The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 2001 10-01A ~ ENDA ~pNOVEQ C~ -'°_=~ ~~~ ~ Gym . ,, ~ ,t . II ~ Q _ i ~~ IMPO~S•E%P~/~ IN DU ST R7 0. .. ~~NORTHcp`_. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMIVIISSIONERS .Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse 24 North Third Street, Room 301. Wilmington, NC TED DAVIS, JR., CHAIRMAN •ROBERT G GREERVICE-CHAIRMAN WILLIAM A. CASTER, COMMISSIONER • JULIA BOSEMAN, COMMISSIONER • NANCY PRITCHETT,'COMMISSIONER y ALLEN O'NEAL, COUNTY MANAGER • WANDA COPLEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY • LUCIE F. HARRELL, CLERK TO THE BOARD t October 1; 2001 5:30 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER (Chairman Ted Davis, Jr.) INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS PAGE TIMES ~ NO. 5:45 p.m. 1. Consideration of Support for Designation of Futch Creek as an Outstanding 1 6:00 p.m. 6:10 p.m. 6:15 p.m. 6:25 p.m. 6:30 p.m. Resource Water 2. Final-Approval of New Hanover County Certificates of Participation, 9 Series 2001 3. Meeting of the Water and Sewer District ~ 29 4. Non Agenda Items (limit 3 minutes) -- 5. Additional Items -County Commissioners, County Attorney, County Manager -- Public Hearin:;s 6.1 Subdivision Appeal: Petition by Ocean Forest Lakes residents et al to appeal 13 the decision of the Planning. Board's Technical Review Committee permitting a 427 unit condominium complex in the 7800 block of River Road and Veterans Park Road (SA-17, 10/0l) , 6.2 Road Renamin>?: Request. by John Hinrichs to rename Jacksboro Road to 27 Ogden Business Court. The road is located near the 7100 & 7200 blocks of Market Street, westside. Adjourn ~° Note: Time listed for each item is estimated, and in the event that a preceding item takes less time, the Board will move to the next item. I MEETING OF THE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT ASSEMBLY ROOM, NEW HANOVER COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE 24 NORTH, TI3IRD STREET, ROOM 301 WILMINGTON, NC October 1, 2001 ITEMS OF BUSINESS 1. Non-Agenda Items (limit to 3 minutes) 2. Approval of Minutes - 3. Consideration of Request for Water Service Greenview Ranches and Oak Ridge PAGE NO. 29 31 33 Adjourn } - CONSENT AGENDA " ~ ~ - NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COlVIMYSSIONERS • • . October 1, 2001 , • ITEMS OF BUSINESS PAGE • NO. 1. ,Approval of Minutes 41 2. ~ Approval to Submit Program Agreement to the Department of Juvenile Justice and . 43 - Delinquency Prevention for Funding ofthe Juvenile Day Reporting Center . ~ 3. Approval of Partnership for Children Revised Grant -Library 45 • - 4. Approval of EZ-LSTA Digitization Demonstration Grant 2001-2002Port City 47 Online: Wilmington,~North Carolina from the Coming of the Railroad Through Hurricane Hazel- Library 5. .Approval of Conservation Project Support Grant- Museum 49 . 6. Adoption of Resolution to Add Roads in Courtney Pines Subdivision to the: State 53 • Road System 7. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Sale of Real Property 55 Approval of Budget Amendments: 8.1. #2002-12 Sheriff s Department 59 ,- 8.2 .. #2002-13 Sheriff's Department 60 • . ~. • •. . 1 NEVI! HANOVER COUNTY BOAR® OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date:.10/01/01 Regular Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: County Marrriger Contact: Dave Weaver Presenter: Dave Weaver SUBJECT: Consideration of Support for Designation of Futch Creek as an Outstandii Resource Water • BRIEF SUMMARY: The Northeast New Hanover Conservancy has requested the NC Environmental Management Commission, (EMC) to upgrade the classification ~of Futch Creek from 6A to Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), as discussed in the first, attached letter. The County's Tidal Creeks Advisory Board has also requested the upgrade in the second attached letter. The major difference between SA and ORW (also referred to as SA-ORW} is that the State's "high., density" development option can be done along SA waters, while in ORW waters no high density development can be ..done within 575 feet of the shoreline. High density development,. according to State regulations, is where lots are less than 1/3 of an acre or the impervious surface is greater than 25%: High density development requires an engineered stormwater design that retains up to 1 1/2 inches of rainfall. Considering that the County zoning generally is R-20S or R-20 (1/2 acre lots - 20,000 S~F) in the Futch Creek area which severely .limits the potential _ for high density development, a reclassification from SA to ORW should have little effect on development. The thirdattached Ietter.from Planning staff provides more detail on the State regulations. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• The Board should consider the reclassification. FUNDING SOURCE: No funding involved. ATTACHMENTS: Attached letters ' REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A Recommend the reclassification as noted above. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A ,, t~.~ ~~,,l. ~t'?i~IN"fY PQ M19S1®N ,aPPROVEe l~ !REJECTED ~ ~?.EMOVED POSTPONED C3 H~EAR1~ C/~ ' ~~~ :.,.gip! ~' n~~ ~ ~I; ~ N-e~,r 5~k~ec~ w` C ~ ~1 ~ ~~ ~ ~r rs ~ r~ ~ ,~! 1~ ~ ,~ ; _ ~, _ ..... _ 126 ]3each Rcl. S., Vilil.mingtoxl, NC 2.8411, ph, 910 686 0362 :fax~910 686 7199, e mail cocoes@nzsn.cozi~z _. _ __. July 27, 2001 To: N C Enviromental Management Comnussion Subject: Request that Futeh Creels be designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) In December 1987 our conservancy petitioned your commission to designate the waters of Middle Sound iTl New IIanover County as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) This request asked that the adjoining tidal creeks I-low~ and Fetch be included. On September 14,1989 your commission. approved our request except Fetch Creek was deleted. Your staff suggested that we resubmit Fetch Creek :Cor ORW designation following completion of work undez• way to' clean up thi's creels. . Participating in this clean up work were NC Shellfish,Sanitation and Marine Fisheries, Corps of Engineers, New Hanover Co1:ulty Plaxuling-and I~ealth Departments,'Federal, State and County Soil and Water staff, UI~TC'-W Ivlarine Science. faculty and students; Fender Watch and Conservancy and ol:u• Conservancy. Additionally, a low density residential subdivision "Creelcside" provided~a 75 foot vegetative buffer over 7000 feet • long on the south bank of I'utch Creels. Irz Janllaryl996 our Conservancy tivas granted a permit to dredge out the bar between the molzth oh Fetch Creek and the Intracoastal Wat:er~vay. `T'he b~ir removal caused tidal flushing to return to Fetch Creek, In May 1996 the State reopened the lower 38 ~icres of Fetch creep to shellfihi:ng An importazlt aspect in the I~'utch Creels cleanup was comprehensive monthly water duality monitoring.. This program continues. I~t includes all five tidal creeks in New ; tarc~-rer Cou~~ty. The'u1tilG w" Center for Iv7:arine Science does the sampling working with. the New Hanover County Tidal Creek Management Advisory Board. Included with this request are reports covering the last three years of water quality sampling of Fetch Creek by ZINC-W C1vIS. As you can see Fetch Creek continues to be shellfish quality waters. We are also including soil, topographic, hydrological and land use maps ~.nd a nazrative description. of the Fetch Creels water shed. *,*_v. r. .Ta~,~ n^ ti t ~44~.t~!'~' .'~ °~ ~ia~r~' e-sat4ti~~sa4~rB We will be pleased~to meet with yozu staff to discu~~,~~iz~p~.~i,~i tY~~d to prQV,ady ~,~.~m addltlonalrmfOrmatzon yoll may request. w~~~~~~~~ ~ ~°~~~~~me~~ ` ~~~- `~ „~~~ ~~~~ ~~, ~ ~~~ _~ ` ... G..d T3 d' .. For the Board-of~Directors, ~~ tac~6~~r~~~ s-ar `~? f _ •r. ~• .d''l I6 7`11 m C~kC';"fJV ts~'Bv~'2 4 ~'~ ! Gt ~~i. l~~ r ', '~ ~~{~: l~ 4 J~-~ ~ .. .. ~. w F~!YGt~~ab '~'Y.'8!~tl~ ~.~ ~ ,..~,,,, •,, - ~ stiff" ad, 541-9C15~4-f317, ' 'e .. ~ v,... ......_ ._._.. . l~a111 FOSter, President ,s'%',~~~i ra~~ .+tA ~9`ti~ ~t . . ~, •• ?~~~p~10YER ~~O < _ a * }* ~9'FO°'°aa :~ moo" September 17,,2001 j°'NORTH~p \cw I~Tann~-'cr Cnuure• , 'tidal Creeks t'rogram TO: North Carolina Environmental Management Commission ` FROi~,`1: New .Hanover County Tidal Creeks Management Advisory Board SUBJECT: Outstanding Resource Waters Designation for Futch Creek _. -Tidal Creeks I~aterrhed ManagementAdvisoryBoar~ The New Hanover County Tidal~Creeks Management Advisory Board supports the I~iortileast Ne~v Hanover Conservancy's petition for Futch Creek to be designated an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW). ~ ^ \~,'illiain i1. {:ast cr . . D"" ~'1q~` The New Hanover County Tidal Creeks Management Advisory Board is a citizen {,;lril:orT tlShEr advisory board appointed by' the County Commissioners to assist the county in the lohn J(ffn(s implementation of a Tidal Creeks Water Quality Enhancement Project directed at the I~a~--,d L. lo,ics county's estuarine watersheds. New Hano~~er County has received. a 6 million dollar Scow: ~-i~L~adol~ Clean Water Management Trust Fund Grant and has ag-1-eed to contribute another 11.5 Vtariau 1~.'~tcP11a1,1 million dollars for water qualit5r projects over a five-year period. Fetch Creek watershed Da~-id P. `i'hor[las is one of the sip estuarine watersheds where the Board is focusing its efforts. . Julie `t'. "li;lcp c1]arlt:s t~'akild Further, t11e County's LAMA Land Use Plan Update and Comprehensive Plan contains policies,.that support this designation for Fetch Creek, including the preservation and ~1-i Cilesu~r,csrrec;t restoration of shellfislling and water quality and. vital estt~arinexescrurces. A significant . ~"tiT`'tl~ portan~ of the creek's watershed is classified in the plan as Resource Protection, which ~t-iitmngtot,, provides additional water quality protection through specific development regulations \o,-th Carcr(ina and density contrgls aimed at reducing impervious surfaces: - ~ 2h401 ' Designating Futeh Creek as a North Carolina Outstanding Resource Water further supports the Advisory Board's goal of protecting, restoring, and. enhancing water quality i:n New' Hanover County. Howe Creek has had that designation for a number of years and has been able to sustain development while maintaining its water quality. We hope that the Environmental Management Commission approves this designation as an endorsemznt of New I-Ianover County's efforts in protecting the resources of the creek. We also invite members of the Commission to attend our meetings and Iearu more about our Tidal Creeks Program. , Please accept this memorandum, approved by the New Hanover County Tidat Creeks Board on September 7, 2001, as an endorsement of the ORW designation for Fetch Creek. .. ~- ~ A. .. ~~= . : 3 The New I3amnrr C.:cuavg Tidal 1'rce s Pnro[nn i, a (;~,utuy inttiam c Yo aAdress water yuaUn issues at hutch (;reel., Pa; ec 1'accl., hrowe (.:rrxk. Nc:u3lcry C]rek, l (ewtctts ~;[eel: and ~C'hishcl• C:reck. 1'he pro~[am u•as esctblished in 14`)8 and is pariallc funded chruuch x f;raut li~om the tiurflt Carolina Cleau lC4tter ~lnmu;cnttnt'I'rus,. frond. ` fu2rh crv:e.l h,rnec iraek~ frnnrv cr•evh hra:flev Free.( frenrla//r r^ree.k ` v~hir.kev ~reol- Chris O'Keefe, AICP New Hanover County Planning Department 414 Chestnut St. Ste. 304 ~ ~ Wilmington, NC 28401 ' • t - ~ , Phone: (910) 341-7444 Fax: (910) 341-4556 e-mail: cokeefe(cr~co.new-hanover.nc.us , ,, T~~ ;~ . `~ Kr,.c 11aro~•rr C: rurav To: Dave Weaver, Asst. County Manager From: Chris O'Keefe, Sr. Planner CC: Date: , !September 21, 2001 Re: ORW designation far Futch Creek ~ • Following is a description of how the regulations would change if Futch Creek were to be designated an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW). The North Carolina Administrative Code regulates development on lands draining into water bodies classified as ORW. Projects proposed within 575 feet of these areas must meet the State standards for the "Low Density-Option'.' as described below and in 15A NCAC 02H .1005 (2): The "Low Density Option" permits development that has: a) A built-upon area of 25% or less; or proposes development of single family residences on lots with one-third of an acre or greater with abuilt-upon area of 25% or less; b) stormwater. runoff transported primarily, kiy vegetated. conveyances; conveyance system shall not include a discrete stor~mwater collection system. c) A 30-foot wide vegetative buffer , The "Low Density Option"described above is identical to the current regulations which apply to SA waters in our tidal creeks. The. difference between SA and SA=ORW is that in SA-ORW there is no "High Density Option" within 575 feet of the Outstanding Resource Water. Rules for development in SA waters extend to one-half mile•from the water body thus the "High Density Option" is permitted in areas beyond 575 feet from Outstanding Resource Waters. The SA-ORW regulations will also require projects draining to saltwaters classified as ORW that impact the Areas. of Environmental Concern (like Futch Creek) to delineate the AEC on project plans. After a request to classify SA waters as ORW has been received, and permission has been granted to schedule a public hearing for reclassification, only development plans that meet the rules for ORW waters will be permitted. , If you have questions or need more info, you know where I can be found. The Code is attached for your information. o Page 1 If an applicant objects to the requirements to protect high quality waters and believes degradation is necessary to ® accommodate important social and economic development, the applicant may contest these requirements according to the provisions of G.S.143-215.1{e) and 150B23. History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 1=13-21.1.1; 1~3-213.3(a)(1); . Eff. October I, 199; AmendedEff.August 1, 1998; April 1, 1996. ISA NCAC 02B .0225 OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (a} General In addition to the existing classifications, the Commission may classify unique and special surface watersoftlre . , state as outstanding resource waters (ORW) upon finding that such waters are of exceptional state or national recmarionalor ecological significance and that the waters have exceptional water quality while miieting the following conditions: (1) that the water quality is rated as excellentbased on physical, chemicalor biological information; (2) the characteristics which make these waters unique -and special may not be protected by the assigned narrative and numericalwater quality standards. (b) Outstanding Resource Values In order to be classified as ORW, a water body must exhibitone or more of the folbwing values or uses t o demonstrate it is of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance: (1) there are outstanding fish (orcommerciallyimportant aquatic species) habitat and fisheries; (2) there is an unusually high level ofwater-based recreation o r the potential for such recreation; (3) the waters have already received some special designation such as a North Carolina or National Wrld and Scenic River,Native or Special Native Trout Waters, National WildlifeRefuge, etc, which do not provide any water quality protection; (4) the waters represent an important component of a state or national park or forest; or (5) the waters are of special ecological or scientific significance such as habitat for rare or endangeredspec;ies or as areas for research and education. (c) Quality Stan rds forORW (1) Freshwat .. ater quali ondi ions shall c arlym intainand pr ect th outstanding resource values waters assi ed ORW. Manag ent str~ gies to otect res rce valu shall be dev pe on ite spec' rc basis.durin e procee ings classify w ters as RW. At a inimum~ro ewdish aes or ex nsions o exi ng discharge l be.permitted, 1 stormwater co trots fo~all new d lopment tivities requ g an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in accordan 'fh rules establishedbythe NC Sedimentation Control Commission or an appropriate local erosion and sedimentation control program shall be required to follow the stormwater provisions as specified in 15A NCAC 2H .1000. Specific stormwater requirements for ORW areas are described in 15A NCAC 2H .1007. (?) Saltwater. Water quality conditions shall clearly maintain and protect the outstanding resource values of waters classified OR~V. Management strategies to protect resource values shall be developed on a site-specific basis during the proceedings to classify waters as ORW. At a minimum,new development shall comply with the stormwater provisions as specified in ISA NCAC 2H .]000. Specifrc stormwater management requirements for saltwater OR~Vs are described in 15A NCAC ZH .1007. New non-discharge permits shall meet reduced loading rates and increased buffer zones, to be determined on acase -bv-case basis. No dredge or fill activities shall be allowed ifthose activities would result in a reduction oftlrebeds of submerged aquatic vegetation or a reduction of shellfish producing habitat as defined in 15.A NG4C3I .0101(b)(20)(A)and (B), except for maintenance dredging, such as that required to maintain access to existing channels and facilities located within the designated areas or maintenance dredging for activities such as agriculture. A public hearing is mandatory for any proposed permits to discharge to waters classified as ORW. Additional actions to protect resource values s hall he considered on a site specific basis during the proceedings to classdy waters as OR~V and shall be specified in Paragreph~(e) ofthis Rule. These actions may include anything withir~thepo«r'rs of the commission. The commission shall also consider local actions which have been taken to protect a water body in determining the appropriate state protection options. Descriptions of boundaries of waters classified as ORW are inc>lyded in Paragraph (e) of this Rule and in the Schedule of Classifications (15A NCAC 2B .0302 through 2B .0317)as specified forthe appropriate river basin and shall also be described on maps maintained by the Division of Water Quality. a a i Eff. January 1, 1988; Repealed 'Eff. September I, 199.1. 15A NCAC 02H .1005 STORIMVATER REQUIREMENTS: COASTAL COUNTIES All development activities within the coastal counties which require a stormwater management permit in accorciancewith Rule .1003of this Section shall manage stormwater runoff as follows: (1) development activities within the coastal counties draining to Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)shall contained in Rtrle .1007of th~ (2) development activities within one-half mile of and draining to SA waters or unnamed tributaries to SA . waters: - (a) Low Density Option: Development shall be permitted pursuant to Rule .1003(d)(l~fth's Section if the development has: Y (i) built-upon 'area of 25 percent or less; or proposes development of single family residences on .lots with one-third of an acre or greater with abuilt-upon area of 25 percent or less; ' ' (ii) stormwater runoff transported primarilyby vegetated conveyances; conveyance system shall not include a discrete stormwater collection system as defined in Rule .100?ofthis Section; ~ ' 0o wr e 5 ~ ~ rffer. (b) High Density Option: Higher density deve oilmen s s a e permrtte pursuant to u e .1003(d)(2~fthis Section ifstormwatercontrol systems meet the following criteria: (i) no direct outlet channels or pipes to SA waters unless permitted in~accordancevv~th 1~A NCAC 2H .0126; (ii) control systems must be infiltration systems designed in accordance with Rule .100~F this Section to control the runoff from all surfaces generated by one and one -halfmches of rainfall. Alternatives as described in Rule .1008(h) of this Section may also be approved ifthey do not discharge to surface waters in response to the design storm; (iii) runoff in excess of the design volume must flow overland through a vegetative filter designed in accordance with Rule .1008of this Section with' a minimumlength of SOfeet measured from mean high water of SA waters; •. (3) development activities within the coastal counties except those areas defined in Items(1)and (2)ofthis Paragraph: (a) Low Density Option: Development shall be permitted pursu ant to Rule .1003(d)(l~f this Section if the development has: ~ ~ - (i) built-upon area of 30 percent or less; or proposes ..development of single family residences on lots, with one-third of an acre or greater with abuilt-upon area of 30 percent or less; (ii) stormwater runoff transported primarilyby vegetated 'conveyances; conveyance system shall not include a discrete stormwater collection system as defined in Rule .100?ofthis Section; ~~ ' (iii) a 30 foot wide vegetative buffer.- (b) High Density Option: Higher density developments. shall be permitted pursuant to Rule .1003(d)(2~fthis Section ifstor-mwater control systems meet the followingcriteria: (i) control systems must be infiltration systems; wet detention ponds or alternative stormwater management`syste rns designed in accordance with Rule .100Sofd1s Section; (ii) control systems Hurst be designed to control runoff fromall surfaces generated by one ' inch of rainfall. History Note: AuthoritvG.S. 1-13-21=1. '1; 113-211.7; 1=13-Z1~.1;~1=13-?1.5.3(a);~ Eff. September 1, 199. 6 s ~J 15A NCAC 02H .1006 STORMW~c R REQUIREMENTS: HIGH QUALITY WATERS .~--.~ AlP devllel`opmerit activities which require stormwater management permitunder Rule .1403of this S mileo~'and draining to waters classified High Quality Wa s (IQW) shall manage s ormwater ru provisions' outlined in this Rule. Vlore s ingent stormw~ er management measures maybe required where it is determined that additional m asures are r gfrired t o p~otect water quality and maintain e of these waters. :' (1) All waters~classifie gas WS,1`or.WS-II (1~A NCAC 2B .0212 and .0214)and allwal counties (Rule.10 Softhis Section)areex~ludedfromthe requirements ofthis'tRi • ~ pequirements for tormwater management:` - (2) Low Density. O tion:.Development sh ~l be permitted pursuant to Rule .l 03(c) ~~ development h s: ~~ ction and are within one offinaccordancewiththe .-'~ ~n a case -by-case basis' stingand antivipated uses ~. ors located"inthecoastal ~ le'sincetheyah~adyhave ;%~ :1'jofthis Section ifthe (a) built-~pdn area of 12 percent or less or proposes single familyresidential development on bts of one acre or greater; (b) stormwater runoff transported primarilyby vegetated conveyances; conveyance systemsha-not . include a discrete stormwater collection system as defined in Rule .1002of this Section; (c) a 30 foot wide vegetative buffer. (3) High Density Option: Higher density developments shall be permitted pursuant to Rule .1003(c)(2~fth's Section ifstormwater control systems meet the following criteria: {a) control systems must be wet detention ponds or alternative stornwater management systems designed in accordance with Rule .1008of this Section; (b) control systems must. be designed to control runoff from all surfaces generated by one inch of rainfall. Hrstnry Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 1~3-214.7; 143-?Id.1; ~1=t3 -?1.5.3(n); Eff. September 1, 199; " Amended Eff•December 1, 19,9. 15A NCAC 02H .1007 STORMIVATER REQUIRE~IIJM'S: OU'fSTANllING RESO URCE WATERS All development activities which require a stormwater management permitunde r Rule .1003of this Section and which drainto waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) shall manage stormwater runoff in accordance with theprovisions ' of this Rule: Water quality conditions shall clearly maintain and protect the outstandi ng resource vahres of waterschssified , as Outstanding. Resource Waters (OR~V). Stonnwatermanagementstrategies to protect resource values of watersclassif~d as bRW shall be developed on a site specific basis during the proceedings to classify these waters as ORW. The requirements. of this Rule serve as the minimumconditions that must be met by development activities. More stringent stormwater management measures maybe required on a case -by-case basis where it is determined that additionalrreasur~s are required.to protect water quality and maintain existing and.anticipated uses of these waters. (1) Freshwater ORWs: Development activities which require a stormwater management pem~itunderRule:1003 . of this Section and which drain to freshwaters classified as ORW shall manage stormwater runoff as follows: (a) Low Density Option: Development shall be permitted pursuant to Rule .1003(d)(l~f th's Section if the development has: • (i) built-upon area of 12 percent or less or proposes single familyresidenti aldevelopment on lots of one acre or greater; (ii) stormwater runoff transported primarilyby vegetated conveyances; conveyance system shall not include a discrete stormwater col lection system as defined in Rule .100?ofthis Section; and _ (iii) a 30 foot wide vegetative buffer. (b) High Density Option: Higher density developments shall be pemaitted pursuant to Rule .1003(d)(2)ofthis Section ifstormwatercontrol systems meetthe following criteria: (i) control systems must be wet detention ponds or alternative stormwater management systems designed in accordance with Rule.1008ofthis. Section; and (ii) cr~ntrol systems must be designed to control runoff from all surfaces generated by one inch of rainfall. ' (2) Sa]twaterORWs: Development activities which require a stormwater management permit under Rule .1003 ' of this Section and •~~;hich drain to saltwaters classified as ORW shall manage stormwater runoffasfotbws: (a) Within 57'~ feet of the mean high water tine of designated OR~V areas, development activitesshall ' comply wi th the low density option as specified in Ruie :1005(2)(a~f this Section. (b) Projects draining to saltwaters classified as ORW that impact the Areas of ErivironrrentalConcem ' (AEC), de~termiried pursuant to G.S.113A-1'13, shall dellneatethe OR~V AEC on the projectp)<rns ' arid conform to-low density requirements as specified in Rule.100~(2)(a~fthis Sectiomv~h~tthe ORW AEC. (c) After the Commission ties received' a request to classify Class SA waters as ORW and given permissic:: to the Director to schedule a public hearing to consider reclassification and untlsuch timeas specific stormwater design criteria become effective, only development which meets the requirements of Rule .1003(d)(3)(A),(B) and (C) and Rule :1005(2)(a)of this Section shall be approved within 575 feet of the mean-high water line of these waters. History Note: AarthorityG.S.7=13-21=J.I; 1=13-?I~.7; J43-Zl.i.l; 143=21.i:3(a); Eff. September 1, 199. 15?~ NCAC 02H .1008 DESIGN OF STORMIVATER Iv1ANAGEMENT MEASURES (a) Stnrctural StormwaterControl Options. Stormwatercontrol measures which maybe approved pursuant to this Ru}eand which shall not be considered innovative include: (1) Storm waterinfiltrationsystems including infiltration basins/ponds; swales, and vegetative filters; (2) Wet detention ponds; and (3) Devices approved in accordance with Paragraph (h) of this Rule. ' All stormwater management stnrctures are subject to the requirements of Paragraph (c) of this Rule. (b) Innovative Systems. Innovative measures for controlling stormwater which are not well established through actual experience maybe approved on a demonstration basis under the following conditions: (1) 'there is a reasonable expectation that the control measures willbe successful; (2) The projects are not located near High Quality Waters (1IQ~V); ' (3) Monitorin~~ requirements are included to verify the performance of the control measures; and (4) Alternatives are available ifthe control measures fail and shall be required when the Director determines that the system has Failed. (c) General Engineering Design 'CriteriaFor All Projects. (1') The size of the system must take into account the runoff.at the ultimate built-out potential froma-sur&ces ~ draining to the system, including any off-site drainage. The storage volume of the system shall be calculated to provide for the most conservative protection using runoff calculation methods described on ' pages A.l and A.2 in "Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual For Planning And Designing Urban BMPs"which is hereby incorporated by reference not including amendments. This document is available through the Metropolitan Washington (D.~C.)Cou'ncil of Governments at a cost of forty dollars ($40.00). This method is also described in the Division's document "An Overview of Wet Detention BasinDesign" Other engineering methods may be approved if these methods are. shown to provide for equivalent protection; (2) All side slopes being stabilized with vegetative cover shall be no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to verticaC); (3) All stormwater management structures shall be located~in recorded drainage easements for thepurposes of operation and maintenance and shall have recorded access easements to the nearest public right-of--way. These easements shall be granted in favor of the party responsible for operating and maintaining the stormwater management structures; (4) Vegetative` filters designed ~in accordance with Paragraph (f) of this Rule are required fromtheover-Bowofall infiltration systems and discharge of all stormwater wet detention pond's. These filters shall be at Ieast30 feet in length, exceptwhere a minimumlength of SOfeet is required in accordance with Rule.100~(ZXbxiu)of this Section; ,,,~ . NEW HANOVEFt COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~ - , REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting.Date:10/01/01 Regular Item #e~ 2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Legal Presenter: Bruce T. Shell, .Finance Director ~ . Contact: Wanda M_ Copley, County Attorney, Bruce. T. Shell, Finance Director - ' . - SUBJECT: - . Final Approval of New`Hanover.County Certificates of Participat-ion, Series 2001 - BRIEF SUMMARY:. The County. Commissioners conducted a Pubfic Hearing on September 17, 2001 regarding fhe_ documents included below. The County Commissioners are now required to approve a .Final Resolution which includes .the following documentation: . ` • ., Instalfinent Financing Contract; , • Deed of Trust and Security Agreement; '. , • Indenture of Trust; • Preliminary Official Statement; - M • Contract of Purchase; and ~ ` _ ~ •: .Letter of Representation (from the County to the Underwriters) RECOMMENDED MOT10N AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve the attached Resolution. ~ , FUNDING SOURCE: ' ATT'ACH'MENTS: ~, , _ _ , '~-. . ~ OctoberlstResolution. REVLEWED BY: ~ . . LEGAL: Approve FINANCE:Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ~.Recornmend~approval of attached resolution. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: `f ' .. ~OUNTY.C©MM{ONE :. _ APPROVED ®' &2EJECTED 0 . ' REMOVED CI ~~ i POSTPONED O NEARDa ~ ~,J ' :, , ,, RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INSTALLMENT FINANCING OF JAIL, LAW ENF012CEMENT, PARKING AND LIBRARY FACILITIES AND THE SALE OF NOT MORE THAN $61,500,000 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, SERIES 2001 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVER' OF DOCUMENTS IN - CONNECTION THEREWITH WI--IERI;AS, there have been available at this meeting forms of the following: (1) A •draft of the form of Installment Financing Contract to be dated October l , 2001 (the "Contract") between New Hanover County, North Carolina (the "County") and - the New Hanover County Financing Corporation (the "Corporation"); - (2) A draft of the form of Deed of Trust and Security Agreement to be dated October 1, 2001 (the "Deed of Trust"), from the County to a trustee for. the benefit of the Corporation; (3) A draft of the form of Indenture of Trust to be dated October 1, 2001 (the "indenture") between the Corporation and First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company, as trustee (the "Trustee"); - ~ . (4) A draft of the form of Preliminary Official Statement (the "Preliminary Official Statement") relating to the Certificates of Participation, Series 2001 (the "Certificates"); C (5) A draft of the form of the Contract of Purchase to be dated on or about October 11, 2001 (the "Purchase Contract") between Scott & Stringfellow, Inc., trading as~~ BB&T Capital Markets, Banc of America Securities LLC and Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. (the "Underwriters") and the Corporation; and (6) A draft of the form of the Letter of Representation to be dated on or about October 11, 2001 (the "Letter of Representation") from. the County to the Underwriters. WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the County duly conducted a public hearing on September 17, 2001 regarding the Contract to finance the construction, renovation and equipping of the Facilities and made certain findings and determinations with respect to the - installment financing thereof; anal WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the County desires to approve the sale of the Certificates and to authorize other actions in connection therewith; N;®W'a~'I'tiHE12EFO;RE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the County as follows`~1 ~~~1~~~9~ ~~~~~~ 1 11 actions~heretofore"~taken by the County Manager and the Finance Director, effectuating the proposetdnstallinent financing of the Facilities are hereby approved, ratified and 10 ~. ~, ~- ~~~~. ~; authorized. pursuant to and in ,accordance with the transactions contemplated by the documents referred to above. 2 Each of the Contract, the Deed of Trust, the Letter of Representation; in the form submitted to this meeting; is hereby approved, in substantially such form and the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board, the Cotmty Ma=wager, the Finance Director and the Clerk to the Board are each hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver each of those documents on behalf of the County, with such changes, insertions or omissions as they may approve with the advice of counsel (including provisions that relate to a municipal bond insurance policy proc~rred by the County, their execution thereof to constitute eonchtsive evidence of their approval. 3 The Indenture and the Purchase Contract, in the forms submitted to this meeting, are hereby approved with such changes, insertions or omissions as may approve with the advice of counsel, inchtd>11g provisions (if applicable)` that relate to a municipal bond insurance policy ,procured by the .County. 4 Each of the Preliminary Official Statement and the final Official Statement in the :Form of the Preliminary Official Statement submitted to this meeting, is hereby approved, in substantially such form, with such changes, insertions and omissions as appropriate, and the use thereof in connection wi h the public offering and sale of the Certificates is hereby authorized. The Chairman or Vice Chairman of the-Board and the County Manager and Finance Director are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver on behalf of the Cotmty, the final Official Statement in substantially ~ ® such form, with such changes, insertions wild omissions as they may approve with the advice of counsel, their execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of their approval. 5 Subject t~ the limitations set forth herein, the County Manager is hereby authorized to approve the terms of the Certificates, including but not limited to, theaggregate principal amount and the dates and amounts of maturities thereof, the redemption provisions thereof and the interest rates thereon; providing that: (i) the principal amount ofthe Certificates shall, not exceed 61,500,000; (ii) the final mattrrity date of the Certif Cates shall be no later than December 1, 2022; and (iii) the true interest cost acid the effective interest rate thereof shall not exceed 5.25% and 5.30%, respectively.. 6 Tlie Chairman or Vice Chairman. of the Board, the County Manager, the Finance Director, the Clerk to the Board, and the County Attorney are hereby authorized to take any and all such further action and to execute and deliver such other documents as may be necessary or advisable or carry out the intent of this Resolution and to effect the installment financing pursuant to~the Contract, including, without limitation, procuring a municipal bond insurance policy and entering into tax compliance agreements. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the County Manager and Finance Director is~authorized to approve all details of the financing, including without limitation, the amount advanced unclerthe Contract (which shall not exceed $61,500,000), the annual payments under the Contract,~the interest rates with respect to such payments, the term of the Contract; and the discount below or premium above the principal amount of the Certificates at which the Certificates .are sold to the Underwriter. Execution of the' Contract by the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board or the County Manager and Finance Director shall conclusively evidence approval of all such 11 ~~ NEW HANC"AVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/01/01 Regular Item #: 6.1 Estimated Time:. Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Sam .Burgess SUBJECT: SA-17, .10/01; Subdivision Appeal-Veterans Park Condos: 7800 Block of River Road & Veterans Park Road; Petitioner Ocean Forest Lakes Homeowners et al BRIEF 5UMMARY:~ Petition by Ocean.Forest residents et al to appeal the decision of the Planning Board's Technical Review. Committee. permitting a 427 unit condominium complex in the 7800 block of River Road and Veterans Park Road. • • RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: According to our County Attorney's Office, the zoning Ordinance is not specific on the issue of open space having a proximal relationship for performance related projects. Without a specific standard such as a radius, distance; or other reliable quantitative method, the TRC has the discretion to make a deter.rnination on the contiguous issue. In order to make the project more defensible and a little less intrusive to nearby residents, staff recommends that the peripheral open space designed for the. project be removed creating approximately 85 acres and approximately 213 units. Staff believes that any project this size should have alternative access /connectivity to nearby neighborhoods and major arterials. Alternative access provides economy and efficiency by ensuring prompt emergency service delivery, disbursement of traffic and allows nearby neighborhoods better transportation choices to goods and services in the area. FUNDING SOURCE:. n/a ATTACHMENTS: 14 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIDNERS' ACTIONSICOMMENTS: - APPROVED ~~-!' . . (REJECTED Ca REMOVED POSTPONED I~ } ~I:~R~ ~~ ~ 13 ~ ,' be. cc,.7, vw Z~3u~,~ a.~ lam- mes~al.e-d b : w//ooo i rE~~~~ -fo ~t so adeye~, nr,~:od it ~. off" ~~ards~~ CASE: SA-1.7, 10/O1 PETITIONER: Ocean Forest Lakes Homeowners et al SUBJECT: Veterans Park Condos LOCATION: 7800 Block River Road & Veterans Park Road Staff Summary On August 22, 2001, the Planning Board's Technical Review Committee (TRC) approved a 427 unit condo complex by the name of Veterans Park. The TRC approved the plan by a vote of 5-2. The preliminary approval of the site plan by TRC encompassed approximately 201.2 acres of undeveloped property owned by SANCO of Wilmington. Most of the 201.2 acres consist of either Class IV soil. which are predominately wet most of the year ,Federal 404 wetlands that may be regulated by the County's Conservation Overlay District. Several of the parcels of land are not adjacent to the Veterans Park site condo but. are located nearby (see attached site map). Approximately 42.89 acres are displayed on the. detailed plans: , At the time of preliminary approval, the TRC placed four (4} conditions on Veterans Park 1) The intersection of River Road and Veterans Park Road as well as driveway .entrances be improved to NCDOT minimum standards. 2) No vehicular comzection will be established through the project into Larnlis Blitff ' development:.A 30 foot pedestrian access easement and bike"path will be regilired along with an emergency gate. The access easement will be built and connected to the Veterans Parlc :facilities. The gate for emergency vehicles will be under the control of the Lambs Bluff neighborhood and connected to the condos. 3) Street Yard Landscaping Standards will be required in accordance with the 25 foot .Factor of Section 67-10 of the Zoning Code. 4) The developer will make all improvements for acceptance and maintenance by NCDOT for the first 1,000 feet of Veterans Park Road extending from River Road. On September 6, 2001, the developer of Veterans Park requested that the Planning Board's TRC discuss two (2) of the four (4) conditions imposed on the project. As previously stated, condition 1 involved minimum road improvement standards at the intersection of River Road and Veterans Park Road. Condition 4 required the developer to make all road improvements for acceptance and maintenance by NCDOT for the first 1,000 feet of Veterans Park Road beginning at its intersection with River Road. In discussing and clarifying both. conditions, the Board agreed that r. Veterans Pail: Road be built to minimum NCDOT requirements and that a driveway permit be ~required{'atYflie nuance to the project at River Road. The developer would not be responsible for modifications'to the storm water and drainage system constructed by the County. The Board felt that since the'~i~mprov menu were already installed underneath the road that the developer should not be held +respons/i~ble for replacing or modifying the storm water system in order to satisfy 1 /~NCpOT mamtehance requirements. `t ~i ~.1~1~$ ~._ .. .. ~ k `* Y, ~` i of R t w . , . 16 Veterans Park Appeal 2. The Board also recommended that NCDOT inspect the road and provide a list of improvements needed to satisfy minimum NCDOT requirements for maintenance and submit the findings to . County 1/ngineering staff. The Board vote on these modified conditions was 4-2. Concerns _ Residents from Ocean Forest Lakes and other nearby neighborhoods along with the School System and County Parks expressed a variety concerns during the review of the Veterans Park project on August 22°d. Concerns included the density of the project, lack of contiguous open space, traffic and safety impacts near the school, well water supply and sewer capacity, .designating Veterans Park.Road as a collector road from River Road to Carolina Beach Road, and the enormity.of the project in an established single family residential. area isolated from primary goods and services (see attached correspondence). ' Staff Recommendation According to ortr County Attorney's Office, the Zoning Ordinance is not specific on the issue of ® open space having a proximal relationship for performance related projects. Without a specific standard such as a radius ,distance, or other reliable quantitative method, the TRC has the discretion to make a determination on the contiguous issue. In order to make the project more defensible and a little less intrusive to nearby residents, staff recommends that the peripheral open space designated for the project be removed creating approximately 85 acres and approximately 213 units. Staff believes that any project this size should have alternative access/connectivity to nearby .neighborhoods and-major arterials. Alternative access provides economy and efficiency by ensuring prompt emergency service delivery, disbursement of traffic and allows nearby neighborhoods better transportation choices to goods and services in the area. ~ 15 w COMMITTEE AGENDA TEt..HNICAL REVIEW August 22, 2001 The Planning Board's Technical Review Committee will meet in regular session. on Wednesday, August 22, 2001 ~t 4:00 p.m. in Room 501 of the County Administration Building, 320 Chestnut Street to discuss the following site plan: • r ~ r , Item l: Veterans Park Condos (Performance Residential)- Request by Hanover Design Services for SANCO of Wilmington to consider approval of a two phase,427 unit .condo complet located adjacent and north of Ocean Forest Lakes development, east side of River Road. Zoning District: R-15 Residential `Water: County (Initial capacity limited 100 traits) Sewer: County (Initial capacity limited 100 units) Load Dedication: Public Lots: `1?7 Acreage: 201.2 (units clustered on 42 acres) Land Class: Limited Transition & Conservation Previous TRC Act ion: No committee action has been taken. However, sketch plan review has taken place on June 27`h and July 18°i. Staff Comments: 1) New Landscape Requirements need to be incorporated into project. 2) An attractive street entrance (from River Road) is recommended along with creating a more appealing area around the retention pond. 3) Alternative access north to the Lambs Bluff development is recommended. 4) The Zoning Ordinance is not specific on the issue of open space having a proximal relationship for performance residential projects. ti~+'ithout a specific standard, such as a radius, distance, or other reliable quantitative method, the TRC has the discretion to make a determination. In order to make the project more defensible and a little less intrusive to nearby residents; staff recommends that the peripheral open space be removed creating approximately 98.7 acres and 2=17 total units. 16 ~ AGGRIEVED PARTY PE'T'ITION ` CONCERNED CITIZENS. FOR N'~IGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION TO: NEW HANOVER .COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FROM: CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION ~_ August 23, 2001 On August 22, 2001, the Technical Review Commute of New Hanover County approved a preliminary plan for 427 condominiums at the corner of River Road and Veterans Park Drive. We respectfully ask for a public hearing so the concerns of the neighbors in southern New Hanover County can be heard regarding this project. Reasons for this petition:.. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS 1) This project is-not in harmony with the surrounding neighborhoods which are all . Ingle family residences of homeowners in quiet peaceful settings. ~ , 2) Quality of life in the area will be significantly degraded. This tranquil area will experience noise, traffic, pollution, increased hazard to children and impaired access to Veterans Park recreational areas. 3) Inadequate infrastructure to support a project of this size. Wells are running dry and salt water intrusion in the area is beginning. This creates a health hazard to the citizens of NH County. The aquafir is being depleted and county sewerage treatment is already at capacity. 4) Projects approved as condominiums should not be allowed to convert to apartment rentals. Lakeview Development Corporation, a partner in this project states on the Secretary of State web site that its business is apartment construction and rental. The County should not be misled into regarding this as a condominium project, since the same developer has converted the townhouses planned for the . Antigua development into apartments. 5) A high density three story condo (or apartment) complex will reduce property values in surrounding neighborhoods and will reduce property taxes for the county .in these neighborhoods. - 17 A~~~~GRIEVED PART' PETITION CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR r~EIGI~BORHOOD PRESERVATION SCILOOL AND PARK CONCERNS 1) The safety of the st~~dents attending Murray, Ashley and the planned new elementary school will be seriously conpromised by the 3500 trips a day which occur because of this project. (See enclosed letter from superin#endent). 2) No other park in New Hanover County has access through a high density condominium complex. We concur with the comments of the Parks Department. (See enclosed letter from Neil Lewis) TIDEWATER PLANTATION 1) Tidewater Plantation is a fiction of this developer's imagination. The "plan" for this plantation was never registered or recorded with the county. There are no restrictive covenants governing this body. The builder is trying to tie together separate developments, including properties he did not own in 1996 (when he claims he proposed the "Plantati®n") and properties which he does not own today. This is a subterfuge to gain undeserved additional condos. (See John Feeley letter) NEW HAN®VER COUNTY ORDINANCE 1) This project violates the Ordinance 69.1. which states that all residents in the development shall have direct access to all open spaces by means of public street or dedicated walkways or .physical contiguity. This does not occur in this project and has no precedence in the 17 yehrs since this ordinance was passed. (See County Attorneys enclosed letter and John Feeley enclosed letter).. 2) Never before has New Hanover County permitted the density of 13 units per acre in a R15 zone which requires 2.5 units per acre. (See John Feeley enclosed letter}.. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ADOPTED 9/7/99) These policies of Growth and Development are being violated by this project. 3.7 Requires that the cumulative and secondary impacts of land use and development, and the limited carrying capacity of our coastal ecosystems be considered in all land use decisions and in the development or revision of local plans, capital facilities, services, and ordinances. 18 _. ~ :AGGRIEVED PARTY PETITION CONCERNED CITIZENS °;~ FOB NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION . 3.10 uCarefully cont~•olled development activities within the estuarine water sheds to prevent the degradation of water quality in the creeks and sounds, to protect the- ' public health, and to insure the protection of these vital natural resources by - ;reducing nutrient, pesticide, sediment and gther harmful notings through the density controls, setbacks, buffers, impervious surface limits and other means. 5.1 New Hanover County shall insure that all land: use and development decisions protect our ground water aquifers. 5.3 New Hanover County shall conserve and protect the-best sources of potable surface-and groundwater. - . 6:1 New Hanover County shall strive to protect the character of the area's existing- residential neighborhoods. . R~ESID>JNTS OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY W>-i0 SUPPORT THIS PETITION ,j 1--~' ~ A TTY c ti ,~' rte, ~ ? z~ ~ ;~ /.~ ~ ~`-'/ ` . ~ ' -4;,~ ~. 19 ~~~ s Fir ~~ ~'P.'§~ s ~ ., JOE 5f~~ .» ~ ~ < ~°, ~ ~ a 4 ? ~ , ~ ?~:~ ... ~ ~ ~ . _~_ _ ~ ~~. •{ f, f / f r ~ ~r ~ ~ ,r ~ s / f~ "~? ~ ~ ~rC~, `~ _. ~...~ Y i...~1..r tY r '`,..~. ._.. ~ ~ .W.~~~c'A: ~__=_.:._ ..._ a.~ y _ q ,..- -- p~,, y -~ t / .r ,/ qp /Y- -"'~`fY i~"~.:_C'._.._._ -Ym.' ,t:.~----t3 ~. ..;t ..+r 1 ...e 7..~'`.,~3'G:G.i. t}~ , ~ ._: . r ~! ~~ J r ~.,_._L~.~._~ ~+.s~ti~ ..._w~.°~,~? ~..__~~"~ F.L ~c"` i.' _t:- i. _ .~_.%.~.1 t t_i~`~ t Y~r...;~r-e?y,t,_:~~~ ~.~~,_a~`,~_~~~.---~..~.__.._ .~ ~ ~ I -, t ,, y ~ j ~- ~ t ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~~ t ~; 1 4 ) 7 . '~ ~~~_ ~ r ~ ~. ,.~r _ .. ~ . ,. t~ .., . 7 t ~~, '"~~.~,/" } fy g Mfg/) ~,/ ~.~ ... i+`T-~eYp...~ i. ~'' ~~/ F'"~~~~'? ~.c"-'fix.. . _.., , .C.,r:/ .._.._. J"c v .. .... 'Y"L. ,.rk, 4 :.wYp- _ - - _ ~. ~ _. w ~ f f v',.~;~ ..~/~.~_ y~J ~ ~;~1____~..:_ ~ ~ '..,~ j G ..t~:.__ t ~_ fP t"w1, . ~.... ~~ . __.~.. __W ..... _,_ .~ .. W _ _. .,. __. __ __ _ _~~ _r.„ _....N. „._ .m _ I __ ..._.__._ .._.._._. i _..._ W:,._ __ _ _~ _ f~" t- ,¢2~' f ,vi a'~ -f ~ 1Y, ~ f"' '~ ~ ~.~~_.L?~/._ ! i ! i ~ ` r ~ G~f' . ~~.. .. - ~_-_r k. _....__. i..------ _ __~-__ ....__.. __._ ._._ ....... _.~...____. __ _. _._. w. _. . ...v..~ _.~_~ ._ ,1 _ . __ _ ~ .. - . ___.___.,.~.._.___.. .....r. ~._ __._.___.._..,......~__.w.._ _.~..__._f .-..__-~_..._ j _ - - .... _. 2 0 . __ _ _ _ . _ ._ _...__.. ___.~_. _ _ _ _.._ _ . i. . !.~ August I5, 2001 Mr. S. A. Burgess I)EILIVERED VIA Fri T(~ 341-4556 New Hanover County Planning Department . 41.4 Chestnut Street, Suite 304 .Wilmington, NC 28401-4027 Dear Mr. Burgess: ~,. OfF1~E OF THE Sl7PERJPYTEMDENT o.e. ~: ~oHN Mc:~z~s,1R. Su~rinlendenl . The New Hanover County School System concurs with the concerns expressed by the New Hanover County Parks Department relative to the condominium development proposed for the intersection of Veterans Park Drive and River Road. The entrance to the schooUpark complex should be attractive and not present the service area of . an extensive condominium development. A street scape landscaped with limited driveway cuts - would serve both the condominium complex and Veterans Park more appropriately. Veterans Park Drive 'was designed to provide a buffer between the adjacent neighborhoods. and the noisy activities of the schools and the park and to slow and control traffic. The trafrie on Veterans -Park Drive from such a-high-density development would impede the flow of traffic from parents and school buses bringing and picking up students. The walk zones. for the schools- currently, encompass five adjacent neighborhoods with close w 100 students. In the .near future, a new elementary school is planned adjacent to the higki school which would add almost 50 additional students to the walk zone. As sidewalks are added to developments, additional students will fall within the 1.5 mile safe walk zone. Our primary concern is for student safety. Therefore, we object to consideration of the Veterans Park Condomini~un project, as currently proposed. Sincerely, ~~ ' D. Jo Morris, Jr. Superintendent 21. ~ 602 $OUTN 1 $TF,' STREET ~ WI(MWGfON. NQRTH CAROLINA 2840 1 ~ PHONF X91 O) 763-SLZ 1 FAX (9 ~ 01 ZJ-'~~ 1 :c7 ©~~~ r, T S ~~ ,ROGUE, HILL, JONES, NASH & LYNCH, L.L.P.. P~~'~' ~ . ATTORNEYS AT LAW y ; r~ 1 O1 SOUTH THIRD STREET ~~~ ~~ W. TALMAGE JONES WILMINGTON, NC 28401 OF CouNSE~: ~ DAVID A. NASH WILLIAM O. J. LYNCH JAMES B. SNOW, III WAYNE A. BOLLARD STACEY L. FULLER G. EDWARD COLEMAN. III V1~4 HAND DELIVERY CYRUS D. ROGUE, JR.~ '~ WILLIAM L. HILL, II ~%~~, , MAILING ADDRESS ~ ~" P. O. DRAWER 2178 WILMINGTON, NC 28402 August 31 , 2001 TELEPHONE 910-763-4565/4 ~ FACSIMILE 910-762-6687 i~ ~ L~~-=;- Mr. Allen O'Neal, County Manager New Hanover County 320 Chestnut Street, Suite 502 Wilmington, NC 28401 RE: New Hanover County Schools /Veterans Park condominiums Dear Mr. O'Neal: Please accept this 'letter and the attached letter from Dr. D. Johri Morris, Jr., Superintendent of the N.ew Hanover County School System, as an aggrieved party petition in opposition to the proposed Veterans Park condominium project at the intersection of Veterans Park Road and River Road. - . ~ ' -Our understanding is that this petition will.°be placed before the ,New Hanover County Commissioners at a meeting on October 15t, 2001. Please confirm your. receipt of: same and let me know if there is anything else 4ve need to submit or do in order to have the School System's objection fo the project heard by the County Commissioners. ~ ; Very `trul ,yours,' - ,. ;. _ Wayri~A. ~ Bullard WABIkj - Enclosure cc: Edward B. Higgins, Jr. Dr. D. John Morris, Jr. Bill Hance 22 ~, .Neal Lewis 0712312001 X09:57 AM To: Sam Burgess/NHC@NFIC cc: .Robert GreerlNHC@Nf-iC, macbilzi@aol.com, uncsatch@yahoo.com, Allen O'Neal/NHC@NHC, David Weaver/NHC@NHC, DE;;aer Hayes/NHC@NHC, Greg Thompson/NHC@NHC, Max Maxwell/NHC, Jackie Williams-Rowland/NHC('r?NHC, norm_shearin@nhcs.k12.nc.us, "Edward Anderson" <Eddie_Anderson@nhcs.k12.nc.us> Subject:. Nathan Sanders Development Proposal -Veterans Park Sam, This memo is written back-up to the comments I have made at the two previous TRC meetings. Please consider this memo as ":agency comments" for the Parks Department. 1) The additional development proposed (400 condominium units) at the intersection of River Road and Veterans Park Drive may prompt NCDOT to require alterations to the configuration of the intersection. The County has a driveway permit for the proposed park/school development .Any additional work required at the intersection should be the financial responsibility of the developer. Furthermore, the County should require that the developer be made to do whatever is necessary to have the first 1000' of Veterans Park Drive added to the state road system, prior to any approval of plans. 2) The number of-driveway cuts to Veterans Park Drive is a concern. Perhaps the project could be designed to reduce the number of.cuts. There will be a significant number of school buses, school Moms and soccer Moms passing along this road throughout the day -every day. ® 3) The project should be designed so that the "streetscape" is attractive. We do not need for the entrance to this beautiful complex to look like the driveway of a condominium complex. Could the parking be placed behind the condominiums? This was proposed for a similar_development at Beu Rivage at the first meeting. 4) The developer has the responsibility of providing access to River Road/Veterans Park Drive for the residents of Tidalholm. His dvelopemnt should be re-designed to accommodate this, and his property .should be used for this access. There was a suggestion that the County give some land to the developer for this additional access. That is not acceptable to us. 5) Veterans Park Drive was designed to handle local traffic to and. from the schools and the park. It was intentionally designed to discourage through traffic from River Road to Carolina Beach Road by the general public. This is evidenced by the meandering nature of the road, the number of driveway cuts to the schools and the park, the addition of speed humps, and the addition of gates at each end of the park. If a through road in this area is needed, it is should. be the, responsibility of the developers in the area, and should have been a part of the County's planning efforts prior to now. The- County spent a lot of money buying this acreage and building an adequate road for our needs. What was proposed at the TRC meeting amounts to a "taking" of this road for the benefit of development which was added after the fact. f~) The developer proposed "dedicating" pedestrian access from Tidalholm to the park. If the developer is not required to actually build ,this access, the County will most. likely be asked to build it in the future.. Thank you for allowing us to comment on this proposal 23 ., a:.w~ ., «.:...:.~w ..~.~...,.;a,.,.,..a. ...c.~.«.~<...ou,:~;~-v „~.:~yw~.u.cruus~.xu u~H r,.~.::;w.~nzww:vv.aaa»~w~waz.ugraibti 8 d t'' ", ~ t .. .'.a e , ...r p 7, n ~.... ~, r'w,." r ~Z ~ ~ i! ~,~li`3 ~a Lr~ ,. ~ ~ .nr: Y r a ,(' ~ e ",~ .~.._ . ",n. [ ~ ~~,.w,Y f 'tisg:..'Y ~ ~~ .~ 'p $gy~_'~ f r ~ ~'a, 9 'yet 7 '~:~ ~ ~ t'~kN d n"' L ~ '+~ j 1- ~ - 3 l '~L 4 ~ t ._ 1. ~" ~,,,, ~^ Via.-„L~r ~` ~ 4 P • y 1 3":1"': i ' f ~,t 17- , .=n B~. f~dt9t.'i, 'rtC~;;}}~~'.,Y~i't i _ ^ssi~ixut+"zr=ta, [ :4 ii:r,sc;: 1E,Y, 9;.; }rt ~ i. ~ Scl ~'1?C°,~tl i i' ~' lif ;~1 ~«~S1~~lelTii ii - ~~ i i.,~.i ~ . i1 ~; f.~ x~t j~Ft,1Yi, T S't. "'fit t1: ~,~.i~`~ , ,..+~~4t~' #`33.1:. V r;. i ..Ii' ... 1`... ,. _ .. . 24 t. d'C, <. ;'int. ~;'illiaLrt ~! .r.it;Y} L.~t: ;'lad#t.t~;t s ~1, r~~,1 c>, lt.°,r{k$;,r<:,, c3`S ~+5 ilex '~t~':+S itil~ll2I't',JT.1C'Ii~, ,11t~ ~_)i~},(7`.'.'t'fC:f: :.f'ir'.!` ~Y.S 1t:7 i~C~~il'Z: tCf"L'S'~ F1' "ltt;111.`i,<Ltli}t"t!tttz;;~T'ic'tf 1T?}?`:.'iLi'tii);"1~}t`)l~,'~;3?.] ti)Ir:'t.t_l3`±.lt.,A.1~C~ i5+1(•irfiS(~,!C~'4i~itP'tt)t,?tf:r)'1' b7f ~t.`C.i ~ -~ L~ 2} 's':T`l~.'•t°a} ~t{~'?r:)1F,^. j3lr',k:itlztt.i P.°y.t'(.^'tsll_tCli_ti....! ~~r'~lii`i 7t C,i3.i'i;} C`) Lt€lE. Cftl..°~1(4t~ fjt. }iC'1'.~`.'it'+11[Pti~i'~ e'f Y`sCl.~:i tjF.};'lt1i~ tll?tit, P3~_ ill [s?;fc't` C17 f~:li.4lli~ ~S i, e?}1i C? Si,"tt:c: t,tlt ~t,? 1}1~ } ['(?t't~,l~ i:lS kt}lr.~'C_ ~kt. (.~C'~}I,I,3YlC~+: 3: }r.;~ S~'1r_i:!iJ .fltt'aa L~lt:y1 St,?!,S ~l`CL}7 1C+v>{€ii..~. .I~]f3.'}tia.} ~.`~if1 1y,z}.I(i., 3ti1 1.ft1'~, "dw'~;tlr t<y i.}tut 4})t'i`p i"i :3.I"t if1"il.U?'}`rlith Itfi7Lli:Ct]?~:iC t~li'zT tIi£; ~f2t t3~ t ~~,t':i't;[.~ .. ?.` ;~f)t,::t1 'st ,.lt;s; t1:1df~' 't+Is"tt`. 4„3IM ti! }IIiJ.tiliYl:'`+; 1`~,~~}~:i~tt~'il:l.t:'z jt~ l~'i@:!. ilf(!,j_'4t, ~1t'~ll~ti'717t t3 S~l4i:jt'it; '.^ii<LtL}1Cl"L;}.y ,IlC'.}1 ct`> ,t iJiv,~l')I, {};{~{'.}1 ~,.it]t:.:;, 1P,f,°.}~;eiT1I3'llf? }~t?,1T;3 !~s }Ft'{f V~.}j:4? ~('7Tt1~. i'}t. St 1'.'jiUt1, f~,:3 ii t3t?t~t ti~;3s}~{c;y ~'~q'.~d ,. ~" t7S;.':l:i {.: .:~'c1~1,'I<i~Cxt`L 4,h'I{}"! ~:jiC' i?[1i'}F".i . f^Plii~}![lt?, 1}?11~ D,i:t i:FL};_C 3i:?S° !rl'_?l~ i:! C} 1 t17~9/, 1I ~let~i 1C1 }rtc` I't .ie4?17tt~3}~' f,Tt)'41i~iirJ~t.''~C1 1sLC ~~P`t~7~;'i'l: }~ lint' ~~luE'tl7rtjt? ~~t1?v"{ ;:?I1Cf~tsY t}ki, t`a''.:;,\11LTilx_.::lcst};;;°g C+3,z+ ~t~ ~}l~ Ctti~::}11E~1()I7 I:~ltl1 ~1t't)~ tf.,i'i.1 r,f3t:#L .~ "iCk' "ti°, C,[~: f3C7i ,;Lt.}~jiS:'.i+ 1t~?:'rjl(f~;!lSS i~.,, ~}tE! ,}t y`L°}i1z1Y,. 'v'o'C,,,lie# }1ci 'C'. ~L) IS;.'t:t1~:2a1 l}IC . , . ~. xl~i~'i'i .~ 3t1 t'l t'`1,7Ell f: ~~i~i?lr .. i.~:i? tS ,C::;7"1111 ?7 ,.11`3. C.?~ ~i3 ~ ~f Fri tt`ii't S salEa 5-+.}r11 ~. ?+:;.C!`. k++_2:. 3r7 .x'1.23"t'll11't. l.~"it:s 5,:: $h.3 'fCtc::1,. ltzi~'CIItlCiltEl{ 1!. i~}`<:1' 1}lE~ C1'li,~it1.lll.r.;t.'..~ <ti [t ~~~=C,k,', l 2;. C? tt'+,t})1a'',i S~t'C+AiSSlli~ ,.:.!'}ta+P ...tl"sC°1 ~. ?..:!t'~~ '.._.':.C.}.tSL s! C:.:GiS-ii.i:~~..E ..>~ s1.;:`t.~-I:S~~7j' 11.c #'(;l1+'1 it.yt, I'~t9:~?:Y:f .t.:;t}l:}tia}i:.~i'•~'t' 1.SlC 4t..:7:>:' ~,.:_` i.ee i I;:1~,`r` !t, r ,_. ~rl"K"+, ic.`_k, 1?C!t'<~.,:}t")iii c1:1}~t,)1'C?,.:ilit;':l r i Z:-.,:i~Lrit..:t~. yy i ~ ~~"~ ra e a ,ili`ir +.t~L;.?l~} ~~4t_' _T?i':y' 25 ,^ . c: -, ~, ~~ 7l3 ~!~ 1 -~~l~il me:. tc,~ lvolc into the Pro}}o5~a.l that is cl€:vclol~i,i;~ thrl~ the NI~C ~'RC:' ~~° anlaminiuri~s. This calls far 4~ 7 c+:~ndos an ~~ 33 acre site adjacent to Ocean ~~,e5 l,~ik~;s, with a de s~sity ~f 1 ~ ct~ndas/ acre. `l"his wa~i'id he. situaied in an area zoned . tar ~'rrlarn~anct, R-csitlr~~tial (P1~~'....}. ~I•a create: this density, the dew~eloper is attempting to 1 } tYSc the concept. o~t T;lewate~r ~l'lantatioxz that ~~a~as discussed in Si96, but not acted on, ~~;rid 2} usf~ ses,reral tracts a:t~ land. as t;onserr~atic~r~ ar€.as that a:re not contiguous to the pral~ascd ~vrP Condo sftc:. so as to alla~w~ tl~c density that. is heirty~ astced tar in the Proposal. 'Ibis p~•aPasal dtees nc~t retlucst a caning ch~~nge.:t~IL~r~rcv~:r it defuutely appears to be a~ttei~~pting to change the intent t~f the 1`~~C ~'~anillsr Ord., section 69.1 (2.} which was e:nactcd in 19=1. 7°a b~;tt~;r under=yt~:~nt1 thL~.v; 1ssu~~.s, 1 t:a.lls:et.l b~~ telephone 't<~ dexter 1=laves an '7:'~=1/t11, a~~~i again an 7l~'ty ;~~flar he i~~a~l rar~~.~it;d the history of a couple ~uestior~s thaw. I i~rt'c1 ~~sked Hinz. i ~ Carr-the cc3nee~f `l ~tieeu~ztt.r Plant~tia.r~ 1:~~ ~s~c~_as ~ me~n5 to create ciei~sit~' end c~~rat:i~uit•y far ~'I' Condos`? He stated that it should nc~t apply because ~) ~t was clot acted a~~ in '96, aa~d h) beca~asc ol`the sclu~als anti tlevelaPn~ents that are built tl~iere now which wes•e[~'t plant~e:d ar l~teilt. by this t1~:vuloPcr. 1-4e also st~i.te~i that V:l' Conchs shaukl ha~~t: ti? stand oE:t it's o4~~1 to receive 1'reli~tlinary A171~rov~~l by ~t:h~ ~ :tt.C. ''} ~31 areas zor9cd ~~~ 1:'14___.i~t ~>lI1C`, rt. tl~~_x-~cerit]~T"~'4Tia~~rec~ Vhf' Ca~1dt~._l~rc~pc~s~l, has tl-~erc ever bc:c:ri a d~~t'c.li~Prrl~nt ~~lonl4,~atta4ci~td d~~~el:l.nf~ 1': ~ ifi's clensit~~ ~~d ntrry~ber, arch b~-. h~YS Stack of cant_i~~. S~~ch as that yr~~o_~ed be~;n allt~wed in tl~e past as rregards rr 1rx~ianss afsame~t~ts. ~rne~i of otl~~r~ a~ross,3 highway sticl~_. as [diver ~Raad`? after stu~ay ~f his dePttr~ttnt~nt'.7 f~le~s and rnen~ories, he came 17aclc with a "no" to t1~L:~c isstges, re.~lly~, a "'ncrtl-in~; even close". ~T~I~~E ~p Condo. prallu~al, ~~s re~~`i~.wtid at tl~e it~ce?~t TTZ.C niGetin;:r. is ~aski.ng to stretcl~E. the ~v`:~It~. ~#'fL... co~~ct:1;t ~~cll be:}~o~ld it ~ ~~jigiraai itat,~nt.:l~urtl~er, dut-nt; and it's actual e~~t.ire histor~~ of use, slime i 7 years; there is rata such Prt;ct;dent. ~s ane?ther indre,atinn c~#~the currc;nt city antl ct3trr~ty positions, the fir~,llowing was approved as ~~ #1 Priority in thr. 1~99~i ~'i~n1Pr~.1~iLi~si~rL ,Plan; ~,~hd~ 17~F ,4.1~~~) ~rf~13~N ~~~~~vi~l; F'alicy~ Ci.l . ~Elt7rcl e:.~istit~g residential neighbarhaads perfoz•manc~~ standards to keep the nei~l~lx>rhoad cl~arat;ter ct>n~;istt°nt «ath tl~e pastern af'de~•~{~]oPment for the tu-ea. Far these reasons, 1. do ~~~a't thi~-~k tl~:t tl~e, VF' ~:ailda Proposal, as revie~uetl at the recent "fl~C. m~:etu~g, s37at~ld tze a}~proved. ,~ !"' ; ` ~~ t ~ ~ ~ f '~~~ r ~ %~ Jahn Feeley , 26 ~nav~.ao~ J^ as ~iv.n. ,~ -3d~133f N `J „s~=~~3 :~,~,~,~ oxr, 'V~d ~S3~Ih2i3S N`JIS3Q 213AONVH o 0 osz oas ~ - ~, _. 1 u ~~ ,_J 1 } I / "~l a ~ 3 = - 4 ~I. n ~• al _ .S~ :I -~'`'~ ~~J~; =1 ,~,. \ = { 1 ~ + ' r-~-•--I ~......_.,,...w..,~..,~.,. _. _~ io~m"am - (ol51r- tnr~a3alsAa.mw!-o!a ~c~_:.:5 'ncL;'r,;~~-fry IICIi'ddOdtOJ _Jlf,b j$ h101CFlli9l N'1 d0 OJ~~iYS ~a0: :!II iCt`.J ~. ~0^: ~C•J Y,3f.Ci~1`ii :~~!~I dIHSfJf.1.^,1 :h11C r' l'; ?: ]::__ Jui: A-~~ ~ `le . - ranp~.>',~ ;,;.n .:E 03 -4 _ l~tll- d`N -'.o ~~~~^~YC NOI1'd1NH'ld 2id1`dM30112e ~~i ~Z 3SHHd 4NH L 3SVHd) 31lS OONOO ~12iHd SNV?J313n ONH NOI1HOIfl34 dOb'dS N3d0 43SOdOad -v c'~~ ~~~''--I I! ii„cc '~ ~~ ~; NEW HANO~VER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION : ` Meeting Date: 10/01/01.. Regular Item #: 6.2 Estimated Time: Page Number: ` Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes .Contact: Sam Burgess SUBJECT: SN-89, 10/0: Request by John Hinrichs to rename Jacksboro~Road to Ogden Business Court. The. road is located near the 7100 & 7200 blocks of Market Street, westside . BRIEF SUMMARY: The petitioner is requesting that the entire .length of Jacksboro Road be renamed. The road length is approximately 1,750 feet with a 60 foot right of way.and extends from Ogden Park Drive -northeast to the unplatted portion of Lendire Road near West -Bay Estates development. The. entire length. of Jacksboro Road is improved. However, only the first 900 feet of the .road beginning. at its intersection with Ogden Park Drive has been dedicated for public use and platted as a right of way. The balance of the access is a 60 foot easement. Presently, Jacksboro Road .provides access to Planters Walk. development and the County's Ogden Park. Other residential enclaves. in addition to a business park will also use the road for access to Market Street. Ogden Business Court has been approved by E-911. 4 RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• The Planning Staff recommends that the road renaming to Ogden Business Court be modified to read Ogden Business Drive given the length of the road. Staff also recommends that the renaming correspond to only that portion of ..road platted as right of way until such time that the balance of the road is platted and recorded. FUNDING SOURCE: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 2 . . ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS• COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: • ~ti~l~NTI' C0~lMIgSI®N eAPPROVED ~? DEJECTED ~ REMOVED ~ '~ ~'OSTPONED C~ ~ ;pan l01 ~i ~~r;~,>;..7 . ~~ ,~ } CAS;C: S1`+i-89, 10/Ol -•• APPLICANT: Jahn Hinrichs SUBJIJCT: Road Renaming Jacksboro Road to Ogden Business Court LOCATIONF: 1`~tear 71.00 & 7200 Blocks Market Street Staff Summary '~ The' petitioner is requesting that the entire length of Jacksboro Road be renamed. The road length is approximately 1,750 feet with a 60 foot right of way and extends from Ogden Park Drive northeast~to the. unplatted portion of Lendire Road near West Bay Estates development: The . entire length of Jacksboro Road is improved. However, only. the first 900 feet of the road beginning at its intersection with Ogden Park Drive has been dedicated for public use and platted as a right of way. The balance of the access is a 60 foot easement (see attached map). Presently, Jacksboro Road provides access to to Planters Walk development anal the County's Ogden Park. Other residential. enclaves in addition to a business,park will also use the road for access to Market Street. According to the petitioner, the renaming of Jacksboro Road would provide a "better fit" for existing commercially zoned property nearby. Ogden Business. Court has been approved by F,-911. Stat'f Recommendation The Planning, staff recommends that the road renaming to Ogden Business Court be modified to to read Ogden Business. Drive given the length of the road. Staff also recommends that the renaming correspond to only that portion of road currently platted as right of way until such time that the balance of the road is platted and recorded . r _ .~+ y ! e r~,.~~ ~F', ' xr.~,;,~ ~q .. * .'.fii# e ~ Ys1 ~.'~d`3~ ° ; ~ h'`i~91L;~ ~~E;i~~ 2 S ~ x. ~, ~~~~ ~~ ~' ,...,.- .,.....~ -tar' e"'""'"_ " ~~ 'C\ ~~ I MEETING OF TFIE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT {.This page intentionally left blank} 30 NEW HANOV~R COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/01/01 - Water & Sewer Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Governing Body Presenter:: Lucie F. Harrell. Contact: Lucie F. Harrell SUBJECT.: ~ ` Water and Sewer Agenda -Approval. of Minutes -BRIEF SUMMARY: Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting held on September 17, 2001. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• Approval of minutes.. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: ' ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW . COUNTY MANAGER'S COM - E.NTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval.`"' ~~~~ COMMISSIONERS' ACT10 S 'COMMENTS: • r UI~TY 00l~MISS16N .; APPROVED ~~. ~tEJECTED Q ~tEMOUED PQSTPOiVED ~l D~EARfJ f~' ,• o ~,, ~.b_~~~~, 3;1 {This page intentionally left blank} ., , . ,~ , _~= ].'~ . {.1145 ;. NEW HANC~VER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION ._ Meeting Date: 10./0.1/01 . '~ Water & Sewer Item #: ;3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Water & Sewer District .,Presenter: Wyatt E. Blanchard ' Contact: Wyatt E. Blanchard SUBJECT: _ Request for Water Service Greenview Ranches and Oak Ridge BRIEF SUMMARY: An agenda i'tem' was' presented to' the Commissioners on August 6, 2001 for consideration in _ providing water service to•the Greenview Ranches and Oak Ridge. area. The area is-presently served by a private utility called Coastal Plains Utilities. As indicated by the attached petition, the . `residents are dissatisfied with the water quality and low .pressure. Staff was asked to do a cost. estimate for the construction of a new County water system expansion for the area.' Attached is a copy of the estimate and a map indicating the locations of the proposed water Dines.. The cost of the projecf would be approximately $236,970 to serve 89 customers, at a cost of $2,658 per customer. In addition, staff sent a. letter to the North Carolina Utilities Commission. (NCUC) requesting their support since they control private utilities. A copy of the NC,UC response will be provided at the meeting. There may be Legal issues that need to be addressed by the County Attorney. ~ - RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• Staff recommends. that, the request be considered, only if the residents are ~to .pay the cost of ~ . construction and if all- legal concerns are satisfactorily addressed. FUNDING SOURCE: • No funding involved • ATTACHMENTS: - . Petition Location.Map . Cost Estimate REVIEWED BY: • LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: Approve . BUDGET: N/A HUMAN.RESOURCES:~N/A Concur with County Engineer's recomrne.ndation~s;,,,.-'~ -. ~... COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: • IONS: ' ~1i`'~T1` t"f)MMIa~16~1 APY'R+mVED C REJECTED Q REMOVED POSTPONED 'I~ .~ RfJ .. i . i~„ r ~~. 3 3: 4`Aitr: YVl o~r~ u1 ~ I ( rev;~cv oi,J~r~5o~r ~ ti ~~a.~' +~ . I ~ W ~, z ~Q~ V a~ ~> U > ~ ~ o ~ .~ ~o _ ~ ~" b~ ~ (yL[~ ~ 5 1 SJ Q Z z n) VJ f ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C i ~ ~'~_ ~~~~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~~ ,~ J ~s i ~;: _. ~~ ~~ o ~~. J L ~ ,O~ ~ / /\ \`- O 1 '\ \~ j;. ~V ~~C} ~ / \ ~\ ;~ ~ ~~- O~~~ ~~,„ ~ ~~.~ _ ~ ~~ ~° ~ ~ is,~, --~ ..~ ~ r,~r-,,~.~~q I ;~ ~ ,. ~ :, ;.xa . : r .. ,, .. ,~ J b ~d ~ ;n~, ~,,, , • PETITI0~1 ACAIl~ST C®ASTAL PLAINS UTILITIES WE, THE RESIDEi~1TS OF GREENVIEW RANCHES AND OAK RIDGE WISH TO REPLACE OUR WATER SUPPLIER, COASTAL PLAIN UTILITIES. DUE TO POOR WATER PRESSURE, THE QUALITY OF WATER SERVICE IS UNACCEPTABLE. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN EMERGENCY OPERATCfR TAKE OVER THIS SYSTEM. WE DESIRE TO HAVE NEW HANOVER COUNTY CONSTRUCT A NEW WATER SYSTEM FOR OUR AREA. EVERYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN CHANGING WATER SUPPLIERS, PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION SO THAT WE MAY PRESENT IT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. C7 • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT REGGIE LEWIS AT 686/4380. r ~`h~ ~~ h %~ ~~~ ~~~~~~i ~C ~~ ~~--tea-~ ~ ~~~i~ ?- ~fii~- iy~ ,~~'~ ~rN~ ~ ~~~ ~ j~ b y~ i 36 ~' 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p c rn o ~ Z ociooooo00000o O lf) M 0 0 0 0 c!' O O O O tf) ' ~ ~ ao ~ a0 O ~ O O CO O d O O d' d' to OO)~-000)~COi~ - ' ~ CO d'Md COr N Q N W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ' O O t.C) 00000000000 a K}. Ef? r e-- COO ~ (~'~ lf) N N ~ ~ EA (f} N 63 ~ `c- N ~- ~ I„ fA Ef3 EA ~} Z ~ ~ ~ LL LL LL LL LL W _I _I _1 J _J W W W W W U W W Q ~' ~ 00000 CO C7O~0 NNN r- d'•-t~NO V'rt NN ~ OQ Z ~ c ~ ~ U .~ .J cn L Q1 ~ W +~ ~z ~ J ~, ~ O _ V W ~ W ~ - 00 wo~~ ~Q ~ t=- W - w~ ooomm ~ ~ ~ 0o m w UUUQQX~QwO~z~ _' . ZZZ~~m~~z~"Z~~ U .~ ..U QQQ~-~-~QW WHO}} ~~~C~C~ a W W ~ F-~ ~~~ZZ F-UU~- W W W--WZ--UZQQ ~"" ~ 0 ~ 0~' OOOQQJ~~CL'Z~W W O H ' ~ ~NMd'~COf~a0OOr-N c+7 r r r ~ 37 {This page intentionally left blank} 38 CONSENT AGENDA E - NaEW HANOVER COUNTY.BbARD OF COMMISSIONERS - ' October 1, 2001 - ITEMS OF BUSINESS 1 ~ .ApproyaL of Minutes . 2; Approval to Submit Program Agreement to the Department of Juvenile Justice and • ~ Delinquency Prevention for Funding of the Juvenile Day Reporting Center - ' 3., Approval of"Partnership for Children Revised Grant -Library 4: ~ ~ Approval of EZ-LSTA Digitization Demonstration Grant 2001-2002;-Port City Online: Wilmington, North. Carolina from the Coming of the Railroad Through Hurricane Hazel -Library - 5. ~. Approval of Conservation Project Support Graut -Museum 6. ~ Adoption of Resolution to Add Roads in Courtney Pines Subdivision to the State Road System- ' -. 7. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the-Sale of Real Property" . Approva of Budget Amendments: . • 8.1 ~ #2002-12' Sheriff's Department- 8.2 . #2002-1,3 Sheriff's Department . -; ~ . - . ~ -. 39 {This page intentionally left blank} 40 ~ f I NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS '~ - REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION r .. Meeting Date: 10/01/01 Consent Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Governing Body Presenter: Lucie F. Harrell Contact: Lucie F. Harrell SUBJECT: Consent. Agenda -Approval of Minutes BRIEF SUMMARY: ~ ' - Approve the following sets of minutes: Regular Meeting, September 17, 2001 Time Warner Franchise Renewal Work Session, September 17, 2001 . Special Meeting with City Council, August 29, 2001 RECOMMENDED MOTION AND' REQUESTED ACTIONS• Approval of minutes. - , FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS , : ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COM;IGrE~"NTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. ./ COMMISSIONERS' ACTIO, S COMMENTS• UfVi`Y OOM~I~IDN APPROVED f DEJECTED [ l~EMOVED ~ ~4 ~ ~ P®STP®(VE®~ 4R(~ {This page intentionally left blank} . ;, 42 ~ ,:: ~.~~~~~~,~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST .FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/01/01 Consent Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: County Manager- Presenter: Contact: .Andy Atkinson ~. SUBJECT: Approval to Submit Program Agreement to the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP) for funding of the Juvenile Day Reporting Center : ~ ' BRfEF SUMMARY: . Each year the DJJDP provides funds to assist the county in establishing programs to work with - juveniles in the County. This program is the Juvenile Day Reporting Center that is established to handle court.. ordered youths in order to keep them out ofi a more restrictive, more expensive detention environment. Though a collaborative effort with the schools, the DJJDP, and other non-profits in the County a day program will be established. The DJJDP is providing $1.88,042 of . the total cost. We also are anticipating $139,500 from the NHCS to provide teachers and a - part-time social worker. The County's contribution is the same as it was with the program at the Community Boys' and Girls' Club, a school resource officer. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• Recommend the Board of Commissioners authorize the program agreement.to be submitted to the State DJJDP. . fUNDI`NG SOURCE: State DJJDP $188,042 :NHCS 139,500 County unkind 39,780 Family Svcs 6,000 , ATTACHMENTS: DJJDP Grant 2001-2002. DJJDP Budget 2001-2002 REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A Recommend approval. ``"`y b COMMISSIONERS' ACTIO S/COMMENTS• f f11~'i'Y 0®MNi15S1®iV ,.~.~ ~RPd'ROVED CQ 6~EJEC"ED Q - litEMOVED ~ 4 P9STPOiVED ID {This page intentionally left blank} t ;...; ti k~?J~ J~~ F 1..~~ ~~J~~i u~~•~'3~ e "? ', ~ ~! 1t'D :« ., ~' . ~ ~ ~ i .NEW HAN0I~ER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST fOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/01/01 Consent Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Library Presenter: Contact: David Paynter SUBJECT:. Partnership for Children Revised Grant -Library BRIEF SUMMARY: The Library has received a revised allocation from the Partnership for Children for fiscal year 2002 of $96,222. Funds will be used to staff and materials in order to provide Library services to area child care centers. Half of this allocation is $48,111. The other half will be received in January and will be budgeted at that time. No County funds are required.. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• Recommend acceptance of the grant; request authorization for David Paynter, Library Director to sign the grant; request approval of associated budget amendment #02.0054 for $17,661 which will increase the current budgeted amount of $30,450 to $48,111. FUNDING SOURCE: State $48,111 ATTACHMENTS: ba02-0054 REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: RPP FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A . Recommend approval COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS• APPROVED REJECTED Q REMOVED i ~'OSTP®NED !~ ~. Y ~~~ ~ I o ,c. oi~9 --- ~ 1 ., ,1 ~. '?'~ y l.t~~,~.~~i4 JJ .t , ,.l:y: °S~l ^' ~ ~ J a ; ~ ~ - A - .. i NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/01/01 ~. Consent Item #: 4 Estimated Time:• Page Number: Department: Library Presenter: Contact: David M. Paynter SUBJECT: EZ-LSTA Digitization Demonstration Grant 2001-2002; Port Cify Online: Wilmington, North Carolina from the Coming of the Railroad Through Hurricane Hazel -Library BRIEF SUMMARY: The New Hanover County Public Library is applying fora $48,171 grant to digitize and catalog a ,portion of .its pamphlet collection, and to make it available to the public on the Internet. The project will cover the period in Wilmington history from 1840-.1960. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve. grant application and' acceptance if awarded. .Request approval of budget amendment if 'awarded. FUNDJNG SOURCE: Library Services & Technology Act; no County funds required. ATTACHMENTS: Grant. Application for signature by County Manager - REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTSrAN'D RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS` ACTIONS/COMMENTS: . , ~~P~6~I'Y ~©M~is~IQ .: APRROVED +In/- ~EJECTE I~,EMOVE® t ®Sl'P®n! ~ , ~,~ ~~ {This page intentionally left blank} 'w. ``!.\ ~`?~:.~~f; tea:° ~ ry C1t5~ "!Cf~ t~'i~ (/~~ {~~ V - Q,~ 1~~x1~ r. , "~ ®~ ~f d a f -"+~ ~ 1 •.~.1 rf~', ~~ ~ 1 ..... ~.?t ~.2... i.._ . ` NEW HANOV ER COUNTY BOARD OF COMM(SSf®NERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION - - Meefing Date: l0/01/01 Consent Item # 5 Estim~~ted Time: ' Page Number. :Department: 'Museum ll'resenter: _ Ruth Haas, Director {If required) - .Contact: Ruth Haas SUBJECT: , - - C.oriservation~ Project Support Grant -Museum. BRIEF SUMMARY: - - The Museum wishes to apply for an Institute of Museum and Library Services (lMLS) 50/50 matching Conservation Project Support grant with a training component. If awarded, the grant - - wi(I fund a Detailed Condition Survey of 330 metal objects in the Museum collection. The educational component will fund production of a 30 minute training video on conserving metal artifacts. The video will assist staff, other museum staff and an interested public to properly care for and preserve historical metal tools, weapons and hardware. The Museum staff would be - scheduled to provide i'n-kind supporf for this grant in Summer 2002. - ~ ', A Conservation Assessment Project (CAP) grant conducted in 1992 determined that the museum's metal objects are the most in need of attenfion to assure their preservation. The Detailed .- Condition Survey w.iil be conducted by a metals corservator on site who will execufe a detailed written condition report on each object.-From the completed survey, the conservator will produce for CFM a Long Range Conservation Treatment Plan. -The plan will indicate which objects are in need of professional conservation treatment, 'and will prioritize those objects as to the seriousness - of fheir condition. ~~ ~ , The written' assessment will assist GFM to.better plan how to spend annually budgeted - conservation money and. will help to seek private grants to aid with conservation. The training video will educate the public regarding the importance of conservation, serve as a visual tool in fund raising, and help to maintain quality conservation standards by staff. . ` RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTFONS• _ , - Request permission. to apply for 1MLS 2002 Conservation Project Support grant fora total request _ of $19,879.72 with an identified $20,745:04 in matching staff salaries. If-grant. awarded, request ...acceptance of grant and approval of associated budget amendment. ` , FU'ND1NG SOURCE:.. ' The 50/50 match is identified from staff salaries. ATTACHMENTS: ~ .. :. 091:801 imis metals grant budget REVIEWED BY:' - LEGAL: Approve." FfNANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve . HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A - LIMY ~aM~i~A~ ~h COUNTY MANAGER'S COMM=ENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:/,~ppROVED ~' Recommend approval.~..,_._~'r~~,; ' >~FFf,~ECTED ~~ COMMISSIONERS' ACTIQNS/COMMENTS• . t~EMOVE® ~ ~' . ~®ST~®6~ ~ F D ~ nn~ - . - t-~I~I Budget for IMLS Metals Conservation Grant PART L CONSERVATION GRANT . „- - Conservator's on-site visit: $ 9,032.72 14 days @ $520 ~ $7,280:00 ~ - " Travel (Macon/Wilmington, 776 @ .345) $ 267.72 Lodging (15 nights @ $67 $1,005.00 Meals (16 days @ $30) $ 480.00 Conservator's off-site report writi@ $ 2,180.00- 4 days @ $520 $2,080.00 Photography, photocopying, misc. $ 100.00 - Materials & Supplies: ~ $ 1,700.00 Digital camera- $ 800..00 2 photo lamps & stands ~ ~ $ 810.00 Extra flash card $ -90.00 . CONSERVATION • - - - $12,9 i 2.72 PART II: EDUCATION COMPONENT Conservator's participation: (Estimated @ 8 hours) ~ $ 61-7.00 , 1 day @ $520 $ 520.00 Lodging (1 night @ $67) $ 67.00 Meals (1' day @ $30) $ 30.00 ~ - ' Product.iori company ~ - $6,OQO.Op ', Scripting (5 hours @ $75) $ 375.00 Shooting (25 hours @ $75) $1,875.00 ~ ' Editing (50 hours @ $75) $3,750.00 .~ .' . ,. Materials & S~up~lies: $ 350.00 Backdrop screen Video film TRAINING COMPONENT $ 6,967.00 PART I & II TOTAL: Grant Request 51.9,879.72 " - PIII: IN KIND STAF,I'-SUPPORT • ~ • $20,745:.04 1:~R ~.~.:.~~~~e'i "~.~~9 ~~' ,~ a ~~~ >>. ~ , ~ ~,; L...~.s.4r f,_ ~ ~ t e ,~ . ~ . In-Kind Salaries: Ruth Haas, Museum Dire°ctor Barbara Rowe Curator Project Director $30.63 $22 85' x 4 116 $ 122.52 $2 650 60 , , . x , . Tim Bottoms, Registrar $1.9.23 x 320 $6,153.60 Prepare: 80 hours On-site work: 40 hours Return record: 200 hours Cindy Sanford, Asst. Registrar $14.74 x 320 $4;716.80 Prepare: 80 hours On-site work: 40 hours Return/record: 200 hours Sue Miller, Asst. Registrar $14.89. x 320. $4,764.80 Prepare: 80 hours On-.site work: 40 hours ` Returl~/record: 200 hours John Timmerman; Exltibit Design $16.28 x 32 $ 520.96 Remove front. exhibit: 16 Return to exhibit: 16 Suesan Sullivan, P.R., Film Project Dir. $20.89 x 24 $ 501.36 Curatorial Volunteers $14.74 x 80 $1,179.20 Preparation. Pat Voelker, Administrative Assistant $13.52 x 10 $ 135.20 Dottie Ray, County Grants Administrator - x 20 745.04 $7,758.16 t t ./ t ~ ~. ~.j {This page intentionally left blank} 52 -~ NEW HAN®VER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~, REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting- Dater 10/01/01 Conserit Item #: 6 Estimated Time: Page Number: . ,Department: Governing Body Presenter: Lucie Harrell Contact: Lucie Harrell SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution to add roads in Courtney Pines Subdivision to the State Road System BRIEF SUMMARY: ' NCDOT has recommended that. the road be added to the State Road System. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS Adopt SR-2 Resolution to add roads FUNDING,SOURCE: State ATTACHMENTS: Letter from NCDOT : •. ~ ITEM .DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S~COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval.---~~~ COMMISSIDNERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: - r~ul ~®MMI:;S14N k#PPROVEQ DEJECTED I~ : 5 3 - REMOVED C~ P®S7PONED ~J t~4RG~ d'~ ~~ ~ ,,,,. o,A ~~ ~N ~9~ STATE of NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT GOVERNOR SECRETARY September 10, 2001 Ms. Lucie F. Harrell, Clerk New Hanover County Board of Commissioners 320 Chestnut Street Wilmington, North Carolina 28401-4093 Dear IVIs. Harrell: This office is considering the addition of roads in Courtney Pines Subdivision (Div. File No. 994-N} to the state system. After the Board's consideration, if they concur with our recommendation, please furnish this office with the current county resolution and official road name for our further handling. If I may be of further assistance, please advise. Very truly yours, I. Robert A. Vause, P. E. District Engineer RAV:psj cc: Mr. S. E. Cooke, P. E. ,,._ t iP~r~E6~ G:sl~~~,*~Ad ~I'. ~ ~~ ~-' ,p~ n ~`C ~ ll U ! 2~0~ SEP 1 3 ~ I ~ NE~h' NANOVER CO RD OE COMt".!SSIGNFRS ,,~ ' ~ . ., r v 124 Division Drive, Wilmington, N.C. 28401 (910) 251-2655 Fax: (901) 251-2759 NE1N HAI`~10!/ER COUNTY -HOARD OF COMMISSFONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/01/01 Consent Item #: 7 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: County ~Jlanager Presenter: Contact;, City of Wilmington, Purchasing Office SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing the Sale of Real Property .BRIEF SUMMARY: Sale of surplus property by the City of Wilmington. Location Rankin Street (north end of 16th Street). Offer price is $5,900, the Tax Value is $5,164. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• Recommend the Chairman be authorized to sign the resolution authorizing the sale of real property. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY IVIANA(~FR'S (_[1MMFNTC AN11 Recommend approval. rnnnnn~cc~r,.~rr,o~ ~., ~~Ui ~E1~11~1~9~ ~ APPROVED ~-~~ ;~ DEJECTED E3 ~EMOVEhJ ~®Sl'P~RIED ~i ~; Rm r'? , INTRODUCED BY: Alan O'Neal, County Manager DATE: October 1, 2001 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT RANKIN STREET (NORTH END OF 16TH STREET) LEGISLATIVE INTENTlI'URPOSE: This resolution relates to the sale of surplus property jointly owned by the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County, more particularly identified as follows: Parcel Number Address .Amount of Offer Tax Value 3128-18-30-7960.000 Rankin Street $5,900.00 - $5,164.00 Offerer Property Dimensions Lucille Bartley 88' x 1.68' • 402 N. 16~' Street, Wilmington This property has been offered to all qualifying non-profit organizations. None could use the property in , their program. The offer has been advertised for upset bid in accordance with N.C.G.S. 160A-269 and there have been no qualifying upset bids for the identified parcel(s). The parcel has been declared surplus by the County Commissioners and not needed for public purposes. RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to N.C.G.S. 160A-269, the County Commission does hereby accept the offer(s) to purchase identified herein from the offerers) as indicated. 2. That New Hanover County reserves the right to reject any and all offers. 3. That New Hanover County will retain any deposit posted by the offerers) when: a. The offer is withdrawn after posting the deposit. b. The offerers) fail to pay the balance of an approved offer, due in cash, within ten (10) days of receipt of a notice by certified mail of availability of the deed of conveyance. 4. That any amount shown due on any attached list for liens be waived in total. 5. That the Chairnan of the County Commission be and is hereby authorized to execute a deed without warranties to the offerers) as designated herein. Adopted at a regular: ~ ~~ ~ ~%~'~. L meeting on yti ~ ~;~'~~~u°? , 20 - - . ~-~~~ .~ '~~~~ ATTEST: ~- -• }~~ 1 .. ~, ~~ ~f Clerk to •ihe Board New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Chairman . ~~ - t.. ~ 1 i ~~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ;. ~ 1 ~ ~.(~ 1 .« 1. ~.. ~ m Im ~~~ . ~i. ' ~„1~ i 1 i 1 ~~ ~ i 3 ~ v. 1 w ~ ~ 1 ~ .~ r~„ ~ ~ 3 y m 1. J f i'1_ . L~. ~ r ~ t/ 1 d 1~ ~ ~ I l.L~. ~ ~ 1 ; I h ~ {tf + ~ ~ ~ f ~ CSI ~~ fi ~N ~'"1 + Q ~LL: ~ s ~. , 1 N~~ 1 I~ ~ 1 '~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ Y I - 1 `~ ~ ~1 ~ ST ~ ~ N 16T1~ ~ op D ~ ~ , Fi ,1 >. 1 ~ 1 wQ'°j~ 1 Q ,~1 1 ~ 1 ill m f ~ ~ t~~1I N 10 Ado 1D p ~ . 1 , d, ' VR " d'~,~qq 7 , I - 1 ~ ,.. 1 ~ K1l 1°y ~ rl, ta. 1 $ 3 1 1 ( W. 1 Y ,~ !r ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1~ 1 I L ~ IIS 1 1 1' 1~ i' 1 1 1~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 N ~~1 j~ M 1 1 . ~ j ••~~aa ~ 1 1 1 1~ 1- 1t3 I N 1 N M; M 1 1 tD ;. ~ ~, I ~`i} 1 1 1 p ~ 1 1 1 1 l ^ it ~ ~ r n` F ~ ~ 1 ~ I r1 . '~ r ~ 1 ~~ M +{ G 1' ~ ~ M 1 ~ 4 ~ { 1 Y~y ~~p 1 ~ 1 6d ~ - $ 1 ~~ 1 M e ,tgi7 1 ~ o V.y O !~ I ,y ~ 4 1 -...~ 1 ~ _ ~fyw _ Y+ 7 1 1~y 1 n 1 1 W ~ ~ 1 1~'° us t 1 t6 1 1 ~q J~ r~11 ~ i mW 1 1 m .1 ~ ~. t , ~ 1 7i IS ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ L1A ( t~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 1 ~ ~ '14TH ST ~ ~, N M fo.....r 8 uK 3: g ^N n N =NE"W 'HANOVER COUNTYpBOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST fOR BOARD,ACTION Meeting Date:. 1:0/01/01 Budget Amendment Consent Item #: 8.1 Estimated Time: Page Number: DEPARTMENT: Sheriff . BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 2002-12 ADJUSTMENT, DEBIT ~ .CREDIT - . _ Controlled Substance Tax. funds $5,654. '~' Extended.ProjQCt~Expense $5,654 EXPLANATION: To budget additional revenue received 9-5-01. Controlled Substance Tax funds "~ are budgeted as received and must be used~r' law enforcement activities. as the Sheriff deems ..necessary.. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. " APPROVAL: STATUS:" To be approved by Board Of. Commissioners . COMMISSIONERS'~ACTION$/COMMENTS:, " ^ ' . ~~~~f'Y ~4MMi~~iQ ~, ' ; ~PPROVIa~ ~~~ ... " ' DEJECTED„ l~ s DEM~V~D . ~ ~ i'~I~STl~aIVED . -59 " RED ~, ~ . ' . ,. ~~ X1.0 0 .~ rc ~,_~._~. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD, OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST.FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting. Date: 10/01/01 Budget Amendment Consent Item #: 8.2 Estimated Time: Page Number:.. ; DEPARTMENT: Sheriff BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 2002-13 ~ ` ADJUSTMENT DEB1T~ CREDIT Federal Forfeited Property funds $6,471 Extended Project Expense ~ $6,471 EXPLANATION.: To budget additional. revenue received 9-12-01. federal Forfeited Property funds are budgeted.as .received and must , ~ ..used fon law enforcement activities as the Sheriff deems necessary. ~~ ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: ~"pROVEp ~,;~ ~ ; ~~JECTEp ~ . ~ ,: ~EMOVEp ,~ ~~ ~`l,~ ,;;~ ~'OSTPOIVED ~ , ,. rev ~ 1 ~:~~ ~, . A NEW HANOVER COUN'T'Y IN'I"ER-OFFICE .<-= MEMO _ _ - , October 1, 2001 To: Allen O'Neal, County Manager .Board of County Commissioners From: Bruce T. Shell, Finance Director Re: Bond Rating., I am pleased to announce that the County has received three positive responses as shown below from three bond rating agencies. The County will seek final approval tonight of the County Commissioners for the upcoming $60.9 million Certificates of Participation. The debt will provide for the new Jail Complex, renovation of the Law Enforcement Center, Parking Deck Construction, and renovation of the downtown Library. The ratings were as follows: General Obligation COPS Issue Standard and Poors AA- A+ Moody's Rating Service Aa2 Aa3 Fitch IBCA AA- (implied) A+ These ratin~;maintain our strong financial position. The Fitch General Obligation (G.O.) rating is "implied" since the focus was on the COPS issue. The County did not ask them to address the General Obligation rating specifically. As you know, a COPS issue generally carries a rating one grade below the G.O. The ratings reflect a strong. and stable financial position. There is recognition of strong prudent fiscal management with notation of the County's goal of two months undesignated fund balance (16.67%). I will forward, these reports upon receipt. ~~ ~..~ ~. '.6„ 3