1974-01-21 RM Exhibits
UNITED WAY PLANNING COMMISSION
Luther Dunn, Chairman
John A. Corbett
George Harmon
S. J. Ho~.vie
John A. Jones
1/2II;-
Dr. J. (Paul} Reynolds
Z~Vill.iam (Bill) Schwartz
Mrs. Henry M. (Alice) von Oesen
Dan Morton
Joe Medlin
- 1 -
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Pla~~___ Co~-nittee Purpose:
1. met°rmine community needs in Cape Fear Area and whether
o. -oi being met as a guide for United Way Planning and
"~~1na
o•
_. ~ _-. ~~? ~-x ~~~ays to measure service effectiveness of Agencies
-: =rsus need and cost.
3. .~~.-!re that plans exist to meet needs in area most effectively.
- Evaluate existing services and plans.
- Coordinate existing agency plans and programs.
- Help initiate new programs where needed.
NOT ~.
- ??..=_r~.ing Committee does not
• develop detail plans for agencies
s implement plans -- the agencies do.
lj?_ __
-2-
r
Obiec`_~-e Today:
- Inform you on evaluation of needs and plans for youth
services (ages 6 - 18) in New Hanover County.
- ~s?~ your general support and participation in developing
and implementing plan.
tiVhv
- Tmmediate needs of youth
- Long range impact of helping young people
- Current e:~pansion plans in progress
1/21!7'_
- 3 -
Ger_e=~ Conclusions:
'_. ?=drams and facilities for youth (boys and girls) are
~r_~equate to meet growing needs -- especially in the
=pan area west of 17th Street.
?. ~ c_-~t programs by United Way agencies and City are
~c~yired to meet youth's needs.
~, ~~=ted Way agencies and City need to serve both boys and
-' ~.s to meet needs adequately.
_, ~~:ed Way Planning Division and United Way agencies
.= ^ ould cooperate with City planning survey of youth
a=ograms and facilities.
1/ZI.'~-
- 4 -
Finance s
1. Capital Needed (Building and Equipment}
- New Community Boys Club facility $~k00M - $500M
- Ne~v Brigade Boys Club facility
($SOM on hand} $300M - $400M
- Renovate Third Street facility $50M
Total $750M - $950M
2. Operating Cost
- Estimate additional/year. $25M - $50M/Year.
1 /21 /7~
-5-
.-
Surzr^_=
? . '~,-eed plan for capital money
a. All from revenue sharing City/County
b. All from private campaign.
c. Combination of (a.) and (b. ).
Z. =~~__ ~ Step
- Develop specific plans by group
composed of:
- several County Commissioners
- several City Councilmen
- United Way representatives
$15pM/Year each
for 3 years
- Representative from 3 agencies involved.
1/Z1,-`
-6-
~a~
LARRY J POWELL
Tax Administrator
RAYMONDE BLAKE,JR
Appraisal Supervisor
119 No. Fifth St.
~aAI~~~PI'
~O~
~~
trtningtor~, ~. ~L. 28401
NEW HANOVER COUNTY TAX COLLECTIONS
COLLECTIONS THRU DECEMBER 31, 1973
1973
Regular Scroll Charges 5,636,844.85
Discoveries Added 1,325,790.75
6,962,635.60
Less Abatements - 11,355.45
Total Taxes Due New Hanover Cty. 6,951,280.15
Total Prepayments Collected - 344,311.96
Collections to Date -5,534,387.62
Outstanding Balance 1,072,580.57
Percentage Collected 84.50
Back Taxes 1973
Real Estate Taxes 361,200.30
Less Abatements - 5,152.95
Total Collections To Date - 88,665.79
Outstanding Balance 267,381.56
Percentage Collected 24.90
MAE B. STUART
Listing Supervisor
JANIE B STRAUGHN
Collector of Revenue
762-0391
1972
5,355,582.25
1,050,951.98
6,406,534.23
- 16,301.96
6,390,232.27
- 370,055.78
-4,813,045.08
1,207,131.41
81.10
1972
436,216.30
- 3,082.01
-116,142.34
316,991.95
26.8 0
Personal Property 319,437.58
Less Abatements - 207.98 No Control
Total Collections To Date - 26,461.31 Established
Outstanding Balance 292,768.29 Until May 197<
Percentage Collected 8.30
Total money processed through collection office for New Hanover County,
City of Wilmington, Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, and Wrightsville Beach
to date $9,121,169.74.
Phis report is for fiscal year beginning July 1, 1973.
Respectfully submitted.
~.
Janie B. Straughn
Collector of Revenue
MEMORANDUM
January 15, 1974
T0: New Hanover County Board of County Commissioners
Mr. Dan Eller, County Manager
FROM: Larry J. Powell
Tax Administrat
SUBJ: Abatements 8 Refunds
Request the following taxes be abated as these are clerical
errors
1. Robbie H. Pridgen
2. Robert T. Murphy
3. Ralph M. Jolly
4. Howard Strope
5. Thomas W. Sheets
6. Joseph J. Winley
7. Henry J. Bethea
8. Maynard A. Olyer
$62.61 (Refund)
6.48
26.63
10.28
115.94 (Refund)
39.12
18.43
12.13 ( Refund )
The below listed taxpayers contend they listed their property
during regular listing period and further request loo listing penalty
be removed.
1. J. W. Jackson Beverage Co. $280.16
2. William R. Mc Clain 3.68
3. P. D. Piney, Jr. 25.34
4. John L. Mitchell .40
5. Cliff D. Lewis 9.08
Request the following taxes be released as the individuals
do not reside in the City of Wilmington, or the personal property
is located in the County.
1. Rom J. Jenkins $ 34.75
2. Margaret D. Edmunds 24.58
3. J. W. Holman III 44.01
4. John 0. Perritt 38.31
45.19
5. William Elledge 25.43
6. Charles E. Moss 53.20
7. Robert F. Knowles 54.05
8. James R. Hudgins 22.04
9. David Ames 27.81
10. Carl Tyndall 36.67
11. Jerry P. Cribb 40.95
12. Hugh T. Jernigan 17.74
13. Richard P. Blanchard 18.65
14. George D. Inscoe 19.21
(1973)
(1972 Refund)
(Refund)
.. ,~ +
15. Robert M. Hammonds $ 28.59
16. William R. McCauley 44.07
17. Howard A. Penton, Jr. 38.00
18. Mary E. Harris 55.09
19. Thomas S. Tinney 46.04
20. Linda F. Smith 48.31
21. James E. Todd 26.73
22. J. H. Cromartie g,lg
23. Lawrence E. Lewis 35.88
24. Marsha C. Weaver 35.63
25. Mark W. Jones 30.17
26. Sara Taylor 41.87
Request the following taxes be released as the taxpayer
reported incorrect information.
1. Jerry L. Bell $ 4.67
2. C. T. Davis 32, gg
3. Fernando Caronan 12.56
4. Chateau Terrace Apts. 207.57
Request the following taxes be abated as they have been
double listed.
1. Lee Roy Armstrong $138.77
2. Dale E. Twombly 23.47
3. Lindley G. Wagoner 122.52 (1972)
4. Clarence L. Barnes 8 2.94 (19 69 )
5. Frances B. Yopp 116.12 (1969)
6. James B. Malpass 121.59 (1969)
7. James W. Chapman 222.43 (1969)
8. William C. Fowler 46.19 (1969)
9. H. R. Savage 153.38 (1969)
10. James G. Davis 137.27 (1967)
11. Wise Homes of Wilmington 33.00 (1968)
12. Russell L. Lewis 117.82 (1969)
13. David L. Toycen 94.11 (1964)
14. Sylvia 0. Tice 82.62 (1969)
15. J. Earl Sneeden 20.28 (1968 & 69)
16. Katie D. Harris 1.89 (Refund)
17. Avgerinos V. Saffo 10.53 (1966)
18. Charity Sidbury 12.96 (1969)
19. Richard L. Williams 181.60 (1968)
20. J. V. Henson 2.00
21. Robert T. Murphy 57.23
22. Cynthia J. Matzke 14.21
23. Industrial Uniform Service 1842.07
24. Charlie Shofe 15.82
25. Millard J. Fountain 10.95
26. Robert G. Collins 50.56
27. Howard M. Loughlin 40.66 (Refund)
28. Drs. Galloway & Jones 282.68
2
3
29. Bobbie B. Wells $ ,84
30. Hyman L. Harris 3.33
31. Clarance Wood 33.27
32. Fred J. Welsh 33.98
33. Roland V. Godwin 59.26
34. Thomas B. Gill, Jr. 8.31
35. Lillie H. McKener 16.12
36. Blake Builders 92.11 (1970)
37. Edith S. Ellis 3.93
Pl ease place this item on the agenda for the County Commissioners'
Meeting of January 21, 1974.
Copy Mrs. King
LJP/pjr
COUNTY NEWS -.Ianuary.l4, 1974 -
~4n Open L~~t~r ~o Con~r~ss:
1nc~ude Counties In Community Development Legislaf`ion
Dear her. Congressman:
As a member of the 93rd Congress you
are faced with a number of critical
decisions, not the least of which-is how to
allocate limited federal fiscal resources for
the elimination and prevention of slums
and blighted nreas, inadequate housing and
inadequate community facilities and
services, all of which are plaguing our
nation's urban centers.
Pending community development block
grant legislation, which Congress has
considered in various fomtis over the past
three years, is designed to restructure the
federal effort to Help solve local physical
development problems.
Originally, proposals called for
consolidating various categorical
community development grant programs
administered by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) -
urban renewal, model cities, water and
sewer, open space, rehabilitation loans,
public facility loans and neighborhood
facilities - into a single block grant
program.
Under these proposals funds would have
been distributed by formula to cities over
50,000 in population.
'I~lre formula was intended to determine
need objectively and thus channel funds to
those areas on the basis of need. Nearly 60 .
percent of the amounts authorized would
have been guaranteed to these cities. Other
local governments, including counties
regardless of population, would have been
forced to compete for the limited funds
remaining.
While the National Association of
Counties (NACo) does not deny cities have
a need for some of these funds, it does not
believe that cities should be morn favored
than another local government also
suffering from the same problems -
namely, the urban county.
The official policy of the National
Association of Counties adopted in 1972
and reaffirmed in 1973 calls for
community development block grant
legislation to provide a formula share of
funds for urban counties, defined as those
over 200,000 in population, excluding the
population of metropolitan cities (those
over 50,000) within the county.
'I'iris definition was contained in an
amendment adopted as part of the 1973
House Banking and Currency Committee's
version of community development block
grant legislation.
The Administration in 1973 recogni=ed
the need of urban counties for a formula
share of funds and incorporated this
definition into eta "Better Communities
Act "proposal.
In testimony before the House and
Senate Subcommittees on Housing in 1973,
NACo justified including urban counties in
the formula distribution of community
development funds:
1. The problems which community
development block grant funds seek to
solve are not exclusively confined to
metropolitan cities, nor are they the sole
responsibility of cities to solve. Rather,
these problems know no geographical
bowrdaries and exist in Wrens under the
jurisdiction of both cities and counties.
2. The 200,000 base population figure
for urban cotmties is appropriate since it
equates the criteria of need, powers and
responsibility, and expectK~tion of using
formula funds for the purposes set forth in
the le6~islation by such counties vis-a-vis
metropvlitan cities. It represents a concept
of eyual consideration for the needs of
areas outside of metropolitan cities as well
as those within, which are often identical in
characteristics.
3. Cowrties are the major providers of
public assistance and social services at the
local level, both to people within and
outside the central city. '1'he:;e services have
a direct relationship on the ability to
undertake a comprehensive comnnurity
development program. Thus, there is every
reason to treat urban counties in the s,rme
manner as metropolitan cities and afford
them a formula share of funds.
4. The intent of the community
development block grant consolidation is
to provide federal assistance on an annual
basis, with maximum certainty and
minimum delay, and upon which
communities can rely. Yet this advantage
applies only to metropolitan cities, leaving
urban cotmties to rely on. the uncertainty
of discretionary funds.
5. By providing a formula share of
community development funds to urban
counties, the Congress would not be
reducing the amount earmarked for
metropolitan cities, but sitnply
guaranteeing urban cities a formula share.
The basic logic of NACo's policy is
simply that an urban area citizen needing
Lhe benefits of a community development
program should not be penalized because
he lives across the street from a fellow
citizen wlro is within the boundaries of a
metropolitan city. 't'his is especially
significant since the metropvlitan city will
not, and le{,~itimatcly so, annex such areas
because of the liabilities they may present
to the metropolitan city.
In another vein NACo's proposal is of
special importance and of great value to
metropolitan cities. If urban counties are
not encouraged to address the needs of
citizens in areas contiguous to metropolitan
cities, then Lire opportunity for success of a
metropolitan city's community
development program could be placed in
jeopardy.
Counties have traditionally been the
major providers of human and social
services. Most of them acting as
administrative arms of the state, provide
public assistance and supporting services on
a countywide basis, that is, within cities. In
addition, counties provide a broad range of
public safety, transportation, sanitation,
health and land use activities in azeas under
their jurisdiction.
County involvement in physical
development and housing activities is
beginning to increase. They are many
reasons why their activity may not have
been very extensive in the past -too much
red tape, lack of funding or lack of
statutory authority. With the changes to be
brought about by new conrmtrnit;
development legislation - loch
decision-making, certainty of funding,
comprehensive approach - affordin
counties a fornnrla share of funds can be ai
incentive for them to increase their effort
and, where necessary, obtain the necessar
state enabling legislation.
Just prior to the Decembe
Cvn{,nessional adjournment, the Senat
Banking, Housing and Urban Atfait
Committee, neaz•ing completion of it
mark-up of an omnibus housing an
community development bill, tentative)
agreed to change the thrust of th
legislation by throwing out the formul
distribution of funds and replacing it with
hold harmless guarantee.
The hold harmless would credit lac:
govemmenGc which during the five fisa
years prior to July 1, 1972, had conducts
an urban renewal, model eerie
neighborhood development or cod
enforcement program. These communiti
- nearly all cities -would be guarantee
an amount equal to the five-year average c
assistance received in these prol,Tams
well as that received under the open space
water and sewer, public facility loans :ur
neighborhood facilities programs. Ilol
harmless in the first year would eat up $1.
billion out of a metropolitlrr arE
distribution of $2.0 billion leaving on]
$300 million tv handle the needs of a
other local governments.
The Senate commit.tee's proposal serve
to lock in the past, continuing to rewa~
cities fir being; it an urban rcrlrvelnpnrer
pro~~ram, regardless of their current necc
or the needs of others.
It has forgotten that the purpose of ne
community development legislation is nr
only the elimination of slums and blights
areas but their preuentlorr as well. Th
country simply cannot afford to spec
most of its urban resources on curati~
efforts while paying little attention 1
prevention.
~Uhat's needed is to distribute feder
resources in a manner such that balancr
development and redevelopment can {
forward in our cities as well as of
suburban azeas.
The Senate committee's tentative aerie
also flies in the face of a precedent alreac
established in three federal laws -Genet
Revenue Sharing Law Enforcemu,
Assistance and Manpower Reform - th
cow~ties are equal partners with cities
combatting urban problems.
In summary, Mr. Congressman, NA(
urges you to do all in your power to assn
that urban counties are afforded
guaranteed formula slraze of commune
development block grant funds. Urge yo
colleagues on the Senate and Hou
Banking Committees to report out ne
legislation only if it has such provisiot
The' urban counties in the nation and Brr
citizens will be the better for it.
Respectfully,
Gil Barrett Bernard F. Hillenbra
President Executive Duecl
~-
s
{
~~d
~ r
~~~.~•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF STATE PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
RALEIGH 27603
.LAMES E HOLSHOUSER JR
GOVERNOR
WILLIAM L. BONDURANT
SECRETARY January 17, 1974
Mr. W. Douglas Powell, Chairman
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
Wilmington, North Carolina
Re: Request from New Hanover County to tap existing
six-inch sanitary sewer force main to Wilmington
Sewage Treatment facility
Dear Mr. Powell:
The proposed connection by New Hanover County of a three-inch sanitary
sewer force main with an existing six-inch sanitary sewer force main, which
is owned and maintained by the State of North Carolina, Department of Social
Rehabilitation and Control, has been discussed by personnel of the Department
of Administration. Since no property rights are to be conveyed, it is felt
that the matter can be handled by a letter of agreement approved by the
Secretary of the Department of Administration.
It is agreed that New Hanover County will be permitted to connect the
three-inch sanitary sewer force main with the existing six-inch sewer force
main. This connection is being permitted under the following terms and
conditions:
1. The Department of Social Rehabilitation and Control reserves the
right to have final approval of any and all portions of the proposec
three-inch sewer force main to assure adequate protection and oper-
ation of its existing six-inch sewer force main.
2. The State and the Department of Social Rehabilitation and Control
shall be indemnified for any injuries to persons or damages to
property during the construction period.
~~
e
Mr. W. Douglas Powell
-2-
January 17, 1974
3. The County of New Hanover shall enter into its own contract with
the City of Wilmington for the treatment of its sanitary sewer
volume and in no way will the State or the Department of Social
Rehabilitation and Control be held accountable for same.
4. Neither the State nor the Department of Social Rehabilitation
and Control will be held responsible for any interruption of
sanitary sewer service due to blockage, breaks or any other
unforeseen malfunctioning occurrence of the sanitary sewerage
system.
5. The County of New Hanover shall be responsible for the maintenance
and/or repair of any portion of the force main that they are con-
tracting to be placed into operation in conjunction with the existing
six-inch force main (i.e., valves at point of connection).
6. Should the State of North Carolina, for any reason, desire to ter-
minate this arrangement, the County of New Hanover will disconnect
the three-inch sanitary sewer force main and restore the State's
sewer main to its original condition.
It is further agreed that New Hanover County will pay the State of
North Carolina an administrative charge of $100 for this connection.
This agreement will be in force as soon as it is executed by you and
Mr. David L. Jones, Secretary of the Department of Social Rehabilitation
and Control. If this meets with the approval of the New Hanover Board of
Commissioners, this agreement should be executed by you in triplicate and
returned to this office for Mr. Jones' signature.
Very truly yours,
CCM:cwe
L~/l/ L ~~c~a-ct,
William L. Bondurant
Chairmen N~ Hanover County Board of Commissioners
Secretary
Department of Social Rehabiliation and Control