The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 1999 04-06AGENDA zy. ~;. Apri16, 1999 ~~t~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Courtroom 317, Judicial Building 316 Princess Street Wilmington, NC WILLIAM A. CASTER CHAIRMAN • ROBERT G. GREERVKE-CHAIRMAN BUZZ BIRZENIEKS, COMMISSIONER • TED DAVIS, JR., COMMISSIONER • CHARLES R. HOWELL, COMMISSIONER ALLEN O'NEAL, COUNTY MANAGER • WANDA COPLEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY • LUCIE F. HARRELL, CLERK TO THE BOARD 6:30 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER (Chairman William A. Caster) INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ~N-ON-AGENDA ITEMS (Limit three minutes) APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS TIMES 6:45 p.m. 1. Presentation by Dr. Bill Atkinson, President of New Hanover Regional Medical Center to Update the Board on Activities 6:55 p.m. 2. Presentation and Consideration of Request for Funds by Dr. Joseph Pawlik of Residents of Old Wilmington Concerning Initiative to Plant Canopy Trees 7:00 p.m. 3. Presentation by Mrs. Connie Parker, Chairman of the NC Aquarium Society Concerning the NC Aquarium Expansion 7:10 p.m. 4. Presentation by Jacqueline Cavadi Concerning Easter Seals Beach Ability 7:15 p.m. 5. Consideration of Proclamation Designating April, 1999 Child Abuse Prevention Month in North Carolina 7:20 p.m. 6. Consideration of Appeal of Real and Business Personal Property Value 7:30 p.m. 7. Consideration of Approval of Falcon Cable Media's FCC 1240 Rate Filing for the True Up Period of July 1997-June 1998 and Projected Period of October 1998-September 1999 for New Hanover County 7:35 p.m. 8. Consideration of Support for NACo 2000 Annual Conference in Mecklenburg County, NC Public Hearin;?s: ~ •.~ ' 7:40 p.m. 9.1 Rezonin>? -Request by Charles Bruton to rezone 1.86 acres at 6632 Gordon Road to I-1-Light Industrial from R-15 Residential (Z-650, 3/99) ,' PAGE NO. 1 3 5 7 11 13 15 31 33 ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS TIMES 7:50 p.m. 9.2 Rezoning -Request by Ed Ennis to rezone 1.9 acres on the west side of Castle Hayne Road south of Wrightsboro Plaza Shopping Center to B-2 Business from R-20 Residential. (Z-651, 3/99) 8:00 p.m. 9.3 Rezoning -Request by Cheryl Powell to rezone 4.5 acres at 5664, 5670 And 5674 Carolina Beach Road to O-I Office and Institution from R-15 Residential. (Z-652, 3/99) 8:10 p.m. 9.4 Rezoning -Request by Richard Hobbs to rezone .77 of an acre at 5953 Carolina Beach Road to B-2 Business from R-15 Residential. (Z-653, 3/99) PAGE NO. (~, ~"~ 37 41 47 8:20 p.m. 9.5 Zoning Text Amendment -Request by Staff to modify Water Supply 51 Watershed overlay District requirements to bring them into compliance With Coastal Storm Water Rules relative to the Toomer's Creek Watershed, Class WS-IV. (A-294, 3/99) 8:30 p.m. 9.6 Zoning Text Amendment -Request by John Hinrichs to add "Pet Grooming" 55 to the table of permitted uses and to permit them in all districts where Kennels are allowed and to also allow them by right in the I-1 Light Industrial District. (A-295, 3/99) 8:40 p.m. 9.7 Zoning Text Amendment -Request by Staff to~ revise the Conservation Overlay District requirements to specify that abandoned cemeteries be Investigated and delineated by a professional historian, archeologist or Related professional. (A-297, 3/99) 8:50 p.m. 10. Meeting of the Water and Sewer District ADDITIONAL ITEMS County Commissioners County Attorney County Manager 9:00 p.m. ADJOURN 57 59 r~ • .fe MEETING OF THE WATER;AND SEWER DISTRICT COURTROOM 317 316 PRINCESS STREET WILMINGTON, NC Apri18,1999 9:00 A.M. ITEMS OF BUSINESS PAGE NO. 1. NON-AGENDA ITEMS (limit three minutes) 59 2. Approval of Minutes 61 3. Approval of Reimbursement contract #99-0215 Raiford G. Trask, Jr. 63 4. Approval of Budget Amendment #99-37 Water/Sewer District General 69 Sewer Capital Projects ADJOURN i I ~. CONSENT AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~" APRIL 8, 1999 ITEMS OF BUSINESS PAGE NO. 1. Approval of Minutes 73 2. Approval of allocation of $5,000 to the Chamber of Commerce for legislative 75 event in Raleigh 3. .Approval of possession and control of abandon Rice Road cemetery 79 4. .Approval of contract with Sharpe Architecture for Administrative Offices 81 °l NEW HANOVER C.O:UNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION ~`w ~ Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: County Manager Presenter: Bill Atkinson Contact: Andy Atkinson SUBJECT: Presentation by Dr. Bill Atkinson, President, to Update the Board on the New Hanover Regional Medical Center -Update on Activities BRIEF SUMMARY: The Regional Medical Center would like to update the Board of Commissioners on current activities. The major item to discuss is the recent agreement signed with Pender Hospital. Bill Atkinson, President of the Medical Center will appear before the Board.. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Hear presentation. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Hear presentation. Back up material to follow. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENT COUNTY COMM1SSf®N~3 APPROVED D REJECTED ^ REMOVED O POSTPONED ^ / HEARD ~ / ^F . DATE ....~ /- ~P--/~ ~!_ _ ~Lyv~, J {This page intentionally left blank} !ia t R. ~~1°'."' ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD AC i ION . Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: County Manager Presenter: Contact: Allen Q'Neal SUBJECT: Presentation and Consideration of Request for Funds by Dr. Joseph Pawlik for Residents of Old Wilmington Concerning Initiative to Plant Canopy Trees BRIEF SUMMARY: Residents of Old Wilmington plan to plant canopy trees in the planting strips of the Residents Of Wilmington membership area (8th Street to the River, Red Cross to Queen) and are requesting an unspecified amount of financial support from the Board. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Board should consider supporting the project, but funding is not recommended. Funding should come from the City of Wilmington. The County supports an urban forester at the Cooperative Extension Servicethat can provide in-kind services. {52S,o~ Ever ~y~•) . FUNDING SOURCE: S ATTACHMENTS: ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Consider supporting the project, but funding is not recommended. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY COMMISSIONFl~i APPROVED REJECTED ^ REMOVED ^ POSTPONED ^ . HEARD C,/ DATE .,.~`t1r~p-./~ -..,.t~y./ 1iu.d~et- ~~rnce~.~~~ea~ ~iV. O7J rl/1 .. Residents of Old Wilmington, Inc. ,~: Dr. Joseph Pawlik, President ' 302 South Second Street Wilmington, NC 28401 23 March, 1999 Allen O'Neal, County Manager New ~Ianover County, North Carolina FAX: 341-4027 Dear Mr. O'Neal, _ r O~O t ~ - ~< ~''~' ~~~<< 3 :<~ z With this letter, I would like to request pernussion of you and the County Commissioners to appear before the County Commissioners at their 6:30 PM meeting of 6 April 1999. My intent is to explain to them a new initiative bf the Residents of Old Wilmington to plant canopy trees in the planting strips of the ROW mertibership area (8°t St. to the River, Red Cross to Queen) and to request their financial support, Significant numbers of frees have been lost from the I~istoric Districts in the hurricanes of the past few years, as'welI as storms of the past few decades. Many of the rennaining trees are old and diseased. Wilnungton has been histoi7cally known as a city of canopy trees, and has lost much of ghat character. We propose to plant canopy trees of 4-6" caliper size in the planting strips. ~nda to support this will be provided by equal matches Sought from: (1) Donor individuals or organizations, (2) ROW, (3) City of Wilmington, and (4) New ~Ianover County, Standardized cost per Donor Will be between $SO and $100 (yet to be determined). I have already contacted Bill Caster about this proposal, and he was inirially positive about it, We intend to star the program in the fall, and will likely purchase between 100 acid 200 trees in the rrst year. Please let me know if you require any further information Sincerely, Pawlik, President 4 l ~ t4~~iV+~~u vZ:r~ 4 ~« :.~.nw~ `) • NEW HANOVER~COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: County Manager Presenter: Mrs. Connie Parker, Chair, NC Aquarium Society Contact: Allen O'Neal SUBJECT: Consideration of request by the NC Aquarium Society for $75,000 for the NC Aquarium Expansion BRIEF SUMMARY: Mrs. Connie Parker, Chairman of the NC Aquarium Society is requesting that the County contribute $75,000 for the NC Aquarium Expansion. Further backup was not available at the time of agenda preparation: RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• The Board should consider granting all or part of the requested funding. It should be noted that the Aquarium is a State agency but that the Aquarium serves as a valuable tourism and educational facility for the County. - FUNDING SOURCE: Funding could be considered as part of the 1999/00 budget process. ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: NIA FINANCE: BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A Consider funding req CO RS' ACTtbN~,lZ'6~MMFNTR• • COUNTY COMMISStONt;RS APPROVED REJECTED ^ REMOVED ^ 'a POSTPONED ^ HEARD DATE ...~~_~- lg+„ F~ 2oi~~ ~~" ~a~6 5 NORTH CAROLINA AQUARIUMS NORTH CAROLINA A9UARIUM AT FORT FISHER 2201 Fort Flsher Blvd., S., Box 3, Kure Beach, NC 28449 • (910) d58-8257 -FAX: (930) 458-6832 TO: kR01~i: SUBJECT: J~AT.I; ; Bill Caster, Allen O'.Neal a.nd Carol Barclay Jim Lanier, N.C. Aquarium at Fort Fisher Aquarium Request for Funding (Agenda Items for 6 APR 99 Commissioners' Meeting) 2G MAR 99 Our request for a place on your agenda is Cur a brief prescnt.ation by Connie Parker, the N,C, Aquarium Society board member who is leading the effort to raise one million dollars in our region for Aquarium expansion. As you know, tf~e Legislature has appropriated $IS million for tliis $l6 million project. The Aquarium Society has conunitted to raising one million additional dollars for each Aquarium's expansion to complete the estimated amount needed. Our plans art approved for an increase from 30,000 sq. ll, to 84,000 sq. ft. with the addition of a 200,000-gallon ta~tk for large sharks and other sea life. Our first phase will be a 20,000 sq. Jt. exhibit on life in the freshwaters and wetlands of the Cape Fear River. Bids are out now and are due in by 15 APR 99. We thank you for allowing us to present this important request to you. pc: 1\-Is. C. Parker ~` l:J ~}~~~L6~1f4/J DEPARTMENT~OF ENViRONNiENT~AND W~TU:vLL uESOURCES JAMES e. r+v~u. JR.. rQvFaNC~R wArnE N,cU'cV17T. ;ECRETARY ~, (~ ~+MlJ~ 6 ' ' i " , ; I '~ ~^.~-,.JV AL:IIEDRT M1r niY ASIfA1GK ZtlO Aef M1 cn4JUN ASSOC1A7i0N ', .. r ~: ~-~~ :~ .. . NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: County Manager Presenter: Ms. Jacqueline Cavandi Contact: Allen O'Neal SUBJECT: Presentation by Ms. Jacqueline Cavandi concerning Easter Seals Beach Ability Program BRIEF SUMMARY: Ms. Jacqueline Cavadi, a project member with the Easter Seals Beach Ability program wishes to make a presentation to the Board concerning their project to make special equipment available for disabled people wanting to enjoy beach recreational activities. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• The Board should hear the presentation. FUNDING SOURCE: . ATTACHMENTS: ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S MENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Hear presentation. COMMISSIONERS' r COUMIY COMMISSIONS APPROVED REJECTED ^ REMOVED p POSTPONED p HEARD ~ ; DATE ~/(p 9~;,;~~~~ 7 ~-+. .-.+. ~~-~~ ic.+. 1D 71 U4UL1 LOL J Mr. Bill Caster New Hanover County Board of Commissioners 320 Chestnut Strcct, Roomy 305 Wilmington, NC 2$441 Dear Mr. Castor: CASTER PAGE 01 Fslelgh, NC Z760~-3357 (919)783-8898 (800)882-7119 (818)7ffi-6486 Pfu info~eanc.orp Z am writing to request the opportunity to address the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday, April 6, 1999. 'The purpose of this brief presentation is to provide the Board of Commissioners with an overview of our ,8aster Seats Beack Ability project, presently underway in New Hanover County. The goal of Easter Seals Beach Ability is to help people with disabilities to enjoy the same coastal recreation activities as their families, friends, and peecs. Easter Seals Beach Ability plans to generate a greater availability of recreation adaptive equipment far North Carolina coastal residents and visitors who have disabilities. For your benefit, l have included aproject overview with this letter. l look forward to hearing from you concerning this request. You may contact meat 500-662-7119 ext. i 111 or email me at jcavadi@esc;c.org. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Q ~ '-~~ ~a-C/Qo~' cqucline Cavadi Enclosure 8 ~..~'G.,.~ .,..©Q ~1J1.4.~v~ ~~~~ ~~~ :~.nns!%. }~ . J~v+_~rd i~v~~~ L~ n. ~ ~~ ,. `'~ ~~ `~;. lM ~ - March 16, 1999 'i'' /`..... ~:.... ~..7.. r:nnc rlv.r. r,:.... 11....E PAGE 02 Fester Seals North Carolina c.w~a myron unve Rsl9lgh, NC 27907-3357 (919}783-BB98 (800}882.7119 (913}782-5486 Fax info®eenC.org .. _ .. . .+ v: n :~~`HGC.^.. ...n.~;t..~..- . •:T!::pl1;p'?t°.Kl~vj,+yt,r~'~+t1l~t n EASTER SEALS BEAC~Y'ABYLITY Easter Seals Beacle Ability enables people with disabilities to enjoy the same coastal recreation activities as their families, friends, and peers. Easter Seals North Carolina is working with coastal area professionals azxd residents to: l . Place adaptivc recreation equipment at convenient locations along the beach for people with special needs to borrow, (c.g. beach wheelchairs, adaptive fishing tackle, etc.}. 2. Crcate community connections and a friendly i~'ormatiozt systezni so people can easily learn about what recreation equiprncnt is available. • n~~~bil~y~ Lb: 18 9104521282 3. Train people with and.without disabilities how tb use and maintain the recreation equipment. PARTNERSHIPS FOIL SXJCCESS Easter Seals Beach Ability is a collaborative effort between Easter Seals North Carolina and coastal area recreation professionals, uzliversities, disability service providers, consumers with disabilities, touzisrn experts, and other community service providers. .. .... ... ri•-rr-.•. .......t ~ ~: COASTAL CO~vITI~S .. . In the Cape Fear coastal area, Easley Seals Beach Ability wil! benefit the communities of.. . • Brunswick County • New Hanover County • Southern Pezxder County CASTER ~ 9 u~r c.or 1»7 Ln: lti y1d45Z1282 CASTER PAGE 03 r Ct)NTACT US ~ •~ Far mere infotmation about Easter Seals Beach Ability, please contact ~y of the following project member's: 'Jacqueline Cavadi Easter Seals North Carolina (800) 662-7119 jcavadi@esnc.org {919)783-8898 1C.irn Daniels Coastal Rehabilitation Hospital (910)815-5658 Esilly Ergo Consumer Advocate (91U) 7y1-73t)4 siy8>b5(u/aol.eom Dan Johnsozt [TNC-Wilmington (910) 962-3659 jahnsonde@uncwil.edu Kathy Kittleson City of Wilmington, Special Olympics (910) 341-7855 Chip Murphy Carolima Beach Parks & Recreation {910) 458-7416 David Murray New Hanover Public Schools (910) 254-4468 Vicki Parker. LTNC-Wilmington (910) 962-3733 parkerv@uncwil.edu Kellie Strickland Wrightsville Beach Parks & Recreation (910) 256-7925 Carl Thompson Independezzt Living Rehabilitation (910) 251-5810 Easter Seals Beacb Abllity is funded by a grant from the Kate B. Reynolds Ability Program II. faster ,Seals North Carolina changes the lives of children and adults with disabilities by . maximizing their indtvldual potential for living, learning and working in their co~rrunities. 10 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 5 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: DSS Presenter: Contact: Karen Vincent SUBJECT: Child Abuse Prevention Month BRIEF SUMMARY: April 1999 has been proclaimed Child Abuse Prevention Month in North Carolina. The Board of Social Services requests that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim Child Abuse Prevention Month in New Hanover County. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• That the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners proclaim April 1999 as Child Abuse Prevention Month in New Hanover County and adopt resolution. FUNDING SOURCE: N/A ATTACHMENTS: CAPM0399.w REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve Adopt MM • BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: NIA AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COUNTY COMMISSION~'i APPROVED [~ ' REJECTED D REMOVED ^ POSTPONED HEARD (~~~~~ DATE ~~~~~~'1-~f~-~! 1 CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH APRIL 1999 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Child abuse continues at near record levels across our Nation and our State, and WHEREAS, April 1999 has been proclaimed Child Abuse Prevention Month in North Carolina, and WHEREAS, beyond the family unit, the effects of Child Abuse are most immediately felt in neighborhoods and communities, and • WHEREAS, Child Abuse, like other crimes and social plagues, destroys the tranquili ~f__ families, neighborho` ods_an_ d~2~ro~•n~±;.~~d robs~hilrlren of their childl-foods and neighbor-hoods of_their vitality, and ---•_ WHEREAS, the family unit is the building block of the community, and healthy families make healthy communities, and WHEREAS, the most effective solutions are local solutions and there are within our community, professionals of all disciplines and volunteers from all walks of life dedicated to the amelioration of effects of child abuse, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners proclaim the month of Apri11999 CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of County Commissioners pledge themselves and ask our citizens, public and private, professional and volunteer, to redouble their efforts to obliterate the social plague of child abuse from our families, our neighborhoods and our community. Adopted this the day of , 1999. ATTEST: Clerk to the Boazd ~!! ~`.I~t%~vJ`i Cal ~~~1~ v~ C~us'J U GV'Y 12. _ .~• ~ ~~~~ William A. Caster, Chairman Board of County Commissioners .J NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 6 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: TAX Presenter: Robert Glasgow/Rosemont and Associates, Inc. Contact: Robert Glasgow SUBJECT: Appeal of real and business personal property values for 1996, 1997 and 1998 for Hills Department Store BRIEF SUMMARY: For 1996, 97, and 98, Hills Department Stores had listed improvements to their leased property in Long Leaf Mall as furniture, fixtures, and leasehold improvements, submitting copies of their depreciation schedules supporting the classifications and amounts. In 1998, Hills hired ROSEMONT & ASSOCIATES to review their tangible personal property throughout the country. Rosemont & Associates submitted amended listings classified as "Real Estate/Non Taxable" of $1,777,208 for 1996, $1,850,779 for 1997 and two adjustments of $949,114 and $954,966 for a total adjustment for 1998 of $1,904,080. It is their position that improvements made to the building in the form of construction costs and materials have been charged as real property improvements. Depreciation . schedules were submitted by Hills corporate headquarters in 1996, 97 and 98 supporting the listings, • which were capitalized for depreciation purposes. At the completion of the renovation work in 1995, the Appraisal Office conducted a review of the property to identify improvements to the building. improvements were charged to the owner (Longleaf Associates). The improvements resulted in an increased appraisal value for 1996, 97 and 98 of $178,809. During the review of the business personal property listings precipitated by the Rosemont & Assoc. appeal, a clerical error was discovered. In 1996 Hills reported $873,616 for leasehold improvements which the Tax Department had not picked up and assessed for the 1996, 97 and 98 tax years. Correcting the clerical error increased the taxes owed for these years. The Tax Department did subtract the leasehold improvements of $178,809 made by Hills Department Store. There is a net increase in the assessed business personal property values for each of the three years as follows: 1996 - $625,326; 1997 - $569,742; and $1998 - $507,209. ,RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• ~. Recommend the Board approve the reduction of assessed value of $178,809 for the leasehold improvements for 1996, 97 and 98. There is no basis for a category identified as "Real Estate/Non Taxable" and should not be approved. It was suggested that if Hills Department Store Corporation would' amend their federal and state tax returns for 1996, 97, and 98, based on what they identify as "Real Estate/Non Taxable", the Tax Department would review what was allowed by the federal and state revenue departments, and make adjustments accordingly. Hills Department Store should be held responsible for the following assessed tax values: 1996 - $625,326; 1997 - $569,742; 1998 - $1,456,323, plus interest. The Legal Department concurs with this recommendation. cOUMY COIMM(~,gIQN£RS APPROVED ^~i°''' FUNDING SOURCE: REJECTED ^ '3 REMOVED p ~~'~' , ATTACHMENTS: POSTPO fD ^ ~ -~ HEARD p ~~ REVIEWED BY: J 3 LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: N/A .HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Concur with Tax Assessor. The documentation is voluminous and not included in the agenda packet. This material is available in the County Manager's office foryour review. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: c ,, 1~, ~ `1c7~JV 4~'r~`~~4'k~i ~ Q~r:;'?t~'S~ 14 ~ ~~ . -; NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 7 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Legal Presenter: Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney Contact: Becky Howell, Cable Administrator SUBJECT: Consideration of Approval of Falcon Cable Media's FCC 1240 Rate Filing for the True Up Period of July 1997 -June 1998 and Projected Period of October 1998 - September 1999 for New Hanover County. BRIEF SUMMARY: Bob Sepe of Action Audits has reviewed Falcon Cable's FCC 1240 Annual Updating filings and has found that the information provided is free of material misstatements. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• Accept and approve the findings in Mr. Sepe's report filed on behalf of New Hanover County. FUNDING SOURCE: • ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMM TS AND RECOMMENDAI Concur with County Attorne . SIO • NTS: HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY COMMISSION APPROVED ftL- REJECTED ^ REMOVED O POSTPONED O ~1 5 HEARD ^ ®ATE - _ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~:~ ~i Qd `Q f nc~~ ea~.2.~ ~4ction 14udits REVIEW OF FALCON CABLE MEDIA' S FCC 1240 Rate Filing for NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC-0152 March 15, 1999 REPORT TO: Becky Howell, Cable Administrator, New Hanover County FROM: Robert Sepe, Action Audits ~' RE: Review of Falcon Cable's 1240 Annual Updating Maximum Permitted Rates filing for True Up Period of July 1997 through June 1998; and Projected Period of October 1998 through September 1999. The consultants reviewed the FCC 1240 filing and supporting documentation submitted by Falcon Cable Media (Falcon). The values stated in the filing are the responsibility of Falcon's management. The FCC 1240 was reviewed to determine whether Falcon's calculations are in compliance with FCC rules, the 13th Order on Reconsideration, and the Cable Act of 1992, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Original computations were performed by the consultants and compared with information provided by Falcon. The consultants believe that the data submitted by Falcon is free of material misstatements, and the accompanying report provides a reasonable basis for the recommendations. lf((--~~~-~- ~~~f~, ~ ~--- ~ C1~)Us ~v~~ .~`„~ ~ ~ Franchise Fee U-Tax Auditing & Telecommunication Administration /~ 10`1 Pocono`Lane, Can, North Carolina 27513-5316 Voice # 919.467.5392 Fax # 919.460.6868 ~ J 6 ~ ~ .,~ ~,u~, ~:~-. 1. Executive Summary -" °{~•~ • a. Falcon Cable Media (Falcon) has .selected a Basic Service Tier (BST) rate of $26.71 per month, effective April ], 1999. This is the same rate Falcon charged subscribers during the previous rate filing period. However, Falcon intends to increase this monthly rate to $27.29 on June 1, 1999.' b. Falcon seeks to increase its NIPR (Maximum Permitted Rate) to $28.86, which is $2.15 above the current MPR of $26.71. The MPR is the maximum allowable rate Falcon can charge pursuant to FCC rules. Falcon may adjust its selected rate at any time so long as the rate is below the MPR and subscribers are given proper notification. c. The MPR will remain as the "ceiling" rate until Falcon justifies a higher MPR in a subsequent rate filing. The MPR is important because it is used to calculate future MPR rates. Falcon attributes the $2.15 increase in the MPR primarily to projected increases in programming costs. . d. However, the consultants calculated an MPR of $28.69 ($.171ess than the Falcon MPR of $28.86). e. It is recommended that the County approve the lower MPR of $28.69 for the BST. Falcon's selected rate of $26.71 (and its anticipated $27.29 June rate) is in compliance with FCC rate regulation rules because it is less than the MRP of $28.69. i f. Falcon will be required to amend its FCC 1240 documents to reflect the $28.69 MPR. This amendment will not affect the selected rate Falcon intends to charge subscribers. g. Falcon indicates that it will submit its next FCC 1240 rate filing to the County in March 2000 to cover the projected period of June 2000 through May 2001.2 `Source: Telephone conversation with Mike Jester, Office of Corporate Controller, Falcon Cable. March 11, 1999. `Ibid • Franchise Fee U-Tax Auditing & Telecommunication Administration 17 101 Pocono Lane, Cary, North Carolina 27513-5316 Voice # 919.467.5392 Fax # 919.=F60.6868 2. Falcon 1240 Rate Calculations a. Overview Cable operators may update on an annual basis their cable rates to account for changes in external costs (e.g., programming costs, franchise mandated costs, etc), inflation and the number of regulated channels. Falcon has selected the FCC 1240 annual rate updating methodology prescribed by the FCC. b. Time Periods On December 14, 1998, Falcon submitted to the County an FCC 1240 filing, which contains financial data supporting a rate change to take effect on April 1, 1999. Falcon's FCC 1240 filing contains financial data from two time periods. The first period is the "projected period," where the cable operator is allowed to recover . estimated expenses during an upcoming 12-month period, even though the operator has yet to incur those costs. Falcon's projected period runs from October 1, 1998, to September 30, 1999. ii. Second, the cable operator is required to adjust the estimates it made during the prior year's projected period by "truing-up" those data to reflect actual costs incurred. Falcon's true-up period runs from July 1, 1997, through to June 30, 1998. iii. Ordinarily; cable operators file their FCC 1240s with the local franchise authority (LFA) at least 90 days before the beginning of the projected. period. But Falcon filed its:.FCC 1240 with the County on December 14; 1998, over two months after the beginning of its projected period, which started on October 1, 1998. Thus, Falcon should have filed its FCC 1240 with the County no later than June 30, 1998 - 90 days before the start of the period, instead of two months late.3 iv. This late filing does not render the FCC 1240 defective because the overriding FCC requirement is that Falcon must file its proposed rate with the County at least 90 days before it intends to implement the rate.4 Falcon has complied with this requirement because its rates are not scheduled to be implemented until April 1, 1999, which is more than 90 after Falcon submitted its rate filing with the County. In addition, the new rate will initially be the same as the current rate, $26.71, but increase to $27.29 on June 1, 1999. . 3Falcon's FCC 1240 was completed and signed on June 30; 1998, by Abel Crespo. 447 C.F.R. ~ 76.933 (g). f J ;~ Franchise Fee U-Tax Auditing & Telecommunication Administration 1 Q 101 Pocono Lane, Cary, North Carolina 27513-5316 Voice # 919.67.5392 Fax # 919.460.6868 3 c. Inflation Overview - _ .-, ~. Using the FCC 1240, cable operators may adjust the iron-exterfral cost portion of their rates for inflation based on quarterly figures released by the FCC. These figures are usually published by the FCC three to four months after the closing of the quarter. The inflation figures are used to calculate the average inflation factor for the true-up period. The FCC's inflation figures are based on changes in the Gross National Product Price Index (GNP-PI) as published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis {BEA) of the United States Department of Commerce. ii. Table A illustrates the inflation figures cable operators should use when completing their rate filings, along with the dates when the FCC released the information to the public. Table A • Fiscal Quarter Periods FCC Inflation Adjustment Falcon Inflation Figures FCC Release Date of Inflation Figures 3d quarter 1997 July 1 -Sept. 30, 1997 1.43 1.43 Jan. 7, 1998 4`~ quarter 1997 Oct. 1 -Dec. 31, 1997 1.43 1.43 April 4, 1998 15' quarter 1998 Jan. I -March 31, 1998 1.14 1.43 June 30, 1998 2d quarter 1998 April 1 - June.30; 1998 .82 1.43 Sept. 30, 1998 d. Falcon's Inflation Adjustment Falcon seeks to increase its MI'R for the BST by $2.15, from $26.71 to $28.86. The consultants recalculated Falcon's FCC 1240 and derived an MPR of $28.69, $.17 below the MPR calculated by Falcon. . ii. After reviewing Falcon's FCC 1240 documentation, the consultants determined that Falcon used an inflation factor of 1.0143 in both Line C3 (Inflation Factor For True- up Period 1), and Line CS (Current FCC Inflation Figure). The consultants assert that Falcon should have used 1.0121 for Line C3, and 1.0082 for Line C5. Franchise Fee U-Tax Auditing & Telecommunication Administration 101 Pocono Lane, Cary, North Carolina 27i 13-5316 Voice # 919.467.5392 Fax # 919.460.6868 1 g 4 iii. Line C3 -Inflation Factor For True-up Period (1) The Line C3 calculation requires Falcon to calculate the average inflation factor for the true-up period by using quarterly inflation figures published by the FCC.S When completing the FCC 1240, cable operators must use the most recent inflation factor released by the FCC. Though 1.43% may have been the most recent inflation factor available to Falcon when it completed the FCC 1240 form on June 30, 1998, Falcon did not deliver the FCC 1240 to the County until six months later, after two more FCC inflation factors were published (See Chart A). (2) Falcon assigned the 1.43% to each month of its true-up period to produce an average inflation factor of 1.43%. The consultants assert that Falcon should amend this calculation and use the 1.43% for only the first six months of its true- up period; 1.14% for next three-month period; and .82% for the remaining three month period. Computed together using FCC 1240, Worksheet 1, the resultant calculation is 1.0121 in Line C3. (3) Since Falcon held onto the filing for six months, it had ample opportunity to update the inflation factors so they would match the FCC's inflation factors. iv. Line CS -Inflation Factor for Projected Period (1) Line CS requires Falcon to insert the most recently released FCC quarterly inflation factor to. estimate inflation. for the projected period. Again, though Falcon completed its FCC 1240 on June 30, 1998, and the most recent inflation factor published by the FCC at the time was 1.43%, Falcon held onto the FCC 1240 filing for six months, when it submitted the filing with the County on December 14, 1998.6 (Z) Because Falcon used the higher inflation factor of 1.43% in its calculations for Lines C3 and C5, an MPR of $.17 above that calculated by the consultants resulted. (3) Though only $.17 is at issue, and Falcon's selected BST rate ($26.71) is below the MPR ($28.69) calculated by the consultants, Falcon should be directed to use the lower MPR of $28.69 because the operator had the ability to incorporate later FCC inflation figures into its rate filing prior to serving the filing on the County. SThis calculation is designed to correct any over or under' estimates the operator was required to make in its Projected Period Inflation on its prior FCC 1240 filing. 6Falcon filed its FCC 1240 two months after the start of its projected period. Franchise Fee U-Tax Auditing & Telecommunication Adnunistration 2 0 - 101 Pocono Lane, Cary, North Carolina 27~ 13-316 Voice # 919.467.5392 Fax # 919.460.6868 .. ~. ~ ..~ .GF-x.... (4) If the FCC 1240 is not amended to incorporate the lower FCC inflation factors of 1.0121 (Line C3) and 1.0082 (Line CS), the higher 1\~IPR ($28.86) used by Falcon will carry forward into subsequent rate calculations, thereby increasing future 1\~Il'Rs. No future correction of this inflation factor will be possible. e. External Costs i. Programming Costs (1.} Pursuant to FCC rules, cable operators may justify their rates on an annual basis using the FCC 1240 to reflect "reasonably certain and quantifiable changes" in external costs, inflation, and the number of regulated channels that are projected for the 12-month projected period. External costs include such items as programming costs, copyright fees, franchise related costs, and retransmission consent fees paid to broadcasters. ii. Increases in Programming Costs (1) Falcon indicates that approximately 72% of it's MPR increase ($2.1 S} is attributable to a rise in anticipated programming costs for the projected period.' Generally, the bulk of programming costs consist of license fees cable operators pay to cable networks (e.g., ESPN, A&E). Cable operators are permitted by the FCC to markup this cost by 7.5%, then pass the cost on to subscribers. (2). Falcon's FCC l 240 estimates that the operator's programming costs will increase to ,7.19 per subscriber, per month for the projected period.g Any over estimate or under estimate will be offset in Falcon's true=up calculations in its next FCC 1240. In contrast, actz~al programming costs for the true-up period were X5.76 per subscriber, per month.9 This represents about a 2J% increase in programming costs. (See Appendix A for findings made by the FCC in its annual report on the cable i~zdustry which was presented to Congress i» 1998). (3) The increase in programming costs is attributed to increases in license fees paid to '$28.69 - $26.71 = $1.98. $1.43 (TU External Cost - PP External Cost) / $1.98 = 72%. BProjected period: October 1, 1998 through September 30,1999. 9True-up period: July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. • Franchise Fee U-Tax Auditing & Telecommunication Administration 101 Pocono Lane; Cary, North Carolina 27513-5316 Voice # 919.467.5392 Fax # 919.460.6868 21 6 program providers and the addition of the Disney Channel to the BST.10 Falcon's channel lineup card for the projected period indicates that the Disney Channel was moved from the Sat Pac tier to the BST. The move shifted the cost of the Disney Channel from the Sat Pac to the BST, and accounts for some of the increased cost during the projected period. Table B compares Falcon's programming costs over a three-year period. Table B Cost Falcon's Cable Programming on BST Time Period Per Subscriber Type of Cost Incremental Change July 1996 -June 1997 $5:24" Actual True-up Costs n/a July 1997 -June 1998 $5.7612 Actual True-up Costs 10% Oct. 1998 -Sept. 1999 . $7.1913 Estimated Projected Costs 25% It should be noted that the costs illustrated in Table B are aJ.J'ected by tl~e license fees Falcon must pay program providers, and by Fa/con 's movement ojprogrpm sen~ices to and jro~ll the BST. f. Franchise Related Costs i. Falcon is not passing.through to subscribers franchise related costs in its FCC 1240 g. Subscriber Count and Growth i. Falcon reports that it had an average subscribership of 3,780 for the true-up period, and projects an average of 3,712 for the projected period. This represents a decrease in subscribers by about 1.8%. Nationwide, subscribership from 1997 to 1998 among several large cable companies grew by 1%: (See Sttbscribership, Appendix A). 10Source: Telephone conversation with Mike Jester, Falcon Cable, March 11, 1999. "Source: Falcon's 1997 FCC 1240, Worksheet 7. Filed June 30, 1997, with the County. .'`'Source: Falcon's 1998 FCC 1240, Worksheet 7. Filed December 14, 1998, with the County. - 13Source: Falcon's 1998 FCC 1240, Worksheet 7. Filed December 14, 1998, with the County Franchise Fee U-Tax Auditing & Telecommunication Administration 2 2 101 Pocono Lane, Cary, North Carolina 27513-316 Voice # 919.467.5392 Fax # 919.460.6868 _ ~:,. 3. Rate Regulation Background ~,:a:„.f a. If an LFA is certified with the FCC to regulate BST rates, ~a cable operator must submit its FCC 1240 to the LFA at least 90 days before the rates are implemented." b. In September 1995, the FCC adopted the 13tH Report and Order, which, among other things, permitted cable operators to adjust their rates on an annual basis using the FCC 1240, taking into consideration past and projected external costs. c. Pursuant to FCC rules, LFAs (the County) have 30 days to review the cable operator's FCC 1240 filing. This review period may be extended by 60 days if the LFA tolls the review period in an order. After the review period, the LFA retains refund authority if it ordered the cable operator to maintain an accounting of all revenues received from the rate increase. d. Regulation by the FCC of upper cable tiers will cease after March 31, 1999. After this date, the FCC will no longer review upper tier cable complaints filed by LFAs.'s However, LFAs will continue to have regulatory authority over the BST. Thus, the County still.has authority to regulate the rates Falcon charges on its BST after March 31, 1999. 4. Recommendation a. It is recommended that the County direct Falcon to amend "Worksheet 1 -True-up Period Inflation," in its 1998 FCC 1240, by inserting 1.14% in Lines 107 through 109, and .82% in Lines 110 through 112. These represent FCC inflation factors for the first and second quarters of 1998, respectively. Line 113 should equal 1.0121 and will carry over to Line C3, Module C, making that 1.0121. b. It is also recommended that Falcon be directed to amend Line CS by inserting 1.0082, which represents the second quarter inflation figure for 1998. This figure was available to Falcon prior to it submitting the FCC 1240 with the County. c. It is recommended that the Commissioners approve the MPR of $28.69 for the BST. Falcon may charge less than this amount. 1447 C.F.R. ~~ 76.933, 76.922. 'sFCC Fifth Annual Report to Congress on Status of Competition in Markets for the Delivery of Video Programming. CS Docket No. 98-102. Released: December 23, 1998. Franchise Fee U-Tax Auditing & Telecommunication Administration 101 Pocono Lane, Cary, North Carolina 27513-5316 Voice # 919.467.5392 Fax # 919.460.6868 23 8 5. Proceeding a. The County must approve or deny the operator's FCC 1240 rate request, based upon a finding of fact. The County should adopt the consultant's report as its own and allow the publican opportunity to comment on the matter. Public comment should be heard at the same meeting in which the Commissioners deliberate upon this matter. A special session is not required. It is suggested that the Commissioners' rate request deliberations and public comment period occur during a regularly scheduled public meeting. b. The comment period may be publicized by issuing a press release to the print and electronic media, or announced through other appropriate means. c. A rate order, conveying approval of the BST MPR is attached. To be valid, the order must be executed following the conclusion of i. a public meeting where the Commissioners give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the matter; and, ii. adoption by the Commissioners' of this report as its own (required by FCC rules). Franchise Fee U-Tax Auditing & Telecommunication Administration 24 101 Pocono Lane, Cary, North Carolina 27513-5316 Voice # 919.467.392 Fax # 919.460.6868 /// STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA New I~anover Coun>~y, NC-0152 • BEFORE THE COUNTI' OF NEW HANOVER IN THE MATTER OF: ) ORDER APPROVING Review of Basic Service Tier Cable ) MA~IlVIUM PERMITTED Rate contained within FCC 1240 ) BASIC SERVICE TIER Updating Maximum Permitted Rates ) RATE OF 528.69 filed by Falcon Cable Media, for New ) Hanover County franchise NC-0152 ) BY THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER: WHEREAS, on December 14, 1998, Falcon Cable Media (Falcon) submitted an FCC 1240 Updating Annual Maximum Permitted Rates form for Regulated Cable Services with New Hanover County, NC-0152. Falcon's filing covers external costs, programming costs, and inflation adjustments for the true-up period, July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998; and estimated costs for the projected period, October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999; WHEREAS, Falcon is pernlitted, pursua~rt to FCC rules, to adjust its non-external costs ortion of its bask service tier for inflation based on quarterly figures released by the FCC; p ~'VHEREAS, the FCC's inflation factor of 1.14% for the first quarter of 1998 was published on June 30, 1998, approximately five and one half months before Falcon submitted its FCC 1240 with the County on December 14, 1998; WHEREAS, Falcon used the inflation factor of 1.43% for the first quarter of 1998 in its FCC 1240, Worksheet 1 calculations, instead of the 1.14% that was published by the FCC; WHEREAS, the FCC's inflation factor of .82% for the second quarter of 1998 was published on September 30, 1998, approximately two and one half months before Falcon submitted its FCC 1240 with the County on December 14, 1998; WHEREAS, Falcon used the inflation factor of 1.43% for the second quarter of 1998 in its FCC 1240, Worksheet 1 calculations, instead of the .82% that was published by the FCC; WHEREAS, Falcon used the inflation factor of 1.43% in Line C~, Current FCC Inflation Factor, even though the FCC inflation factor of .82% was available to Falcon two and one half months prior to Falcon's filing the FCC 1240 to the County on December 14, 1998; WHEREAS, on March 15, 1998; the County received a report indicating that Falcon did not 25 incorporate the most recent)}~ available FCC inflation figures into its December 14, 1998, FCC 1240 prior to filing the FCC 1240 ~~rith the County; WHEREAS, FCC rules arant~local franchise authorities (CFAs) a 90-day review period, measured from the date the LFA receives the rate filing from the cable operator, in which to review the cable operator's FCC 1240 rate filing. If the 90-day review period expires, the County retains refund authority past the initial 90-day review period so long as all inquiries from tl~e cable operator regarding said review are responded to in writing within 15 days of said inquiry, and the County has issued an accounting order to the cable operator; WHEREAS, Falcon's FCC 1240 covers estimated costs for the projected period of October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999, and covers actual costs during the true-up period of July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998; WHEREAS, Falcon submitted its FCC 1240 filing to the County on December 14, 1998, about two and one half months after the start of the projected period; WHEREAS, Falcon notified the County on December 14, 1998, that it intends to charge its BST subscribers a selected rate of 526.71 starting April 1, 1999; and, WHEREAS, New Hanover County is certified with the FCC to regulate BST rates charged by Falcon, serving New Hanover County franchise NC-0152: IT IS A FINDING: THAT Falcon did not use the most recently available FCC Quarterly Inflation Figures of 1.14% and 82% at the time it filed, its FCC 1240 with the County; THAT Falcon overstated its MPR by $.17 because it did not use the most recently available FCC Quarterly Inflation Figures prior to submitting its FCC 1240 to the County; IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: THAT the maximum permitted BST rate Falcon may charge its subscribers in New Hanover County, franchise NC-0152, for the projected period of October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999, shall not exceed the N1PR of $28.69, subject to subsequent findings by the County to the contrary; and, . THAT the County retains its authority to issue refunds or rate roll backs after the initial 90-day review period with respect to the rate set out in Falcon's FCC 1240 filing because the County properly executed an accounting order on December 28, 1998. 26 • .~... ISSUED BY ORDER OF THE COUNTY OF NE«' HANO~'ER .,~.r;, . This the day of , ATTEST: CHAIRMAN: seal Deliver via Certified U.S. Mail to Extra copy to: Falcon Cable Media Action Audits ~ 27 APPENDIX A Followin8 are excerpts from the FCC's fifth annual report (" ] 998 Report") to Congress which was submitted pursuant to Section 628(8) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"). Section 628(8). The FCC reports annually to Coi~Bress on the status of competition in markets for the delivery of video programming. Congress imposed this annual reporting requirement in the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (" 1992 Cable Act") as a means of obtaining information on the competitive status of markets for the delivery of video programming. The information and analysis provided in the report are based on publicly available data, filings in various FCC rulemaking proceedings, and information submitted by commenters in response to a Notice of Inquiry ("Notice") in this docket. (Fifth Annual Report. CS Docket No. 98-102. Released: December 23, 1998). II. COMPETITORS IN MARKETS FOR THE DELIVERY OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING A. Cable Industry .... B. Summary of Findings .... 6. The Report finds that competitive alternatives and consumer choices are still developing. We find that cable television continues to be the primary delivery technology for the distribution of multichannel video prograrruning and continues to occupy a dominant position in the MVPD marketplace. As of June 1998, 85%° of all MVPD subscribers received video programming service from local franchised .cable operators compared to 87% a year earlier. 7. There has been an increase in the total number of subscribers to noncable MVPDs. Much of this increase is attributable to the continued growth of DBS, which is attracting former cable subscribers and consumers not previously subscribing to an MVPD. Between June 1997 and June 1998, the DBS grew from approximately 5 million subscribers to 7.2 million subscribers. DBS subscribers now represent 9.40% of all MVPD subscribers compared to 6.85% a year earlier. In addition, new open video systems ("OVS") have launched in a few areas. However, there have been declines in the number of subscribers and market shares of HSD, MMDS, and SMATV over the last year and the one existing LMDS system recently terminated service. There also has been a limited number of additional cable overbuilds in the last year. In communities where the incumbent cable operators face such competition, they respond in a variety of ways, including lowering prices, adding channels at the same monthly rate, improving customer service, or adding new services such as interactive programming. 8. A total of 76.6 million households subscribed to multichannel video programming services as of June 1998, up 4.1% over the 73.6 million households subscribing to MVPDs in June 1997. This subscriber growth accompanied a 2.3 percentage point increase in multichannel video programming distributors' penetration of television households to 78.2% in June 1998. During this period, the number of cable subscribers continued to grow, reaching 65.4 million as of June 1998 up about 2% over 2 8the 64.2 million cable subscribers in June 1997. The total number of noncable MVPD subscribers grew ~~ ;~~.:~: from 9.5 nullion as of June:1997 to 112 million as of June 1998; an increase of over 18% since the 1997 Report. 9. During the period under review; cable rates rose more than four times the rate of inflation. According to tl~e Bureau of Labor Statistics, between June 1997 and June 1998, cable prices rose 7.3% compared to a 1.7% increase in the Consumer Price Index ("CPI"), which is used to measure general price changes. A portion;ofthese rate increases is attributable to capital expenditures for the upgrading of cable facilities (up 21% over 1996), an increase number of video and nonvideo services offered, and increased programming costs (license fees increased by 18.4% and programming expenses increased by 20.9%). In addition; we note that'there is evidence indicating that ~vllere direct competition exists it affects cable operators' pricing decisions. 10. As a general matter, significant competition from telephone companies has not developed even though the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (" 1996 Act") removed the barriers to LEC entry into the video marketplace. The 1996 Act repealed a statutory prohibition against an entity holding attributable interests in a cable system and a LEC with overlapping service areas. At the time of the 1996 Act's passage, it was expected that local exchange telephone carriers would begin to compete in .video delivery markets, and cable television operators would begin providing local telephone exchange service. With the exception of Ameritech, which has acquired 87 cable franchises and reports that it serves 200,000 subscribers, telephone entry into video markets has been slow to develop. The Bell Atlantic video distribution system in Dover Township, New Jersey, which seemed likely at one time to be the prototype for telephone entry into the video business, will be terminated by the end of 1998 or very early in 1999. Pursuant to its joint marketing agreement with DirecTV, however,~Bell Atlantic will give its Dover subscribers the opportunity to switch to DirecTV. In addition, Congress developed the OVS framework. as another means to encourage telephone company entry into the video marketplace. Thus far, however, few telephone companies have sought certification to provide video through OVS. Further, the technological convergence that would permit use of the telephone facilities for provision of video service has.not yet occurred. 1. General Performance ... 17. Subscribership. Basic cable television subscribership grew from 63.5 million subscribers at the end of 1996 to 64.9 million subscribers at the end of 1997, an increase of 2.2%, and increased to an estimated 65.4 million subscribers by June 30, 1998, a six month increase of about 0.8% [emphasis added]. Basic cable ~et~etratiort also grei~~, increasing from 67.8% at the end of 1996 to 68.6% [.8% increase] at the end of 1997 to 68.8% at the end of the first half of 1998 [ 1 % increase]. The percentage of TV households subscribing to cable continues to increase, rising to 66.2% of all TV households by the end of 1997, and to 66.7% by the end of June 1998. The number of basic cable subscribers as a percentage of the number of homes passed increased from 67.8% in 1996 to 68.6% in 1997 and to 68.8% by June 1998. The number of homes subscribing to premium cable services increased by 1.6% in 1997 to 31.5 million homes from 31 million homes at the end of 1996, and the number of premium services to which homes are subscribing (known as "premium units") increased 2.6%, with 56 million premium units subscribed to by the end of 1997, and an estimated 56.4 .million units subscribed to by the end of the first half of 1998, a 0.7% increase. 18. Channel Capacity. Over the past year, cable operators have made significant capital expenditures to upgrade and rebuild cable infrastructure in order to increase channel capacity and provide additional services. Additionally, some operators have chosen to increase channel capacity 29 through the deployment of digital platforms. Through upgrades and rebuilds, which are discussed later in this section, operators can increase the bandwidth of their ilet~vorks, thus enabling them to offer additional c1~a~lnels of video service, as well as other services (i.e. Internet access, telephony). Through digital compression techniques, also discussed later, operators can 1~ave the option of offering their customers more ~~ideo channels or a higher quality of resolution and reception. Changes to capital infrastructure and types of auxiliary sen~ices available are also discussed later in this report. 19. Some operators believe that a system will soon need to offer 150 or more channels to remain competitive. Many have made commitments for upgrades that will enable them to make this possible for their customers. For example, where available; Gomcast's digital service offers customers'over 175 digital and analog channels including 75 to ~5 analog channels, 24 premium digital, 30 to 40 digital pay-per-view channels, and 40 audio music channels. IvlediaOne's digital service offers approximately 189 channels including up~to 77 analog, 72 digital video channels, and 40 digital music channels. Cablevision Systems Corporation offers over 100 channels in some of its service areas, and other operators are preparing to make similar,offerings to their subscribers. As such offerings by cable operators continue to be made, average channel capacity for cable systems continues to increase. In August 1997, analysts estimated that the year-end average cable system analog channel capacity would reach 78 channels by year-end 1997, and 90 channels by the end of 1998. 20. According to one source, cable systems with a capacity of 30 or more channels accounted for 83% of cable systems in October 1997. This represents 8,260_systems nationwide. The percentage of systems with channel capacities of 54 channels or more accounted for 19% of cable systems in October 1997, or 1,886 systems. In October 1998, cable systems with a capacity of 30 or more channels accounted for 84.6% of cable systems, or 8,328 systems. Cable systems with channel capacities of 54 channels or more accounted for. 20.7% of cable systems in October 1998, or 2,040 systems. 21. In Octoher 1997, 98.2% of all subscribers were served by systems with capacities of 30 channels or more. Moreover, 58.4% of all subscribers were served by systems with capacities of 54 or more channels in October 1997. In October 1998, 98.8% of all subscribers were served by systems with capacities of 30 channels or more and 61.51% of all subscribers were served by systems with capacities of 54 or more channels in October 1998. 22. Viewership. As noted in last year's report, viewership of non-premium cable networks has grpwn significantly over the past decade, while viewership of broadcast television stations has steadily declined. This trend continues. Twenty-four hour a day, seven day a week, non-premium cable viewership rose from a 38 share at the end of June 1997 to a 41 share at the end of June 1998. Twenty-four hour a day, seven day a week broadcast television viewership decreased from a 64 share at the end of June 1997 to a 61 share at the end of June 1998..... 24. Programming Costs. License fees paid by cable system operators to basic cable network programmers increased by 18.4%, from approximately $3.1 billion in 1996 to $3.7 billion in 1997. Analysts estimate that in 1998 fees will increase by an additional 20.5%to reach $4.4 billion. At the same time, programming expenses for the cable networks themselves.have reportedly increased 20.9% in 1997 to $4.1 billion and an estimated 16.7% in 1998 to an estimated $4.8 billion. These increased programming costs for cable operators can be, and often are, passed along to cable subscribers as allowed for under the Commission's rules. 30 ~ ~,. 4 ,-.x.. ' ,.'.~.~,i -~f~-. NEW HANOVERyCO;U,NTYM,BOAR'DO:F~ COMMISSIONERS e ~, _~,s.~ ,,,, .~ , REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 8 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: County Manager Presenter: Contact: Allen O'Neal SUBJECT: Consideration of Support for NACo 2000 Annual Conference in Mecklenburg County, NC BRIEF SUMMARY: The National Association of Counties will hold their 2000 Annual Conference in Mecklenburg County July 14-18, 2000. The NCACC is asking all 100 counties in the state to support the conference, as detailed in the attached letter. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Recommend the Board consider supporting the NACo 2000 Annual Conference by making a contribution. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: NIA FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: NIA HUMAN RESOURCES: NIA COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS• Consider funding level and source. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS• rCOUtV'T`t COMMISSIONF~ .APPROVED ~~ ~EJ1=i;~`ED TPON $~~ ~~~: ~ ~~_ 5~ ~a~ 31 ~OPSN GARp~/~9 ~+ N ~ r•.n.•3_: u~i O - = Z A =- O y O,` ~! o~, ccaaT~ °~ March 16, 1999 NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ALBERT COATES LOCAL GOVERNMENT CENTER ~ 215 NORTH DAWSON STREET • P.O. BOX 1488 ~`./ RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 2602-1488 ~ TELEPHONE 919/715-2893• FAX 919/733-1065 Mr. Bill Caster New Hanover County Chairman 310 Brookshire Lane Wilmington, NC 28409 ~. ~~.: Dear ~14r--CaSTec ~~~ ~i 1 ` MdR 2 Z 1999 p ~" g ; 'r f81r1~ f~r~i ~1n.3Vt~ ~®• ~ __ 1vikP•l~GEr2'S QFFICE In less than 16 months; counties from North and South Carolina will serve as the proud hosts for the 2000 Annual Conference for the National Association of Counties in Mecklenburg County. North Carolina is well known for its leadership as a 100 percent NACo membership state, and we want to demonstrate this 100 percent participation during the conference on July 14-18, 2000. Flags from all counties will be prominently displayed at the entry to the convention center. And, we will be actively marketing the Carolinas as a tourist destination for pre- and post- conference vacations. Hosting afirst-class national conference is a major undertaking~equiring a significant commitment of funds. The total host budget of more than $1.4 million will fund the most successful NACo Conference ever, including the conference-wide event at the Lo~r-e's Motor Speedway in Caban us County, all transportation between hotels, spouse/guest activities and many other functions: Mecklenburg County has already set aside a substantial amount of its own funds and has initiated a major corporate fund raising plan. COUNTY CONTRIBUTIONS: The Association Board of Directors felt that it was important for all of our counties to participate by making a contribution to the NACo 2000 fund. We want all 100 counties to support the conference, even if some can only contribute a small amount. How your county approaches this contribution is up to you. There are several options for raising these funds, including securing donations from a group of small businesses or individuals. Some counties may prefer to make appropriations from their budgets. By June 1, 1999, please contact Debra Henzey at 919-715-4370 to let her know how much your county is willing to contribute. By July 31, 1999, the contributions should be sent to Ann Schrader, c/o Office of the County Manager, P. O. Box 31787, Charlotte, NC 28231. Checks should be made out to "NACo 2000 Fund." CORPORATE CONTACTS: County officials are encouraged to provide contact information on companies that might serve as corporate sponsors or donors of in-kind products or services for NACo 2000. Ann Schrader, a former Mecklenburg County commissioner who is coordinating the fund-raising, would be happy to work with you on how to approach these prospects and update you on whether or not the company has already been contacted. You can call Ann at 704-336-2472 or fax to her at 704-336-5887. Thank you so much for doing what you can to help support the NACo 2000 Annual Conference Henzey at 919-715-4370 if you have any questions. Sin ~erely, ~j ~~~~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~i?~ „~a~~ ~ _'~ ~1C ~) Robert G. Greer, ,,. , President `'' w Hanover County Commissioner 3~ ` Please call Debra pc: County Manager ;.~;; ,. NEW HANOVER COUNTY~BOARDa~:OFrr-COMMISSIONERS 4 REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION ~; Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 9.1 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Rezoning - Z-650 BRIEF SUMMARY: Request to rezone 1.86 acres at 6632 Gordon Road to I-1 Light Industrial from R-15 Residential. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• Planning Board recommends approval. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 4 Pages REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: NIA -BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS• COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS• • COUNTY COMMISSIONF.~S APPROVED l~ REJECTED ^ REMOVED ^ P~OSTI~CfsED ^ FOgARD '~ 33 ITEM 1 CASE: Z-650, 3/99; Applicant- Charles Bruton REQUEST: R-15 to I-I j ACREAGE: 1.86 acres LOCATION: 6632 Gordon Road LAND CLASS-Urban Transition: Encourages more intense urban type development and higher density residential where public services are available. Planning Board Summary Despite Staff's suggestion that O-I would make a better transition in land use and create a stopping point for westward industrial expansion from Dutch Square, the Planning Board voted 3 to 1 to recommend approval of the petition as requested by the applicant. They reasoned that I-1 was compatible with land uses to the east in Dutch Square Industrial Park and that the range of uses permitted by the district would not cause hardships for nearby residential uses. There was no opposition. . Staff Summary The applicant is requesting rezoning to I-1 Light Industrial probably on the strength of its proximity to Dutch Square Industrial Park. The majority of industrial zoning now compromising Dutch Square was established-in 1979. Subsequent rezonings in 1988 and 1993 extended the park over to Gordon Road. In its early days, the industrial park developed slowly but the recent residential building boom that began in the mid 1980's created a need for a business park to house badly needed commercial and business services. As a result of that demand, Dutch Square quickly become a prime choice. Today, it is practically fully developed. While Dutch Square has strongly influenced land patterns in the area, particularly to the east near Market Street, it has not precluded the development. of a strong residential presence nearby. Weaterhwood, Summerfield at Weatherwood and part of Wildflower, all very successful single family residential developments, border the industrial park's southern, western and northern boundaries. Moreover, other residential projects have taken root, including Farrington Farms, which is across the street from the subject property, and Cape Harbor Apartments, which is located to the northeast. Other uses nearby include Eaton Elementary School and the primary southern entrance to Ogden ~ ~ ~~"v'~;.~ In the 1993 petition~~to~expand the industrial park to the south side of Gordon Road, Staff advised the Board that establislurig,industrial frontage would lead to requests to extend the zoning further west. At the time, Staff felt the industrial park should be limited to then current configuration in hopes of limiting impacts on undeveloped residential properties. As predicted many of those properties have been^converted to housing or public use and the land use conflicts that could have been established 34 were avoided. n n ..,, . That position remains unchanged. <:Despite th'e apphcarit's °p'roziirity to the industrial park, rezoning • the property industrial would make it easier to rezone parcel "C"and then the U-Pic strawberry farm property. That would be disorderly and create poor transitions in land use, especially for established residential uses. Staff empathizes with the applicant in at least two respects. There in no doubt the development associated with the industrial park has reduced the property's previous residential appeal. Though occupied by a relatively nice home, it probably isn't high on anyone's list for a permanent residence. Another problem is the site's proximity to Gordon Road, a heavily traveled and heavily congested collector road which currently provides a direct connection to I-40 and to Market Street. Traffic has become chronically bad with no real improvement in site. Another problem is the size of the property. While it could accommodate a couple rental duplexes, which certainly have some appeal at this convenient location, density is limited.Recognizing these problems and based on the current land use pattern, Staff believes this property is better suited for transitional uses, such as those provided by the Office and Institution District. This zoning would allow reasonable redevelopment of the property and create an ending point for industrial zoning associated with Dutch Square Petition Summary Data Owner: C. Bruton Existing Land Use: Vacant . Zoning History: This area was initially zoned July 1972. The adjacent industrial area was established by_ a series of rezonings in 1979, 1988 and 1993. Water Type: Community and Private Wells Sewer Type: County Sewer Recreation Area: Ogden Park Access and Traffic Count: Gordon Road; 16,048 ADT-1997 Count Fire District: Ogden VFD Watershed and Water puality Classification: Smith Creek C(SW) Aquifer Recharge Area: Primary Recharge Conservation/Historic/Archaeologic Resources: None Soils and Soil Class: Primarily Leon (Le); Class III Building Suitability: Some limits due to high water table. 35 WHAT YOU MUST ESTABLISH TO GET A CHANGE ZONING OF PROPERTY Your intended use of property upon rezoning is completely irrelevant,-except for conditional use district proposals. The North Carelina General Statutes require that zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive flan. Since amendments to zoning maps should also be based on a Land Use Plan, you must explain in tic space below how your request satisfies caclt of the following requirements: ' 1. How would the requested change be consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development? Ttie requested change is consistent the County's Policy for Growth in all aspects. Re-Zoning this property would provide for additional economic growth, while at the same time provide an avenue for business interest to provide additional services to the surrounding area. 2. How would the requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on tiie Land Classification ir•fap? The property is located within the Land Class "Urban Transition". This re-zoning request is consistent New Ilanover County's land use plan for this area in the county. 3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or how is the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zoning? The surrounding area has changed dramatically over the past,l0 years. 1Vithin the immediate area, land use has been re-zoned from agriculture! to accommodate an industrial park, apartments, and a new school. This residential property, once on a relatively quite country road, norv is located too close to a very noisy and ~l~l~i.'rus!g busy sr~T. ~I'n,4-~C NciS~.lEiEl~ ;~: p I~~^~i l.~t~Ciic't~tt~ltE. i~\S~Clt~ll~t E~i5F~i~~~ s~..g~e awetung structure even with ali windows closed. It is very difficult to cross this two lane road at any time of the day. Even yard maintenance on the roadside in front of the dwelling is now very dangerous. Because of the small width of the road shoulders extreme care must now be taken even to perform such everyday tasks such as retrieving tl~e mor~ring pviper or mail. In signing this petition, I understand that the existing zoning map is presumed to be correct and that I have the burden of proving why a change is in the public interest. I further understand tl~e singling out of one parcel of land for special zoning treatment unrelated to County policies and the surrounding e borl~ood wou]d probably be illegal. I certify that all information presented in ti~is application is `ate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Signature of Petitioner and/or Owner NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD~OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 9.2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Dexter Hayes SUBJECT: Rezoning - Z-651 BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Ed Ennis to rezone 1.9 acres on the west side of Castle Hayne Road south of Wrightsboro Plaza Shopping Center to B-2 Business from R-20 Residential. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• Planning Board recommends approval. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: ' 4 Pages/5 Minutes • REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: NIA BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS• COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS• ---. COUNTY COMMIS~IONk~ APPROVED ~~ ~' REJECTED O -~ REMOVED O . POS ~ PONED ~ ~ HEARD ,// ^/' DATE ~`/G21q~I _, 37 ITEM 2 CASE: - lic n • Ed Ennis Jr. Z 651, 3/99; App a t. , REQUEST: R-20 to B-2 ACREAGE: 1.9 LOCATION: Castle Hayne Road, south of Wrightsboro Plaza LAND CLASS- Limited Transition: Encourages development in areas that have some services, but with lower residential densities. Non-residential is permitted provided adequate services are provided. Planning Board Summary The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the petition as submitted. They .noted the rezoning was consistent with surrounding zoning and existing land uses and met the intent of the Land Use Plan. There was no opposition Staff Summary The applicant seeks to extend the depth of the existing B-2 Business District, which is already intensely developed with a variety of retail uses. The existing B-2 District was established with the original zoning plan for the area. The last expansion was in 1990 to the south of the existing district on land owned by the applicant. In 1991, land north of the existing commercial district and adjacent to the subject parcel was zoned SC Shopping Center District. Subsequent to that change, Wrightsboro Plaza was built, providing a retail hub for the general. area. The site's proximity to existing commercial zoning and a wide range of established commercial uses clearly weaken any appeal to develop the tract under current zoning. Also, the site is strategically located near the intersection with N. Kerr Avenue and Castle Hayne Road, a logical spot for a commercial node based on the County's Land Use Plans and Policies. The nearest residential structure is located on Parcel B, which happens to be the home of the petitioner. Other residential uses in the general area are located some distance to the south. However, as a result of that separation, the impacts of commercial development would likely be minimal. While the zoning and land use patterns here support the change, there is one concern. This segrnentwof~Castle~Hayne Road is extremely congested during many parts of the day--it is near gridlo k in~h`e~a m~when the local schools are in session. Moreover, the Smith Creek Parkway's n rt=- ~, ~r~~~~~ ~~ current~termmus=at 23rd Street means even more traffic being routed in the general direction of • r this intersection. -Therefore, it should be recognized any new development will only make traffic matters worse. ~'`~ ~ ..~'! ~'Neveitheless, Staffrecommends approval. 38 t ., . r . '' .,gib . , ., . ;; • Petition Summary Aata Owner Ed Ennis Existing Land Use: Retention pond and vacant Zoning History: Area initially zoned July 1974. B-2 to the east expanded in July 1990: SC District t o the north established November 1991. Water Type: Community and private wells Sewer Tvpe: County Recreation Area: Trask and Laney, Optimist Park Access and Traffic Volume: Castle Hayne Road; 20,110 ADT-1997 Count Fire District: Wrightsboro Watershed and Water Quality Classification: Ness Creek C(SW) . • Aquifer Recharge Area: Secondary Recharge Conservation/Historic/Archaeologic Resources: None Soils: Primarily Onslow (On), Class 1 Building Suitability: Few Limits ~ 39 WHAT YOU MUST ESTABLISH TO GET A CHANGE ZONING OF PROPERTY Your intended use of property upon rezoning is completely irrelevant, except for conditional use district proposals. The North Carolina General Statutes require that zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Since amendments to zoning maps should also be based on a Land Use Plan, you must explain in the space below low your request satisfies each of the following requirements: t ~ I. How would the requested change be consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development? - y ~ ~. ~. 2. How would the requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Laud Classification 1\4ap? .~ 9~ / 5 - J •v C ~os ~ i~/L UX / M i ~ N~~ J ~So -~ ,.s ~vo ~ i, d.~~. chC ,~,~ f /~C.ScIu2C~s 3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or lto~v is the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zoning? ,tic- /y9~ ~ ~ add ~,aw SLin~piti ~ C.¢,.~, w/~- L~~~-' -~"~/-~--~ r}iw(~ny nt~ C~~n.~s,E ~JS~ J'~av~ b ~p~~5 ~ 7-~ ~ v~-ic~.~ f .~dI~M~C~L~ G~ f~~-~ , C fit- cwt ~, ~3~•r~c~ ,C~~ ~ rYJ ~1~~1~s ~.~J ~l/e~r- s ~/i j~ r~GJC. J ~(~ ~/~1'x- r!r P..1-c.C -f- ~ J ~~ /3.{ / / So w~ C~..e ll~/~l~ ~c,L/~~ /7 -9~-~~ L~ CtA1.S 771uc~`~c~ .9'~lnv ~_~[~Ud~G~n// ~' ~-1~-3~.1.skJ~~iZrJP.?sl~~y L~/-n~,,g / ~1 ~S .~~ t.<!5 ~" ~.S ro~.S~~7~~ ~t// T r`- ~"~/ I~1f~ ~P v.e ~OPvN ~ iN/-7 ~L~ . ~~4 , In signing this petition, I understand that the existing zoning map is presumed to be correct and that I have the burden of proving why a change is in the public interest. I further understand the singling out of one parcel of land for special zoning treatment unrelated to County policies and the surrounding e boyhood would probably be illegal. I certify that all information presented in this application is do ~u ate to the best of my knowledge, inforiiiation, and belief. Signa re of Petit oner andlor O vn r NEW HANOVER'COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION ,.~ Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 9.3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Rezoning - Z-652 BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Cheryl Powell to rezone 4.5 acres at 5664, 5670, and 5674 Carolina Beach Road to O-I Office and Institution from R-15 Residential. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• Planning Board recommends approval with modification. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 5 Pages/1015 Minutes REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS• COUNTY COMMISSI APPROVED REJECTED p REMOVED p POSTPONED O HEARD DATE ...~~ ~~ ~ .41 ITEM 3 CASE: Z-652; 3/99; Applicant: Cheryl Powell for others REQUEST: R-15 to O-I ACREAGE: 4.5 LOCATION: 5644, 5670 and 5676 Carolina Beach Road LAND CLASS: Urban Transition-Promotes more intense urban type development where public services are readily available. Higher density development and non-residential development is permitted. Planning Board Summary After listening to several speaker s with concerns about setbacks and buffering as well as other impacts, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval with modification. The modification calls for leaving a five foot strip of land along and parallel to Lobos Lane zoned R- 15 to ensure that additional setbacks are required. The primary concern was making sure that established residential uses along Lobos Lane were afforded additional protection from encroachment by non-residential uses. The Board noted that the site's proximity to similar zoning and the heavily traveled Carolina Beach Road made residential use unappealing. Staff had recommended denial, noting that the properties' frontage along Lobos Lane made residential uses feasible. The Staff and the Board spent a good deal of time discussing the pros and cons of establishing residential uses oriented to Lobos Lane. Staff Summary The northernmost parcel in this application was petitioned for rezoning in January 1998, culminating in denial. In that petition, the applicant requested rezoning to O-I to coincide with the existing O-I District to the north. In rejecting the petition, the County concluded that the continued linear spread of non-residential uses along the highway, even if they were office uses, would be difficult to justify under the current Land Use Plan. The County was also concerned with the impact on established residential uses across the highway and Lobos Lane to the west. Similarly, the southernmost parcel in the latest application was petitioned for rezoning in April 1995. The applicant requested B-1, but was denied due to conflicts with the Land Use Plan. The smaller parcel included in the latest application has not been the subject of any previous rezoning ~, app~icatiorn o ,/-{(-~~~~~ia n. ~,r.,%~.- 4 The existing'~O``IcD"s'trict to the north was established in 1996. Since it was rezoned, Myrtle Grove Business Park,~a small commercial subdivision, was approved.by the county. To date, only ~' $'~1~,''~';F~'lrt.J one lot of the business.. park has been developed. More recently, owners of the business park ~' GuZr ~~ U ~~ petitioned to rezone-lot 4 of the development to conditional Use B-2 Business for office with warehouse storage~~The Planning Board recommended approval with modification, although 4_ ._ ' t Staff recommended rezoning it to B-2 in recognition of established land uses and the current . zoning pattern. The O-I District across the road was created in January 1998 and is currently . being redeveloped for a small office park. Previous concerns raised in response to the 1998 petition haven't changed. The fundamental question remains--can the County justify the continued linear spread of non-residential uses along its major highways, even if they are office and institutional activities, and remain consistent with the Land Use Plan? The proximity of these properties to the Monkey Junction commercial node, imminent non- residential development on adjacent property and the presence of a major highway reduces the appeal for development under current zoning. The same can be said for similarly situated properties throughout the county. As a result of these conditions, the pressure to convert them to non-residential use remains strong. It is clear from previous petitions for like properties that the owners or potential owners do not believe the land is suited for development under residential zoning. This is mostly true for smaller parcels with limited density opportunities. It would not be true for larger tracts where subdivision options allow the owner to reasonably develop the land and at the same time take into account the impacts of nearby highways and non-residential activities. In effort to address these situations, the county has relied on the placement of office and institution zoning or conditional use zoning, especially where there is a clearly demonstrated need for a transition between non-residential and established residential uses. However, the Plan is not as specific for alternatives to strip commercial development. It merely suggests that this sort of land use pattern be discouraged. The fact these parcels have frontage along Lobos Lane to the west gives them opportunities for residential development that wouldn't otherwise exist. In effect, they could be developed fronting Lobos Lane without facing the ill-effects of Carolina Beach Road. Other houses already front the. western side of Lobos Lane. In the absence of an alternative policy to address these types of land use situations, Staff recommends denial. Petition Summary Data Owner: Batson, Day and Daclar'Inc.; Petitioner is Cheryl Powell Existing Land Use: Vacant and Residential Zoning History: Area initially zoned in 1971. Requests for O-I and B-1 denied in 1995 and 1998. O-I to the north established September 1996. Water Tvpe: Community and Private Wells Sewer Tvpe: County 43 Recreation Area: Arrowhead Park Access and Traffic Volume: Carolina Beach Road; 29742 ADT-1997 Count Fire District: Myrtle Grove Watershed and Water Oualitv Classification: Motts Branch, C(SW) Aquifer Recharge Area: Primary Recharge Conservation/Historic/Archaeologic Resources: None Soils: Primarily Leon (Le); Class III Building Suitability: Some limits due to high water table. ~, 44 ~ WHAT YOU MUST ESTABLISH TO GET A CHANGE ZONING OF PROPERTY • . Your intended use of property upon rezoning is completely irrelevant, except for conditional use district proposals. The North Carolina General.Statutes require that zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Since amendments to zoning maps should also be based on a Land Use Plan, you must.explain in the space below how your request satisfies each of the following requirements: ~ c I. How would the requested change be consistent with the County's Policies for Grotivtli and Development? This is directly on Hwy. 421 South of Monkey Junction This would not negatively impact any close residential development Property is bordered on back by Lobo Rd Adjacent property has been re-zoned to 0&I 2. How would the requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Ladd Classification I11ap? This is in an area that is rapidly becoming more commercial thari residential. • 3. \Vhat significant neigllborliood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or how is the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zoning? Adjacent property has been rezoned to O&I Currently this area is becoming commercial on both sides of Hwy 421. Traffic count on Hwy 421 continues to increase making this area less desirable for residential use. In signing this petition, I understand that the existing zoning map is presumed to be correct and that I have the burden of proving w1~y a change is in the public interest. I further understand tl~e singling ® out of one parcel of land for special zoning treatment unrelated to County policies and the surrounding t,eighborl:ood would probably be illegal. I certify that all information presented in this application is 45 accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. "J ~ ~ li tg tare f Petitioner and/or Owner This page intentionally left blank} 46 r% NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 9.4 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Rezoning - Z-653 BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Richard Hobbs to rezone .77 of an acre at 5953 Carolina Beach Road to B-2 Business from R-15 Residential. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• Planning Board recommends approval. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 4 Pages/5 Minutes REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: NIA BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS• • COUNTY COMMISSION APPROVED ^ REJECTED ^ 1` REMOVED ^ POSTPONED ^ HEARD J // ^ ~~ ~ _ `>`q ~~ ~~~ fi~ x -t ITEM 4 CASE: Z-653, 3/99; A licant: Richard Hobbs PP REQUEST: R-15 to B-2 ACREAGE: .77 acre LOCATION: 5953 Carolina Beach Road LAND CLASS: Resource Protection- Seeks to preserve the County's natural, recreational and related uses. Residential density is limited to 2.5 units per acre. Non-residential uses are permitted provided important resources are not impacted. Planning Board Summary The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the petition as submitted, noting that the site's proximity to the B-2 District to the north and its frontage along the highway had eliminated the land's residential appeal. Staff suggested O-I as an alternative, hoping to provide transitional land uses between the existing B-2 and Battle Park, a nearby subdivision. The Board agreed that some transition would be needed, but felt it shouldn't start with the applicant's property. There was no opposition. Staff Summary The bulk of the existing B-2 District to the north was established in 1971 by simply drawing lines parallel to the highway right-of--way. Expansions to the depth of the district were approved in 1979, 1981 and 1995. Development activity initially had been slow, due in large part to the absence of public services. The advent of sewer further north, coupled with the rapid expansion of residential development in the vicinity, has renewed interest in this area. The larger commercial node to the north comprising Monkey Junction has witnessed phenomenal growth in the last few years and trends indicate further intensification of that area. That growth has crept south, creating more pressure to develop the road frontage in areas further and further removed from the main commercial node at Monkey Junction. The Land Use Plan encourages commercial activities to locate along major roads at or very near U intersections with other major roads, creating a node or cluster. The Plan does not specify the ,~eographic;limits~of~.tliese nodes, but it does make it clear that the linear progression of commercial d'i's"fricts~along the road should be discouraged. ~ ~~~~ The property''s'.pr`oxiiriity to the very busy Carolina Beach Road, the fact it is fairly small and has limited resiiienf~ial~ieiisity opportunities, and the presence of a large existing commercial district to the north`=all rombrie""'-"to diminish the appeal for development of the property under current ~~zoning: Also; -with~~a rge commercial presence to the south, development of this property as 4 Q well as similarly situated properties nearby becomes very difficult for residential purposes. This situation creates a dilemma of sorts: while rezoning the property would recognize its diminished appeal for residential use, it would be contrary to the Land Use Plan's prohibition on strip commercial development. One option would be to have_the applicant seek conditional use zoning. This would enable the County to better judge impacts on residential uses to the south at the entrance to Battle Park, an adjacent subdivision. At this point, however, Staff is unaware of the applicant's intent for the land. Another option would be to establish O-I zoning here to create a transition between the commercial districts to the north and south and to establish more compatible land uses near Battle Park. In lieu of those options, Staff would recommend denial in deference to the Land Use Plan. Petition Summary Data Owner: William D. Gay, Applicant is Richard Hobbs Existing Land Use: Vacant Zoning History: Area Originally April 1971. B-2 area to the north expanded in 1979, 1981 and 1995. Water Tvne: Private Wells Sewer Tvpe: County Recreation Area: Montere Hei hts Nei hborhood Park Y g g Access and Traffic Volume: Carolina Beach Road; 29,742 ADT-1997 Count Fire District: Myrtle Grove Watershed and Water Quality Classification: Everetts Creek Aquifer Recharge Area: Primary Recharge Conservation/Flistoric/Archaeologic Resources: None Soils: Primarily Kureb (Kr), Class 1 Building Suitability: Few Limits • 49 VYHAT YOU MUST ESTABLISH TO GET A CHANGE • ZONING OF PROP~;RTY Your intended use of property upon rezoning is completely irrelevant, except for conditional use district proposals. The North Carolina General Statutes require that zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Since amendments to zoning maps should also be based on a Land Use Plan, you must.explain in the space below how your request satisfies each of the following requirements: t ~ . I. How would the requested change be consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development? 3.U (3) a sufficient variety and amount oC futurc land use types shall be provided in order to acconunodate public demand. Public.dcmand gists for additional B2 zoning, t~hich provides employment opportunit}• and public convcnicncc. 3.3(5) The City and Counn~ shall jointly proride support for the creation and cstablishntcut of small busincsscs. Small busiucsscs require land •roncd B2, •for ti~hich ~~c have an inadequate supply. The proposed zoning change will stimulate the creation and gro~~th oCsmall busincsscs. .;.5(4) The City and County shall ensure that the planning of future land uses result in an effective Traffic circulation pattern. Dispersion of business use within close proximity to residcntial use reduces tratTic circulation by reducing trip distance and congestion. 3.7(8) Urban design regulations shalt talc into account the diverse qualities each dcvclopment has to offer. The proposed rezoning will increase dcvclopment diversity in the area. 2. How would tl~e requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Lattd Classification iV1ap? Tlic property is classified as "Rcsourcc Protection" on tlic Land Classification Map, ;ts is all land fronting eo the lvcslcrn lines oCHigh;v;n• 132 South of 17`" Strcct E.etersion and all land fronting on the lvcstcrn line of High~eay 421 South of Highway 132. This use of major Hightica}•s as the boundary of the "Resource Protection" - classific~ation is arbitrary in that it treats major luglnvay frontage the same as frontage on the sounds and salt marshes. The property is immediately to the North oCUte property, which is zoned B2, is also classified as "Resource Protcctio~i' on the Land Classification Map. There arc no important natural historic, scenic, wildlife or rccraational resources in the immediate arcs of this porlion of the "Resource Protection" classificuion. Tv'o restriction applies to nonresidential dcvclopment in area classified "Rcsourcc Proteetioti' unless resources arc negatively impacted. The proposed rezoning will have the effect of reducing residcntial densil}•. A~,~ilabilily oC services has increased Cor this site since its inclusion in the "Rcsourcc Protection" el5ssification. 3. ~Vltat significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or ]tow is the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zonitt~~ Services have been extended to the property since the adoption of the original zo~ung ordinance. The neighborhood has been affected by the increase in traffic on Highway 421, and the increase in the number of traffic lanes on Highway 421, rendering the property unattractive for residcntial development. Dcvclopmcnt of any kind will provide a buffer berivccn the noise and litter from Highway 421 and residcntial dcvclopment to the East. The property has been shown on the zoning map book and the working zoning map as partially wiQiing the BZ zone due to an apparent mapping error, whereby a portion oCthe property was included with the property to [hc North in the 62 zone, apparcnUy since 1982 zoning amendments. Dcvclopmcnt in the area his proceeded under tlc apparent inclusion of this property in the 62 zones Existing patterns oC recent residcntial dcvclopment along the Highway 42I corridor in this arcs renect the market's rejection oCproperty situated inunediatch~ adjacent to liigfi~av 421 for residcntial dcvclopment. In signing this petition, I understand that the existing zoning map is presumed to be correct and that I have the burden of proving why a change is in the public interest. I further understand the singling out of one parcel of land for special zoning treatment unrelated to County policies and the surrounding t~ boyhood would probably be illegal. I certify that all information presented in this application is ~~te to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. J ~tgna re of ti ' racy ~j~/o O er NEW HANOVER COUNTY BO~AiRD OF~COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 9.5 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Item 5: Zoning Text Amendment - A-294 BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Staff to modify Water Supply Watershed Overlay District requirements to bring them into compliance with Coastal Storm Water Rules relative to the Toomer's Creek Watershed, Class WS-IV. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Planning Board recommends approval. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 2 Pages/5 Minutes REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: rCOUiUTY COMMISSIO APPROVED C7 REJECTED O P~~TPONED O !~@.t~D O 51 2, Add Section 59.8-5(4) to read: "New landfills and sites for the land application of residuals or petroleum contaminated soils are prohibited in the Water Supply Watershed critical area -- defined as extending one-half mite upstream from the water supply intake or to the ridgeling of the watershed, whichever comes first."~~ 3. Add Section 59.8-7 to read: Watershed Buffers: A minimum thirty (30) foot vegetative buffer for the development activities is~required along all perennial waters as indicated on the most recent versions of USGS 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographic' maps or as determined by local government studies." 4. Add Section 59.8-8 to read : "All subdivisions which require an erosion and -- -- sedimentation plan and/or require a CoastalArea Management Act(CAMA) maior permit must be reviewed by 'the North Carolina Division of Water Quality for compliance with the Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200) and the Coastal Storm water Rules (~15A NCAC ZH.1000) " ~~k;~ ~ 5. Add Section 59.8-9 to read: "Under no circumstances shawl the County Board adopt such amendments, supplements, or changes that would cause this ordinance to violate the watershed protection rules as adopted by the ~~ N.C. Environmental Management Commission. All amendments must be ,~J -filed with the N.C. Division of Water Quality." 6. Add Section 110-1(4) to read: "Water Supply Watershed Overlay District -- See Section 59.8." ~,~'~;~(~ 7. Add Section 121-5 to read: "Variances in the Water Supply Watershed Overlay District which would result" in a relaxation of any management requirement by ten percent (10%) ~or greater must be reviewed by the N.C. Environmental Management Commission prior to final approval." 8. Add a new section to the Subdivision Regulations titled Section 35 to read: Water Supply Watershed- All subdivisions which require an erosion and sedimentation plan and/or require a Coastal Area Management Act ~,~:.,..~~...*~ "(:CAMA) maior permit must'be reviewed by the North Carolina Division of +v'~~?V~a`ster Quality for compliance with the Water Supply Watershed Protection ~~~'aRii'les (15A NCAC 2B.0200) and the Coastal Storm water Rules (15A NCAC ~~~ `°2H~1.000. ~,~ ~~. %c ;C i ~ ,`~ 52 ITEM 5 Revisions to the Water Supply Watershed Overla District to Address Overla With Y P Coastal Storm Water Rules (A-294, 3/99) Planning Board Summary Initially, the Board was concerned that the rule changes affected larger areas of the county. However, after Staff explained that the revisions applied exclusively to the Toomer's Creek Water Supply Watershed, the Board was satisfied and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the revisions as submitted. There was no public comment. Staff Summary In a letter from Preston Howard, Director of the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, the County was advised that due to the overlap between the State's Coastal Storm water Rules and the Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules the County's local water supply watershed ordinance would have to be amended. The amendments would add a provision requiring new development or, expansions to existing development that require a sedimentation and erosion control permit as well as all projects requiring a Coastal Area Management Act permit to obtain a review from the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). DWQ would use the following criteria in their evaluation: • -Low Density Development: All new development or expansions to existing development without a discrete curb'and gutter Storm water conveyance system and u°ith less than or equal to 30% built upon area [would require] 1) Thirty (30) foot buffer along both sides of perennial streams. - High Density Development: All new development or expansions to existing development with discrete curb and gutter Storm water conveyance systems and whose built area exceeds 30% [would require] 1}Built upon area cannot exceed 70% 2) Storm water control for the first inch of run-off fora 24 hour storm event. 3) One-hundred (100) foot vegetated buffer along both sides of perennial streams. -General: 1) 10% / 70% provision not allowed. 2) Variances not allowed. 3) Review conducted either at Wilmington Regional Office or Washington NC Office Eliminating the overlap can be accomplished with the following amendments: X. Change wording in Section 59.8(1) to read: "The development of a single family home on a parcel or lot of record where permitted by the underlying • zoning." 53 n . {This page intentionally left blank}, 54 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 9.6 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Item 6: Zoning Text Amendment - A-295 BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by John Hinrichs to add "Pet Grooming" to the table of permitted uses and to permit them in all districts where kennels are allowed and to also allow them by right in the I-1 Light Industrial District. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• Planning Board recommends approval with modification. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 1 Page, 5 Minutes REVIEWED BY: - LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS• r1~1lNi~D ~ 0 4LJ~tYI~J~71®N6f~~7~ APPROVED tai""' 'REJECTED C7 `REMO'JED O 'POSTPONED ^ HEARD 'f • DHTE 7 _~~~~ 55 ITEM 6 ' Q est to Add Pet Groomin to the Table of Zon~nb Text Amendment- Cons~derat~on of a Requ g Permitted Uses (A-295, 3/99) Planning Staff Summary ~ • The Board voted unanimously to recommend revision as suggested by the staff. Specifically, the Board recommends adding "kennels" as a permitted use in the I-1 Light Industrial District. • This recognizes the applicant's dilemma and accommodates the existing definition of kennels in the Zoning Ordinance. Though the recommendation was different from the applicant's suggestion, he said he would support the alternative suggested by staff and the Board. There was no public opposition. Staff Summary Applicant John Hinrichs seeks to add "pet grooming" to.the table of permitted uses and to permit it in all districts where kennels are allowed and to allow it by right. in the:I-1 Light Industrial-District. Under current regulations, kennels are defined to include pet grooming, boarding,.. training, breeding and related activities. They are permitted by right in the PD, B-l, and B-2 Districts with few limitations. They are also permitted in all residential classifications except the R-10 District subject to battery of design controls and criteria. The primary design control includes a minimum acreage based on the number of animals boarded. This can be waived if all activity is conducted within an enclosed building. The latest version of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, now dubbed the North American Industry Classification, United States 1997 ,classifies establishments by the type of activity they are engaged. In this instance, it places pet grooming under-the general category of pet care services. This groups includes boarding, training and pet sitting. Veterinarian services are classified elsewhere. There two basic ways to address the applicant's proposal. One alternative would be to simply endorse the revisions he is suggesting. This would recognize the wide range of retail, industrial and other non-residential uses already permitted by right in the industrial district. It would also retain the special use permit review deemed essential for judging the activity in residential settings. The other alternative and probably the simplest would be to include kennels as permitted use in the I-1 District. This eliminates creating use categories and adding new definitions to the text. As noted, the existing definition of kennel includes grooming activities. Staff recommends modification to the application as follows I-1 Kennels- ~,~,~:_ ,Rn . c 5, ~:~' P No other changes w~ou~d,b;eJneeded. pp~~j 4fi~' Vr~.srf..`-..~ ~w~` ~,~ 5 ~~ 4~~~. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD_:OF.COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Regular Item #: 9.7 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Item 7: Zoning Text Amendment - A-297 BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Staff to revise the Conservation Overlay District requirements to specify that abandoned cemeteries be investigated and delineated by a professional historian, archeologist, or related professional ~ : o ~ 4 d P {tier ~-~cr~(ti ~; t-e ~ n ve.s ~ ~« ~-,`rM .~r d 2i ~~ ec~`r~ c,~ c~e~ferr`es.: RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• Planning Board recommends approval. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: • 1 Page/10 Minutes REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A -FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS• COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: rCOUIVTY COMMiSStON APPROVED ^ REJECTED ^ REMOVED POSTPONED ^ ® HEARD '. DATE .~ /. ~~ ~ ii~5 ~rrn.e.i~~.e., i S ~ iJ - ~ ~~~~~ ITEM 7 . Zoning Text Amendment-Request to Revise the Conservation Overlay District Ordinance to Require that Abandoned Cemeteries Be Delineated by a Professional Historian or Related Expert. (A-297, 3/99) Planning Board Summary Staff advised the Board that the amendment was needed to make sure county personnel had the needed resources to accurately identify these. sites. The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendments as written after being assured by staff that development projects wouldn't be unduly delayed once a site had been discovered. One concerned citizen reminded the Board that identifying the abandoned cemeteries in the County was complicated and any measure that could be incorporated into the review process would be a big help. There was no public opposition. Staff Summary The County amended the zoning ordinance in September 1997 classifying abandoned non-municipal cemeteries as a "Conservation Resource". The purpose of the amendment was two-fold: first, there was a need to provide the same level of treatment extended to other important historical, archeological and related resources that are abundant in the county; and secondly, it would make it easier to identify the sites when development proposals affecting them were submitted. Statutory mandates from the State of North Carolina require counties to take possession and control of all abandoned cemeteries, to see that the boundaries of each are accurately laid out and to preserve them from encroachment. Due to the large number of potential site's in the County and the absence of Staff expertise in these matters, it has been suggested that the ordinance be amended- to require that cemetery sites be authenticated and delineated by a professional historian or similar expert. Thus, at the preliminary development stage of a project where a known cemetery is located or discovered, the County would require that a thorough investigation be conducted by the appropriate professional. At that stage, this person could provide a written description of the site and relevant historical documentation. It is important to note that this process is already required for known historical and archeological sites. To accommodate this change, Section 59.4-4 (7) would be reworded as follows: (note-all changes in text denoted by the italicized bold facing. (7) Historical,. Archeological and Cemetery Sites '~:S 'x(A)~~ ~If a~ieveloper wishes to develop a site with known historical, archeological and/or cemetery resources, he shall either ~ 1~"'~ ~`".Provide for a thorough site investigation by a professional historian, ~~~ ~~~ archeologist or related expert as appropriate and subject to ~ ~~approval by the County.. C.o Y cle.-11 ~1Qu. C`~, MEETING OF TIIE WATER~AND`SEWER DISTRICT COURTROOM 317 316 PRINCESS STREET WILMINGTON, NC April 8, 1999 9:00 A.M. ITEMS OF BUSINESS PAGE NO. 1. NON-AGENDA ITEMS (limit three minutes) 59 2. Approval of Minutes 61 3. Approval of Reimbursement contract #99-0215 Raiford G. Trask, Jr. 63 4. Approval of Budget Amendment #99-37 Water/Sewer District General 69 Sewer Capital Projects ADJOURN ~>J _ ~rn~5lru~:C~ur~ ~-- O ~le~~e~ ~ ~.~=~' ~ 32~ ~y ~ 59 This page intentionally left blank} 60 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION ' Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Water & Sewer Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Governing Body Presenter: Lucie F. Harrell Contact: Lucie F. Harrell SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes -Water & Sewer District BRIEF SUMMARY: Approve the following minutes: Regular Meeting, March 8, 1999 RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 1TEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW Approve mi AND RECOMMENDA rCOUIVTY COMMISSION APPROVED ^ REJECTED ^ REMOVED ^ "~' F~ ~: POSTPONED p WEARD ^ DATE ...:~~ l~ (:.~ • 61 {This page intentionally left blank} -, ~~~~; ~ n, „~, :,~~,~~ ~, s2 • • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Water & Sewer Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Water & Sewer District Contact: Wyatt E. Blanchard Presenter: Wyatt E. Blanchard SUBJECT: Consideration of Approval of Reimbursement Contract #99-0215 -Raiford G. Trask, Jr. BRIEF SUMMARY: Raiford Trask, Jr. constructed 5,600 feet of ten inch sewer gravity line which will serve approximately 426 acres along Military Cut Off. In accordance with the referenced contract between Mr. Trask and the County, development utilizing the sewer line will reimburse Mr. Trask $645.54 per acre. This is based on a total cost of $275,000 and the sewer line serving 426 total acres. The County owns 5.37 acres and will owe $3,467.00. This line serves the new Library (old Hannaford building) and the vacant library site. All other reimbursement to Mr. Trask, other than the above County reimbursements, will be from future developers utilizing the line. All reimbursements will be through the County. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• I recommend that the attached Contract #99-0215 be approved with authorization for the Chairman to execute. - FUNDING SOURCE: Library Budget ATTACHMENTS: WPWin 6.1 REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: BUDGET: NIA COUNTY MA Recommend MMISSIONERS' HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A ~'~? COUNTY COMMI'E'S, IONS APPROVED ~J/~ REJECTED ^ ~2~A~€QVE.D ^ ~N.t`D~ ~ 6 3 !a ~ ~ ~; New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0215 NORTH CAROLINA NEW HANOVER COUNTY THIS CONTRACT, dated this CONTRACT o~ 0 day of , 1999, by and between NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, a body politic and corporate of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as the "District"; and RAIFORD G. TRASK, JR., hereinafter referred to as the "Developer"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Developer is the owner of certain property generally referred to as the Trask property along Military Cut-Off (Tax Parcel No. 5100003001), which properties are hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that sewer lines will be constructed to allow the District ~/ to provide sewage service to the Property, and to others; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that construction of such sewer line shall exceed in size and capacity that which would be required to provide service only to the Property; and WHEREAS, the parties have, pursuant to the New Hanover County Code, agreed, therefore, to share responsibilities and costs associated with the construction of such sewer lines, all as more fully set out hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Project. The parties hereto agree that the sewer mains were constructed in accordance fications File Number 255 in the custody of the New Hanover County Engineers ~g Departmte~nt and made a part hereof, that shall constitute the scope of the work 64 fi ~ ~ ~ ',~ f ~l} ~, - - New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0215 performed, hereinafter referred to as the "Project". 2. Responsibility of Developer. Developer shall be responsible for the following: Payment of all costs associated with the Project, including, but not limited to engineering costs and construction costs, subject to the obligation of other land owners to reimburse Developer a portion of construction cost. 3. Responsibility of District. The District shall provide from other Developers which discharge to this system reimbursement to the Developer in accordance with the provisions of this Contract. 4. Project Cost The Project cost shall include the following: a. All sums paid to all contractors for work performed on the construction of the Project; and b. The total project cost shall be Two Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand ($275,000.00) Dollars. Other Developers' share of said costs shall be based on their respective proportional number of acres to be served compared to the total number of acres served by the sewer line (total acreage is 426 acres). Said other Developers' share of costs shall be paid at time of connecting to the District system. 5. Reimbursement. Reimbursement shall be pursuant to Section 15-94 of the New Hanover County Code. Reimbursement will continue until the appropriate portion of the project cost is paid or until fifteen (15) years from the date of this contract, as set forth above. 6. Indemnity. Developer shall indemnify and hold New Hanover County and New Hanover County Water and Sewer District, its agents and employees, harmless against any and all claims, . demands, causes of action, or other liability, including attorney fees, on account of personal injuries 65 2 New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0215 ' or death or on account of property damages arising out of or relating to the work to be.performed by Developer hereunder, resulting from the negligence of or the willful act or omission of Developer, his agents, employees and subcontractors. 7. Entire Agreement. This Contract represents the complete agreement of the parties relating to the construction of the Project. Any amendment hereto shall be in writing, and shall be executed by the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the execution of this instrument, by authority duly given and on the day and year first above written. NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT 66 [SEAL] ATTEST: Clerk to the Board Robert G. Greer, Chairman BY: RAIFORD G. TRASK, JR. This instrument has been pre- audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Approved as to form: County Finance Director County Attorriey 3 .(SEAL) New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0215 NORTH CAROLINA NEW HANOVER COUNTY I, , a Notary Public of the State and County aforesaid, certify that Lucie F. Harrell personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, and that by authority duly given and as the act of the District, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by its Chairman, Robert G. Greer sealed with its corporate seal and attested by herself as its Clerk. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of , 1999. Notary Public My commission expires: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF' I, , a Notary Public of the State and County aforesaid, certify that RAIFORD G. TRASK, JR., personally came before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of , 1999. Notary Public My commission expires: ~ 67 4 {This page intentionally left blank} 68 ~~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Budget Amendment Water & Sewer Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number: DEPARTMENT: Water/Sewer District-General Sewer Capital Projects BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 99-37 ADJUSTMENT DEBIT Water/Sewer District Appropriate Fund Balance $27,005 Transfer to Sewer Capital Projects General Sewer Capital Projects Transfer in from Fund 800 $27,005 Capital Project Expense CREDIT $27,005 $27,005 EXPLANATION: To adjust budget to final quantities for National Guard Water Line (T.A.,Loving) and for Old Military Cutoff (T.A. Loving). APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY COMMISSION APPROVED p--i REIECTED p REMOVED p RQ$TPONED p ~&i~ARD q r`1 {This page intentionally left blank} r ,.,....,.-~n~~~ Sr~1""~~ ~ py ~~ ~ ~ ?. . ~, :. ~i' ~~~ _ - ~~~ ;. l J ~J NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~~ REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Department: Water & Sewer District Presenter: Wyatt E. Blanchard Contact: Wyatt E. Blanchard SUBJECT: Construction of Ogden Well -Contract No. 99-0320 BRIEF SUMMARY: Operating a water system presents a challenge in providing the best quality water possible to the customers. In order to do this, we have taken two wells out of service which have been delivering water with higher quantities of iron than allowed. Doing this requires us to add an additional well prior to the summer growing season. To accomplish this, the new well will be located adjacent to the Ogden water tower. We have requested and received three (3) quotes for furnishing all equipment and materials for this project. They are as follow: Skipper Well Drilling $ 84,970.00 F&F Construction Co. $ 92,000.00 Meadows Well Drilling $ 95,000.00 Attached is a budget amendment for $95,000 to include some contingency. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• I recommend that Contract Number 99-0320 be awarded to Skipper Well Drilling in the amount of $84,970.00 with authorization for the Chairman to execute the contract. In addition, please approved the associated budget amendment. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: COUNTY COMMtSS10NQts APPROVED [~~ REJECTED ^ • REMOVED ^ POSTPpNED ^ HEARD ,1 /p~ DATE T/~/q9 ~c~ti ~~~~ v ~ ~. ~ ~~~~~~ .APR-06-99 TUE. 09: 57 AM NH -CO MANAGER'S OFF I CE ~ FAK 110, 9103414027 P, O1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OCTCIOOIMM[SS[ONERS ~.,--~'° RE4UEST FC1R BOARD A Meeting Date: 041D6199 • Budget Amendment DEBAR fMENT: Water ~ Sewer District: Sewer Operating Fundl Water ~ Sewer EngineeringlGeneral Sewer Cap~al Projects BUDGtr7 AMENDMENT #: $8-45 ADJUSTMENT DESiT CR<rDtT Water & Sewer District Sewer Operating Fund: $9b,OQt3 Appropriated Fund eatance Water & Sewer Engineering: ~ $95,440 Traasferto SewerCapitaJ Protects Genera( Sewer Capital Projects: $95,000 Operating Transfer do (from Fund 840} Capital project F_xpense $95,000 • EXPLANATION: Ta appropriate Water 8~ Sewer farad balance !or construction of the Qgden well . Contract #89-D324. APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved 6y Board of Commissioners COUNTY COMMISSIONE~~ APPROVED l~- R~JECTED ^ REMOVED ^ POSTPONED ^ '" HARD ~ ~~ DATE .~,~ q~ , J ~J JQ , ~~2~6fi,~~-~ ~vi~~ ~~ ® ~~~~~;~J~ ® ~~~~;} • New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0320 Contractor for the total cost of this contract, a sum not to exceed Eighty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Dollars ($84,970.00). Payment is contingent upon a final District inspection and acceptance of work. 4. Extra Work. District and Contractor shall negotiate and agree upon the value of any extra work prior to the issuance of a Change Order covering said extra work. Such Change •Order shall set forth the corresponding adjustment, if any, to the Contract Price and Contract Time. 5. Indemnity. Contractor ,shall indemnify and hold .District and New Hanover County, their agents and employees, harmless against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, • or. other liability, including attorney fees, on account of personal injuries or death or on account of property damages arising out of or relating to the work to .be performed by Contractor hereunder, resulting from the negligence of or the willful act or omission of Contractor, his agents, employees and subcontractors. 6. Insurance. Contractor shall maintain insurance ~ from companies licensed to write business in North Carolina and acceptable to District, of the kinds and minimum amounts j ..specified below. I 7. Certificates and Notice of Cancellation. Before t commencing work under this contract, Contractor shall furnish District with certificates of all insurance required below. • Certificates shall indicate the type, amount, class of operations 2 ~J • New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0320 covered, effective date and expiration date of all policies, and shall contain the following statement: "The insurance covered by this certificate will not be canceled or materially altered, except after thirty (30) days written notice has been received by District". 8. Workers Compensation and Employers Liabilit•~ Insurance. Covering all of the Contractor's employees to be engaged in the work under this contract, providing the required statutory benefits under North Carolina Workers Compensation Law, and employers liability insurance providing limits at least in the amount of $100,000/500,000/100,000. applicable to claims due ~_ to bodily injury by accident or disease. 9. Commercial General Liability. Including coverage • for independent contractor operations, contractual liability assumed under the provisions of this contract, products/completed operations liability ahd broad form property damage liability insurance coverage. The policy shall provide liability limits at least in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence, combined single limits, applicable to claims due to bodily injury and/or property damage. New Hanover County and District shall be named as additional .insured under this policy. 10. Automobile Liability Insurance. Covering all owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, providing liability limits at least in the amount of .$1,000,000 per occurrence combined single limits applicable to claims due to bodily injury and/or property damage. 3 \J ~J New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0320 11. Independent Contractor. It is mutually agreed that Contractor is an independent contractor and not an agent. of the District, and as such the Contractor shall not be entitled to any County employment benefits, such as, but not limited to, vacation, sick leave, insurance, workmen's compensation, or pension and retirement benefits. 12. Contractor's Installation Floater. Contractor shall provide and maintain Property Installation Floater or appropriate insurance protecting against loss or damage of the equipment to be installed. Coverage shall be written in the amount of one hundred percent (1000) of the contract amount and shall remain in force until accepted by County. The coverage . shall be written in the name of Contractor and shall protect the County as its interests may appear. Contractor shall be responsible for any loss within the deductible applicable to this insurance. The coverage shall be written in the name of Contractor .anal County and shall protect the subcontractors as their interests may appear. 13. Warranty. The Contractor warrants to District that any and all labor furnished to progress the work under this e contract will be competent to perform the tasks undertaken; in a workmanlike manner, so as to meet the standards of workmanlike quality prevailing in North Carolina at the time of construction, that any and all materials and equipment furnished will be of good quality and new unless otherwise permitted by this contract, and that the work will be of good quality, free from faults and 4 ~,/ • New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0320 defects and in strict conformance with this contract. All work not conforming to these requirements may be considered defective. All work shall conform to applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations. In addition to the above warranties, the Contractor expressly warrants all workmanship, materials and labor provided by Contractor for a. period of one (1) year. 14. Default and Termination. If Contractor fails to prosecute the work with such diligence as will insure its completion within the contract time, or if Contractor breaches any of the terms or conditions contained in this contract and fails to cure. said breach within two (2) days of District's mailing of Notice of Default, or otherwise fails to perform the • work hereunder to the District's reasonable satisfaction, .District may terminate this contract forthwith. Upon termination, District may, without prejudice. to an action for damages or any other remedy, take the prosecution of the work out of the hands .of Contractor. District may enter into another contract for the completion of the contract, or use such other methods as may be required for the completion of the contract. District may deduct all costs of completing the contract from any monies due or which may become due to. Contractor. In the event this project is terminated prior to completion of the services by the Contractor, the Contractor shall be paid for. services performed to the date of termination. In no event will the amount due Contractor in the event of termination exceed that amount set forth in paragraph 3 of this Contract. Nothing 5 • New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0320 contained herein shall prevent the District from pursuing any other remedy which it may have against Contractor, including- claims 'for damages. 15. Non-waiver of Riahts. It is agreed that District's failure to insist upon the strict performance of any provision of this Contract, or to exercise any right based upon a breach thereof, or the acceptance of any performance during such breach, shall not constitute a waiver of any rights under this Contract. 16. Conflict of Interest. No paid employee of the District shall have a personal or financial interest, direct or indirect, as a contracting party or otherwise, in the performance • of this Contract. 17. Subcontracts. The Contractor shall utilize no subcontractors for carrying out the services to be performed. under this Contract without the written approval of the District. 18. Entire Agreement. This agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties. 19. Binding Effect. -This contract shall be binding upon the parties hereto,. and their heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns. 20. Further Actions. The parties will make and execute all further instruments and documents required to carry out the purposes and intent of this contract. 21. Inclusive Terms. Use of the masculine herein i shall include the feminine and neuter, and the singular shall 6 • New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0320 include the plural. ~~. Governing Law. A11 of the terms and conditions contained herein shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina. 23. Notices. All notice required hereunder to be sent to either party shall be sent to the following designated addresses, or to such other address or addresses as may hereafter be designated by either party by mailing of written notice of such change of address, by Registered Mail, Return Receipt Requested: To District: New Hanover County Department of Engineering Attention: Wyatt Blanchard, Director • 414 Chestnut Street Wilmington, North .Carolina 28401 To Contractor: Skipper's Well Drilling & Pump Service Attention: C.M. Skipper, President P.O. Box 250 Leland, NC 28451 24. AssignabilitX. It is mutually agreed by the parties hereto that this contract is not transferable and shall not be assigned by either party without the written consent of the other party to this contract. 25. Amendments. This Contract shall not be modified or otherwise amended except in writing signed by the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals, the day and year first above written and by • authority duly given. 7 0 C~ [SEAL] ATTEST: Clerk to the Board [SEAL] ATTEST: Vice President New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0320 This instrument has been pre- audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. County Finance Director • NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER & SEWER DISTRICT Robert G. Greer, Chairman SKIPPER'S WELL DRILLING & PUMP SERVICE President Approved as to form: County Attorney 8 . ~ New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0320 ` NORTH CAROLINA -NEW.HANOVER .COUNTY I,' a.Notary Public of .the _State and County aforesaid, certify that Lucie F. Harrell acknowledged that she. is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County Water & Sewer District, and tYiat by authority. duly given and as the act of the Board, the foregoing instrument , was signed in .its name by its Chairman, Robert G. Greer, sealed with. its corporate seal and attested by herself as its Clerk. WLTNESS my h-and and official seal, this day of ' .1999. ` _ Notary Public . Myscommisson expires: ~`N0'RTH CAROLINA t o NEW ,HANOV.ER COUNTY. I~ a Notary Public of the State and County aforesaid, certifies that LARRY SKIPPER, cameo before me .this day and acknowledged that {s)he. is Vice President of SKIPPER'S WELL DRILLING & PUMP SERVICE, a North .. Carolina corporation, and that by. authority duly given and as the act of the corporation, the foregoing instrument .was signed in its 4name as its President, C.M. .SKIPPER, sealed with its corporate seal and attested by him/herself as its Vice President, LARRY ,SKIPPER. ~r f. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of 1.9.9 9 ' ~ ~ Notary Public ,_ My commission expires: ~. ' : , 9 ~/ <- .:, ~" New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0320 DRAFT .NORTH. CAROLINA ' ~ AGREEMENT NEW.HANOVER COUNTY - THIS CONTRACT; made and entered into this day of 1999, by and between NEW HANOVER COUNTY ~~ - ~ WATER & SEWER DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter. referred to as "District"; arid~ SKIPPER'S WELL DRILLING & PUMP SERVICE, a North Carolina corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"; W I T N E S S E T H" i That the Contractor, for the consideration hereinafter ,fully set out, hereby agrees with the District as follows:. 1. Scope of Services. Contractor shall install a - O chlorine feeder and one 3-0 HP Pump (30HP TB-6 Stage) to the well .head,- set-with 6" T'&C Galvanized P1pe, wire and a well seal. . Contractor shall build a 12'x 15' blockhouse and wire it with 460 . _ volt 3 phase. .Contractor shall, also install well head piping; `. two-tie ins and install the .electrical wiring in the house.. All work herein will be located at the~Ogden Water Tower and will be ;constructed in accordance to the plans titled, New .Hanover Well Improvements, Dated January, 1999, prepared by McKim and Creed .and approved by the 'County Engineer. _ 2.~ Time of Performance. Contracto r shall commence work upon Notice to Proceed and all work shall be completed.. within sixty (60) days of said Notice. ' 3.~ Payment. District hereby agrees to pay to the \J - CONSENT AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - APRIL 8,1999 ITEMS OF BUSINESS PAGE NO. ~r .Approval of Minutes 73 ~~ Approval of allocation of $5,000 to the Chamber of Commerce for legislative ' 75 event in Raleigh ~~' ', • ~' 3. A royal of ossession and control of abandon Rice Road cemete 79 . `~ pp p n' A ; j~4'~ Approval of contract with Sharpe Architecture for Administrative Offices 81 • 71 {This page .intentionally- left blank} '' 72 ~-~ • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Consent Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Governing Body Contact: Lucie F. Harrell Presenter: Lucie F. Harrell SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes -Consent Agenda BRIEF SUMMARY: Approval of the following sets of minutes: Retreat, February 5 and 6, 1999 Regular Meeting, March 8, 1999 • • RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve minutes as presented. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW Approve mi OM COMMISSIONERS ACTIONS/COMMENTS: r~p• n~ P A~Aq ``AP- V®~,V I i VO1VI/YIIW1® APPROVED ~-- REJfCTED ^ REiUC~1'ED ^ ' POS 3 F:.:~~D ^ HEARD ^ . DATE .~7.7_(_ /99 ~,~.,,., 73 { This gage intentionally left blank} r ~ y^!"1!'~!'~ U y~ ktw~ ,.,.r may- .w.r ~,~ /~ .. `~ C! ~a ~, ,. 74~ ~~_~~ _, NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS . REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Consent Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: County Manager Presenter: Contact: Allen O'Neal SUBJECT: Allocation of $5,000 to the Chamber of Commerce for the Legislature Event in Raleigh and approve associated budget amendment #99-0132. BRIEF SUMMARY: It has been proposed that the County, the Chamber of Commerce, and the City of Wilmington host two events for the State Legislature, April 14 and April 15, as outlined in the attached memo, at a cost of $5,000 to the County RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Board should allocated $5,000 for the Legislature events as requested. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: BA#99-0132.w REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: OMME rCOUIVTY COMMISS[01V APPROVED C~_.. REJECTED ^ REMOVED ^ P+~STPONED ^ HEARD (° ~~ • BATE ~ ~_~~:/_ ---.~._ 75 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MEMO March 17, 1999 TO: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Wanda Copley Lucie Harrell FROM: Allen O'Neal County Manag RE: COUNTY, CHAMBER, CITY LEGISLATIVE EVENT IN RALEIGH There are several updates and changes in plans that need to be relayed to you regarding the County's sponsorship and participation in an event for our Raleigh delegation. First, the "Legislative Weekend" proposed for June in New Hanover County had to be canceled due to a several conflicts. Not the least of which is the Statewide Republican Convention. Therefore, the ad hoc planning committee, consisting of Howard Loving, Mary Gornto and I, regrouped to consider alternatives. The current plan is as follows: April 14 Dinner for approximately 30 to 40 people at the Capitol City Club in Raleigh. The County Commissioners, County Attorney and Clerk to the Board and the City Council and respective counterparts, along with the delegation and members of the Chamber Executive Committee are invited. Obviously, this event will occur after 5:00 p.m. The exact time has not been announced. Hotel rooms will be required. April 15 A "Carolina seafood breakfast" will be hosted by the Chamber, County and ~~ „City at~the Folk Life Gallery at the N.C. Museum of History. The entire ~a:j.~.A, ~"~'°Gen`e~al'~Assembly membership will be invited. C~~U~~y-~~1 ' ~~~4":~ ~I will place an iterm~o,n the agenda for the first meeting in April for approval of the $5,000 ~~ ~.. ~,.. r„~ ~contributio'n, , Attached is an update/status memo from Howard Loving. If you have ~~ ~ ~ Eac,~t~ questions, comments„or concerns, please feel free to call. `~;:,.rJ ~, ~c ~ CorinieMMajure 76 Howard Loving .~ n......_.. -- _. _~.__~.~_IWTT A~iT1~T(_T(1T~ Memo: Chairman Bill Caster ~r From: Laura Wilson and Howard Loving Subject: Legislative Weekend // ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ , March 5, 1999 . ~ nn ~ dig 97 1. We would like to bring you up to date on the Legislative Weekend. Originally Legislative Weekend was scheduled for June 11-13th. This date was set last September. However when we attended legislative events in Raleigh on February 2nd (NCCBI) and February 9th (NC State Ports Day), and offer meting with memcers of the New Hanover Delegation, it became clear to us that to host the Weekend in June would be too late in the legislative process. With that in mind, we rescheduled the Weekend for May 21-23rd, • • 2. We later found out that the State Republican Convention in Hickory is the same weekend. Due to Azalea Festival, UNCW graduation, the Coastal Golf Classic, Mother's Day, etc., and major hotel availability, there is no suitable weekend Jeff. With that in mind it is our plan this year - ~ "to take Wilmington and New Hanover County to Raleigh." '~~ . We are proposing that the City of Wilmington and New Hanover ~~~ County, along with the Chamber, host two events in Raleigh. We have p,,~ discussed this alternative proposal with Allen O'Neal and Mary Gornto. ~0 - This is cur p~p~hplease m r yc~E it rr7lAnrlnr fnr~±_h_~~r~~~~+oo• Q,~ I ldth dinner (approximately 30 people) at the Ca ital Ci Club for the New Hanover Dee ~ r ~• Carclinc Seafood Breakfast in the Fo!:c Life C-alle, ir, t ,D~ f Histo for e en ire enera ssembl . We would ask members of the ~, • elegation for their recommendations_on which key legislators should ~k ttend~he dinner.- --- -- -- - / ~ 4, We'll soon send an E-Mail to all le islators about this chan e and will 9 g send official invitations for both events. We are disappointed that we cannot host the V1,~~ekend this year and we hope that the two events in Raleigh will enable us to review adequately the area's legislative needs and the 1999 Legislative Agenda For Business.-~-~ trtl~n.,,, _ L..1 _~l ~~i.....i. v. .;.~ ,.; _.._ . _ _ l i. 1. CJ a, ~ E1c~Va:v o`~I .. ..... _.. ... _ ~. ~ \JVlii~..F:l One Fstell Lee Place ~ ~Yilming[on, NC 28401 • Telephone 910.762.2611 • Telefax 910.762.9765 77 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Budget Amendment DEPARTMENT: Non-Departmental/Outside Agencies/ Economic 8< Physical Development BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 99-0132 ADJUSTMENT Non-Departmental: Contingencies Outside Agencies/ DEBIT CREDIT $5,000 Economic 8~ Physical Development: Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce $5,000 EXPLANATION: To transfer funds from Contingencies to the Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce for the Legislature Event in Raleigh. With approval of this budget amendment, the remaining balance in Conti ncies will be $172,806. APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissione COUNTY COMMI~Y® HF...~,~JED p~ R~~c~.:TED ^ REtv~CVED O fi 7 $ POSTPONED ^ OiEARD ^ ®ATI~ ~-~-~-~~: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD'OF-COMMISSIONERS , REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Consent Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Engineering Presenter: Dave Weaver Contact: Christine Q. Neal SUBJECT: Possession and Control of Abandoned Rice Road Cemetery BRIEF SUMMARY: There are several known abandoned cemeteries on individual parcels of land throughout New Hanover County. Pursuant to State regulations, New Hanover County is required to take possession and control of these sites, if there is no clear title that can be readily determined. This cemetery falls under that category. Attached is a resolution to take possession and control of the Rice Road cemetery. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• ' I recommend that the County take control of this cemetery and establish the boundaries for maintenance purposes. The Board should adopt the attached resolution. FUNDING SOURCE: 110-410-4197-1000-3942 . ATTACHMENTS: Cemetery Resolution -Rice Road REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: NIA HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A Recommend ER'S C01~FMENTS AND RECOMME SSIONERS' AC'TInNS~rnnnnnFtiTC• COUNTY COMMISSION~it~ APPROVED ri~.~- REJECTED p .~ REMOVED p ~' POSTPONED p DATE D.~/~'~ 'mow`-' ~ ~J RESOLUTION OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY ~ -' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WHEREAS, pursuant to G.S. §65-3, the County Commissioners are required to take possession and control of all abandoned public cemeteries to establish properly boundaries; and to preserve such sites, as appropriate; and WHEREAS; an examination of tax records and historical sources indicate that the cemetery situated at 142 Rice Road, Tax Rarcel No. RO6212-002-029-000 is abandoned within the definition of the statutes, without any ascertained record owner, and without any person or entity maintaining said site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners does hereby accept possession and control of the above-referenced cemetery as required by law. This Resolution is directed to be recorded in the Registry of Deeds. This the day of , 1999. (SEAL) New Hanover County William A. Caster, Chairman ATTEST: Clerk to the Board Cl ~~~~ ~~^v ~ ~Y ..,..,.s~ --- r~ w - ~ . -. • • NEW HANOVER COUKNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 04/06/99 Consent Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: County Manager Presenter: Allen O'Neal, Greg Thompson Contact: Allen O'Neal, Greg Thompson SUBJECT: Approval of Contract with Sharpe Architecture for Administrative Offices BRIEF SUMMARY: At the March 22, 1999, meeting the Board of Commissioners directed the Building Committee to reevaluate the proposed arrangements with Sharpe Architecture until further review could occur regarding the direction in which this project will proceed. The Building Committee has met and recommends that the Commissioners proceed with contracting with Sharpe for the following: Review of the current administration building project as defined within the long range space study plan developed by BMS '` Award Contract to Sharpe in the amount of $6?,000 for the feasibility study. The design and consulting services are set up as negotiated change order items that will be brought back to the Board of Commissioners for approval. The Contract is attached. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• FUNDING SOURCE: 375-410-3750-6000 ATTACHMENTS: ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW Recommend ap COMMISSIO S BENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COUNTY CONiNlISSI~~9, APPROVED [~' REJECTED O } REMOVED ~ ~. POSTPONED D HEARD CI ~_~,,~ ®ATE ~~/ ~ ~;;;o~ 81 DRAFT New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 ' NORTH CAROLINA AGREEMENT NEW HANOVER COUNTY THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1999, by and between NEW HANOVER COUNTY, a body political and corporate of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as "County", and SHARPE ARCHITECTURE, PA, hereinafter referred to as "Architect"; for services described- below to be rendered for the following Project: To review and determine the most cost feasible way to meet the County's space needs. The study will review developmental options, as more fully set out in Ezhibit "A"i attached hereto and incorporated herein. The County and Architect hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE I THE ARCHITECT'S BASIC DUTIES TO COUNTY 1.1 ~$y executing this Agreement, Architect represents to County that Architect is professionally qualified to act as the Architect for this Project. Architect further represents to County that Architect will maintain all necessary licenses, permits or other authorizations necessary to act as Architect for this Project until Architect's remaining duties hereunder have been satisfied. Architect assumes full responsibility to County for the improper acts and omissions of its consultants or others employed or retained by Architect in connection with this Project. 1.2 .Execution of this Agreement by Architect constitutes a representation that Architect has become familiar with the Project site and the local conditions under which the Project is to be implemented. 1.2.1 Contrau t;~ hall commence upon issuance of Notice to Proceed and contract shall be ~' ~ ~~~ 8 ~ ~ ~~1ur~~~fc> 1 i Q ~3'~, ~~r~~ New Hanover County,Confract # 99 - 0197 • • completed within forty (40) calendar days. 1.3 Feasibility Study 1.3.1 Architect shall prepare a detailed and comprehensive review of the County's long range study prepared by BMS Architects dated October 1988. Additionally, Architect will determine if the recommendations made by the October 1988 study are the most cost efficient or if other more efficient. options are available. The Architect shall submit a written report with an executive summary describing the findings of the study. 1.4 Preliminary Design; Schematic Drawings by Change Order 1.4.1 Architect shall review and examine existing information, including any desired schedule and budgetary requirements, furnished by County to understand the requirements of the Project and shall review the understanding of such requirements with County: 1.4.2 Architect shall review and discuss with County any alternative approaches to design and construction of the Project. 1.4.3 Architect shall prepare and submit to County for review schematic design documents consisting of drawings and other documents illustrating the scale and relationship of proposed Project modifications. 1.4.4 Architect shall furnish two (2) copies of drawings, sketches, forms and reports as appropriate and necessary for County's use. 1.5 Detailed Design by Change Order 1.5.1 Based on the schematic design documents and any adjustments authorized by County in its program, desired schedule or Project budget, Architect shall prepare and submit to County for review, detailed design documents consisting of drawings and other documents to fix and describe the size and character of the Project. 1.5.2 Architect shall furnish as many copies of drawings, sketches, forms and reports as 2 83 New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 ' ~~ appropriate and necessary for County's use. 1.6 Construction Documents by Change Order 1.6.1 Upon the County's authorization, Architect shall prepare construction documents consisting of drawings and specifications setting forth in detail the requirements for construction of the Project. Such construction documents shall be reasonably accurate, coordinated and adequate for construction and shall be in conformity and comply with applicable law, codes and regulations. Products specified for use shall be readily available unless written authorization to the contrary is given by County. 1.6.2 Architect shall furnish County ~ with two (2) copies of all completed drawings, specifications, reports, estimates, and contract documents and a set of reproducible mylars. ' 1.7.1 Bidding and Award by Change Order Architect following County's approval of the construction documents and of the latest preliminary estimate of construction cost, shall assist County in obtaining bids of negotiated (~ \i proposals and assist in awarding and preparing contracts for construction. 1.7.2 Architect shall issue bid documents to bidders and maintain a record of prospective bidders to whom Bidding Documents have been issued, attend pre-bid conferences and receive and process deposits for Bidding Documents. Architect shall furnish bid documents as necessary. 1.7.3 Architect shall issue addenda as appropriate to interpret, clarify or expand the Bidding Documents. 1.7.4 Architect shall consult with and advise County as to the acceptability of subcontractors, suppliers and other persons and organizations proposed by the prime contractor(s) (herein called "Contractor(s)") for those portions of the work as to which such acceptability is required by the Bidding Documents. 1.7.5 Architect shall consult with County concerning and determine the .acceptability of 84 ' New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 substitute materials and equipment proposed by contractor(s) when substitution prior to the award of contracts is allowed by the Bidding Documents. 1.7.6 Architect shall assist County in evaluating bids or proposals. 1.7.7 Architect shall perform additional work as described herein and required by work authorizations. 1.8 Construction Administration by Change Order 1.8.1 Architect shall provide administration of the construction contract as set forth below and shall perform those duties and discharge those responsibilities set forth herein and in the Agreement between County and Contractor hereinafter referred to as the "Construction Contract". 1.8.2 Upon receipt, Architect shall carefully review and examine the ~ Contractor's Schedule of Values, together with any supporting documentation or data which the County or • Architect may require from the Contractor. The purpose of such review and examination will be to protect County from an unbalanced Schedule of Values which allocates greater value to certain elements of the work than is indicated by such supporting documentation or data or, than is reasonable under the circumstances. If the Schedule of Values is not found to be appropriate, or if the supporting documentation or data is deemed to be inadequate, and unless County directs the Architect to the contrary in writing, the Schedule of Values shall be returned to the Contractor for revision or supporting documentation or data. After making such examination, if the Schedule of Values is found to be appropriate as submitted, or if necessary, as revised, Architect shall sign the Schedule of Values thereby indicating its informed belief that the Schedule of Values constitutes a reasonable, balanced basis for payment of the Contract Price to the Contractor. Architect shall not sign such Schedule of Values in the absence of such belief unless directed to do so in writing, by County. 85 New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 1.8.3 Architect shall carefully review the work of the Contractor whenever and wherever appropriate. The purpose of such inspections will be to determine the quality, quantity and progress of the work in comparison with the requirements of the Construction Contract. In makings such inspections; Architect shall exercise care to protect County from defects or deficiencies in the work, from unexcused delays in the schedule and from overpayment to the Contractor. Following each such inspection the Architect shall submit a written report of such inspection, together with any appropriate comments or recommendations, to County. 1.8.4 Architect shall at all times have access to the work wherever it is located. 1.8.5 Architect shall determine amounts owed to the Contractor based upon observations of the work as required herein, evaluations of the Contractor's rate of progress in light of the remaining Contract Time and upon evaluations of the Contractor's applications for payment, and shall issue certificates for payment to County in such amounts. . 1.8.6. The issuance of a certificate for payment shall constitute a representation by the Architect to County that Architect has made a review of the work as provided herein and to the .best of the knowledge, information and informed belief of Architect, that the work has progressed to the level indicated, that the quality of the work meets or exceeds the requirements of the Construction Contract, and that, the Contractor is entitled to payment of the amount certified. ,1.8.7 Architect shall render written or graphic interpretations necessary for the proper execution or progress of the work with reasonable promptness on request of the Contractor. 1.8.8 Architect shall reject work which does not conform to the contract documents unless directed by County, in writing, not to do so. Whenever, in the Architect's opinion; it is necessary or advisable, Architect shall require special inspection or testing of the work in accordance with the provisions of the Construction Contract whether or not such work is fabricated, installed or completed. 86 • New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 1.8.9 Architect shall review and approve, or take other appropriate action upon, the Contractor's submittal such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples. Approval by the Architect of the Contractor's submittal shall constitute the Architect's representation to County that such submittal is in conformance with the Construction Contract. Such action shall be taken with reasonable promptness so as to cause no delay to the Contractor or the Project. 1.8.10 Architect shall review, and advise County concerning, proposals and requests for Change Orders from the Contractor. Architect shall prepare Change Orders for County's approval and execution in accordance with the Construction Contract, and shall have authority to order with the consent of the County, by Field Order, minor changes in the work not involving an adjustment in the Contract Price or an extension of the Contract Time. 1.8.11 Architect shall conduct a review to determine the date of Substantial Completion C and the date of final Completion, shall receive and forward to County for the County's review written warranties and related documents required by the construction contract and assembled by the Contractor;'and shall, when appropriate, issue a final Certificate for Payment. 1.8.12 Architect shall, without additional compensation, promptly correct any errors, omissions, deficiencies or conflicts in Architect's work product. 1.8.13 Architect shall indemnify and hold New Hanover County, County, their agents and employees, harmless against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, or other liability,, including attorney fees, on account of personal injuries or death or on account of property damages arising out of or relating to the work to be performed by Architect hereunder, resulting from the negligence of or willful act or omission of Architect, his agents, employees and subcontractors. 1.9 Additional Services Any additional services will be negotiated with the Architect to be paid on the 6 87 New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 .._ basis of the attached herein (see Exhibit "A"), or as otherwise agreed upon through Change Order. 2.1 ARTICLE III BASIS OF COMPENSATION County shall pay Architect a sum not to exceed Sixty-Two Thousand Dollars ($62,000.00) ARTICLE IV PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT 3.1 Architect's Invoices 3.1.1 On or before the 10th day of each month, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Architect .and County, Architect shall submit an invoice to County requesting "payment for services properly rendered. Architect's invoice shall describe with reasonable particularity each service rendered, and the date thereof. 3.1.2 'Tf payment is requested for services rendered by Architect, the invoice shall additionally reflect the allocations as provided in Article III and shall state the percentage of completion as to each such allocation. The invoice shall bear the signature of Architect, which signature shall constitute Architect's representation to County that the services indicated in the invoice have progressed to the level indicated, have been properly and timely performed as required herein, that the reimbursable expenses included in the invoice have been reasonably incurred, that all obligations of Architect covered by prior invoices have been paid in full, and that, to the best of Architect's knowledge, information and informed belief, the amount requested is currently due and owing, there being no reason known to Architect that payment of any portion thereof should be withheld. Submission of Architect's invoice for final payment and reimbursement shall further constitute Architect's representation to' County that, upon receipt 88 r ' : t., ,- . • New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 from County of the amount invoiced, all obligations of Architect to others, including its consultants, incurred in connection with the Project, will be paid in full. 3.2 Time for Payment 3.2.1 County shall make payment to Architect of all sums properly invoiced as provided in Payments to Architect paragraph, within thirty (30) days of County's receipt thereof. 3.3 Owner's Right to Withhold Payment 3.3.1 In the event that County becomes credibly informed that any representations of Architect; are wholly or partially inaccurate, County may withhold payment of sums then or in the future otherwise due to Architect until the inaccuracy, and the cause thereof, is corrected to County's reasonable satisfaction. 3.4 Reimbursable Expenses • 3.4.1 Reimbursable Expenses shall mean: expenses incurred by Architect and Architect's consultants in the interest of the Project, as follows: 3.4.2 'Reasonable expenses o£ transportation in connection with the Project; long- distance communications; actual cost of reproduction,, postage and handling of drawings, specifications and other documents; renderings, models and mock-ups requested by County; additional insurance coverage or limits, including professional liability insurance, requested by County in excess of that specified in Paragraph 7.1.2 of this Agreement 3.1 Architect's Records 3.1.1 Documentation accurately reflecting the time expended by Architect and his personnel and records of Reimbursable Expenses shall be maintained by Architect and shall be available to County for review and copying upon request. 4.1.2 The Architect shall maintain books, records, documents and other evidence directly pertinent to the work under this Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting 8 i 89 New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 principles and practices. The County, or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books, documents, papers, records and other evidence which relates directly to the Project for the purpose of examination, audit, excerpts and transcriptions. 4.1.3 Records described above shall be maintained and made available during the performance under this Contract and for a period of three years after the County makes final payment and all other pending matters are closed. ARTICLE VI TERMINATION 5.1 Termination for Cause 5.1.1 This agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven (7) days written notice to the other should such other party fail substantially to perform in accordance with its material terms through no fault of the party initiating the termination. 5.2 Termination by County Without Cause 5.2.1 This Agreement may be terminated by County without cause upon seven (7) days' written notice to Architect. In the event of such a termination without cause, Architect shall be compensated for all services performed prior to termination, together with Reimbursable Expenses incurred. In such event, Architect shall promptly submit to County its invoice for final payment and reimbursement which invoice shall comply with the provisions of Paragraph 5.1, ARTICLE VII MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 6.1 Insurance. Architect shall maintain insurance from companies licensed to write business in North Carolina and acceptable to New Hanover County of the kinds and minimum amounts specified below. 6.1.1 Certificates and Notice of Cancellation. Before commencing work under this 90 9 New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 contract, Architect shall furnish County with certificates of all insurance required below. Certificates shall indicate the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective date and expiration date of all policies, and shall contain the following statement: "The insurance covered by this certificate will not be canceled or materially altered, except after thirty (30) days written notice has been received by County". 6.1.2 Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance. Covering all of the Architect's employees to be engaged in the work under this contract, providing the required statutory benefits under North Carolina Workers Compensation Law, and employers liability insurance providing limits at least in the amount of $100,000/500,000/100,000. applicable to claims due to bodily injury by accident or disease. 6.1.3 Commercial General Liability. Including coverage for independent contractor operations, contractual liability assumed under the provisions of this contract, products/completed operations liability and broad form property damage liability insurance coverage. Exclusions applicable to explosion, collapse and underground hazards are to be deleted when the work involves these exposures. The policy shall provide liability limits in at least in the amount of $300,000 per occurrence, combined single limits, applicable to claims due to bodily injury and/or property damage. New Hanover County shall be named as an additional insured under this policy. 6.1.3 Automobile Liability Insurance. Covering all owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, providing liability limits at least in the amount of $300,000 per occurrence combined single limits applicable to claims due to bodily injury and/or property damage. 6.1.4 Professional Liability Insurance. The Architect will be required to take out and maintain Professional Liability Insurance providing liability insurance limits at least in the amount of $300,000 Dollars. The Architect will be required to maintain this coverage for a period of at least two (2) years beyond substantial completion of the contract. 10 91 New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 6.2 Independent Contractor 6.2.1 It is mutually understood and agreed that Architect is an independent contractor and not an agent of County, and as such, Architect, his or her agents and employees shall not be entitled to any County employment benefits, such as, but not limited to, vacation, sick leave, insurance, worker's compensation, or pension or retirement benefits. 6.3 Nonwaiver of Rights 6.3.1 It is agreed that County's failure to insist upon the strict performance of any provision of this agreement, or to exercise any right based upon a breach thereof, or the acceptance of any performance during such breach, shall not constitute a waiver of any rights under this agreement. However, specific written waivers signed by the authorized County representative shall be binding upon County. 6.4 Conflict of Interest 6.4.1 No paid employee of the County shall have a personal or financial interest, direct or indirect, as a contracting party or otherwise, in the performance of this agreement. 6.5 Subcontracts 6.5.1 Architect shall utilize no subcontractors for carrying out the services to be performed under this agreement without the written approval of the County. By the execution of this agreement, County grants prior approval to the following subcontractors: 6.6 Further Actions 6.6.1 The parties will make and execute all further instruments and documents required to carry out the purposes and intent of this agreement. 6.7 Inclusive Terms 6.7.1 Use of the masculine herein shall include the feminine and neuter, and the singular shall include the plural. 92 11 New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 6.8 Governing Law 6.8.1 All of the terms and conditions contained herein shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina. 6.9 Time is of the Essence 6.9.1 Time limitations contained herein, or provided for hereby, are of the essence of this Agreement. 6'.10 Use and Ownership of Documents 6.10.1 The drawings, specifications and other documents or things prepared by Architect for the Project shall become and be the sole property of County. Architect shall be permitted to retain copies thereof for its records and for its future professional endeavors. Such drawings, specifications and other documents or things are not intended by Architect for use on other projects by County or others. Any reuse by County or by third parties without the written . approval of Architect, shall be at the sole risk of County and County shall indemnify and save harmless the Architect from any and all liability, costs, claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorneys' fees arising out of, or resulting from, such reuse; provided however, that this . agreement to indemnify and save harmless shall not apply to any reuse of documents retained by, or through, the Contractor. 6.11 Successors and Assigns 6.11.1 Architect shall not assign its rights hereunder, excepting its right to payment, nor shall it delegate any of its duties hereunder without the written consent of County. Subject to the provisions of the immediately preceding sentence, County and Architect, respectively, bind themselves, their successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement and to the successors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. 12 93 New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 . ~J 6.12 No Third-Party Beneficiaries 6.12.1 Nothing contained herein shall create a contractual relationship with, or any rights in favor of, any third party. 6.13 Entire Agreement 6.13.1 This Agreement represents the entire agreement between County and Architect and supersedes all prior communications, negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both County and Architect. 6.14 Notices . 6.14.1 All notices required hereunder to be sent to .either party shall. be .sent to the following designated addresses; or to such other address or addresses as may' hereafter be designated by either party by mailing of written notice of such change of address, by Registered Mail, Return Receipt Requested: To County: Greg Thompson, Chief Project Engineer New Hanover County Engineering Department ` 414 Chestnut St., Room 101 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 To Architect: Sharpe Architecture, PA Attention: Phillip Sharpe, President The Forum - 1131 - A Military Cutoff Road Wilmington, NC 28405 6.15 Non-Discrimination 6.1.5.1 Architect will take affirmative action not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment or otherwise illegally deny any person participation in or the benefits of the program which is the subject of this agreement because of race, creed, color, sex, age, 94 13 . =~ New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 disability or national origin. To' the extent applicable, Architect will comply with all provisions of Executive Order No. 11246, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) and 1968 (P.L. 90-284), and all applicable Federal, State and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, including all Federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requirements, orders, instructions, designations and other directives promulgated. to prohibit discrimination. Violation of this provision, after notice, shall be a material breach of this agreement and may result, at County's option, in a termination or suspension of this agreement in whole or in part. 7. Goal for Participation by Minority Businesses It is the policy of the County that minority businesses shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts financed with public money including contracts awarded pursuant to the requirements of Article 8 of the N. C. G. S. New Hanover County has adopted a ten percent (10%) verifiable goal for . participation by minority businesses in ~ the total value of work required by the terms and conditions of this contract. Architect covenants and agrees to comply with said policy of the County and the provision of N.C.G.S. Article 8 and shall follow County guidelines specifying the actions that Architect must take to ensure a good faith effort in the recruitment and selection of minority businesses for participation in this contract. 8. Incorporation. Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals, the day and year first above written and by authority duly given. 14 95 New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 NEW HANOVER COUNTY [SEAL] Allen O'Neal, Manager ATTEST: Clerk to the Board SHARPE ARCHITECTURE, PA [CORPORATE SEAL] President ATTEST: _ _ Secretary , This instrument has been pre- ' audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Approved as to form: County Finance Director County Attorney NORTH CAROLINA NEW HANOVER COUNTY I, a Notary Public of the State and County aforesaid, certify that Lucie F. Harrell personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of the Board, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name IS 96 New Hanover County Contract # 99 - 0197 i by its Manager, sealed with its official seal and attested by herself as its Clerk. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of ~ 1999. Notary Public My commission expires: STATE OF COUNTY OF I, a Notary Public of the State and County aforesaid, certify that personally came before me this day and acknowledged that (s)he is Secretary of SHARPE ARCHITECTURE, PA, a North Carolina corporation, and that by authority duly given and as the act of the corporation, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by its President, sealed with its official seal and attested by herself as its Secretary. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of , 1999. Notary Public My commission., expires: 16 97 ~ Sl-G~RP~ IRCBIiECiURE•P1 March 9, 1999 Mr. Greg Thompson, Project Engineer New Hanover County 414 Chestnut Street Wilmington, N.C. 28401 Re: Feasibility Study for New Hanover County Administrative Offices Dear Greg: We are pleased to offer this proposal for consulting services for the referenced project. This proposal is based upon the information you have furnished to us.that includes the Long Range Study (October 1998 by BMS) and Allen O'neal's memo to the Board of County Commissioners dated February 25, 1999 as well as interviews with you. ` I understand the objective of the study is to determine the most cost feasible way to meet the coun 's s ace needs. The study will include three development options as described in Allen O'neal's 2/25/99 memo.ln addition to cost, other factors should be evaluated including disruption of operations, proximity to other municipal offices and other criteria the Building Committee may adopt. We propose to perform the following tasks: Kickoff Meeting With the Building Committee we will formalize the objectives of this feasibility study, expected results and establish criteria for evaluating feasibility. We will review the Long Range Study prepared by BMS with respect to this project and make recommendations for space standards. We will also verify concepts such as people and activity grouping, relationships, density and hierarchy and we will verify certain design and Performance criteria. This exercise is not to be considered full programming. We will only discuss concepts that affect space needs and building system performance. A schedule for the study will be developed and adopted by all parties. Meeting Minutes will be produced. Space Needs Verifications Using the Long Range Study prepared by BMS as a beginning point, we will verify the space needs for all depamnents associated with this project. We will meet with all 17 departments and verify current and projected staffing requirements and other space drivers. Adjusted space allocations will be applied to each department. A report will be produced giving deparnnental summaries and totals. Option One Study Building We will Perform a survey of the existing Administration Building to verify existing conditions and determine building component and system shortcomings with respect to the criteria established in the kickoff meeting. More specifically we will analyze the HVAC, electrical plumbing and conveyance systems, building envelope, and building finishes. We will also provide a survey of hazardous materials. We will then prepare cost estimates to make improvements. 9 8 ~~s~ A ^ THE FORUM 1131-A Military Cutofi Road, Wilmington, NC 28405 910-256-8700 FAX 910-256-I 121 ^ . 3 • Site We will conduct a zoning and TRC requirement analysis. With this information we will then provide concept site plans for the purpose of determining site design options. Up to three parking deck configurations will be explored and analyzed with respect to deck and overall site development costs. . Storm water impact fees will be determined. Option Two Study Library Building With the Committee we will determine which departments will most likely be located in the library building. We will perform a survey of the existing library third floor to verify existing conditions and determine building component and system shortcomings with respect to the criteria established in the kickoff meeting. More specifically we will analyze the HV;AC, structural, electrical, plumbing, conveyance systems, building envelope, and building finishes. We will also provide a survey of hazardous materials. We will then prepare cost estimates to make improvements. New Building Using the revised space needs information we will prepare cost estimates for new construction. Estimates wilt be prepared using unit costs only. Site We will conduct a zoning and TRC requirement analysis. With this information we will then provide concept site plans for the purpose of determining site design options. Up to three parking deck configurations will be explored and analyzed with respect to building, deck and overall site development costs. Storm water impact fees will be determined. Option Three Study . Based upon adjusted space needs data, we will determine appropriate construction cost budget numbers for a new building on an undetermined site. Hazardous Material Survey In addition to surveying the Administration Building, we have also included surveying the Annex building. Although the building will be demolished, we will still have to determine the potential cost implications of dealing with hazardous waste disposal. Report We will produce a written report with an executive summary describing the findings of this study. It will include copies of all data collected, minutes of all meetings and cost summaries. Determination of Real Estate Value Part of this study will also include determining the cost to upgrade the Administration Building for use as a rental property. The County will need to determine at what level they wish to compete in the market in order to maximize their investment return. [recommend that the county retain the services of a qualified lease management consultant to advise them in this regard. Also, in order to determine how much value should be added, we must know the value of the building in its current condition. [therefore recommend that you have an appraisal made. We will work with both the appraiser and lease management consultant to determine cost feasibility. ~ 99 Compensation Compensation for the above services shall be the lump sum of Compensation is broken down by _/ consultant as follows: SHARPE Architecture $20,660.00 IES 14,000.00 Kimley Horn 7,500.00 Carswell Business Systems ,1,980.00 Haz. Mat. Survey 15,000.00 Total $60,140.00 Expenses shall be reimbursed in accordance with the following Reimbursable Expense Schedule. I recommend that you budget $1,500.00 for these expenses. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Cad Plots $9.00/sheet 24" x 36" Large Document Copy $1.25/sheet 30" x 42" Large Document Copy $1.50/sheet 24" x 36" Paper Sepia $3.60/sheet 30" x 42" Paper Sepia $6.50/sheet 8.S" x 11"Photocopy $O.OS/sheet Fax Transmittal $2.00/sheet Diskettes $1.25/each Postage Expenses As Incurred Telephone Expenses As Incurred J Mileage for out of town travel in conjunction with t he project shall be reimbursable at the rate of $.31/mile. Payments shall be monthly proportionate to the amount of services completed with payment due ten days from date of invoice. Additional services beyond the scope of services described herein shall be reimbursed on an hourly basis at the consultants' prevailing rates. New Hanover County shall furnish SHARPE Architecture with the County's ADA implementation Plan, plans of existing facilities, topographic surveys and other information as necessary for SHARPE Architecture to conduct their services. SHARPE Architecture shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy of all County furnished information. We appreciate this opportunity and look forward to working with you, the administration and staff. Sincerely, SHARPE Architecture, P A. Philip Sharpe, President Cc: Rick Collins, Sharpe Architecture David Blue, SHARPE Architecture 1 O O Z \sdminlProposalWew Hatrover County4ldminitiration Annex $ite~Propotal Lent-Feasibility doc • • ., ti. P i PA ; ID I Tech j S ec Kickoff Meeting ~ 2 8 ~ 4 i ~ Verify Space Needs Analysis I i i ( i 17 Department Interviews) j 24 24 j j Adjust Space Standards ~ j 1 4 j Report] 1 ! 2 j j 2 i' Option One I ~ I ! ; ~ ~ Building Survey-Architectural 16 i I ' 20 ~ As-Built Drawings (Bldg & Site) ~ 2 j Site Analysis) 12 j 16 j ~ 2 Cost Estimating ; 12 i i I i MEP Coord.; ~ g ~ 2 Haz Mat Coord.; I g MAI Coord. ; j 4 j i j Report; j 0.5 ! ~ g ~ ; 2 i Option Two ~ I ~ i i ~ j j Determine Library Occupancy! i g ~ Evaluate Library Building; q ~ ~ As-Built Drawings (Bldg and Site); ~ 1 i 4 i ~ 8 Zonoing and Site Analysis; ~ 1g ' Cost Estimating i 12 2 ~ i Haz Mat Coord. 2 MEP Coord.; ~ g i 2 j Report! 0.5 ;' g I )ption Three , 'erify Cost Data ~ i 8 ' j general final Committee Meeting ~ I resentation to Commissioners ~ ~ 2 4 ~ 2 I ~tal Hours ate ~ 6 ~ ~ 178 ~ ~ ,' 36 ; 52 . 4 'e Subtotal ~ $ $ 125 ' $ 750 ; $ 95 ; $ 55 $ 55 I $ 35 ' 16,910 ! $ 1,980 $ 2,860 j $ 140 CARPE Architecture j $ I 20 660 j ~ S mley Horn I $ , 14,000 j I j arswell Building Systems j $ 7,500: i i 3z. Mat. Survey ; $ ~K 15,000 j I tal Fee ' $ 1,000 i i $ 60,140 101 1. STATUS OF PENDER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PROPOSED DISCUSSION POINTS • Both parties are working on a draft Memorandum of Understanding which establishes the framework for the relationship. • Key elements of the proposed agreement include: - Pender Memorial Hospital, Inc. will become an affiliate of New Hanover Regional Medical Center Pender Memorial Hospital, Inc.~will enter into a 20-year lease with Pender County. Pender Memorial Hospital Inc. will have a Board of 7-9 members with a majority being appointed by the Pender County Commissioners. The remaining members will be appointed by New Hanover Regional Medical Center. The Pender Memorial Hospital Chief of Staff will be an ex-officio member of the Board. The Ponder Memorial Board will have the responsibility for credentialing, peer review activity and quality assurance issues. - The Ponder Memorial Board will make recommendations to the New Hanover Regional Medical Center Board for capital and operating budgets, strategic plans and the addition or deletion of programs. - New Hanover Regional Medical Center will recommend the New Hanover County • Commissioners expand the New Hanover Regional Medical Center Board to include two (2) Ponder County residents with one being the Ponder Memorial Hospital Chief of Staff. - New Hanover Regional Medical Center will make a $980,000. investment in Ponder Memorial Hospital to be used for capital and operational expenses. - Pender Memorial Hospital will continue to make payments ($84,000/year) to Ponder County to retire the existing Home Health debt. - Upon retirement of the Home Health debt, Pender Memorial Hospital will make payments of $50,000/year to Ponder County unless the annual operations of Ponder Memorial Hospital do not meet or exceed the Board designated performance parameters. - All revenues generated by Pender Memorial Hospital will remain with the Hospital to fund capital and operating expenses. Once both parties agree upon the Memorandum of Understanding, it must be approved by all Boards (Pender County Commissioners, New Hanover County Commissioners, Ponder Memorial Hospital and New Hanover Regional Medical Center). • The lease agreement will be drafted upon completion of the Memorandum of Understanding. '~ The affiliation will begin once the Quorum agreement terminates. `~/