NEWBERRY COUNTY COUNCIL

MINUTES

JUNE 1, 2005

 

 

The Newberry County Council met on Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. for a regular meeting.

 

Present were:    Mike Hawkins, Chairman

                                    William D. Waldrop, Vice Chairman

                                    John E. Caldwell, Councilman

                                    Henry B. Summer, Councilman

                                    John David Dawkins, Councilman

                                    Andy Morris, Councilman

                                    Edgar Baker, Councilman

                                    Leonard B. Sossamon, Jr., County Administrator

                                    Gary T. Pope, County Attorney

                                    Susan C. Fellers, Clerk to Council

                                    Debbie S. Cromer, Finance Director

 

Media present were:     Cindy Pitts, Newberry Observer

                                                Heather Hawkins, WKDK

                                                Cassie Fowler, Whitmire News

 

Notice of the meeting was duly advertised as required by law.

 

Chairman Mike Hawkins called the meeting to order and determined a quorum to be present.

 

Mr. Morris had the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA

 

Mr. Morris moved to adopt the consent agenda; second by Mr. Baker.  Vote was unanimous.

 

Mr. Hawkins read a letter from the South Carolina Association of Counties (SCAC) advising that Mr. Sossamon was the recipient of an SCAC scholarship to attend the South Carolina Executive Institute for 2005-2006. 

 

ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA

 

There being no additions or deletions, Mr. Waldrop moved to adopt the agenda; second by Mr. Morris.  Vote was unanimous. 

 

 

 

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

 

1.         Susie Berry, Newberry County Tax Assessor. 

 

Ms. Berry reported 989 appeals had been filed with her office to date broken down by tax districts as follows:

 

Tax District 1, City of Newberry                                   180

Tax District 1 Outside                                                   106

Tax District 2, Lake Greenwood/Chappells                    86

Tax District 3, Bush River/Belfast                                    25

Tax District 4, Town of Whitmire                                    30

Tax District 4 Outside                                                     35

Tax District 5, Town of Pomaria                                       2

Tax District 5 Outside                                                     66

Tax District 6, Town of Little Mountain                 3

Tax District 6 Outside                                                   233

Tax District 7, Town of Prosperity                                  23

Tax District 7 Outside                                       200

 

207 appeals have already been settled within the office.  54 appeals are awaiting perk tests, flood determinations, recent appraisals, legal residence or agricultural applications and other factors to be considered before decisions can be made.  Two of the appeals actually wish to have the value of their property raised.  There have been at least 20 no shows when scheduled for conferences.    

 

The number of appeals is very close to the 1999 reappraisal.  There were approximately 1,000 appeals filed during the 1999 reappraisal, and we now have 1,200 if you count the ones outstanding and the ones already settled today.   This equates to a 3.3 appeals rate.  A county can typically expect 10% so we would be expecting 3,600 appeals, and we have 1,200.  She and her staff were proud of the fact that they had produced another good county-wide reappraisal.  This reappraisal indicates that values of property in Newberry County are rising, and our people have made good solid investments in purchasing property. 

 

Regarding Wyman Cook’s presentation at the last Council meeting, Ms. Berry advised that Mr. Cook had not visited her office to look up or identify or verify any of the Assessor’s records.  She felt he probably visited the website only.  The website is a great tool but anyone who researches tax records knows that it is imperative that they not depend on the Internet for all of the information.  Information on the Internet is limited, and they must see the property cards, deeds, plats, tax maps, building permits and any other relevant information to insure correct, accurate and complete information. 

 

Ms. Berry referenced by tax map number the properties referenced by Mr. Cook:

 

1.         TMS #460-3:   sale date 6/14/02; sale amount $95,000; market value $53,100.  There is an active building permit on this property to be picked up during the new construction process for 2005.

 

2.         TMS #653-52: sale date 8/19/97; sale price $25,000; market value $11,000.  This sale included a good stand of marketable timber.  Timber value is not used in market value for tax purposes.

 

3.         TMS #286-1-45:  sale date 5/23/03; sales price $20,000; market value $7,500 (according to Mr. Cook).  This sale included a mobile home, which is taxed separately from land.  The value including the land and the mobile home is $21,300.

 

4.         TMS #361-1-2-1:  sale date 4/26/02; sale amount $36,000; market value $10,500 (according to Mr. Cook).  This sale also included a mobile home, which was taxed separately from the land.  The total value of the land and mobile home is $30,100.

 

5.         TMS #654-28: sale date 11/29/04 (according to Mr. Cook); sale price $278,000; market value $159,000 (according to Mr. Cook).  This property was actually sold on 9/22/2002 for $100,000 and the market value is $124,400.  This is a settled appeal with no change.

 

6.         TMS #459-22:   sale date 2/2/01; sale price $60,000; market value $15,000 (according to Mr. Cook).  This sale also included TMS #459-10, a car wash, which has an additional market value of $76,500.

 

7.         TMS #459-24:  sale date 4/27/01; sale price $172,520; market value $88,700 (according to Mr. Cook).  This sale included inventory of a convenience store and also included TMS #459-25 and 459-21.  The combined value is $123,900.

 

8.         TMS #418-19:  sale date 8/11/04; sales price $13,000; market value $7,500.  This tract is combined with TMS #418-21 for a value of $18,000 for a 12 acre total tract.

 

9.         TMS #461-25:  sale date 3/31/00; sales price $400,000; market value $326,600.  This is a historic home purchased with 6 acres of marketable timber, which has been cut, but we are at an 81% ratio, which falls within the correct ratio. 

 

10.       TMS #461-21: sale date 12/2/96; sales price $27,925; market value $14,000.  Marketable timber is included on this tract. 

 

11.       TMS #459-3:  sale date 8/16/99; sales price $385,000; market value $284,100.  This is a large older home, which is currently being renovated, on acreage with timber at a perspective commercial value.  This parcel is flagged new building for 2005. 

 

12.       TMS #188-1: sale date 8/29/89; sales price $165,000; market value $112,100.  This property includes TMS #190-5 and 189-13.

 

13.       TMS #459-5:  sale date 2/11/03; sales price $90,000; market value $85,300.  This is a 95% ratio.

 

14.       TMS #459-26:  sale date 7/31/02; sales price $690,000; market value $553,000, which is an 80% ratio.  This is an industrial property with very few market sales to compare.    

 

15.       TMS #538-2-12:  sale date 5/3/02; sale price $125,000; market value $86,600.  New building note attached to the property card checked in during 2003 for change due to sale.    No change written on card.  We view from exterior only.  This property is also directly next door to the purchaser’s home, which could affect value. 

 

16.       TMS #96-11; sale date 2/21/01 (according to Mr. Cook); sale price $170,000; market value $53,700 (according to Mr. Cook).  This transaction included TMS #96-2 for a combined value of $172,500.

 

17.       TMS #352-1-52:  No such TMS.

 

18.       TMS #532-1-54:  sale date 2/4/04; sales price $65,573; market value $21,000.  This tract includes TMS #532-1-53 and 532-1-54 for a total value of $75,000.

 

19.       TMS #653-57:  sale date 10/2/00; sale price $220,000; market value $90,400 (according to Mr. Cook).  This tract includes TMS #653-5.

 

20.       TMS #343-5-7-1:  sale date 7/20/97; sales price $23,000; market value $16,200. This tract is located in the TIF district, and you have to look up the TIF record and the 1999 record, combine them together to come up with a total market value.  This property has been renovated, and the total market value as renovated is $104,700. 

 

21.       TMS #477-2-43:  sale date 7/22/04; sales price $100,000; market value $45,000.  This transaction included TMS #477-2-44 and 477-2-45.

 

22.       TMS #477-2-44:  See above.

 

23.       TMS #477-2-59-3:  sale date 5/25/002; sales price $252,500; market value $221,000.  This is an 88% ratio.

 

24.       TMS #477-2-57: sale date 12/3/02; sales price $225,000; market value $124,500.  This transaction included TMS #477-2-58.  Combined lot value is $184,500.  This is an 82% ratio.

 

25.       TMS #477-2-56:  sale date 5/24/01; sales price $176,000; market value $101,100.  We have a new building note from 2000 to check for sales price.   Note says no change.  Exterior view only.  Personal property included, question mark.  Paid too much, question mark.  We don’t quite understand that one. 

 

Ms. Berry urged Council and taxpayers to ask for her office’s assistance when researching records if you do not have experience in doing so. 

 

Mr. Cook also indicated that there were houses complete that were not on the tax rolls.  Homes are placed on tax roll if completed for their intended use by December 31st of the prior year according to state law.  If a home is partially completed, we judge the level of completion and place that amount on the tax roll.  It is then checked again and again until it is complete.  The only exception to this rule would be in the event that a taxpayer does did not obtain a building permit or a decal for mobile home.  If we are not notified of new construction, then we do not know to pick it up for the tax rolls.  It is wrong to obtain building permits and mobile home decals before power is actually turned on.  It is also state law that the issuing entities for permits send a copy of each permit to the Assessor’s office within 30 days. 

 

Mr. Hawkins asked if Ms. Berry felt she had made a good case to shut down her website.  Ms. Berry stated the website was very good, but it is not going to show all the connected transactions, and she didn’t know of any other websites that could show that either.  People need to come into the Assessor’s office to do the research behind the information on the website. 

 

Mr. Summer found the website very useful.  It is handy to look at the property and do research.  If you find something out of line, there might be more to the story.  It doesn’t mean it is wrong.  It means there might be some information that you don’t have, and you might want to pull the property card and look at it.  If it doesn’t look right, there is probably something going on that you don’t know about.  A lot of times you have foreclosures or transfers between family members.  There are a lot of things that aren’t on there for different reasons. 

 

Ms. Berry advised they had thousands of legitimate hits on the website from people who are actually using it for research tools, but they also know they need to actually come in and do the research behind it, which most people do.  They use it for tax map numbers and location so it serves it purpose.  It needs to be understood that it can’t be used alone.  It is very complicated in researching property and tax valuation without simply depending on one tool.

 

Mr. Dawkins advised he was requesting that reassessment be postponed an additional year and requested the County Attorney to ask the Department of Revenue in writing whether or not County Council had the authority to do that.  We found out we do not.  The State Legislative body does have the authority to allow a county to postpone reassessment an additional year. Mr. Dawkins contacted Senator Cromer and made a request that he introduce a Bill in the Senate giving the County Council authority to postpone reassessment one additional year if we chose to do so.  A Bill has been introduced, which has gone through the Senate, and is now in the House of Representatives.  If it doesn’t go through the House of Representatives, there are two other bills that would allow County Council the authority to postpone the reassessment for one year for further evaluation.      

 

Mr. Caldwell asked for an explanation of the additional year language.  Mr. Hawkins advised this Bill would allow postponement in addition to the year we have already postponed reassessment.  If the Bill passes, it doesn’t mean we will postpone the reassessment but we would have the option.   

 

Mr. Baker expressed concern over continuing the postponement with the next reassessment coming up in 2009. 

Ms. Berry stated that in 2003 we had zero that were out of ratio as far as true sales.  In 2004 we had 6 falling out of ratio; we had 3 high and 3 low.  For the year 2005, through 5/25/2005, we already have 25 out of ratio, and 22 of those are low in the 70% range and they are on the lakes.  Ratio per state law is 80% to 105%, and we need to fall within that range of true market value.  For 2003, which is when we thought we were implementing 2004, we were hitting near perfect.  We delay a year, and we are falling down.  In the actual ratio study itself for 2005, at this point in time comes up already to 82.8%, and we are not even five months into it.  We will fall below the 80% range quickly.  We are a growing market and our property is valuable.  People want to live here; they want to be here, and they are paying to be here. 

 

The biggest portion of lake homes are second homes and that is part of the appeal factor down at Lake Murray because they are assessed at 6% versus 4%, and they compare back to their other home wherever it might be. 

 

Mr. Waldrop alluded to the article in the paper where Mr. Cook thought some of the Council members had made adjustments to some peoples’ assessments.  Mr. Waldrop stated he never had and didn’t believe any other members of Council had.  Ms. Berry said for ten years the County Council has never interfered with the reassessment process.  They have left it within the jurisdiction of the Assessor’s Office.

 

Mr. Pope inquired as to the cost to the Assessor’s Office if reassessment is postponed another year.  Ms. Berry stated her office was going live with Patriot, which is the new appraisal package and for which they have spent a considerable amount of money, and the data has been loaded for 2005.  If reassessment is postponed, Ms. Berry will have to continue to carry Smith Data processing for an entire another year because the 2004 data is already in history and will have to be reinstated.  She did not know the expense for that.  Patriot will have to be kept on contract since we have already signed with them, and they will be on hold for a year.  She estimated the cost to be at least in the $50,000 range. 

 

Mr. Waldrop asked about the new growth.  Ms. Berry advised the new growth figures should be available within the next thirty days.    

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

No comments from the public.

 

THIRD READING ORDINANCES

 

2.         An Ordinance authorizing the issuance of not exceeding $11,250,000 aggregate principal amount of Special Source Refunding Revenue Bonds (Newberry County Memorial Hospital) Series 2005, of Newberry County, South Carolina, and the mortgaging of the property of Newberry County on which Newberry County Memorial Hospital is located to secure the same; authorizing the execution and delivery of a loan agreement and a bond indenture; authorizing the appointment of a bond trustee; authorizing proper officers to do all things necessary or advisable; and other matters relating thereto.

 

Mr. Morris moved for third reading; second by Mr. Baker.  Vote was unanimous.

 

3.         An Ordinance to provide appropriations for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2005 and ending June 30, 2006 for the Newberry County budget for County Ordinary purposes and for other County purposes for which the County may levy a tax and receive revenues; to provide for the levy of taxes on all taxable personal and real estate properties in Newberry County for all County purposes, including sufficient tax to pay the principal and interest on outstanding indebtedness of Newberry County payable during said fiscal year; to provide for matters relating to Newberry County; and to provide for the expenditure of said taxes and other revenues coming to the County during said fiscal year.

 

Mr. Morris moved for third reading; second by Mr. Baker. 

 

Mr. Dawkins moved to amend to include the following proviso:

 

Funds which were appropriated in the FY 2004-2005 budget, but not requested or encumbered prior to the end of the fiscal year, shall first be applied to purchase a top mount pumper for Friendly Fire Department to replace its No. 2 pumper, being a 1988 International which is to be reassigned to the Stoney Hill Sub-station.

 

Second by Mr. Caldwell.  Vote for the amendment was unanimous.

 

Mr. Summer supported the budget and would vote for it.  While he supported the new positions for law enforcement and courthouse security, he did not support some of the other new positions the County keeps adding.  He did not support the increase in paid ambulance services that is in the budget.  We all want to provide quality services to the citizens, but we also need to be mindful of the taxpayers’ pocketbooks.  We can’t keep adding people and services all the time.  The taxpayers have to have some relief. 

 

Mr. Waldrop supported the rescue and fire departments in the county, but was concerned about the 24/7 rescue unit to be stationed in one area of the county down on the lake.  He could not support that at this time.  If we are going to do it, we need to do it all over the county and right now we can’t afford it.  He could not support that part of the budget. 

 

Mr. Caldwell also supported the budget but we all want some things that we are not able to do at this particular time.  If there is a major crisis, other units can come together.  It is almost saying that we will give you protection when no one is at home.    

 

Mr. Waldrop moved to amend the ordinance to delete the 24/7 rescue squad unit in the Fairview/Lake Murray community; second by Mr. Summer.    

 

Mr. Dawkins advised that the Lake Murray/Prosperity area was the biggest growing area by statistics.  There were over 500 reassessment appeals from the lake area.  We can’t afford 24/7 all over the county, but we have to start somewhere.  Mr. Dawkins initially proposed that it be done in the Whitmire and Lake Murray area.  Thirty per cent of the county’s tax base comes from the Lake Murray area. 

 

Mr. Baker said there are 4 rescue squads in that area presently, and if we can’t cover the county with 4 rescue squads in that area, he couldn’t see voting for half a million to a million dollars to put in a 24/7. 

 

Mr. Hawkins asked if he was correct in that Council compromised in the work session and agreed to start the 24/7 in January, which would only add $70,000 to the upcoming budget.  Mr. Dawkins advised that was correct.    

 

Mr. Hawkins said we couldn’t do it everywhere, but we needed to start where the concentration of the people are and where the most calls come from, and that he would have to vote against the amendment.

 

Mr. Hawkins called for the question.  Voting for the amendment to delete the 24/7 rescue station at Fairview:  Councilmen Summer, Caldwell, Baker and Waldrop.  Voting against the amendment:  Councilmen Hawkins, Dawkins and Morris.  Motion passed by majority vote. 

 

Mr. Dawkins moved to cut $200,000 from the collections and recycling budget.  Motion failed due to lack of a second.

 

Mr. Dawkins moved to cut $100,000 from the garbage budget.  Motion failed due to lack of a second.

 

Mr. Dawkins moved to cut $50,000 from Animal Control budget; second by Mr. Waldrop.  Voting in favor:  Councilmen Dawkins, Waldrop and Hawkins.  Voting against:  Councilmen Baker, Morris, Summer and Caldwell.  Motion failed. 

 

There being no further amendments to the budget, Mr. Hawkins called for the vote on the motion to adopt the budget ordinance as amended.  Voting for third reading:  Councilmen Hawkins, Waldrop, Caldwell, Summer, Morris and Baker.  Voting against third reading:  Councilmen Dawkins.  Motion passed by majority vote.  [See page 11]

 

4.         An Ordinance to provide appropriations for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2005 and ending June 30, 2006 for Piedmont Technical College and Newberry Agency for the Developmentally Disabled; to provide for the levy of taxes on all taxable personal and real estate properties in Newberry County for said purposes; to provide for the expenditure of said taxes and other revenues coming to the County during said fiscal year for said purposes.

 

Mr. Morris moved for third reading; second by Mr. Waldrop.  Vote was unanimous. 

 

 

SECOND READING ORDINANCES

 

5.         An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 52 by implementing a revised Stormwater Management and Sediment Control Plan for Newberry County.

 

Mr. Caldwell moved for second reading; second by Mr. Baker.  Vote was unanimous. 

 

6.         An Ordinance amending the Ordinance adopting and enforcing approved changes to the latest approved editions of the International Building Codes, so as to incorporate the most recent approved changes to those codes.

 

Mr. Baker moved for second reading; second by Mr. Caldwell.  Voting in favor:  Councilmen Waldrop, Caldwell, Summer, Dawkins, Morris and Baker.  Councilman Hawkins abstained.  Motion passed by majority vote.

 

7.         An Ordinance to create the Newberry County Emergency Services Board and to provide for the membership thereof, and the powers and duties of the Board, and to dissolve the Board of Rural Fire Control and the Board of Rescue Squads.

 

Mr. Dawkins moved for second reading; second by Mr. Baker.

 

Mr. Morris advised there would be a meeting of the Emergency Services Committee to discuss the ordinance and potential additions to it.

 

Mr. Hawkins advised there would be a public hearing on third reading.

 

Mr. Hawkins called for the question.  Vote was unanimous.

 

FIRST READING ORDINANCES

 

8.         An Ordinance to require that certain information be provided with deeds to certain types of  real property in Newberry County as to the availability of existing sewer service or the ability of the property to support a private sewer system, and to provide penalties for the violation thereof.

 

Mr. Morris moved for first reading; second by Mr. Dawkins.  Vote was unanimous. 

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

9.         Adoption of Resolution for Wilson Family.

 

Mr. Caldwell moved to adopt the Resolution; second by Mr. Waldrop.  Vote was unanimous.

 

 

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

10.       Committee Reports.

 

No reports.

 

APPOINTMENTS

 

11.       Appointments.

 

Mr. Summer recommended the appointment of Robert Coates to replace Lisa Senn, who has resigned, to the Newberry County Memorial Hospital Board. 

 

Mr. Dawkins recommended that all members currently serving on the Accommodations Tourism Committee be reappointed.

 

Mr. Waldrop recommended the reappointment of George Piersol to the Piedmont Technical College Commission.

 

Mr. Hawkins recommended the reappointment of Jenny Lee Foster to the Newberry County Memorial Hospital Board.

 

Mr. Dawkins recommended that Debbie Cromer and Kim Griffith be reappointed to the Employee Grievance Committee.

 

Mr. Waldrop moved to accept recommendations; second by Mr. Caldwell.  Vote was unanimous.

 

OTHER MATTERS

                                   

12.       Approval of Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS).

 

Mr. Morris moved to approve the CEDS; second by Mr. Dawkins.  Vote was unanimous. 

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION

 

Mr. Morris moved to go into Executive Session to discuss a personal and contractual matter; second by Mr. Summer.  Vote was unanimous.   

 

[EXECUTIVE SESSION 8:20 P.M. – 10:03 P.M.]

 

Mr. Morris moved to return to regular session; second by Mr. Baker.  Vote was unanimous. 

 

13.       Personnel

 

14.       Contractual

 

Mr. Hawkins advised that Mr. Summer lead a discussion to evaluate the County Administrator, and the evaluation will be finished at the next meeting. 

 

No report on either the contractual or personnel matters.

 

FUTURE MEETINGS

 

Council Meetings:         June 15, 2005, 7:00 p.m.

                                    July 6, 2005, 7:00 p.m.

 

COMMENTS FROM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

 

Mr. Sossamon stated that Darrell Gilliam meant a lot to Newberry County, and out of respect for him flags have been lowered to half mast and will remain so until after funeral services tomorrow.  The family has requested deputies to be pallbearers and Councilmen to be Honorary pallbearers. 

 

COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS

 

Mr. Morris suggested a work session for the consultant to present the facilities study.   

 

Mr. Dawkins requested permission of Council to change his vote on third reading of the budget ordinance as adopted although he objects to the removal of the ambulance service.  By unanimous consent and with no objection from Council, Mr. Dawkins was allowed to change his vote in favor of third reading of the budget ordinance as amended. 

 

Mr. Caldwell congratulated Mr. Sossamon on his receipt of the scholarship from SCAC. 

 

VOTE FOR ADJOURNMENT

 

Mr. Baker moved to adjourn; second by Mr. Waldrop.  Vote was unanimous. 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:11 p.m.

 

                                                                        NEWBERRY COUNTY COUNCIL

 

 

                                                                        ____________________________________

                                                                        Mike Hawkins, Chairman

 

 

                                                                        ____________________________________

                                                                        Susan C. Fellers, Clerk to Council