NEWBERRY COUNTY
COUNCIL
MINUTES
JULY 5, 2006
The Newberry County Council met on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at the Courthouse Annex, 1309 College Street, Newberry, SC, for a regularly scheduled 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
J.E. Klugh, Acting County Administrator
Gary T. Pope, County Attorney
Susan C. Fellers, Clerk to Council
Media: Heather Hawkins, WKDK
Cindy Pitts, Newberry Observer
Cassie Fowler, Whitmire News
Notice of the meeting was duly advertised as required by law.
Mr. Hawkins called the meeting to order and determined a quorum to be present.
Mr. Summer had the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Morris moved to adopt the consent agenda; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
The following amendments were made to the agenda:
Ř Move the contractual matter relating to Kinard Control Systems from Executive Session to the regular agenda. (#11.5)
There being no further additions or deletions, Mr. Summer moved to adopt the agenda as amended; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.
1. Request for Agricultural Assessment – Cathie Saucier.
Cathie Saucier, 8534 Hwy 76, Prosperity, SC, real estate broker with Century 21, requested on behalf of Suzanne and Robert Andreas an agricultural exemption. Because the Andreas moved several times and did not keep Newberry County informed of their current address, they did not receive the exemption form. They are also asking that the rollback taxes be waived.
Mr. Pope’s research revealed that the Andreas moved three times in two years. Under State law it is their obligation to file for continued agricultural exemption, and it is Council’s choice as to whether or not to grant the exemption. This was not a failing by a county employee.
Mr. Summer moved to grant it because if the Andreas had filled out the paperwork correctly to start with they would have qualified, and the error is not the County’s error but it was some miscommunication; second by Mr. Waldrop. Vote was unanimous.
2. Proposed Ordinance requiring certain information to be provided with deeds – Jackie S. Bowers, Clerk of Court, and Henry Bufkin, Esquire.
Jackie Bowers, Clerk of Court, requested clarification of the ordinance, which addresses the necessity of an affidavit to be attached to a deed presented to the Clerk of Court for recording. This affidavit would provide information as to the ability of the property being transferred to support, or not to support, a sewage disposal system.
Paragraph 1 of the ordinance states that deeds with tracts containing three acres or less shall be accompanied by this affidavit. Ms. Bowers’ concern was the word “shall” since it would indicate a requirement or a duty for someone to comply with this ordinance. The word “shall” sounds like the Clerk of Court is required to make sure the affidavit is attached to the deed when presented for recording. This would charge her office with enforcing this ordinance. Many times they don’t know whether a deed is three acres, less than three or more than three. A lot of times the deed may say two lots, and the Clerk of Court’s Office would not know the acreage. She was not sure how her office would determine that unless it is asked of everyone who records a deed. A lot deeds come in by mail from out of town attorneys or individuals who are not going to know about this affidavit.
Paragraph 3 of the ordinance says the Clerk of Court may, but is not required to, refuse to accept the deed if the affidavit is not attached. This seems ambiguous since paragraph 1 which appears to be a requirement for recording.
Paragraph 4 gives four different land transactions to which this ordinance does not apply. That would be something else to be checked and would take time to pull out of the deeds.
Paragraph 5 says the ordinance does not create any duty on the Clerk of Court to inspect the deeds. The duty is solely on the parties.
Ms. Bowers asked for clarification as to her responsibility as to this ordinance. Does she have the responsibility of informing anyone who records a deed that the affidavit has to be attached?
Most deed transactions take place under the guidance of an attorney, and this would not be a problem that most people would face. Mr. Bufkin could probably address this better since he handles many closings and is aware of the regulations and paperwork required in the transactions.
This is another sheet of paper attached to the deed, and there is nothing in the ordinance about a filing fee. Recording fees are set by State statute, and the fee for recording a deed is $10 for the first four pages and $1 per page for any after four. Are we going to tack on that $1 to the recording of the deed if it is more than four pages?
If Ms. Bowers is required to scrutinize deeds for all the requirements set out in State statutes and then comply with this ordinance, it will greatly impact the land record filing in her office and will slow the process down and burden the system.
Mr. Hawkins advised this ordinance was being sent out to attorneys, surveyors, banks, builders, lending institutions to gain input. This was postponed at a recent Council meeting, and another public hearing will be held.
Mr. Pope advised that basically the duty is on the participants in the transaction. The idea, as put in the memo being sent out, is that some unsuspecting buyers purchase small tracts for residential use, and the tracts cannot pass a percolation test and do not have public water or sewer available. This ordinance is designed to protect the interests of those persons, and at the same time to reduce any liability for the Clerk of Court personally although it will affect her office. If there is an extra page, it would have to be charged for but the idea is that the attorney submitting the deed for recording would provide the affidavit. If it doesn’t apply to the transaction, they would only check the box. The questions posed by Ms. Bowers have to be considered by Council. We have asked for comments by July 28, and at that time hopefully Council will have all the information they need to consider whether it is wise to proceed.
Henry Bufkin, attorney, requested clarification as to whether there would be a second public hearing. Mr. Hawkins advised there would be another public hearing.
Mr. Bufkin was concerned that this would just be another piece of paper and was unsure as to what the valid public purpose of it would be. There is the Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act, 27-50-10, which provides for a residential property disclosure form, which was put out by the Labor and Licensing Board. There is already a disclosure requirement for every residential closing. This doesn’t pertain necessarily to tracts of three acres or less but there is a burden in State statute already attempting to make sure that the seller would fully disclose the condition of the property. One of those things is the status of the water supply and the septic system. This is required by State statute, but is not recorded. The seller must sign off on that prior to the time the property is contracted, and there is a place for explaining variances and what they are. There is also a place for the purchaser and seller to sign off. There is already some significant attempt by State government to protect people from themselves.
In addition, at the time of recording a deed, an affidavit as to whether or not it is a taxable event is also recorded to determine the true consideration of the transfer of the property. The County collects $3.70 per $1,000 on the face of the deed and the purpose of that affidavit is for somebody to swear how many dollars passed hands. Some counties charge more, but that is the base throughout the State, and the way they keep everybody honest is this affidavit, which is recorded, and by statutory exclusion you don’t have to pay for the recording of this affidavit but the Clerk of Court can require it if it is not clear.
Mr. Bufkin understood the need for disclosure and was not against it and doesn’t want people to be taken advantage of, but there are some burdens on buyers. The government can’t do everything to protect everybody from everything. If that is the case, then the size of government has to be much more. Mr. Bufkin did not understand why Newberry County had to have a supplemental regulation over and above all disclosures made throughout the State of South Carolina to make sure that every single person is told by every single buyer the status of every single condition of every single piece of property. It would be impossible to look at the face of the deed and know the acreage unless it says on there exactly what it is. Oftentimes, it is lot 47 and lot 47 might be .5 acres or it might be 3.5 acres or it might be 15 acres. Logistically there are a lot of burdens but it is still another affidavit that doesn’t need to be done. Certainly it will protect one person in doing that but at what expense will it be. There are a lot of protections available for the public already. The burdens of doing this are significantly more than the benefits that are achieved, and it is these sorts of well intended things that cause us to double and triple the size of our county staff because of these additional burdens.
We are a rural county and there are fewer numbered lots and more larger tracts. For those few occasions where people are buying five acre tracts or 2.75 acre tracts for residences, there is some burden on the public at large to ask questions. They can’t go wandering into the woods at night not asking any questions and expect to be protected completely by government. This is a significant over reaction on the part of the government. Mr. Bufkin did not believe any other counties in South Carolina required this, and we are fiddling with a state-wide regulated system of preparing and recording deeds and adding a burden that is not required or seen to be valid anywhere else.
Mr. Hawkins asked about the fee of $3.70 per $1,000 and why some other counties charged more. Mr. Bufkin understood that some counties, such as Charleston and Beaufort, charge $5.20 per $1,000 to record deeds and that $3.70 is the minimum required by State law.
Mr. Morris felt it was in the public’s best interest that Council do this. Apparently the documents Mr. Bufkin referred to are a failure because Mr. Morris was aware of property that has been subdivided on Knotty Pine Drive on which Mr. Bufkin was the closing attorney and some of the lots will not perc. It was not disclosed to the people when they bought it that it would not perc. The people cannot build houses on the property because they can’t get a septic system, and the lots are back on the real estate market and again it is not being disclosed to potential buyers that the lots won’t perc, and the people looking at them are wanting to build a home. There is some failure with the system.
Mr. Morris received a phone call this afternoon from an attorney’s office who had received misinformation, but after reading the proposed ordinance to them, they had no problem with it. Their response was they felt it was a good public policy. Mr. Morris talked with DHEC and DHEC thought it was a great idea because they get blamed for property that won’t perc after people buy it and want to put homes on it.
Mr. Bufkin stated that with regard to real estate closing he has done, he is not a guarantor for all of those transactions. He puts it all together but he is not the seller of the property so he doesn’t guarantee the entire transaction.
Mr. Morris said this would put the burden on the seller of the property and not on the attorney. Mr. Bufkin stated one way to protect buyers would be for them to ask intelligent questions at the time they spend their money.
Ted Waites, a builder since 1973 and president of the Laurens-Newberry County Homebuilders Association, stated there were problems with lots that would not perc in Newberry County.
People come to him with house plans they have already purchased. There are two numbers that are important before building a house. The first one is 911 so we will know where the place is. The second one is DHEC to obtain a permit to construct an individual septic tank system. Without that, you have nothing. Mr. Waites has never seen a lot on which a well could not be put on.
The first thing he would ask the real estate person is will it accept a septic tank. A septic tank is a temporary system. The life span of a sewer system if well maintained is 20 to 30 years. Unless County Council is ready to put sewer county-wide, we are going to have major problems.
Ronnie Hydrick, 240 Mariners Pointe, Prosperity, SC, asked Council to not implement reassessment. It has been a year since this was addressed and the inconsistencies from before have still not been addressed. The law reads pretty well that you have ways to be protected in the 15% cap at the point of sale. You can still surcharge if you need more revenue. You can still do the one cent sales tax.
One of the things not in the mix is new car sales. In the last six months, the dealership he works for has brought in $2,242,000 in new sales to be taxed. It is more than property reassessment. You have all this money coming in and it has to go into the mix if you are going to talk about equalization.
You need to at least handle the inconsistencies. He asked that Council shelve this again and study it further because you still have the same inconsistencies.
Pee Wee Greene, who had signed up to speak, passed because he felt by the faces of Council that they had lost.
Mary Arrowood, 1822 Highway 66, Whitmire, SC, asked if the County was going to mail out the same reassessment figures that came out last time or have areas been looked at again.
Mr. Hawkins stated reassessment notices would not be mailed out at all. The tax bill will be sent out based on those new figures. We have been told there will be an opportunity, a 90 day window, to appeal after you get your tax bill. That will cause a lot of folks to appeal that didn’t appeal before because they didn’t know what they were getting when they got that notice that said “This is not a bill” and they threw it in the trash. To offer people an opportunity to appeal after they get the tax bill is an improvement over the system that was in place in the past.
Ms. Arrowood advised the process is normally to get the reassessment notice, and you have 90 days. You don’t wait until the bill comes out. Once the bill hits it is usually too late.
Mr. Pope’s understanding was that only one reassessment notice is required to be sent out, which we did last year, and then people filed the appeals. There is a provision in the statute that says you can allow the appeals to take place after the notices are received this year. Mr. Pope’s recommendation was that Council do that. There was discussion about reopening the assessment period prior to sending out the tax bills but the Assessor indicated that would create more confusion than it solved. By allowing people to appeal once they saw the affect the reassessment had on their property would be more beneficial and provide better information to people at that time. This is a special provision in the new law that allows in the year in which the assessment notice is not actually mailed, you can open the appeals up for 90 days from the date the tax notices are sent. People don’t really know the affect that reassessment will have on their property since it is not actually a tax bill. When people get their tax notices and see what has happened to their taxes, then they have the right to appeal the tax notices, and it gives more meaningful information. This is a one time provision based on the new tax laws signed on June 5.
People who are currently under appeal and whose appeals have not been handled will be billed at 80%. If someone appeals their tax notice, they have to pay 80% and not be penalized for it.
Mr. Pope recommended that if reassessment is implemented that Council go ahead and pass an ordinance that sets forth the fact that people would have 90 days to appeal and set forth the basis of paying the 80% if there is a protest.
Ms. Arrowood stated the Whitmire area values went up from mid 30% to high 40% and that is not a reflection of what is truly happening in the market place. The Whitmire community is continually declining but yet the values according to the Assessor have increased. She requested a fair and equitable assessment for the Whitmire area.
Mr. Baker requested that Ms. Arrowood tell Council where she works. Ms. Arrowood is a certified residential mass appraiser for Spartanburg County.
Ms. Arrowood asked why rollback taxes were sent to the other lady when the use didn’t change.
Mr. Summer said when you sell property, you have to reapply for the agricultural assessment. When you purchase the property if the use didn’t change, you still have to reapply and these people for some reason didn’t reapply. The person who purchases the property has to fill out a new form to ask for the agricultural exemption. If he doesn’t fill out that form, then the agricultural exemption will not be granted.
Mr. Hawkins requested that the County Administrator look into the rollback tax process and procedures and report back to Council as to when it kicks in.
Ronnie Hydrick asked for further clarification on the 90 days to appeal after receiving the tax notice.
Mr. Pope advised the taxpayer would have 90 days from the day the notice is mailed to file an appeal. The initial appeal time in which the assessment notices were sent out, last year, gave 90 days from that date. The law says that in years in which assessment notices are not mailed out, you have 90 days from the date notices are mailed.
Mr. Pope advised that the original appeals were still pending and would be handled.
3. An Ordinance to implement countywide reassessment and equalization for the 2006 tax year.
Mr. Summer moved for third reading; second by Mr. Baker.
Mr. Dawkins’ objection was that a year ago major mistakes were noted as to how property was reassessed. When the Assessor stated just recently that some of those mistakes, they have done the methodology of valuing totally different now but it does not affect what has already been done. If you didn’t appeal, then you are just out of luck. If this is true that we can do the 90 days, I guess they could come back then. If we admitted there were mistakes in the reassessment the way it was done, then the County is obligated to go to every one of those people that they admit mistakes were done, and we correct them and not depend on whether you have a problem with what we messed up. Mr. Dawkins’ totally disagreed with the way it was done.
Mr. Hawkins asked if Mr. Dawkins was saying we should be proactive in the cases where we admit we made a mistake and not make the person have to appeal but automatically readjust it. Mr. Dawkins stated absolutely.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Hawkins called for the question. Voting for the motion: Councilmen Hawkins, Waldrop, Caldwell, Summer, Morris and Baker. Voting against the motion: Councilman Dawkins. Motion passed by majority vote.
4. An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map established pursuant to Zoning Ordinance No. 12-24-01 so as to rezone a tract containing one and one-half acres, designated as TMS Parcel No. 466-15, from Rural (R-2) to General Commercial (GC).
Mr. Dawkins moved for second reading; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
5. An Ordinance to amend the text of the Newberry County Zoning Ordinance No. 12-24-01 so as to amend the conditional use regulations of the R-2, RS-3, RS-4 and RG Zoning Districts so as to specify the type of skirting to be used to cover the underpinning of manufactured homes.
Mr. Morris moved for second reading; second by Mr. Baker.
Mr. Hawkins didn’t feel we should be more restrictive on manufactured houses than we are on stick built houses.
Mr. Caldwell agreed with Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Dawkins asked how you could require that a manufactured house have solid skirting when you can build a half million dollar house, stick-built, and put nothing but lattice work around it.
Mr. Pope stated the Building Department needs guidance as to what they should or should not approve, and a question has arisen as to whether or not lattice is acceptable.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Hawkins called for the question. Voting for the motion: Councilmen Hawkins, Waldrop, Caldwell, Summer, Morris and Baker. Voting against the motion: Councilman Dawkins. Motion passed by majority vote.
6. An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map established pursuant to Zoning Ordinance No. 12-24-01 so as to rezone a tract containing 33.39 acres, designated as TMS Parcel No. 198-1-1, from General Commercial (GC) to Residential (RS-1
Mr. Waldrop moved for first reading; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
7. An Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 12-48-05 relating to the regulation of manufactured houses in Newberry County.
Mr. Caldwell moved for first reading; second by Mr. Baker.
Mr. Pope stated there have been problems with people getting applications for decals without actually having the right to put a mobile home on the property. They would like to be able to require people to provide proof in the form of a letter, lease, deed or something that says they have the right to put this mobile home on the property. There have also been abuses of people failing for a year or more to get their decals or moving permits or whatever. The decals are only about $5 but when they fail to get it, we don’t know where the mobile home is and it is not getting on the tax books.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Hawkins called for the question. Vote was unanimous.
8. Resolution supporting the extension of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965.
Mr. Caldwell moved to adopt the Resolution; second by Mr. Waldrop. Vote was unanimous.
9. Committee Reports.
No reports.
10. Appointments.
No appointments.
11. Acceptance of Used Oil Recycling Grant.
Mr. Klugh stated this was a grant offered from the Department of Health and Environmental Control for the used oil grant program. This is an annual thing that is used in support of the operation of the county’s convenience centers, but we have to apply on an annual basis.
Mr. Morris moved to accept the grant; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
11.5 Kinard Control Systems.
Mr. Klugh advised that during the work for the temporary office space for the Sheriff’s Office and during the course of the work of Kinard Control System, they dug through a line and asked our County people on hand to repair the line, which was done. The County subsequently invoiced Kinard Control Systems for $432.50 for the cost of repairing the line. Mr. Kinard has written a letter to the Council with his concern for being billed.
Mr. Hawkins asked if Mr. Kinard’s letter stated that he notified the PUPS and that somebody had marked the line so when he cut it he didn’t know it was there. Mr. Klugh indicated that was correct.
Mr. Dawkins moved to void the bill sent to Kinard Control Systems; second by Mr. Morris. Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Waldrop moved to go into Executive Session to discuss a legal matter relating to acquisition of land for the Airport and to allow Mr. Dawkins to ask a legal question; second by Mr. Morris. Vote was unanimous.
[EXECUTIVE
SESSION 8:18 P.M. – 8:40 P.M.]
Mr. Waldrop moved to return to open session; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
12. Contractual.
[moved to Agenda Item #11.5]
13. Legal.
Mr. Pope reported Council received the original appraisal of property to be acquired for the airport improvements. One of the tracts is valued at $188,581 and the other tract has a value of $72,950. These values are subject to confirmation or revision by the review appraisal, which we should have by the end of the week. Mr. Pope asked that Council approve the County Administrator to offer the amount of money shown by the review appraisal to the landowners for this property, to negotiate with them, but if necessary to allow the County to institute condemnation proceedings to acquire the property so that we can meet the August 1 deadline that the FAA has imposed on getting the money this budget year.
Mr. Baker so moved; second by Mr. Waldrop.
Mr. Dawkins stated 95% of the money was reimbursable from the Federal government and the State would pay 2 ˝% so the cost to the County would be 2 ˝%.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Hawkins called for the question. Vote was unanimous.
Council meetings: July
19, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
August 2, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Waldrop moved to cancel the August 2, 2006 Council meeting because of the conflict with the Association of Counties and the presentation to be made by Newberry County for its J. Mitchell Graham submission; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
No comments.
Mr. Baker stated Maybinton ball field is ready to move, but nobody is moving. They want to know the next step, who will handle it and when it will start. Mr. Hawkins requested Mr. Klugh to find out about this.
Mr. Dawkins stated the demolition of the Prosperity Fire Department has been dragging and the clean up of the Little Mountain Fire Department has been dragging and requested that Mr. Klugh look into this.
Mr. Waldrop advised that the Water and Sewer Authority is in the process of putting in the water system in the Bush River Community. He requested that Mr. Klugh look into the Chappells project.
Mr. Morris reported nothing else had been hauled in at the C&D landfill on Broad River Road, and DHEC has given them until July 28 to clean out the trash that is not allowable. They can have beneficial fill, which is dirt, cement, brick, asphalt, and that type of stuff, but nothing else. About half of what is down there is other stuff. He received a report that after they got cut off down there, they were headed toward Little Mountain to dump it somewhere else. This is a mountain of trash down at the Peak exit, Highway 176 and I-26, where they are building the new Food Lion. There has been no movement this week toward cleaning it up, but they are not hauling anything else. In Richland County even for beneficial fills, you have to get a permit, and that might be something we need to look into.
Mr. Baker moved to adjourn; second by Mr. Waldrop. Vote was unanimous.
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
NEWBERRY COUNTY COUNCIL
_______________________________
Mike Hawkins, Chairman
_______________________________
Susan C. Fellers, Clerk to Council