2021-04-27 Special MeetingNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, APRIL 27, 2021 PAGE 74
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met for a Joint Special Meeting with the Wilmington City
Council on Tuesday, April 27, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. at the Wilmington Convention Center, 10 Convention Center Dr.,
Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members present: Chair Julia Olson-Boseman; Vice -Chair Deb Hays; Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr.;
Commissioner Bill Rivenbark; and Commissioner Rob Zapple.
Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; County Attorney Wanda Copley; and Clerk to the Board
Kymberleigh G. Crowell.
City of Wilmington Council present: Mayor Bill Saffo; Mayor Pro -Tem Margaret Haynes (remote);
Councilmembers Neal Anderson (remote); Clifford Barnett, Sr.; Kevin O'Grady; Charlie Rivenbark; and Kevin Spears
(remote).
City of Wilmington staff present: City Manager Sterling Cheatham; Deputy City Attorney Meredith Everhart;
and City Clerk Penny Spicer-Sidbury.
Chair Olson-Boseman and Mayor Saffo called their respective Boards to order for the Joint Special Meeting
reporting that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss priorities and possible partnerships.
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COUNTY/CITY WORKFORCE HOUSING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
County/City Workforce Housing Advisory Committee Chair Dave Spetrino presented the following
information on the housing work plan recommendations:
• County/City Workforce Housing Advisory Committee (WHAC) Housing Work Plan Recommendations:
• Committee Members: Dave Spetrino, Jr., Chair; Sharm Brantley, Co -Chair; Patrick Brien; Dr. Philip
Brown; Tom Gale; Don Harris; Katrina Knight; Katrina Redmon; Frank Smith, Jr.; Steve Spain; Paul
Stavovy; Glenda Tate; Lori Wainright; and Evelyn Bryant, Past Chair
• Purpose of Advisory Committee:
• To develop a comprehensive workforce housing study, workforce housing opinion survey, and
make recommendations in an advisory capacity
• To support increasing equitable access and the supply of workforce housing that is affordable
• This presentation will:
• Provide recommendations: land use; programs; advocacy; and funding
• Seek guidance as to what you believe the guidelines for the committee should be and for the
community now and in the future
• Role of the County and City:
• Housing affordability is influenced through:
• Local market conditions; growth and in -migration; available infrastructure; state and local
regulations
• Housing programs that receive funding from federal, state, county, and local governments
• Agree that housing stability plays a significant role in:
• A healthy economy; public and mental health; academic success; economic stability; and
generational wealth
• Role of the County and City "TODAY": Guidance, vision, and leadership (Policy Making is Hard)
• What is the Perception?:
• Sought information, perspectives, and insights from advocates, activists, builders and
developers, planners, realtors, other researchers, lawyers, residents, and housing service
providers:
• 24 key informant interviews, five focus groups with 35 total participants, and 1,463
responses to a statistically valid community survey
• 93% Believe housing affordability is necessary for regional economy
• 87% Should be top priority for the city and county governments
• 80% Agree that housing affordability has positive impact on economy
• 64% Residents worry about cost of housing
• Housing Needs Assessment from Bowen National Research:
• Wilmington: benefit vs. burden of growth
• Baseline for future updates
• Beyond what the market is currently providing, our community will be lacking an average of
1,075 homes per year:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL MEETING, APRIL 27, 2021
BOOK 35
PAGE 75
BOWEN
NA7 icwa;
• Housing Needs Assessment from Bowen:
• Virtually all renter household income segments are projected to grow, requiring a variety
of product by affordability level
• Most owner household income segments projected to grow, though majority of owner
growth expected to occur among higher income households (above $100,000)
• Mismatch between housing costs and income:
• Incomes are projected to grow among households, especially those earning more than
$60,000 per year
• However, when it comes to our renter households, half of those households earn below
$30,000 per year and are paying more than they can afford in rent
Purpose of Advisory Committee:
• To develop a comprehensive workforce housing study, workforce housing opinion survey, and
make recommendations in an advisory capacity
• To support increasing equitable access and the supply of workforce housing that is affordable
Rental Market in New Hanover County:
• National Low Income Housing Coalition 2020 Out of Reach report:
• To afford a modest two-bedroom apartment at: $966 per month
• A family needs to earn: $17.67 an hour/$38,640 per year
• But the average renter can only afford a rent of $682 per month
Supporting Professions Under 60% AMI is Critical for New Hanover County:
• These professions have workers making less than 60% of the area median income:
Housing Needs Estimates (2020 to 2030)
PEA
RppFadmafe Affarda6dity Levet
Apores'msnAio•aahilit? L=:eI
Housing
Housing
Bus Drivers
Medical & Dental
Assistants
Gaps [Units)
Gaps {Units}
PercentAMl
Arnuallncomie
Type PercentAMl Arnualln-ome
Rert/P•iceRange
530%
x$23,500
<_ 30% [ $23,500
[ $575
2,787
600
$23,501-$39,000
1 OA
31%-50% $23,501-.$39,000
$576-$975
1,968
Instructors
1.231
51 60% $39,001-$47,000
$976-$1,174
1,231
peryear
1,431 _
W
61%80% $47,001-$63,000
$1,175-$1,575 -----
.........
1,796
12196+
81%-120% $63,0101-$94,000
$1,576-$2,349
1,796
< $23,500
121%1 W,001+
$2,350+
1,563
31% 50%$23.501-$3
9 000$74,001-$123,0130
530% x$23,500
<$74,000
1,228
51%-60%
$39,001-$47,000
$123,001-$148,000
1,165
_3151-5096 $23,5 1- 39000
$74,001-$123,000
S62
$148,001-$'199,000
475
L? 5150% $39,001-$47,000$123,001-$148,0W
8112096
1,165
perY ear
i 61%-80% $47,001-$63,000
$148,001-$199,000
1,471
594 001+
81 a1205b $63,001-$94,000
$199,001-$296,000
3,659
BOWENLL
1219E+ 594,001+
296,x1+
4,632
NIl L
YESEA'(;H
• In Business Terms:
• Supply problem across the board
• Cashflow and turnover
• The private market will take care of the
majority (but only
at the highest
levels):
BOWEN
NA7 icwa;
• Housing Needs Assessment from Bowen:
• Virtually all renter household income segments are projected to grow, requiring a variety
of product by affordability level
• Most owner household income segments projected to grow, though majority of owner
growth expected to occur among higher income households (above $100,000)
• Mismatch between housing costs and income:
• Incomes are projected to grow among households, especially those earning more than
$60,000 per year
• However, when it comes to our renter households, half of those households earn below
$30,000 per year and are paying more than they can afford in rent
Purpose of Advisory Committee:
• To develop a comprehensive workforce housing study, workforce housing opinion survey, and
make recommendations in an advisory capacity
• To support increasing equitable access and the supply of workforce housing that is affordable
Rental Market in New Hanover County:
• National Low Income Housing Coalition 2020 Out of Reach report:
• To afford a modest two-bedroom apartment at: $966 per month
• A family needs to earn: $17.67 an hour/$38,640 per year
• But the average renter can only afford a rent of $682 per month
Supporting Professions Under 60% AMI is Critical for New Hanover County:
• These professions have workers making less than 60% of the area median income:
Housing Needs Estimates (2020 to 2030)
PEA
RppFadmafe Affarda6dity Levet
Teachers
Housing
Police
Bus Drivers
Medical & Dental
Assistants
Gaps [Units)
Type
PercentAMl
Arnuallncomie
RertfP-iceRange
�JNur<-e<-dee
`--'-- i
530%
x$23,500
<$575
2,787
Uu
3196-50%
$23,501-$39,000
$576-$975
1,968
SS7
�+
5196{i0%S39,001-S47,000$976-$1.174
Instructors
1.231
tll
61%-80%
-07001- '63 000
1175 1575
1,431 _
W
81,Y-120%
$63,001-$94,000
$1,576-$2,349
1,796
12196+
$94,001+
$2.350+
1 563
< $23,500
< $74,000
1,228
31% 50%$23.501-$3
9 000$74,001-$123,0130
862
!i7
51%-60%
$39,001-$47,000
$123,001-$148,000
1,165
L_
61%-80%
$47,001-$63,000
$148,001-$'199,000
1,471
LL
8112096
$63,001-$94,000
$199,001-$296,000
3,659
1215E+
594 001+
296 001+
4 63Z
BOWEN
NA7 icwa;
• Housing Needs Assessment from Bowen:
• Virtually all renter household income segments are projected to grow, requiring a variety
of product by affordability level
• Most owner household income segments projected to grow, though majority of owner
growth expected to occur among higher income households (above $100,000)
• Mismatch between housing costs and income:
• Incomes are projected to grow among households, especially those earning more than
$60,000 per year
• However, when it comes to our renter households, half of those households earn below
$30,000 per year and are paying more than they can afford in rent
Purpose of Advisory Committee:
• To develop a comprehensive workforce housing study, workforce housing opinion survey, and
make recommendations in an advisory capacity
• To support increasing equitable access and the supply of workforce housing that is affordable
Rental Market in New Hanover County:
• National Low Income Housing Coalition 2020 Out of Reach report:
• To afford a modest two-bedroom apartment at: $966 per month
• A family needs to earn: $17.67 an hour/$38,640 per year
• But the average renter can only afford a rent of $682 per month
Supporting Professions Under 60% AMI is Critical for New Hanover County:
• These professions have workers making less than 60% of the area median income:
• Before we continue: Should our housing plan include those neighbors making less than $18/hour?
Yes, or no?
Discussion was held about the housing plan should be focused on everyone. Commissioner Barfield stated
that he thinks every person that lives here contributes in some shape, form, or fashion to what makes this
PEA
Teachers
Cert. Nurse Asst.
Licensed P-eical
Police
Bus Drivers
Medical & Dental
Assistants
1 II t! 1
�JNur<-e<-dee
`--'-- i
Fire Fighters
Construction
Haspitality
Retail
Preschool
and Trades
Instructors
• Before we continue: Should our housing plan include those neighbors making less than $18/hour?
Yes, or no?
Discussion was held about the housing plan should be focused on everyone. Commissioner Barfield stated
that he thinks every person that lives here contributes in some shape, form, or fashion to what makes this
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, APRIL 27, 2021 PAGE 76
community great and prosperous. Everyone should have the ability to lay their heads down in a decent, safe place
that they can also afford. He feels the challenge is going to be from economic development standpoint, how do we
have enough housing supply so that when a company such as Castle Branch comes here today, paying $40,000 a
year, where would the employees live? How do we incentivize developers, from every aspect to decrease the cost
to build a house and transfer that cost to that first time homebuyer? For him, the goal would be to focus on the
whole gamut to make sure that housing affordability is a conversation around the table. Mayor Saffo stated that he
agrees with Commissioner Barfield's comments but from his perspective it is about land use availability. He knows
what tracts are available within the City, who owns them, and the level of product costs that will be associated with
trying to buy them. Based on that knowledge he knows it will be difficult to put affordable housing in those areas.
He would like to know if what Mr. Spetrino is saying is that there needs to be more infill development, density,
eliminating single family residential zoning, etc. Sticks and bricks across the board is dependent on what the market
conditions are going to be. Vice -Chair Hays commented that she thinks it is a multi -pronged approach.
In response to questions, Mr. Spetrino stated that everything has to be done and done everywhere. Both
organizations have comprehensive plans that address how to use the land. There is mismatched zoning across the
area. For example, the reason a lot of growth has been seen on the northside of downtown Wilmington is because
the zoning is more favorable to density as opposed to the southside. The four things being discussed today are land
use programs, advocacy, education, and funding. Mr. Spetrino continued the presentation as follows:
• Next Steps:
• Guidance from the Policy Makers
• Do we have the right people on the team?
• What is working within this community?
• What can move the needle today?
• Public/private investment sooner vs. later
• Desired Outcomes: affordability, stability, generational wealth
• Strategies: land use; programs; advocacy/education; and funding
• Land Use:
• Prioritization of infrastructure investments development with density and height that
allow for affordability
• Modify definition of "family" to expand opportunity for co-operative living and to comply
with fair housing
• Create zoning standards to facilitate development of senior living facilities
• Density and height incentives and bonuses for workforce housing and mixed income
developments focused throughout the spectrum
• Encourage diversity in housing stock through missing middle housing and minimizing
barriers for infill development, including accessory dwelling units
• Programs:
• Expand public land disposition policy
• Affordable Housing Development (LIHTC) with NCHFA
• Expand homeownership programs, including HOP, down payment assistance,
rehabilitation work, modifications for aging -in-place, and credit counseling
• Expand rental programs, including loans for small-scale developers to produce and
preserve affordable units
• Programs to increase access, including financial literacy, credit counseling, and
neighborhood stabilization
• Advocacy/Education:
• Annual housing report
• Public awareness campaign
• Joint Workforce Housing Advisory Committee to provide feedback for public-private
partnership agreements which include workforce housing
• Include housing affordability in legislative efforts
• Encourage high paying jobs through partnership forjob training and industry recruitment
• Funding and Investment:
• Maximize existing funding sources
• Develop new recurring local funding source dedicated to housing affordability
• Increase philanthropic and private investment for housing affordability
• Establish housing trust fund to hold and allocate funds
• Types of funding assistance:
• Forgivable loan or grant; loan with 0% interest; loan with interest; shared equity
homeownership; dedicated property tax or sales tax; general obligation bond;
hospitality tax; real estate transfer fee; community foundation/endowment; and
payment in lieu
• Peer Cities:
• Asheville:
• $25 million housing bond 2016
• City as a taxing authority: land use incentive grant
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL MEETING, APRIL 27, 2021
BOOK 35
PAGE 77
• City as a lender: $25 million bond:
• $15 million high -impact sites; $5 million housing trust fund; $3 million land banking;
$1 million down payment assistance; and $1 million community land trust
• $500,000 annual housing trust fund
• $2 million annual CIP
• $3.2 million annual allocation of federal funds (HOME, CDBG, CoC)
Wake County: $15 million penny property tax 2018:
• $15 million annual penny property tax:
Preserve and increase housing affordability
Prevent and reduce homelessness
• Increase access, education, and integration for residents by leveraging funds
• Infrastructure projects in low-income neighborhoods
• $4.3 million annual allocation of federal funds (HOME, CDBG, HOPWA, CoC)
Greensboro: $25 million housing bond 2016:
• $25 million bond:
Repairs and improvements
Workforce Housing:
• First time ownership public workers
• Preservation of existing housing stock
• New unit production
• $4.8 million annual allocation of federal funds (HOME, CDBG, HOPWA, CoC)
• $2.2 million Nussbaum Fund
• Phase One: Administrative Items for Immediate Action:
• Outline overall purpose; design public awareness campaign; identify funding opportunities;
adjust property conveyance policy for workforce housing; WHAC consultation in public-private
partnership agreements that include workforce housing; and include housing affordability in
legislative efforts
• Phase Two: Setting up for Funding:
Establish programs and partnerships; launch public awareness campaign; pursue funding
opportunities; identify locations for investments and stabilization; explore zoning standards;
and establish metrics to measure success
• Phase Three: Plan into Action with Available Funding:
• Solicit RFPs for projects; launch programs; develop annual housing report; allocate funding;
and develop housing
• Our vision is a community that, at its core, believes those who live, work, and provide valuable
services within the community should be able to afford to live here as well
• Housing stability significantly affects health, well-being, economic opportunity, and quality of life
• The community recognizes that regardless of age, ability, income level, or familial status, every
resident should be able to find a home that is affordable for them
Chair Olson-Boseman and Mayor Saffo thanked Mr. Spetrino for the presentation and opened the floor to
discussion.
Vice -Chair Hays stated that one thing that can be done and should be looked at is preserving existing
housing stock. There are portfolios of homes that are all in the lower income, lower rental range, and are being sold
multiple times within a year. Each time that portfolio gets sold, there is a little bit of upfitting that gets done and as
a result the prices jump up then the homes rapidly move out of the affordability range. While neither the County
nor City are in the business of ownership of property, there are public private partnerships, the housing authority,
etc. There is the wherewithal in this community to try and figure out how to preserve the stock and keep it there.
She does not know if it is done through a housing bond or how to look at working with partners but feels it could
make a quick impact in the short term. She knows Cape Fear Collective has done this on a small scale, but she is
talking about a much larger scale, 300 to 500 homes.
Councilmember Rivenbark stated that he agrees with Commissioner Barfield's comments. During a past
joint meeting of the two bodies the decision was made to stop at the average median income (AMI) of 60% instead
of going lower. He was not comfortable with it then. These are real people, and this issue is much more important
than any soccer field or park. He has been hearing about this issue for 20 years and now both elected bodies need
to work together to do something about it once and for all. This is a community problem, not a city or unincorporated
county problem. No person should have to worry about where they are going to sleep at night.
Vice -Chair Hays stated she does not think there is one approach that is the end all be all. There are multi -
prong approaches that will have to be looked at such as land use and codes to provide more density and more
heights. Some of that is available now. However, there are other options that need to be looked at as well.
Councilmember Barnett stated that he would like to know if it is a lack of money or lack of land use. Mr.
Spetrino responded that he understands the land argument, but it is about being more efficient with land use and
being comfortable with density and height where appropriate. However, it is also about funding because some of
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, APRIL 27, 2021 PAGE 78
the things are going to take dollars. It is a complicated topic, but if a little bit of each approach is done and followed
through on, he feels there will be success in addressing this issue.
Commissioner Zapple stated that there is huge support for what is being talked about today. This issue has
been around a long time, everyone at the table understands it more because of the committee's work. The need
now is for both the County and City to move to solutions. He thinks one specific solution is the Housing Trust Fund,
which he has investigated how it has been done in other communities. One of the key components is where it can
be used to purchase property, and then use the cost of the land to help defray the cost of the overall housing unit
or units that go on that, combined with different zoning efforts to increase density. He thinks that is a strong option
that could be used to address housing affordability. He also feels that there is a desire to address all affordability,
not just the 60% below AMI.
Mr. Spetrino stated infrastructure is one item that could be addressed to help with the zoning efforts to
increase density. An example of this is stormwater management and poor use of land regarding where retention
ponds are placed. As a community it is managed very inefficiently. If stormwater is managed in an organized manner,
it will allow for the ability to use the land more efficiently. Then someone is not using land for something like
stormwater when it could be used for a mixed-use buildings/affordable housing and doing something more regional
for stormwater.
Councilmember Anderson commented that there will be support for what the committee brings forward
and understands it will be an uncomfortable conversation with constituents and voters. He is ready for more policy
suggestions to work through so a determination can be made as to what will work to move forward. Mr. Spetrino
reiterated there is the need to be comfortable with infrastructure, land use, and density and height particularly
where appropriate. He suggested putting into place things that encourage staff and private industry, whether its
education, programs, land use, and/or funding to address this issue.
In response to questions on land use policy and zoning property based on mixed income, County Attorney
Copley and Deputy City Attorney Everhart stated they do not believe properties can be zoned based on mixed
income. The underlying factors could be looked at to encourage mixed income development and base it on those
things. A class cannot be determined where one class gets these benefits, and another class gets another benefit.
Commissioner Barfield stated he thinks it can be done by price by having specific price points. What he is
looking for today are some real recommendations on what the County and City can come together on and work
through the list of what can be accomplished. Reports are great, but he wants solutions. Mr. Spetrino stated that
the committee can bring forward a list of items the elected bodies can work through and accomplish.
A brief discussion was held about having a housing trust fund and the amount necessary to make it viable.
Mr. Spetrino stated he feels it cannot make a meaningful difference for less than $50 million and then he would
suggest doubling down with another $50 million. He thinks that provides enough of an annuity in order to not have
this conversation 10 years from now. As far as a recommendation for annual funding of a loan program, he does not
have a specific number. He does not know how to allocate the dollars but if the Wilmington Housing Authority had,
for example, an extra $10 million allocated it could serve twice as many people as it does now.
Councilmember Spears commented that there also lending practices that need to change as well as
employment practices. In moving forward with any recommendations, it is important to have lenders, employees,
and seniors involved in the discussion.
Vice -Chair Hays stated that there is a need for both elected bodies to address land use, density, and text
amendments. Both need to look at a housing bond, and if the decision is made to move forward with it, what does
that look like? An additional loan program or something for revitalizing needs to be looked at as well because you
cannot purchase housing stock without expecting to put some investment in it. The question becomes if housing
stock is purchased, how is it brought up to current standards so that it is a viable alternative? Then there is a need
to look at how to keep the stock available and what is needed as the price point. She would also like to know if there
is some type of partnership that can be done with the City and Wilmington Housing Authority and possibly come up
with an ask from the foundation.
Chair Olson-Boseman stated that she agrees with Vice -Chair Hays' comments and that Cape Fear Collective
should be brought in as it is looking for opportunities where it can make a difference.
Discussion was held about what has and has not worked in the community to assist people to obtain
housing. Mr. Spetrino noted that 100% consensus will not be obtained on this issue and how to address it. There are
ways to solve many of the issues, but it will take funding and investment, education, advocacy, and addressing land
use. Councilmember Rivenbark expressed appreciation for the committee's work because it has gotten the elected
bodies to talk and ask questions.
Mayor Saffo stated that the committee has put together some specifics in respect to this issue in that they
have made some recommendations with respect to recurring local funding, housing trust fund, forgivable loan
grants, dedicated property taxes, sales tax, general obligation bonds, hospitality tax, etc. There are also some
specifics such as land use policy, and what needs to be done possibly to have mixed price points. He hopes the
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, APRIL 27, 2021 PAGE 79
County and City can come together on some issues to address together. He thinks the committee has laid out a good
program and now it is up to the policymakers to determine funding, where to put it, and how to do it. There is a
housing affordability crisis here and there is a need to do what is possible to improve the situation. He thinks
everyone at the table is committed to that, but it is now coming together to figure out what to implement, what is
right, etc. He is sure the County and City managers and both planning staffs have got some ideas and thoughts and
is sure all have some concerns regarding budgetary issues that need to be worked through. While broad in nature,
the report is something that can be worked with to address affordable housing.
A brief discussion was held about ways to work with the development community and that next steps will
be discussed after the next presentation.
BREAK: Chair Olson-Boseman and Mayor Saffo called for a break from 10:51 a.m. until 11:09 a.m.
DISCUSSION OF DEDICATED FUNDING STREAM FOR WAVE TRANSIT AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
ADDRESSING TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Chair Olson-Boseman stated there have been a lot of changes over the past year or so as it relates to WAVE
and public transportation. She recognized Vice -Chair Hays, who also serves as the Commissioner representative on
the WAVE Transit board, for a motion.
Vice -Chair Hays stated that she would like to present a motion to direct the WAVE Board to delay the
implementation of the public transportation system redesign, which is currently set to be effective in August of 2021,
and to set an implementation date of no earlier than July 1, 2022. Vice -Chair Hays would also like to move that the
WAVE Board and its Executive Director, Marie Parker, reexamine the route structure to ensure that the system meets
the needs of its current riders, that it plans for the needs of future riders and future improvements and cost benefits,
and that it continues to advance the value -add service of micro -transit, also called on -demand service, and that it
allows time to plan and implement any final system changes.
MOTION: Vice -Chair Hays MOVED to direct the WAVE Board to delay the implementation of the public
transportation system redesign, which is currently set to be effective in August of this year, and to set an
implementation date of no earlier than July 1, 2022. Furthermore, the WAVE Board and its Executive Director, Marie
Parker, are to reexamine the route structure to ensure that the system meets the needs of its current riders, that it
plans for the needs of future riders and also future improvements and cost benefits, and that it continues to advance
the value -add service of micro -transit or what some people have referred to as on -demand service, and that it allows
for adequate time to plan and implement any final system changes.
Chair Olson-Boseman stated that she appreciated Vice -Chair Hays making the motion. She knows all agree
that public transportation is so important, and they all want to ensure the residents can receive easy and equitable
service through WAVE Transit. She appreciates the work of the Wave Board and what they have done to research,
understand the County's public transit ridership, and present a recommendation with the consultant Transpro that
will serve the community with more efficiency and convenience. She believes this work will be a good foundation
that WAVE's Executive Director Marie Parker can build on, develop the mechanics of an on -demand option, and
create the best transit system possible without cutting any current routes. The WAVE Board, at its meeting last week,
already indicated its interest to extend the time of implementation for this new transit model, to ensure it is done
right and well, so she believes the motion is in keeping and furthers their work. There is also the need to ensure this
can be accomplished with the right funding in place. The County is already planning to increase funding to WAVE in
its Fiscal Year 2022 budget by three percent and has committed to help with recent funding asks for a mobile app
and generator project. She knows the funding commitments by the County and the City are not enough to fund the
type of system all need and wants. While WAVE develops the best system for this community, the County and City
must work together to determine a dedicated funding source to ensure the new system is achievable and viable well
into the future. She agrees with the motion made by Vice -Chair Hays, and she looks forward to seeing Ms. Parker
and her team build on the foundational plan that has already been created to ensure moving forward without any
reductions to routes or services. They have her full support, and she looks forward to a better, more reliable transit
system that has shorter wait times, includes an on -demand service, and provides transportation opportunities to
the entire County, serving all residents who need it.
MOTION: Vice -Chair Hays MOVED, SECONDED by Chair Olson-Boseman to direct the WAVE Board to delay the
implementation of the public transportation system redesign, which is currently set to be effective in August of this
year, and to set an implementation date of no earlier than July 1, 2022. Furthermore, the WAVE Board and its
Executive Director, Marie Parker, are to reexamine the route structure to ensure that the system meets the needs
of its current riders, that it plans for the needs of future riders and also future improvements and cost benefits, and
that it continues to advance the value -add service of micro -transit or what some people have referred to as on -
demand service, and that it allows for adequate time to plan and implement any final system changes.
Commissioner Zapple stated that he thinks the community knows, recognizes, and fully supports a strong
public transportation system now. For the future as the community continues to grow, this is recognized as one of
the linchpins of success for growth in in our community. He applauds the motion and is ready to support it.
Commissioner Barfield stated that he shared with Transpro when the study was done was that instead of
telling us what we needed to know, they told us what we wanted to hear. In the future if we spend money on any
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, APRIL 27, 2021 PAGE 80
type of report, he does not want anyone coming back telling him what he wants to hear. He wants to be told what
he needs to know. He needs to have enough information to make a good, informed decision. He is glad this
conversation is being revisited and moving forward to make sure everyone has access to public transportation. Any
progressive community has an enhanced public transportation system. He reiterated he was glad the conversation
is being revisited and that he would support the motion.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman called for a vote on the motion on the floor. Upon vote,
the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Saffo expressed appreciation for the action taken by the County Commissioners and the willingness
and the support for WAVE Transit as it is a critical issue for the citizens of this community. He would like to see what
can be done to sustain the transportation system for the long term. When it was set up in 2002, it fell on both the
County and City as there was not a mechanism in place for funding long term which has hurt the system overall. He
reiterated his appreciation for the willingness of everybody who worked together to make this happen. He asked
City Manager Cheatham if the City Council could move ahead to put a vote on the motion today or take it up for next
Tuesday night. City Manager Cheatham stated he would suggest it be placed on the May 4, 2021 agenda for
consideration to allow more time for the Councilmembers to understand what is being recommended.
Mayor Saffo invited WAVE Transit Executive Director Marie Parker to make remarks.
Ms. Parker expressed her gratitude for the County bringing the motion forward and for supporting WAVE
Transit. Moving forward a lot of decisions will be made. Evaluations will be done on all options some of which will
require some dedicated funding, and probably some additional funding going forward to increase frequencies to
make it a more attractive and usable system for all residents. Staff is invested in looking at all the data, evaluating
everything, making sure everyone in the community who needs transportation is being served, and looking at all the
resources to make sure those are being utilized.
In response to questions, Ms. Parker explained that micro -transit is a new type of transit and is being utilized
a lot across the United States right now. Most of the time it is a stop gap to fill in areas where there is no productive
transportation center. It covers a broader area, can serve more people, is more efficient, and it is cheaper to run
than a fixed route service. It is also more appealing for the rider because it is more responsive. It has not been
decided yet if the ride will be responsible for the cost of the ride that is not subsidized by WAVE. The RFP process is
being worked through and vendors are submitting proposals. WAVE does not want to adversely affect anyone that
was utilizing its fixed route service by having them paying a much higher rate because of changing the system. That
will be taken into consideration. She has also been in conversations with Carolina Beach about its interest in funding
at least a portion of the route going down to Pleasure Island. She confirmed that the goal would be to have someone
pay one fare, regardless of whether it is via on -demand serve or the bus.
Chair Olson-Boseman asked County Manager Coudriet to provide an overview of the staff
recommendations for funding options. County Manager Coudriet stated the takeaway is of the three sources that
the Commissioners and City Council identified on February 17th, only one of them is a readymade viable solution for
dedicated funding. That is the quarter cent sales tax, Article 43, and he suggested that the County's Chief Financial
Officer, Lisa Wurtzbacher, provide an overview for the public's benefit.
Chief Financial Officer Lisa Wurtzbacher stated the three revenue sources discussed during the last joint
meeting were explored by staff: the prepared food and beverage tax, the room occupancy tax, and Article 43. The
food and beverage tax and room occupancy tax would require some sort of bill or session law. Staff does not see
that there is a political appetite at the NC General Assembly to entertain those sorts of things right now, considering
that local governments are receiving ARP funds and CARES funding. However, sales tax under Article 43 is available
to utilized and is a tax that must be dedicated specifically to public transportation. The County would have authority
for a quarter cent sales tax. A quarter cent based on its 2019 numbers that would generate over $12 million a year.
In thinking about the needs for WAVE that seems large, but there are a lot of things that can be funded with the
public transportation tax other than just a bus system. Staff explored some of those purposes and needs the County
and City may have. In addition to just helping to fund WAVE Transit and the bus service, staff also explored the need
for additional bike paths. The statute specifically allows for interconnected bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that
supports public transportation. The County has a 15 -year plan with various priorities of trails and multi -use paths as
well as paths that are needed past the 15 -year priority. The other item explored was railroads and railroad right of
ways. It is known that there is the rail realignment and the need to move the freight over to Highway 421 and then
have the current line converted to passenger trolley. Article 43 would allow the sales tax to be used to fund the
passenger trolley piece. While she knows that is potentially 20 years away, money could be set aside every year for
that purpose as well. Those were some of the big uses explored in relation to not necessarily what WAVE transit is
providing right now. Also, a need that has been identified by the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization
(WMPO) is bus rapid transit service. That would really look at adding bus lanes and adding, she thinks, signal priority
that would help the reliability of the bus service in the area. Again, these are some of the options that being explored
in terms of uses, because $12 million is annually, a large amount, but there are many needs that the funds could be
utilized for.
In response to questions, Ms. Wurtzbacher confirmed that the sales tax can only be used for transportation.
It would be split between the County and City based on population and cannot be used to supplement the funding
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, APRIL 27, 2021 PAGE 81
already provided. It must be used for additional initiatives. The beach towns would not be eligible to receive the
funding unless they wanted to operate a public transportation system. From an auditing perspective, she cannot say
the state has a specific formula on how a local government supplements projects.
Commissioner Barfield stated that he is glad the bus rapid transit option is being discussed. He can see that
happening up and down College Road and Market Street. It will take some additional widening of the roads to make
it work here, but it would provide efficiencies. He would like for the focus initially to be on WAVE Transit and funding
that initiative then the other options.
In response to questions, Ms. Wurtzbacher explained that the funds could be used to expand into Carolina
Beach, but could not be directly appropriated to Carolina Beach and the same is true for Kure Beach. If the sales tax
referendum is passed by the voters, she would imagine the County and City would work together to determine the
priorities of how to spend those funds and that would be incorporated in the budget process every year. Certainly,
if the priority is WAVE Transit, then that is what the money would be utilized on.
Discussion was held about having the sales tax referendum on an upcoming ballot in 2022, the challenges
of doing so, and if passed, where the focus of the funding needs to occur first. It was noted that transportation is an
issue in New Hanover County that needs to be addressed and involves public transportation, as well as putting in
bike lanes, and extending and improving roadways throughout the community. It was also felt the beach towns need
to be part of the discussion in respect to some of the transportation initiatives. In response to questions, Ms.
Wurtzbacher confirmed that the statute is written to only be for transportation. There would have to be legislative
action to make it more generic.
WRAP UP AND NEXT STEPS
A brief discussion was held about a future joint meeting. The general consensus was to hold the next joint
meeting on June 10, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. at the Wilmington Convention Center and if it was not available, the County
Human Resources training rooms. Chair Olson-Boseman and Mayor Saffo requested Vice -Chair Hays, Commissioner
Zapple, and Councilmembers Barnett, O'Grady, and Rivenbark meet with staff to prioritize the housing committee's
recommendations and to learn more about what is and is not allowed under Article 43 and prioritize for viable uses
of those revenues and share the information during the June 101h joint meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman and Mayor Saffo adjourned the meeting at 12:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kymberleigh G. Crowell
Clerk to the Board
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the Special Meeting of the New Hanover County
Board of Commissioners. The entire proceedings are available online at www.nhcgov.com.