2001-08-29 Special Meeting
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
JOINT MEETING WITH WILMINGTON CITY COUNCIL PAGE 748
AUGUST 29, 2001
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held a Special Meeting with the
Wilmington City Council on Wednesday, August 29, 2001, at 4:30 P.M. in City Council Chambers,
102 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; County Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie
F. Harrell.
Councilmembers present were: Mayor David L. Jones; Mayor Pro-Tem Katherine Bell-
Moore; Councilmember Frank S. Conlon; Councilmember Charles H. Rivenbark, Jr.; Councilmember
J. C. Hearne, II; Councilmember Laura Padgett; City Manager Mary M. Gornto; City Attorney
Thomas C. Pollard; and City Clerk Penelope Spicer-Sidbury.
Mayor Jones and Chairman Davis called their respective boards to order.
PRESENTATION OF FINAL REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CITY-
COUNTY CONSOLIDATION AND FUNCTIONAL MERGERS
Dr. Suzanne Leland reported that she was pleased to present the final report on the study that
began on May 15, 2001 and was concluded on August 15, 2001 in compliance to the established
deadline. She introduced Gary Johnson, Professor at UNC-Charlotte; Kurt Thurmaier, Professor at
University of Kansas; and Curt Wood, doctoral student at University of Kansas. She expressed
appreciation to City and County personnel for providing the information requested and thanked City
and County elected officials for their assistance and input into the study.
Dr. Leland advised that Phase I of the study was the information gathering period and a
preliminary report was made on the first findings of the team from a historical perspective with a
review of city-county consolidations and functional mergers across the United States and North
Carolina. In Phase II, the study was broken down into five areas: Budget and Finance, Service
Delivery, Economic Development and Community Growth, Personnel, and Representation.
Dr. Kurt Thurmaier presented the following report:
Budget Analysis:
The methodology used was an all-funds analysis to present a clear picture of how
the City and County spend funds compared to one unified budget. An all-funds analysis encompasses
everything being done by the City and County including debt service. Both the City and County have
a wide variety of programs and activities that are reflected in respective budgets. In order to make
the comparison, six functional categories were established:
Public Works:
This category includes streets and traffic signaling, engineering, solid waste and
recycling services, water and sewer services, stormwater services, fleet management, public
transportation and public parking.
Public Safety:
This category includes police and sheriff services, courts, 911 and emergency
preparedness services, and fire protection.
Parks and Recreation:
This category includes park and recreation services, library services, golf
courses, and museums.
Community Development and Planning:
This category includes engineering, housing services,
historic preservation, planning and zoning services, code enforcement, cooperative extension, and
tourism services.
Human Services:
This category includes aging and health services, mental health services, veterans
services, education services, other social and human services, human relations, and grants to non-
county organizations.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
JOINT MEETING WITH WILMINGTON CITY COUNCIL PAGE 749
AUGUST 29, 2001
Administration:
This category includes tax administration and the register of deeds. The non-tax
administration includes finance and budgeting, personnel, information systems, governing bodies,
managers’ offices, property management, legal services, and elections.
Charts were presented on City and County expenditures split into the six categories. The
charts showed that a large percentage of funds were spent for Public Works by the City, including
utility functions, stormwater, wastewater, water services, and streets. The charts also showed that
54% of funding was spent by the County for Human Services with 13% for Public Works and 17%
for Public Safety. A final chart was presented reflecting the percentage of expenditures under a
consolidated budget with an educational category added as follows:
Public Works25%
Education20%
Public Safety20%
Human Services18%
Administration 9%
Parks & Recreation 5%
Planning 3%
In concluding the presentation, discussion was held on whether consolidated government
would immediately save money. Dr. Thurmaier advised that most people think consolidating two
governments will allow for the “fat” to be immediately cut from administration; however, this does
not prove to be true in most cases. Over time, a consolidated government should save money and
provide a more efficient government.
Mr. Curt Wood presented the following report:
Service Delivery Analysis and Economic Development and Planning Analysis:
The study has
identified 46 services and functions which are offered and provided by both City and County
governments. Six services and functions have been identified that are only offered by the City of
Wilmington: (1) Golf Course; (2) Historic Preservation; (3) Parking Facility; (4) Housing; (5)Traffic
Engineering; and (6) Streets/Roads.
Sixteen services and functions have been identified that are only offered by the County:
(1)Elections; (2)Aging; (3) Register of Deeds; (4) Tax Administration; (5) Health Department; (6)
Public Library System; (7) Cape Fear Museum; (8) Cooperative Extension Service; (9)Veteran
Services; (10) Public Schools; (11) Emergency/911 Center; (12) Mental Health Center ; (13) Social
Services; (14) Emergency Medical Services; (15) Human Relations; and (16) Courts. These services
are offered on a county-wide basis, including the City of Wilmington and all beach communities.
Most of the services in these categories involve a property tax levy, and in many instances a
county-wide tax levy. Residents of the City pay approximately 50% of the levy, residents of the
unincorporated county pay about 37%, and residents of the beach communities pay approximately
13%. These percentages represent the breakdown of the assessed valuation in New Hanover County.
Fifteen services and functions have been identified that are offered both by the City and
County inside their respective jurisdictions: (1) Police; (2) Fire; (3) Fleet Management; (4) Governing
Body; (5) City/County Management; (6) Information Systems; (7) Human Resources; (8)
Planning/Zoning/Community Development; (9) Engineering; (10) Legal; (11) Accounting/Finance;
(12) Budgeting; (13) Property Management; (14) Stormwater/Flood Plain Management; and (15)
Debt Service. These categories are called “Dual Sovereignty” categories because there is little if any
overlap or duplication of services between City and County services.
Nine services and functions have been identified that are offered by the City and County with
some overlap: (1) Recycling; (2) Emergency Preparedness; (3) Outside Services; (4)
Parks/Recreation; (5) Water and Sewer; (6) Economic Development/Convention and Visitors Bureau
Funding; (7) Solid Waste; (8) Enforcement and Inspection of Building Codes; and (9) Public
Transportation.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
JOINT MEETING WITH WILMINGTON CITY COUNCIL PAGE 750
AUGUST 29, 2001
There is overlap in these services in the sense that the City or County may be providing this
service to residents in the other jurisdiction in addition to their own jurisdiction. When the City and
County each have a tax levy for the same or similar service, the City residents and businesses are
doubled taxed.
When looking at consolidating the two governments, there are 46 services out of which 24
services can be considered for functional consolidation: Police, Fire, Fleet Management, Governing
Body, City/County Management, Information Systems, Human Resources, Planning/Zoning/CD,
Engineering, Legal, Accounting/Finance, Budgeting, Property Management, Stormwater/Flood Plain
Management, Debt Service, Recycling, Emergency Preparedness, Outside Services, Parks/Recreation,
Water/Sewer, Economic Development/Convention and Visitor’s Bureau Funding, Solid Waste,
Enforcement/Inspection Building Codes, and Public Transportation. This action would reduce the
overlap in services.
Mr. Wood referred to the summary of the City and County Cost of Service Areas for FY
2000, broken down into four different service areas: (1) City Only; (2) County Only; (3) Dual
Sovereignty; and (4) Both City and County. The total cost in FY 2000 for services provided by the
City and County was $119.6 million.
Commissioner Caster referenced Page 63 and suggested that the jail function be broken out
as a separate function because this is a County function. He referenced Page 64, and noted that the
cost of the Emergency 911 phone service is funded by the 911 Surcharge, not the property tax. He
also referenced Page 65 and noted that the Fire Service in the County is funded by a special fire tax
paid only by residents living in the unincorporated area of the County, not by City residents. On
Page 66, the report incorrectly shows that the Flood Plain Management Program is financed by the
Room Occupancy Tax. Only beach nourishment projects are funded by the Room Occupancy Tax.
Commissioner Caster continued by saying there are several places where the Parks
Department was discussed and it was implied that City residents do not go to County Parks, which
is not true because County Parks are provided for use by all residents. The County does not have a
Recreation Program; however, the recreation that takes place on County and School parks and is
typically funded by outside organizations such as Little League Baseball, Softball groups, and Soccer
Associations.
County Manager O’Neal noted that corrections needed to be made in specific comments and
categories presented in the report about various departments. For instance, Emergency Management
is listed as an overlapping area because the City has preparedness responsibilities within its
Departments; however, the Emergency Management Department is a county-wide function that
receives cooperation from the City and other municipalities. The Building Inspections Department
is a County responsibility that is paid entirely by fees collected, and there is a great deal of
cooperation between the City and County regarding the Cape Fear Coast Convention and Visitors
Bureau and the Committee of 100.
Mayor Jones referenced the number of items that needed to be corrected or clarified and he
stressed the importance of the technical parts of the report providing the correct information.
Councilmember Laura Padgett noted that in several places throughout the report the words,
City and County, are reversed and she requested these items to be corrected. She also referenced
Page 97 regarding the County’s property taxes decreasing as the City annexes and stated the
County’s property tax valuation remains the same; however, the County’s sales tax revenue has
decreased with annexation. On Page 68, clarification needs to be made regarding funding for the
WASTEC Facility where it is implied that County residents subsidize City residents for use of this
service. She noted that in her opinion, the City is subsidizing the unincorporated County and beach
communities.
County Manager O’Neal responded that WASTEC serves all four municipalities as well as
residents of the unincorporated county. Disposal of solid waste is a County function; however, the
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
JOINT MEETING WITH WILMINGTON CITY COUNCIL PAGE 751
AUGUST 29, 2001
report should make a distinction between waste disposal and collection of trash, which are two
different functions.
City Manager Mary Gornto informed both governing bodies that City staff has compiled a
15-20 page response to identify where technical clarifications are needed in the report. A copy of the
cover letter was sent to Council, but because the memo was so extensive, it was not provided to
Council.
County Manager O’Neal noted that Ms. Gornto had shared this information with him and
stated that County Staff was in the process of compiling a list of items that need to be corrected or
clarified in the report.
Dr. Suzanne Leland advised that she had received the comments from Ms. Gornto and stated
that an updated version of the report containing the technical corrections will be provided to the City
and County officials within two weeks. She apologized for the errors and stated that every effort will
be made to provide accurate information in the final version of the report.
The presentation continued with Mr. Gary Johnson presenting the following report:
Personnel Analysis Section:
Comparisons of personnel issues revolved around four items:
Employee Benefits, Salaries, Medical and Dental Insurance Plans and the 401 Retirement Plans.
Many personnel systems of the City and County are relatively similar and are not as problematic as
some other areas of the report. Charts were presented comparing benefits provide by the City and
County, Differences in Benefits provided by the City and County, Distribution of Employment, and
Distribution of Services.
If consolidation occurs, the major challenge of the two governments will be standardization of pay
scales. If functional consolidation occurs, each department merged will have to bring the two
disparate pay scales into alignment. Under the no-change option, the existing pay scales would
remain in place and the respective government would continue to oversee the personnel policies as
defined by federal, state, and local laws.
Discussion followed on how benefits could be combined if the Sheriff’s Department and City
Police Department were merged. Mr. Johnson advised that when there is a disparity between the
two governments, in terms of personnel policies, the lower governmental entity should be brought
up to the higher governmental entity, including salaries.
Dr. Suzanne Leland presented the following report:
Representation Analysis:
Types of Elections
: The County has partisan elections and the City has non-partisan elections. This
election process is consistent throughout the United States and North Carolina. The majority of
elections in North Carolina are partisan elections with the exception of City officials and School
Board officials. When reviewing consolidated governments that have occurred since 1970, the
majority of those have gone with non-partisan elections. There is a belief that non-partisan elections
tend to bring out a good government reform that has often been associated with consolidation. The
downside is that non-partisan elections held in odd numbered years on off-election cycles have a 20%
lower voter turn out.
Boundaries and Candidate Selection
: When reviewing the impact of consolidation on minority
residents in the affected areas and looking at district elections vs. at-large elections, the two are
intertwined. It cannot be generalized that consolidation dilutes minority representation nor that
consolidation enhances minority representation. The outcome is based on how the plan is drawn up
and how the representation structure is presented in the consolidated plan. Typically, district
elections increase minority participation and at-large elections do not provide as much diversity.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
JOINT MEETING WITH WILMINGTON CITY COUNCIL PAGE 752
AUGUST 29, 2001
When reviewing the consolidated governments of Columbus-Muskeegee, Athens- Georgia, Wyndott
County, Kansas-City Kansas, Lafayette- Louisiana, these governments have a combination of district
and at-large representation. This process has preserved representation of certain areas affected by
the consolidation and given minority groups an increased voice.
Number and Type of Elected Officials:
When reviewing the Columbus/Muskeegee model, most
of the consolidated governments like Wyandotte County and Athens/Clarke, tried to increase
representation by adding some districts with a combination of at-large representation. The most
recent consolidation that passed in Louisville doubled the number of elected officials. This is a policy
choice that has to be made by the unified government.
Mayor Jones asked if term limits were popular throughout the country.
Dr. Leland responded that term limits had not taken off at the local level. This movement
was popular in the 1980s to show revolt against professional politicians. It is unusual to find
consolidated or local governments with term limits.
Dr. Leland continued the presentation by saying that when citizens begin to look at
consolidation, there is usually a breakdown or crisis in one of the governments. In the City and
County governments, there are no major crises but some areas of concern can be addressed through
functional merger instead of governmental consolidation.
Option 1: No Change
: The status-quo option would not resolve some of these issues particularly
in the area of utilities. There is concern for fiscal equity in water and sewer services, which is the
number one issue.
Option 2: Functional Merger
: A functional merger would solve problems that transcend political
and geographical boundaries. It would provide fiscal equity and avoid the need to secure enabling
legislation from the N. C. General Assembly. Functional merger is also a way of testing whether both
governments want to move toward full city-county consolidation.
After a review of services, the project team recommends functional consolidation of the
following areas:
Water and Sewer:
This function should be self-supporting. Accordingly, rates should be adjusted
over a 3-4 year period to enable the City and County to achieve fiscal equity and divert resources to
other services or reduce the property tax levy.
The City Water and Sewer Service could take over management of all annexed areas so each system
would be responsible only for the territory and customers within their respective jurisdictions, or there
could be a combined water and sewer operation under the direction of the City, County, or a joint
utility board. Another option would be for the City and County to contract out water and sewer
services to a private company.
Planning:
A joint City-County Planning Commission would establish a comprehensive and
coordinated growth program on a county-wide basis. The first step would be adoption of an inter-
local agreement authorizing a Joint Planning Commission to make recommendations to the City and
County Boards regarding enforcement of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, subdivision regulations
and zoning ordinances. The City and County would need to decide on the planning area under the
jurisdiction of the joint Planning Commission and place items on the agenda depending upon whether
the property is located inside the City Limits or in the unincorporated areas of the County. The joint
Planning Commission could work toward a single set of subdivision and zoning ordinances. Having
a joint Planning Commission would provide a more coherent and coordinated policy as well as a more
comprehensive approach to the planning process.
Economic Development:
A joint Economic Development Commission appointed by the City Council
and County Commissioners would increase efficiency and effectiveness of this function. An inter-
local agreement would be required to implement a shared revenue program. The first step would be
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
JOINT MEETING WITH WILMINGTON CITY COUNCIL PAGE 753
AUGUST 29, 2001
to create an economic development office under the supervision of the City to prepare the budget,
recommend projects to the joint Commission and implement initiatives approved by the City Council
and County Commissioners. Possible economic development initiatives could include expansion of
the public transportation system, incentives to new or expanding businesses, or tax increment
financing projects.
Law Enforcement:
A consolidated law enforcement system would optimize law enforcement
resources, including personnel, equipment, and intergovernmental grants. This consolidation can
occur under the following options:
•Combine the City and County police patrol function under the City.
•Combine the entire police function under the County.
•Establish a county-wide police department under the jurisdiction of a Law Board.
Future Mergers:
The City and County should also consider functional mergers of the following
services:
•Maintain a joint fleet and fueling facility under either the City or County.
•Explore a joint telephone, radio system, and Internet service.
•Work toward functional mergers in the future for City and County Information Technology
Departments.
•Establish a combined group health insurance program, safety program, supervisory training,
and drug testing program.
•Establish a joint centralized purchasing and warehousing operation under City management.
•Consolidate the property management function under County management.
•Consolidate the recycling program under County management.
•Place outside agencies funded by the City and County under a jurisdiction of a joint advisory
board that would report to the County Commissioners and City Council.
•Consolidate the parks and recreation function into a single or two department program under
County management.
Option # 3: Full Consolidation of City and County Governments:
After careful analysis of the
current City and County structures, the study team feels that structurally combining the City and
County may not be necessary at this time to resolve immediate problems. Structural consolidation
would involve a consensus between both governing bodies, enabling legislation from the N. C.
General Assembly, and approval of the plan by the majority of citizens. If consolidation remains a
goal of the governing bodies, the current North Carolina Statute governing consolidation should be
reviewed because several areas of the law are vague and inadequately address problems of merging
the two entities. There is concern about the State Law regarding the abolishment of the largest
municipality. Most city-county consolidations retain the status of the largest municipality in addition
to its powers. Under the current State Statute, if consolidation were implemented without the
establishment of urban services districts, it is questionable that the City government would exist.
Since no city-county consolidation has occurred in North Carlina to set a precedent, this question is
unanswered and should be resolved before a consolidation plan is placed on the ballot for approval.
The second issue is what would happen with road and bridge service under a city-county
consolidation that does not establish service districts. County roads that do not lie within the City
Limits are currently serviced by the State. It is unclear under the current enabling legislation which
entity, the new unified government or the state, would be responsible for all road and bridge service.
After these questions have been answered by the N. C. General Assembly, the City and County may
wish to revisit structural consolidation.
A lengthy discussion was held on the Economic Development and Community area regarding
the services now provided by the Committee of 100 and Convention and Visitors Bureau. Chairman
Davis expressed concern for bringing this service in-house when this group has done an outstanding
job in recruiting new industry to the community.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
JOINT MEETING WITH WILMINGTON CITY COUNCIL PAGE 754
AUGUST 29, 2001
Mayor Jones agreed with Chairman Davis and stated that he was leery about taking a function
from private enterprise and thinking that government will do a better job.
After lengthy discussions on the recommendation to move forward with merging water and
sewer, planning services, economic development, and law enforcement, or full consolidation, both
governing bodies agreed to meet separately to discuss issues of concern with another joint meeting
being scheduled as soon as possible to see if these differences can be resolved.
Mayor Jones and Chairman Davis expressed appreciation to Dr. Leland and the members of
the group for the presentations and adjourned the meeting at 6:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucie F. Harrell
Clerk to the Board