2003-11-12 Work Session
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29
WORK SESSION, NOVEMBER 12, 2003PAGE 826
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held a Work Session on Thursday,
November 12, 2003, at 5:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24
North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members present were: Chairman Ted Davis, Jr.; Vice-Chairman Robert G. Greer;
Commissioner Julia Boseman; Commissioner William A. Caster; Commissioner Nancy H. Pritchett;
County Manager Allen O’Neal; Assistant County Attorney Holt Moore; and Deputy Clerk to the
Board, Teresa P. Elmore.
Chairman Davis called the meeting to order and announced that the purpose of the Work
Session was to discuss the proposed amendments to the Floodplain Management Regulations and to
hear recommendations concerning the Mason Inlet Waterbird Habitat Management Plan.
Mason Inlet Waterbird Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan
Assistant County Manager Dave Weaver presented proposals from the Audubon Society and
UNCW for management and monitoring of Mason Inlet and revisions to the Draft Waterbird Habitat
Management Plan. He said that the proposed contracts and revisions will address the minimum
requirements of Conditions #12 and #16 of the Corps Permit.
Assistant County Manager Weaver introduced Keith Harris, U. S. Corps of Engineers, who was
very instrumental in the County getting the Corps permit; Dr. David Webster, Professor of Biology and
Director of Vertebrate Studies, University of North Carolina at Wilmington; Frank Pinkston, Chairman
of Mason Inlet Preservation Group (MIPG); and Steve Morrison, Land Management Group.
Assistant County Manager Weaver emphasized that Staff’s objective is to do no more than the
minimum requirements of the Corps Permit because any action that is taken will be assessed against
the benefitting property owners. These costs are paid from the Room Occupancy Tax Funds (ROT)
and eventually passed on as a second assessment.
Commissioner Pritchett asked if the County could become a joint partner in the management
project so that more can be done besides the minimum requirements.
Assistant County Manager Weaver responded that the County would have to provide additional
funds to participate in the project.
In discussion of Condition #16 of the Corps Permit, Assistant County Manager Weaver said
that a management plan needs to be developed and implemented. The past year's management effort
during the nesting season was a success and Staff does not believe that management can be significantly
reduced in scope and still achieve the same results. Condition #16 is somewhat vague in its definition
of management in not stating whether a human presence is needed 7 days a week or if simply putting
up fences and signs to try and direct people away from the bird conservation nesting area is enough.
Staff felt that the Audubon Society with its staff and volunteers established the management level
necessary in terms of its scope, intensity, and presence to continue and insure the success of the nesting
season. He did not believe that an intensive presence was needed outside the nesting season or that
there is a need for any intensive public education or outreach in order to meet the minimum permit
conditions.
The Audubon Society has suggested that additional efforts could provide benefits of growth
in the eco-tourism industry and increase awareness of birds and their habitats to ultimately lead the
public to more effective conservation. However, these efforts are not required to meet the minimum
permit conditions. Assistant County Manager Weaver suggested that the funding for this should come
from the General Fund balance instead of assessing the benefitted property owners.
In discussion of Condition # 12 of the permit, Assistant County Manager Weaver said that the
requirements are explicitly detailed for the monitoring program and that the biological opinion is
controlled by the Fish and Wildlife Service. This program can be reduced in scope and cost for the
next year or two because there should be no change in the number of birds being monitored and no
expectation for those numbers to change as long as the Mason Inlet project stays stable. Once a
maintenance cycle is initiated, the monitoring will probably have to be stepped back up. He suggested
that the County should approach the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service to request
a reduction in the scope of monitoring in the next year or two.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29
WORK SESSION, NOVEMBER 12, 2003PAGE 827
Assistant County Manager Weaver presented the following proposals from UNCW and the
Audubon Society:
Permit ConditionUNCWAudubon
#16 Permit Management$27,037$24,718
#12 Permit Monitoring$27,567$29,658
Both #16 and #12$46,997$54,376
Assistant County Manager Weaver explained that the proposals for monitoring of the
conservation area are for year-round service, but would become more intensive during the nesting
season. The management proposals are only for the nesting season. In comparing the proposals, it
would be least expensive to contract with UNCW for both at a cost of $46,997. He recommended
awarding a single contract to UNCW for the 2004 nesting season. UNCW has performed the
monitoring project for the past two years and would assume the management of Shell Island at the start
of the nesting season. They believe that while they are performing the monitoring, they could provide
a limited management presence during the non-nesting season on a weekly basis and be able to maintain
the fencing and signs.
Commissioner Pritchett expressed concern that the UNCW proposal did not include an
education program. She supported the proposal from the Audubon Society because it provided for
a director of education plus printed material.
Assistant County Manager Weaver agreed saying he did not want to remove that aspect from
the management component. He suggested that the Audubon Society should be offered opportunities
to continue their education program and the County could pay for it from the General Fund.
Commissioner Pritchett estimated that by reducing the Audubon Society’s proposal by $6,800
for the education program, their proposal of $47,576 would be comparable to UNCW’s proposal.
Assistant County Manager Weaver requested Dr. Webster to comment on UNCW’s
management plan.
Dr. Webster responded that his proposals were for two separate job descriptions. In the
beginning, the major goal was to count birds and did not include any management. In an effort to cut
expenses, he was asked to give a proposal for both projects. He said as an endangered species
biologist, his work involves counting birds and working with sea turtles. If he is awarded the project,
he may negotiate with the Audubon Society to continue its work from last year. Money would be
saved by using the same organization and volunteers from last year to manage the area when
monitoring activities were not being performed. Although he has discussed a joint proposal with Mr.
Golder, they both wanted to see what the County would be willing to do. He offered to talk with the
Audubon Society to see if a better deal can be worked out for the County.
Commissioner Caster commented that if education is important enough, a contract should be
awarded to the Audubon Society for the management portion and a contract to UNCW for monitoring.
Vice-Chairman Greer commented that he wanted to see if Dr. Webster could provide a less
expensive proposal by working with the Audubon Society.
Assistant County Manager Weaver pointed out that the Audubon Society is a recognized name
in bird management and they have developed a volunteer base to help with the project.
Chairman Davis asked Dr. Webster if he would be able to further reduce the price of providing
both management and monitoring if the Audubon Society performs part of the work for UNCW.
Dr. Webster responded said that the cost for monitoring has decreased each year. Initially, the
contract was $50,000 during the construction phase when they had to go to the site daily. Last year
the cost was $31,000 when they made weekly trips during the winter season through April. The
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29
WORK SESSION, NOVEMBER 12, 2003PAGE 828
proposal of $27,567 is less for this year because of not spending as much money as anticipated for the
past season. He had some discussions with Walker Golder about how they would divide the work.
UNCW would do the monitoring and Audubon would have a presence and help with the sweep
surveys, but they have not fine tuned the details. The cost of monitoring would be $27,567 and the
cost of management according to how he interpreted the conditions of the permit would be $27,000.
As he stated at the preconstruction meetings for the Mason Inlet Project, if he has to choose between
monitoring the birds or enforcement, following the birds would come first.
Chairman Davis asked Dr. Webster if he thought the price would come down after he discussed
and worked out the details with Mr. Golder about doing the management for UNCW.
Dr. Webster responded that the Audubon Society’s proposal for the management and his price
for the monitoring adds up to $52,000. He said that the two groups could work together to get the
price down and also include more public education.
Chairman Davis asked the Board if they would like to have a joint offer as one of the options
to discuss at Monday’s meeting. Dr. Webster would have Thursday, Friday and the weekend to
discuss the proposal with Mr. Golder. Unless they work out the details, the Board will not be able to
consider it on Monday. He suggested that it may make a difference in how some of the Board
members will vote.
Dr. Webster said that he had discussed a joint proposal with Mr. Golder, which is why he was
able to submit a combined proposal for less than the two separate proposals. He will contact Mr.
Weaver after he has an opportunity to talk with Mr. Golder.
Commissioner Pritchett said that she would like to see a third combined proposal which would
show some delineation as to what would be covered. If an agreement cannot be reached by the two,
the Board should make decisions based on the proposals received.
Assistant County Manager Weaver further commented that he had suggested to both
organizations that they may want to have a combined proposal, but both wanted to wait and see what
the Commissioners wanted to do.
In discussion of the Draft Mason Inlet Waterbird Habitat Management Plan, Assistant County
Manager Weaver recommended the following revisions: 1) require maintenance of the fence and signs
year-round and 2) require ordinances to keep dogs and humans out of the bird conservation area year-
round. He said that maintenance of the fence and the signs year-round could be easily implemented.
These signs and fencing indicate that dogs are prohibited at all times, but the ordinance prohibits dogs
only during the nesting season. Currently, people are allowed to walk their dogs on a leash along the
oceanfront during the rest of the year. The Town of Wrightsville Beach has agreed to provide year-
round enforcement of the ordinance.
The only ordinance that deals with human restriction is the existing anti-bird harassment
ordinance. People are not legally banned or restricted from the bird conservation area even during the
nesting season, but the Audubon Society has been able to keep people out of the area partially by bluff
and by instructing people about the importance of protecting the area.
In conclusion, Assistant County Manager Weaver presented a map showing the bird
conservation area and an open area between the mean high-water line along the ocean front and the
conservation area. He recommended that the County provide year-round maintenance of the fence and
signs and the adoption of an ordinance to restrict dogs and humans year-round from the bird
conservation area, which would improve the management of the area.
Commissioner Pritchett suggested that “leash” may need to be defined in the ordinance because
she has seen people with a 50-foot or 100-foot clothes line attached to their dogs. If a dog is more
than 50 feet away from the owner, she questioned whether the dog was under the owner’s control.
Chairman Davis asked if enough room was available for people to walk their dogs at high tide.
Assistant County Manager Weaver pointed out the open area for the public between the
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29
WORK SESSION, NOVEMBER 12, 2003PAGE 829
conservation area and the mean high-water line on the map and said it is 100 feet wide. The fencing
for the conservation area must be 100 feet landward of the mean high-water line. The County can use
the anti-bird harassment ordinance if someone is in the conservation area; but it may be questionable
as to what constitutes harassment. A person walking in the area may cause stress on baby chicks
foraging along the intertidal area without knowing they are doing it. Simply having an ordinance to
keep people out of the conservation area would prevent that kind of problem.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked if the Mason Inlet Preservation Group wanted to comment on the
recommendations since they would be assessed the costs.
Mr. Frank Pinkston, Chairman of the Mason Inlet Preservation Group, spoke saying that he
disagreed with Mr. Weaver’s opinion on the level necessary for management of Shell Island. He
agreed that the whole plan was vague and could be interpreted in many different ways. Naturally he
would interpret it in the least costly manner for the MIPG. The management plan clearly states that
the birds must have a suitable habitat for nesting, stop overs, and foraging and he felt the issue was
addressed by the fence and signs. Since the birds returned to the area before the Audubon Society was
contracted to provide management, he did not believe MIPG should have to pay for a contract with
the Audubon Society. Furthermore, the County does not require that kind of protection for other
nesting areas such as Masonboro Island.
In conclusion, Mr. Pinkston reiterated that he felt the conditions and requirements for the
Mason Inlet project have been addressed. He said that the monitoring is clearly spelled out and must
continue at a graduated level as listed in the plan for three years of evaluations. However, the
management part has been done and was successful because the birds came back. MIPG wants to keep
its commitment, but they do not agree with staff on the extent of the conditions for the permit.
FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
Senior Planner Chris O’Keefe of the County Planning Department stated that the proposed
amendments to the Flood Plain Management Regulations were the result of the UDO process to
combine the County’s old regulations with the City of Wilmington’s regulations and the State’s
minimum standards for Coastal Flood Plain regulations. Several recommendations from the hazard
mitigation plan completed after Hurricane Fran were included in these regulations. The Planning Board
first reviewed the changes at their July 10th meeting and an held additional work session. On
th
September 4, the Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the amendments.
Senior Planner O’Keefe presented the Land Classification Map showing the 100-year floodplain
area. He said that flooding problems from the past seven years resulted in damages of $750 million.
The County’s CRS rating and standing in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) will be
improved if the ordinance is adopted. Property owners have a CRS rating of 7, which gives a 15%
reduction in flood insurance premiums at an annual savings of over $500,000.
In reference to the calculation of improvements being based on the value of a home, Vice-
Chairman Greer asked if the tax value was used to determine the value and if they excluded the land
value in the calculation.
Ann Hines, Chief Zoning Enforcement Official and Floodplain Administrator, responded that
the County normally uses the tax value because it is more accessible and tends to be a low figure. If
the repair cost to value ratio is satisfactory, the homeowner is able to move forward without delay.
The land value is not included in the calculation.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked if the County accepts the word of the homeowner in providing the
cost of repairs.
Ms. Hines responded yes if the estimate is credible.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked Ms. Hines to explain the 50% of value requirement.
Ms. Hines explained that the current ordinance allows for one occurrence of repairs over 50%
of market value, but the proposed ordinance restricts the accumulative repairs to 50% over a five year
period. Any repair over 50.001% of the tax value is considered substantial improvement. In the past
most home owners have been able to make repairs to their non-conforming structures by staying below
that 50% figure. If the repair cost is more than 50.001% of the tax value, the property
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29
WORK SESSION, NOVEMBER 12, 2003PAGE 830
owner can get a formal appraisal to see if the ratio changes. If not, a non-conforming home built
before the floodplain regulations were adopted must be brought up to current standards before the
repairs can be made.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked who will keep up with the repair costs for the five-year period.
He commented that it may be difficult for the County to determine who can rebuild if the County
receives substantial damages from major storms.
Ms. Hines responded that the County has an advantage of having better permit records on
computers for easy retrieval, but it would be incumbent on homeowners to give correct information
for repair permits. Some homeowners will try to deceive the County, but most will not succeed.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked what the proposed regulations will accomplish by extending the
period of time to five years in calculating the value of the improvements.
Senior Planner O’Keefe responded that the goal is to bring structures in the floodplain into
compliance so that flood damage to houses will be eliminated. The added years will force people who
have continuous and repetitive flooding problems to bring their houses up to current code of being
located at least two feet above the base flood elevation or to move the structure to a safer location.
Planning Director Hayes explained that one of the primary purposes of the changes is to reduce
risk in the county. Some properties are vulnerable to loss because they do not comply with the existing
floodplain requirements. These structures are located in flood prone areas or are too low to the ground
and flood every time a storm comes through the area. Current regulations allow the owner of a
$100,000 house to file multiple claims for repairs of $30,000 and $40,000. These claims accumulate
to more than the total value of the house, but the house continues to have the same risk of flooding.
Another objective is to eliminate the repetitive loss list of homeowners who have filed claims
with FEMA. FEMA wants the County to address the issue of reducing vulnerability to losses from
flooding by bringing all building structures into compliance. Flood insurance premiums are based on
the total risk to the community, and if the effort to get homeowners to comply is successful, premiums
will be reduced for everybody.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked about the CRS rating for the County.
Planning Director Hayes explained that the current CRS rating of 7 equates to a 15% reduction
in premium insurance. The proposed regulations on repetitive losses are worth 50 points and will be
significant in getting further reductions in flood insurance premiums, hopefully to the next range of
20%. If the risk is reduced and fewer claims are filed, the premiums should go down.
Ms. Hines explained another advantage in adopting the proposed regulations. She said that the
flood insurance policies have an Increase Cost of Coverage Rider (ICC Rider) that provides extra
coverage in case a home has substantial damage. This means they may get up to $30,000 or more to
help defray the cost of elevating, demolishing or relocating a house. The owner of a $100,000 house
who had claims of $20,000 2 years ago and another claim of $48,000 would not have ICC coverage.
Having the cumulative damage provision will free up some of the money for homeowners who can
receive additional insurance claim benefits as well as reduced rates.
Commissioner Caster commented that having the five year provision would only come into
effect if the area received several storm floods in a five year period which typically does not happen.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked how FEMA determines which houses to buy in the buy-back
program for houses that flood.
Planning Director Hayes responded that FEMA establishes the criteria for the programs with
each storm event. A buy-back program was initiated for flood damaged homes after Hurricane Floyd.
Seventy people applied for the program, but only 20 homes were approved for purchase. The program
for Hurricane Isabel allowed some people to elevate their structures. Repetitive storm losses was one
of the criteria and the County had to document the amount of water in each house for each storm
event. The homes had to have at least 18 inches to 2 - 3 feet of water inside the structure
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29
WORK SESSION, NOVEMBER 12, 2003PAGE 831
to be placed on the list.
In further discussion of the impact of the proposed amendments, Planning Director Hayes
explained that the CRS rating was improved after the adoption of the Drainage Ordinances and the
Hazard Mitigation Plan. The County is encouraged to do other mechanisms such as a Drainage
Maintenance Program to improve its rating. The insurance industry monitors each community to see
what can be done to reduce its risk.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked if higher ratings were an advantage for homeowners who were not
in the floodplain.
Planning Director Hayes answered that a reduced premium would apply, but flood insurance
is not expensive for houses not in the floodplain.
Senior Planner O’Keefe explained that houses built since 1990 were built according to the
current code and standards. The proposed regulations will require new construction to elevate
electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities at
least 2 feet above base flood elevation. If homes sustain damages that exceed 50% of value, the
proposed regulations will require the homes to be brought up to code. It may make some homeowners
angry, but others may qualify for funding programs to assist them in bringing their houses up to code.
Senior Planner O’Keefe said that the regulations will apply to approximately 3,000 property
owners in the 100 year floodplain in the unincorporated areas of the county. If a property owner had
insurance claims in any five year period since 1970, he would be placed on the County’s repetitive loss
list. The County has 263 properties on its list.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked Staff if they were aware of any potential problems that may occur
by imposing these regulations.
Planning Director Hayes responded that the elevation restrictions apply only to residential
structures. Commercial structures are allowed to be built in the floodplain, but they must be flood
proof. Historic structures are left out of the regulations.
Planning Director Hayes said that the Town of Wrightsville Beach had done a tremendous job
in getting most of their non-conforming structures to comply with its floodplain requirements. They
have elevated a tremendous number of structures and they have one of the highest CRS ratings in the
country. He explained that the CRS (Community Rating System) is a volunteer program that FEMA
has in its insurance program. Senior Planner O’Keefe is the County’s administrator of the program.
Some reports are required annually, but every five years the County does a massive update.
Senior Planner O’Keefe offered to provide the Board with FEMA’s response to the reports
which will explain the County’s score and will give the Board a better understanding of the program.
Chairman Davis left the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Vice-Chairman Greer expressed appreciation for the information and adjourned the meeting
at 6:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Teresa P. Elmore
Deputy Clerk to the Board