportation routes . Describe the second issue: A program to take care of people with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Tri J estimates there are at least 800 full time unpaid caregivers in Chatham County. We are serving less than 1% of them. The Alz- heimer’s Assoc. estimates 11% of people 65/+ have Alzheimer’s /dementia, more than 1750 people in Chatham. The increase of Alzheimer’s disease is well documented. It is the 6th leading cause of death. We have identified 45 people who need immediate Alzheimer / dementia or caregiver respite aide, a fraction of the total. We propose a specialized RN-supervised program to provide care management at the COA blending with other COA services: Caregivers Support, nutrition, transportation, in home aide, wellness. The projected cost, including direct care, training and staffing, would be $600,000. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, custom- er service, federal or state mandates, etc.) This issue goes beyond the independently living mission of the COA. It impacts the whole county and how we care for the most vulnerable and their caregivers. “The most important thing we can do for Alz- heimer’s patients has nothing to do with their medications.” This program begins to provide care ser- vices where no other resources exist. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? Collaborating with the Duke CARES program and Tri J, applying for grants from the Lutheran Foundation, utilizing funds bequeathed for aide services, using the Family Caregiver Program, and planning to apply to the top health grantors in NC.

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 4 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Department of Social Services Budget/Division Name: Economic Services

Describe the first issue: In 2012, NC began a conversion to a statewide web-based system, NC FAST. This system necessitated a transition to a “universal worker” model where one worker is assigned across economic service areas. Currently, there are significant technical problems with NC FAST. Also, with implementation of the universal worker model, NC initiated changes in all economic support programs to better align eligibility rules for consistency across all programs but this process is still in the early stages. This has resulted in delays in benefits and increased workloads. Presently FNS (Food and Nutrition Benefits) is completely administered through NC FAST and Medicaid will launch in early Dec 2013. This is a significant shift in the culture of service provision and case workers are now expected to be more of a benefits manager than an eligibility worker. While in the end, the hope is that this is a better, more holistic way of serving clients, there are multiple transitional issues that must be resolved. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) While the end goal is to streamline policy and procedures to make service provision more efficient, the infrastructure is not in place yet. There are almost daily changes in the way that work should be done. Slow progress is being made; however, the atmosphere of continual fluctuation makes it difficult for staff to adapt. When NCFAST is not working properly, staff must utilize a “work around” alternative temporarily until there is a technical solution to problem. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? The economic services division was proactive in reorganizing to prepare for a universal model within weeks of being notified. The agency is a pilot county for the NC FAST Medicaid program which greatly reduced the time available to restructure. Continual evaluation of service provision has been taking place including reconsidering job descriptions and qualifications for hiring. Several counties have found success with customer service centers where computers are placed in the reception area and staff assists clients with online applications. We are continuing to evaluate the pros and cons of such a change, however, we are strongly considering some kind of front end customer support center. Describe the second issue: The number of applications has been increasing and implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is causing this number to rise even more. Statewide, it is anticipated that 70,000 additional people will be eligible and even more will apply. Our current system requires two applications (e.g. ACA and traditional Medicaid) due to differing income requirements between the programs. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) As mentioned above there have been significant changes in expectations of staff with implementation of NC FAST and it is unclear what the actual impact of the ACA will be. The goal is improved efficiency and access, however, the process has been fraught with difficulties and continually changing expectations. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? Supervisory staff is participating in weekly NC FAST and director’s calls to ensure that they have the most current updates to disseminate to staff. Temporary staff has been hired and a position reallocated from children’s services. The benefits of increased staffing have not yet been seen due to the lengthy hiring times and staff turnover.

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 5 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Department of Social Services Budget/Division Name: Family and Children’s Services

Describe the first issue: The children’s services unit is moving toward providing and utilizing services that are more trauma informed and evidenced based in order to achieve better outcomes for families. Providing evidenced based mental health treatment requires additional training in order for clinicians to be effective. At this time, staff and local mental health providers do not always have adequate training to serve clients. We are interested in creating a “clinical team” within our existing children’s services positions to provide mental health services to DSS clients. This clinical team could serve clients who are uninsured and who are placed outside of the Cardinal Innovations service area (and thus face significant difficulty obtaining any services). How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) It is our belief that this team would enhance services to families, thus better fulfilling the agency mission. By reducing the number of available positions to provide direct child welfare work, this could increase workload to other staff. Availability of clinical staff within the agency will streamline referrals and services which would increase efficiency and enhance overall service provision. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? Four provisionally licensed clinical social workers and the program administrator were accepted into a 12 month learning collaborative through the NC Child Treatment Program to provide Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy with children ages 3-18. When provided with high fidelity to the model, this treatment is effective in 91% of cases and children with more trauma symptomology see greater improvement. The agency is also collaborating with a state pilot program that is training child welfare staff on the impact of trauma. It is our goal to begin a trauma screening program for all children by the end of the current fiscal year. Describe the second issue:

How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.)

Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue?

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 6 Department Name: Emergency Operations Budget/Division Name: Communications

Describe the first issue Currently we receive ANI (Automatic Number Identification) and ALI (Automatic Location Identification from Century Link on old copper lines (1968 technology), in analog format and a gateway device transfers it to digital format for our Cassidian Patriot phone system. The gateways have failed several times during lightning storms. Our radio maintenance provider tells us that the gateway failures are due to insufficient grounds on the Century Link equipment. The Communication Center needs to remove the gateways and install the newest and latest technology to meet the needs of Chatham County residents. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) 1) With the current technology the Communications Center is not able to receive text, video, or other information from smart phone applications. Also, while people who are deaf or hard of hearing can use a text telephone device (TTY) to communicate emergencies, the TTY is not mobile or portable. 2) The Communications Center has experienced several incidences of lost connections with the Century Link service and this unreliability is unacceptable. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? Intrado is the only vendor that can provide this service for 911 centers. They offer the service via a leasing arrangement so the county does not have to purchase or maintain equipment. There will be an upfront one-time cost of $22,426 and a monthly charge of $12,614.07 for the primary and backup PSAPs (Public Safety Answering Point). Switching to this service will decrease expenses for the Century Link 911 service and eliminate the issues with the old equipment. Describe the second issue Emergency Fire Dispatch (EFD) is needed to maintain our current rating with ISO (Insurance Service Office). Currently we average 9.3 to 9.8 out of 10 points for communications. A new rating scale has been announced and is intended to go into effect January 1, 2014. The new grading scale requires protocols, and quality assurance in place to ensure an adequate grade for communications. The next station scheduled for ISO rating will be North Chatham Fire Station. The EFD standard must be in place prior to the inspection so we are abl e to meet the requirements of the new rating format How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) The implementation of EFD will provide a protocol that the telecommunicator can use to help people stay safe while waiting for fire emergency dispatch units to arrive similar to the way Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) guides the telecommunicator to assist callers while waiting for medical emergency dispatch units to arrive. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? The Communications department has begun to implement the EFD protocol and staff is being trained.

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 7 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Health Budget/Division Name: 5015/Animal Control

Describe the first issue Public demand for service has outpaced staffing. Workloads for the Animal Shelter and for Animal Control have been continually increasing without any additional staff. The shelter has experienced increased communication from the public. Current shelter staff is not adequate to prioritize the health of the animals and, at the same time, cover all calls and help the public at the front desk. Requests for animal control service requests in the field have also increased, and there are not enough officers to handle all requests during working hours. In addition, officers must sometimes provide backup to answer calls at the shelter, which further impacts their ability to respond to requests for service. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) 1)The nature of work itself impacts morale, but when staff is being overwhelmed with calls and service requests from an already impatient public, morale suffers even more. Not feeling satisfied in their staff roles is a problem for this division. 2) Officers regularly working above and beyond the required 40- hour work week. This results in maximum use of compensatory time, pay-out of compensatory time and an increasing budget for overtime pay. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? We are considering restructuring the agency, to include: 1) Additional staff in the field to address public nuisance, welfare/cruelty, and dangerous dog complaints and additional staff it the shelter to provide administrative support and volunteer coordination and 2) A redistribution of the workload to reduce on- call and overtime hours. Describe the second issue Officer safety and reduction or prevention of staff injuries is a growing issue. Officers are exposed to dangerous animals and people on a daily basis. The use of firearms by animal control officers has been disallowed due to issues with insurance, training, and standardization. Animal control officers have neither firearms nor radios to ensure their safety in the field. Some of the older transport cages are neither easy to use nor humane and contribute to officer injury. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) 1) Officers are frequently called to areas of the county without phone service, and they have expressed concerns about their safety in the field without access to phones, firearms or radios. When a call involves a dangerous animal more than one officer must respond to the call to ensure safety. This results in lengthier response times to requests for service. 2) Injuries reduce the number of officers available to work, which further impacts compensatory time and overtime. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? Animal Control is working with staff and the Sheriff’s Office to develop a policy to address the standardization, training, and use of firearms by field officers as well as the use of chemical immobilization (e.g. field tranquilization) devices. Budget requests will include additional funds for radios in the vehicles and one additional transport unit to complete the fleet changeover from slide in dog boxes, to chassis mount transport units.

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 8 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Health Budget/Division Name: 5013/Community & Family Health Connections

Describe the first issue Focus on Fathers is a Smart Start funded program designed to increase family and life-skills competencies in young fathers that will prepare them for a life-long role of mentoring their children and peers. Group meetings address emotional support and life-skills training needs for the fathers, and promote father-child bonding through recreational and educational activities. In addition to group meetings, the Focus on Fathers Coordinator provides individual assistance and support to program participants to assist them in meeting individualized service goals. The Focus on Fathers Coordinator position is a .75 FTE position and is fully funded by Smart Start. Prior to this fiscal year, the position had been full time as it was also supported by The Children’s Trust Fund grant (for the other 25%). Chatham was not awarded this grant in FY 13-14.

How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) With this position being 30 hours per week, it limits the impact that our staff person has in increasing family and life-skills competencies in young fathers and the entire community. The current staff person’s client caseload is above the recommended capacity of 15-26 fathers/families (caseload as of 10/23/13 – 27 fathers/families with a waiting list). Due to his hard work and diligence, he is also earning quite a bit of compensatory time – 24 hours at the current time. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? Would like to request the county fund the 25% of this position to increase to full-time staff. Describe the second issue

How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.)

Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue?

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 9 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Health Budget/Division Name: 5014/Environmental Health

Describe the first issue The EH Program Coordinator will be retiring in November. This position has been ¾ time since 2011. Over the last two years we have realized that this position needs to be full time in order to respond to all requests in a timely manner from the public interested in opening food service establishments or to respond to food service establishment complaints as well as coordinating the work load of other Food, Lodging, and Institution Staff How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) Having this position at ¾ time has impacted our ability to respond in a timely fashion to our customers interested in opening food service establishments. This position at ¾ time also impacts staff’s ability to seek advice as needed for programmatic questions Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? Would like to re-instate this position at full time Describe the second issue

How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.)

Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue?

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 10 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Health Budget/Division Name: 5011/Preventive Health Services

Describe the first issue Chatham County Public Health Department has contracted with UNC-CH for medical director services for many years. The fee charged by UNC-CH for this service had not increased since approximately 2005- 2006 until this year. Effective July 1, 2013 UNC-CH increased the cost of this contract by $15,000. We do not know if UNC-CH will increase their charges again for 2014-2015. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) Clinical services require a Medical Director to approve standing orders, medical policies and procedures and provide oversight to mid-level providers and expanded Role Nurses. Currently two Family Nurse Practitioners and one Expanded Role Nurse provide direct patient care in the Siler City and Pittsboro clinics, and one RN is completing Expanded Role Nurse training for the BCCCP and STD programs. We prioritize our services and only assign more complex patients and procedures to the medial director. The medical director currently works at the health department clinic 1.5 days/week and is on call as needed for consultation for mid level providers and nurses. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? The Director of Nursing has talked with other counties that contract directly with medical providers or hire medical directors as regular staff members. Costs are similar for private contracts or hiring part time or temporary staff. The UNC contract covers on call/after hours and provides the backup needed for nurse practitioners, so it is preferable to another contract or using a temporary agency. Describe the second issue Chatham County Public Health Department received a grant from the Office of Minority Health in 2011 to hire an additional interpreter and enhance interpreter services to clients with limited English proficiency. The grant has provided 50% of funding to hire a full time interpreter with a 50% match by the county. The interpreter who was hired with the grant has left the county, leaving the department understaffed for interpretation. An expectation of the grant is being able to sustain the position after the funding ends 6/30/2014. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) There are currently two interpreters and one supervisor to provide interpretation services in the Siler City clinic. In November 2013 the Pittsboro clinic will reopen. Interpreters are needed in Siler City and Pittsboro in clinical and clerical services. The medical director speaks Spanish fluently, but neither of the nurse practitioners and none of the nurses speak Spanish. One staff member in the clerical area of Siler City and Pittsboro speaks Spanish but none of the other clerical staff speak Spanish. Title VI requires clinical programs to provide free interpretation services upon request by the patient. The language line, which has a per-minute charge, can sometimes be used but exam rooms do not have phone lines. If one interpreter is out of the office on a day both clinics are open there are not enough interpreters to provide interpretation for clinical and clerical services. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? We have tried to recruit staff that are fluent in Spanish, but have had no applicants for mid-level provider positions that spoke Spanish and no Spanish-speaking nurse applicants for open positions during the past year. Additional staff is needed for interpretation.

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 11 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: MIS Budget/Division Name: MIS

Describe the first issue The workload on GIS has grown exponentially over the past few years. The public, county businesses, public safety and internal departments all demand and rely upon reliable, up-to-the-minute GIS data. Current trends indicate GIS demands are going to continue to boom over at least the next decade. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) The depth and volume related to GIS technologies continues to expand rapidly. To maintain current levels of service and plan for the future, we need to do something. Jeremy has expressed he is currently overloaded and feels the workload continuing to grow. For the highly skilled portions of GIS, he is a one person department. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? The GIS field has become so highly specialized, I feel we should pursue hiring someone with extensive training in GIS technologies to maintain, then improve services as well as offer redundancy of knowledge. Describe the second issue

How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.)

Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue?

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 12 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Central Permitting Budget/Division Name: Central Permitting

Describe the first issue: CityView, the software used by Central Permitting, Building Inspections, Fire Inspections, Planning, Environmental Quality, and Environmental Health, has the capability to track workflow which would route the permit to its next location following each department’s proper approval. Currently, staff lacks the knowledge and/or training to configure the software to be used to its maximum potential. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) With the possibility of Chatham Park coming to Chatham County and with the continued growth in Briar Chapel it would be best to maximize the potential use of the software to improve and expand the level of customer service we provide. Each department will also be able to provide tracking documentation and customers will be able to track their permit status online. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? We are considering contracting with Municipal Software to send a staff member to Chatham County to review our current workflow and make modifications to our software. Also, while they are onsite they would provide additional training to our staff that would allow us to make any necessary changes in the future. Describe the second issue

How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.)

Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue?

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 13 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Planning Budget/Division Name: Planning

Describe the first issue Update of the Land Conservation and Development Plan. A comprehensive land use plan is required by NC General Statutes when a local government adopts zoning. The county’s current land use plan was adopted in November 2001 and does not include a land use plan map. During the December 16, 2013 Commissioners meeting, the board endorsed a resolution submitted by the Planning Board that includes consideration of funding for a land use plan update. In the interim, the Planning Board will work on minor revisions to the current plan as outlined in the resolution. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) A land use plan is an important policy that is used to guide the planning department work plan, as well as land use decisions by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. A major update of the plan would require the use of a consultant to facilitate community meetings, presentations to the boards and preparation of the document. Planning staff would also be involved in the process and dedicated staff support would be needed. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? If the commissioners decide to allocate funding for a land use plan update, the county manager will work with the planning department and boc to prioritize other planning activities.

Describe the second issue

How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.)

Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue?

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 14 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Sheriff Budget/Division Name: Sheriff

Describe the first issue The increase in Sheriff’s Office sworn staff has outpaced the ability of non-sworn administrative staff to provide support. The Sheriff’s Office has more employees than any other county department but fewer administrative staff to support financial, budget, and personnel operations. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) Four administrative positions support over 100 employees. Current administrative staff is kept busy providing the support that accompanies typical law enforcement operations such as processing pistol permits and warrants and doing background checks. As of October 1, the state removed the limit on individual pistol permits, which will result in additional paperwork. Other administrative work such support for budget and financial operations, personnel action forms, time sheets, orientation and set-up for new employees, copying, printing, and inventory control must all be covered by sworn officers. Departments such as Health and DSS have fewer employees but they have full-time positions to support financial, budget, and personnel operations. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? The addition of a full time administrative support position combined with a restructuring of the existing work will put the Sheriff’s Office on a par with other large county departments and provide sufficient administrative support for the size of the office. Describe the second issue The need for sworn staff has increased: 1) An unprecedented 1200% increase in drug diversion – the illegal use of prescription drugs – has overloaded the narcotics division; 2) When an SRO is absent, the supervising sergeant must fill in, which leaves his own assigned school uncovered; 3) The opening of the new justice center has resulted in more demand for court support than was planned. Formerly the limits on space meant that courts were held sequentially, so the same officers could support both courts. With the opening of the new justice center more courts are being held than were projected, and the courts are in session simultaneously. In addition after-hours activities such as guardian ad-litem meetings require law enforcement support in the building, and the court in Siler City also requires support. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) 1) The narcotics officers are overloaded, which extends the time to resolve cases; 2) When an SRO is absent the supervising sergeant fills in, leaving his own school uncovered. This results in decreased supervision of the SROs as well as decreased coverage; 3) The courts division must often pull help from other divisions – such as civil or investigations – which has a domino effect on the regular workload in those divisions. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? The addition of sworn staff would help to alleviate these issues. The narcotics division wants one additional officer, the School Resource Officers want one additional officer, and the courts division wants two additional officers.

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 15 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Tax Department Budget/Division Name: Appraisals

Describe the first issue The workload for appraisals will be increasing as we get closer to reval and the current level of staffing may not be adequate. The state recommends a workload of 8-10K parcels per appraiser but it’s not clear how the use of technology impacts this estimate. Chatham currently has 43,000 parcels and 3 appraisers. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) The business case for the purchase of pictometry software included the expectation that use of the software would bring a significant reduction in the number of site visits for the appraisers. Current staff has never been through a revaluation with the use of pictometry software and the consultant recommends that all parcels are visited during a reval year. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? Tax department will work with budget staff during development of the FY 15 operating budget to benchmark with other counties regarding tax department staffing levels, the use of pictometry during a reval year and how the use of the software has impacted staffing levels. Describe the second issue

How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.)

Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue?

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 16 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Public Works Department 4812 Budget/Division Name: Public Utilities & Water Division

Describe the first issue. The County Commissioners adopted a Backflow and Cross Connection Control Ordinance in August 2010. The ordinance needs to be administered and enforced. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) The county will need a full time employee to administer and enforce the Backflow and Cross Connection Control Ordinance and software to maintain the data and inspection schedules. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? Yes, hiring a full time employee that is already trained and certified, and purchasing the necessary software. Describe the second issue. The county needs the capability of locating the infrastructure objects (valves, fire hydrants, etc…) so as to update and keep current the GIS maps of the water distribution systems. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) The GPS unit is a handheld piece of equipment and can be used on site at any time. To locate objects while you are at the site will take little time and should not produce any more work load. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? Yes, purchasing a GPS unit.

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 17 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Public Works Department 4816 Budget/Division Name: Public Utilities & Water Division

Describe the first issue. To maintain water quality the county needs to upgrade the analyzers, VT SCADA and Turbidity meters at the Water Treatment Plant. The county standardized the ChemScan Analyzer in December 2012 and the VT SCADA in May 2012 How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) The ChemScan will eliminate the need for the HACH maintenance contract and the SCADA will eliminate the outdated DFA software which controls chemical feeds. The Turbidity meters are outdated and parts are no longer available. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? Yes, purchasing and installing the ChemScan Analyzer, VT SCADA and Turbidity meters.

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 18 Chatham County Local Government FY 2014-2015 Department Heads-Up

Department Name: Chatham County Schools Budget/Division Name: Chatham County Schools

Describe the first issue The school system continues to face budgeting issues as we move forward in the planning process for 2014-2015. We are looking at reductions in federal and state funding. Coupled with our increasing average daily membership, the funding reductions present even greater challenges. How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.) The loss in funding will result in a continuation budget deficit. Chatham County’s financial support in FY13 along with appropriating fund balance kept us from experiencing a major reduction in our workforce and services offered to our students. The attached document provides additional financial details concerning the budget process for fiscal year 2014-2015. Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue? As we move through the 2014-2015 budget process, the board will discuss options and listen to stakeholder feedback about possible solutions to the budgeting issues we are currently experiencing. Describe the second issue

How does the issue impact your department? (Consider mission, work load, staffing, morale, customer service, federal or state mandates, etc.)

Are you currently considering any actions to address this issue?

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 19

Chatham County Schools “Heads Up” Attachment

The information presented below will assist in the planning and preparation of Chatham County Schools 2014-2015 operating budget. Historical and current financial information is presented.

State Discretionary Reduction

The NC State Discretionary Reduction was eliminated by the General Assembly for the fiscal year 2013-2014. Over a 4-year period, the discretionary reduction eliminated over $7 million in funding for Chatham County Schools. Even though the discretionary reduction was eliminated, School Districts across North Carolina still experienced reductions in funding from the state level. See the chart below that compares the initial allotment from 2012-2013 to 2013-2014. There was a decrease of $1,299,038 in state funding from the prior year.

FY 13-14 State Initial Allotment vs FY 12-13 Initial Allotment 08.20.2013

190 Chatham County Allotted ADM 8,109.00 Allotted ADM 8,310 201

Initial Allotment FY 12-13 Initial Allotment FY 13-14 Difference Months of Months of Months of PRC # PRC Name Position Emp Amount Position Emp Amount Position Emp Amount 001 Classroom Teachers 387.5 $ 21,903,050.00 370 $ 21,087,780.00 -17.5 $ (815,270.00) 002 Central Office Administration $ 697,763.00 $ 703,305.00 $ 5,542.00 003 Non-Instructional Support Personnel $ 1,895,357.00 $ 1,952,983.00 $ 57,626.00 005 School Building Administration 286$ 1,876,609.00 288$ 1,870,625.00 2 $ (5,984.00) 007 Instructional Support 39 $ 2,428,608.00 38 $ 2,369,148.00 -1 $ (59,460.00) 013 Career and Technical Edu-Months of Emp 380$ 2,248,460.00 391$ 2,253,724.00 11$ 5,264.00 014 Career and Technical Edu-Program Support $ 110,749.00 $ 114,310.00 $ 3,561.00 024 Disadvantaged Students Supplemental Funding $ 235,306.00 $ 238,848.00 $ 3,542.00 027 Teacher Assistants $ 3,061,975.00 $ 2,539,299.00 $ (522,676.00) 032 Children With Special Needs $ 4,217,801.00 $ 4,337,561.00 $ 119,760.00 034 Academically & Intellectually Gifted $ 399,474.00 $ 410,779.00 $ 11,305.00 054 Limited English $ 1,334,949.00 $ 1,195,985.00 $ (138,964.00) 056 Transportation $ 1,570,711.00 $ 1,676,484.00 $ 105,773.00 061 Classroom Material $ 272,367.00 $ 241,292.00 $ (31,075.00) 069 At Risk Student Services $ 1,542,137.00 $ 1,493,668.00 $ (48,469.00) Total of State Public School Fund 426.5 666$ 43,795,316.00 408 679$ 42,485,791.00 -18.5 13$ (1,309,525.00)

000 Textbooks $ 115,604.00 $ 118,501.00 $ 2,897.00 012 Driver Training $ 146,813.00 $ 154,403.00 $ 7,590.00 015 School Technology $ - $ - $ - Total Other Funds 0 0$ 262,417.00 0 0$ 272,904.00 0 0$ 10,487.00

Grand Total 426.5 666$ 44,057,733.00 408 679$ 42,758,695.00 -18.5 13$ (1,299,038.00)

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 20

2014-2015 Budget Calendar

The Chatham County Schools 2014-2015 Budget Calendar is included for information purposes. This will assist everyone with future dates for budget meetings and planning purposes. The calendar was adopted by the Board of Education on 11/4/2013. Chatham County Schools FY 2014-2015 Budget Calendar

Deadline Actions

6-Sep-13 Board of Education received Capital Improvements Program (CIP) forms from the county. 16-Sep-13 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) presented to the Board of Education. 4-Oct-13 CIP Forms are due to County for new/changed CIP projects. 4-Nov-13 County Manager submits recommended CIP to the Board of Commissioners. 18-Nov-13 Chatham County holds a public hearing on the proposed CIP. 19-Nov-13 Board of Commissioners schedule a work session on the proposed CIP. 16-Dec-13 Board of Commissioners adopts CIP. 2-Dec-13 “Heads Up” document is presented to Board of Education for Action; 2-Dec-13 Principals and Directors are sent budget forms to list their program commitments. 2-Dec-13 “Heads Up” document is due to the County. This document gives Commissioners a preview of likely requests, upcoming problems or concerns, etc. 21-Jan-14 K-12 Insight Budget Survey is prepared and sent out. 31-Jan-14 Principals and Directors submit their program expansion requests (instructional) to Academic Services and Instructional Support 3-Mar-14 Capital Outlay and Child Nutrition Budgets are presented to the Board of Education for information and discussion. 3-Mar-14 Current Expense Continuation budget and K-12 Insight Budget Survey results are presented to Board of Education for information and discussion. 20-Mar-14 The Chatham County Schools Public Budget Presentation - Open to the Public (recording will be put on our website for viewing convenience) 7-Apr-14 Board of Education hears public comments on LEA current expense and capital outlay budget requests prior to the work session. Board discusses Current Expense, Capital Outlay and Child Nutrition budgets during the work session. Budgets are to be approved after public comments.

14-Apr-14 2014-2015 Board of Education Budget is delivered to Chatham County. Late May and June Board of Commissioners holds budget work sessions and Board of Education presents Current 2014 Expense and Capital Outlay budgets. 25-Jun-14 Board of Education adopts continuing budget resolution for the purpose of doing business until 2013-2014 Budget Resolution is adopted in September of 2013. By 30 June 2014 Board of Commissioners adopts budget including school system appropriations for 2014-2015.

NOTE: Dates are subject to change upon Board of Education approval

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 21

Federal Sequestration

The federal government imposed an across-the-board cut to education and other domestic programs, a process known as sequestration. For North Carolina school districts, this meant a cut of approximately $80 million in federal aid. The cut in federal funding would result in the loss of approximately $350,000 in our federal funds budget. Although the lion’s share of this money is in Title I, other programs such as Title II (teacher development) and Title VI B (special education) would also be affected. A large percentage of federal funding is utilized in personnel costs.

Local Salary Supplement

Despite a 1.2% raise statewide (which was negated by increases in health insurance costs) and a 2% supplement increase, public school employees’ salaries have remained relatively stagnant while the cost of living continues to escalate, resulting in increased turnover.

The salary supplement which is funded by the commissioners assists the school district in recruiting and retaining qualified employees. Because Chatham County is surrounded by at least four districts whose supplements are more competitive than ours, the Board of Education has directed the superintendent to solidify a proposal for increasing our existing salary supplement schedule which will be submitted as a request in a future budgeting period, perhaps in 2015-2016.

Incentive Pay Plan

In 2012, North Carolina’s public schools undertook the implementation of new Common Core Standards in English/Language Arts and Mathematics in all grade levels and new North Carolina Essential Standards in all other subjects, the largest curricular change in the state’s history. Along with these curriculum changes came a major revision to the state’s accountability model.

North Carolina’s new model continues a long-standing practice of reporting both academic growth rates and also the percentage of students who scored proficient on state assessments. According to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, “Standards are much higher now than in the past, which makes it more difficult for some students to reach proficiency levels.” It is necessary today, perhaps more than ever before, for us to recruit and retain teachers who are capable of identifying and implementing cutting-edge, innovative strategies aimed at increasing student outcomes. To that end, we are proposing the establishment of a performance incentive program for Chatham County teachers and other instructional personnel to recognize educator effectiveness. Following is our tiered proposal which totals approximately $578K.

It is important to note that in subsequent years, we propose adding an additional incentive category for those schools earning an “A” grade as their designation for having met the

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 22 most rigorous accountability standards. The implementation of the grade designation portion of the new state accountability model has been delayed until 2014-2015.

Chatham County Schools Incentive Plan 2014-2015

Licensed Teacher Personnel Assistants # of Licensed Incentive # of Teacher Incentive Designation/Criteria Personnel Pay Plan Cost Assistants Pay Plan Cost

Exceeds Expected Growth Incentive Pay $ 1,000 $ 500

Total 355.7 355,700 79.5 39,750

Meets Expected Growth Incentive Pay $ 500 $ 250

Total 140.16 70,080 28 7,000

Total 495.86$ 425,780 107.5$ 46,750

Incentive Plan Gross Pay $ 472,530.00 Socicial Security Cost @ 7.65% of Gross $ 36,148.55 Retirement Cost @ 14.69% of Gross $ 69,414.66 Total Cost of Incentive Pay $ 578,093.20

Note: Licensed personnel includes: teachers, principals, curriculum coaches, counselors, media specialists, social workers and nurses. Classified personnel includes: instructional assistants (full-time employees whose primary job involves the delivery, monitoring, and/or assessment of instruction).

The Facts

The Board of Education relies heavily on the services of people to deliver instructional programs to children. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the majority of our operating budget is for salaries and benefits. Now that the 2013-2014 budget has been reconciled, the next chart presents an overview of how much each fund covers in salaries, benefits, contracted services, supplies and materials, equipment and transfer payments to charter schools. The reader can see that 82% of $79,182,626 is budgeted to be spent in salaries. Benefits are 22% of the total budget while contracted services and supplies and materials are 10% and 5% respectively. The percentage numbers at the very bottom of the chart show that the state public school fund makes up 54% of the total operating budget. The local current expense fund contributes 37% and the federal grant funds contribute $6%. It should also be noted that the Board of Education has reconciled capital outlay, child nutrition and scholarship fund budgets for 2013-2014.

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 23

Other Local Pecentage of State Public Local Current Current Total 2013-2014 Total Budgeted Expenses School Fund Expense Fund Federal Grant Expense Fund Operating Operating for 2013-2014 Budget Budget Fund Budget Budget Budget Budget Salaries $ 30,801,383.00 $ 13,429,943.00 $ 2,752,795.46 $ 868,558.00 $ 47,852,679.46 60% Benefits $ 10,829,490.00 $ 5,106,678.00 $ 978,121.49 $ 331,625.53 $ 17,245,915.02 22% Contracted Services $ 353,017.00 $ 5,793,470.00 $ 747,011.90 $ 844,125.00 $ 7,737,623.90 10% Supplies & Materials $ 774,805.00 $ 2,838,270.00 $ 365,425.96 $ 225,100.00 $ 4,203,600.96 5% Equipment $ - $ 42,807.00 $ 42,807.00 0% Transfer Payments to Charter Schools $ 2,100,000.00 $ 2,100,000.00 3% Total $ 42,758,695.00 $ 29,311,168.00 $ 4,843,354.81 $ 2,269,408.53 $ 79,182,626.34 100%

% of Budget 54% 37% 6% 3% 100%

Other Factors

The Federal mandated Affordable Health Care Act will have a negative impact on next year’s budget. The school district is currently assessing employees who fall into the category of working 30 hours per week who are not classified as full time employees. Under this new federal mandate, employees that fall into the above category are eligible for health insurance benefits. We are anticipating an increase in health insurance costs to exceed $150,000.

Also, the additional 1% unemployment tax on the first $20,900 of wages earned by each employee will increase our budget by approximately $125,000. Please note that the $20,900 thresh hold will increase in the next fiscal year.

Technology Needs

The 2014-15 Capital Outlay requests for technology represent an opportunity to sustain the 1-to-1 Student Laptop Program in all our high schools, while dramatically improving the technology quality and access for our K-8 students. The security camera project that will be completed during the 2013-14 school year and rolling this funding into the 2014- 15 request with a renewed focus on serving students, provides the district the best opportunity to ensure equitable, countywide, student technology integration in order to support 21st century classrooms.

High School 1-to-1 Student Laptop Program Renewal

The High School 1-to-1 Student Laptop Program is in its fifth year in 2013-14. The renewal of this program will ensure the continuation of a valuable instructional program for our high schools, while providing a pathway to computer upgrades in all our K-8 buildings as well. The 2014-15 request has increased from the 2013-14 request because Jordan-Matthews High School was originally funded from a one-time Golden Leaf Grant. The 1-to-1 Student Laptop Program provides high school students and teachers greater opportunity to expand learning outside the classroom, participate in online assessments that provide teachers and students with real-time progress data, and to take advantage of

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 24

free web-based curriculum resources that would otherwise require purchase in a physical format. Chatham County Schools will also use this renewal opportunity to move computers to our K-8 schools in order to begin the process of improving access to current generation technology.

K-8 Student Technology Refresh

The majority of computers supporting our K-8 schools are now ten to twelve years old. While the old high school 1-to-1 student laptops will offset the needs, the district has an ongoing need to ensure that students in our K-8 schools have access to technology that will support 21st Century teaching and learning. Technology Services is unable to support the oldest devices in our K-8 schools and these devices no longer work with even basic technologies, such as current web browsers and Adobe Flash. Complicating this issue is new online testing requirements from the state, which puts a strain on schools to find computers that meet the minimum criteria and have sufficient battery life so that students have an uninterrupted testing experience. No plans have existed in the district to create a regular refresh schedule for K-8 student technology and, now that the security camera project has been completed, we believe that a modest increase to what has been an annual Capital Outlay request would be a realistic solution to this gap in technology funding for students.

VoIP Telephone Expansion

Chatham County Schools still has a number of schools using older digital and analog phone systems which are difficult to support. Expanding our VoIP Telephone System will put a phone in every classroom of a school to allow for 5-digit toll-free dialing across all VoIP locations, as well as providing voicemail for all employees at a school. The 2014-15 Capital Outlay request will address Bennett School and North Chatham Elementary.

Instructional, Administrative, & Network Infrastructure Needs

This request does not represent an increase over previous Capital Outlay requests and continues to support high density wireless network access, teacher and administrative computer upgrades, alongside regular network and server refresh projects. For the 2014- 15 school year, this money will also be used to expand the device management software we license to better support district computers and iOS devices like iPads and iPod Touch devices in our schools.

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 25 Closing Remarks

As always, in discussions on our continuation budget, legislative increases for health insurance and retirement benefits, utilities increases and risk portfolio increases should be considered during the budgeting process.

As the financial picture changes we will keep everyone informed. We believe the budget process this year will be challenging, however attainable, as we work together to progress Chatham County Schools forward in the future.

Chatham County Department Heads Up FY 2015 Page 26 Financial Indicators Introduction:  Based on a model produced by School of Government budget and finance faculty  Provides for a measure of financial health that can be easily compared with other counties  The model is designed to help us answer questions, such as: o Can we meet our obligations? o Can we continue to provide services? o Can we meet unexpected problems? o Do we have financial flexibility?

Financial Indicators Page 1 About the Benchmark Counties:

Chosen because of proximity and similarity to Chatham. Figures below are for FY 2013‐2014, unless otherwise noted. (Moore County is not included because audit information was not available).

Chatham Lee Orange Budgeted Expenditures $92,581,387 $63,756,420 $187,733,499 State Rank 31 46 12 Nonschool Expenditures $57,571,174 $40,456,055 $99,296,848 State Rank 33 51 16 Effective Tax Rate $0.6475 $0.7083 $0. $0.8908 State Rank 55 40 7 2012 Population 66,618 59,073 138,330 State Rank 40 47 20 Valuation/capita $136,600 $81,919 $118,026 State Rank 15 54 29 2012 Per Capita Income $50,697 $33,332 $51,702 State Rank 2 41 1 Total Funding Per Student (LEA only) $4,213 $2,349 $5,562 State Rank 5 32 2 Number of Students (LEA only) 8,310 9,918 19,757 State Rank 50 38 23

Financial Indicators Page 2 Financial Condition Assessment at Government‐Wide Level

Benchmark/Goal Chatham Trend Benchmark Counties Chatham Trend Benchmark Counties Governmental Activities Governmental Activities Business‐Type Activities Business‐Type Activities Resource Flow Total Margin 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 Total Margin Ratio‐ a ratio of one 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.10 or higher indicates that a 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 government lived within its 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 means 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

Financial Performance 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% Change in Net Assets ‐ A positive 0% percent change indicates a 0% 0% 0% government's financial position ‐5% ‐5% ‐5% ‐5% improved ‐10% ‐10% ‐10% ‐10% 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

Self‐Sufficiency 20% 20% 110% 110% Charges and Fees as a Percent of Expenses ‐ A ratio of one or 10% 10% 100% higher indicates that the service is self‐sustaining 0% 0% 90% 90% 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

10% 10% 10% 10% Resource Obligation 1 Debt Service Ratio ‐ Service flexibility decreases as more 5% 5% 5% 5% resources are committed to annual debt service 0% 1 0% 0% Lee Orange Chatham 0% Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 2004 2007 2010 2013

Financial Indicators Page 3 Financial Condition Assessment at Government‐Wide Level

Benchmark/Goal Chatham Trend Benchmark Counties Chatham Trend Benchmark Counties Governmental Activities Governmental Activities Business‐Type Activities Business‐Type Activities Resource Stock Liquidity 8 8 8 8 8 Quick Ratio ‐ A high ratio suggests 6 6 6 6 6 4 a government is able to meet its 4 4 2 4 4 0 short‐term obligations 2 2 2 2 68 0 0 0 024 0 2004 2007 2010 2013 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham Lee Orange Chatham

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Solvency 1 0.80 0.80 0.80 0 0.80 Net Asset Ratio ‐ A high ratio 0.60 0.60 0 0.60 0.60 0 suggests a government is able to 0.40 0.40 0.40 0 0.40 meet its long‐term obligations 0.20 0.20 0.20 0 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2004 2007 2010 2013 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham Lee Orange Chatham

Leverage Debt to Assets Ratio ‐ A high ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.4 suggests a government is overly 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30.30 reliant on debt for financing 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20.20 assets 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

0.75 0.75 Capital 0.75 0 0.75 Capital Asset Condition Ratio ‐ A 0.50 0.50 0.50 0 0.50 high ratio suggests a government is investing in its capital assets 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Lee Orange Chatham 0.00 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 2004 2007 2010 2013

Financial Indicators Page 4 Financial Condition Assessment for Enterprise Funds

Benchmark/Goal Chatham Trend Benchmark Counties Chatham Trend Benchmark Counties Utility Fund Utility Fund Waste Management Fund Waste Management Fund Resource Flow Total Margin 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Total Margin Ratio‐ a ratio of one 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 or higher indicates that a 1.00 government lived within its 1.00 1.00 1.00 means 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

Financial Performance 15% 15% 15% 15% 10% 10% Change in Net Assets ‐ A positive 10% 10% percent change indicates a 5% 5% 5% 5% government's financial position 0% 0% 0% 0% improved ‐5% ‐5% ‐5% ‐5% 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

Self‐Sufficiency 130% 130% 130% 130% 120% 120% 120% 120% Charges and Fees as a Percent of 110% 110% Expenses ‐ A ratio of one or 110% 110% higher indicates that the service is 100% 100% 100% 100% self‐sustaining 90% 90% 90% 90% 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

40% 40% Resource Obligation 40% 40% 30% 30% 30% 30% Debt Service Ratio ‐ Service 20% 20% flexibility decreases as more 20% 20% 10% 10% resources are committed to 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% annual debt service Lee Orange Chatham Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 2004 2007 2010 2013

Financial Indicators Page 5 Financial Condition Assessment for Enterprise Funds

Benchmark/Goal Chatham Trend Benchmark Counties Chatham Trend Benchmark Counties Utility Fund Utility Fund Waste Management Fund Waste Management Fund Resource Stock Liquidity 6 6 6 6 Quick Ratio ‐ A high ratio suggests 4 4 4 4 a government is able to meet its short‐term obligations 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

Solvency 0.60 0.60 4 4 3 3 Net Asset Ratio ‐ A high ratio 0.40 0.40 2 2 suggests a government is able to 0.20 0.20 meet its long‐term obligations 1 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

Leverage 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.30 Debt to Assets Ratio ‐ A high ratio 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.10 suggests a government is overly 0.10 reliant on debt for financing 0.10 0.10 assets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

Capital 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Capital Asset Condition Ratio ‐ A 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 high ratio suggests a government 0.25 0.25 is investing in its capital assets 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Lee Orange Chatham

Financial Indicators Page 6 Financial Condition Assessment for Governmental Funds

Benchmark/Goal Chatham Trend Benchmark Counties Chatham Trend Benchmark Counties General Fund General Fund Total Govermental Funds Total Governmental Funds Resource Flow Service Obligation 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Service Obligation ‐ A ratio of one or higher indicates that a 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 government lived within its 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 annual revenue collections 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

Dependency 30% 30% 30% 30% Dependency ‐ A high ratio may 20% 20% 20% 20% indicate that a government is too 10% 10% 10% 10% reliant on other governments 0% 0% 0% 0% 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

Financing Obligation 10% 10% 10% 10% 8% 8% 8% 8% Financing Obligation ‐ Service 6% 6% 6% 6% flexibility decreases as more 4% 4% 4% 4% resources are committed to 2% 2% 2% 2% annual debt service 0% 0% 0% 0% 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

Financial Indicators Page 7 Financial Condition Assessment for Governmental Funds

Benchmark/Goal Chatham Trend Benchmark Counties Chatham Trend Benchmark Counties General Fund General Fund Total Govermental Funds Total Governmental Funds Resource Stock Liquidity 20 20 20 20 Quick Ratio ‐ A high ratio suggests 15 15 15 15 a government is able to meet its 10 10 10 10 short‐term obligations 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

Solvency 60% 60% 60% 60% Fund Balance as pecent of 40% 40% 40% 40% expenditures 20% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham

Leverage 3% 3% 3% 3% Debt as Percent of Assessed Value 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013 Lee Orange Chatham 2004 2007 2010 2013

Financial Indicators Page 8

2014 Goals Status Report Chatham County Board of Commissioners

OVERARCHING GOAL: Achieve a prosperous, thriving community Overall Status: Unemployment fluctuates but Chatham continues to have one of the lowest in the state. Per capita income for 2011 was FY11 was $50,697, second highest in the state.

LONG‐TERM GOAL: Achieve AAA bond rating

MAJOR STATUS ITEM: Reaffirmation of bond ratings Standard & Poors and Moody’s, including a favorable outlook from Moody's. Chatham currently shares the highest bond rating in its population group with one other county. An upgrade from Moody's would give Chatham County the highest bond rating in its population group.

 SUBGOAL: Diversify job base and tax base—increase commercial and industrial tax base by 5% over the next 10 years. Proposed indicators: Commercial & industrial tax base, number of jobs added.  686 jobs created in past year  $23.16 million investment by business and $15.5 million annual payroll for new jobs  Data on tax base is not yet available and building permit data will be a future indicator when more information is available

SHORT‐TERM GOALS:

 Complete county land use plan, including an infrastructure plan  Status: Development of conceptual land use plan led by the EDC. Adoption of conceptual plan by the BOC on July 17, 2013. Plan identifies the megasite as the priority for infrastructure, which is being addressed

 Increase options for student learning & achievement  Status: ▫ BOC approval of two‐year funding for Carolina Works , a partnership between the community college and public high schools to give high school students college credits ▫ Expansion of Chatham Charter to include high school grades ▫ Recognition of Northwood and Jordan Matthews as top 20 high schools in the state by U.S. News and World Report (Northwood at #6 and Jordan Matthews at #15) ▫ National recognition of Chatham Central High School’s floriculture program by the Future Farmers of America Association. ▫ Completion of district‐wide accreditation process for first time since the 2012 school year (all schools were already individually accredited) ▫ BOC provision of funding to replace outdated laptops for K‐8 teachers.

 Obtain a certified megasite for economic development  Status: BOC approval of funding. County retention of McGill & Associates engineering firm to complete design for water and sewer. Initiation of survey work with expected design completion by 4/1/14

 Build a business‐friendly environment for new and expanding businesses  Status: Continuation of pre‐application meetings involving relevant county departments.

LONG‐TERM GOAL: Build the new Agriculture Center

Status: Completion of construction drawings and approval from Town of Pittsboro for rezoning and sewer allocation. Bid site work slated for 3/1/14, with estimated completion in Sept. 2015 (no change).

LONG‐TERM GOAL: Ensure efficient, effective government

SHORT –TERM GOALS:

 Maintain the property tax rate.  Status: Continuation of same tax rate for FY 2014

 Conduct energy audits of buildings that were constructed to be energy efficient (e.g. LEED) or have had energy efficiency improvements (e.g., Johnston Controls)  Status: Determination that we have inadequate history to complete this audit, but can reexamine at direction of the BOC

 Continue and expand the inventory of how the county does business to identify barriers/obstacles and (including state level) and work to remove obstacles  Status: . Continuation of pre‐application meetings . Investment in software that will allow departments to work together more effectively & efficiently:  CityView Software: Implementation should be completed this fiscal year. It will simplify the process of applying for, paying, and tracking the status of trade permits. It also will allow us to directly notify subcontractors of their inclusion on a permit, which means the contractor no longer has to submit notarized signatures from all sub‐contractors. It will also automatically notify the Sheriff’s Office when noise permits are issued and notify Solid Waste and Recycling when demolition permits are issued.  Pictometry Software: The Tax Office is allowing other departments, such as Inspections and Fire Marshal, to use this new software to enhance their efficiency. It will provide a more in‐depth view of parcels than the GIS provides, allowing them to reduce on‐site visits to resolve issues.  Financial Software: This new software will simplify the job application process and allow Human Resources and Finance to share information electronically instead of the current manual process.

 Seek opportunities to partner with municipalities and private entities to enhance efficiencies  Status: . Completed bid process for garage services at an estimated savings; continued exploration of joint county‐bus garage with Chatham County Schools . Partnership with Siler City on the megasite . Partnership with the Community College and NC Cooperative Extension on the new Ag Center . Exploration of interlocal agreement with Pittsboro to serve growth areas, such as Chatham Park . Partnership with Durham, OWASA and Pittsboro on western water intake . Collaboration with City of Durham on interconnection to increase water capacity . Exploration of a partnership to provide interim recreation programs and services for Siler City

LONG‐TERM GOAL: Build a safer community

MAJOR STATUS ITEMS:  Jail construction is underway  Emergency Fire Dispatch is underway and should be completed soon  The Backup 911 Center in Siler City was completed and tested in 2013  Working to ensure coverage in the Parkwood district

SHORT‐TERM GOALS  Invest in safe and secure schools and county buildings.  Implementation of several school safety improvements: ▫ Electronic door strikes with call button and camera that enable school personnel to lock/unlock the front doors remotely throughout the district ▫ Security cameras continue to be added ▫ JS Waters has added a security fence to enclose student pathways between separate buildings  Implementation of several county facility safety improvements: ▫ Installation of card entry systems for all new and renovated county buildings ▫ Additional safety improvements as part of renovations of Annex Building

 Monitor the status of the mental health environment  Continuation of efforts to work with Cardinal Innovations on mental health services, including County Manager's Office involvement in retaining the current provider of clinical services

 Protect the environment and drinking water and be proactive in seeking protection from state officials  Continuation of contract with USGS through interlocal agreement to monitor water quality Chart 1: Historical Population Growth 1980 to 2012

State Demographer's Latest Estimate Source: State Demographer 70,000 66,618 Warning Trend: Population is declining. Trend does not 60,000 apply.

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY

Population Chart 2: Projected Population Growth: 2012 to 2032

State Demographer's Latest Estimate Sources: State Demographer 100,000 Warning Trend: Population is 94,085 declining. Trend does not apply. 90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000 pulation o o P

40,000

30,000

20,000

10, 000

0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Chart 3: Population Projections by Age Group

0‐17 18‐64 64+ Source: State Demographer

50,000

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000 People of 25,000 rr

Numbe 20,000

15, 000

10,000

5,000

0 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year Chart 4: Projected Median Age Source: State Demographer 52

50

48 Age

nn 46 Media

44

42

40 2010 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 Chart 5: Chatham County Unemployment Rate

Source: NC Employment Security Commission 14 Chatham County

State Average 12 United States

10 t 8 7.5 7 Unemploymen t

nn 6 Perce 4.7 4

2

0 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Jul‐ Jul‐ Jul‐ Jul‐ Jul‐ Jul‐ Jul‐ Jul‐ Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan In October, 2013, the latest date data is available, Chatham County had the lowest unemployment rate in the state, trending well blbelow the stttate average. The OOtbctober 2013 rate i s the lltowest since May 2008. Chart 6: Per Capita Income Source: U.S. Department of Commerce North Carolina Average Chatham Bureau of Economic Analysis $$,60,000

Warning Trend: Per capita income is declining. Trend $50,697 does not apply. $50,000

$40,000

$37,910 Income

$30,000 Capita r ee P

$20,000

$10,000

$0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Accor ding to this survey, Cha tham Coun ty 's per cap ita income has cons is ten tly ran ke d 3d3rd in th e st at e out of 100 coun ties si nce 1999 . However, since 2009, Chatham ranked 2nd in per capita income and in 2011 is 34% higher than the state average. Chart 7: Residential Building Permits Issued: Including Cary & Siler City 1,200 Source: Chatham County Central Permitting County Cary Siler City

1,000

800

600

400 717 681 704

460 200 433 351 287 316 303

139

‐ FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 (1st Quarter) Chart 8: Quarterly Deed Stamps Collections Source: Chatham County Financial Software 800,000

2nd Quarter

1st Quarter 700,000 4th Quarter

3rd Quarter

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Chart 9: Actual and Projected Deeds Stamps Collections Source: Chatham County CAFRs 800,000.00 733,172

700,000.00

600,000.00 518,362 500,000.00

400,000.00

300,000.00

200,000.00

100,000.00

‐ FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Chart 10: Chatham County Tax Base, FY 2001‐2013

Source: Chatham County CAFR 10,000

Warning Trend: Property tax 9,000 base is declining. Trend does not apply.

8,000

7,000 ions)

Mill 6,000 (In

Value 5,000 ax T T

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Chart 11: Assessed Value Per Capita

Source: Chatham County CAFR $$,160,000 Warning Trend: Per capita assessed value is declining. $140,000 Trend does not apply.

$120,000 on

ss $100,000 Per

Per $80,000 Value d ee $60,000 Assess

$40,000

$20,000

$0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual

According to the FY 2013‐2014 Budget and Tax Survey by the NC Association of County Commissioners, Chatham County ranked 15th in the state in assessed value per capita, the same as FY 2012‐2013. Tax Rate Information for FY 2013-2014

• 62.19 cents/$100 in property value

• Unadjusted rate ranks 57th in the state (the statewide average rate is 63.18 cents)

• The effective tax rate of 64.75 (which takes into account market value of property) ranks 55th in the state (the statewide average is 65.92)

Source: North Carolina Association of County Commissioners FY 14 Budget & Tax Survey.

Tax Base Information for FY 2011-2012 (not updated)

77% of Chatham County’s tax base is Chart 12: Tax Base Comparison residential; 7% is commercial; 1% is industrial; Chatham v. State Average (Present Use=Fully Assessed Value) 80% and 14% is present use (when the fully Chatham assessed value of present use is considered) State Average 70% In comparison of counties reporting statewide, 72% of the tax base is residential; 16% is 60% commercial; 2% is industrial; 5% is present use, and 5% is other. 50%

Source: NC Department of Revenue, Tax Research 40% Division 30%

20%

10%

0% Residential Commercial Industrial Present‐Use Historic Roadway Other Corridor Chart 13: Chatham County's Historic Sales Assessment Ratio

Source: NC Department of Revenue 110% Warning Trend: Ratio is above 1.00. Trend does apply.

105%

100% son rr Pe

Per

95% Value ed ss Asses 90%

85%

80% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

According to the NC Department of Revenue, Chatham County is one of 70 counties in the state with a sales‐assessment ratio greater than 1. Chart 14: Comparison of Effective Tax Rates $1.2000

‐‐‐Surrounding County ‐‐‐State Average ‐‐‐Chatham County $1.0000

Orange

Durham $0.8000 Harnett

Lee State Chatham Average Randolph Rate

Wake Tax $0.6000 Alamance tive cc

Effe Moore

$0.4000

$0.2000

$0.0000 Chart 15: Chatham County Tax Collection Percentages

Source: Chatham County CAFR 100.00%

Warning Trend: Decrease in 95.00% property collection percentages. Trend does not apply. Collected

Taxes 90.00%

of

ercent PP

85.00%

80.00%

75.00% FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Real, Personal, Utilities 98.20% 98.39% 98.39% 97.65% 97.74% 97.95% 98.08% 98.08% 98.07% 98.20% 97.82% 97.91% 98.06% 98.19% 98.05% Vehicles 84.50% 85.81% 86.10% 88.38% 88.31% 89.89% 90.21% 90.58% 91.70% 91.82% 91.38% 92.26% 92.14% 92.14% 92.13% Chart 16: Number of County Employees Per 1,000 Residents

Source: Chatham County Budgets 7407.40 Warning Trend: Increasing number of county employees per capita. Trend does NOT 7.20 esidents apply. R R

1,000

Per 7.00 yees o Empl of 6.80 Number

6.60

6.40

6620.20

6.00 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FTE's/1,000 6.81 6.77 6.71 6.41 6.46 6.88 6.80 6.91 7.00 7.20 6.87 6.90 6.62 6.69 7.08 Chart 17: Actual Debt Service as % of General Fund Expenditures Source: Chatham County CAFRs 14.00% Warning Trend: Debt service is increasing as a percentage of operating expenditures. Trend DOES apply, but 12.00% county has reserve to cover debt service. s e e

10.00% Expenditur ating rr Ope of

8.00% Percent ee

6.00% Servic

Debt

4.00%

2.00%

0.00% FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 2011 2012 2013 Debt 10.06% 8.64% 7.55% 6.84% 6.61% 5.46% 4.73% 6.93% 5.89% 5.68% 10.57% 10.05% 12.24% 11.10% Chart 18: Projected Debt Service as Percent of General Fund 16.00% Source: Chatham County Manager's Office LGC Maximum 15. 00%

14.00%

13.00%

12.00%

11.00%

10.00%

9.00%

8.00%

7.00%

6.00%

5.00%

4. 00%

3.00%

2.00%

1.00%

0.00% FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Chart 19: Chatham County General Fund Debt Per Capita (Existing and Proposed CIP Debt Only) $2,500.00

$2,185

$2,000.00

NC Population Group High: $1,748

$1,500.00

$1,000 .00 NC Population Group Average: $846

$500.00

NC Population Group Low: $65 $‐ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Chart 20: Chatham County Debt as a Percent of Assessed Property Value (Existing and Proposed CIP Debt Only) NC Population Group High: 2.54% Legal debt limit is 8% of assessed value 1.80%

1.60% 1.60%

1.40%

1.20%

1.00% NC Population Group Average: 0.95%

0.80%

0.60%

0.40%

0.20% NC Population Group Low: 0.10%

0.00% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Chart 21: Chatham County Operating Surplus/(Deficit) General Fund Source: Chatham County CAFRs

4,000,000 Warning Trend: Operating deficit. Trend does not apply.

3,000,000

2,000,000

lus/(Deficit) 1,,,000,000 Surp

0 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(1,000,000)

(2,000,000)

(3,000,000) Chart 22: Percent of Available Fund Balance Chatham vs. State Average 35% Source: NC Treasurer Website Average for Population Group

Chatham 30% 29.0% 27.0%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0% FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Chart 23: Operating Surplus/(Deficit) Water Fund Chatham County CAFRs 1,500,000 Warning Trend: Operating deficit. Trend does apply.

1,000,000

500,000 (Deficit) // Surplus 0 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(,)(500,000)

(1,000,000) Chart 24: Operating Surplus/(Deficit) Waste Management Fund Chatham County CAFRs 600,000 Warning Trend: Operating deficit. Trend does not apply.

500,000

400,000

300,000 (Deficit) // 200,000 Surplus

100,000

0 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (100,000)

(200,000) Chart 25: Revenues Per Capita (Constant Dollars)

Source: Chatham County CAFRs $1, 350 Warning Trend: Revenues per capita are decreasing. Trend DOES apply. $1,300

$1,250 aa Capit

Per

$1,200 venues ee R

$1,150

$1,100

$1, 050

$1,000 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total 1,148 1,128 1,154 1,117 1,170 1,184 1,247 1,319 1,284 1,311 1,239 1,235 1,219 1,198 Chart 25A: Sales Tax Revenues Per Capita (Constant Dollars)

Source: Chatham County CAFRs $250 Warning Trend: Revenues per capita are decreasing. Trend DOES apply.

$200 aa Capit $150 Per venues ee R

$100

$50

$0 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Sales Tax 177 178 167 177 200 208 216 230 221 172 135 126 125 126 Chart 26: Expenditures Per Capita (Constant Dollars)

Source: Chatham County CAFRs $1,300

Warning Trend: Expenditures per capita are increasing. Trend does not apply. $1,250

$1,200 ita pp Ca

Per

$1,150 enditures pp Ex $1,100

$1,050

$1,000

$950 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Per Capita Expenditures 1,086 1,117 1,091 1,117 1,121 1,127 1,108 1,179 1,231 1,267 1,258 1,235 1,189 1,182 Chart 27: FY 2012 Per Capita Revenue Comparison For Counties 50,000‐99,999 Population Data Source: NC State Treasurer

Chatham County $900 Avg. for Pop. Group

$800

$700 enue v v

Re $600

Capita

$500 Per

$400

$300

$200

$100

$0 Property Other Taxes Sales Tax Sales & Intergovernm Debt Other Taxes Services ental Proceeds Miscellaneou s Chatham County $858 102 127 191 216 218 71 Avg. for Pop. Group $543 48 131 150 243 81 44 Explanation of Per Capita Revenues (from State Treasurer)

Property Tax - collections of current year and prior year unit-wide tax levies; interest on delinquent taxes; late listing penalties; and other costs of collecting delinquent taxes.

Other Tax - collections of taxes from special tax districts; animal taxes; deed stamp excise taxes; real property transfer taxes; scrap tire disposal taxes; local occupancy taxes; prepared food taxes; 911 charges; white goods disposal tax; and privilege and other license taxes.

Sales Tax - collections of the one percent local option sales tax and both of the one-half of one percent local option sales taxes (Article 40 and 42).

Sales and Services - parking revenues; rents and royalties; airport revenues; fire protection charges; solid waste charges; ambulance and rescue squad charges; cemetery revenues; recreational service revenues; library service revenues; other cultural and recreational service revenues; client and third party payments for health, mental health, social services, and nursing home services; mass transit revenues; and water/sewer charges

Intergovernmental - federal, State, and local financial assistance including payments in lieu of taxes; equitable sharing of federally forfeited property; categorical grants; controlled substance taxes; intangibles tax and intangibles reimbursement received from the State; distributions of beer and wine taxes; payments of court costs; Public School Building Capital Outlay Fund revenues; Public School Building Bond Fund revenues; food stamp purchases tax reimbursements; manufacturers' and retailers' and wholesalers' inventory tax reimbursements; and the senior citizens exemption reimbursements.

Debt Proceeds – proceeds of the sale of bonds and notes; proceeds of lease-purchase agreements.

Other Miscellaneous - building permits; Register of Deeds' fees; building inspection fees; other permits; investment earnings; special assessments; private contributions and donations; sales of materials, fixed assets, and real property; ABC Board bottle taxes; ABC Board profit distributions; and other miscellaneous revenues.

Chart 28: Charges, Fees, and Permits as % of General Fund Revenue Source: Chatham County CAFRs 4.00% Warning Trend: Revenue is decreasing as a percent of total revenue. Trend does apply for permits and fees. 3.50%

3.00%

enue 2.50% v v Re

Total of

2.00% cent r r Pe 1.50%

1.00%

0.50%

0.00% FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 PitPermits &F& Fees 1.89% 2.52% 2.19% 2.51% 2.95% 2.68% 2.46% 2.28% 1.96% 1.69% 1.13% 1.45% 1.26% 1.64% Sales & Service 2.88% 3.08% 2.90% 2.82% 3.04% 3.01% 3.44% 3.63% 2.94% 2.79% 2.89% 2.58% 3.49% 3.30% Chart 29: Property Tax as Percent of General Fund Revenue

Source: Chatham County CAFRs 80. 00% Warning Trend: Property tax is increasing as a percent of total 70.00% revenue. Trend does apply.

60.00% ue 50.00% Reven

Total of 40.00% nt ee Perc

30.00%

20.00%

110.00%0.00%

0.00% FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Property Tax 55.38% 57.07% 61.14% 62.69% 59.73% 59.21% 59.69% 58.02% 61.34% 65.98% 69.27% 69.90% 69.35% 69.84% Chart 30: FY 2012 Per Capita Expenditure Comparison For Counties 50,000‐99,999 Population

Data Source: NC State Treasurer

Chatham County Avg. for Pop. Group $600

$500 nditures Expe

$400 Capita

Per $300

$200

$100

$0 Education Debt Service Human Services General Public Safety Other Government Chatham County $459 176 253 135 542 198 Avg. for Pop. Group $293 153 265 96 268 188 Explanation of Per Capita Expenditures (from State Treasurer)

Education - appropriations to school administrative units and to community college systems for current operations and capital outlays.

Debt Service - principal, interest, and fees paid or accrued on debt.

Human Services - expenditures for the public health, mental health, and social services programs; veterans’ service officers; legal aid; appropriations to hospitals; county’s share of Medicaid payments, AFDC payments, and Special Assistance to Adults; county’s share paid to multi-county health district and an area mental health authority.

General Government - expenditures for the governing body, administration, elections, finance, revaluations, legal services, Register of Deeds, construction and maintenance of public buildings not related to other functions, court facilities, and central services.

Public Safety - expenditures for the sheriff's department, jails, emergency communications, emergency management activities, fire protection, building inspections, rescue and ambulance services, animal control, and medical examiners or coroners.

Other - expenditures for transportation, solid waste, drainage and watershed, cemeteries, planning and zoning, economic and community development, agriculture extension programs, special employment programs, culture and recreation, water and sewer, unallocated fringe benefits, and Miscellaneous expenditures. Chart 32: Expenditures Per Capita for Culture & Recreation

(Constant Dollars) Source: Chatham County CAFRs $90 Warning Trend: Expenditures per capita are increasing. Trend $80 DOES apply.

$70

apita $60 CC

Per

$50 xpenditures EE $40

$30

$20

$10

$0 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Culture & Recreation 21 22 21 25 27 23 23 23 77 38 23 30 47 27 Chart 33: Expenditures Per Capita for Debt

(Constant Dollars) Source: Chatham County CAFRs $160 Warning Trend: Expenditures per capita are increasing. Trend $140 DOES apply.

$120 Capita r r Pe

$100

$80 Expenditures

$60

$40

$20

$0 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Debt 109 96 82 76 74 62 52 82 73 72 133 124 146 131 Chart 34: Expenditures Per Capita for Economic and Physical Development

(Constant Dollars) Source: Chatham County CAFRs $80

Warning Trend: Expenditures per capita are increasing. Trend $70 DOES apply.

$60 Capita

$50 Per

$40 Expenditures

$30

$20

$$10

$0 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Economic & Physical 69 31 27 35 35 24 28 29 39 41 34 42 44 27 Development Chart 35: Expenditures Per Capita for Education (Constant Dollars) Source: Chatham County CAFRs $500 Warning Trend: Expenditures per capita are increasing. Trend $450 does not apply.

$400

$350 Capita

Per

ss $300

$250 Expenditure

$200

$150

$100

$50

$0$ FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Education 319 344 383 375 380 390 376 410 419 464 437 430 416 414

According to the NCACC FY 2013-2014 Budget and Tax Survey, Chatham County ranks 5th out of 100 counties in total spending per student (same as last year). Chatham ranks 4th in current expense and supplement spending per student (same as last year). The rankings include charter school students. Chart 36: FY 2013 Average Teacher Supplements: Chatham, Surrounding Counties & State Average Source: Department of Public Instruction Local Salary Supplements FY 2012‐2013

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 Harnett Asheboro Randolph Lee Moore Alamance State Chatham Orange Durham Wake Chapel City Average Hill FY 2013 2,266 2,312 2,772 2,787 3,197 3,237 3,550 3,990 4,964 5,227 6,318 6,441 Chatham's supplement ranks 10th in the state out of 115 school districts. Our main competition is higher counties to the north and east. Chart 37: Expenditures Per Capita for General Government (Constant Dollars) Source: Chatham County CAFRs $160 Warning Trend: Expenditures per capita are increasing. Trend $140 DOES apply.

$120 pita aa C $100 Per

$80 penditures xx E

$60

$40

$20

$0 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 General Government 105 133 103 99 102 103 107 112 118 131 140 131 99 139 Chart 38: Expenditures Per Capita for Human Services (Constant Dollars) Source: Chatham County CAFRs $400 Warning Trend: Expenditures per capita are increasing. Trend $350 does not apply.

$300 apita CC $250 Per

$200 xpenditures E E

$150

$100

$50

$0 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Human Services 298 326 314 331 330 347 340 332 317 324 299 287 258 246 Chart 39: Expenditures Per Capita for Public Safety (Constant Dollars)

Source: Chatham County CAFRs $250 Warning Trend: Expenditures per capita are increasing. Trend does not apply.

$200 pita aa C

Per

$150 penditures xx E

$100

$50

$0 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Public Safety 164 163 161 176 172 179 182 192 188 197 191 191 180 197 Chart 40: Annual Number of Foreclosures in Chatham County 350 NC Administrative Office of the Courts

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 thru 10/31 Chart 41: Article 39 (locally collected) Sales Tax

4,300,000 Data Source: Department of Revenue 12‐month Sales Tax Distribution Report

Peak Year: $4,061,450 4,100,000

$3,920,732 3,900,000

3,700,000

3,500,000

3,300,000

3,100,000 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 For the first four months of FY 2014, Article 39 receipts are trending 8% above FY 2013. In comparison, Article 40 (collected statewide) is trending up 4%. The state report does not match audit numbers because the state accounts for the revenue on a cash basis. However, changes in sales tax over the past few years have made trending very difficult. The state distribution report is the most reliable and consistent source of information. Chatham County, NC

Text File File Number: 14-0860

Agenda Date: 7/21/2014 Version: 1 Status: Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda In Control: Board of Commissioners File Type: Agenda Item

Agenda Number:

Closed Session to discuss matters within the attorney client privilege.

Chatham County, NC Page 1 Printed on 7/18/2014