for Project Kodiak (addition to the Consent Agenda)
2. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Chairman Edds opened the Public Comment Period to entertain comments from any citizens wishing to address the Board. The
following individuals came forward:
Carla Rose, Association Executive for the Salisbury Rowan Association of Realtors, thanked the Board for its dedication to the community and she also
provided the board with a publication from the National Association of Realtors.
With no one else wishing to address the Board, Chairman Edds closed the Public Comment Period.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: FY 19-29 HOME APPLICATION Planning Director Ed Muire explained that as a member of the Cabarrus/Iredell/Rowan HOME Consortium,
Rowan County anticipated receiving approximately 147,366 in project funds for FY 2019-2020. Mr. Muire said the process would focus exclusively on owner-occupied rehabilitation of single family homes. Staff anticipated the required match for participation (25 of project funds) would need to be a cash contribution of approximately 36,842 from Rowan County, unless obtained from other non-federal sources.
well for the County for the past five (6) to six (6) years. Mr. Muire said the organization processed the applications and determined the homes for
rehabilitation. Mr. Muire further clarified that the program did work in all of Rowan s municipalities with the exception of the City of Salisbury and the City of Kannapolis because they received separate funding.
4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR HLC 01-19 Karen Lilly-Bowyer of the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) reported the HLC received an application from Richard
and Anthony Current to establish the Mt. Vernon Property as a Rowan County historic landmark. The Mt. Vernon property, located at 12930 Cool Springs Road, was further referenced as Tax Parcel 731-010. The applicants wished to designate the exterior of the house, barn and smoke house, along with the acre of land on which it resided.
5. PUBLIC HEARING FOR Z 03-19 Assistant Planning Director Shane Stewart presented the staff report for Z 03-19 regarding a request from Teramore
Development for the rezoning of Tax Parcel 3881013. The property, owned by Levi Voros, located at 6225 E. NC 152 Highway in Rockwell, totaled 1.72 acres and the rezoning was from Rural Agricultural (RA) to Commercial, Business, Industrial with a Conditional District (CBI-CD) to accommodate a 9,100 square foot retail store.
Mr. Stewart provided a power point to depict the site in question, as well as the surrounding area.
According to Mr. Stewart, concerns had been raised regarding traffic in the area. Mr. Stewart said the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(DOT) had issued a driveway permit on February 14, 2019 for the request. Mr. Stewart discussed a condition for issuance of the driveway permit, which was to keep the entrance relatively flat for sight distance purposes.
Mr. Stewart noted the above items, or others, could be included as conditions of approval should the Board elect to approve the request.
Mr. Stewart discussed the request s conformity with adopted plans and policies, and also highlighted the compatibility of uses. Mr. Stewart discussed
at length potential impacts on roads including DOT traffic counts for roads in the area. In addition, Mr. Stewart provided a 911 call log for reported accidents during a specified timeframe along the roads in question.
The applicant was represented by Attorney Andy Abramson. Mr. Abramson focused on the legal aspects of the request as related to the County s Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Abramson also referred to the LUP and future land uses and community nodes. Mr. Abramson pointed out that one of the seven nodes in the LUP specifically referred to Sifford s intersection. Mr. Abramson said the LUP specified the proposed type of business was appropriate. With regards to compatibility, Mr. Abramson discussed the CBI allowed uses, as well as existing businesses in the area. Mr. Abramson said the with regards to the impact on schools, utilities, roads, etc., there would be no drain on schools or utilities. The impact on roads had just been discussed in great detail. Mr.
Daniel Almazan with Teramore Development (Teramore) said his company was a preferred developer for Dollar General Stores. Mr. Almazan discussed how
Dollar General s sites were chosen. According to Mr. Almazan, the proposed site was viewed as an opportunity for an under-served area based on the key intersection and good location. With regards to traffic concerns, Mr. Almazan said DOT had walked the site and issued the driveway permit. Mr. Almazan said there had been other times when the DOT had required Teramore to install medians or turning lanes at various locations. Mr. Almazan said Jerry Strickland, Operations Manager, was also in attendance to help answer any questions.
At this time, and with no one else coming forward to address the Board, Attorney Abramson offered a rebuttal. Mr. Abramson noted that property owner
Steven Sifford was selling property, which was under contract for development of the site, and was supportive of the project. Mr. Abramson said there was clearly significant traffic on Highway 152 and whether the site was developed into some other fashion, would not change the fact that Highway 152 was a dangerous road. Mr. Abramson felt the arguments that had been presented related to traffic and the dangers of the intersection in question. Mr. Abramson said the undercurrent was of not wanting the Dollar General. Mr. Abramson said the entrance to the site was on Organ Church Road, which was not a dangerous road in comparison to Highway 152. Mr. Abramson said the market place would ultimately determine if the Dollar General was wanted in the area and it was up to the County Commissioners to determine if the store met the County s zoning requirements.
Commissioner Caskey referred to the petition that had been distributed to the Board and noted the petition had been signed by people who did not
reside in the area of the proposed store. James Mahaffey who had spoken during the public hearing responded. Mr. Mahaffey pointed out he had a Salisbury address, a Rockwell phone number but resided at the end of Faith Road.
Commissioner Caskey raised the issue of the different facade options for the store. Chairman Edds said he had contacted representatives with Dollar
General and asked them to improve the appearance of their stores being built in Rowan County. Chairman Edds said he was very appreciative of the fact that within 24 hours the representatives provided new renderings for consideration.
Chairman Edds said the Board held a discussion and went through the same process a few years ago when a Dollar General asked to locate in the area
where he and Commissioner Pierce live. Chairman Edds said the new store had not hurt the business of a convenience store located in the area. The store had located on a corner in the same manner as the proposed request. Chairman Edds said he was unaware of any incidents the Dollar General near his home had caused. Chairman Edds pointed out the proposed store was not an attraction that would draw people from other places, such as from the Towns of Cleveland or Granite Quarry. Chairman Edds said the store would be for the folks coming down Highway 152 and he did not foresee the store causing an increase in traffic. Chairman Edds continued by reporting he had driven by the site and taken pictures and videos earlier in the day. Chairman Edds referred to statements made during the public hearing that the County did not need another Dollar General. Chairman Edds said it was not the Board s decision to determine if the store was needed as this was a free market economy. Chairman Edds reiterated the store was not creating a new traffic pattern since there was a stop sign already right by the site. He also noted the jobs created by Dollar General would be important to those workers. In closing, Chairman Edds said he had not heard an argument that would make him vote against the rezoning.
Commissioner Greene said the Board had to be careful about trying to control people s property. He noted the proposed site was going to be commercial
in some way whether it was now or in the future. Commissioner Greene noted all other stores in the vicinity were commercial businesses. Commissioner Greene talked about the Board s denial of a previous Dollar General due to fact that its proximity was close to a school and the road was much hillier. Commissioner Greene thanked everyone for coming out and voicing their opinions.
Commissioner Pierce said the Planning Board created the Eastern LUP as a guideline and the LUP was not the final authority. Commissioner Pierce said
the final authority was with the Commissioners. Commissioner Pierce stated when he was contacted by so many people telling him they did not want the Dollar General, he felt he had to listen. Commissioner Pierce did not feel the Dollar General was a good fit for the community and he had not received information to convince him otherwise.
Commissioner Caskey said his family shopped at the Dollar General in his area and found the store s location to be convenient. Commissioner Caskey
said he also patronized other community-owned stores in his area. Commissioner Caskey pointed out the request before the Board could not be considered spot zoning due to the other commercial businesses in the vicinity. Commissioner Caskey said while he was not an expert on traffic, the DOT had issued the driveway permit. Commissioner Caskey felt the intersection at the proposed site should be realigned with a traffic light installed. Commissioner Caskey said he would support the request since it was not spot zoning.
Chairman Edds moved approval of the Statement of Consistency (as recommended by the Planning Board): Z 03-19 is consistent with the eastern Rowan
Land Use Plan; adjacent properties are zoned CBI; applicant is installing 6 opaque fence and Leland Cypress trees buffering along both adjoining property lines and the square footage is limited to 9,100 square feet. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Klusman and passed 4-1 with Commissioner Pierce dissenting.
Commissioner Edds moved approval of the Statement of Reasonableness (as recommended by the Planning Board): In accordance with Section21-362(j) of
the Rowan County Zoning Ordinance the property is adjacent to CBI zoned property; located in Area 3; a Community Node; Highway Business is encouraged along E. NC 152 Highway; applicant providing 6 opaque fencing along with Leland Cypress buffering along two adjoining property lines. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Greene and passed 4-1 with Commissioner Pierce dissenting.
6. DISCUSSION REGARDING CHANGE ORDER FOR I-85 INFRASTRUCTURE CASINGS This item was moved in the order of discussion as agenda item 3.
County Manager Aaron Church introduced Doug Chapman, Engineer Doug Chapman of McGill Associates. Mr. Church said the Board had previously approved
construction of three (3) casings by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). One (1) casing was to be put underneath I-85 and the other two (2) were to be installed underneath the ramps at the new Old Beatty Ford Road interchange. Mr. Church said two (2) of the casings were completed.
7. RFQ FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR CENTRAL PERMITTING County Manager Aaron Church reported that Rowan County would be requesting Statements of
Qualifications (SOQ) from interested and qualified firms for professional consulting services. The purpose for the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was to obtain information from consulting firms for developing and implementing a centralized permitting process by consolidating existing departments involved in the land development and environmental permitting and inspection process into one cohesive and functioning unit. The departments to be considered in the process were:
1. The Auditor shall audit all statements and disclosures required by U.S. generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) and additional required legal
statements and disclosures of all funds and/or divisions of the Governmental Unit(s). The non-major combining, and individual fund statements and schedules shall be subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and an opinion shall be rendered in relation to (as applicable) the governmental activities, the business- type activities, the aggregate DPCUs, each major governmental and enterprise fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information (non-major government and enterprise funds, the internal service fund type, and the fiduciary fund types).
2. At a minimum, the Auditor shall conduct his/her audit and render his/her report in accordance with GAAS. The Auditor shall perform the audit in
accordance with Government Auditing Standards if required by the State Single Audit Implementation Act, as codified in G.S. 159-34. If required by OMB Uniform Administration Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) and the State Single Audit Implementation Act, the Auditor shall perform a Single Audit. This audit and all associated audit documentation may be subject to review by Federal and State agencies in accordance with Federal and State laws, including the staffs of the Office of State Auditor (OSA) and the Local Government Commission (LGC). If the audit requires a federal single audit performed under the requirements found in Subpart F of the Uniform Guidance ( 200.501), it is recommended that the Auditor and Governmental Unit(s) jointly agree, in advance of the execution of this contract, which party is responsible for submission of the audit and the accompanying data collection form to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse as required under the Uniform Guidance ( 200.512).
4. This contract contemplates an unmodified opinion being rendered. If during the process of conducting the audit, the Auditor determines that it
will not be possible to render an unmodified opinion on the financial statements of the unit, the Auditor shall contact the LGC staff to discuss the circumstances leading to that conclusion as soon as is practical and before the final report is issued. The audit shall include such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as are considered by the Auditor to be necessary in the circumstances. Any limitations or restrictions in scope which would lead to a qualification should be fully explained in an attachment to this contract.
5. If this audit engagement is subject to the standards for audit as defined in Government Auditing Standards, 2011 revisions, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States, then by accepting this engagement, the Auditor warrants that he/she has met the requirements for a peer review and continuing education as specified in Government Auditing Standards. The Auditor agrees to provide a copy of the most recent peer review report to the Governmental Unit(s) and the Secretary of the LGC prior to the execution of an audit contract. Subsequent submissions of the report are required only upon report expiration or upon auditor s receipt of an updated peer review report. If the audit firm received a peer review rating other than pass, the Auditor shall not contract with the Governmental Unit(s) without first contacting the Secretary of the LGC for a peer review analysis that may result in additional contractual requirements.
If the audit engagement is not subject to Government Accounting Standards or if financial statements are not prepared in accordance with U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and fail to include all disclosures required by GAAP, the Auditor shall provide an explanation as to why in an attachment to this contract or in an amendment.
6. It is agreed that time is of the essence in this contract. All audits are to be performed and the report of audit submitted to LGC staff within
four months of fiscal year end. If it becomes necessary to amend this due date or the audit fee, an amended contract along with a written explanation of the delay shall be submitted to the Secretary of the LGC for approval.
7. It is agreed that GAAS include a review of the Governmental Unit s (Units ) systems of internal control and accounting as same relate to
accountability of funds and adherence to budget and law requirements applicable thereto; that the Auditor shall make a written report, which may or may not be a part of the written report of audit, to the Governing Board setting forth his/her findings, together with his recommendations for improvement. That written report shall include all matters defined as significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in AU-C 265 of the AICPA Professional Standards (Clarified). The Auditor shall file a copy of that report with the Secretary of the LGC.
8. All local government and public authority contracts for audit or audit-related work require the approval of the Secretary of the LGC. This
includes annual or special audits, agreed upon procedures related to internal controls, bookkeeping or other assistance necessary to prepare the Governmental Unit s (Units ) records for audit, financial statement preparation, any finance-related investigations, or any other audit- related work in the State of North Carolina. Invoices for services rendered under these contracts shall not be paid by the Governmental Unit(s) until the invoice has been approved by the Secretary of the LGC. (This also includes any progress billings.) [G.S. 159-34 and 115C-447] All invoices for Audit work shall be submitted in PDF format to the Secretary of the LGC for approval. The invoice marked approved with approval date shall be returned to
9. In consideration of the satisfactory performance of the provisions of this contract, the Governmental Unit(s) shall pay to the Auditor, upon
approval by the Secretary of the LGC, the fee, which includes any costs the Auditor may incur from work paper or peer reviews or any other quality assurance program required by third parties (federal and state grantor and oversight agencies or other organizations) as required under the Federal and State Single Audit Acts. This does not include fees for any pre-issuance reviews that may be required by the NC Association of CPAs (NCACPA) Peer Review Committee or NC State Board of CPA Examiners (see Item 12).
10. If the Governmental Unit(s) has/have outstanding revenue bonds, the Auditor shall submit to LGC staff, either in the notes to the audited
financial statements or as a separate report, a calculation demonstrating compliance with the revenue bond rate covenant. Additionally, the Auditor shall submit to LGC staff simultaneously with the Governmental Unit s (Units ) audited financial statements any other bond compliance statements or additional reports required by the authorizing bond documents, unless otherwise specified in the bond documents.
11. After completing the audit, the Auditor shall submit to the Governing Board a written report of audit. This report shall include, but not be
limited to, the following information: (a) Management s Discussion and Analysis, (b) the financial statements and notes of the Governmental Unit(s) and all of its component units prepared in accordance with GAAP, (c) supplementary information requested by the Governmental Unit(s) or required for full disclosure under the law, and (d) the Auditor s opinion on the material presented. The Auditor shall furnish the required number of copies of the report of audit to the Governing Board upon completion.
12. If the audit firm is required by the NC State Board, the NCACPA Peer Review Committee, or the Secretary of the LGC to have a pre-issuance review
of its audit work, there shall be a statement in the engagement letter indicating the pre-issuance review requirement. There also shall be a statement that the Governmental Unit(s) shall not be billed for the pre-issuance review. The pre-issuance review shall be performed prior to the completed audit being submitted to LGC Staff. The pre-issuance review report shall accompany the audit report upon submission to LGC Staff.
13. The Auditor shall submit the report of audit in PDF format to LGC Staff when (or prior to) submitting the final invoice for services rendered.
The report of audit, as filed with the Secretary of the LGC, becomes a matter of public record for inspection, review and copy in the offices of the LGC by any interested parties. Any subsequent revisions to these reports shall be sent to the Secretary of the LGC along with an Audit Report Reissued Form (available on the Department of State Treasurer website). These audited financial statements, excluding the Auditors opinion, may be used in the preparation of official statements for debt offerings by municipal bond rating services to fulfill secondary market disclosure requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission and for other lawful purposes of the Governmental Unit(s) without requiring consent of the Auditor. If the LGC Staff determines that corrections need to be made to the Governmental Unit s (Units ) financial statements, those corrections shall be provided within three business days of notification unless another deadline is agreed to by LGC staff.
If an approved contract needs to be modified or amended for any reason, the change shall be made in writing, on the Amended LGC-205 contract form and
pre-audited if the change includes a change in audit fee SUH DXGLW UHTXLUHPHQW GRHV QRW DSSO\ WR FKDUWHU VFKRROV . This amended contract shall be completed in full, including a written explanation of the change, signed and dated by all original parties to the contract. It shall then be submitted to the Secretary of the LGC for approval. No change to the audit contract shall be effective unless approved by the Secretary of the LGC, the Governing Board, and the Auditor. A copy of the engagement letter, issued by the Auditor and signed by both the Auditor and the Governmental Unit(s), shall be attached to this contract, and shall be incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein as part of this contract. In case of conflict between the terms of the engagement letter and the terms of this contract, the terms of this contract shall take precedence. Engagement letter terms that conflict with the contract are deemed to be void unless the conflicting terms of this contract are specifically deleted in Item 26 of this contract. Engagement letters containing indemnification clauses shall not be accepted by LGC Staff.
Special provisions should be limited. Please list any special provisions in an attachment. A separate contract should not be made for each division
to be audited or report to be submitted. If a DPCU is subject to the audit requirements detailed in the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act and a separate audit report is issued, a separate audit contract is required. If a separate report is not to be issued and the DPCU is included in the primary government audit, the DPCU shall be named along with the parent government on this audit contract. DPCU Board approval date, signatures from the DPCU Board chairman and finance officer also shall be included on this contract.
Retention of Client Records: Auditors are subject to the NC State Board of CPA Examiners Retention of Client Records Rule 21 NCAC 08N .0305 as it
relates to the provision of audit and other attest services, as well as non-attest services. Clients and former clients should be familiar with the requirements of this rule prior to requesting the return of records.
This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent and agreement of the Governmental Unit(s) and the Auditor, provided that (a) the
consent to terminate is in writing and signed by both parties, (b) the parties have agreed on the fee amount which shall be paid to the Auditor (if applicable), and (c) no termination shall be effective until approved in writing by the Secretary of the LGC.