Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-05 Consolidation NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSOLIDATION STUDY COMMISSION, JUNE 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 711 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners and Wilmington City Council held a Consolidation Study Commission meeting on Monday, June 5,1995, at 8:00 A.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 102 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present were: Commissioners Sandra Barone; WilliamA. Caster; William E. Sisson, Jr.; vice-Chairman E. L. Mathews, Jr.; Chairman Robert G. Greer; County Manager, Allen 0' Neal; County Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie F. Harrell. Members present from the Wilmington City Council were: Mayor Don Betz; Mayor Pro-Tern Katherine B. Moore; Councilmembers J. D. Causey; Hamilton E. Hicks, Jr.; Laura Padgett; Charlie Rivenbark; Michael Youngblood; City Manager, Mary Gornto; City Attorney, Tom Pollard; and City Clerk, Penelope Spicer-Sidbury. Chairman Greer and Mayor Betz called the respective boards to order. Chairman Greer commented on the need for all reports to be presented by the subcommittees in order to complete the study process by mid-summer. REPORT FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE Councilmember Hicks reported the Planning and Zoning Committee had completed most of its work and noted that out of all the consolidation efforts, this particular merger had proven to be workable with some of the groundwork for the upcoming merger already in place. He reported a Wilmington-New Hanover Planning Commission will be established with the planning jurisdiction limited to the areas of the consolidated government. The Planning Commission will be composed of nine members appointed to serve three-year staggered terms. Code Enforcement and the merging of the City and County ordinances will be placed under planning, which will require a tremendous amount of work. Councilmember Padgett inquired as to whether the Planning and Zoning Committee addressed the merging of the Planning Departments? Councilmember Hicks responded the Planning Departments would be merged with one director and associate director to be determined by the manager. Councilmember Padgett inquired as to whether the manager would determine the number of employees and the basic responsibilities of those employees in the Planning Department? Commissioner Sisson responded the Planning and Zoning Committee worked toward bringing as many functions as possible under the umbrella of the Planning Department to implement a one- stop permitting procedure. For example, the Transportation Plan is now under the City Engineering Department, and after review, the Committee felt this particular item should be placed under the Planning Department; however, there are other transportation functions that should remain under the Engineering Department. Also, Code Enforcement should be placed under the Planning Department instead of being under the County Inspections Department. The combining of the City and County Ordinances will require a great deal of time by the City and County planning personnel. After the initial transition period there could be a reduction in personnel; however, the City Planning Department is currently understaffed and the County Planning Staff has not grown in the past seven years; therefore, the Committee felt it would not be necessary to cut or add positions during the transition period. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSOLIDATION STUDY COMMISSION, JUNE 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 712 Mayor Betz inquired as to whether consideration had been given to an interim j oint Planning Board for review of overlapping ordinances? Commissioner Sisson stated when the two governments officially consolidate, a new Planning Commission would be appointed with the members being required to work under both the City and County zoning codes. During the interim period, the City and County Planning Boards would remain in place and work toward combining the codes during the transition period. Commissioner Barone expressed concern for appointing nine members to serve on the new Planning Commission and inquired as to the criteria used to determine this number? Councilmember Hicks commented on the volume of work that will be required by the Planning Commission to combine the two ordinances and explained that a majority of members must be present at all meetings. He stated with the heavy workload that will be required of non-paid volunteers, the Committee felt nine members would be appropriate to more equitably spread the workload. Mayor Betz inquired as to the number of members on the past combined Planning Board? Councilmember Hicks responded that nlne members served the former City and County Planning Board. Commissioner Sisson advised that one reason for appointing a nine-member Planning Commission was that members of the Planning Commission will have to sit as the committee that reviews and approves subdivisions. Also, nine members will provide for a more evenly spread geographic distribution throughout the County. Councilmember Padgett inquired as to when the Planning Commission would be formed, or would this be part of the interim situation before the consolidated government becomes effective? Commissioner Sisson advised the Planning and Zoning Committee report did not establish an effective date. Possibly, this item should be addressed when one manager is operating the consolidated government; or should the Commission be appointed before that date; or should two boards be kept in place until the governments are formally merged. He reported these issues would have to be addressed. Mayor Pro-Tern Moore recommended keeping both Planning Boards in place until the both governments are merged at which time, the new Planning Commission would be appointed. Councilmember Hicks recommended giving everyone an opportunity to read the final report by the Planning and Zoning Committee before voting on these issues. Chairman Greer inquired as to the regulations that will be used in the interim period until a new Planning Commission lS appointed? Mayor Betz advised that the Wilmington City Council and New Hanover County Board of Commissioners would continue to meet as separate governing bodies during the transition period and render planning decisions based upon the current City and County Zoning Ordinances and recommendations of the respective Planning Boards. He requested the Planning and Zoning Committee to prepare a statement that would say upon a favorable vote on the consolidation issue, the two existing Planning Boards would meet jointly to review the Zoning Ordinances of the City and County during the transi tion period so the new ordinances could be reviewed and adopted by the new consolidated Planning Commission. In his opinion, a statement of this type would allow the Consolidation Study Commission to approve the final report at the next meeting. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSOLIDATION STUDY COMMISSION, JUNE 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 713 Commissioner Sisson agreed with Mayor Betz and advised the existing rules would have to be followed until the new ordinances were developed. He stated, in his opinion, there would be no reason for the two Planning Boards to hold public hearings on recommendations for various changes to the ordinances because once the consolidated government is merged, the ordinances will have to be adopted by the new Planning Commission through the public review process. Councilmember Rivenbark recommended establishing a time frame that would state from this day forward, the two Planning Departments would be working toward combining the ordinances. Commissioner Sisson responded a date or time frame could be placed in the Planning and Zoning report. Councilmember Rivenbark commented on the need to combine the Planning Departments and stated regardless of whether consolidation is approved or rej ected by the voters, this effort should be pursued by the City and County because of the small geographic Slze of New Hanover County. Councilmember Padgett agreed. Councilman Youngblood agreed with the merger of the Planning Departments and stated, in his opinion, the City and County should currently have one Zoning Ordinance. REPORT FROM THE ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Commissioner Sisson reported the Administration and Personnel Committee was trying to obtain job descriptions from the City in order to match job descriptions with County positions. Also, the Committee had been in the process of trying to determine how to merge salary scales that did not match with a position in the salary plan. Once these descriptions have been received, a report will be made to the Consolidation Study Commission. Mayor Betz requested the City Manager to comment on the status of the job descriptions. City Manager, Mary Gornto, responded the job descriptions had been forwarded to staff. REPORT FROM THE CHARTER COMMITTEE Mayor Pro-Tern Moore reported the report had been presented by the Charter Committee with no decision made on whether to hold partisan or non-partisan positions. After further discussion, Councilmember Padgett recommended voting on this issue since everyone was present. Roll Call Vote for Partisan or Non-Partisan Elections: Chairman Greer; Vice-Chairman E. L. Mathews; Commissioner Barone, Commissioner Caster, and Councilmember Youngblood voted in favor of partisan elections for a total vote count of 6.6 rounded off to 7 votes. Mayor Betz; Mayor Pro-Tern Moore; Councilmember Causey; Councilmember Hicks; Councilmember Padgett; Councilmember Rivenbark; and Commissioner Sisson voted in favor of non-partisan elections for a total vote count of 7.4 rounded off to 7 votes. The ROLL CALL VOTE RESULTED IN A TIE VOTE. REPORT FROM THE FINANCE AND BUDGET COMMITTEE Chairman Greer reques ted the subcommi t tees to budget forms to the Finance and Budget Committee before to be held on Wednesday, June 7, 1995. return the the meeting Commissioner Barone inquired as to whether the Utili ties Committee had the necessary figures to complete the budget form. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSOLIDATION STUDY COMMISSION, JUNE 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 714 Assistant County Manager, Dave Weaver, would be submitted before Wednesday. reported the figures REPORT FROM THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Commissioner Sisson reported the preliminary figures on providing fire service to the unincorporated county would not be received until the next committee meeting scheduled for June 7, 1995. A report is being prepared by Fire Chief, Sam Hill, and Mr. Dennis Pinho, a member of the Fire Commission, to reflect the cost of fire service to the unincorporated areas of the County using the Ci ty' s salary schedule for paid personnel. He advised that financing for the provision of fire service would have to be addressed either through the general fund or establishment of a fire tax district that would reflect the level of services being provided to certain areas. For example, areas with low fire hazards would require less equipment and manpower versus higher hazard areas that would require more equipment and manpower. Councilmember Rivenbark inquired as to whether the organizational structure for the fire service had been addressed? Commissioner Sisson responded the organizational structure presented at the last meeting had been reviewed by Fire Chief Hill and Mr. pinho with the proposal being carried to the Volunteer Fire Departments to see if agreement could be reached on the proposed structure. Councilmember Rivenbark requested an explanation of the proposed plan. Commissioner Sisson responded the proposed plan would establish a fire service composed of a municipal service to cover the current incorporated city limits, and an urban service to cover the unincorporated county. The municipal fire service would be paid personnel with scheduled volunteers to fill personnel gaps because of firemen taking vacation leave, sick leave, or other absences. Councilmember Rivenbark asked if the proposed plan was based upon the assumption of personnel gaps in the Wilmington Fire Department? Commissioner Sisson responded he understood the City did experience personnel gaps in the fire service. He reported that Chief Hill had stated this was one reason the City received a Class II rating instead of a Class I rating. In his opinion, the idea of utilizing scheduled volunteer fire personnel to fill those gaps would meet this need without having to hire additional personnel for the municipal service. In the urban service, the structure would be primarily volunteer based, but would include paid personnel. Both the municipal and urban components would use scheduled volunteers to provide the fire service. The mutual aid contracts would remain basically the same, but should be better coordinated under one consolidated fire service. Councilmember Rivenbark inquired as to the number of persons that would head the fire service? Commissioner Sisson responded there would be one Fire Chief with a Fire Services Coordinator for the urban fire service and a Fire Services Coordinator for the municipal service with both coordinators serving under the Fire Chief. Also, it must be determined if the consolidated Fire Department should remain traditionally structured with the positions of Assistant Chiefs, Battalion Chiefs, Captains, etc., or should the positions be changed to reflect a more flexible type of structure that would allow the volunteer leaders to become a volunteer/paid department without lowering the quality of fire service. He stated once the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSOLIDATION STUDY COMMISSION, JUNE 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 715 report is received, everyone will have a better understanding of the proposed organizational structure. Councilmember Padgett asked if two levels of fire serVlce were being proposed? Commissioner Sisson responded two levels of service were being proposed, but not necessarily drawing on the municipal or unincorporated boundaries, but more toward higher fire hazards, such as the State Ports and the 421 North Industrial Corridor. Councilmember Hicks disagreed with the comments by Commissioner Sisson relative to personnel gaps in the City Fire Department and reported the City did not have a personnel problem. Mayor Betz commented on the City of Wilmington having the highest ISO rating in the State of North Carolina and reported there were no personnel gaps in that department. He pointed out that the City had a highly trained and well-equipped hazardous waste team with up-to-date, modern fire-fighting equipment. Commissioner Sisson apologized for the manner in which he phrased his statement, and stated it was his understanding that a shortage of manpower was the reason why the City received a Class II rating instead of a Class I rating. He noted that scheduled volunteers would be a valuable asset to the municipal fire service if situations should occur with unforeseen manpower shortages. Councilmember Youngblood commented on the many issues that need to be addressed that could be costly, and reported due to the high density of areas just outside the city limits, there may be a need for additional municipal fire stations to assure an adequate response time. Also, Chief Hill and Mr. pinho are in the process of reviewing how the paid and volunteer response time will mesh. After further discussion of the fire service, Mayor Betz recommended waiting until a recommendation had been received from the Public Safety Committee before deciding on the various issues involved with fire service. REPORT FROM THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE Vice-Chairman Mathews reported the Utilities Committee would present its final report at the next meeting. Councilmember Padgett inquired as to whether the budget form from the Utilities Committee had been submitted to the Finance and Budget Committee? Assistant County Manager, Dave Weaver, responded the budget form had been completed. Councilmember Youngblood inquired as to future plans for extending water into the county? Councilmember Hicks responded water extension was discussed but not resolved by the Utilities Committee. A lengthy discussion was held on the development of a formula for extending water. Commissioner Sisson commented on the extensive groundwater study currently being performed by a Task Force and reported the findings of this study could make any recommendations by the Utilities Committee moot. Councilmember Rivenbark commented on the number of groundwater studies performed and noted he had seen a report by Rod Andrew which did include the Castle Hayne Aquifer. Commissioner Sisson advised that Rod Andrew was a member of the Task Force, and it was felt that insufficient information was NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSOLIDATION STUDY COMMISSION, JUNE 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 716 available at groundwater. water in the Aquifer. the present time to justify a recommendation on The study will not only include groundwater, but the Cape Fear River and its impact on the Castle Hayne Discussion was held on purchasing private water systems. Mayor Pro-Tern Moore noted the purchase of private systems would be a way to help establish a county-wide water system. Commissioner Sisson requested the Utilities Committee to incorporate the purchase of private water systems into the final report. Councilmember Hicks commented on the following problems with the purchase of private water systems: (1) the pipe size must be sufficient to guarantee the flow and delivery of water to subdivisions downstream; (2) not all private water systems have fire plugs; and (3) can the well provide a guarantee flow of water in the worst case condition. He reported the Groundwater Task Force was in the process of gathering specific engineering data about the volume and quality of water in certain points of the aquifer, which would be beneficial in determining how to expand water throughout the County. Mayor Pro-Tern Moore inquired as to whether it would be financially feasible to upgrade private water systems? Councilmember Hicks stated hopefully private water systems could be upgraded. Councilmember Youngblood, again, recommended preparing a formula or some type of statement for water extension in the consolidated government. Mayor Betz reminded the group that the County Commissioners serve as a Water & Sewer District Board, and pointed out this district would remain in place under the consolidated government as required by N. C. General Statutes. Therefore, the consolidated government would have to enter into interlocal agreements with the Water & Sewer District. He reported this item had been included in the Utilities Committee's report along with recommendations for stormwater management. Councilmember Youngblood commented on the preparation of a stormwater recommendation and inquired as to whether sensitive areas, such as Hewlett's Creek had been included in the report, and stated if not, this issue should be addressed in the final recommendation. vice-Chairman Mathews reported sensitive areas, such as Hewlett's Creek, had not been specifically addressed at this point. In his opinion, stormwater management is still undecided. Commissioner Sisson inquired as to whether the issue of solid waste disposal had been addressed by the Utilities Committee? Mayor Betz responded the solid waste issue had not been addressed. He reported the Utilities Committee was directed to address the formation of a Water & Sewer Department, which did not include sanitation. Commissioner Sisson asked which committee would address sanitation services? Mayor Betz responded staff could prepare a report on the current delivery of sanitation services by both governments. Councilmember Hicks responded the solid waste program would continue within the current corporate limits; however, the question NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSOLIDATION STUDY COMMISSION, JUNE 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 717 to be answered under a consolidated government, is if an outside area demands the same type of services, how would the government pay for the provision of those services? Councilmember Youngblood commented on this being a good point and stated this question should be answered by the Utilities Committee. Mayor Pro-Tern Moore recommended considering a user fee to pay for solid waste disposal. Councilmember Youngblood agreed and reported a user fee would promote the most efficient system, and he recommended asking a committee to address this issue. Mayor Betz recommended forming another committee to study the solid waste issue. Councilmember Padgett strongly objected to entering into a consolidated government with a low-base tax rate without knowing the additional costs for extending water and sewer and solid waste pick-up and disposal. She cautioned establishing a tax rate and later informing the public that an additional 20 cents would be needed to handle these services. She expressed concern for not presenting a complete picture to the public when voting on the consolidation issue, and stated the Consolidation Study Commission should be responsible for addressing the costs of these services and how they will be paid as well as the cost for the levels of fire protection. Emphasis was placed on the need to present a complete plan to the public in order for consolidation to receive a favorable vote. Commissioner Barone advised that solid waste in the County was contracted through private carriers; therefore, the private carriers would have to determine the costs for the provision of services to the customers. Chairman Greer pointed out that consolidation of the two governments would not change the cost for solid waste disposal in New Hanover County. Councilmember Padgett responded that persons in the City were paying to subsidize solid waste disposal as well as being required to pay additional fees to the City for curbside pick-up and recycling. She explained that the efficiency of the City's system had been created by the fact that everyone had to participate in curbside collections. She inquired as to whether an urban service district would be created that basically would include the City or an expanded City, and if so, what additional services would those people receive, and what would be the projected cost? Mayor Betz commented on the great statement presented by Councilmember Padgett, but stated the two systems are funded entirely different; therefore, the charter document should include a policy statement explaining how those services will be funded. In his opinion, to expect the Utilities Committee to prepare a cost projection of $500 million would ensure failure of the consolidation issue in the fall. Councilmember Padgett responded she was simply trying to state that the entire question should be presented to the voters without ignoring half of the basic costs. Mayor Betz responded these issues should be presented to the voters in the appropriate form showing that water and sewer services will be funded by user fees, not by the tax rate, with a phase out period of three years for removal of the sales tax. Extensions of water and sewer will comply to the policies adopted by the Water & Sewer District and by the City of Wilmington. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSOLIDATION STUDY COMMISSION, JUNE 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 718 Councilmember Padgett, again, reiterated the importance of clarifying this issue and providing some cost estimates. Mayor Pro-Tern Moore reported the information being requested by Councilmember Padgett was not required, and, in her opinion, the voters will decide whether or not enough information had been provided in the charter. Councilmember Padgett responded if the voters reject the plan because of a lack of information, then the Consolidation Study Commission will have failed in its mission. Mayor Pro-Tern Moore pointed out that preparing a consolidation plan would at least give the voters an opportunity to vote on a consolidated government; whereas, under annexation no one would be given an opportunity to vote, not the citizens living in the City, nor the citizens being annexed. Councilman Hicks reminded the group that public hearings would be held on these issues; therefore, the comments received from the public would determine if further information was needed to address the costs involved with water and sewer and waste disposal. Chairman Greer explained that Councilmember Padgett was trying to say that any costs to be paid by the taxpayers should be determined upfront; however, Mayor Betz was trying to explain that under the Utilities Committee's recommendation, the Water and Sewer District would stand on its own through user fees. As to the extension of water and sewer lines, it would be difficult to address this issue because no one knows where the future lines will be located or the costs at that time. In his opinion, the consolidated board will have to decide at the appropriate time when water and sewer extensions are needed and how these extensions will be financed. Mayor Betz recommended the preparation of a general policy statement as part of the final report submitted by the Utilities Committee. After further discussion, Commissioner Sisson suggested inclusion of a statement in the final report of the Utilities Committee that will clearly explain that the newly elected consolidated board will serve as the Water and Sewer District Board of Commissioners. He stressed the importance of people understanding that all costs, including unforeseen costs, cannot be determined for the different types of services in the future. Also, the charter should ensure that elected officials are the persons who approve user fees so the public will be provided an opportunity to comment. Councilmember Rivenbark expressed concern for not establishing policies for the future board, and at the same time requesting the voters to trust a new board. After a lengthy discussion on the different levels of service and the funds used to pay for these services, it was generally agreed that the solid waste issue should be addressed by the Utilities Committee with other members of the Consolidation Study Commission attending the meetings if so desired. OTHER ITEMS Discussion of Procedure for Filling Vacancies on the Consolidated Board Commissioner Barone referenced the minutes of May 1, 1995, and expressed concern for the Charter Committee approving a procedure that would allow the governing body to appoint replacements from a member of the political party represented by the vacating member. She strongly objected to this procedure and reported she felt the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSOLIDATION STUDY COMMISSION, JUNE 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 719 candidate receiving the next highest number of votes appointed to fill the vacancy. should be Mayor Betz responded this procedure was presented and adopted by the Consolidation Study Commission in the report submitted by the Charter Committee. Councilmember Youngblood reported in partisan elections the normal procedure was for the Executive Committee of a party to recommend a person to fill the vacancy with the governing body officially making the appointment. Commissioner Barone reported ln the past, the City had appointed the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes. Mayor Betz disagreed with Commissioner Barone and reported the Council had not automatically appointed the candidate with the next highest number of votes as the person to fill a vacancy on the City Council. Chairman Greer reported that N.C. Statutes 160A-603 and 153A- 27 require counties to appoint replacements from a member of the political party represented by the vacating member. Discussion of Contract with the Jacksonville/Duvall Government Commissioner Barone any information from Government relative to government. Consolidated inquired as to whether staff had received the Jacksonville/Duvall Consolidated a municipality within the consolidated County Attorney Copley reported that contact had been made with the Jacksonville/Duvall Consolidated Government about the issue of debt; however, currently there was controversy about Jacksonville Beach coming out of the consolidated government because of concern about the beach not being properly represented due to the population of the combined government. Councilmember Youngblood reported he would like to hear a report from Jacksonville/Duvall and recommended assigning this item to the Charter Committee. Chairman Greer expressed concern for the amount of time left to complete the charter and stated, personally, he did not need to receive this information from the Jacksonville/Duvall Consolidated Government. Discussion of Voting Procedure for the Consolidation Study Commission Vice-Chairman Mathews reported at the meeting held by the Consolidation Study Commission on April 10, 1995, there was a consensus among the group to vote on each subcommi t tee report individually. At the next meeting held on May 22, 1995, questions arose as to the voting procedure on the final charter. He advised the members of the Consolidation Study Commission that 27 meetings had been held among the various subcommittees and 7 Consolidation Study Commission meetings had been held; therefore, he felt a roll- call vote should be held as to how the Consolidation Study Commission would vote on the completed plan. Motion: Vice-Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Mayor Pro-Tern Moore to call for a roll-call vote on how the Consolidation Study Committee should vote on the final plan. The floor was opened to discussion. Mayor Pro-Tern Moore advised that once the City Council and Board of County Commissioners agreed to form a Consolidation Study Commission, it was agreed that all items should be voted on by the Commission, not the individual governing bodies. She pointed out NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSOLIDATION STUDY COMMISSION, JUNE 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 720 the Commission was a separate entity and, in her opinion, individuality was not a choice, but if group desired to vote on the issue, she had no problem. Councilmember Padgett inquired as to whether the Commission was going to vote on bits and pieces? vice-Chairman Mathews responded the lssue was whether the Commission would vote on approval of the final reports by each subcommittee or the final plan. Chairman Greer expressed concern for the Consolidation Study Committee completing a final plan and at the end of the process not being satisfied with the document, which would kill the consolidation effort. He recommended discussing and approving each subcommittee report piece by piece with concerns addressed and parts being removed or changed at that time. He, again, expressed concern for voting on a completed document at the end of the process. Councilmember Causey reported in the minutes of the last meeting, the Mayor indicated the Board should take an official vote on the final document, and he concurred with this recommendation. Councilmember Rivenbark reported he felt the Commission decided from the beginning to vote on the final document. Mayor Pro-Tern Moore disagreed and reported the two governing bodies established themselves as a Consolidation Study Commission that would vote on the issues, not as individual governing bodies. Councilmember Causey commented on this matter not being a legal question and reported as a Consolidation Study Commission you vote on the issue as a whole, and then the issue is carried back to the City Councilor the Board of County Commissioners to vote on separately, if so desired. Councilmember Padgett advised it was her understanding that when the Consolidation Study Commission was formed, this Commission would either recommend, or not recommend, a consolidated government to the voters with the voters making a final decision. Commissioner Sisson expressed concern for voting on the plan as individual bodies, which could kill the entire consolidation process. Councilmember Youngblood commented on accepting the paragraphs and parts of the subcommittee reports and expressed concern for not voting on the final document by the group as a whole because placing these parts into sentences could change the structural meaning of the document when being prepared by staff. He recommended allowing the elected officials to vote on the charter that will be placed on the ballot. He commented on the draft charter presented this morning, and reported he was in favor of preparing this type of document for a final review and vote. Mayor Pro-Tern Moore asked why a group vote should be taken if each committee report had been voted on and adopted by the Consolidation Study Commission? Councilmember Youngblood, again, reiterated the fact that placing these parts of reports into a final document could change the meaning and intent of the language. Mayor Betz pointed out the persons from the public will be asking each elected official if he or she supported the plan, and he expressed concern for asking people to support and vote on the plan when the Consolidation Study Commission had not voted on the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSOLIDATION STUDY COMMISSION, JUNE 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 721 final plan as a group. Commissioner Sisson suggested continuing to adopt the subcommittee reports when presented and then request each subcommittee to review its section of the charter to be sure the intent was not changed with the language used in the final charter. Councilmember Youngblood commented on the need to be able to amend the final charter as a group and reported if a motion was placed on the floor to amend the final charter, a second would have to be received with a majority vote before the amendment was approved. Councilmember Padgett responded if this procedure was used and there were objections to pieces of the subcommittee reports, hours could be spent in trying to adopt amendments to the final document. She stated the completed document with the subcommittee reports should be placed before the voters in lieu of trying to adjust the final charter to suit each individual member of the Consolidation Study Commission. Commissioner Sisson pointed out the issue to be addressed was not allowing each member of the Consolidation Study Commission to pick apart each section of the charter. He recommended developing some procedure that would allow each subcommittee to review its final section of the charter and be sure the meaning of the committee report had not been altered by the final language used in the charter. If someone should have a major question about the document itself, then the document could be voted on as a group. He also agreed with Councilmember Padgett and stated meetings could last until 2:00 A.M. in the morning if each member was allowed to present amendments. He stressed the importance of addressing concerns about each subcommittee report when the report was presented, and stated the final document should not be used as a tool to include items that were not approved ln the committee reports. After further discussion of the motion, the County Clerk requested clarification of the motion and asked if it was the intent of the Commission to proceed with a roll-call vote by the Consolidation Study Commission on the subcommittee reports as presented in lieu of voting on the final plan at the end of the process. Councilmember Rivenbark recommended adding an additional sentence to say the final draft would go back to each subcommittee to be sure the subcommittee was comfortable with the way the recommendations had been written into the charter. After further discussion, Chairman Greer, again reiterated that time was a factor, and recommended a review of the draft charter reflecting each subcommittee's recommendation with any correction to that section of the draft charter at the next meeting of Consolidation Charter Committee instead of waiting to the end of the process to vote on a final plan. The County Clerk was requested to read the motion. The following motion was read: To proceed with a roll-call vote by the Consolidation Study Commission on the subcommittee reports as presented in lieu of voting on the final plan at the end of the process. Councilmember Padgett recommended changing the motion to read, "the subcommittee reports as adopted" instead of presented. It was agreed by Vice-Chairman Mathews and Mayor Pro-Tern Moore to amend the motion to read as "adopted" instead of presented. Chairman Greer advised the group that a yes vote would mean NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSOLIDATION STUDY COMMISSION, JUNE 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 722 the member was in favor of proceeding with the plan by adopting subcommittee reports, as currently being done; or a no vote would mean the member would rather vote on the final plan at the end of the process. Vote on Amended Motion: Vice-Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Mayor Pro-tern Moore to proceed with a roll-call vote by the Consolidation Study Commission on the subcommittee reports as adopted in lieu of voting on the final plan at the end of the process. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 9 to 5 as follows: Voting Yes: Commissioner Barone Commissioner Caster Commissioner Sisson Vice-Chairman Mathews Chairman Greer Mayor Pro-Tern Moore Councilmember Padgett (Rounded off vote count: 9) Voting No: Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Mayor Betz (Vote Count: Causey Hicks Rivenbark Youngblood 5) Discussion of Draft Charter Chairman Greer requested each member charter and be prepared to correct any items meeting. to review the draft of concern at the next City Attorney, Tom Pollard, reported when reviewing the draft charter, there would be blanks because many of the items had not been developed. Also, brackets would be used to present alternative procedures. He commented on the sheet distributed relative to issues that are in the current City Charter and reported these items will be lost if they are not included in the draft document. He noted many of the items were planning procedures, and he suggested that the members of the Commission review the list to see if these items should be included in the draft charter. Also, the civil service issue was not included on the list. CONSOLIDATION STUDY COMMISSION MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 22, 1995, AND JULY 18, 1995 After discussion of trying to complete the document in July and the fact that no date could be selected without one member being absent in June, it was agreed to delay voting on the partisan or non-partisan issue in June, and schedule meetings of the Consolidation Study Commission on Thursday, June 22, 1995, at 8:00 A.M. and July 18, 1995, at 8:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall. on an 1995, 1995, Councilmember Causey expressed concern for postponing a vote issue because a member would not be present at the June 22, meeting and reported according to the minutes of May 22, action was taken when he was absent. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Greer adjourned the meeting at 10:05 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Lucie F. Harrell Clerk to the Board