Property Committee Minutes

Feb. 5, 2021 | 9:00 AM | Meeting called to order by Roger Reedy

In Attendance

Roger Reedy, Executive Melissa Greene, Tracey Wilburn, Harold Brooks, David Adams, Brad Butler, JoyceWoodard, Larry Worsham, Tommy Pollard, Bill Carey, Rose Brown, Duane Jones, Rodney Journey, Mike Cesarrini, Judy Pruett, David Wamble, Gayle Jones, Terry Harwell, Jeremy Holley

Prayer & Pledge

Prayer and Pledge led by Tommy Pollard.

Approval of Minutes

A motion was made to approve the previous meeting’s minutes by Joyce Woodard-Morgan and seconded by Larry Worsham. Motion Passed

Spring Creek Property

Reedy gives the floor to Bill Haggard. he is the owner of  Sugar Valley 25acre property adjacent to Spring Creek Property.

They actively participate in foxhound hunting.

The neighboring property owners allow hunting on their property and they carry plenty of liability insurance.

They do a lot of land maintenance to help maintain properties they hunt on.

They are asking the committee to be able to hunt from time to time (4-5 months a year).

Or the opportunity to retrieve hunting dogs from county property.

In exchange, they will help with maintenance to be able to have access to the property.

In the event is is available, they would like to purchase the property. However, they are not interested in the water.

Adams- how many acres? Approx 100 acres.

Reedy asks what maintenance he has in mind.

They would like to offer bush hogging to keep the property from being overgrown.

Discussion

Pollard says it would be a mistake to sell this property with the Spring.

Adams says if they have insurance and are going to maintain the land he doesn’t have a problem with them crossing the land to retrieve their dogs.

Discussion

They are prepared to purchase the property if necessary- but would prefer to just be able to cross if possible.

Discussion

Butler asks where spring originates from

Reedy feels it’s foolish to let go of the property and wants to see the committee think about the future.

Pollard would like to see the committee give the group rights to ride on it and in the event the county wants to sell it this group could be given the first rights to purchase.

Adams makes a motion to give permission to use it to retrieve dogs and access to other hunting grounds and the county would not be held responsible.

Seconded by Butler.

The group needs permission to get off 166 and onto the property.

In order to be able to bush hog the top of the 100acre field, they would need to go through the spring property.

Greene asks for clarification if this motion is to give access to free the dogs or to hunt on the property?

Discussion

Cesarrini says the first 30-40 acres is leased yearly. Could the back 100 acres be leased to them to hunt on?

Wamble seconds this idea.

Butler asks if there is a lease does it have to go out for bid if they will not be monetizing it?

Adams states that if there’s a lease agreement many will ask why they may hunt when they have been unable to hunt on county land before.

Butler says maintenance should be included in advertising the lease and this committee will need clarification from the county attorney.

Adams does not want to lease. He feels it will prompt others to bid on it that may not maintain it appropriately.

Discussion

Greene asks for the group to clarify the type of hunting they do.

The group states that they have a pack of foxhounds. They chase and hunt the coyotes wherever they go. They could be on the property once a month, or maybe twice a month. They are contiguous property owners and pay taxes in the county. They are adequately insured. There are no firearms involved. They are simply asking for permission to cross in the event they need to retrieve their hounds and will maintain the land in exchange for that advantage.

Voting on Adam’s previous motion: Motion Passes

Building Codes

Greene states that this does not have to be voted on today. It is just coming up for discussion.

We currently have residential building codes for the county.

Currently, building permits come through the state, not the county.

$15 of the fee comes to the county. The remainder goes to the state.

There are currently no commercial building codes in the county.

Greene states that at least once a week she gets a call questioning the rules.

With the upcoming college transition, we are all expecting growth.

Currently, when building permits are done online the county gets no money.

Discussion

2017-2020 One and Two-Family Dwelling Totals

Almost all permits were done online in 2020. The county has essentially lost a year’s worth of revenue due to online.

By implementing this the county would need to have a person to do this job.

Adams asks if we had a person would it stop the online process?

Greene says yes.

Reedy asks why we would not go ahead and implement this?

Greene says this position would not only pay for itself but also be a moneymaker for the county. It would be a great service for our citizens to have our own person.

Adams asks how long it would take to get this in the works if voted on today?

Greene says the county has the space to house them in the county annex. This person would need a vehicle.

Worsham asks could the person hired propose a recommendation for the fee structure?

Discussion

Woodard-Morgan makes a motion to proceed with the steps necessary to hire a Giles County Commercial building inspector. Seconded by Brooks.

Discussion

Pruett asks if this would replace the state cost or be in addition to it?

Greene says it would replace the state cost, not duplicate the cost.

Discussion

Cesarrini asks for the estimated cost for hiring an employee?

Greene states $40-45K salary, plus office expenses, medical, and a vehicle.

Discussion

Adams asks if this would be a full-time or part-time job?

Greene- Full time

Discussion

Greene says the state, as well as marshall county’s retired inspector, have offered to help train this person.

Revisiting motion:

Roll call vote

Reedy- yes       Wilburn- no

Brooks- yes     Adams-yes

Butler-yes        Worsham- yes

Motion Passes

Milky Way Properties

Revisiting selling properties at Milky Way.

Melissa says

Butler asks how big are the lots and what are the taxes owed?

Greene says she would need to look at it again.

Reedy says they are a little larger than a house size lot and there is no way to get the back taxes on it because they were appraised so high.

Butler asks if the county would benefit from holding on to these a little while longer?

Discussion

Adams asks if the appraisal can be changed?

Woodard asks how many lots are available to be sold?

Greene- 4 with no utilities.

Butler says at some point Brindley Construction was maintaining the road back to it.

Cary remembers that the problem was that the lots can not be sold for less than the taxes owed. Is there a way around that now?

Greene says there is. There are a  lot of steps to show it has been attempted in every way possible. After that, the properties can be sold.

Wilburn makes a motion that the county begins to sell those lots and any other land the county is not using.

Seconded by Adams.

Motion passes

Old Business/ New Business

Old Business-

Sidewalk repair:

Greene says waiting on better weather to start the process. They will have to get a backhoe on the courthouse lawn and would like to wait until it wouldn’t make such a mess.

Butler says an aerial photo from the 40s shows shrubs around the sidewalks. Could we implement that in the new landscape?

Greene- asks him to send the photo. It has come up to have a landscape architect look at the courthouse landscape plan.

New Business:

Airport Mediation Update:

The court case was set for December was postponed until April. The resolution stated to go to condemnation if it didn’t go through.

The county is still negotiating with the property owners.

She would like to reach an agreement in mediation to agree before it goes to court to save court costs.

She will have a resolution to present at the county commission meeting that will change the wording to give her the authority to make a decision on behalf of the county.

Motion to modify authorization to allow Greene to have authority to negotiate in litigation by Worsham. Seconded by Brooks.

Motion passes.

Elkton Industrial Park:

Interest in a parcel jointly owned by the county and Elkton in the industrial park.

Greene needs authority to negotiate the price to be able to move forward.

Woodard makes motion to allow negotiations to begin at $7,500 an acre for the Elkton property.

Seconded by worsham.

Motion passes.

David Hamilton says the Timkin Building Project has gone dead.

This costs the county approx. 300 jobs.

The owners will now lease the building as a warehouse.

Motion to adjourn made by Wilburn, seconded by Worsham.

Motion Passes.