May 31, 1996 - 10:00 AM - County Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes

May 31, 1996The Johnston County Board of Commissioners resumed regular session on Monday, May 31,1996, at 1000 oclock am in the Commissioners Meeting Room, Johnston County Courthouse Annex,Smithfield, North Carolina, with the following membersPresent Norman C Denning, Chairman, John M Booker, Vice Chairman, James W Cash,Eleanor N Creech, Cecil M Massengill and Cookie PopeAbsent Jerry F WoodAlso Present Richard B Self, County Manager, and Joyce H Ennis, Clerk to the BoardThe Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was transacted1 Board of Equalization and ReviewUpon a motion by Commissioner Cookie Pope, seconded by Commissioner Eleanor N Creechand carried by unanimous vote, the Board recessed regular session to meet as the Board of Equalizationand ReviewSheila Garner, Real Property Supervisor, introduced the following scheduled appealsA Robert M Bryant, Jr - Parcel 411M02199H, ONeals Township RecommendedValue 236,580 Requested Value 195,000 Reason for Appeal Health Hazardous,stench - hog farm less than one mile from propertyMrs Bryant stated there is a terrible odor at times due to a hog operation across the river fromhis home She noted she and her husband built their home to live in and use for business entertainmentpurposes She stated they can no longer entertain because they never know when the hog odor will bestrong She presented an opinion of value from Parrish Realty giving the fair market value, consideringthe conditions, at 195,000In response to a question from Chairman Norman Denning, Ms Bryant stated the house wasbuilt before the hog operation She and Mr Bryant noted the entire area is depressed because of the hoghouses, and suggested the County consider an odor ordinanceChairman Denning responded that the State is discussing these types of problems and, in hisopinion, any regulations should be statewideMs Garner explained a 10 depreciation was given during informal hearings Also, theoutbuilding was not assessed in previous years She noted the tax staff will be glad to look at the opinionof value and see if there is something they were not aware of concerning this propertyB Donald Jernigan - Parcel 401F11096A, Banner Township Recommended Value103,670 Requested Value 30,000 Reason for Appeal Value too highMr Jernigan stated the value, in his opinion, is too high as most of the land is wetlands and willnot perk He explained he received only 850 rent off the property last year Twenty three acres arecleared, and there is no dwelling on the propertyMs Garner stated the tax records indicate a larger amount of cleared land, and tax staff cancorrect this, which will have an affect on the value She noted the property would be eligible for farm usevalue if Mr Jernigan had responded to the notice and applied for this in January It is too late for 1996,however, she explained he can apply for 1997C Jennelle Denton - Parcel 415096027, Smithfield Township Recommended Value76,340 Requested Value 64,000 Reason for Appeal Too highMr Denton stated his house was built in 1973 and was appraised in 1994 for around 60,000when it was refinanced There have been no improvements to the house since it was built, including carpet,except a deck which was added in 1986 or 1987 There is a gas line running through the propertyMs Garner showed comparable sales in the neighborhood305G Barney G Joyner - 4 parcels1 Parcel 415077028E, Smithfield Township - Recommended Value 1,401,660Requested Value None Stated Reason for Appeal - Value too high2 Parcel 415077028C, Smithfield Township - Recommended Value 291,140Requested Value None Stated Reason for Appeal - Value too high3 Parcel 415077028G, Smithfield Township - Recommended Value 123,130Requested Value None Stated Reason for Appeal - Value too high4 Parcel 41507702813, Smithfield Township - Recommended Value 70,200Requested Value None Stated Reason for Appeal - None StatedMr Joyner addressed the entire property and stated the tax value is more than 1 million over the820,000 he paid for it in March, 1995 Of the 119,308 sq ft of rental space, only 59,560 sqft areoccupied He noted he is trying to market the property at this time2 Decisions on Anneals - New Values are Annroximate Exact Figures will be Determined bthe Tax OfficeA Robert M Bryant, Jr - Parcel 411M02199H, ONeals TownshipMs Garner stated the property was valued with a dirt road, however, it should be listed with noroad She recommended the value be reduced to 234,000 to reflect this changeDECISION The Board agreed to a value of 234,000 with no further changesB Donald Jernigan - Parcel 40IFI1096A, Banner TownshipMs Garner stated she has corrected the acreage of cleared land and the new value would be97,550DECISION The Board approved the corrected value of 97,550 and asked Ms Garner to notifyMr Jernigan that he will be eligible for farm use in 1997C Jennelle Denton - Sheila showed comparable salesDECISION No ChangeD Barney G Joyner 4 propertiesDECISION No Change3 J Guy Abell Property DiscussedJ Guy Abell - Parcel 415091050, Smithfield Township Board heard this case on May 8, 1996and again discussed on May 13, 1996 Value was approved at 96,120 by the BoardMs Garner explained that in reviewing Mr Abells property it was discovered that part of hishouse is a workshop or garage, and she has lowered the value to 92,540, based on that portion not beingfinished floor space The Board concurred with the new value4 Doublewide Mobile HomesSterling Hancock, Tax Administrator, and Ms Garner explained they have revisited manydoublewide mobile homes in the County in an effort to find a fair and equitable way to value thesestructures Mr Hancock gave the Board a packet of information, including the legal requirements as set outin the NC Machinery Act, a pricing guide, information from the Manufactured Housing Association, andthe original contract agreement with Pearsons Appraisal Company for the 1995 revaluation He stated, inhis opinion, the specifications of the contract agreement were somewhat conflicting concerning how thesestructures were to be assessed, and Pearsons appraisers apparently considered all doublewides as beingofthe same quality He noted the situation is complicated because most doublewides appear to be of similarquality on the outside, which is what the appraisers were going by There is, however, a need to recognizethat there are different quality homes He suggested one way to look at this would be to consider non-permanent property verses owned property He noted that if a person does not own the property on whicha doublewide is located, that person has limited rights as to what he can and cannot do Also, he suggestedthe County could look at whether the home has a solid foundation He recommended the Board consider306a 20 depreciation on doublewide mobile homes on leased land, and a 10 depreciation on ones that donot have a solid foundationMs Garner showed some examples of how applying these criteria would change values She alsonoted the tax staff is trying to get more information from reliable sources as to which makes and modelshave higher quality materials, etc She also recommended that location and type of neighborhood be lookedat in valuing these types of property She informed the Board there are 2899 doublewide mobile homes inthe County, 522 of which are on leased landFollowing discussion, the Board agreed to give this matter further considerationCommissioners Cecil M Massengill and Eleanor N Creech both commented that even though thisproposal would cost the County in tax revenue, in their opinion, it would be the right thing to doThere being no further comments, Commissioner John M Booker moved the Board of Equalizationand Review recess until June 26, 1996 at 700 pm Commissioner James W Cash seconded the motion,which carried by unanimous voteREGULAR SESSION RESUMED5 Water and Wastewater - Sweetwater DevelopmentCounty Manager, Richard Self, informed the Board he has talked with representatives of theSweetwater Development concerning County water and sewer Sweetwater has been negotiating a contractwith Carolina Utilities for a private system; however, they have indicated they would prefer County waterand sewer services, even at a greater cost, because of the long -term benefits and dependability They haveasked to come before the Board at their regular meeting on Monday, June 3rd, to discuss this matterConcerning water service, he noted that Sweetwater has indicated they would be willing to go aheadand purchase 211 taps, representing the first phase of development, from the Clayton Water District Thiswould assure enough participation to make that water district feasibleAs far as sewer service is concerned, Mr Self explained he met with Tim Broome and HaywoodPhthisic to see what assessment per lot the County would have to charge to cover costs The original 5000per lot, which was approved at the 12195 meeting, was a temporary measure and was noted at that timeto be higher than would probably be needed A more realistic figure would be around 3000Tim Broome, engineer with McKim Creed, stated he will present the completed 20 year waterand sewer study at the June 3, 1996 meeting, however, for this discussion, he briefly outlined proposals forsewer in the western area of the County, and showed how the County could provide service to SweetwaterThe Board asked the County Manager to make sure other developers and the HomebuildersAssociation are notified that this will be discussed on Monday, June 3rdThere being no further business, Commissioner John M Booker moved the Board adjournCommissioner Eleanor N Creech seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voteNorman C Denning, ChairmanJoyce K Ennis, ClerkDetailsAnnotationsEntry PropertiesModified11192013 24815 PMCreated492003 101132 AMTemplateMinutesFieldsMinutes - TypeRecessedMinutes - Date5311996Book20