2001-11-19 Regular Meeting
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 873
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday,
November 19, 2001, 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 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; County Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Deputy Clerk
to the Board, Teresa P. Elmore.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Reverend Mike Taylor of Masonboro Baptist Church gave the invocation.
Vice-Chairman Robert G. Greer led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to discuss or remove an item
from the Consent Agenda.
Chairman Davis stated that Consent Item 1, the approval of minutes, was withdrawn. Vice-
Chairman Greer removed Consent Items 10 and 13 for discussion. Chairman Davis removed Consent
Items 3, 4, and 9 for discussion. Commissioner Boseman removed Consent Item 12 for comment.
In discussion of Consent Item 3, Chairman Davis wanted clarification that the approval of the
9 positions for the Juvenile Day Treatment Center was contingent upon obtaining grant funds for the
program and that the County was not obligated to continue funding these positions.
Deputy County Manager Andy Atkinson responded that the County is not obligated to keep
any of these positions that are funded by the Governor’s Crime Prevention Grant. Richard Christian
the Director of the program has been charged with putting the program together and building the
necessary funding outside of the County’s General Funds. The grant is for one year, but usually runs
into a second year. Although the positions are permanent, they are dependent upon grant availability.
In discussion of Consent Item 13, Vice-Chairman Greer asked about the function of the
Scattered Site Rehabilitation Program.
Ms. Wanda Coston, Planner responded that the Scattered Site Housing Rehabilitation grant
award of $400,000 was accepted by the Board at its meeting on July 9, 2001. The CDBG grant
funds will be used for the rehabilitation of approximately 14 homes in the unincorporated areas of the
County.
In discussion of Consent Item 12, Commissioner Boseman commented that local governments
are now auctioning surplus property on line with eBay. She asked the County Manager to investigate
whether the County should consider this option in the future.
After discussion of these Consent Items, Chairman Davis called for a motion to approve the
remaining consent items.
Motion:
Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to withdraw
Consent Item #1, to remove Consent Items 4, 9, and 10 for separate vote, and to approve the
remaining items on the Consent Agenda. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA
Adoption of Resolution to Release State Funds Allocated to the Cape Fear Council of
Governments
The Commissioners adopted a resolution approving the release of State funds in the amount
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 874
of $13,140.83 to the Cape Fear Council of Governments.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in
Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 12.
Approval of Positions at the Juvenile Day Reporting Center
The Commissioners approved nine positions for the Juvenile Day Reporting Center. The
grant from the Governor’s Crime Commission will fund these positions and there is no County cost
associated with the positions.
Adoption of Resolution of Agreement Between the Museum and Cape Fear Chapter #3 of the
United Daughters of the Confederacy for Collection of Artifacts Acquired by the UDC
The Commissioners adopted a resolution of agreement reached between the Cape Fear
Museum and the Cape Fear Chapter #3 of the UDC, concerning ownership, preservation and
exhibition of artifacts periodically acquired by the UDC. The Museum will be the sole owner and
have full responsibility for the storage, exhibition, and care of the collection of artifacts. The Museum
is committed to identifying and acknowledging the roots of what will be designated as a special
collection of the same. The Museum Board of Trustees unanimously approved this resolution after
approval by the UDC.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in
Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 12.
Release of Values - Tax Department
The Commissioners approved Senior Citizen/Disability Exclusion for the following taxpayers:
Batounis, Constance E. Life Estate$20,000
Council, Vickie Life Estate$20,000
Duncan, Anais G.$20,000
Lamb, Mary B.$20,000
Malpass, Marshall K. Ruby W.$20,000
Marion, Ruth S.$20,000
Martin, Patricia E.$20,000
Rochelle, Philemon Sue$20,000
Simmons, J. H. Frances$20,000
Watson, N.E. Frankie M.$20,000
Wehinger, Eileen F.$20,000
Wiggins, O. K. Jeannean$20,000
Williams, Mattie L. Life Estate$20,000
Wojcik, Marilyn L.$20,000
Yates, Lillie Mae$ 7,140
The Commissioners released late listing penalties for the following taxpayers as this is the
taxpayers' first offense or they certify they mailed their listing during the listing period:
Aqua Vista Spring Water$ 108.21
Baker, Linda F.$ 14.19
Britt, William D.$ .60
CFMC, Inc. D/B/A Cape Fear Marine Construction$ 145.55
Eastern Instrument $ 141.96
Front Street Micro Brewery$ 525.93
Heraeus Amersil, Inc.$1,585.01
Roseman, Irvin A. DDS PA$ 32.02
Savannah Inn$ 15.20
Snoop Aviation Inc.$ 251.60
Stephen, William Arthur$ 13.46
Walker Realty & Investments$ 1.49
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 875
Wilmington Star News, Inc.$3,791.74
Woody, Virginia Clewis$ 20.28
The Commissioners approved delinquent applications for exemption from the property tax
for the following organizations:
Bethesda Christian Life ChurchR04813-028-002-000
Cape Fear Habitat for HumanityR05414-021-002-000
R04806-005-016-000
R04913-016-016-000
Acceptance of Tax Collection Reports Through October 31, 2001
The Commissioners accepted the following Tax Collection Reports through October 31,
2001, as submitted by the Collector of 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 XXVII, Page 12.
Adoption of Resolution to Add Roads in Marymount at Marsh Oaks Subdivision to the N.C.
Highway System
The Commissioners adopted a resolution requesting the State to add roads in Marymount at
Marsh Oaks Subdivision to the N.C. Highway System.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in
Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 12.
Adoption of Resolution Setting New Fire Insurance Districts Boundaries
The Commissioners adopted a resolution approving the recommended Fire Insurance Districts
for recognition by the State as certified insurance districts. The North Carolina Department of
Insurance has modified requirements for the boundaries of Insurance Districts that are approved by
the local boards of commissioners. The County is now able to extend the boundaries from five miles
to six miles enabling it to rate more properties for insurance purposes. Furthermore, district
boundaries have been modified due to annexation by the City of Wilmington. These district changes
include provision for Winter Park and Seagate Fire Departments and identify small parcels of property
to allow the department to remain rated and serve the County without major financial obligations on
the Fire Tax District.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in
Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 12. District maps are on file in the Fire Services Department.
Adoption of Resolution to Dispose of Surplus Equipment and Vehicles Through County
Auction to be Held December 8, 2001
The Commissioners adopted a resolution authorizing the Finance Director’s designated
representative to dispose of surplus equipment and vehicles through County auction to be held
December 8, 2001.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in
Exhibit Book XXVII, page 12.
Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Vice-Chairman or the County Manager to Execute
Scattered Site Housing Rehabilitation Program (SSHRP) Grant Documents as Needed in the
Absence of the Chairman
The Commissioners adopted a resolution authorizing the Vice-Chairman of the Board of
Commissioners or the County Manager to sign documents relating to the Scattered Site Housing
Rehabilitation Program in the absence of the Chairman.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 876
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in
Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 12.
Authorization to Initiate the Sale Proceedings for County Property in the Allen’s Lane Vicinity
The Commissioners authorized sale proceedings to be initiated for County owned property
in the vicinity of Allen’s Lane, Tax Parcel Number RO5713-001-021-003. This property was
acquired about thirty years ago through tax foreclosure. It is approximately 50 feet by 87 feet and
has been the subject of various title claims over the years. An adjoining property owner, Rhett Tabor,
has offered $4,000 to purchase the tract. The Tax Department has appraised the property at $4,600.
The conveyance will be through non-warranty deed without the County making any ownership
covenants.
Approval of Budget Amendment #02-0069-Juvenile Crime Prevention
The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment:
Budget Amendment #02-0069-Juvenile Crime Prevention
AdjustmentDebitCredit
Cape Fear Memorial Foundation Grant$35,000
Appropriated Fund Balance$35,000
Explanation:
To increase budget for Juvenile Crime Prevention for receipt of second year’s
funding from Cape Fear Memorial Foundation. This was a 2-year award made last fiscal year.
Since expenses for this program were budgeted in FY 2001-02, the grant funds will reduce
the appropriation from fund balance.
Approval of Budget Amendment #02-0078-Human Services Transportation
The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment:
Budget Amendment #02-0078-Human Services Transportation
AdjustmentDebitCredit
Transportation Assistance-Elderly/Disabled$10,486
General Public Allocation$15,280
General Public Transportation$15,280
Elderly$ 4,195
Disabled$ 6,291
Explanation:
To increase budget to actual amount of DOT’s allocation for New Hanover
County for FY 2001-02.
Approval of Budget Amendment #02-0084-Public Health/Partnership for Children-Health
The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment:
Budget Amendment #02-0084-Public Health/Partnership for Children-Health
AdjustmentDebitCredit
Partnership for Children Grant$122,960
Cellular Expense$ 250
Printing Charges$ 400
Dues & Subscriptions$ 100
Salaries and Wages$96,796
Temporary Salaries$10,906
Social Security Taxes$ 8,003
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 877
Retirement-Local Govt. Employee$ 4,744
Medical Insurance Expense$ 2,618
Long-Term Disability Expense$ 171
Telephone Expense$ 240
M & R - Equipment$ 50
Employee Reimbursements$ 182
Explanation:
To adjust Partnership for Children budget to actual grant award received from
Partnership for Children for FY 01-02. (Due to State budget cuts, the allocation is an 8%
reduction of the original allocation. Original allocation was not budgeted in the New Hanover
County Budget.)
Approval of Budget Amendment #02-0085-Public Health/Health Check
The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment:
Budget Amendment #02-0085-Public Health/Health Check
AdjustmentDebitCredit
Partnership for Children Grant$21,248
Training & Travel$ 969
Salaries and Wages$17,482
Social Security Taxes$ 1,213
Retirement-Local Govt. Employee$ 855
Medical Insurance Expense$ 1,628
Long Term Disability Insurance$ 25
Printing Charges$ 14
Departmental Supplies$ 400
Employee Reimbursements$ 100
Employee Reimb./Uniforms$ 500
Explanation:
To adjust Partnership for Children budget to actual grant award received from
Partnership for Children for FY 01-02. (Due to State budget cuts, the allocation is an 8%
reduction of the original allocation. Original allocation was not budgeted in the New Hanover
County budget.)
Approval of Budget Amendment #2002-17-Northeast Branch Library
The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment:
Budget Amendment #2002-17-Northeast Branch Library
AdjustmentDebitCredit
Sales Tax refunds$36,897
Contributions from UNCW$ 8,747
Extended Project Expense$45,644
Explanation:
To budget funds received, but not budgeted for sales tax refunds and
contributions from UNCW. These funds along with funds from the Friends of the Library and
funds available in the project budget will be used to fund the computer lab.
Approval of Budget Amendment #2002-18-Federal Forfeited Property/Sheriff’s Department
The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 878
Budget Amendment #2002-18-Federal Forfeited Property
AdjustmentDebitCredit
Federal Forfeited Property$735
Extended Project Expense$735
Explanation:
To budget additional revenue received 10/15/01. Federal Forfeited Property
funds are budgeted as received and must be used for law enforcement activities as the Sheriff
deems necessary.
Approval of Budget Amendment #2002-19-Controlled Substance Tax/Sheriff’s Department
The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment:
Budget Amendment #2002-19-Controlled Substance Tax
AdjustmentDebitCredit
Controlled Substance Tax funds$1,478
Extended Project Expense$1,478
Explanation:
To increase budget for additional revenue received 10-30-01. Controlled
Substance Tax funds are budgeted as received and must be used for law enforcement
activities as the Sheriff deems necessary.
DISCUSSION OF CONSENT ITEM 9, THE ABOLISHMENT OF THE HUMAN SERVICES
ALLOCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CONSIDERATION OF COUNTY
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION NOT TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FROM NEW
NON-COUNTY AGENCIES
Chairman Davis expressed appreciation for the valuable service rendered by the Human
Services Allocation Advisory Committee in evaluating and recommending funding for human services
agencies in the County. He asked who would review future funding requests from outside agencies
if the committee is abolished.
County Manager O’Neal responded that the offices of the Budget Director and the County
Manager will review funding requests and give recommendations to the Board during the regular
budget cycle. Agencies can present their request to the Board, but staff will need to review the
request prior to the budget presentation. He also recommended that the Board not accept budget
requests from any new Non-County agency for FY2002-2003, because of the County facing some
financial uncertainties and constraints. For several years, the County has been encouraging these
Non-County agencies or partner agencies to seek other funding sources while steadily reducing its
allocations.
Commissioner Caster commented on the hard work performed by the committee in
scrutinizing the agencies and the Board not necessarily following its recommendations after hearing
a presentation.
Discussion ensued on whether to accept the County Manager’s recommendation to not accept
new funding applications from Non-County agencies. County Manager O’Neal responded that the
Board could hear funding requests from any of these agencies at any time, but Staff was trying to
streamline the process as much as possible.
Motion
: Chairman Davis MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to abolish the Human
Services Allocation Advisory Committee, effective July 1, 2001. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DISCUSSION OF CONSENT ITEM 10, ADOPTION OF A NEW MISSION STATEMENT
Vice-Chairman Greer asked why the mission statement of the County was being changed.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 879
He especially liked the first paragraph of the original mission statement and felt it should be included
in the revised statement.
County Manager O’Neal responded that he did not oppose retaining the first paragraph, but
he and staff felt the mission statement should set the tone to reflect the County’s desire to streamline
the budget process since funding will be tight and lean.
Motion:
Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to adopt the
revised mission statement as follows:
In partnership with our citizens, the government of New Hanover
County is dedicated to promoting orderly growth, while preserving
the outstanding quality of life which has made our County a desirable
place to live and work.
The New Hanover County Government will provide the necessary
services to protect the health, safety, welfare, cultural resources and
environment of citizens and business consistent with the community’s
values, priorities, and fiscal capacity.
Chairman Davis called for a vote on the MOTION. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
DISCUSSION OF CONSENT ITEM 4, ADOPTION OF PROCLAMATION DECLARING
NOVEMBER 2001 AS ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH
Chairman Davis stated that he removed the proclamation from the Consent Agenda in order
to read and present the proclamation. After reading the proclamation declaring November 2001 as
Adoption Awareness Month in New Hanover County, he called for a motion.
Motion
: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to adopt the
proclamation declaring the month of November 2001 as “Adoption Awareness Month” in New
Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Wanda Neidig of the Department of Social Services was present to accept the
proclamation.
A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained
in Exhibit Book XXVII, page 12.
PRESENTATION OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY EMPLOYEE CLASS ACT AWARD
County Manager O’Neal stated that Ms. Susan Wynn, Administrative Secretary in the County
Manager’s Office, had been selected for the “Class Act” Award because of her exemplary job
performance in handling special projects and additional work assignments in conjunction with various
County programs. He explained that “Class Act” awards are given to employees who are performing
in an exceptional manner within their department.
On behalf of the Board, Chairman Davis presented the “Class Act” Award to Ms. Wynn and
he commended her for the outstanding job performance. The Commissioners congratulated Ms.
Wynn for achieving the award and a round of applause was given.
PRESENTATION OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY SERVICE AWARDS
County Manager O’Neal requested the following employees to step forward to receive service
awards:
Michael R. Hinson, WASTEC 5 years of service
Thomas W. Farmer, Engineering15 years of service
Elise H. Coble, Social Services15 years of service
Barbara L. Rowe, Cape Fear Museum15 years of service
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 880
On behalf of the Board, Chairman Davis presented a service award to each employee and
expressed appreciation to them for their years of dedicated service to New Hanover County.
RECOGNITION OF NEW EMPLOYEES:
County Manager O’Neal requested the following new employees to stand and be recognized:
Eric Peterson, County Manager’s Office - NHCTV Production
Charles Maise, Department of Social Services
Tracia Davis, Department of Social Services
On behalf of the Board, Chairman Davis welcomed the new employees to New Hanover
County government and wished them well in their new positions.
PRESENTATION ON THE JUVENILE DAY REPORTING PROGRAM
Mr. Richard Christian, Director of the New Hanover County Juvenile Day Reporting Center,
spoke concerning the new program serving delinquent and at-risk youth. The Juvenile Justice Reform
Act, adopted in July 1998, restructured the juvenile justice system in North Carolina creating a nine-
cell disposition chart that lists some of the sanctioning alternatives permissible to the courts. The law
places emphasis on the protection of the public through the development of intervention and
prevention efforts to reduce violent juvenile crime. The County’s day treatment center, which is the
most intensive non-residential sanctioning option, will serve all 3 levels of sanctions within the
program.
Funding for the program comes from the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, the Governor’s Crime Commission (awarded $225,000), and the County School District
($100,000 for 3 teachers). The program is supported by grants and if grants are not received, the
program will be terminated. Other potential funding sources are the City’s block grant program,
Southeastern Center, and the Cape Fear Memorial Foundation. In kind funding sources are UNCW
(volunteer students), SAY Grants (Services for Adjudicated Youth) partnered with the Community
Mediation Center, Dreams of Wilmington, Family Services of the Lower Cape Fear, and Southeastern
Center. The Literacy Council is willing to participate in the program as well.
The program operates 12 hours a day, 5 days per week. On Saturday, the program operates
from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in the form of community restitution, volunteer work, or employment
opportunities. Adjudicated delinquents are ordered to the program as a part of their probation. The
Center will include programs for youth returning from training schools centers (youth academies)
and youths expelled or suspended from school or as recommended by the school board. The primary
consideration for placement into the program is through the JCPC needs assessment. The courts are
given several sanctioning options in ordering the juveniles to report for a certain number of hours a
day for a specified number of weeks.
A plan of care will be developed for each juvenile and will include work with a social worker,
(on part-time assignment from the schools), the school system, the juvenile’s parents, the juvenile
courts counselor, and the juvenile. The core components of the 5 ½ hour educational day will be:
substance abuse counseling, individual counseling, service planning, reports to the courts,
transportation and meals, family involvement, group counseling, and recreation. Electronic
monitoring and curfew calls will be available for those in need of more intensive supervision. A re-
entry program for youth leaving the program and re-entering the school system or finding
employment in the community is also included.
Deputy County Manager Atkinson commented on the statistics that show crime is committed
in the afternoon when young people are unsupervised. Parents will be able to pick up these kids after
work and provide the supervision at home. He was excited about the program and complimented Mr.
Christian in the development of the County’s program. Mr. Christian has been working on the
program since August and he is looking for a facility that will accommodate the program and 72
young people. He is temporarily located at 801 Princess Street. He will hire staff members and
teachers, provide preliminary training, and hopefully the program will be running mid January.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 881
Commissioner Caster asked how referrals from the schools and the courts will be prioritized.
Deputy County Manager Atkinson explained that prioritizing will occur as the center will only
have space for 72 youths. Also, judges need to have sanctions available and schools will work with
the chief juvenile courts counselor regarding slots for other youths.
Commissioner Pritchett expressed support for the program and urged the community to give
financial support because of the difference it will make in the lives of the young people.
Mr. Christian expressed appreciation for the support given to him by the County and the
Court System. He especially acknowledged special assistance from Ms. Susan Wynn, Chief Court
Counselor Phyllis Roebuck, Deputy County Manager Atkinson and County Manager O’Neal.
Chairman Davis expressed appreciation to Mr. Christian for his informative presentation.
CONSIDERATION OF LONG TERM CONTRACTS WITH WILMINGTON INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND WILMINGTON REGIONAL FILM COMMISSION
County Manager O’Neal spoke on providing long-term contracts for Wilmington Industrial
Development (WID) and Wilmington Regional Film Commission to ensure that organizations,
companies and business locating to the area will know the community has made a long-term
commitment to economic development. Since WID works with a business planning on moving to
the area for several years, a long-term commitment by the County will demonstrate support for WID
and help them sell the community to the businesses. WID will maintain the area’s presence in the
market place to ensure that the area attracts the right kind of industries.
County Manager O’Neal reported that several years ago Pender County made long-term
contracts with the Industrial Development Commission including an escalation clause, and he
recommended that the County make the same commitment using an inflationary index. The contract
can be amended later designating a particular index which UNCW can suggest.
Mr. Scott Satterfield, Chief Executive Officer of Wilmington Industrial Development,
reiterated the need for a long-term contract and commitment by the County to show clients and the
existing area industry that New Hanover County is committed to an economic development program.
A long-term contract will also give continuity with Pender County and the City of Wilmington, who
will be considering the same type contract at its next meeting. WID has been on a contractual basis
with New Hanover County since the late 1950s.
Commissioner Boseman asked if WID was applying for funding from the Governor for
economic development in New Hanover County.
Mr. Satterfield responded that the Governor’s Competitive fund of $15 million was approved
to assure that areas in the State can compete for economic development projects and assist some
communities in building infrastructure. Funding is based on a five-tier system of classifications for
the 100 counties. New Hanover County, in tier 5 with the more prosperous counties, has a funding
cap of $100,000 and will not receive large sums because of its ranking. Pender County is ranked tier
4 and has a funding cap of $200,000. Tier 1 counties, such as Columbus County, are given
preferential treatment. State funding was used to bring LEK Pharmaceutical, DEL Laboratories, and
Rampage Yachts to the area. The Industrial Commission has requested funds for a project in Pender
County and will request funding for a multi-million dollar infrastructure project in New Hanover
County. Guidelines for the program are being developed, but typically the money is used to bring
projects in the final stages of commitment to the State.
In comparing expenditures by other counties for business and industry recruitment programs,
Vice-Chairman Greer pointed out that WID is competitive because of the revenues generated from
industries and businesses in the community, which places less burden on the taxpayers. He
commended the Industrial Commission for their work and strongly endorsed the proposed five year
contract, which increases funding to be equaled to Pender County’s support. He also recommended
that the County provide an escalator index clause in the contract with the Film Commission.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 882
County Manager O’Neal responded that the Pender County contract with the Industrial
Commission contained the clause and staff worked toward having similar contracts. He did not
oppose adding an escalator clause in the Film Commission’s contract. He spoke on the importance
of the film industry to the area and how the commitment will maintain the County’s presence in the
film industry around the country. The amount of money the County commits is small compared to
the dollars spent by other places to attract the film industry. In times of economic hardship, it will
be more important to show that commitment. Both organizations stay in close contact with him in
reporting on their current projects and activities.
Mr. Johnnie Griffin, Director of the Wilmington Regional Film Commission, spoke in
appreciation for the opportunity to enter into a long-term contract. He stated that the five year
contract will show their other clients the long-term commitment of funding and will influence the
surrounding counties to support the Film Commission. Grants may be available because of the
County’s commitment. Mr. Griffin also spoke on the limited support from the State because of
budget cuts. The State Film Office is unable to travel out of the state to California and New York
to recruit new clients or attend the trade show in Los Angeles to market North Carolina. The
Wilmington Film Commission will need to increase their efforts because they cannot rely on the State.
Mr. Rick Biberstein, Chairman of the Wilmington Industrial Development, Inc., expressed
appreciation for the support of the community which benefits from the recruitment of businesses and
industries.
Motion
: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to approve five
year contracts with the Wilmington Industrial Development, Inc. and the Wilmington Regional Film
Commission, and to include an escalating index clause in both contracts to be determined by UNCW
Economics Department.
In discussion, Chairman Davis expressed concern that the proposed contracts were an
unequivocal commitment by the County to spend those specified amounts for five years. He asked
the County Attorney to explain what would happen if the County did not have the money to make
the payments.
County Attorney Copley responded that the five year contract is automatically renewable
unless a written notice is given by either party 12 months prior to the expiration date of the five year
contract. The County would be legally obligated to execute payment unless the County adds a 12
month notice. The County would need to add a clause to say the County would not pay if they did
not have the money. However, that may not work because both parties have executed the contract
depending upon the money. WID could say they have a detrimental reliance on getting the funding.
Chairman Davis stated that he fully supported the Film Commission and the Committee of 100
in recruiting clean industry to the area thereby increasing the tax base. He expressed concern that
every year for the next five years the County is obligated to spend $160,000. He said he was leery
about obligating the County to pay these amounts when a tight budget is forecasted.
Commissioner Pritchett asked what other agencies or organizations will be asking for the
long-term commitment if the Board approves the proposed contracts.
Commissioner Caster replied that several other organizations, such as DARE, Council of
Governments, and the Coast Line Convention Center, can make the same argument for long-term
contracts.
Chairman Davis responded that the County will be giving priority to these two non-County
agencies.
Vice-Chairman Greer reminded everyone that these two organizations bring industry and
dollars into New Hanover County, which supports the County’s budget. He spoke on the difficulty
of the two organizations, operating with limited personnel depending on the County and City to pay
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 883
those salaries. If the County makes the commitment, those staffs could spend more time on their
functions rather than worrying whether their positions will be funded. The County has committed
to the organizations in the past, and they need the continued support.
Commissioner Boseman commented that economic development is very important to the area,
and the County should support these programs. She felt the County should be more proactive in
response to economic issues and providing local jobs. She appreciated the organizations’ efforts and
expressed support for the five year contracts.
Chairman Davis called for a vote on the motion. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 to
1. Chairman Davis voted in opposition.
A copy of the contract is on file in the Legal Department
CONSIDERATION OF COAST LINE CONVENTION CENTER LEASE RENEWAL AND
LEASE PAYMENT
Finance Director Bruce Shell spoke concerning the renewal of the lease agreement for the
Coast Line Convention Center (CLCC). The City and County have supported the organization by
paying the lease for the last 12 years. Deputy County Finance Director Julie Griffin and City Finance
Director Brent McAbee serve on the committee. He felt the organization has a positive impact on
the community. When the organization began, it was intended that it become self supporting, but that
has not occurred. The County contributes an annual lease payment of $50,000 per year to the
owner, Charles Carter.
Mr. Roy Clifton, president of the Coast Line Convention Center, stated that he was the
representative from the Cape Fear Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) Board of Directors.
He complimented Jerry Gilson, Director of the CLCC, for her outstanding work performance. He
expressed appreciation for the County’s support of the convention center.
Mr. Clifton spoke on the importance of the CLCC in enhancing the hospitality industry in the
downtown area. He requested the Board to continue the support of the facility which brings in
visitors to enjoy the community at a minimum impact to the City and County.
Mr. Clifton explained that the lease agreement is for three years with an option for two more
years. The CLCC board establishes the budget for the operation of the facility. The current budget
of $203,000 pays the taxes, electricity, and other operating expenses. Unlike DARE or the
Committee of 100, the CLCC is not allowed to ask for donations from the general public or
businesses, and the only way to stay in business is with the County’s support. The lease is $100,000
per year plus a $25,000 rebate on interest from the HUD loan. There has been no increase in lease
payments for the past 11 years.
Mr. Clifton responded that the small amount of profit over the last two years was because of
the construction project at the Hilton and it was spent on a small retirement program for the three
full-time employees of the CLCC. If there is no profit, no funding is available for the retirement
program. Although the lease expires in April 2002, the convention business requires almost three
years advance planning. Commitments have been made beyond the date of the lease agreement.
Commissioner Pritchett asked if a cancellation clause was in the contract.
County Attorney Copley said she did not know if a termination clause was included.
Chairman Davis expressed concern for a commitment to a five year lease agreement, but
supported an annual lease because of the County’s forecasted budget limitations.
Commissioner Pritchett stated that she understood Mr. Clifton’s concerns for the long-term
commitment, and felt the commitment was reasonable. However, she was unable to vote on the lease
until she knew if the contract has a cancellation clause. She requested the Board to postpone its
consideration until the next meeting.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 884
County Attorney Copley advised that the Board may want to consider a year-to-year
agreement instead of subject to appropriations. A one year lease would allow the CLCC to plan for
the next year and it can be renewed each year like other outside agency contracts. A five year lease
subject to appropriation, could change with another Board.
Chairman Davis asked if the Board is getting ahead of itself, and if this should be done during
the budget process. The Board has already committed $160,000 a year and the budget process has
not begun.
County Manager O’Neal responded that the April deadline is not in sync with the County’s
July 1 fiscal year, but is the date of the lease signed 12 years ago. The CLCC Board is preparing for
the April deadline.
Director Shell responded that the County has approved longer term lease agreements than the
proposed 3 year lease. The CLCC is obligated to convention commitments beyond April 2002,and
a one year contract will limit future planning. The County’s lease with Mr. Carter allows the CLCC
to operate the facility based on that arrangement. Having a longer term lease will provide longevity
to the functions of the facility.
Vice-Chairman Greer commented on the convoluted arrangement of the City and County in
renting a building, while another group operates the business. The Board should consider whether
the facility is worth the amount of money spent in order to increase the tourist trade. He explained
that the functions of the Coast Line Convention Center and the Cape Fear Coast Convention and
Visitors Bureau are to bring tourists to the area. He felt that the two organizations should combine
their efforts in promoting the area and the center in a single facility.
Finance Director Shell responded that enabling legislation states that funds for the CVB
cannot be used to promote a convention center.
Vice-Chairman Greer responded that the County can provide the funds for the space and then
the CVB could use the space for promotion of tourism and encouraging the use of the facilities in the
area. He suggested that one of the agencies could be eliminated or combined with the other agency
to save taxpayers’ money.
Director Shell responded that the County would have to separate the functions to eliminate
a legal challenge to the terms of the R.O.T. funding.
In response to questions about the lease payment, Director Shell stated that the County
currently pays $50,000 per year for the facility. The City pays $75,000, but receives a $50,000
prepayment for the initial grant loan for the facility, resulting in a net exchange of $25,000 from the
City. In terms of real numbers, the lease payment is $75,000.
Vice-Chairman Greer commented that the Board will need to decide if leasing the facility is
worth the $50,000 expense to the County and community. If the facility is not rented by the City and
County, the owner may consider other options.
Director Shell responded that the County does receive an economic benefit from the functions
of the center by generated retail sales and job opportunities. Members of the CLCC Board believe
the convention center is an economic benefit to the County and a good return on the $50,000
investment.
Vice-Chairman Greer responded that he did not object to paying the lease, but the facility is
generating $225,000 a year and has operating expenses for that amount. He felt some of the CVB
personnel could work at the facility and coordinate the tourism effort.
Mr. Clifton responded that convention facilities never produce a profit because a private
entrepreneur is unable to generate income to justify the cost of a 100,000 square foot building. If
the community is to commit to the convention business, some form of funding will need to come from
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 885
the City or County. The County is paid back through the generation of sales tax and R.O.T. from
the hospitality industry and small businesses in the community at a minimal expense. The convention
center is a major factor to the downtown business community, which has lost a lot of retail businesses
and office personnel. The convention business is a viable business and he requested the Board to
continue its support of the CLCC.
In response to questions about the ten major events generating $1.7 million, Mr. Clifton
responded that the convention industry uses a multiplication factor of what an individual spends in
the community from sales, room expenses, and meals. The facility also offers meeting space for non-
profit organizations at no cost. Both the County and the City have free days to use the facility.
Motion
: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to table the lease
agreement until the next meeting to receive additional information about the contract. Upon vote,
the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BREAK
Chairman Davis called for a break at 10:43 A.M. The meeting was resumed at 10:58 A.M.
CONSIDERATION OF PERMIT CONDITIONS FOR THE MASON INLET RELOCATION
PROJECT
Chairman Davis stated that at the last meeting, the Board had voted against accepting the
conditional permit of the Corps of Engineers. He requested Assistant County Manager Dave Weaver
to inform the Board of any changes in the terms of the conditional permit or other factors that might
have a bearing on the issue since the last vote.
Assistant County Manager Weaver responded that one relatively minor change was made to
the permit conditions. The Corps is giving more flexibility in the scheduling of preconstruction
meetings, which will allow the project to be completed during this winter dredging season if the
Board accepts the permit and moves forward with the project. No other change has been made to
the permit conditions. The County will still have to buy lots on Masonboro Island and the Corps will
still determine future shoaling maintenance needs of Mason Creek. However, some discussion has
occurred on the funding for shoaling maintenance of the waterway.
Assistant County Manager Weaver introduced Keith Harris with the Corps of Engineers, who
is the lead person working with the County through the permit process. He expressed appreciations
for Mr. Harris’s professional manner and leadership through the very complex permitting procedure.
Commissioner Pritchett reported that Colonel Deloney has now signed the final permit. She
had objected to the Board having to vote on a draft permit at the last meeting.
Chairman Davis asked if the Board should expect any other issues to come before the Board
about the project.
Assistant County Manager Weaver responded that the County was waiting for the State
permit for the Mason Inlet project.
Commissioner Boseman stated that she has concerns about the taxpayers having to pay for
any of the maintenance of the project in the next 30 years. She asked if the County had any guarantee
that the maintenance cost will not be placed on the 160,000 people living in the County.
Assistant County Manager Weaver responded that future Boards would have to continue the
commitment with the present funding mechanism. He spoke on a proposal by Figure “8" Island
Homeowners Association to take the responsibility to pay any possible shoaling maintenance costs
that occur in the ICWW outside the anticipated normal maintenance dredging of the sedimentation
basin, the inlet, and channel of Mason Creek.
Commissioner Pritchett asked when the County will bill the affected property owners and
when the County will be reimbursed.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 886
County Attorney Copley responded that the County has sent a preliminary assessment notice
to the affected property owners. When the project is completed and the costs have been determined,
the tax department will mail the assessment. The property owners will have three years to pay the
bill at 7% interest. Some will pay as soon as they receive the bill, while others will take the 3 years.
Commissioner Pritchett asked for confirmation of the fact that if the dredging begins
December 1, and it takes 3 months to complete the project, the billings will be going out and some
reimbursements should be coming back to the County this year.
Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the Tax Department should have the complete
cost by June and could include the billing with the regular tax bills in August, which will eliminate a
th
need for a special tax bill. Property taxes are due and payable from September 1 until January 5
without penalty.
Commissioner Boseman asked who would be responsible if Shell Island Resort falls into the
ocean.
County Attorney Copley advised that the County would not be legally obligated to remove
the fallen debris. The Shell Island Homeowners Association would be responsible since they are the
property owners. If they were to abandon the structure, the County would not have a legal obligation
to clean it, but the County may be asked to participate in a clean up. The Board would decide on the
County’s participation.
Mr. Bill Raney, attorney for the Figure “8" Beach Homeowners Association, was present to
explain the proposed funding for the inlet shoaling maintenance projects. The board of directors,
which has been very supportive of the Mason Inlet project, were very concerned about the
Commissioners’ vote against the project on November 5, 2001. They have proposed, through a
formal procedure for the Figure “8" Beach Homeowners Association, an assessment for a period of
30 years to pay $350,000 per year for the projected cost for the maintenance of the waterway. The
ballots have been sent out to the homeowners and the final vote should be known in 3 weeks. Mr.
Raney is discussing the terms and wording of the contract with the County Attorney’s Office. The
HOA is proposing to pay the cost of the maintenance directly or paying the County if the County
does the maintenance. If any single maintenance event took more than $350,000 in one year, Figure
8 would be obligated to continue the assessment on an annual basis until the total cost was paid to
the County.
Figure 8 Beach homeowners alone will not be obligated to pay for the general maintenance
normally performed every three to five years. If general maintenance is being done, it is presumed
that maintenance of the settlement basin, inlet channel, and Mason Creek would be incorporated into
that project and all the cost would be part of the maintenance assessment plan to pay for the periodic
maintenance. The assessment would be on the benefitted property owners of Figure 8 and
Wrightsville Beach as currently planned. Some expert advice on the long-term maintenance costs,
in his opinion, have been based on the worst case scenarios. The board of directors felt that the
Figure 8 Beach property owners could take on the additional maintenance because the proposed cost
estimates may not be accurate. The design of the project may never require maintenance of the inland
waterway, although millions of dollars have been proposed for long-term maintenance plan for this
part of the project. Even in the worst case scenario, Figure 8 will pay the cost, assuming the members
of the Figure “8" Beach Homeowners Association approve the proposition.
Mr. Raney stated that Figure 8 recognizes that they may have a greater financial capability
to pay the cost than the property owners of Shell Island because of having more property owners to
pay the cost. Figure 8 supports the project and most importantly, needs the sand for the beach area.
If the inlet was left to close and the structures fall in the path of the inlet, significant erosion will occur
on the whole stretch of shoreline along Wrightsville Beach and Figure 8.
Chairman Davis asked if Shell Island and Figure 8 Island will pay the costs of shoaling
maintenance.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 887
Assistant County Manager Weaver explained that the cost of rectifying any shoaling in the
waterway was part of the long-term projected cost for the Shell Island Homeowners Association or
the Mason Inlet Project Group of 1,044 affected property owners. The Figure 8 Beach property
owners have agreed to the long-term costs and the assessment procedures being proposed by the
County. This proposal gives extra comfort to the County in terms of addressing the shoaling cost.
Vice-Chairman Greer stated that the plan is in place for the initial work and shared
maintenance cost between property owners of Wrightsville Beach and Figure 8 Island. Now, Figure
8 has agreed further to pay the cost of dredging maintenance for the part in the waterway that may
shoal up more frequently. The cost will be borne by all the property owners for periodic
maintenance.
Responding to questions raised about the inlet closing, Assistant County Manager Weaver
said that some flushing of the waters behind Figure 8 Beach and Wrightsville Beach occurs because
of the present inlet. If the project is completed, flushing will improve by 25%. No specific water
quality modeling has been performed, but if flushing times are improved, more flushing of the
pollutants will occur. The worst level of flushing will occur if the inlet closes. He also pointed out
that the 30 year term of the permit works in the County’s favor because of not having to go through
the whole permitting process every time maintenance dredging occurs.
Vice-Chairman Greer stated he received a letter from Spencer Rogers with the North Carolina
Sea Grant Extension Program that discussed issues about an inlet closure. If the inlet closed, it would
clearly have an adverse impact to the waters behind Figure 8 Island and on the shoreline of
Wrightsville Beach and Figure 8 Beach. Sand from both beaches will be washed away causing other
problems.
Vice-Chairman Greer commented that by opening Mason Creek again, hopefully the inlet will
stay where it was before people started dredging, and there is a possibility that no more dredging will
be needed. If a change occurs, the County has the permit in place to do the work, and the
homeowners will pay for it.
Chairman Davis reminded everyone that the only change made in the dredging project is the
fact that Figure 8 Beach has a proposition before the residents of Figure 8 Island that will reimburse
the County for any cost of shoaling maintenance that might occur in between routine dredging of the
ICWW.
In discussion about pets allowed on the north end of Wrightsville Beach, Assistant County
Manager Weaver responded that the major concern of the Fish and Wildlife service has been the
impact of the project on shore bird habitat, both for endangered species and general shore bird
population. They and the Audubon Society have been concerned about losing some valuable habitat
and have required some conservation measures. The Fish and Wildlife Service has requested the
restriction of pets and people on the new northern end once the project is completed. When allowed
to run loose, dogs chase the birds and disturb their nesting habits. The County has worked with the
staff of the Town of Wrightsville Beach, who have agreed to extend the enforcement of their pet
ordinance beyond their corporate boundaries into the extra-territorial jurisdiction at the north end.
Commissioner Boseman asked if making the beach off limits to the owners and pets was in
the best interest of the beach.
Assistant County Manager Weaver replied that the Fish and Wildlife Service has a lot to say
about the issuance of the Corps permit. He also explained that although the County has appealed the
permit conditions, there is nothing to prevent future appeals to the Corps in the next several years or
after the dredging project is completed.
Commissioner Pritchett commented on the beach area being a part of the birds’ migratory
route. After flying enormous distances, the birds are frequently disturbed by dogs while resting on
the shore. She was concerned that pets were detrimental to the birds in the migratory pattern.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 888
Commissioner Boseman expressed support for the dog owners who pay taxes in New
Hanover County.
Commissioner Pritchett stated that the dog owners could conceivably purchase property for
their pets where they could be contained with fencing around the property and their droppings
properly disposed of. She expressed concern for the enormous amount of fecal pollution from dogs
because of owners not removing dog droppings from the beach.
Commissioner Caster responded that as he had told people who have complained to him, the
condition of the permit is imposed by the Fish and Wildlife and it is not the County’s doing. He
suggested that they complain to the Fish and Wildlife Service to have the condition removed from
the permit, and to contact our Congressman and Senators.
Chairman Davis expressed concern that some people living on Figure 8 Island have told him
that they have no intention of voting for the additional assessment and they are opposed to the
project. The Board needs to consider that everyone does not support the proposed project.
Commissioner Boseman asked County Attorney Copley if the property owners could
successfully challenge the assessment.
County Attorney Copley advised the Board that County staff has followed the general statutes
to the letter in dealing with the assessments and from a legal standpoint, everything has been done
correctly. A 100% guarantee cannot be given that a property owner could not challenge the
assessment and that a judge would not rule in the County’s favor in a lawsuit. There is no absolute
way to know who will win.
Commissioner Boseman asked if anyone had successfully challenged the statute according to
the State’s case law.
County Attorney Copley responded that she was unaware of anything that had occurred
regarding a special assessment. In discussions with Ms. Ericson who has done several similar
projects, the counties were successful in their assessments. She was unaware of any court challenge
in North Carolina. It would be a long and expensive process to challenge the assessment. As the
statute is written, the County can go to court saying that they have done everything from the legal
standpoint that could have been done. Someone would have to challenge the statute and say that it
was unconstitutional or that it was not applied correctly by the County.
Chairman Davis acknowledged Mayor Avery Roberts, Mayor Betty Medlin, Mayor Rothrock,
and members of their staffs and councils present at the meeting. Although the issue is not a public
hearing item, it does not mean that an open discussion cannot occur. Three Commissioners had voted
against the Corps permit and they may or may not hear something that will change their minds. He
spoke for all the Commissioners in saying that they have all agonized over the issue and it has been
the most difficult decision he has faced as a County Commissioner, having friends and supporters on
both sides of the issue. Since the Board has considered the item heavily, he asked if they were ready
to make a motion.
Motion:
Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to authorize the
Chairman to sign the Department of the Army Permit for the Mason Inlet Relocation Project,
contingent upon the following: execution of a contract or other documents satisfactory to the
County Attorney which obligates the Figure Eight Beach Homeowners’ Association to cover the
projected cost to the County of compliance with condition #17 of the permit from the Army Corps
of Engineers for a period of 30 years.
Commissioner Caster commented that Representative David Redwine and Representative
Danny McComas had pursued the State purchasing the Masonboro Island lots with Wetland
Restoration Funds. Although they had stopped the process based on the November 5, 2001 vote by
the Board, he felt confident that they will proceed in getting funding for the property rather than using
MIPG funding.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 889
Vice-Chairman Greer commented that the Towns of Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, and
Wrightsville Beach have endorsed the project and letters of endorsement from the Chamber of
Commerce and the Community Growth Planning Core Team have been received. Many people
support the project because it is the right thing to do. Taxpayers of the County will lose if the Board
does not move forward with the project. He urged the Board to vote in favor of Mason Inlet Project.
Chairman Davis called for a vote on the MOTION. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4
to 1. Chairman Davis voted against the motion.
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO USE EXPEDITED CONTRACTING PROCEDURES
FOR MASON INLET RELOCATION PROJECT
Assistant County Manager Weaver stated that since the Board authorized moving forward
with the Mason Inlet Relocation Project, the County possibly will need to follow expedited contract
arrangements as allowed by the N.C. General Statutes for the following reasons:
1.The County had originally conditionally accepted the low bid of Koester, Inc., to perform the
dredging. Although this original contract had expired, the County has maintained close
contact with Koester in order to possibly renew the original contract. However, after the
November 5 Board meeting, Koester obligated itself to perform a different dredging job for
the Corps in South Carolina. Koester may not know until December 6 whether or not that
job will actually occur. If the South Carolina job does not occur, Koester could perform the
County's project. It is possible that Koester will be allowed to step down from the South
Carolina job before December 6.
2. In order to meet the regulatory project completion deadline of April 1 (with possible
extension to May 1), the County will need to issue a Notice to Proceed to a dredging
contractor under contract with the County ideally by December 7, 2001. Since the Board
directed staff to move forward with the project, an expedited contracting process will be
required to meet the December 7 date if Koester is not available. Staff should bring a
contract recommendation to the Board at its December 3 meeting.
3. Several reasons justify the need to implement this project this winter. Hurricanes or other
severe weather could threaten property along the beach. The sandbags that protect Shell
Island Resort are vulnerable to damage. The agreement for purchase of the Hutaff property
critical to the project will expire in August 2002 with no guarantee of extension of the terms.
Commissioner Caster asked if the County can legally proceed with the expedited procurement
procedures at the same time they are holding the potential contract with Koester.
County Attorney Copley responded that the County would like Koester to perform the work.
The purpose of the emergency procedure is to ensure that the project can be done quickly if Koester
is unable to perform the work. There would not be a legal problem in proceeding forward with both
options.
Motion:
Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to adopt the
resolution directing the use of the expedited emergency contracting procedure if a contract cannot
be finalized with Koester in a timely manner. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 to 1. Chairman
Davis voted in opposition.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in
Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 12.
BREAK
Chairman Davis called for a break at 11:50 A.M. The meeting was resumed at 12:05 P.M.
CONSIDERATION OF TAX APPEAL BY GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPE FEAR PLANT,
NUCLEAR DIVISION FOR BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX-B-790G135
Tax Administrator Robert Glasgow reported that General Electric appealed the 1996
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 890
Business Personal Property value of $81,356,078 to the Property Tax Commission. During the
review process by the N.C. Department of Revenue, the County, and General Electric, the value was
corrected to $67,121,837 for 1996. General Electric failed to report annual values for business
personal property thus not receiving depreciation allowed. General Electric dropped its appeal that
was scheduled before the N. C. Property Tax Commission on October 26, 2001; and they have agreed
to the corrected value. Adjustments were made based on the following:
•GE did not correctly report Business Personal Property from 1998 to 2000.
•GE reported 12 months of supplies rather than the required one month of supplies.
•An outside appraisal report identified the value of the nuclear manufacturing equipment to be
$42,000,000.
•GE failed to carry forward business personal property acquisition costs and deletions for 12
years.
•GE did not remove the value of nuclear manufacturing equipment taken out of service when
changing from a "wet" to a "dry" process in 1997 and 1998.
•New Hanover County used a 12 year Depreciation Schedule (as agreed to by GE and the NC
Department of Revenue in 1988). In 1996, the depreciation schedule was changed to a 10
year trending schedule, which the Department of Revenue should have provided the County.
The County recalculated tax values using the ten-year depreciation schedule which resulted
in a lower nuclear manufacturing equipment tax value. General Electric provided accounting
documents to show the annual cost of supplies for 1999 and 2000, but they were unable to provide
documents for 1996 through 1998. The Tax Department only agreed to a reduction of 65% for the
five-year period from 1996 to 2000 for the supplies due to a lack of accounting documents for the
period 1996-1998. GE’s position was that supplies should be reduced to a $700,000 monthly
expense, for a five-year total of $3,500,000. The Tax Department would only agree to a monthly
supply expense of $1,680,000 for two years and a five year total of $12,150,000, which is appropriate
under the circumstances. GE agreed to this amount.
General Electric has agreed to the following annual values for the Nuclear Manufacturing
Plant:
Original Corrected
Year Value Value Difference
1996$81,356,078$67,121,837$14,234,241
1997$83,716,045$69,368,928$14,347,117
1998$78,902,480$64,871,569$14,030,911
1999$84,746,290$68,469,091$16,277,199
2000$85,157,088$68,066,538$17,090,550
These changes in value are considered clerical errors and are correctable. This change in
value will result in a refund of taxes paid by GE from 1996 through 2000, amounting to $499,929.57.
General Electric had said they would be willing to apply the adjustment to their tax bill, but
a merger of the nuclear division with another company will not allow the adjustment. They will need
a refund that they can apply to each of those years. The refund will need to come from the general
fund. Mr. Paul Suzie, auditor in the Tax Department, had worked the schedules to determine the tax.
Each year will be adjusted to the correct value, but it will not be amortized. He recommended to
reduce the value and to provide a refund.
Deputy County Manager Atkinson stated that the auditors will determine if the refund will
be set up as a receivable or a prior year adjustment. Either way it is a $500,000 reduction in tax
revenues whether out of fund balance or out of current year’s revenue.
Commissioner Caster asked if the Board would determine how the refund is handled.
Deputy County Manager Atkinson stated that the Board is being asked to make a decision
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 891
on the agreement with General Electric as recommended by the Tax Office. Once the Board
approves the tax settlement, the accountants will determine the best way to set the receivables and
it would be reflected in the next annual financial report.
Chairman Davis asked if the refund of $500,000 will jeopardize the County’s obligation for
the fiscal year.
County Manager O’Neal replied it will have an impact on the County’s fund balance, but the
County will be able to carry on this fiscal year without modifications to the budget.
Commissioner Caster commented that the Board should be making the decision on how the
refund is handled whether the money is refunded from the fund balance or the general fund. It seems
like there would be ramifications on how the account was set up. The fund balance could be placed
in jeopardy, which the Board should decide.
Deputy County Manager Atkinson replied that generally accepted accounting principles will
determine how the refund will be set up. The auditors and finance director will look at the transaction
to determine which criteria it meets.
Director Shell responded that regardless of whether it is treated as a lack of revenue in the
current year or if it is treated as a prior period adjustment, it will ultimately hit the fund balance.
Commissioner Caster asked if the Board could decide to reduce expenditures for the year by
the $499,929.57.
Director Shell responded that would be an option.
Deputy County Manager Atkinson pointed out that the County has had the benefit of the
$500,000 over a period of years because of General Electric incorrectly reporting the value of its
personal property.
Commissioner Pritchett commented on General Electric being a good company and good
community leader. She asked if the tax adjustments will resolve the dispute in value that the County
and General Electric have had.
Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that General Electric has agreed to the adjusted value
and they may drop the appeals for real property values. He spoke on the amicable working
relationship between General Electric and the County saying the issues were resolved.
Motion:
Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to accept the
corrected business personal property values of General Electric Nuclear Manufacturing Plant for
1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, as recommended by the Tax Administrator. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT FROM SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF A COUNTY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM
County Manager O’Neal stated that the Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) has developed
a County solid waste collection system plan for residents of the unincorporated County and
commercial establishments for all of the County except the municipalities. The primary goal is: 1.)
to provide a full range of solid waste collection services, including recycling, yard waste, and bulky
item collection; 2.) to recover all costs of the County collection system and of the functions of the
Environmental Management Department; 3.) to ensure that the disposal of solid waste meets State
environmental mandates and is economically effective; 4.) to provide collections services with
maximum efficiency and economy; 5.) to level the playing field by allowing small haulers to enter the
solid waste collection market to increase competitiveness; and 6.) to reduce illegal dumping and costs
to the property owners.
If the Board of Commissioners approves the concept, staff will move forward with
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 892
developing a system that can be implemented by July 1, 2002. The final fee structure will be adopted
as part of the FY 2002-03 budget process.
Mr. Buck O’Shields, Chairman of the Solid Waste Advisory Board, spoke in support of the
proposed recommendation to implement a comprehensive Solid Waste Management Program for the
County. The plan will require a commitment of elected officials from the County and the
municipalities in the County. Responding to the community’s desire for a program, as noted in the
County’s Land Use Plan, the Board appointed the Solid Waste Advisory Board and charged them
with the task of developing a comprehensive plan for solid waste management. It has been a long,
arduous, and frustrating task. They worked to address the following issues as stated in the
Comprehensive Plan:
•Establish and maintain an environmentally responsible, cost effective system for managing
solid waste that protects public health, and provides adequate waste disposal capacity,
mandatory solid waste collection and recycling services, and waste reduction opportunities.
•Meet and exceed established waste reduction goal.
•Continue to seek ways to reduce and manage the solid waste stream through establishment
of countywide garbage pick-up, expanded recycling programs, encouraging composting,
expanded hazardous waste pick-up/education, and multi-jurisdictional cooperation.
•Eliminate illegal trash dumping through strict monitoring and enforcement, including
increased fines, signage program, rewards, and other means.
•Continue to support and improve the County's innovative incinerator and landfill system.
Mr. O’Shields stated that the SWAB has been diligent in its efforts to bring the main
component of a plan to allow for the establishment of a total comprehensive waste management plan
for New Hanover County.
Environmental Management Director Ray Church presented the details of the collection
system.
Commercial Collection System: The County will contract with private haulers to collect
commercial solid waste and establish a billing system. Haulers will contract with the commercial
clients for payment to the County and the County will in turn pay the haulers for providing the
services. Additional recycling and waste reduction programs will be provided.
Residential Collection System: The County will contract with private haulers to collect
residential solid waste in established collection zones for the unincorporated areas. Provided services
will be garbage collection, yard waste collection, bulky item collection, and curb-side recycling. The
contracts will have 10-year terms to allow haulers to recover any capital costs. The amount paid to
the hauler will be dependent on the number of customers and 90 gallon containers they provide, with
a contract provision for the elderly and handicapped. Solid waste containers and recycling containers
will be provided by the hauler. Property owners will be billed bi-monthly and the bill will show
separate costs for collection and disposal.
Budget Considerations: Single fee bills to both commercial and residential clients will be
established to recover all the cost associated with the collection system and disposal. The disposal
costs will be based on the anticipated annual cost of WASTEC, Landfill, Recycling, Administration,
and Debt Service, less the revenues from the sale of WASTEC generated electricity and recycling
materials. Preliminary budget projections for Environmental Management in FY 2002-03 are:
$13,500,000Expenditures
-1,860,000Electrical sales, State grants for scrap-tire program and white
goods, and revenues from recyclables
$11.6 million Net disposal costs
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 893
Estimated disposal cost is based on the trash flow of 260,000 tons per year. Residential
clients, with an estimated waste of 79,000 tons (30 % of waste stream), are allocated a disposal cost
of $3,536,800 per year or $52.02 per household ($4.33 per month). Commercial clients, with an
estimated tonnage of 181,000 tons (or 70% of waste stream) will have an estimated disposal cost of
$8,013,230. Additional considerations will be given for volume or weight of containers for each
commercial client and for large industries with specialized waste. Municipalities will be charged fees
based on tonnage collected and delivered to the County’s facilities.
Commercial collection fees will be negotiated between the hauler and the commercial client.
Residential collection fees will be a flat rate based on the average collection cost per household for
the unincorporated County.
Administrative costs for a private accounting firm or the County’s increased administration
of the program will be added to the billing. It is estimated that a private company will cost $300,000
a year, while the County can perform the work for approximately $200,000 to $300,000 a year. The
administrative, collection and disposal costs will be combined in a single bill for each residential and
commercial client.
Other considerations to consider in moving forward with the proposed collection system are:
1.) haulers may complain that the system is a form of flow control; 2.) there may be potential legal
issues with the existing contracts between haulers and commercial clients; and 3.) the impact on
municipalities who provide residential and commercial collections. These other systems may continue
to operate while being charged a tipping fee, and Interlocal agreements can be developed to operate
the systems for the municipalities. The County will honor any ordinance and procedures associated
with municipal collection systems.
Businesses can continue to haul their own waste if appropriate disposal fees are paid to the
County. Private residential neighborhoods, who have contracts for solid waste collection, may
continue at an adjusted rate. However, new contracts must provide for the same collection services
that the County offers.
Director Church concluded saying that the transition to a new solid waste management system
will be difficult, but if the County uses the City’s procedures, the change may be easier. He suggested
to implement a substantial public information program to educate everyone on the components of the
program. The first steps will be to develop a database of customers and to divide the unincorporated
area into zones. Contracts will need to be negotiated or placed for bids for collections and
administration of the billing system. Staff will need to prepare a solid waste ordinance and inter-local
agreements. The FY 2002-03 Budget will need to have the fee structure in place to begin July 1,
2002.
County Manager O’Neal reiterated the benefits of the plan that will reduce illegal dumping,
provide curbside recycling, household hazardous waste collection, and eliminate the property tax
subsidy to the Environmental Management Department. He also reported that County residents using
the recycling station at Monkey Junction had complained about the move to Veterans Park. Callers
have requested curbside recycling.
County Manager O’Neal stated that if the Board wanted to adopt the plan, staff will move
forward with implementing the system as proposed. If the Board wanted to accept the report, staff
will proceed in holding a work session or public meeting. Councilmember Frank Conlin and some
waste haulers were present to comment on the proposed plan. The public will need to review the
report and the Board will need to hold a public hearing before taking a final vote. However, to
implement the program by July 1, a lot of work will need to be done in educating the public on the
program. It will be critical that the municipalities support and work with the County to implement
the collection system. He recommended that the Board approve the program no later than the end
of January in order for the collection system to be in place by July 1, 2002. If the Board wanted more
information, he suggested that a public hearing be held in December or January.
Commissioner Pritchett asked for clarification on whether the County will pay the hauler
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 894
based on the number of 90 gallon containers or the number of households served, and she asked if
there was a price differential between a smaller container and the proposed 90 gallon container.
Director Church responded that at this time, the 90 gallon container is the only size container
that would be offered. However, the City’s contract pays the hauler the same amount for either size
container. Regarding questions about the cost of the administration of the system, he anticipated
personnel in the Environmental Management Department and Finance Department would share the
responsibility and would require additional office space and hardware and software for the billing
system. With the County handling the billing, staff would be aware of any complaints for non-service
without going through the private accounting firm.
Commissioner Pritchett noted that the County may be able to use the existing sewer billing
information to implement the billing for the solid waste services.
Commissioner Caster asked what businesses could haul their own solid waste when the plan
calls for mandatory collection system for residential and commercial customers.
Director Church responded that for the system to work, mandatory collection will be required
for the residential customers in the unincorporated area. A small company may want to haul its own
waste to the landfill and pay the County a disposal fee. But the County would require proof that the
business has disposed of its solid waste in the proper place and is not dumping trash in the woods.
The County could require a company to show a contract with a private hauler or retrieve the license
of the truck making the delivery to the landfill. Individual contract agreements will be made between
the company and the County using an established tipping fee.
Commissioner Boseman asked what the estimated cost of service for a residential customer
would be.
Director Church responded that the household would pay $52 per year for disposal and $4.30
per month for collection. Other costs for services will be added for curbside recycling, yard waste
collection, and bulky item collection. The City’s bill is $17.15 per month for all those services and
a portion of the disposal cost. He hoped that the County’s bill would be comparable. Some
efficiency will occur from the hauler picking up from every household on a street instead of every
third or fourth house.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked who would be responsible for collecting from those who do not
pay their bill.
Director Church responded that the County Attorney’s Office will be responsible for
collection of non-payments.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked for clarification of the number of households in the County.
Director Church responded that 68,000 households are in the County with 20,000 in the
unincorporated areas.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked what tipping fee would be charged to the municipalities.
Commissioner Pritchett responded that the $30.00 tipping fee is an artificially subsidized fee.
An increase to $45.00 a ton would bring the fee in line with the cost.
Vice-Chairman Greer commented that the $300,000 estimated for the administrative cost of
the program would go a long way in paying the refund of $500,000 to General Electric. He was
concerned with a system that allows small haulers to compete, but on the other hand allows long-term
contracts for recovery of capital costs. He felt that the proposal will cause some haulers to go out
of business.
Director Church replied that in Prince William County, Virginia, once the disposal cost was
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 895
incorporated into a solid waste fee, more small haulers came into the system because they were able
to compete at the same cost with large companies.
Vice-Chairman Greer questioned whether a small business would be able to get into the
business when the contract calls for a hauler to provide specific equipment, performance bond,
disposal, hardware, and software to perform auditing and billing to serve as the County’s agent. He
was concerned that many small haulers could not meet the criteria.
Vice-Chairman Greer stated that his main concern was for the citizens of the County. He did
not see why more money should be spent to keep the incinerator open and said there are ways to
provide those services and save money for the taxpayers. He believed in the free enterprise system
and felt the County should let competition determine pricing. He suggested that the County develop
a plan that encourages free enterprise and not one the creates another governmental department to
control it.
Director Church stated that the purpose of the collection system is to support existing services
and to provide additional services. The citizens who were using the recycling program in the Monkey
Junction Center are wanting curbside recycling and household hazardous waste disposal. He said that
1,200 callers complained about the move and the lack of curbside recycling. The proposed program
will provide those services.
Vice-Chairman Greer responded that people may ask for such services, but they may not
know how much it will cost. People have been responsive to the current recycling programs in the
County and they are using the system and the recycling centers. The Board will need to know what
people are willing to pay for those extra services.
Director Church said that the program will cost $400,000 a year and receive $120,000 in
revenues. However, there is the benefit of aborted cost as every ton removed from the waste stream
for recycling is a ton that does not go to WASTEC or the Landfill. The program will save the County
money in the long run. Also, the State mandates that counties have recycling programs.
Commissioner Pritchett asked if the recyclable materials collected in the unincorporated areas
are taken to Environmental Management or if the haulers will dispose of them.
Director Church replied that it has not been determined. The County will be able to transfer
materials to ECVC in Pitt County or to Onslow County, where a new processing facility has opened.
The County’s baler will be operating soon and Keys Industrial Training will provide the processing
work.
Commissioner Pritchett asked if businesses would have more extensive regulations on
recycling cardboard than in the past.
Director Church replied that the commercial sector will have an opportunity to save money
when recycling materials. A container for cardboard is available at the Trask Recycling Center to
help businesses in their disposal cost.
Commissioner Caster commented that in his previous business, recycling cardboard was costly
to him. Haulers provide the service to process cardboard at a cost.
Commissioner Boseman stated that she would be glad to pay for curbside recycling because
she would like the convenience.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked what the anticipated budget for the Environmental Management
Department would be for this year and the next two years under the proposed system.
Director Church stated that it would be a flat budget of $13.5 million with some capital
expenses included. With exception of capital improvements for the last few years, the operating
budget has been essentially the same.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 896
Vice-Chairman Greer stated that an enterprise fund does not allow a mechanism to keep the
cost down. The cost of the program is spread out among every one. He asked if there were some
limits on spending under the proposed system.
County Manager O’Neal responded that the Board will decide on the budget for the enterprise
fund. Staff will make recommendations, but the Board will determine which services will be in place.
Director Church stated that it would be desirable to wait until the County could fund the
program. It may not be affordable to have the household hazardous waste program until 2 or 3 years
when expenses would be less than revenues. Money is set aside in the $13.5 million for the fund
balance and long-term closures of the Landfill. As the fund balance grew, the County could add other
programs.
Councilman Frank Conlon, spoke on behalf of the City of Wilmington, saying the
municipalities in the County will need ample time to determine the ramifications and cost of the
proposed system. The impact on the municipalities is not known because of not having the cost
figures. The municipalities will have new council members who may not know the circumstances.
He requested the Board to hold off until January to make a decision on the proposed plan.
Vice-Chairman Greer suggested that a public discussion be held with staff bringing cost
information to the meeting. He said a $45.00 tipping fee will have a crucial impact on fees charged
by municipalities and businesses. After the public meeting, the municipalities will be able to discuss
the issues with their boards to determine their support. The Board of Commissioners will have time
to make its decision by the end of January or first of February.
Commissioner Pritchett reminded everyone that the municipalities have members serving on
the SWAB and they should have been informed by their representatives of the proposed plan. They
have not been excluded from the process.
County Manager O’Neal suggested that the Board accept the recommendation of the SWAB
for the proposed plan and to schedule a public hearing at the first meeting in January in order for the
Board to make a decision by January 22, 2002.
The Board discussed a suitable time to hold a work session and the need to receive comments
from haulers, business people, and the municipalities. It was felt that the meeting should betelevised
to allow the public to learn of the proposed system.
Motion
: Chairman Davis MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to accept the Solid
Waste Advisory Board report and to schedule a work session with public comments on December
17, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 to 1. Vice-Chairman Greer voted in
opposition.
MEETING RECESSED TO HOLD A REGULAR MEETING OF THE NEW HANOVER
COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
Chairman Davis convened from Regular Session at 1:09 P.M. to hold a meeting of the New
Hanover County Water and Sewer District.
Chairman Davis reconvened to Regular Session at 1:26 P.M.
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Appointment to the Plumbing Board of Examiners
Chairman Davis announced that one vacancy exists on the Plumbing Board of Examiners in
the Master Plumber category. He reported that Charles Clayton Walker, Jr., whose first term is
expiring, desires to be reappointed.
Motion:
Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to re-appoint
Charles Clayton Walker, Jr., to a second three year term on the Plumbing Board of Examiners in the
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 897
Master Plumber category, with the term to expire November 30, 2004. Upon vote the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Appointments to the Zoning Board of Adjustment
Chairman Davis announced that two vacancies and one alternate vacancy need to be filled on
the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Eight applications have been received, and one current member,
Jeffrey R. Bellows, desires to be reappointed.
Motion:
Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to reappoint
Jeffrey R. Bellows to a second three-year term on the Zoning Board of Adjustment, with the term
to expire December 1, 2004. Upon vote the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Davis opened the floor to receive nominations for the remaining vacancy and the
alternate position.
Commissioner Caster nominated Michael Lee. The nomination was seconded by Vice-
Chairman Greer.
Commissioner Pritchett nominated Myron Furman. The nomination was seconded by Vice-
Chairman Greer.
Commissioner Boseman nominated Gretchen Colby. The nomination was seconded by
Commissioner Pritchett.
Hearing no other nominations, Chairman Davis declared the nominations closed.
Votes
: Upon the call of the names, the Commissioners voted as follows:
Commissioner Boseman and Commissioner Pritchett voted for Gretchen L. Colby.
Chairman Davis, Vice-Chairman Greer, and Commissioner Caster voted for Michael Lee.
Chairman Davis, Vice-Chairman Greer, Commissioner Caster, and Commissioner Pritchett
voted for Myron Furman.
Myron Furman received the most votes and was appointed to serve a three year term on the
Zoning Board of Adjustment. Having the next highest votes, Michael Lee was appointed to serve
as an alternate on the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Both terms will expire December 1, 2004.
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 or to comment on an item listed on the Consent Agenda.
He requested all persons speaking to limit their remarks to three minutes.
Mr. Jim Souders, 233 Racine Drive, commented on his letter to the Board regarding the
neighborhood’s appeal of the condominium project on Veterans Park Drive. In particular, he
requested the Board to change the zoning and subdivision ordinances to allow for more public
participation in the approval process of subdivision reviews.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS BY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Discussion of Funding Commitment to Legion Stadium
Commissioner Caster reported that Mayor Jones has written him a letter about the County’s
funding commitment to Legion Stadium. When discussing the additional funding for the stadium, the
County had agreed to increase the funding from $150,000 to $250,000. The City was expecting the
County to pay the $150,000 plus another $250,000. The Board had adopted a resolution saying the
County would pay one-half of the debt service not to exceed $250,000 per year for 20 years in place
of the annual payment of $150,000. He asked the Board members if they concurred with him and to
allow him to respond to the Mayor’s letter.
County Manager O’Neal responded that the City is having a public hearing on the financing
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 898
of the project and they need confirmation of the County’s commitment. He suggested that the Board
clarify its position on the funding by voting on the matter.
Motion
: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to authorize
Commissioner Caster to sign the proposed letter to Mayor Jones confirming the County’s funding
commitment to Legion Stadium based on the resolution adopted by the Board on August 21, 2000.
Upon vote the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Future Items for Consideration or Discussion at the Board Meetings
Commissioner Boseman requested consideration of the following items for future Board
meetings:
1.A resolution in support of Senator John Edwards’s bill for public health departments -
Commissioner Boseman explained that the bill will provide funding for local governments to
purchase vaccines in case of a bio-terrorism attack.
2.Traffic Impact Ordinance - Commissioner Boseman said she understood that the ordinance
would not take long to develop and asked if it would be on the next agenda. County Manager
O’Neal responded that it would be on the agenda for the January 7, 2002 meeting.
3.Zoning Ordinance amendment regarding the definition of “contiguous”
4.Update on the Unified Development Ordinance
5. Concerns from residents of Country Place Road on a proposed stub-street connection to an
adjoining subdivision, based on a TRC decision
Additionally, Commissioner Boseman asked if Mayor Jones was correct in remarking about
the City’s bond rating being better than the County’s rating. Finance Director Shell responded that
the Mayor’s remark was in error.
Commissioner Boseman requested staff to continue its investigation in providing an early
payment discount of 1% or .5% for taxpayers who pay taxes early. She understood that a 1.5%
discount would not be economically feasible for the County, but she desired to help taxpayers pay
less money if it would benefit the County.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Davis called for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Motion:
Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to adjourn the
meeting. Upon vote the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Davis adjourned the meeting at 1:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Teresa P. Elmore
Deputy Clerk to the Board