Loading...
2021-06-08 Special Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SPECIAL MEETING, JUNE 8, 2021 PAGE 126 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met for a Joint Special Meeting with the Wilmington City Council on Tuesday, June 8, 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; Councilmembers Clifford Barnett, Sr.; Kevin O’Grady; Charlie Rivenbark; and Kevin Spears (remote). City of Wilmington Council absent: Councilmember Neal Anderson. City of Wilmington staff present: Interim City Manager Tony Caudle; City Attorney John Joy; 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 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Vice-Chair Hays provided an overview of the work done by the subcommittee of the elected bodies, comprised of Commissioner Zapple, Councilmembers Barnett, Rivenbark, O’Grady and herself, and their conclusions and recommendations for public transportation funding and affordable housing work plans. Commissioner Zapple noted that the recommendations are ones brought forward by the subcommittee for active discussion by both elected bodies. City Attorney John Joye stated that a majority of the Wave Transit Board is present, but those members are acting in their respective capacities with the County, City, or Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) and it has not been noticed as a meeting of said Board. Vice-Chair Hays provided an overview of the public transportation funding recommendations:  ¼ Cent Sales Tax Proposed Funding Allocation: Commissioner Zapple noted that the allocation percentages are recommendations and are up for discussion. County Manager Coudriet further noted that the “Uses Summary” are the recommendations, but the County and City allocations are statutorily defined. Based on the modeling the $144,444,879 would have to be allocated as shown in the top lines but at the use and discretion of both governing boards so long as it is consistent with the call of the question which is clearly defined as public transportation.  Background on Article 43 - ¼ Cent Sales Tax:  Allowable Uses:  Financing, constructing, operating, and maintaining public transportation systems:  Structures, improvements, buildings, or equipment; vehicle parking or passenger transfer facilities; railroads and railroad rights-of-way; rights-of-way; bus services; shared-ride services; high-occupancy vehicle facilities; carpool and vanpool programs; telecommunications, information systems and integrated fare systems; interconnected bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that supports public transportation; and bus lanes and busways  Uses Not Allowed:  Cannot be used to supplant or replace existing funds or other resources for public transportation systems  Does not include streets, roads, or highways—except to the extent they are dedicated to the public transportation vehicles or to the extent they are necessary for access to vehicle parking or passenger facilities NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SPECIAL MEETING, JUNE 8, 2021 PAGE 127  Referendum:  Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Projects Framework (Preliminary):  City of Wilmington Methodology:  Identified projects included in existing plans (Walk Wilmington, Greenway Plan, Moving Forward 2045 MTP)  Updated cost estimates  Evaluated projects based on three criteria:  Proximity to Wave’s highest ridership routes and Seahawk Shuttle routes  Connectivity to transit routes  Proximity to a major arterial corridor (i.e., College Rd., Market St., etc.)  Performed visual analysis to ensure geographic distribution  New Hanover County Methodology:  Identified projects included in existing plans and areas of high demand for bike/ped infrastructure (Master Aging Plan, Wave, public surveys)  Evaluated projects based on four criteria:  Connectivity between neighborhoods and public transit routes or potential micro transit sites or park and ride options  Focus on main arterials in unincorporated County  Contiguity to existing trails  Timeline for nearby infrastructure (NCDOT roadway projects, etc.)  Obtained cost estimates  Performed visual analysis to ensure geographic distribution Vice-Chair Hays requested Mike Kozlosky, WMPO Executive Director and Tara Duckworth, County Parks and Gardens Director to provide an overview of the maps regarding existing and planned City bike/pedestrian routes, existing Wave routes, and potential City of Wilmington and New Hanover County transit supporting facilities. Mr. Kozlosky stated there is a universe of bicycle and pedestrian projects in the City of Wilmington, as well as within the overall WMPO boundary. For this process, staff was tasked with developing a potential list of projects in the City of Wilmington by utilizing the universe of bicycle and pedestrian projects as a starting point to identify the projects. The projects come from the WMPO’s long range plan, Block Wilmington (the comprehensive pedestrian plan for the City) as well as the New Hanover County - City of Wilmington Greenway Plan. The methodology used was what was identified for the City, which looked at the highest ridership routes in the City through Wave Transit as well as looking at the major corridors and the connections to those major corridors. Staff is currently working through a potential restructuring of the routes and the corridors looked at were ones where the likelihood of changing was very low. There is also a high number of passengers that utilize the routes on those corridors. Geographic distribution was also looked at as part of the process. The outcome of the work are the following maps:  Existing and Planned City Bike/Ped: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SPECIAL MEETING, JUNE 8, 2021 PAGE 128  Existing Wave Routes: In response to questions regarding what routes are extended on the above-referenced maps, Mr. Kozlosky explained that the existing Wave routes (in blue on the map) are what are utilized today as well as the UNCW Seahawk shuttles. Mr. Kozlosky stated the following map does identify a project from Gordon Road up Highway 117 (College Road) to Laney High School. The green line on the map would represent a multiuse path, which is a project identified by County staff. Ms. Duckworth confirmed the project would be from Gordon Road up to the last entrance of Northchase, which will ultimately be land for future development of an additional library. In response to questions regarding the overall concept to be a continuous system of bike and multi-use paths, Mr. Kozlosky stated the intent is to provide connections to the transit routes. One of the stipulations of Article 43 is that they provide connections to public transit as a use. The intent was to try to connect to those transit facilities or connect to facilities that connect to those transit facilities. In response to questions regarding the Market Street corridor project and there being a multi-use path once complete, Mr. Kozlosky stated that what the WMPO is working with the County on now is for a multi-use path from Middle Sound Loop Road up to the Walmart that would then connect across. There are also improvements with the Military Cutoff extension project for sidewalks and multi-use trails. The intent is to connect with the transit facilities. Ms. Duckworth added that the Military Cutoff extension project was considered when the County staff laid out the priorities as well as NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) funding, federal grants, what was already being worked on with the WMPO, etc. The intent is to keep continuity of the Cross City Trail since the interior loop already exists, and then to also consider any gaps and getting people to transit. Mr. Kozlosky noted in reviewing the following slide, by using the methodology the WMPO identified for the City it was able to identify several sidewalks, bike lanes, sharrows, multiuse paths, and crosswalks. The map below depicts the potential projects in the City and are broken into segments. For example, the proposal would fund a portion of the downtown greenway, which was the number one project identified in the Greenway Plan. It would also fund the rail trail project, as well as a portion of the downtown greenway from Archie Blue Park over to Market Street. There are also several crosswalk and intersection improvements along Princess Place Drive, intersection improvements on Market Street, and a short connection on Wooddale Drive as well as a sidewalk. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SPECIAL MEETING, JUNE 8, 2021 PAGE 129 th The following map displays further south the potential improvements off Pine Valley Drive, 17 Street, and there are some sharrows in the Glen Meade area. In response to questions about sharrows, Mr. Kozlosky explained that a sharrow on the maps marks the pavement that identifies or demonstrates that people should share the road. For example, there are several downtown on Ann Street where there is pavement marking to encourage bicycling. Mr. Kozlosky stated that on the next slide he would speak to the City projects and Ms. Duckworth would speak to the County projects. He noted for the City, there are proposed bicycle lanes on College Road that would connect with the proposed multiuse path on Carolina Beach Road in the County. The multiuse paths along College Road as well as some improvements on Masonboro Loop Road would then connect to a project that the City has via the bond program for a multiuse path on Masonboro Loop Road. Ms. Duckworth noted that the darker gray areas seen on the map are the City limits. Where the green lines pick up would be where the County would extend where the City already has the Cross City Trail and taking it further south to Monkey Junction. That is being done on Carolina Beach Road and College Road. It will take a person down to where the blue is at the very bottom of the map and then loop them back up by Home Depot on Piner Road. It will get the path back to the City’s project on Masonboro Loop Road. When complete it will allow people to go all the way south. It adds a lot of connection in those areas. In the following slide, Ms. Duckworth explained that with the Market Street construction currently underway, the County partnered to add multiuse trails on the right side of Market Street going up to Porters Neck Road and sidewalks on the left side of Market Street going up to Porters Neck from Middle Sound Loop Road. The County is proposing to go all the way around to the Middle Sound Loop Road. It is a very densely populated area in New Hanover County, much more urban than it used to be and there are a lot of folks who are already participating NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SPECIAL MEETING, JUNE 8, 2021 PAGE 130 in running, walking, biking, etc. on Middle Sound Loop Road. The top green area on the map is Porters Neck Road. One of the things that has been established is there is not a lot of vacant land up in the Porters Neck area. This plan gives not only transportation opportunities but also a recreation opportunity. People can move from Porters Neck to the shopping center, get on Market Street, and go all the way down and connect to the beach towns with the Cross City Trail. A lot of the City projects are more secondary roads, but the County has been taking small pieces, so this is a huge opportunity to really be able to move people and make it a viable source of transportation to get on a bike, and either get to a Wave Transit stop or just get to a person’s destination. Mr. Kozlosky reviewed the final map, which shows three crosswalk improvements at Station Road, Fresco Way, and at the intersection of Military Cutoff and Wrightsville Avenue. From a staff perspective this would be a starting point for further refinement and development of a program if there is a decision to move forward. A brief discussion was held about extending the trail from Saunders Road down to Carolina Beach via River Road where people could then access the bridge to Carolina Beach. Ms. Duckworth stated that efforts were made to identify some of the main arteries. The beauty of this is that the County is looking at federal grants to match the projects, which will allow the County to accelerate them and add more. The challenges with River Road are the bridges, but the County will continue to look at that with the WMPO. Mr. Kozlosky stated it is also in the WMPO’s long range plan. As to connecting the Hanover Pines Nature Park to a multi-use path, Ms. Duckworth explained that at this th time the County is picking up at 17 Street and only going to Monkey Junction. However, the intention would be to continue down to the Snow’s Cut bridge as funding becomes available. Rebekah Roth, Planning and Land Use Director, explained that some of the projects not included in the ten-year list were a multiuse trail down Carolina Beach Road all the way to Halyburton Park and a multiuse trail on Saunders Road. Those projects have been submitted to NCDOT for funding through their current STIP prioritization process. Staff did not want to add projects that currently have another funding source allocated, but as more information is received on whether those projects receive funding, the County’s and City’s lists can be refined. A brief discussion was held about sidewalks being required in the unincorporated County. Ms. Roth stated for clarification purposes that the County’s development regulations do require sidewalks in most of its zoning districts. However, where a lack of sidewalks is seen is in some of the older subdivisions and the County does not necessarily have a funding source to retrofit them with sidewalks. Again, sidewalks are required in most of the County’s new subdivisions. As to the requirements for the commercial districts and NCDOT rights-of-way, they are not required because there would be a need to coordinate with NCDOT on the feasibility to put those in. There have been easement requirements in the past for that, and staff is currently looking at some of the regulations regarding commercial access. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SPECIAL MEETING, JUNE 8, 2021 PAGE 131 A brief discussion was held about the beach communities’ projects. Ms. Roth explained that one of the items that came out of the subcommittee discussions was that because the beach communities are County residents they would also be voting on any sort of referendum if that were pursued. As such, beach community projects could potentially be funded as part of the County's allocation for bicycle and pedestrian projects if they supported public transportation, and there are public transportation routes that are currently going up to the Eastwood Road and Wrightsville Avenue intersection, close to Wrightsville Beach, and then all the way down into Carolina Beach. Projects in the beach communities that would help connect to those routes could potentially qualify for this funding source. Kure Beach is currently working on a bicycle and pedestrian plan. Based on the results of that plan, Kure Beach could potentially be served as well. Discussion was held on the importance to have these plans in place to garner voter support with the understanding that there are parts that voters will not support. Concerns were expressed about whether the multiuse paths would be enhancing the bus routes and how it is important to make sure there is a plan to put more people on buses, frequent routes, etc. Vice-Chair Hays noted that 45% of the County and City funding is going to bus services. At the last Wave Transit meeting, the timeframe to evaluate and redesign the route system was extended. In response to questions, Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority-Wave Transit Executive Director Marie Parker stated that her team is currently implementing different forms of software and hardware to gather information to know where to designate resources to add frequencies and route expansions. It is difficult to answer the question on whether the allocation of resources is enough to be able to support the vision she has. If the idea is to include the bus rapid transit (BRT) it is not enough as it is very expensive to implement in the short term, but work on it can start towards the end of the ten-year plan. As to what could be done to enhance the convenience model, she explained that service needs to be fast and frequent to be successful in the realm of transit. Wave Transit currently has poor frequencies. The service is running on one-hour headways and on some of the highest producing routes the headways are 30 minutes. Service is not frequent enough to be usable and practical for the person who has an interest in transit but does not utilize it for that reason. It comes down to money and being able to balance the coverage that is trying to be allowed and reaching as many people as possible. The desire is to make sure that service is reaching everyone, but the frequencies cannot be increased on the routes that need it. Frequency is a huge burden here and is the biggest part that is lacking. The standard on a high productivity route is 15 minutes, as well as running more hours per day. The transit system in Raleigh has medical routes and retail routes, which are high frequency routes. The sales tax referendum in Raleigh allowed the transit system to put more buses on the road and it was well received by the public. The ridership kept pace with the number of buses put on the road when moving from 30-minute frequencies to 15-minute frequencies. Again, the proposed allocation is an improvement, but not enough to build a BRT system here. In response to questions, Ms. Parker stated that several programs not currently utilized, such as park and ride, are being investigated to add to Wave Transit. Raleigh utilizes a go-pass program where several universities, businesses, and governments have a contractual agreement with the transit authority for a determined price per ride, and their employees would be able to ride free and that cost would be passed onto the employer for a discount. Commuter service is having straight line express routes to certain parts of the city. Wave Transit’s bus inventory is decent and there is a surplus inventory. The additional service could be put out today, but it is the money and being able to operate the service that is the inhibiting factor at this point. Further discussion was held about the park and ride service. Ms. Parker confirmed that there would have to be designated areas in Brunswick and Pender counties for the service. In Raleigh, the transit system had an agreed upon interlocal agreement with all the transit agencies. Routes were planned in tandem with other transit agencies to make sure that all routes were interconnected, productive, and meeting each other at certain points. She thinks that is where Wave Transit is at now in implementing the micro transit in partnership with Brunswick County to reestablish connectivity and to gather information for future planning purposes. In response to questions on creating more choice and how many more buses, funding, and drivers would be needed to reach the 15-minute headway, Ms. Parker explained that the current cost per service hour is about $100. The budget is a little over $9 million going into the new year. In looking at the system as it stands now, which starts later than a desirable system starts, and ends a lot earlier, one could just double that to make it an $18 or $19 million system. The result would be that all the 30-minute routes would effectively go to 15 minutes routes and the hour routes would go to 30 minutes. The buses are a difficult part of the question because there are a lot of ways to cut schedules and there is a peak service option that is not being utilized here whereby service is only put on the streets when it is needed most, which is in the morning and the evening for the work commuters. However, the number of buses and riders would have to be doubled to provide the service. Discussion was held about the proposed $65 million allocation for public transportation. As whether it is enough to tell the public, when being asked to approve a quarter-cent sales tax, that in return they will have a 15- minute headway, Ms. Parker stated it was not. She has not done the analysis effectively to know how much it would take to get a 15-minute headway on the existing routes. She can get the answer and report back, but again it is all dependent on where the need is. You do not want to put 15-minute headways on a non-productive route. An evaluation would need to be done of which routes need the 15-minute headways and at what hours. Also, there will be a need to expand service hours per day because service is ending at a very early hour and on weekends as well. One of the first things done in Raleigh after the sales tax referendum was passed was to increase Sunday service. It was one of the largest increases in ridership and had one of the quickest turnarounds for a very low investment. The increase in service hours is just as important as well. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SPECIAL MEETING, JUNE 8, 2021 PAGE 132 Ms. Parker further stated that the changes can be done in increments. The 15-minute service could be done on some the highest productive routes and time of day coverage expanded, but it would have to be done incrementally instead of systemwide. Again, it can be done to show some higher productivity in the higher ridership routes, but it will not be doable across the board. She and her team will work on providing some options based on $65 million proposed funding. In response to questions about the breakdown of the $2 fare and the breakdown of the federal, state, and local numbers for the total transit component, Ms. Parker stated she does not have the information with her, but on a very broad level the current local contribution is less than 20%, federal is the larger portion at approximately 50%, and the state is typically 10%. The state amount is dependent on the state budget. There is also revenue from the riders as well as contractual revenue being received from UNCW and Carolina Beach. A brief discussion was held on rail realignment, the proposed funding of $23 million, and how it is critical that it be funded as it is critical transportation for the County and City. Discussion was held about moving the quarter-cent sales tax referendum forward to be on the March 8, 2022 ballot, which has a submission deadline of December 2021. Mayor Saffo stated while he appreciates the work done on this, there is work still to be done. The County’s work to tie its bike and pedestrian plans into the City’s is strategically, spot on. His concern with Article 43 has always been its very narrow scope. He would like to hear thoughts on reaching out to the local delegation at the state level to see if there is anything that can be done to add to Article 43 the ability to use portions of the sales tax revenue for other projects. A mechanism is needed to be able to use some of the money for other things besides public transit and rail. He thinks there will be people in the community who will not support it if they feel that they are not getting anything out of it. The three beach communities have shared some concerns with him that they do not particularly use the bus service that much and a lot of them already have bike and pedestrian projects on their beaches. Also, there are some people in the outlying/rural areas in the County, who do not see public transportation as a thing for them but may feel that transportation initiatives in general are important to the entire County. Therefore, he would like to discuss with the local delegation about expanding the allowable uses in Article 43. Commissioner Barfield stated that his concern is that if things are watered down, eventually the goals do not get accomplished. He thinks there needs to be a focus to accomplish one goal, and then move on to the next. He understands trying to sell this to the public, but there is a limited amount of money coming in from sales tax. If the goal is to increase public transportation or affordable housing, he does not know how they would take that little bit of money and stretch it over all the other things and ever accomplish the goal. Mayor Saffo stated that he feels this will be a sales tax that goes on in perpetuity just like the prior voter quarter-cent sales tax. He thinks that at some point in public transportation a lot of the money will be used to improve it and while he supports public transportation, his goal is to get it through. Not saying it will fail, but if it is just transit or railway oriented, it will be more challenging to get it passed. If the money can be used in perpetuity forever, and a lot of it will be used to help fund Wave and to make certain it has the revenue stream necessary, other things may have to be offered to people that would support a transportation initiative based on per capita, which is a difference. Everyone is not getting the same amount of money, but he thinks the three beach communities also have significant issues such as having to deal with 20,000 to 30,000 people on the weekends. As they have some significant issues, they are looking for other things they may be able to use it for such as transportation initiatives and projects in their communities. Councilmember O’Grady stated that is why he thinks the beach bicycle paths need to be in the plan. Although they were not part of the subcommittee discussions, everyone is trying to reach out and realizes support of the region must be gained. As to rail realignment, if that issue is not fixed it is going to affect everyone because the City center is going to get clogged up. There are things in the recommendations that certainly benefit the beach towns, but they will have to be persuaded that is in fact the case to get their support. Vice-Chair Hays stated that what she is hearing is that there is a desire to have a clear vision from Wave Transit as to what the additional funding would assist with going forward, in the next ten years. The consensus of the elected bodies was that was correct. County Manager Coudriet asked about what the timeline would be that the Wave Transit Board should be working with Ms. Parker to develop the vision to put it back in the hands of the City Council, but ultimately the County Commissioners because they are the ones who would ask to run the question. Vice-Chair Hays responded st that she thinks it must be thought out based upon which ballot it will be put on. As to whether August 1 would be possible to have the information put together, Ms. Parker stated that it is possible. County Manager Coudriet stated that would put the County Commissioners in a position to decide if it would be a question on the primary or general election ballot. The decision for the question being on the primary ballot would need to be made December 2021. Commissioner Zapple stated that what needs to be clear is the new headway time and what can be accomplished with the $65 million. As to how to develop a choice rider, his understanding is the headway time is key to all of it as well as focusing on the existing routes. The more specific the better because that will be the information used to develop a strategy of how to approach the voters with it. Ms. Parker asked for clarification purposes whether the request is to present the best plan with the $65 million budget or to present the best plan. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SPECIAL MEETING, JUNE 8, 2021 PAGE 133 Commissioner Zapple responded that it would probably be best to work with the $65 million plan first and then develop a plan b. Commissioner Barfield stated he would like to know both to make an informed decision. As to if that is doable in that timeframe, Ms. Parker responded it would be doable with a high-level overview. Commissioner Zapple requested a single large map of the County that clearly shows the voters the proposed bike and pedestrian paths. It would also be nice to have one large map showing all the improvements that will be seen if the quarter-cent sales tax is passed. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORK PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Vice-Chair Hays stated as shown in the information provided, the subcommittee’s recommendation is to do a housing bond. The New Hanover County-City of Wilmington Workforce Housing Advisory Committee provided the subcommittee the following slide and it was felt this was the best way to present the information as it covers everything:  Affordable Housing Work Plan Recommendations  Proposed Housing Bond Funding Allocations: Vice-Chair Hays asked County Senior Long Range Planner Rachel LaCoe to explain each activity on the slide. Ms. LaCoe reviewed the activities as follows:  Description of Programs in Bond Allocation:  Affordable Housing Development Support:  Gap Financing/Infrastructure/LIHTC/Permanent Supportive Housing:  Provide targeted gap financing or infrastructure investments to directly support the development of affordable units (such as tax credit projects or permanent supportive housing).  Funds are typically layered with other financing and equity investments to bring down the debt service resulting in a feasible development budget.  Required funding for this activity would range from $10,000 - $15,000 per unit  Preservation of Natural Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH):  Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units; potential neighborhood stabilization programs:  Housing units would be acquired, rehabbed, and then rented at an affordable rent (management of private partner) or sold with deed restrictions to ensure owner- occupancy  Required funding would be approximately $100,000-200,000 per unit including rehabilitation cost (based on partner investment of 50% acquisition cost)  Down Payment Assistance (DPA) Program:  Funds down payment assistance for first-time homeowners along with financial and homeownership education for program participants  Funding could be designed as a 0% interest loan payable upon transfer of the property, so recurring funds could be possible  Based on the current City program, required funding would be approximately $25,000 per unit  DPA can be used to leverage private sector bank mortgage programs, including banks participating in the NCHFA Community Partnership Lenders Pool (CPLP)  Home Ownership Pool (HOP) Program:  Provides 0% mortgage financing for up to 50% of the mortgage in partnership with three local banks who provide the remaining mortgage at current rates  Includes a $25,000 forgivable down payment assistance  On average $68,000 of the HOP mortgage is repaid to the City over the term of the loan  Revisions to the existing loan guidelines can require the repayment of the $25,000 down payment assistance upon transfer of the property, thereby revolving all funds invested  Owner-Occupied Major Rehabilitation Program:  Assists with the preservation of existing affordable units and allow homeowners an opportunity to remain in place by providing funds for home rehabilitation grants or loans NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SPECIAL MEETING, JUNE 8, 2021 PAGE 134  Based on the current City program, required funding for this activity would be approximately $50,000 -$ 100,000 per unit  Owner-Occupied Minor Repairs/Modifications Program:  Assists with minor repairs, such as a new roof, air conditioner repair, paint, or aging in place modifications  Based on the current City program, required funding would be approximately $10,000 per unit  Funds for repairs can also be made available to non-profits providing these services, such as WARM Commissioner Barfield stated that during the discussions about housing affordability, putting money towards rehab, etc., one matter that has not been discussed in a while is Jervay. He recently rode through there and realized that whoever owns the property has only repaired a small amount of it. Most of the property still has a fence around it, it is not occupied, and looks deplorable. He also thinks it is having a negative impact on the homes around perimeter of it. He has not really heard conversation around what is happening with the property and it has been three years ago when Hurricane Florence hit. The buildings do not reflect Wilmington and he hopes work can be done to address the ownership. The owners were contacted after the hurricane, but he guesses there has been no ongoing conversation about the rehab that is supposed to be taking place. There have been a lot of families displaced from that community. Mayor Saffo stated that the City has had several discussions with the property owner, which is a tax credit group out of Washington, DC. The company has been trying to put it back together and has had issues with insurance or whatever they have shared with the City, but he personally has never met with people. He knows that residents and citizens have contacted the City about it and are vehemently upset, but it is a property that was sold by the Wilmington Housing Authority (WHA) many years ago. He requested that Katrina Redmon, WHA Chief Executive Officer, address the group on this matter. Ms. Redmon explained that the WHA does not own the property. It is owned by a company out of Washington DC. The company did get a series of large settlements with the insurance companies after Hurricane Florence, but they are in the process of filing for tax credits which they were not awarded last year. They have been working with a separate developer and did file a preliminary application in January and by now have submitted the full application. They are waiting until the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency (NCHFA) issues its awards in August or September. At that time, they will know whether they are going to move forward. WHA is working with them to put them on another HUD platform, which will give them just a little bit more money because of the opportunities in which it sits. Commissioner Barfield stated that he knows Ms. Redmon was not here when the decision was made to sell the property, but he would like to know what made WHA sell it to an out of state company. Ms. Redmon responded that is what the old Hope VI Program did as they were required to have private market partners to redevelop. At that time housing authorities were not doing a lot of redevelopment, unlike what was done at Robert Taylor. The Robert Taylor site at the north end of town was under a different Hope VI Program. A lot was learned from the first Hope VI Program, which directed that it be fully farmed out to a private partner. WHA stayed in partnership with Robert Taylor, so it was a difference in how HUD structured the program. In response to questions, Ms. Redmon reconfirmed that WHA is completely out of the Jervay project other than doing some flowthrough subsidy. The land is supposed to be returned to WHA decades from now. Until that time, WHA has no ability to make decisions on the property, it is not a partner in any sense of the word other than a supplier of some flowthrough subsidy, and there is a return agreement of the land, several decades from now. The company filed and was not awarded tax credits for last year. They have been making repairs, but it has been slow as the insurance settlements finally started coming in last year. They have been refilling the units, but it is a small number at a time. Again, they have filed for a separate application for rehab credits with NCHFA. Commissioner Barfield expressed appreciation for the update. He reiterated it is a negative impact on those that own homes around it. Ms. Redmon noted that WHA owns property around it as well and is feeling the impact. Commissioner Barfield stated he also thinks it is a safety concern for the kids that are playing over there. He is not sure if anyone else has driven through that lately, but it is deplorable. In response to questions, Ms. Redmon stated that WHA is in touch with Telesis, the property owner, and she knows they have been calling several in the room regarding updates on the applications. Her staff does try to call for updates, but for right now all are waiting on the NCHFA. Vice-Chair Hays continued the discussion stating that affordable housing development and NOAH Preservation are more along the lines of public-private partnerships, working with not only developers and builders, but also agencies within the community. Discussions have been held with Cape Fear Collective and that staff is present to discuss the activities. Councilmember Rivenbark stated he thinks they are critical to this conversation and appreciates their involvement. Commissioner Zapple stated he has not heard any significant pushback on any of the programs. However, it all boils down to a $50 million housing trust fund and where does it come from. The subcommittee identified that the funds would come from a general obligation bond (GOB). For him, none of the activities are going to happen NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SPECIAL MEETING, JUNE 8, 2021 PAGE 135 without the trust fund as there are not the individual dollars between the County and City to be able to fund all the initiatives. The initiatives in the programs will help in creating 1,635 units. The question is how to sell a $50 million bond on top of a quarter-cent sales tax increase on top of an increase in property taxes and what is the strategy behind it. It is asking a lot of the County citizens. Councilmember Barnett stated that he thinks to sell it, people need to know the need. The needs must be laid out and the elected bodies have been talking about affordable housing since he has been on the City Council. The bottom line is that people need wholesome and clean places to live. Part of that is getting transportation and doing all the other things that would be done through the bond. While he has never done a big bond like this before, he thinks it can be sold because everybody in this room knows the needs are great. Councilmember Rivenbark stated he thinks people in the area know the need is great. Given the opportunity, people will do the right thing. It is not a bond for a baseball stadium. It is for basic needs. Councilmember O’Grady stated that the last two elections he was in, the candidates were asked at every forum what they were going to do about affordable housing. His answer was always the same, it must be subsidized and that is the only way it is going to happen. That is what this is, and it is finally going to be done. As to what will be told to people, they will be told the elected bodies are doing what they have asked to be done and as the desire is to have more affordable housing in this town, here is $50 million to produce 1,600 more units of it. Vice-Chair Hays stated she had an additional thought in making an ask of the foundation that was created from the hospital sale. She proposed doing that before moving forward with the housing bond. She does not believe the foundation is currently able to assist and asked County Manager Coudriet if it was correct that it might be in a position next year for an ask. County Manager Coudriet responded that he does not want to speak for the endowment and where it is, but that they have not invested yet because they are in the process of developing their investment policy. He does not believe that they would be in a position next year because he does not think they will have interest earnings nearly to the level of $50 million. To believe that they could come in and seed it probably is not reasonable unless the Board is willing to ask them to open the corpus and go into the principal to seed an effort. Again, he does not personally believe based on conversations he has had with their leadership that the endowment would be in a position in the next year or so to make that kind of investment. Vice-Chair Hays stated to provide clarification and to County Manager Coudriet’s point, she would like to propose that maybe towards the middle to the end of next year to make the ask because the bond would not come into being until 2023. She asked if it were correct that it would be voted on in 2022, but the funds would not be allocated until 2023. County Manager Coudriet responded that the schedule is dependent on the final details of what the elected officials decided, and it would be the County selling the bonds. It may be that they are sold in a multitude of tranches or it may be that because the goal is to go big immediately, that the County sells all of it at once. Ultimately, much of that is going to have to be informed by the details of not only how the funds are allocated, but to where, and what those expectations are so it cannot be answered now. Vice-Chair Hays stated with the idea that the funds are not going to be available in 2022, but further out in 2023 or 2024, her thought is to make a request when the foundation is ready to receive requests and ask for a five- year plan of $10 million per year for five years. She thinks that would be a much more doable ask than $50 million in one year. She would feel better about that then trying to do both a housing bond and a sales tax referendum in the same year even though they would be on different ballots. She thinks there is a much greater likelihood of having the sales tax pass and then return to the housing bond if there is not a positive response from the foundation. Councilmember Barnett stated he agrees with Councilmember O’Grady about what has been heard from people repeatedly about housing. It does take money. He believes that the citizens want it and are willing to meet the need. Vice-Chair Hays stated that she does not think it is being put off that much as based on what she is hearing is that with the bond there will be allocations and roll out from there. County Manager Coudriet respectfully disagreed and clarified that what he was saying is that the County would sell the bonds in accordance with the final details of what the Commissioners decided. For example, it may be that the Board decides to stagger the sales or direct that it be sold all at once. That is going to have to be informed by the details of the plan, and where the Board appropriates the money. Vice-Chair Hays asked if it is voted on and passes in November 2022, does it come into effect in Fiscal Year 2023-2024. County Manager Coudriet stated the debt service does not, it would be issued the following year. County Chief Financial Officer Lisa Wurtzbacher stated the County can issue quickly after the bond is authorized by the voters. It is a matter of how quickly the money is needed. If it is known the projects are not really going to happen for another year, the County probably would not issue the money and start paying interest on it until the funds are needed. A discussion was held about what was done last time a quarter-cent sales tax was passed. Commissioner Barfield explained that during that time he met with over 35 different sports groups and many other organizations to impress upon them the need to preserve the parks and gardens and the need for their support. For him, the delay in working on housing affordability has been going on for far too long. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SPECIAL MEETING, JUNE 8, 2021 PAGE 136 Councilmember Rivenbark stated everyone needs to quit worrying about what people in this town will do and get down to brass tacks on how the money will be spent and where to put these things in the ground. It needs to be assumed that it is going to pass so plans and decisions can be made. Vice-Chair Hays stated that she was trying to put forth a plan to where there would not be two funding options in the same year and still get money for affordable housing. She agrees with Councilmember Rivenbark. Her thought was to use the bond as a backup, but to first ask the foundation for the money. Mayor Pro-Tem Haynes stated that she believes it is better to put both items on the same ballot because some people that are interested in one will vote for both. It has been proven in the past that it works better if there are several things on one ballot that people can vote for at one time, rather than wearing them out by having a new referendum asking for more money on a ballot every time they go to the polls. Mayor Saffo stated in 2014 the transportation bond and school bond were passed by the voters. There were concerns that the school bond was going to blow past the transportation, and the transportation bond got more votes. That proves that transportation initiatives are particularly important to this community. Councilmember Rivenbark stated it is not like people will be voting for something that will drift off into the general fund and be spent willy-nilly. Education efforts will be made so people fully understand what they are voting for at the polls. Commissioner Zapple asked if Councilmember Rivenbark was implying that something has not been included as far as the programs that have been discussed and if he needed more information. He thinks the plan as shown is good and that it is just a matter of working to educate the public. Councilmember Rivenbark responded that he is good with the plan, but he does not think there will ever be a point where more input is not needed. The function of both organizations was to put all this together and if all are comfortable with it, he sure is. He just does not want to put it off any longer. Commissioner Zapple stated that he would like to know if there is anyone who feels that quarter-cent sales tax and the housing bond should not be together on the ballot in either March or November of next year. County Manager Coudriet stated that before the elected officials answer the question, he would like to explain the process. If the items are going to be run together, the Commissioners would have to decide on the bond question much earlier than December. It would probably be closer to September for Board authorization so staff could begin the process with the Local Government Commission (LGC) to get approval and calendar it. It is not something that can wait until December if the desire is to have it on the primary ballot. In response to questions, he confirmed that if the preference is to move forward to the general election ballot, then it moves six months removed from November. Discussion was held on whether both matters should be run together or separate. Mayor Pro-Tem Haynes stated that if the desire is to have a large turnout, it would better to run both in the general election. There would also be a savings in promoting one time rather than doing it two separate times. Councilmember Rivenbark stated both organizations have excellent public information officers, everyone needs to take part in promoting it, and he would hope the media would put a positive spin on it. Mayor Saffo stated that based on the discussion it appears everyone wants to move forward. Discussion was then held about which ballot the questions should be placed on for voter consideration. Commissioner Zapple suggested running both questions on the primary ballot. Mayor Pro-Tem Haynes stated she suggested the general election earlier as she thinks there would be a larger turnout from more of a cross section of people. It also provides more time to get things lined up. In response to questions, County Manager Coudriet reiterated that to run the bond question on the November ballot staff would need consent from the Commissioners to file the LGC application in May and approximately 90 days before the general election on the quarter-cent sales tax question. As a matter of efficiency, staff would probably take both to the Board in April or May with a request to calendar both questions in the November general election. Commissioner Zapple stated he would like to move forward with that plan. Mayor Saffo commented that at the end of the day it comes down to what the people in the community want to support and they should make the decision. However, he feels it is very important for the County and City to work together to explain exactly how and where the money will be spent. After further discussion, the consensus of the elected bodies was to proceed placing the questions on the November 2022 ballot as the extra five months will allow more time to plan. County Manager Coudriet stated from a County staff perspective they are going to leave this meeting with the understanding that their charge is to prepare the Board for an ask in May 2022 for two ballot questions. However, he does not want to bring it forward and someone say at that point, why is staff doing this. As such, so long as there is clarity that there is consensus that County staff, working with City staff and others is moving down this path, staff is fine with it. Again, staff will leave here preparing questions for a $50 million bond and a quarter-cent sales tax and ask the County Commissioners to approve those resolutions in either April or May 2022. Commissioner Zapple stated he thinks another subcommittee, like what was done to bring forward the recommendations presented during this meeting, would be good to help steer the County and City and coordinate the public education and outreach program. The subcommittee could then report back to the elected bodies on a periodic basis. He would also like to be a part of the subcommittee. Commissioner Barfield stated he would also like to sit on the subcommittee. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SPECIAL MEETING, JUNE 8, 2021 PAGE 137 In response to questions, County Manager Coudriet confirmed that the plan is to have both questions on the November ballot. The items would be presented to the County Commissioners in April or May for authorization. The quarter-cent sales tax can be delayed, but as a matter of efficiency staff would ask the Board to approve both actions in either April or May to calendar them for November. Chair Olson-Boseman stated that Commissioners Barfield and Zapple will be part of the subcommittee. Mayor Saffo selected Mayor Pro-Tem Haynes and Councilmembers Barnett and Spears to be a part of the subcommittee. Staff will work with the County st Commissioners and Councilmembers to determine a meeting date, understanding that August 1 is the start date. WRAP UP AND NEXT STEPS Chair Olson-Boseman expressed appreciation to Commissioners Barfield and Rivenbark for their votes to pass the budget and standing up for the teachers, students, and seniors. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman and Mayor Saffo adjourned the meeting at 11:04 a.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.