Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19750213~.~~ Commissioner Norman Walker moved the motion be tabled. Commissioner Jan Pinney offered a second to the motion to table. Chairman Flora Garrett called for a vote on the motion to table. Ayes 3, Noes 1. The motion to table was declared passed. Commissioner Pinney suggested the Board inquire about a long term lease of the property;(.20years or more ), with the option to buy receiving credit for all lease payments towards the purchase price. If a lease arrangement is not acceptable to the Board of Education then wou~.d they please make another offer to the Board of Co~mnissioners as the Board felt $100,000 was too much to pay £or the property. The meeting then adjourned. ~~a.. Flora Garrett, Chairman S ':Mr Gattis;, ~. Aging -.Cr~erk Items Filed: None. Approved: THE: M~NUTES,OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOP:RD OF COMMISSSONERS February 13, 1975 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met on Thursday, February 13, 1975, at 5:00 p.m., in the Commissioners Room at the Courthouse in Hillsborough, N. C. Members Present: Chairman Flora Garrett, Commissioners Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, and Richard E. Whetted. Members Absent: Commissioner Norman Walker. A. B. Coleman, Jr. County Attorney, S. M. Gattis, County Administrator, and Betty June Hayes, Clerk, were also present. Bill Laws, Tax Supervisor, and Archie Kelly, Tax Appraiser, were also present. Pat Walton, Executive Director of Mental Health was also present. This meeting :;was held for the purpose of hearing tax appeals that had been received since the Board of Equalization and Review had adjourned. The County Administrator stated that Commissioner Norman Walker called and requested him to ask the Board not .to take any action on the Northside School property until he could be present. Mr. Gattis explained that Mr. Walker was sick with the flu. The Board agreed that due to the pressure to time that it should reach some decision as to how to begin to negotiate for the Northside School property. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted to continue discussion 6n the Northside School property. Commissioner Pinney stated that he had learned that the School Board could lease the Northside School property and that he had talked unofficially with members of the School Board and these members expressed an interest in such an arrangement. The Board questioned Mrs. Walton concerning the grant monies that would be an advantage for renovation and they inquired about the time factor. Mrs. Walton stated that if a lea~ie agreement was to be pursued then it would have to be a long term lease agreement before the gran* monies. could be applied. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved that the County should proceed tp negotiate with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Unit on a possible lease agreement for either a long term lease that would include an option to purchase and if we find, after receiving tie fiscal report from Neal Evans,we have the money we can appropriate $15,750. We could appropriate this to them in a good faith gesture for the school grounds. Discussion ensued. { i I 'i ,, ~~ It was pointed out that the Hoard did nat want to become involved with any dollar figure, therefore, Commissioner Pinney was requested to amend his original motion and delete the portion that contained the referred to X15,750 appropriation. .. Commissioner Pinney agreed to amend the motion :tp be as follows: "That the County should proceed to negotiate with the Chapel Hill-Carrbara School Unit on a possible lease arrangement for either a long term lease that would include an option to pruchase. aye. Commissioner Whitted agreed to the amendment. Chairman Garrett called for a vote on the amended motion. All members voted Chairman Garrett declared the motion passed. The County Administrator was instructed to contact Dr. Hanes in order to pursue the matter. Chairman Garrett recOgni2ed;.Hi.ll~-Laws~~:.Tax Supervisor, and Archie Kelly, Tax Appraiser. Mr. Laws stated that he and Mr. Kelly were present to present to the Soard tax matters that had not been resolved. Chairman Garrett recognized David Warren. Mr. Warren stated that he was present to speak in behalf of the E. C. Leonard Playground. Mr. Warren advised the Hoard that he had been on the Neighborhood Association for the E. C. Leonard Playground for approximately one (1) year, and that the notice of denial for the tax aspects status for the playground was received in December of 1974, and that they were making an appeal of the denial notice based on the fact that indeed this little lot which resembles a playground that is open to the public and always has been. No one has ever been exclused. No one ever thought it was an exclusive area and looking at the status we see that we are a non-profit corporation who does, in fact, own this piece of property and it is used exclusively as a public park. There is no other use that has been made of it, and nb'other.use that could be made of it. The only additional thing that Mr. Laws did not have when he made his determination is that after receiving the notice of denial in December, the Hoard of Directors took a look at the articles of the Incorporation and the By-Laws and discovered they had the power to adapt rules and regulations to govern the use of that park area which we proceeded to make it clear that the area was open to the public, and we added some other kinds of restrictions that are not restrictive as to people but as to the activities. Mr. Warren stated that a copy of the new Hy-Laws had been submitted along with the Appeal Notice. A question and answer period ensued. Bill Laws, Tax Supervisor, stated that the basis for his denial was the fact in the conveyance that there was a deed to the Playground Association by the grantor, Ed Tenney , that the Trustees of Coker College in cohveying to Ed Tenney who in turn conveyed it to the Playground Association. Restrictions are contained in the pr~ginal deed from Coker College. These restrictions state the land is conveyed in order to establish a Recreation area for the residents and/or the owners of the pro- perty within the Coker Hill Subdivision. The County Attorney advised that the time element of use did not make certain properties public land. He stated that in as long as it is written in, that the purpose for which it was set up then it should be used that way. The purpose for the tax exempt status, or course, is to encourage this sort of arrangement that the people in Coker Hi11s have. Sut~ nothing that 2'm aware of will make this as a matter of title or law or anything else property that belongs to the public. This is not nonprofit ,die use of which is presently as he has explained. Apparently, at any time, 2 suppose they could meet and convey the property to a private owner. Discussion ensued concerning reversipn of title if restrictions were not complied with. The Tax Supervisor stated that the next appeal dealt with 6 parcels of land that had been owned at the beginning of 1974 by the Nature Conservancy and that during the year of 1974 these tracts of land had been conveyed to the State of North Carolina. Mr. Laws stated his basis of denial of the request dealt with the interpretation of `-' G.S. 105.275(12), that is, the Statutes require some active use of property qualification For this exclusion. Mr. Laws recognized Andy Giles who is on the staff of the Attorney General's Office. ~~~ Mr. Giles stated that "In this case you are dealing with the taxability of land that the state has now acquired by you dealing with its tax status prior to its acquisition when it was awned by the Nature Conservancy for preservation and conservation gurposes.. ultimately to be conveyed to the State of North Carolina as part of our purchase arrangement. We not only pay them what they pay for the property, we also reimburse them for any cost which includes taxes, therefore, we are going to foot the tax bill if you all rule that its taxable. It is our con*_ention that the_property was not taxab'.e on January 1, 1974, by virture of a statutory exemption. That is G.S. 105.275(12), which holds that real property owned by a non-profit corporation or association exclusively held or used 'ay its owner for educational and scientific purposed as protected natural area. This is the exclusion. For purposes of the subdivision `he .term protected natural area means a nature reserve or park in which all types of wild nature, flora, fauna, biotic communties are preserved £or observation and study. We contend that this statutory provision requires a passive use of the property. Namely, it has got to be pre- served so that scientific and educational studies may be made of the area. And this was precisely what was done with the properties acquired by the Nature Conservancy during the.time which they held title to it. I have before me and I will let you all look this over, this is a one year study of a portion Of the property conducted by Duke University for various departments within Duke University primarily on the Sernheim tract which is a 89.9 acre tract which is one of the tracts in question. I might add that when we got ready to acquire these properties we had a title examined by various County Attorneys. Several of these attorneys concluded that the property was not taxable by virture of this provision. When it came to our office (Attorney General), our office reached the same conclusion. This same conclusion has been concurred in by Mr. Doug Holbrook, who is the head of the ad-valorem section of the Department of Revenue and likewise concurred in by Mr. Henry Lewis of the Institute of Government. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Holbrook drafted this statute specifically with the Nature Conservancy in mind,. and specifically for the purpose of exempting property held by the Nature Conservancy for preservation and conservation purposes to exclude those from taxes." Discussion ensued and :the Board heard from Margaret Nygard and Duncan Herron and A. T. (Sandy) Davison. The County Administrator advised the 3oard that the Sheriff had the opportunity to apply fqr a LEEA grant. This grant would 'ae a training grant in the amount of $21,0O0,however, the deadline for the grant application was within the next few days. Mr. Gattis stated that this is basically a training grant for personnel and that the cost to the county would be less than, $200. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was moved and adopted, that the Chairman be authorized to sign the LEEA grant application.. :. . UNABLE TO OBTAIN COPY OF NEEDED RESOLUTION 1 Chairman Garrett advised the Board that somebody wha was speaking in behalf of the University in the matter of the taxation of the University property has asked the 5oard to postpone the hearings of February 18th. Chairman Garrett advised the Board that she had discussed the matter with the County Administrator and we were suggesting a 30-day postponement until our mid-March meeting which would also be March 18th meeting. Mr. Coleman advised the Board that he had contacted Chairman Garrett because he had received a phone call from Mr. Marion Banks of the Attorney General's Office and he's got to be in court somewhere on the 1Bth:_ Mr, Banks requested that he be notified of the date of postponement. Mr, Coleman advised that Mr. Banks stated that he would be glad to forward a written waiver of any further notice. The County Administrator advised that E. B. Denny, Attorney for the Town of Chapel Hi11, was willing for the postponement as long as they would postpone also the hearing before the Town of Chapel Hill. He did not want the Chapel Hill hearing to occur until after the county hearing had taken place. And that likewise while he isn't speaking for the Town of Carrbaro, he would like for that hearing to be postponed again so all the hearings, so to speak,are handled here (before the Board) before it comes out in Chapel Hill or Carrboro. Mr. Coleman replied that he would convey this sentiment to Mr, Banks that all three (3) governmen~al units any and all notices is waived. The Board advised Mr. Coleman that they wished to hold this hearing on Tuesday, March 18, 197$, Mr. Laws presented the appeal from Highland Woods Recreation Association. This property is designated as Tax Map 54, BL A, Lt 4, assessed value $6,500, Mr, Laws stated that this request was denied on a presumption that the use of this recreational -lot '.was:.restricted to residents of the Highland Woods community or members of the Association and that therefore the property could not be considered a "public" park, ~r i The Board then reviewed the request of Dave Warren relative to the E. C. Leonard Playground Corporation. It was felt that the matters were similar. The Tax Supervisor stated that the application of appeals were denied due to the fact that this park or playground was restricted to the residents of Coker Hills Subdivision and that therefore the property could not be considered a "public" park. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whitted it was moved and adopted, that the Berard uphold the decision of the Tax Supervisor relative to the E. C. Leonard Playground Corporation. The matter of the Highland Woods Recreation Association was again reviewed. The Board requested the Tax Supervisor to secure additional information on the Highland Woods Recreation Association. Specific emphasis was placed on whether or not this property was restricted to residents of the area. Discussion ensued concerning the appeal of the Nature Conservancy.' Upon motion of Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved that the Board sustain the appeal from the Nature Conservancy, and allow them to be excluded from the 1974 tax assessment. Chairman Garrett called for a vote.:on the motion. Commissioners Garrett, Gustaveson, and Whitted voted aye. Commissicner Pinney voted nay. Chairman Garrett then declared the motion passed. The Tax Supervisor advised the Hoard that E. N. Richards, owner and developer of the Un°versity Mall, had requested that his appeal be heard at a later meeting. The Board declined to schedule a saecial meeting for Mr. Richards,however, they did agree to hear the appeal at a regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Laws advised the Board that the appeal of the Efland Knitting Company on . their knitting machines had been reviewed. He stated'that he and the tax appraiser had talked with the Tax Supervisor's Office in Alamance County as•this county has considerable experience in appraising knitting machinery. He then filed a written •appraisal of the Efland Knitting Compaay!s_machines with the.Board. This report gave the revaluation of the equipment as being reduced from $216.090. to $92,Bfi0_ Upon motion of Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted, that the Board accept the recommendation of the Tax Supervisor and _ the Tax Appraiser on the matter of the knitting machines of Efland Knitting Company. Mr. Laws advised the Board that there were several matters dealing with tax refunds. The first of these being the refund request by D. St. Pierre DuBose. Mr. Laws stated that the appeal of Mr. DuBose was upheld by the State Property Tax Com- mission and that this appeal reduced the value on property owned by Mr. DuBose in Chapel Hill Township. Mr. DuBose had paid Orange County taxes in the amount of $17,698.95. With the new valuation reducing it from X10,000 an acre back to $6,900 an acre, he should have paid X10,803.75 so he is due a refund of $6,895.20. The Board questioned the County Administrator as to how the n6,$95.20 could be refunded. Mr. Gattis advised the Board that in this event he felt the county should charge it off the Reserve Fund. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded b•y Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the County accept the order of the State Property Tax Commis- sion to reduce the tax value on property owned by D. St. Pierre DuBose in Chapel Hill Township from $10,000 an acre to $6,000 an acre and that Mr. DuBose be refunded $6,895.20 from the Reserve Fund. Mr. Laws presented a request from Robert G. Hancock for a refund in the amount of $1,872.45. This refund is granted on Berkshire Manor Apartments. The 1974 tax value had been reduced by order of the Board.of Equalization and Review. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was :roved and adopted that Robert G. Hancock be refunded X1,872.45 on properties designated as Berkshire Manor Apartments and in accordance with the order of the Board of Equalization and Review. This refund is to be taken from the Reserve Fund. • This request of Wilfred L. Phelps in the amount of X14.14. This request is due ~v to a valuation error that included a portion of a new addition *_o Mr. Phelp's store. This new addition was not begun until after January 1, 1974. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the refund in the amount of $14.14 be granted to Wilfred ". Phelps for the reason cited by the Tax Supervisor. The refund is to be taken from the 1974 Tax Fund. ~~ The Tax Supervisor advised the $oard that C. W. Davis, one of the Trustees for Union Grove Methodist Church, had filed a request that 120 acres awned ay the. ~ Church be exempt from taxation under G.S. 105.275(7) due to the fact that the Church planned to have a Boy Scout Troop utilize the property'.for.`.environmental studies. Mr. Davis further requested that the Board make the request retroactive to cover the 1974 tax period. The Tax appraiser and the Tax Supervisor reviewed the status and from this review the Board could find no justification for exempting the Unior Grove Methodist Church from their tax assessment. Discussion ensued concerning Plaza Associates and the tax value that had been established on a per square foot basis. The Tax Supervisor was authorized to negotiate with the owner of the NCN3 Bank Building. Discussion ensued concerning the book value now being used to appraise automobiles. The Tax Supervisor advised the Board as to the reasons that the Tax Department had changed from the Red Book to the NADA Book. Further Discussion ensued. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved that the $oard accept the present selected measure of taxing automobiles. Chairman Garrett called for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Gustaveson and Whitted voted aye. Commissioners Garrett and Pinney voted nay. Due to the absence of Commissioner Walker, the vote was tied. The County Administrator presented maps of certain property that was under consideration as a possible Site for the location of the Dog Pound. The County Administrator was authorized to proceed with the necessary investiga- tion on the matter. There being no further business to come before the $oard the meeting was adjourned. d'i~~ latav'~tA \ Flora Garrett, Chariman Betty June Hayes, Clerk Item Filed: Letter written to Mr, Patton from the County Attorney. Approved: THE MINUTES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS February 18, 1975 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met on Tuesday, February 16, 1975, at 8 p.m., in the Commissioners Room. at the Courthouse in Hillsborough, N. C. Members Present: Chairman Flora Garrett, Commissioner Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, Norman Walker, and Richard E. Wnitted. Members Absent: None. 5. M. Gattis, County Administrator, Neal Evans, Fiscal Officer, A. $. Coleman, Jr., County Attroney, and Betty June Hayes, Clerk, were also present. Chairman Garrett .ref erred to Item #1 pn the Agenda: (Approval Minutes of `- Prior Meetings) Commissioner Walker requested that the Clerk review the minutes of the January meetings. This matter was deferred until the first Mondays meeting in March. Chairman Garrett referred to Item #2 on the Agenda: (Financial Review: County Finance Director.)