Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-21 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 569 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, April 21, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, NC. Members of the Board present were Vice-Chairman Robert G. Greer; Commissioner Julia Boseman; Commissioner William A. Caster; Commissioner Nancy H. Pritchett; County Manager, Allen O’Neal; County Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Deputy Clerk to the Board, Teresa P. Elmore. Chairman Ted Davis, Jr. arrived at the meeting at 1:00 p.m. due to being in court. Vice-Chairman Greer called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone present. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Carl Byrd, Director of Human Relations, gave the invocation. Sheriff Sidney A. Causey led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Vice-Chairman Greer asked if any member of the Board would like to discuss or remove an item from the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Caster requested additional clarification for Consent Items 6 and 8. On Item 6, Commissioner Caster asked if the delinquent applications for exemption on the church properties were similar to the appeal submitted by the Rock Church. Vice-Chairman Greer responded that the General Statutes authorize the Tax Administrator to give this type of exemption. On Item 8, Commissioner Caster asked whether Ware Bonsall Architects or Freeman White would be held responsible or liable for the work at the Law Enforcement Center. County Attorney Copley responded that the County would have the architect’s liability coverage for a certain amount of time after the project is completed. The County will hold Freeman White responsible for the jail. After hearing no further comments, Vice-Chairman Greer called for a motion to approve the items on the Consent Agenda. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes The Commissioners approved the minutes of the following meetings as presented by the Clerk to the Board: Regular Meeting, March 24, 2003 Budget Work Session, January 9, 2003 Special Meeting, December 23, 2002 Approval of Consolidated Agreement Between the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services and New Hanover County Health Department and Acceptance of Funding for FY 2003-2004 The Commissioners approved the consolidated agreement between the NC Department of Health and Human Services and the New Hanover County Health Department. This agreement is for the purpose of maintaining and promoting the advancement of public health in North Carolina and it sets forth the terms and conditions applicable for the activities carried out by the Health Department involving State funding. The total funding of $2,674,621 consists of $1,650,075 in State Grants and $1,024,546 in Title XIX (Medicaid Reimbursement) for services provided by the Health Department. Approval of Request for Fiscal Support Technician Position in the Legal Department The Commissioners approved a request from the Legal Collections Division for a new Fiscal Support Technician Position to collect delinquent Animal Control citations. It is anticipated that at least 35% - 45% of the delinquent fees and fines of $725,000 will be collected. The Legal Collections Division collects approximately $750,000 of delinquent debts a year for the County. Approval of Request to Deaccess and Dispose of Selected Museum Artifacts The Commissioners approved a request from the Museum to deaccess and dispose of selected Museum artifacts. The Museum Collection Policy calls for the removal of objects in poor or deteriorated condition, undocumented items, or reproductions which are readily replaceable. This serves to upgrade the quality of the museum's collection and to reduce storage problems, record keeping, and insurance costs. Fifteen items have been recommended for deaccession by the Collections Committee and endorsed by the Board of Trustees. The Museum staff will contact the original donor or immediate descendent, if known, to offer to return the item. If this is not possible, items will be disposed of in a manner consistent with the Museum Collections Policy and best practices in the profession. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 570 Approval of Grant Application by the Cape Fear Museum to the North Carolina Humanities Council for Funds to Support Museum Activities The Commissioners approved a North Carolina Humanities Council grant application by the Cape Fear Museum for funds to support nine scholars to assist the Museum in developing a 20th-Century exhibition about the history and environment of the Lower Cape Fear Region. Funds will cover costs of transportation, per diem, and honorariums for the scholars. The Museum match will come from in-kind salaries, printing costs already budgeted, and support from the Cape Fear Museum Associates, Inc. In addition to helping Museum staff to develop exhibit content, scholars will participate in a public symposium and deliver additional public lectures leading up to the opening of the exhibition in May 2004. The County Manager was authorized to accept funds, if awarded, and to approve the associated budget amendment. Release of Values - Tax Department The Commissioners approved Senior Citizen/Disability Exclusion for the following taxpayer: Cottle, Nancy Jones$20,000 The Commissioners released the following taxpayers from late listing penalties as this was their first offense: Magic Fingers Day Spa $ 46.40 Red Dogs $1,150.25 T J & Company $ 19.23 The Commissioners approved delinquent applications for exemption from the property tax for the following organizations: Cornerstone Baptist Church R02620-004-002-000 Northside Baptist Church R03400-001-013-005 Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, NC R05405-021-001-000 Union Missionary Baptist Church R04816-004-007-000 Wardens & Vestry of St. James R04817-035-002-000 Wrightsboro United Methodist Church R03316-002-003-000 R03316-002-004-000 Wrightsville Beach Baptist Church R05720-013-001-000 Acceptance of Tax Collection Reports Through March 31, 2003 The Commissioners accepted the following Tax Collection Reports through March 31, 2003, as submitted by the Collector of the Revenue, Patricia J. Raynor: New Hanover County Fire District New Hanover County Copies of the Tax Collection Reports are hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and are contained in Exhibit Book XXVIII, Page 10.1. Adoption of Resolution to Assign Portion of Freeman White Contract to Bonsall Architects for Work at Law Enforcement Center The Commissioners adopted a resolution assigning a portion of a contract with Freeman White, the County's architect for the new Jail, to Ware Bonsall Architects. The new contract will pertain to the Law Enforcement Center renovations and holding cell expansion. Ware Bonsall Architects were members of Freeman White and recently have formed their own company. They have been involved in the Jail project and are the key personnel who would perform this function if they were still part of Freeman White. The resolution is necessary to facilitate the assignment. A copy of the Resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVIII, Page 10.2. Approval of Budget Amendment #03-0163-Social Services for Energy Assistance Program The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment: Budget Amendment #03-0163-Social Services Adjustment Debit Credit DSS Administrative Grants$19,102 Assistance Payments $19,102 Explanation: To budget an additional State allocation for Energy Assistance Program. PRESENTATION OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY SERVICE AWARDS: County Manager O’Neal requested the following employees to step forward to receive service awards: Marion W. NeaseElections Department 5 years of service Martha B. BrownSocial Services 5 years of service NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 571 Renee P. HallSocial Services 5 years of service Kathy C. BundyHealth Department10 years of service Stephanie J. CarverLibrary15 years of service Annie R. FrancoisProperty Management20 years of service On behalf of the Board, Vice-Chairman Greer presented service awards to each employee and expressed appreciation to them for their dedicated years of service. RECOGNITION OF NEW COUNTY EMPLOYEES: County Manager O’Neal requested the following new employees to stand and be recognized: Donna Seal, Budget Department Cynthia Tatum, Health Department John Flisher, Information Technology On behalf of the Board, Vice-Chairman Greer welcomed these new employees to New Hanover County government and wished them success with their new positions. PRESENTATION OF PRINT OF THE W. ALLEN COBB JUDICIAL ANNEX MOSAIC Bruce Bowman, Architect with BMS Architects who designed the W. Allen Cobb Judicial Annex, expressed appreciation to the County for being a supporter of architecture and the arts in the many projects the County has sponsored in the past enriching the quality of life. He presented a print of the mosaic which is displayed on the front of the new W. Allen Cobb Judicial Annex building. Vice-Chairman Greer expressed appreciation to Mr. Bowman for the print and for his leadership in the construction of the Judicial Annex Building. He congratulated Mr. Bowman on how well the building compliments the existing courthouse buildings and the public’s complete satisfaction with the facility. The print will be placed in a prominent location in a County building. CONSIDERATION OF PROCLAMATION TO DECLARE MAY AS CHILD SUPPORT AWARENESS MONTH Vice-Chairman Greer reported that the Board is requested to adopt a proclamation declaring May as Child Support Awareness Month in New Hanover County. He read the proclamation which urges citizens to support the observance in appreciation of Judges, District Attorneys, Clerks of Court, Sheriffs' personnel and child support enforcement professionals who work to establish and enforce child support for North Carolina's children. Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to adopt the proclamation declaring May as Child Support Awareness Month. Upon vote, the motion CARRIED 4 TO 0. Vice-Chairman Greer presented the proclamation to Bunny Debose, Program Manager at Dyntek, and thanked her and Dyntek for their efforts on behalf of New Hanover County’s children who are in need of child support payments. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVIII, Page 10.3. CONSIDERATION OF PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 20-26, 2003, AS COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES APPRECIATION WEEK IN NEW HANOVER COUNTY LaVaughn Nesmith, Director of the Department of Social Services, reported that Governor Easley has declared the week of April 20-26, 2003, as County Social Services Employees Appreciation Week in North Carolina. Director Nesmith requested the employees of DSS to step forward to be recognized and he expressed appreciation to them for their dedication to families in need. He requested the Board to proclaim the week for New Hanover County. Vice-Chairman Greer read the proclamation expressing appreciation to the dedicated professional employees and requested a motion. Motion: Commissioner Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to adopt the proclamation declaring April 20-26, 2003 as County Social Services Employees Appreciation Week in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the motion CARRIED 4 TO 0. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVIII, Page 10.4. PRESENTATION BY THE NEW HANOVER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Marilyn Stowell, District Conservationist of the New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District, gave an update on recent accomplishments and future programs of the Soil and Water Conservation District. In partnership with state, county, city, private agencies, and individuals the District works to ensure a quality urban and rural environment, to educate and assist the public by providing information and new programs, and to conserve soil and water and maintain wetland and tidal creek ecological balance through projects using best management practices. Ms. Stowell works with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, an agency of USDA, serving Pender and New Hanover Counties. Other employees include Shelly Miller, a full-time community conservationist, and Patricia Morton, a part- time administrative assistant. One of the District’s main projects includes the acquisition of Eagles Island, an island between the Cape Fear and Brunswick Rivers serving as a managed area and refuge for wildlife. Whitey Prevatte has donated 53 acres; and the Town of Leland and the District, through donations, and have jointly purchased 158 acres. The Town of Leland desires to increase eco-tourism in the area for hunting and fishing enthusiasts. A mini-grant from the Clean Water NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 572 Management Trust Fund has been received to pay for appraisals and acquisition expenses. Other projects include compiling an inventory of flora and fauna to develop a management plan for the species. A grant of $250,000 from the NRCS will be used in the Pages Creek area for a Riparian Buffer Cost Share Program. Studies have consistently shown that water quality degradation in tidal creeks is from runoff, and one way to slow down and filter the runoff is to restore native vegetation along the creek’s edge. The cost share grant will help landowners restore native woody buffers on their property. Ms. Stowell reported that other projects include working with landowners in the Hewletts Creek area in obtaining land and easement acquisitions to create a green way along the northern prong of Hewletts Creek. This project will fit in with the projects at the upper watershed areas of Pine Valley Golf Club and the stream bank restoration east of South College Road. Education and outreach programs include providing environmental field days for high school students, and sponsoring Envirothon teams for coastal and state competitions on their knowledge of water, soil, air and wildlife sciences. Other work projects include a water quality education program at Airlie, a tri-county teacher re-certification workshop in June and outreach projects at Riverfest and Earth Day. On behalf of the Board, Vice-Chairman Greer expressed appreciation to Ms. Stowell for the update and hard work of the District in providing the service to the community. PRESENTATION BY COAST LINE CONVENTION MANAGEMENT, INC. Neel Patrick, President of Coast Line Convention Management, Inc., presented an update on current activities of the Coastline Convention Center. He reported that the last 3 months activities project a 70% occupancy rate which translates into 7,000 motel rooms at a trickle-down revenue to the local economy of $3 million. The convention center has had an increase in its out of town draw for events and future bookings. A $5,000 improvement was made to satisfy health inspectors so food events could continue. He expressed appreciation to the Board for its continued support. Vice-Chairman Greer thanked Mr. Patrick for the update and congratulated him on the positive report. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 59, ARTICLE IV, PERSONAL WATERCRAFT SAFETY OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY CODE Deputy Joseph Jewell of the Sheriff’s Department, requested the Board to amend an ordinance to allow for a graduated scale of $100, $300, and $500 fines for violations of the County’s regulations on the operation of personal watercraft. The amendment will allow civil action in the nature of a debt as well as the class 3 misdemeanor. The additional remedies are needed for enforcement to ensure personal watercraft safety. Motion: Commissioner Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to approve an amendment to Chapter 59, Article IV of the New Hanover County Code of Ordinances establishing additional penalties of civil action for enforcement of personal watercraft safety regulations. Upon vote, the motion CARRIED 4 TO 0. Since the ordinance did not receive a unanimous vote of five, a second reading will be held on May 5, 2003. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONCEPTUAL EXHIBITION PLAN FOR CAPE FEAR MUSEUM Vice-Chairman Greer stated that most of the Commissioners have seen the presentation on the proposed exhibition plan for the Cape Fear Museum. He noted that approval of the plan did not include a guarantee of funding in the budget. Commissioner Caster commented that he was unable to attend the presentation, but he will meet with the Museum Director to discuss the plan. Museum Director Ruth Haas reported that Cape Fear Museum worked with the PRD Group to acquire an Exhibition Plan to determine the most effective steps to expand and upgrade the exhibition programs over the next ten th years. The plan calls for a 20 Century exhibit to open on Memorial Day 2004. Phase 1 recommendations can be implemented consistent with the Museum's budget request for FY 2004, which maintains the same level of spending as FY 2003. County funds will be used to leverage grants and private funds for the exhibits. It is hoped that the new th exhibits will bring in the community and they will be more actively involved in developing the exhibits of the 20 century. Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to approve the Conceptual Exhibition Plan for the next 10 years of the Cape Fear Museum. Upon vote, the motion CARRIED 4 TO 0. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AWARDING RFP # 03-0024 AND APPROVING OF CONTRACT #03-0024 TO PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC. FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN THE JAIL Vice-Chairman Greer announced that health services provided to the inmates in the jail were handled through the Health Department. Although excellent service was provided, the Health Director and Sheriff believe it would be in the best interest of the County to transfer this service to an outside contractor. Staff has reviewed the bids and recommends awarding the contract to Prison Health Services, Inc. The contract will begin July 1, 2003 with the funds for the contract being budgeted in the Sheriff's Office budget for FY04. The Jail-Health Section of the Health Department will no longer be in existence, but some nurses will remain with the County. Prison Health Services, Inc. is interested in hiring existing staff or working with the County in any way to make the transition as easy as possible. Commissioner Boseman asked if the County’s liability will transfer to the contractor. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 573 County Attorney Copley responded that even though the County has a contract, the County would be included in a lawsuit. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to adopt the resolution awarding RFP # 03-0024 to Prison Health Services, Inc. and approving Contract # 03-0024 with Prison Health Services, Inc. Upon vote, the motion CARRIED 4 TO 0. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVIII, Page 10.5. CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF GRANT APPLICATION TO THE NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR’S HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM Sheriff Sidney A. Causey requested adoption of a Local Government Resolution to seek federal funds to purchase equipment to be used at checkpoints. The Local Governmental Resolution authorizes the project contract application to the Governor’s Highway Safety Program in the amount of $13,250. No local match is required. Motion: Commissioner Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to adopt the Local Governmental Resolution authorizing the application to the North Carolina Governor’s Highway Safety Program for funding of checkpoint equipment. Upon vote, the motion CARRIED 4 TO 0. A copy of the Resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVIII, Page 10.6. MEETING RECESSED TO HOLD A REGULAR MEETING OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT Vice-Chairman Greer convened from Regular Session at 9:50 a.m. to hold a meeting of the New Hanover County Water and Sewer District. Vice-Chairman Greer reconvened to Regular Session at 10:22 a.m. BREAK Vice-Chairman Greer called a break from 10:23 a.m. until 10:38 a.m. CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONS FOR COMPROMISE OF DISCOVERED VALUE FOR UNLISTED BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY Tax Administrator Robert Glasgow reported that on November 14, 2002, the Tax Department sent letters advising Cape Fear Images, Russo Enterprises, Inc. & Bill Heinberg Insurance Company that the Department was unable to find a business personal property listing for the current and previous years. A value was identified as the "discovered value" for each of the establishments based on the assessed values of similar businesses. The owners were given 30 days to dispute the value or show they were not in business prior to their notice. Unless written appeal is received within 30 days, the value becomes final. No appeals were received within the 30 days from any of the businesses, and tax bills were mailed in late December on the "discovered values." Licari Accounting & Tax Service was discovered in September 2001. A tax bill was mailed in October 2001 and a payment arrangement was made with Collections, which Mr. Licari has not fulfilled. Tax Administrator Glasgow explained that once a tax bill has been computed and prepared, the property owner may petition to the Board of Commissioners for a compromise or adjustment to the tax bill as allowed in N.C.G.S. 105-312(k) - Power to Compromise. Under N.C.G.S. 105-381(a)(1) - Taxpayer's Remedies, any taxpayer asserting a valid defense to the enforcement of the collection of a tax assessed upon his/her property shall proceed, asserting as the defense, that the tax was: (A) a tax imposed through clerical error; (B) an illegal tax; or (C) a tax levied for an illegal purpose. The Board should not compromise any tax bill unless any one of the three conditions has occurred. Should the Board compromise without one of the three having occurred, the Board members, who voted for the release of the tax, may be held personally liable for any amount which was released, refunded or compromised as identified in N.C.G.S. 105-380. Anyone can challenge the approved compromise. The discoveries were not clerical errors, an illegal tax, or a tax levied for an illegal purpose. Thus none of the three conditions exists to provide for a compromise. If a taxpayer fails to pursue administrative remedies available under other sections of the Machinery Act in a timely fashion, he cannot bring forth action under GS 105-381. If such a challenge is received, those who voted for the compromise would be personally liable for the amount which was compromised. During tax years 2001 and 2002 there were more than 1,200 business discoveries charged. Upholding the tax values would be consistent with other discoveries. In discussion of the notices that were mailed, Tax Administrator Glasgow said that letters were sent through regular mail to the address of the property owner. It is the responsibility of the taxpayer to provide the correct business address. Vice-Chairman Greer asked what recourse a taxpayer has if he was away on vacation or hospitalized and he did not actually receive the notice in time to appeal. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the Board should make a decision using judgement and any credible evidence presented by the appellants. An example of a clerical error is when the tax bill is for five years and the taxpayer proves that he was not in business for five years. The statutes allow the Tax Department to bill for the previous 5 years of discovery. In this case the Tax Administrator is able to correct the tax bill to the number of years in business. William Campbell, a noted tax attorney for the Institute of Government, has advised that the taxpayer’s failure to respond in the 30-day time frame should not be considered a defense unless extenuating circumstances exist. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 574 Appeal of Tax Discovery by Kate B. Meyer, Cape Fear Images, Inc. Tax Administrator Glasgow reported that Kate B. Meyer, owner of Cape Fear Images, was sent notification of the business discovery and a tax value of $75,000 was assigned based on an average value of similar type businesses. The Tax Office received a letter from Ms. Meyer dated January 6, 2003, saying that she had turned the information over to her accountant, who had requested an extension on December 19, 2002, for the 2003 business listing. The tax bill was adjusted to the years she has been in business. Kate Meyer, president of Cape Fear Images, spoke of being the artist, and her husband, John Meyer, the treasurer of the company, would present the appeal. John Meyer spoke saying that their accountant had requested an extension, but was unable to respond in time because she had been very sick. She also did not realize that the extension applied to the current listing period when she submitted the revised revaluation on January 6, 2003. He stated that the company was incorporated in 1998 and the Tax Office did remove the tax billing for 1998. He complained that the Tax Department had assigned an arbitrary value even though detailed information was submitted. However, the Tax Department could not find their information and it was resubmitted past the deadline. Mr. Meyer said the business property consisted of computers, software programs, and a desk. He requested the Board to correct the tax value of the property to $10,000 instead of the arbitrary value of $100,000. He argued that a number of paperwork snafues occurred between the Tax Office and the accountant’s communication with the Tax Office. They were not disputing the discovery, but he asked that a correct value be placed on the property based on the information submitted by the accountant. The franchise value of $46,000 is an intangible asset of the business and is not subject to property tax. Tax Administrator Glasgow explained that the value of $100,000 was assessed to the business based on the average value of businesses or organizations performing similar work or function. Vice-Chairman Greer commented that the value of $100,000 seemed to be a random value and he asked if the Board could reduce the assigned value of the property. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the Department of Revenue has said that the Board would be leaving itself responsible for the amount compromised if the decision is challenged by anyone. The General Statutes do not allow a compromise unless it is shown that the tax is illegal, for an illegal purpose, or due to a clerical error. The appeal was not based on a clerical error because the taxpayer did not appeal the assigned value within the 30 day period. Commissioner Caster said that as a prior small business owner, he understood the frustration of trying to keep up with all the regulations of operating a business. He asked who would most likely challenge the Commissioners if the value was reduced. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the law is a safeguard to ensure that the Commissioners apply the regulations to everyone fairly and equitably. Other taxpayers have the right to challenge the Commissioners’ decision. Vice-Chairman Greer said that he understood having a difference of opinion on the value of property, but did not understand a difference in values of $10,000 and $100,000. He felt the prudent thing for the Board to do was establish a true value. Tax Administrator Glasgow replied that the Department of Revenue recommends using a value of $200,000 to $250,000 to get the attention of the taxpayer to notify the Tax Office of the real value. The intent is for the taxpayer to come in with documentation of his personal property, then staff would change the value for the years of the discovery. Commissioner Pritchett asked when the Tax Department received the letter from Ms. Meyer dated January 6, 2003, and fax stamped received on February 28, 2003. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the Meyers said a letter had been hand carried to the Tax Office, but the Tax Office did not have the letter on file. A copy of the letter was faxed and received on February 28, 2003. Mr. Meyer questioned Mr. Glasgow on the type of business he thought Cape Fear Images was to have the personal property value of $100,000. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the discovery was found listed in the yellow pages with similar businesses of public relations or advertising. He advised that the Tax Department did not make a clerical error, no illegal tax was assessed, and the tax was not for an illegal purpose. Because the taxpayer failed to respond within the 30 day time frame, no tax relief was available. The Board does not hear these types of cases when there are no grounds for appeal. Commissioner Caster asked the tax value of the property for 2003. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that a listing of equipment supports the value of $7,512.78. The listing will be used as a cost basis for the first year and depreciation will be applied to reduce the value each year thereafter. The delinquent tax is $5,755.64. Mr. Meyer argued that they tried to comply with the law, but were unfamiliar with the tax requirements. He felt that it was a clerical error by the Tax Office when the January 6 letter was misplaced. He had responded to the tax notice by giving it to his accountant to handle. The accountant was very ill and did not respond in time. He spoke of a court case when an assessment was grossly out of line with the value of property, which was not sustained. He thought NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 575 they had complied to the tax notice and did not know the documents were missing. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the Tax Office did not receive a response within the 30 day time frame. A letter dated December 19, 2002, requested an extension, which they assumed was for the 2003 business property. The tax bill of $5,755.64 was for back years when no property listing was done. Commissioner Caster said that it appears a communication problem existed between the Tax Department and the Meyers and he felt that both should work together to resolve the issues before the Board was asked to make a decision. Motion : Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to deny the appeal. Theresa Graziano, the accountant for Ms. Meyers, said that she was seriously ill with spinal meningitis when she received the tax notices from the Meyers and that she did ask for an extension to determine the assets of Cape Fear Images within the 30 days. She had been in constant contact with the County Tax Office and hand delivered the packet of information showing the business personal properties of the home based business on January 6, 2003. Since the February and March deadline of the Commissioners’ meetings had passed, the Tax Office requested the Meyers to resend the materials. She faxed the information and called to confirm. She did not realize that the business which began in 1998 with a computer in a room in the Meyer’s home was subject to personal property tax. Substitute Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED to table the appeal to allow staff to work with the Meyers to resolve the issues. Tax Administrator Glasgow said that in reading the letter of December 19, 2002, Ms. Graziano requested an extension to determine the business assets of Cape Fear Images, but it has nothing to do with the discovery. Substitute Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED to reduce the value of the property to $40,000 since he did not believe the small business had $100,000 worth of inventory. Ms. Graziano argued that the value was still arbitrary. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that Ms. Graziano just handed him sheets of information saying that the value is $11,108, $10,409, $8,813, $8,075 and $7,512. Before he can determine the value and trending values, he would need to know when the equipment was placed in service. He continued to argue that it was not appropriate to discuss the value since the value should have been determined within the 30 days of appeal. Vice-Chairman Greer felt that if a taxpayer had a valid reason for not responding within the 30 day deadline, the Commissioners were legally allowed to give some relief to the taxpayer. Tax Administrator Glasgow suggested the Board table the issue until the Tax Department could make a determination on the letter dated December 19, 2002. Ms. Graziano responded that Brenda Stella of the Tax Department received the first letter on December 19, 2002, and the second letter was delivered on January 6, 2003. Vice-Chairman Greer asked if there was a second to the substitute motion made by Commissioner Caster to table the appeal. Commissioner Boseman SECONDED the motion. Vote : Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0 to table the appeal of Kate Meyer to allow the Tax Department to work with the Meyers to resolve the issues. Appeal of Tax Discovery by Robert Russo, Club Tropics and the Plaza Pub Tax Administrator Glasgow reported that a discovery letter was mailed to Robert Russo, owner of Club Tropics, on November 14, 2002, and he did not respond within the 30 day time period. He contacted the Tax Office after he received the tax bill on January 29. After Mr. Russo was told that he failed to appeal the value within the 30 days, a payment arrangement was set up for him. Motion: Commissioner Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to uphold the value of discovery for Club Tropics and the Plaza Pub. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0. Appeal of Tax Discovery by Bill Heinberg, Heinberg Insurance Company Tax Administrator Glasgow reported that Bill Heinberg, owner of Bill Heinberg Insurance, was mailed notification of a discovery on November 14, 2002. He notified the County that the tax bill was given to his accountant in December. The accountant was told by the Tax Office that Mr. Heinberg would have to respond to the tax bill. Mr. Heinberg has not listed business personal property since he began the business in 1980. The Tax Office assigned a tax value of $75,000 for the business personal property. Mr. Heinberg responded that he owns an insurance agency and not an insurance company. Upon receiving the discovery letter from the Tax Office, his office sent the notice to the accountant with the monthly paperwork. When he received the tax bill for more than $7,000 on December 22, 2002, his office immediately called the Tax Office to question the tax bill. He was told that he would need to speak with Brenda Stella who was away for the holidays. On December 29, 2002, a listing of their business personal property was given to the Tax Office. They were told that the appeal deadline had passed and the taxes were due. He said they worked with Kristine Chandler in the Tax Department NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 576 to determine the taxes owed, which they paid immediately. He expressed appreciation for the time and effort she spent in explaining the tax laws and helping to file an appeal. Mr. Heinberg stated that he had been a resident of Wilmington since 1969 and a downtown business owner since 1981. He and his wife raised three children and he has been very active in the community serving in various charitable organizations. Although his family business has maintained modest growth, it is not a large insurance agency. He felt that the amount of tax was overwhelming and extremely dangerous to the financial well-being of his business and family. He expressed embarrassment for the negligence and apologized for the failure to list his property. He estimated the value of the business personal property to be $4,300 instead of the $75,000 assigned by the Tax Department. He requested an opportunity to work with Staff to determine a true value for his property. Vice-Chairman Greer asked the Tax Administrator if additional time was needed to work with the appellant to establish the real value. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the Tax Department did not receive any notice of appeal from Mr. Heinberg within the 30 day time frame. The taxpayer had the obligation and opportunity to respond to the discovered value of $75,000. A larger value is established to get the taxpayer’s attention so he will respond to the notice, but the value is based on similar types of businesses. Vice-Chairman Greer said that he did not agree that the Tax Office should arbitrarily assign a high value just to have the taxpayer to come forward with a corrected value. Mr. Heinberg said that $75,000 was an arbitrary value and that it was not based on his assets, which his tax accountant had sent to the Tax Office on January 6, 2003. Joshua Heinberg, son of Bill Heinberg and employee of the insurance agency, stated that he worked with Kristine Chandler in the Tax Department for four hours to determine the personal property value of the business. He paid back taxes, penalties, and interest owed on a value of $4,300. The tax bill was for $6,900 more than they paid. Motion : Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to establish the value of $4,300 based on Mr. Heinberg’s listing of personal property. Joshua Heinberg said that the Tax Department determined the average value of the equipment at $4,200, but it varied from year to year due to depreciation. Tax Administrator Glasgow reported that HG Wells Insurance, a business in the downtown area, has $75,000 of equipment. He said that Heinberg Insurance has not listed any business personal property since 1980 and taxes were not paid for those years. Mr. Heinberg failed to respond to the discovery notice within the 30 day time period. Regardless of the value listed in the discovery, it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to correct within 30 days. The County was only able to go back five years on the discovery. Vote : Upon vote, the MOTION RECEIVED A 2 TO 2 TIE VOTE. Commissioner Boseman and Commissioner Pritchett voted in opposition. Vice-Chairman Greer asked Mr. Heinberg if he preferred the Board to continue the appeal until later when Chairman Davis is present or to reschedule for another meeting. Mr. Heinberg requested the Board to continue the appeal until later in the day when Chairman Davis would be in attendance. Vice-Chairman Greer continued the appeal at 11:00 a.m. until Chairman Davis was to return. Appeal of Tax Discovery of Licari Accounting by John Licari Tax Administrator Glasgow reported that the discovery of Licari Accounting was made in 2001. Mr. Licari failed to respond within the 30 day time period and the assigned value became final. Mr. Licari had been out of business during some of the discovery period, but he did not provide any documentation to prove it. Later in the year, Mr. Licari made payment arrangements for the taxes owed, but he has stopped making the payments. At the Regular Meeting on February 17, 2003, Mr. Licari requested to seek remedy through GS105-381. However, it is incumbent on Mr. Licari to show that the tax bill is illegal, for an illegal purpose, or is a clerical error. He has been given sufficient time and every opportunity to satisfy the payment of the taxes and there is no basis for the appeal. Mr. Licari, owner of Licari Accounting, stated that his appeal was based on G.S. 105-312(k), which allows the Board of Commissioners to compromise a tax claim. He requested the Board to remand the appeal to the Board of Equalization and Review (Board of E&R) to allow him to ask for an adjustment for tax years 1996 to 2001. He said that he has a large amount of information and may need more than the five minutes allotted to present his appeal. He said he had evidence of substantial inequities that he would suffer as a result of being denied a fair and impartial review and he requested the Board to delegate its authority to the Board of E&R at its earliest convenience. He would present evidence according to the standards of intent of the State statutes as to the true value of the business property and he would pay the taxes as decided by that Board. If his appeal is not heard, he would feel that his substantial rights as a taxpayer had been denied. Vice-Chairman Greer asked Assistant County Attorney Holt Moore to explain the Statute 105-312 concerning the Power to Compromise. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that G.S. 105-312 allows the taxpayer to request a compromise from NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 577 the Commissioners, but Section 381 requires a compromise to be based on one of those three specific areas of whether it is an illegal tax, a tax for an illegal purpose, or a clerical error. Mr. Licari had an opportunity to appeal when the discovery letter was sent in 2001. Since he failed to respond, there is no basis for an appeal. Mr. Licari responded that he wanted to receive an adjustment or a compromise on the tax and not an appeal of the value. As his right, he asked the Board to delegate the appeal to the Board of E&R as allowed in Statute 105- 322(5)(a) and 105-312(d) and (k). Assistant County Attorney Holt Moore responded that the statute would be applicable if the taxpayer had responded within the 30 days. If discussions between the taxpayer and the Tax Department were not fruitful, the taxpayer could appeal to the Commissioners or to the Board of E&R for a compromise. Once the 30 days has expired, the Board has to consider whether an exception to the general rule applies to the appeal. Tax Administrator Glasgow explained that after the Board of E&R has adjourned for the year, the Board of County Commissioners has the responsibility to adjudicate any additional information. Since the Commissioners meet as both Boards, either could hear appeals. Mr. Licari requested to present his appeal based on being overcharged in taxes. The appeal has nothing to do with the value of the discovered property, but he was appealing the amount of tax. As allowed in G.S. 105-317.1(b), the Board can determine his “true value of taxable tangible personal property held and used in connection with mercantile, manufacturing, producing, processing, or other business enterprise of any taxpayer”. Furthermore, the statute allows the Board to consider the “replacement cost of property, sale price of similar property, age of the property, physical condition, productivity, remaining life, effect of obsolescence, economic utility and any other factor that may affect the value of the property.” Mr. Licari said that he did not show any depreciation on his 1996 tax returns because the value of his assets was not worth listing. His inventory consisted of an old desk he got from a company that was discarding old furniture and a computer from a person who no longer needed it. He listed property value of $2,000, and it was depreciated to $1,770 for 1997. No depreciation was taken on tax returns for 1997, 1998, and 1999. In 2000, he took depreciation of $165 on a $2,300 computer. In 2001, he could have taken the remaining depreciation on the computer, but he had a loss for the year and was unable to take depreciation. He said that he did not list property with the County because he was going out of business. Vice-Chairman Greer asked Mr. Licari the reason he made a payment agreement with the Tax Office. Mr. Licari responded that he was unable to get a loan to pay the $3,000 tax bill. He said that he has spent more than $3,000 in time and research to have paid the bill. If he did not receive justice from the Commissioners, he would go to the Property Tax Commission, although the Tax Administrator said that the Commissioners were the end of the line for appeals. He expressed concern about the whole methodology of the appeal process and that the Tax Administrator was misleading people on the intent of the law. Commissioner Pritchett commented that the payment arrangement seemed to indicate that Mr. Licari had accepted the value. Motion : Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to deny the appeal by John Licari. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 1. Vice-Chairman Greer voted in opposition. BREAK Vice-Chairman Greer called a break from 12:05 p.m. until 12:10 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF 2002 APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FOR THE ROCK INTERDENOMINATIONAL CHURCH - R01800-003-012-000 Tax Administrator Glasgow reported that on February 10, 2000, the Rock Church purchased 76.69 acres of vacant land at 5301 Sidbury Road for $600,000. The tax value was $478,140. Clearing of Phase I construction site began on August 28, 2001 and the first building permit was issued on February 5, 2002. As of December 31, 2002, the Tax Department considered construction to be 75% completed. Tax Administrator Glasgow explained that New Hanover County has consistently denied applications for exemption unless the property is "wholly and exclusively used for the tax exempt purpose" to include buildings being used for their intended purpose. The taxpayer's argument is that they have visited the property 19 documented times in 2002 to show the area to visitors, pray over the site, review construction progress or to hold services. It is their contention that by visiting the site, conducting tours and holding services at the location, the property qualifies for exemption. Tax Administrator Glasgow said that Mr. Rountree would present court cases in favor of the appellant when religious property was used for church outings, services, and Boy Scout events. They believe the property should qualify for exemption from taxation because it was used for religious purposes on or before January 1, 2002. However, the County has consistently denied applications for tax exemption for property which is under construction and cannot be used for its intended tax exempt purpose unless the building is attached to an existing structure. For property to be tax exempt, it must be used for its intended purposes on January 1 of the tax year of the application. Construction of buildings did not begin until February 2002. No application for exemption was submitted for 2001. Tax Administrator Glasgow stated that he denied the 2002 tax exemption application for the Rock Church based on Statute 105-278.3 that states “buildings, the land they actually occupy, and additional adjacent land reasonably necessary for the convenient use of any such building shall be exempt from taxation if wholly owned by an agency listed NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 578 in subsection (c).” He said the County has always applied the statute meaning that there must be a building and it must be in use. He pointed out on a site map dated January 1, 2002 that no building was on the property but some construction had started. The exemption was denied because no building was on the site. The County has been consistent in determining the exemption. Tax Administrator Glasgow reported that a bill before the General Assembly may resolve any inconsistencies or problems with the interpretation of the statute. A religious organization will have three years to build a building on land which it owns. If construction is not completed within the three years, the deferred taxes will become due and payable. The Rock Church did receive its tax bill in late August and paid it promptly in September. The Tax Office received the 2002 exemption request in December 2002. George Rountree, attorney representing the Rock Church, spoke on whether a building must be on the property in order for the land to qualify for exemption. He said that Pastor McGee would speak on the use of the property being wholly and exclusively for religious purpose. Pastor Ron McGee, senior pastor of Rock of Wilmington, spoke in support of the exemption for the church property under construction at 5301 Sidbury Road. He stated that from the time the property was purchased in February 2000 to the present, the land has been wholly and exclusively used for religious purposes as defined in subsection (d)(1) of Chapter 105, Section 278.3 of the General Statute. He believed that the statute means religious purpose must involve activities that demonstrate and further the beliefs and objectives of the Rock of Wilmington. After the property was purchased, the elders of the church went to the site and prayed over it, blessed it, and gave it to God. The church believes the land to be sacred and holy, and nothing has taken place on the property that would be in violation of the provisions for exemption. Meetings that included prayer, preaching, Bible study, prophecy, worship, and making spiritual plans for future ministries have been conducted on the property for the last three years. Members of the presbytery, ministry staff, congregation, and guest ministers have attended those meetings. Pastor McGee believed that the religious purpose of the property began when they prayed over the land and gave it to God in February 2000, and not when the church receives a Certificate of Occupancy. He believes the intent of the statute is that all land owned by churches where the activity demonstrates and furthers the beliefs and objectives of that church or religious body should be exempt from taxation. He requested the Board to rescind and refund the property taxes assessed on the property. Mr. Rountree requested the members of the Rock congregation who support the uses which Pastor McGee had testified to please stand. A large number were in attendance. Mr. Rountree stated that he understood the position of Mr. Glasgow, but he disagreed saying the construction and land were used for religious purposes. He spoke about cases that have gone to court especially the Worley Case where the church purchased a piece of property that was separate and adjacent to the church. The exemption was denied by the tax office, but the courts determined the property was exempt because it was held wholly and exclusively for religious purpose even though the property was entirely separate from the church site. A building does not make the church, it is the people who make up the church. He requested the Board to determine that the property of the Rock was held wholly and exclusively for religious purpose and exempt the property from ad valorem taxation beginning January 1, 2002. Commissioner Boseman asked Mr. Rountree if he thought the Board was incorrect when it denied the St. James petition. Mr. Rountree responded that he did not have any evidence that St. James went on the property and conducted prayer sessions or any other religious activity on the property. In an altruistic sense, the Board’s decision was not right, but there is a difference between the situations of the Rock and St. James Church. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that New Hanover County has consistently denied appeals for vacant land whether it is under construction or for future development. Tax Administrators in Raleigh have agreed with him that exemptions are denied when a building is not on the property. The Property Tax Commission has interpreted the general statutes differently. It is anticipated that Senator Ballantine’s proposed legislation will clear the matter. New Hanover County has received a considerable number of requests for exemptions for vacant land from religious and charitable organizations which have been consistently denied. Mr. Rountree asked Mr. Glasgow how the Property Tax Commission has determined cases of appeal for vacant land used for religious purposes. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that none of appeals from New Hanover County have reached the Property Tax Commission. In other counties, the Property Tax Commission has made a different interpretation than the tax administrators. The Institute of Government has said that the Property Tax Commission is interpreting the law inconsistently with what the statute states. Commissioner Caster asked if all appeals for exemption have come before the Board. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that most requests for exemption for religious properties have been denied by the Tax Office, but a few have been decided by the Commissioners or the Board of E and R. Mr. Rountree reiterated that appeals going before the Property Tax Commission would result in an exemption. He felt it would be inappropriate for the Board to require the Rock Church to pay attorney fees when it knows that the Property Tax Commission will grant an exemption. If the Property Tax Commission grants these type of exemptions, the Commissioners as residents of the County should grant the exemption and hope that Senator Ballantine’s bill will NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 579 pass. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the church has paid the 2002 taxes on the value of $462,000. Seventy-five percent of the project was completed as of January 1, at a substantial value. If Senator Ballantine’s bill becomes law, the property will automatically qualify for exemption. Pastor McGee argued that the court of appeals in the Worley case ruled not on the basis that the property was adjacent to the church’s existing property, but because the vacant piece of land had been used for religious purposes when its young people used the property for recreation. He said if recreation can be construed as a religious purpose, then all the events that have occurred on the Rock property since February 2000 should qualify as religious. The court of appeals did not require a building or any construction on the land. He said that the property has been used for religious purposes since its purchase. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to grant the tax exemption for the Rock of Wilmington on property at 5301 Sidbury Road based on the rulings by the Property Tax Commission of granting exemptions on land used for religious purposes. Vice-Chairman Greer said he felt the intent of the law was for the property to be tax exempt. Since it has been clearly pointed out and fully documented that the property has been used for religious purposes, he agreed that the property should be tax exempt. If the Property Tax Commission has granted exemptions for these religious purposes, he proposed that the County should change its policy. Commissioner Caster agreed saying that the wording of the statutes should be changed to reflect the intent of the law, which he suspects is the reason Senator Ballantine is trying to change the law. Commissioner Pritchett felt that the Board should base its decision on the law as it has done in the past and not the intent of the law. Apparently, Senator Ballantine is trying to rectify what he considers an error, but he may need to include a retroactive clause to correct interpretations of the past. Commissioner Boseman said that based on the need to have common sense in performing the duties of the Commissioner’s job and as a representative of the people in the County, she could not make the Rock Church go further in its appeal to the Property Tax Commission. Vote : Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 1 to grant the tax exemption for property owned by The Rock of Wilmington at 5301 Sidbury Road. Commissioner Pritchett voted in opposition. ARRIVAL OF CHAIRMAN DAVIS Chairman Davis arrived at the meeting at 1:00 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY JAMES C. LEWIS OF 2002 DISCOVERY OF A 2000 48' TAYANG SAILBOAT Tax Administrator Glasgow reported that the Tax Department discovered that James C. Lewis is the owner of 48 foot 2000 Ta Yang sailboat valued at $509,000 and a 9 foot 2001 West Boat valued at $2,100 for a total discovered value of $511,100. A discovery letter was sent in November 2002 to Mr. Lewis’s home in Greensboro. Mr. Lewis responded on January 2, 2003, saying that he had been out of town since October. He provided documentation on the construction and purchase of the Ta Yang boat. He requested to reduce the value of the boat to $358,000 based on his sales contract. Tax Administrator Glasgow said since the County did not receive a response from the taxpayer within the 30 day appeal period, a bill was computed and mailed. The property owner may petition to the Board to compromise, settle or adjust the County's claim for taxes as identified in N.C.G.S. 105-312(k). Under N.C.G.S. 105-381(a)(1), a taxpayer asserting a valid defense to the enforcement of the collection of a tax assessed upon his/her property, shall proceed, asserting as the defense, that the tax was: (A) a tax imposed through clerical error; (B) an illegal tax; (C) a tax levied for an illegal purpose. The Tax Department did correct clerical errors, but the Board should not compromise any tax bill unless any one of the three listed defenses has occurred. Should the Board compromise without one of the three having occurred, the Board members who voted for the release of the tax, may be held personally liable for any amount that was released, refunded or compromised as identified in N.C.G.S. 105-380. Upholding the assessed value would be consistent with other boat discoveries. The value of the sailboat was reduced to $477,990 and the dingy to $1,030. Mr. Lewis’s appeal is based on the fact that he was out of the State and was unaware of the discovery notice. His documentation shows the construction cost and purchase price of the boat for $358,000 and $50,000 for brokerage fees. The Tax Office determined the value based on the BUC Pricing Guide. Since the boat was not listed as manufactured in 2000, staff took the difference in value for 1999 and 2001 and applied a percentage to determine the boat’s book value. Mr. Lewis contended that the value was excessively high, having paid $358,000 for the boat. In this case the Board will need to consider whether to disregard the 30 day deadline. Vice-Chairman Greer asked if the value of a new purchase should be based on the purchase price. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the Tax Department does use the purchase price of new vehicles because pricing guides routinely do not have enough information to establish the value. The sales price is used as long as it is not discounted because of buying the vehicle from a close connection. Mr. James Lewis, owner of property, stated that he and his wife purchased the boat when he lived and worked NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 580 in San Francisco, but the boat was made in Taiwan. He had legal documents that supported the purchase price of $358,000 for the sailboat. The imported boat’s actual sales price was $212,000 and commissions made up the remaining cost. He retired in March 2001 and moved to Greensboro, NC. He also owns property in Southport. The boat is kept at Bradley Creek four months out of the year. The remaining time it is in St. Augustine, FL or Annapolis, MD. California charged state sales tax based on the $358,000 purchase. Based on discussions with Mr. Glasgow, he paid taxes based on the value of $358,000. Being a new resident of North Carolina, he did not realize that he needed to list the boat in New Hanover County when the boat is mostly away. The boat is Fiberglass and depreciates in value each year. He requested the Board to reduce the value based on his documentation on the boat. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the Board could consider the extenuating circumstances of Mr. Lewis being out of town. If it is accepted, the door is then open to adjust the value to the purchase price. Vice-Chairman Greer said a mechanism should be in place for individuals who don’t receive the notice. He felt the Board was the mechanism and the value should be established as the sales price. Tax Administrator Glasgow recommended that the new established value should be $358,000; thereafter, depreciation would be applied to the value. The first taxable year would be 2001. Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to establish the value of the TaYang Sailboat belonging to James C. Lewis at $358,000 based on the purchase price of the property. Mr. Lewis stated that he would accept the value of $358,00 although the actual price for the vessel was $212,000. He had paid the broker’s commission plus he had other items added to the boat. The broker said that the selling price would be $275,000 to $299,000 as boats decrease in value much like a car when it is driven off the lot. Vote: Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONTINUED APPEAL OF TAX DISCOVERY BY BILL HEINBERG, HEINBERG INSURANCE Tax Administrator Glasgow reported to Chairman Davis that the Tax Department mailed a discovery letter to Heinberg Insurance Agency in November and Mr. Heinberg did not respond within the 30 day deadline to appeal the assigned value. When Mr. Heinberg received the tax bill, he came to the Tax Office with his business listing. The position of the Tax Department is that once the 30 days elapsed and no extenuating circumstances existed, the assigned value becomes final. He recommended that the tax bill should not be waived or adjusted. Mr. Bill Heinberg, owner of Bill Heinberg Insurance, again summarized that the discovery notice from the County Tax Office was mailed to his accountant with the monthly paperwork at the end of November. When he received the tax bill for more than $7,000 on December 22, he called the Tax Office to have it corrected. After several frantic phone calls to the accountant, they provided an inventory of the business personal property on December 29. He began the business in 1981 using rented equipment. He argued that the small insurance agency did not have $75,000 worth of equipment and he should not be taxed on that value. He requested the Board to correct the value of his business property based on actual equipment he owned. Chairman Davis stated that he understood the Board could grant an appeal if the tax imposed was due to a clerical error, the tax is illegal, or the tax was levied for an illegal purpose; and if the Board voted to release the tax, and it is later determined that it was released improperly, each of the Commissioners voting for the release would be liable for the tax liability. He asked if any information or evidence was revealed to justify a correction. Mr. Heinberg responded that he felt clerical errors had occurred and that the Tax Administrator had picked a random number to establish the value. He said the $7,000 tax bill was erroneous and he requested the Board to correct the substantial clerical error. Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the Tax Office assigned a value based on other insurance companies in the area and the taxpayer was given 30 days to correct the value. The value for 2003 was corrected, but the established value for previous years remains. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Heinberg the reason he did not respond during the 30 day period. Mr. Heinberg replied that his business receives a large volume of mail and they were unaware of the importance of the discovery notice until they received the tax bill. Chairman Davis responded that due to it being Mr. Heinberg’s responsibility to list assets of his business and that a clerical error did not exist in accordance with the statutes to justify changing the assigned value, he voted to uphold the value as recommended by the Tax Administrator. Revote: Upon vote on the motion made by Vice-Chairman Greer, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster to reduce the value of the business property of Bill Heinberg Insurance from $75,000 to $4,300, the MOTION FAILED 2 TO 3. Commissioner Boseman, Commissioner Pritchett, and Chairman Davis voted in opposition. MEETING RECESSED FOR LUNCH Chairman Davis recessed the meeting for lunch at 1:15 p.m. until 1:55 p.m. RECONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE JULY 4 TH FIREWORKS CELEBRATION Captain David R. Scheu, Director of the USS North Carolina Battleship Commission, requested the Board th to reconsider its decision to not fund the July 4 fireworks. He recently learned that 77 restaurants, bars, and clubs in NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 581 thth the downtown area are opened on July 4 and he has asked them to contribute money to help pay for the July 4 fireworks. It is anticipated that the event will continue to meet the people’s expectations. County Manager O’Neal responded that on June 21, 2002, the Board adopted a very tight budget ordinance with limited funding to outside human service organizations. Upon review of all the funding requests, no funding was th approved for the July 4 fireworks display. In past years, the cost of $30,000 was shared by the City, County, WECT- TV, and the Battleship, with the County’s share being between $8,000 and $10,000. In discussion, the Board members felt that with the funding cuts made to human service agencies which provide needed services for the County and the continued budget constraints of unfunded mandates, the County was th unable to provide any funding for this year’s 4 of July celebration. Chairman Davis said that the Board has directed the County Manager to prepare a budget with no tax increase. Although the Commissioners appreciate the services provided by the battleship, they regret that funding is unavailable. He wished Captain Scheu success in obtaining the funding from the downtown merchants and in providing a special celebration. Motion : Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to deny the request for funding th of the July 4 Fireworks celebration due to extreme budget constraints. Upon vote, the motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA PORTS FOR A $1,000 SPONSORSHIP FOR THE WILMINGTON PORT’S 2003 MARITIME DAY FESTIVAL County Manager O’Neal reported that Erik Stromberg, Executive Director of North Carolina Ports, has submitted a request for a $1,000 sponsorship contribution to the 2003 Port of Wilmington Maritime Day Festival. In order to be consistent with other outside agencies who have requested County funding, he recommended that the Board deny the request. As in the past, he suggested the County offer in-kind services of bus transportation or loaned employees to assist the State Ports. Public Information Officer Mark Boyer has assisted the festival in prior years. Assistant County Manager Pat Melvin responded that the Department of Aging and Human Services Transportation has offered transportation services using their mini-buses, but the Ports may need larger vehicles. Nonetheless, the County will have the vehicles available for them. Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to deny the request for funding of the 2003 Maritime Day Festival due to the County’s budget constraints at this time. Upon vote, the motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Davis commented that the Chairman of the Board usually participates in the event and that it is enjoyed by all who attend. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY MARILYN CONSTINE TO AMEND TABLE OF PERMITTED USE OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT VETERINARIES IN THE I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT (A-325, 03-03) Planning Director Dexter Hayes reported that the petitioner is interested in operating a veterinary practice in an existing I-1 Light Industrial Zoning District. Veterinaries are currently permitted in the B-1 Neighborhood Business District, the B-1 Highway Business District, the SC Shopping Center District, and the Planned Development District. A primary concern with veterinary hospitals is the noise and odor associated with outdoor kennels that are often operated in conjunction with veterinary clinics. The Zoning Ordinance has a separate designation for kennels which are permitted in the I-1 Zoning District. The addition of veterinaries as a permitted use in the I-1 District is consistent with other offices and professional activities already permitted in the District. Planning Director Hayes said the amendment would be a minor change to the Table of Permitted Uses. No one spoke in opposition at the Planning Board meeting on March 6, 2003. Staff recommended approval and the Planning Board voted unanimously to approve. He stated that the change would be consistent with the Land Use Plan. The petitioner was not present and there was no one present to speak in favor or against the request. Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to amend the Table of Permitted Uses in the Zoning Ordinance to include veterinaries in the I-1 Light Industrial Zoning District. Upon vote, the motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the ordinance is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVIII, Page 10.7. CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO SECTION 102–4 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING DENSITY CALCULATIONS AND PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL CRITERIA INCLUDING GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS, AND AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 33 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO EXPIRATION OF APPROVED PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS (A-324, 12/02) Planning Director Dexter Hayes presented information concerning the three proposed text amendments. The Planning Board received public comments and held extensive discussions at its meeting on March 6, 2003. It voted 7 to 0 to recommend the Commissioners adopt the amendments as first submitted by the Planning Board in June 2002. Staff’s recommendations, the Homebuilders Association’s proposal, as well as the Planning Board’s original recommendations were discussed extensively. The issues primarily dealt with the validity period of the preliminary plan, an optional General Development Plan (GDP) for developments of 150 or more units, and changes in density calculations for a revised plan. Changes in the ordinance for revised plans were initiated because of recent court cases NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 582 and appeals to the Commissioners on Performance Residential projects. He presented a matrix comparing the recommendations of the Planning Board and Homebuilders Association to the existing ordinance and the ordinance prior to July 8, 2002. Planning Director Hayes explained that in reviewing the original Performance Residential and Subdivision text amendments as approved by the Board on July 8, 2002, Staff felt that a split in the approval process for large-scale performance projects would allow the developer to receive authorization for the total number and type of units without having to complete any of the engineering and detailed site plans as required with a preliminary plan. These large projects would have changes in the plans due to uncertainty in marketing a certain type of housing, which was the basis of some of the appeals. Staff suggested that the GDP allow a developer to vest a project of more than 150 units for up to five years. The GDP would be more definitive than a sketch plan. The Planning Board endorsed the proposal. The second issue was the validity period for approved preliminary plans for Performance Residential projects or subdivisions. The old ordinance allowed plans to remain active for two years, but if work was done in the subdivision and a final map or section was brought in during the two years, an automatic two year extension was given. These projects could last indefinitely, but Staff felt that a new plan should be resubmitted if a project was not completed within the time period. Staff recommended a two-year time period with two one-year extensions which would give a developer four years to complete the project. As the County changes its drainage requirements, open space requirements, or adds sidewalks and other improvements, the developer would have to comply with the new rules and regulations with each plan resubmitted. Projects approved under the old ordinance were not required to comply with new requirements. The third issue involved the revised plans for Performance Residential and High Density projects. Staff suggested that the density calculations be based on the remaining acreage since controversial appeals occurred when the developer submitted a revision to a plan or a new project in that development and it was processed under the old performance regulations. The old ordinance did not specify how to count the density. Staff felt that density should be recalculated based on whether the developer owned the property or not. The developer could shift projects around or add acreage to the project to the point that there would be no certainty as to what the plan would look like. In a revision of a 100-acre project with 25 or 30 acres sold and platted, the existing ordinance would restrict the density calculation to the balance of the property. Vice-Chairman Greer said the Commissioners want to ensure that people buying homes in a subdivision know what to expect in vacant areas. He asked if the General Development Plan would address those concerns. Planning Director Hayes responded that the GDP is a mechanism to allow the County to approve larger projects. Under the old rules, developers were allowed to show a portion of the project as future development when they were unsure what would be on the last 50 acres of a 150 acre project. The County would approve a portion of the project with the understanding that a revision would come for the remaining project at some future time. The concept of a General Development Plan allows the developer to vest in the number of units and the type of units to build for a five year period. Staff did not think large acreage lots built and approved under one plan should be used in the density calculations for a revision to the balance of the project. Walter Conlogue, member of the Planning Board, spoke in support of including the GDP amendments with the ordinance in effect prior to July 2002. He felt that having a validity period for plans would cause the developer to make cookie-cutter projects in order to finish on a timely basis. He said Performance Residential Projects are large projects with planned open space and amenities. He expressed concern that developers may have problems getting banks to finance large projects when the number of lots is changed. He requested the Board to use the ordinance in effect prior to July 2002 and to include the new GDP amendments, which would resolve most of the problems and issues concerning Performance Residential projects. Rodney Harris, Chairman of the Planning Board and member for the past 6 years, spoke concerning the number of hours spent since May 2002 discussing the issues with the public at-large, developers, Planning Board members, and Staff to address the problem of large development plans showing balloons of future development areas. He felt the County should address the issue by first enforcing the regulation requiring every lot line and location of buildings designated on the approved plan. Staff convinced the Planning Board that the Commissioners wanted new language in the ordinances to address those concerns. The Planning Board agreed to include the General Development Plan ordinance, which requires that future development areas list the housing types and location of housing. Although Staff recommended the validity period for a GDP to be five years, the Planning Board felt that limiting a project to five years would place those who bought in early in the project at risk for a change in the density for the back portion. The Planning Board recommended no expiration of the GDP. When revisions occur, residents living in the neighborhood would have a right to voice an opinion on changes. If the GDP expires after 5 years, residents would not be protected from a change in the type of housing. The Planning Board did not agree with Staff’s recommendation as presented at the July 8, 2002 meeting regarding a validity period for preliminary plans. Members were concerned that the Commissioners approved Staff’s recommendation without knowing the Planning Board’s opinion. Some of the members discussed the issues with County Manager O’Neal and Assistant County Manager Weaver, who suggested the Planning Board bring back its recommendation to the Commissioners. Mr. Harris said that another concern of the Planning Board was amendments to revised plans. The Planning Board felt that the density initially approved for a project should remain the same when a revision is submitted. Projects approved for a certain number of units should not be allowed to add more units when a revised plan is submitted. Large lots, open space, or recreational areas could be lost if high density areas were built first. Performance Residential projects should be required or developers will build conventional developments that are easier. The builder would know his cost up front, but no open space would be provided except for the front and back yards of each house. In a Performance Development Project, a retention pond is counted as open space. But if density is reduced, there is no NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 583 guarantee that the area will remain as open space. Residents will not be secure in knowing what is planned for their subdivisions if the validity period runs out. The County needs to require open space in its regulations. In checking the regulations of other counties, Mr. Harris found that most had vesting periods of two years for plans with extensions up to a total of five years. When permits were in place or work was in progress, some counties allowed the plans to continue with no time limits. The Planning Board felt that developers should be able to continue projects in order to protect homeowners who buy into a project. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Harris to give the Planning Board’s recommendation on the General Development Plan. Mr. Harris responded that having a GDP was a good starting point for any size project and would help the County to plan for future development. If the County forces developers into making small neighborhoods of 15 to 20 lots, it will be difficult to plan for street connections into other neighborhoods, open space areas, and road connections to thoroughfares. Chairman Davis asked for the Planning Board’s recommendation on the validity period for the preliminary plans. Mr. Harris responded that the Planning Board recommended that an automatic extension be given if work was in progress. If a final plat was recorded within the two years, the project should continue. But if work on the project stops and no final plat has been submitted, a new plan should be submitted. Developers who bring in plans about to expire are granted an extension, but the Planning Board as the TRC would incorporate new regulations into the plan. At times a new section in an older neighborhood may not be able to comply with new regulations, such as stormwater drainage rules, because of the type of structures already in place. Furthermore, the TRC would impose the new regulations on those areas previously designated as balloons of future development. He felt that the GDP could work to the County’s advantage by having each project comply to new requirements, unless the infrastructure in place would make it impractical. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Harris for clarification on the Planning Board’s recommendation on how to calculate density for the revised plan. Mr. Harris responded that the Planning Board’s recommendation is to keep the original density of the preliminary plan for the complete project. If the density is recalculated, the developer would be penalized. Even if property is owned by others, it is designated as open space without any units. If more property is annexed into a development, it should bring in more units. The Planning Board did not want to change the density, but wanted the developer to use the same density as originally approved. The developer should not be able to increase the density, but he can choose to have less density. Vice-Chairman Greer asked if the original plan would have all the lots drawn on it. Mr. Harris explained that an original plan should have all the lots drawn showing the housing type whether patio homes or townhouses, and the number of units, but no roads or infrastructure would be shown. If Beau Rivage had submitted a GDP, it would have shown the areas as they were developed, whether assisted living, townhouses, or patio homes. Homeowners would know that across the street from the half-acre lots, an assisted living project was planned. If the County limits the GDP to five years, nobody will know what will happen after the five years. The developer could bring in new plans for undeveloped areas. Developers do not want to make a decision up front on what will happen in 5 to 10 years. If plans do not expire and the developer wants to make changes, the Planning Board felt that developers could go to the TRC or the Planning Board for a public hearing to receive comments from residents in the neighborhood. The County may allow changes, but everyone who has a vested interest in the neighborhood would have an opportunity to comment. A GDP without an expiration date will require a developer to plan more in depth for a neighborhood. Commissioner Caster asked if developers would be more inclined to prepare a GDP for 500 acres at a time instead of 1500 acres because of the time restrictions. Mr. Harris responded that the developer would need to rezone the property for Performance Residential Development. The key will be to get a GDP for the 500 acres, but it would be more beneficial to get a plan for 1500 acres. The County will be forcing developers to build conventional cookie-cutter developments so they will be sure of their density. Developers desire to build good developments that they would be proud of and they want the home buyers to be satisfied and happy. Chairman Davis expressed appreciation to Mr. Harris for his years of service on the Planning Board. Commissioner Pritchett asked if a GDP is vested for five years, whether the County should require reapproval after five years in order to address the concerns of both the Planning Board and Planning Staff. Planning Director Hayes responded that extensions would allow the County to manage growth and development by applying new standards and regulations to projects as the projects are built. Local governments need to reserve the right to review approved plans at some point and two years is the standard across the state. Plans approved for 5 to 8 years will not allow the County an opportunity to manage growth for the project. Vice-Chairman Greer asked why it is believed that developers would not build good projects if they are limited to short validity periods. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 584 Planning Director Hayes responded that most developers build projects of 25 to 30 single family units or 150 to 200 units in an apartment complex or townhouse project at a time. They wait to see how the first units sell before risking too much time and money in the project. In response to questions about whether to require a GDP, Planning Director Hayes explained that a preliminary plan does vest a project for two years. The developer commits to the project by providing an engineering plan and design work, usually in phases of 25 to 30 lots at a time. If the plan does not work, a revised plan is submitted. Revisions are common in the development process and projects as large as Beau Rivage (approved in 1986) would have several revisions no matter what time constraints are placed on the project. The County should consider only the developer’s remaining undeveloped area when a preliminary plan is revised. Planning Director Hayes explained that a GDP gives a developer an approved plan for five years. When the developer is ready to build, he comes in with a preliminary plan and he is eligible to receive extensions for 2 additional years, which feasibly stretches out a project for 9 years without having to include new requirements. Extensions can be given if roads are built or water and sewer services installed. Most jurisdictions give extensions if the developer has shown some progress in the project. John McHenry, Government Affairs Director of the Wilmington-Cape Fear Homebuilders Association, expressed concern about having a short validity period for preliminary plans. He requested to extend the plan approvals from 2 years to 8 years with a possible two-year extension. According to the New Hanover County Construction Activity Report, approximately 95% of residential projects are built as Performance Residential Developments. This classification is a good planning tool for preserving open space and key environmental areas. Since it takes two years for a developer to get CAMA and stormwater permits and infrastructure in place before home construction begins, banks are apprehensive about providing loans for large projects with an expected build out of two years. Furthermore, a longer validity period is needed to hedge against hurricanes, wartime events, downturns in the economy, or other circumstances that may affect normal business. Mr. McHenry stated that the Homebuilders Association supported the GDP as a requirement for all developments in order to show future projects and housing types, but felt housing types should be vested indefinitely. The vesting period for preliminary plans will make it difficult for good smart-growth projects to have mixed uses and open space. It would be difficult to build infrastructure, arrange financing, and build units before the two-year time frame had expired. He argued that most developers submit preliminary plans for 100 lots instead of 25 as Planning Director Hayes suggested. He urged the Board to provide ample time for an approved preliminary plan to allow developers to build good smart-growth projects and to avoid the cookie-cutter type of developments. Bill Cameron of Bayshore Estates, Inc. spoke concerning the effect of the regulations on Bayshore Estates and Marsh Oaks. He was against having any time limits for preliminary plans or GDP. He explained that the density allowed through Performance Residential Development is controlled by the zoning. A good planned community will consist of some large lots, open space areas, and multi-family housing projects instead of cookie-cutter lots. Construction in Marsh Oaks started seven years ago and will continue for another 3 to 7 years. It is a good planned community with four to five different housing products working together because there is a master plan for the entire project. If time limits are imposed on landowners, large projects will be at risk because the landowner will be facing the possibility of losing townhouses or patio homes if he builds on the larger lots first. A developer cannot afford to lose density when a plan expires, and he will be forced to build high-density projects at the beginning and leave larger lots and open space areas further back in the project. He did not agree that developers submit preliminary plans for 25 to 30 lots. His company submits GDP for projects of hundreds of acres, but they may choose to construct 25 to 30 houses at a time. As homes are sold, they go forward with the next 25 to 50 lots. If plans expire in short time frames of two years and five years, GDPs for 500 acre projects will not be submitted and conventional developments of 25 to 75 lots will be offered to the public. It should not matter whether large lots or small lots are built first if the density is approved for the GDP. If a revised plan is submitted, the number of units should not change. He requested the Board to give developers more time to build their projects. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Cameron if he supported the existing ordinance, the Homebuilders’ proposals, or the Planning Board’s recommendation. Mr. Cameron responded that he felt the General Development Plan was nothing more than an allocation of the zoning density with a general street layout, since the zoning dictated the density. If time frames are required, he asked that they be long enough to be commensurate with the size of the project. Large developments like Landfall would need 15 to 20 years; the PUD on River Road will need 15 to 20 years; and Marsh Oaks will easily take over 10 years to complete. A 50 acre project should not take as long. If the Commissioners want developers to plan large projects, indefinite time frames should be allowed on the GDP . The plan for Marsh Oaks of 200 to 250 acres started in 1996. Future development areas were labeled as future developments of townhouses, patio homes, and single family residences, and the number of units was not to exceed a certain number. Everybody was aware of what they included in the project. The County would not be having the problem if other past projects had been properly submitted and approved. Terry Turner, an area builder, spoke on building projects taking a long time to complete. It took him five years to complete Megan Woods. Brewster Place, a 66 acre project, has taken 8 years and will not be completed for another 1 ½ years. He explained that it takes 4 to 6 months to build a house. In the meantime, the State may impose new regulations that will require modifications to the house plans. The builder would have to stop and remodel the house, before moving on to other building projects. He supported the requirement of a GDP, but felt the builder should be allowed to finish projects without the time constraints. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 585 Chairman Davis asked if the existing ordinance applied to plans that have already been approved. Planning Director Hayes responded that Staff is processing 5 or 6 projects under the old regulations since they were submitted prior to July 8, 2002. They do not have to comply with the new standards for street connections, open space, and sidewalks or with other new ordinances adopted on July 8, 2002. They can proceed under the two year time frame. However, the new regulations will apply to revised plans for projects. Susan McDaniels, attorney representing the Beau Rivage Homeowners Association, spoke in support of the Planning Staff’s recommendation. However, she felt that designating the GDP as an option did not accomplish a lot. Section 69.2 of the Zoning Ordinance has 24 specific criteria which have not been enforced. The criteria for Performance Residential projects is to identify boundaries, structures, types of units, and roads. She did not believe a GDP would address problems of development, but enforcement of the existing ordinance would address the issues. Ms. McDaniels did not agree with the Planning Board’s recommendation to keep the density with a revised plan. If a developer sells some of the acreage, the density calculations should not remain the same when a revised plan is submitted. She suggested that the ordinance needed to be clarified so that developers could not use the density twice. She pointed out that the recommendations of the Homebuilders Association should not be considered by the Board unless the Planning Board reviews the proposal and submits a recommendation, since the proposal was not submitted in accordance with the regulations and properly noticed. The Commissioners should only consider the Planning Board’s proposal. Concerning the vesting and validity periods of similar size counties or larger in North Carolina, Ms. McDaniels supported Planning Staff’s recommendation to be consistent with other areas. She pointed out that 2,747 Performance Development units had been approved since July 2002 compared to 1,529 units for the six months prior, which indicates there was no hindrance for the developers. She disagreed with Planning Director Hayes’s recommendation that statutory vesting or common law vesting should be allowed. She understood the amendments to mean that they were effective immediately to the extent that any approved project would be vested only if the substantial expenditure of money, time or labor in good faith reliance on the approval or other statutory vesting requirements had been satisfied. But if the developer had submitted a project and no work had been done to satisfy the vesting criteria, it should not be vested. She understood that to be the intention of the Commissioners when meeting with the Planning Board. Planning Director Hayes explained that the developer would be able to continue under the old rules through the original approval period. Once the approval period ended, or if the project was allowed to lapse or expire, the plan would have to be resubmitted under the new rules. John Wessell, attorney representing Beau Rivage Plantation, Inc., the owner of the remaining undeveloped property at the Beau Rivage Plantation Subdivision, spoke of his primary concern being the change in density requirements when a revised plan is made to the project. The July ordinance required Beau Rivage to bring a new plan for an undeveloped portion. The density was cut in half because the recalculation was based on the remaining undeveloped property. He said the density calculation should be based on the property owned in 1986. The existing ordinance reduces the density of projects when revisions are made to the plan. Beau Rivage had several plans approved that included a fair amount of open space and areas labeled as future development. When his client came in with a revised plan for a future development area, the density was recalculated based on the remaining property owned by the developer and not as approved in 1986. They filed a lawsuit because they had to comply with the new ordinance. Under North Carolina law they did not agree that they should be required to comply to the revised ordinance. Mr. Wessell explained that under the old ordinance, a developer would have a certain number of available units to build within that geographic area. The new ordinance does not allow the developer to use the property that was sold to calculate density any longer. Density calculations are based on remaining property owned by the developer. It does not matter if the property was sold as a single lot or an acreage tract, the developer loses that area for density purposes. The plan as a whole as originally submitted was not considered for density purposes. Mr. Wessell agreed with Mr. Harris saying that the revisions for Performance Residential Developments will force developers to build high density portions of their projects at the beginning. A developer may lose considerable density when revising a plan for the balance of the property. Beau Rivage had 550 units remaining in the original plan, but after the adoption of the existing ordinance, the number of units allowed was reduced to 259. The loss of 291 units at $10,000 a unit equals to $2,910,000. He did not think the ordinance was fair or legal. He requested the Board to eliminate the ordinance or not to apply the requirement to developments already in place. Vice-Chairman Greer asked what would happen under the General Development Plan if the lots were not drawn. Mr. Wessell responded that as long as the GDP was not revised, the density would not be changed. If a developer changes the GDP within the 5 years and has sold part of the property, the density requirement would be based on the amount of property he still owns and he would suffer a loss in the number of buildable lots. Planning Director Hayes explained that when portions of the property are sold to a third party, the density decreases because the developer is unable to encumber that property to the benefit of the people in the development. Only when the developer wants to revise a plan does the density issue come into play. When he has a specific plan, he does not lose any density as long as he continues with the original plan. If he revises a plan because large lots are not selling, the density calculation will change based on the remaining total acreage. Planning Director Hayes pointed out that the developers had revised the plan for Carolina Greens at the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 586 entrance of Beau Rivage and several revisions were being contested. The property could not be vested in the beginning because the plan did not show a layout. Instead of providing a plan for the entire project, the developer submitted revised plans for each area as they went along. The County did not have a policy procedure or mechanism to handle large projects of a thousand units unless the plan included the final design and engineering plans. The developer of Beau Rivage was not willing or interested in spending money up front to plan the whole development. Nobody could predict how the project would look several years ahead because portions were labeled as future development. However, the developer knew that the revised plan would be subject to the rules and regulations in place at the time of the revisions and that calculations for density would be based on the balance of the property owned. The owner could have kept the golf course in Beau Rivage and density could have been encumbered for future sections if he had retained interest in that property. Ms. McDaniels responded that Beau Rivage was not approved in accordance with the regulations existing at the time in 1986. If they had been enforced, Beau Rivage would not have had a problem. Beau Rivage cannot reasonably rely on an improperly approved project for vesting rights. It would not have been appropriate for the Board to consider the 450 acre tract labeled future development as vested. She believed the new amendments for revised plans became effective when the Board approved them in July 2002. Jane Kopczynski, representing the Council of Neighborhoods Association (CONA), spoke for Hunter Thompson, President of the organization, who had to leave the meeting for another commitment. She reported that CONA adopted a resolution on March 27, 2003 in support of the regulations adopted by the Commissioners on July 8, 2002. The resolution stated that neighborhoods were being degraded by the Performance Residential Development ordinances approved prior to July 8, 2002 and it strongly urged the Board to reaffirm the vote of July 8, 2002, with no changes or postponements, and to deny the Planning Board’s recommendation to rescind or amend text amendments of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. In regards to statements made by developers that the new text amendments will cause developers to lose money, Ms. Kopczynski suggested that UNCW’s School of Business provide an unbiased independent opinion of whether a projected economic hardship would be placed on the builder. She asked why a property owner should be permitted to sell a 130 acre golf course for $3,250,000 and still retain density based on that same acreage as the attorney for Beau Rivage development has claimed. If the developer is allowed to keep the density of 325 units, high- density housing will be built in the low-density neighborhood, which will completely change the character of the community. She felt that the profits made by the builder for the property should be considered in the overall equation in determining the density for the remaining undeveloped areas. She expressed concern that it appears the sole function of the Planning Board was to maximize profits for developers, instead of protecting the public’s quality of life. John Feeley, resident of the County, spoke in support of the revisions to the ordinances that were passed on July 8, 2002, which addressed the concerns of the enraged homeowners of Beau Rivage and Veteran Park areas. Having regularly attended meetings of the TRC since last July, Mr. Feeley said that he felt the amended ordinances were working well and being enforced better than in the past. Since the Planning Board or homebuilders have not supplied evidence to show that the regulations are not working, he supported keeping the existing ordinances as recommended by staffs of the County Attorney’s Office and Planning Department. He did not agree that the regulations would force developers to build cookie-cutter developments. He requested the Board to uphold the existing regulations. Vice-Chairman Greer asked if the golf course in Beau Rivage was used as open space in calculating the density, whether the property could be used again in calculating the density after it was sold. Senior Planner Baird Stewart responded that open space must be encumbered for the benefit of the property owners in the development and can be sold to a third party. The original wording said that the golf course could be given to the homeowners association or dedicated to the County if accepted. Property recorded as open space would remain open space. Planning Staff ensures that property is recorded as open space and in accordance with the homeowners association. Myron Swetlitz, resident of the County, spoke in favor of the Planning Staff’s recommendation to uphold the existing ordinances. At a recent TRC meeting, a developer tried to use land not contiguous to his proposed subdivision or owned by him to increase the acreage that was approved 10 years ago. The developer had unplatted and replatted 2 plots in order to gain density in the number of dwelling units. The Planning Board and HBA would have the Board turn the clock back to the 1980s. Mr. Swetlitz requested the Commissioners to continue forward in their responsibility to current and future homeowners of New Hanover County by voting unanimously to uphold the ordinances adopted by the Board in July 2002. Charles Cote, a resident of 309 Rivage Promenade and President of the Beau Rivage Homeowners Association, spoke in support of the County’s existing regulations. He requested the Commissioners to depend on advice from Planning Director Hayes and the County Attorney’s Office on these issues. As a resident for 11 years, he has seen the tremendous growth in the County and realizes the challenge before the Commissioners. He requested the Board to protect the residents who have had to fight to preserve the quality of their uncrowded single-family neighborhoods. Wilmington and New Hanover County can be the jewels of the east coast if Zoning Ordinances are enforced. Robin Tinney, a second generation land developer, spoke in support of regulations that allow developers to build mixed-use communities with park areas, open space and environmentally sensitive projects. When she builds a community, she installs the infrastructure, retention ponds, amenities, and park areas before building the homes so the home buyers and homeowners association will know up front what they are buying. Under the time constraints of the preliminary plans, banks will not finance projects of more than 50 acres of land unless large fees are included. The developer would have to pass the higher cost on to the homeowners. To provide amenities the homeowners want, developers need to buy large parcels of land for projects. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 587 Ms. Tinney requested the Board to approve the Planning Board’s recommendation of having a General Development Plan without the time constraints. Performance Residential allows the developer the opportunity to plan and develop responsible communities, but the two-year time limit for preliminary plans limits the developer to smaller projects. In a development that was approved 18 years ago, each time a revision is made, the current regulations are applied. It is difficult to retrofit the master plan with the current ordinance requirements. Commissioner Caster asked if the time was lengthened or was indefinite would those changes address her concerns. Ms. Tinney responded that the Homebuilders Association may have proposed a compromise of 8 plus 2 years as the time needed to build a large community, but she felt the plan should allow between 10 to 15 years. Commissioner Caster asked if the GDP should be required rather than optional. Mr. Harris responded that the Planning Board felt the GDP should be optional if a preliminary plan meets the ordinance requirements with everything in place and no future development is designated. A GDP is a sketch plan submitted prior to the preliminary plan because the developer may want input before going further. The preliminary plan should have everything in place without any balloons of future development. Planning Director Hayes explained that the critical issue is how long a Performance Residential project should be valid. If it is more acceptable to the development community, the validity period could be extended to 5 years. The general statutes allow a project to be vested for 5 years with some limitations beyond the five years. The validity period for preliminary plans is a vesting period regardless of the rules and regulations in place. Vesting for the GDP is 5 years. The homebuilders would like approval to last 3 to 4 years initially so they do not need to get a re-approval. The Commissioners will need to consider whether they can manage growth within a longer validity period. Chairman Davis called for a motion regarding the General Development Plan. Motion: Commissioner Pritchett stated she felt the Board was correct in its decision of last year and MOVED, SECONDED by Chairman Davis, to affirm the General Development Plan as approved July 2002. In discussion of whether the GDP should remain optional, Planning Director Hayes explained that Staff considered the GDP as a way to handle larger projects when more time is needed to start the project. If the developer is to build 150 or more units, a GDP is an option he can consider. If he does not want to do a GDP, a preliminary plan will need to be submitted for the whole project. If an engineer is hired to prepare a design for the project, a GDP is not necessary. However, the GDP locks in the density for the type of housing whether single family or patio homes for the property regardless of zoning changes or other regulations adopted during the 5 year period. The preliminary plan should be submitted before the end of the 5 years or before the GDP expires. Commissioner Boseman asked if the existing regulations will prevent smart-growth development. Planning Director Hayes responded that most likely projects will be smaller or larger projects would be submitted for approval in smaller parts. Commissioner Caster asked if the GDP is optional whether it matters what length of time the project would be vested. Planning Director Hayes responded that if the State establishes new regulations on development in flood plain or along an estuarine shore line and the County is required to implement local changes, those changes would not apply to the plan because of it being vested for 5 years. If the vesting period elapsed, the new regulations would then apply to the area. Commissioner Caster asked if rules are changed and the plan is not finished in 5 years, whether the developer will have to obey the new rules. Planning Director Hayes responded that most changes or revisions are processed under the same rules as when the project was approved. Commissioner Boseman asked if the changes will affect people in Beau Rivage. Planning Director Hayes responded that Beau Rivage has an approved plan, but any revisions to the plan would be affected by the existing ordinances. He suggested that years could be added to the validity period to address the concerns of the banking industry. Assistant County Manager Weaver spoke concerning a compromise between the Homebuilders Association, Planning Board and Planning Staff to address some of the concerns as well as the public’s concerns. Chairman Davis asked how it could be a compromise between the four factions if all were not part of the discussion. Assistant County Manager Weaver responded that the proposal addresses the concerns of homeowners who buy into a new development and then the next year the plan is revised for a different housing type with higher density. Chairman Davis expressed frustration at hearing public comments for over an hour and allowing everybody to speak when a compromise is being discussed outside the meeting room. He asked the Board whether to continue with NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 588 the item or to have all these people involved go and hash out a compromise. Assistant County Manager Weaver responded that discussions could be held with representatives from the Homebuilders Association, Planning Staff, and at-large citizens. Chairman Davis asked the County Attorney if the Board could approve the proposed solution without the Planning Board’s review and recommendation. County Attorney Copley advised the Board that everybody may not be represented at the meeting, although they may have sent a representative to speak on their behalf. If the proposal is a total change, the Board may want to consider it at the next meeting. Substitute Motion: Commissioner Boseman reported that she was unable to stay after 4:30 p.m. and she MOVED to table the issue. The motion did not receive a second. Commissioner Pritchett responded that if new regulations were approved and something was not working as anticipated, another text amendment could be brought before the Board to correct it. Commissioner Boseman was unable to stay and left the meeting at 4:35 p.m. Substitute Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to make the General Development Plan a requirement instead of optional for developments of 150 or more units. Commissioner Pritchett asked the advantage of making the GDP mandatory instead of optional. Commissioner Caster responded that developers would need to bring their plans before the Planning Board and Staff for their review. Commissioner Pritchett clarified that a GDP or sketch plan would be required before a formal plan is submitted. Chairman Davis expressed concerned that Commissioner Boseman had to leave the meeting before a decision was made. He did not want to delay a decision after the Board had heard all of the public comments and had spent so much time on the issues. He called for a vote on the substitute motion. Vice-Chairman Greer said that he felt a single proposal, not 4 or 5, should come before the Board for approval. Instead of the Board making a compromise, those involved should present a compromise proposal for the Board to consider. It is possible that a tie vote could occur with no changes made to the ordinance. Vote: On the substitute motion made by Commissioner Caster and seconded by Vice-Chairman Greer to require a General Development Plan for 150 or more units and that the density and housing types be vested for 5 years, the MOTION RECEIVED A 2 TO 2 TIE VOTE. Commissioner Pritchett and Chairman Davis voted in opposition. Vote: On the original motion made by Commissioner Pritchett and seconded by Chairman Davis to affirm the existing ordinance of the General Development Plan as recommended by Staff, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0. Chairman Davis called for a motion on the validity period for preliminary plans. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to accept the recommendation from the Homebuilders Association for a validity period of 8 years with 2 one-year extensions. Substitute Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Chairman Davis, to change the validity period of the existing ordinance to 3 years with two one-year extensions. Upon vote, the SUBSTITUTE MOTION RECEIVED A 2 TO 2 TIE VOTE. Commissioner Caster and Vice-Chairman Greer voted in opposition. Upon vote on the original motion to accept the Homebuilders Association’s recommendation of changing the validity period for preliminary plans to 8 years with one two-year extension, the MOTION RECEIVED A 2 TO 2 TIE VOTE. Commissioner Pritchett and Chairman Davis voted in opposition. County Attorney Copley advised that unless a motion passed to change the existing ordinance, the existing ordinance would remain in effect. Motion : Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to change the validity period for preliminary plans to five years with one two-year extension. In discussion of whether the two-year extension is guaranteed, Planning Director Hayes explained that the County should have the option of looking at the project to make sure the developer had made progress. If nothing was done, an extension could be granted but the new rules would apply. If a project was underway or half-way finished and another year was needed to finish the project, an extension would be given under the existing regulations. The County would have the authority to either grant or deny an extension. Vote: Upon vote, the MOTION RECEIVED A 2 TO 2 TIE VOTE. Commissioner Pritchett and Chairman Davis voted no. In discussion of the ordinance on revised plans, Vice-Chairman Greer expressed concern about keeping track of the density for a project. He asked if the ordinance addressed the issue of selling a golf course and using the density NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 589 twice. Planning Director Hayes responded that the existing ordinance did address the issue. The old ordinance allowed the developer to manipulate or add acreage because no standard or vestment period on calculating the density was established. The existing ordinance restricts the density calculation to the remaining property owned by the developer whenever a revised plan is submitted. There being no motion to change the ordinance, the existing ordinance of the revised plan for Performance Residential and High Density Projects remained in effect. BREAK Chairman Davis called a break from 5:00 p.m. until 5:15 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING TO SOLICIT CITIZEN COMMENTS CONCERNING AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE (DRI) PROGRAM FOR NEW HANOVER COUNTY Wanda Coston, Community Development Planner of the Planning Department, reported that in accordance with HUD regulations, a public hearing must be held to solicit citizen comments concerning an amendment to the County's Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) Program. The DRI Program was established by HUD to assist areas impacted by Hurricanes Bertha and Fran with hurricane recovery efforts. The County has come in under budget with these projects and Staff is proposing to use the balance of the funds for water system construction and sewer system activation in the Rock Hill Road area. The proposed amendment is contingent upon HUD's approval of the requested extension to expend all funds by June 30, 2004. Although verbal approval has been received from HUD, a final plan must be submitted. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing and asked if anyone from the public would like to comment. No comments were received. Chairman Davis closed the Public Hearing. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to approve the amendment to the HUD Disaster Recovery Initiative Program as presented by the Planning Department. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0. CONSIDERATION OF GRANT APPLICATION TO CAMA FOR FUNDING OF THE CAMA LAND USE PLAN UPDATE Chris O’Keefe, Senior Planner of the Planning Department, reported that as required by the Coastal Area Management Act, New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington are scheduled to update the jointly prepared CAMA Land Use Plan. CAMA will provide funding up to 60% or up to $60,000 of the total cost of preparing this Plan. He requested approval to submit a grant application to CAMA for funds to begin the project. The Core Planning process requires some public participation to identify significant and emerging issues and a series of reports on population and land use will be prepared. The City of Wilmington should fund its portion of the required cash match. It is anticipated that the grant will be awarded in late August or early September with the process starting in September. Funds in the amount of $8,500 have been requested in the 2003-2004 Budget for the County’s share of the project. Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to authorize the County Manager to submit a CAMA grant application to fund the required update of the CAMA Land Use Plan. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0. CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. 03-0233 TO GREEN POWER ENERGY HOLDING LLC. FOR A PILOT PROJECT TO PROCESS CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AT THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY LANDFILL Ray Church, Director of Environmental Management, reported that as much as seventy-five percent of the waste being placed in the landfill comes from construction and demolition (C&D) activities. These wastes consist of wood, drywall, masonry, cardboard, and metals, all marketable materials that are readily recoverable. The majority of the C&D waste is wood that can be used for boiler fuel if properly prepared. Recently, Green Power Energy Holding LLC. (GPEH) purchased the Cogentrix coal fired plant in Kenansville and converted it to a co-fired plant to burn a mixture of wood waste and coal. Up to 700 tons of wood chips are needed per day to fuel the plant. GPEH has approached New Hanover County with an offer to process C&D waste to recover wood waste for boiler fuel while at the same time removing other marketable materials that can be processed by the County's Recycling program. In negotiations with GPEH, it was decided the best approach for this project would be to allow a 90 day pilot project at the landfill to determine its feasibility. The contractor will be paid to process the C&D debris based on the amount of wood boiler fuel that is removed from the landfill. The price of $20 per ton includes all labor, equipment, maintenance, grinding, processing and transportation of the wood. The County will benefit by receiving non-wood recyclables and, more importantly, by avoiding landfill cost. For each ton of material removed by this process, a ton of landfill space is preserved for non processable waste that generates a revenue of $46/ton or the prevailing tip fee of that time. Funds for the project are available in the Landfill budget. Director Church recommended to award Contract No. 03-0233 to Green Power Energy Holding LLC for a ninety (90) day pilot project to process construction and demolition debris. The cost of the project is not to exceed $150,000. At the end of the pilot project, it will be determined if the program should be continued by GPEH, turned NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 590 over to and operated by the County or others, or be terminated. Director Church introduced Wayne Coverdale, the president of Green Power Energy Holding Company, to respond to any questions the Commissioners may have. Chairman Davis asked how the County would pay for the project. Director Church responded that funding is available in the current budget for the 90 day pilot project. If staff determines it is an efficient operation, the Commissioners will be requested to add it to the budget. However, removal of the wood products from the Landfill is an aborted cost by delaying the need to construct another landfill cell for at least a year within a three-year operation. Director Church said that a concrete pad built for the storage of tires and white goods has been temporarily cleared for this project and the State has allowed the County to use the pad for the pilot project. A solid waste permit has been issued for the project and the Division of Air Quality has given verbal approval to allow the operation of a grinder for 30 days. Director Church explained that the typical 2,000 square foot house will generate about 3.7 tons of C&D debris consisting of 1.5 tons of wood waste, 1 ton of Sheetrock, and lesser amounts of masonry and cardboard. GPEH will only take the wood waste, but the cardboard and metals will continue to be recycled as normal. He anticipated that the County should make a profit on the project. Vice-Chairman Greer asked if the WASTEC facility would lose fuel by removing the C&D materials or if more natural gas would be needed to operate the facility. Director Church responded that C&D materials go straight to the Landfill because they contain too many non- burnable waste products. Plenty of trash is generated to keep the WASTEC facility in operation. In response to questions on the use of the grinder, Director Church explained that the Legal Department did not want to obligate the County beyond June 30 because of budgeting purposes. The Division of Air Quality agreed that the grinder could operate up to the 30 days, and it will be used one or two days a week. Motion: Commissioner Pritchett stated that she fully supported the project and she MOVED, SECONDED by Vice- Chairman Greer, to adopt a resolution awarding Contract # 03-0233 to Green Power Energy Holding LLC for a 90-day pilot project to process construction and demolition debris at the New Hanover County Landfill at a cost not to exceed $150,000. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVIII, Page 10.8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION TO APPROVE BOND ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $35,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS AND TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE Finance Director Bruce Shell reported that due to the drop in interest rates and the maturity of various bonds, it is feasible for the County to refund $11.985 million of Solid Waste Disposal Bonds, $5.415 million of Public Improvement Bonds, and $16.750 million School Bonds. The County will save approximately $1.15 million over the remaining nine years by refinancing these bonds. The County cannot extend the time of repayment beyond the original debt of 9 to 11 years in order to protect the bond holders. The Board is required to introduce the bond order and call for a related public hearing. The County Finance Officer will file a statement of debt with the Clerk to the Board prior to the public hearing on May 5, 2003. Chairman Davis introduced a Bond Order authorizing the issuance of $35 million in General Obligation Refunding Bonds of the County. He said that the Board needs to consider and take action on the resolution. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to adopt the resolution approving the introduction of the Bond Order and setting the Public Hearing for May 5, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVIII, Page 10.9. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee Chairman Davis announced that up to six vacancies needed to be filled on the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee. He reported that two applications were received. Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to appoint Julianne Budzinski and Jaquelyn K. Jones to serve initial one-year terms on the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee with the terms to expire April 30, 2004. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0. Human Services Transportation Advisory Board Chairman Davis announced that one vacancy needed to be filled on the Human Services Transportation Advisory Board. He reported that two applications were received and he noted that one applicant, Maureen McCarthy, did not meet the age requirement of 60 years or older. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 591 Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to appoint William D. Bryden to serve a 3 year term on the Human Services Transportation Advisory Board, with the term to expire April 30, 2006. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0. Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority Chairman Davis announced that one vacancy needed to be filled on the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority. He reported that four applications were received. Commissioner Caster reported that he has held the position for two terms and would like to continue serving on the Board. He said that it was important to have an elected official represented on this board. The Authority does not limit the number of terms a member can serve. Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to reappoint William A. Caster to serve a 3 year term on the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority, with the term to expire April 30, 2006. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0. Chairman Davis requested the Clerk to notify the other applicants that Commissioner Caster is the sitting member from the Commissioners and that the Board reappointed him for another term. However, another opening will occur next year and their applications will be retained for consideration. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee Chairman Davis announced that up to 5 vacancies needed to be filled on the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee. He reported that three applications were received. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to appoint Betty Whitehead Broadhurst, Mark C. Sheffield, and Diane G. Winstead to serve initial one-year terms on the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee, with the terms to expire April 30, 2004. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0. Vice-Chairman Greer left the meeting at approximately 5:35 p.m. ADDITIONAL ITEMS Commissioner Pritchett reported on the following meetings she attended last week. •The Governor’s meeting to welcome K-Line, a cargo company which has committed to use the State Ports on a monthly basis because of the deepening of the port. •One North Carolina Naturally, held an educational forum to promote the preservation of the environment, where she gathered information on educational initiatives. Commissioner Caster spoke on the following issues and concerns: •Preparation for the hurricane season should start early since the County will have a new Emergency Management Director •Appreciation for the week in review memorandums •Importance of staying abreast on the Jail project in order to have it in operation as soon as possible •Concern for homeless people using County parking areas •Report of new HIPAA regulations in effect •Compliments received on NHCTV programming •Letter from the Department of Interior concerning the northern end of Carolina Beach •Importance of continuing discussions with the City of Wilmington on consolidation Chairman Davis reported on the following issues and events: •A letter will be written in response to the letter from Mayor Harper Peterson requesting mediation of meetings on consolidation. •John T. Hoggard Navy Junior ROTC will be collecting items for the troops in Iraq on April 24 - 25, 2003. He encouraged the Commissioners to participate in the program if possible. •A letter from DARE requesting the appointment or reappointment of a Commissioner to serve on its Board of Directors. Commissioner Pritchett responded that she will be glad to serve another term and she will notify the DARE Board at its next meeting. •Notification from NCACC on increase of dues for counties because of inflation. In discussion of the increase in dues, County Manager O’Neal responded that he would investigate and report back to the Board on the reasoning for the increase at this time when Counties are struggling with their budgets. He reported that the dues have been included in the recommended budget for next fiscal year. County Manager O’Neal gave the following announcements and information: •Warren Lee from Lee County has been employed as the new Emergency Management Director. •New HIPAA regulations have been implemented at the Health Department and DSS. Because of having information technology infrastructure already in place, no extra expense was necessary. Staff has done a lot of work to get the County in compliance. •A Revised Budget Calendar was presented to show that the Recommended Budget will be given to the Board NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003PAGE 592 at the staff meeting on May 15, and a formal presentation will be made at the Regular Meeting on May 19, 2003. A Budget Work Session is proposed for May 29, a Public Hearing is scheduled for June 2, and adoption of the budget is scheduled at the Regular Meeting on June 16. •The NCACC Legislative Briefing will be held in Raleigh on May 14, 2003. He encouraged the Commissioners to attend because of the serious issues before the General Assembly having an impact on local governments and it will be a good opportunity to meet with the local delegation to let them know the County’s concerns. NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Davis announced that time had been reserved to allow the public to present an item that was not listed on the regular agenda. He requested all persons speaking to limit their remarks to three minutes. Daniel Bordeaux spoke concerning a problem of loose and dangerous dogs in his neighborhood. Although the dog owner has received several citations from Animal Control and a magistrate judge has ordered payment of the citations, the owner has complete disregard for the rules and regulations of the County and has not paid the fines. Mr. Bordeaux said that he expected animal control protection since he pays taxes and that the County is wasting time and money issuing fines if they are not collected from individuals who break the law. Commissioner Pritchett informed Mr. Bordeaux that a new position was just approved to collect delinquent accounts for Animal Control because of the enormous unpaid debt. She felt the problem would be rectified. Commissioner Caster said that he would give Mr. Bordeaux the telephone number of Vice-Chairman Greer, a member of the Board of Health, and he would provide Vice-Chairman Greer with Mr. Bordeaux’s information on the problem. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Davis called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to adjourn the meeting. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 0. Chairman Davis adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Teresa P. Elmore Deputy Clerk to the Board