Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-29 Agenda Review NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AGENDA REVIEW, MAY 29, 2025 PAGE 529 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met on May 29, 2025, at 4:02 p.m. for Agenda Review in Conference Rooms 138-139 at the New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present: Chair Bill Rivenbark; Vice-Chair LeAnn Pierce; Commissioner Dane Scalise; Commissioner Stephanie A.C. Walker; and Commissioner Rob Zapple. Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; Clerk to the Board Kymberleigh G. Crowell; and County Attorney K. Jordan Smith. Chair Rivenbark called the meeting to order and announced that staff would provide an update, followed by a discussion of the agenda items for the June 2, 2025 Regular Meeting. STAFF UPDATE Periodic Inspections Update. County Manager Chris Coudriet stated the staff had planned to present this item a couple of months ago. While the recommended budget includes assumed revenue and expenses for a periodic inspections program, it does not presume board approval. Staff supports the program but needs confirmation whether the Board wants to pursue it. Assistant County Manager Lisa Wurtzbacher provided the following information:  Periodic Inspections update:  Buildings under consideration:  Total buildings to be inspected in the first five (5) years of the program will be 438 properties  Of those buildings, 401 are in the City of Wilmington, 14 are in the beach towns, and 23 are in the unincorporated area of the county  Program would begin in the calendar year 2026  Input meetings:  WDI - Wilmington Downtown, Inc.: Downtown Development Committee, the executive committee chair and CEO  BASE - Business Alliance for a Sound Economy  DBA - Downtown Business Alliance  President of WHBA - Wilmington-Cape Fear Home Builders Association  Executive Director of Wilmington Chamber of Commerce  Considerations for program:  Fees to cover program and possibility of uncollectable fees  Need for professional certification of inspectors  Need for an appeal board – appointed board  Scope to include structural elements only, including facades  Third-party involvement, optional only:  Property owner may have own inspection performed  May need vendor assistance for complicated issues  Staff proposal:  Staff’s proposal is to implement the program for FY26 based on the staffing level identified below: Ms. Wurtzbacher concluded the update by noting that staff consulted with the City of Wilmington, New York City, and Miami-Dade County to help shape the proposed periodic inspections program. These discussions emphasized the need to consider impacts on property owners and businesses, define the scope of inspections, and ensure adequate staffing. Although New York and Miami operate under different legal frameworks, their input, particularly on fee collection, appeal boards, and third-party reports, was valuable. The staff recommendation is to hire one in-house professional engineer to conduct structural-only inspections on a five-year cycle. The County would accept third-party reports that meet program standards. The estimated first-year cost is $158,125, with a proposed inspection fee of $1,917 to cover expenses. If the Board supports this direction, staff will draft an ordinance for consideration. Discussion ensued about the proposed inspection program. In response to questions, Ms. Wurtzbacher clarified that the inspections would be based on building age rather than complaints or random selection. Non- NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AGENDA REVIEW, MAY 29, 2025 PAGE 530 residential buildings 100 years or older would be inspected within a five-year cycle. She added that multi-story or otherwise problematic buildings could be prioritized. While staff considered a square footage-based fee, they ultimately recommended a flat rate of $1,917 per property, regardless of size or number of stories. She also confirmed that interlocal agreements require municipalities to approve participation, even though the County serves as the inspection agency. County Manager Coudriet affirmed that the County handles inspections for Wilmington, Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, and parts of Wrightsville Beach. Ms. Wurtzbacher added that under current agreements, the County retains inspection fees and does not perform these inspections free of charge, nor do the municipalities receive the fees. In response to questions, County Manager Coudriet said the inspections would occur on a five-year rotational basis. Vice-Chair Pierce questioned both the structure and cost of the program, expressing concern over the $1,917 fee and the need to inspect all non-residential buildings over 100 years old every five years. She stated she did not support the proposal. Commissioner Scalise also opposed the program, citing conversations with downtown businesses and property owners. He described it as unnecessary bureaucracy, unlikely to resolve the issue, and something the City of Wilmington should manage if pursued. He stated he would vote against it. Commissioner Zapple supported the program, citing public safety and potential liability if deteriorating façades are not addressed. He referenced past incidents and warned the County could be held responsible for injuries. Vice- Chair Pierce reiterated concerns about the inspection cycle, fee, and whether the position would be fully utilized. She suggested current inspectors could flag issues for engineers, avoiding the need to hire dedicated staff, and raising the cost burden on property owners. Commissioner Scalise noted the County has no legal obligation to perform these inspections and doing so could increase liability. He maintained that the responsibility should fall to municipalities. Chair Rivenbark proposed a voluntary approach, such as advisory letters recommending inspections to property owners. In response to questions, County Manager Coudriet clarified that current County inspectors are not licensed engineers and cannot perform structural assessments. He noted that outsourcing the work would be significantly more expensive over five years, making an in-house hire more cost-effective. Ms. Wurtzbacher added that the legal team advised that the County cannot mandate private inspections unless it provides the service. Commissioner Walker emphasized safety but also raised concerns about cost, practicality, and jurisdiction. She recommended involving Wilmington Downtown Inc. and increasing property owner awareness. Commissioner Zapple pointed out that absentee property owners may neglect maintenance and supported proactive notification. Vice-Chair Pierce agreed with the idea of notifying owners to assess their buildings. In response to questions, County Manager Coudriet stated it is understood there is a majority of the Board that do not want staff to finalize an ordinance to be brought forward for consideration. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to provide the update. Consent Agenda Item #4: Adoption of Resolution to Direct the Expenditure of Opioid Settlement Funds for Fiscal Year 2025-26. In response to questions, County Manager Coudriet clarified that the County expects to receive approximately $36 million over 18 years, with the first $18 million primarily allocated to New Hanover County and $900,000 to the City of Wilmington. He noted that the new STAR facility, which includes detox and transitional beds, was not one of the 19 funded initiatives because it receives support from Trillium and other sources. Chief Strategy Officer Jennifer Rigby addressed questions about “Recovery Unplugged,” a therapeutic music-based rehabilitation program, explaining that it is currently contracted as an out-of-county service, mainly through a Florida location. The Board discussed long-term opioid use disorder treatment efforts led by EMS and Novant, which connect overdose victims to care. When asked about the similarity between items 15 and 16, Ms. Rigby confirmed they serve similar purposes but reflect slightly different strategic goals outlined in the memorandum of understanding. Commissioner Scalise noted that early performance data from programs launched in 2023 and 2024 show promising results, with encouraging trends in reduced opioid-related outcomes. Commissioner Zapple requested an executive summary of the data to support and promote the ongoing efforts. Regular Agenda Item #5: Public Hearing on the FY2025-2026 Recommended Budget. County Manager Coudriet stated that the public hearings for this matter and the next can be combined into a single public hearing. He asked Budget Officer Amanda Kostusiak to provide an overview of changes made to the proposed budget based on board consensus since his presentation on May 19. Ms. Kostusiak presented the following changes: In response to questions about funding two teen librarian positions, Ms. Kostusiak explained that the roles would be based at the Pine Valley and Northeast branches to expand teen programming. County Manager Coudriet added that while teen programming already exists at various branches, the request aims to create two full-time positions dedicated solely to teen services. He clarified that current staff handle teen programming alongside other responsibilities, but the proposal would shift that work to specialized roles. Regarding the opening dates for the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AGENDA REVIEW, MAY 29, 2025 PAGE 531 downtown and North Chase libraries, County Manager Coudriet said both are slated to open in October 2025. He confirmed the positions would be funded through the General Fund in the interim, with partial-year funding to allow time for recruitment. He reiterated that he did not recommend these changes to the Board. A brief discussion followed on budget revisions. County Manager Coudriet confirmed the revised budget adds $3.5 million in spending and relies on borrowing to lower the tax rate. He also noted that the County is now drawing from the Mental Health Fund’s principal. While funding school nurses through this fund was not his original recommendation, it was used to reduce the tax rate. Addressing the $38 million increase in the revised budget despite the tax reduction, he clarified that the actual increase is higher due to added expenses and decreased recurring revenue. The original proposal included a $40 million increase, and the revised version adds another $3.5 million, including $1.1 million for contingency. He explained that the original budget had minimal contingency funding, and the additional amount is needed to respond to unexpected initiatives or emergencies. On the $8.142 million being borrowed, he confirmed that an interest-only payment will likely be due in FY26. The discussion concluded with County Manager Coudriet stating that Chief Financial Officer Eric Credle will present during Monday’s hearing a summary of changes made since the recommended budget and outline items related to economic development scheduled for public hearing. In response to questions, County Manager Coudriet stated that while the Board traditionally votes on the budget at the second meeting in June, it could choose to adopt it after Monday’s hearing if desired. He noted that this has occurred in previous years. Regular Agenda Item #6: Public Hearing on Economic Development and Economic Incentives Appropriations. As noted earlier, this item will be combined with the public hearing, Regular Agenda Item #5. Regular Agenda Item #7: Special Use Permit (S25-02) - Request by Samuel Potter with Equitas Law Partners, LLP, applicant, on behalf of Hoosier Daddy, LLC, property owner, for a special use permit for an Additional Dwelling Allowance for additional density up to 10.2 dwelling units per acre in a R-15, Residential district on approximately 43.50 acres located at 5741 Carolina Beach Road. County Manager Coudriet informed the Board that the project application in question appears to violate the height requirements and lacks clarity regarding Rosa Park Lane under the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). He emphasized these as factual concerns for the Board to consider ahead of Monday’s presentation. Commissioner Scalise cautioned against further discussion, warning that addressing the matter outside a formally opened quasi-judicial hearing could jeopardize proper procedure. He advised waiting until the scheduled hearing on Monday, when participants will be sworn in and public discussion will be appropriate. Commissioner Zapple requested that the missing approved traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the full project be added to the list of issues for the hearing. Regular Agenda Item #11: Rezoning Request (Z25-09) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Littlebird Properties, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 1.77 acres located at the 3100 block of Castle Hayne Road from an R-10, Residential district to a (CZD) B-2, Regional Business district for commercial flex space for the use of retail sales, offices for private business and professional activities, restaurant, and other limited uses. During the discussion, Commissioner Zapple questioned the county manager’s opposition to the rezoning request, citing concerns about traffic, noise, and proximity to a Habitat for Humanity development, despite staff recommending approval based on the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Amy Doss explained that the parcel is designated for Community Mixed Use, which supports infill and commercial development. She noted that the applicant’s site plan includes fencing, buffering, and pedestrian access to minimize impacts on nearby residences. She clarified that although the parcel and the adjacent northern parcel share ownership, they are deeded separately and lack formal easements. The conditions require establishing those easements if the property is sold. Applicant representative Cindee Wolf confirmed that the project would meet all access requirements and described it as a walkable neighborhood amenity. She also confirmed that the design addresses concerns related to adjacency. Ms. Doss presented the concept plan for the northern parcel and will provide a copy before Monday’s meeting. Regular Agenda Item #13: Text Amendment Request (TA25-03) - Request by New Hanover County to amend Articles 3 and 4 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to change the approval process for Additional Dwelling Allowances from quasi-judicial to legislative. A brief discussion ensued regarding whether to continue the item due to the length of the agenda. The Board agreed to continue the item until the August 4, 2025 meeting. Chair Rivenbark requested a motion to approve the continuance. MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Walker to approve the continuance of Agenda Item 13 for Text Amendment Request TA25-03, to the August 4, 2025 regular meeting. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark adjourned the meeting at 5:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kymberleigh G. Crowell Clerk to the Board Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners meeting. The entire proceedings are available online at www.nhcgov.com.