Fulton for City Council Blog

Election Message

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 17:12:00 +0000

I'd like to thank everyone who voted for me. The fact that about 3,400 people in this town cared enough to cast a vote for me is astonishing, especially considering that I started out as a virtual unknown. It's proof that there is traction for the message in Wilmington and that given the right circumstances it could gain steam.

I'd especially like to thank the people who volunteered for me. This is an enormous group of people: people stood for two weeks or so at the polls for early voting; people have gone door-to-door with me; people have helped me put up signs; people have worked the polls; people have donated money. What all of you have done truly amazes me, and the fact that I can count you all as friends has been probably the best thing that happened to me this year. I do not consider this a defeat now that I know all of you.

Some people might say that the outlook for Wilmington is pretty grim, and I'd agree. I've mentioned before that our unemployment is up, spending is out of control, and 9 out of 10 business owners say that it's easier to do business with other city governments than it is with Wilmington. Unfortunately, the people who got into office, with the potential exception of Neil Anderson, simply represent the status quo.

I don't think, however, that the people who voted for me can give up, because we know that more government is not the answer. Only a return to lmited government and individual rights will solve the problems caused by massive government over-reach. We know the solution to the problem, and we can't give up because eventually the problems are going to get larger and larger and will affect more and more people.

I wish you all good luck, and will be taking a much needed step away from the limelight for now.

Thanks!

Response to CFPUA Article

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 13:18:00 +0000

The StarNews has an article today trying to give all sides on the CFPUA. Unfortunately, it's missing the one most important fact in the discussion: citizens of Wilmington are paying more with the Authority than they would be paying without it.

Simply look at pg. 11 here; the CFPUA's own document proves it.

Now, the CFPUA can make an argument that they're managing it well. They may have a point. I've heard other people who disagree. I don't have the intimate knowledge of the day-to-day workings of the CFPUA to really comment. My main argument has always been that there are structural problems with the set-up of the CFPUA that make it disadvantageous to Wilmington.

Now, let me just address a few things said in the article:

“You never hear any solutions,” candidate Napier Fuller said during the Americans for Prosperity forum last month. “Anyone who says it can be abolished is crazy.”

I'm proposing a solution (return to the city/county system,) and it's not crazy. The Interlocal Agreement that formed the CFPUA can be amended with a simple majority vote of the City Council, County Commissioners, and the Authority Board itself, which is appointed by the City and County. This means pretty much anything can be done with the CFPUA as long as you have a majority vote of the 12 people on the Council and Commission.

More:

City Council member Ron Sparks, who is also running, said the city would get its infrastructure back, but would also get 50 percent of the $380 million of debt.

“How are you going to pay for this debt? You end up with an inefficient system and more debt,” Sparks said. “Now that we’ve formed it, we have to learn how to work with it. I am for keeping it and working with it.”

First off, we gave a lot of this debt to the CFPUA when it was formed, at least $67M in enterprise bonds. Maybe more. The paper trail is so convoluted its hard to tell. Secondly, people don't seem to realize that the taxpayer owns, controls, however you would like to put it, both the city government and the CFPUA. They are both public municipalities. The taxpayer is paying for that debt whether they're being billed by the City or CFPUA. There are, however, structural advantages that make it better to have Wilmington handle its own water and sewer.

How Blogs Can Shape the Media

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 01:05:00 +0000

Get involved!

"And If You Refuse, the City Can Simply Put a Lein on Your House"

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:07:00 +0000

Watch video here. Highly recommended. Unfortunately, I can't manage to embed it here.

WECT:

If approved, a leaky roof or cracked front steps won't go unnoticed. While these buildings won't likely be demolished, the business owners will be forced to make improvements to their property.

O'Grady said not everyone is on board with the idea, but he says too many places are deteriorating in downtown Wilmington, taking away from its appeal. He said the process isn't as threatening as it sounds, and is just a way to keep small problems from getting out of hand.

Take a look at the cracked steps in the video. That's what we're dealing with here. Can you say "over-reach?"

Fact Checking the "Fact Checker"

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:21:00 +0000

Shelby Sebens of the StarNews has finally decided to "fact check" some statements made in the City Council race. This is a welcome and unexpected development. Unfortunately, our "fact checker" needs a bit of fact checking herself.

"Fact check": "The newly opened Wilmington Convention Center isn't being paid for with room occupancy tax."

I've already made my opinion on this abundantly clear. The city had to go into a fund of about $14M this year to keep the convention center from going into the red. The difference between the costs and the revenues for the convention center are about $5M. At that rate, the $14M will be dried up in a matter of years.

If you read closely, you'll see the majority of this "fact check" actually supports what I've said. The one thing that contradicts it is this:

Wilmington Finance Director Debra Mack says the latest models show the convention center will remain solvent through 2038, when the debt is paid off, with revenue from the parking deck and room occupancy tax funds.

Ahhh yes, a "model." I wonder what the assumptions are for that model, because, you know, models can be tweaked. Do you think Shelby actually took a look at that model and the assumptions in it or simply took Debra's word? If you think she looked at the model, I've got a Skyway Bridge to sell you.

Now, I've found Debra to be extremely professional and competent, but any rational person would have doubts after reading this:

Even if the city can find a hotel developer to build next to the convention center, new financial models show the newly-opened facility running in the red by 2020.

Who was that written by and when was it written? It was written by none other than Shelby Sebens in a StarNews article less than a year ago. I guess our financial situation has improved so much that the convention center is suddenly more viable!

Can anyone do anything but shake their head in disbelief? Apparently, the model has changed and there's not even a mention of how it changed. Is that investigative journalism?

Simply look at the events section of the convention center website. There are five events booked in the next four months!

If you believe this new model rather than the old one, $2M in room occupancy tax and a scant amount in rental fees are going to be enough to pay over $7.5M a year. It's crazy. I don't even mention parking deck revenues, because there are no parking deck revenues (something Debra Mack might want to look into)! There's an $800k deficit in the parking fund.

Of course, Bill Saffo says things like there are hundreds of events booked at the convention center and he's never fact checked. Do you see those events booked when you walk or drive by? Are they listed on the website?

"Fact check": "Funding for street and sidewalk repairs is decreasing."

Shelby doesn't attribute this to anyone, but just says "candidates" in general have mentioned this.

She then goes on to say that the funds for streets and sidewalk repair increased by $250k this year. That's true. However, does Shelby's memory (or knowledge) only go back a year?

Let's take a look at two years ago:

(This information can be found at pg. 26 in the pdf here.)

As you can see, the roads budget decreased from $10M two years ago to $1M today. That is exactly what I've been saying this entire time.

Is it fair to only look back one year when looking back two years gives a vastly different impression? Apparently, Shelby either doesn't know or care.

"Fact check": "The Cross City trail is behind schedule."

Here's what the article said I said:

Fulton recently criticized that [the Cross City trail is] behind schedule and missing parts.

To my knowledge, I've never put my criticism like this. What did I actually say in the Green Builders forum, which is the only place I can recall publicly commenting on the Cross City trail?

"The third leg of the Cross City trail is about a year behind schedule."

And what was said in the supplemental documents for a City Council meeting just a month and a half ago?

In an agreement entered into on January 25, 2011 between the City of Wilmington and the NCDOT, the completion date [of the third leg of the Cross City trail] was extended to September 30, 2011.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation has agreed to an additional extension of the completion date of the project until June 30, 2012.

The original completion date was Sept. 30, 2011, which was then extended to June 30, 2012. Do you not call that being about a year behind schedule?

But that's not the end of the "fact checking." After saying that "overall the project is ahead of schedule" (because its not taking the 20 years they originally gave themselves,) the article says:

The first phase and part of the second phase of the project was completed in January, a few months past the construction deadline.

Yes, folks, it's "past the construction deadline," but it's still ahead of schedule. Then the article says:

The third phase of the project was also a couple of months later than the construction completion date.

Of course, the use of the word "was" indicates that this is past tense and everything has already been completed. The article then goes on to say:

What's left: The bridge that will span the Bradley Creek Floodway joining the College Acres neighborhood to the Autumn Hall Development is expected to be bid and awarded by December and take five months to complete.

The intersection improvements at Shipyard Boulevard has a final design and once permitting and easement acquisition is complete, construction on that section will begin. This should occur within the next few months, Beatty said.

Other sections...

Etc., etc. It goes on to list a whole slew of sections that have not been completed. Isn't it curious how this section that "was" completed still has construction on it?

I never made the claim attributed to me, to my knowledge. I mentioned specifically the third leg and my claims are supported by city documents released just a month and a half ago.

(P.S. StarNews, if you're actually interested in getting a story, go to Rill Rd. and ask the people there if the construction on the Cross City trail has been efficient. It's a complete nightmare and they'll tell you so. They'll give you facts and pictures to back it up. However, I believe they've already been in touch with you and you've reported nothing.)

Fact Checking the StarNews

Of course, I don't have time to fact check every distortion the StarNews publishes, but let's just mention a few stories that I know the StarNews knows about and has decided not to report on.

Story the StarNews knows about but is not reporting: The City of Wilmington has a $37.7M unfunded liability as a result of underfunding their Other Post-Employment Benefits program.

I have brought this to Shelby's attention, as I have to other people in local media, and they've simply chosen not to report it. This unfunded liability is going to put the city under an enormous burden, but apparently the Cape Fear Fair livestock exhibit is more important to report on.

Story the StarNews knows about but is not reporting: The City of Wilmington's Home Ownership Program gives out second mortgages at 0% interest and the approximately $1M program has a deliquency rate of five times the local average.

I brought up this program to Shelby at least eight months ago or so, and the response I got was basically, "Yeah, I've heard about that but don't know too much about it." How's that for investigative journalism for you?

Fact Checking the Incumbents

Since the incumbents aren't "fact checked" in this, I'd like to provide some fact checking of my own.

Bill Saffo and Margaret Haynes: "Half of the city budget is spent on public safety."

This is the granddaddy of them all, and has even been blindly regurgitated by the StarNews. It's used to make it seem like the City Council is being conservative with your money, like they're only spending money on essential services.

Let's take a quick look at budget figures. The total city budget is about $128M. The total Police Department budget is about $24M. The total Fire Department budget is about $15M. That adds to $39M, not even close to half of the total city budget.

What happens is they refer to the general fund as the entire city budget and they expect you to be ok with it. They spend millions of dollars in other funds: the convention center fund, fleet maintenance, parking, the golf course fund, technology replacement fund, etc. Are we not supposed to include this in the total budget?

I brought this up all the way back in February to a StarNews reporter who reported the same distortion. Here is the response I got:

"Thank you Mr. Fulton. I will ask them about this when the city reopens tomorrow. I've never seen that before."

As you can see, the author isn't going to look up the information for him or herself, but is going to ask the city to explain it. This is not investigative journalism. It's being a complete lackey for the city.

Laura Padgett: WAVE has 2 million unique riders.

This was said during the Green Builders debate and I called her out then. Nevermind the fact that "unique rider" in WAVE world doesn't mean the same thing as in the real world. There are only 200k people or so in the county, so it'd be virtually impossible to have 2 million "unique riders" in this county. "Unique rider" in WAVE world means number of times people have purchased trips on WAVE, regardless of the actual number of people who have done it.

The real issue, however, is that for the last fiscal year the number of "unique riders" was given as 1.5M. Ms. Padgett then suddenly bumped it up to 2M. Are there any numbers to back this up?

Ron Sparks: Criticized the p-card story in the StarNews.

Ron was particularly assertive in his criticism of this story, calling it out in two separate debates. Had he even read the story at the time he was criticizing it? I know the answer to this question, and will say that if I were a journalist in the local media, I would be asking this question.

9 Out of 10 Downtown Business Owners Say Wilmington Government Less Supportive of Businesses than Other Cities'

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:21:00 +0000

Is anyone surprised?

StarNews:

(Circle 1) 11. IF you have ever owned or operated a business in another city, is the City Government of Wilmington or MORE or LESS (circle ONE) cooperative and supportive of businesses than the City Government of the other city you have done business in?
What other city have you owned a business in? _________________________________________
More – 10% Less – 90%
Other cities noted as previous places of business; Norfolk VA., Conyers NC, Nyack NY, Charlotte NC, Burlington NC, Hampstead NC, Tampa FL, Washington DC, Carrboro NC, Winston Salem NC, Richmond VA, Apex NC, Virginia Beach Va, Tuscaloosa Al, Durham NC

Red Light Camera Article

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:30:00 +0000

To see just how egregious these cameras are in Wilmington, go here.

USA Today:

Some contracts restrict police from doing things like lengthening the yellow signal [Lengthening a yellow light by 1 sec. can reduce accidents up to 40%] and leave taxpayers holding the bag if the contracts are terminated early, says the report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the federation of state public interest research groups.

"The most problematic contracts require cities to share revenue with the camera vendor on a per-ticket basis or through other formulas as a percentage of revenue," the group says. [This is what happens in Wilmington]

[...]"In 2011, camera vendors employed nearly 40 lobbyists in Florida, whose agenda included killing a bill that would have required municipalities to adopt longer yellow-light times to increase intersection safety," the report says.

Parking Contract Awarded Without Competitive Bidding

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:52:00 +0000

Why?

This, of course, is when there's an $800k hole in the parking fund.

StarNews:

Approximately four years ago, the city of Wilmington prematurely terminated their contract with Central Parking. Central Parking was receiving approximately $660,000 a year for managing the city's parking operations. The city then awarded the contract to Lanier without requesting competitive bids. As a result, the parking fees went from $660,000 to $850,000 annually.

Recently, the parking contract came up for renewal again. Without soliciting competitive bids, our city extended Lanier's contract three years. The contract included an 11 percent increase and Lanier is currently receiving $960,000 annually despite the fact they are under-performing based on their contract terms.

Radio Ad

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:53:00 +0000

Hey everyone, I'm going to have a radio ad on the Big Talker and WAAV. Maybe it's already been on. I don't know. I haven't heard it yet.

I just wanted to give support for what is surely one of the more eyebrow-raising claims in the ad: that Ron Sparks has introduced about one resolution per year, and Laura Padgett has introduced about 2.5.

Here's the original email that I sent to the city spokeswoman:

Could you tell me all the bills, or ordinances, whatever, that have been introduced by Laura Padgett, Ron Sparks, and Kristi Tomey (/Campos) since they were last elected? I'm basically looking for everything that they introduced that was voted on.

Here's what I got in response. I'm omitting Kristi Tomey because she's not running for re-election:

Laura Padgett:

9/6/2011 - Resolution revising the membership of the Vision 2020 Committee (Councilmembers Padgett and O'Grady)

3/22/2011 - Resolution of the Wilmington City Council opposing Senate Bill 183 and House Bill 309 - the "Billboard Bill" (Councilmember Padgett)

2/15/2011 - Resolution Allocating Parks Bond Proceeds Previously Designated for Natatorium Development (Project Code 11PK10) to the Completion of the Cross City Trail (Project Code 07PK45) (Mayor Saffo and Councilmember Padgett)

1/18/2011 - Resolution Supporting the Vision 2020 Oversight and Coordinating Committee Priority Implementation Actions (Councilmember Laura Padgett)

4/6/2010 - Resolution supporting the preservation of a Future Corridor for the Cape Fear Skyway (Sponsored by Councilmember Padgett)

Resolution supporting the "gap" funding for the Cape Fear Skyway (Sponsored by Councilmember Padgett)

Resolution authorizing the release of the note on the St. Andrews Church Building (Sponsored by Councilmember Padgett)

2/16/2010 - Resolution to consider Local Campaign Finance Reform Options (Sponsored by Councilmember Padgett)

5/5/2009 - Resolution requesting the City's Delegation to the General Assembly to support legislation to create fairness in insurance rates (Councilmembers Padgett & Haynes)

3/3/2009 - Resolution requesting that the proposed Office of Urban Policy in President Obama's administration form a permanent advisory group to help guide that office in its efforts to provide assistance to our nation's urban areas (Councilmember Padgett)

Ron Sparks:

10/04/2011 - Walk-on Resolution to suspend enforcement of certain sign ordinances for 30 days (Councilmember Sparks)

3/22/2011 - Resolution Expressing Support for the Efforts of the New Hanover County Cape Fear Museum to Restore Three Significant Artifacts Related to Local Involvement in the Civil War in the amount of $6,000 from Council Contingency (Councilmember Sparks)

3/2/2010 - Resolution establishing a Public Hearing for the consideration of a temporary moratorium on Cyber-Sweepstakes Gaming within the City of Wilmington (Councilmember Sparks)

8/4/2009 - Resolution authorizing the City of Wilmington to apply for grants to establish a Human Relations Commission (Councilmember Ronald Sparks)

7/7/2009 - Resolution supporting the exploration of an alternative mechanism to promote, protect and preserve the human rights of citizens of the Greater Wilmington Region and the responsibilities of the now defunct New Hanover County Human Relations Commission (Councilmember Sparks)

As you can see, most of these resolutions are either terrible or trivial.

Do we not want to bring leadership to the City Council?

What Happens to the CFPUA's Property if It's Dissolved?

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:44:00 +0000

I finally got a look at the Interlocal Agreement, so here it is.

Pg. 29:

If the Authority is dissolved or otherwise ceases to operate the System and no successor or governmental agency of which the County and City are members has been designated to operate such facilities, then and subject to any bond indentures and other documents evidencing indebtedness of the Authority, the Authority's Real Property and personal property transferred by the Localities to the Authority shall be returned to the respective Locality that owned such property prior to the transfer. Any additional assets of the Authority shall revert in ownership to the County and the City with each owning a fifty percent (50%) undivided interest therein.

Can the Interlocal Agreement be changed?

Section 8.6:

This Agreement may not be modified, altered or changed in any manner whatsoever except by a written agreement signed by all of the Parties.

Ooooh, looks like it can be changed.

Also, as far as I can tell, it would just require a majority vote of the Council, the Commission, and the Authority board.

$50k for a Website and to Complete a "Study?"

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:59:00 +0000

StarNews:

Only Cape Fear Future, a group dedicated to improving the regions schools, quality of life and economy, has received funding. The $50,000 grant is for the design of a website to promote the group and to complete a study to help the Cape Fear Future's leaders determine future needs and create a marketing plan.

The Truth About the Convention Center

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:42:00 +0000

There was a candidates' forum last night and like it occassionally does the convention center came up. And like so typically happens, someone said little bit about how well it's doing, and how nothing comes out of the general fund to fund it, and then there was basically no further discussion.

I want to take a second to give you the truth about the convention center.

As you can see here on pg. 9, the operating fund for the convention center is $7.6M. About $2.5M of that is interest on the convention center debt. About $2M of the $7.6M is debt payment on the principle. About $3M is operating costs.

Now, pg. 9 in that document says that $5.4M comes from the room occupancy tax. This is misleading. In reality, that money comes from the room occupancy tax fund. These are two very different things. Room occupancy tax implies that all of that $5.4M is being generated by the room occupancy tax every year. Room occupancy tax fund implies the reality of the situation: the city has to dip into a savings account every year to make the convention stadium solvent.

As you can see on pg. 208, the room occupancy tax only generates $2.1M in revenue every year. Clearly, this is not enough to cover the operating costs of the convention center. Parking deck net revenues and user fees are not enough to cover it either. The parking fund has an $800k shortfall for this year, and there are only five events booked at the convention center for the next four months starting in November.

As city finance director Debra Mack makes clear in an email the city is dipping into a fund to keep the convention center from operating in the red:

As we have discussed previously, the ROT Fund has $13,951,562 of accumulated ROT receipts and investment earnings at June 30, 2010. The ROT Fund transfers funds to the Convention Center Operations Fund annually that is used, along with parking deck net revenues, to fund the operations of the Convention Center. [Emphasis mine]

Ms. Mack clearly says ROT "fund." Yet in public, city officials present it as the room occupancy tax, as if that revenue is being generated every year. This is clearly misleading. The reality is that the city goes into a $14M fund that is filled with accumulated room occupancy tax receipts, receipts from the ROT before the convention center was ever built.

As you can see, there's a very good chance that this fund will be completely depleted within three years or so. What happens then? Well, I can't see that $5M coming from anywhere but the general fund.

So, when incumbents and others say that the convention center doesn't dip into the general fund, technically they're right, but give it a few years and they'll probably be telling a different story.

Go Out and Vote Today!

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:01:00 +0000

Early voting begins today! Vote Fulton and change Wilmington!

Info on all the polling locations is here.

Dissecting the La Nasa/Saffo Article

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 13:37:00 +0000

I'm obviously not running against Bill Saffo, but I see a lot of lines in this article that repeatedly come up and I have to take issue with them.

StarNews:

Saffo stands on his record as a government official and his Wilmington roots, first being elected to council in 2003 and then mayor in 2006. From his perspective, the council has balanced multiple difficult budgets and has a AA+ bond rating.

Firstly, the city is required by law to balance the budget. So, it's either that or get taken over by the state.

Secondly, city spending and the city budget does not match up.

Last year out budget was about $124M. If you look at total city expenditures for 2010, you'll see they were $152M. How is this possible? Well, sometimes they simply come in over-budget. Sometimes they dip into bond money. Sometimes they use 2/3rds bonds, which are really tricky things that I hope everyone looks into.

So do they balance their budget at the beginning of the year? Yes, but then they can clearly go beyond that to spend much more.

But LaNasa points out the council raised taxes in 2010 by 3.75 cents to a rate of 37 cents per $100 of assessed value.

Good point.

The rates are also going to be raised very soon, because in Wilmington property values are down 13% since the last valuation done in 2007. By the way, the revaluation had been put off for over a year.

So, what is the effect of this?

In order to stay revenue neutral, your property tax rate will have to increase 13%, meaning it will be about 42 cents per $100 of assessed value. Additionally, middle income people are going to get hit the most, because high income places like downtown lost the largest percentage of value.

Some places in Wilmington were even valued higher than in 2007, meaning their property tax will be much higher because the valuation is higher and they'll be paying 13% more.

Compared with other large cities in North Carolina, Wilmington’s tax rate is on the low end, according to city documents.

What everyone needs to realize is property tax burden is more important than property tax rate.

Tax burden takes into account area median income. Obviously, paying $1000 in taxes will have a much bigger effect on the life of someone who makes $30,000 than someone who makes $1M. Wilmington has the 5th highest tax burden of the largest 33 NC cities.

For years, city leaders have taken flak for being too heavy handed when it comes to regulations on business owners. [...]Saffo said he empathizes with business owners.

“I have a sensitivity to over regulation,” he said. “I also have got to be sensitive to the fact that I am the mayor of the city of Wilmington.”

What about the sign ordinance that has everyone furious? Do they take action on that? No, they take 30 days to "study" it.

Did you know that a new multi-family development in Wilmington has to devote 35% of its tract to "open space?" And that if there's a naturally occurring pond or river on your property that doesn't count as open space. It's something that has to be built. Additionally, no more than 50% of the open space can be designated as "active" or "passive," meaning places where you might barbeque, have a gazebo.

It has to be pristine, undisturbed "open space" to look on as if it were a work of art. Nevermind, of course, if the developer doesn't want that.

They tell you what trees you can plant and where you can plant them.

The average restaurant is required to use three times as much land to meet minimum parking requirements than to build the actual restaurant.

The list goes on and on. If they actually cared they would have done something by now.

He said many laws were put into place decades ago and the city has a duty to uphold them. But, he added, the city is open to changing laws if warranted.

Not the sign ordinance, which even has places like Thalian Hall upset. That was passed in 2008.

Saffo said the city has made strides when it comes to public safety. He said because of efforts with the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, more bars are closing downtown and being replaced with restaurants and shops.

Yes, folks, we're closing down bars. Congratulations to us. Of course, I have much simpler ideas to make us safe, that would actually grow the economy instead of shutting places down.

This ordinance is why clubs like Diesel right by Front and Market have been vacant for over a year. Because city regulations make it impossible for them to pass on their liquor license to the new owner. That place is specifically designed to be a music venue, some place that sells liquor.

We have a 23% vacancy rate downtown. This only increases it. Is having all these vacancies making us safer?

Additionally, the question that's never answered (and I've tried to find out, but it's very difficult to get numbers on) is: is less alcohol being consumed downtown since this new ordinance? Is it not possible that the same amount of alcohol is being consumed, but people are just now in fewer venues? Does that make us more or less safe?

What Can Get You $41,600 of Fines in Wilmington?

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:39:00 +0000

This:

StarNews:

Johnson argued at the last council meeting that the residents nearest to his property don't have a problem with the RV, which has been fenced off.

"Any of the neighbors that can see it have no problem with it. It's someone that has a malicious purpose in this. I would say that it really shouldn't be considered," he said of the petition.

Rivenbark said the 140 feet of Barksdale Road was no longer used by the public.

"It's not a road first of all," he said, referring to the area as a stub that leads to nowhere because the phase of a development that was planned beyond it never happened.

Johnson has racked up code violation fines totaling $41,600 since Feb. 25 because of his parked RV but the city manager's office directed staff to suspend code enforcement in the spring pending the road closure process, Chief Code Enforcement Officer Steve Harrell said.

Oh, and:

The council will consider a second reading of the closure Tuesday during its regular meeting. The first reading passed 4-3 with council members Laura Padgett, Kevin O'Grady and Ronald Sparks dissenting.

So, if Padgett, O'Grady and Sparks had their way, this guy still would have had his fines.

City Admits It Didn't Used to Arrest People for Downtown Fights Until Recently

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:25:00 +0000

It's at the end of the video in this story.

Vote for Me in Favorite City Council Candidate Poll!

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:14:00 +0000

Let's show people that we can put Wilmington back on the right track!

Vote here.

An Open Letter to City Employees

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 23:04:00 +0000

I understand that city employees think I'm public enemy number one right now, because I talk about employee compensation and employee benefits. However, I think some of my positions have been misconstrued. Hopefully, this letter will help clarify things. I know it may not clarify everything, but if any other city employees have some things to add, have some information to give me (and can do it without cursing at me) I will be glad to listen and even discuss it with you. I know there are things about overtime thresholds and differences between staff compensation and people in the rank and file police and fire, etc. I'm glad to listen. Hopefully, the other people can listen too.

Letter I wrote to a city employee:

I understand that city employees are worse off than they were even last year. However, and this is not meant as an attack exclusively on city employees, the amount that they've suffered has been less than those in the private sector have suffered.

I did the numbers. The average city employee is making, with salary and benefits, about $60,700. Last year they were making $60,900. I don't have numbers for the private sector in front of me, but I think we can agree that they've lost more of their average compensation. If we don't agree, I suppose I could try to look up that information.

I am not trying to knock every single city employee. This is what I don't think you and some other critics from the city workforce don't understand. I'm sure you remember the NY Times article about Wilmington, "putting out budget fires," etc. In that, they continuously mentioned closing fire station number 4.

That is where the city's profligate spending is leading. They will not be able to cover the costs and there will be layoffs or indiscriminate salary reductions.

I am aware that some employees make a whole lot of money, and some make significantly less. When I was told a starting firefighter makes less than $10 in salary, I was very surprised.

I'm not, however, going to start pointing out the bigwigs and saying that they're overpaid. They very well might be, but that decision would involve a level of administrative knowledge that I simply don't have. All that I have now is a very macro view. (Some could be highly paid and worth every penny. I don't have that level of knowledge right now.)

You have my word that I will take a closer look if elected. I will try to become as knowledgeable about each department as possible. I will try to sit in. See what is working, etc. There is no reason why good work shouldn't be rewarded, and poor work certainly should not be rewarded.

Right now, the city council's policy is indiscriminate. They simply don't fill positions if someone retires. Well, what if a particular department needs more people than another? Right now, it doesn't matter. Whatever department it is doesn't get a new person.

I think it's a cowardly solution. That's not what I propose. I propose looking at everything and making sure it's efficient. If a boss or an administrator is making $300k and new hires are making $25k, that certainly does not initially make much sense to me. Again, the reason I don't highlight something like that now is because I simply don't have that level of administrative knowledge. It will be something I work toward, and I always intend to treat people fairly. I have no intention of cutting what I view to be essential services.

Zoning and Food Trucks

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:50:00 +0000

StarNews:

Since Poor Piggy’s started popping up around the city two months ago, three additional food trucks – Sweet Bliss, Ms. Cheesy and The Cheesy Banker – have opened or launched plans to do so via Facebook and Twitter.

But food truck owners say the new concept is full of uncertainty as they try to get up and running, especially when it comes to operating within Wilmington.

“It is confusing, and you really do have to go sit down and have a conversation with someone,” said Carter McKaughan, who plans to start The Cheesy Banker later this month. “There’s not somewhere that it’s easy
where you can go online and find out the restrictions and policies.

“The rules just haven’t really been addressed.”

Coulbourn said his experiences with the city of Wilmington have been similar.

Must Read Article on Fraud... I Mean "P-Cards"

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:23:00 +0000

Folks, this all comes back to City Council, the Commissioners, etc., the elected people who are supposed to be in charge. If anything is going wrong, they have the power to change things. The City Manager serves at their pleasure and the City Manager can fire anyone in the city.

StarNews:

With the swipe of a card, local government officials have bought everything from iPad apps to Disney resort stays on the taxpayer's dime.

They're made with credit cards known as "P-cards," and they've become a major way to buy low-cost items.

Combined, four agencies in the Cape Fear region have spent about $26.6 million on more than 150,000 transactions over the past four years.

A StarNews review of P-card policies and purchases shows that oversight hinges on close scrutiny from cardholders' department heads, a system that has broken down around the state and country.

Records show dozens of questionable purchases – from expensive meals to flower arrangements.

And few comprehensive audits have been conducted. But when they have, they've often revealed improper use of the cards.

[...]Brunswick County, Pender County, and the Brunswick County school system do not have a true purchasing card system. They have credit cards, but these are used sparingly. They are primarily for travel expenses and miscellaneous minor expenses

[...]For every purchase, the buyer is required to turn in receipts and other documentation. And in nearly every case, the agency has an explanation for the purchase. (Isn't this always the case?)

But during its investigation, the StarNews found:
The city of Wilmington racked up more than $1,200 in late fees because employees failed to turn in paperwork on time.

An internal audit also showed that some credit card statements were approved without adequate documentation and employees were allowing co-workers to use their cards.

A New Hanover County schools card was used to subscribe to Cosmopolitan magazine and a UNCW librarian's card to sign up for two online dating sites. Both agencies said the purchases were fraudulent.

More than $465,000 was returned at New Hanover County schools and UNCW, meaning the swipes were incorrect or fraudulent, products returned or prices adjusted.

Up until two years ago, New Hanover County school electronic records do not show where money was spent, but only a general category. New Hanover County still doesn't have a means to track card spending by vendor.

More than $500,000 was spent at computer and electronics stores such as Best Buy, Apple and NewEgg.com, despite policies that prohibit purchases of computers, computer equipment or entertainment. Finance officers say the money was spent on accessories such as wires and blank DVDs.

[...]The New Hanover County manager swiped his card at Break Time Billiards Sports Bar and Grille, next door to the government complex, for lunch meetings with county commissioners or department heads nearly 40 times. He had purchases at the nearby International House of Pancakes about 20 times.

[...]The city of Wilmington spent about $3,000 on flowers, with UNCW and New Hanover County spending thousands more.

[...]Walmart has cashed in from P-cards as well, with more than $400,000 in purchases.

[...]Talbert said she's sure there are a few cases where P-cards were taken away from Wilmington employees for misuse, but said the city can't say how many. (How convenient)

At the school system, some employees have been written up for improper buys, but it's not common, Purchasing Director Linda Bullard said.

[...]In another case, three employees and an interview candidate for a Wilmington water plant supervisor position spent $95.81 at Fat Tony's Italian Pub. One $21.46 large pizza was ordered for each person.

Talbert said it did seem like a lot, but had no more information on the purchase. The standard Internal Revenue Service per diem rate for lunches is $13 per person in Wilmington.

[...]The university reported the charges as fraudulent, and the cardholder signed an affidavit stating that the card was still in her possession when the charges were made and that she does not know who made them.

[...]In Wilmington, the first and only audit was done in 2008 and found numerous examples of incorrect use. [INEXCUSABLE!]

In a sample of only 50 transactions, Auditor Allison Collins reported several purchases without documentation and others without supervisor approval.

[...]The audit also found that P-cards were being used for office supplies, cellular equipment and gasoline – despite city contracts that would have gotten the materials cheaper.

A 2008 internal audit at UNCW found 209 inappropriate purchases through sampling and sorting the data in the previous fiscal year. Infraction notices had been issued on only four of those, according to the audit report.

The auditor then reviewed all transactions for the 123 cardholders with inappropriate purchases. Another 355 infractions were found.

Should Wilmington Have the Right to Tell You to "Fix Your Peeling Paint?"

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:26:00 +0000

I know people choose to live in a "historic" house or not (although I believe I've heard people say that their house was designated as historic against their will), but I don't think many people were expecting something like this.

StarNews:

A new state law gives the city of Wilmington the authority to extend its regulatory arm in an effort to preserve historic buildings. And the city’s planning department is working to implement it. The planning commission on Wednesday voted to amend the city’s land code to expand the demolition by neglect regulations outside the city’s historic district. The amendment would allow the city to exercise the regulations on historic buildings that are in the Central Business District but outside the designated historic district.

The goal is to prevent buildings from getting to a point of disrepair where they need to be demolished. The city sent letters to property owners whose buildings are considered contributing structures. The letters do not mean the buildings are in need of repair. The city will be able to go in and require homeowners to fix sagging walls, peeling paint or other structural problems or face fines. But the city intends to be flexible and work with property owners.

[...]The new state law stemmed from a request by the city council. The amendment will now go before city council.

Wilmington Doesn't Pay Full Court-Ordered Attorney's Fee

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:17:00 +0000

StarNews:

The Wilmington City Council will consider [It passed] during its regular meeting tonight paying $16,500 in attorney’s fees to Fairway Outdoor Advertising for a legal battle over a Hardees billboard. A New Hanover County Superior Court Judge ruled last year that a billboard near the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge can stay despite the city of Wilmington’s argument that it should be moved.

The city was ordered to pay $24,510 in attorney’s fees but has reached a compromise with Fairway for the lesser amount. The debate was over a billboard advertising Hardees chicken tenders located to the right of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge as drivers enter Wilmington. The city argued the billboard fell into the area covered by a 2008 ordinance removing signs from Wilmington’s gateway. The judge found it did not fall within that boundary set by the ordinance.

When the ordinance was passed the city ordered billboard companies to remove signs from the entrance to Wilmington at Dawson and Wooster streets. Then they had up to three years to remove signs from the two other gateways – North Third Street and North College Road.

Local Government: In Charge of Your Life

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:37:00 +0000

This story astonished me. Some guy, an entrepreuner, wants to bring bus service to the beach towns. He figures there's a demand, so he wants to give it a try. Good for him. If he's successful, everyone's happier. He makes money and people get to go to the beach, if they so choose.

What is the local government reaction to this?

StarNews:

Since Port City Tours would have a vehicle for hire, it would need to get town approval. "That's going to go before the board," Simpson said.

Any business has to apply for a privilege license from the city of Wilmington, and the city staff would evaluate what further permits the company would need to operate within the city, said city spokeswoman Malissa Talbert.

Carolina Beach's town code has a provision for private bus carriers, and Port City Tours would likely fall under that regulation, said Gary Ferguson, the town's planning and development director.

The town council would hold a public hearing on the matter and ultimately decide if there is a need for the transportation, he said.

Ferguson said Port City Tours would have to prove there was an absolute need for the buses, as well as have inspected, insured vehicles and a certification from the N.C. Utilities Commission.

[...]"Transportation, with insurance and fuel and maintenance – it's just so costly," Eby said. "Why is the public sector in the business? Because the private sector can't make any money.... Sometimes they've got good intentions, but they just can't make it work."

To see just how uninformed our "Transportation Authority" executive director is about private transportation alternatives, see here. In Florida, private lines are allowed to compete with the public line. In Miami, there are 12 bus companies competing with the public line. The private buses charge $1, compared to the public's $1.50, and the private buses still manage to make a profit.

Eby probably has no clue that most bus lines were private until the 1960's when the federal government subsidized local governments' takeover of the industry.

Additionally, what the local government contingent doesn't seem to realize is that this person is risking his own money to provide a service to us. If it doesn't work, oh well, but it's his own money and he should be free to do with it as he pleases. If there's an issue with will this cause congestion or something, they might have an argument, but they're not even making that argument. They're trying to see "if there is a need" for this person before he can even figure that out himself.

PPD Sale

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 02:06:00 +0000

Looks like having a diverse, flexible economy, not just in words, but in fact, just got a bit more important.

StarNews:

Representatives with PPD, The Carlyle Group and Hellman & Friedman all declined to confirm that PPD would remain in Wilmington, but Graham said he would be "thunderstruck" if the company relocated from the city entirely.

However, he said, the private-equity purchase makes it more likely any growth will occur outside Wilmington's borders because the new owners do not have the same ties to the area.

Ron Sparks: Brave Enough to Act After the Fact

noreply@blogger.com (Josh) — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 11:15:00 +0000

This downtown sign ordinance has been in force since at least Sept. 1st (when I wrote about it.) The first article that I know of about it in the StarNews appeared Sept. 17th. City Council had a meeting three days later. Nothing was mentioned about it at that time. Now that there's more political pressure, Ron Sparks seems to be willing to act. Let's not forget that this ordinance was passed in 2008 when Sparks was in office.

StarNews:

Ron Sparks, who is up for re-election in November, plans to introduce a resolution during the council's regular meeting Tuesday that would suspend enforcement of a regulation that prohibits businesses from covering up more than 10 percent of their storefronts with signs. The suspension would be for 30 days to find out if the rule is really necessary.

So, he doesn't even have an opinion. He doesn't object on principled grounds. He wants someone else to tell him, presumably, if the rule is actually necessary.

Good luck with that.