1. finance

1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF SANFORD, NORTH CAROLINA
November 4, 2014, 7:00 P.M., CITY HALL
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
2.
INVOCATION
3.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4.
PUBLIC COMMENT
5.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
6.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Law and Finance Committee Work Session Minutes Dated September 10,
2014—(Pages 3—13)
B. Approval of Law and Finance Committee Meeting Minutes Dated September 10, 2014
(Pages 14- 18)
-
C. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes Dated September 16, 2014
25)
—
(Pages 19
D. Approval of Joint Interlocal Committee Meeting Minutes Dated September 22, 2014
(Pages 26 27)
-
—
-
E. Approval of Law and Finance Committee Meeting Minutes Dated October 1, 2014
(Pages 28-34)
F. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes Dated October 7, 2014
—
(Pages 35 42)
-
G. Approval of Joint Interlocal Committee Meeting Minutes Dated October 8, 2014
(Pages 43 —44)
H. Approval of Capital Project Ordinance Amendment
(Page 45)
—
—
Sidewalk Improvements
—
-
2
City Council Agenda
November 4, 2014
I.
Approval of Preliminary Assessment Resolution
(Hawkins Avenue)
—
(Pages 46 53)
-
—
J. Approval of Entering Into a Review and Inspection Agreement with the Department of
Transportation (Pages 54 58)
-
—
K. Approval of Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget of the City of Sanford
FY20 14-2015 (Street Sweeper) (Pages 59 60)
—
-
—
L. Approval of Resolution Approving Financing Terms for Installment Purchase of Fire
Pumper, Street Sweeper, Leaf Vacuum Truck, and Knuckleboom Truck (Pages 61
63)
-
—
M. Approval of Grant Submittal to the U. S. Conference of Mayors Gardens and Green
Space Award Program (Pages 64 69)
—
-
N. Approval of Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget of the City of Sanford
FY 2014-20 15 (Public Building) (Pages 70 71)
-
—
0. Approval of Request for Lee County to Donate Properties to the City of Sanford
(Page 72)
7.
—
SPECIAL AGENDA
Consider Resolution Honoring Kenneth David Armstrong for Exemplary Service as
Executive Director of the Sanford Housing Authority (Page 73)
—
8.
CASES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.
DECISIONS ON PUBLIC HEARINGS
10.
REGULAR AGENDA
A. Consider Taxpayer’s Request for Tax Release of Late Listing Penalty According to
NCGS 105-312(k) (Pages 74 81)
—
-
B. Consider Motion to Take From the Table for Discussion the Feasibility Study for the
Proposed Multi-Sports Complex (Page 82)
•
Consider Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget (Pages 83 84)
•
Consider Award of Contract to Brailsford & Dunlavey (Page 85 97)
—
-
—
—
C. Consider Expansion of Sanford Housing Authority Board
D. Consider Appointment of Board Members
11.
OTHER BUSINESS
12.
ADJOURNMENT
2
—
(Pages 99
—
—
(Page 98)
100)
-
3
SANFORD CITY COUNCIL
LAW AND FINANCE COMMITTEE WORK SESSION
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
5:00 P.M. in West End Conference Room
225 East Weatherspoon Street, Sanford, NC
The Law and Finance Committee held a work session on Wednesday, September 10,
2014, at 5:00 P.M. in the West End Conference Room at City Hall in order to discuss the Brick
Capital Community Development Corporation Assessment which was recently completed by the
UNC Chapel Hill School of Government’s Development Finance Initiative (“DFI”). The
following people were present:
Law and Finance Committee:
Mayor T. Chet Mann
Council Member Byron Buckels
Council Member Jimmy Haire
Council Member Rebecca Wyhof
City Manager Hal Hegwer
Mayor Pro Tern James Williams
Council Member Sam Gaskins
Council Member Norman Charles Post, III
City Clerk Bonnie Davis
Absent:
Council Member Charles Taylor
City Attorney Susan Patterson
Work Session
Mayor Chet Maim called the work session meeting to order and welcomed Council
Members and guests.
City Manager Hal Hegwer infonried everyone that immediately after the work session
presentation, the meeting would resume in the Council Chambers.
Community Development Director Marshall Downey explained that due to changes in
the economy and reductions in funding sources, Brick Capital Community Development
Corporation (“Brick Capital”) staff has been challenged to find alternative methods of operation.
City Council recently appropriated funds for an assessment to be perfonned by the UNC Chapel
Hill School of Government’s Development Finance Initiative (“DFI”). This assessment has now
been completed and Marcia Perritt, Manager of DFI, will be making a presentation of this
analysis and its resulting recommendations (copy attached as Exhibit).
Ms. Perritt expanded on the history and purpose of the assessment by stating that she
works with DFI, which is housed within the Community and Economic Development program at
the UNC School of Government. DFI is the technical assistance arm of the School of
Government and partners with local governments, community groups and private developers
from all over the state on a variety of issues relating to community and economic development.
She introduced a fellow staff member, Meisha McDaniels, a Graduate Student in the Kenan
Flagler Business School and School of City Planning, who was quite involved with the
assessment and performed much of the statistical work on the project.
1
4
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
September 10, 2014
The Initiative has been involved in this type of work for about a year and has worked
with five other Community Development Corporations (“CDCs”) fi-om all over the state. Work
on this project began with a portfolio review of all Brick Capital assets. Ms. Perritt informed the
Council that CDCs are unusual due to the fact that they tend to have a diverse variety of assets
(such as shopping centers, business incubators, affordable housing), whereas a traditional real
estate firm typically focuses on one particular type of asset. This attempt to be “everything to
everyone” makes it quite challenging for CDCs. The portfolio was analyzed to determine debt
and assessed tax and appraised values. Site visits were performed with Director Marshall
Downey, Brick Capital Executive Director Kate Rumely, and Community Development
Manager Karen Kennedy. An entire day was spent touring properties with Ms. Rurnely. A more
detailed analysis and financial assessment was then performed of the assets to determine how a
traditional real estate company would operate with them.
Ms. Perritt explained that there are four core functions of such a traditional real estate
company: development, brokerage, property management, and asset management. She detailed
them as follows:
•
Development is an area where Brick Capital has excelled, according to the
assessment. Development includes market research and obtaining relevant
financial data required for a project and verifying that the project will
succeed by taking it through the entire process. Brick Capital has a long
history of success in this area, as well as having done development on
behalf of other organizations.
•
Brokerage includes sales, leasing, marketing, recruitment and intake.
•
Property management comprises the bulk of a CDC’s daily activities and
includes day-to-day interaction with tenants, collection of rents and
making repairs.
•
Asset management includes the overall strategy of long-term decision
making, evaluating financial opportunities, review of financial
sustainability and researching opportunities which may feed into the other
functions.
An additional function which makes it specifically challenging for CDCs is the fact that
they also have a mission, a purpose beyond just maintaining financial sustainability and which is
not specifically profit-oriented. A CDC combines the four core elements listed above with the
addition of a fifth function of fulfilling their mission, which is over and above that of the
traditional real estate company.
These five functions constitute the “lens” for the analysis and financial assessment by
DFI, which is then used to develop strategies for each individual asset using this framework. The
draft recommendations were presented just last Friday, September 5, to Director Downey,
Director Rumely and Manager Kennedy. After that meeting, Kate Rumely quickly corrected
2
5
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
September 10, 2014
some assumptions as originally presented at this meeting. This information and feedback was
incorporated into the final recommendations, which are being presented at this meeting.
Ms. PelTitt noted that, for the most part, Brick Capital’s diverse asset portfolio is simply
causing the CDC to spread itself too thin. At one time, marketing opportunities made this
feasible; however, increased competition, changing market dynamics and the lack of funding no
longer allow this option.
One of their recommendations is to focus on one particular class of asset, perhaps a
particular mission component (such as affordable housing or economic development).
Another recommendation is to liquidate assets not essential to this core strategy in order
to acquire capital for investment in the strategic assets. Brick Capital’s assets were identified and
classified later in the presentation.
The final recommendation of DFI is to outsource brokerage and property management.
These responsibilities are too burdensome for CDCs and their day-to-day work; outsourcing
them would increase flexibility and limit their opportunity costs.
The three categories properties used for classification by DFI are as follows:
•
“Non-Essential Assets” are defined as those assets which are not financially
sustainable and will produce no revenue in the long-tenm There may also be a
mismatch between skills required to manage these assets and the skills of the
CDC staff. An example would be a business center with no staff resources
available for incubation services. Other non-essential assets may no longer be
relevant to the mission or perhaps the mission could be carried forward by other
organizations. An example would be affordable renting housing assets which are
not financially viable but the need is still there and could be better served by the
Housing Authority or Habitat for Humanity, which is better positioned to carry
out this mission.
•
“Strategic Assets” may have some qualities associated with non-essential assets
(such as not being very high-performing), but they do present some type of
important mission impact or potential for transformation of the community which
is best served by CDC. These strategic assets often have revenue potential which
is under-realized.
•
“Mission Oriented Assets” frequently produce little revenue but do break even
cost-wide. Their mission impact is so great that it is best for the CDC to retain
them.
Assets of Brick Capital identified by and included in the Assessment were as follows:
o Makepeace Street Office property
o Affordable Single-Family Housing Rentals (“Affordable Housing”)
o Supportive Housing Rentals
3
6
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
September 10, 2014
o
o
o
W.B. Wicker School property (“Wicker School”)
Vacant Lots
Vacant Land
Total tax assessed value of these assets is $4,171,812 and there is approximately
$2,365,900 in debt. Occupancy rates vary from 50% (on commercial rental property) to 85% (at
the Wicker School). Ms. Perritt noted that Brick Capital does all of its own leasing and property
management in house.
Summaries of and recommendations for Brick Capital assets are as follows:
•
Makepeace Street Office property: This property was formerly the site of the
Brick Capital office. It is culTently approximately 50% occupied with
approximately $187,932 debt and has an annual operating deficiency of $27,000.
This is considered a “problem property” by DFI since it is negatively impacting
Brick Capital’s cash flow. Its current operating expenses are approximately $14
per square foot while its rent is only approximately $10 per square foot. Even if it
were fully occupied at the current rental rate, it would still lose approximately
$12,000 annually. It was offered for sale in the last year with limited success.
Recommendation: This asset is classified as “non-essential”. The rental
rate needed for the property to break even of $14.50 per square foot is
excessive for the Sanford market. Similar commercial properties in
Sanford are cunently renting for $7-12 per square foot, so raising the rent
would simply be untenable. This property should be sold or auctioned at a
reserve price which minimally covers the debt. Selling this property would
eliminate payment of property taxes and allow CDC staff to focus on other
needs. There is currently a lease in place with one tenant and the property
also has an official “HUB Zone” Designation (“Historically Underutilized
Business”). These facts should enhance marketability. An adjacent
property owner has purchased other properties in this area and may be a
potential buyer. It is also recommended that brokerage be outsourced.
•
Affordable Housing Rentals: This category includes four single-family houses
located in the Brick Capital Redevelopment area surrounding the Wicker School
which were originally intended for homeownership. Brick Capital and the City of
Sanford have both made extensive investments in this area and contributed
significantly to its improvement. The total assessed tax value of these homes is
$330,000 and there is approximately $200,000 in debt. They have had an annual
operating loss of approximately $23,000, which has had a substantial negative
impact on Brick Capital’s cash flow. Rent is approximately S6-$7 per square foot
or approximately 8650-8715 per month. These homes were marketed for sale in
2007, near the beginning of the economic downturn. They have been marketed as
“affordable rentals” since that time. Three of the four houses are currently
occupied. They tend to have minimal turnover since there is demand for this type
of housing in this neighborhood. A rental rate of $11 per square foot is needed in
order to break even, which is excessive for this market area. If rates are raised to
4
7
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
September 10, 2014
this level, the units are no longer “affordable” housing; however, current rental
rates are not sustainable by Brick Capital.
Recommendation: Although the recommendation is to sell or convey these
assets, there is potential to retain them if restrictive covenants are placed
or if policy measures are taken by the City which would ensure that they
are occupied by tenants who will assist in continuing to move the
neighborhood forward in the right direction. The final recommendation by
DFI, however, is that these properties be sold.
The question was posed by Council Member Gaskins as to whether these properties could
be profitable to an outside investor. Ms. Perritt explained that this would depend on whether the
investor could cut costs overall, including debt and the associated cost (loan amount, interest
rate, monthly payment). There is an opportunity for an investor to have lower costs, which would
make ownership potentially profitable.
Supportive Housing Rentals: These properties serve “special populations” and
additional services are provided above housing. There are eight individual properties
with 22 total units, four of which are located in Pittsboro. The two primary buildings
are the Lee-Harnett Haven Housing I and II. Total assessed tax value of these
properties is approximately $1.3 million, with only $75,000 debt which is not
deferred. There is more debt, but it is in the form of a North Carolina Housing
Finance Agency 0% interest loan which will be deferred after 30 years so long as it
remains “affordable” housing. Financial performance varies among these properties
but overall, there is a positive cash flow of $8,000 annually, which is an unusual trend
for Brick Capital. There is even increased opportunity for improvement due to strong
demand for this type of product with its their minimal turnover and high occupancy.
Brick Capital’s partnership with other organizations, including the Housing Authority
and other non-profits, contributes to this success with occupancy; there is also a long
waiting list.
Ms. PelTitt explained that typical tenants of these properties are individuals with
special needs, disabilities, and those deemed most vulnerable according to lists of
Project Based Rental Assistance and Section 8 Housing.
Recommendation: There is opportunity for Brick Capital to increase income
from these properties. Although profitability is not the goal of CDCs, it does
ensure continued operation and allows for mission fulfillment by remaining
sustainable. Ms. Perritt noted that utilities on these properties are extremely
high, even in comparison to other CDCs for similar properties. Including
payment of the tenants’ cost of utilities with rent offers no incentive for
tenants to reduce consumption patterns. It was recommended that new leases
not include utilities, which would significantly reduce operating costs. There
is also a strong need to outsource property management and leasing of these
properties. There are other companies who specialize in these services for
similar tenants and with this type of housing. The cost impact would not be
substantial since the opportunity cost to Brick Capital is so high. Property
5
8
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
September 10, 2014
management is extremely involved and prevents Brick Capital from focusing
on its strength of property development. The recommendation is for retaining
this asset, since it is mission oriented and could become more revenueproducing with a reduction of operating costs and by outsourcing property
management, which is a huge opportunity cost and has prevented Brick
Capital from focusing on what it does best long-term.
The question was posed by Council Member Haire as to whether excluding utilities
would pose a hardship on some tenants who may have difficulty in obtaining utilities as a result
of credit problems. Ms. Perritt answered that perhaps the Housing Authority could assist with
this issue and that there are mechanisms for other entities to assist with tenant utilities. Mr. Haire
noted that there are approximately 50 tenants who are living at the Palomino Hotel at a rental
rate of $600 monthly; many of these tenants are there primarily as a result of difficulties with
obtaining utilities. Ms. Perritt suggested that rental amounts could be adjusted to account for
differences in whether utilities are included or excluded and that other non-profit partners could
assist with resolving this issue.
•
Wicker School property: This was a major historic redevelopment project which now
has three major tenants and business lines: (1) Small Business Suites (located on the
bottom floor, which was originally intended for a small business incubator); (2)
Childcare facility; and (3) Central Carolina Community College’s (“CCCC”)
Lifelong Learning and Dental Hygiene Program. The office of Brick Capital is also
located here.
This property is nearly breaking even on costs. The average culTent rental rate is
$10.65 per square foot (ranging from $6-12 per square foot, depending on tenancy
type and location); operating costs are $11 per square foot. The annual operating
deficit is currently $11,000, which is less than other Brick Capital assets but it is still
under-performing.
Recommendations (itemized by business lines):
o Small Business Suites: These are extremely inefficient. Their expenses
run $30,000 compared to income of only $18,000. Even if fully
occupied at the culTent rental rate, income would increase to only
$23,000. Expenses should be reduced and/or rent should be increased.
The break-even rent is $10.65 per square foot and current rent is $6 per
square foot. Even if rent could be increased somewhat, it is likely that
other tenants at the Wicker School would still have to cross-subsidize
this rent. Given the configuration of the spaces (including the fact that
they have no windows), potential rent will likely be less than $7 per
square foot for this type of commercial space. One option for increased
occupancy would be to have one tenant for this entire floor. Providing
a business incubator is not suited to Brick Capital’s mission and may
be more suited to organizations housed within CCCC (such as the
Small Business Technology Development Center). Perhaps doctors’ or
attorneys’ offices would be a better fit for this configuration of small,
6
9
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
September 10, 2014
separate suites located within a centralized location. Aiother
recommendation is that Brick Capital downsize its offices or relocate
in order to make this entire floor available to one tenant, which would
in turn command a higher rent. It is also recommended that utilities no
longer be included in the rent, giving tenants responsibility for their
own utilities. It was noted, however, that this is not culTently possible
since utilities are not metered out separately. It was also recommended
to increase marketing of this property and to find partners who can
identify any niche industry cluster which could be targeted as being
suited to this space. The City could possibly offer better support to
Brick Capital by leasing space in the small business suites property if
swing space or other additional office space is needed by City staff.
o
Childcare facility: Their share of rental income does not cover their
full operating costs. Utilities are also included in their rent. One major
recommendation is to remove utilities from the rent, as previously
recommended on other Brick Capital properties. The current lease is
effective through 2017 and the new lease is currently being signed,
making a rent increase impossible at this point. If this lease is not
renewed or when a new tenant is located, rent should be increased and
utilities should not be included.
o
CCCC: They occupy the majority of space at the Wicker School
property. This partnership shows positive net operating income of
approximately $10,000 annually and, according to the assessment, is a
great deal for CCCC. Perhaps they could pay a higher rent and cover
more operating expenses. Rent is $1 1 per square foot but should be
$12 per square foot or more. Brick Capital recently negotiated a three
year lease agreement with CCCC which, unfortunately, did not include
a 3% annual increase, which is fairly standard in other leases. Upon
future lease renewals, this should be renegotiated and Brick Capital
should have some leverage in ensuring that CCCC pays more market
rent for the cost of operating the space. Utilities should not be included
in the rent and should be paid directly by CCCC, along with security
expenses and all common area maintenance costs. Since CCCC
occupies the entire first floor, they have a greater burden for utilities in
comparison to the other tenants. The Dental Hygiene has many pieces
of expensive equipment which likely load the system. Although
records indicate $10,000 in net operating income, this is likely not
representing the true cost of utilities attributable to CCCC.
It was acknowledged by Ms. Perritt that having CCCC as a tenant is a
tremendous asset at the Wicker School property. This property is
indeed a strategic asset of Brick Capital and a shining example of
historic redevelopment to other CDCs. Taking a one-time abandoned
asset with great sentimental value to the community which is located
7
10
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
September 10, 2014
in the center of a neighborhood and redeveloping it was a wonderful
project.
She also acknowledged that CCCC is clearly invested in the Wicker
School property, as evidenced by its location of the programs and
associated equipment; however, the partnership is also strategic to
CCCC since their location in the neighborhood makes it convenient to
potential students of their programs. These factors combine to make it
a “win-win” situation for both the Wicker School and CCCC. Ms.
Perritt was unable to locate other leases which CCCC may have in
place with other private tenants. Amenities offered at the Wicker
School site, including outfitting, parking, security and maintenance,
make the rent extremely reasonable and attractive to CCCC. As with
the other properties, Ms. Pen-itt recommended that property
management be outsourced due to the excessive opportunity cost.
Examples were cited, including alarm issues which required Executive
Director Kate Rurnely’s direct involvement, as well as her
involvement in rent negotiations, which require her acting in the role
of Landlord.
Recently the Auditorium behind the Childcare facility reached an age
which qualifies it for historic preservation tax credits, making it a
potential redevelopment opportunity which could help to add value to
what Brick Capital has already accomplished at the site and also could
serve as a marketing tool to another agency.
Council Member Rebecca Wyhof asked how difficult it would be to calculate and meter
utilities for individual tenants and spaces with the cunent configuration. Mayor Mann stated that
separating meters is an expensive process. One option would be to meter individually for the
Childcare facility, CCCC and the Business Suites, but there would still be problems due to the
cun-ent wiring configuration. Another alternative would be charging a base rent with an
additional utility fee, which would be calculated based on square footage if individual metering
were cost prohibitive.
Mayor Mann noted that the County likely has been a major influence in holding the rental
rate of CCCC steady with no increases in the last few years and suggested that the County be
advised of the specific assessment recommendations regarding CCCC.
Council Member Sam Gaskins inquired as to which governmental agency is currently
offering historic preservation tax credits regarding the Wicker School Auditorium. Ms. Perritt
answered that the tax credits have been at the federal level, in some configuration. State tax
credits have recently been eliminated and are now being restructured, which may be in the form
of grants but with similar results. She also suggested that this may be a project suited for a
private investor or possibly CCCC.
8
11
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
September 10, 2014
Vacant lots: These lots were originally intended for home construction.
• Recommendation: It is recommended that the lots be sold or conveyed to
other partners in Sanford who share the common goal of preserving the
affordable housing stock in the community, such as the Housing Authority
or another non-profit housing agency with a larger portfolio of affordable
rentals which could operate them more efficiently. Part of the issue is that
Brick Capital does not have the economy of scale to manage this
efficiently. These properties, although classified as “non-essential”, do
have a mission which could be carried forward through another
organization.
•
Vacant Land- There are two tracts of vacant land:
•
16 acres on Washington Avenue- This land was conveyed by the City
to Brick Capital in 2006 for affordable housing.
a Recommendation: DFI suggests that this tract be re
conveyed to the City. Timber harvesting is recommended
as soon as possible to help shore up reserves while non
essential assets are being liquidated. This property could be
developed by another party as affordable housing or
perhaps it could be integrated into the Endor Furnace Trail
project, which would also enhance the value of the Wicker
School property and surrounding neighborhood. With the
conveyance back to the City of Sanford, the decision as to
its ultimate use will be detennined by the City.
•
11 acres at 1600 Washington Avenue- This property was purchased
from the City of Sanford in 2006 with the intention of developing a
solar facility. There have been some negotiations with potential
development partners interested in pursuing this project, but nothing
has been finalized. Development of innovative projects is an area at
which Brick Capital has been successful in the past but unfortunately,
there are too many other responsibilities and functions they are
currently performing to devote the time and effort needed for a project
such as this.
o Recommendation: This property is identified as a non
essential asset and should (a) be conveyed to the City or (b)
have development partners identified in order to pursue the
solar facility project. Conditional zoning, which is already
in place allowing this use, enhances marketability to a
potential partner since this administrative hurdle is not a
problem.
9
12
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
September 10, 2014
A final summary of DFI’s framework identified Brick Capital’s assets is as follows:
Single-Family Affordable Rentals
• Non-Essential Assets:
Makepeace Property
Vacant land
Vacant lots
Wicker School Campus
• Strategic Asset:
Supporting Housing
• Mission-Oriented Asset:
Ms. Perritt summarized the DFI Assessment by restating the following key themes:
• Brick Capital’s diverse portfolio makes it difficult to manage assets to their most
productive use;
• Across the board, Brick Capital tenants are not paying full costs of occupancy;
passing utility costs along to tenants will decrease overall operating expenses and
help maximize their net operating income or to at least break even;
• Brick Capital should sell or convey some of their non-essential assets (Makepeace
Street Office property, Single-Family Affordable Rentals, vacaffi lots and vacant
land) and focus on high-impact, mission-driven projects (Supportive Housing,
Wicker School property);
• Outsource property management and leasing since there are high opportunity
costs. This will give Brick Capital the freedom necessary in order to focus on
their strength of acting as a developer.
Ms. PelTitt referred to a timeline included in the assessment which indicates anticipated
time frames for completion of these recommendations. She concluded her presentation by stating
that DFI recommends Brick Capital first dispose of non-essential assets, which should result in
approximately $488,890 in capital funds to invest in the remaining strategic and/or missionoriented assets.
Mayor Mann thanked Ms. Perritt for her presentation. City Manager Hegwer also thanked
her on behalf of the City for the thorough and professional presentation.
Ms. Perritt reiterated that CDCs statewide are dealing with similar challenges at this time,
including decreased funding, changing markets and thinly-stretched leadership. By comparison
to other CDCs, Brick Capital is in relatively good condition. Although there are challenges to be
worked through, there is room for a turnaround if their focus is narrowed. She also noted that
DFI was impressed with the degree of cooperation shown by Ms. Rumely.
Ms. Rumely stated that she felt the assessment was also thorough and acknowledged the
depth in which it was conducted. She also noted that the rental calculations and associated
analyses were tremendous sources of information and that the spreadsheet data will be extremely
useful by Brick Capital, both now and in the future. She summarized by stating that Brick
Capital will benefit greatly from the assessment.
Ms. Kennedy confinned that no meeting has been held by the Brick Capital Board since
the assessment has been received but that one will be held soon.
10
13
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
September 10, 2014
Brick Capital Board Member Bill Wilson infomied everyone that there were several other
Brick Capital Board Members present for this meeting and that the recommendations would be
carefully and quickly reviewed. He also extended his appreciation to the DFI staff on behalf of
Brick Capital.
City Manager Hegwer stated that he was pleased that both Council and several Brick
Capital Board members were present for the presentation. He was also pleased to hear of the
opportunities available, including the historic designation of the Wicker Auditorium Gym and
potential future partnerships in some of the opportunities.
Council Member Gaskins asked if there is a source for locating prospective partners for
the solar facility project. Ms. Perritt answered that an Addendum would be included in the
assessment with some information on this. She also explained that a local commercial realtor
who is knowledgeable about this market area would also be a great source of assistance on these
proj ects.
Council Member Haire mentioned that there was a group currently negotiating with
landowners in eastern North Carolina and Harnett County for solar facility properties. These
groups are discussing potential 20 year leases for properties located near the electrical sub
stations.
Mayor Mann stated that the assessment provides direction for Brick Capital’s future
mission. He was pleased that the Brick Capital board will be meeting soon to gather feedback
and come to a consensus as to how to proceed and stated that County officials will also be
consulted regarding the parts of the assessment in which they have involvement.
After confirming there were no additional questions or comments, Mayor Mann stated
that the workshop portion of the Law and Finance Meeting was concluded.
Adj ourninent
Council Member Sam Gaskins made the motion to adjourn and reconvene as the Law and
Finance meeting in the Council Chambers Room at 6:00 P.M. Seconded by Council Member
Norman Charles Post, III, the motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
T. Chet Mann, Mayor
ATTEST:
Bonnie Davis, City Clerk
11
14
LAW AND FINANCE MEETING
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Held Immediately Following the 5:00 P.M. Work Session
Council Chambers, 225 East Weatherspoon St., Sanford, NC
The Law and Finance Committee met on Wednesday, September 10, 2014, in the Council
Chambers at City Hall immediately following the work session held at 5:00 P.M. The following
people were present:
Law and Finance Committee:
Mayor T. Chet Mann
Council Member Rebecca Wyhof
Council Member Byron Buckels
Council Member Norman Charles Post III
City Manager Hal Hegwer
Mayor Pro Tern James Williams
Council Member Sam Gaskins
Council Member Jimmy Haire
City Clerk Bonnie Davis
Absent:
City Attorney Susan Patterson
Council Member Charles Taylor
Mayor Chet Maim called the meeting to order.
Consider Comments from Environmental Affairs Board to the Mining and Energy Commission on
the Proposed Rules (Exhibit A)
Community Development Director Marshall Downey explained that the Environmental
Affairs Board (EAB) met at the end of last month and the primary purpose was to focus on written
and oral comments in preparation for the Oil and Gas draft rules. They spent a great deal of time
considering a strategy on how to deal with the written comments that had to be submitted to the
Rules Committee by the end of this month (September 30). At that meeting, the attendees
identified who would be attending the last August public hearing held in Lee County at the Civic
Center. At the public hearing, they identified some of their questions and comments they wanted
to make.
—
Brooks Gage, member of the Environmental Affairs Board said that the committee picked
out four areas that the committee repeatedly heard mentioned from citizens and that kept coming
up at the public hearing meetings. They attended another meeting in Raleigh prior to the one held
in Sanford. Ms. Gage spoke about the four concerns which were chemical disclosure, waste
disposal, setbacks, and water. She said they would like to have Council’s endorsement along with
the Environmental Affairs Board when they send the comments in before September 30.
Council Member Wyhof said that the EAB Board spent a considerable amount of time
discussing some of the things that were most concerning to the City local control, zoning and the
ability to receive any financial compensation back to the City.
-
Consider Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget of the City of Sanford FY 20 142015 (Exhibit B)
Financial Services Director Beth Kelly said that this ordinance amends the operating
budget for FY 2014-20 15 to transfer $7,770 of contingency funds to the Fire Department and
—
1
15
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
September 10, 2014
Finance budgets; $2,770 to the Fire Department to budget for the fire annexation reimbursement
for the lump sum payout to the Northview Volunteer Fire Department related to the annexation of
the 5.94 acres at the corner of Beechtree Drive and Cotten Road, and $5,000 to the Finance
Department for the additional audit fees related to mandated testing required by the State Auditor’s
Office. Staff received a memo within the last month and just received this memo from our
auditor’s related to the state’s request. The Governmental Accounting Standard’s Board (GASB)
has issued GASB 67, 68 and 71 for Fiscal Years beginning June 30, 2015. These new standards
are going to change recording requirements for pension plans and the State auditor’s office audits
the pension plans for the State, which includes the State’s Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report. In order for them to issue an opinion on the State’s financial statements, they are required
to include in that all local governments. Instead of doing the testing themselves, they are passing
it down to the local governments to require a random selection of local governments to have their
pension information and census data tested. At that point, we are going to be charged $5,000 to
do this additional testing with our auditors. It will not be all local governments or counties, there
has been a random selection made of certain units and we were drawn in the selection.
Consider Reimbursement Resolution Acquisition of Land (Exhibit C)
Financial Services Director Beth Kelly explained this is a reimbursement resolution for
$80,000 which allows the City to be reimbursed for the purchase and closing costs of the parking
lot (purchased from Ruth Gurtis and family) on Carthage Street from the Streetscape Bond
Proceeds.
—
—
Consider Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget of the City of Sanford FY 20142015 (Exhibit D)
Financial Services Director Beth Kelly explained that this ordinance amends the operating
budget to appropriate the $80,000 of fund balance to Public Building so we can pay out for the
purchase and closing costs of the parking lot on Carthage Street (purchased from Ruth Gurtis and
family). Once the debt is issued, the City will be reimbursed.
—
Consider Entering Into a Sidewalk Agreement with Department of Transportation for the Homer
Boulevard Sidewalk Project (Exhibit E)
Consider Entering Into a Sidewalk Agreement with Department of Transportation for the
Nash!Bragg Street Sidewalk Project (Exhibit F)
City Engineer Paul Weeks informed Council that the City of Sanford received grants from
the Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) (Transportation Enhancement Grants) to go toward two
of our sidewalk projects. The two agreements formalize the agreements with the D.O.T. and they
state the requirements of the grants. They will be funding up to 80 percent to a maximum amount
for each project area. We are required to provide a match of 20 percent, which will come from the
funds that we have set aside for construction of the bond sidewalk reimbursements. This agreement
is for sections of Homer Boulevard from Weatherspoon Street to Main Street on both sides (filling
in the gaps). The Nash/Bragg Street sidewalk project connects the high school to Homer
Boulevard and provides us a connection to Kelly Drive where Central Carolina Community
College exists.
-
-
The D.O.T. grant is $280,672 for both projects ($112,040 for Homer Boulevard project
and $168,632 for Nash/Bragg Street). All this money is on a reimbursement basis. We spend the
2
16
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
September 10. 2014
money upfront and once the project is complete, we submit our invoice to D.O.T. for
reimbursement. The projects have to be completed and the City reimbursed by June 30, 2015.
Capital Project Ordinance Amendment Sidewalk Improvements (Exhibit 0)
Financial Services Director Beth Kelly explained that this is a capital project ordinance
amendment for the bond sidewalk improvements, which transfers $70,168 that we will be allowed
to use towards the match for the Department of Transportation Enhancement grant. This amount
will be put into two separate projects (Homer Boulevard ($28,010 match and Nash/Bragg Street
($42,158).
—
—
Grant Project Ordinance North Carolina Department of Transportation Sidewalk Project
Homer Boulevard) (Exhibit H)
Financial Services Director Beth Kelly explained that this is a grant project ordinance
which sets up the Homer Boulevard grant; $112,040 grant proceeds from D.O.T. and $28,010
match from the City.
—
—
—
-
Grant Project Ordinance North Carolina Department of Transportation Sidewalk Project
Nash/Bragg Street) (Exhibit H)
Financial Services Director Beth Kelly explained that this is a grant project ordinance
which sets up the Homer Boulevard grant; $168,632 grant proceeds from D.O.T. and $42,158
match from the City.
—
—
—
-
Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget of the City of Sanford FY 2014-2015
(Exhibit J)
Financial Services Director Beth Kelly explained that the ordinance amends the operating
budget to appropriate $9,264 from Fund Balance and $43,873 from installment purchase proceeds
to the Fire Department. Council originally approved $480,000 in the budget for a fire pumper.
Bids came in a little higher than originally projected and the bids are good for only 30 days.
—
Fire Chief Wayne Barber stated that a committee was formed to put together specifications
for the fire pumper. They tried to mirror the same features of the last two trucks that were
purchased because the department has been well pleased with them. When the budget was done
this year, he used approximately 2 percent per year for an increase; however, when the prices came
in, they were a little bit over. Almost half of the increase in the pumper is because of regulatory
changes. EPA changed their pollution standards for the diesel engine and the manufacturer said it
was a $14,000 increase. The NFPA required, just like airplanes, a black box on all the fire trucks
that monitor seatbelts, speed, brakes, etc. This requirement along with the pollution standards is
an increase of about $20,000, which staff had no control over. The bid came in at $523,873 which
includes the performance bond. Committee members Driver/Operator Phillip Johnson,
Driver/Operator Frank Layton, Firefighter III Chris Cox were present for questions. They are all
off different shifts and are at different stations.
Other Business
Mayor Mann referred to Exhibit K Information on Communities of Distinction placed at
Council Members’ seats. He said this is for Council’s consideration. He and the city manager
were contacted by a television show entitled, “Communities of Distinction.” They are on the
Discovery Channel and certain FOX Channels. It is a series about live, work, and play in America.
—
3
17
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
September 10, 2014
They identify communities with different criteria and sizes. They come in and work with staff on
the scripts, the people and places. They come in and do a shoot; it is about a five to seven minute
segment on a 30 minute show. It is narrated by Football Player Terry Bradshaw. There is a cost
of about $19,800 to have them film the show. They pay for all the other productions and we
would own the license to the video of which the community could use it for their own marketing
purposes. The quality is great but there is a cost. He would like for Council to review the
information and see if it is something the City wants to do and to see if anyone else in the
community is interested in sharing the cost, whether it be Lee County, Sanford-Lee County
Partnership for Prosperity, or the City.
Council Member Gaskins wished Council Member Rebecca Wyhof a happy birthday
today.
Council Member Haire commented on how good the work session was regarding Brick
It was money well spent to perform the
Capital Community Development Corporation.
assessment.
Council Member Wyhof stated that the inaugural meeting of the Citizens Academy was
held this week. She said the mayor gave an excellent presentation going through the vision of
the City, the role of the mayor and council, and it is a fantastic group of participating. She
encouraged other council members to drop by a session to meet the participants. She praised
Public Information Officer Kelly Miller for putting this together.
Ms. Wyhof stated that it was one year ago today that the bond referendum passed.
Everybody is eager to get the information updated as to where the City is on all the projects.
Ms. Wyhof said the ribbon cutting was held yesterday for the Lee County Fair. She
encouraged the public to attend.
City Manager Hegwer said he will present a list of updates on the bond referendum and
other projects at Council’s next meeting.
Mayor Mann echoed Ms. Wyhofs comments regarding the Citizens Academy. Mr. Mann
said that Council Member Buckels took him and the city manager to Lee County Industries. He
said that is a company that is doing incredible things with skilled workforce and was pleased to
see what they were doing.
Closed Session
City Manager Hal Hegwer read a motion to go into closed session in accordance with
N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a) (4) and (5) to discuss a matter relating to the location or expansion of
industries or other businesses in the area served by the public body and to instruct the public body
staff or negotiating agents concerning the position to be taken on the price or other material terms
of a contract for the acquisition of real property. So moved by Council Member Williams and
seconded by Council Member Gaskins, the motion carried unanimously.
4
18
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
September 10, 2014
Return to Regular Session and Adjournment
City Council returned to regular session around 6:10 P.M. Council Member Sam Gaskins
made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Council Member Norman Charles Post III,
the motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
T. Chet Mann, Mayor
ATTEST:
Bonnie Davis, City Clerk
5
19
MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANFORD
SANFORD, NORTH CAROLINA
The City Council met at the Sanford Municipal Center, 225 E. Weatherspoon Street, on
Tuesday, September 16, 2014, at 7 P.M., in the Council Chambers. The following people were
present:
Mayor T. Chet Marm
Council Member Jimmy Haire
Council Member Charles Taylor
Council Member Rebecca Wyhof
City Manager Hal Hegwer
City Clerk Bonnie Davis
Mayor Pro Tern James Williams
Council Member Sam Gaskins
Council Member Byron Buckels
Council Member Norman Charles Post, III
City Attorney Susan Patterson
Mayor Mann called the meeting to order. Council Member Byron Buckels delivered the
invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
PUBLIC COMMENT (Exhibit A)
Sheik Portis EL, residing at 112 W. Main Street, is a member of the Moorish Science
Temple of America. He is representing the Supreme Grand Council of the Moorish Science
Temple of America. They recently established a branch in Sanford and hold meetings at 112 W.
Main Street. The organization is dedicated to uplifting fallen humanity. He gave an explanation
of their organization.
-
McLean Bej, residing at 4910 South Pointe Drive in Woodbridge Subdivision, member of
the Moorish Science Temple of America, said they want to go into the communities to teach kids
that there is a better way to think instead of reacting, because they do not have the etiquette
coming out of their homes to do this.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Attorney Patterson requested that a closed session be added to the agenda. Council
Member Wyhof made the motion to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Council
Member Gaskins, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Law and Finance Committee Meeting Minutes Dated August 27, 2014
Vault)
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes Dated September 2, 2014
82)
—
—
(Filed in
(Filed in Minute Book
Approval of Recommendations from Environmental Affairs Board Regarding Draft Mining and
Energy Commission Rules (Exhibit B)
—
20
City Council Meeting
September 16, 2014
Approval of Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget of the City of Sanford FY 20 142015 (Exhibit C)
—
Approval of Reimbursement Resolution
Street) (Exhibit D)
—
Acquisition of Land (Gurtis Parking Lot on Carthage
—
Approval of Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget of the City of Sanford FY 20 142015 (Gurtis Parking Lot on Carthage Street) (Exhibit E)
—
Approval of Entering Into a Sidewalk Agreement with Department of Transportation for the
Homer Boulevard Sidewalk Project (Exhibit F)
-
Approval of Entering Into a Sidewalk Agreement with Department of Transportation for the
NashlBragg Street Sidewalk Project (Exhibit G)
-
Approval of Capital Project Ordinance Amendment—Sidewalk Improvements— (Local Match for
Sidewalk Projects) (Exhibit H)
-
Approval of Grant Project Ordinance
Project (Homer Blvd) (Exhibit I)
—
North Carolina Department of Transportation
—
Sidewalk
—
—
Approval of Grant Project Ordinance North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project (NashlBra,gg Streets) (Exhibit J)
—
—
Sidewalk
—
—
Approval of Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget of the City of Sanford FY 20 142015 (Fire Pumper) (Exhibit K)
—
—
City Manager Hal Hegxver noted a correction to the Law and Finance Comniittee
Meeting Minutes dated August 27, 2014, page 4, first paragraph, fifth line. He stated that we
need to strike the words, “however, at that time only one school was using the facility.”
Council Member Sam Gaskins made the motion to approve the consent agenda with the
modifications. Seconded by Council Member Byron Buckels, the motion carried unanimously.
REGULAR AGENDA
Consider Appointment to ADA Compliance Committee (Exhibit L)
Council Member Sam Gaskins made the motion to appoint Joseph Calendine, Jr. to the
Council
ADA Compliance Committee for the term ending June 30, 2017 by acclamation.
Member Rebecca Wyhof seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
—
Consider Waiver of School Usage Fees at the Golf Course
City Manager Hal Hegwer stated that this issue had been addressed at the August 27,
2014, Law and Finance Committee meeting, at which time the background, revenue and
implementation of the school usage fees were explained. He went on to say that if these fees
were waived, the City’s Municipal Golf Course Fee Schedule would be amended by ordinance.
2
21
City Council Meeting
September 16, 2014
Council Member Post made the motion to waive the school usage fees at the Sanford
Golf Course with regard to the Lee County School System and any other schools located in Lee
County. Seconded by Sam Gaskins, the vote carried unanimously.
Council Member Gaskins noted that with reductions in federal, state and county funding
to the local school system, this is a small opportunity for the City to assist those less fortunate
economically to participate in school activities and to support the local school systems.
Consider Manager’s Report Updates (Exhibit M)
City Manager Hal Hegwer gave an update on several open projects, including the $14.5
million bond referendum which was recently passed. It is anticipated that there will be
approximately $2 million for sidewalks and approximately $6.5 million for streetscape projects,
for a total of approximately $8.5 million in the first round of borrowing. The tentative schedule
was that the projects would begin in June 2015; however, Council has requested that these
projects be accelerated. It is anticipated that advertising for bids will occur on October 6, 2014,
and bids are scheduled for receipt on November 17, for both Downtown and Jonesboro
Streetscape projects, as well as for sidewalk constmction.
—
—
Manager Hegwer further explained that the City was recently awarded a $350,000 grant
from NC DOT and approximately $70,000 is required in matching funds from the City, resulting
in a grant of roughly $280,000. DOT grant procedures may slow the projects somewhat. The
intent was to access as much as possible of the entire $8.5-$9 million in this first round since it is
anticipated that interest rates will rise. Borrowing resolutions would be presented to Council in
early December. Bids and Local Government Commission approval will be required. We will
have to go to the bond market for this $8.5-$9 million. Funds would be available around January
29, 2015, for spending and a contract can be entered after this point. The goal is that by February
or March of 2015, a contract could be entered for the streetscape of both Jonesboro and
Downtown areas and whatever sidewalk we would have available at that time.
Manager Hegwer informed Council that the Greenway and Park projects are also on the
horizon for the next few years, with anticipated completion sometime in 2016-2017. When the
first phase (Streetscape and Sidewalk described above) was moved ahead, it was not discussed in
depth whether these other projects would also be accelerated, so we will monitor progress on the
first phase to estimate timeframes on these projects. He also confirmed that the City is continuing
to move forward on both sections of the Greenway projects, which are currently in the design
phase. The first section is the Medical Mile section (from Kiwanis Family Park Greenway, down
Carthage Street to Wicker Street and ultimately up to the Depot Park area) and the next phase
would go from Depot Park roughly to City Hall. The $2 million Parks and Recreations bonds are
not currently in the design phase.
Council Member Sam Gaskins asked about the status of Duke Energy’s progress on the
project. City Manager Hegwer stated that Duke has given an estimate on the Jonesboro project in
the $500,000 range for underground power and that he will research and verify this cost estimate.
Council Member Williams asked whether the right-of-way agent had been hired and what
this fee would be. City Manager Hegwer explained that DOT may require a temporary
3
22
City Council Meeting
September 16, 2014
construction easement or a permanent easement may possibly be needed for some of the
sidewalk installation near Lee County High School, O.T. Sloan Park and along Homer
Boulevard. A right-of-way agent, who will assist with specific protocol required as a result of
receiving DOT and federal funding, has not yet been retained but the process is ongoing.
City Manager Hegwer also informed Council that the Buggy Factory lease signing has
now been completed and fm-warded to Progressive Contracting; hopefully, construction will
begin soon.
City Manager Hegwer shared copies of an insert, “Residents Guide to City of Sanford
Garbage, Recycling and Yard Waste Pick-Up” (Exhibit N), which will be included in customers’
utility statements. This flyer gives inforniation on the policies, guidelines and schedules for these
services.
Community Development Director Marshall Downey updated Council on progress of
several outside projects and associated grants. Last spring, a grant was awarded from the UNC
School of International Studies for the Latino Migration Project. There has been great
participation on this project and, with assistance from former Director Bob Bridwell and the
UNC Staff, a Planning/Steering Committee of 12-15 key people (from City and County agencies,
faith-based organizations, members of the Latino business community, and City employees) has
been established out of a larger group of 35-40 people involved with a greater steering
committee. There have been two meetings to date and two surveys have been developed (one
intended for agencies, the other for Hispanic residents in the community). There will be a
meeting next week of the Planning Committee addressing distribution of the surveys to ensure
completion. Additional updates will be provided by Mr. Downey as the process moves forward.
Director Downey explained that a Brownfield Grant has been awarded and will be
formally awarded or “kicked off’ on October 1, 2014. This grant is similar to one received
approximately eight years ago, and is an EPA grant which allows for several Phase I and some
Phase II assessments. We are currently going through a request for qualifications process to
select a consultant. Director Downey said that he will be going to Atlanta during the first week in
October to train and attend a series of workshops as Administrator on behalf of the City. Once
the Consultant is selected, we can research different options for the funds, including possible
Phase I assessments for redevelopment studies in particular areas.
Mayor Mann asked whether the schools are involved in the Latino Project. Director
Downey confirmed that Central Carolina Community College, the Workforce Development of
CCCC and Lee County Public Schools were all very much involved. Mayor Mann informed
Council that he had attended Dr. Bryan’s Town Hall Meeting, as a parent, and that the overriding
theme was how to integrate the Latino population, including the need for more participation in
the ESL (“English as Second Language”) programs, as well as the need for more parental
guidance in the schools. Director Downey explained that the schools had been identified early in
the project as being absolutely instrumental in the process.
Council Member Gaskins asked for more detail on Phase I and Phase II assessments in
connection with the Brownfield Grant. Director Downey explained that if an older building or
4
23
City Council Meeting
September 16, 2014
brownfield may have been used for manufacturing or other industrial use, an assessment is
performed to determine what types of risks are possibly involved as a result of the prior use of
chemicals, solvents or other materials. This preliminary, initial assessment is referred to as a
“Phase I” Study. Our particular grant will fund up to eight or nine of these Phase I studies for
different locations. “Phase II” is a more detailed, extensive assessment in which research and
testing of a particular site is performed if there is more serious interest in a location or if more
detailed information is desired. The funding would cover about four to five of these Phase II
studies. Generally, Phase I studies help to create a baseline, while Phase II covers more detail
and possible rernediation and mitigation. Director Downey also stated that there are other options
regarding redevelopment strategies which could be extended beyond one individual parcel.
Director Downey updated Council on various long-term, visioning strategies for updating
the City’s ordinances, specifically code and appearance issues. The Commercial Maintenance
Code has been recently adopted and numerous amendments to the TIDO (Uniform Development
Ordinance) are being researched. There has been a meeting with the Joint Planning Commission
(JPC) last month at which time, several amendments were discussed. About two-thirds of these
were corrective in nature, in an attempt to bring our Code into compliance with other laws and/or
trying to be contemporary.
There are two particular proposals for updating our ordinance. The first proposal is to
require sidewalks in all subdivisions, regardless of size or zoning (whether residential, industrial
or commercial). It has also been proposed that the size threshold of the lots be removed.
Currently, sidewalks in new subdivisions are required only in residential subdivisions and only in
areas with density of less than 20,000 square foot lots.
The other proposal discussed with the JPC is to lower the standards for industrial
development along corridors. The JPC did not fully embrace this proposal since their goal is to
remain more aggressive than generally indicated by the public. This proposal was subsequently
modified in order to compromise between the ideals of (1) maintaining harmony along the
exterior fronts of industrial properties with other commercial and retail structures nearby, but not
as far as (2) specific proposals for materials and sizes. Director Downey stressed that good
feedback was received from the JPC which will assist in moving forward. Public infonriation
meetings will be held before these issues are presented to Council for formal consideration.
Director Downey noted that work is proceeding with the Rosemont-Mclver Historic
District staff on revisions to parking and front yard regulations. Letters will be going out and
public information meetings will be held. These regulations will also be fonnally presented to
Council at a later date.
Director Downey informed Council that Community Development staff is currently
working with the developer of the South Side Plaza. There are some timetable issues with
NCDOT regarding construction of the access points off of Homer Boulevard and there are also
some utility conflicts. Opening dates are being negotiated with tenants at this time. There are
active building permits for Petco, Hobby Lobby, Marshalls, Ross and Rack Room. Discussions
are currently ongoing with an architect representing Buffalo Wild Wings.
5
24
City Council Meeting
September 16, 2014
Director Downey also introduced Barbara McMillan, the new Code Enforcement
Supervisor. Ms. McMillan is a Sanford native who has six years of Code Enforcement
experience and four years of experience as a supervisor. Ms. McMillan stated that she was very
grateful to work with the citizens of Sanford, where she grew up, and looks forward to working
with everyone.
OTHER BUSINESS
Council Member Wyhof updated the Council on the Citizens Academy, which held its
second session this morning with tours of the Police and Fire Departments. She thanked City
staff for their knowledge and hospitality and the participants for their interest and curiosity. Ms.
Wyhof also congratulated Bob Stevens on his recent retirement as Broadway City Manager.
Council Member Jimmy Haire noted that the Jonesboro Historical Society will be hosting
a catered lunch meeting on Sunday, October 5, 2014, at Jonesboro United Methodist Church. An
update of the Streetscape project and its’ impact on the future of downtown Jonesboro will be
discussed. A meeting will be also held on Monday, October 1, 2014, at 1:30 P.M. in the former
office of Dr. Cade Covington to finalize plans.
Council Member Gaskins thanked Manager Hegwer and staff for their work on ongoing
proj ects.
Mayor Mann gave an update on the Chinese Sister City project by stating that plans have
been made and accommodations arranged for the upcoming trip to Yixing, China. A trip to Wuxi
and the local Community College are also included. He thanked City staff for their assistance
with travel arrangements and international visas and expressed his belief that this is an
innovative project initiated by the prior Council.
Mayor Mann also invited Council to attend an upcoming Citizens’ Academy session and
shared his belief that the previous sessions have been extremely educational. He commended the
inaugural group of citizen participants and the City for their forward thinking in providing this
opportunity.
Mayor Mann also commended the Joint Planning Committee for their compromise on the
tough challenges recently faced regarding ordinance updates and their attempt to balance
economic development with quality of life and appearance issues. He reminded everyone that
there are two additional levels of Committee approval required. Mayor Mann stated the
importance of implementing an updated parking ordinance in connection with ongoing work on
code enforcement and quality of life improvements; citizens’ compliance with this issue is
critical. He stated his belief that we should “inspect what we expect”. He also thanked everyone
who attended the meeting and for their participation.
Closed Session
City Attorney Susan Patterson requested a motion to go into closed session in accordance
with N. C .G. S. 143-318.11 (a)(3) to consult with an attorney employed and retained by the public
body in order to preserve the attorney/client privilege. The motion was made by Council
Member Gaskins and seconded by Council Member Post; it was passed unanimously.
6
25
City Council Meeting
September 16, 2014
ADJOURNMENT
Council Member Gaskins made the motion to adjourn.
Post, the motion carried unanimously.
Seconded by Council Member
Respectfully Submitted,
T. CHET MANN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BONNIE DAVIS, CITY CLERK
7
26
MINUTES OF JOINT INTERLOCAL COMMITTEE MEETING
225 EAST WEATHERSPOON STREET,
WEST ENI CONFERENCE AT 11:00 A.M.
SANFORD, NORTH CAROLINA
The Joint Interlocal Committee met at the Sanford Municipal Center, 225 E. Weatherspoon
Street, on Monday, September 22, 2014, at 11 A.M., in the West End Conference Room. The
following people were present:
cjy:
County:
Mayor T. Chet Mann
County Commissioner Jim Womack
Council Member Sam Gaskins
County Commissioner Kirk Smith
Council Member Rebecca Wyhof
County Commissioner Amy Dalrymple
City Manager Hal Hegwer
Lee County Manager John Crumpton
City Attorney Susan Patterson
County Attorney Kerry Schmidt
City Clerk Bonnie Davis
County Clerk Gaynell Lee
Financial Services Director Beth Kelly
General Services Deputy Director Larry Bridges
Public Works Director Victor Czar
Parks & Recreation Director John Payne
Community Development Director Marshall Downey
Administrative Assistant Jennifer Gamble
Visitors:
Chamber of Commerce Director Bob Joyce Jay Calendine
SLCPP Director Rodger Sauls
Mayor Mann called the meeting to order.
Public Works Director Victor Czar explained that a committee consisting of City Public
Works Director Victor Czar, Lee County Parks & Recreation Director John Payne, Lee County
General Services Director Larry Bridges, and Community Development Director Marshall Downey
was formed to select a firm to perform a multi-sports complex feasibility study to be used as a tool
for economic development in the City (Exhibit A) and to include the space needs of the Boys and
Girls Club. They put out RFQs and received four quotes. The committee interviewed three of the
four firms and the committee selected Brailsford and Dunlavey. Project Manager is Joe Winters and
Assistant Project Manager is Joe Collums.
Joe Collums was present and gave an overview (Exhibit B) of their firm and the tools they
will use to achieve the strategic objectives in the most economic manner possible for the City.
Woolpert Architects, who has a regional office in Charlotte, will look at the 0. T. Sloan Park and at
other sites for feasibility. Their experience includes multi-purpose centers, community centers, sports
and recreation centers, tennis complexes, track and field complexes, soccer, baseball and softball
facilities, sportsplexes and stadiums.
Mr. Collums stated that their project objectives are to create a state-of-the-art multi-sport
complex that serves as a recreational and economic asset; to offer a physical program that serves wide
variety of interest; to preserve and enhance existing assets that add value to the community; to position
the sports complex as a regional anchor generating economic benefits for community; and to
27
City Council Meeting
September 22, 2014
maximize public investment through the financial self-sufficiency of the complex. Mr. Collums
advised that nearly 30 percent of the population within 30 minutes of the site is age 19 or younger.
Mayor Mann said that there is a lack of places for sports to be played in Sanford and that we
need a high enough level to bring other communities to Sanford to play instead of people going to
New Bern and other areas.
Commissioner Womack stated that this complex has a public and private component and to
make sure to factor this into the study.
Public Works Director Victor Czar stated that one of the next steps in the process would be to
conduct a public survey to be done online. Mr. Collums said the proposed cost is $68,000 and would
be conducted by a third party web hosting service.
Mayor Mann said that both entities will need to request additional funding from their boards
for a more in depth feasibility study; we want to make sure we utilize that park for more than sports.
Lee County Parks and Recreation John Payne added that the last survey that was done was
not good; they did not receive a good number of people to respond.
Council Member Wyhof stated that if it is a public park, we need public input so they feel it
is their park.
Commissioner Womack said that Lee County built the sewer lift station at Colon Road
because of the anticipated growth of the Industrial Park to attract clients and to service that area. It
is the County’s intent to transfer that lift station to the City and that they are in the process of
discussion about transferring it.
Mayor Mann said that it is the intent of the City to purchase the lift station. He asked that the
joint interlocal committee go into closed session in accordance with N.C.G.S. 143.318.11(a) (4) to
discuss economic development. So moved by Lee County Commissioner Kirk Smith and seconded
by Council Member Rebecca Wyhof, the motion carried unanimously.
RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION AND ADJOURNMENT
County Commissioner Amy Dairymple made the motion to adjourn. Seconded by Council
Member Rebecca Wyhof, the motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
T. CHET MANN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BONNIE DAVIS, CITY CLERK
2
28
LAW AND FINANCE MEETING
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
5:00 P.M. in Council Chambers
225 East Weatherspoon St., Sanford, NC
The Law and Finance Committee met on Wednesday, October 1, 2014, in the Council
Chambers at City Hall at 5:00 P.M. The following people were present:
Law and Finance Committee:
Mayor T. Chet Mann
Council Member Byron Buckels
Council Member Jimmy Haire
Council Member Rebecca Wyhof
City Manager Hal Hegwer
Mayor Pro Tern James Williams
Council Member Sam Gaskins
Council Mernber Charles Taylor
City Attorney Susan Patterson
City Clerk Bonnie Davis
Absent:
Norman Charles Post, III
Mayor Chet Mann called the meeting to order.
Consider Ordinance nending Section 4-15 of the Sanford Code of Ordinances Regulating
Urban Archery Deer Hunting Within the Sanford City Limits (Exhibit A)
City Attorney Susan Patterson stated that the City Manager had informed her of a
Council Member’s interest in reconsideration of changes to the Urban Archery Deer Hunting
Ordinance. On April 1, 2014, there was a motion and vote taken to change requirements of the
Urban Archery Deer Hunting ordinance as follows: (a) to change the minimum tract or parcel
size from ten (10) acres to three (3) acres; (b) to include a 100’ buffer within a tract or parcel
where hunting would be allowed; (c) to prohibit pooling of property to meet the three (3) acre
requirement; and (d) to keep the elevated archery stand 10’ above ground on which to hunt.
—
Attorney Patterson explained that Council passed this Ordinance Amendment on April 1,
2014, by a vote of 5-1 (one member was not present), but it failed because House Bill 74 was in
place. House Bill 74 required that changes to environmental ordinances pass by unanimous vote.
The Council vote was not unanimous; thus, the prior rule remained in effect. Effective August
15, 2014, North Carolina law repealed that section of House Bill 74 which required unanimous
vote. The current ordinance was set March 2, 2010, which placed rules currently in place. The
question at this time is whether Council wants to reconsider the proposed changes?
Council Member Charles Taylor noted his belief that one of the reasons House Bill 74
was the negative feedback received from constituents in other communities such as
repealed
was
Sanford on the unanimous vote requirement. He informed Council that he just recently had to
swerve on the highway in order to miss three deer and that deer on the roads are frequently a
driving safety issue. He informed Council that the North Carolina Wildlife Commission has
reported no accidents as a result of stray arrows and that archery target shooting at ground level
is currently allowed within the City of Sanford with no limitations. He also stated that provisions
set forth in the prior ordinance: (1) allowed for shooting on elevated surfaces (so that shooting is
done downward and the trajectory is straight down or at a sharp angle); (2) prohibited land
1
29
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
October 1, 2014
pooling to meet minimum size requirements; and (3) required a 100’ buffer. He would like the
prior proposal to be reconsidered at this time due to the large number of deer in the area.
Attorney Patterson noted that the proposed change affects only whether the minimum
tract or parcel size requirement will be for three (3) acres or more instead of tracts or parcels ten
(10) acres or more. If the minimum parcel size is revised to allow archery on tracts or parcels
three (3) acres or more, the 100’ buffer from the property line would be required. Since the state
legislation requiring passage by unanimous vote has been revised, proposed changes must be re
enacted.
Consider Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget of the City of Sanford FY 20 142015 (Information Teclmo1ogy’ (Exhibit B)
Finance Director Beth Kelly stated that this ordinance increases the cunent annual
operating budget to appropriate contingency funds for the Information Technology Department
to cover contractual services work required while an employee is on medical leave.
—
Consider Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget of the City of Sanford FY 20142015 (Feasibility Study for Multi-Sports Complex) (Exhibit C)
City Manager Hal Hegwer noted that the Interlocal Committee has met many times over
the years and has been very beneficial in improving relationships with the County. City
representatives on this committee are Mayor Mann and Council Members Wyhof and Gaskins.
—
When the bond referendum was passed, $2,000,000 was budgeted for parks and
recreation activities. A possible joint city-county venture was suggested with the O.T. Sloan Park
to be the site of a multi-sports complex facility. The City would utilize a portion of the bond
funds and other funds would be contributed as necessary. At the most recent interlocal meeting,
members agreed to formulate a study which would review potential projects for the O.T. Sloan
Park and surrounding property, including the Boys’ and Girls’ Club. Staff was directed by the
Committee to pursue the feasibility study. Council previously approved $15,000 toward this
study; Lee County approved $15,000 and the Sanford Area Soccer League (“SASL”) has
committed to funding $8,000 of the cost.
Since that time, staff was directed by the committee to pursue a selection process. Several
firms responded, which staff reviewed. Two county members met with two city staff members
several times in the past few weeks and a company was selected to perform the study. The
current request is to approve the joint committee’s recommendation to contract for and increase
required funding of the feasibility study. The previous cost estimate was $35,000; the current
cost estimate is $68,000. The City and the County would each contribute $30,000 and SASL
$8,000. The budget amendment is for this request.
Council Member Wyhof stated that it was the consensus of all members of the group that
an intense initial review and feasibility study will save money in the long tenri by helping to
avoid potential problems which could develop later in the process. It will also help to ensure
long-term success of the project and accomplish long-term goals for the community. She
anticipates that a thorough study will be well worth the cost.
2
30
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
October 1, 2014
Council Member Gaskins stressed that proceeding in the right direction is critical since
we will only have one shot at a successful project. He also stated that the bids for the study
ranged from $50,000 to $70,000 and requested disclosure of the bids and the matrix used, as well
as information on how the decision was made so that Council can review and approve this course
of action.
Mayor Mann answered Member Haire’s questioning whether sites other than O.T. Sloan
were considered by confirming that the O.T. Sloan is the concentrated site but that site
consideration is one of several issues which will be addressed in the feasibility study. It will
focus on the O.T. Sloan Park, unless research suggests consideration of another site. There is the
possibility of including up to 40 additional acres surrounding O.T. Sloan Park.
Mayor Mann further explained that the proposed study will be much more comprehensive
and in depth than originally proposed. It will require more involvement and additional surveying
of the public, requesting feedback on what is desired, what would be used and what we can
afford, as well as the layout and physical design. Potentially competing sites in similar cities of
the neighboring three to four counties (specifically in the Raleigh and Southern Pines areas) will
also be addressed in the assessment, in addition to facility set up. Mayor Mann informed Council
that Richmond County/Rockingharn is about to embark on a S12,000,000 park similar to the
proposed site here in Sanford, which is an example of a smaller community tackling a larger
project.
Council Member Gaskins noted that we are centrally located and Mayor Mann stated that
we have great infrastructure for such a facility and that the County was also very positive about
the potential of such a facility.
City Manager Hegwer explained that the budget amendment requires that the process will
run through and be controlled by the City financially, with contributions for the project received
from the County and SASL. The final scope of the study is not complete at this time, but when it
is determined, final Council approval will be requested and required. A presentation will be
made after the final assessment is received, at which time questions and concerns will be
addressed before proceeding with the final project. The feasibility study will be comprehensive
and in-depth. It will review many components, including whether revenue options are available
to support it, and will analyze many tough issues.
Council Member Haire asked whether this additional expense would be paid through
bond funds; Manager Hegwer informed him that it would not.
Mayor Pro Tern Williams stated that he was impressed with the inclusion of surveying
surrounding counties to determine how our proposal would compare to other facilities.
Mayor Mann informed the Council that SASL was several hundred members strong, that
they have been attempting for several years to raise funds for a complex and would like to join
with a larger group in order to create one. Representatives from SASL appear to be very
enthusiastic and are willing to convene a meeting immediately in order to obtain approval by
board members to increase their contribution toward the project.
3
31
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
October 1, 2014
City Manager Hegwer pointed out that the initial cost figures were an estimate only.
Previously, a committee of two members from the City (Public Works Director Victor Czar and
Community Development Director Marshall Downey) and two members from the County
(Director of Parks and Recreation John Payne and Lee County Maintenance Director Larry
Bridges) spent considerable time reviewing this issue and asking questions similar to those posed
at tonight’s meeting. It appears that a more comprehensive, in-depth feasibility study is
warranted and it will involve additional cost. Mr. Hegwer noted that the goal is to ensure the
project is completed properly in light of the major financial investment that will be required.
Council Member Haire noted that some neighbors have requested fencing around the
complex, which Mayor Mann explained will be addressed in the study, along with many other
issues. Mayor Mann stated that the assessment will be a working document for guidance.
Consider Ordinance ending the Annual Operating Budget of the City of Sanford FY 20 142015 (Colon Road Lift Station) (Exhibit D)
Consider Resolution Joint Agreement Between the City of Sanford and Lee County Product
Development Initiative Lee County Industrial Park (Exhibit E)
City Manager Hal Hegwer explained that there have been interlocal meetings with the
County at which time it was agreed to propose to each Board that the City purchase the Colon
Road Lift StationlPump Station Collection System from the County in order to facilitate product
development at the Industrial Park. The County intends to utilize the proceeds for the
development of broadband infrastructure in the Industrial Park, which would translate into
broadband service fiber extension from the main Central Carolina Community College
(“CCCC”) campus out to the campus at the Industrial Park. The resolution for the joint
agreement agreed to by the Interlocal Committee states that:
—
—
—
it is the intent of the Lee County Commissioners to transfer ownership of the Colon
Road Lift Station to the City of Sanford for their use and continued development of the
Lee County Industrial Park. As part of this transfer, the County agrees to use funds the
City intends to pay to the County (not to exceed $800,000 from the City) in consideration
for the transfer, to develop broadband infrastructure in the Industrial Park by extending
the current NCMC line from Central Carolina Community College to CCCC facilities in
the Industrial Park. Planning and development of this project will begin when both bodies
agree to this transfer of assets by approving this agreement.”
“...
The subject budget amendment for $400,000 is requesting funds from the Utility Fund.
After conversations with the Lee County Manager, it was agreed that $400,000 be transferred to
the County in this fiscal year and the balance of $400,000 be transferred after July 1, 2015. He
summarized that the overall theme is that the City and Council worked together to enhance
product development in Lee County. City Manager Hegwer acknowledged contributions from
other Council Members who participated in these negotiations.
Council Member Haire informed Council that he and Mr. Hegwer visited the site and
after seeing it, he is more appreciative of the significance the Colon Road lift station plays in
local economic development.
4
32
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
October 1, 2014
Mayor Mann acknowledged the cooperation provided by both City and County
representatives in negotiating the deal. He also expressed his belief that it will be evident in the
future that City and County government worked together to create something significant for job
creation and economic development for the bettennent of all Sanford and Lee County residents.
City Manager Hegwer noted that this agreement does commit the City somewhat to
planning for and the development of additional extension of utilities to the Industrial Park. This
issue can be complicated due to policies currently in place; however, this can be worked through
and a solution can be found and presented to Council for approval. He reiterated the Mayor’s
comments that satisfactory negotiation of this transaction is a testament to how productive
interlocal committee meetings can be when communication reveals common ground between the
two entities.
Mayor Mann stressed that this initiative enhances development at the Industrial Park with
infrastructure utilities by connecting and expanding them over time in order to attract business.
He also noted that many companies now place as much priority on broadband availability as on
water and sewer service. The Industrial Park will be one of few facilities in the area with both
broadband and water/sewer service. It is also a huge step toward achieving Sanford-Lee County
Partnership for Prosperity’s goal of creating 1,750 local jobs.
Council Member Gaskins commented the fine job done by Mr. Hegwer in the negotiations
and his bringing into the negotiations the two round-abouts which will require underground
facility work at the same time. He also noted that the lift station lines are worthless until they are
hooked up to the system; however, this project is a start and plans are underway for segments of
it. He noted that the VA Clinic will also require sewer lines and that there is much ongoing
utility construction activity.
Consider Entering into a Traffic-Review and Inspection Agreement with Department of
Transportation for Downtown Streetscape (Exhibit F)
City Engineer Paul Weeks explained that as part of the downtown streetscape design
project, traffic signals are being replaced and pedestrian heads are being installed. Because the
City is planning to do this, a review by the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) is required to
review design and installation work. DOT works on a “unit” cost basis whereby they charge
hourly rates. They have estimated the cost to be approximately $12,000, which they require up
front. At project completion, the account is analyzed: if work has exceeded $12,000, they will
bill us and if work is less than $12,000, funds will be refunded.
—
Council Member Haire asked whether lights at the Homer/Carthage and Homer/Wicker
intersections would be impacted. Mr. Weeks explained that both of these intersections will have
light changes with the poles currently in place replaced by a cantilevered system opposite each
other with arms coming off in two directions. They will be black painted metal and will have
pedestrian heads and crossings. Bid drawings have just been received today. He also confirmed
that the Wicker/Steele intersection will have a four-way stop, while the Carthage/Steele
intersection will remain signalized. The Carthage/First intersection is not included in the current
streetscape project; however, staff has requested DOT review potentially removing the light and
replacing it with a stop sign but no response has yet been received. Traffic studies will be
required before the decision is made by DOT.
5
33
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
October 1, 2014
Consider Ordinance Directing the Code Enforcement Officer to Remove or Demolish the
Property Herein Described as Unfit for Human Habitation and Directing that a Notice be Placed
Thereon That the Same May Not Be Occupied (Exhibit G)
Code Enforcement Supervisor Barbara McMillen explained that this issue is under the
authority of both the Building/Inspections and Code Enforcement departments. A tirneline has
been included with a copy of the subject ordinance and photos are available. Ms. McMillen
stated that they are requesting authority to proceed with the contract for demolition.
—
Council Member Haire questioned compliance and appeal deadlines. Ms. McMillen
explained that the owners’ had 15 days to appeal the Housing Board of Appeals’ decision and
that this time period has passed. There is a 30-day time period in which to file an injunction with
the Superior Court of Lee County and this deadline is within the next few days.
Council Member Taylor stated that this has been an ongoing source of frustration for the
neighborhood and for our Code Enforcement department. Much staff time and resources have
been spent on this property.
Other Business
Council Member Taylor thanked Pastor and Annie Akers for the recent invitation to their
Friends’ Day, which he attended and is a good example of reaching across multi-cultural lines in
our community. With the approach of the fall season, he requested review and possible update of
the leaf collection policy.
Council Member Williams complimented fellow Member Gaskins, Mayor Mann and
Manager Hegwer on their recent hard work with the County on the interlocal agreements for the
lift station and multi-sports complex. Much progress has been made in a relatively short time
period.
Council Member Wyhof expressed appreciation of the leadership shown by both City and
County representatives and noted that there is a spirit of cooperation being shown in a desire to
move the community forward. She also stated that the Citizens’ Academy continues to be
informative and complemented the inaugural group of citizen attendees and congratulated staff
for work involved with the program and in providing city services.
Council Member Buckels thanked all involved in the recent interlocal agreements.
Mayor Mann announced that the YMCA is kicking off their “We Build People”
campaign with a goal for the current year of $115,000 and expressed his support of programs
they provide. He also noted that the Boys’ and Girls’ Club is having their annual fundraiser on
October 16 and that the local club serves approximately 1,200 children daily. He also
commented on the wide variety of information being presented through the Citizens’ Academy
and urged anyone who could observe one of the sessions to do so. He also commended staff for
their work on and support of the project. He also informed Council that preparations are ongoing
in anticipation of the upcoming trip to China on the sister city project. Goals and strategies are
being reviewed and discussed at this time with the hope of opening doors to possibilities with our
sister city, similar to what has been done by other cities, including Pinehurst and Raleigh. He
6
34
Law and Finance Committee Meeting
October 1, 2014
stated that he believes momentum is starting to build in Sanford and Lee County and appreciates
all the efforts involved in moving forward.
Closed Session
City Attorney Susan Patterson read a motion to go into closed session in accordance with
N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a) (4) and (5) to discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of
industries or other businesses in the area served by the public body and to instruct the public
body staff on the position to be taken on negotiating the price or other material terms of a
contract or proposed contract for the acquisition of real property.
So moved by Mayor Pro Tem Member James William and seconded by Council Member
Sam Gaskins, the motion carried unanimously.
Adjournment
Council Member Sam Gaskins made the motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem James Williams, the motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
T. Chet Mann, Mayor
ATTEST:
Bonnie Davis, City Clerk
7
Seconded by
35
MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANFORD
SANFORD, NORTH CAROLINA
The City Council met at the Sanford Municipal Center, 225 E. Weatherspoon Street, on
Tuesday, October 7, 2014, at 7 P.M., in the Council Chambers. The following people were present:
Mayor Pro Tern James Williams
Mayor T. Chet Mann
Council Member Sam Gaskins
Council Member Byron Buckels
Member Norman Charles Post, III
Haire
Council
Council Member Jimmy
Council Member Rebecca Wyhof
Council Member Charles Taylor
City Attorney Susan Patterson
Hegwer
City Manager Hal
Administrative Support Assistant Vicki Cannady
Absent: City Clerk Bonnie Davis
Mayor Mann called the meeting to order and delivered the invocation.
Allegiance was recited.
The Pledge of
PUBLIC COMMENT (Exhibit A)
Brent Sloan of 2012 Fairview Lane, Sanford, Director of Soccer Operations with the
Sanford Area Soccer League (“SASL”), gave a short history of SASL and infonned the Council that
SASL began as an outcrop of the Lee County Parks and Recreation Department. Their current
membership is 450-500 and growing. They are using all of the fields available at the Lions Club
Fairground facility, as well as fields at local schools and are still bursting at the seams. He explained
that SASL is very excited about the proposal for the multi-sports complex and wanted to present
Council with a “face” to associate with SASL. He reiterated their full support for the project.
Jason Waters of 541 Tucks Court, Sanford, explained that SASL teams are often limited to
practicing only once per week due to lack of adequate facilities. He also expressed support for the
multi-sports complex and the positive economic impact it could have on Sanford.
Jonathan Shockey of 1406 Cherokee Trail, Sanford, commended Council for consideration
He stated that he had chosen to retire in Sanford, and that as a current SASL coach,
complex.
of the
he frequently travels to other complexes for games and tournaments where money is spent on
meals, hotels and other amenities. A multi-sports complex will help to grow conimunity pride and is
an investment in our kids. He informed Council that SASL has been savings funds and has agreed
to pay $8,000 toward the cost of the assessment study. They would like to be associated with the
soccer portion of the complex and would be willing to help manage it.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
City Manager Hal Hegwer requested to remove from the Consent Agenda Item F Approval
of Ordinance Directing the Code Enforcement Officer to Remove or Demolish the Property Herein
Described as Unfit for Human Habitation and Directing that a Notice be Placed Thereon that the
Same May Not Be Occupied. He also requested to add two items to the Regular Agenda, Approval
of Reimbursement Resolution- Purchase of Capital and Consider Presentation of Update on
Garbage, Recycling and Yard Waste Pick-up.
-
-
36
City Council Meeting
October 7, 2014
Council Member Taylor requested that Item B on the Consent Agenda (Approval of
Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Feasibility Study
for Multi-Sports Complex) be removed and added to the Regular Agenda.
-
Council Member Wyhof made the motion to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by
Council Member Gaskins, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2014-2015
(Information Technology) (Exhibit B)
—
—
Approval of Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2014-2015
(Feasibility Study for Multi-Sports Complex) (Item Removed from Consent Agenda and Added to
Regular Agenda as Item G)
—
—
Approval of Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2014-2015
(Colon Road Lift Station) (Exhibit C)
—
Approval of Resolution Joint Agreement Between the City of Sanford and Lee County Product
Development Initiative Lee County Industrial Park (Exhibit D)
—
—
—
Approval of Entering into a Traffic-Review and Inspection Agreement with Department of
Transportation for Downtown Streetscape (Exhibit E)
—
Approval of Ordinance Directing the Code Enforcement Officer to Remove or Demolish the
Property Herein Described as Unfit for Human Habitation and Directing that a Notice be Placed
Thereon that the Same May Not Be Occupied (Item Removed from Agenda) (Exhibit F)
—
—
Council Member Gaskins made the motion to approve the consent agenda.
Council Member Wyhof, the motion calTied unanimously.
Seconded by
REGULAR AGENDA
Consider Presentation by Dr. Bud Marchant Regarding Central Carolina Community College Bond
Referendum (Exhibit G)
Dr. T.E. “Bud” Marchant recognized several members of the Central Carolina Community
College (“CCCC”) Board of Trustees present at the meeting (Chairman Julian Philpott, L.W.
“Bobby” Powell, Jan Hayes and Norrrian Charles “Chip” Post), along with members of the Bond
Committee (Michael Basinger and Robert Joyce).
—
thi
50
anniversary three years ago. About two
Dr. Marchant noted that CCCC celebrated its’
years ago, the Board of Trustees requested that the County Commissioners place on the ballot a
number of bond referenda that would enable CCCC move into its’ second 50 years of service on a
good footing. Expansion and repair work is needed to the Sanford Campus at this time. He
explained that the County Commissioners have broken the requests into four separate ballot
initiatives, which will be voted upon individually. He summarized each as follows:
2
37
City Council Meeting
October 7, 2014
(1) Lee Health Sciences Center- New Construction: This is the first construction proposed to
be located across the street from the main campus on Kelly Drive; it would be next to the Dennis A.
Wicker Civic Center. It has been on the County’s Capital Improvement Project (“CIP”) list since
2004. It is specifically designed to offer short-term medical training to enable attendees to enter the
workforce in a rapid fashion as phiebotomists, sleep and EKG technicians and Certified Nursing
Assistants. These jobs are in high demand and students are turned away due to lack of needed
facilities. This building would also include a new bookstore since the current bookstore was built in
the 1970s and does not accommodate the current volume of more than 6,000 students. Workforce
Investment Act (“WIA”) services could also be relocated here, rather than in several different
locations. The proposed building is approximately 40,000 square feet.
(2) Veterinary Medical Technology Center (“VMT”)- Expansion and Renovation: CCCC’s
VMT program is one of three in the state and it is consistently ranked as one of the top five in the
nation. On lists of fastest growing professions in the nation, VMT is typically ranked seventh or
eighth and the need is anticipated to increase. Dr. Marchant explained that the trend is that much of
the veterinary work, such as shots and cleaning, will be performed by technicians and that
veterinarians will be seen only when necessary. Current student enrollment is 62, which will be
expanded to 100. There are more than 450 applicants per year. The main reason for renovation of
this facility is that there are now higher standards from the accrediting agency, which described
CCCC’s program as a ‘jewel” on their last visit. The current building which houses live animals
(dogs, cats, birds, rabbits) was built in the 1 970s and since that time, cage size requirements have
been increased. The proposal is to renovate approximately 4,075 square feet and to add
approximately 12,000 square feet at the new facility.
(3) Emergency Services Training Center- Renovation and Expansion; and Lee County
Campus- Renovation and Expansion: There are two components to this ballot measure:
(a) Emergency Services Training Center- Expansion and Renovations: This facility
is used for training firemen, first responders and police officers for Lee and
surrounding counties. Shower facilities are needed since state law now requires
that attendees shower after performing physical training exercises, prior to
entering the classroom. A non-lethal firing range is also needed for target
practice and the entire facility needs fencing.
(b) Lee County Campus- Renovation and Expansion: The roof at Wilkinson Hall,
which was built in 1978, needs to be replaced. These repairs are on county CIP
list, but including them ensures that the work will be done within the next five
years.
A detailed list of repairs is included in the presentation
documentation.
(4) Dennis A. Wicker Civic Center- Expansion and Renovation; and CCCC Small Business
T±icubator: There are also two components to this ballot measure:
(a) Dennis A. Wicker- Expansion and Renovations: Many groups have considered
holding conventions in Sanford but current facilities are not adequate. There are
no “breakout rooms”, which are often needed for small group meetings after
holding larger preliminary meetings in the main center. Recently, the NC
3
38
City Council Meeting
October 7, 2014
Association of Beekeepers considered using the Wicker Center for a four-day
event, which would have filled every hotel room in Sanford; however, they
needed three breakout rooms and had to go elsewhere. The Wicker Center has
not been renovated or upgraded since it was built more than 20 years ago.
Technology modernization is also needed to meet needs for conference facilities
and three breakout rooms are proposed.
(b) Small Business Incubator: Sanford was fortunate to have received the gift of a
building several years ago (from Dr. Paul Howard and Dr. Barbara James) which
is located just off of Homer Boulevard. It formerly contained several small stores
and shops, but currently is almost empty. It would be a good location for a small
business incubator. CCCC has operated one in Dunn for more than 20 years,
which has spun off over 400 businesses. It is estimated that a small business
incubator would bring up to 200-300 people daily to downtown Sanford to work,
along with additional customers.
Dr. Marchant stated his belief is that these bonds can set the pace for the next 50 years of
CCCC. He also called CCCC a “gem” in our community and related that in the seven years he has
been with the college, he has received innumerable positive comments from citizens whose lives or
whose family members’ lives have been enriched by the college. He wants to make the next 50 as
good as the last 50 years.
Council Member Haire questioned how Kelly Drive would be crossed once buildings are
located on both sides of the street. Dr. Marchant explained that long-range plans include the re
routing of Kelly Drive behind the Civic Center and the public housing complex, with direct access
to the Highway 421 bypass. Eventually, a portion of the current Kelly Drive could become some
sort of Student Center/Promenade with areas for student gathering and with outdoor seating in order
to unite both sides of the street.
Council Member Taylor expressed his concern that this is not a City issue, but rather one that
should be left to the voters. He also stated that his discussions with representatives from the League
of Municipalities, School of Government and the National League of Cities indicate that it is not in
the City’s purview to endorse such issues.
Council Member Gaskins stated his belief that there is no stronger driver for economic
development in the City of Sanford and in Lee, Harnett and Chatham Counties than CCCC and that
the Council should step forward in support of it.
Council Member Gaskins made a motion to approve a resolution in support of the bond
referendum. City Attorney Patterson reminded Council that this item had been tabled at a prior
meeting (at the August 19, 2014 meeting). Council Member Gaskins withdrew his motion and made
a motion to take the previous motion from the table. The motion was seconded by Council Member
Post. It was passed by a six to one vote, with Council Member Taylor casting the dissenting vote.
Council Member Gaskins then made a motion to approve a resolution to endorse the bond
referendum, which was seconded by Council Member Post. It was also passed by a six to one vote,
with Council Member Taylor casting the dissenting vote.
4
39
City Council Meeting
October 7, 2014
Consider Update on Sanford-Lee County Partnership for Prosperity (Exhibit H)
Rodger M. Sauls, Jr., CEO of the Sanford-Lee County Partnership for Prosperity, updated
Council on recent activities of the Sanford-Lee County Partnership for Prosperity (“SLCPP”). He
summarized the mission statement, gave an overview of recent planning processes, as well as a
summary of administrative ditties completed, marketing/branding work and fundraising activities.
He summarized recent inquiries regarding industry recruitment, along with activities by existing
businesses and expansions.
—
Mayor Mann thanked Mr. Sauls for the extensive update. There was discussion as to what
may have caused potential clients to select sites other than those in Sanford, and whether clients
want existing buildup or sites on which to build.
Mr. Sauls noted that it is an exciting time for retail in the area. Sonic will soon be holding a
ribbon-cutting at its new location and Hobby Lobby will be following soon in their facility of
approximately 40,000 square feet.
Council Member Taylor stated the importance of support industries (those businesses which
help supply the major manufacturers with needed products), and stated that he sensed the trend of
compressing business space vertically. He asked what was being done to attract these businesses
and distribution centers. Mr. Sauls stated that they are not currently targeting specific industries but
are attempting to remain broad and diverse.
Council Member Haire commended Mr. Sauls on his work since assuming duties. Mr. Sauls
stated that his goal was to appear before Council once each quarter.
Approval of Ordinance Amending Section 4-15 of the Sanford Code of Ordinances Regulating
Urban chery Deer Hunting Within the Sanford City Limits (Exhibit I)
Council Member Taylor informed Council that he had spoken with representatives from the
North Carolina Wildlife Commission, which approved language used in this ordinance. He
suggested that the issue be reviewed next year and revised if needed.
—
Council Member Taylor made the motion to approve the ordinance as stated, which was
seconded by Council Member Jimmy Haire. The motion passed by a vote of six to one, with
Council Member Gaskins casting the dissenting vote.
City Attorney Susan Patterson noted that the ordinance will be reviewed each spring when it
is determined whether we will participate in the next extended urban archery season.
Consider Grantin.a the Mayor Authority to Execute Document Establishing a “Sister City” with
Yixing, China (Exhibit J)
Mayor Mann explained that the local delegation will be leaving next Friday, October 17, for
Shanghai and Yixing, China, where documentation of the official “Sister City” relationship will be
signed. Mayor Mann requested approval to sign the documents while in China.
—
Council Member Post moved to grant the Mayor authority to execute the documentation
necessary to establish official “Sister City” status. Seconded by Council Member Wyhof, the
motion carried unanimously.
5
40
City Council Meeting
October 7, 2014
Mayor Mann stated that mayors of other cities he has spoken with confirmed that their
experiences on similar “Sister City” projects have been well worth the time, effort and taxpayer
money.
Approval of Reimbursement Resolution- Purchase of Capital (Financing for Purchase of Fire
Pumper, Street Sweeper and Rough Mower) (Exhibit K)
Finance Director Beth Kelly explained that the purchase of these items was approved in the
current year’s budget and that this resolution will allow us to reimburse ourselves once the
installment purchase financing proceeds are received.
—
Council Member Gaskins moved to approve the resolution; seconded by Council Member
Wyhof, the motion was unanimously passed.
Consider Update of City Garbage, Recycling and Yard Waste Pick-up Policy (Exhibit L)
Solid Waste Superintendent Larry Craig updated Council on the current status of the City’s
leaf and limb pick-up. Crews are picking up leaves and grass clippings this week. During the busy
season (November through February), service is provided every week. During March through
October, pickup is done in the first full week of each month with service increased as necessary.
Brochures detailing services, maps and schedules, have been included with water bills to residential
customers beginning with the September 29 cycle. These brochures are also provided when
applications are made for water taps and at the Public Works Department.
—
Mr. Craig explained that the interlocal agreement for disaster debris cleanup service has
been approved by the County and will be forwarded to Council for signature. Twelve requests for
qualifications were made in February. After review, a contractor located in Alabama was selected
for a three-year period. The company we have previously used did not respond to the request. The
County will be lead agent on this project and the City will be contracting through them but we will
have our own crews assigned. This system worked well during the tornado cleanup back in 2011.
Mr. Craig stated that the Citizens Academy met today with department representatives of
Public Works, Solid Waste, Building Maintenance and Fleet. Many questions were answered and
they toured the compost facility.
Mr. Craig answered questions from Council Members and confirmed that city ordinance
debris is not picked up from vacant lots as a general rule; however, route drivers are
that
states
aware that owners often use their own adjacent lots as a pickup site and we do often make an
attempt to work with them. The problem occurs when debris is illegally dumped. Mayor Mann
suggested a supplemental leaflet or notice on the local television channel summarizing this
information. Mr. Craig reminded everyone that the City website has answers to many frequently
asked questions.
Council Member Gaskins noted that Seattle has launched a marketing campaign
encouraging residents to compost food waste in order to reduce landfill problems. Mr. Craig
explained that the City is likely not permitted to receive food waste since we have been reclassified
as a large Type 1 facility (we were formerly a Type 3 facility). We had previously used chicken
litter to help with leaf decomposition but after being informed by the Department of Water Quality
of the requirements associated with this, we elected to discontinue this practice and are now using
6
41
City Council Meeting
October 7, 2014
only compost turner and watering occasionally when needed. His department would have to
research to determine exactly what we are permitted to receive regarding food waste.
Mr. Craig also informed council that Waste Industries’ recycling pickup schedule is
provided to us each year in January and it is published on our website.
Approval of Ordinance Amending the Annual Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2014-2015
(Feasibility Study for Multi-Sports Complex) (Item Removed from Consent Agenda and Added to
Regular Agenda as Item G) (Exhibit M)
Council Member Taylor stated that he thought the memorandum seemed light in content
regarding what will be included in the feasibility study for the additional cost and that perhaps more
guidance was needed from Council regarding our specific needs.
—
—
—
City Manager Hegwer explained that the current budget amendment is oniy to designate the
funds and that the framework details and scope of work were still being developed.
Council Member Haire questioned whether the study would reveal anything that Council did
not already know.
Council Member Williams stated his assumption that the study will detail the number of
fields needed, what other complexes we would be competing against, and give information to
ensure that we neither overbuild nor underbuild.
Council Member Gaskins noted that the presentation made to the interlocal committee was
quite detailed and suggested that perhaps the presentation should also be made to Council. The fees
provided by the four companies who responded to requests for qualifications ranged from $50,000$70,000 and colTesponded to the amounts of content provided. He requested the matrix used to
evaluate the bids and information to determine how the selection choice was made.
Mayor Mann stated that the goal of the project is to create a destination complex here in
Sanford. Richmond County/Rockingham and Aberdeen are currently constructing sports parks in
the $10-12 million price range, which involved feasibility studies in the 550,000-565,000 price
range. He suggested that a complex in our area would be incorporated into a regional plan which
would also be tied to economic development. Mayor Mann noted that the presentation made to the
interlocal committee was much more comprehensive than the summary provided and perhaps the
presentation should be made to Council.
A motion was made by Council Member Post to table the ordinance until after a presentation
is made to Council; seconded by Council Member Taylor, the motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Rebecca Wyhof left the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
Council Member Post stated his belief that it was a momentous time in Sanford and Lee
County right now. The area is moving forward with many projects, including the CCCC bond
referendum, activities of the SLCPP, the potential for the multi-sports complex, and sidewalk
7
42
City Council Meeting
October 7, 2014
construction; many things are coming together. The Buggy Factory, Colon Road Lift Station and
broadband internet service are examples of cooperation by the City and County.
Council Member Buckles stated that renovation, expansion and modernization of our
facilities will keep us competitive in the area.
City Manager Hegwer informed Council that the October 21 meeting would be cancelled
due to the China trip. The presentation of the multi-sports feasibility study will be scheduled as soon
as possible. If necessary, a Law and Finance Committee meeting could be changed to a Council
meeting. Members would be updated on this scheduling.
Mayor Maim stated appreciation for the CCCC and SLCPP presentations. He commented on
the increase in recent retail activity, both in downtown and around Sanford. Inquiries are being
made on available properties for potential investment, which is an encouraging sign for the
economy of this area and for subsequent private investment. He expressed his appreciation for the
work done on the recently completed Lift Station project and reminded everyone of the upcoming
trip to China.
ADJOURNMENT
Council Member Post made the motion to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Council
Member Gaskins, the motion calTied unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
T. CHET MANN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BONNIE DAVIS, CITY CLERK
8
43
MINUTES OF JOINT INTERLOCAL COMMITTEE MEETING
225 EAST WEATHERSPOON STREET,
Central Carolina Community College Telecommunications Center
5910 Clyde Rhyne Drive
Wednesday. October 8, 2014 at 10:00 A.M.
SANFORD, NORTH CAROLINA
The Joint Interlocal Committee met at the Central Carolina Community College
Telecommunications Center, located at 5910 Clyde Rhyne Drive, on Wednesday, October 8, 2014,
at 10 A.M. The following people were present:
Council Member Sam Gaskins
Council Member Rebecca Wyhof
City Manager Hal Hegwer
City Attorney Susan Patterson
City Clerk Bonnie Davis
Financial Services Director Beth Kelly
County:
County Commissioner Kirk Smith
County Commissioner Amy Dalrymple
Lee County Manager John Crumpton
County Attorney Kerry Schmidt
County Clerk Gaynell Lee
Asst. County Manager/Finance Director Lisa Minter
Management Fellow Michael James
IT Director Kyle Edwards
Emergency Services Director Shane Seagroves
Absent:
Mayor Chet Mann
Lee County Commissioner Jim Womack
Jonathan Shockey with the Sanford Area Soccer League (SASL) was present and discussed
the need for a multi-sports complex. He said the Lions Club Fairground is not sufficient for the
soccer leagues. He added that the proposed complex is an economic development driver, because the
leagues are always going out of town for tournaments, which results in hotels and restaurants being
utilized and the new complex could bring tournaments here. Mr. Shockey stated that SASL is in
favor of the complex and is willing to increase their pledge from the current $5,000 request to $8,000
to assist with the feasibility study.
City Manager Hal Hegwer advised that two council members had concerns regarding the
additional funding, so he is going to see if the consultants can come and make the presentation to all
Council Members and the County Commissioners would be invited to attend. The previous
presentation was made at the last joint interlocal committee meeting and not all council members
were present.
County Manager John Crumpton informed the committee that the Local Government
Commission approved the loan to the airport to build the NC Forestry Service t-hangar.
City Manager Hal Hegwer stated that the Council approved the purchase of the Colon Road
lift station. He added that the City and County attorneys need to work together to prepare a Bill of
Sale for the transfer of the asset. The City will make a payment of $400,000 when the transfer is
completed and make the last payment in July of 2015.
44
Joint Interlocal Committee Meeting
October 8, 2014
Mr. Hegwer said that the City is moving forward with the design of the waterline extension
to the Industrial Park. This will provide more volume of water to the park.
Mr. Crumpton stated that IT Director Kyle Edwards is working on the broadband extension.
Emergency Services Director Shane Seagroves and IT Director Kyle Edwards presented a
report (exhibit) of the expenses for the construction of the E-9 11 Backup Center located in the
basement of the Lee County Courthouse. Much of the delays are due to vendor issues; it should be
completed in January 2015.
The meeting ended at 11 A.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
T. CHET MANN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BONNIE DAVIS, CITY CLERK
7
45
CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Sanford, North Carolina that, pursuant to Section
13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following capital project ordinance number
2014-08 and 2014-46 are hereby amended:
Section 1: The project authorized is for the costs of acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, extending or
improving sidewalks, including without limitation, curbs, gutters, drains, bridges, overpasses, underpasses, and
grade crossings and providing traffic controls, signals and markers and acquiring land, rights-of-way and
easements required for any of the foregoing.
Section 2: The officers of this unit are hereby directed to proceed with the capital project within the
terms of the bond proceeds and the budget contained herein.
Section 3: The following transfer is required:
Transfer of Funds
Transfer to the Following Accounts
Transfer from the Following Accounts
Sidewalk Improvements
Engineering Services
131,010
131,010
Section 4: The Finance Officer is hereby directed to maintain within the Capital Project Fund sufficient
specific detailed accounting records to satisfy the requirements of the bond agency, and state regulations.
Section 5: Funds may be advanced from the General Fund for the purpose of making payments as due.
Reimbursement request should be made to the bond agency in an orderly and timely manner.
Section 6: The Finance Officer is directed to report, on a quarterly basis, on the financial status of each
project element in Section 3 and on the total revenues received and claimed.
Section 7: The Finance Officer is directed to include in the annual budget information projects
authorized by previously adopted project ordinances which will have appropriations available for expenditure
during the budget year.
Section 8: Copies of this capital project ordinance shall be furnished to the Clerk to the City Council and
the Finance Officer for direction in carrying out this project.
ADOPTED this, the 4th day of November, 2014.
T. Chet Mann, Mayor
ATTEST:
Bonnie Davis, City Clerk
Susan C. Patterson, City Attorney
46
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Sanford have determined that it may be in
the best interest of the City to extend its sewer
and that, in order to provide such
extensions it would be necessary to assess all of the cost thereof upon the real property benefited
thereby:
system
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by City Council of the City of Sanford, North
Carolina, that:
1. It is intended that the sewer system of the City of Sanford be extended by
construction of approximately 1,275 linear feet of 8” sewer line along portions of
Hawkins Avenue and including those laterals so indicated on the petition, pursuant to
Article 10, Chapter 160A of the General Statutes;
2. The total cost of said extension shall hereafter be assessed upon the benefited
properties on the basis of the number of properties served or subject to being served
at an equal rate per lot;
3. The fee for each lateral indicated to be assessed on the petition shall be for one-half
(1/2) of the prevailing rate and shall hereafter be assessed upon the benefited
property;
4. The assessments herein provided for shall be payable in cash or, if any property
owner shall so elect, he shall have the option of paying the assessment in ten equal
annual installments, or monthly installments for an equivalent period, said
installments to bear interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum;
5. A public hearing on all matters covered by this resolution will be held at 5:00 P.M. on
the 2nd day of December, 2014 at the City of Sanford Municipal Center.
ADOPTED this
day of
,
2014.
T. CHET MANN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BONNIE DAVIS, CITY CLERK
SUSAN PATTERSON, CITY ATTORNEY
47
PuBLIC WORKS DEPARThIENT
CITY OF SANFORD
P.O. BOX 3729
FAX 919-774-8179
TELEPHONE 919.777.1119
North Carolina 27331-3 729
OR 919-777-1122
June 30, 2014
Mr. Jimmy Love. Sr.
2328 Hawkins Avenue
Sanford, NC 27330
Dear Mr. Love:
Enclosed is the necessary information for a sewer petition which includes your lot at
2328 Hawkins Avenue. The sewer extension would be approximately 1,085 linear feet
to serve 6 properties. The cost of the extension would be assessed equally against all
benefiting lots.
The signatures on the petition should match how they appear on the deed. If you have
any questions or need additional information, please call me at 777-1119.
Sincerely,
Paul Weeks, Jr.
City Engineer
718114
Page 1 cf4
48
2328 Hawkins Avenue et al
8” SEWER LINE EXTENSION
1.
The petition requires the signature of at least 51 percent of the lot owners who own at
least 51 percent of the lots.
2.
Signatures are required from all individuals appearing on the deed for the signatures to
be valid.
3.
The estimated cost is $91,926.00 to serve approximately 6 lots at a cost of $15,321.00
per lot.
The above cost is only an estimate. If the bid cost is 10% greater than the above
estimated cost, it is the city’s policy to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not
the property owners involved want to continue with the project.
The actual cost will be calculated when the project is completed. Your assessment will
be determined when the final cost is declared and is based on actual cost. Please note
that actual cost may exceed 10% of the estimated cost listed in item #3 above.
Payments for the assessment can be financed for a maximum of nine (9) years at eight
percent (6%) interest. Installments can be made on a monthly or annual basis. The
balance of the assessment may be paid in full at any time after the construction is
4.
5.
6.
completed, actual cost is calculated, and 30 days have passed since the City Council
approved the resolution confirming the assessment roll.
7.
8.
All lots shall be assessed equally, including all vacant lots.
The assessment is for the main line only. It does not include the tap or the house
connection.
9.
Property owners have the option of connecting to the line at any time they decide. If the
property owner would decide to have their connection to the line installed as part of the
construction project, their fee for doing so shall be one-half (1/2) of the prevailing rate. If
you desire to have your connection installed at the reduced rate, initial the appropriate
column of the petition.
10.
The property owner may elect to have the tap fee financed along with their assessment.
If so, please initial the appropriate column of the petition.
11.
If a tap is made during construction, the billing for sewer service Will begin at the time
you connect to the tap or one month following confirmation of the assessment roll,
whichever is earlier.
12.
Once the signatures have been received, the City Council will consider the petition after
a public hearing, If the project Is undertaken, all benefiting properties will be assessed
whether the owner of a particular property has signed or not.
13.
If the community would like to have a representative of the City meet with them as a
group, or if you have any questions, please call the Engineering Department at 7771122.
7i8114
Page 3 of 4
49
PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, NC:
We, the undersigned citizens of the City of Sanford, being owners of lands abutting
upon the street, or portion thereof, hereinafter named and described, do hereby petition
the Mayor and City Council of the City of Sanford to proceed as is provided in Chapter
160, Article 9, of the General Statutes of North Carolina:
To construct an 8” sewer line extension along Hawkins Avenue approximately 1,085
linear feet and to assess upon the lots and parcels of land abutting directly upon the
portion or portions of said project to be improved according to the total lots, at cost.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
(Husband & W7fe or Other.)
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
InstaIld As
Part of
Construction)
A
4i qio
‘2h 1] A” ‘/c
iL7tL
.:
718114
Page 4
or 4
TAP FEE
(To Be
ti
Jk,e
/&L
Ae
FINANCE
TAP FEE
(Initial)
50
PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, NC:
We, the undersigned citizens of the City of Sanford, being owners of lands abutting
upon the Street, or portion thereof, hereinafter named and described, do hereby petition
the Mayor and City Council of the City of Sanford to proceed as is provided in Chapter
160, Article 9, of the General Statutes of North Carolina:
To construct an 8” sewer line extension along Hawkins Avenue approximately 1,085
linear feet and to assess upon the lots and parcels of land abutting directly upon the
portion or portions of said project to be improved according to the total lots, at cost.
EdU
4
cr2
1&€1L
4-& 4
<4
718114
Paga 4 of 4
LL
a /1, L)/i I
3LLJ2z HttL4nç
51
PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE HONORA8LE MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, NC:
We, the undersigned citizens of the City of Sanford, being owners of lands abutting
upon the street, or portion thereof, hereinafter named and described, do hereby petition
the Mayor and City Council of the City of Sanford to proceed as is provided in Chapter
160, Article 9, of the General Statutes of North Carolina:
To construct an 8” sewer line extension along Hawkins Avenue approximately 1,085
linear feet and to assess upon the lots and parcels of land abutting directly upon the
portion or portions of said project to be improved according to the total lots, at cost.
SEDUCED
TAP FEE
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
(To e
Ii2SMiOCi 45
Part of
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
(Husband & Wife or Qther)
.
JA- 21
44j*
ie
7/8/14
Page 4
or4
4 c4
‘
YVAiII,
A
cictJon)
FINANCE
TAP FE
(InitIa’)
52
Property Owners
Property Owner
Durand
I Yvan
Church Of Christ Of Sanford
Love
Jimmy, Jr. & Kim
Jimmy, Sr. & Etta
Love
Love
Jimmy, Sr. & Etta
Love
Jimmy, Sr. & Etta
7/8114
Page 2 of 4
Property Address
2410 Hawkins Avenue, Sanford, NC 27330
2404 Hawkins Avenue, Sanford, NC 27330
2328 Hawkins Avenue, Sanford, NC 27330
2324 Hawkins Avenue, Sanford, NC 2733
2320 Hawkins Avenue, Sanford, NC 27330
0 Hawkins Avenue, Sanford, NC 27330
Owner’s Address
140 Indian Tr., Southern Pines. NC 28387
P.O. Box 3731, Sanford, NC 27331
2328 Hawkins Avenue, Sanford, NC 27330
P.O. Box 309 Sanford, NC 27331
P.O. Box 309 Sanford, NC 27331
P.O. Box 309 Sanford, NC 27331
53
Yvon Durand
2410 HawkIns Ave.
PIN 9644-63-9231-00
Mall: 140 IndIan Tr.
Southern Phies, NC 28387
MH 6
300
-
Church Of Christ
2904 HawkIns Ave.
PIN 9544-72-1948-00
Mall: PD Box 3731
8 pvc Sanford, NC 27331
ltiimy Love, Jr. & l(lm
2328 HawkIns Ave.
Sanford, NC 27330
PIN 9644-72-2723-00
Mail: Same
NH 5
320
-
8’ pvc
iirfiiiova, Sr. & Etta
2324 Hawkins Ave.
PIN 9644-72-2577-00
Mall: PD Box 309
Sanford, NC 27331
NH 3
Exist. Sewer
-
8 pvc
Jimmy Love
1 Sr. & Etta
2320 HawkIns Ave.
PIN 9644-72-2386-00
Mall: P0 Box 309
Sanford, NC 27331
MH 4
—
EXISTING SEWER
—
PROPOSED SEWER
•
EXISTING MAN HOLE
o
PROPOSED MAN HOLE
Jlpimy Love, Sr. & Eta
0 HawkIns Ave.
iIN 9644-72-0071MalI: P0 BOX 309
Sanford, NC 27331
GOLF COURSE RD
Sewer Extension @ Hawkins Ave
Date: 06/18/14
Scala: NTS
City of Sanford
Engineering Department
-
P.O. Box 372
-
Sanford, NC 27331
Drawn By: staff
54
NORTH CAROLINA
TRAFFIC
—
REVIEW AND INSPECTION AGREEMENT
LEE COUNTY
DATE: 10/23/2014
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANS P0 RTATI ON
AND
WBS Elements;
36249.3404
CITY OF SANFORD
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on the last date executed below, by and between the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter
referred to as the Department” and the City of Sanford, hereinafter referred to as the Municipality’.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Department and the Municipality propose to make certain traffic control
improvements under said project in Lee County; and,
WHEREAS, the Municipality has agreed to participate in the cost of the project as hereinafter set out.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, each in consideration of the promises and undertakings of
the other as herein provided, do hereby covenant and agree, each with the other, as follows:
SCOPE OF PROJECT
1.
The Project consists of the review and inspection of upgrading two (2) existing traffic signals to
metal pole/mast arm designs on NC 78 (West Main Street) at SR 1133 (Lee Avenue) (Signal 080046) and at Dairymple Street (Non-System) (Signal 08-0071) within the City of Sanford.
DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT
2.
Project plans and traffic signal designs shall be prepared by the Municipality, including electrical
and programming details, (if applicable) metal poles with mast arm shop drawings, foundation
designs, utility make-ready plans, communications cable routing plans, traffic signal coordination
timing plans and Project Special Provisions (including, but not limited to: providing
Synchro/TSPPd files and programming data sheets; coordination timing plans, graphics package,
downloading coordination timing plans onto system cabinets and/or onto central computer). All
work shall be performed in accordance with Departmental standards and specifications, Said
Agreement ID # 5326
1
55
plans and design shall be submitted to the Department for review and approval prior to any work
being performed by the Municipality. All work shall be done at no expense to the Department.
3.
The Municipality, at no expense to the Department, shall purchase or furnish from stock all traffic
signal equipment necessary for the traffic signal revision. Said equipment shall be in reasonably
close conformity with the standards and specifications of equipment and materials used by the
Department. The Department reserves the right to reject the use of any equipment and materials
it deems functionally inferior.
UTILITIES AND RIGHT OF WAY
4.
The Municipality, shall accomplish the relocation or adjustment of any and all utilities in conflict
with the construction of the project. Said work shall be accomplished in a manner satisfactory to
the Department, and without cost to the Department.
5.
It is understood by the parties hereto that all work shall be contained within existing right of way.
However, should it become necessary, the Municipality, shall provide any required right of way
and/or construction easements at no cost or liability whatsoever to the Department. Acquisition of
right of way shall be accomplished in accordance with State procedures. The Municipality, shall
indemnify and save the Department harmless from any and all claims for damages that might
arise on account of damage to public or private property and right of way acquisition, drainage,
and construction easements for the construction of the project.
CONSTRUCTION
6.
The Municipality, at no expense to the Department, shall enter into and administer the contract for
the installation of all equipment and perform such other work as required on the project in
accordance with the approved project plans, the NCDOT “Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures”, January 2012, “Roadway Standard Drawings”, January 2012 and any addendum, all
local codes and ordinances, and the procedures set out herein below shall be followed:
A. No work shall be performed by the Municipality prior to approval of the traffic signal design by
the Department.
B. Installation shall be done by a licensed electrical contractor familiar with traffic signal
construction.
C. All preliminary and construction engineering, supervision, and labor pertaining to the signal
installation will be furnished by the Municipality.
Agreement ID # 5326
2
56
D. The Department’s Division Engineer shall have the right to inspect, sample or test, and
approve or reject any materials or construction methods used during the construction of the
project.
E. Upon completion of the project. and prior to final acceptance by the Department, the
Municipality, will furnish to the Department’s Division Engineer one (1) signal inventory
control sheet and one (1) set of Plan of Record” plans.
F.
Prior to final acceptance by the Department, the Division Engineer shall have the right to
make a final inspection of the completed work.
G. Failure on the part of the Municipality, to comply with any of these provisions will be grounds
for the Department to terminate the project.
H. The Municipality, agrees to pursue the completion of the work covered by this Agreement as
expeditiously as feasible and to complete all work within 180 Days of notice to proceed.
7.
During installation of the signal equipment, the Department shall inspect the work being
performed by the Municipality to ensure compliance with the project plans, the current NCDOT
traffic signal specifications, and the terms of this Agreement.
8.
The Municipality shall install thermoplastic pavement markings where pavement markings are
required on the project.
FUNDING
9.
The Municipality shall reimburse the Department one hundred percent (100%) of the actual cost
of all work performed by the Department, including administrative cots. Based on the estimated
costs, the Municipality shall submit a check for $8,000.00 to the Department’s Division Engineer
upon execution of this Agreement by the Municipality. Upon completion of the project, if actual
costs exceed the amount of payment, the Municipality shall reimburse the Department any
underpayment within sixty (60) days of imioicing by the Department. If the actual cost of the work
is less than $8,000.00, the Department shall reimburse the Municipality any overpayment. The
Department shall charge a late payment penalty and interest on any unpaid balance due in
accordance with G.S. 147-86.23.
Agreement ID # 5326
3
57
MAINTENANCE
10. Upon completion of the project, the Department shall own and control the traffic signal and
maintenance will be accomplished in the same manner as maintenance of other state system
signalized intersections.
11. In the event of damage to the metal poles, the Department shall install “in-kind” metal poles if
funding is available from the damage claim or the Developer. However, if said funding is not
available, the Department reserves the right to install wooden poles in lieu of metal poles (if
applicable).
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
12. By Executive Order 24, issued by Governor Perdue, and N.C. G.S. 133-32, it is unlawful for any
vendor or contractor (i.e. architect, bidder, contractor, construction manager, design professional,
engineer, landlord, offeror, seller, subcontractor, supplier, or vendor), to make gifts or to give
favors to any State employee of the Governor’s Cabinet Agencies (i.e.. Administration,
Commerce, Correction, Crime Control and Public Safety, Cultural Resources, Environment and
Natural Resources, Health and Human Services, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Revenue, Transportation, and the Office of the Governor).
IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the approval of the project by the Department and the
Municipality is subject to the conditions of this Agreement.
Agreement ID # 5326
4
58
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed, in duplicate, the day and year
heretofore set out, on the part of the Department and the Municipality by authority duly given.
ATTEST:
CITY OF SANFORD
BY:
BY:
TITLE:
TITLE:
DATE:
DATE:
Approved by
the local governing body of the City of Sanford as
attested to by the signature of Clerk of said governing body on
(Date)
N.C.G.S. § 133-32 and Executive Order 24 prohibit the offer to, or acceptance by, any State
Employee of any gift from anyone with a contract with the State, or from any person seeking to do
business with the State. By execution of any response in this procurement, you attest, for your entire
organization and its employees or agents, that you are not aware that any such gift has been offered.
accepted, or promised by any employees of your organization.
Federal Tax Identification Number
(SEAL)
Remittance Address:
City of Sanford
P. 0. Box 3729
Sanford, NC 27331-3729
Attention: Mr. Paul Weeks, Jr., FE, City Engineer
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BY:
(CHIEF ENGINEER)
DATE:
PRESENTED TO BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION ITEM 0:
Agreement ID # 5326
5
59
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
OF THE CITY OF SANFORD FY 2014-2015
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Sanford, North Carolina in regular session assembled.
Section 1: The following amounts are hereby amended to ordinance 2014-26 per 0. 5. 159-15 for the
continued operation of the City of Sanford, its government, and activities for the balance of the fiscal year 2014-2015.
GENERAL FUND
APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
REVENUES
100045 30901
Installment Purchase Proceeds
Total Appropriation
EXPENDITURES
50,000
10035600 67500 Street
$
50,000
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective from and after the date of its adoption.
ADOPTED this, the 4th day of November, 2014.
T. Chet Mann, Mayor
ATTEST:
Bonnie Davis, City Clerk
Susan C. Patterson, City Attorney
50,000
60
2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
GENERAL FUND
Appropriation of Funds
-
results in increasing of budget
Revenues
Installment Purchase Proceeds
50,000
To appropriate additional funds for acquisition of street sweeper
50,000
Additional funds required for purchase of street sweeper
Expenditures
Street
61
Financial Services Department
P.O. Box 3729
Sanford, NC 2733 1-3729
Crry OF SANFORD
(919) 777-1138
FAX: (919) 775-5084
Date: October 28, 2014
To:
Hal Hegwer, City Manager
From: Beth T. Kelly, Financial Services Director
RE:
Financing Proposal for Rolling Stock
The City Council approved the installment purchase of the following rolling stock:
1) a Fire Pumper for the fire department, 2) a Street Sweeper for the Street
Department, 3) a Leaf Vacuum and Knuckleboom for the Solid Waste Department,
and 4) a Rough Mower for the Golf Department in the fiscal year 2014/15 budget.
Requests for installment purchase bids were recently sent to area banks.
Seven proposals were received with BB&T Governmental Finance offering the least
total cash outflow. Attached is a summary of the bids. The proposed interest rate
is 1 .46% for a term of five (5) years.
Please ask the City Council to approve the financing proposals submitted by BB&T
at the November 4, 2014 City Council meeting. Thank you.
City of Sanford
Request for Installment Financing Proposals
Fire Pumper and Other Miscellaneous Rolling Stock
10128114
Estimated project cost
Term requested years
$1,098,506
5 years (60 months)
-
Quarterly
Term
Rate
Fixed I
Variable
Penalty Max
PNC Equipment Finance, tIC
Yes
60 months
150%
Fixed
3% of balance
$
First Citizens
Yes
60 months
1.66%
Fixed
1% of balance
$
BB&T
Yes
60 months
1.46%
Fixed
1% of balance
S
First Tennessee Bank
Yes
60 months
1.54%
Fixed
N/A
$2,500.00
$
Yadkin Bank
Yes
60 months
2.10%
Fixed
N/A
S
$
Fidelity Bank
Yes
60 months
3.90%
Fixed
N/A
$
Suntrust Leasing Corp
Yes
60 months
1 .70%
Fixed
N/A
S
Bank
10/28/2014
Prepayment
Legal
Fees
-
-
-
-
-
83.00
-
Bank
Fees
$
Escrow
Account Fees
-
$
$ 2,000.00
$
S
S
-
-
-
$
$
$
2,746.27
$
$
100.00
$
250.00
-
-
-
-
-
250.00
Principal
Expected
Cost
Interest
$ 1,098,506.00
$
43,766.40
$
1,142,522.40
S 1,098,506.00
S
48,495.00
$
1,149,001.00
S 1,098.506.00
S
42,586.00
S
1,141,092.00
$ 1,098,506.00
S
50,751.00
$
1,151,757.00
$ 1,098,506.00
$
62,452.73
$
1,160,958.73
$ 1,098,506.00
$ 112,448.34
$
1,210,954.34
S 1,098,506.00
$
49,679.20
$
1,148,535.20
Staff
Recommendation
BB&T
63
Resolution Approvin2 Financing Terms
WHEREAS: The City of Sanford, NC (“City”) has previously determined to undertake a project for the
financing of rolling stock, and the Finance Officer has now presented a proposal for the financing of such Project.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, as follows:
1.
The City hereby determines to fmance the Project through Branch Banking and Trust Company
(“BB&T”), in accordance with the proposal dated October 21, 2014. The amount fmanced shall not exceed
$1,098,506.00, the annual interest rate (in the absence of default or change in tax status) shall not exceed 1.46%, and
the financing term shall not exceed five (5) years from closing.
2.
All financing contracts and all related documents for the closing of the financing (the “Financing
Documents”) shall be consistent with the foregoing terms. All officers and employees of the City are hereby
authorized and directed to execute and deliver any Financing Documents, and to take all such further action as they
may consider necessary or desirable, to carry out the financing of the Project as contemplated by the proposal and
this resolution.
3.
The Finance Officer is hereby authorized and directed to hold executed copies of the Financing
Documents until the conditions for the delivery of the Financing Documents have been completed to such officer’s
satisfaction. The Finance Officer is authorized to approve changes to any Financing Documents previously signed by
City officers or employees, provided that such changes shall not substantially alter the intent of such documents or
certificates from the intent expressed in the forms executed by such officers. The Financing Documents shall be in
such final forms as the Finance Officer shall approve, with the Finance Officer’s release of any Financing Document
for delivery constituting conclusive evidence of such officer’s final approval of the Document’s final form.
4.
The City shall not take or omit to take any action the taking or omission of which shall cause its
interest payments on this financing to be includable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the
registered owners of the interest payment obligations. The City hereby designates its obligations to make principal
and interest payments under the Financing Documents as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” for the purpose of
Internal Revenue Code Section 265(b)(3).
5.
The City intends that the adoption of this resolution will be a declaration of the City’s official
intent to reimburse expenditures for the project that is to be financed from the proceeds of the BB&T financing
described above. The City intends that funds that have been advanced, or that may be advanced, from the City’s
general fund, or any other City fund related to the project, for project costs may be reimbursed from the financing
proceeds.
All prior actions of City officers in furtherance of the purposes of this resolution are hereby
6.
ratified, approved and confirmed. All other resolutions (or parts thereof) in conflict with this resolution are hereby
repealed, to the extent of the conflict. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
Approved this
day of
By:
T. Chet Mann, Mayor
ATTEST:
Bonnie Davis, City Clerk
Susan C. Patterson, City Attorney
2014.
64
2015 CR01 000 GARDENS AND GREEN SPACES PROGRAM
The United States Conference of Mayors and The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company’s
GROI 000 Gardens and Green Spaces Program promotes and recognizes mayoral
leadership in the development of greenscapes across the nation.
WHY GARDENS AND GREEN
E•.
ScottsMiradeGro ;::)
SPACES?
To help drive garden and green space
development in cities across the U.S.,
The United States Conference of Mayors
(USCM) established a partnership with
ScottsMiracle-Gro’s GRO1 000 Gardens
and Green Spaces Program. Through
JJ(/ ,
this partnership, the USCM and its
membership will collaborate with
ScottsMiracle-Gro to bring gardens and green spaces to communities across the United
States. ScottsMiracle-Gro launched GRO1000 in 2011. The outreach initiative is
designed to create more than 1,000 gardens and green spaces in the U.S., Canada and
O anniversary.
5
Europe by 2018, the Company’s l
“-..
-
-
-
-—
.
fl
.
.
. -
-
The United States Conference of Mayors and ScottsMiracle-Gro are committed to the
development of gardens and green spaces across the nation. USCM is focused on
strengthening and expanding its community garden strategy to maintain a leadership
role in stewardship and development of our nation’s green spaces, to recognize
outstanding leadership and innovative solutions and to identify model green space
initiatives and best practices.
The United States Conference of Mayors was established 80 years ago and is the
official nonpartisan organization representing cities with populations of 30,000 or more.
The Conference represents the interests of more than 1,200 cities at the national level.
The United States Conference of Mayors Standing Committee on Tourism, Arts, Parks,
Entertainment and Sports (TAPES), currently chaired by New Orleans Mayor Mitch
Landrieu, has policy jurisdiction over all issues pertaining to travel and tourism, arts and
culture, parks, entertainment industry and sports.
Mayors Stephanie Rawlings-Blake of Baltimore, Steven Benjamin of Columbia, (SC),
Frank Jackson of Cleveland, Joe Adame of Corpus Christi (TX), and Edwin Lee of San
Francisco, were awarded 2012 GRO1 000 Gardens and Green Spaces Grants during
the USCM’s 80th Winter Meeting in Washington, DC. This was the first year in which
cities competed for these grant awards. In 2013, other Mayors and cities that received
-
65
GRO1 000 grants included, Mayor Kevin Johnson of Sacramento (CA) Betsy Price of
Fort Worth, Cincinnati’s Mark Mallory, Walter Maddox from Tuscaloosa,(AL) and Mayor
Bill Finch from Bridgeport, CT. In 2014, Mayors Annise Parker of Houston, Scott Smith
of Mesa, Betsy Hodges of Minneapolis, Lori Moseley of Miramar, and John Marks of
Tallahassee, were awarded GRO1 000 Gardens and Green Spaces Grants. Over the
last several years, the TAPES Committee has discussed and adopted a number of
resolutions pertaining to cities increasing their number of green spaces, including
community gardens. The mayors have specifically called for cities to develop, grow and
maintain edible gardens in parks, on city hall land and in municipal community gardens.
ScottsMiracle-Gro is dedicated to helping create a beautiful world through industryleading lawn, garden and outdoor living products and services. Through its focus on
innovation, strong retailer reTationships and a drive to improve the consumer
experience, the Company has been instrumental in growing the $8 billion global
consumer lawn and garden market. ScottsMiracle-Gro operates primarily in North
America, along with businesses in Europe and Asia Pacific, and employs approximately
8,000 associates. The Company was founded in 1868 in Marysville, Ohio.
ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE 2014 GROI 000 GARDENS AND GREEN
SPACES PROGRAM
Every municipality in the United States is eligible to nominate one new or one
substantial addition to an existing public garden, edible garden or green space within
their community. All garden and green space projects initiated by the city government
are eligible, including those projects developed and implemented in conjunction with
community garden groups and other relevant community partners.
GROI 000 GARDENS AND GREEN SPACES APPLICATION CRITERIA
Projects should address the following priorities:
1. Engage area residents, with a strong presence of local youth/students groups
involved in the project.
2. Be transformational in scope;
3. Serve as a focal point/visible project for the city;
4. Impact the lives of its residents;
5. Serve as an essential element of the city’s sustainability plan.
All application submissions must include a letter of support from the mayor.
WHAT AWARD WINNING CITIES MUST DO
When making the decision to participate in the 2014 GRO1 000 Program, please
consider the following requirements of award winners:
66
•
•
•
•
•
•
All GROI 000 award-winning mayors must attend or send a designee to the
rd
awards announcement ceremony during the USCM’s 83
Winter Meeting in
Washington, DC, January 21-23, 2015.
Each award recipient MUST host a local mayoral dedication event. Local
dedication events will be held from March through June 2015. Representatives
from The United States Conference of Mayors and ScottsMiracle-Gro will be
extensively involved with assisting municipal staff in planning the local dedication
event and will be in attendance to re-present the award to the mayor.
Key components of the local dedication event include community involvement,
volunteer service, and educational activities for youth.
One deserving youth will be recognized with the ScottsMiracle-Gro Give Back to
Gro Youth Gardener Award at the local dedication event.
The presence and involvement of youth groups during the mayoral dedication
event is a vital, required component of the program. Past GRO1 000 events have
typically included a minimum of 60 youth in the local dedication program.
Winning cities will provide two progress reports on the garden or green space on
an annual basis. The first report will be due in October 2015, the second in May
2016.
WHAT AWARD-WINNING MAYORS AND THEIR CITIES RECEIVE
• GRO1 000 award-recipient mayors will be recognized at the 2015 83rd Winter
Meeting of The United States Conference of Mayors on January 21—23, 2015.
• Effective in 2014, GRO1 000 grants were expanded to award a total of $40,000 in
monetary funds and product, payable over three years. In Year 1, each winning
city will receive a grant in the amount of $25,000 ($15,000 cash; $10,000 in-kind
product from ScottsMiracle-Gro). For Years 2 and 3, winning cities will receive a
grant award of $7,500 ($5,000 cash; $2,500 in-kind product from ScottsMiracle
Gro).
• A local mayoral dedication event will be held at the garden or green space
installation site for each of the four GRO1 000 award-winning mayors. Each
dedication event will include the installation and unveiling of a permanent sign
recognizing the site as part of the GRO1 000 program.
• Each project community will have the opportunity to participate in a GRO1 000
Community Garden Academy Workshop. The workshop provides project-specific
information on garden best practices and how to help ensure the sustainability of
the winning-city’s site.
• Press releases for winning cities will be released. The cities and their projects will
also be the focus of a national media campaign by the USCM and ScottsMiracle
Gro to publicize the cities’ achievements in creating exemplary garden or green
space projects.
67
•
Mayors wi be featured in U.S.Mayor, the twice-monthly news publication of The
United States Conference of Mayors, and a description of the winning programs
will be highlighted on The Conference’s Web site.
IMPORTANT DATES
October 1, 2014
November 14, 2014
January2l—23, 2015
Spring 2015
Application Process Opens
Applications Due
GRO1000 Gardens and Green Spaces Award
rd
Winners Announced in Washington, DC at the 83
U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Winter Meeting
GRO1 000 Local Dedication Ceremonies
SELECTION PROCESS
An independent panel of advisors, comprised of former mayors and subject matter
experts, will help select the 2015 winners of the GRO1 000 Gardens and Green Spaces
Program. The advisors will meet in early December to review the applications. The
GRO1 000 grants are open to USCM members and non-members. However,
membership in good standing will be one of the factors the advisors will consider.
HOW TO APPLY
Cities participating in the 2015 GRO1 000 Gardens and Green Spaces Program will
submit an online application (www.usrnayors.orq/qrol000), due at midnight (EST) on
Friday, November 14, 2014. The winners will be announced during The United States
Conference of Mayors’ 83 Winter Meeting in Washington, D.C., January 21-23, 2015.
Public announcement of the 2015 GRO1 000 award-winning mayors will be made at the
USCM’s 83 Winter Meeting in Washington, D.C., in January 2015. Prior to this, The
Conference will notify the five winning mayors by December 12, 2014, so they can plan
4
to attend the Winter Meeting. If you have any questions about this process, please
contact Crystal Swanncswanncusmayors.orq, or 202-861-6727.
2015 GROI 000 GARDENS AND GREEN SPACES PROGRAM APPLICATION
Please read the application instructions to assist you in completing the application. All
application questions, I through 16, must be answered in order for the application to be
considered complete. You will not be able to submit the application unless each of the
questions has been answered. Please note: You will receive an email confirmation after
you submit your application, It will include a link to return to your completed application
if you need to make edits after submitting.
APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
ALL applications must be submitted online. Prepare a brief description and respond to a
series of questions about an outstanding and/or innovative garden or green space in
68
your city. Eligible gardens and green spaces can be a new project that your city has
developed or an existing project to which you would like to make substantial additions.
1.
Describe the proposed project. Please include the following:
A.
Title of garden or green space
B.
The exact address (or map indicating site location with nearest cross
street intersection and access instructions) of the site
C.
Please indicate if this is a new project or an expansion of an existing
project? (select only one)
a.
New project
b.
Expansion of existing project
2.
Mayoral Contact information:
A.
Mayor’s Name:
B.
Mayoral Contact Name:
C.
Mayoral Contact Phone:
D.
Mayoral Contact Email:
Contact Information for the Leader at the Project Site:
3.
A.
Project Leader Contact Name:
B:
Project Leader Contact Phone:
C.
Project Leader Contact Email:
4.
Mayor’s Press Officer:
A.
Mayor’s Press Officer Name:
B.
Mayor’s Press Officer Phone:
C.
Mayor’s Press Officer Email:
PartnerlGarden Organization’s Name (if applicable):
5.
A.
Address 1:
Address2:
B.
C.
City:
D.
State:
E.
Zipcode:
F.
Phone Number:
Email:
G.
Web Site:
H.
Project Description: Please indicate the following in your response:
6.
Describe the garden or green space project and how this project is
transformational in scope to the community. Indicate how this project will
serve as a focal point for the city. Please indicate the project’s purpose. For
example, is the green space for recreational purposes, is it a teaching
garden, a beautification project or an edible garden to feed those in need,
etc.?
69
7.
How does the garden or green space significantly impact the lives of its
residents? Identify the groups who will work with the garden or green space
and engage in its maintenance/learning/recreation. Please include the
names of any food banklfood pantry recipients and indicate the (annual or
current) local contribution.
8.
Proposed timeline for the project: (funding date through completion)
9.
Please indicate opportunities for ScottsMiracle-Gro associates to assist
with the project.
A.
LaborNolunteer Service (This includes volunteer work on the day of
the local dedication event and other organized volunteer times during the year.)
B.
Counsel/Expertise
10.
Describe how the mayor has supported community gardening andlor green
space enhancement in your city. Please share if this project will be part of
another mayoral initiative. For example, public health, education,
community
development, etc. Identify the name of this initiative if
applicable. List other
current community gardening or green space initiatives in place and how this grant
will work with them.
11.
Identify the square footage of the space and its geographic boundaries.
12.
Has the soil been tested at the potential location?
Yes/No
A.
B.
If so, when?
C.
What were the results?
13.
Part of the grant award includes a significant in-kind product donation from
ScottsMiracle-Gro. Please indicate how the project could benefit from this inkind donation and what type of product might be needed. (Garden soil,
mulch, grass seed, etc. Please identify how you would store this product
until it was needed at the project site.
14.
Describe the plans to sustain the project for the next five years. Please
indicate if the garden or green space is a part of the city’s sustainability
plan.
15.
List other funding sources for the project.
16.
Please upload your mayoral letter of support. This is required for
submission.
17. Please upload 2—3 photographs of the project site in its current state. This is
required for submission.
ALL APPLICATIONS ARE DUE FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2014.
70
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
OF THE CITY OF SANFORD FY 2014-2015
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Sanford, North Carolina in regular session assembled.
Section 1: The following amounts are hereby amended to ordinance 2014-26 per G. S. 159-15 for the
continued operation of the City of Sanford, its government, and activities for the balance of the fiscal year 2014-2015.
GENERAL FUND
TRANSFER OF FUNDS
Transfer from the Following Accounts:
10016650 69900
Contingency
Transfer to the Following Accounts:
10015000 00000 Public Building
5,500
Total Appropriation
$
5,500
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective from and after the date of its adoption.
ADOPTED this, the 4th day of November, 2014.
T. Chet Mann, Mayor
ATTEST:
Bonnie Davis, City Clerk
Susan C. Patterson, City Attorney
5,500
71
2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
GENERAL FUND
Transfer from the FoIIowng Funds
Public Building
results in decreasing of budget
5,500
Contingency
Transfer to the Following Funds
-
-
To transfer contingency funds required to offset expenditures
as described below
results in increasing of budget
5,500
To budget funds required for contractual services work
while employee is on medical leave
Tax foreclosures are complete on the following properties:
-
-
—
9642-67-5123
9642-68-5321
9642-87-5233
9653-31-2224
$3,250.00
I
L
$4,051.87
$2,500
$274.29
$2,200
-
COS & CCL formerly
rMacArther Mitchell
taxes only
504 Wall St
V
—
V
615 Magnolia St
COS & CDL formerly
CitiCorp
VCDS
demolition
9l3OddfellowSt
COS&CoLformerly
Yolanda Goldston
ForecIose Tax Value
(Land only)
Taxes
Incurred Cost
Property Address
Owner
PIN
& CCL formerly
V307
Deborah Newsom
demolition
$8,600.00
$4,578.71
$5,000
demolition
$3,600.00
$4,317.42
$4,900
-
—
San Lee Dr
-
V
9642-87-1306
COS & CDL formerly
Michael Clay
612 Magnolia St
demolition
$3,850.00
9642-54-4884
COS & CDL formerly
:R0Id McLean
1380 Hooker St
demolition $4250
retaining wall $1550 not complete
$5,800.00
9642-97-2671
CCL formerly
Terrence Dale Poole
110 Alcott St
taxes only, vacant lot
$5,000
$4,280.10
$2,600
$236.00
$8,000
V
-
9661-78-1100
9642-98-3679
9642-67-9997
CDS & CCL formerly
Franklin Graham Palmer
9642-77-2626
304 Oakwood Ave
COS & CDL formerly
Jimmy E. Jones
-
COS & Lee County
—
demolition $4175
grass mowing & maintenance $850
$5,025.00
$17,557.31
$10,000
demolition
$7,400.00
$3,845.61
$5,900.00
$3,876.00
$4,154.65
$3,100.00
$928.26
$1,900.00
V
COS & CDL formerly
Maria Mayela Gonzalez
V
1909 Carr Creek Dr
-
]700 Dddfellow St
demolition
V
-t
-
10 Washington Ave
N)
ff’th
1nr
rottaination
••
WHEREAS, Kenneth David Armstrong. has served as the Executive Director of the Sanford
Housing Authority since 2002; and,
WHEREAS, Kenneth David Armstrong. tinder his leadership and tenure. has rehabilitated the
Authority’s 450 housing units, built 110 new units of affordable housing. and assisted close to 100 residents
to obtain home ownership; and.
WHEREAS, Kenneth David Armstrong, has proven himself to be a dedicated and efficient public
ser ant who has gained the admiration and respect of his fellow workers and the citizens of the City of
Sanford and has worked vigorously for the betterment of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS. the City of Sanford has benefitted greatly because of Kenneth David Armstrong’s
leadership, including turning bad housing stock into stock that scores as one of the best in the country
according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and
WHEREAS, Kenneth David Armstrong used his deep understanding of business and economic
development to capitalize on opportunities that allowed the Sanford Housing Authority to become an asset to
the community; and
WHEREAS, Kenneth David Armstrong took over the struggling Harnett County Housing Authority
and has led it to perform flawlessly with full occupancy; and
WHEREAS, Kenneth David Armstrong. will be leaving Sanford to pursue his new position as
Executive Director for the Alachua County Housing Authority, in Gainesville, Florida.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Chet Mann, Mayor of the City of Sanford, with the full support of the
Sanford City Council, do express to Kenneth David Armstrong our deepest appreciation and gratitude for his
dedicated service rendered during his tenure as Executive Director of the Sanford Housing Authority and
offer Ken the very best wishes for success, happiness, prosperity, and good health in his future endeavors.
PROCLAIMED this 4th day of November, 2014.
//$
T. CHET MANN, MAYOR
74
P.O. Box 3729
Sanford, NC 27331-3729
..
V
(LLil of$mcnrb
(919) 777-1105
FAX: (919) 718-6569
Email: [email protected]
Susan C.
te’SOn
City Attorney
ME MORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Susan C. Patterson. City Attorney
DATE:
October 21, 2014
RE:
Request to Release Late Listing Penalty $28.24
Phoenix Fire Protection. Inc.
We have received a request from Phoenix Fire Protection, Inc. to release the late
listing penalty for the year 2014. According to the letter attached, the penalty is a result
of the CPA not filing a timely extension. They say it was an oversight and was not
intentional.
The total amount due for the late listing penalty as shown on the tax bill is $62.13.
Of that amount. $33.89 is County and $28.24 is City. Mary Yow. Lee County Tax
Administrator, indicated that the Lee County Board of Commissioner’s granted a 50%
abatement of their portion of the late listing penalty. which reduced the penalty to $16.95,
at their meeting on October 20, 2014. The City Council should consider whether to
release $28.24, which is the City’s part of the late listing penalty.
Attached is documentation regarding this request.
questions, do not hesitate to call.
SCP:stm
If you should have any
75
WILLIAM W. STANALAND, III, PLLC
CERTIF1ED PUBUC ACCOUNTANT
3809 FORRASTOATE DRIvE • SUITE D
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27103
Bs. 336’ 765-2817 • F.Ex 036’ 659-8846
cpasC
stanalandcpicom
MEMBER;
AMRRicA; INST1TUIR OP
WILLIAM W. STANALAND, III
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNrANTS
NC ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED
CERTIFIED VALUATION ANALSST
Pusuc ACCOUNTANTS
October 7,
L1CV
2014
CDUFILIi
PD Box 3729
Sanford, NC
27331
Dear Sir or Madam:
Phoenix Fire Protection has been one of our clients for years, but
this is the first year we have completed the tax listing for them.
We
process tax listings for several counties, and all of them granE
extensions until April l5.
I was not aware that your extension was
only granted until March l7.
I sent a letter to the county tax
office on March 31, 2014 requesting a waiver of any penalties.
Someone from the tax office just called me and said to send you a
seperate letter after the bill was received with the penalties
assessed.
A copy of the bill is also enclosed, with penalties assessed at
$62.13.
Please waive the penalties.
‘mi
‘Joseph N.
Berlin,
CPA
,E COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR
106 HILLCREST DRI\JE
PC BOX 1968
SANFORD NC 27331-1966
LLE
7T
76
Cor 71/f/ed Tcooy for
c
Be//er Tomorrow
-
*********AUTO**5 DIGIT
27330
253539 2226-prN
DUE DATE: Property taxes are due and payebie
September 1
2014 and delinquent if not cad oh or before Janlary
5, 2015.
PARTIAL PAYMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED: Accou
nt must be paid
in full by January 5, 2015 to avoid enforced collect
ions.
30S6 I I I
FAILURE TO PAY: Delincuanl taxes are subiectto
carnishment of
waaes. bank attachments, debt set-off and foreclosure
oroceed
hos. resulting in additional cost in fees AFTER Januar
r 5. 2015,
PHOENIX FIRE PROTECTION INC
P0 BOX 2881
SANFORD NC 27331-2881
RETURN CHECK CHARGE: 10% of the amount
of the check or
$25.00 whichever is greater will be charged for any
check returned
for insufficient funds or non-existence of an accoun
t. Tax receipts
are null and void if payment is made with a check
that fails to clear
the bank
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX: Pursuant to N.C.G
.S. 105-317 1(c),
the taxpayer may appeai the value, situs, or taxabi;
’:ty personal
property within 30 days afar the date of the chginx! of
nnice
ACCOUNT NUMBER
51955
BILL NUMBER
5247
.
TAX YEAR
BILL DATE
DUE DATE
2014
07/15/2014
09/01/2014
PERSDNALPROPERTYID 47
DESCRIPTION
I DESCRIPTION OF CHARGES
CSF
001
TO’ Pw BY CREDlTC.!RD on.
EECRDYiC ci-iEcr Q\5R T-E PHE
-iTe,m.
I
T( RATE
SANPORD
PP COUNTY
AMOUNT DUE
0.600
0.720
262.38
338.86
—j--
i’.,,-:.u
‘
,:,
:Lu’i.
•
47,064
C
47,064
2857 LEE AVE
Credft Cards are now accepted in our OffiCe for
payment
V/C
01/06/2015
PERSONALPROPERTY VALUE:
EXEMPTION VALUE:
TAXABLE VALUE:
LEEAVE
LOCATION
INTEREST DATE
n vrei
Late List Penalty
PRIOR YEARS DUE
CALL 1-800-272-9829
TO PAY BY CREDIT CARD OR ELECTRONIC
CHECK
AT THE PROMPT, ENTER JURISDICTION CODE
ff 4351
OR VISIT www.officialDavmenis.com
-
62.73
$0.00
PAYMENTS/CREDITS
$0 o
TOTAL DUE
There is a fee charged by Official
Payments Corp for this seic
e
.
$653.37
DUeTOPoSTAoEcoSTs,REcEIpTSFORM
AiLFAYMENTSWlLLS5S8NTsYtAp.IN
REQUEST ONLY. RSTAIN THIS PORTION AND
YOUR CANCELLCD CHEcK cop YouR RecoR
QUESTIONS: TELEPHONE 919-718-4662
(COLLECTIONS) OR 919-718-4661 (BILLING)
OFFICE HOURS 8:00AM 5:00 PM, MOND
AY- FRIDAY
LEE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTEF,
106 HILLCREST DR. SANFORD NC 27330
Ds.
-
PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH
PAYMENT
PPID:
47
LOCATION: 2857 LEE AVE
[
ACCOUNTNUMBER
51955
{1 P EP.5C ([L P R.OR ERTY
B!LLNUMBER
5247
10 CHANGE YOUR MAILING ADDRESS,
PLEASE MAKE CHANGES BELOW
NAME.
ADDRESS:
CITY:
STATE:
CONTACT PHONE NUMBER:
E-MAIL ADDRESS’
BILLDATE
07/15/2014
.
1I0
RDT[O’
DUEDATE
INTERESTDATE
09/01/2014
01/06/2015
$683.37
If yOU have prior year taxes due, remit paym
ent in full with current year.
MAKE CHECK PAYABLE AND REMIT TO’
ZIP:
PHOENIX FIRE PROTECTION INC
P0 BOX 2881
SANFORD NC 27331-2881
LEE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR
P0 BOX 1968
SANFORD NC 27331 -1968
I
ill
I
I
II I!I
I I I
II
I
1Ub-i2b
77
Article 22.
Listing, Appraising, and Assessing by Cities and Towns.
§
105-326. Listing property for city and town taxation; duty of owner; authority of governing body
to obtain lists from county.
(a)
All property subject to ad valorem taxation in any city or town shall be listed annually during
the period prescribed by G.S. 105-307 in the city or town in which it is taxable in the name of the person
required by G.S. 105-302 and 105-306 on an abstract prepared according to G.S. 105-309 and affirmed
as required by G.S. 105-3 10. In lieu of requiring property owners to list their property with the city or
town, the governing body of any city or town may make provision for obtaining from the abstracts and
tax records of the county in which the municipality is situated lists of the property subject to taxation by
the city or town.
(b)
Regardless of whether a city or town adopts the alternative provided in the second sentence of
subsection (a), above, the provisions of G.S. 105-311 and 105-312 shall apply to the listing of property
for municipal taxation, as shall the penalties imposed by G.S. 105-308 and 105-3 12 for failure to list. In
the preparation of abstracts, tax records, and tax receipts the city or town shall be governed by the
provisions of G.S. 105-318, 105-319, 105-320, and 105-321. The powers and duties assigned to the
assessor by the statutes cited as being applicable to municipalities shall be imposed upon and exercised
by some official designated by the governing body of the city or town, and the powers and duties
assigned therein to the board of county commissioners shall be imposed upon and exercised by the
governing body of the city or town. (1939,c. 310,s. 1201; 1971, c. 806,s. 1; 1987, c. 45,s.1.)
htp://www.ncIeg.net/gascripts/statutes/statuteIookup.p?statute= 105-326
1/1
78
105-312. Discovered property; appraisal; penalty.
Repealed by Session Laws 1991, c. 34, s. 4.
(a)
(b)
Duty to Discover and Assess Unlisted Property. It shall be the duty of the
assessor to see that all property not properly listed during the regular listing period be
listed, assessed and taxed as provided in this Subchapter. The assessor shall file
reports of such discoveries with the board of commissioners in such manner as the
board may require.
(c)
Carrying Forward Real Property. At the close of the regular listing period
each year, the assessor shall compare the tax lists submitted during the listing period
just ended with the lists for the preceding year, and he shall carry forward to the lists
of the current year all real property that was listed in the preceding year but that was
not listed for the current year. When carried forward, the real property shall be listed
in the name of the taxpayer who listed it in the preceding year unless, under the
provisions of G.S. 105-302, it must be listed in the name of another taxpayer. Real
property carried forward in this manner shall be deemed to be discovered property,
and the procedures prescribed in subsection (d), below, shall be followed unless the
property discovered is listed in the name of the taxpayer who listed it for the
preceding year and the property is not subject to appraisal under either G.S. 105-286
or G.S. 105-287 in which case no notice of the listing and valuation need be sent to
the taxpayer.
(d)
Procedure for Listing, Appraising, and Assessing Discovered Property.
Subject to the provisions of subsection (c), above, and the presumptions established
by subsection (f), below, discovered property shall be listed by the assessor in the
name of the person required by G.S. 105-302 or G.S. 105-306. The discoveiy shall be
deemed to be made on the date that the abstract is made or corrected pursuant to
subsection (e) of this section. The assessor shall also make a tentative appraisal of the
discovered property in accordance with the best information available to him.
When a discovery is made, the assessor shall mail a notice to the person in whose
name the discovered property has been listed. The notice shall contain the following
§
-
-
-
information:
The name and address of the person in whose name the property is
listed;
(2)
A brief description of the property;
(3)
A tentative appraisal of the property;
A statement to the effect that the listing and appraisal will become
(4)
final unless written exception thereto is filed with the assessor within
30 days from date of the notice.
Upon receipt of a timely exception to the notice of discovery, the assessor shall
arrange a conference with the taxpayer to afford him the opportunity to present any
evidence or argument he may have regarding the discovery. Within 15 days after the
conference, the assessor shall give written notice to the taxpayer of his final decision.
(1)
79
Written notice shall not be required, however, if the taxpayer signs an agreement
accepting the listing and appraisal. In cases in which agreement is not reached, the
taxpayer shall have 15 days from the date of the notice to request review of the
decision of the assessor by the board of equalization and review or, if that board is not
in session, by the board of commissioners. Unless the request for review by the county
board is given at the conference, it shall be made in writing to the assessor. Upon
receipt of a timely request for review, the provisions of G.S. 105-322 or G.S. 105-325,
as appropriate, shall be followed.
(e)
Record of Discovered Propeily.
When property is discovered, the
taxpayer’s original abstract (if one was submitted) may be corrected or a new abstract
may be prepared to reflect the discovery. If a new abstract is prepared, it may be filed
with the abstracts that were submitted during the regular listing period, or it may be
filed separately with abstracts designated “Late Listings.” Regardless of how filed, the
listing shall have the same force and effect as if it had been submitted during the
regular listing period.
Presumptions. When property is discovered and listed to a taxpayer in any
(0
year, it shall be presumed that it should have been listed by the same taxpayer for the
preceding five years unless the taxpayer shall produce satisfactory evidence that the
property was not in existence, that it was actually listed for taxation, or that it was not
his duty to list the property during those years or some of them under the provisions of
G.S. 105-302 and G.S. 105-306. If it is shown that the property should have been
listed by some other taxpayer during some or all of the preceding years, the property
shall be listed in the name of the appropriate taxpayer for the proper years, but the
discovery shall still be deemed to have been made as of the date that the assessor first
listed it.
Taxation of Discovered Property. When property is discovered, it shall be
(g)
taxed for the year in which discovered and for any of the preceding five years during
which it escaped taxation in accordance with the assessed value it should have been
assigned in each of the years for which it is to be taxed and the rate of tax imposed in
each such year. The penalties prescribed by subsection (h) of this section shall be
computed and imposed regardless of the name in which the discovered property is
listed. If the discovery is based upon an understatement of value, quantity, or other
measurement rather than an omission from the tax list, the tax shall be computed on
the additional valuation fixed upon the property, and the penalties prescribed by
subsection (h) of this section shall be computed on the basis of the additional tax.
Computation of Penalties. Having computed each year’s taxes separately
(h)
as provided in subsection (g), above, there shall be added a penalty of ten percent
(10%) of the amount of the tax for the earliest year in which the property was not
listed, plus an additional ten percent (10%) of the same amount for each subsequent
listing period that elapsed before the property was discovered. This penalty shall be
computed separately for each year in which a failure to list occurred; and the year, the
-
-
-
-
80
amount of the tax for that year, and the total of penalties for failure to list in that year
shall be shown separately on the tax records; but the taxes and penalties for all years
in which there was a failure to list shall be then totalled on a single tax receipt.
(hi)
Repealed by Session Laws 1991, c. 624, s. 8.
(i)
Collection. For purposes of tax collection and foreclosure, the total figure
obtained and recorded as provided in subsection (h) of this section shall be deemed to
be a tax for the fiscal year beginning on July 1 of the calendar year in which the
property was discovered. The schedule of discounts for prepayment and interest for
late payment applicable to taxes for the fiscal year referred to in the preceding
sentence shall apply when the total figure on the single tax receipt is paid.
Notwithstanding the time limitations contained in G.S. 105-381, any property owner
who is required to pay taxes on discovered property as herein provided shall be
entitled to a refund of any taxes erroneously paid on the same property to other taxing
jurisdictions in North Carolina. Claim for reftind shall be filed in the county where
such tax was erroneously paid as provided by G.S. 105-381.
Tax Receipts Charged to Collector. Tax receipts prepared as required by
(j)
subsections (h) and (i) of this section for the taxes and penalties imposed upon
discovered property shall be delivered to the tax collector, and he shall be charged
with their collection. Such receipts shall have the same force and effect as if they had
been delivered to the collector at the time of the delivery of the regular tax receipts for
the current year, and the taxes charged in the receipts shall be a lien upon the property
in accordance with the provisions of G.S. 105-355.
(k)
Power to Compromise. After a tax receipt computed and prepared as
required by subsections (g) and (h) of this section has been delivered and charged to
the tax collector as prescribed in subsection (j), above, the board of county
commissioners, upon the petition of the taxpayer, may compromise, settle, or adjust
the county’s claim for taxes arising therefrom. The board of commissioners may, by
resolution, delegate the authority granted by this subsection to the board of
equalization and review, including any board created by resolution pursuant to G.S.
105-322(a) and any special board established by local act.
(1)
Municipal Corporations. The provisions of this section shall apply to all
cities, towns, and other municipal corporations having the power to tax property. Such
governmental units shall designate an appropriate municipal officer to exercise the
powers and duties assigned by this section to the assessor, and the powers and duties
assigned to the board of county commissioners shall be exercised by the governing
body of the unit. When the assessor discovers property having a taxable situs in a
municipal corporation, he shall send a copy of the notice of discovery required by
subsection (d) to the governing body of the municipality together with such other
information as may be necessary to enable the municipality to proceed. The governing
board of a municipality may, by resolution, delegate the power to compromise, settle,
or adjust tax claims granted by this subsection and by subsection (k) of this section to
-
-
-
,/
-
81
the county board of equalization and review, including any board created by
resolution pursuant to G.S. 105-322(a) and any special board established by local
act. (1939, c. 310, s. 1109; 1971, c. 806, s. 1; 1973, c. 476, s. 193; c. 787; 1977, c.
864; 1981, c. 623, ss. 1, 2; 1987, c. 45, s. 1; c. 743, ss. 1, 2; 1989, c. 522; 1991, c. 34,
s. 4; c. 624, s. 8; 1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 961, s. 12; 1999-297, s. 2.)
82
Consider Motion to Take From the Table for Discussion
the Feasibility Study for the
Proposed Multi-Sports Complex
83
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
OF THE CITY OF SANFORD FY 2014-2015
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Sanford, North Carolina in regular session assembled
Section 1: The following amounts are hereby amended to ordinance 2014-26 per G. S. 159-15 for the
continued operation of the City of Sanford, its government, and activities forthe balance of the fiscal year2Ol4-2015.
GENERAL FUND
TRANSFER OF FUNDS
Transfer from the Following Accounts:
10016650 69900
Contingency
Transfer to the Following Accounts:
15000
Total Appropriation
10015500 00000 General Services
$
15,000
15,000
GENERAL FUND
APPROPRiATION OF FUNDS
REVENUES
100045 30962
100045 32012
Contribution Other
Receipt Lee County
-
-
EXPENDITURES
8,000
30,000
Total Appropriation
10015500 00000 General Services
$
38,000
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective from and after the date of its adoption.
ADOPTED this, the 4th day of November, 2014.
T. Chet Mann, Mayor
ATTEST
Bonnie Davis, City Clerk
Susan C. Patterson, City Attorney
38,000
84
2O142O15 BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
GENERAL FUND
Transfer from the Following Funds
Contingency
-
results in decreasing of budget
15,000
Transfer to the Following Funds
General Services
-
To transfer contingency funds required to offset expenditures
as described below
results in increasing of budget
15,000
Additional funds required for the feasibility study of the
sports complex
GENERAL FUND
Appropriation of Funds
-
results in increasing of budget
Revenues
Contribution
Receipt
-
-
Other
Lee County
8,000
To appropriate Sanford Area Soccer League’s contribution
to the sports complex feasibility study
30,000
To appropriate Lee County’s contribution to the sports complex
feasibility study
38,000
Additional funds required for the feasibility study of the
sports complex
Expenditures
General Services
85
0
BRAILSFORD &.. DUN L.AVEY
NC 28202
October31, 2014
Victor Czar
Public Works Director
City of Sanford
225 E. Weatherspoon Street
Sanford, NC 27331
RE:
Planning Agreement for Market Analysis and Feasibility Study
Dear Mr. Czar:
This letter shall constitute the agreement by and between the City of Sanford / Lee
County (‘Client”) and Brailsford & Dunlavey, Inc. (‘B&D”) pursuant to which B&D will provide the
Client with a market analysis and feasibility study (the “Study”) for a multi-sport event complex
(“Project”). Accordingly, whereas the Client desires to engage B&D for this purpose and B&D
desires to perform the work, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties mutually
agree as follows:
Covenants, Terms, and Conditions
1.
Scope of Work.
The Team will perform the following in response to Client’s specific objectives for the Study, as
described in the Request for Qualifications:
A. PROJECT INITIATION
1.
Review document and data materials to gain an understanding of current capabilities,
existing usage, space inventory and demand patterns at the proposed site and Boys &
Girls Club facility.
2.
Engage the Working Committee and other key project stakeholders in a strategic
visioning exercise to define the Study’s “Destination Value” and capture Sanford/Lee
County’s expectations and aspirations for both the Study and the Project. This visioning
exercise is instrumental to delivering targeted analyses and recommendations according
to Sanford/Lee County’s strategic priorities for the Project.
3.
Meet with key project stakeholders to better understand the financial, market, and
political contexts within which the Project will exist.
4.
Tour the proposed site, the Boys & Girls Club facility, and the primary market area to
understand the local area’s existing physical context.
86
Mr. Victor Czar
October31, 2014
Page 2
B. LOCAL AREA RESOURCE ANALYSIS
1.
Create a detailed inventory of lodging accommodations as well as food and beverage
offerings in the local area.
2.
Characterize the competitiveness of local market assets in supporting the objectives of
the Project to serve as a recreational, entertainment, and economic asset.
3.
Identify proposed projects, planned public investments, published strategic plans and
general market trends that may influence the market’s regional position and the ultimate
success of the Project.
C. COMMUNITY FOCUS GROUPS
1.
B&D will conduct focus groups with local-area residents to assess the community’s
general sentiments about athletic, recreation, and event facility needs within the City of
Sanford and the surrounding area. Specifically, the meetings will be used to receive
broad-based, qualitative feedback regarding athletic- and recreation-related opportunities
and challenges, as well as help to inform the development of the planning effort’s survey
instrument.
D. SITE SUITABILITY ANALYSIS
1.
Quantify the site’s ability to accommodate various athletics-related development
concepts.
2.
Assess the suitability of the site for development based on topography and the
identification of wetlands / other protected areas, as well as through a visual inspection of
soil conditions.
3.
Characterize the site’s accessibility from surrounding thoroughfares and key residential
nodes, as well as with regard to its parking capacity potential.
4.
Provide a preliminary cost analysis for site infrastructure improvements that will be
required as a part of Project’s development process.
E. BENCHMARKING CASE STUDIES ANALYSIS (3-4 Case Studies)
1.
A Benchmarking Case Analysis will be conducted to identify and evaluate projects of
similar size and scope within the State of North Carolina, throughout the Southeast, and
across the country. The purpose of this analysis is to better understand how an owner’s
decisions related to program, particularly venue capacity / scale, has impacted the
success of a particular project and addressed the needs of the local community. The
selection of the specific case studies will be a joint effort at the outset of the Study
between Sanford/Lee County and B&D.
87
Mr. Victor Czar
October31, 2014
Page 3
F.
MARKET ANALYSIS
1.
Conduct a demographic analysis to determine population size and characteristics,
including patterns of growth and change that will impact usage of the Project.
2.
Perform a community needs assessment to identify gaps that currently exist in the market
for athletic, entertainment, and recreational facility offerings.
3.
Analyze facility demand by understanding the potential market for club and recreational
sports teams within Sanford/Lee County, as well as the venue needs of other discrete
sports and entertainment sectors within the region.
4.
Provide preliminary capacity recommendations for each potential demand driver based
on the market analysis’s findings
G. SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION AND ANALYSIS
1.
B&D will work with the City of Sanford and Lee County to develop and implement an
Internet-based survey to quantitatively characterize the local community’s current
patterns and future preference related to athletic, recreation, and event facility
needs. This process will provide the team, the City, and the County with a better
understanding of the target market’s sensitivity to specific facility types, cost structures,
and amenity preferences. B&D will analyze the survey data in conjunction with its
demand analysis to help inform the Project Team’s programmatic and facility
recommendations moving forward.
H.
DETAILED DEMAND ANALYSIS
1.
The Demand Based Programming (‘DBP”) phase of the analysis will utilize B&D’s
proprietary methodology and national benchmarks to determine the local community’s
demand preferences for various potential facility options (e.g., baseball field, soccer field,
and other recreation amenities). Specifically, the DBP process will translate survey
responses into potential demand for various space typologies by sub-demographic
population and location of residence to accurately identify the key facility preferences and
characteristics desired by the City’s and County’s identified target market(s).
I.
ECONOMIC IMPACT MODELING
1.
Develop a detailed financial model for the Project that includes a 10-year operating pro
forma and capital cost summary.
2.
Create preliminary operating projections based on the Study’s identified revenue sources
and expense obligations to gain a clear understanding of the overall financial position of
the Project on an annual basis.
3.
Provide capital cost projections and life cycle cost estimates to understand the scope of
required upfront and ongoing financial investments.
88
Mr. Victor Czar
October31, 2014
Page 4
4.
Test the potential economic impact of various development concepts to identify the most
financially viable alternatives.
J.
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
1.
Interview key stakeholders to gain an understanding of current usage as well as space
limitations.
2.
Identify programming gaps and prioritize facility program needs.
3.
Translate program priorities into required space needs using national best practices and
refined space metrics.
4.
Perform sensitivity testing to understand potential future space needs under various
population growth scenarios.
K. DECISION SUPPORT & DOCUMENTATION
1.
Project management to ensure coordination with Sanford/Lee County at every phase of
the process.
2.
Quality control review to ensure error-free and polished final deliverables.
3.
Draft and deliver a final presentation to key stakeholders.
4.
Draft and deliver a Memorandum of Findings as the main deliverable, which will include a
summary of the Study’s findings, recommendations, and prescribed next steps.
A detailed breakdown of the specific tasks that B&D is to perform is set out in the attached Exhibit
A, “Scope of Work and Fees,” which is incorporated herein by reference.
2.
Staffing and Interaction.
B&D’s Regional Vice President, Chet Roach, shall direct the overall work effort. Joe
Winters shall coordinate the day-to-day work, and B&D shall assign appropriate staff to provide
assistance as necessary. B&D may reassign or substitute personnel upon consent by the Client,
whose consent shall not be withheld unreasonably, or upon the unavailability of previously assigned
personnel due to illness or other factors beyond B&D’s control.
Clear and timely communication between the parties is essential to the successful
completion of this engagement. Accordingly, Victor Czar shall serve as B&D’s point of contact for
purposes of providing instructions to B&D concerning this engagement. Instructions shall be
deemed to have been delivered only if communicated or confirmed within a reasonable period of
89
Mr. Victor Czar
October31, 2014
Page 5
time by Mr. Czar. The Client may substitute another representative to serve as B&D’s point of
contact upon reasonable written notice.
B&D expects to call on appropriate Client personnel for purposes of gathering information
and conducting research for this engagement. The close involvement of senior Client decisionmakers may be required to identify both short- and long-term goals and constraints. Accordingly,
the Client shall provide B&D with timely input and feedback from such decision-makers, as well as
access to information, facilities and other personnel upon reasonable request.
3.
Timetable.
B&D shall begin its work upon the Client’s delivery of an executed copy of this Agreement.
B&D shall devote best efforts to meeting all target dates and established deadlines, provided that
the Client has complied with its obligations to provide timely and accurate information, including
the return of this executed Agreement. The parties shall use best efforts to coordinate specific
dates for meetings with key participants and other events over the course of the planning process.
4.
Compensation and Method of Payment.
A.
For services rendered by B&D as specified in Section 1 and Exhibit A to
this Agreement, B&D shall be paid a fixed fee of $68,000, inclusive of out-of-pocket expenses
incurred on the Client’s behalf. Out-of-pocket expenses include, but are not limited to, airline
tickets, meals, postage, overnight delivery service, photocopying charges, lodging charges, and
mileage where applicable. B&D shall not incur charges beyond the $68,000 fee set forth in Exhibit
A without the Client’s prior, specific approval.
B.
B&D shall submit to the Client monthly invoices for the fees and expenses
attributable to or incurred during the preceding month, together with any balance forward. The
percentage of the fixed fee invoiced each month shall correspond to the percentage of the work
that has been completed pursuant to Exhibit A of this Agreement. The Client shall be entitled to
receive a two percent (2%) quick pay discount for fees paid within 21 days from the date of invoice.
The Client shall designate a representative to serve as B&D’s point of contact for the submission
of invoices and questions concerning their payment status.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, B&D shall be
C.
entitled to additional compensation if, subsequent to its acceptance, (i) the Client materially
changes the planning effort’s scope, objectives, and/or timetable; (ii) the Client otherwise requests
or causes B&D to perform substantial additional services not contemplated in Section 1 and/or
Exhibit A to this Agreement; or (iii) the Client fails to provide instructions or requested information
90
Mr. Victor Czar
October 31, 2014
Page 6
in a timely manner, makes substantial corrections to instructions or information previously provided,
or makes personnel changes that materially affect B&D’s performance of this Agreement. In such
event, the parties shall attempt to negotiate a modification or change order in accordance with
Section 19 of this Agreement. In the absence or agreement, the parties reserve their respective
rights concerning the fair value of any services provided beyond the scope of Section 1 and Exhibit
A of this Agreement.
0.
B&D’s Federal Tax Identification Number is 52-1847085, and it is duly
incorporated in the District of Columbia.
5.
Rights to Work Product and Intellectual Property.
A.
The Client and B&D shall jointly own the copyrights to studies, reports, and
all other written documents authored by B&D in the course of work performed pursuant to this
Agreement (‘Work Product”). As author of Work Product, B&D shall have the right to apply for
copyright registration for all or portions of such product, and shall identify the Client as joint
copyright claimant in any such application; provided that B&D notifies the Client in writing prior to
the filing of any such application. Each party hereby assigns to the other party a joint ownership
interest and license in Work Product, together with Improvements to Work Product. As used herein,
the term “Improvements” means modifications or enhancements that either party makes to Work
Product directly or indirectly, whether or not such modifications or enhancements are entitled to
copyright protection.
B.
The Client acknowledges that some of the materials to be included in the
Project are preexisting and were created in the normal course of B&D’s business. The Client shall
be entitled to use Work Product and Improvements for purposes of acting on information or
recommendations contained therein, providing background information or guidance for any other
project that the Client seeks to evaluate or any other purpose related to the Client’s institutional
mission. B&D shall be entitled to use Work Product and Improvements in the normal course of its
ordinary business activities. B&D shall not, without the Client’s prior written consent, disclose
Confidential Information to any third party unless such disclosure is necessary to enable B&D to
perform this Agreement, is part of a general statistical summary that does not single out the Client
or is required by law.
C.
Neither party shall assign, grant, or license their copyright interests in
Work Product and Improvements to any third party without the prior written consent of the other
party, which consent shall not be withheld unreasonably. Each party shall cooperate with the other
party’s reasonable efforts to enforce copyrights in Work Product and Improvements against
infringing third parties. If the Client is required by law to release Work Product and Improvements
91
Mr. Victor Czar
October31, 2014
Page 7
to third parties, the Client shall redact or otherwise protect B&D’s Proprietary Models (defined in
Subsection 5.D below) to the fullest extent permitted by law.
D.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement,
B&D shall retain ownership of all patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, registered designs,
service marks, trade names, logos, inventions, and all other intellectual property rights relating to
proprietary software, analytical models, methods, and techniques (‘Proprietary Models”) that B&D
owns and uses in performing work pursuant to this Agreement.
6.
Public Relations.
The Client shall be solely responsible for the preparation and dissemination of press
releases and other information concerning its assessments, objectives, and positions concerning
the Project. B&D shall be entitled to issue press releases, respond to media inquiries, and
disseminate promotional materials concerning its engagement as a consultant to the Client and
attainment of key milestones. Any such communications shall be subject to the provisions of this
Agreement relating to Confidential Information set forth in Section 5 above. B&D shall provide a
draft of all written press and promotional materials to the Client at least five business days prior to
release. The Client shall have the right to make reasonable revisions to such materials within that
five-day period. In all events, the Client shall provide written notification to B&D within the five-day
period concerning any information the Client does not wish disclosed.
7.
Termination.
Either party may terminate this Agreement for Cause (defined as a material breach of this
Agreement, gross neglect of duty or willful misconduct) after affording the other party reasonable
notice and opportunity to cure. The Client may terminate this Agreement without Cause at any
time upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to B&D. Notice of termination shall be provided by
certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to Chet Roach or Victor Czar as applicable. Upon
termination without Cause, B&D shall receive payment for all outstanding invoices, work in process
and expenses incurred up to the date of termination. The parties’ respective rights and obligations
under Sections 5 and 9 of this Agreement shall survive termination.
8.
Independent Contractor.
In the performance of its duties and obligations under this Agreement, B&D is an
independent contractor. Neither B&D nor any of its employees, agents, or subcontractors shall be
considered employees, servants, agents, partners or joint venture partners of or with the Client by
reason of this Agreement.
92
Mr. Victor Czar
October31, 2014
Page 8
9.
Third Party Claims.
To the extent permitted by law, B&D shall be held harmless against third party
claims, liability, and expenses (including judgments, penalties, fines, settlements, court costs, and
awards of attorneys’ fees) arising from the Client’s gross negligence or willful misconduct in the
course of performing this Agreement. Likewise, the Client shall be held harmless against third
party claims, liability, and expenses (including judgments, penalties, fines, settlements, court costs,
and awards of attorneys’ fees) arising from B&D’s gross negligence or willful misconduct in the
course of performing this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to require
either party to obtain insurance to protect the other party against third party claims, liability, and
expenses.
10.
Insurance.
B&D represents and warrants that it maintains statutory workers’ compensation insurance,
any employer’s liability insurance required by law, comprehensive general liability insurance in the
amount of $1,000,000, and an umbrella policy of $5,000,000, covering personal and bodily injury,
as well as property damage. Further, B&D maintains professional liability insurance in the amount
of $1,000,000. Upon execution of the contract, B&D will issue a Certificate of Insurance with the
Client listed as additional insured. Prior to beginning any work under this agreement, B&D will
furnish the Client with copies of all certificates of insurance.
11.
Limitation of Liability; Governing Law.
Neither party shall be liable to the other party for any consequential, exemplary, special or
punitive damages sounding in contract or tort except as may arise from breach of Section 5 above
or as may be necessary to provide indemnification in accordance with Section 9 above against
actions or claims asserted by third parties. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted
in accordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina without regard to the State’s choice of
law principles.
93
Mr. Victor Czar
October31, 2014
Page 9
12.
Estimates and Projections.
Estimates and projections relating to development budgets, finance and other aspects of
B&D’s analysis will be based upon reasonable assumptions, information provided by the Client or
other sources, reasonable analytical techniques and professional judgment. Actual costs and
financial performance, however, will be influenced by market and other external factors.
Accordingly, B&D does not warrant or guarantee that its estimates and projections will accurately
predict the Client’s actual costs and financial performance.
13.
Waiver.
No waiver of any of the terms of this Agreement or of any breach of its terms shall be
effective unless such waiver is in writing and signed by the waiving party. No waiver of any breach
shall be deemed a waiver of any other subsequent breach.
14.
Severability.
If any term, covenant or condition contained herein is adjudged invalid or unenforceable to
any extent, the remainder of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent
permitted by law.
15.
No Personal Liability.
All actions or claims against either the Client or B&D arising under or relating to this
Agreement shall be made only against such party as a corporation or other legal entity, and any
liability relating thereto shall be enforceable only against the corporate assets of such party.
16.
No Third Party Beneficiary.
The provisions of this Agreement are for the exclusive benefit of the Client and B&D.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, no third party may seek to
enforce or benefit from the provisions of this Agreement.
17.
Assignment; Subcontracting.
Neither party may assign this Agreement, in whole or in part, without the other party’s prior
written consent. B&D shall be entitled to engage subcontractors to assist its performance of the
Agreement with the Client’s prior written consent, which consent shall not be withheld
94
Mr. Victor Czar
October 31, 2014
Page 10
unreasonably, provided that B&Ds engagement of any subcontractor shall not relieve B&D of its
obligations to the Client under this Agreement or impose any liability or obligations upon the Client
to any such subcontractor.
18.
Non-solicitation
In consideration of B&D’s agreement to provide services pursuant to this Agreement
through valued employees who may have specialized knowledge of B&D’s trade secrets,
intellectual property and proprietary methods, the Client covenants and agrees that, during the term
of this Agreement and for a period of six (6) months from the later of the cancellation or completion
of the Project, the Client shall not, without B&D’s prior written consent, solicit or hire as an employee
of the Client, or solicit or retain as an independent contractor to the Client, any current or former
employee of B&D who performed any services for the Client while employed by B&D to perform
professional services for the Client that are substantially similar in nature and/or scope to the
professional services that the person was assigned to perform on the Project while employed by
B&D. This paragraph may be specifically enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction, and
attorneys’ fees shall be awarded to B&D in any such enforcement action, regardless of any other
provision of this Agreement.
19.
Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and by each party on separate
counterparts, all of which together shall constitute one agreement binding on the parties hereto,
notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the original or the same counterpart. Each
party represents and warrants that the person signing this Agreement on its behalf has full authority
to bind such party to the covenants, terms and conditions stated herein.
20.
Entire Agreement; Modification.
This Agreement is the complete and exclusive statement of the parties’ understanding and
supersedes all other agreements and communications with respect to its subject matter, including
any inconsistent terms contained in a purchase order issued in regard to the subject matter. This
Agreement may not be modified, amended or waived in whole or in part, except by subsequent
written agreement signed by the Client and B&D.
The following Exhibit A” is hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement:
*
*
*
95
Mr. Victor Czar
October 31,2014
Page 11
If the foregoing conforms to your understanding of our agreement, please convey your acceptance
in writing and/or sign the enclosed copy of this letter where indicated and return a copy to us. We
look forward to a very pleasant and productive working relationship.
WITNESSED BY:
Sincerely,
BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY
Signed:
By:
Title:
Date:
AGREED AND ACCEPTED
CITY OF SANFORD / LEE COUNTY
Signed:
By:
Title:
Date:
96
Mr. Victor Czar
October 31, 2014
Page 12
CITY OF SANFORD I LEE COUNTY
‘‘BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY
Multi-Sport I Event Complex
Market Analysis & Needs Assessment
Scope of Work& Fees- ExhibitA
PROPOSED BASIC SERVICES
Task Categories
Total
A.
Project Initiation (Meeting Date #1)
1 Docurrent& Data Review
2 Strategic Visioning
3 Interviews with Key Selected Project Stakeholders
4 Tour ofProjectSite
$5,756
B.
Local Area Resource Analysis
1 Accommodation Capacity Analysis (e.g., Lodging, Food & Beverage, etc.)
2 Characterize the Cornpetiveness of Local Area Resources (e.g., Quality, Location, etc.)
3 Identity Anticipated Additions I Changes in Local Area Resources
$4,260
C.
Community Focus Groups (2-4 Total)
1 Develop Moderabr’s Guide
2 Conduct Focus Group Interviews
3 Conduct Intercept Interviews
4 Prepare Focus Group Report
$2,876
D.
Site Suitability Analysis (Performed by Woolpert)
1 Site Capacity Testing
2 Site Suitability Review
3 Site Accessibility and Parking Investigation
4 Preliminary Site Cost Analysis
$5,500
E.
Market Analysis
1 Demographic Analysis
2 Commiunity Needs Assessment
3 Event Demand Analysis
4 Preliminary Stadium Capacity Projections
$6,446
F.
Survey Implementation and Analysis
1 Development of Survey Strategy
2 Development of Draft Survey
3 Field Test Survey
4 Coordination with Client
5 Statistical Analysis
$9,667
G.
Detailed Demand Analysis
1 Demand Model Development
2 Target Market Analysis
3 Demand Sensitivity Analysis
4 Amenity Analysis
$4,952
97
Mr. Victor Czar
October31, 2014
Page 13
PROPOSED BASIC SERVICES CONTINUED
Task Categories
H.
Economic Impact Modeling
1 Model Development
2 Prelirránary Revenue and Expense Projections
3 Capital Cost Projections & Li Cycle Cost Estimates
4 Quantify the Potential Economic Impact Associated with Various Project Concept Alternatives
Total
$5,062
Boys & Girls Club Space Needs Assessment
1 Stakeholder Interviews
2 Prioritization of Program Needs
3 Program Translation b Space Needs (Including Parking)
4 Futere Growth Sensitivity Testing
$4,260
J.
Benchmarking Case Studies Analysis (3-4 Case Studies)
1 Web & Third Party Search
2 Phone Interviews & Primary Research
3 Benchmark Interview & Data Analysis
$3,280
K.
Decision Support & Documentation (Meeting Date #3)
1 Project Management/Team Coordination
2 Quality Control
3 Draland Deliver Final Presentation
4 Draft and Deliver Memorandum of Findings
$11,031
SUBTOTAL. FEE’S
$63,090
SUB-TOTAL: ESTIMATED EXPENSES (ASSUMES TWO SITE VISITS)
SUB-TOTAL: ADDITIONAL FOCUS GROUP-RELATED EXPENSES (TRAVEL EXPENSES)
SUB-TOTAL: ADDITIONAL SURVEY-RELATED EXPENSES (WEB-HOSTING EXPENSES)
$1,500
EXCEED)
$910
$2,500
$68000
98
Consider Expansion of Sanford Housing Authority Board
CITY OF SANFORD
APPLICATION FOR
BOARDS!COMMTSSIONS/COMMITTEES
NAME OF APPLICANT:
COMPLETE ADDRESS (including zip code):
/
/
)V/(
DAYTIME PHONE:
EMPLOYER:
77 13 WEVENIG PHONE:
CI4 i’1
24AJ
TYPE OF WORK:
(3r
SPOUSES NAME:
MARITAL STATUS:
)4
L_
P1
,WHTCHISLO ATEDIN:
I AM A REGI1’EED VOTER IN PREC[NCT NUMBER
‘cANFORD CITY LIMiTS OR
OSANFORDS EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
FOR
CONSII)ERED
WISH
TO
BE
BOARD/COMMISSIO ICOMMIflEE: (1st only one)
APPOINTMENT
OIHA
LEST
ANY EXPERIENCEIQUALIFICATIONS
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMM]HEE:
tFe
(IAx
YdtI
TO
ThE
FOLLOWING
1
Ak
HAVE
RELEVANT
T
THE
ABOVE
—
/
-
LIST BELOW YOUR SECOND CHOICE BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE, IF APPLICABLE: (list only
one)
LIST ANY EXPERIENCE/QUALIFICATIONS YOU HAVE RELEVANT TO THE SECOND PREFERENCE:
I CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE TO THE
BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, AND I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE
OF
THIS THE
ACTIVE UNTIL_______________________
20.
(SLgnatur of Appllcant)(
(Please return completed application to: City Clerk. P. 0. Box 3729, Sanford, NC 2733 1-3729,
or fax it to 919-775-8205.) If you have any questions, please call City Clerk Bonnie Davis at
919-777-1111.
_
100
CITY OF SANFORD
APPLICATION FOR
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES
NAME OF APPLICANT:
COMPLETE ADDRESS (including zip code):
\0(
3flr\CCV-V\
3(
DAYTIMEPHONqSR’EVENlNo PHONE:
EMPLOYER:
crtE
Le QSC’’CXISTYPEOFWORK
MARITAL STATUS:
N”
SPOUSES NAME:
I AM A REGISTERED VOTER IN PRECINCT NTJMflER_______
___ WHICH IS LOCATED IN:
SANFORD CiTY LIMiTS oR
()SANFORDS EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
I
WISH
TO
BE
CONSIDERED
FOR
B OARD)COMMISSION/COMMITTEE: (Hsi only one)
LIST ANY EXPERIENCE/QUALIFICATIONS
BOARDICOMMISS[ON!CQMMITTEE;
v-’?c ç-c c
cci\
-
\
a cp
4
S
APPOINTMENT
YOU
HAVE
TO
RELEVANT
NO \- J\\
CC *ri r
THE
TO
FOLLOWING
THE
ABOVE
\ex-&S
LIST BELOW YOUR SECOND CHOICE BOARDICOMMISSIQNICOMMFrUEE.
IF APPLiCABLE; (list only
one)
LIST ANY EXPERTENCEJQUALIPICATIONS YOU HAVE RELEVANT
TO IHE SECOND PREFERENCE:
I CERTIFY THAT ALT. OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN
THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE TO THE
BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, AND I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
THIS APPLICATION
BE
ACT yE UNTIL______________________
THIS THE 2r DAY OF
20
.
9
(Sig
f
rtir Applicunc)
(Please return compleie4 application to: City Cleric, P. 0 Box 3729,
Sanford, NC 27331-3729.
or fax it to 919-775-8205.) If you have any questions, please call City Clerk
Bonnie Davis at
919-777-1 I Li.